Willow Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 4 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Plan B for Botman was Dan Burn. THINK HANS THINK. What a condescending cunt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 What I don't understand is the big discrepency between the two views of how FFP would affect us. A few months ago, there was comment from sources outside the club that, because we hadn't had losses in previous years, we could easily spend a huge amount - like £350m +. The reality for the club seems to be very different. Can anyone explain how this discrepency has arisen? I'm not having a go at the club, incidentally, I'd just like to know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 Just now, Cronky said: What I don't understand is the big discrepency between the two views of how FFP would affect us. A few months ago, there was comment from sources outside the club that, because we hadn't had losses in previous years, we could easily spend a huge amount - like £350m +. The reality for the club seems to be very different. Can anyone explain how this discrepency has arisen? I'm not having a go at the club, incidentally, I'd just like to know. Well technically we still can, but we wouldn't be able to spend any more for the next 2 years. Basically. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 18 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: A club might have 1-3 primary targets for a position. Once you go further - it is no longer primary. Hugo was plan A. Evidently we didn't have much of a plan B because we still don't have an attacker in - a month after that deal fell through. I think our other primary targets were that Winger from the German division (too expensive), Isak (too expensive), Harrison (bid rumoured - too expensive). We moved on to the likes of Maddison, who at this point was clearly not a primary target (bid - too expensive). Again suggesting we had not done that much research into what they might cost (Harrison and JM at least). Of course it applies. Every relevant league in Europe will have started by the weekend. It is late in the window. You either sign players who clubs were hoping to sell anyway or pay a premium. I can't take you seriously man 'Didn't have much of a plan ...', 'had not done that much research ...' All based on the few names we have been privy to in the press and based on how you imagine bids and negotiations should go. Unbelievable stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: THINK HANS THINK. Oh the irony. Edited August 12, 2022 by Super Duper Branko Strupar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 Just now, Super Duper Branko Strupar said: Oh the irony. This is a poster who apparently doesn't form an opinion of a player until we've signed them, whilst at the same time having the most opinions about players we're linked to on the forum. Just ignore him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 3 minutes ago, Cronky said: What I don't understand is the big discrepency between the two views of how FFP would affect us. A few months ago, there was comment from sources outside the club that, because we hadn't had losses in previous years, we could easily spend a huge amount - like £350m +. The reality for the club seems to be very different. Can anyone explain how this discrepency has arisen? I'm not having a go at the club, incidentally, I'd just like to know. There was a huge Swiss Ramble tweet a few days ago covering this. It said we effectively had around £40m left to spend this window IF we didn’t increase commercial income going forward. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 8 minutes ago, Willow said: What a condescending cunt He's always got something to say about my posts and i'm pretty sure he's outright insulted me in the past. He's a big lad, it's only a little sass. 8 minutes ago, KaKa said: No he was not. He was a temporary fix that would then ultimately replace Clarke once Botman was brought in. If we signed Botman in January, do you think we would've signed Burn in January? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 I do think he’s right on Burn mind. I think we tried to get Botman, couldn’t and then turned to Burn. I still think it turned out well though as we stayed up and now have extra quality depth (I.e not Lascelles) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 9 minutes ago, Cronky said: What I don't understand is the big discrepency between the two views of how FFP would affect us. A few months ago, there was comment from sources outside the club that, because we hadn't had losses in previous years, we could easily spend a huge amount - like £350m +. The reality for the club seems to be very different. Can anyone explain how this discrepency has arisen? I'm not having a go at the club, incidentally, I'd just like to know. I think profit and sustainability comes into it as well as FFP. There was a decent Swiss Ramble thread on it recently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 1 minute ago, LV said: I do think he’s right on Burn mind. I think we tried to get Botman, couldn’t and then turned to Burn. I still think it turned out well though as we stayed up and now have extra quality depth (I.e not Lascelles) Pretty sure we turned to Carlos after Botman and then Burn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 13 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said: You honestly believe Dan Burn was Botman's replacement? Dan Burn and Targett were signed because our defence was absolutely atrocious - we needed players in. Botman was signed because we've clearly identified him as a massive talent for a great price. We needed a left footed CB according to Howe. He wanted one asap. He wanted Botman. That fell through, so he went to plan B. A short-term fix. Same question: Do you think we sign Burn if the Botman deal didn't fall through? 9 minutes ago, Cronky said: What I don't understand is the big discrepency between the two views of how FFP would affect us. A few months ago, there was comment from sources outside the club that, because we hadn't had losses in previous years, we could easily spend a huge amount - like £350m +. The reality for the club seems to be very different. Can anyone explain how this discrepency has arisen? I'm not having a go at the club, incidentally, I'd just like to know. https://theathletic.com/3295092/2022/05/07/newcastle-and-ffp-why-they-wont-become-the-new-manchester-city-overnight/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 Just now, et tu brute said: Pretty sure we turned to Carlos after Botman and then Burn We wanted both according to your favourite people, the media. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 1 minute ago, et tu brute said: Pretty sure we turned to Carlos after Botman and then Burn I think you're right. Which makes Dan Burn plan C. Carlos was another short-ish term solution because of his age. That's why we didn't go back in for him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 3 minutes ago, et tu brute said: Pretty sure we turned to Carlos after Botman and then Burn Yeah think you’re right Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 Just now, SUPERTOON said: We wanted both according to your favourite people, the media. Pretty sure there was no links to Carlos until after the initial bid for Botman had been knocked back. We may have wanted both though still as we signed Burn and Botman (though different windows obviously) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 5 minutes ago, LV said: I do think he’s right on Burn mind. I think we tried to get Botman, couldn’t and then turned to Burn. I still think it turned out well though as we stayed up and now have extra quality depth (I.e not Lascelles) Yes, I never said it hasn't worked. I just said we need to stop doing that going forward. People took that as severe criticism of Dan Burn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 Some weird revisionism going on considering it was only 7 months ago. The plan was Carlos and Botman, we then went for Burn and now we have Botman. If anything it all points to Burn having been the alternative to Carlos, which is absolutely fine. Not even sure what the issue is considering Burn was cheap and has been outstanding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 (edited) 10 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: He's always got something to say about my posts and i'm pretty sure he's outright insulted me in the past. He's a big lad, it's only a little sass. If we signed Botman in January, do you think we would've signed Burn in January? Obviously not because Clarke was still around. He was a sound purchase having not got Botman at the time that could slide into Clarke's backup spot in the summer. Edited August 12, 2022 by KaKa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 1 minute ago, et tu brute said: Pretty sure there was no links to Carlos until after the initial bid for Botman had been knocked back. We may have wanted both though still as we signed Burn and Botman (though different windows obviously) Yeah I think it was Ornstein saying we wanted both, I could be wrong though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebelrouser Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 27 minutes ago, Shearergol said: You never know, perhaps the club had Burn in mind as a squad player after we signed Botman? Little bit unfair to lump him in the same sentence as Wood, who was a clear panic buy. Is the plan to eventually play Burn and Botman together? Some would say you can't have two l footed center backs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 This is not some big swipe at beloved Dan Burn. Just simply. As of summer 22 we aren't looking to sign players for the short-term in age and ability with low resale value. Because it chips away at FFP. Also, however you look at it. I am right, Dan Burn was a Plan B at best. We went back for Plan A and got him. We now have tremendous depth and ability at CB... and little depth and ability in attacking positions. With cost/FFP being part of the reason we don't have players in place already. We haven't signed any players so far who haven't gone straight into the XI (after some bedding in). We wouldn't have signed beloved Dan if Botman came earlier. @KaKa is another one who loves to comment and contradict my posts. He's being slow and i've work to do. THINK KAKA - THINK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lush Vlad Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 5 minutes ago, rebelrouser said: Is the plan to eventually play Burn and Botman together? Some would say you can't have two l footed center backs. Plenty of teams play with two right footers, don't they? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 Can't believe this shite Ronaldo tribute act is still going strong this many years later, mind. Absolutely fucking painful reading. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted August 12, 2022 Share Posted August 12, 2022 1 minute ago, The College Dropout said: This is not some big swipe at beloved Dan Burn. Just simply. As of summer 22 we aren't looking to sign players for the short-term in age and ability with low resale value. Because it chips away at FFP. Also, however you look at it. I am right, Dan Burn was a Plan B at best. We went back for Plan A and got him. We now have tremendous depth and ability at CB... and little depth and ability in attacking positions. With cost/FFP being part of the reason we don't have players in place already. We haven't signed any players so far who haven't gone straight into the XI (after some bedding in). We wouldn't have signed beloved Dan if Botman came earlier. @KaKa is another one who loves to comment and contradict my posts. He's being slow and i've work to do. THINK KAKA - THINK. My goodness Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts