ohmelads

Think it's the smarter move than signing a left back, personally. Yes Trippier is a level above both left backs, but look at the dropoff behind Trippier at right back. It'd weaken the team far more and it's inevitable he can't play a whole CL season. Rotation now and then will get the best out of Trippier. People seem to forget how consistently good Targett was until his injury. He would give us a 7/10 every game. His injury record is generally solid so perhaps they're banking on a return to that. With Trippier (and potentially now Livramento) as attacking options on the right side, then two less attacking left backs is fine for balance. If we face a team that parks the bus, we can start both Livramento and Trippier since they're both comfortable on the left. When Bruno/Trippier were out it hurt us and I think we've moved to address the squad depth weaknesses and done it with first-team quality players rather than signing players just to be a backup.

Would be sad to see ASM go because I think at his best he's far more electric and unplayable than Barnes, but his injury record is a major problem. According to transfermarkt: 22/23: Missed 13 games 21/22: Missed 3 games 20/21: Missed 18 games 19/20: Missed 12 games I count 5 hamstring injuries (4 if we're being kind because 1 was a setback) plus 4 muscle injuries there. These seem to be recurring and as an explosive player facing a more congested fixture list than before, I wouldn't be surprised to see him miss a dozen or more again. ASM is a better wildcard option off the bench, but I'm struggling to think of successful clubs who kept an injury prone top earner in this kind of role? Correct me if I've missed any obvious ones. ASM's fitness record means you absolutely can't plan around him being a first teamer. With Barnes you could. I saw someone comparing Barnes stats to Rashford and not only are they very close, but that's a good comparison in terms of style. Unlike ASM, Barnes is a more direct player who just wants the shortest route to goal and is more pragmatic in his play. We know Barnes isn't capable of what ASM can do but he is much more consistently effective and fit, and has a ruthlessness in front of goal which we are lacking. As for selling ASM, I don't see how we'd get away with selling to Saudi clubs, but I think some here underestimate what Premier League clubs might pay for ASM. For the same reason it's a tough decision for us to sell him, other clubs also know what he's capable of. He helped keep us up and is coming into his peak years. I absolutely could see a desperate club forking out and gambling on him, but it would probably be late in the window, because the richer clubs tend to get their business done first and then the dominoes start to fall and then panic sets in. Could we regret it? Definitely if he stays fit. He could do a Bellamy and turn a corner fitness wise, but he could also see a recurrence of hamstring issues that just keeps getting worse. We need squad depth and I'd trust Barnes to be available when the big games are coming thick and fast. If ASM could stay fully fit thoughout the season in a functional team I think he'd post similar numbers to Barnes, but what are the chances?

Could see us targeting a pacy centre back who can do a job at right back. Kills two birds with one stone in terms of progression planning for Schar and backup for Trippier. RB is arguably our weakest position in terms of squad depth, because I can't think of another player whose injury will hurt us more than Trippier (bar maybe Bruno, but we've done what we can there). If there's an up and coming pacy and versatile centre back to come in and compete for the two positions, I think it's an easier sell to the player rather than a dedicated right back like Livramento who is asked to come in and be backup and wait a season (or more if Trippier holds up and keeps going). Left back is often mentioned but Targett was very consistent up until his injury, and I'm pretty sure we were top 4 form when he was a regular in the side in the second half of 21/22 season. His injury record prior to last season was solid, so it depends if they trust his fitness. At the moment, I think I'd rather have a quality backup to Trippier because if he's out, everyone is going to target that side.

Shearer did his ACL at 23 and then his ankle at 27. Nowadays treatment has come a long way with quicker return to action and generally potential for better recovery too. People seem to think Kane can be compared on the basis he could still overtake the record, but there's no chance he would have with those injuries. Or to invert the point, Shearer would have been out of reach without those injuries. If you could choose either at their prime, there's absolutely no one picking Kane above Shearer, yet now the comparison exists because of numbers and medical advancements. There's a reason you're now seeing players like Modric starting the Champions Lge Final in his late 30s and winning it, and players pushing 40 at the top level. And Modric is for me one of the best midfielders of all time, but that longevity wouldn't have been possible a generation ago.

We'd still have someone eyeballing point of ball contact and where to place the lines with their cursor, so there'll be just as many tight decisions. On the plus side there'll be fewer special goals ruled out because human guesswork found a potential toenail offside. Could really change set pieces. Difficult as a defensive line to see if a striker who appears well offside at a glance has one toenail planted just onside with almost his whole body off.

The fact we didn't move even when we knew Liverpool would trigger the clause raises a couple of questions. Did we give up because it's a waste of time trying to compete with clubs that have a much higher wage ceiling? Or were we ever even in for Szob? There's been no word of any bids or contact between the clubs at all. If we weren't in for him, it's in our interests to let the press create a smokescreen while we negotiate elsewhere. I'm disappointed we've missed out on Szob because he looks the real deal but there's no evidence we were in for him. The Sky Six can't buy everyone and there's tons of talent still out there. We will have a list of contingencies if Szob and Maddison were targets. It seems pretty clear Isak wasn't top of our list, but it's worked out well and we might well have dodged a bullet with players like Ekitike and Calvert-Lewin and so on. I just hope we can get our deals done early like the richest clubs usually do and sign one attacking player that improves the first XI.

I do worry about the Saudis with regards to the club's future. They're buying players off rival Premier League clubs at inflated prices, which isn't in our best interests at all. That's a massive red flag. We also have very powerful enemies, not because of the Saudis but because of the perceived threat in the league. You could argue there's no other way to challenge the established elite, but we haven't exactly crept up on them and the way it's happened has forced them to close ranks and try to set up more barriers. We are in a strong position but also a precarious position, because we don't know what our owners are doing and they're so rich that they could write off a loss and ditch us very quickly. No one would have any sympathy and the league would be under pressure to leave us to suffer the consequences.

The media 'sell' news. Media reaction (and subsequently public reaction) to Newcastle's Saudi connection is considered a thousand times more public and important than the UK's massive sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia going back over a decade. How can you be outraged about Newcastle if you already knew about the context and were previously and still are silent about the far bigger direct issue? We (the UK) are the second biggest dealer of arms to the Saudis behind the US, which is a major source of revenue for our country. They're our biggest arms customer in the world in fact (and the second biggest is Qatar, not counting Ukraine). If you were totally ignorant and just get news from the BBC, then OK, but read more widely. Just because the media put massively disproportionate outrage on Newcastle, it doesn't mean you can't form your own holistic view of the situation. We just spent an entire week talking about a tiny submarine that the US navy already believed had imploded while all manner of massive important news was relegated and barely noticed. Media outrage/reaction is not proportionate to the tragedies in the world, and the media couldn't care less. Just because they tell you to be outraged about one thing, you can still have nuanced ideas and think for yourself. We all know why there is massively disproportionate focus on us. We know why Arteta and Pep don't get the same questions Howe does. We know why financial 'fair' play exists and why UEFA coefficients exist. All components of a corrupt system and the Saudis are a symptom of that, because there is no way to compete without sourcing money from people who have money to burn.

Agree that Liverpool have had periods of selling very well (Torres, Suarez, Coutinho etc), but let's not forget market inflation. Torres cost 26.5 in 2007 and left for 50 million 4 years later as a proven player. It's good business, especially in hindsight as Torres didn't work out for Chelsea, but in that period fees went up a lot for top players. Suarez was at Liverpool from 2011 to 2014 and went from 26 to 65 million. Amazing business regardless of inflation but prices did rise again in that period and he left in his prime. 3 or 4 years from now, prices will be higher again... if we get 80 million for Bruno 3 years from now, it's a huge profit but that'll probably be the going rate and it's only a good sale if he turns out shite for the buying club. I guess the lesson is to go for players around Tonali or Szoboszlai's age and not players like Maddison who are at their prime. Age-wise, I think that's a big point and we seem to be targeting that age group. If we're taking Liverpool as an example, they have shown it's not easy. They've done plenty of shite deals too but are insulated from the effects because they can spend their way out of a bad year or two, just like the other super league six. Soon we won't be able to speculate, since FFP measures your recent past and the frugal Ashley years won't be counted. We'll be hamstrung by FFP in a way Liverpool aren't, so we have more pressure to find more hits than misses.

Right. That's what I'm saying. Brighton are "doing a Dortmund" but you wouldn't be surprised to see them end up relegated like Leicester and Southampton. The difference is we can afford to reinvest for now but only until FFP catches up. We are in a growth period because our frugality under Ashley gives us FFP wiggle room but not for long.

That is what keeps RB and Dortmund below Bayern. They can't keep hold of their best talent. Players go there on the understanding they'll use the club as a stepping stone. If we cash in on our best players (say Bruno), we'd be almost certainly be selling to direct rivals. Unless Barca/R Madrid/PSG/Bayern come in, there aren't many teams we can get top money from these days, and to compete, we'd need to spend top money to replace them or gamble on youth hitting the ground running.

Sheikh Mansour is only senior member of Abu Dhabi’s ruling family and deputy prime minister of the UAE. Emitates is also state-owned. It's still state interference in football (a state with serious human rights issues) without any of the noise that comes with being a club challenging the established order.

At the moment, most of the noise being created seems extremely cynical. If you want to tackle human rights links to football, and want people to genuinely challenge states like Saudi Arabia, then you need real numbers behind you across the board and the message needs to be real and not just about fucking over rival clubs. Reality is if the Saudis were forced to sell and we were banished to the lower leagues, most rival fans would immediately stop talking or thinking about Saudi Arabia and most football fans would see the 'problem' as being solved. The BBC would stop reporting on it just as they didn't report on it before and as they almost never report on it now unless it's to do with us. That doesn't benefit anyone in Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else. Sheff Utd are owned by a Saudi prince; no one cares. Arsenal will continue to get massive revenue from state-owned Emirates and have Visit Rwanda on their sleeve; nothing will be said. No one's asking Arteta about it in his post match interview. If Man U are bought out by a Qatar group, is Ten Hag going to be asked about it? No, and we all know why. To get large numbers of football fans interested in human rights issues rather than fucking over their rivals, I think you need to go after the corruption at the highest levels of football and the protectionism of the established elite that forces clubs to seek outside investment (including from dodgy states) just to keep up. Newcastle fans, and fans of all clubs outside the sky 6 and their equivalents in other major European leagues, know that their club won't and can't compete without outside resources because the game's rigged against them. There's massive potential support but the Saudi ownership has become a smokescreen that turns these clubs against one another and creates a simplified narrative. It's no coincidence that the same clubs have dominated the major European leagues for decades. You'd get far more fans onside as part of a campaign to clean the whole game up rather than just getting the Saudis out to keep the sky 6 happy.

Targett was excellent until his injury problems. Perhaps the club think he can get back to that form and fitness with a full pre-season. It's easier to improve the first team at LB (for big money) rather than RB but it's easier to improve the squad at RB for substantially less money, and then you'd have 4 decent full back options. So there is a case for leaving LB as it is but it all depends on Targett. If We go big on a LB and then Trippier is crocked and we're left with Manquillo or Krafth, I think the net outcome is worse. Then you factor in the extra fixtures and Trippier's age.

There is some sense for buyers in letting the 60M release clause expire, if you think the player is up for a move and ready to move on in his career. You then tell them "you and I know there are absolutely no takers for 60. Here's a deal that comes to 55 with add ons. It's your call but you already know we won't pay 60 and neither will anyone else". They might tell you to fuck off, but that's a risk you take. If that is the case, I even wonder if Liverpool have read the situation and left it to late on release clause deadline day so that other clubs don't have time to match the offer? Could someone in theory trigger the release clause minutes before the deadline? Then Leipzig would want bidders to beat that offer to agree.

If it is £40m (big if) then it looks fantastic value when we paid similar for Gordon (5 years younger, but potential vs proven). I think and hope the fee will be higher than that. The money we've paid for Gordon and the huge bid for Tonali suggests we have more to play with than we are letting on in terms of getting in a creative player and a defender. I don't think we'd spend 110M on Gordon and Tonali and then have pennies to spend on other areas.

Seems you might have missed the reference but as of today's news there are plans to redevelop the east stand while preserving sunlight to the terrace. I'm not an architect, so those plans are not "my" compromise. I know it's generally been accepted that the east stand is a no go because of those terraces, so the club are either chancing their arm or have reason to believe a compromise can be reached. The stadium has infinitely more heritage value to the city than those terraces. It's culturally one of the most important buildings in the city. Losing it to preserve those terraces would be a massive irony and travesty. How many locals do any of us know staying in or visiting those terraces regularly or even ever, except on the way to the stadium? Ideally you keep both and find a compromise. If one has to go, it would be the terraces for me.

If you're preserving heritage, there's only one winner.

Can you imagine having to leave SJP, with all its heritage and massive historical and current significance to the people, just to preserve the heritage of some buildings that few locals care about and no one outside knows about or visits. Buildings which seem to be inhabited almost entirely by wealthy non-local students and professionals. That destroys the city's heritage. Surely there is a compromise to be made.

On paper Maddison's a safer bet than someone like Dom Szob cos he's proven himself in a tougher league. That usually comes with a premium yet he's cheaper because of age, contract and Leicester's relegation. He's as safe a bet as you can make ability-wise but the main concern is his injury record. I can also see why some are saying that Maddison just doesn't feel like a Newcastle player. Howe's building a team of warriors and Maddison does give off middle class hipster vibes. Based on Dennis Wise reports and what people are saying, Szob seems more like a Howe player. He's captain of Hungary at 22, has a more physical build and has proven he can play a high energy pressing game. It'll probably be neither in the end and someone no one expected. If Spurs get Maddison, I hope we at least help to push the price up.

At that price there'd surely be top clubs across Europe forming a queue? It might be legit but the price doesn't sound right. If Inter have money problems and are deciding to bite the bullet, they'd surely want more for one of their star players. Unless this is like the MacAllister deal and it's 50m with a tonne of add ons making it about 70.

Can just picture UEFA officials calling from their plush offices in Switzerland: "Listen, our lab tests have come back and I'm afraid your grass isn't up to standard. For the right money, I'm sure we can find a solution..."

Agree. We drew 14 games last season and he'd be key in turning some of those into wins. Pace isn't as much use against teams that park the bus (the Leicester game is a good example) and we'll have more of those next season. In games against the top sides where we expect to counter, Maddison would play more centrally I would think and try to find the runners. I think he'd gives us lots of options tactically and that keeps opponents guessing.

I think most transfer rumours/news comes from agents and guesswork, and some more legit rumours from inside sources, whether someone inside the club or close to someone who is. Those legit rumours can't be stopped because you're inevitably sending scouts and putting feelers out about a player and that involves middle men. The club's budget though? Absolutely no one at the club beyond the board and senior management staff will ever know that. It's very easy to keep in-house because hardly anyone knows and those who do have no incentive to share it. It's either a journo pulling the number from their arse or the club have put out a low figure to dampen expectations both of fans and selling clubs. My bet in this case is the former.

Leicester do need the cash now but they know that once dominoes start falling there'll be clubs flush with cash and urgent gaps to fill. Their dilemma is whether to take the early cash and rebuild or wait for a bidding war and a seller's market. I think they'll play it by ear for a couple more weeks. We have to box clever financially and I don't think we'll have any intention of getting into a bidding war with super league clubs, and probably won't offer enough to tempt Leicester into an early sale. I've wanted Maddison all along, but based only on Dennis Wise scouting and his stats and age, I think I'd be more excited by the Hungarian now if prices were equal. If reports are correct that Maddison is 40m and Szoboszlai is 60m, then that 20m is a huge chunk of change towards squad building. I wonder if that's the dilemma the club have now and if we're also playing it by ear. This is why you always see a flurry of activity later in the window because everyone's waiting for the chips to fall in terms of value/vailability. It's often only the richest clubs who are doing big deals early (Bellingham, MacAllister etc).