Sir Joel Inton

Exactly this. Mourinho has done some incredible things as a manager and I love him but I wouldn’t want him anywhere near us as the league and football has moved on. His methods no longer get the same results. Same could be said for Rafa too. Managers listed here as examples of why it’s important to stick rather than twist as Sir Alex and Pep, two managers who continually change and tweak their approach are the complete opposite of Howe. The whole point is if Howe is to stay he must evolve and change, something he failed to do at Bournemouth and he’s currently failing to do here.

He’s sensational on all those points. He’s been one of the best Ambassadors the club has ever had. I also dispute wanting him sacked. Thinking he should be and being genuinely sad about him being sacked does not necessarily equal wanting him to be sacked. I’ve said several times my preferred outcome would be to see the improvement to give hope he could take us to where we aspire to get to.

I have already explained it to you in the post you quoted, but CV doesn’t equal guaranteed success in football. I’m suggesting we need a manager who fits the brief of: 1. Able to manage a European campaign alongside a successful league one. 2. Good at continuing a positive team culture and morale that Howe has built. 3. Able to manage replacing key players, potentially at short notice, due to our players being at risk of the Sly 6 demanding them. 4. A proven ability to prioritise competitions. 5. Able to develop youth players and bring a steady stream through into the first team or as sellable assets. Those 5 points are much more important than ticking off a CV. Otherwise we’d end up with a Brendon Rogers or Ange. Whether that manager is currently managing Real Madrid or out of work after failing in their previous job in the Bundesliga, it doesn’t matter. Their abilities and potential is more important than binary past success. Arsenal plucked Arteta from being a coach. He’s not done too badly replacing Emery with a greater CV.

The only reason people are asking for names being put forward is to find any potential reason to criticise them.

Possibly, yes. If we start utilising a tactical approach to bring out the best in them (such as Woltemade) rather than having square pegs in round holes. We will still require that. Nobody is disputing otherwise. It’s definitely a valid concern. We cannot afford to purchase more players who are one dimensional wedded to Howe’s system. Because the current tactical approach doesn’t allow those players to operate to their best abilities, or we’re playing the wrong players in the wrong games. Correct. Underperforming with absolutely no indication we will suddenly start to perform. I’m currently more confident that we’ll end up below that ‘par’ position, rather than at it or above. That’d be a failure with significant financial and sporting consequences. The same questions and concerns have been said for some time, after both wins and losses. I’d argue it’s more shorttermism to stay with Howe. After all, we know we may qualify for Europe but then need to replace him after that as he’s unable to manage a European campaign.

Best example of this argument is Pep. Has one of the best CVs in world football but I’m not confident he improves us as he’s never had to work under financial constraints or build a club up from the bottom. The compatibility of the right manager to replace Howe at Newcastle does not necessarily correlate to how many times they’ve qualified for the CL or won a League Cup.

If you have to have a manager with a better CV, or you are confident will do better, how can you ever replace a manager who wins the Champions League? Can you only employ a World Cup winning manager? It’s impossible to be confident a manager will come in and do better as football isn’t a game as simple as that. A manager who works at x club under y conditions may not be able to replicate that elsewhere due to various circumstances. However, a manager who failed at b club under c conditions may find a new club allows them to flourish. Any change would be a risk. However, many think it’s a bigger risk at this stage to go into the summer and next season with Howe.

Impossible. I’ve seen on here that there is no better manager than Howe and we’ll immediately go backwards if he’s replaced. Don’t start coming in here with evidence to the contrary, we need to rely on past feelings rather than the current and future.

Depends if you’re talking about right now or 12-18 months ago. At other top clubs Trippier, Burn and Wilson would have been peddled long before they were or will be. That’s down to the reasons set out in my earlier post. Howe is not stupid, he’ll know Trippier needs replacing as he cannot play until he’s 45. However, he’s replacing him far too late on for reasons already set out.

He stopped Trippier from leaving and tried to resign Wilson why are we re-writing history?

This is bang on. However, whenever we (or Bournemouth) have tried to implement anything else other than his control, he falls out with the sporting director and we start again. His methods require the control to an extent though, so I can understand it. He’d never bring in 10 unknown players as it’d take him a full season to trust them and be confident they’ll follow his methods (see Hall as a prime example). Therefore he’d have the issues he’s had here before where rotation is required due to extra games but turning to his bench and refusing to give anyone time because they’re not trusted, leading to injury crisis and downturn in form. It’s why he’s so loyal to his leadership group, they are the trusted circle. He’d rather play four Dan Burns at the back than any of our other back four. We’ve seen it when Hall has been sat on the bench to shoehorn Burn into the side and a position he is totally incapable of. It’s also why (whether some can accept it or not), his preference was to retain Wilson rather than improve on him. He’s trusted, he knows what Howe wants and he will carry out that role. That’s a lot more important than letting him go and recruiting a hot prospect 22 year old who could work on the fringes of the side. These approaches work to an extent, especially when you create that siege mentality of underdogs. However, that only gets you so far, as we’ve found. If I thought he would be willing to adapt and change this, I’d keep him in a heartbeat. But there is no evidence he is or ever will be. This is also why it’s laughable to suggest he would succeed at a club where he is given 20 new first team players every season to try and form a side with.

This is such an odd point to make. Our team would also be better with Salah, Kane, Yamal, Valverde and Semenyo in it. It doesn’t mean we had a realistic chance to sign them, or they would join us. The fact we wasted so much time chasing players who were unaffordable, unattainable or both make no difference to Howe’s tactical limitations.

It’s also blind loyalty to suggest any minute he will learn and change it when his limitations and issues holding us back today were present at Bournemouth. He was relegated, took a year out, has had 5 years in another job and still hasn’t learned. Why is he suddenly going to change his ways overnight after losing to the mackems?

Okay at the point you try to tell me we offer contracts to players we don’t want, as token gestures, you may as well go off thinking you’re right.

Have you seen post match interviews or when they become pundits? Common sense is lacking by the bucketload.

Last try Ever heard of this Ornstein fella? Think he has his finger on the pulse a bit… https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5771041/2025/08/02/callum-wilson-transfer-west-ham/ “The 33-year-old, who was won nine England caps, left Newcastle at the end of his contract on June 30 after the north east club decided against taking up the option to extend his deal. The parties held talks about a new contract that would have been slightly more incentive-based, but could not reach an agreement.” If going from a 60k a week contract to a straight pay as you play deal can be described as “slightly more incentive-based”, then yeah, you’re absolutely right. Although I think that would be the understatement of the year. Fwiw his West Ham contract is a £6k base salary and incentives up to £60k depending on appearances. We offered more than that as a base but lower overall in incentives, which were harder to achieve (i.e. he had to start or play more minutes to achieve than what he needed to do at West Ham). He rejected it as he expected more and better offers but never got them.

I’ve explained this to you multiple times now. It’s reported as an incentivised deal. The article I shared earlier reported it to you in that way. His current West Ham contract is a base salary and incentivised through appearances too But what do I know, dcmk knows loads more than that. We’ll end this here.

“Pay as you play” = no base salary, an income solely based on appearances, with the ability to terminate it for free. Wilson’s offer = a contract for 1 year, base salary which increased based on number of appearances as well as having higher than usual appearance fees. Would cost to terminate.

An incentivised deal is not necessarily a pay as you play deal. As I said earlier, that you’ve ignored, we offered him a lower base salary than he was on before with incentives based on appearances. You also conveniently ignored the article shared that stated Howe was keen to retain Wilson. FYI, the club were not. Hence why they’d only offer the terms outlined above. If it was solely down to Howe, he’d have got a 1-year contract extension on his existing terms. But I won’t hang my hat on that, as that is knowledge based on “ITKery”. I’ve tried to support your understanding on this one, but will leave it here tonight.

“All the reports”… took less than 2 minutes and one search to identify this one: https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/newcastle-united-make-contract-decision-32006777.amp “However, Newcastle have not managed to agree on an extension for Callum Wilson yet. Howe was keen to keep the no.9 with an incentivised deal on the table for the ex-AFC Bournemouth star, one offer was turned down last week but that could still change.” We could have extended his contract on his existing terms, but chose not to, whilst still wanting to retain him on a cheaper salary. You’re confusing these two separate points.

Assuming we’re out of contention for Europe by then, I’d happily let West Ham come and spank us in the final home game if it leads to Spurs being relegated. It’d be an honour.

We made an offer to Wilson which had a lower base salary than he was on with incentives based on appearance numbers. Wilson rejected it. It wasn’t an entirely “pay as you play” deal and we made a contract offer to him. So aye, I’d say that sounds like we tried to keep him.

If Howe is still here I would be more surprised if we don’t sign Ramsdale rather than if we did. Especially if Pope leaves as no way we go out looking for 2 new keepers in the same window.

What? He wanted Wilson to extend before the season ended and those names were just a mere spec of consideration.

We should have planned for Wilson’s exit 12 months before it occurred. He didn’t run out of contract overnight. He was never good enough or fit enough to be considered an option in that final season. It was inexcusable to not have someone lined up to replace him almost instantly. As soon as Brentford rejected £35m for Wissa, we should have been elsewhere. It got messy once Isak threw his toys out of the pram and we had failed to replace Wilson as we needed two strikers and everyone knew we had a lot of money to burn. It was one of the biggest failures not replacing Wilson instantly at the start of the window. Particularly when you hear we knew Isak was unsettled long before and could have envisaged it spiralling.