nufcjmc

If he doesn't want to be here and only committed to a short contract then hope he goes for a bigger than 60m fee. Prefer him to sign an extension even if interest from elsewhere means we have to offer more. He is worth it based on last seasons showing.

That's why I would assume someone is going if we were to target someone already 23 for midfield as white and lonstaff both into their last year but will they run down their contracts, extend etc right now despite suspect fitness issues for some we are quite stacked in midfield playing 3 in the middle especially as there is no Europe this coming season.

Don't see an issue either but miley, white,tonali, Bruno, willock, Joelinton for 3 spots is already plenty although white only has a year left I think and is 22 just would indicate either a low risk signing or someone going surely.

He's too old to be a prospect signing so does that mean we are looking for a midfielder or does it mean we are looking to ship someone ?

You just have to wish him luck other than when he plays against us. Ideally miggy/wilson/targett/longstaff all left first and he was given a chance. But no one desperate to break the bank on any of them. If he does go on to start most games and get into double figures of goals and assists you just have to take it on the chin. Similar to how I am sure man.city feel about palmer. We got good money and if he is a super star I don't see him sticking around Brighton long term either. It's more painful because he plays in a position we needed and cost us relatively speaking buttons. I am sure if given him, Bruno, isak, Gordon to lose instead of it is an easy choice.

I guess that could be one interpretation, alternatively we don't know who on the list of "would like to leave if offered a few" we can ship and based on what Howe said around Jan time they plan with what and who they have so Dan being in the garden at that time won't slow them down. Also I assume when you hire a new sporting director who has his own contact book you might want his input on what a good fit might be. The work to identify where and where else if players have been sold has already taken place. It's slow and painful as fans as right now clubs are doing business especially manu, villa, Brighton West ham, chelsea who may well he direct competition next season. I guess we can only judge at the end of the window. If they are more wild cards etc you may agree with Howe and only judge at the end of the season if what they did or didn't do worked.

A fairly big influx from the academy, kicking can down the road a year with extension or a mini rebuild of squad players is needed by next summer based on those currently in their final 12 months some of which already signed mini extensions for the coming season https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/newcastle-united/vertragsende/verein/762

Still spending Rice money I guess

Depends how hands on this role will be it may not be how they break down but how we manage them and their recovery when they do. I guess we all just hope the role is a positive step in keeping players available for as much of the season as possible something Eales said in his lil interview yesterday.

Agreed however playing devil's advocate if Eddie is instructed to tone down the training or style or frequency of training it could be a cause of conflict even if unintended as ultimately his style of coaching contributes to the output on the pitch and it's Eddie's job on the line if it goes badly more so than Bunce.

Not saying your thinking is wrong it's the chicken and the egg analogy though do you get to champions league a few years in a row and signings like that become a justified crown jewel type signing your high revenue allow you to get. Or do you do it now without the revenue in place to get where you want to be faster but with no gaurentees. The latter of the two carries more risk if you start paying big big wages that player expectations are a side constantly in the champions league or you affect squad harmony by signaling out a player on ultra high wages relative to everyone else. In turn it's human nature if someone comes in on big wages and you know your own worth your going to want it to which raises overall costs where the team can't ever afford to be out of Europe. I know we will have to do it eventually as all the big teams offer big wages just saying for now we still don't know if that champions league finish is the norm for us going forward or not offering 250/300k wages is a big shift for us.

He mentions psr and 2 lots of losses of 70m which is 140m so 35m over I guess the 3rd year was a smaller loss as we ended up selling 2 players rather than 1?

It's not the cost of a single player though much like wages it's the knock on affect of the other Star players in the squad. Once you say break the 200k barrier the other players who come on board or are due for renewal see that and want it too. Similar to what happened when we bumped up bruno and joelinton wanted it to. Gonna happen eventually but do you start paying that when you get there or to get there? We aren't a main stay champions league side which is what I think these types of players are.

Certainly last chance for wilson who is in his final year unless we kick the can down the road again and offer a year extension. Off topic I know but looking ahead to next summer they all won't get let go but next summer a fair few currently out of contract the lack of European football is a double edged sword as its less games so concentrate on the league but also less clamouring to fill out the squad as less compacted fixture list. Hard to know how to balance it all really which is why I think i can see why they would go for a versatile forward playing player like Gordan over a dedicated RW.

Guess work like everyone else bit think they would love to find 1 player only to play up top as cover or as RW. As others have wondered if it's wilson going depends on if it's 2 players or just 1 versatile one.

I took it as his fee was including clauses if he is sold before the clause are met its more profit?

I am terrible at math so if her shareholding has been reduced by not being able to match capital investment but the club is now valued/worth more does that even out or could she potentially walk away with more than what she put in? I guess we also need to factor in was all of her investment back in the beginning her own money or borrowed. I guess as others have said her shares were always going to go down as a % as she cant match what the other 2 can put in but we are with our ownership all thanks to her perseverance in finding these partners willing to invest with her.

I just feel you do need to think the club have to take a business view. Back in the day rich clubs no psr you say fuck it get 3 good years and let him go for free no big deal. Doesn't work that way we already have a ticking time bomb in the squad with older players who we may never get a fee for in the end, i.e. schar, BDB, trippier, Wilson, miggy etc it's not rocket science as many have said we need to get used to selling these players before they go for nothing. These players are bad enough with Miggy being the most expensive of them at what 22/23m it's a whole other level of hurt to sign say Bowen for 65 and see no return money wise at the end of the contract. I wish all we had to do is worry about what a player brings to the side short and medium term. However we know a wrong move in any player could lead to us selling an asset we don't want to, to make up for it. No trying to speak for the club but get the impression they want players the step before they become Bowen in term of value. Certainly Howe has mentioned buying the potential rather than the ready made. They won't all work but carry less financial risk.

Bowen to me would show a shift in transfer policy, already in "peak age" already probably "peak value" and in a financially restricted world it doesnt seem like a logical choice can argue if he is seen as a final piece in a puzzle but you would hope you go for someone under 23 with room to grow as a player and has value still to develop if player trading is needed.

depends on budget and how central you want to be have stayed at Maldron hotel on Newgate Street some nice hotels down at the quayside if your ok being a little further out the hilton over on the gateshead side has a swimming pool.

So hard to predict isn't it we could feel with no injuries, no Europe and the squad performs we will be OK with limited spending this window unless we have player sale. Any spending buffer we can create now will then potentially go into spending again for a European squad rather than now. Based on the need to satisfy some sort of number in the sand regardless what form PSR comes in means we can't spend big each window without trading.

I wasn't aware in the two times Gallagher came on was such a massive up turn in performance.

Yes I guess your right in a tournament winning is all that matters but there wasn't alot right with the performance and playing that way will get you punished against better opposition. It all went down the right and by the second half was sniffed out, to me the trent midfield experiment failed, giving both foden and Bellingham free roles also made us disjointed. The long ball to Kane he was losing his duel with the big fella who was marking him but we persisted. Gallagher came on to sure us up rather than to try and get a second goal. We scored at the 16min mark and just seemed to settle. Not much to like or enjoy about the performance but again I guess it's tournament football individual games matter less than progressing.

Southgate is such a tease drops some of his favourites for the tournament in grealish, Henderson and philips but then persists with a starting 11 that didn't work.

Players surving their club well their club and leaving on a free is fine in theory. The issue is that while older players have very little saleable value anymore, they do, however, cost money and, in some respects alot say a striker to replace. Ideally, the club needs to be in the main ship. These players, when in contract, rather than "kicking the can down the road," offering short 12-month extensions. It is a balancing act as what they bring to the side out weighs what you will get in money return, but letting any asset go for nothing isn't maintainable.