NUFC Transfer Rumours

[Stifler]

State of those crowds in those games.

[joeyt]

 

40 minutes ago, Sibierski said:

 

Think there's a valid argument we are since Staveley left. Take our strongest XI that most would say it is currently on paper:

Pope: Tino, Thaiw, Burn, Hall: Joelinton, Bruno G, Tonali: Gordon/Barnes, Wolte, Barnes/Murphy.

 

Aside the striker which was a forced change because of the Isak debacle, since Stavely gone, we've made one improvement to the first XI. since start of 23/24 season (as Tino/Hall progressed into side). And that's been Thaiw, someone we've seemingly had on our radar since 2022/23 and went back to him after failing on other targets.

 

 

 

 

We've won our first cup in a generation and qualified for the Champions League since she left

 

Do the club not getting any credit for scouting Thiaw?

[Dr.Spaceman]

Everything good that happened when Staveley was here was solely down to her, and she never put a foot wrong. Get with the program, man.

[Theregulars]

Didn’t Staveley leave us in a PSR bind? 

[KennyUtd]

1 hour ago, Theregulars said:

Didn’t Staveley leave us in a PSR bind? 

Yep. 

[KennyUtd]

Still love what she did for us mind. God knows where we'd be without her pushing the takeover. 

[JT24]

Just want a good rumour to sink my time and attention into. 

[Andy]

14 hours ago, Theregulars said:

Didn’t Staveley leave us in a PSR bind? 

 

Yeah as a result of putting the club in a position where we could consistently challenge for champions league football. 

 

Worthwhile trade IMO. 

[Sir Joel Inton]

14 hours ago, Theregulars said:

Didn’t Staveley leave us in a PSR bind? 

 

Impossible not to in the early days due to the hangover of Ashley’s regime, both due to the lack of quality on the pitch but also the significantly low commercial income and facilities.

 

We had to make substantial signings to get out of relegation trouble initially and then again in the summer just to compete. We were then in the CL and had to make further signings to ensure we could just tread water rather than end up going backwards.

 

Maybe they could have sold a Gordon or a Bruno, but we’d probably have not won a cup if they did.

[r0cafella]

41 minutes ago, Andy said:

 

Yeah as a result of putting the club in a position where we could consistently challenge for champions league football. 

 

Worthwhile trade IMO. 

That's the nuance some don't grasp for some reason. We made a trade off and I think it's hard to argue we did something wrong. 

 

The Minteh and Andersons or today aren't what they were when we sold them and the books had to be balanced. 

[Lotus]

Anderson certainly wouldn’t be the player he is today because he wouldn’t have got nearly enough minutes imo.

[Theregulars]

4 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

That's the nuance some don't grasp for some reason. We made a trade off and I think it's hard to argue we did something wrong. 

 

The Minteh and Andersons or today aren't what they were when we sold them and the books had to be balanced. 

Yeh cheers I am capable of the “nuance” of seeing both sides of her tenure, my post was in response to sibierski’s statement that we’d been amateur since she left (ie well she arguably did something quite amateur that very arguably cost us Isak in some ways and def cost us Anderson and minteh) and almost 2 years of no incoming players, which to me is arguably amateur. We got away with it because Howe played a blinder and players stepped up. 

[Elliottman]

Sounds for the first time we'll go into the market - talking about the current situation 'the market will play a part' 

[r0cafella]

8 minutes ago, Theregulars said:

Yeh cheers I am capable of the “nuance” of seeing both sides of her tenure, my post was in response to sibierski’s statement that we’d been amateur since she left (ie well she arguably did something quite amateur that very arguably cost us Isak in some ways and def cost us Anderson and minteh) and almost 2 years of no incoming players, which to me is arguably amateur. We got away with it because Howe played a blinder and players stepped up. 

Wasn't refeering to you when I said that mind. Was a general point as this discussion has been had before. Particularly regarding the sale of Anderson. 

[Stifler]

Right, so now that we have £15bn from the 95-96 away range, who are we buying?

[Thumbheed]

55 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

That's the nuance some don't grasp for some reason. We made a trade off and I think it's hard to argue we did something wrong. 

 

The Minteh and Andersons or today aren't what they were when we sold them and the books had to be balanced. 

 

It left us with 3 windows where we couldn't purchase anyone in the richest and most competitive league in the world. 

 

The fact it paid of is down to Howe and a lot of people recognise that. Had Howe not dragged us through that period, the narrative on that earlier spending and it's repercussions would be very very different.

 

[SUPERTOON]

Wonder if there is any chance of some more big sponsorships to help our PSR position. Been nothing said again about training kit/ground sponsors.

[The Prophet]

 

[Fak]

Just now, The Prophet said:

 

 

Would have been easier if he just said neeones coming in.

[The Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Fak said:

 

Would have been easier if he just said neeones coming in.

 

Sounds like they might fast track a long term target if Livramento is knackered.

[nufcjmc]

In this situation a loan may be a better short term fix depending of course on the loan fee if they worried about being tied to the wrong player for years to come.

[The College Dropout]

None of us are football scouts.  Suggesting players is a fools errand.  
 

We’ve struggled to sign players over hr last few years - partly down to PSR but not fully.  And when we do we’ve focussed on PL players over £30m in the main.  Largely stopped signing players 21 and under to be in the first team picture (Osula aside).  
 

Given our financial restrictions. Is it fair to question the value of some of our signings? Yes.  Is it fair to question the approach and profile we pursue? Yes.  
 

 

I think the current approach makes getting Europa league or CL football a necessity.  We don’t seem much interested in developing players the way we did Hall or Tino. If we want £40m players on good wedge to sit on the bench, we need high revenue games for them to play in. 

[bobbydazzla]

10 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

None of us are football scouts.  Suggesting players is a fools errand.  
 

We’ve struggled to sign players over hr last few years - partly down to PSR but not fully.  And when we do we’ve focussed on PL players over £30m in the main.  Largely stopped signing players 21 and under to be in the first team picture (Osula aside).  
 

Given our financial restrictions. Is it fair to question the value of some of our signings? Yes.  Is it fair to question the approach and profile we pursue? Yes.  
 

 

I think the current approach makes getting Europa league or CL football a necessity.  We don’t seem much interested in developing players the way we did Hall or Tino. If we want £40m players on good wedge to sit on the bench, we need high revenue games for them to play in. 

 

 

Me and you often find ourselves disagreeing and then a mass debate ensues, but on these points I agree.

 

[Andy]

Not a big fan of the "value for money" argument that we keep hearing tbh. 

 

Would hold up better if we didn't struggle to find value for money in the summer windows too. I reckon some of our best business has actually been done in January windows. 

[Playmaker]