fredbob

Why is it that all this stuff happens on a sunday?

 

It's almost like they make it up.

 

Now, now let's not make heinous allegations in the face of these new, tragic stories.

We all need to get together and think positive things, being a big negative sillyface like you does the club no favours at a time like this.

Why is it that all this stuff happens on a sunday?

It's almost like they make it up.

I think we will be more known in Turkey than Everton and Spurs, what with the Souness and Emre links and generally being more in the news over the years on and off the field.

This is entirely reasonable and plausible so expect it to upset some people.

Isnt Emre regarded as the equivalent of a Turkish Beckham in turkey? They regard him as one of there finest ever players. Im sure becasue of this we may be regarded as the LA Galaxy of England in Turkey - if that makes any sense. 

True, but then it was picked up quicky. I'm thinking nothings gonna happen with this transfer to be honest, it's dragging way too long. If we were gonna bid we'd have done it by now.

 

How do you know we haven't, because it wasn't in the Daily s****?

Hasnt the chaimen and the players agent said that no bid has been recieved?

Are you seriously comparing a net spend of around £10m last year, when even newly promoted sides were spending £40m, with an average from the last 10 or more years? Have you no concept of inflation? Are you totally unaware of the increased TV and ticket revenues these days?

So we're moving goal posts now? 

So i should be taking inflation, ticket and TV revenue and the efforts of one promoted team into account when assessing whether a new board is running a tight ship in the first year of its ownership, ignoring the bids for at least 2 major stars, ignoring the suitabilty of the manager in charge to have that money and ignoring the £100m (?) Ashley poured into the club to clear the debts which were clearly crippling us? Is that right?

All whilst ignoring the single most relevant fact that our net spend was higher than the average of its predeccessor. 

I think you have me mistaken (no suprise there) for someone who thinks the club spent enough - i dont, but i do object to silly claims that we were running a tight ship when its abundantly clear to anyone that we arent running a tight ship. Im sure ive pointed out enough evidence for you to accept this?

Surely? (I wont hold my breath)

Do you ever stop?  I've been trying to ignore you but I just can't any longer.  Why on earth would an agent who is also the owner of the selling club ignore a much higher bid from us and take a lower one from the Spuds?  Especially before the Euro's when more clubs would be likely to come in.  Because they care about Modric and its his dream to play for the Spuds?   You're looking at everything in the most negative way possible regardless of how illogical it is.

I thought both our bids are accepted and Modric choose to move to Spurs for lower wages. KK said that right? This is a move based on what Modric wants, of course they care about what he wants or a deal will never be done.

Mamic brothers chose to move to Spurs.

Nope - i think you'll find they are the cost of all the players we've signed and players we've bid for....i.e (confirmed intention to spend)......nice try, better luck next time, yeh?

 

Sound logic.

 

Whereas saying we are running a tight ship because we missed out on 2 players isnt, yeh?

 

So we spent £30m net last Summer then?

 

Change of tack?

 

Where has this "tight ship" phrasing come from incidentally? Do facts escape you when in suits you?

 

(Modric - Woodgate) + (£30m transfers in the sumer) If reports are to be belived thats approximately £55m that would of left the clubs bank accounts in their years ownership had they all come off, which they didnt becasue of circumstances the board could do nothing about.

So you like talking about net spend?

Well in that case - Mort and Ashley's net spend for a manager they didnt appoint was higher than Shepherd et al's average net spend for all there managers. Are you saying they ran a tight ship as well?

You're defining it by proxy - im not even taking into account the Modric and Woodgate bids. (approx. £25-27m)

EDIT: Im just not sure how you can criticise one board for running a tight ship by pulling out stats which are in actual fact better than the previous boards stats, how can you complain when you know no different? Or were you one of the rare ones who thought the old board were running a tight ship as well?

Nope - i think you'll find they are the cost of all the players we've signed and players we've bid for....i.e (confirmed intention to spend)......nice try, better luck next time, yeh?

 

Sound logic.

 

Whereas saying we are running a tight ship because we missed out on 2 players isnt, yeh?

 

So we spent £30m net last Summer then?

Change of tack?

Can't wait until we make a big signing, hopefully it'll shut a lot of people up

 

A big signing to appease the fans? Good idea, I like it, is that one of Mort's?

 

Where has this "tight ship" phrasing come from incidentally? Do facts escape you when in suits you?

 

(Modric - Woodgate) + (£30m transfers in the sumer) If reports are to be belived thats approximately £55m that would of left the clubs bank accounts in their years ownership had they all come off, which they didnt becasue of circumstances the board could do nothing about.

 

didn't realise we'd signed Woodgate and Modric

 

 

 

 

We didnt - but thats hardly the sign of a tight ship if you're willing to part with nearly £60m in your first year in charge, yeh?

 

 

but they didn't.

 

 

 

So becasue we lost out on those targets that means we are running a "tight ship"?

 

s*** logic. You know it, yeh?

 

 

 

this coming from someone who adds up the total cost of all the players we've been linked with and says look at how much we're willing to spend!   

Nope - i think you'll find they are the cost of all the players we've signed and players we've bid for....i.e (confirmed intention to spend)......nice try, better luck next time, yeh?

Sound logic.

Whereas saying we are running a tight ship because we missed out on 2 players isnt, yeh?

Where has this "tight ship" phrasing come from incidentally? Do facts escape you when in suits you?

 

(Modric - Woodgate) + (£30m transfers in the sumer) If reports are to be belived thats approximately £55m that would of left the clubs bank accounts in their years ownership had they all come off, which they didnt becasue of circumstances the board could do nothing about.

 

didn't realise we'd signed Woodgate and Modric

 

 

 

 

We didnt - but thats hardly the sign of a tight ship if you're willing to part with nearly £60m in your first year in charge, yeh?

 

 

but they didn't.

 

 

So becasue we lost out on those targets that means we are running a "tight ship"?

Shit logic. You know it, yeh?

Where has this "tight ship" phrasing come from incidentally? Do facts escape you when in suits you?

 

(Modric - Woodgate) + (£30m transfers in the sumer) If reports are to be belived thats approximately £55m that would of left the clubs bank accounts in their years ownership had they all come off, which they didnt becasue of circumstances the board could do nothing about.

 

didn't realise we'd signed Woodgate and Modric

 

 

We didnt - but thats hardly the sign of a tight ship if you're willing to part with nearly £60m in your first year in charge, yeh?

yeh?

Where has this "tight ship" phrasing come from incidentally? Do facts escape you when in suits you?

(Modric - Woodgate) + (£30m transfers in the sumer) If reports are to be belived thats approximately £55m that would of left the clubs bank accounts in their years ownership had they all come off, which they didnt becasue of circumstances the board could do nothing about.

I can understand why people maybebe getting nervous the Modric deal was a big blow for us - he would of been a huge signing for us and to have it hijacked in such seemingly odd circumstances just addds to the air of inevitabiltiy about our transfer policies this summer.

However as early as it is, i still would find it strange if the board didnt choose to act before Euro2008, whatever price they are quoted now will be the minimum price they are quoted after the Euro's, not to mention the potential competition we'd have from extra exposure. My feelings are that id be dissapointed if we had to wait till after Euro's to sign anyone in light of our new scouting set up, logic being that they should already have a firm assessment of who they want and not need the tournament to confirm those feelings.

the only issues i can see are the new chairman coming in and having to learn the ropes and make the same mistakes Mort did. also, the wise/vetere set-up and strategy of going after talented youngsters seems to stem from Mort and this may be sidelined if a new chairman has different ideas. however if we promote from within these may not even be issues.

 

I can't say I agree with that - I'm of the opinion that this is an Ashley drive.

 

This is no more than speculation, but I believe Denis Wise's "Newcastle Reserves & Development Squad" has two very specific goals.

 

Firstly, nobly, the hope is to find the new Cesc Fabregas - a player that costs next to nothing, spends a year or two developing before establishing himself in the first team.

 

However, some quotes have led me to believe that the second hope is to find the next Nicholas Anelka - a player who costs next to nothing and is shortly afterward sold for a 20m profit. That's a fantastic return in anybody's language but to me, if persued as a policy, smacks of profiteering and even becoming a "selling club"...

 

Am I being alarmist?

 

Personally, I like the new setup, but only if it works properly and it must be said the jury is still out on that one too...

 

yes and no. unfortunatly today players can force moves so you sell for what you can...if you can get in the right manager and players you may get a squad  high enough up that players don't want to leave.

Also- if a player is adding value to himself then it means he's being of value to the team which is the most important thing and shows that it is the est policy in light of player power.

As for the next so and so - i think the prices that have been bandied around for some of the players we;ve been linked with sugges that this isnt strictly the case.

Can someone change the title to "Spurs summer transfers" ??

which was the players that "Mort missed out of" then?

 

Sidwell.

 

Modric.

 

Woodgate.

 

You have 2 managers who have expressed dissatisfaction with the support given to them by officials at the club.

 

Allardyce complained of them not moving quick enough etc etc

 

Keegan made the comments he made 2 weeks ago

 

Still, you know best

 

 

 

So 3 targets - all going to teams in better situations than ours.

You have one manager who complained at Morts slowness which is expected and something that is readily being accepted by everyone, no one still knows what the keegan thing is about - apparently you do. Keegan has since come out seemingly happy- does that not mean that he was satisfied with the way tings went and he's satisfied with there plans?

Still you know best.

Mort was never really the chairman anyway, he just took on that overall role and did it very well too in my opinion, all things considered. He was brought in to legalise the club's accounts so to speak and get rid of very very nasty cobwebs left over by the old regime more than anything. He's obviously done that and while I won't go into details, I'm very thankful he has because this club was on the verge of a scandal or two which via Mort's expertise and experience, was avoided. There are very good reasons why FS and Co got barred from SJP and why the polis were sniffing around, not to mention why SJH was itching to get away, it was all going to collapse. When Mort spoke about financial ruin I believe that was a metaphor for something else...

Thats quite a substantial claim there. What are you basing this on? I thought Shep was banned because of the warehouse thing and that the police confirmed we got raided becasue we were victims not the perps. Its not like any of the old regime have been linked with the police dealings since.

So this thread is pretty much attacking anyone who doesnt support a club where there from?

They got at least one thing wrong, he wasn't paid by the hour as he had a 12 month salaried contract reported to be worth £1 million.  Mort was on roughly a third of what Smith earned yet scored the same number of goals and was only about 2 shots on target behind him.

 

No comments on the fact that the new chairman gets twice as much as the old chairman got criticised for taking despite presiding over the club's worst season in the premiership, sacking a manager mid season without a replacement lined up, and failing to land any of the new manager's transfer targets (all things the old chairman would surely have been crucified for)?

 

 

Most of those can be blamed on the appointment of the previous managers by the previous chairman though. Unless you want to blame Mort for the poor state Souness/Roeder/Allardyce left the club in?

 

not so bad as you make out. 2 years ago we were in the UEFA Cup, hardly a disaster. Anyway, we haven't landed some major players that both Allardyce and Keegan wanted. My feeling about Mort is he is too prudent and too conservative to run a football club the size of Newcastle United. Do you think that Keegans comments that brought about that meeting, were the result of his feelings about this, and do you not think that, whether he had a contract or not, this meeting has contributed to this announcement ?

 

 

I thought he was just Ashleys mouthpiece? Also what about the bids for Modric - we offered more how is that prudent? It undermines your entire argumetn and the rest of it is supposition.

His wife is probably Martin Jol's sister-in-law.

That's a ridiculously emotive response.

 

I hear stuff like 'Man Utd and Liverpool have history' all the time when people try to justify why they hate Chelsea. Well you know what, unless Chelsea start winning things now, they won't have 'history' in 10 years time and they'll still be criticized for being a 'plastic' club that they apparently are now. It's just a bs excuse because you (not you, Fred, just 'you' in general if you know what I mean) have nothing better to criticize them for. Same with the money thing. Man Utd have spent a fuckload of cash, and in yesterday's game, they brought on two young superstars who costed them £34m and Chelsea brought on an aging right-back signed for £2m. And yet I don't hear criticism directed at them. So what if Chelsea are funded by one man? They've still got to do it on the pitch and they have.

 

Chelsea's ascendency has been historic and unprecendented, yes, but they've earnt every one of the trophies they've won so far in the same way that every other club earns the trophies they win.

I'll stand by my judgement. Theres so much wrong with what you're saying, i know that that post wasnt specifically aimed at me but theres just so much wrong with it.

Reason i hate Chelsea more than Man U- is becaue to Man U's credit they've earned there money and built there club off the back of success and they're in the position they are in now becasue of footballing reasons and footballing reasons alone.

Chelsea in my eyes cheated there way to the top - they rely entirely on cash and are in the position they are in solely down to one mans wallet. That isnt football.

What people have to realise is that many players come to the EPL and join "smaller clubs" in the hope the big 4 will take notice and step in with a bid after a couple of years.  Players might join Everton over us because they are in the city of Liverpool and they hope playing in Liverpool will increase their chances of joining a "top" club Like Liverpool with a proven European pedigree.  The same goes for players joining Spurs.  Given the chance they would prefer to join Arsenal or Chelsea but, as with Everton, these players reason that playing in the "big city" may bring them to the attention of Chelsea and Arsenal.  We simply do not fit into that category which is why we lose out unless we are prepared to pay inflated fees and top dollar in wages.

 

Started off quite promisingly then collapsed into a big fat mess.

 

With the amount of coverage the premiership gets you think they will only be noticed by these teams if they play in the same city?

 

Get real dude.

 

Just playing in the premiership gets you noticed all over the world moreso than in any other league.

 

Valencia and Palacios at Wigan have gotten incredible exposure by being  at Wigan. Zarate has only been at Birmingham a couple of months and has already created significant buzz with hardly anyone even knowing who he was beforehand.

 

Yes, but who had heard of them before they joined Wigan/Birmingham, they were relatively unkown and have proved themselves there and are attracting attention from the top clubs.  Surely, we are after quality players who don't need to join the likes of Wigan/Birmingham to prove they have what it takes!

 

All I am saying is foreign players look at a map of England and think "sacre bleu" Newcastle is miles and miles away from London, Manchester and Liverpool where the top teams in England play.  Why should I go to that far flung outpost of football when I can join Spurs, Everton or even Man City and attract the attention of the big city media to get a big money move.

Am i reading this right? You think the players wil move to Everton so that they have a bigger chance of getting to move to Liverpool? do you think Everton have a big history of selling there bettr players to there biggest rivals??

They got at least one thing wrong, he wasn't paid by the hour as he had a 12 month salaried contract reported to be worth £1 million.  Mort was on roughly a third of what Smith earned yet scored the same number of goals and was only about 2 shots on target behind him.

 

No comments on the fact that the new chairman gets twice as much as the old chairman got criticised for taking despite presiding over the club's worst season in the premiership, sacking a manager mid season without a replacement lined up, and failing to land any of the new manager's transfer targets (all things the old chairman would surely have been crucified for)?

 

 

So what happens when the first manager you approach knocks you back and tells his mates in the press about it? The current manager is left in an untenable position, knowing he could be replaced at any time. The club would (rightly) be a laughing stock and a source of constant speculation.

Precisely - take a look at wahts happening at Man City, i for one would hate that to be happening to us. I actually have very little issue with the appoinment process, including timings of sacking etc, my only concern at the time was that they appointed keegan, they seem to have vindicated that decsion for the time being so i cant really complain.