Did we really need a £5m backup keeper...

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

12 minutes ago, birchfest said:

A lot of people seem to be missing the OP's point; 'Would it have been better to use 5 million to add to the striker budget?'

Yeah there's a few thickos on here, especially the resident baghead.  

Edited December 6, 2021 by TeemuVanBasten

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

4 hours ago, The Real Buh said:

I can just imagine him watching the game yesterday, watching Josh Sargent nutmeg himself in front of goal, and clenching his fist and muttering “f&££ing Angus Gunn…”

^^^ The Real Duh. 

The point is about the appropriate allocation of limited resources.

Edited December 6, 2021 by TeemuVanBasten

[king canary 7,605]

17 hours ago, Pyro Pete said:

£5m isn't much by Premier League standards.

The goalkeeper is such an important position, you need decent backup. We all remember what happened when Bryan Gunn got seriously injured.

 

It is actually quite a bit for a 2nd choice keeper. Look at most teams around us, generally if they've spent £5m+ on a keeper he isn't on the bench and certainly wasn't bought specifically for the bench. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

14 hours ago, The Bristol Nest said:

Its hard to take a lot of these needy threads seriously but yes, 5 million on a backup keeper is good business if your number one has a long injury. Good grief it hurts to have to write something so obvious. 

So you are saying that we couldn't have got a competent backup keeper for less?

Wolves have John Ruddy who they signed for £0, and with him having a wife, kids and house in Norfolk, we probably could have had him for £0 too this past summer if we'd given him an indication that we were interested.

Is Angus Gunn any better than Declan Rudd who we sold for £1m?

£5m rising to £10m feels steep for an almost 26 year old keeper who has had one half decent season in his career (which was for us) and who became the 3rd choice keeper at Southampton behind a shot to pieces Fraser Forster (see McCarthy's two near post mistakes for an idea of the standard of keepers there at the minute).

I get that Farke and his coaching team knew and trusted him due to his season here, but they aren't here anymore are they. 

Could have just signed Jamal Blackman for £0, decent keeper. 

[king canary 7,605]

17 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Is that too much of a luxury when we've only got 1 capable striker?

Strategically it feels like we've spent about £15m on players who we don't think will have much of an impact this season in Gunn and Tzolis. Planning for the future is fine but only if the present is sorted. These are the two deals that make me question the wider strategic aim. 

I remain sympathetic to Webber as I think he's in a very tough place in having to try and do too much with too little. Going in to this season we needed a keeper, fullback, striker, central midfielder and a central defender and that was before we sold out most creative player. That isn't easy to do on the kind of budget we have.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

14 hours ago, alex_ncfc said:

No we didn't.

We also didn't need to sign Gunn for sentimental reasons.

Gunn also isn't "PL class"

Krul is clearly number one and McGovern did very well when called upon for 10 or so games last season - in fact he far exceeded my expectations and his performances surprised me. We also have young keepers waiting in the wings.

So yeah it was a waste of money.

McGovern is a complete liability. If we ended up with him in goal for 3 months it would be a disaster. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

10 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

McGovern is a complete liability. If we ended up with him in goal for 3 months it would be a disaster. 

There is a lot in between not signing a keeper at all and signing a keeper for between £5m and £10m. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by TeemuVanBasten

[Worthy Nigelton 1,044]

18 hours ago, Coneys Knee said:

With respect, I feel like this is the least of our problems.

The biggest question for me is, why on earth did Webber and Farke not adequately replace Skipp and Tettey and in what realm were they thinking that a forward line of Pukki, Sargent and Idah was strong enough to deliver what is needed in this league.

Albeit with the benefit of hindsight but the word madness springs to mind.

Pukki is good enough.

[The Real Buh 3,432]

1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

^^^ Thick c*nt, The Real Duh. 

The point is about the appropriate allocation of limited resources.

He’s lost it again lads…

maybe I’ll get him to change his avatar again

[king canary 7,605]

1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

So you are saying that we couldn't have got a competent backup keeper for less?

Wolves have John Ruddy who they signed for £0, and with him having a wife, kids and house in Norfolk, we probably could have had him for £0 too this past summer if we'd given him an indication that we were interested.

Is Angus Gunn any better than Declan Rudd who we sold for £1m?

£5m rising to £10m feels steep for an almost 26 year old keeper who has had one half decent season in his career (which was for us) and who became the 3rd choice keeper at Southampton behind a shot to pieces Fraser Forster (see McCarthy's two near post mistakes for an idea of the standard of keepers there at the minute).

I get that Farke and his coaching team knew and trusted him due to his season here, but they aren't here anymore are they. 

Could have just signed Jamal Blackman for £0, decent keeper. 

Just to back this up, the following keepers moved this summer for less than £5m...

Alvaro Fernandez- £1m loan fee to Brentford

Wayne Hennessey- free transfer to Burnley

Marcus Bettinelli- free transfer to Chelsea

Remi Matthews- free transfer to Palace

Asmir Begovic- free transfer to Everton

Andy Lonergan- free transfer to Everton

Kritoffer Klaesson- £2m to Leeds

Scott Carson- free transfer to Man City

Tom Heaton- free transfer to Man U

Pierluigi Gollini- loan to Spurs

Paulo Gazzaniga- free transfer to Fulham 

Alphonse Areola- £2m loan fee to West Ham

So no shortage of players who can do a job sitting on our bench for a much lower outlay

 

[hogesar 9,658]

I suppose it depends if that extra money (lets call it £3m as we did need to get some sort of goalkeeper in) would have changed our targets or not. Only Webber and Co will know that.

[AJ 1,218]

I would think the idea is to develop Gunn into Krul's long term successor. Much like Tzolis, he was signed for his future potential and not necessarily for his immediate impact. We've got a lot of good young keepers coming through, Barden for example, but having him sit on the bench as Krul's number 2 won't aid his development, much better to do what we have and get a decent no2 and loan out the youths 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, AJ said:

I would think the idea is to develop Gunn into Krul's long term successor. Much like Tzolis, he was signed for his future potential and not necessarily for his immediate impact. We've got a lot of good young keepers coming through, Barden for example, but having him sit on the bench as Krul's number 2 won't aid his development, much better to do what we have and get a decent no2 and loan out the youths 

Created a bit of a paradox there.

So Gunn is going to sit on our bench until he develops into a keeper good enough to become Krul's successor.

Because Barden needs to go and get football, as sitting on the bench would be bad for his development? 

Lets not forget that Gunn has played fewer than 100 games, and is almost 26, Declan Rudd had played a lot more by the same age! 

[AJ 1,218]

16 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Created a bit of a paradox there.

So Gunn is going to sit on our bench until he develops into a keeper good enough to become Krul's successor.

Because Barden needs to go and get football, as sitting on the bench would be bad for his development? 

Lets not forget that Gunn has played fewer than 100 games, and is almost 26, Declan Rudd had played a lot more by the same age! 

I get what you mean but I was thinking more Gunn is supposed to be at a position where he can compete to be no1 whereas Barden is young, inexperienced and needs to get that experience out on loan.

[Google Bot 3,275]

Was a poor signing imo.  There's a wealth of backup keepers out there, and he was way over-priced.

I get that effectively you're getting over a decade of goalkeeping at the club with Krul, Gunn and Barden as a succession, so financially it's a good deal from that perspective.

However, I just don't rate Gunn.  If Barden were fit and well I'd have him start as a backup no problems.   McGovern is very poor though, he's the Josh Sargent of the goalkeeper union.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

2 hours ago, The Real Buh said:

He’s lost it again lads…

maybe I’ll get him to change his avatar again

Or change his stimulant.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

Just to back this up, the following keepers moved this summer for less than £5m...

Alvaro Fernandez- £1m loan fee to Brentford

Wayne Hennessey- free transfer to Burnley

Marcus Bettinelli- free transfer to Chelsea

Remi Matthews- free transfer to Palace

Asmir Begovic- free transfer to Everton

Andy Lonergan- free transfer to Everton

Kritoffer Klaesson- £2m to Leeds

Scott Carson- free transfer to Man City

Tom Heaton- free transfer to Man U

Pierluigi Gollini- loan to Spurs

Paulo Gazzaniga- free transfer to Fulham 

Alphonse Areola- £2m loan fee to West Ham

So no shortage of players who can do a job sitting on our bench for a much lower outlay

But how many of those goalkeepers are going to be number 1 for their team in the next 12 - 24 months? 

I agree if we are just looking at this season then there were cheaper options for what we can expect from Angus, but hopefully it will prove to be a good outlay in the long-run when he's our number 1 keeper and hopefully showing the form we saw in Farke's first year where he was probably our best player after Maddison!

[Nora's Ghost 157]

Angus G was an emotional buy on Delia's behalf. It's pretty obvious isn't it?

 

Such a lot of money to splash out on a 'reserve' when you look at how much was spent on so called 'first teamers' in the rest of the team.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

4 minutes ago, Nora's Ghost said:

Such a lot of money to splash out on a 'reserve' when you look at how much was spent on so called 'first teamers' in the rest of the team.

Exactly.... Grant Hanley £2.5m, Kieran Dowell £2m, McLean and Rupp a few hundred grand.

It was an expensive sentimental signing, and it was the worst thing for Gunn who needs to be getting football if he is to improve! 

Edited December 6, 2021 by TeemuVanBasten

[king canary 7,605]

15 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

But how many of those goalkeepers are going to be number 1 for their team in the next 12 - 24 months? 

I agree if we are just looking at this season then there were cheaper options for what we can expect from Angus, but hopefully it will prove to be a good outlay in the long-run when he's our number 1 keeper and hopefully showing the form we saw in Farke's first year where he was probably our best player after Maddison!

As I said before though, if you've got a limited budget then you need to prioritise now, rather than something that might happen 2 years in the future.

Krul is 33, plenty of keepers play well into their 30's. I don't think succession planning for our keeper was more important than getting a better striker or defensive midfielder in. 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

6 minutes ago, king canary said:

As I said before though, if you've got a limited budget then you need to prioritise now, rather than something that might happen 2 years in the future.

Krul is 33, plenty of keepers play well into their 30's. I don't think succession planning for our keeper was more important than getting a better striker or defensive midfielder in. 

The £5 million probably represents less than 10% of our overall outlay, that's not where our window has made it or not. 

I'd much sooner point towards the £18 million spent on Sargent and Tzolis for our failings, as well as our use of the loan market with Gilmour and Williams probably not improving the quality of our first 11, amongst other things, before I did the Gunn acquisition.

We have spent a lot of money for us, but the problem with our model is we need to consistently spend it better than the teams around us. And when you see sides like Watford picking up Dennis for £3.6 mil and Everton picking up Gray for £1.5 mil it doesn't really feel like our recruitment team is close to best in class.

So would an extra £5 million have allowed us to improve on these buys given what we've already purchased with our transfer budget and loan spots? I don't think so. 

Obviously its an 'if' but should Gunn recover his previous NCFC form once Krul hangs up the gloves then I do think it will be £5 mil well spent.  

[king canary 7,605]

2 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

The £5 million probably represents less than 10% of our overall outlay, that's not where our window has made it or not. 

I'd much sooner point towards the £18 million spent on Sargent and Tzolis for our failings, as well as our use of the loan market with Gilmour and Williams probably not improving the quality of our first 11, amongst other things, before I did the Gunn acquisition.

We have spent a lot of money for us, but the problem with our model is we need to consistently spend it better than the teams around us. And when you see sides like Watford picking up Dennis for £3.6 mil and Everton picking up Gray for £1.5 mil it doesn't really feel like our recruitment team is close to best in class.

So would an extra £5 million have allowed us to improve on these buys given what we've already purchased with our transfer budget and loan spots? I don't think so. 

Obviously its an 'if' but should Gunn recover his previous NCFC form once Krul hangs up the gloves then I do think it will be £5 mil well spent.  

I guess for me, the difference is I can understand why we went after Sargent and Tzolis. Sargent aimed to fill a need for a player who can play both out wide and also as a striker, Tzolis was a talent young attacker who was supposed to help fill the gap left by losing Emi. 

I just never understood the Gunn signing. If you wanted to improve the back up keeper position then you can do it for much cheaper. I don't see a glaring need to have our keeper for the 23/24 season in the building right now.

I'm also not really convinced he's very good. He flamed out pretty quickly at Southampton, was OK for Stoke but not amazing and generally doesn't seem to have built on his one good season here. 

[non-scoring strikers 113]

Gunn is 26 and not very good.

At that age he should be a number 1 keeper but he's not fit for purpose in this league and development isn't exactly a thing either if he's already 26 and not good enough. 

He certainly isn't one for the future as some posters on here are claiming. 

[1902 1,167]

26 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

The £5 million probably represents less than 10% of our overall outlay, that's not where our window has made it or not. 

I'd much sooner point towards the £18 million spent on Sargent and Tzolis for our failings, as well as our use of the loan market with Gilmour and Williams probably not improving the quality of our first 11, amongst other things, before I did the Gunn acquisition.

We have spent a lot of money for us, but the problem with our model is we need to consistently spend it better than the teams around us. And when you see sides like Watford picking up Dennis for £3.6 mil and Everton picking up Gray for £1.5 mil it doesn't really feel like our recruitment team is close to best in class.

So would an extra £5 million have allowed us to improve on these buys given what we've already purchased with our transfer budget and loan spots? I don't think so. 

Obviously its an 'if' but should Gunn recover his previous NCFC form once Krul hangs up the gloves then I do think it will be £5 mil well spent.  

The quoting of the price of players by comparison is just kind of silly really, we have no idea of wages or bonuses often and it can really distort our perspective. There is no reputable information that I can find on what kind of money Gray is on at Everton, so we have no idea what the real price was.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

18 minutes ago, 1902 said:

The quoting of the price of players by comparison is just kind of silly really, we have no idea of wages or bonuses often and it can really distort our perspective. There is no reputable information that I can find on what kind of money Gray is on at Everton, so we have no idea what the real price was.

But the main point was that other clubs are buying smarter than we are, something we can ill afford when we are already at a disadvantage to most teams financially.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

26 minutes ago, king canary said:

I guess for me, the difference is I can understand why we went after Sargent and Tzolis. Sargent aimed to fill a need for a player who can play both out wide and also as a striker, Tzolis was a talent young attacker who was supposed to help fill the gap left by losing Emi. 

I just never understood the Gunn signing. If you wanted to improve the back up keeper position then you can do it for much cheaper. I don't see a glaring need to have our keeper for the 23/24 season in the building right now.

I'm also not really convinced he's very good. He flamed out pretty quickly at Southampton, was OK for Stoke but not amazing and generally doesn't seem to have built on his one good season here. 

I'm not sure this is true, at 19 he seems to be 'for the future' at least as much as Gunn. Its just unfortunate for Gunn that you don't really rotate keepers at all and there has been no cup run for him to play in. 

The signing could still be vindicated this season if we have to deal with a Krul injury for any amount of time and maybe Gunn will stake a claim. 

However you might also be right about him never reaching the heights of his performances for us again, at which point the signing will be poor. I just don't feel like questioning it until we know this and I'm not against the logic of it. 

I'm sure we bought him on the basis of him eventually getting back there once more, we did a similar thing with Krul after all! 

[1902 1,167]

11 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

But the main point was that other clubs are buying smarter than we are, something we can ill afford when we are already at a disadvantage to most teams financially.

This is the issue, we don't know how smart other clubs are buying without having a view of every contract and every agreement. 

Headline figures for player purchases are often partly speculative and also only provide you with a snapshot of the situation.

Now I'm not saying this is a debate we shouldn't have but we have to be realistic about how are interpretation of the situation may actually be well out of wack because we maybe overestimating the total cost of a players contract for NCFC or underestimating it for others.

Edited December 6, 2021 by 1902

[king canary 7,605]

3 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I'm not sure this is true, at 19 he seems to be 'for the future' at least as much as Gunn. Its just unfortunate for Gunn that you don't really rotate keepers at all and there has been no cup run for him to play in. 

The signing could still be vindicated this season if we have to deal with a Krul injury for any amount of time and maybe Gunn will stake a claim. 

However you might also be right about him never reaching the heights of his performances for us again, at which point the signing will be poor. I just don't feel like questioning it until we know this and I'm not against the logic of it. 

I'm sure we bought him on the basis of him eventually getting back there once more, we did a similar thing with Krul after all! 

All fair points and I think it comes down to the bit I've but in bold- you see it as logical, I'm not sure I do. Agree to disagree as they say!

[1902 1,167]

46 minutes ago, king canary said:

I guess for me, the difference is I can understand why we went after Sargent and Tzolis. Sargent aimed to fill a need for a player who can play both out wide and also as a striker, Tzolis was a talent young attacker who was supposed to help fill the gap left by losing Emi. 

I just never understood the Gunn signing. If you wanted to improve the back up keeper position then you can do it for much cheaper. I don't see a glaring need to have our keeper for the 23/24 season in the building right now.

I'm also not really convinced he's very good. He flamed out pretty quickly at Southampton, was OK for Stoke but not amazing and generally doesn't seem to have built on his one good season here. 

I tend to feel it's difficult to judge keepers, they are seemingly an inconsistent lot at the best of times, possibly because their careers are so relatively long so you notice the ups and downs more.

However I suppose it depends if we feel he was mismanaged by Southampton and we can get more out of him.

When we brought in Krul, a little bit of me died inside if I'm honest. To me he was a keeper who was high quality, but his injuries had killed off some of his ability and his confidence. I think most of the footballing world had similar views. Turns out I was wrong, maybe we haven't seen the best of Gunn after all.

 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

2 minutes ago, 1902 said:

This is the issue, we don't know how smart other clubs are buying without having a view of every contract and every agreement. 

Headline figures for player purchases are often partly speculative and also only provide you with a snapshot of the situation.

Now I'm not saying this is a debate we shouldn't have but we have to be realistic about how are interpretation of the situation may actually be well out of wack because we maybe overestimating the total cost of a players contract for NCFC or underestimating it for others.

We kick out wage expenditure similar to clubs at the bottom of the league, @Badger is well versed in this. So with the clubs around us we can absolutely compete when it comes to additional bonuses and clauses (okay so not Everton but certainly Watford, Brentford, Burnley, Southampton). 

Regardless, given nearly all of our signings look poor apart from Rashica and Normann I'd say its pretty obviously we're not buying as smartly as we could be or as other clubs are. Even without knowledge of all the additional fees on offer from other clubs over us its pretty obvious our signings have performed below expectation (so far).

The use of the loans too further compounds this, right now I'd trade out Gilmour, Williams AND Kabak just to have Skipp on loan back with us. I know we can't get him back but it clearly illustrates there have been failings in the recruitment (again, based on what we have seen so far). 

That said, maybe some more of these signings will improve between now and the end of the season. I would certainly hope they do!