More transfer rumours

[Guest HTT II]

Normally I wouldn’t want us to spunk that kind of money on any player, but if money is no object, Kane would be a no brainier. Not that it’s even remotely possible, he’s way out of our league… I also think his best years are behind him!

[joeyt]

43 minutes ago, loki679 said:

For £150m we could do a lot better than that gormless tory prick.

 

Is he a tory?

[loki679]

5 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

Is he a tory?

 

 

He's got that tory look.

[Shak]

Obviously Kane would be on a different level to anyone we've had play for us in a very long time...

 

That said, part of me would much rather we target players who aren't established stars yet.

 

Throwing huge money at the likes of Kane would feel a bit slimy IMO.

[gbandit]

I’ve never had Tory vibes from Kane. Think he’s a likeable lad off the pitch but snide as fuck on it without ever getting pulled up on it. Apart from his amazing goal scoring record he’s an outstanding passer too. Although there’s no chance of us getting him, my only concern would be about his age and whether as he loses more pace (never had much anyway) it’ll affect his chances in front of goal 

[Manxst]

Simply zero chance of getting Kane even if we threw ludicrous money at him. He’ll only leave Spurs to win trophies, else he might as well stay with them. For the initial fee he’d cost, plus wages, I’d happily buy 3 or 4 up and coming potential superstars instead, although I can accept he’s a great player, would score goals, and undoubtedly professional and a good leader off/on the pitch.

[nufc123]

Pointless discussion

[gbandit]

Aye, but that’s what the forum’s here for, to talk shit together, occasionally slag each other off and represent the clique. We need a new poster for us to turn on though, hopefully someone’s willing to step up to the mark 

[nufc123]

Aye fine, but its transfer rumour. Lets talk Lewan, Haaland, Mbappe as our front line then. 

[Conjo]

15 hours ago, Solitude20 said:

Yes. Bruno mentioned a couple of times that we will try to get a Champions league spot next season, and that’s how the owners convinced him to join. So it is more like being in the top 4 next season instead of top 6. A world class goalscorer is a must to achieve that. Wilson has scored like a 100 goal in his entire career, and he’s 30. We should get a better striker. 

 

I love the ambition and hope what Bruno is saying is what the owners and manager will aim for. I've not read/heard about it before so had to ask.

 

Think it maybe a bit too ambitious due to the quality of the top teams but no harm in trying!

[The College Dropout]

23 hours ago, Solitude20 said:

Yes. Bruno mentioned a couple of times that we will try to get a Champions league spot next season, and that’s how the owners convinced him to join. So it is more like being in the top 4 next season instead of top 6. A world class goalscorer is a must to achieve that. Wilson has scored like a 100 goal in his entire career, and he’s 30. We should get a better striker. 

I think we need to sign players we think can play in a top 4/6 side. Bruno and Trips fall into that category and Botman was in that same ilk.  Targett, Burn and Wood were signings to keep us up but we need to sign players with the potential to step it up. 

[greydos]

32 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I think we need to sign players we think can play in a top 4/6 side. Bruno and Trips fall into that category and Botman was in that same ilk.  Targett, Burn and Wood were signings to keep us up but we need to sign players with the potential to step it up. 

Targett can pay for us in the top 6 comfortably. To be in the top 6 you just need to be great at beating “The Other 14” consistently. Plus doing evens against the rest of the big 6. Targett’s easily good enough for both tasks

[The College Dropout]

15 minutes ago, greydos said:

Targett can pay for us in the top 6 comfortably. To be in the top 6 you just need to be great at beating “The Other 14” consistently. Plus doing evens against the rest of the big 6. Targett’s easily good enough for both tasks

Aston Villa didn’t think so. I don’t think he starts for West Ham over Cresswell. 
 

I like Targett and think he’s still improving as a footballer but the point stands. 
 

 

Only Trippier walks straight into the wham first team. Bruno with the potential to be a star man in time too. 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2022 by The College Dropout

[buzza]

Backbone of the team for next season:

Trippier, Burn, Targett, Bruno, ASM and Big Joe.  Depending on whether Eddie is comfy with ASM being an attacking outlet only...

 

New:

Goalkeeper, Centre forward, centre back, defensive midfielder, right and left wingers.

 

Fighting for a place in the team:

Dubs, Fraser, Willock, Manquillo, Calum, Murphy, Schar, Shelvey

 

Rest can be fed to pigs or try and get some peanuts for them...

[macphisto]

Interesting article in the Athletic about what players would go for now. Shearer is estimated to be worth £222 million and Les Ferdinand is £67 million. Personally think it would be nearer £170 million for Shearer and £100 million for Ferdinand.

 

Main reason for bringing this up is that it highlights how much we'll have to spend to compete again. Yes, you can try to find your modern day equivalents of Rob Lee but we will have to start spending big sooner rather than later if we are to meet the stated ambitions of the owners. That's why I think talk of a £50 million budget is laughable.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by macphisto

[arnonel]

Prefer we buy Southampton Shearer and not Blackburn Shearer. That is the way

[AyeDubbleYoo]

There’s no way our budget is £50m, we have to tell people we won’t spend much to try and keep the prices reasonable. Silly for journalists to print it like a fact. 

[macphisto]

14 minutes ago, arnonel said:

Prefer we buy Southampton Shearer and not Blackburn Shearer. That is the way

Not all the time as you are taking a risk with Southampton Shearer whereas the Blackburn Shearer was almost guaranteed to score you goals. Southampton Shearer could easily have turned out to be a Sheffield David Hirst who was just as highly rated around that time. 

 

In my original message, I got the Ferdinand fee wrong. £67 million was the fee to Spurs, the fee from QPR to Newcastle was nearly £94 million.

[KaKa]

1 hour ago, macphisto said:

Interesting article in the Athletic about what players would go for now. Shearer is estimated to be worth £222 million and Les Ferdinand is £67 million. Personally think it would be nearer £170 million for Shearer and £100 million for Ferdinand.

 

Main reason for bringing this up is that it highlights how much we'll have to spend to compete again. Yes, you can try to find your modern day equivalents of Rob Lee but we will have to start spending big sooner rather than later if we are to meet the stated ambitions of the owners. That's why I think talk of a £50 million budget is laughable.

 

 

 

 

Spending big doesn't guarantee anything.

 

 

 

 

 

[Holmesy]

1 hour ago, macphisto said:

Interesting article in the Athletic about what players would go for now. Shearer is estimated to be worth £222 million and Les Ferdinand is £67 million. Personally think it would be nearer £170 million for Shearer and £100 million for Ferdinand.

 

Main reason for bringing this up is that it highlights how much we'll have to spend to compete again. Yes, you can try to find your modern day equivalents of Rob Lee but we will have to start spending big sooner rather than later if we are to meet the stated ambitions of the owners. That's why I think talk of a £50 million budget is laughable.

 

 

 

Intelligent scouting is the key. Bruno cost around £30m - a Brazilian international CM for relative peanuts. Trippier cost us around £12m

If players of that calibre are available for that sort of money, you don't need to spend £100m+ per player to compete. When we get to the point where we need to boost commercial revenue by signing big names, we might need to cough up big for a Haaland-type but I think we can break into the top 6 with a relatively modest spend (and by relatively modest i'm talking £100-150m). Breaking into the top 4 might take a bit more but then look at Arsenal - their squad isn't amazing and they sit in 4th spot. Most of their star players have come through their youth ranks. Wolves have also built a quality squad through good scouting and great links in Portugal, and not buying other club's ready-made stars.  

 

 

[KaKa]

1 minute ago, Holmesy said:

Intelligent scouting is the key. Bruno cost around £30m - a Brazilian international CM for relative peanuts. Trippier cost us around £12m

If players of that calibre are available for that sort of money, you don't need to spend £100m+ per player to compete. When we get to the point where we need to boost commercial revenue by signing big names, we might need to cough up big for a Haaland-type but I think we can break into the top 6 with a relatively modest spend (and by relatively modest i'm talking £100-150m). Breaking into the top 4 might take a bit more but then look at Arsenal - their squad isn't amazing and they sit in 4th spot. Most of their star players have come through their youth ranks. Wolves have also built a quality squad through good scouting and great links in Portugal, and not buying other club's ready-made stars.  

 

 

 

Exactly!

[macphisto]

1 hour ago, KaKa said:

 

Spending big doesn't guarantee anything.

 

This is the biggest myth in football, it virtually does guarantee success; just look at the Premier League, FA Cup and Champions League most seasons. Even when you have a poor manager, no strategy and are considered to be having a very poor season like Man U, being in 6th place  is still successful in comparison to nearly every other club. I'd also argue that it wouldn't take Man U for example much to make them into a competitive team again. 

 

Closer to home, the most successful team we had in living memory as Newcastle fans is when we spent a lot of money under Keegan. 

 

Yes, you can get someone like Leicester winning the League with minimum spend or Everton spending  a lot and being in trouble but they are both very much exceptions to the rule. Spending money is by far the surest way to win something in football and is indeed becoming almost the only way to do it, certainly on a consistent basis. In my time, I've seen Leeds, Arsenal and possibly Spurs touted as models to follow in regards to buying young players to develop and it never materialised. You could even say the same about Newcastle and the team under Robson.

 

I'm not arguing against smart recruitment, which is why I mentioned Rob Lee, but you also have to spend big at times. Also, a strange perspective on signing a Haaland-type player, looking at what he would bring commercially rather than what he would contribute to the team. They would only be commercially successful if they were successful on the pitch. 

 

It's great where Arsenal, Wolves and West Ham are in the league but that is not the stated ambitions of our owners "to be the best at football and challenge for trophies." 

 

Internally within the club I'd like to think they'd be looking to compete with West Ham and Wolves next season if we make some good signings in the summer, bouncing around between 6th to 10th place. To do that will still involve a decent expenditure in the summer time.

 

If we do finish between 6th and 10th and want to seriously challenge those above us after the summer of 2023 then it would be unavoidable that we'll have to spend big money.

 

I don't know why so many people have such a problem wanting to spend a lot of money. No one cared when we did it under Keegan which for 99% of fans who lived through those times is by far the best time supporting the club.

[SUPERTOON]

2 hours ago, KaKa said:

 

Spending big doesn't guarantee anything.

 

 

 

 

 

But not spending big does guarantee mediocrity at best.

[The College Dropout]

3 hours ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

There’s no way our budget is £50m, we have to tell people we won’t spend much to try and keep the prices reasonable. Silly for journalists to print it like a fact. 

Aye. 50m is a promoted club type spending.

2 hours ago, Holmesy said:

Intelligent scouting is the key. Bruno cost around £30m - a Brazilian international CM for relative peanuts. Trippier cost us around £12m

If players of that calibre are available for that sort of money, you don't need to spend £100m+ per player to compete. When we get to the point where we need to boost commercial revenue by signing big names, we might need to cough up big for a Haaland-type but I think we can break into the top 6 with a relatively modest spend (and by relatively modest i'm talking £100-150m). Breaking into the top 4 might take a bit more but then look at Arsenal - their squad isn't amazing and they sit in 4th spot. Most of their star players have come through their youth ranks. Wolves have also built a quality squad through good scouting and great links in Portugal, and not buying other club's ready-made stars.  

 

 

Manchester United are 6th, Spurs 5th and spent £190m this year and already have at least 1 world class player.

 

I agree though. 150m in the summer is a good number.

 

Arsenal's first choice back 5 must cost £120m. Wages are massive across the squad. Losing money this year. And have at least 3 great wonderkids on the books via the academy.

 

I look at West Ham. It's a long way to catch up.

[KaKa]

36 minutes ago, macphisto said:

This is the biggest myth in football, it virtually does guarantee success; just look at the Premier League, FA Cup and Champions League most seasons. Even when you have a poor manager, no strategy and are considered to be having a very poor season like Man U, being in 6th place  is still successful in comparison to nearly every other club. I'd also argue that it wouldn't take Man U for example much to make them into a competitive team again. 

 

Closer to home, the most successful team we had in living memory as Newcastle fans is when we spent a lot of money under Keegan. 

 

Yes, you can get someone like Leicester winning the League with minimum spend or Everton spending  a lot and being in trouble but they are both very much exceptions to the rule. Spending money is by far the surest way to win something in football and is indeed becoming almost the only way to do it, certainly on a consistent basis. In my time, I've seen Leeds, Arsenal and possibly Spurs touted as models to follow in regards to buying young players to develop and it never materialised. You could even say the same about Newcastle and the team under Robson.

 

I'm not arguing against smart recruitment, which is why I mentioned Rob Lee, but you also have to spend big at times. Also, a strange perspective on signing a Haaland-type player, looking at what he would bring commercially rather than what he would contribute to the team. They would only be commercially successful if they were successful on the pitch. 

 

It's great where Arsenal, Wolves and West Ham are in the league but that is not the stated ambitions of our owners "to be the best at football and challenge for trophies." 

 

Internally within the club I'd like to think they'd be looking to compete with West Ham and Wolves next season if we make some good signings in the summer, bouncing around between 6th to 10th place. To do that will still involve a decent expenditure in the summer time.

 

If we do finish between 6th and 10th and want to seriously challenge those above us after the summer of 2023 then it would be unavoidable that we'll have to spend big money.

 

I don't know why so many people have such a problem wanting to spend a lot of money. No one cared when we did it under Keegan which for 99% of fans who lived through those times is by far the best time supporting the club.

 

Spending big does not guarantee success at all. Having the right manager, good recruitment and spending in the right areas is what is needed. Money needs to be spent, but it needs to be done correctly more importantly, and not just spending big. Look at the state of the current Everton team for goodness sake. They have spent incredible amounts irresponsibly and are in a complete mess for it.

 

Your initial post was talking about players in the £100 million bracket ... I mean are you serious? If you think we can't compete unless we're buying players in that bracket, that is ridiculous IMO.