Harvey Barnes

[The Prophet]

Difficult to judge him off bit-part performances.

[Shearergol]

1 minute ago, joeyt said:

Very early days but if we prefered Barnes to Maddison it looks a poor choice

We wanted both. 

[joeyt]

2 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

We wanted both. 

 

We couldn't afford both, if we could only have afforded one then Maddison would have been the better choice but admitedly it's very early days

 

 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2023 by joeyt

[Shearergol]

Just now, joeyt said:

 

We couldn't afford both, if we could only have afforded one then Maddison would have been the better choice but admitedly it's very early days

 

g

Maddison chose Spurs. That’s the issue.

[joeyt]

1 minute ago, Shearergol said:

Maddison chose Spurs. That’s the issue.

 

Presumably because they offered him more money. I've no idea how much Tonali is on but I'd imagine similar to what Maddison is on now and what we want to offer Bruno

[Myleftboot]

7 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

Maddison chose Spurs. That’s the issue.

Spurs play with a number 10 we don’t.

[buzz]

9 minutes ago, Myleftboot said:

Spurs play with a number 10 we don’t.

 

Leicester often played the same shape as us though and he was quite capable as a number 8 type. Unless his move to Spurs was specifically to do with promises about playing as a 10

[Myleftboot]

1 minute ago, buzz said:

 

Leicester often played the same shape as us though and he was quite capable as a number 8 type. Unless his move to Spurs was specifically to do with promises about playing as a 10

Probably. He’ll have the England squad in the back of his mind.

[r0cafella]

Yeah it depends right, I think as a left winger I prefer Barnes, he will get more goals from wide than Maddison. We don’t play with a 10 and this have little utility for Maddison he’d be a square peg in a round hole in our system. 

[ExiledGeordie]

I don’t really understand bringing Barnes in after signing Gordon in Jan if we’re not going to try to play both of them either side of a striker (likely Gordon on the right?) This must’ve been considered when they looked at signing both of them otherwise you’re massively limiting your options with just Almiron and Murphy for that RW slot. Otherwise they might as well have just gone in for a RW in the first place.

[gbandit]

7 minutes ago, ExiledGeordie said:

I don’t really understand bringing Barnes in after signing Gordon in Jan if we’re not going to try to play both of them either side of a striker (likely Gordon on the right?) This must’ve been considered when they looked at signing both of them otherwise you’re massively limiting your options with just Almiron and Murphy for that RW slot. Otherwise they might as well have just gone in for a RW in the first place.

I agree with this. The long-term plan must include Gordon playing in a different role as Barnes will only play on the left. Gordon did switch to the right against Brighton and he looked absolutely fine there so I think we’ll see it fairly soon 

[ExiledGeordie]

1 hour ago, gbandit said:

I agree with this. The long-term plan must include Gordon playing in a different role as Barnes will only play on the left. Gordon did switch to the right against Brighton and he looked absolutely fine there so I think we’ll see it fairly soon 

Teams know exactly what Miggy is going to do too so it’s fairly predictable really. We need to mix things up a bit. I’m sure Howe has various ideas in mind but you’d think Barnes will surely come in next game after the international break. He’s a finisher and we’re missing chances. 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by ExiledGeordie

[The College Dropout]

The more I think about it - the more I think Barnes was only signed as a bit of a FFP hack to replace ASM. 

 

He's older than Tonali with PL experience but not been given significant game time. I hope he's just been warmed into the starting line-up but I'm not convinced.

 

Plans obviously change so I still have hope. But if the plan was to play Barnes LW and Gordon RW we would've tried it for more than 10 minutes in over 360 minutes of football.

[ExiledGeordie]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

The more I think about it - the more I think Barnes was only signed as a bit of a FFP hack to replace ASM. 

 

He's older than Tonali with PL experience but not been given significant game time. I hope he's just been warmed into the starting line-up but I'm not convinced.

 

Plans obviously change so I still have hope. But if the plan was to play Barnes LW and Gordon RW we would've tried it for more than 10 minutes in over 360 minutes of football.

Yeah that’s a good point that we haven’t seen it at all yet in games which is a bit odd. If he’s not considering it why sign another LW? Time will tell ofcourse 

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, ExiledGeordie said:

Yeah that’s a good point that we haven’t seen it at all yet in games which is a bit odd. If he’s not considering it why sign another LW? Time will tell ofcourse 

I think we saw it a little bit against Brighton?

 

We sold ASM who featured in 80% of matches he was fit for. And started maybe 20-25% of matches he was fit for. So he needed replacing. And he's been replaced with someone arguably more suited to the system.

[r0cafella]

57 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

The more I think about it - the more I think Barnes was only signed as a bit of a FFP hack to replace ASM. 

 

He's older than Tonali with PL experience but not been given significant game time. I hope he's just been warmed into the starting line-up but I'm not convinced.

 

Plans obviously change so I still have hope. But if the plan was to play Barnes LW and Gordon RW we would've tried it for more than 10 minutes in over 360 minutes of football.

FFP hack? Do explain what you mean by this. 

[Conjo]

6 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

FFP hack? Do explain what you mean by this. 

 

Replace "like for like" (Barnes for ASM as cover for LW) while getting more leeway with FFP for other signings.

[r0cafella]

6 minutes ago, Conjo said:

 

Replace "like for like" (Barnes for ASM as cover for LW) while getting more leeway with FFP for other signings.

Ohh, thanks. I mean yeah it’s a likely for replacement, given the pittance we got for ASM not sure about the hack part

[80]

10 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Ohh, thanks. I mean yeah it’s a likely for replacement, given the pittance we got for ASM not sure about the hack part

It would be to do with fiddling the fact that purchases are counted as being spread over (usually) 5 years, while sales are counted in full immediately.

 

So selling for £20m today loosens up £100m to be spent immediately, because only 20% of that spend figure is counted in the first year (you just have to make sure you come up with the rest of the money over the future years...).

 

The whole thing becomes a kind of pawn shop buy now pay later game.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by 80

[The College Dropout]

34 minutes ago, Conjo said:

 

Replace "like for like" (Barnes for ASM as cover for LW) while getting more leeway with FFP for other signings.

 

16 minutes ago, 80 said:

It would be to do with fiddling the fact that purchases are counted as being spread over (usually) 5 years, while sales are counted in full immediately.

 

So selling for £20m today loosens up £100m to be spent immediately, because only 20% of that spend figure is counted in the first year (you just have to make sure you come up with the rest of the money over the future years...).

 

The whole thing becomes a kind of pawn shop buy now pay later game.

 

 

 

Aye.

 

So Barnes was 44m on a 5 year deal. That's £8.8m booked this year and say another £5m in wages. £13.8 on the FFP books for this season.

ASM was sold for 27m. And let's say he earned £3m a year. That's £30m freed up to the book for this season if we want to use it.

 

Subtract the difference for this season: We have £16.2m we could still spend this summer if we wanted too.

 

Let's say Livramento is 38m on 5-year deal. 7.6m this year on the books. 3m salary. 10.6 total on the FFP books this season.

 

That single ASM sale has covered both transfer costs this season from an FFP perspective. Obviously, future years need to be accounted for but you hope we get greater commercial revenue, prize money and can continue generating income player sales.

[The College Dropout]

Btw I don't think Barnes is or ASM was considered as cover or backup. Rather a first-team option but not one that is automatically in the teamsheet if fit. Lascelles is cover, Targett has become cover, Anderson was cover last season. Only injuries or resting others would mean they started. Semantics I know but it's either that or do some actual work.

 

Some of the chat when Barnes signed was that he was a massive upgrade on ASM who is everything Howe wants in his system and he would come in and nail down that LW spot somewhat in the manner Tonali has come in and basically taken Longstaff's spot. So far that has not happened and he's more or less getting the same minutes ASM was getting when the preferred LW was playing well enough. Not that he couldn't win that spot back - Barnes can.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by The College Dropout

[RobsonsWonderland]

Is this not the same as Bruno, Botman, Gordon etc

 

As Howes plan seems to be to  introduce  new players into the first team gradually, be it for fitness, tactics or just allowing them time to settle.

 

We don't know but if Tonale would have started if both Willock and Longstaff had been fit? 

 

Also the new players have not been bought just for the first four weeks of the season.

There time will come and it's up to them to hold their place

[TRon]

2 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

The more I think about it - the more I think Barnes was only signed as a bit of a FFP hack to replace ASM. 

 

He's older than Tonali with PL experience but not been given significant game time. I hope he's just been warmed into the starting line-up but I'm not convinced.

 

Plans obviously change so I still have hope. But if the plan was to play Barnes LW and Gordon RW we would've tried it for more than 10 minutes in over 360 minutes of football.

 

Pretty sure we signed him because Eddie Howe was really keen on him. We could have bought someone for a different position if we wanted to buy someone as a FFP hack.

[The College Dropout]

10 minutes ago, RobsonsWonderland said:

Is this not the same as Bruno, Botman, Gordon etc

 

As Howes plan seems to be to  introduce  new players into the first team gradually, be it for fitness, tactics or just allowing them time to settle.

 

We don't know but if Tonale would have started if both Willock and Longstaff had been fit? 

 

Also the new players have not been bought just for the first four weeks of the season.

There time will come and it's up to them to hold their place

This is a good point - although Botman started the second and third league games iirc and the others were mid-season signings, one from abroad. And Tonali has come straight in, despite only being 23 and from a different league and country, doesn't even speak English. Barnes personally - had a good season last season. 25 years old, 150+ PL appearances, joined in the summer.

 

But plans always change. It's just more the fact he's not tried both Gordon & Barnes for any significant length of time. 

 

Could totally be wrong.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by The College Dropout

[FLUMPO235]

I really think this ffp stuff needs to be published in an easy to follow spreadsheet by every club and updated on the 1st of every month. If clubs have to follow it, it should be transparent and published for everyone to understand.

 

Although as I’ve written that, I can see why clubs would hate the idea as everyone would know how much everyone else had to spend/in the kitty and just because a club had 100m for ffp purposes they may not actually have/want to spend it.

 

ffs. What a stupid idea it is. (Now we have rich owners)