We need to spend £ 150 million..............

[NE5]

Remind me how well it worked.

 

 

At times it was the pinncale of my being a fan of the club. Of couse in hindsight we have looked/are the biggest wasters of cash ever as I am sure list of big buys that went wrong would prove. In the end they left us with a club that was 13th in the Premier League, that is an improvement from where they started from when they bought the club.

 

summed up in 3 lines

 

Would anyone care to speculate what would have happened if we hadn't spent the cash that we did during that time ?

 

 

[Guest Knightrider]

Despite our position as a mediocre club and the increasing competitive nature of the transfer market I am pretty confident that Newcastle United can still attract top quality players to the club as we have never had any real problems in doing so at any point in our history. Traditionally Newcastle have always managed to sign top quality players whether it be luring Kevin Keegan to a then second division outfit or Real Madrid and England's Michael Owen to Graeme Souness' circus. Remember money talks. Especially in today's world. No, our problems have mainly stemmed from our inability to sign the right quality players. Keegan was the right kind of quality buy, Owen wasn't. And it is this area of identifying and buying players that we now need to get right once and for all because our only exit strategy out of this deep rooted mediocrity is spending big, bigger than ever before. We have proven ourselves unable to show the kind of patience and faith needed to rebuild in a gradual and safe fashion that has yielded success of some sort for the Evertons and Villas of this world so we have no other option. Our small and bereft of quality squad demands it, our downbeat disillusioned fanbase demands and most of all Kevin Keegan demands it. Furthermore, the Premiership landscape demands it. If we don't spend big we will recede even further into our mediocre shell regardless of the man in the dugout. It won't be easy to sign top quality players but it isn't beyond our reach. It will be even harder to sign the right kind of players. But that's why Mike Ashley has brought Keegan back essentially, to spend his money well on the right kind of players. And for Keegan, he has a canny knack of doing just that. None more so than for us in his first spell as manager at Gallowgate. Can he do it again? Of course he can and I have faith in him to do so. How much does he require? As much as possible. We don't need to do a Chelsea of course and if I'm being honest with myself, I'd rather we didn't go down that route. But we do need to spend big, more than we've ever spent, and on quality rather than quantity this time. And we will in my opinion. Keegan wouldn't have accepted an invitation to return otherwise. Time will tell whether we actually spend big on the right players of course but that's something we can only truly assess in time. Until then... you get what you pay for. Or for Keegan, what other managers have paid for.

[ChezGiven]

If i may interject, the point of my earlier post was to highlight the need to spend and the need to GAMBLE.

 

Players that are dead certs will go to bigger clubs unless the timing of the market is in our favour. We need to overpay some talent, we need to gamble on some more talent and we need make clubs offers they cant refuse. Some of it might come off, with a bit of luck. As it did for SBR eventually. Sort of.

[Happy Face]

You're making things up and attributing them to me. What else would I do?

 

I asked you a question, answer it or hide, guess you are doing the latter. 

 

No amount of edits are going to make you right on this one.

 

We need to spend money, if we don't were fuked...if you agree with that then your comments:

 

"Exactly. Doesn't stop people thinking it's the be all and end all though."

 

Are totally fuking worthless mate.

 

 

 

Please point out where I said that we should spend nothing. I'll be excited to see the link, because I can't for the life of me remember where I said that.

 

Whats:

 

Exactly. Doesn't stop people thinking it's the be all and end all though.

 

Suppose to mean then? Just a passive pointless comment NOT to be picked up upon?

 

 

If your comments are THAT throwaway then why bother?

 

My comment was a dig at the people who seem to think that as long as we spend a load of money, things will take care of themselves.

 

We've been spending loads of money for years under the previous board, as NE5 and others love to keep telling everyone. Remind me how well it worked.

 

Still waiting for the link where I said we should spend nothing btw.

 

europe and the Champions League more than everybody but 4 teams ?

 

2 FA Cup Finals ?

 

A 52,000 stadium filled almost every game ?

 

 

 

Haven't we spent more in the last 5 years (with no champions league or FA cup finals to show for it) than in the ten years before that.

 

 

[Dave]

If i may interject, the point of my earlier post was to highlight the need to spend and the need to GAMBLE.

 

Players that are dead certs will go to bigger clubs unless the timing of the market is in our favour. We need to overpay some talent, we need to gamble on some more talent and we need make clubs offers they cant refuse. Some of it might come off, with a bit of luck. As it did for SBR eventually. Sort of.

 

That's fair enough, and with an owner hopefully willing to use up a bit of his significant disposable income we will do so.

 

In other news, this post is invisible, so ner.

[S.S.R.]

I'd rather we held out the big money until we had footballing incentives to offer.

 

We don't need stars, we just need options. The problem isn't that the players aren't good enough, it's that we have to play them regardless.

 

I'd like to see us unearth the next Lescott or Cahill.

 

[NE5]

If i may interject, the point of my earlier post was to highlight the need to spend and the need to GAMBLE.

 

Players that are dead certs will go to bigger clubs unless the timing of the market is in our favour. We need to overpay some talent, we need to gamble on some more talent and we need make clubs offers they cant refuse. Some of it might come off, with a bit of luck. As it did for SBR eventually. Sort of.

 

is the correct answer

 

EDIT. I think we should have offered money for David Bentley, and gambled. Now he will cost more in the summer. The day we can't tempt the best players from the likes of Blackburn, is the day we are , eeerrr.......back to the days pre-Shepherd and Hall in fact.

 

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

You're making things up and attributing them to me. What else would I do?

 

I asked you a question, answer it or hide, guess you are doing the latter. 

 

No amount of edits are going to make you right on this one.

 

We need to spend money, if we don't were fuked...if you agree with that then your comments:

 

"Exactly. Doesn't stop people thinking it's the be all and end all though."

 

Are totally fuking worthless mate.

 

 

 

Please point out where I said that we should spend nothing. I'll be excited to see the link, because I can't for the life of me remember where I said that.

 

Whats:

 

Exactly. Doesn't stop people thinking it's the be all and end all though.

 

Suppose to mean then? Just a passive pointless comment NOT to be picked up upon?

 

 

If your comments are THAT throwaway then why bother?

 

My comment was a dig at the people who seem to think that as long as we spend a load of money, things will take care of themselves.

 

We've been spending loads of money for years under the previous board, as NE5 and others love to keep telling everyone. Remind me how well it worked.

 

Still waiting for the link where I said we should spend nothing btw.

 

europe and the Champions League more than everybody but 4 teams ?

 

2 FA Cup Finals ?

 

A 52,000 stadium filled almost every game ?

 

 

 

Haven't we spent more in the last 5 years (with no champions league or FA cup finals to show for it) than in the ten years before that.

 

 

 

Well, of course. How much would we pay now for players like Shearer and Les Ferdinand ?

 

 

[ChezGiven]

If i may interject, the point of my earlier post was to highlight the need to spend and the need to GAMBLE.

 

Players that are dead certs will go to bigger clubs unless the timing of the market is in our favour. We need to overpay some talent, we need to gamble on some more talent and we need make clubs offers they cant refuse. Some of it might come off, with a bit of luck. As it did for SBR eventually. Sort of.

 

That's fair enough, and with an owner hopefully willing to use up a bit of his significant disposable income we will do so.

 

In other news, this post is invisible, so ner.

 

 

Its easy to say spending big doesnt work but then you think about it and you think of Shearer, Robert, Dyer and Bellamy and what did those four set us back? Nearly £40m. 

[Wullie]

£150m is a gross exaggeration and would be typical Newcastle. Villa and Citeh were in no better positions than we are at the moment when new managers came in and were given money, ditto Everton though it's taken a bit longer there. Their managers have added to players who were severely underperforming with good players and by extension got the best out of the other lads.

 

We have some good players currently low on confidence and we have some absolute dross. The last thing we want to do is go spaffing cash on either overrated Englishmen or big names who are probably on the slide at bigger clubs. I really hope we look further than that, which is what the likes of Spurs, Everton, Citeh and Villa have done.

[Thespence]

Haven't we spent more in the last 5 years (with no champions league or FA cup finals to show for it) than in the ten years before that.

 

In millions yes. But I think we have only broken our own transfer record once in the last 5 years & we ain't broke the WORLD TRANSFER RECORD for a while. Of course transfer fee's have went up in that time as well.

[Dave]

£150m is a gross exaggeration and would be typical Newcastle. Villa and Citeh were in no better positions than we are at the moment when new managers came in and were given money, ditto Everton though it's taken a bit longer there. Their managers have added to players who were severely underperforming with good players and by extension got the best out of the other lads.

 

We have some good players currently low on confidence and we have some absolute dross. The last thing we want to do is go spaffing cash on either overrated Englishmen or big names who are probably on the slide at bigger clubs. I really hope we look further than that, which is what the likes of Spurs, Everton, Citeh and Villa have done.

 

ZOMGS R U SAYIN SPEND £0?

[ChezGiven]

I reckon Shearer's equivalent price today, given inflation for British players of that calibre, is around £25-30m.

[thomas]

These are the dumbest 3 pages I have ever read, no question about it.

[ChezGiven]

These are the dumbest 3 pages I have ever read, no question about it.

 

And your appearance seals it.

[Baggio]

Nobody has said we don't need to sign players, however spending more doesn't necessarily mean we will improve more which is what people are getting at.

 

Keegan's job will be to work out how he wants his team to play and look at the attributes needed for players to play in those positions, it's not about going out and buying the best players who cost the most but about finding players who can fit into the system he wants and has the right attributes to make that system work.

 

It's about partnerships and attributes that complement the rest of the team rather than signing the best players and presuming they will make a good team.

[S.S.R.]

Attributes and attitudes.

[Wullie]

Haven't we spent more in the last 5 years (with no champions league or FA cup finals to show for it) than in the ten years before that.

 

In millions yes. But I think we have only broken our own transfer record once in the last 5 years & we ain't broke the WORLD TRANSFER RECORD for a while. Of course transfer fee's have went up in that time as well.

 

We've not spent £48m on one player? God, the fucking skinflints. 

[Thespence]

I reckon Shearer's equivalent price today, given inflation for British players of that calibre, is around £25-30m.

 

You rate him the Rio bracket. Dont you think Shearer would break the domestic club transfer record. Dont let the battering ram we had in his last few seasons get mixed up with powerhouse we signed.

[Parky]

If i may interject, the point of my earlier post was to highlight the need to spend and the need to GAMBLE.

 

Players that are dead certs will go to bigger clubs unless the timing of the market is in our favour. We need to overpay some talent, we need to gamble on some more talent and we need make clubs offers they cant refuse. Some of it might come off, with a bit of luck. As it did for SBR eventually. Sort of.

 

is the correct answer

 

EDIT. I think we should have offered money for David Bentley, and gambled. Now he will cost more in the summer. The day we can't tempt the best players from the likes of Blackburn, is the day we are , eeerrr.......back to the days pre-Shepherd and Hall in fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Buying talent is ALWAYS  a gamble, invariably some work out, some are great and some average. It should never deter one from spending and showing ambition as this will attract MORE talent along the line.

 

We've had some big money failures in the past, but that was in main due to bad management and poor scouting. This is in the process of being rectified as we speak. THere is no club out there who haven't purchased duffers for big money from time to time.

[ChezGiven]

I reckon Shearer's equivalent price today, given inflation for British players of that calibre, is around £25-30m.

 

You rate him the Rio bracket. Dont you think Shearer would break the domestic club transfer record. Dont let the battering ram we had in his last few seasons get mixed up with powerhouse we signed.

 

Ok more then, just adds weight to the idea if you want world class, you have to spend a lot of money.

[Parky]

I reckon Shearer's equivalent price today, given inflation for British players of that calibre, is around £25-30m.

 

Or whatever Torres cost Liverpool in the end.

[Wullie]

I reckon Shearer's equivalent price today, given inflation for British players of that calibre, is around £25-30m.

 

You rate him the Rio bracket. Dont you think Shearer would break the domestic club transfer record. Dont let the battering ram we had in his last few seasons get mixed up with powerhouse we signed.

 

Ok more then, just adds weight to the idea if you want world class, you have to spend a lot of money.

 

Alternatively, you could take the view that a good scouting system will save you millions. Instead of Shearer for £30m, I'd rather have Berbatov, Young, Arteta and Elano for a combined, what, £28m?

[Thespence]

Haven't we spent more in the last 5 years (with no champions league or FA cup finals to show for it) than in the ten years before that.

 

In millions yes. But I think we have only broken our own transfer record once in the last 5 years & we ain't broke the WORLD TRANSFER RECORD for a while. Of course transfer fee's have went up in that time as well.

 

We've not spent £48m on one player? God, the f****** skinflints.   

 

You stop breaking it & look how high it gets

[Tooj]

I reckon Shearer's equivalent price today, given inflation for British players of that calibre, is around £25-30m.

 

Or whatever Torres cost Liverpool in the end.

 

More than Torres. Seeing as at the time he was the best striker in the world. (Only because Ronaldo hadn't set foot in Barca for a tad longer)