Eddie Howe

[The College Dropout]

I don’t think any of last summers signings have made the impact Tripps, Isak and Bruno made. 
 

We needed a starting left back but we signed a boy that spent most of the season on the bench and wasn’t ready. 

Weve needed a starting RW for some time. We spent that money on a LW that often sat on the bench when fit. 
 

Dropped a massive bag on a lad that got a years suspension. 
 

Livramento was a great signing on paper. But Howe seemed reluctant to utilise him fully. 
 

Again if we were happy with the transfer activity I don’t think we get a transfer guy in Mitchell.  

[Conjo]

10 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Interesting those in the club feel we had a poor window last summer. Quite a split on here over that.

 

In hindsight it wasn't due to the unprecedented amount of injuries + our main signing of the summer getting banned for 10 months. When the summer window closed I thought it was pretty decent though.

[The College Dropout]

I do think Howe thought Hall would be ready and it became clear that he wasn’t.  But that happens when you sign boys. We needed a Kelly type signing.  
 

[Checko]

Howe tends to play the media with a straighter bat than Geoffrey Boycott in a drag club. That's what's really so notable about his comments for me, not the specifics of what he said but that he would publicly allude to dissatisfaction at all.

 

[Holmesy]

The signing of Barnes over a quality right winger was the only signing that on the face of it looked a bit shortsighted. II'm sure he'll turn out to be a worthwhile signing, but it was clear our right side wasn't strong enough at the time, and that remains our biggest issue even now. So, why double up on the left when we had so many others who can play there?

We're like a Ferrari with a space-saver wheel on the front driver's side (Unless Dan Burn plays LB, in which case we've got a space-saver wheel on the front right and a monster truck one on the back left).

[The Prophet]

9 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Lines up with my assumptions. 
 

If we finished 4th or 5th. Would we have seen so many changes? If our signings made a bigger impact would we have got a transfer guy to replace Ashworth (not a transfer guy)?  Did the rush to sell players at the last worry some people at PIF? 
 

While I think we signed good to great players last summer.  The window didn’t make enough sense and wasn’t joined up. In time it will prove its value imo.  

 

I'd say its reasonable to assume employing a Performance Director is probably a direct result of last season.

 

Mitchell has been brought into replace Ashworth and it seems Stavely sold her shares for financial reasons. Given we were linked with Freedman since around February, it appears we wanted a recruitment focused Sporting Director regardless.

 

Unfortunately it's all just come at the same time and resulted in a lot of upheaval.

 

The article doesn't mention the last transfer window specifically, but our transfer windows as a collective. It's probably referring to stuff such as not upgrading the right wing and relying on Wilson as second choice striker. Waugh said this morning Mitchell is completing a squad audit, which ties in with that.

[Checko]

Also, re our last summer window, let's face it, we spent a ton of money swapping one decent winger for another, bought two backup fullbacks and a super expensive Italian who didn't speak English and didn't particularly want to move from his club. There was always a good chance Tonali would struggle to settle in his first year, even without the betting thing.

 

It could turn out to be a good long-term window if Hall and Tino establish themselves and Tonali comes back good, but with champions league to offer signings, we didn't really strike while the iron was hot in terms of bolstering the first team with ready-to-go champions league quality players.

[The Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

The signing of Barnes over a quality right winger was the only signing that on the face of it looked a bit shortsighted. II'm sure he'll turn out to be a worthwhile signing, but it was clear our right side wasn't strong enough at the time, and that remains our biggest issue even now. So, why double up on the left when we had so many others who can play there?

We're like a Ferrari with a space-saver wheel on the front driver's side (Unless Dan Burn plays LB, in which case we've got a space-saver wheel on the front right and a monster truck one on the back left).

 

Once we sold ASM, we needed a left winger.

[Cf]

35 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

My summary does sound a bit harsh, and I didn’t imagine you did mean that (in such stark terms). But you did say that he say he lies through his teeth, says the opposite of what he really means, and implied he had no consideration for his outgoing players. 🤷‍♂️ 

 

My "translations" were tongue in cheek to a degree and I imagine Howe cares deeply for his players, current and former. But you've also got to have that cold streak of doing what is best for the team. If that means someone is surplus to requirements then they have to go. It's possible to do this whilst being respectful, speaking highly of them, etc.

 

He'll never say e.g. of Anderson in public that he was let go due to being the expendable one due to a factor of PSR and not being quite good enough, but I imagine in the background that's the conversation that was had. Obviously publicly he'll go with "good player, disappointed to lose him, etc, etc". I guess that's my point: we shouldn't read into such quotes as being Howe was against that transfer.

 

(The quotes about club structure etc are a different matter - that felt like a kettle of fish he opened intentionally)

 

 

Edited July 23 by Cf

[Holmesy]

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Once we sold ASM, we needed a left winger.

We had Gordon. And Willock, Anderson, Isak (obviously we don't want him to play there) and Joelinton can all cover left. We had just signed a new CM, which frees one of Joelinton/Willock up to do that if needed.

On the right we've got two players who are bottom half PL quality if that, and no one else for cover. It was a strange position to prioritise.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

We had Gordon. And Willock, Anderson, Isak (obviously we don't want him to play there) and Joelinton can all cover left. We had just signed a new CM, which frees one of Joelinton/Willock up to do that if needed.

On the right we've got two players who are bottom half PL quality if that, and no one else for cover. It was a strange position to prioritise.

 

Willock was already out for 3 months, that breaks down the Willock/Joelinton combination and switching places as the other wingers can't do that. Isak is the main striker with an injury prone back up so doesn't really free him up. Anderson was unproven with no numbers to back up his potential. 

 

Gordon is a better fit at RW than most of those "cover" options.are at LW and Barnes is better than most at LW. 

 

 

Edited July 23 by Optimistic Nut

[The College Dropout]

4 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Once we sold ASM, we needed a left winger.

I don’t agree. Especially not at that price. 
 

Gordon was the ASM replacement.  And neither were regular starters the previous season. If we needed a replacement for him sitting on the bench - it shouldn’t be £40m+ on 80k+.  
 

Having £90m of LW since the takeover and £0m of RW since the takeover doesn’t make any sense. Barnes will cost £12-13m per season FFP wise - it’s a heck of a lot for a rotation option.  
 

I thought Howe planned to start Gordon RW - but he clearly didn’t and doesn’t. 

[The Prophet]

1 minute ago, Holmesy said:

We had Gordon. And Willock, Anderson, Isak (obviously we don't want him to play there) and Joelinton can all cover left. We had just signed a new CM, which frees one of Joelinton/Willock up to do that if needed.

On the right we've got two players who are bottom half PL quality if that, and no one else for cover. It was a strange position to prioritise.

 

If we rewind to last summer, Gordon was still trying to nail down his position in the team. We had Joelinton and Willock who are midfielders by trade as options, or we could play our best player out of position. We had no recognised left winger.

 

We had Almiron and Murphy over the other side, who leave a lot to be desired in terms of quality, but are none the less established right wingers.

 

With hindsight Barnes got injured and Gordon went on to nail down the left wing spot, so we perhaps didn't need to go as big on a left winger, but hindsight is a beautiful thing 

[Cf]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

I don’t agree. Especially not at that price. 
 

Gordon was the ASM replacement.  And neither were regular starters the previous season. If we needed a replacement for him sitting on the bench - it shouldn’t be £40m+ on 80k+.  
 

Having £90m of LW since the takeover and £0m of RW since the takeover doesn’t make any sense. Barnes will cost £12-13m per season FFP wise - it’s a heck of a lot for a rotation option.  
 

I thought Howe planned to start Gordon RW - but he clearly didn’t and doesn’t. 

 

Whilst I appreciate there's other positions and priorities this is exactly the level of bench sitter we should have if we want to be at the top.

[The College Dropout]

14 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

I'd say its reasonable to assume employing a Performance Director is probably a direct result of last season.

 

Mitchell has been brought into replace Ashworth and it seems Stavely sold her shares for financial reasons. Given we were linked with Freedman since around February, it appears we wanted a recruitment focused Sporting Director regardless.

 

Unfortunately it's all just come at the same time and resulted in a lot of upheaval.

 

The article doesn't mention the last transfer window specifically, but our transfer windows as a collective. It's probably referring to stuff such as not upgrading the right wing and relying on Wilson as second choice striker. Waugh said this morning Mitchell is completing a squad audit, which ties in with that.

If Staveley was as involved as some reports have suggested and we finished 4th. I’m not certain she still leaves entirely. 
 

By Feb it was clear the window was not an immediate success. So that still lines up.  
 

Our transfer window as a collective got us to 4th the previous season. A success. Last summers has no obvious standout success story. 
 

The noise so far this summer is we are signing players for the first XI. We only signed 1 player for the first XI last summer. Thats an immediate pivot.  

[Holmesy]

5 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I don’t agree. Especially not at that price. 
 

Gordon was the ASM replacement.  And neither were regular starters the previous season. If we needed a replacement for him sitting on the bench - it shouldn’t be £40m+ on 80k+.  
 

Having £90m of LW since the takeover and £0m of RW since the takeover doesn’t make any sense. Barnes will cost £12-13m per season FFP wise - it’s a heck of a lot for a rotation option.  
 

I thought Howe planned to start Gordon RW - but he clearly didn’t and doesn’t. 

This is the point i was trying to articulate but didn't do quite as well.

I take the point about Gordon still working at nailing down that position though - maybe a bit of healthy competition is what he needed/needs.
Isak wasn't the main striker at the point we signed Barnes though was he? Not established anyway if my memory serves me correctly. He only nailed that down in the second half of the season after we had signed Barnes.

To be honest, i'm not sure why I even get involved in these convos because I have the memory of a fish and don't retain details about anything, especially dates  
But I maintain we should definitely have signed a right winger regardless of the timelines.

[LFEE]

Barnes signing just seemed opportunist but still part of a plan. EH having in mind to do Plan A then more Plan A with fresher legs after 60+mins. Over a full season Gordon and Barnes should end up with fairly similar minutes on the LW over three competitions. The RW that EH wants clearly hasn’t been available yet. Let’s see if they are this summer.

[The College Dropout]

14 minutes ago, Cf said:

 

Whilst I appreciate there's other positions and priorities this is exactly the level of bench sitter we should have if we want to be at the top.

We couldn’t afford it.  That’s fine to say on paper but not with our FFP position.  
 

Especialy when we don’t have good enough options at RW. That’s not good squad planning. 

 

Now we realise that and are beginning to bring in free transfers. 
 

No need to go over it again. I’ve said it for 11 months now. Fundamentally I think the clubs decisions have lined up that we didn’t make the best of our budget and we’ve got in a transfer whizz and have changed approach. 
 

I don’t anticipate we will sign more £12m per year bench players until we have the revenues to support it. Especially not those that are 26+   

 

 

Edited July 23 by The College Dropout

[The Prophet]

6 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

We couldn’t afford it.  That’s fine to say on paper but not with our FFP position.  
 

Especialy when we don’t have good enough options at RW. That’s not good squad planning. 

 

Now we realise that and are beginning to bring in free transfers. 
 

No need to go over it again. I’ve said it for 11 months now. Fundamentally I think the clubs decisions have lined up that we didn’t make the best of our budget and we’ve got in a transfer whizz and have changed approach. 
 

I don’t anticipate we will sign £12m per year bench players until we have the revenues to support it.   

 

I think its unlikely that Barnes was signed as a "bench player" mind.

 

At the time he signed, we had no established left winger and two established right wingers.

 

Gordon went on to become our established left winger, cemented by Barnes' long term injury, but we can't have forseen that at the time.

 

 

Edited July 23 by The Prophet

[The Prophet]

12 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

If Staveley was as involved as some reports have suggested and we finished 4th. I’m not certain she still leaves entirely. 
 

By Feb it was clear the window was not an immediate success. So that still lines up.  
 

Our transfer window as a collective got us to 4th the previous season. A success. Last summers has no obvious standout success story. 
 

The noise so far this summer is we are signing players for the first XI. We only signed 1 player for the first XI last summer. Thats an immediate pivot.  

 

The lack of Europe probably helps to allow for that too.

[Dr Jinx]

It’s a bit fucked up that the club would have to have clear the air talks with people who have literally just joined.

 

Love Eddie despite lasting concerns over his consistency, but he does seem a bit diva-ish about his own position. Like just get on with it man.. he’s the only one causing any negativity in terms of conversations about the club right now. All roads lead back to him.

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

 

I thinknits unlikely that Barnes was signed as a "bench plsyer" mind.

 

At the time he signed, we had no established left winger and two established right wingers.

 

Gordon went on to become our established left winger, cemented by Barnes' long term injury, but we can't have forseen that at the time.

Gordon was bought with the intention of becoming our LW.  Are you suggesting the club doubted Gordon after 6 months?

 

We signed Barnes knowing either him or Gordon would sit on the bench. Thats still a £10m+ bench player.  

 

What we did with Barnes is the equivalent of us going out and spending £30m on a left back because Hall hasn’t cemented the position. 
 

Barnes/Gordon are working exactly as planned. Quality LW options. It’s just not good squad planning considering our FFP position.  

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Gordon was bought with the intention of becoming our LW.  Are you suggesting the club doubted Gordon after 6 months?

 

We signed Barnes knowing either him or Gordon would sit on the bench. Thats still a £10m+ bench player.  

 

What we did with Barnes is the equivalent of us going out and spending £30m on a left back because Hall hasn’t cemented the position. 
 

Barnes/Gordon are working exactly as planned. Quality LW options. It’s just not good squad planning considering our FFP position.  

Tbf I wouldn’t swap Barnes for Anderson or Minteh. 

[Keegans Export]

8 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

The lack of Europe probably helps to allow for that too.

Absolutely.

 

Our transfer strategy last summer I thought was fairly clear - we wanted depth, ideally 2 players per position, to allow us to keep up the high-intensity from the previous season that saw us finish fourth. Unfortunately our new star CM missed near enough the whole season, our new LW likewise, the injuries started to pile up and that concept ultimately failed. I don't think we signed players like Livramento and Barnes specifically as backups, I think we/Howe wanted to be able to alternate Tripper/Livramento, Willock/Joelinton, Barnes/Gordon, Isak/Wilson etc to ease the workload. 

 

That doesn't explain why we didn't pick up a RW at that point. I assume the players we really liked weren't available at a price we were willing to stretch to and Howe thought that Almiron/Murphy and potentially Gordon was enough cover at RW?

[Lish007]

Howe lies all the time to the press. Said he was upset at selling ASM. I don't think Howe is unhappy tbh I think he's saying exactly what he thinks - he wants clear boundaries and veto on transfers. Doesn't mean he will not take suggestions.