NUFC Transfer Rumours

[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. 

[SUPERTOON]

1 hour ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

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

Mitchell himself said we target PL players to much didn’t he ?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 minute ago, SUPERTOON said:

Mitchell himself said we target PL players to much didn’t he ?

Doesn’t really matter who said what. We’ve made great signings from abroad. 

[SUPERTOON]

Just now, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Doesn’t really matter who said what. We’ve made great signings from abroad. 

I think it’s pretty important what the views of our sporting director are mind.

[loki679]

I'd love us to be looking at players for their talent and vision rather than work rate tbh.

[nufcjmc]

10 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

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. 

Agreed and the big 6 can afford to do both get the best young players from overseas for their youth teams and allow the other prem teams take the gamble and if it works take the hit financially to take them off them for their own

 

Certainly not something we can do really based on current roles and as we see with wood some players have league pedigree but due to style or system or some intangible thing they don't replicate it at the next club. 

 

Buying from abroad carries more the physical/pace and sometimes culture risk but pure maths says if we have 40m to spend and can get 1 player or risk it spread over 2 or 3 with good scouting you will still get hits. 

 

I would like a mix of both to happen but think in the short term we need more of the shrewd stuff as we aren't at a team level where we just need 1 quality addition per season. 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2024 by nufcjmc

[Matt1892]

17 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

I think it’s pretty important what the views of our sporting director are mind.

About 75% of our transfers have come from the Premier League, more than any other club I can think of since the takeover.

[Elliottman]

38 minutes ago, loki679 said:

I'd love us to be looking at players for their talent and vision rather than work rate tbh.

 

Ideally both. 

[STM]

42 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

About 75% of our transfers have come from the Premier League, more than any other club I can think of since the takeover.

 

Burn 12m = Success

Targett 15m? = Failure

Wood 25m = Failure (getting 17m back made it pretty decent)

Pope 12m = Success

Gordon 45m = Success

Hall 35m = Success

Tino 35m = Success

Osula 10m = TBC

 

Not a bad hit rate though, especially when you consider that if we sold our England trio, we'd likely recoup conservatively 150m, probably more.

 

While on the other hand we've got a 55m Italian who's got the biggest question mark over his future on the "foreign signings" list.

 

I'm not disputing the need to cast our net wider though, I'm just trying to play devils advocate.

 

 

[cubaricho]

1 hour ago, Matt1892 said:

About 75% of our transfers have come from the Premier League, more than any other club I can think of since the takeover.

About? And just because you can’t think of any doesn’t mean it’s actually true.  
 

This board really needs to stop spouting opinions as cold hard facts. 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2024 by cubaricho

[cubaricho]

And my opinion on the matter is that yes, maybe since since the takeover we’ve signed too many players from the PL, but I believe we were in a position that not many other clubs were in and needed battle worn, proven PL quality players to help us get out of the shit and steady the ship, while other clubs could take punts on speculative players from abroad. 

[KaKa]

With some of the stuff I've been reading I think it will be very disappointing if we can't make something happen in January to give the team a jolt.

 

I already mentioned Tomori being ready to come back to England, and AC Milan apparently being ready to accommodate that as the new manager has him out of the first team currently. They are looking for £25 million.

 

Also at AC Milan, they are making Chukwueze available for £20 million, and he could be available on an initial loan too. Pulisic has made the right wing his and is limiting his opportunities, and they think he's too valuable to be kept on the bench.

 

Chukwueze is very much a Premier League player. If we have shown interest in the likes of Mbeumo and Madueke, he's very much in that mould and type of player. Worst case scenario getting a loan deal done at least, if nothing else is possible, should be looked at.

 

Looks like there will be deals available. I really hope we can do something.

[duo]

5 hours 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.

[duo]

1 hour ago, STM said:

 

Burn 12m = Success

Targett 15m? = Failure

Wood 25m = Failure (getting 17m back made it pretty decent)

Pope 12m = Success

Gordon 45m = Success

Hall 35m = Success

Tino 35m = Success

Osula 10m = TBC

 

Not a bad hit rate though, especially when you consider that if we sold our England trio, we'd likely recoup conservatively 150m, probably more.

 

While on the other hand we've got a 55m Italian who's got the biggest question mark over his future on the "foreign signings" list.

 

I'm not disputing the need to cast our net wider though, I'm just trying to play devils advocate.

 

 

Targett and Wood were a success in that they helped keep us up

 

 

Edited December 11, 2024 by duo