Transfers, 2024-25 season

[The Fish 10422]

Just now, LondonBlue said:

 

Not sure breaking FFP rules is that much of a worry as long as you play in red

 

Doesn't seem to be a concern if you play in blue either, mind.  

[LondonBlue 687]

19 hours ago, The Fish said:

 

Doesn't seem to be a concern if you play in blue either, mind.  

 

depends on the shade. 

 

still waiting to see some evidence in the public domain, quite surprised none has been leaked, i wonder why?

 

 

Edited January 10 by LondonBlue

[LongTimeAdmirer 1205]

7 hours ago, The Fish said:

What we need is a stock of saleable assets whose value has been fluffed by virtue of playing for a club that's performing well. Had it not been for the injuries I’m sure players like Murphy, Willock, would be considered for sales and their values would have been higher at the end of last season than they are now. Sell them for anywhere between £5 and £35m, get their wages off the books and replace them with real quality. 

 

this guy farken 

 

[Nefilim 10]

Man City started this FFP selling home grown players becuase they were good at it.

Chelsea did it for a long time, and are fast approaching their next hit like a junky  'Gallagher for FFP'

 

Talk of selling Bruno for extra FFP - it's so sad. We're not allowed nice things etc.

 

Staveley/Howe have built a spine before Ashworth came in - (Pope > Botman > Bruno > Isak)

[wykikitoon 19293]

 

 

 

A second account hey

[Nefilim 10]

Matty Longstaff is the first of a long que to play for Newcastle.

Daily Mail think Jordan Hener***

 

Henderson is a SMB

[Tdansmith 2989]

5 hours ago, Nefilim said:

 

 

Talk of selling Bruno for extra FFP - it's so sad. We're not allowed nice things etc.

 

🤔

[The Fish 10422]

8 hours ago, LongTimeAdmirer said:

this guy farken 

 

Just what, in the blue hell, is your problem now?

[RobinRobin 10672]

2 hours ago, Nefilim said:

Matty Longstaff is the first of a long que to play for Newcastle.

Daily Mail think Jordan Hener***

 

Henderson is a SMB

[Dazzler 8438]

2 hours ago, Nefilim said:

Matty Longstaff is the first of a long que to play for Newcastle.

Daily Mail think Jordan Hener***

 

Henderson is a SMB

At least you both have that in common then.

[LongTimeAdmirer 1205]

1 hour ago, The Fish said:

Just what, in the blue hell, is your problem now?

 

Wanting to sell Willock and murphy

 

 

 

 

[The Fish 10422]

2 minutes ago, LongTimeAdmirer said:

 

Wanting to sell Willock and murphy

 

 

 

 

It's not about 'want', you goober, it's about looking at what we've got and being realistic about where we can make moves, to make money. Who are our most valuable, least integral players? Just like your beau, Saint-Maximin, these two represent players who are not guaranteed starters, but who can command a decent fee. Murphy is a great pro and works hard, but he's limited in terms of quality and we could still get ~£15m for him, Willock is great and in an ideal world we'd keep him, however he plays in a position we're strong in and could command a fee upwards of £35m. That's £50m (plus their wages) to increase our ability to strengthen without breaking FFP rules. 

 

Due to years of neglect by Ashley we have little to no valuable depth in the squad. So players like Ritchie, Dummett, Hayden, Hendrick will get fuck all in terms of a fee but are eating up wages. At least the first two in that list are 'good characters to have around the dressing room' and won't mind not playing, and all that.

 

I'd much rather we sack off those 4 entirely and spend whatever we like on replacements, but we can't, so we have to be clever and we have to be ruthless. 

[spongebob toonpants 3845]

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

It's not about 'want', you goober, it's about looking at what we've got and being realistic about where we can make moves, to make money. Who are our most valuable, least integral players? Just like your beau, Saint-Maximin, these two represent players who are not guaranteed starters, but who can command a decent fee. Murphy is a great pro and works hard, but he's limited in terms of quality and we could still get ~£15m for him, Willock is great and in an ideal world we'd keep him, however he plays in a position we're strong in and could command a fee upwards of £35m. That's £50m (plus their wages) to increase our ability to strengthen without breaking FFP rules. 

 

Due to years of neglect by Ashley we have little to no valuable depth in the squad. So players like Ritchie, Dummett, Hayden, Hendrick will get fuck all in terms of a fee but are eating up wages. At least the first two in that list are 'good characters to have around the dressing room' and won't mind not playing, and all that.

 

I'd much rather we sack off those 4 entirely and spend whatever we like on replacements, but we can't, so we have to be clever and we have to be ruthless. 

I think your underestimating Willocks value to the team, he carries the ball in transition faster and more efficiently than anyone else, and I feel a lot of the reason that Isak has spent a lot of time isolated this season is due to missing Willock's link up play

My probably naive hope is that we are underselling the value of our new marketing deals and we have more wiggle room than they are letting on

[Gemmill 42580]

We need Willock back fit, not to sell him. He's class imo. 

[PaddockLad 16505]

The obvious players to sell iyam given their excellent form last season and their return to their more usual mediocrity this time out are Almiron and Longstaff. The latter in particular is more attractive given his home grown status. Sell one in this window if a replacement can be found and one in the summer likewise

[Dazzler 8438]

1 minute ago, PaddockLad said:

The obvious players to sell iyam given their excellent form last season and their return to their more usual mediocrity this time out are Almiron and Longstaff. The latter in particular is more attractive given his home grown status. Sell one in this window if a replacement can be found and one in the summer likewise

Think you're being a bit harsh on Longstaff. He's never had the opportunity to return to his form from last season - he came into the new season injured, came back and broke down again for a spell. He's been solid since - the only drawback was an ever-present one from last season - he toe pokes every shot, like he has drawing pins in his laces pointing directly at his foot.

[RobinRobin 10672]

29 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

We need Willock back fit, not to sell him. He's class imo. 

Becoming an issue keeping him fit though. Of course that then impacts his value. 

Back and fit would be good as he is class. 👍 

[PaddockLad 16505]

10 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

Think you're being a bit harsh on Longstaff. He's never had the opportunity to return to his form from last season - he came into the new season injured, came back and broke down again for a spell. He's been solid since - the only drawback was an ever-present one from last season - he toe pokes every shot, like he has drawing pins in his laces pointing directly at his foot.

Yeah we need a bigger goal threat from midfield. He has been unlucky with injuries this season but is unlikely to be good enough for where the owners want to end up. If we can bring a replacement in I’d get rid. Dave’s right, it’s time to be brutal 

[wykikitoon 19293]

Agreed.  How do people think we are going to raise revenue?  Just hope we get new sponsors?  That will only help in some ways.

[Dazzler 8438]

5 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

Yeah we need a bigger goal threat from midfield. He has been unlucky with injuries this season but is unlikely to be good enough for where the owners want to end up. If we can bring a replacement in I’d get rid. Dave’s right, it’s time to be brutal 

The problem is that the replacement would probably cost more than we'd get selling him. Miggy is an easier one to shift IMO and would command a higher fee, and we can probably replace him value wise with that Roony Bardghji kid who terrorised Man Utd in the CL for a similar (if not smaller, fee).

[PaddockLad 16505]

1 minute ago, Dazzler said:

The problem is that the replacement would probably cost more than we'd get selling him. Miggy is an easier one to shift IMO and would command a higher fee, and we can probably replace him value wise with that Roony Bardghji kid who terrorised Man Utd in the CL for a similar (if not smaller, fee).

We paid 20 mill for Miggy, nothing for Longy. That’s the difference. Either fee would just go down as a down payment or two on incoming players. A lot of people have a wishlist a mile long but no real idea how to pay for anything..we have to start somewhere…

[The Fish 10422]

1 hour ago, spongebob toonpants said:

I think your underestimating Willocks value to the team, he carries the ball in transition faster and more efficiently than anyone else, and I feel a lot of the reason that Isak has spent a lot of time isolated this season is due to missing Willock's link up play

My probably naive hope is that we are underselling the value of our new marketing deals and we have more wiggle room than they are letting on

I think you're misunderstanding the central point. Say there are three groups within the squad, we can argue about which player fits in which group, but as a starter I put it like this.

 

Group 1 - The 'Purple players'

Group 2  - Squad players

Group 3-  the Fringe

 

Nobody in group 3 would command a decent fee, so lets rules them out as options to increase FFP wriggle room. So that leaves groups 1 and 2. Without spending a LOT of money on a replacement,  I can't see anyone in group 1 that we should sell and it would leave us in a similar position where we're either putting square pegs in round holes, or significantly dropping the standard of player by using a deputy from groups 2 or 3.

 

So that leaves group 2.

In that group you've got a couple of young lads coming through in Anderson and Miley, their stock is set to rise and we don't yet know what their real ceiling is, and you've got Hall who isn't our player yet so we can't sell him anyway, so lets scratch them off the list. Dan Burn and Longstaff have shown they can play on the biggest stage and while we will need to upgrade them both, right now they appear integral to how Howe wants us to play, so they're out. 

 

So, who does that leave you with?

 

And of those, who'd command the biggest fee? And who plays in a position we have depth in?

 

I mean, if everyone is fit, who does Willock get in ahead of? Bruno? Joelinton? Tonali? Longstaff? He's a great option to have on the bench, or for certain opponents, but he doesn't command a starting place ahead of those lads. So, if that is the case, and we need money to bring in players for expensive positions (DM, RW & CF), does it not make sense to sell our most valuable, least integral player?

Edited January 10 by The Fish

[Holden McGroin 6227]

Guess the poster who has too much time on their hands?

[OTF 7090]

30 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

Agreed.  How do people think we are going to raise revenue?  Just hope we get new sponsors?  That will only help in some ways.

[spongebob toonpants 3845]

17 minutes ago, The Fish said:

I think you're misunderstanding the central point. Say there are three groups within the squad, we can argue about which player fits in which group, but as a starter I put it like this.

 

Group 1 - The 'Purple players'

Group 2  - Squad players

Group 3-  the Fringe

 

Nobody in group 3 would command a decent fee, so lets rules them out as options to increase FFP wriggle room. So that leaves groups 1 and 2. Without spending a LOT of money on a replacement,  I can't see anyone in group 1 that we should sell and it would leave us in a similar position where we're either putting square pegs in round holes, or significantly dropping the standard of player by using a deputy from groups 2 or 3.

 

So that leaves group 2.

In that group you've got a couple of young lads coming through in Anderson and Miley, their stock is set to rise and we don't yet know what their real ceiling is, and you've got Hall who isn't our player yet so we can't sell him anyway, so lets scratch them off the list. Dan Burn and Longstaff have shown they can play on the biggest stage and while we will need to upgrade them both, right now they appear integral to how Howe wants us to play, so they're out. 

 

So, who does that leave you with?

 

And of those, who'd command the biggest fee? And who plays in a position we have depth in?

 

I mean, if everyone is fit, who does Willock get in ahead of? Bruno? Joelinton? Tonali? Longstaff? He's a great option to have on the bench, or for certain opponents, but he doesn't command a starting place ahead of those lads. So, if that is the case, and we need money to bring in players for expensive positions (DM, RW & CF), does it not make sense to sell our most valuable, least integral player?

That's decent analysis, but for me I would have Willock in Group 1. Tbh I'd sell Miggy and Wison ahead of him. I haven't seen enough of Barnes or Tonali to have them in group 1.