Harvey Barnes

[SUPERTOON]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

It was an opportunity though wasn't it? I don't think Barnes is the player I'm looking at and thinking we could have chosen a different position to spend our money on. For that I'd probably say just going all in on Guehi and not pivoting to an RW much earlier. 

Aye, although I don’t think we signed him to be an impact sub. I just think Howe doesn’t know how to use him and Gordon in the same 11. 

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, SUPERTOON said:

Aye, although I don’t think we signed him to be an impact sub. I just think Howe doesn’t know how to use him and Gordon in the same 11. 

If the Amazon documentary is anything to go by, Gordon was originally our RW signing. Easy to say with hindsight but if Barnes doesn't break his toe last season we probably would have seen more of him left, Gordon right.

[SUPERTOON]

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

If the Amazon documentary is anything to go by, Gordon was originally our RW signing. Easy to say with hindsight but if Barnes doesn't break his toe last season we probably would have seen more of him left, Gordon right.

Hopefully we see some more of it over next couple of months. Got to be worth persisting with until January at least.

[Menace]

He can't be moaning about PSR when he effectively spent £40m on an impact sub then

[duo]

It was a very odd signing when we had Gordon and needed a RW more.

 

 

Edited October 28 by duo

[Smal]

Gordon had just spent 6 months looking like an average champo player when we signed Barnes, mind. We didn't know whether he was going to play left or right for us either. In hindsight it does look like we could've spent our money better though. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

5 minutes ago, Smal said:

Gordon had just spent 6 months looking like an average champo player when we signed Barnes, mind. We didn't know whether he was going to play left or right for us either. In hindsight it does look like we could've spent our money better though. 

 

I don't remember this period

[Smal]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

I don't remember this period

the 6 months after Gordon signed? He was shocking imo . The good U21 Euros he had really turned it round for him. 

[TRon]

1 hour ago, Smal said:

the 6 months after Gordon signed? He was shocking imo . The good U21 Euros he had really turned it round for him. 

 

 

Never felt he was shocking tbh. Even when he wasn't getting loads of assists or goals, he decent just because he would run at defences and open them up, and also run back and cover for 90mins.

[Elliottman]

3 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

 

Never felt he was shocking tbh. Even when he wasn't getting loads of assists or goals, he decent just because he would run at defences and open them up, and also run back and cover for 90mins.

 

I remember thinking 'I'm not sure what he does' and that we've spunked a lot of money on someone who doesnt look elite. Proved me wrong. 

 

[Smal]

34 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

 

Never felt he was shocking tbh. Even when he wasn't getting loads of assists or goals, he decent just because he would run at defences and open them up, and also run back and cover for 90mins.

I don’t remember him running back much. If anything it was the opposite because, by his own admission, he was really unfit.

[LFEE]

3 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

It was an opportunity though wasn't it? I don't think Barnes is the player I'm looking at and thinking we could have chosen a different position to spend our money on. For that I'd probably say just going all in on Guehi and not pivoting to an RW much earlier. 

Exactly this. It was the opportunity. Too many on here think you scout who you want then just pay the money they are worth and problem solved. 
 

Clubs don’t want to sell to us if they can help it. Look at the summer with Guehi. No different how Man Utd messed us about and Chelsea on occasions along with other clubs.

 

Playing a high octane style of football similar to Klopps Liverpool which was basically our blueprint both on and off the pitch it makes sense to get the player on your list WHEN you can.
 

Look at it a different way. Look how hard it’s been to sell two RW’s and replace them. ASM deal was possible. Miggy’s wasn’t so here we are.

[SUPERTOON]

Just now, LFEE said:

Exactly this. It was the opportunity. Too many on here think you scout who you want then just pay the money they are worth and problem solved. 
 

Clubs don’t want to sell to us if they can help it. Look at the summer with Guehi. No different how Man Utd messed us about and Chelsea on occasions along with other clubs.

 

Playing a high octane style of football similar to Klopps Liverpool which was basically our blueprint both on and off the pitch it makes sense to get the player on your list WHEN you can.
 

Look at it a different way. Look how hard it’s been to sell two RW’s and replace them. ASM deal was possible. Miggy’s wasn’t so here we are.

We could have looked at Cole Palmer, went for the same price. There where definitely other options out there.

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Exactly this. It was the opportunity. Too many on here think you scout who you want then just pay the money they are worth and problem solved. 
 

Clubs don’t want to sell to us if they can help it. Look at the summer with Guehi. No different how Man Utd messed us about and Chelsea on occasions along with other clubs.

 

Playing a high octane style of football similar to Klopps Liverpool which was basically our blueprint both on and off the pitch it makes sense to get the player on your list WHEN you can.
 

Look at it a different way. Look how hard it’s been to sell two RW’s and replace them. ASM deal was possible. Miggy’s wasn’t so here we are.

This clubs don't want to sell to us narrative is clearly bullshit mind. Given most of our signings are from other British clubs. 

 

Clubs don't want to sell good players for cheap regardless of who's buying them. You can ask Arsenal how much of a favour west ham did doe rice or Chelsea the big favours they've received from Brighton. 

 

Premier league clubs by large and rich amongst the richest in the world they don't have pressure to sell on the cheap. 

[LFEE]

7 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

This clubs don't want to sell to us narrative is clearly bullshit mind. Given most of our signings are from other British clubs. 

 

Clubs don't want to sell good players for cheap regardless of who's buying them. You can ask Arsenal how much of a favour west ham did doe rice or Chelsea the big favours they've received from Brighton. 

 

Premier league clubs by large and rich amongst the richest in the world they don't have pressure to sell on the cheap. 

No it’s not. We’ve either got them because club is in distress or player surplus to requirements.

 

Off top of my head…

 

Pope - Burnley relegated.

Wood - Release clause.

Burn - Surplus as didn’t fit playing style at Brighton.

Targett - Surplus and wanted to fund replacements.

Tino - Southampton relegated.

Hall - Chelsea had 3-4 players ahead of him and needed PSR funds for that accounting period.

Gordon - Everton needed £40m to pay creditors off that window for new ground.

Barnes - Relegated and in PSR trouble.

Ashby - Tribunal 

 

Actually similar tales for Bruno, Botman, Isak and Tonali and Ousula. Only Trippier really when club did the player and us a favour.

 

Anyone else we’ve been rebuffed by club or player.

23 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

We could have looked at Cole Palmer, went for the same price. There where definitely other options out there.

We might of. Doesn’t mean he wanted to join us over Chelsea offering longer contract and higher wages overall in package. See Tosin.

[r0cafella]

7 minutes ago, LFEE said:

No it’s not. We’ve either got them because club is in distress or player surplus to requirements.

 

Off top of my head…

 

Pope - Burnley relegated.

Wood - Release clause.

Burn - Surplus as didn’t fit playing style at Brighton.

Targett - Surplus and wanted to fund replacements.

Tino - Southampton relegated.

Hall - Chelsea had 3-4 players ahead of him and needed PSR funds for that accounting period.

Gordon - Everton needed £40m to pay creditors off that window for new ground.

Barnes - Relegated and in PSR trouble.

Ashby - Tribunal 

 

Actually similar tales for Bruno, Botman, Isak and Tonali and Ousula. Only Trippier really when club did the player and us a favour.

 

Anyone else we’ve been rebuffed by club or player.

We might of. Doesn’t mean he wanted to join us over Chelsea offering longer contract and higher wages overall in package. See Tosin.

That illustrates my point perfectly, clubs are willing to deal with us on their own terms, the exact same scenario occurs across the league everyone is watching out for themselves. Nobody is doing anyone favours it's just we love to play the victim. 

[Holmesy]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

That illustrates my point perfectly, clubs are willing to deal with us on their own terms, the exact same scenario occurs across the league everyone is watching out for themselves. Nobody is doing anyone favours it's just we love to play the victim. 

Exactly why it makes sense to focus overseas - less-affluent clubs more willing to let their prized assets leave because they can't turn the money down.

If that what Mitchell means by 'not fit for purpose', I couldn't agree more. Why make life so hard for yourself trying to battle with a team that considers you a rival and doesn't need the money when you could sign an equivalent player for half the money and a lot less hassle.

[LFEE]

9 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

That illustrates my point perfectly, clubs are willing to deal with us on their own terms, the exact same scenario occurs across the league everyone is watching out for themselves. Nobody is doing anyone favours it's just we love to play the victim. 

Your point was literally the opposite earlier. I’ve just illustrated it was wrong… 

 

“This clubs don't want to sell to us narrative is clearly bullshit mind. Given most of our signings are from other British clubs.”

 

Tell me who we’ve signed who a club hasn’t wanted to sell?

 

 

Edited October 28 by LFEE

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Your point was literally the opposite earlier. I’ve just illustrated it was wrong… 

 

“This clubs don't want to sell to us narrative is clearly bullshit mind. Given most of our signings are from other British clubs.”

 

Tell me who we’ve signed who a club hasn’t wanted to sell?

 

 

 

Yes my point was clubs will deal with us on their own terms which is precisely what has happened, no anti Newcastle bias exists purely because it's business. 

 

Every club has agency hence we can't buy players which aren't for sale, this goes for all clubs. All sales are done on a willing buyer willing seller basis. 

[LFEE]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Yes my point was clubs will deal with us on their own terms which is precisely what has happened, no anti Newcastle bias exists purely because it's business. 

 

Every club has agency hence we can't buy players which aren't for sale, this goes for all clubs. All sales are done on a willing buyer willing seller basis. 

I agree with your second point but I think you are being naive if you don’t think clubs are making it more difficult for us. Just remind yourself of their attitudes when there was a sniff of us getting relegated to even loaning some players and the rules they’ve introduced to prevent our progress. 
 

Until we are a destination where the players are very keen to head to we’ve an uphill struggle. Hence back to the point I was making we got Barnes because it was a rare opportunity for us to nip in. Had Maddison not been for sale he possibly could’ve ended up at Spurs for example.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, LFEE said:

I agree with your second point but I think you are being naive if you don’t think clubs are making it more difficult for us. Just remind yourself of their attitudes when there was a sniff of us getting relegated to even loaning some players and the rules they’ve introduced to prevent our progress. 
 

Until we are a destination where the players are very keen to head to we’ve an uphill struggle. Hence back to the point I was making we got Barnes because it was a rare opportunity for us to nip in. Had Maddison not been for sale he possibly could’ve ended up at Spurs for example.

I think naturally other clubs will try and get as much money out of us as possible, this is exactly what happens when a Man united comes knocking. Of course the have shitty attitudes us being good is bad for business of those top 6 clubs however I'm under no illusions that if they could pass on some rejects to us they happily would. 

 

Your second paragraph seems to refer to our attractiveness is as a destination ? My underlying point refers to us saying other PL clubs don't want to deal with us, which isn't the case imo. They just want to take us to the cleaners which is business. 

[The College Dropout]

The ‘we spent £40m on Gordon 6 months earlier but he wasn’t good straight away so we spent another £40m on Barnes’ argument is a bad one.  

[LFEE]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

I think naturally other clubs will try and get as much money out of us as possible, this is exactly what happens when a Man united comes knocking. Of course the have shitty attitudes us being good is bad for business of those top 6 clubs however I'm under no illusions that if they could pass on some rejects to us they happily would. 

 

Your second paragraph seems to refer to our attractiveness is as a destination ? My underlying point refers to us saying other PL clubs don't want to deal with us, which isn't the case imo. They just want to take us to the cleaners which is business. 

So I will return to my point. Which great player have we managed to extract without the club being absolutely desperate? None. They’ve only done business when out of their hands. So to me that limits our market in the division severely. Until a player wants to come so bad the club sets a realistic fee. Guehi didn’t and Palace teased us until the window expired.

 

January window is going to be fascinating. I’ve no idea what’s going to happen and what direction we take. My guess would be abroad. 

[timeEd32]

3 hours ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

I don't remember this period

 

A lot of that summer was spent complaining about the Gordon signing and debating where he'd play. I said this on June 1, 2023...
 

Quote

I think one of the things likely setting some people up for disappointment or confusion in this window is the general perception of Gordon vs. how Ashworth / Howe view him.

 

We know Howe eases players in and we heard from the player himself that his fitness was not up to the standard. Assuming he fixes that I think it's a mistake to assume our first XI doesn't include him or that he's at least not a big part of our plans. I think comments like "Howe clearly likes Joelinton more at LW" or "why did we pay £45M for a squad player?" are making potentially faulty assumptions.

 

It's not clear to me if we like him for his versatility and may use him in a number of positions moving forward or if we used him in a few places out of need. But if we don't bring in an obvious RW or we sell Maxi and don't replace him or if we don't bring in competition for Longstaff then I think it's possible the answer to any of those is Gordon.

 

Gordon started the season as the LW, but Brentford in September we started with Barnes left and Gordon right. Then three days later we played Milan with Gordon left and Murphy right (Murphy came off for Miggy early 2nd half and Gordon came off for Wilson with Isak shifting wide). Then five days later at Sheffield United we started with Barnes/Wilson/Miggy. It seems the plan was to rotate the front three to deal with the added fixtures, but then Barnes was hurt for ages and Wilson/Isak took turns being injured. Gordon turned into one of the league's best left wingers by the next time we see Barnes.

 

The kind version of what happened is a reasonable plan got derailed by injuries and a previous signing became an excellent LW making the Barnes signing a bit redundant. Not ideal, but understandable.

 

The negative version of what happened is we spent a lot of money on a very specialized player and we did so in the position where we already had the most options. We felt comfortable doing this because we naively thought a 29 year old RW off the season of his life would continue that form and/or we felt we needed to replace the outgoing LW because we weren't sure where Gordon fit. 

 

There's some bad luck involved, but also poor planning given our finances. None of this is the fault of Barnes, who will create and score goals, but we'd be in a really rough place if not for Gordon's versatility.

[TRon]

5 hours ago, Smal said:

I don’t remember him running back much. If anything it was the opposite because, by his own admission, he was really unfit.

 

There was quite a few criticising him for sure, I wasn't one of them. I thought he did alright, and I thought he was a hard worker even then.