ohmelads

19 minutes ago, midds said:

Said it before and I'll say it again - Chelsea don't sign players, they acquire assets. Assets they can move around, sell as and when required without the merest thought about developing the player or any kind of long-term system. Tosin will drop into that squad and be tried out a few times, he'll then either play regularly or be sold on for a huge profit. If he plays regularly then they'll probably cash in on someone like Disasi instead. Either way Chelsea will make a huge amount of money signing him. Whether he's what the team needs is irrelevant, whether he improves as a player is irrelevant, how he copes at a much bigger club is irrelevant - he's just become another Chelsea asset. His decision, his future     

If they sold him on (which would imply he didn't play much), it'd be hard to make "a huge profit" if they're paying him say £7 million in wages a year. If he hadn't been playing that would lower his stock too. And if they were loaning him out because it didn't work out, they'd potentially have to pay a chunk of the wages to enable the deal to happen. 

3 hours ago, Erikse said:

 

That's because you remember all the mistakes and forget about it everytime they overturn something obvious from incorrect to correct. I also don't walk around remembering all the correct things that VAR do, that isn't normal. What is normal is to talk about the mistakes, because every mistake that VAR does gets a bunch of attention. Because of this it feels like there isn't an improvement on the rate of mistakes, but it is. And it's significant.

 

For example, anytime VAR makes a mistake, it's very rarely the correct decision to begin with anyways (contrary to what you're saying). It's usually because they don't think it's a clear and obvious error. I'm sure you can refer to some instances where they might have overturned a correct decision, but there are not many examples of that. Typically we happen to remember some of the few that actually happened, like the PSG game. We don't remember the all the instances where they overturn something incorrect, which is way more frequent. Because that is an expectation, as it should be.

 

 

 

You have a point, but I think referees are letting more things go because they know the VAR is there.  It's impossible to prove this, but I think it's only human nature that they would ref a game differently with VAR than without. He lets it go and VAR intervenes and chalks it off as a success. What we are also seeing, I believe, is cases where a ref has a gut feeling but lets play go on feeling the VAR has his back, only to be let down by a shocking non-intervention (e.g. the Gordon pen). We then have these pointless "independent panels" who tell everyone there is nothing to see here; we are told arbitrary stats that it is 96% correct (an absurd claim); we have ex-referees tying themselves in knots defending the worst VAR decisions. All of that only undermines VAR and the credibility of those paid off to defend the indefensible, and I think is part of the reason why it isn't getting better.

Gordon is a huge miss for this one. 

20 hours ago, Solitude20 said:

 

It’s not just about offside, what about penalties? In the 20-21 season, 125 penalties were given, and 23% of those penalties were given after referring to VAR. Even if you disagree with some of those decisions, I am sure most of those were rightfully given. In the same season, 22 penalty calls were overturned after referring to VAR as the they were deemed too soft. Those are significant numbers, and even if the minority of those calls were wrong, we would be fuming if the ref made a wrong call against us if VAR didn’t exist. Gordon’s penalty wasn’t given last game even after referring to VAR, well that sucked, but it wouldn’t have been given without VAR either. At least such controversial calls are just the exception now, not the norm. 
 

what about handballs or possible red cards? I mean, the hand of god goal wouldn’t have stood if we had VAR, and the examples are too many. I am actually surprised that some are calling to go back to the earlier days when mistakes were a normal part of the sport. From the tip of my head, a significant number of our penalties were given after going back to VAR. 

You're posting this a day after Gordon's completely indisputable pen wasn't given. The hand of god goal may or may not have stood under VAR depending on whether or not the VAR was on the toilet or wanted to offend the ref on the field or whatever the reasons are for missing these blatant calls.

We are all (across all clubs) complaining about awful decisions just as much as we used to. Sometimes VAR gets correct decisions that used to be missed, and sometimes it re-refs good decisions/non-decisions that used to stand. I'm not convinced officiating is any fairer. 

I'd rather we are ruthless and sell this summer while we can still get a decent fee. We got £15m for Chris Wood who was 31 at the time. I reckon a promoted team would take a punt on Wilson's injury record to get a quality and experienced Premier league striker when fit.

I see the argument about how hard it is to get a quality backup, but half of the season he isn't a backup at all because he's injured. With age it'll only get worse. Say we take the risk on his fitness again; he'll be 33 next summer, worth significantly less and we'll still need to replace him. We need a wide right player anyway so I'd put the money and his big wages towards a versatile player that can play both positions. They don't come cheap, but clearing Wilson's wages would help a lot.

Would the fact we waited for his extended gardening leave at Brighton and eventually settled financially with Brighton not be a factor in any arbitration?

I would have thought they'd also be wary of what legal precedent they're setting if he's able to go there before the summer window closes.

Gut feeling is he's going back to Chelsea in summer. There's been no clear reports on his loan terms besides a couple of blokes on twitter. 

34 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Not that keen on Howe having so much power to be honest (if true). A DoF should be planning for years ahead (I realise Ashworth wasn't), whereas a manager could be gone within a couple of months depending on results. 

We can only speculate, but the Hall and Tino deals could have been Ashworth trying to do exactly that, at the significant expense of squad balance short term.

The fact Howe has hardly used our expensive summer signings and has nothing good to say about Ashworth would indicate Howe didn't have enough of a say, if anything. 

The instability is never good short term but I think it's a net positive long term in all honesty. We need someone committed to the club's vision and on the same page as the management team. Last summer was a mess in hindsight and left the squad totally unbalanced with loads of full backs and only two forwards. The Hall and Tonali deals were on his watch and if we argue transers aren't on him then we can't really credit him for any of Brighton or West Brom's finds either.

He'll be joining that doping guy from the cycling as another of Ratcliffe's old cronies. They'll have to pay a lot if they want him any time soon.

2 hours ago, HawK said:

 

It's definitely a departure from Howe just focusing on on-the-field matters, I think there's an element of what @Nepharite said above :

 

 

Suspect it's simpler than that. We're haggling with his agent over a new deal and this looks like the club's way of saying "the offer on the table is our last and we're serious so if you don't sign, we'll be forced to sell in summer". Would be gutted to lose him but this does look like a game of brinkmanship.

It would probably hurt us in the short term, but sometimes there's a smart time to sell.

Trippier has been instrumental in turning us around and is a leader in the group, so I would worry about his departure. But if we keep him, what's the plan next season? If Trippier is number 1 then not only does it hold Tino back, but chances are Trippier's performances start to drop with age while his wages don't. If he's number 2 or rotating, then his wages are just too high to be a bit-part player. We could give those wages to someone who starts every game and improves the first XI not just now but hopefully for years to come. Whether we keep or sell, Trippier's time as a top player is limited.

You need a squad, but with FFP we're not allowed anywhere near the same spend as the Sky 6. We're going to have to make these types of difficult decisions and the key is is all about timing. We could hang onto him too long and end up with a high earner whose legs are going and limited interest from clubs that can afford his wages.

If we were touch and go for 4th right now, this would be a much harder decision. There is more of an argument to think a bit longer term now with the way this season has gone.

Eric Dier.

2 minutes ago, El Prontonise said:

 

It wasn't a foul imo.

Neither was Joelinton's. The point is they're so similar that you can't call one a foul and not the other.

Curious what Arteta thinks about the challenge from Gabriel for the goal. Very similar to Joelinton's (against Gabriel ironically). Although in fairness Arteta never did clarify what his meltdown was in reference to.

Half a season left to play. Clearly there's a tough month ahead and it will likely get worse before it gets better, but if there's a regression to the mean, we should have fewer injuries in the coming months while some clubs will have more. No one in the country has had injuries or cup fixtures like we've had this season, and those who have come close on the injury front have felt it. We've got some of our best players still working to fitness like Botman and Isak. It's a cliche but Barnes is basically a new signing after only 1 start. Willock and even players like Anderson will come back and give competition for places and rotation. We have far fewer fixtures over the next 5 months. It's a combination of factors that gives us a chance of going on a big run if we can get momentum.

Pope is a big loss we can't fix quickly but I firmly believe that whatever happens in January, we'll pick up more points over the next 19 games for all these reasons. The major question is have we left ourselves too much to do? We're 7 points off Spurs. It's very difficult but not insurmountable in half a season. If we can beat them at our place it's a 4 pt gap over the other 18 games.

10 hours ago, cubaricho said:

Watching the highlights and it makes us look really dominate. Lots of chances just not falling at the right someone’s foot, some good saves from Turner, etc. The highlights made it look like Isak had a good game as well, that run in the 60s looked like he was back to his old self. 
 

Obviously watching the entire match could give up different opinions but they definitely made the 1-3 scoreline look incredibly flattering to Forest. 

We were turd defensively but also very wasteful at the other end. We'd have been good value for 4 goals with the sheer number of chances created but, unfortunately, so would they. At 1-0 we didn't manage the game well at all and conceding right on half time changed the course of the game. We were forced to attack again and left so wide open on the counter. Second half collapses are becoming a common theme.

The squad's been massively stretched with a 17 year old playing his position and he chooses to post that. It's not just a really dumb thing to do in PR terms but it's hard to imagine that goes down well with the rest of the squad in the current circumstances.

Is it the lack of a plan B, or is it simply about personnel? The top sides don't dominate everyone away but they do have a strong bench and match winners who can pinch tight games. Man City aside (because they almost always dominate), you'll see Liverpool, Arsenal etc have a bad day but then a Trossard or a Diaz will get then a result. It's not that they drastically switched style of play and then dominated the game, but they can nick a result when they're not playing well. How many times down the years have we given those types of teams a hard game at SJP and been undone by a moment of brilliance?

Last season we were able to pinch points away when we weren't playing well because we had a fully fit and rotated Isak and Wilson. Now the extra games and injuries have exposed our lack of depth, so I don't think it's fair to compare Howe to managers who have more resources to call on to 'change a game'. If there's a fair criticism, it would be that he should have played more of the kids at Everton for example, as some had suggested, because it was the only way to manage the squad through December. The failure to do that has had major repercussions. 

3 hours ago, NG32 said:

This stinks and will truly cripple football. 

 

The thing that gets on my nerves is the FFP control put in place by the UEFA, its then used a weapon to slow the progression or halt the progression of other clubs and then these so called top clubs who manipulate things go and create a super league for even more wealth. 

 

They can all fuck off. 

 

I dont want to watch Real Madrid v Barcelona every week. 

 

 

 

 

FFP is an attempt to placate the old money superleague clubs who have UEFA over a barrel. They conspired to agree a super league deal with wallstreet which is used as blackmail with UEFA who bend over backwards to ensure they preserve their status quo. The name financial 'fair' play is a pisstake and I can imagine there were fits of laughter when they came up with it.

12 minutes ago, ChrisMcQuillan said:

Also, this isn't a new thing.

 

Last season was bad, despite not being in European competition.

Is there a link to a graph for this season so far? 

6 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yeah, I agree.  They can’t achieve what they said they want to by simply ‘doing it the right way’.  There is a ceiling coming up - a very hard ceiling.  A well-run NUFC is absolutely capable of top six / seven finishes consistently.  If they’re wanting to win titles and European Cups, they’re not getting there via small steps.  The club would need consistent financial doping - and as long as they toe every line which has been set for them in terms of commercials and FFP there is no way to catch up. 

This is the thing. There's no 'legal' way the old money clubs (Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal) can be caught if FFP is enforced strictly. They're allowed to spend twice what anyone else is, allowing them to compete in tournaments that generate far more revenue, which in turn means they can keep spending twice as much. It's a viscious spiral and there's nothing 'fair' about it. If it were fair, every club would have the same spending limit.

I was very happy with the signing, and I'd be disappointed if this is the situation because he looks like a huge talent, but at this point I'm doubtful that he'll sign permanently. Just a theory, but it could be that all the injuries and Tonali ban have forced a rethink. It may not be about how he's playing in training but rather the bigger picture this season. If we've decided we're not going to sign him in summer, that frees up the £28m fee to be spent elsewhere in January, strengthening the team in other areas. We'd either send him back in January or keep his minutes below the threshold. 

We do already have two left backs in Burn and Targett, plus Dummett as emergency cover. Short term thinking perhaps, but our two big summer signings Barnes and Tonali have barely played and we're stretched by injuries in other areas. They might also see an opportunity for another player and need the cash now, or at a guess they might have decided he's not the long term answer. 

We can only speculate, but it seems clear to me we are keeping his minutes down deliberately due to his loan terms. If he was permanently our player I have no doubt we'd have used him more to alleviate the worsening injury crisis. 

1 hour ago, leffe186 said:

There was some of this in the thread - although some people did push back. We’re good. We really are. Sure, we leave ourselves open at times but that’s the way we play. Genuine question here - if you have a full squad what changes? Pope obviously, Botman at the back, any other defensive changes? Burn for Schar? Bruno starts, Gordon too, then what? Tonali for Miley and Barnes or Willock for Almirón? Maybe four or five changes? Genuine question. Then we get a full squad as well. Our two best players from the unbeaten team (Van Der Ven and Maddison) and then Bentancur replaces Sarr. Both of us have good benches. I don’t think you roll us over. It would be closer of course. Which brings me to…

On your question above, I guess you'd have to look at our performances full strength, although we are 16th in the away league table. Goes without saying we'd have a much fresher, more rested and rotated group rather than the exhausted XI here that also shipped three at Everton days earlier. Spurs have had injuries but not on the same scale for the same length of time, nor have they had a group of death in Europe in tandem with it. I get that Spurs fans are excited by a good win at home, and that's fair enough, but I'd suggest looking at our Everton game for context before you get too carried away. 

With both at full strength, I think sensible fans of either club would agree it'd be a tight contest; after all that's why both sets viewed it as a six pointer. Newcastle certainly arrived at this game in a more weary state than Spurs who have had a bench, have been able to rotate far more and have played far less football. Many of us feared a repeat of the Everton game as is evident all over the forum from sensible posters. You'll always find idiotic posts on either forum. 

As for Spurs, we'll see by the end of the season how good they are I suppose. Would not ending in the top 4 be considered a failure? Considering our injuries, cup draws at Man City and Man U and the group we've had in Europe, I'm genuinely surprised we're only 4 pts off Spurs as it stands. 

3 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

Not it didn’t. If you paid attention to Howe’s style, it would be obvious he would go with the strongest team. 

Every Newcastle fan already knows Howe's not big on rotation. You don't have to "pay attention" to know that. He's been very successful doing things his way and proven us all wrong countless times.

I thought my post made it clear but to clarify, I'm scratching my head at the logic behind it in this set of circumstances for the reasons I explained. You're welcome to disagree.

6 hours ago, Lish007 said:

Gordon took half a season and a Euros to settle and he had few more years on Hall. 

 

Could be a number of things keeping Hall on the bench; fitness, tactics, not completely understanding Howe's way. Even the fact that he's 19 (and don't say but Miley...) Every player is different. He might need to build his confidence - you don't know! Don't write him off just yet.

 

Not sure why this board never learns... 

From what I can see, no one's writing him off. Quite the opposite; people are keen to see him given a chance especially in an injury crisis as virtually the only rotation option.