Jump to content

Paul Mitchell


54

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Isak, Bruno, Botman were all incredible value at the time as well though. No one thought we overpaid for Tonali, if anything he was a massive coup. Gordon I might agree with that the perceived value was over the top, but that perceived value was clearly a load of tosh.

I know I might be very biased when it comes to Isak, but remember I've watched him since he was 16, I knew he would be an incredible signing for Howe. 

Isak was a gamble regardless - a player who'd scored six in 32 league games the year before didn't scream 63m centre forward.  Gordon - this is also applicable.  Hall and Livramento - jury is out; but Hall definitely feels like an overpayment at the time.  Tonali - agreed, more debatable.

 

It isn't really about the success or otherwise - loads and loads of comments on the Guehi thread were also about overpaying; but what if he'd become the best centre half in the PL under Howe's tutelage in 18 months and was suddenly valued at 100m?  Many of those who claimed we were overpaying then would then be on a similar thread to this claiming he was a bargain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LFEE said:

We never said how much we bid. Pretty sure we’ve denied the figures quoted with both deals. Especially Elanga.

 

Don’t believe everything you are fed to believe. Especially last few days of the window. A lot of nonsense usually reported.

 

Including Mitchell tbf, it wasn't just our journos reporting on the bids and Mitchell has good reason to deny they happened. Heaps of salt all round as usual though, I agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Including Mitchell tbf, it wasn't just our journos reporting on the bids and Mitchell has good reason to deny they happened. Heaps of salt all round as usual though, I agree.

Even if you took reports at face value then you’d have to note we offered £15m for Elanga in the Anderson deal only to be stuck with a £12.8/£20m GK.

 

Cant see our value of him a month later going to £50m plus Almiron.

 

The time to overpay was to help PSR not the end of the window.

Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, jonny1403 said:

Sorry what, Dan Burn? 10 million (or was it 13) for someone who has played pretty much every game since the takeover [emoji38]


 

I think you’re confusing the concept of whether a player has proved to be good value after the purchase with the idea that, at the time of purchase, the price we paid seemed too high and we might have got a better deal / paid too much because other clubs saw an opportunity.

 

I certainly recall thinking at the time that £13m for a 30 year old defender who was pretty average seemed quite a lot of money to pay. If you didn’t, that’s great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unsure on how to feel about some of those quotes; however, we should resist drawing conclusions from any club communication which is accessible exclusively through the lens of the rags, and without knowing the tone or the questions. Would've been better as an NUFCTV interview. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kid Icarus said:

Not a fan of the way he's speaking tbh.

  • He has that management speak about him that I'm hardwired to distrust.
  • The 'won't pay over the odds' thing makes no sense when he'd already bid way over the odds for Guehi by the time we walked away.
  • Rightly or wrongly I'm not sure how professional it is to dig out your predecessor, and
  • I have no idea what he's thinking of suggesting we potentially overpaid on our existing players!

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think if your predecessor is a garden gnome that's allowed currently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think he could have worded it in a less harsh way. Just had to say: 

 

- We need to improve our transfer strategy and scouting networks, while there is less risk shopping in England or the PL the prices quoted can not work for us in our PSR situation. 

- Eddie is a fantatic manager and we are working together to improve the transfer strategy and quality of the squad. 

- Yes, we would like to have done better in the window. It was difficult with alot of change in a short period of time. We now have time to reset, review and improve. 

 

Done. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nobody said:

Isak, Bruno, Botman were all incredible value at the time as well though. No one thought we overpaid for Tonali, if anything he was a massive coup. Gordon I might agree with that the perceived value was over the top, but that perceived value was clearly a load of tosh.

I know I might be very biased when it comes to Isak, but remember I've watched him since he was 16, I knew he would be an incredible signing for Howe. 

Maybe we’re consuming different content but all I saw was smart people that didn’t like it. Our business over the last 12 months has currently been quite bad. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jagten said:

Maybe we’re consuming different content but all I saw was smart people that didn’t like it. Our business over the last 12 months has currently been quite bad. 

 

Part of the problem is the Italian media were reporting a fee that was likely higher than what we actually paid (and also some absurd wage claims). But even still I feel like the average opinion was "he's good, but not that good." 

 

Hall could definitely count as high and honestly I'm really wondering why we felt compelled to do that given what our PSR situation would have looked like at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Part of the problem is the Italian media were reporting a fee that was likely higher than what we actually paid (and also some absurd wage claims). But even still I feel like the average opinion was "he's good, but not that good." 

 

Hall could definitely count as high and honestly I'm really wondering why we felt compelled to do that given what our PSR situation would have looked like at the time.

That’s why we did the loan with the obligation in the new financial year. 
 

it’s also worth remembering that when we did this agreement everyone was over the moon particularly after how well he played against us. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

That’s why we did the loan with the obligation in the new financial year. 
 

it’s also worth remembering that when we did this agreement everyone was over the moon particularly after how well he played against us. 

 

It's still a lot for an 18 year old and there was reportedly a £4m+ loan fee so we basically used it as a hack to sign him on a six year deal. Clearly we felt it was too good of an opportunity to pass up at the time, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me after how June ended.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

It's still a lot for an 18 year old and there was reportedly a £4m+ loan fee so we basically used it as a hack to sign him on a six year deal. Clearly we felt it was too good of an opportunity to pass up at the time, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me after how June ended.

 

 

It was definitely hefty, but nobody took issue with it at that time. I’m with your sentiment though but I still think ultimately if we want to bridge the gap aggressively which I believe was the goal at that time we really had to push the line which is precisely what we did. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does feel the quotes seem to edge if someone is to pay price for this summer, it’s Eales. Mentioning how things are poorly set up, past dealings etc. were all under Eales watch. High praise for Howe etc. Like Mitchell knows he’s better aligning with a respected coach who’s doing well then Eales.

 

Get where Mitchell is coming from for paying top whack on players. Isak and Tino have been immense and key players moving forward, but that’s £100m. If we are to move forward in current situation, whilst it would be great to add one or two top players, the squad is reaching a point where we need to get 5-6 signings for that £100m, and rely on the scouting network to identify and the top coach in Howe to improve them. Whilst revenues grow sustainably. 

 

 

Edited by Sibierski

Link to post
Share on other sites

At first glance reading the athletic article I don’t see a lot wrong with what he’s said. Ultimately the proof will be in the pudding but he has the contacts and experience to work with the current PSR framework and I do feel the clubs transfer and selling policy will have to evolve like most clubs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might just be me but I definitely get a sense of a disconnect between Howe and Mitchell. Especially when it came to player acquisitions.

 

Ive also heard that he wants his own man in. The good money was on Pochettino but that probably shows the value of local gossip😂

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

The interesting thing is, one of them is lying :lol:

 

 


 

“Lying” is slightly harsh. But I think it’s fair to say there’s a disconnect there with slight briefs against the other side. Worrying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ronson333 said:

“We want Eddie Howe as our head coach for as long as we can. But we also recognise we are on a journey, and we also recognise his quality and his potential as well. Once again, I’ve never been a guy scared of interest in any of our staff members, especially our head coach, and especially from a level of organization that the FA is.”


I don’t imagine this would land well, at least it wouldn’t with me. Inference is: we are on a journey… and Howe may not be able to stay with us all the way (because he’s not up to it) or he may get tempted away because of his quality. 

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...