Harvey Barnes

[Shak]

Good player but fairly obvious why we'd sell him.

 

We've just given Gordon a big extension, he's clearly the future at the LW position. We've got Joelinton who can play there and if we ever get around to buying another striker then the option to use Isak there (particularly late in games) has proven effective.

 

It's also the position Sanusi plays, could see him being in and around the first team next season.

 

If the sale of Barnes funds a purchase at a position of more need it'll be for the best.

[JEToon]

26 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

You can’t have a £40m+ player on good wages sitting on the bench while you start Murphy RW. 

 

We don’t have the budget for 18 proven top quality players. We need a younger squad profile with high potential youngsters on the bench. 

 

18 is pushing on from what was said and a bit much, we do have the budget for 16, evidenced by the squad we have. 

 

It needs alterations around the fringes and better returns from a few wages, but we patently do have a budget which could afford us a very reasonable quality of bench rather than the extreme some try and push 

[Sibierski]

32 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I agree a bit, but also don't. Are we saying we need a first team supported by much worse squad players? Only going to exacerbate the Championship/Champions League nature of our squad, isn't it?

 

I know because Barnes was signed rather than already here it's a debate, but still seems a move that might leave us weaker overall. 

The new model will be to have more youth / raw talent on bench, and it being the coach to maximise them. Got to have depth that way.

 

If Howe isn’t fully keen on that, he’ll make it known in cryptic ways, but then that will be the signalling of the end.

 

Like Anderson / Minteh should’ve been strong depth this season, but had to move them on because of someone like Barnes, who the coach has shown to not really know how to maximise.

[r0cafella]

21 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Said this a couple of weeks ago. It's not that he's a bad player, but if he's not starting every week then he's dispensable. We need to prioritise other positions where we clearly do have a weakness. If we sold within the next year or so we'd get our money back you'd have thought. Although I don't think there's going to be interest from the top clubs so that might reduce the bidding pool.

We've barely amortised his fee which is a big issue mind. Anything less than 30m and we lose money. Doesn't help much in terms of our ffp position. 

[Sibierski]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

We've barely amortised his fee which is a big issue mind. Anything less than 30m and we lose money. Doesn't help much in terms of our ffp position. 

Anything longer beyond this season we lose money and still have to sell someone anyway this coming summer.

 

It’s a L, but one pinned on previous running of the club.

[Scoot]

2 hours ago, Paully said:

I still can't get my head around the signing - I like him but we had spent a similar amount on Gordon the year before plus the Joe's can do a job there and we were desperate for a RW

 

 

 

 

I'm of this opinion too. I like Barnes but we spend £40 million on him yet we are crying out for a right winger. It just doesn't make sense at all.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

We’ve been through all this before. We needed goals in the front line, we didn’t know Gordon would play so well at LW. 

[Kid Icarus]

Barnes is exactly what a club with our ambition needs tbh - an impact sub in the mould of Trossard at Arsenal or Jota at Liverpool. Unfortunately we're nowhere near that kind of finishing touch signing yet, so if we really are still under the PSR thumb it probably is better to sell him tbh. It's as clear a sign as anything that we're going nowhere fast though. PSR in action, if we were able to push on Barnes is a perfect player to have in your armory. 

[AJ9]

57 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I agree a bit, but also don't. Are we saying we need a first team supported by much worse squad players? Only going to exacerbate the Championship/Champions League nature of our squad, isn't it?

 

I know because Barnes was signed rather than already here it's a debate, but still seems a move that might leave us weaker overall. 

Think it’s more just a realistic position based on PSR. Swapping a back up in a position in order to drastically improve an extremely weak position in the first team is probs sensible 

[Ikon]

3 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

We’ve been through all this before. We needed goals in the front line, we didn’t know Gordon would play so well at LW. 

And I’ve also said that despite this, he isn’t the type of player we should have signed to begin with. Put the LW/RW and Gordon aside I still don’t think it was the right type of signing at the time and I said so way back after he aigned.

 

What we should have signed is a winger that’s creative and has great technical ability. A player that offers something different than directness and running like most of our players. I said before last season that we need more creativity and technical ability and become more possession based on the whole to really evolve and become more versatile no matter what type of team we play against. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 minute ago, Ikon said:

And I’ve also said that despite this, he isn’t the type of player we should have signed to begin with. Put the LW/RW and Gordon aside I still don’t think it was the right type of signing at the time and I said so way back after he aigned.

 

What we should have signed is a winger that’s creative and has great technical ability. A player that offers something different than directness and running like most of our players. I said before last season that we need more creativity and technical ability and become more possession based on the whole to really evolve and become more versatile no matter what type of team we play against. 

Yeah, absolutely fair, I just don’t think that’s usually the argument against the signing. All fair points though. 

[OverThere]

 

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

And I’ve also said that despite this, he isn’t the type of player we should have signed to begin with. Put the LW/RW and Gordon aside I still don’t think it was the right type of signing at the time and I said so way back after he aigned.

 

What we should have signed is a winger that’s creative and has great technical ability. A player that offers something different than directness and running like most of our players. I said before last season that we need more creativity and technical ability and become more possession based on the whole to really evolve and become more versatile no matter what type of team we play against. 

 

It sounds like you are describing something similar to Maxi.

[80]

20 minutes ago, Sibierski said:

Anything longer beyond this season we lose money and still have to sell someone anyway this coming summer.

 

It’s a L, but one pinned on previous running of the club.

I'm not sure what you mean, sorry. The issue is if we sell him below a certain price in Jan (say £28m for the sake of argument), we'd actually be more likely to have to sell someone in a panic before the June deadline - because the PSR system would say we've actually lost money on him. 

 

Whereas if we sell him later (say June), £28m might count as a £4m profit because his 'PSR price' has gone down over time (amortization). Basically the later you sell a player in their contract, the easier it is to make a PSR profit, even if that's totally separate to actual real money.

[The College Dropout]

31 minutes ago, JEToon said:

 

18 is pushing on from what was said and a bit much, we do have the budget for 16, evidenced by the squad we have. 

 

It needs alterations around the fringes and better returns from a few wages, but we patently do have a budget which could afford us a very reasonable quality of bench rather than the extreme some try and push 

I think Barnes would be a top 10 earner at the club or close. More than Livra, Hall, Burn, Longstaff, Willock, Almiron, Murphy etc. Earned more than Gordon pre-contract I would be confident.

 

Potential higher earners: Pope, Trippier, Schar, Bruno, Joelinton, Gordon, Isak, Wilson, Kelly, Targett, Tonali.

 

The only players that don't start regularly that I would expect to earn close to him or more are Kelly, Trippier, Targett and Wilson. 3 of which we'd happily sell.

[The College Dropout]

40 minutes ago, Sibierski said:

The new model will be to have more youth / raw talent on bench, and it being the coach to maximise them. Got to have depth that way.

 

If Howe isn’t fully keen on that, he’ll make it known in cryptic ways, but then that will be the signalling of the end.

 

Like Anderson / Minteh should’ve been strong depth this season, but had to move them on because of someone like Barnes, who the coach has shown to not really know how to maximise.

I think it's the owners demanding Europe that is making Howe behave like that. He showed at Bournemouth he'll take a high potential kid and develop him.

 

For the sake of squad building, selling players at peak age is needed.

[JEToon]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

I think Barnes would be a top 10 earner at the club or close. More than Livra, Hall, Burn, Longstaff, Willock, Almiron, Murphy etc. Earned more than Gordon pre-contract I would be confident.

 

Potential higher earners: Pope, Trippier, Schar, Bruno, Joelinton, Gordon, Isak, Wilson, Kelly, Targett, Tonali.

 

The only players that don't start regularly that I would expect to earn close to him or more are Kelly, Trippier, Targett and Wilson. 3 of which we'd happily sell.

 

You have listed a load of players, but still just shown we literally currently have a squad of about 16 players who will all be on a pretty reasonable wage

[Lush Vlad]

All this talk of how much better Gordon is, so perhaps he is surplus to requirements or we should cash on on one of our sellable assets to improve other areas. Based on last season, rightly so. Based on this season and other spells in the Prem, I’m not so sure that’s right. 
 

I know they’re different ages and played for different sides. So not ideal to compare. But Gordon has one season of great numbers. Then what? He has been dreadful for most of this season IMO and I don’t actually think technically as a footballer, he is that great.  

 

Barnes has never got a fair crack at starting regularly and seemingly never will under Howe. So it becomes even harder to compare. I can totally see the argument that Gordon is much more of a Howe player in this system. But he’s hardly shown that this season and without that workrate and tenacity. I don’t particularly rate him. As controversial as that may sound. 

[Lush Vlad]

Also, that article FFS. References PSR and the need to be clever. Yet we’re getting linked with two players where we’d be buying high whilst also paying the Premier League premium. 

[The College Dropout]

Just now, Lush Vlad said:

All this talk of how much better Gordon is, so perhaps he is surplus to requirements or we should cash on on one of our sellable assets to improve other areas. Based on last season, rightly so. Based on this season and other spells in the Prem, I’m not so sure that’s right. 
 

I know they’re different ages and played for different sides. So not ideal to compare. But Gordon has one season of great numbers. Then what? He has been dreadful for most of this season IMO and I don’t actually think technically as a footballer, he is that great.  

 

Barnes has never got a fair crack at starting regularly and seemingly never will under Howe. So it becomes even harder to compare. I can totally see the argument that Gordon is much more of a Howe player in this system. But he’s hardly shown that this season and without that workrate and tenacity. I don’t particularly rate him. As controversial as that may sound. 

I agree with this. But we've given Gordon the supermax contract and committed to him. We've made our bed.

 

I think it's the right choice too profile wise. But agree Barnes might actually be the better player.

 

Unrelated - I think Villa have gone about the PSR thing the right way in the summer. Sold players at prime age. Brought in youngsters. And they are still struggling. Fact is, to sustain CL and league position you do need a bigger budget. Young players in and older out is the only route but it is still a v. tough one. I understand why Howe wanted to keep his senior lads. Villa would be better off with Luiz & Diaby in the squad but the game is rigged. I like that winger they sold and rebought but Diaby would offer more.

[The College Dropout]

7 minutes ago, JEToon said:

 

You have listed a load of players, but still just shown we literally currently have a squad of about 16 players who will all be on a pretty reasonable wage

The wage bill is a problem though. Which is why we want to sell many a high-earner. Trippier, Wilson, Targett - all bad business at this point.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2024 by The College Dropout

[r0cafella]

Another issue with paying such high fees and wages for such a player is who is going to take him off our hands. We need 35m + for a tiny bit of profit who's paying us that. 

 

Hopefully we've learnt that being a kid in a candy shop isn't a viable strategy. 

[JEToon]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

The wage bill is a problem though. Which is why we want to sell many a high-earner. Trippier, Wilson, Targett - all bad business at this point.

 

 

 

 

Which again ties the circle of what I said though, it needs alterations around the fringes and better returns from a few wages, but we do have the budget to have 16 pretty capable and talented players and established talent on the bench 

 

 

[Sibierski]

11 minutes ago, Lush Vlad said:

All this talk of how much better Gordon is, so perhaps he is surplus to requirements or we should cash on on one of our sellable assets to improve other areas. Based on last season, rightly so. Based on this season and other spells in the Prem, I’m not so sure that’s right. 
 

I know they’re different ages and played for different sides. So not ideal to compare. But Gordon has one season of great numbers. Then what? He has been dreadful for most of this season IMO and I don’t actually think technically as a footballer, he is that great.  

 

Barnes has never got a fair crack at starting regularly and seemingly never will under Howe. So it becomes even harder to compare. I can totally see the argument that Gordon is much more of a Howe player in this system. But he’s hardly shown that this season and without that workrate and tenacity. I don’t particularly rate him. As controversial as that may sound. 

Barnes had plenty of time at Leicester, and he never showed what Gordon can for us and that’s the build up play and ball retention.

 

Barnes has been a goal getter which is great, but restricts his involvement. Like we’ve seen enough times with him when he’s not in a game, he’s proper not in it. At least with Gordon it’s more the product is misfiring instead of being non-existent. 

Think it says a lot that despite his output, clubs were not falling over him and he had just one the England cap. 

 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

43 minutes ago, 80 said:

I'm not sure what you mean, sorry. The issue is if we sell him below a certain price in Jan (say £28m for the sake of argument), we'd actually be more likely to have to sell someone in a panic before the June deadline - because the PSR system would say we've actually lost money on him. 

 

Whereas if we sell him later (say June), £28m might count as a £4m profit because his 'PSR price' has gone down over time (amortization). Basically the later you sell a player in their contract, the easier it is to make a PSR profit, even if that's totally separate to actual real money.

 

I don't think you are right there.

 

Easy numbers, he was bought for £50m over a 5 year deal so £10m drops away each year.

 

In this year we get a hit of £10m so again for ease this is year 2 of the contract and we sell for £50m.

 

Sell in June - book value = £50m - £10m - £10m = £30m. Sell for £50m = profit of £20m

Sell in Jan - book value = £50m - £10m - £5m (50% of the year) = £35m. Sell for £50m = profit of £15m

 

But you then need to look at the cost before sale which is £10m (i.e. amortisation) in the first scenario (so £20m - £10m = £10m net profit in year), for the second its £5m so £15m - £5m = £10m net profit in the year)

[80]

36 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

I don't think you are right there.

 

Easy numbers, he was bought for £50m over a 5 year deal so £10m drops away each year.

 

In this year we get a hit of £10m so again for ease this is year 2 of the contract and we sell for £50m.

 

Sell in June - book value = £50m - £10m - £10m = £30m. Sell for £50m = profit of £20m

Sell in Jan - book value = £50m - £10m - £5m (50% of the year) = £35m. Sell for £50m = profit of £15m

 

But you then need to look at the cost before sale which is £10m (i.e. amortisation) in the first scenario (so £20m - £10m = £10m net profit in year), for the second its £5m so £15m - £5m = £10m net profit in the year)

You're right, I probably should've said July to illustrate how the profits and losses fall into different periods so that once the loss of this year's amortization drops off in three years, the 'profit' of his sale would still be there for another 12 months. 

 

But I was just trying to keep it simple to illustrate the basic mechanics of it. If I understood @Sibierski rightly - and I'm not sure I did, to be fair - it seemed like he was thinking in terms of a player's real value dropping as his contract wears down. Which is a legitimate point but irrelevant to what @r0cafella was saying, which is that selling Barnes for approximately his book price will do very little to help us buy players in the next 6 months.

 

Off the top of my head, we'd be about £6.5m max better off by July, factoring in wages saved but ignoring any agent fees or loyalty clauses Barnes has in his contract.