NUFC Transfer Rumours

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Hopefully we’ll do a bit of both, especially if our ambition is not to just be another Brighton. We need a pipeline of players but we might also want to get someone to take us a leap forward at times. 
 

The purpose can’t just be churn cheap players to help the club survive, it must be to generate income so we can progress the club. 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2024 by AyeDubbleYoo

[TRon]

6 minutes ago, nufcjmc said:

Only reason I would say we go against that approach is the fact it's the winter window and not the summer depending what the signing is being brought in for immediate starting 11 or not. Also depends on our situation league wise if we need a good second half of the season to save our season or consolidate a certain league place then going abroad may be too much of a gamble. 

 

Now frustratingly I would say we can't go on paying premiums for players and every player carries risk why not be the club to benefit on the gamble rather than the team paying the e or 3 x the original purchase price for a more finished article/gem. 

 

Is it worth going out and spending 20ish million on someone from the continent who may flop or 40/50m on a prem player who knows the league. In this fake analogy you could in theory sign 2 players for the price of that prem player. 

 

In the early days when Man City were bought out they thought nothing of spending money on a 30 year old proven player who had no resale value because PSR wasn't even a consideration. We could land any amount of top class players if we weren't hamstrung by the restrictions brought in since our takeover.

[timeEd32]

The one bit of tension in the January window that will be interesting to see is what we'll do if we're sitting in the 6th-9th range with a chance at Europe but also obviously needing some help. A couple young players from the continent are unlikely to make an instant impact, but I doubt we'll want to spend a bunch of money (and impact our summer) on an expensive PL player. This gets into the point @The College Dropout has been making about our stated aims of Europe and presumably the expectations of the manager not necessarily being aligned with the required recruitment strategy in our position.

 

There's probably a needle to thread here if we can find a legitimately high quality player in Europe in the £25-40m bracket (a la Bruno), but a tall order. 

[TRon]

2 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

The one bit of tension in the January window that will be interesting to see is what we'll do if we're sitting in the 6th-9th range with a chance at Europe but also obviously needing some help. A couple young players from the continent are unlikely to make an instant impact, but I doubt we'll want to spend a bunch of money (and impact our summer) on an expensive PL player. This gets into the point @The College Dropout has been making about our stated aims of Europe and presumably the expectations of the manager not necessarily being aligned with the required recruitment strategy in our position.

 

There's probably a needle to thread here if we can find a legitimately high quality player in Europe in the £25-40m bracket (a la Bruno), but a tall order. 

 

I agree that our stated aim of Europe has not been matched by our transfer strategy this summer, we are one of a bunch who might get top 6, but probably outsiders. I would need to see what we do in January to confirm it though, since we had the DOF turmoil interfering with transfer strategy this time round. Howe and Mitchell need to be on the same page, and we need to be going after targets who we can actually get over the line.

[nufcjmc]

Hopefully if it's more collaborative going forward (don't want to start the debate again how much at fault was howe this summer transfer wise). 

 

We need a varied and broad approach don't dismiss loans even without an option. Don't dismiss players 28 if they aren't crazy wages and hit all the boxes. Move outside of just Europe and look at other leagues or championship to find gems. 

 

Appreciate it's not simple or straight forward as alot of clubs are doing and looking in the same way. 

 

I love everyone we have signed but as others have pointed out did we maximise the money we had before psr caught up to us? 

 

 

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, timeEd32 said:

The one bit of tension in the January window that will be interesting to see is what we'll do if we're sitting in the 6th-9th range with a chance at Europe but also obviously needing some help. A couple young players from the continent are unlikely to make an instant impact, but I doubt we'll want to spend a bunch of money (and impact our summer) on an expensive PL player. This gets into the point @The College Dropout has been making about our stated aims of Europe and presumably the expectations of the manager not necessarily being aligned with the required recruitment strategy in our position.

 

There's probably a needle to thread here if we can find a legitimately high quality player in Europe in the £25-40m bracket (a la Bruno), but a tall order. 

Villa signed Morgan Rogers from the Champ and he’s been a regular starter pretty much ever since. 20+ years ago Jenas gave us a lift off the bench regularly as a sub.  
 

I don’t think it has to be mutually exclusive. We at bringing on Almiron and starting Murphy.  Adding any talent to the squad will be a bonus imo.  

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Hopefully we’ll do a bit of both, especially if our ambition is not to just be another Brighton. We need a pipeline of players but we might also want to get someone to take us a leap forward at times. 
 

The purpose can’t just be churn cheap players to help the club survive, it must be to generate income so we can progress the club. 

 

 

 

People balk at the Brighton route but they don’t realise Brightons budget is tiny. A Brighton approach with our budget would be powerful. 

[black_n_white]

Until we start winning it’s hard to get excited about any transfers. Hopefully by January we are still top half of the league.

[OoOGazOoO]

I really like Willock, but I can understand the club willing to entertain offers. He just hasn't been able to hit the heights he has done in the past, obviously injuries have played a huge part in that but I was hoping he would be more impactful when we have seen him recently.

[Ben]

22 minutes ago, OoOGazOoO said:

I really like Willock, but I can understand the club willing to entertain offers. He just hasn't been able to hit the heights he has done in the past, obviously injuries have played a huge part in that but I was hoping he would be more impactful when we have seen him recently.

 

Time to move him on, I'm getting sick of Perma-crocks.

[Kanj]

I love our players through and through, but I'd be open to a refresh of the squad with us keeping Isak, Gordon, Bruno, Tonali, Botman, Hall, Tino as key pieces. Obviously there are many more others but I'd be open to some moving of assets to refresh the thing...

[The College Dropout]

Aye let’s refresh the squad but keep all the players of saleable value. 

[Kanj]

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Aye let’s refresh the squad but keep all the players of saleable value. 

 

I'm just saying I'd be OK with moving on Barnes, Longstaff, Willock, etc. if it meant we'd be able to get some better balance and different type of players. 

 

No need to be snarky. 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2024 by Kanji

[Weezertron]

Starting to come around to the idea that the clubs been mismanaged for the past 3 or 4 windows. Squad is all over the shop. Hindsight is great, especially when the teams performing poorly, but we're little bit screwed. I don't think anyone we brought in, bar the dodgy keeper, is a bad player - but the whole opportunistic transfer approach has left us short in a bunch of key positions, and stacked in others.

[timeEd32]

21 minutes ago, Weezertron said:

Starting to come around to the idea that the clubs been mismanaged for the past 3 or 4 windows. Squad is all over the shop. Hindsight is great, especially when the teams performing poorly, but we're little bit screwed. I don't think anyone we brought in, bar the dodgy keeper, is a bad player - but the whole opportunistic transfer approach has left us short in a bunch of key positions, and stacked in others.

 

The idea that summer 2023 was a bad window shouldn't even be contentious at this point. That does not mean the players we signed in that window are bad.

[Izakaya]

I'm happy with everyone on the transfer list tbh, including our unsellable 'purples' who, let's be honest, have been utterly bang average so far this season. 

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Kanji said:

 

I'm just saying I'd be OK with moving on Barnes, Longstaff, Willock, etc. if it meant we'd be able to get some better balance and different type of players. 

 

No need to be snarky. 

 

 

 

Applogies for the snark. 

[Upthemags]

4 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

People balk at the Brighton route but they don’t realise Brightons budget is tiny. A Brighton approach with our budget would be powerful. 

To say "not just another brighton" is so funny. You mean the team that just beat us at home and atop us on the table? The smugness of some in here, as we've been a bang average midtable side for about 16 months now, is honestly embarrassing.

 

Brighton are run like a well-oiled machine. They are literally a model club for our tier. They invest intelligently, buying almost solely appreciating assets. With our resources, if we were run like Brighton the past two years we'd be in a position comically better than our current state. 

[80]

1 hour ago, Kanji said:

 

I'm just saying I'd be OK with moving on Barnes, Longstaff, Willock, etc. if it meant we'd be able to get some better balance and different type of players. 

 

No need to be snarky. 

 

 

 

The apology for the snark was warranted, but he's got a point. We're in an ugly situation where the vast majority of the players we can easily tolerate losing aren't worth enough to renovate the squad. 

 

That's not just in terms of how much we sell them for, but how much the PSR profit is. For example, if we sold Barnes in the summer for what we originally paid, in PSR we'd make something like £15m - which is nice, but not revolutionary. A lot of our best candidates for sale are drifting towards freebies, meanwhile.

 

Realistically, a couple of painful departures will happen to really remodel the squad. Tino, Hall and Tonali wouldn't generate the PSR profit. Botman is post-injury. Gordon's just signed a new deal. That leaves Isak and Bruno... Let's see what happens.

 

 

Edited October 24, 2024 by 80

[The College Dropout]

Aye the only players that would generate a lot of PSR headroom are Bruno and Isak.  

19 minutes ago, Upthemags said:

To say "not just another brighton" is so funny. You mean the team that just beat us at home and atop us on the table? The smugness of some in here, as we've been a bang average midtable side for about 16 months now, is honestly embarrassing.

 

Brighton are run like a well-oiled machine. They are literally a model club for our tier. They invest intelligently, buying almost solely appreciating assets. With our resources, if we were run like Brighton the past two years we'd be in a position comically better than our current state. 

Some intelligent free transfers of good older heads too. 
 

Agree what others said. We’ve signed good players but it doesn’t make sense. £100m for Tonali and Barnes. 

[RobsonsWonderland]

People forget Barnes was bought the summer before Gordon was exceptional and had already showed signs of being disgruntled

 

90% of fans would have sold Gordon that window and Barnes if fit would have likely started more games.

 

Fate played a different hand for both players but the club had their own doubts in my eyes 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2024 by RobsonsWonderland

[mighty__mag]

Abdul Fatawu

 

Rw solved 👌 

[80]

With the Barnes debate, it boils down to this - if there was a player out there called Barvey Harnes, who was identical in every way except he was a mirror image of Barnes, with a strong left foot he'd cut in from the right on instead of vice versa, would he have been a better purchase for our club last summer? I think the answer is yes. That's why his purchase gets picked on.

[r0cafella]

20 minutes ago, 80 said:

With the Barnes debate, it boils down to this - if there was a player out there called Barvey Harnes, who was identical in every way except he was a mirror image of Barnes, with a strong left foot he'd cut in from the right on instead of vice versa, would he have been a better purchase for our club last summer? I think the answer is yes. That's why his purchase gets picked on.

Aye, this is the crux of it. I think a few folks posted at the time as well that another player who wants to cut in front the left shouldn't be a priority. No reflect on Barnes on his ability. 

[Erikse]

28 minutes ago, 80 said:

With the Barnes debate, it boils down to this - if there was a player out there called Barvey Harnes, who was identical in every way except he was a mirror image of Barnes, with a strong left foot he'd cut in from the right on instead of vice versa, would he have been a better purchase for our club last summer? I think the answer is yes. That's why his purchase gets picked on.

 

The problem then becomes depth at LW. Last season Gordon played an incredible amount of minutes, partly due to the Barnes injury, but if Gordon would have been injured we wouldn't have a natural LW to cover. We can use Joelinton there, but then we're just moving the problem to midfield instead. It seemed as if we had to sell ASM to buy anyone, and that left us short in that position. The ideal thing would have been to get a young but ready LW for a cheap price on top of an RW, but we couldn't even get a reasonably priced third choice striker for this season.. Indeed we are weak on the right, but atleast we have a couple of players who are natural right wingers. From a depth perspective an LW made more sense, just not from a first 11 perspective. Added games from CL was definetly a consideration. Maybe we should've tried to find someone cheaper than Barnes for that role, and save the rest of the money instead, as I think Howe still had a lot of faith in Gordon.

 

 

Edited October 25, 2024 by Erikse