Kid Icarus

Hall was admittedly expensive but we're still in that phase where we don't know for sure whether it was a bargain or an overspend. Chelsea fans certainly seemed to think that we'd robbed them blind. Targett is the only player I can point at and say it's really not worked out and that's mainly because of injury.

The bit in bold is the reason you should be agreeing imo. There was risk, but there is now reward, and the decisions made to sign these players that were seen as overpayments at the time are now vindicated because with that coaching and development they're worth far more. I would say it's a risky strategy but Howe has been vindicated so many times in this regard that it's now more a sign of his and his coaches talent and in itself a model, rather than a risk.

Is it way over the odds compared to our other players, who Mitchell insinuates we paid over the odds for?

You have to also remember that Howe turned down Celtic because he wasn't allowed the level of control that he needed. He came here partly because it 'felt right' - largely due to Staveley. Since then Staveley and Ghoudoussi are gone, - reportedly pushed out and heartbroken, and with the official reason being that they need to let Eales do his job. Mitchell has come in apparently without Howe being asked or told until it had happened, Howe then does an interview about how he needs to be allowed the level of control that he needs to do his job The transfer window in terms of incoming players is a complete disaster, Howe tows the line about everyone working together and pushing in the right direction, then Mitchell comes out with a series of closed door interviews (did Howe know these were happening) in which he says he was in a supporting role, that the current model isn't fit for purpose, that Guehi was a Howe choice, that Howe is best at training, that they couldn't stand in anyone's way if they wanted to leave - particularly if it was the FA, and that the plan will work next time because it'll be his. Blame insinuated as being on Howe, Ashworth, Staveley and Ghoudoussi, and as an adage insinuates that we paid too much for some of our players. He aso refers to himself in the 3rd person and is dripping in management speak. It all sounds like about 20 huge red flags to me.

Again, I have to be honest and say that what I'm hearing from Mitchell would make me inclined to agree. Nothing about this sits right at all.

This is an appeal to ignorance argument though, something no one should waste their time indulging in without any evidence supporting it. Particularly when what we do know has resulted in: hugely increased player value hugely increased club value success on the pitch success in the league There's also a bit of an oxymoron going on here in that Minteh and Anderson bailed us out, one of which was bought for ~£6m and sold for £35m, and one of whom was a successful academy graduate. ie the two things we apparently aren't doing. Imo it's not that we're not doing it, it's that we need to do more of it.

We'll never know, but I'm not sure he's not just waffling tbh. On previous occasions when we've felt there was a Newcastle tax, Staveley used to always say that we'd walk away, and we did! There are loads of players we walked away from - Diego Costa, Botman and Isak the first time, Maddison, Diaby apparently. And we've picked up bargains with hindsight too - Chelsea were quoted 70m for Gordon, we got him for 40m. Bruno and Isak were cheap. Trippier for 12m and Pope for 10m are bargains for what they've given us. This is also coming from the person who had us bidding 65m for Guehi, so it's a bit rich.

Is it still fronting up if all you really say is that the plan wasn't yours, insinuate that the blame lies with Howe, Ashworth, Staveley, Ghodoussi, and then talk about how it'll be better next time because it'll be your plan?

This should tell you something tbf.

'Overpaying' at the time is now underpaying with hindsight, in 3 players alone we've signed roughly £275m worth of talent for around £140m. We 'lost' that valuable young talent at a massive profit, meaning we were bailed out of the PSR situation without selling our very best players. It doesn't need to be either/or, it can be both - low fee investments for players that we can sell on, higher fees on players that will improve the team/squad and will massively increase in value. And for all the lauding of Brighton, their astute buys have so far never got them higher than 9th, whereas we made astute buys that blasted us into the Champions League meaning we could attract better players.

Don't mind us saying it, people in the media saying etc. Our current DoF saying it? Not for me Geoff, particularly as it's unclear whether he's digging out Ashworth or Staveley/Ghoudoussi.

I have to be totally honest like, as alarmist as it may sound, the more I read those quotes from him the more I dislike him and the more I think they'll rub Howe up the wrong way.

I don't think you can disregard how well they've done since because it's with that hindsight that we can see how savvy the club's been. So yes, Wood was too expensive at the time, but then when you factor in what we got back, what he contributed and how he's doing now you can't write that off imo, it's too relevant. Most thought we overpaid for Gordon, if you asked anyone if we'd sell him for what we thought he was worth when we bought him everyone would kick off.

Arsenal’s atmosphere was terrible until 22/23 like.

Including Mitchell tbf, it wasn't just our journos reporting on the bids and Mitchell has good reason to deny they happened. Heaps of salt all round as usual though, I agree.

Personally when I read a book and there's a ton of exposition at the start and narrated in the third person I know straight away that it's going to be shite/I don't like the protagonist 'I am Mitchell's inflamed sense of rejection'

Honestly I find the bit about us potentially overpaying on players a bit odd. Putting aside the connotations of blame and assessment of the worth of our players, with hindsight I can't name a player we signed who hasn't been worth it or more in terms of what they've done for us, what they're worth now or what they'll be worth to us in the future, both in terms of resale value and contribution on the field. Targett, probably, but reallu that was down to injury. And just as the added chaser to that, he's saying all this having just bid 60+5m for Marc Guehi and 50m for Anthony Elanga.

Not a fan of the way he's speaking tbh. He has that management speak about him that I'm hardwired to distrust. The 'won't pay over the odds' thing makes no sense when he'd already bid way over the odds for Guehi by the time we walked away. Rightly or wrongly I'm not sure how professional it is to dig out your predecessor, and I have no idea what he's thinking of suggesting we potentially overpaid on our existing players! More than all of that though, I don't like the way he particularly spoke about Howe. Howe is every bit a Newcastle manager and at our best has us playing exactly in keeping with our history imo. He was the chief architect of that, the founder of it from the take over, not just as a coach but as a de facto Director of Football. Imo that's our foundation and identity, that's 'the philosophy' of Newcastle now, for want of a less clichéd description. Of course we need a dedicated DoF and a long term strategy, but that philosophy should be the preface to Mitchell's input. Howe not only has the right to a say on that basis, he has the credit in the bank as a coach, as part of the recruitment team pre-Mitchell and pre-Ashworth (when we signed our best players I should add), and has a fantastic record for spotting talent and talent that goes on to make a huge profit. Mitchell has a good record too (albeit that Monaco forum has casted doubt on that for me), but imo this needs to remain as a collaboration and be understood as being such, not as an exercise in sidelining Howe to coaching alone with him seen as a problem if he's not on board with Mitchell's player choices. Howe has the scorecard marked massively in his favour, on several fronts and particularly with us, to warrant his continued inclusion in recruitment, whereas so far Mitchell has a couple against him on his scorecard and quite frankly I don't particularly trust him or Eales at the moment.

We can poll it. I'm sure the wider fanbase would be different, but the general feeling on here (from posts anyway) doesn't seem to match up with us wanting to be another Chelsea or Man City.

He really is. 'Backpass Batty' was his nickname with us I seem to remember. If you watch the 5-0 he's by far the best player on the pitch imo, absolutely sterl thi sher

Also remember Ginola hitting the underside of the bar before scoring an even better one vs Ferancvaros

Yeah, I know it's not unanimous like. That's why I said the general feeling rather than just saying everyone.

ASM in the League Cup final. It potentially changes the result

There's a real danger here of these rules and the backlash against them being the best advert going for them being scrapped entirely, which imo would be even worse than what we have at the moment. I think the general feeling on here is that we don't want to be a Chelsea or a 2008 Man City, more that we just want the likes of us, Villa, previously Everton to compete and not be forced into these daft situations where we're incentivised to sell our local talent. I don't know what the solution is, but I know it's not just scrapping it altogether, I'd genuinely hate it, not least because it would be much more likely that we'd lose Howe imo.

Goes without saying like, but Messi's 'nearly goals' compilations are better than most players best of highlights.