ohmelads

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.

We have to prioritise Milan and especially after the shit they've got away with this summer with Tonali. 

We can't though. Managers know the league is their bread and butter and that's the 6 pointer. I don't know how we handle this after not rotating against Everton. Only logical explanation for that is we have players coming back who are fit and they feel can make an impact in both games. 

2 shots on target, both after the red, which even Owen admits was soft. They don't look like Champions in these types of games, but they seem to get these results even when they're shite.

A lot of our players have had a poor 45 minutes (Burn countless times) and have recovered second half. Two of the three games he was hooked were Man City home and Dortmund away. The other was Bournemouth where the whole team were poor throughout. He's 18. I do wonder if there may be something contractual in this. 

Edit: he's 19

37 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I agree but he has form for that. He left Livramento on the bench for 90 minutes when Wolves were killing our fullbacks for 20 minutes straight. Livramento barely got a kick in the league unless we were 2 or 3 up until the injuries piled up. I've seen Dan Burn have stinker after stinker with a fit Matt Targett on the bench and Howe refusing to sub Burn. Isak dead on his feet for 40 minutes against PSG - no substitution.

 

It's not like he's using 4 or 5 subs a game and not picking Hall. He's rarely making subs and when he is - it's Matt Ritchie.

 

It's not out of character for Howe so I'm not overly concerned.

 

 

 

He does but this is an unprecedented injury crisis combined with an unprecedented fixture list in Howe's time here. 

Looking at his gametime more closely, Hall's made 5 appearances. He's started 4 games and in 3 of them he was hooked at half time. That's not typical of Howe at all. In fact I'd say it's quite unlike Howe to do that. His only other appearance he got 74 minutes and scored at Old Trafford.

I doubt Spurs fans would take a draw at home. Our injuries are worse, we've played far more and harder games, have rotated far less, have a much weaker bench and have got Milan on Wednesday.

Their injuries are bad but if it was the other way around we'd be well up for it.