NUFC Transfer Rumours

[Sibierski]

One thing that will dictate some our deals in coming windows are the wages. Kelly aside who's just an utter joke car crash of a signing for his wages, if Isak signs a new deal (I expect him too) you are looking at:

 

Joelinton, Bruno, Gordon, Isak, Tonali all on that £150k ball park sums. CB you probably expect to be a signing that's on close to that figure, so other positions need to be on those £60k-£80k wages which I assume Elanga would be (and I suspect others we get linked with).

 

Essentially, till revenues grow quite a bit, our increases in wages won't be huge, but redistributed around the squad as players go.

[54]

1 minute ago, Sibierski said:

Kelly aside who's just an utter joke car crash of a signing for his wages

 

That feels incredibly harsh for someone who was a free signing and who was bought in as squad filler. Especially when we have no idea what his wages are.  

[mighty__mag]

Kevin Zenon, release clause seems fairly low rumoured 17m.

 

Plays multiple positions. 

[The College Dropout]

I don't expect both the RW & CB signings to come in on big wages.

 

We need to get back to the Bruno/Botman + Minteh model.

[Shak]

We need to start identifying and buying players before they become expensive. Players in the 5 to 20 million bracket that we hope can grow into members of the first team, or at the very least will maintain their value and can be sold on for future PSR contributions.

 

It's very obviously the best way to compete with the current PSR rules yet it hasn't been part of the strategy almost at all.

 

We tried it once with Minteh. It was a massive success and we haven't tried it again. I guess Osula fits the description, maybe?

 

Bakayoko I remember us being linked with for reasonable fees last year. That was the time to move on him, not now when the fees quoted are vastly higher.

 

Elanga I'm sure Eddie could turn into a solid player but he's going to be very expensive, there'll be dozens of players with similar potential around the world who'll cost a fraction of what Elanga will.

 

There's a fair argument to be made that RW is a priority position and we need someone ready to step in and make an immediate impact. It's just very frustrating to me that we haven't moved on fringe players like Wilson, Murphy and Almiron for modest fees and reinvested that money on promising talent. We apparently walked away from 8m for Almiron in the summer. We couldn't have let him go and brought in a youngster from abroad that might have grown into something? Seems the plan was for Miggy to sit on the bench all year, anyway.

[Aiston]

16 minutes ago, 54 said:

That feels incredibly harsh for someone who was a free signing and who was bought in as squad filler. Especially when we have no idea what his wages are.  

 

His wages will be high due to it being a free signing mind.

[Holmesy]

9 minutes ago, Shak said:

We need to start identifying and buying players before they become expensive. Players in the 5 to 20 million bracket that we hope can grow into members of the first team, or at the very least will maintain their value and can be sold on for future PSR contributions.

 

It's very obviously the best way to compete with the current PSR rules yet it hasn't been part of the strategy almost at all.

 

We tried it once with Minteh. It was a massive success and we haven't tried it again. I guess Osula fits the description, maybe?

 

Bakayoko I remember us being linked with for reasonable fees last year. That was the time to move on him, not now when the fees quoted are vastly higher.

 

Elanga I'm sure Eddie could turn into a solid player but he's going to be very expensive, there'll be dozens of players with similar potential around the world who'll cost a fraction of what Elanga will.

 

There's a fair argument to be made that RW is a priority position and we need someone ready to step in and make an immediate impact. It's just very frustrating to me that we haven't moved on fringe players like Wilson, Murphy and Almiron for modest fees and reinvested that money on promising talent. We apparently walked away from 8m for Almiron in the summer. We couldn't have let him go and brought in a youngster from abroad that might have grown into something? Seems the plan was for Miggy to sit on the bench all year, anyway.

There are clearly thousands of them and plenty of other PL teams seem capable of unearthing them. Hopefully under Mitchell we can as well but it's whether that sits well with Eddie.
Brighton are the blueprint we need to follow obviously but as others have pointed out, Forest have signed some belters for relative peanuts. Yes, it's higher risk but the rewards are far greater when it works.
The idea of signing Elanga for £50m or Guehi for £60 just seems nuts in this current era. Forest signed Murillo for a reported 12m Euros, and Brighton snapped up Adingra for £6m and i'd rather have both of those two than the former. Of course for every Murillo and Adingra there will be duds, but two stars and two duds for less than one Guehi is an acceptable risk.

Hopefully Mitchell gets free reign to rip up our current scouting setup and start again. And if Eddie happens to be the collateral damage from that happening, it's unfortunate but i'd say it's a price worth paying. 

[Monters]

6 minutes ago, Aiston said:

 

His wages will be high due to it being a free signing mind.

They will be but (purely personal opinion) I don't think they are as high as reported... we seemed to be the only game in town for his services so probs 2.5x his previous wage rather than potentially 5x increase

[KaKa]

4 hours ago, Nobody said:

But PSR is the reason why we might end up having to spend £35m on him rather than £65m on Bakayoko

 

This is back to front.

 

Bakayoko is the cheaper signing.

[black_n_white]

54 minutes ago, Shak said:

We need to start identifying and buying players before they become expensive. Players in the 5 to 20 million bracket that we hope can grow into members of the first team, or at the very least will maintain their value and can be sold on for future PSR contributions.

 

It's very obviously the best way to compete with the current PSR rules yet it hasn't been part of the strategy almost at all.

 

We tried it once with Minteh. It was a massive success and we haven't tried it again. I guess Osula fits the description, maybe?

 

Bakayoko I remember us being linked with for reasonable fees last year. That was the time to move on him, not now when the fees quoted are vastly higher.

 

Elanga I'm sure Eddie could turn into a solid player but he's going to be very expensive, there'll be dozens of players with similar potential around the world who'll cost a fraction of what Elanga will.

 

There's a fair argument to be made that RW is a priority position and we need someone ready to step in and make an immediate impact. It's just very frustrating to me that we haven't moved on fringe players like Wilson, Murphy and Almiron for modest fees and reinvested that money on promising talent. We apparently walked away from 8m for Almiron in the summer. We couldn't have let him go and brought in a youngster from abroad that might have grown into something? Seems the plan was for Miggy to sit on the bench all year, anyway.

Whilst I agree it does feel very Mike Ashley era 

[Holmesy]

13 minutes ago, black_n_white said:

Whilst I agree it does feel very Mike Ashley era 

Under Ashley, we did it purely for profit and even sold players on using us as a stepping stone.
Although the fundamentals are the same - find players with potential and profit potential - we'd be developing and using the ones that are good enough for the first team and shifting the ones who aren't for a profit.

Chelsea have been doing it better than any other team for years, using one of the most prolific youth systems in the league as a revenue channel. It's pure PSR gold 

[alexf]

I sometimes feel like clubs become obsessed with only getting in "elite" players for the positions they need.

 

Sometimes an average player can make a team considerably better just by being a specialist in a position. 

 

When Chris wood came in, it was clear he wasn't of the standard we want or as good as an Isak or younger version of Wilson. However our form transformed when he came into the team and played the position that none of the rest of our squad at the time were capable of and it allowed the rest of the team to function well. 

 

We have seen it plenty with Longstaff. It's seems a popular opinion that he's a very limited player and not the standard we want going forward. However in his position and especially during that champions league season, he allowed the rest of the team to perform better and unlocked others potential etc. 

 

I sometimes think, if you gave Eddie some of the squads of other teams I think he would be doing better than he is with us, because whilst he might not have the quality of an Isak, he would have more depth in other positions that we don't have here and often in team sports, the collective overcomes a few individuals. 

 

All I'm saying is, I'd happily take a "lesser" player if they were a dedicated RW or CB etc. They may not be as good as a Barnes or Gordon in terms of talent, but if they would better at RW and that would help the balance of the team.

 

 

Edited December 11 by alexf

[The College Dropout]

The transfer approach in theory was one of the few things of the Ashley era that was not a total nightmare.

 

We tend to hyper focus on transfers because that's the easiest thing to see in terms of "investment".

 

It was the flatlining of the revenues and lack of investment elsewhere which told the bigger story. People in the media would say "Ashley is only investing in the team what the club gets in". But dude made no effort commercially (actually used NUFC for free advertisement), academy, training ground, stadium. We lost 100's of millions in non-transfer revenue with his ineptitude.

[80]

4 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

Scenes when we sign him and it turns out Eddie Howe knows what he's doing.

It will have been Mitchell all along 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

14 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

The transfer approach in theory was one of the few things of the Ashley era that was not a total nightmare 

Huh? 

[r0cafella]

Repeat after me. I do not want to hear complaints about PSR when we insist on shopping in the most inflated market in the world. 

[The College Dropout]

59 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Huh? 

Compared to commercial income? Overall revenue? Academy? Infrastructure?

 

Within the restraints he imposed - the transfer strategy was ok. The worst thing was shit free transfers and renewing too long. Standalone transfers and wages were 6/10. Academy, commercial income etc. genuinely 2/10

 

But those restraints only existed because of his ineptitude.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

19 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Repeat after me. I do not want to hear complaints about PSR when we insist on shopping in the most inflated market in the world. 

Yeah, but we’ve shopped in various markets. The PL only thing is a myth. 

[Yorkie]

24 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Repeat after me. I do not want to hear complaints about PSR when we insist on shopping in the most inflated market in the world. 

 

The justified and prevailing complaint is that the sensitivity is so much greater in our case than others because of the bullshit, anti-competitive rules. In a couple of windows, Chelsea can blow £250m and God knows what wages on a few players who've already demonstrated their quality in this league, and it's no bother at all, whether or not those transfers work out. We do the same and suddenly it's "stop whinging, you made your choices"? Horseshit. 

 

PL players are appealing because their chances of success are more guaranteed; buying from abroad - although it can be cheaper up front, is riskier. Why should only a small number of teams have unfettered and consequence-free access to the lower-risk market?

[Keegans Export]

4 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Yeah, but we’ve shopped in various markets. The PL only thing is a myth. 

Recently we've been very much based in the UK market.

 

I think Tonali has been the only first team transfer from abroad since we bought Isak

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Just now, Keegans Export said:

Recently we've been very much based in the UK market.

 

I think Tonali has been the only first team transfer from abroad since we bought Isak

 

Well OK, but that's kind of an arbitrary rule to prove the point. I could equally say we bought a whole new spine for our team from abroad. 

 

Either way, we know the approach is likely to change now. 

[Matt1892]

10 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Yeah, but we’ve shopped in various markets. The PL only thing is a myth. 

He doesn’t say that we only shop in the Premier League to be fair, but nice straw man all the same.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Just now, Matt1892 said:

He doesn’t say that we only shop in the Premier League to be fair, but nice straw man all the same.

 

I didn't say he said only. The point was that we shouldn't be complaining about PSR because we shop in the PL. I assume he meant too much, or at the exclusion of other markets? Otherwise what's the point?

[Conjo]

PL experience is extremely overrated.

 

Whether a transfer is risky or not is more on how the player has been utilized in the team we're buying him from, and whether he would fit into our system. I don't think Botman, Bruno or Isak were risky transfers. I think the Gordon transfer was far more risky than either of them.

[Yorkie]

I completely disagree. A player represents less of a gamble if they've already demonstrated that they can perform consistently at a high level in this league. I don't really see how that's up for debate. Obviously that isn't to say that it's impossible to buy poorly from the PL, or that it's inherently risky to buy from abroad; but if you've got limited financial wiggle room then it makes sense to identify 'surer' things at home. The trouble is, that market is inflated and more accessible to the rules' main beneficiaries.