Ikon Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 (edited) 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 by Ikon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solitude20 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 (edited) 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 by Solitude20 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 More chance of Alan Barnes playing up front Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 21 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). We'd need a left-winger today if we hadn't signed him surely, so I don't agree in the PSR issue being caused? I know Joelinton and Willock can play there but it's not the same as having a natural LW there. We may still have Minteh today but he's unproven, we'd still likely need another senior RW too as Murphy and Miggy aren't good enough. The position we're in now we probably just need an RW rather than both still. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checko Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 (edited) We should have 2 quality players in each position. Barnes gives us that on the left. And he's definitely the sort of guy you want coming on when you need a goal. I'd say for the price he was a decent to good signing (had he not had his injury he would have scored a few more goals this year and I imagine there'd be a more positive view of him) Also it's easy to wonder why we signed him now, but last summer Gordon hadn't looked a scorching prospect at LW and we sold ASM. Last game of 22/23 vs Chelsea AG was being played through the middle. Gordon made LW his own this year through the quality of his performances. Haven't seen AG much on the right, but in the time he has he's put a few beautiful crosses across (eg. the disallowed goal vs fulham where he just smoked the fullback to the byline). Thought he played some nice balls from there vs spurs as well and got in on goal from that side a couple of times, so I would be comfortable playing him there, though he's still definitely first choice LW. Edited July 9 by Checko Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Just now, The Prophet said: Jacobs tho. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 No way did we sign Gordon as a €45m backup LW. The Barnes transfer was opportunistic in terms of availability (not even fee) but never made any sense in terms of squad building. I initially thought the intention was for Gordon to play RW but when both were fit that was rarely used from the start. Both like to cut in and shoot from the left. Saving grace as that they are both really good players. I applaud how we’ve signed good players nearly all the time. But some of the positions and profiles didn’t make sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcjmc Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 (edited) 1 hour ago, Solitude20 said: 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. I just feel you do need to think the club have to take a business view. Back in the day rich clubs no psr you say fuck it get 3 good years and let him go for free no big deal. Doesn't work that way we already have a ticking time bomb in the squad with older players who we may never get a fee for in the end, i.e. schar, BDB, trippier, Wilson, miggy etc it's not rocket science as many have said we need to get used to selling these players before they go for nothing. These players are bad enough with Miggy being the most expensive of them at what 22/23m it's a whole other level of hurt to sign say Bowen for 65 and see no return money wise at the end of the contract. I wish all we had to do is worry about what a player brings to the side short and medium term. However we know a wrong move in any player could lead to us selling an asset we don't want to, to make up for it. No trying to speak for the club but get the impression they want players the step before they become Bowen in term of value. Certainly Howe has mentioned buying the potential rather than the ready made. They won't all work but carry less financial risk. Edited July 9 by nufcjmc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 If we are buying a 28 year old let it be Toney Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: No way did we sign Gordon as a €45m backup LW. The Barnes transfer was opportunistic in terms of availability (not even fee) but never made any sense in terms of squad building. I initially thought the intention was for Gordon to play RW but when both were fit that was rarely used from the start. Both like to cut in and shoot from the left. Saving grace as that they are both really good players. I applaud how we’ve signed good players nearly all the time. But some of the positions and profiles didn’t make sense. I still think that was the original plan but he arrived late in the window and we know Howe likes a bit of time to integrate players. Then Gordon started the season on fire, carrying on from the Euros and that was pretty much it. Barnes got the serious injury early on which didn't help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieDazzler Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Jonathan David must be one of the most linked players (not to us, just in general) who never actually moves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 1 hour 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. My guess is we'll sign a top RW option and then Barnes, Gordon and that player will fight for two spots. Gordon and the new RW signing as the presumptive starters and Barnes being first reserve for both spots, with Gordon shifting to the right hand side when it's he and Barnes on the field together. Ideal world we'd have an exciting youngster as 4th choice with Murphy as fallback option, Minteh would have been ideal. With no Europe we can probably manage with Murphy as 4th choice though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 1 hour ago, joeyt said: More chance of Alan Barnes paying up front FYP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 30 minutes ago, The Prophet said: Yes fucking please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 13 minutes ago, GeordieDazzler said: Jonathan David must be one of the most linked players (not to us, just in general) who never actually moves. He’ll move this summer. Final year of his contract now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 12 minutes ago, GeordieDazzler said: Jonathan David must be one of the most linked players (not to us, just in general) who never actually moves. If he's open to not being an automatic starter, I think it would be a good move. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Used to sign Jonathan David on FIFA about 4 years ago, feels like a link from the past although he's only 24. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sibierski Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Bowen just feels a massive smoke screen for a move elsewhere. Still feel MGW will be the signing we move for in next week or so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 24 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: No way did we sign Gordon as a €45m backup LW. The Barnes transfer was opportunistic in terms of availability (not even fee) but never made any sense in terms of squad building. I initially thought the intention was for Gordon to play RW but when both were fit that was rarely used from the start. Both like to cut in and shoot from the left. Saving grace as that they are both really good players. I applaud how we’ve signed good players nearly all the time. But some of the positions and profiles didn’t make sense. 20 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said: I still think that was the original plan but he arrived late in the window and we know Howe likes a bit of time to integrate players. Then Gordon started the season on fire, carrying on from the Euros and that was pretty much it. Barnes got the serious injury early on which didn't help. Yeah, I guess £40 million on a backup is a bit mad. So is the money invested in Barnes as well really. The Barnes signings then only really makes sense if the intention was to use Gordon on the right. Maybe once Gordon got going on the left he decided to not mess with it, even once Barnes returned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainhaircut Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 The latest rumour is that Eddie Howe is signing off the signing of a 5”9 striker in Jonathan David? No chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 1 minute ago, Optimistic Nut said: I still think that was the original plan but he arrived late in the window and we know Howe likes a bit of time to integrate players. Then Gordon started the season on fire, carrying on from the Euros and that was pretty much it. Barnes got the serious injury early on which didn't help. I thought so too. We had maybe 4 games before the Barnes injury. Each one it was Gordon off for Barnes. Which gives less credence to that idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubaricho Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 2 hours ago, Menace said: Almiron imo cost us north of 12 points last year. There's not liking a player and then there's this. Twelve points ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now