Harvey Barnes

[TRC]

2 minutes ago, Jaqen said:

We are one injury/suspension to Murphy, Isak or Gordon away from Barnes starting. Would be crazy to sell him in January especially as we paid £35m for him so not like it's a moneyspinner in terms of PSR either. 

Certainly not this season, after July 1st it becomes more appealing.

[Sibierski]

Barnes won’t be moving this January, but I don’t think we’ll be putting up a hard battle to keep him if a club offers £35m in summer. 

 

Willock / Longstaff will be ahead of him for planned sales, but all depends on who makes the offer first. 

[timeEd32]

1 hour ago, WilliamPS said:

As with Trips/Tino, fans of this club are just totally unable to comprehend having two good players for the same position, and have a desperate need to get back to bare bones.

 

In our current position we cannot afford to have two expensive players who play the same position and seemingly can't be accommodated in the starting XI at the same time. There's little point in having two good left wingers when we don't have a right winger (with apologies to Murphy's current form).

[cubaricho]

Getting rid of Barnes. Y’all crazy.  

[andycap]

39 minutes ago, Gawalls said:

Howe has always said two for every position and Barnes fits one of those two, add on to this the amount of games he’s put to bed by scoring when coming off the bench I feel Howe will want to keep him, especially if true he asked Allison to stay then he’s surely defiantly going to want to keep Barnes.

Allison? 😂 

[Gawalls]

deleted

 

 

Edited January 2 by Gawalls

[Gawalls]

2 minutes ago, andycap said:

Allison? 😂 

😂😂 Almiron (even my autocorrect won’t acknowledge his existence) although he often plays like an Allison.

[Rod]

1 hour ago, timeEd32 said:

 

In our current position we cannot afford to have two expensive players who play the same position and seemingly can't be accommodated in the starting XI at the same time. There's little point in having two good left wingers when we don't have a right winger (with apologies to Murphy's current form).

Why not?  In fact why not have 3 players for the same position?  You are looking at this all wrong.  I know you are going to come back with the PRP carry on but we have not bought Barnes for £35m to sell him just over a year later.  It's not happening.

[Yorkie]

2 hours ago, timeEd32 said:

 

In our current position we cannot afford to have two expensive players who play the same position and seemingly can't be accommodated in the starting XI at the same time. There's little point in having two good left wingers when we don't have a right winger (with apologies to Murphy's current form).

 

How does it feel to be gaslit...?

[timeEd32]

23 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

How does it feel to be gaslit...?

 

What am I being gaslit about?

[Yorkie]

33 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

What am I being gaslit about?

 

Accepting the notion that a club like us ("in our position") shouldn't have strength in depth because of the ridiculous rules which are designed to limit our capabilities. 

 

Having players of Barnes' quality in reserve is a brilliant thing and the sign of a very, very good squad that can go places. Outrageous that we shouldn't have that. 

 

Just get a RW as well. If it takes another PSR cycle to achieve it, or gambling on youth - so be it. Unfair, but if that's what we need to do. Don't undermine the squad by sacrificing quality in depth. 

 

I'd be gutted if Barnes went. I doubt he will.

[timeEd32]

I don't disagree with any of that. PSR is poorly constructed and unfair. We should be able to have depth in each position, particularly if owners are willing to spend money.

 

But if we accept the rules aren't changing, at least in the near term, then spending 3-4% of our revenue on a 27 year old who is only a backup LW is a poor use of the resources we have. This has nothing to do with the player, who I love, and I would be annoyed if we were forced to sell him, but as we look around at our options to create flexibility and improve the first XI this is almost certainly an option under consideration.

 

I also realize that if we do sell him Gordon will get hurt the next day.

[Hanshithispantz]

He's more than a back-up LW like, he's an excellent sub to bring on when we need a goal and we'd be far less dangerous across 90 minutes without him - we just haven't needed him recently as games have already been dead by the time he's come on.

 

 

[madras]

2 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

He's more than a back-up LW like, he's an excellent sub to bring on when we need a goal and we'd be far less dangerous across 90 minutes without him - we just haven't needed him recently as games have already been dead by the time he's come on.

 

 

And had we been in Europe with those extra games are we playing Gordon every game ?

[Gawalls]

7 hours ago, Yorkie said:

 

Accepting the notion that a club like us ("in our position") shouldn't have strength in depth because of the ridiculous rules which are designed to limit our capabilities. 

 

Having players of Barnes' quality in reserve is a brilliant thing and the sign of a very, very good squad that can go places. Outrageous that we shouldn't have that. 

 

Just get a RW as well. If it takes another PSR cycle to achieve it, or gambling on youth - so be it. Unfair, but if that's what we need to do. Don't undermine the squad by sacrificing quality in depth. 

 

I'd be gutted if Barnes went. I doubt he will.

👏👏👏

[ExiledGeordie]

8 hours ago, Yorkie said:

 

Accepting the notion that a club like us ("in our position") shouldn't have strength in depth because of the ridiculous rules which are designed to limit our capabilities. 

 

Having players of Barnes' quality in reserve is a brilliant thing and the sign of a very, very good squad that can go places. Outrageous that we shouldn't have that. 

 

Just get a RW as well. If it takes another PSR cycle to achieve it, or gambling on youth - so be it. Unfair, but if that's what we need to do. Don't undermine the squad by sacrificing quality in depth. 

 

I'd be gutted if Barnes went. I doubt he will.

If we get Europe for next season I think he’ll stay as he’ll get game time but if we don’t I think he’ll probably look to leave anyway because he won’t get the game time. I like him as a player but he’s not going to sit on the bench forever. 

 

[TRon]

15 hours ago, Rod said:

Why not?  In fact why not have 3 players for the same position?  You are looking at this all wrong.  I know you are going to come back with the PRP carry on but we have not bought Barnes for £35m to sell him just over a year later.  It's not happening.

 

 

Why did we sell Elliott Anderson for effectively £15m then?

[TRon]

14 hours ago, Yorkie said:

 

Accepting the notion that a club like us ("in our position") shouldn't have strength in depth because of the ridiculous rules which are designed to limit our capabilities. 

 

Having players of Barnes' quality in reserve is a brilliant thing and the sign of a very, very good squad that can go places. Outrageous that we shouldn't have that. 

 

Just get a RW as well. If it takes another PSR cycle to achieve it, or gambling on youth - so be it. Unfair, but if that's what we need to do. Don't undermine the squad by sacrificing quality in depth. 

 

I'd be gutted if Barnes went. I doubt he will.

 

 

If we don't sell players, how do we buy new ones then?

 

 

[The Fountain]

On 31/12/2024 at 13:35, Elliottman said:

I think it would be more of a case of Barnes wanting to go rather than us wanting to sell. Just can’t imagine he’ll want to play second fiddle to Gordon for…. ever?! Pure speculation obviously, might be happy as Larry. 

Teams at the top need to keep squad players happy. Qualifying for Europe will be a huge step in us doing that.

[Yorkie]

1 hour ago, TRon said:

 

 

If we don't sell players, how do we buy new ones then?

 

 

 

If the club's progress hinges on selling Barnes then fine, but I'd hope we could cultivate funds without having to sell incredibly reliable goalscorers. I'm not against trading. 

[STM]

I'm afraid I can't see any scenario where Harvey Barnes wants to stay as second fiddle to Gordon on our bench. 

 

If a club offers him first team footy and offers us, something like, the fee we paid for him, he will leave IMO.

 

The only caveat, is that if we do get CL footy next year, he can be offered more game time because of squad rotation.

 

A player like Barnes shouldn't be sitting on the bench for us, when he could be a key member of another PL squad.

 

BTW, I'm all for having a healthy squad of players but that's why you sign young players with potential or experienced players who are looking for their last rodeo. Barnes is older than Gordon and he's clearly second choice. There's not many sides in the PL that Harvey Barnes wouldn't start for, including some of the "big 6". 

[ExiledGeordie]

11 minutes ago, STM said:

I'm afraid I can't see any scenario where Harvey Barnes wants to stay as second fiddle to Gordon on our bench. 

 

If a club offers him first team footy and offers us, something like, the fee we paid for him, he will leave IMO.

 

The only caveat, is that if we do get CL footy next year, he can be offered more game time because of squad rotation.

 

A player like Barnes shouldn't be sitting on the bench for us, when he could be a key member of another PL squad.

 

BTW, I'm all for having a healthy squad of players but that's why you sign young players with potential or experienced players who are looking for their last rodeo. Barnes is older than Gordon and he's clearly second choice. There's not many sides in the PL that Harvey Barnes wouldn't start for, including some of the "big 6". 

Agree with all of that 👍 I think he’ll be angling for a move in the summer. 

[Gawalls]

15 minutes ago, STM said:

I'm afraid I can't see any scenario where Harvey Barnes wants to stay as second fiddle to Gordon on our bench. 

 

If a club offers him first team footy and offers us, something like, the fee we paid for him, he will leave IMO.

 

The only caveat, is that if we do get CL footy next year, he can be offered more game time because of squad rotation.

 

A player like Barnes shouldn't be sitting on the bench for us, when he could be a key member of another PL squad.

 

BTW, I'm all for having a healthy squad of players but that's why you sign young players with potential or experienced players who are looking for their last rodeo. Barnes is older than Gordon and he's clearly second choice. There's not many sides in the PL that Harvey Barnes wouldn't start for, including some of the "big 6". 

You can't see any scenario he stays?

 

The lad signed for his home club at nine years old then played for them thick and thin until we came knocking.  We're only his second club (not including loans) so he's never proven to be a player to kick a fuss and leave, when he came to us he said the opportuntity was too big to turn down, he's proven he has confidence in his own abilities and can do what's asked of him when needed, it's being also proven that we were short on numbers last season with a few injuries we struglgle, Howe has shown he rates him and he has barely been here five minutes - yet you can't see any scenario where he might want to stay and fight for his place?

 

I personally can

 

 

Edited January 3 by Gawalls

[TRon]

36 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

If the club's progress hinges on selling Barnes then fine, but I'd hope we could cultivate funds without having to sell incredibly reliable goalscorers. I'm not against trading. 

 

I'm pretty sure if you asked Howe, he would want to keep all of our players, including Longstaff and Murphy, both of whom are invaluable squad players. There is only one reason we would contemplate selling anyone, and it is PSR. So if a 27 year old Barnes can be sold and replaced with someone who is 22 and has a high ceiling, I think we will have some hard decisions to make.

 

Unfortunately we can't have the best of both worlds any more, and no matter what anyone thinks, the only reason for that is PSR.

[Gawalls]

7 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

I'm pretty sure if you asked Howe, he would want to keep all of our players, including Longstaff and Murphy, both of whom are invaluable squad players. There is only one reason we would contemplate selling anyone, and it is PSR. So if a 27 year old Barnes can be sold and replaced with someone who is 22 and has a high ceiling, I think we will have some hard decisions to make.

 

Unfortunately we can't have the best of both worlds any more, and no matter what anyone thinks, the only reason for that is PSR.

At 27 you could argue Barnes is just hitting his peak now - it's all well and good turning players over to bring younger in as they have a higher ceiling but there has to be a balance, in order to maximise your success you need to enjoy some of these players at their peak as well.  There is some hard decisions to be made but i'll be very surprised if selling Barnes happens - for what I can gather there will be no money to be made on him due to what we're srill surely paying off for him with Amortisation and all that.