Sean Longstaff

[HawK]

3 minutes ago, Stottie said:

Just for fun, instead of just buying keepers, could we sign James Tavernier as club trained and bring him on for free kicks in the final ten minutes?

It sounds like he's made a great career for himself as some kind of Ryan Taylor regen. He's scored over 100 goals from right back!

Updated the list to include James Tavernier

[Colos Short and Curlies]

3 hours ago, midds said:

Not sure I could cope mentally with turning up for work every day when it's been made pretty clear that I'd not be needed/wanted/used or whatever. I know that's a bit dramatic and no-one would be sly with him but the whole squad would know he's only there because he is sitting on a contract and content to watch other people play football. That would destroy me I think, I'd be looking to leave on good terms, find another club and drop down a division if need be.

 

He's got every right to sit on his contract btw, he's fully entitled to but I couldn't look people in the eye knowing that they'd rather I wasn't there  

 

I can tell you it's tough.

 

I was told that my role was being taken in a different direction (told middle of April) bit asked of I would stay to November to sort out year end amongst a few other things.

 

Motivation has hit an all time low and I'm only 6 weeks into a 7 month period.

 

Poor Sean has essentially been in this position for a year so credit to him for keeping motivated this season.

[JT24]

Thanks @HawK, now I’m going to spend the rest of the day thinking of notable club-trained players. 

[Erikse]

10 minutes ago, Shak said:

 

I think if Tonali missed time we’d possibly see Bruno dropped into the #6 role as he's played there a lot before.

 

I do think there’s a possibility that #6 may be Miley’s best role long term. But it’s a lot on his plate at such a young age.

 

I agree, I thought the same (Bruno going into the 6 role). At the same time if we look past this season, we've historically had some very good form periods with Longstaff playing alongside Bruno, with Bruno playing as a 6.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 15:31 by Erikse

[Displayname]

If we ever were in a position were Longstaff could have started for us in the CL..

 

Bitch we would have 99 problems, but not having Longstaff available wouldn't be one.

[Erikse]

4 minutes ago, Displayname said:

If we ever were in a position were Longstaff could have started for us in the CL..

 

Bitch we would have 99 problems, but not having Longstaff available wouldn't be one.

 

Until we get injuries that is. Remember what happened last time we were in the CL? We can't afford buying 10 players. Selling Longstaff certainly wouldn't give us much funds to replace his squad place anyways.

[TRon]

4 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

I agree, I thought the same (Bruno going into the 6 role). At the same time if we look past this season, we've historically had some very good form periods with Longstaff playing alongside Bruno, with Bruno playing as a 6.

 

 

 

 

Other teams have improved since then, what worked for us that season would not necessarily work for us again. I think Howe has recognised that, and it's why Longstaff hasn't featured much. I remember everyone saying how integral Longstaff was in getting us CL last time round, but he's barely kicked a ball this time round and we've still qualified. 

 

I'm sure he can still be a useful squad player, but if he's not getting regular football he probably should be looking for first team football elsewhere. 

[TRon]

Just now, Erikse said:

 

Until we get injuries that is. Remember what happened last time we were in the CL? We can't afford buying 10 players. Selling Longstaff certainly wouldn't give us much funds to replace his squad place anyways.

 

Disagree, you could buy a good young prospect who could grow into that role. 

[ponsaelius]

49 minutes ago, HawK said:

 

1. Tim Krul (GK) is only 2 of 3 years club-trained at Newcastle United because of his loan to Carlisle (2008-2009), he only completed 2005-2007 as a player registered to play for Newcastle United. So he would not count as club trained (please correct me if I'm mistaken).

 

 

 

Nice and thorough post! I think you're possibly right here. The B list allows for 3 years interrupted by a loan, but A list club trained qualification seems to require being at the club for three years without any break (even on loan).

 

Perhaps that's counted against us bringing him back previously (it was mentioned on here by somebody that it was between him and Ruddy last summer).

[HawK]

Just now, ponsaelius said:

 

Nice and thorough post! I think you're possibly right here. The B list allows for 3 years interrupted by a loan, but A list club trained qualification seems to require being at the club for three years without any break (even on loan).

 

Perhaps that's counted against us bringing him back previously (it was mentioned on here by somebody that it was between him and Ruddy last summer).

 

Yep this is my thinking too - if he was still under 21, he could be in List B I think this means - but now ineligible for club-trained in list A. Clear as mud !

[Erikse]

7 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Disagree, you could buy a good young prospect who could grow into that role. 

 

Howe usually doesn't want to play young prospects in the first season. Especially not ones in that price range. He would much rather play someone like Longstaff.

 

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I'm not worried about losing Longstaff because he is a great player as of today. It's about his role when he's playing. For instance I would much rather sell Willock. Not because he is way worse than Longstaff, but because I doubt we will sign a player that can cover Tonali in the same way as Longstaff (and ofcourse the injury record). As an example, I remember how the Willock - Joelinton - Bruno midfield looked good on paper but in practice it didn't look all that great.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 15:46 by Erikse

[ponsaelius]

4 minutes ago, HawK said:

 

Yep this is my thinking too - if he was still under 21, he could be in List B I think this means - but now ineligible for club-trained in list A. Clear as mud !

 

Actually A list seems to be cumulative rather than needing to be continuous, so as long as it adds up to 36 months total then it's okay.

 

But I think like you say his year at Falkirk and then 6 months at Carlisle means he was only ever at NUFC for 2.5 years between 15-21 as he turned 22 at end of that Carlisle season.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 15:49 by ponsaelius

[TRon]

1 minute ago, Erikse said:

 

Howe usually doesn't want to play young prospects in the first season. Especially not ones in that price range. He would much rather play someone like Longstaff.

 

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I'm not worried about losing Longstaff because he is a great player as of today. It's about his role when he's playing. For instance I would much rather sell Willock. Not because he is way worse than Longstaff, but because I doubt we will sign a player that can cover Tonali in the same way as Longstaff (and ofcourse the injury record). As an example, I remember how the Willock - Joelinton - Bruno midfield looked good on paper but in practice it didn't look all that great.

 

 

 

 

 

I think you could make the argument that Willock is actually a harder replacement because he covers left side midfield, at the moment he's the only alternative to Joelinton, unless you count Lewis Hall as a midfielder. Miley could play a similar role to Longstaff as a right side midfielder I reckon. 

[HawK]

Just now, ponsaelius said:

 

Actually A list seems to be cumulative rather than needing to be continuous, so as long as it adds up to 36 months total then it's okay.

 

But I think like you say his year at Falkirk and then 6 months at Carlisle means he was only ever at NUFC for 2.5 years between 15-21 as he turned 22 at end of that Carlisle season.

 

 

 

 

Seems a bit of a mis-step in hindsight, I think they had these same rules back then for Home grown?

[Displayname]

8 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

Until we get injuries that is. Remember what happened last time we were in the CL? We can't afford buying 10 players. Selling Longstaff certainly wouldn't give us much funds to replace his squad place anyways.

The point from my silly post is that we would have been fucked if we ever got in that position anyways, because a Longstaff without game time might be the worst player i have ever seen in a Newcastle shirt. Does nothing but fall over and miss passes.

[HawK]

Just now, Displayname said:

The point from my silly post is that we would have been fucked if we ever got in that position anyways, because a Longstaff without game time might be the worst player i have ever seen in a Newcastle shirt. Does nothing but fall over and miss passes.

 

This is the crux - do we prefer starting (if we have to), Sean Longstaff or 16yr old Joe Random from the youth team in a Champions League match, assuming Miley is already starting anyway.

[ponsaelius]

1 minute ago, HawK said:

 

Seems a bit of a mis-step in hindsight, I think they had these same rules back then for Home grown?

 

No I think they've changed since back then, but may be wrong.

 

The rules do make sense when you think of them logically - otherwise clubs could sign a player and farm them out endlessly but still then benefit as a club grown player. This way it encourages youth integration earlier on, but still allows a bit of flexibility to keep them in the B list if they've been out for a year.

 

It explains a lot of what City have done with the likes of Foden, Mcatee, Palmer, Lewis etc make sense. They haven't really been loaning them out.

[Erikse]

6 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

 

I think you could make the argument that Willock is actually a harder replacement because he covers left side midfield, at the moment he's the only alternative to Joelinton, unless you count Lewis Hall as a midfielder. Miley could play a similar role to Longstaff as a right side midfielder I reckon. 

 

As I said in the first post, I suspect that if we buy a midfielder, we would probably rather want a challenger for Joelinton. Someone who is more similar to Willock than Longstaff. Again, I doubt we would spend much on someone who would be sitting on the bench for Tonali. Hence my assumption about wanting to spend more on a player who would be playing in Joelintons position. He's the most replaceable, the one you could actually rotate, and also the one who is more prone to injuries.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 15:56 by Erikse

[HawK]

Just now, ponsaelius said:

 

No I think they've changed since back then, but may be wrong.

 

The rules do make sense when you think of them logically - otherwise clubs could sign a player and farm them out endlessly but still then benefit as a club grown player. This way it encourages youth integration earlier on, but still allows a bit of flexibility to keep them in the B list if they've been out for a year.

 

It explains a lot of what City have done with the likes of Foden, Mcatee, Palmer, Lewis etc make sense. They haven't really been loaning them out.

 

Yeah agreed, the rule does make sense. But the rule was first introduced in 2006-2007 though, according to wikipedia. Kruul moved to us in summer 2005... I think it could still be a mis-step perhaps?

[TRon]

6 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

As I said in the first post, I suspect that if we buy a midfielder, we would probably rather want a challenger for Joelinton. Someone who is more similar to Willock than Longstaff. Again, I doubt we would spend much on someone who would be sitting on the bench for Tonali. Hence my assumption about wanting to spend more on a player who would be playing in Joelintons position. He's the most replaceable, the one you could actually rotate, and also the one who is more prone to injuries.

 

 

 

 

 

Personally think we would happily sell either Longstaff or Willock if we could get decent money for them. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

We need a better alternative to both but I personally wouldn't sign someone similar to Willock. I think Willock's skills are somewhere between CM and forward but not good enough for either position. I would be going for someone much more technical. 

[Erikse]

17 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

We need a better alternative to both but I personally wouldn't sign someone similar to Willock. I think Willock's skills are somewhere between CM and forward but not good enough for either position. I would be going for someone much more technical. 

 

It's besides the point anyways. Willock seems to be an alternative to Joelintons position in Howes mind. My point is that if we spend a bit on a midfielder, would it be one who would mainly challenge for Bruno or Tonalis position? That doesn't seem very likely.

 

Replacing both seems nice and all, but we don't seem to be in the business of selling a bunch of squad players only to replace them in the same window. The thing is, we probably won't get mich for either of them, and we have so many other issues to solve. "Just replace them" is a bit more complicated than it sounds anyways.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 16:25 by Erikse

[Erikse]

15 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

 

Personally think we would happily sell either Longstaff or Willock if we could get decent money for them. 

 

I would also. Unfortunately Juve won't bail us out every window. Who knows, I can see some clubs wanting Longstaff. I can also see him not wanting to be a squad player. I can also see us keeping him, as I'm not sure we would get enough money for it to be worth selling (unless he really wants it).

[Displayname]

8 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

It's a bit besides the point anyways. Willock seems to be an alternative to Joelintons position in Howes mind. My point is that if we spend a bit on a midfielder. Would it be one who would mainly challenge for Bruno or Tonalis position? That doesn't seem very likely.

 

Replacing both seems nice and all, but we don't seem to be in the business of selling a bunch of squad players only to replace them in the same window. The thing is, we probably won't get mich for either of them, and we have so many other issues to solve. "Just replace them" is a bit more complicated than it sounds anyways.

 

 

 

Well thats the thing though, especially Longstaff doesnt function at all as a squad player. Has a much higher worth in a team where he can get alot of minutes.

[Erikse]

Just now, Displayname said:

Well thats the thing though, especially Longstaff doesnt function at all as a squad player. Has a much higher worth in a team where he can get alot of minutes.

 

We also gave up on players like Krafth and Lascelles as squad players, blasted them if they were rusty when given the chance, but when injuries struck and they got gametime it didn't take that long until they started playing pretty well with a run of games. We have a history on completely giving up on players only for this exact scenario to happen. I think you are really overexaggerating about Longstaff. He's not great, but he's not completely shit either.