NUFC Transfer Rumours

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Same, I don't care for the rumours but I like the deals done. 

[gbandit]

I still get a heavy dopamine hit from a new player thread starting and some brackets that include the word 'various sources'. Keep clicking on here in the vain hope I'll get my hit

[Unbelievable]

6 minutes ago, Upthemags said:

This is not how PSR works - it can be reinvested a few times over, but that expenditure is always brought to bear at the end of the three year accounting window. Re-investing is merely kicking the can down the road until you have to fire sale your Mintehs.

 

Point being - I wouldn't be surprised if the club want to hold onto Wilson because anyone coming in in his stead will be a lesser footballer. We need to keep profits in mind as you point out, but the challenge is being profitable, while not appreciably damaging the quality of your squad

I am aware of the 3 year rolling period for maximum losses. However, assuming similar wages, if you were to sell Wilson for 20m that represents 20m profit in 24/25, then spend 40m on a replacement (younger with similar potential and future resale value), you'd spread that over 5 years, or a negative impact on profitability of 8m on 24/25, 25/26 and 26/27, so short term that would allow you to invest 20-8 = 12m on another player (again amortised over 5 years). As long as you can continue to grow revenue (match, commercial and through player trading) you would then continue to build the strength of the squad year on year.

 

I'd keep Wilson around if he was capable of being relied on in terms of fitness. Isak is quite injury prone, so there are bound to be periods where you'd have to play Wilson most times. Sadly, it's almost a given Wilson will himself not be available for a significant amount of time. On top of that I imagine at his age and with his pedigree he will want to play most games for which he's fit, which is another thing we can't offer seeing as Isak is better than him.

 

We'd be better off both financially and long term in terms of squad strength with a Isak understudy capable of developing into a first choice striker over the next few years, like we've done with Isak and Wilson a few years ago, and with Livramento and Trippier more recently.

[Upthemags]

5 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

I am aware of the 3 year rolling period for maximum losses. However, assuming similar wages, if you were to sell Wilson for 20m that represents 20m profit in 24/25, then spend 40m on a replacement (younger with similar potential and future resale value), you'd spread that over 5 years, or a negative impact on profitability of 8m on 24/25, 25/26 and 26/27, so short term that would allow you to invest 20-8 = 12m on another player (again amortised over 5 years). As long as you can continue to grow revenue (match, commercial and through player trading) you would then continue to build the strength of the squad year on year.

 

I'd keep Wilson around if he was capable of being relied on in terms of fitness. Isak is quite injury prone, so there are bound to be periods where you'd have to play Wilson most times. Sadly, it's almost a given Wilson will himself not be available for a significant amount of time. On top of that I imagine at his age and with his pedigree he will want to play most games for which he's fit, which is another thing we can't offer seeing as Isak is better than him.

 

We'd be better off both financially and long term in terms of squad strength with a Isak understudy capable of developing into a first choice striker over the next few years, like we've done with Isak and Wilson a few years ago, and with Livramento and Trippier more recently.

I think we're talking past each other a bit because I agree that investment in younger talent is the model we should be after. But as that pertains to Wilson I'm not sure. The model of the top clubs, after all, is not selling their "Wilsons" - older talent, cheap, and quality. It's to sell the youth they brought in for a pittance, or brought up through the academy.

 

With all that said, we don't have that luxury yet, so maybe Wilson has to be flogged as sacrifice for the profit...

[timeEd32]

16 minutes ago, Rocker said:

I don't know if it's because I'm approaching 40 (which is mental, considering I've been on this forum since I was 17), but I don't crave a transfer rumour or links etc anymore. I still get excited when we sign a player and I'll do all the research into his stats etc, but I dismiss all the elongated preamble of the pre-season, especially the early part of pre-season.

 

Saying that, I still log in everyday.  

 

It used to be my favorite thing. I lost interest somewhere in the Ashley years where it was all very pointless. Now we're in good hands and there was a lot of "mega rich Saudi" nonsense, so I find it more enjoyable to tune out most of the noise.

[gdm]

He’s surely on our list? 

[toontownman]

3 minutes ago, gdm said:

He’s surely on our list? 

Possible. More possible we aren't on his list.

[LFEE]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

Aye.

 

That Isak signing was rather emotional and fuck God it was. 1 game, 1 injury, we doubled our budget on a signing in a moment.

 

As I’ve said countless times. It helped the Isak deal (Fee & Wages) practically halved in size after we held out.

[Menace]

60m euros for their third choice right winger, and they have financial difficulties. Cheeky buggers.

[TRon]

9 minutes ago, gdm said:

He’s surely on our list? 

 

Once players have gone to one of the mega clubs, they will be on a different wage bracket to most of our lads. I could be wrong but he would probably price himself out of a move here in our current status. We are still a couple of years off paying cartel club salaries.

[Yorkie]

55 minutes ago, Rocker said:

I don't know if it's because I'm approaching 40 (which is mental, considering I've been on this forum since I was 17), but I don't crave a transfer rumour or links etc anymore. I still get excited when we sign a player and I'll do all the research into his stats etc, but I dismiss all the elongated preamble of the pre-season, especially the early part of pre-season.

 

Saying that, I still log in everyday.  

 

51 minutes ago, gbandit said:

I still get a heavy dopamine hit from a new player thread starting and some brackets that include the word 'various sources'. Keep clicking on here in the vain hope I'll get my hit

 

Hard agree on both of these things. Nothing beats a signing out of nowhere - I don't want to know me on the day I don't get a rush out of that any more. But lord above can I not be fucked with the rumour mill. 

[KaKa]

Controversial take ...

 

It's looking like Gordon is going to get a new contract once he returns now, as he essentially played himself into the first team last season. 

 

This will mean both Barnes and Gordon are now going to be on significant wages. Do we just start both Barnes and Gordon, and get two younger promising backups that won't be on big wages?

 

Just as an example say Summerville to interchange with Barnes on the left and Asprilla to interchange with Gordon on the right, or whoever you prefer to envision in those spots. Rather than spend that sum and wages in one player like Bowen?

 

Not sure we're at a stage where having Barnes come off the bench makes as much sense. He's productive enough to start and is on £80k a week.

 

 

 

 

[Menace]

I don't think Gordon is as effective on the right personally. We need a right winger, Murphy can do the job as a backup but Almiron imo cost us north of 12 points last year. These are the margins that separate you from Europe and CL

 

Signing 2 left wingers and sticking with Murphy and Almiron is starting to seem odd now providing we don't splash on a RW

[timeEd32]

2 minutes ago, KaKa said:

Controversial take ...

 

It's looking like Gordon is going to get a new contract once he returns now, as he essentially played himself into the first team last season. 

 

This will mean both Barnes and Gordon are now going to be on significant wages. Do we just start both Barnes and Gordon, and get two younger promising backups that won't be on big wages?

 

Just as an example say Summerville to interchange with Barnes on the left and Asprilla to interchange with Gordon on the right, or whoever you prefer to envision in those spots. Rather than spend that sum and wages in one player like Bowen?

 

Not sure we're at a stage where having Barnes come off the bench makes as much sense. He's productive enough to start and is on £80k a week.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think the solution to an inefficient use of resources at LW is to play one of our best players out of his best position.

[Unbelievable]

3 minutes ago, Menace said:

I don't think Gordon is as effective on the right personally. We need a right winger, Murphy can do the job as a backup but Almiron imo cost us north of 12 points last year. These are the margins that separate you from Europe and CL

 

Signing 2 left wingers and sticking with Murphy and Almiron is starting to seem odd now providing we don't splash on a RW

It was odd last year when we did tbf

[gbandit]

Yeah, the fact there was clearly massive interest in Moussa Diaby for a while and then all RW links just died was odd. They must have several that they’ve progressed to a decent stage now and it’s just a case of trying to land our favoured target 

[KaKa]

Just now, timeEd32 said:

 

I don't think the solution to an inefficient use of resources at LW is to play one of our best players out of his best position.

 

I'm not convinced he won't be just as good on the right.

 

Otherwise, I think we might end up selling one of Gordon or Barnes.

[Menace]

I'm glad we didn't sign Diaby looking back, he's not worth £60m

[timeEd32]

1 minute ago, KaKa said:

 

I'm not convinced he won't be just as good on the right.

 

Otherwise, I think we might end up selling one of Gordon or Barnes.

 

I was open to Gordon being used on the RW a year ago and kind of thought that might be the idea when we added Barnes. Obviously Barnes missed most of the season, so the sample is small but I feel like we would have seen more of Gordon on the right in the run-in if it was going to be a core part of our plan. 

 

I do think Eddie likes the idea of an interchangeable front three and we did see Gordon moving around at times in-game, but I don't think Barnes is equally as capable of that so you're pretty firmly planting Gordon at RW by playing Barnes at LW.

 

The Barnes signing was opportunistic, but I think after the extent of our PSR issues last month it's fair to call it a mistake (financially and as a use of resources; not a comment on the player, who I like).

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I think Barnes potentially has the tools to be a striker but obviously we haven't seen it. 

[Ikon]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I think Barnes potentially has the tools to be a striker but obviously we haven't seen it. 

He isn’t good enough in general play to play as a striker imo. Also, square pegs in round holes and all that or how you say it…

 

 

Edited July 9, 2024 by Ikon

[Solitude20]

3 hours ago, nufcjmc said:

Bowen to me would show a shift in transfer policy, already in "peak age" already probably "peak value" and in a financially restricted world it doesnt seem like a logical choice can argue if he is seen as a final piece in a puzzle but you would hope you go for someone under 23 with room to grow as a player and has value still to develop if player trading is needed. 

I agree with this. All of our big purchases (greater than 30m) have been players in early 20s who still have the ability to develop and have their value increase as well.
 

This applies to Isak, Bruno, Botman, Gordon, Tonali, Tino, and Hall. Wood was the only exception, but he was more of an emergency purchase than a long term one. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2024 by Solitude20

[joeyt]

More chance of Alan Barnes playing up front

[gdm]

9 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

It was odd last year when we did tbf

I think a lot of our business has been jumping at really good deals when they come along. 
 

Trippier - wanted to come back to England and by his own account took a pay cut.

 

Pope - signed from relegated Burnley 

Bruno - got in at a good price with the likes of Arsenal sniff about 

 

Isak - got him on the back of a poor season 

 

Tonali - got him cheaper than expected 

Barnes - from relegated Leicester

 

Livramento - off the back of a long term injury & Southampton getting relegated 

 

Gordon - got him in January when Everton really needed money 

 

Kelly - got him on a free transfer 

 

Vlachodimos - as part of PSR deal with Forest. 
 

Personally I think the likes of Barnes, Livramento, Tonali and Hall all became available at good prices and we acted rather than missing out. It’s working smart 

 

 

[KaKa]

12 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

I was open to Gordon being used on the RW a year ago and kind of thought that might be the idea when we added Barnes. Obviously Barnes missed most of the season, so the sample is small but I feel like we would have seen more of Gordon on the right in the run-in if it was going to be a core part of our plan. 

 

I do think Eddie likes the idea of an interchangeable front three and we did see Gordon moving around at times in-game, but I don't think Barnes is equally as capable of that so you're pretty firmly planting Gordon at RW by playing Barnes at LW.

 

The Barnes signing was opportunistic, but I think after the extent of our PSR issues last month it's fair to call it a mistake (financially and as a use of resources; not a comment on the player, who I like).

 

Yeah, when you actually look at their history, Barnes is the more experienced and productive player at Premier League level.

 

Gordon was still quite young and was more of a raw prospect, and so I think he was going to be more of a backup initially, and feature all across the front line, as and when needed.

 

Barnes injury meant he started on the left and had a huge year and has essentially cemented himself as a first teamer.

 

Giving Gordon a new salary and tying up so much money in the same position would be awkward considering the need to better balance the finances going forward.

 

Think something's got to give when it comes to that.