Now That's What I Call Transfer Rumours! 7

[The Prophet]

I could swear I just entered this thread 20 pages ago.

[SUPERTOON]

10 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

@Happinesstan @Optimistic Nut Agree a loan is preferred. No point in going the Dan Burn route on a permanent transfer.

 

I think Harrison is potentially in a similar bucket. That's why we won't go higher than what we think we might be able to get for him in a couple years if things go well. I think he's a genuine upgrade on Almiron but we'll probably want to upgrade relatively soon so resale value is key.

 

For similar money I think we could get Zaha and he could be a transformative player for us. But no resale value at all really. Maddison is transformative for me but seemingly too expensive.

 

Ramos ticks everything in terms of what the Management want. I think we need someone who can play RW more though.

 

 

 

Completely agree on Zaha, would be brilliant for us.

[gjohnson]

Just now, The Prophet said:

I could swear I just entered this thread 20 pages ago.

Might as well have. Nothing's changed

[Shearergol]

Zaha's one of the last players in the league I'd want in our team tbh. 

[SUPERTOON]

Just now, Shearergol said:

Zaha's one of the last players in the league I'd want in our team tbh. 

Why ?

[The College Dropout]

2 minutes ago, Vinny Green Balls said:

Don’t think people want to disagree with you. Your track record forces us to, dude.

I just have my own opinions. Which I support with logic. Someone said I don't "think". If anything it can be argued that I overthink. I take the information that we know, the strong rumours and try to fit it into a coherant strategy.

 

I don't get butthurt over small examples. I could have used Wood instead. Wood and Burn are the same type of signing. Shock horror I know.

[Shearergol]

Just now, SUPERTOON said:

Why ?

 

I think he's found his niche role, plus I hate the state of his moaning whinging face every time he gets tackled. Not because he's black though #TCD

[Shearergol]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

I just have my own opinions. Which I support with logic. Someone said I don't "think". If anything it can be argued that I overthink. I take the information that we know, the strong rumours and try to fit it into a coherant strategy.

 

I don't get butthurt over small examples. I could have used Wood instead. Wood and Burn are the same type of signing. Shock horror I know.

 

Burn is a good squad player, and will be over the next few years. Wood isn't. Not that similar.

[Happinesstan]

5 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

I was just replying to this.

 

---

 

Therefore getting an affordable improvement, like Burn, to take the role for a year before stepping aside isn't so crazy. 

 

---

 

 

 

I don't think the wing equivalent of Dann would be significantly better or definitely not the difference between 9th & 7th. Almiron and Fraser are probably already that equivalent.

Yeah well we're not looking to replace the wing equivalent of lark so the quality would have to be better than Burn. It's not a question of quality though.

[Hanshithispantz]

Must have missed Optimistic Nut posting this hot take:

 

"From the information available... we are monitoring the market e.g. no formal bids have been made.

 

It is worrying and sub-optimal.

 

It looks like we will do business very late and look to see what's available rather than identifying particular players which iss not the best approach."

 

Wood and Burn are also not the same kind of signing. Wood was £10-15m more and nobody in their right mind thought it was a good deal at the time. We were just absolutely desperate for a striker and he was available straight away, with PL experience, due to his release clause.

 

Most people could see the value in both Burn and Targett. Great signings for a great price. If we settle for similar on the 31st and upgrade them in 6-12 months time I'd pull my helmet off.

 

 

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, Shearergol said:

 

Burn is a good squad player, and will be over the next few years. Wood isn't. Not that similar.

This is what i'm talking about. I'm talking strategy - a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim.

 

Wood was brought in to help get us safe (he did) and provide competition and solid back-up for the next 2 years (he won't and this is a problem). We don't anticipate to recoup all of the money (if any) on the transfer because of age, contract length and initial fee.

Burn was brought in to help get us safe (he did) and provide competition and solid back-up for the next 2 years (he will). We don't anticipate to recoup all of the money (if any) on the transfer because of age, contract length and initial fee.

 

That was the strategy for a lot of signings in January. That's not the strategy going forward.

 

Anyways - need to finish some work. Cheers lads.

[The Prophet]

8 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

Must have missed Optimistic Nut posting this hot take:

 

"From the information available... we are monitoring the market e.g. no formal bids have been made.

 

It is worrying and sub-optimal.

 

It looks like we will do business very late and look to see what's available rather than identifying particular players which iss not the best approach."

 

Wood and Burn are also not the same kind of signing. Wood was £10-15m more and nobody in their right mind thought it was a good deal at the time. We were just absolutely desperate for a striker and he was available straight away, with PL experience, due to his release clause.

 

Most people could see the value in both Burn and Targett. Great signings for a great price. If we settle for similar on the 31st and upgrade them in 6-12 months time I'd pull my helmet off.

 

 

 

Based on the club's activity as well as comments from Mr Howe, we are selecting players from a "small pool" that we'll have scouted and vetted over a decent period of time. That's far from looking to see what's available and is very much identifying players that will work within our long term strategy.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by The Prophet

[Hanshithispantz]

Also not wanting to overpay is different to being hamstrung by FFP, the former is naturally linked to the latter however. You (TCD) are completely right that a Dan Burn is bad from a FFP POV, but that should also tell you that trying to calculate FFP in the way we're seeing journalists do it is completely stupid. The important thing that we're seemingly doing is setting up a proper transfer structure for upgrading our squad over the coming seasons.

[TRon]

8 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I just have my own opinions. Which I support with logic. Someone said I don't "think". If anything it can be argued that I overthink. I take the information that we know, the strong rumours and try to fit it into a coherant strategy.

 

I don't get butthurt over small examples. I could have used Wood instead. Wood and Burn are the same type of signing. Shock horror I know.

 

Your logic was that £13m was a waste of money for Burn, but I already contended that we probably more than made up that money just by finishing 11th in the table. You can't seriously argue that we would have finished that high if we had Clark or Lascelles playing instead. A lot of wins by one goal got us some crucial three-pointers and our defence played a massive part in that.

[The College Dropout]

6 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Your logic was that £13m was a waste of money for Burn, but I already contended that we probably more than made up that money just by finishing 11th in the table. You can't seriously argue that we would have finished that high if we had Clark or Lascelles playing instead. A lot of wins by one goal got us some crucial three-pointers and our defence played a massive part in that.

Never said it's a waste of money. We didn't get our top target in January but we needed a short-term improvement in that position and we got it. And stayed up.

 

£50m on central defenders and only 1 is likely to start isn't great from FFP perspective though. 1 of them having low resale value and not having European level ability isn't great for FFP either.

 

Clearly FFP is v. important to upper management.

 

Going forward... blah blah..

 

Swap Burn out for Wood if it makes you feel better....

 

[TRon]

5 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Never said it's a waste of money. We didn't get our top target in January but we needed a short-term improvement in that position and we got it. And stayed up.

 

£50m on central defenders and only 1 is likely to start isn't great from FFP perspective though. 1 of them having low resale value and not having European level ability isn't great for FFP either.

 

Clearly FFP is v. important to upper management.

 

Going forward... blah blah..

 

Swap Burn out for Wood if it makes you feel better....

 

 

How good would relegation have looked for FFP?

[Rod]

There's a private aeroplane just left Newcastle for Lyon.  Yeah, I'm not sure what I'm referring either!  ? 

[Holloway]

We can't be interested in Paqueta surely, epic fucking dithering if we are

[TRon]

I think it's pointless using examples from January and trying to make out we are using that template now. We are actually doing the opposite if anything and trying to upgrade in quality at the expense of making easy signings.

[The Prophet]

54 minutes ago, Holloway said:

We can't be interested in Paqueta surely, epic fucking dithering if we are

 

Not necessarily.

[The Prophet]

 

[Vinny Green Balls]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

I just have my own opinions. Which I support with logic. Someone said I don't "think". If anything it can be argued that I overthink. I take the information that we know, the strong rumours and try to fit it into a coherant strategy.

 

I don't get butthurt over small examples. I could have used Wood instead. Wood and Burn are the same type of signing. Shock horror I know.

Logic…that’s a very unorthodox use of the word.

[Holloway]

11 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Not necessarily.

well no, intuitively. I am aware of the scraps we're feeding off for leads, but if we do have serious designs on Paqueta it's being kept mighty quiet

[KaKa]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

 

£50m on central defenders and only 1 is likely to start isn't great from FFP perspective though. 1 of them having low resale value and not having European level ability isn't great for FFP either.

 

 

Resale value does not apply to a £13 million signing that signed at 29 years old on a two and a half year deal. This is not a significant outlay for such a player, especially one who is a high level backup that can cover more than one position. It's a good value signing.

 

Had we spent £30 million on him and handed him a 5 year contract then it would be considered a significant outlay for a player that isn't going to be a first team player going forward, and who would be difficult to shift long after he is deemed useful to the team. You're over thinking resale value. It's not as black and white as you're making it out to be.

 

Dan Burn is ultimately going to transition to being a backup for Botman going forward. He is absolutely European level ability as a back up central defender. He's better than backups sitting on Tottenham, Arsenal, Man Utd and West Ham benches right now, and they're all in Europe this season.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by KaKa

[BoSelecta]

Burn was a slam dunk of a signing and I’d suck your hands off for an equivalent quality signing of the same age & in the same price bracket who plays upfront.