KingArthur

If Swedish press say we have made a bid, we most likely have. They certainly know better than Newcastle journos.

Which club doesn't have a billionaire owner these days? Leicester didn't spend huge amount of money (very little actually) on transfers, not even when they won the league and got in the UCL. They ended up being in the shit though. Football club is like a company, it has risks. The billionaire owner has different ways to protect their asset (club) against that risk. Rules could be put to place to ensure that, no problem. I don't know many people or anyone really who wants unlimited spending. Bournemouth got up and has hit the ceiling. Brentford got up and has hit the ceiling. Neither of them can invest, their best players will be poached, they need to scout better and better all the time. But to be honest, I don't care so much. As a foreigner, it is just a fun hobby to me to watch Newcastle United. I just think money has pretty much ruined the whole top level football.

So punishment has been fines? What does that matter? How many key players have you been forced to sell? And Chelsea? If your company has 1000 employees more than any other rival, I think it is quite common way to lay some staff off. And Liverpool spent a lot, and they are (reportedly) able to spend few hundred million again. I don't know Villa's PSR situation, but they had to sell players last year, and with UEFA rules being more strict, I would guess they are again in trouble. And "having to sell" can also mean that even though they constantly finish top 4-5, they cannot pay Rogers 200-250k a week to keep him. They cannot even though they have money. Neither could we with Isak and PIF has the money. They are not paying 200k to Sancho or Rashford anymore next season. Actually your club did pay more for them for years, and didn't seem to matter one bit.

Getting rid of PSR doesn't only mean no restrictions to wealthiest owners. Teams like Leicester had problems and had to sell players, and they dont have world's most wealthiest owners. Getting rid of them would mean these ridiculous situations are avoided. Like you said, there are easy ways to limit spendind by rules, without forcing teams to sell their best young players / local talent away. The bit in the bold is how the football has been for ages? edit. You think getting rid of PSR rules is "madness", but I doubt you were thinking the same when they weren't there and ManU were able to spend whatever they wanted and benefited greatly from this? The "cartel" problem is that no matter how shitty transfers teams like Chelsea or ManU make, it seems to have no affect on their ability to spend again. Now team like Aston Villa, 4th last season and Europa League winners, are going to have to sell their most prized asset to their biggest rivals, so they can go on next season. With these rules in place, it means it takes decade(or maybe decades) for smaller clubs to achieve constant success.

Clubs like you (or Newcastle) do not generate enough revenue to compete year in year out. So eventually wheels will come off. We had that last season.

Yea, i think he has weirdly good reputation

I thought Poch did quite well with southampton also?

If we see that kind if football, then Iraola has changed his game, which is fine by me edit and you have to choose the moment to play it behind. There is no point to play Haaland behind in 1v3 situation or play the pass from too far out. Teams that have quality on the ball know this. And playing lot of throughballs means lots of turnovers. So they look for a better moment. Doesnt mean endless possession. Pep’s Barca and City few years ago did play endless sideways passes.

Yes, and I cannot remember any successful team passing the ball side by side endlessly (at least in years). So keeping the ball doesn't have to mean that. "For the sake of it" means getting your shape right, having a breather and letting the opponent run for a while. Pep's City took our press out of the picture completely occasionally with this. Of course every team wants to score, but that doesn't mean they look for it all the time. But keeping the ball also means trying to lure teams to press you. Brighton for example did this extremely well under De Zerbi. And we need players who can handle press. Currently we have 1-2 midfielders who can, and maybe 1 centreback and 1-2 fullbacks who are able to play easily past the press. PSG and Bayern were maybe most attacking tie I have ever seen in UCL.

Yea, but better teams also keep the ball "for the sake of it". It takes the sting out of teams like Newcastle at St. James'. They keep the ball to control it and defend with it: case in point, PSG yesterday. They needed a goal but they didn't want to lose the ball in wrong parts of the pitch. Hence, they keep circulating the ball over and over again, and Arsenal try counter and ran after it like idiots. When Arsenal got up, they crossed the ball very quickly and tried to create a chance from a "small percentage" ball. If they try to force it and create by taking big risks, it will backfire too often. Again, example. First game of the season: Liverpool-Bournemouth. Bournemouth's new left back Truffert made A LOT of runs forward, occasionally leaving Mo Salah behind him (who doesn't track back). He created a good chance for early on for Semenyo, but that is a huge gamble from Iraola to just tell his left back to leave the player of the season behind him and bomb forward. I like managers who want to go on, take risks and win football matches. That is the way this sport should be played. But sadly I don't think it wins you championships. I don't know if Iraola can change. Arteta has changed, Pep has, Howe hasn't etc. If he can mix it, they have a chance.

No, I don't think so, but Iraola's football is high intensity with a lot of turnovers and chaos. When all the big teams are trying to get away from it. A high number of turnovers means more chances for counters and that is the best chance for weaker teams to score. If you control the ball more and push the opponent back, they are less likely to score, football 101. Slot tried to move away from chaos, but wasn't successful enough this season. Liverpool were too predictable attacking. What you don't seem to get is that Klopp aside, no other major team plays like Iraola's Bournemouth. There is a reason for that you know? If Iraola want's to be a successful manager, he has to change his game so they can keep the ball better. So does Howe. Klopp's Liverpool ran out of gas in the end and he had an excellent squad, that Iraola will not have. Liverpool had 60 % of possession on average under Klopp, Iraola's Bournemouth is around 47. Totally different thing. Klopp DID play high intensity football, BUT they also kept the ball a lot. It wasn't basketball-football, I don't get how this is so hard to get. They were pressing a lot, but it was not as chaotic as Bournemouth's game has been this season for example. Can Iraola be success at Liverpool? Certainly. Do I think so? They will not challenge for the title most likely. There is no need to put laughing emojis, it doesn't make your argument any better or mine any worse. edit. And yes, we need more quality passers and players who are technical. Howe doesn't seem to think so, and I don't think he has a possession play up his sleeve, so will see more of the same next season. Unless there is some personnel changes in the coaching department.

Ffs. That is the way pretty much every successful team plays, because holding the ball means controlling the game. I don't know how to make this more clear. Klopp had his time, but like I said, even his team could control the game. It was a lot of pressing but it was not end to end -football against small teams. Mourinho was successful ages ago with ultra defensive (like less than 10 league goals conceded) football and squad more expensive than anyone else's. In Madrid he had the best front 6 in the world most likely. Or second best. So who are these other "countless of other (successful) managers" who have played the game with great intensity and less than 50 % of the ball? Like I said, Iraola can be successful with Liverpool if he adopts his game. Playing something like 60 games a season with that intensity just doesn't seem to work. Funny that you are saying how shit Tonali's passing is, but then defending game style were shit passing doesn't matter, because it means games end up looking like basketball matches.

This might be true 2025-26, but I think we passed the ball well enough when we ended up in UCL place the season before.. But the point in possession is, that whoever controls the ball controls the tempo of the game. Big teams have a lot of games during season, and they HAVE to keep the ball more than others, because otherwise it ends up in chaos football (see Newcastle), more running, more injuries and more points dropped. Slot clearly lost the dressing room, and big players have thrown the toys out. Their attacking play was very predictable and new signings didn't really fit the style of play at all.

He has, but it really doesn't always work like that does it? Of course Bournemouth team could pass the ball, so does Howe's Newcastle. Do I see Howe being able to be a success at club like Liverpool? No I don't. For the same reason that Iraola. I mean, they have kept the ball less than we have in the last 2 seasons, and we are bad at it. Iraola's teams create a lot of chances but the also concede a lot of chances. It is entertaining to watch, but playing 3 games a week with that intensity and risk taking, I don't see it being a success. But we will see, just my guess.

Klopp’s team could also keep the ball and play possession football against teams that park the bus. I am not yet sure how Iraola does that.