NUFC Transfer Rumours

[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 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 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 by Erikse

[80]

1 hour ago, Erikse said:

 

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.

 

 

 

It's definitely nice to have Barnes, but at the beginning of last season, potential alternates would've been Gordon, Joelinton, Willock, Anderson, Hall and even Almiron. Plus Isak, as per our CL qualifying season. So - allowing for the fact we got smashed by injuries - our depth there was pretty respectable  compared to what we had in other areas, and stronger than what Howe would willingly use for RW.

[Whitley mag]

The problem with our transfer approach is that we’ve turned our noses up at the foreign market’s due to being risk averse and as Mitchell has insinuated the recruitment isn’t fit for purpose.

 

We’ve approached transfers as if we are already on an equal financial footing with top 6, whereby we’ll let another club take the risk then we’ll pay the premium to get a PL ready no risk option, unfortunately due to PSR this model doesn’t work for us yet.

 

Very confident Mitchell will overhaul this and the young Georgian lad is hopefully just the start. I’m fully expecting more signings from the likes of France in the 20 to 30 million category, the difference will be if they turn out well, unlike Brighton we’ll have the finances to keep them and build.

 

 

Edited October 25 by Whitley mag

[Sibierski]

5 hours ago, Erikse said:

 

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.

 

 

 

We had a number of players who could cover LW, just would mean needing to be creative elsewhere.

 

Isak / Joelinton / Anderson were all capable of playing there. Meant then signing a ST / RW, but as been touched on previously, Barnes was the opportunistic move which Howe would’ve endorsed with Staveley backing and the rest is history.

 

Would expect those types of deals don’t happen again now.

[Keegans Export]

1 hour ago, Whitley mag said:

The problem with our transfer approach is that we’ve turned our noses up at the foreign market’s due to being risk averse and as Mitchell has insinuated the recruitment isn’t fit for purpose.

 

We’ve approached transfers as if we are already on an equal financial footing with top 6, whereby we’ll let another club take the risk then we’ll pay the premium to get a PL ready no risk option, unfortunately due to PSR this model doesn’t work for us yet.

 

Very confident Mitchell will overhaul this and the young Georgian lad is hopefully just the start. I’m fully expecting more signings from the likes of France in the 20 to 30 million category, the difference will be if they turn out well, unlike Brighton we’ll have the finances to keep them and build.

 

That's why the push back against Mitchell for being critical of our transfer activity surprised me.

 

We got ourselves into a position where we were scrabbling about trying to sell, making daft deals with Forest to avoid what that club apparently thought could be a 10pt deduction. 

 

Despite running things that close, we still seem to have such a poorly balanced squad, lacking quality in key areas and seemingly devoid of any flexibility from a tactical point of view.

 

If Mitchell pissed anyone at the club off by pointing that out then maybe they should have a look at themselves first.

[SUPERTOON]

2 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

The problem with our transfer approach is that we’ve turned our noses up at the foreign market’s due to being risk averse and as Mitchell has insinuated the recruitment isn’t fit for purpose.

 

We’ve approached transfers as if we are already on an equal financial footing with top 6, whereby we’ll let another club take the risk then we’ll pay the premium to get a PL ready no risk option, unfortunately due to PSR this model doesn’t work for us yet.

 

Very confident Mitchell will overhaul this and the young Georgian lad is hopefully just the start. I’m fully expecting more signings from the likes of France in the 20 to 30 million category, the difference will be if they turn out well, unlike Brighton we’ll have the finances to keep them and build.

 

 

 

I hope you’re right, however the noise coming out regarding the January transfer window aren’t suggesting this at all.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I must have missed us turning our nose up at the foreign market

 

The whole spine of Botman, Bruno and Isak (plus Tonali) came from…? 

[SUPERTOON]

10 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I must have missed us turning our nose up at the foreign market

 

The whole spine of Botman, Bruno and Isak (plus Tonali) came from…? 

Didn’t Mitchell allude to it himself in his interview? I think we definitely favour the home market. Wouldn’t be surprised if the Tonali deal put us off looking abroad summer just gone.

[r0cafella]

12 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I must have missed us turning our nose up at the foreign market

 

The whole spine of Botman, Bruno and Isak (plus Tonali) came from…? 

I think it's becoming increasingly obvious that we value British players and premier league highly, probably higher than anyone else in the league. How you interpret this is up to you mind. 

[Matt1892]

1 hour ago, r0cafella said:

I think it's becoming increasingly obvious that we value British players and premier league highly, probably higher than anyone else in the league. How you interpret this is up to you mind. 

 

In the last 2 years, we have signed the following players that have appeared in a match day squad…

 

Gordon

Ashby

Livramento

Barnes

Hall

Kelly

Osula 

Vlachodimos

Ruddy

 

Tonali

[500bhp]

39 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

 

In the last 2 years, we have signed the following players that have appeared in a match day squad…

 

Gordon

Ashby

Livramento

Barnes

Hall

Kelly

Osula 

Vlachodimos

Ruddy

 

Tonali

Too right. Why pay £18m for someone like Duran with no PL experience when you can sign Osula for £15m 😫

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Why pick just 2 years?

[Matt1892]

16 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Why pick just 2 years?

Because the feeling is that we have moved away from signings from foreign leagues, which the last 2 years demonstrates to be true.

 

Going back further to a time when we did sign more players from foreign leagues doesn’t mean we haven’t moved away from doing so now.

 

 

 

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Just now, Matt1892 said:

Because the feeling is that we have moved away from signings from foreign leagues, which the last 2 years demonstrates to be true.

 

Going back further to a time when we did sign more players from foreign leagues doesn’t mean we haven’t moved away from doing so now.

 

I haven't picked up that nuance, usually it's just 'Howe only likes English players'.

[Erikse]

5 hours ago, Sibierski said:

We had a number of players who could cover LW, just would mean needing to be creative elsewhere.

 

Isak / Joelinton / Anderson were all capable of playing there. Meant then signing a ST / RW, but as been touched on previously, Barnes was the opportunistic move which Howe would’ve endorsed with Staveley backing and the rest is history.

 

Would expect those types of deals don’t happen again now.

 

Last season we had a midfield crisis, whenever Joelinton was available we would've had a huge problem if Gordon was also out. Isak can cover LW, but I have never been impressed by him there. He seems wasted there. On top of that Wilson is never fit, so if Gordon is out aswell, Isak can't just cover both. Relying on playing players out of position is only really viable if you can afford to have less depth in other positions.

 

 

Edited October 25 by Erikse

[Erikse]

9 hours ago, 80 said:

It's definitely nice to have Barnes, but at the beginning of last season, potential alternates would've been Gordon, Joelinton, Willock, Anderson, Hall and even Almiron. Plus Isak, as per our CL qualifying season. So - allowing for the fact we got smashed by injuries - our depth there was pretty respectable  compared to what we had in other areas, and stronger than what Howe would willingly use for RW.

 

Likewise we can play Gordon on the right and Barnes on the left. It's not ideal, but it's not exactly ideal to play some of the ones you mentioned out of position either, especially when we lack depth in several positions. I suppose the perfect scenario would've been to sign a player who was best at right wing, but could also cover left wing pretty well when needed.

 

 

Edited October 25 by Erikse

[mondonewc]

1 hour ago, 500bhp said:

Too right. Why pay £18m for someone like Duran with no PL experience when you can sign Osula for £15m 😫

Villa rejected £43m + % of future sale offer from West Ham in the Summer

[JEToon]

It made an absolute load of sense to sign a raft of English players and build a young core to the side, more so with making the Champions League. 

 

We had to meet measures in terms of HG players or we would have been in the absolute mud.

 

We have a club that was neglected for years in terms of relevant care, investment and love in youth so we are playing catch up on that front in terms of players as well, we had to some degree manufacture youth and home grown players, and it cost a lot of money 

 

With putting in place a core of young English players it means we can expand on markets we can look at to compliment them 

 

Not to go little Englander either but I like us having an English core and players and a bit of local personality in the squad. 

 

 

Edited October 25 by JEToon