ohmelads

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).

Agreed. It's just a click bait story.

With add-ons they're paying 55M and you would imagine that'll get paid in full unless he has a stinker or gets badly crocked. Bellingham was 88M and he's 5 years younger, so I'd say 50-60M is probably MacAllister's market value.

Most likely the case I'd say. It's in his interest to give the headline low figure to generate the clicks.

Is this confirmed? Most sources have been saying 45-55.

Interesting appointment. I think he's what they need for the reasons many have said - he's grateful to have the job and won't behave like Mourinho and Conte, and they could do with a more positive playing style after those two. He needs a good start to get the doubters believing, but having no European football will be a massive help (as we know).

There's the thing. No way are Man U giving us a deal that is in any way favourable for us. And their squad players will certainly be on higher wages than ours, so that's another negative beyond the ripoff fee they will demand. I still think this is just a bollocks rumour from Twitter.

No one can say with a straight face that he has seen the trajectory of the ball - going away from goal - and made adjustments mid-air to get his fingertips on it.

I'd steer clear of Tierney. Yes he's an obvious upgrade, and as good as we'd expect to get when fit, but I'd say history suggests that more often than not, a consistently poor injury record continues true to form. He would want top end wages making him then difficult to sell to clubs further down the table if the situation carries on or gets worse. The quoted fee is high for someone with his injury record. Something just smells off about the way Arsenal are keen to shift arguably their best left back. They'll know better than anyone and have no other reason to sell him.

Well said. In fairness we used to think the same about Joelinton. I thought we overpaid for Gordon gambling on potential, but if we look at what Howe's done with Almiron and Murphy, I think Gordon has a higher potential ceiling than them.