Eddie Howe

[PauloGeordio]

6 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

https://www.forestforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/jonjo-shelvey.51034/page-20

[joeyt]

20 minutes ago, Smal said:

I think most people who were happy also assumed we must be signing a replacement because it would be suicidal to go into the second half of the season with 4 midfielders to fill 3 positions.

 

And we usually play all 4 anyway with one being at left mid 

[Miggys First Goal]

Can we bring him back?

[madras]

4 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

And we usually play all 4 anyway with one being at left mid 

That was partly due to Maxi being injured and a main reason behind buying Gordon.

[Stottie]

9 hours ago, The Prophet said:

Said the same after West Ham last week, but I'd be amazed if the player we brought in on loan would have might the slightest bit of difference today.

 

The players we wanted as difference makers weren't available in January, we need to get over it.

All transfer talk from fans involves speculation, but it cuts both ways. About players who are avaiable and not available. Ultimately all players are available if you pay enough and push hard enough. For the level of player we want, high-level desirable players, pushing hard enough may include paying them more than another club they have their heart set on. However, unless its Arsenal or Man City, where competition will be fierce, such players are now just as likely to get Champions League here as at any other English club. We are a much more attractive proposition now we are sitting near the top of the table.

 

Unless Tielemans has a deal set up already with Arsenal, PSG or someone, presumably he was "available". The selling club would have no option but to sell. Leicester are not in a position where they can forego the equivalent of 1 million quid plus per game (in lost transfer fee plus wages) for him. Even if our January budget and FFP meant it was only one of a forward (Gordon) and a midfielder, there is still scope for us fans to debate which of those choices should have been made. This is a football talking points forum and it is a valid football talking point. The fact that we did sign one expensive player tells us there was money there to be used. Had we paid a higher fee for Gordon, but in installments, there may have been enough money for two players. Despite us giving Everton cash, they promptly went and didn't use it, suggesting they didn't actually need cash in after all.

[Smal]

18 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

And we usually play all 4 anyway with one being at left mid 

yeah, it’s mad.

 

We had basically no midfield yesterday because neither Longstaff or Joelinton can positionally play as a single pivot, so both played much deeper than they usually do to compensate. Keep Shelvey or replace him with another specialist 6 who can slot straight in for Bruno and our midfield structure looks way better.

 

Willock’s injured now. It was an absolutely mental decision that will cost us a lot of points.

[KingArthur]

31 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

Keeping Shelvey improves our options in midfield massively like, I cannot see how anyone could believe it was a good idea to give him away.

In theory yes. But A) will he be fit B) if he plays and gets automatically new contract for like 80k/wk, that hinders our transfer dealings a bit next summer...

[Scotty66]

We couldn't have kept Shelvey as he wanted to leave. Howe told him he can't go but Shelvey said he wanted a new challenge so Howe had no choice. 

 

Yes we should have got a replacement but there's obviously valid reasons for why we didn't get it done. 

[greydos]

I just don’t think this whole “we’re keeping our power dry for the summer” argument really cuts it. There’s clearly time and place for buying players to get you through a short-term problem, Chris Wood is recent successful proof of that, arguably Targett and Burn also. There’s no guarantee a long term target will come to us in the summer. And the idea the owners have a master plan for advancing to champions league and staying there in future is tantamount to saying they can accurately predict the future performance of other teams and so know that, even if Chelsea, Liverpool, Spurs and Brighton improve, because of a few commercial contracts signed we’ll be sustainably better than those sides on the pitch. There can be no such guarantee! A January disappointment 

[LV]

5 minutes ago, Scotty66 said:

We couldn't have kept Shelvey as he wanted to leave. Howe told him he can't go but Shelvey said he wanted a new challenge so Howe had no choice. 

 

Yes we should have got a replacement but there's obviously valid reasons for why we didn't get it done. 

Exactly.

 

Shelvey begged to go at the 11th hour. We didn’t have time to get anyone in because of that. You can’t just magic a loan up out of thin air and on top of that we are really particular about who we get in. 
 

People are being unrealistic. 

[Theregulars]

People continue to miss the point re: shelvey. The point is we need a squad, with options who we know can contribute at PL level. Shelvey was that, as recently as our great run last season. We’ve made a money move to get rid, fine; but it’s a gamble and now we have to pay for that gamble by relying on crap players. I therefore conclude it wasn’t an intelligent gamble in all the circumstances. 

 

It’s really simple. 

[NWMag]

Everyone keeps saying we have 4 CM’s, we have 5. Howe has said Anderson is a CM so whether you think he is up to it or not, the clubs view is we have 5 CM’s, and if we play 4231 we only need 2 of them

[Geordie Ahmed]

Keeping Shelvey would have meant our squad was stronger, that much is obvious, how much stronger is up for debate but whilst it would have been better for now the chances are we would have in the summer then been stuck with a player on high wages

 

The player wanting to move combined with the opportunity to remove high wages without losing someone of real importance meant selling him made sense 

 

Now in the summer his spot is easier to replace than if we were still lumbered with him (Also worth noting for next season Gordon and Ashby will take up a squad space)

[Theregulars]

Anderson isn’t good enough.

[RUHRLYASLEEVESUP]

Shelvey wasn't fit was he ? or am I just stupid but how is this even a discussion? he's a tampax player 

[SUPERTOON]

6 minutes ago, NWMag said:

Everyone keeps saying we have 4 CM’s, we have 5. Howe has said Anderson is a CM so whether you think he is up to it or not, the clubs view is we have 5 CM’s, and if we play 4231 we only need 2 of them

We have played 4 of them non stop for the last few months though so that in itself is an issue.

[SUPERTOON]

1 minute ago, RUHRLYASLEEVESUP said:

Shelvey wasn't fit was he ? or am I just stupid but how is this even a discussion? he's a tampax player 

Because he’s fit now and would have been an option for the rest of the season 

[STM]

6 minutes ago, Theregulars said:

People continue to miss the point re: shelvey. The point is we need a squad, with options who we know can contribute at PL level. Shelvey was that, as recently as our great run last season. We’ve made a money move to get rid, fine; but it’s a gamble and now we have to pay for that gamble by relying on crap players. I therefore conclude it wasn’t an intelligent gamble in all the circumstances. 

 

It’s really simple. 

 

Everything you say is correct apart from one thing.... long term.

 

By keeping Shelvey (who begged to leave) and playing him, we would have triggered a contract extension. He was a player with no future at the club, on high wages and needed moved on.

 

If losing Shelveys 100k? wages gives us even more wriggle room for signings in the summer, it was worth the gamble.

 

Would Shelvey have seen us get top 4? I think it's hard to tell but IMO the owners (Ashworth) aren't going to make decisions based on that point. It wasn't even on the horizon at the start of the season and they won't change their plans and "gamble" on anything.

 

The process is thought through and they won't budge from it, nor should they. We are only going in one direction, a moment of short term discomfort for long term success is well worth it.

[RUHRLYASLEEVESUP]

Just now, SUPERTOON said:

Because he’s fit now and would have been an option for the rest of the season 

For a week or say perhaps, hes had 7 seasons of underachievement, injury & disappointment (save the championship season) he wasn't imo a viable option, but I know nowt 

[Theregulars]

4 minutes ago, RUHRLYASLEEVESUP said:

Shelvey wasn't fit was he ? or am I just stupid but how is this even a discussion? he's a tampax player 

Again, played yesterday. 

[Theregulars]

Just now, RUHRLYASLEEVESUP said:

For a week or say perhaps, hes had 7 seasons of underachievement, injury & disappointment (save the championship season) he wasn't imo a viable option, but I know nowt 

How do you think he performed after Howe arrived last season?

[RUHRLYASLEEVESUP]

4 minutes ago, Theregulars said:

Again, played yesterday. 

Sub no ? 

[Theregulars]

4 minutes ago, RUHRLYASLEEVESUP said:

Sub no ? 

Yes; and the entire point I’m making is that we need a squad. So, to spell that out more clearly, we need to have substitutes who can come in and operate at a premier league level when our starters are injured or suspended. We now have 2 CM starters out, so having a roster of 4 for 3 places was not an intelligent gamble. We’ve not made big enough money on Shelvey to make it worthwhile in my view. People will now bleat “but FFP!” - fine, then recruit intelligently. Get a loan or find a young gem. The board and manager - who, again, have been brilliant in their tenures to date - have left us stupidly short. 

[Theregulars]

11 minutes ago, Theregulars said:

How do you think he performed after Howe arrived last season?

I’ll give you a clue: well.

[Theregulars]

14 minutes ago, STM said:

 

Everything you say is correct apart from one thing.... long term.

 

By keeping Shelvey (who begged to leave) and playing him, we would have triggered a contract extension. He was a player with no future at the club, on high wages and needed moved on.

 

If losing Shelveys 100k? wages gives us even more wriggle room for signings in the summer, it was worth the gamble.

 

Would Shelvey have seen us get top 4? I think it's hard to tell but IMO the owners (Ashworth) aren't going to make decisions based on that point. It wasn't even on the horizon at the start of the season and they won't change their plans and "gamble" on anything.

 

The process is thought through and they won't budge from it, nor should they. We are only going in one direction, a moment of short term discomfort for long term success is well worth it.

I proposed we kept him until season’s end. If his automatic extension kicked in, so be it; we make it clear to him that he’s not getting many minutes and should look for a club during the summer. Howe was clearly prepared to trigger the extension, which suggests they weren’t that concerned about it.

 

I don’t think Shelvey by himself would have got us into the top 4, of course not. But I think he could be a squad player in an upstart team that gets there before growing, yes.