Memphis

What you choose to be offended by tells the story of who you are.

Here are you referring to his own hypocrisy? I can't take someone seriously claiming to be a serious zealot who cannot compromise their beliefs when that same person has endorsed other sinful behavior without incident for years. That then removes the idea of strictly "religious opposition" allowing you to write 'I love Jesus' on the armband - knowing full well why you're choosing to call attention to your unwillingness to just wear the armband as is. Either you are a devout Christian who cannot countenance wearing anything that would endorse sinful behavior, or you are a hypocrite and a homophobe because you're OK with gambling but somehow not OK with endorsing the idea that gay people should be allowed to play sport without being bullied or threatened.

You are choosing to miss the point, it would appear.

Again - how would that affect him wearing the armband? Gambling is a sin according to his church. Guehi wears a bookmaker sponsor on his shirt. Homosexuality is a sin according to his church, Guehi wears a rainbow armband BUT writes "I love Jesus" on it. Now why would he choose to do that on one but not the other?

What? Professional footballers are literally advertising hoardings. That is part of their job. The money they receive comes from sponsors, which they are contractually obligated to display.

To refuse to wear a rainbow armband can only be interpreted as choosing to tell gay players and people at large that you do not think they should be included in sport. The message intended by the proliferation of the armbands is that gay people are to be included and discrimination against them is not to be tolerated. If you want to twist that message into something that then doesn't conform with your religious beliefs, you are intentionally obscuring the truth in order to allow your homophobia to persist. Gambling is considered sinful by Guehi's church. Yet he endorses a bookmaker called NET88 with his shirt - a very shady operator without a UK presence and that has courted controversy in the past - and manages not to write 'I love Jesus' on it every game. Odd that he would find one "sin" too sinful to be seen as endorsing, but the other he seems to be fine with. It's almost as if there's more than a religious element to his statement. And that's the point. Gay people exist. Gay athletes exist. They have been forced to compete in a world that harasses and bullies them at every turn. Players like Guehi would love to ignore that gay people exist. Would love to turn their backs and pretend that homophobia/bullying aren't a life-threatening problem for gay athletes. And allowing them to shame-facedly claim some religious exemption helps to normalize treating gay athletes and gay people differently. It's not enough to be non-homophobic. If you are a person with empathy, you've got to help fight against this kind of "soft" bigotry.

The thing is that if we were to sell Isak for crazy money, it would have to be done as part of a bigger plan and I would have to think that money would have already been pre-spent - that is, deals would have already have been arranged contingent upon us selling Isak. There's no use selling and then sitting there with a pile of money that everyone will be looking to fleece us out of. Ideally it would all be set up well in advance. That would require harmony and proper communication between the coaching staff and the sporting director, however.

Everyone pointing out that we're dealing with a small and unique sample size is correct - that data isn't intended to be definitive by any stretch. It is intended to note a potential problem. Unfortunately a football season itself is a small sample size of a player or manager career, but we have to use the data we have. So by the time you find that the data is definitive, it's much too late to really do anything with it that season. It's flawed but the sizable changes potentially point to a problematic trend. At the very least, it's worth keeping an eye on.

What's very strange to me has been the dropoff in home performances. Though we have 7 points from 12, we have not been able to consistently play well or control opponents the way we did in the last two seasons. One interesting stat I've dug up - we are last in the league by a decent margin in home OPPDA (opponent passes per defensive action), meaning that we do not maintain any control of the ball before opponent pressing or tackling disrupts our play. That number has dropped by 35 percent in the last two seasons. It's a sign of the lack of control we show these days - and the poor state of our passing in general. The same is true of our non-penalty xG numbers - 19th at home (4.54 NPxG over 4 matches). We're sort of OKish away and quite rotten at home. League NPxG at Home: 2022-23: 1st 2023-24: 2nd 2024-25: 19th (through 9 league matches) League NPxG differential at home: 2022-23: 1st 2023-24: 2nd (by .05 to Liverpool) 2024-25: 15th So while we can talk about strikers not performing, missing chances, etc - the reality is that we're not creating anything at home. Not like we used to. I don't know specifically what to point to but the dropoff in these figures should be setting alarm bells off in Howe's office.

I wanted us to use Guehi as a Stones-esque CB/6, I think he's got the perfect profile to do that. We desperately need a platform to build from that isn't Bruno. He needs to be able to get more forward and make incisive passes into the final third.

This is what baffles me. He's obviously a very smart man, he looks at the data, he scrutinises the performances intensely, and yet he comes up with...this. It's odd. We are sticking to principles that no longer exist within our group.

Been a big supporter of Howe since he's arrived and up until this summer, I think he's gotten most everything right. He's done a phenomenal job changing the culture and getting everything moving in the right direction. A thoroughly good and competent man. BUT It's all gone very stale and he doesn't seem to have any other way of playing or managing to change things around. Loyalty turns to complacency quickly. To whatever extent you want to blame him for the summer, that was a huge problem as well. This is becoming a crisis. We need significant change and soon, or we will need a new manager by the end of February.

That is an absolutely first class article from Samuel. Brilliantly written and expertly argued.

I would very much disagree. While the PL can claim the structure of the APT rules are intact, the changes in what is considered Fair Market Value are massive. When interest-free shareholder loans are marked at normal rates and added to the FMV database, and when we have access to all the deals associated with that database, we will have much more leeway to do deals with Saudi partners at higher values. That doesn't even take into consideration future rulings and inevitable lawsuits.

Premier League statement is just their way of attempting to spin the ruling. Ultimately it opens up doors for enormous lawsuits from teams badly affected by the unfair and improper rules, namely us and City. Additionally, it undercuts one of the key frameworks of the entire PSR/FFP idea, which will be manipulated by us and others in all likelihood. So yes, in spite of what the Premier League claims, this is a rather large deal.

It is the one area that American sports get much more right. Leagues have specific salary caps that are agreed to by all parties, both clubs and players. Collectively bargained so as to avoid this sort of litigation. Ultimately that is where the Premier League will have to go if they genuinely want to solve this issue.

It's funny to me how the Premier League has fucked this so badly that they look like bigger shitheads than the Saudis and the UAE.

Of all the games we've ever played, that was surely one of them

In all three away matches this year, we've trailed at the half. We have not scored a goal in the first half away from home. We have the third-worst xG differential (-0.61), behind only Brentford and Ipswich Town. We have only won the xG battle once all season, and that was against Wolves...barely. We have the third-fewest touches in the opponent penalty area while allowing the second-most touches in the penalty area. In spite of that, we have only lost once - and yeah, we perhaps could have snatched a point against Fulham. But the underlying numbers are telling the story of a team that isn't creating enough good chances, isn't stopping opponents from creating enough good chances, and has relied on luck, goalkeeping, and blockbuster goals outside the box to win matches. That cannot be sustained. So now the onus is on Howe to make some significant changes. No one should be safe from being dropped. We have used the fewest number of players in the PL this year (19 total); whether we have enough depth to play more is debatable but we already have a midfield that looks tired. I have backed and will continue to back Howe, I think he's a brilliant manager and has been a huge blessing to the club. Still, there are enough significant warning signs that some major changes are needed before our form takes a huge dip.

Wouldn't be averse to the unprecedented QUINTUPLE SUB at the half. We are absolutely shocking.

It was a lovely interview and he does seem like a very sweet guy. But fuck man the production is bad. So many cuts, I guess to get around Sandro's English? Then you have some random agent/producer/whoever getting a toe in the shot. On top of that, the room could not look more depressing. I dunno. Get your shit together, Sky.

We're definitely due for a 30-shot game where we lose 0-1 on a horrible penalty decision. I would say we can't keep this up but maybe we can. Surely we'll find the right mix and push on. Hard to believe we've played well for maybe 1/4 of the match time, if that, and we've got 10 points from 12 and are sitting third. Winning is a skill. Good teams find ways to win and bad teams find ways to lose.

This shit-stirring is getting seriously weird now. As ever, people are talking past each other rather than to each other. FACT: Paul Mitchell doesn't think the existing scouting setup was "fit for purpose". FACT: Paul Mitchell was hired to overhaul the system, with his job considered "90% about recruitment". FACT: Within the existing scouting system, Eddie Howe - aided by Nickson, Ashworth, et al - made several astute signings. FACT: Eddie Howe has said he understands and supports the idea of reshaping the scouting system and signing internationally. FACT: As a club, we have to modify our existing way of recruiting because PSR/FFP is restricting our potential outflow of cash. FACT: Paul Mitchell has praised Eddie Howe's coaching and has spoken that they're forging a working relationship. All of those things are objectively true. Mitchell can call for an overhaul of the scouting system without shitting all over the previous signings. Howe can rightly be proud of his role in the signings while also understanding that the system was not good enough or able to identify a wide enough variety of players. What people are doing is conflating all these things - saying that Mitchell calling the previous system "not fit for purpose" means that he thinks all those signings were also not fit for purpose. That's incorrect. And by the same logic - Howe defending his signings means that he's criticizing Mitchell's new approach. Again, not necessarily true. Nature abhors a vacuum, as the saying goes. When Mitchell delivers his interview on the first Monday of a two-week layoff, people have got to fill their column inches with something in that interim period. Level-headed, reasoned analysis doesn't sell papers.

This is an interesting situation. I have to say, I do give Mitchell credit for doing the interview - apparently he sat for 90 minutes with the Newcastle-based journalists and that's a step in the right direction. I didn't expect that he would do that, and I didn't expect that he would be as candid as he was. I think you have to look at everything through the lens of: Why? Why would he do the interview and what was his goal? I think he knows that to get fans back onside, he has to make it right. Certainly he wants to wash his hands of the mess that was this window, but I think he also wants to reset the perception of Newcastle in the market, both inside of football and outside. We have been seen as domestically-focused, willing to overpay, unable to sell, and behind the eight-ball when it comes to PSR. Some of that is just perception, some is true. But I think Mitchell wanted to assert that he is in control, that he is setting out his stall to change the way we operate in player trading, and that changes will be coming. That's important for fans but also for other teams, we have to reinvent our plans with the PSR nonsense now restricting us greatly. I think he also wanted to underline that PIF are still investing, still involved, and still have huge ambition. That remains to be seen - the stadium will tell the tale on that - but it sounds good for now. We've not had someone in this position who is this qualified, competent, and confident - and that's a little strange for us to see. There are interactions we've not really had to deal with before, and how Howe, Mitchell, PIF, and everyone else adjusts will be critical. But I was sort of impressed with his confidence and his plan. I'd rather have him be a bit arrogant than a bit demure. Maybe I'm overly optimistic but I feel better about the situation than I did a few days ago.