Eddie Howe

[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 6 hours ago 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 6 hours ago 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. 

 

 

[The College Dropout]

11 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

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?

What doesn’t make sense is that Livramento and Hall barely got any minutes from the start. 
 

Barnes was signed to compete with Gordon. That’s a lot of money tied up in one position. Everywhere else we had some quality in depth (RB, CM, ST) one of the players wouldn’t have a crazy high FFP cost. 

[The Prophet]

42 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.  

 

I'm not sure he was. At Everton he played a lot of his football on the right. The season before last he'd played RW, LW and CM for us, then played as a striker in the U21 Euros. I think he was brought in as a versatile forward and wasn't brought in to fill a specific position.

[The College Dropout]

1 hour 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).

I think the Hall transfer was perhaps too longsighted.  We needed someone to come in for Burn straight away. 
 

massive fan of Hall tbf. 

[Holmesy]

19 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I think the Hall transfer was perhaps too longsighted.  We needed someone to come in for Burn straight away. 
 

massive fan of Hall tbf. 

I couldn't agree more. The Burn debacle last season had me tearing my hair out and genuinely doubting EH and JT, especially after Livra had deputised their so competently.

Given how calamitous it was at times, I would have fielded a non-ready Hall over a clearly-not-working Dan Burn.
Anyway, hopefully we won't have to endure it ever again.

But yeah, again, when you look at the Barnes signing, the Hall signing and I guess you have to look at Tonali as well, it doesn't shine a great light on the recruitment effort. I think all will turn out to be excellent signings but we were gearing up for a CL campaign and that window doesn't scream "joined up thinking"

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Holmesy

[80]

1 hour ago, Holmesy said:

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.

I genuinely respect the humility.

 

And I agree about the RW, it was the most glaring gap going into last summer so it was odd and disappointing not to get anything there. But not totally unacceptable - I could understand if we couldn't get the right player.

 

Which makes the Minteh thing so frustrating as he sounds like the player Eddie would grow in a test tube if he could...

[80]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

What doesn’t make sense is that Livramento and Hall barely got any minutes from the start. 
 

Barnes was signed to compete with Gordon. That’s a lot of money tied up in one position. Everywhere else we had some quality in depth (RB, CM, ST) one of the players wouldn’t have a crazy high FFP cost. 

Yes, I'd also assumed the plan was to go into last season almost with two competing first XIs. High rotation and interchangeability leading to high energy and consistency across competitions. So it was a bit weird when that never really happened and, consequently, the fatigue racked up. 

 

You said earlier about us apparently wanting to pivot this year to signing clear first choices, which sounds like a good idea to me. What's interesting is, really, it was last summer that was the pivot, away from firm first teamers like Isak, Botman and Trippier - while still spending big sums. I'd be interested to know how we ended up in that position and who was responsible. Because it didn't seem like an Eddie thing to do.

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by 80

[Colos Short and Curlies]

38 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I think the Hall transfer was perhaps too longsighted.  We needed someone to come in for Burn straight away. 
 

massive fan of Hall tbf. 

 

We probably thought that Targett would be the one pushing/starting at LB tbf

[80]

1 minute ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

We probably thought that Targett would be the one pushing/starting at LB tbf

Maybe, although his card already did seem to be marked by then. Eddie never seemed happy with him.

 

LB, from memory, seemed like our second highest priority after RW going into the summer.

[Lotus]

Tbh, I doubt any of our staff thought Gordon would come on the leaps and bounds he did so quickly. They may have also felt he could do a bit more through the middle if Barnes was to stick to the left. 
I’m guessing the type of RW we wanted just wasn’t available and they had the ASM money in the pocket and decided to put it on a guy whose returns have always been good. 
Should something have happened to Gordon and not Barnes the HB transfer could’ve looked very handsome straight off the bat. 

[Gallowgate Toon]

The few times we've used it, BIG looked pretty dynamic to me. Even with a new RW, I hope we see it more.

[The College Dropout]

53 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

We probably thought that Targett would be the one pushing/starting at LB tbf

Doubt it. He barely got a look in when fit the previous season.  

 

57 minutes ago, 80 said:

Yes, I'd also assumed the plan was to go into last season almost with two competing first XIs. High rotation and interchangeability leading to high energy and consistency across competitions. So it was a bit weird when that never really happened and, consequently, the fatigue racked up. 

 

You said earlier about us apparently wanting to pivot this year to signing clear first choices, which sounds like a good idea to me. What's interesting is, really, it was last summer that was the pivot, away from firm first teamers like Isak, Botman and Trippier - while still spending big sums. I'd be interested to know how we ended up in that position and who was responsible. Because it didn't seem like an Eddie thing to do.

 

 

 

‘Lack of joined up thinking’. We needed a bigger squad for Europe so we went and got good players for positions we already had good players in. But seemingly Eddie wasn’t fully onboard or pivoted himself to mostly keep to a core of players.  Or we didn’t get players experienced enough for rotation.  
 

He was happy to rotate Barnes/Gordon, Longstaff/Tonali, Wilson/Isak but that’s it. Trippier and Burn were first choice, Livra, Hall, Targett backup.  
 

We needed a LB for the season but we signed an LB for the future.  
 

I think we relied too much on opportunistic transfers. Rather than a great profile match.  We wouldn’t sign a 19 year old LB ideally but Hall was available so we got him. We liked Barnes at the fee, knew Leicester would be willing sellers - let’s get him in.  Trippier might be outright #1 for Howe but Livra is too good to pass on, another £35m.  
 

It’s only Tonali where he was the exact profile and player we wanted for the first team. Which is why he was the only one straight into the XI. Barnes got some minutes regularly when fit even if off the bench. The other 2 though……

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by The College Dropout

[Ikon]

Not a great source but Harry Redknap has said that he’s heard that The FA will approach Nufc and EH and he thinks he both should and will take it. 
 

I don’t want it to happen but IF it’s gonna happen then asap please. Would be gutted but not the end of the world. Club is more important than one man. We move on. 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Ikon

[The Prophet]

Just now, Ikon said:

Not a great source but Harry Redknap has said that he’s heard that The FA will approach Nudc and EH and he thinks he will take it. 

 

Thankfully he probably knows about as much as we do.

[Ikon]

4 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Thankfully he probably knows about as much as we do.

Yeah probably. Maybe not. 
 

Not because of the source, but I still don’t find it impossible to happen. 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Ikon

[Menace]

Harry Redknapp can never shut his crusty gob can he