With Owen's contract running out..

[Shearer9]

Still not sure I really want to keep him around, don't think he'll ultimatley flourish in that AMC role, but Keegan will definitley keep him.

[Happy Face]

Played his longest run of games for the club and scored 2 in the last 3 games.

 

I reckon he can finish the season with 15 goals if he stays fit, which would be no mean feat considering injuries.

 

At least, that should be his target.

 

If he does, I'd renew.

 

You reckon he can hit nine goals in eleven games? For us?

 

 

Ooooooooooh

 

Just 2 short.

So, no new contract for Owen then?

 

Not on the same wage. 

[Dave]

Played his longest run of games for the club and scored 2 in the last 3 games.

 

I reckon he can finish the season with 15 goals if he stays fit, which would be no mean feat considering injuries.

 

At least, that should be his target.

 

If he does, I'd renew.

 

You reckon he can hit nine goals in eleven games? For us?

 

 

Ooooooooooh

 

Just 2 short.

 

Not bad.

[Guest rebel_yell12]

Played his longest run of games for the club and scored 2 in the last 3 games.

 

I reckon he can finish the season with 15 goals if he stays fit, which would be no mean feat considering injuries.

 

At least, that should be his target.

 

If he does, I'd renew.

 

You reckon he can hit nine goals in eleven games? For us?

 

 

Ooooooooooh

 

Just 2 short.

So, no new contract for Owen then?

 

Not on the same wage. 

 

Then you won't keep him.  Owen can bugger off on a free after next season, and get a signing bonus at whatever UEFA-challenger club needs a top-quality striker.  Those clubs, with no transfer fee, wouldn't have a problem managing his wages at 80k per week (his "cut" wage at NUFC) and he'd be at a club that might actually win something.  Even better for him if it's in the NW, as he can sell his second home and the helicopter and save the money, thus making up his loss in wages.  Same if he's sold this summer, though at least NUFC would recoup something for him, even if a meagre 7 mil (and Smith cost 6 mil...who sets these fees?  It's utter insanity). 

 

See, here's what I don't understand:  why do people think Owen should/would accept a cut?  I wouldn't take a 30% cut in my wages.  If I were offered such a deal, after finishing successfully on a major project for my employers (even if I'd had a serious illness and been out before that, say), I would say "F*** you" and find a different employer.  Footballers are men too, with just as much (if not more) pride than any of the rest of us, and cutting wages is an insult.  If I were in that position, I'd rather take the cut at a NEW employer than for the people who just spit in my face after I busted my arse for them.  Especially if the new employer were a better one (more prestigious).  Michael Owen is not Alan Shearer -- he has no ties to the Northeast other than his paycheque.  Take that away and...what's keeping him here?  It's not the scintillating football, or the bright prospects for his international career.  His family lives in Wales, he said as much in a recent interview, and he commutes into Newcastle for work. 

 

Why insult him?  Cutting his pay is an insult, which clearly says "you aren't worth what you're on, we don't really want you to stay."  Without Owen, the new formation never would have even been thought up, and Newcastle might've been relegated, or at least further down the league.  He's the top scorer in both League and total goals.  He's captain.  He's the best and most prestigious player at the club.  He's finally fit (run of what, 20 matches?) and has scored 7 in the last 9.  If the club turn around and offer him an insulting contract it only makes the club look bad.  Especially since, let's be honest, Michael Owen is made of Teflon.  Nothing sticks to this lad -- just enough rough edges to him (the horses and bit of gambling) to make him human, but he's so clean-cut he squeaks and he's an international and national favourite.

 

Also -- a replacement could cost more than keeping him.  Keeping him on the same terms would cost the club approximately 20-22 million over four years, correct?  A replacement, if Crouch is being offered for 15 mil and Bent went last season for 17 mil, will cost between 12-15 mil in transfer fee, AT LEAST.  So, then, that player would have to agree to wages of less than 7 million over 4 years, which comes to less than 34k/week -- just to break EVEN.  This doesn't account for the loss of revenue from Owen, who moves a lot of kit internationally (and nationally) as well as providing royalties for the club for things like PES2008. 

 

All of that doesn't even add into the fact that Keegan -- the "messiah" manager -- has said Owen was to be his first and most important signing.  If he doesn't get that, it could disrupt the club's relationship with Keegan, so there's the risk of the whole mess of ANOTHER new manager. 

 

For f***s sake, just pay the lad his extra money.  Should he have been paid 100k/week to begin with?  Probably not.  But cutting it just doesn't make sense, in any way. Not financially, nor in terms of public relations.  I can't imagine Ashley became a billionaire by not seeing the simplicity of this issue. 

[Willow]

Got to keep the guy but the only reason he's going to stay is by declaring our intent in the transfer market, he's been great since he came back so even if he's fit for half of the games next season he'll be worth the money

 

I think our bid for Modric shows we have the money, just nobody knows how much....

[Guest microbar]

Keep him and pay him per game and goals bonus

That could get him 80k a week

and nothing when he is on the treatment table,

[Guest Micktoon]

Played his longest run of games for the club and scored 2 in the last 3 games.

 

I reckon he can finish the season with 15 goals if he stays fit, which would be no mean feat considering injuries.

 

At least, that should be his target.

 

If he does, I'd renew.

 

You reckon he can hit nine goals in eleven games? For us?

 

 

Ooooooooooh

 

Just 2 short.

So, no new contract for Owen then?

 

Not on the same wage. 

 

Then you won't keep him.  Owen can bugger off on a free after next season, and get a signing bonus at whatever UEFA-challenger club needs a top-quality striker.  Those clubs, with no transfer fee, wouldn't have a problem managing his wages at 80k per week (his "cut" wage at NUFC) and he'd be at a club that might actually win something.  Even better for him if it's in the NW, as he can sell his second home and the helicopter and save the money, thus making up his loss in wages.  Same if he's sold this summer, though at least NUFC would recoup something for him, even if a meagre 7 mil (and Smith cost 6 mil...who sets these fees?  It's utter insanity). 

 

See, here's what I don't understand:  why do people think Owen should/would accept a cut?  I wouldn't take a 30% cut in my wages.  If I were offered such a deal, after finishing successfully on a major project for my employers (even if I'd had a serious illness and been out before that, say), I would say "F*** you" and find a different employer.  Footballers are men too, with just as much (if not more) pride than any of the rest of us, and cutting wages is an insult.  If I were in that position, I'd rather take the cut at a NEW employer than for the people who just spit in my face after I busted my arse for them.  Especially if the new employer were a better one (more prestigious).  Michael Owen is not Alan Shearer -- he has no ties to the Northeast other than his paycheque.  Take that away and...what's keeping him here?  It's not the scintillating football, or the bright prospects for his international career.  His family lives in Wales, he said as much in a recent interview, and he commutes into Newcastle for work. 

 

Why insult him?  Cutting his pay is an insult, which clearly says "you aren't worth what you're on, we don't really want you to stay."  Without Owen, the new formation never would have even been thought up, and Newcastle might've been relegated, or at least further down the league.  He's the top scorer in both League and total goals.  He's captain.  He's the best and most prestigious player at the club.  He's finally fit (run of what, 20 matches?) and has scored 7 in the last 9.  If the club turn around and offer him an insulting contract it only makes the club look bad.  Especially since, let's be honest, Michael Owen is made of Teflon.  Nothing sticks to this lad -- just enough rough edges to him (the horses and bit of gambling) to make him human, but he's so clean-cut he squeaks and he's an international and national favourite.

 

Also -- a replacement could cost more than keeping him.  Keeping him on the same terms would cost the club approximately 20-22 million over four years, correct?  A replacement, if Crouch is being offered for 15 mil and Bent went last season for 17 mil, will cost between 12-15 mil in transfer fee, AT LEAST.  So, then, that player would have to agree to wages of less than 7 million over 4 years, which comes to less than 34k/week -- just to break EVEN.  This doesn't account for the loss of revenue from Owen, who moves a lot of kit internationally (and nationally) as well as providing royalties for the club for things like PES2008. 

 

All of that doesn't even add into the fact that Keegan -- the "messiah" manager -- has said Owen was to be his first and most important signing.  If he doesn't get that, it could disrupt the club's relationship with Keegan, so there's the risk of the whole mess of ANOTHER new manager. 

 

For f***s sake, just pay the lad his extra money.  Should he have been paid 100k/week to begin with?  Probably not.  But cutting it just doesn't make sense, in any way. Not financially, nor in terms of public relations.  I can't imagine Ashley became a billionaire by not seeing the simplicity of this issue. 

 

Nail on head.

[fredbob]

Played his longest run of games for the club and scored 2 in the last 3 games.

 

I reckon he can finish the season with 15 goals if he stays fit, which would be no mean feat considering injuries.

 

At least, that should be his target.

 

If he does, I'd renew.

 

You reckon he can hit nine goals in eleven games? For us?

 

 

Ooooooooooh

 

Just 2 short.

So, no new contract for Owen then?

 

Not on the same wage. 

 

Then you won't keep him.  Owen can bugger off on a free after next season, and get a signing bonus at whatever UEFA-challenger club needs a top-quality striker.  Those clubs, with no transfer fee, wouldn't have a problem managing his wages at 80k per week (his "cut" wage at NUFC) and he'd be at a club that might actually win something.  Even better for him if it's in the NW, as he can sell his second home and the helicopter and save the money, thus making up his loss in wages.  Same if he's sold this summer, though at least NUFC would recoup something for him, even if a meagre 7 mil (and Smith cost 6 mil...who sets these fees?  It's utter insanity). 

 

See, here's what I don't understand:  why do people think Owen should/would accept a cut?  I wouldn't take a 30% cut in my wages.  If I were offered such a deal, after finishing successfully on a major project for my employers (even if I'd had a serious illness and been out before that, say), I would say "F*** you" and find a different employer.  Footballers are men too, with just as much (if not more) pride than any of the rest of us, and cutting wages is an insult.  If I were in that position, I'd rather take the cut at a NEW employer than for the people who just spit in my face after I busted my arse for them.  Especially if the new employer were a better one (more prestigious).  Michael Owen is not Alan Shearer -- he has no ties to the Northeast other than his paycheque.  Take that away and...what's keeping him here?  It's not the scintillating football, or the bright prospects for his international career.  His family lives in Wales, he said as much in a recent interview, and he commutes into Newcastle for work. 

 

Why insult him?  Cutting his pay is an insult, which clearly says "you aren't worth what you're on, we don't really want you to stay."  Without Owen, the new formation never would have even been thought up, and Newcastle might've been relegated, or at least further down the league.  He's the top scorer in both League and total goals.  He's captain.  He's the best and most prestigious player at the club.  He's finally fit (run of what, 20 matches?) and has scored 7 in the last 9.  If the club turn around and offer him an insulting contract it only makes the club look bad.  Especially since, let's be honest, Michael Owen is made of Teflon.  Nothing sticks to this lad -- just enough rough edges to him (the horses and bit of gambling) to make him human, but he's so clean-cut he squeaks and he's an international and national favourite.

 

Also -- a replacement could cost more than keeping him.  Keeping him on the same terms would cost the club approximately 20-22 million over four years, correct?  A replacement, if Crouch is being offered for 15 mil and Bent went last season for 17 mil, will cost between 12-15 mil in transfer fee, AT LEAST.  So, then, that player would have to agree to wages of less than 7 million over 4 years, which comes to less than 34k/week -- just to break EVEN.  This doesn't account for the loss of revenue from Owen, who moves a lot of kit internationally (and nationally) as well as providing royalties for the club for things like PES2008. 

 

All of that doesn't even add into the fact that Keegan -- the "messiah" manager -- has said Owen was to be his first and most important signing.  If he doesn't get that, it could disrupt the club's relationship with Keegan, so there's the risk of the whole mess of ANOTHER new manager. 

 

For f***s sake, just pay the lad his extra money.  Should he have been paid 100k/week to begin with?  Probably not.  But cutting it just doesn't make sense, in any way. Not financially, nor in terms of public relations.  I can't imagine Ashley became a billionaire by not seeing the simplicity of this issue. 

 

Is he worth it in the long run- keegan would say yes and Owen is proven class but does Owen recent history with nufc justify and increase on an already ludicrous wage? In my opinion no.

 

Suppost its a 3 year contract on £120k p/w that translates to roughly £18m. Personally speaking im not sure Owen has shown to us (not his fault) that he isnt worth that.

 

Now supposing we were to sell him that'd save £5m per year and given us a £7-8m fee as well. Apply that to the same 3 years and you've made yourself £22-23m.

 

Do you think you could get a better striker in with that sort of money? A younger one - it seems to be the route that the board would like to go.

 

Its open to opinion as to which is the better option- id never usually advocate selling our better players but in this case Owen just seems on a unjustifiably high wage and half a season of decent work doesnt get anywhere near to justifying it, especially when there are potentially other better targets out there.

 

[merlin]

Played his longest run of games for the club and scored 2 in the last 3 games.

 

I reckon he can finish the season with 15 goals if he stays fit, which would be no mean feat considering injuries.

 

At least, that should be his target.

 

If he does, I'd renew.

 

You reckon he can hit nine goals in eleven games? For us?

 

 

Ooooooooooh

 

Just 2 short.

So, no new contract for Owen then?

 

Not on the same wage. 

 

Then you won't keep him.  Owen can bugger off on a free after next season, and get a signing bonus at whatever UEFA-challenger club needs a top-quality striker.  Those clubs, with no transfer fee, wouldn't have a problem managing his wages at 80k per week (his "cut" wage at NUFC) and he'd be at a club that might actually win something.  Even better for him if it's in the NW, as he can sell his second home and the helicopter and save the money, thus making up his loss in wages.  Same if he's sold this summer, though at least NUFC would recoup something for him, even if a meagre 7 mil (and Smith cost 6 mil...who sets these fees?  It's utter insanity). 

 

See, here's what I don't understand:  why do people think Owen should/would accept a cut?  I wouldn't take a 30% cut in my wages.  If I were offered such a deal, after finishing successfully on a major project for my employers (even if I'd had a serious illness and been out before that, say), I would say "F*** you" and find a different employer.  Footballers are men too, with just as much (if not more) pride than any of the rest of us, and cutting wages is an insult.  If I were in that position, I'd rather take the cut at a NEW employer than for the people who just spit in my face after I busted my arse for them.  Especially if the new employer were a better one (more prestigious).  Michael Owen is not Alan Shearer -- he has no ties to the Northeast other than his paycheque.  Take that away and...what's keeping him here?  It's not the scintillating football, or the bright prospects for his international career.  His family lives in Wales, he said as much in a recent interview, and he commutes into Newcastle for work. 

 

Why insult him?  Cutting his pay is an insult, which clearly says "you aren't worth what you're on, we don't really want you to stay."  Without Owen, the new formation never would have even been thought up, and Newcastle might've been relegated, or at least further down the league.  He's the top scorer in both League and total goals.  He's captain.  He's the best and most prestigious player at the club.  He's finally fit (run of what, 20 matches?) and has scored 7 in the last 9.  If the club turn around and offer him an insulting contract it only makes the club look bad.  Especially since, let's be honest, Michael Owen is made of Teflon.  Nothing sticks to this lad -- just enough rough edges to him (the horses and bit of gambling) to make him human, but he's so clean-cut he squeaks and he's an international and national favourite.

 

Also -- a replacement could cost more than keeping him.  Keeping him on the same terms would cost the club approximately 20-22 million over four years, correct?  A replacement, if Crouch is being offered for 15 mil and Bent went last season for 17 mil, will cost between 12-15 mil in transfer fee, AT LEAST.  So, then, that player would have to agree to wages of less than 7 million over 4 years, which comes to less than 34k/week -- just to break EVEN.  This doesn't account for the loss of revenue from Owen, who moves a lot of kit internationally (and nationally) as well as providing royalties for the club for things like PES2008. 

 

All of that doesn't even add into the fact that Keegan -- the "messiah" manager -- has said Owen was to be his first and most important signing.  If he doesn't get that, it could disrupt the club's relationship with Keegan, so there's the risk of the whole mess of ANOTHER new manager. 

 

For f***s sake, just pay the lad his extra money.  Should he have been paid 100k/week to begin with?  Probably not.  But cutting it just doesn't make sense, in any way. Not financially, nor in terms of public relations.  I can't imagine Ashley became a billionaire by not seeing the simplicity of this issue. 

 

Nail on head.

 

Agreed, unfortunately - we are not in a position to replace Owen satisfactorily if the murmers about the budget are true, and we have no-one who will score goals as regularly as he would provodong he stays fit.

[sicsfingeredmong]

Played his longest run of games for the club and scored 2 in the last 3 games.

 

I reckon he can finish the season with 15 goals if he stays fit, which would be no mean feat considering injuries.

 

At least, that should be his target.

 

If he does, I'd renew.

 

You reckon he can hit nine goals in eleven games? For us?

 

 

Ooooooooooh

 

Just 2 short.

So, no new contract for Owen then?

 

Not on the same wage. 

 

Then you won't keep him.  Owen can bugger off on a free after next season, and get a signing bonus at whatever UEFA-challenger club needs a top-quality striker.  Those clubs, with no transfer fee, wouldn't have a problem managing his wages at 80k per week (his "cut" wage at NUFC) and he'd be at a club that might actually win something.  Even better for him if it's in the NW, as he can sell his second home and the helicopter and save the money, thus making up his loss in wages.  Same if he's sold this summer, though at least NUFC would recoup something for him, even if a meagre 7 mil (and Smith cost 6 mil...who sets these fees?  It's utter insanity). 

 

See, here's what I don't understand:  why do people think Owen should/would accept a cut?  I wouldn't take a 30% cut in my wages.  If I were offered such a deal, after finishing successfully on a major project for my employers (even if I'd had a serious illness and been out before that, say), I would say "F*** you" and find a different employer.  Footballers are men too, with just as much (if not more) pride than any of the rest of us, and cutting wages is an insult.  If I were in that position, I'd rather take the cut at a NEW employer than for the people who just spit in my face after I busted my arse for them.  Especially if the new employer were a better one (more prestigious).  Michael Owen is not Alan Shearer -- he has no ties to the Northeast other than his paycheque.  Take that away and...what's keeping him here?  It's not the scintillating football, or the bright prospects for his international career.  His family lives in Wales, he said as much in a recent interview, and he commutes into Newcastle for work. 

 

Why insult him?  Cutting his pay is an insult, which clearly says "you aren't worth what you're on, we don't really want you to stay."  Without Owen, the new formation never would have even been thought up, and Newcastle might've been relegated, or at least further down the league.  He's the top scorer in both League and total goals.  He's captain.  He's the best and most prestigious player at the club.  He's finally fit (run of what, 20 matches?) and has scored 7 in the last 9.  If the club turn around and offer him an insulting contract it only makes the club look bad.  Especially since, let's be honest, Michael Owen is made of Teflon.  Nothing sticks to this lad -- just enough rough edges to him (the horses and bit of gambling) to make him human, but he's so clean-cut he squeaks and he's an international and national favourite.

 

Also -- a replacement could cost more than keeping him.  Keeping him on the same terms would cost the club approximately 20-22 million over four years, correct?  A replacement, if Crouch is being offered for 15 mil and Bent went last season for 17 mil, will cost between 12-15 mil in transfer fee, AT LEAST.  So, then, that player would have to agree to wages of less than 7 million over 4 years, which comes to less than 34k/week -- just to break EVEN.  This doesn't account for the loss of revenue from Owen, who moves a lot of kit internationally (and nationally) as well as providing royalties for the club for things like PES2008. 

 

All of that doesn't even add into the fact that Keegan -- the "messiah" manager -- has said Owen was to be his first and most important signing.  If he doesn't get that, it could disrupt the club's relationship with Keegan, so there's the risk of the whole mess of ANOTHER new manager. 

 

For f***s sake, just pay the lad his extra money.  Should he have been paid 100k/week to begin with?  Probably not.  But cutting it just doesn't make sense, in any way. Not financially, nor in terms of public relations.  I can't imagine Ashley became a billionaire by not seeing the simplicity of this issue. 

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Re-signing Owen imo would act as a catalyst for signing established and emerging top-line players over the Summer. It sends out a message, to any potential targets especially, that players of Owen's international pedigree want to be part of Keegan's rebuilding of the team/club and this would prove to be an invaluable bargaining tool when pitching the merits of the club/1st team to the sort of targets i speak of ie. of Modric's ability.

 

In the wake of the current board being unable to the seal the Woodgate & Modric transfer deals Mort has come out and said words to the effect of 'it will be hard to attract these sort calibre of players when we're competing with the bright lights of the bigger cities ie. London'. So once again maintaining Owen's services, when there is potential interest elsewhere - ie. from clubs in bigger cities, who will either compete in are on the cusp of qualifying for Europe -  in an international-calibre goal-poacher who is entering his final contract year, will prove to the contrary on this front. Another 'bargaining chip' in the locker, on the transfer front that is, and with Keegan on the sidelines when it comes to selling the club/sealing transfer deals we need as many such chips in our armory.

 

With Carr's departure, and there are others forthcoming ie. Ramage, maintaining Owen's current terms - or improving them slightly - shouldn't be a massive issue, but then again Ashley and Mort are daily spreadsheet operators/businessmen and this is how they've run their business interests away from football and here appears to be obstacle as to why Owen's contract talks have hit a standstill.

 

However in terms of football economics, and this relates to the opening paragraph, not sealing Owen's signature amidst not offering the appropriate terms - and offering a smaller package is an insult as inferred in the quoted post above - smacks of 'lack of ambition' on Ashley & Mort's part.

[Guest rebel_yell12]

Then you won't keep him.  Owen can bugger off on a free after next season, and get a signing bonus at whatever UEFA-challenger club needs a top-quality striker.  Those clubs, with no transfer fee, wouldn't have a problem managing his wages at 80k per week (his "cut" wage at NUFC) and he'd be at a club that might actually win something.  Even better for him if it's in the NW, as he can sell his second home and the helicopter and save the money, thus making up his loss in wages.  Same if he's sold this summer, though at least NUFC would recoup something for him, even if a meagre 7 mil (and Smith cost 6 mil...who sets these fees?  It's utter insanity). 

 

See, here's what I don't understand:  why do people think Owen should/would accept a cut?  I wouldn't take a 30% cut in my wages.  If I were offered such a deal, after finishing successfully on a major project for my employers (even if I'd had a serious illness and been out before that, say), I would say "F*** you" and find a different employer.  Footballers are men too, with just as much (if not more) pride than any of the rest of us, and cutting wages is an insult.  If I were in that position, I'd rather take the cut at a NEW employer than for the people who just spit in my face after I busted my arse for them.  Especially if the new employer were a better one (more prestigious).  Michael Owen is not Alan Shearer -- he has no ties to the Northeast other than his paycheque.  Take that away and...what's keeping him here?  It's not the scintillating football, or the bright prospects for his international career.  His family lives in Wales, he said as much in a recent interview, and he commutes into Newcastle for work. 

 

Why insult him?  Cutting his pay is an insult, which clearly says "you aren't worth what you're on, we don't really want you to stay."  Without Owen, the new formation never would have even been thought up, and Newcastle might've been relegated, or at least further down the league.  He's the top scorer in both League and total goals.  He's captain.  He's the best and most prestigious player at the club.  He's finally fit (run of what, 20 matches?) and has scored 7 in the last 9.  If the club turn around and offer him an insulting contract it only makes the club look bad.  Especially since, let's be honest, Michael Owen is made of Teflon.  Nothing sticks to this lad -- just enough rough edges to him (the horses and bit of gambling) to make him human, but he's so clean-cut he squeaks and he's an international and national favourite.

 

Also -- a replacement could cost more than keeping him.  Keeping him on the same terms would cost the club approximately 20-22 million over four years, correct?  A replacement, if Crouch is being offered for 15 mil and Bent went last season for 17 mil, will cost between 12-15 mil in transfer fee, AT LEAST.  So, then, that player would have to agree to wages of less than 7 million over 4 years, which comes to less than 34k/week -- just to break EVEN.  This doesn't account for the loss of revenue from Owen, who moves a lot of kit internationally (and nationally) as well as providing royalties for the club for things like PES2008. 

 

All of that doesn't even add into the fact that Keegan -- the "messiah" manager -- has said Owen was to be his first and most important signing.  If he doesn't get that, it could disrupt the club's relationship with Keegan, so there's the risk of the whole mess of ANOTHER new manager. 

 

For f***s sake, just pay the lad his extra money.  Should he have been paid 100k/week to begin with?  Probably not.  But cutting it just doesn't make sense, in any way. Not financially, nor in terms of public relations.  I can't imagine Ashley became a billionaire by not seeing the simplicity of this issue. 

 

Is he worth it in the long run- keegan would say yes and Owen is proven class but does Owen recent history with nufc justify and increase on an already ludicrous wage? In my opinion no.

 

Suppost its a 3 year contract on £120k p/w that translates to roughly £18m. Personally speaking im not sure Owen has shown to us (not his fault) that he isnt worth that.

 

Now supposing we were to sell him that'd save £5m per year and given us a £7-8m fee as well. Apply that to the same 3 years and you've made yourself £22-23m.

 

Do you think you could get a better striker in with that sort of money? A younger one - it seems to be the route that the board would like to go.

 

Its open to opinion as to which is the better option- id never usually advocate selling our better players but in this case Owen just seems on a unjustifiably high wage and half a season of decent work doesnt get anywhere near to justifying it, especially when there are potentially other better targets out there.

 

 

Using your own maths, here, this is what I've come up with.  Michael Owen remaining, on his current terms (not an increase in wages) which are according to most reliable (not the Mail) sources about 100-105k/week, but to "split the difference" so to speak, let's say he's on 110k/week.  That's, on a three year contract, 17.16 mil.  So Owen would cost then about 17.2 mil to keep. 

 

Assume he's sold, not goes on a Bosman in a year, and gets 8 mil in.  A reasonable replacement will cost upwards of 15 mil (look at Crouch's supposed fee, for a player with 5 league goals this season, Bent last year, etc. -- strikers are expensive).  Net loss on transfers = 7 mil.  BUT, Owen's wages would be "saved", so the club is up 10.2 mil, right?  That leaves the club looking to pay out less than 64k/week over three years.  Can you really get a player the equivalent of Michael Owen on less than 65k per week to come to Newcastle United?  Because if he's as gifted as Owen, but without the injuries and the apparent "old age" of 28, there will be competition from other clubs, higher-placed clubs. 

 

Perhaps this is where we disagree.  I don't like trusting "potentially other better targets" taking over the place of the season's top scorer and club captain.  I don't like trusting "potentially other better targets" to choose Newcastle United (look at Modric) especially AFTER the club has sold Owen and treated him shabbily in public (insulting a player of his reputation, calibre, and international recognition).  I don't like trusting "potentially other better targets" to ACTUALLY be better than Michael Owen (we know he's not going to "flop," don't we?).  In general, I prefer to keep the best player already at the club, rather than go fishing for someone who might POTENTIALLY come to Newcastle and probably won't unless on a similar wage to Owen (thus negating the whole issue of "saving" the money and just leaving the bad PR of sh**ting on Owen, who it's generally perceived has rescued Newcastle's season). 

 

And for me, Owen's performances have been more than a "half a season of decent work".  Yes, half of a season, that I agree with.  But it's been more than "decent work" over that period.  His work-rate has been phenomenal since the 4-3-3 changeover, he's playing as a striker and a midfielder, even dropping back to defend when needed.  He's captain, and aside from v. Everton (with four players missing) the team has looked unified, generally well-organized, and with a great spirit about it -- this is no doubt a good portion Keegan, but Owen will have played a part as well (ostensibly why Keegan made him captain).  His ability to adapt to his new position has made the 4-3-3 possible, and in fact, it was his activity in training that inspired that change.  He's scored 7 goals in 9 matches, including two in the derby and the one that started a vitally important run of unbeaten matches (imagine how different the season might've gone, if he'd not scrambled that goal at Birmingham).  He averages 13 points per match on the Actim Index (as of the end of April, haven't seen the numbers for the last two matches) which puts him among the top 20 in the league -- in a team that wasn't producing much for him to work with for much of the time he was fit. 

[Unbelievable]

He's done well at the back end of this season, so I would consider renewing his contract at the same terms as currently, especially given the reasons that rebel_yell 12 has given. However, 2 of his 7 recent goals have been very badly taken penalties (yesterday and vs Sunderland) that could (should?) both have been saved. We need to bring in a first team player who is more comfortable in dead ball situations, including penalties. Here's hoping that Owen will still be good for 15 goals or more next season and can remain fit for the rest of his time with us.

[Happy Face]

Played his longest run of games for the club and scored 2 in the last 3 games.

 

I reckon he can finish the season with 15 goals if he stays fit, which would be no mean feat considering injuries.

 

At least, that should be his target.

 

If he does, I'd renew.

 

You reckon he can hit nine goals in eleven games? For us?

 

 

Ooooooooooh

 

Just 2 short.

So, no new contract for Owen then?

 

Not on the same wage. 

 

Then you won't keep him.  Owen can bugger off on a free after next season, and get a signing bonus at whatever UEFA-challenger club needs a top-quality striker.  Those clubs, with no transfer fee, wouldn't have a problem managing his wages at 80k per week (his "cut" wage at NUFC) and he'd be at a club that might actually win something.  Even better for him if it's in the NW, as he can sell his second home and the helicopter and save the money, thus making up his loss in wages.  Same if he's sold this summer, though at least NUFC would recoup something for him, even if a meagre 7 mil (and Smith cost 6 mil...who sets these fees?  It's utter insanity). 

 

See, here's what I don't understand:  why do people think Owen should/would accept a cut?  I wouldn't take a 30% cut in my wages.  If I were offered such a deal, after finishing successfully on a major project for my employers (even if I'd had a serious illness and been out before that, say), I would say "F*** you" and find a different employer.  Footballers are men too, with just as much (if not more) pride than any of the rest of us, and cutting wages is an insult.  If I were in that position, I'd rather take the cut at a NEW employer than for the people who just spit in my face after I busted my arse for them.  Especially if the new employer were a better one (more prestigious).  Michael Owen is not Alan Shearer -- he has no ties to the Northeast other than his paycheque.  Take that away and...what's keeping him here?  It's not the scintillating football, or the bright prospects for his international career.  His family lives in Wales, he said as much in a recent interview, and he commutes into Newcastle for work. 

 

Why insult him?  Cutting his pay is an insult, which clearly says "you aren't worth what you're on, we don't really want you to stay."  Without Owen, the new formation never would have even been thought up, and Newcastle might've been relegated, or at least further down the league.  He's the top scorer in both League and total goals.  He's captain.  He's the best and most prestigious player at the club.  He's finally fit (run of what, 20 matches?) and has scored 7 in the last 9.  If the club turn around and offer him an insulting contract it only makes the club look bad.  Especially since, let's be honest, Michael Owen is made of Teflon.  Nothing sticks to this lad -- just enough rough edges to him (the horses and bit of gambling) to make him human, but he's so clean-cut he squeaks and he's an international and national favourite.

 

Also -- a replacement could cost more than keeping him.  Keeping him on the same terms would cost the club approximately 20-22 million over four years, correct?  A replacement, if Crouch is being offered for 15 mil and Bent went last season for 17 mil, will cost between 12-15 mil in transfer fee, AT LEAST.  So, then, that player would have to agree to wages of less than 7 million over 4 years, which comes to less than 34k/week -- just to break EVEN.  This doesn't account for the loss of revenue from Owen, who moves a lot of kit internationally (and nationally) as well as providing royalties for the club for things like PES2008. 

 

All of that doesn't even add into the fact that Keegan -- the "messiah" manager -- has said Owen was to be his first and most important signing.  If he doesn't get that, it could disrupt the club's relationship with Keegan, so there's the risk of the whole mess of ANOTHER new manager. 

 

For f***s sake, just pay the lad his extra money.  Should he have been paid 100k/week to begin with?  Probably not.  But cutting it just doesn't make sense, in any way. Not financially, nor in terms of public relations.  I can't imagine Ashley became a billionaire by not seeing the simplicity of this issue. 

 

I've been arguing that he should get a new contract througout this thread.

 

It was a jokey change of heart because he only just fell short of what some people thought was a ridiculous target to set him just 2 months ago.

 

He's shown his worth to the club and some.

 

I do however have sympathy with Mort and Ashley.  Their alleged £80K salary cap is sensible (at least for a few years until we get a grip on the ratio between wages and turnover) and should be maintained wherever possible.  Owen's class and standing in the game, I think, make him a special case which should be used to attract cheaper up and coming stars.

 

Owen on £100K and four Modric's on 50K is still cheaper  (£300k/week) than Owen and four other over the hill internationals like Sol Campbell and Jonathan Woodgate all on £80K each (£400k/week)

[fredbob]

Using your own maths, here, this is what I've come up with.  Michael Owen remaining, on his current terms (not an increase in wages) which are according to most reliable (not the Mail) sources about 100-105k/week, but to "split the difference" so to speak, let's say he's on 110k/week.  That's, on a three year contract, 17.16 mil.  So Owen would cost then about 17.2 mil to keep. 

 

Assume he's sold, not goes on a Bosman in a year, and gets 8 mil in.  A reasonable replacement will cost upwards of 15 mil (look at Crouch's supposed fee, for a player with 5 league goals this season, Bent last year, etc. -- strikers are expensive).  Net loss on transfers = 7 mil.  BUT, Owen's wages would be "saved", so the club is up 10.2 mil, right?  That leaves the club looking to pay out less than 64k/week over three years.  Can you really get a player the equivalent of Michael Owen on less than 65k per week to come to Newcastle United?  Because if he's as gifted as Owen, but without the injuries and the apparent "old age" of 28, there will be competition from other clubs, higher-placed clubs. 

 

Perhaps this is where we disagree.  I don't like trusting "potentially other better targets" taking over the place of the season's top scorer and club captain.  I don't like trusting "potentially other better targets" to choose Newcastle United (look at Modric) especially AFTER the club has sold Owen and treated him shabbily in public (insulting a player of his reputation, calibre, and international recognition).  I don't like trusting "potentially other better targets" to ACTUALLY be better than Michael Owen (we know he's not going to "flop," don't we?).  In general, I prefer to keep the best player already at the club, rather than go fishing for someone who might POTENTIALLY come to Newcastle and probably won't unless on a similar wage to Owen (thus negating the whole issue of "saving" the money and just leaving the bad PR of sh**ting on Owen, who it's generally perceived has rescued Newcastle's season). 

 

And for me, Owen's performances have been more than a "half a season of decent work".  Yes, half of a season, that I agree with.  But it's been more than "decent work" over that period.  His work-rate has been phenomenal since the 4-3-3 changeover, he's playing as a striker and a midfielder, even dropping back to defend when needed.  He's captain, and aside from v. Everton (with four players missing) the team has looked unified, generally well-organized, and with a great spirit about it -- this is no doubt a good portion Keegan, but Owen will have played a part as well (ostensibly why Keegan made him captain).  His ability to adapt to his new position has made the 4-3-3 possible, and in fact, it was his activity in training that inspired that change.  He's scored 7 goals in 9 matches, including two in the derby and the one that started a vitally important run of unbeaten matches (imagine how different the season might've gone, if he'd not scrambled that goal at Birmingham).  He averages 13 points per match on the Actim Index (as of the end of April, haven't seen the numbers for the last two matches) which puts him among the top 20 in the league -- in a team that wasn't producing much for him to work with for much of the time he was fit. 

 

Good post - and to be fair i understand the sentiment completely but i just havent seen enough of him to classify him a worthy signing I also think your are underselling the  talent out there giving examples of players who are vastly overpriced and both english, and i think £64k is actually alot of money to people in the foreign leagues.(Martins 40-60k??)

 

Honestly speaking i think it is entirely possible to buy a replacement for Owen but at the moment it'd be a huge gamble to sell him like you say with no guaratee of a goalscorer like you would have with Owen.

 

Undecided, very undecided.

[Guest rebel_yell12]

Ooooooooooh

 

Just 2 short.

So, no new contract for Owen then?

 

Not on the same wage. 

 

Then you won't keep him.  Owen can bugger off on a free after next season, and get a signing bonus at whatever UEFA-challenger club needs a top-quality striker.  Those clubs, with no transfer fee, wouldn't have a problem managing his wages at 80k per week (his "cut" wage at NUFC) and he'd be at a club that might actually win something.  Even better for him if it's in the NW, as he can sell his second home and the helicopter and save the money, thus making up his loss in wages.  Same if he's sold this summer, though at least NUFC would recoup something for him, even if a meagre 7 mil (and Smith cost 6 mil...who sets these fees?  It's utter insanity). 

 

See, here's what I don't understand:  why do people think Owen should/would accept a cut?  I wouldn't take a 30% cut in my wages.  If I were offered such a deal, after finishing successfully on a major project for my employers (even if I'd had a serious illness and been out before that, say), I would say "F*** you" and find a different employer.  Footballers are men too, with just as much (if not more) pride than any of the rest of us, and cutting wages is an insult.  If I were in that position, I'd rather take the cut at a NEW employer than for the people who just spit in my face after I busted my arse for them.  Especially if the new employer were a better one (more prestigious).  Michael Owen is not Alan Shearer -- he has no ties to the Northeast other than his paycheque.  Take that away and...what's keeping him here?  It's not the scintillating football, or the bright prospects for his international career.  His family lives in Wales, he said as much in a recent interview, and he commutes into Newcastle for work. 

 

Why insult him?  Cutting his pay is an insult, which clearly says "you aren't worth what you're on, we don't really want you to stay."  Without Owen, the new formation never would have even been thought up, and Newcastle might've been relegated, or at least further down the league.  He's the top scorer in both League and total goals.  He's captain.  He's the best and most prestigious player at the club.  He's finally fit (run of what, 20 matches?) and has scored 7 in the last 9.  If the club turn around and offer him an insulting contract it only makes the club look bad.  Especially since, let's be honest, Michael Owen is made of Teflon.  Nothing sticks to this lad -- just enough rough edges to him (the horses and bit of gambling) to make him human, but he's so clean-cut he squeaks and he's an international and national favourite.

 

Also -- a replacement could cost more than keeping him.  Keeping him on the same terms would cost the club approximately 20-22 million over four years, correct?  A replacement, if Crouch is being offered for 15 mil and Bent went last season for 17 mil, will cost between 12-15 mil in transfer fee, AT LEAST.  So, then, that player would have to agree to wages of less than 7 million over 4 years, which comes to less than 34k/week -- just to break EVEN.  This doesn't account for the loss of revenue from Owen, who moves a lot of kit internationally (and nationally) as well as providing royalties for the club for things like PES2008. 

 

All of that doesn't even add into the fact that Keegan -- the "messiah" manager -- has said Owen was to be his first and most important signing.  If he doesn't get that, it could disrupt the club's relationship with Keegan, so there's the risk of the whole mess of ANOTHER new manager. 

 

For f***s sake, just pay the lad his extra money.  Should he have been paid 100k/week to begin with?  Probably not.  But cutting it just doesn't make sense, in any way. Not financially, nor in terms of public relations.  I can't imagine Ashley became a billionaire by not seeing the simplicity of this issue. 

 

I've been arguing that he should get a new contract througout this thread.

 

It was a jokey change of heart because he only just fell short of what some people thought was a ridiculous target to set him just 2 months ago.

 

He's shown his worth to the club and some.

 

I do however have sympathy with Mort and Ashley.  Their alleged £80K salary cap is sensible (at least for a few years until we get a grip on the ratio between wages and turnover) and should be maintained wherever possible.  Owen's class and standing in the game, I think, make him a special case which should be used to attract cheaper up and coming stars.

 

Owen on £100K and four Modric's on 50K is still cheaper  (£300k/week) than Owen and four other over the hill internationals like Sol Campbell and Jonathan Woodgate all on £80K each (£400k/week)

 

This, I heartily agree with.  Players like Smith and Viduka and Duff are more problematic than Owen, imo.  Owen is a special case, top-scorer, club captain and is still playing an active part on the international stage (recent polls show he's the fan favourite, and "pundits" favourite, to lead England's line once more).  He's in the top ten all-time scorers in the Premier League, and I believe the only one of the ten still playing in the league.  He's one of only three players to score ten or more goals in eight Premier League seasons (the other two: A. Cole and A. Shearer) which proves a career-long level of consistency.  He's fourth all-time scorer for England.  He brings in a lot of revenue on kit and things like PES2008, plus increased television coverage abroad (Owen is huge business in Asia, especially).  All of these things make him worth extra expenditure.  If another player comes in with a similar CV, well, that wage cap can be stretched again.  But it's an unlikely occurrence, until Newcastle is up the table -- and the increased revenue from that would help cover the increased expense. 

 

Now, Viduka came in on a free, so that generally bumps wages a bit- though not perhaps to 70k/week.  He does at least play, and judging by the change when he was forced off, played a very important part in the revival at the end of the season.  But Smith and Duff?  Both are the equivalent of black-holes for wages:  everything goes in, nothing seems to come out. Just those three are on a total of I think 180k per week amongst them.  And, unlike Michael Owen, there's less potential problems asking them to take a cut:  just the problem of I don't think any contracts are up for renewal.  And who would buy them, if we're looking to sell? 

 

And fredbob, I think there are players to be had at under 15 mil in fee and 64k per year -- I just don't think Newcastle will get those players.  Modric as an example.  Keep Owen, and replace the dross around him with better players without spending crazy money (see Beye and Faye this season, both well worth their fees and wages).  Move up the table, then start looking to replace the most expensive positions.  I expect only one big transfer this year, hopefully a midfielder.  The rest, I think will be "middle-class" like Beye and Faye (non-English, non-league, so the prices are more reasonable, and solid players rather than "flair").  Probably a better and more sustainable way to build the club at any rate.  But Newcastle MUST keep the "upper-class" players currently at the club:  first amongst them, Michael Owen.

[Guest SB]

1 Cristiano Ronaldo 31 Manchester United 

2 Emmanuel Adebayor 24 Arsenal 

2 Fernando Torres 24 Liverpool 

4 Roque Santa Cruz 19 Blackburn Rovers 

5 Mwaruwari Benjani 15 Manchester City 

5 Aiyegbeni Yakubu 15 Everton 

5 Robbie Keane 15 Tottenham Hotspur 

5 Dimitar Berbatov 15 Tottenham Hotspur 

9 Carlos Tevez 14 Manchester United 

10 John Carew 13 Aston Villa 

11 Wayne Rooney 12 Manchester United 

11 Steven Gerrard 12 Liverpool 

11 Jermain Defoe 12 Portsmouth 

14 Gabriel Agbonlahor 11 Aston Villa 

14 Michael Owen 11 Newcastle United 

14 Nicolas Anelka 11 Chelsea 

17 Frank Lampard 10 Chelsea 

17 Dean Ashton 10 West Ham 

17 Dave Kitson 10 Reading 

 

[Happy Face]

1 Cristiano Ronaldo 31 Manchester United 

2 Emmanuel Adebayor 24 Arsenal 

2 Fernando Torres 24 Liverpool 

4 Roque Santa Cruz 19 Blackburn Rovers 

5 Mwaruwari Benjani 15 Manchester City 

5 Aiyegbeni Yakubu 15 Everton 

5 Robbie Keane 15 Tottenham Hotspur 

5 Dimitar Berbatov 15 Tottenham Hotspur 

9 Carlos Tevez 14 Manchester United 

10 John Carew 13 Aston Villa 

11 Wayne Rooney 12 Manchester United 

11 Steven Gerrard 12 Liverpool 

11 Jermain Defoe 12 Portsmouth 

14 Gabriel Agbonlahor 11 Aston Villa 

14 Michael Owen 11 Newcastle United 

14 Nicolas Anelka 11 Chelsea 

17 Frank Lampard 10 Chelsea 

17 Dean Ashton 10 West Ham 

17 Dave Kitson 10 Reading 

 

 

You got me wondering what the table would look like in terms of goals per minutes played....

 

Pos standard Pos/Player Goals Minutes Minutes per goal 1 1 Cristiano Ronaldo 31 2746 89 2 2 Fernando Torres 24 2533 106 3 2 Emmanuel Adebayor 24 2928 122 4 11 Jermain Defoe 12 1605 134 5 5 Aiyegbeni Yakubu 15 2303 154 6 4 Roque Santa Cruz 19 3187 168 7 5 Dimitar Berbatov 15 2689 179 8 5 Robbie Keane 15 2714 181 9 11 Wayne Rooney 12 2181 182 10 9 Carlos Tevez 14 2677 191 11 5 Mwaruwari Benjani 15 2897 193 12 17 Frank Lampard 10 1954 195 13 10 John Carew 13 2546 196 14 14 Michael Owen 11 2175 198 15 17 Dean Ashton 10 2001 200 16 Obafemi Martins 9 2051 228 17 14 Nicolas Anelka 11 2575 234 18 11 Steven Gerrard 12 2840 237 19 17 Dave Kitson 10 2522 252 20 14 Gabriel Agbonlahor 11 3278 298

 

And Owen is still 14th.

 

Only really shines a light on Defoe.  Benjani drops too.

[TRon]

80k a week on a longer contract is still a decent wage for a player not in demand at the top clubs. I'm not saying he hasn't done well for us recently, but if he's still commuting from Wales, he might be hoping Liverpool will offer him £75k...although they probably won't.

 

 

[Guest LucasUnger]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=566057&in_page_id=1779&ito=newsnow

[Nicky]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=566057&in_page_id=1779&ito=newsnow

 

That is the official anti-Newcastle paper in the Daily mail,  mind...

[Taylor Swift]

1 Cristiano Ronaldo 31 Manchester United 

2 Emmanuel Adebayor 24 Arsenal 

2 Fernando Torres 24 Liverpool 

4 Roque Santa Cruz 19 Blackburn Rovers 

5 Mwaruwari Benjani 15 Manchester City 

5 Aiyegbeni Yakubu 15 Everton 

5 Robbie Keane 15 Tottenham Hotspur 

5 Dimitar Berbatov 15 Tottenham Hotspur 

9 Carlos Tevez 14 Manchester United 

10 John Carew 13 Aston Villa 

11 Wayne Rooney 12 Manchester United 

11 Steven Gerrard 12 Liverpool 

11 Jermain Defoe 12 Portsmouth 

14 Gabriel Agbonlahor 11 Aston Villa 

14 Michael Owen 11 Newcastle United 

14 Nicolas Anelka 11 Chelsea 

17 Frank Lampard 10 Chelsea 

17 Dean Ashton 10 West Ham 

17 Dave Kitson 10 Reading 

 

 

You got me wondering what the table would look like in terms of goals per minutes played....

 

Pos standard Pos/Player Goals Minutes Minutes per goal 1 1 Cristiano Ronaldo 31 2746 89 2 2 Fernando Torres 24 2533 106 3 2 Emmanuel Adebayor 24 2928 122 4 11 Jermain Defoe 12 1605 134 5 5 Aiyegbeni Yakubu 15 2303 154 6 4 Roque Santa Cruz 19 3187 168 7 5 Dimitar Berbatov 15 2689 179 8 5 Robbie Keane 15 2714 181 9 11 Wayne Rooney 12 2181 182 10 9 Carlos Tevez 14 2677 191 11 5 Mwaruwari Benjani 15 2897 193 12 17 Frank Lampard 10 1954 195 13 10 John Carew 13 2546 196 14 14 Michael Owen 11 2175 198 15 17 Dean Ashton 10 2001 200 16 Obafemi Martins 9 2051 228 17 14 Nicolas Anelka 11 2575 234 18 11 Steven Gerrard 12 2840 237 19 17 Dave Kitson 10 2522 252 20 14 Gabriel Agbonlahor 11 3278 298

 

And Owen is still 14th.

 

Only really shines a light on Defoe.  Benjani drops too.

 

Is 14th supposed to be good?

[James]

1 Cristiano Ronaldo 31 Manchester United 

2 Emmanuel Adebayor 24 Arsenal 

2 Fernando Torres 24 Liverpool 

4 Roque Santa Cruz 19 Blackburn Rovers 

5 Mwaruwari Benjani 15 Manchester City 

5 Aiyegbeni Yakubu 15 Everton 

5 Robbie Keane 15 Tottenham Hotspur 

5 Dimitar Berbatov 15 Tottenham Hotspur 

9 Carlos Tevez 14 Manchester United 

10 John Carew 13 Aston Villa 

11 Wayne Rooney 12 Manchester United 

11 Steven Gerrard 12 Liverpool 

11 Jermain Defoe 12 Portsmouth 

14 Gabriel Agbonlahor 11 Aston Villa 

14 Michael Owen 11 Newcastle United 

14 Nicolas Anelka 11 Chelsea 

17 Frank Lampard 10 Chelsea 

17 Dean Ashton 10 West Ham 

17 Dave Kitson 10 Reading 

 

 

You got me wondering what the table would look like in terms of goals per minutes played....

 

Pos standard Pos/Player Goals Minutes Minutes per goal 1 1 Cristiano Ronaldo 31 2746 89 2 2 Fernando Torres 24 2533 106 3 2 Emmanuel Adebayor 24 2928 122 4 11 Jermain Defoe 12 1605 134 5 5 Aiyegbeni Yakubu 15 2303 154 6 4 Roque Santa Cruz 19 3187 168 7 5 Dimitar Berbatov 15 2689 179 8 5 Robbie Keane 15 2714 181 9 11 Wayne Rooney 12 2181 182 10 9 Carlos Tevez 14 2677 191 11 5 Mwaruwari Benjani 15 2897 193 12 17 Frank Lampard 10 1954 195 13 10 John Carew 13 2546 196 14 14 Michael Owen 11 2175 198 15 17 Dean Ashton 10 2001 200 16 Obafemi Martins 9 2051 228 17 14 Nicolas Anelka 11 2575 234 18 11 Steven Gerrard 12 2840 237 19 17 Dave Kitson 10 2522 252 20 14 Gabriel Agbonlahor 11 3278 298

 

And Owen is still 14th.

 

Only really shines a light on Defoe.  Benjani drops too.

 

Is 14th supposed to be good?

 

Well if teams are meant to have at least two proven goalscorers these days, for a team finishing 12th, Owen is about ten players higher than he should be based on the team he plays for....

[Guest SB]

1 Cristiano Ronaldo 31 Manchester United 

2 Emmanuel Adebayor 24 Arsenal 

2 Fernando Torres 24 Liverpool 

4 Roque Santa Cruz 19 Blackburn Rovers 

5 Mwaruwari Benjani 15 Manchester City 

5 Aiyegbeni Yakubu 15 Everton 

5 Robbie Keane 15 Tottenham Hotspur 

5 Dimitar Berbatov 15 Tottenham Hotspur 

9 Carlos Tevez 14 Manchester United 

10 John Carew 13 Aston Villa 

11 Wayne Rooney 12 Manchester United 

11 Steven Gerrard 12 Liverpool 

11 Jermain Defoe 12 Portsmouth 

14 Gabriel Agbonlahor 11 Aston Villa 

14 Michael Owen 11 Newcastle United 

14 Nicolas Anelka 11 Chelsea 

17 Frank Lampard 10 Chelsea 

17 Dean Ashton 10 West Ham 

17 Dave Kitson 10 Reading 

 

 

You got me wondering what the table would look like in terms of goals per minutes played....

 

Pos standard Pos/Player Goals Minutes Minutes per goal 1 1 Cristiano Ronaldo 31 2746 89 2 2 Fernando Torres 24 2533 106 3 2 Emmanuel Adebayor 24 2928 122 4 11 Jermain Defoe 12 1605 134 5 5 Aiyegbeni Yakubu 15 2303 154 6 4 Roque Santa Cruz 19 3187 168 7 5 Dimitar Berbatov 15 2689 179 8 5 Robbie Keane 15 2714 181 9 11 Wayne Rooney 12 2181 182 10 9 Carlos Tevez 14 2677 191 11 5 Mwaruwari Benjani 15 2897 193 12 17 Frank Lampard 10 1954 195 13 10 John Carew 13 2546 196 14 14 Michael Owen 11 2175 198 15 17 Dean Ashton 10 2001 200 16 Obafemi Martins 9 2051 228 17 14 Nicolas Anelka 11 2575 234 18 11 Steven Gerrard 12 2840 237 19 17 Dave Kitson 10 2522 252 20 14 Gabriel Agbonlahor 11 3278 298

 

And Owen is still 14th.

 

Only really shines a light on Defoe.  Benjani drops too.

 

Is 14th supposed to be good?

 

To me, yeah. Returning from bad injury, missed few games, played under BSA, our service (esp in 442, nowt from midfield and his partner was Smith) and all.

 

Also, we ain't gonna get anyone better than him. That's for sure

 

So, we MUST keep him.

[Keefaz]

Just thought: Gudjohnsen used to do a similar role for Chelsea. Wonder if he could be a short-term replacement if Owen buggers off.

[Cronky]

Two points I wanted to make here -

 

A lot of people have said that Owen has commercial value to the club, but I'm a bit dubious. I'm not saying there are NO benefits, but we're a club with a large, but local support where people tend to buy replica shirts etc regardless of big name signings. Is there any sign that we've got more support abroad through signing Owen?

 

Secondly, if this story is true, Keegan has to be a bit more understanding here. He's not operating in a vacuum. The Board are perfectly entitled to baulk at continuing to pay Owen roughly twice as much as any other player, when he clearly wouldn't get that sort of money at another club.