tarie4

Interesting, very interesting. "The good news is that £70m now drops off going into the new cycle so we have got that chance to know what our available headroom is." Any thoughts what that might be?

Could you please explain how you are calculating that?I am having a bit of difficulty understanding.

Very well. I will defer to your judgment sir.

I hope he doesn't fail. I wish him the best of luck in his career. I really want him to reach his full potential. I would never wish for a player to fail. He has left, and we cannot change that. Let us accept it and move forward. Miniteh and the board that sold him have done so, and now it is time for us, the supporters, to do the same.

Arda Güler cost Madrid 20 million plus add ons. I know who is the better prospect. Do you? Man City bought J. Alvarez for 14 million. I don't think Miniteh will start for Brighton this season. Let's wait and see. Imagine Brighton paid 30 million for Pedro. Who would you start out wide if they both played for Newcastle? Pedro would be better than Almiron and Murphy, but Minteh wouldn't.

You have not provided the requested information. I have asked for it, but you have not given it to me. Please provide these underlying objectives.

We all want the best for Newcastle while we may have differing opinions on the matter, let us respectfully agree to disagree. 33 million was fantastic business for an untested player.

You have read our perspective from atleast 6 pple and haven't conceded any ground too. Pot kettle comes to mind. Again you misquote me, I didn't say the club doesn't make plans. I said it sets clear objectives and then set strategic plans from those objectives. Clearly proves my point. I mean this is from someone who says Brighton bent is over in the Minteh deal.

Club management and ownership do not create detailed plans, they establish clear objectives. For instance, in a recent interview in Germany, Eales discussed objectives rather than plans. Similarly, Staveley mentioned in an interview that the primary objective was to retain all of our star players. After establishing the clear objectives they then formulate plans, it is important to remember that the objectives should remain constant, even if the plans need to be adjusted due to unforeseen circumstances. In this case, the objective was to retain all of our star players, and this was successfully achieved. In the business world, such an accomplishment is typically rewarded with a bonus. However, it is puzzling to observe that some individuals discuss plans without clearly defined objectives. PIF sets objectives, and the board is responsible for meeting them. Failure to do so should result in appropriate consequences. For instance, Eddie's objective for this season is to qualify for European competition. The specific strategies he employs to achieve this goal are secondary. If he fails to meet this objective, it would be reasonable for him to face job termination. I trust that this explanation clarifies the importance of objectives in business and sports.

You're avoiding the main issue again. We didn't sign anyone in January, so the 60 million deficit was already there in the summer of 2023. The board, including Ashworth, was aware of this. The primary objective, as confirmed by Staveley, was to retain all of our key players. This goal was successfully accomplished. You say we should not have left ourselves exposed, Look, we took a risk by buying players like Gordon, Tonali, Hall, Barnes, Tino, and Miniteh. But if we hadn't taken that risk, we wouldn't have any of them now. And it turned out well, didn't it? Staveley said she didn't want to leave before we were PSR compliant so that Eales and the board would be in a strong position, and I honestly think she did a great job. For Minteh and Anderson, we gained Gordon, Tonali, Hall, Barnes, Tino, new contract for big Joe, Pope, Botman Isak etc. Staveley and the others really did a great job there, mate. They took some risks, but it all worked out in the end. Can you say it didn't? Also, to say Eddie is on record regretting the sale of Anderson is moot. Eddie is also on record regretting letting Shelvy, Wood, Paul and Matt go. He is a professional and gives a professional answer. The correct one imo.

Hey, just like TCD, you're not explaining how we'd cover the 60 million PSR gap. The bullet points don't mention it. Unless I missed something, I'd expect something like... 1. The acquisition of Barnes resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of 12 million. 2. The acquisition of Tonali resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of 15 million. 3. The acquisition of Hall resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of 7 million. Not 1.Maybe we thought we'd go further in Europe and at least get into the Europa knockouts? 2.Maybe we thought we'd finish higher in the league with that investment? 3.Maybe we expected more sponsorships or a big value one fell through? 4.Maybe we planned on an inflated deal before the new APT requirements came in? 5.Maybe we thought it'd be easier to sell one or more of Miggy, Lascelles, Targett, Lewis, Fraser, Dubravka, Wilson, or Trippier in January or June? 6.Maybe Ashworth had planned on selling Joelinton and others and when he left we had to scramble for a plan B? 7.Related, maybe once Ashworth left no one was strong enough to counter Eddie's desire to keep all his players? 8.Maybe we just assumed we wouldn't be able to keep Bruno and pre-spent some of that money? 9.Maybe we didn't think the PL rules had any teeth and then Everton/Forest happened? These are not solutions but hypothetical scenarios. If one suggests that the board did not handle the situation appropriately, their solutions should be more specific. "5.Maybe we thought it'd be easier to sell one or more of Miggy, Lascelles, Targett, Lewis, Fraser, Dubravka, Wilson, or Trippier in January or June?" As it turned out, we were unable to sell the players we intended to, rendering that argument moot. However, we were able to sell Minteh, who was a valuable asset. The primary contention from TCD and others is that Minteh should not have been sold. In light of this, I would like to understand the alternative course of action that the board should have taken. It is important to note that no other clubs were interested in the other players we sought to sell, or the offers received were insufficient. Once more, I find myself perplexed by the notion that our management is lacking. Instead of offering vague possibilities and uncertainties, it would be more prudent to present concrete plans to address the 60 million deficit.

This is what the board did. I am not interested in hypothetical scenarios or possibilities. I have already shared this information earlier. Staveley made some moves, mate. First, she gave big Joe a contract. Selling him for 40 million is just wishful thinking. We'd have to buy a replacement like Onana for 55 million. So not only did we spend more to replace him, but we also blew a big chunk of this season's budget and ended up in the same place. Then, she sold Minteh for 33 million. Brighton paid 30 million for Pedro. That's some fantastic business, mate. And let's not forget the shady deal with our pals at Forest. But here's the thing, as of today, we're PSR compliant. We kept our purples and blues, and if we just spend 60 million between now and the end of the window, it's to improve the first 11, not to replace anyone. She left Mitchell in a strong position. Could you please advise what, in your opinion, the board should have done differently to ensure that we are in at least the same position as when Staveley and her associates left us? If you could kindly provide well-reasoned and thorough solutions on how to address the significant financial deficit we were facing, rather than hypothetical scenarios and uncertainties that have been provided all day, I would be more inclined to agree with your perspective. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.

If Barnes is valued at 12 million, what about the remaining 48 million? It could be argued that the 60 million requirement was entire business from Gordon, Tonali, Barnes, Tino, Miniteh, and Hall. I comprehend the concerns and hypothetical situations involved, but given that we did not sell any star players and are compliant, it is unclear how one can conclude that we are poorly managed. All that has been presented are hypothetical scenarios and "what ifs and Maybes" You do not provide any concrete solutions, only theories. I would appreciate it if you could outline what the board should have done differently, rather than presenting theories and hypothetical situations.

As long as you continue to bring this up, I will continue to ask how we could have better handled the situation. Please provide specific details on how you would have addressed the 60 million deficit. Simply stating that we should not have acquired Barnes, who only accounts for 9 million, does not address the remaining 50 million.

May I ask, what do you think the club could have done differently? I have asked. @The College Dropoutthe same thing but won't get a response. We had a deficit of approximately 60 million that needed to be addressed. If we exclude the acquisitions of Hall, Gordon, Barnes, Tino, and Tonali, which total around 50 million, we still require an additional 10 million. However, let us consider our current squad Without these players It would be unfair to solely criticize the acquisition of Barnes, as his value is only around 9 million, we would still have a shortfall of 50 million. A possible solution could have been to refrain from making any purchases from Gordon to Hall, with the exception of Minteh. I believe that you and TCD are only addressing a superficial aspect of the issue. It would be more beneficial to identify which specific players should not have been acquired. Unfortunately, discussing player sales is not relevant as there was a lack of interest in our players, despite our efforts to facilitate transfers. To summarize, we faced a significant financial gap of 60 million. I kindly request your assistance and @The College Dropout in identifying potential solutions to address this deficit, while retaining Minteh in our squad.

That's an interesting view, but like I said before, this argument is useless considering the current state of the club. We have all our star players, we follow the PSR rules, and we don't need to replace anyone. We can only get better from here. In reference to the ongoing discussion, I understand that the primary focus of your argument is the retention of Minteh as a valuable asset to the team like@The College Dropout In your perspective, you believe that acquiring Barnes was not essential, and to some degree, that is accurate. However, I would personally prefer to have Barnes in the current squad rather than Minteh. I believe most individuals would share this sentiment. What are your thoughts on this matter? We are compliant with the PSR and have retained all of our star players. This is a significant achievement for the board, and while we can speculate about potential outcomes, the reality is that we are in a strong position at present. This is a major success and a testament to the skill and expertise of Staveley and the board.

Which games come to mind?

I am curious to understand your reasoning process. As a wise individual once remarked, "It is challenging to convince someone through reasoning alone when they did not arrive at their position through logical reasoning in the first place." You're just throwing out accusations without giving any real solutions. It's crazy. Ashworth was the one who bought the players in the winter and summer of 2023. So if he was still here today, can you give me some realistic examples of how he would have handled it better? Please note that the primary objective going into this summer would have been to retain our most valuable players, enhance the starting lineup within budgetary constraints, and ensure compliance with the PSR Staveley made some moves, mate. First, she gave big Joe a contract. Selling him for 40 million is just wishful thinking. We'd have to buy a replacement like Onana for 55 million. So not only did we spend more to replace him, but we also blew a big chunk of this season's budget and ended up in the same place. Then, she sold Minteh for 33 million. Brighton paid 30 million for Pedro. That's some fantastic business, mate. And let's not forget the shady deal with our pals at Forest. But here's the thing, as of today, we're PSR compliant. We kept our purples and blues, and if we just spend 60 million between now and the end of the window, it's to improve the first 11, not to replace anyone. She left Mitchell in a strong position. Now, no reasonable person can say that she and the board overstepped or didn't plan it out properly especially a Newcastle fan, you can't deny that we're in a fantastic position right now. So, what would Ashworth or someone else have done differently? I'm curious to know your thoughts, mate.

The most successful businesses take risks too. It's ridiculous to say we didn't have a plan, when we're PSR compliant. You say the plan was to sell Bruno, and you point to his release clause and the timing of it. Sometimes you mention the contract situation of big Joe, saying we could have sold him. I can also mention Almiron, Tripps, and maybe Wilson in January. We didn't manage to sell them, but those were plans. We had them, but they didn't work out. No one came in for Bruno, Almiron refused to go to the Saudis, and the offers for Wilson and Tripps weren't good enough. What I don't understand, or maybe it's just funny to me, is that you say the club didn't have a plan or didn't plan for the PSR. But you mention Bruno's release clause, Big Joe, and others in the January transfer window. Those seem like plans to me, even though they didn't work out. The last-ditch plan or solution was to sell Minteh and do a shady deal with Forrest. Amanda warned us that the big six clubs wouldn't help us and would try to take advantage of us. That's why there are always reports about Isak going to Arsenal for 75 million and so on. You mentioned Eales and selling a purple or a blue player. I think he thought selling Minteh, who is neither purple nor blue, was a better idea. It'll be interesting to see how things play out as the season goes on.

Eddie has never had the final say over the Director of Football, whether it was Ashworth or Mitchell. You're completely wrong about that. As for the second part, what you said doesn't match up with the "widely reported" claim that Eddie has the final say. You do not have evidence for that assertion, you're grasping at straws and I think you're mistaken. But hey, it's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, even if it's totally wrong.

Terrible offer that, kinda offer that makes the selling club not want to negotiate anymore with you on FC24 manager mode.

If I may recall the episode correctly, it was Dan Ashworth who presented the idea to Staveley and the board. He expressed his belief that Gordon aligns with the profile of the player the club is seeking. Therefore, it would have been a collective decision, with Dan and Eddie likely sharing the same perspective. I believe that Mitchell is seeking a similar collaborative relationship. On the 2nd bit, No manager with any self-respect would ever agree to that. Just look at Poch at Chelsea. Those are exactly the kind of assurances Eddie was looking for from the board. Only a "yes man" manager would agree to that.

Your links here do not prove or show Eddie has the final say. I'm sorry can your copy and paste the exact statement from the articles that lead you to making that assumption. I might have missed it whilst reading them. Going into a champions league campaign, premier league season and Cup competitions, you were okay with Gordon being the only option at LW (who we bought in the winter window) being the replacement on ASM (who we sold in the summer) I think going into the season with Barnes and Gordon as our options at LW was fantastic business.

To be completely honest, that appears to be the current market value. If we were to sell Wilson, it is likely that acquiring a comparable backup option of similar quality would necessitate an investment in the range of 30 to 40 million. In the case of Allan being sold, wouldn't you agree that Barnes demonstrated sufficient competence as a replacement in terms of overall quality?

If it's not too much trouble, could you please share the record you mentioned so that I may gain some insight? If you could post the link and tag me, I would greatly appreciate it. I am genuinely interested in reading it.