Elliot Anderson (now playing for Nottingham Forest)

[Erikse]

17 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

Questionable? Was it a good signing or a great signing, I'm not sure.

 

Because of price, and our tight budget. Honestly the stats you put out here doesn't actually scream of a great signing at £40m? Not sure what you mean. The other signings were obviously better, but Barnes is okay. Not saying it was a bad signing by any means, everything doesn't have to be either great or bad.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2025 by Erikse

[Dr.Spaceman]

17 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

Because of price, and our tight budget. Honestly the stats you put out here doesn't actually scream of a great signing at £40m? Not sure what you mean. The other signings were obviously better, but Barnes is okay. Not saying it was a bad signing by any means, everything doesn't have to be either great or bad.

 

 

 

 

In a world where Jadon Sancho costs £70 million, Mudryk £60 million, Solanke £60 million etc etc, Signing Harvey Barnes for less than £40 million is a great deal

[Erikse]

7 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

In a world where Jadon Sancho costs £70 million, Mudryk £60 million, Solanke £60 million etc etc, Signing Harvey Barnes for less than £40 million is a great deal

 

No reason to compare signings against some of the biggest flops out there. If that's the standard, 80% of all signings are great deals, and not even just "okay/decent". Again, those clubs have a much higher budget than us, so they can pay more for the same players. Paying £40m is a bigger investment for us.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2025 by Erikse

[Dr.Spaceman]

1 minute ago, Erikse said:

 

No reason to compare things against some of the biggest flops. If that's the standard, 80% of all signings are great deals, and not even just "okay/decent".

 

 

 

 

I'm not just comparing the Barnes' deal with "some of the biggest flops" at all. We signed one of the most talked about players in the Premier League for £38 million, someone who had several years experience playing in the league. Why do you think they're quoting £60 million for the likes of Joao Pedro? That's the going rate for good players with PL experience. £38 million was on the lower end of what I expected us to pay. Christ, we sold Ayoze for £30 million four or so years earlier and very few were arsed that he'd left.

[Erikse]

24 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

I'm not just comparing the Barnes' deal with "some of the biggest flops" at all. We signed one of the most talked about players in the Premier League for £38 million, someone who had several years experience playing in the league. Why do you think they're quoting £60 million for the likes of Joao Pedro? That's the going rate for good players with PL experience. £38 million was on the lower end of what I expected us to pay. Christ, we sold Ayoze for £30 million four or so years earlier and very few were arsed that he'd left.

 

Look, if someone told you in 2023 that we were going to spend £40m someone that would have more bench performances than starts in the next 2 seasons, would we be excited? He has largely done well when called upon, and he will come in handy next season, but that doesn't mean that it was necessarily great business. It was just decent imo, which is fine. And to be clear, when I say questionable, I only mean one that you could maybe question.

 

Here's what transfermarkt has to say about player values:

 

Barnes percieved value hasn't gone up in years. He's still rated at 35m euros.

 

 

Pedros value has been going up and he's rated at 50m currently. Do you think the top clubs are more likely to want Barnes (when we bought him) for 40m than Pedro for 60m? Pedros type is more sought after, and is why we faced more competition for him. Transfermarkt isn't perfect, but it's less biased than fans of the teams that the players are in.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2025 by Erikse

[Dr.Spaceman]

22 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

Look, if someone told you in 2023 that we were going to spend £40m someone that would have more bench performances than starts in the next 2 seasons, would we be excited? He has largely done well when called upon, and he will come in handy next season, but that doesn't mean that it was necessarily great business. It was just decent imo, which is fine. And to be clear, when I say questionable, I only mean one that you could maybe question.

 

Here's what transfermarkt has to say about player values:

 

Barnes percieved value hasn't gone up in years. He's still rated at 35m euros.

 

 

Pedros value has been going up and he's rated at 50m currently. Do you think the top clubs are more likely to want Barnes (when we bought him) for 40m than Pedro for 60m? Pedros type is more sought after, and is why we faced more competition for him. Transfermarkt isn't perfect, but it's less biased than fans of the teams that the players are in.

 

 

 

 

Absolutely, because that would likely mean we have someone very good starting ahead of them.

 

If someone told me we'd sign Harvey Barnes, he'd score 9 league goals helping us qualify for the Champions league again I wouldn't exactly twist.

 

He's been a great signing.

[rebelrouser]

Transfermarkt's market values are pretty worthless. 

[The College Dropout]

This forum is very black and white - obviously.  
 

Amanda made some mistakes and suboptimal moves. This is one of them. She’s not the only one mind and a big part of it is bad luck.  Without the injuries in his final season, does Anderson kick on earlier? At the very least he increases his value.  

She also had a lot of successes.  Major ones. All of her successes directly led to 2 CL positions and a cup within 4 years of the takeover. 
 

Amanda was a massive net positive for Newcastle United. Massive. She is missed by me.  
 

There criticism to take and be shared on this - fair. It makes her human. She did a wonderful Job.  

 

 

Edited June 30, 2025 by The College Dropout

[Erikse]

42 minutes ago, rebelrouser said:

Transfermarkt's market values are pretty worthless. 

 

They are not allways the most accurate, but I still generally find them more accurate than the valuation of fans of the players club. A vast majority of fans would value their players and signings higher than what the reality is. Especially if things has been going well recently.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2025 by Erikse

[Erikse]

59 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

Absolutely, because that would likely mean we have someone very good starting ahead of them.

 

If someone told me we'd sign Harvey Barnes, he'd score 9 league goals helping us qualify for the Champions league again I wouldn't exactly twist.

 

He's been a great signing.

 

The fact that he has someone very good starting ahead of him doesn't really make the signing better, though. It's like buying an expensive backup for Isak and give the signing a better rating from a business perspective because he has someone world class infront of him. That's like half of the reason someone was disappointed until he hit good form, but then got benched again.

 

I get he was injured in the first season, but we can't just exclude that season entirely from the evaluation.

 

He has helped us getting top 5 this season, but there are probably many different routes we could have taken with the money that also would have gotten us there.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2025 by Erikse

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

Polite reminder that a players value rarely equates to their sale price. They're not items on a shelf, with more in the back. 

[Erikse]

11 minutes ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

Polite reminder that a players value rarely equates to their sale price. They're not items on a shelf, with more in the back. 

 

For me a great signing from a price perspective is one that exceeds the expectations from the price we paid. I think Barnes has been on par overall. Which is decent. But it's kind of rare that people rate their own players or signings as "decent". They go from bad to great in a heartbeat.

 

My post was exclusively replying to a comment on why Chelsea are paying more for Pedro. To me that's pretty clear. Whether it works out or not remains to be seen.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2025 by Erikse

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

38m for Harvey Barnes was a very good singing. Fin. 

[Erikse]

Just over half a year ago I got stick for suggesting that many underrated the quality of our players. Was told "bar Isak we don't have players that can hurt opponents" etcetc. It was the explanation for poor results. Opinions change fast from one end to the other in football. I guess now all our players that has played a role are very good players.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2025 by Erikse

[Ben]

I wonder if we included a buy back option when we sold him ?

[Optimistic Nut]

On 30/06/2025 at 11:17, Erikse said:

 

Because of price, and our tight budget. Honestly the stats you put out here doesn't actually scream of a great signing at £40m? Not sure what you mean. The other signings were obviously better, but Barnes is okay. Not saying it was a bad signing by any means, everything doesn't have to be either great or bad.

 

 

 

 

That's 9 goals and 4 assists in half a season of football. We got by with Gordon having an average season because of Barnes. Worth every penny. 

[Erikse]

52 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

That's 9 goals and 4 assists in half a season of football. We got by with Gordon having an average season because of Barnes. Worth every penny. 

 

Sure, you can argue that he did well with limited playing time (which is correct), but playing time being limited doesn't make a signing more worth it (it's actually the other way around). Therefore when judging a signing it makes more sense to look at the contributions over a season rather than amount of minutes. I don't mean to slag off Barnes here, I've been one of those who defended the signing as decent when people didn't rate the signing (which is probably covers about 70% of his time here). Lets see what the opinions are like if he has a poor 2 month spell at the start of the next season.

 

 

Edited July 2, 2025 by Erikse

[r0cafella]

42 minutes ago, Ben said:

I wonder if we included a buy back option when we sold him ?

We do not. 

[Ben]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

We do not. 

Shit, I'd have him Miley and Longstaff as Midfield 2 for next season get rid of Willock.

[huss9]

play the old "homesick" routine, put in a transfer request and beg Eddie to let him come home.

but is he worth  £40m, because thats what they'd probably ask for atleast.

[aussiemag]

16 minutes ago, huss9 said:

play the old "homesick" routine, put in a transfer request and beg Eddie to let him come home.

but is he worth  £40m, because thats what they'd probably ask for atleast.

Think they would want at least 50-60 now. They paid 35 so that’s his book value to them. 

[TRon]

17 hours ago, huss9 said:

play the old "homesick" routine, put in a transfer request and beg Eddie to let him come home.

but is he worth  £40m, because thats what they'd probably ask for atleast.

 

 

Is anyone else interested in buying him for that much?

 

 

[andycap]

100 million bid for Elanga and elliot get them both. 

That would be class. 

[bealios]

I think we probably do undervalue some of our own players. I have seen plenty of comments in the past saying Murphy is championship level, or would do well for a newly promoted side. But if he were actually available now - I think he's a £30m player. I know it sounds mad, but everything is so data driven these days that ultimately he is involved in so many goals for a Top 5 team. And someone above pointed out that Perez went for £30m and that wasn't exactly a massive blow. If we found out tomorrow that we had sold Murphy for £25m, I wonder how many people would think that was a good deal.

 

[Chicken Dancer]

He will play for us again one day. I’m sure of that. Unless he’s proper peeved he was a pawn in the PSR game.