Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dont know why people would have a problem with us signing him, hes always looked decent from what I've seen of him.

 

As for ASM I'd like us to keep him but he's defo got a problem with fitness and a sulky attitude amongst other things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Andy said:

 

Wish someone would boil it all down to just "he's good" or "he's shite", have absolutely no idea what opinion to express at work on Monday morning atm.

 

I think the official line is 'he's shit but ASM is shitter'. That should cover you. You're welcome. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, NobbySolano said:

 

In how many games? I played once last year for 15 mins with 1 goal and assist. I have a better xG + xA than both. ?

 

At least be intellectually honest in your arguments. That's mickey mouse bullshit.


1115 minutes, do you need help in converting that to a more understandable metric? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean ASM has like 5 less assists in 30 less games so it's more the finishing that differentiates them. All round game is different but similarly effective (they can both drift in and out of games/form and I think some supporters might get frustrated at Barnes playstyle as they do Maxi's).

 

Good signing if it happens but not sure where that leaves Willock/Joe/Gordon/ASM or Anderson when it comes to minutes at LW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alberto2005 said:

Anyone come up with a logical reason other than we're selling ASM as to why we're buying a player in a position we're pretty stacked on?

 

1. He's got better productivity than every player we have in that position.

 

2. It's a good price.

 

3. He's British and there's value in having a core of British players.

 

4. He's very highly rated, pretty much universally.

 

5. Sometimes you sign players who are available at the time as much as the positions you need.

 

6. As you say, there's a distinct possibility it frees us up to sell surplus players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, El Prontonise said:

Better signing than maddison, which the maddison lovers will be disappointed with.


Proper aftertiming from me, this :lol: But kept thinking I wanted Barnes here, along with Maddison. With preference probably for Barnes.
 

Leicester supporting mate of mine seemed done with Maddison and said Barnes would be the better fit for us and value for money. 
 

I’m hoping this goes through and he’s proved right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tina Tooner said:

What journalist first broke the Barnes link? 

Matt Law or whatever he’s called I think 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Danh1

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

He went big with the story recently, yep. But feels like we’ve been ‘linked’ for ages. 
 

Of course linking is just a bloke tweeting someone we might sign. 

Aye you’re right, been linked with him all summer tbf 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We were linked with Trippier and Botman for ages too. Hate it when people put others down for getting their hopes on us signing a player we are linked with by saying "the club doesn't operate like that, we dont sign linked players, it will be someone completely out of the blue". Whilst we do sign some players out of the blue Isak/Tonali, it isnt true about every signing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a good price for Barnes. Without ffp you'd say it was a no brainer.  Is there honey still for tea though.

8 minutes ago, Displayname said:

Which stat accounts for ASM binding up multiple defenders allowing more room for the rest of our team? 

Stats arent everything.

I agree (liked) the essence of that but there are equal non-existent stat fields that would be negative about ASM. Still better to read the game yourself than use stats as a basis, we underestimate our own ability to tell whether a player has played well or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tina Tooner said:

We were linked with Trippier and Botman for ages too. Hate it when people put others down for getting their hopes on us signing a player we are linked with by saying "the club doesn't operate like that, we dont sign linked players, it will be someone completely out of the blue". Whilst we do sign some players out of the blue Isak/Tonali, it isnt true about every signing. 


Tripper and the initial Botman interest were pre Ashworth. It’s clear our operation has tightened up considerably although still mainly working with a Nickson and co targets. 
 

Most of what’s we get to know when a transfer isn’t ‘out of the blue’ seems to depend on the other parties involved - selling club, selling club journos, rival bidders and agents. 
 

The Barnes stuff still feels agent driven but hopefully we will see in the next week if it’s real or not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tina Tooner said:

We were linked with Trippier and Botman for ages too. Hate it when people put others down for getting their hopes on us signing a player we are linked with by saying "the club doesn't operate like that, we dont sign linked players, it will be someone completely out of the blue". Whilst we do sign some players out of the blue Isak/Tonali, it isnt true about every signing. 

 

Just depends on the circumstances and whether the selling club or agents want it played out in public or are friendly with certain journalists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...