NUFC want to offer Owen new deal

[Guest rebel_yell12]

Well whether he is the "best" player at the club is very debatable, he's the most high profile but not the best IMO. And nobody is being punished here. It sounds like the club want to use a wage cap, if Owen is the only player earning over that wage cap then naturally he will be offered lower wages. The message that it sends out i hope would be that we're not mugs anymore and are an efficiently run club. I think you massively overrate the importance of Owen to be honest, if he decides to leave over the wage issue then so be it, he's not irreplaceable like some people seem to think.

 

I'm not trying to be pissy (feel the need to note this, since tone can be hard to convey in print) but am honestly curious -- who is the "best" player then?  Just asking for your opinion (mine is clearly stated & widely known). 

 

And my point isn't really about Owen himself, it's just his contract that's the most pertinent -- if Newcastle want to be taken seriously, to "not be mugs anymore," than there are reasonable ways of going about that.  Paying one of the best and most established forwards in the league a wage that is in the top segment (top 20 I believe) isn't a mug.  Paying a solid, generally reliable player a good wage is not being a mug (ie Martins' new contract).  Paying Smith, Duff & Barton more than Martins...that's more "mug-like" for lack of a better term.  Although I disagree with the loaded terms BigTRon used in his preceding post, I do agree that Owen's fitness record is his only stumbling block.  So, cutting his wages then IS punishment for his former injuries, as his current fitness seems (finally, touch wood) to be quite good (played nearly every minute since 1 Jan) and he scored 9 goals in those 20 matches.  I digress though.  My central point, and perhaps I'm not being clear, is that this issue is about the club, at least as much as it is about Owen.  Newcastle may need to sort their wage structure, but the most high profile player and club captain who was been singled out as the "most important signing of the summer" by the manager is not the one who should bear the brunt of that necessity.  A portion of it, yes.  I've said before that I'd be disappointed to see Owen's wages increased, though I expect Taylor and Martins to get some sort of raises, because I think Owen's should be supplemented by various incentives related particularly to his fitness (performances when fit are rarely the problem with Owen). 

 

A responsible business can not reward good performance with wage cuts.  It's just horrific business practice.  If Owen's to take a wage cut, he could at least move "home" to the NW so he'd not need the helicopter or a second home in Newcastle -- think of how much money he'd save on that.  Probably break even.  Other clubs may not have to offer more money:  just a better situation.  It's up to Newcastle to present a good situation to Owen.  One that's financially stable and at least passingly respectful of his reputation, his status (captain and top scorer) and his performances.  Just as Newcastle must present the same positive "situation" to all the signings, new and extensions. 

[Baggio]

Owen isn't as good as he was when we signed him so it's understandable that the club want to offer him less in terms of wages, I don't see how people can say he's being singled out either as he's the only big earner renegotiating his contract atm.

[Offshore]

Unless you can offer something no-one else can, ie champs league games or a team already challenging for the title etc, then you have to at an absolute minimum pay the going rate, and for an England international still with many years in front of him (in theory anyway) then thats what we'll have to do or he'll go elsewhere.

 

He's an England international with a chequered fitness record, that's why other clubs have been reluctant to take him off our hands previously. I still think they'll think long and hard before offering more than we are.

 

 

Fair points. But when Real Madrid were willing to let him go Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal didn't need a striker at that time, Liverpool did but for obvious reasons didn't want to have to buy him back at much more than they'd let him go for. We did, so we gazumped them, offered him a kings wage and he took it. There was no-one else in for him as this transfer predates a lot of the recent take-overs and extra Sky money (not 100% on the Sky money, but think its only just been massively increased in the last season or two).

 

He' played the last 6 months or so injury-free, played well, looked sharp and scored goals - if we don't pay the going rate someone else will.

[Dr Venkman]

bonuses paid on performance.......get it now? N'zogbia hasn't earned his wages in two years like a lot of them.

 

No, because messing about with N'Zogbias contract will make very very little difference to the ultimate aim of cutting down the wage bill. The likes of Owen though...

 

F***ing hell.  The "ultimate aim of cutting down the wage bill" isn't the issue here. The issue is that the policy you advocate would be punishing the best player at the club for something that is hardly his fault, and completely out of his control at any rate (the wages of the dross around him).  I've no problem with Owen and Martins being on good wages, or the keepers (who've earned it, over the years, especially of late) or any other player who consistently performs well for the club.  What message does it send if ONLY Owen's wages take a hit?  Then it's not a club problem, it's a problem with Michael Owen.  Nice message to send.  Play well, be captain and leading scorer, say all the right things, have the manager's support, an incredible record in the league and international play but...the club doesn't respect you, or want to keep you.  You aren't worth being overpaid, but all those players around you, they are worth it.  It's just you we're cutting pay of.

 

If your boss came to you and said, "look, we need to assure the stability of the company, everyone's taking a bit of a hit"...that's one thing.  If he says, "money's tight, you're the best we've got and the best paid, so we're cutting just your wages, and giving that money to the lads around you" how would YOU react?  I'd quit on the spot.  No f***ing way. 

 

Why this insistence on cutting existing players wages?  And why the BEST player and club captain?  Did no one take proper business courses at college or university?  A business can't do that, it's horrific PR and even worse for keeping employees!  For f***s sake, the only realistic and viable way to cut the wage bill is to sell the high-paid dross and buy less-remunerated but better-quality players.  Punishing current players for the policies of the old regime isn't viable.  I've stated my reasoning before, but in brief it's simple:  cutting Owen's wages advertises financial problems within the club, indicates a willingness to punish the wrong players, disrespects the club captain, disregards Keegan's emphasis on the importance of that signing, ignores Owen's widespread popularity which can help sign new, young players and shows a lack of ambition as the club clearly wouldn't care to keep their best player.  If you think this is a good way to move the club forward...well, there's no longer a point in having any discussion.

 

and thats that

[Kimbo]

That's what?

[Dr Venkman]

That's what?

 

that. isnt it obvious?

[Kimbo]

Well no, nothings been resolved.

[Dr Venkman]

Well no, nothings been resolved.

 

haha, i'm only joking with you mate. i agree with pretty much all of the post i quoted. the fact that keegan's said on a few occasions that owen's our most important signing, ends the debate for me. keegan's the manager and he should be backed by the board (thats for you NE5). and its not like its a questionable call, he's a fucking great player.

[TRon]

Unless you can offer something no-one else can, ie champs league games or a team already challenging for the title etc, then you have to at an absolute minimum pay the going rate, and for an England international still with many years in front of him (in theory anyway) then thats what we'll have to do or he'll go elsewhere.

 

He's an England international with a chequered fitness record, that's why other clubs have been reluctant to take him off our hands previously. I still think they'll think long and hard before offering more than we are.

 

 

Fair points. But when Real Madrid were willing to let him go Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal didn't need a striker at that time, Liverpool did but for obvious reasons didn't want to have to buy him back at much more than they'd let him go for. We did, so we gazumped them, offered him a kings wage and he took it. There was no-one else in for him as this transfer predates a lot of the recent take-overs and extra Sky money (not 100% on the Sky money, but think its only just been massively increased in the last season or two).

 

He' played the last 6 months or so injury-free, played well, looked sharp and scored goals - if we don't pay the going rate someone else will.

 

Well what is the going rate, bearing in mind his best performances have been in midfield? When played up front he's looked pedestrian, and I'm not sure which club out there is going to pay him any more than we will.

[madras]

Unless you can offer something no-one else can, ie champs league games or a team already challenging for the title etc, then you have to at an absolute minimum pay the going rate, and for an England international still with many years in front of him (in theory anyway) then thats what we'll have to do or he'll go elsewhere.

 

He's an England international with a chequered fitness record, that's why other clubs have been reluctant to take him off our hands previously. I still think they'll think long and hard before offering more than we are.

 

Fair points. But when Real Madrid were willing to let him go Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal didn't need a striker at that time, Liverpool did but for obvious reasons didn't want to have to buy him back at much more than they'd let him go for. We did, so we gazumped them, offered him a kings wage and he took it. There was no-one else in for him as this transfer predates a lot of the recent take-overs and extra Sky money (not 100% on the Sky money, but think its only just been massively increased in the last season or two).

 

He' played the last 6 months or so injury-free, played well, looked sharp and scored goals - if we don't pay the going rate someone else will.

 

Well what is the going rate, bearing in mind his best performances have been in midfield? When played up front he's looked pedestrian, and I'm not sure which club out there is going to pay him any more than we will.

midfield ?....you do believe the blurb dont ya ?

[TRon]

Unless you can offer something no-one else can, ie champs league games or a team already challenging for the title etc, then you have to at an absolute minimum pay the going rate, and for an England international still with many years in front of him (in theory anyway) then thats what we'll have to do or he'll go elsewhere.

 

He's an England international with a chequered fitness record, that's why other clubs have been reluctant to take him off our hands previously. I still think they'll think long and hard before offering more than we are.

 

Fair points. But when Real Madrid were willing to let him go Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal didn't need a striker at that time, Liverpool did but for obvious reasons didn't want to have to buy him back at much more than they'd let him go for. We did, so we gazumped them, offered him a kings wage and he took it. There was no-one else in for him as this transfer predates a lot of the recent take-overs and extra Sky money (not 100% on the Sky money, but think its only just been massively increased in the last season or two).

 

He' played the last 6 months or so injury-free, played well, looked sharp and scored goals - if we don't pay the going rate someone else will.

 

Well what is the going rate, bearing in mind his best performances have been in midfield? When played up front he's looked pedestrian, and I'm not sure which club out there is going to pay him any more than we will.

midfield ?....you do believe the blurb dont ya ?

 

Call it what you will, it's not up front.

[madras]

Unless you can offer something no-one else can, ie champs league games or a team already challenging for the title etc, then you have to at an absolute minimum pay the going rate, and for an England international still with many years in front of him (in theory anyway) then thats what we'll have to do or he'll go elsewhere.

 

He's an England international with a chequered fitness record, that's why other clubs have been reluctant to take him off our hands previously. I still think they'll think long and hard before offering more than we are.

 

Fair points. But when Real Madrid were willing to let him go Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal didn't need a striker at that time, Liverpool did but for obvious reasons didn't want to have to buy him back at much more than they'd let him go for. We did, so we gazumped them, offered him a kings wage and he took it. There was no-one else in for him as this transfer predates a lot of the recent take-overs and extra Sky money (not 100% on the Sky money, but think its only just been massively increased in the last season or two).

 

He' played the last 6 months or so injury-free, played well, looked sharp and scored goals - if we don't pay the going rate someone else will.

 

Well what is the going rate, bearing in mind his best performances have been in midfield? When played up front he's looked pedestrian, and I'm not sure which club out there is going to pay him any more than we will.

midfield ?....you do believe the blurb dont ya ?

 

Call it what you will, it's not up front.

i call it playing off a front man...as was martins

[TRon]

Unless you can offer something no-one else can, ie champs league games or a team already challenging for the title etc, then you have to at an absolute minimum pay the going rate, and for an England international still with many years in front of him (in theory anyway) then thats what we'll have to do or he'll go elsewhere.

 

He's an England international with a chequered fitness record, that's why other clubs have been reluctant to take him off our hands previously. I still think they'll think long and hard before offering more than we are.

 

Fair points. But when Real Madrid were willing to let him go Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal didn't need a striker at that time, Liverpool did but for obvious reasons didn't want to have to buy him back at much more than they'd let him go for. We did, so we gazumped them, offered him a kings wage and he took it. There was no-one else in for him as this transfer predates a lot of the recent take-overs and extra Sky money (not 100% on the Sky money, but think its only just been massively increased in the last season or two).

 

He' played the last 6 months or so injury-free, played well, looked sharp and scored goals - if we don't pay the going rate someone else will.

 

Well what is the going rate, bearing in mind his best performances have been in midfield? When played up front he's looked pedestrian, and I'm not sure which club out there is going to pay him any more than we will.

midfield ?....you do believe the blurb dont ya ?

 

Call it what you will, it's not up front.

i call it playing off a front man...as was martins

 

He seemed to be dropping a lot deeper to me but in any case it's not the important issue. How many clubs will pay 80k+ a week for a player with Owen's injury history? The big teams won't, they'll be going after stars on the rise. So who does that leave as a better alternative to us?

[madras]

Unless you can offer something no-one else can, ie champs league games or a team already challenging for the title etc, then you have to at an absolute minimum pay the going rate, and for an England international still with many years in front of him (in theory anyway) then thats what we'll have to do or he'll go elsewhere.

 

He's an England international with a chequered fitness record, that's why other clubs have been reluctant to take him off our hands previously. I still think they'll think long and hard before offering more than we are.

 

Fair points. But when Real Madrid were willing to let him go Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal didn't need a striker at that time, Liverpool did but for obvious reasons didn't want to have to buy him back at much more than they'd let him go for. We did, so we gazumped them, offered him a kings wage and he took it. There was no-one else in for him as this transfer predates a lot of the recent take-overs and extra Sky money (not 100% on the Sky money, but think its only just been massively increased in the last season or two).

 

He' played the last 6 months or so injury-free, played well, looked sharp and scored goals - if we don't pay the going rate someone else will.

 

Well what is the going rate, bearing in mind his best performances have been in midfield? When played up front he's looked pedestrian, and I'm not sure which club out there is going to pay him any more than we will.

midfield ?....you do believe the blurb dont ya ?

 

Call it what you will, it's not up front.

i call it playing off a front man...as was martins

 

He seemed to be dropping a lot deeper to me but in any case it's not the important issue. How many clubs will pay 80k+ a week for a player with Owen's injury history? The big teams won't, they'll be going after stars on the rise. So who does that leave as a better alternative to us?

i agree..i think he'll stay.

[TRon]

Unless you can offer something no-one else can, ie champs league games or a team already challenging for the title etc, then you have to at an absolute minimum pay the going rate, and for an England international still with many years in front of him (in theory anyway) then thats what we'll have to do or he'll go elsewhere.

 

He's an England international with a chequered fitness record, that's why other clubs have been reluctant to take him off our hands previously. I still think they'll think long and hard before offering more than we are.

 

Fair points. But when Real Madrid were willing to let him go Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal didn't need a striker at that time, Liverpool did but for obvious reasons didn't want to have to buy him back at much more than they'd let him go for. We did, so we gazumped them, offered him a kings wage and he took it. There was no-one else in for him as this transfer predates a lot of the recent take-overs and extra Sky money (not 100% on the Sky money, but think its only just been massively increased in the last season or two).

 

He' played the last 6 months or so injury-free, played well, looked sharp and scored goals - if we don't pay the going rate someone else will.

 

Well what is the going rate, bearing in mind his best performances have been in midfield? When played up front he's looked pedestrian, and I'm not sure which club out there is going to pay him any more than we will.

midfield ?....you do believe the blurb dont ya ?

 

Call it what you will, it's not up front.

i call it playing off a front man...as was martins

 

He seemed to be dropping a lot deeper to me but in any case it's not the important issue. How many clubs will pay 80k+ a week for a player with Owen's injury history? The big teams won't, they'll be going after stars on the rise. So who does that leave as a better alternative to us?

i agree..i think he'll stay.

 

So do I, but he'll probably not sign a new contract until the last minute, which might mean he'll run his current one down.

[Offshore]

Unless you can offer something no-one else can, ie champs league games or a team already challenging for the title etc, then you have to at an absolute minimum pay the going rate, and for an England international still with many years in front of him (in theory anyway) then thats what we'll have to do or he'll go elsewhere.

 

He's an England international with a chequered fitness record, that's why other clubs have been reluctant to take him off our hands previously. I still think they'll think long and hard before offering more than we are.

 

 

Fair points. But when Real Madrid were willing to let him go Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal didn't need a striker at that time, Liverpool did but for obvious reasons didn't want to have to buy him back at much more than they'd let him go for. We did, so we gazumped them, offered him a kings wage and he took it. There was no-one else in for him as this transfer predates a lot of the recent take-overs and extra Sky money (not 100% on the Sky money, but think its only just been massively increased in the last season or two).

 

He' played the last 6 months or so injury-free, played well, looked sharp and scored goals - if we don't pay the going rate someone else will.

 

Well what is the going rate, bearing in mind his best performances have been in midfield? When played up front he's looked pedestrian, and I'm not sure which club out there is going to pay him any more than we will.

 

 

 

The question is - did we look a better team with him in it or not? (and he is/was played as a forward)

 

I'd say yes, we're a big club and can afford top wages. Its only when we pay big fees and wages for underperformers does this crop up, there are a fair few ahead of Owen we should be getting rid and replace of first before him.

 

Whatever the going rate is, it certainly isn't less than what we initially agreed to pay him in wages, he isn't in the twilight of his career, he isn't injuried and he is our only blue-chip player. We could offer him less money but he'd be mental to accept and he'd then probably see out his last year and leave for nowt. This would force us to have to pay big to get a replacement in this summer on top of paying Owen his last years wages too, which = false economy.

[Baggio]

Unless you can offer something no-one else can, ie champs league games or a team already challenging for the title etc, then you have to at an absolute minimum pay the going rate, and for an England international still with many years in front of him (in theory anyway) then thats what we'll have to do or he'll go elsewhere.

 

He's an England international with a chequered fitness record, that's why other clubs have been reluctant to take him off our hands previously. I still think they'll think long and hard before offering more than we are.

 

 

Fair points. But when Real Madrid were willing to let him go Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal didn't need a striker at that time, Liverpool did but for obvious reasons didn't want to have to buy him back at much more than they'd let him go for. We did, so we gazumped them, offered him a kings wage and he took it. There was no-one else in for him as this transfer predates a lot of the recent take-overs and extra Sky money (not 100% on the Sky money, but think its only just been massively increased in the last season or two).

 

He' played the last 6 months or so injury-free, played well, looked sharp and scored goals - if we don't pay the going rate someone else will.

 

Well what is the going rate, bearing in mind his best performances have been in midfield? When played up front he's looked pedestrian, and I'm not sure which club out there is going to pay him any more than we will.

 

 

 

The question is - did we look a better team with him in it or not? (and he is/was played as a forward)

 

I'd say yes, we're a big club and can afford top wages. Its only when we pay big fees and wages for underperformers does this crop up, there are a fair few ahead of Owen we should be getting rid and replace of first before him.

 

Whatever the going rate is, it certainly isn't less than what we initially agreed to pay him in wages, he isn't in the twilight of his career, he isn't injuried and he is our only blue-chip player. We could offer him less money but he'd be mental to accept and he'd then probably see out his last year and leave for nowt. This would force us to have to pay big to get a replacement in this summer on top of paying Owen his last years wages too, which = false economy.

 

He didn't play as a forward as we've known him to be in the past though, he played in the hole where his fantastic off the ball movement can find him space in the box while the centre backs had their hands full with Martins and Viduka.

 

As a striker playing in a 4-4-2 he's been absolutely awful for us in every game since his knee went, the pace he's lost means it's easy for him to get marked out of the game when he's up against a centre back.

 

One of the papers suggested we were looking to offer him £80,000 basic with him having the chance to make up the rest depending on how well he and the team plays, it's a good move for the club and they should negotiate all contracts like this in the future.

[TRon]

Unless you can offer something no-one else can, ie champs league games or a team already challenging for the title etc, then you have to at an absolute minimum pay the going rate, and for an England international still with many years in front of him (in theory anyway) then thats what we'll have to do or he'll go elsewhere.

 

He's an England international with a chequered fitness record, that's why other clubs have been reluctant to take him off our hands previously. I still think they'll think long and hard before offering more than we are.

 

 

Fair points. But when Real Madrid were willing to let him go Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal didn't need a striker at that time, Liverpool did but for obvious reasons didn't want to have to buy him back at much more than they'd let him go for. We did, so we gazumped them, offered him a kings wage and he took it. There was no-one else in for him as this transfer predates a lot of the recent take-overs and extra Sky money (not 100% on the Sky money, but think its only just been massively increased in the last season or two).

 

He' played the last 6 months or so injury-free, played well, looked sharp and scored goals - if we don't pay the going rate someone else will.

 

Well what is the going rate, bearing in mind his best performances have been in midfield? When played up front he's looked pedestrian, and I'm not sure which club out there is going to pay him any more than we will.

 

 

 

The question is - did we look a better team with him in it or not? (and he is/was played as a forward)

 

I'd say yes, we're a big club and can afford top wages. Its only when we pay big fees and wages for underperformers does this crop up, there are a fair few ahead of Owen we should be getting rid and replace of first before him. Whatever the going rate is, it certainly isn't less than what we initially agreed to pay him in wages

 

, he isn't in the twilight of his career, he isn't injuried and he is our only blue-chip player. We could offer him less money but he'd be mental to accept and he'd then probably see out his last year and leave for nowt. This would force us to have to pay big to get a replacement in this summer on top of paying Owen his last years wages too, which = false economy.

 

We'll be paying his wages regardless until leaves in the summer unless he quits or signs for someone else before then. We'll also need to sign someone else in case he's injured, that's what having a squad is all about.

 

Whatever the going rate is, it certainly isn't less than what we initially agreed to pay him in wages

 

How did you work that out? Has he improved in value since then?

 

 

 

 

 

[Offshore]

Unless you can offer something no-one else can, ie champs league games or a team already challenging for the title etc, then you have to at an absolute minimum pay the going rate, and for an England international still with many years in front of him (in theory anyway) then thats what we'll have to do or he'll go elsewhere.

 

He's an England international with a chequered fitness record, that's why other clubs have been reluctant to take him off our hands previously. I still think they'll think long and hard before offering more than we are.

 

 

Fair points. But when Real Madrid were willing to let him go Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal didn't need a striker at that time, Liverpool did but for obvious reasons didn't want to have to buy him back at much more than they'd let him go for. We did, so we gazumped them, offered him a kings wage and he took it. There was no-one else in for him as this transfer predates a lot of the recent take-overs and extra Sky money (not 100% on the Sky money, but think its only just been massively increased in the last season or two).

 

He' played the last 6 months or so injury-free, played well, looked sharp and scored goals - if we don't pay the going rate someone else will.

 

Well what is the going rate, bearing in mind his best performances have been in midfield? When played up front he's looked pedestrian, and I'm not sure which club out there is going to pay him any more than we will.

 

 

 

The question is - did we look a better team with him in it or not? (and he is/was played as a forward)

 

I'd say yes, we're a big club and can afford top wages. Its only when we pay big fees and wages for underperformers does this crop up, there are a fair few ahead of Owen we should be getting rid and replace of first before him. Whatever the going rate is, it certainly isn't less than what we initially agreed to pay him in wages

 

, he isn't in the twilight of his career, he isn't injuried and he is our only blue-chip player. We could offer him less money but he'd be mental to accept and he'd then probably see out his last year and leave for nowt. This would force us to have to pay big to get a replacement in this summer on top of paying Owen his last years wages too, which = false economy.

 

We'll be paying his wages regardless until leaves in the summer unless he quits or signs for someone else before then. We'll also need to sign someone else in case he's injured, that's what having a squad is all about.

 

Whatever the going rate is, it certainly isn't less than what we initially agreed to pay him in wages

 

How did you work that out? Has he improved in value since then?

 

 

Nope he hasn't improved in value, but neither has he depreciated much either, other than he's only got one year left on a contract so in theory 'if' we decided to sell we wouldn't get as much as if he was under a longer contract. As an aside, we paid too much in the first place, but thats a diff topic - we're talking about his wages.

 

His wages - what I meant was that nobody would accept a lesser wage to do the same job - would you if you thought you were still as capable as the day you first walked into that work?

 

If Owen signs and stays then of course we'll have to sign others, but not a direct replacement for him.

 

[Offshore]

Unless you can offer something no-one else can, ie champs league games or a team already challenging for the title etc, then you have to at an absolute minimum pay the going rate, and for an England international still with many years in front of him (in theory anyway) then thats what we'll have to do or he'll go elsewhere.

 

He's an England international with a chequered fitness record, that's why other clubs have been reluctant to take him off our hands previously. I still think they'll think long and hard before offering more than we are.

 

 

Fair points. But when Real Madrid were willing to let him go Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal didn't need a striker at that time, Liverpool did but for obvious reasons didn't want to have to buy him back at much more than they'd let him go for. We did, so we gazumped them, offered him a kings wage and he took it. There was no-one else in for him as this transfer predates a lot of the recent take-overs and extra Sky money (not 100% on the Sky money, but think its only just been massively increased in the last season or two).

 

He' played the last 6 months or so injury-free, played well, looked sharp and scored goals - if we don't pay the going rate someone else will.

 

Well what is the going rate, bearing in mind his best performances have been in midfield? When played up front he's looked pedestrian, and I'm not sure which club out there is going to pay him any more than we will.

 

 

 

The question is - did we look a better team with him in it or not? (and he is/was played as a forward)

 

I'd say yes, we're a big club and can afford top wages. Its only when we pay big fees and wages for underperformers does this crop up, there are a fair few ahead of Owen we should be getting rid and replace of first before him.

 

Whatever the going rate is, it certainly isn't less than what we initially agreed to pay him in wages, he isn't in the twilight of his career, he isn't injuried and he is our only blue-chip player. We could offer him less money but he'd be mental to accept and he'd then probably see out his last year and leave for nowt. This would force us to have to pay big to get a replacement in this summer on top of paying Owen his last years wages too, which = false economy.

 

He didn't play as a forward as we've known him to be in the past though, he played in the hole where his fantastic off the ball movement can find him space in the box while the centre backs had their hands full with Martins and Viduka.

 

As a striker playing in a 4-4-2 he's been absolutely awful for us in every game since his knee went, the pace he's lost means it's easy for him to get marked out of the game when he's up against a centre back.

 

One of the papers suggested we were looking to offer him £80,000 basic with him having the chance to make up the rest depending on how well he and the team plays, it's a good move for the club and they should negotiate all contracts like this in the future.

 

I agree on all three points, but whether a player would accept a performance related pay, albeit with a not too shabby basic, is another matter.

[Guest rebel_yell12]

@Baggio (sorry, not quoting, as the quotes are getting long)

 

Does Owen look bad in ALL 4-4-2, or the Newcastle version, a club which has sweet f*** all in quality creative/attacking midfielders, and not much in the way of wingers (Zoggy has some promise...Milner as well, imo)?  Which also had Alan Smith as his partner, not Martins or Viduka (ie a proper striker)?  Is the fault with Owen, or more widespread?

 

He played very well in a 4-4-2 for England last autumn, which is suspiciously after he done his knee.  I don't think Owen's any different in that sense than he's always been -- he needs a quality midfield (or at least decent) to shine in the 4-4-2; but then, most strikers do, especially the "goal hangers".  The trick was, Liverpool usually had a pretty good midfield, so Owen always showed his quality. 

 

It's the same as his "loss of pace," which people credit to his knee, but the truth is, he lost his electric pace in 2002-3, when he chose to bulk up (well, if 11 stone counts as bulking up) to cut down on the hamstring injuries.  I'd be very interested to see Owen in a 4-4-2 again, assuming Newcastle strengthen the midfield sufficiently so that it is a viable option.

[Guest optimistic nit]

i think we may be forced into keeping some of the players who are on too much money, because our squad will just be too thin. hopefully we can get rid of Duff, Rozy, Ameobi and Smith, but they may have to stay.

 

if keegan's getting 3 players in is the truth ( i don't think it is, because bab, carr and emre have already left, and getting less than 6-8 players in is nowt short of insanity from all parties involved, even if we don't sell anyone else.

we will still need players who have been in this team for a year, if the signings we make don't work out, or we don't make the signings. tbh i can't think of anything the list above give the squad that the fringe youth players don't give us, they are that bad (possible exception of duff, but i want shot of him as well.

 

I can't see Geremi not being here next season, we will need him in and around the first team, unfortunately.

hopefully in january or next summer we will be able to sell the likes of barton, geremi et al, but we need to be cautious about selling now, until we have a squad of good players.

 

it is encouraging that the board/ king kev feel confident enough to sell players like emre, because they surely wouldn't do that unless we were hoping to buy good players, and a lot of them, in the summer.

[Baggio]

@Baggio (sorry, not quoting, as the quotes are getting long)

 

Does Owen look bad in ALL 4-4-2, or the Newcastle version, a club which has sweet f*** all in quality creative/attacking midfielders, and not much in the way of wingers (Zoggy has some promise...Milner as well, imo)?  Which also had Alan Smith as his partner, not Martins or Viduka (ie a proper striker)?  Is the fault with Owen, or more widespread?

 

He played very well in a 4-4-2 for England last autumn, which is suspiciously after he done his knee.  I don't think Owen's any different in that sense than he's always been -- he needs a quality midfield (or at least decent) to shine in the 4-4-2; but then, most strikers do, especially the "goal hangers".  The trick was, Liverpool usually had a pretty good midfield, so Owen always showed his quality. 

 

It's the same as his "loss of pace," which people credit to his knee, but the truth is, he lost his electric pace in 2002-3, when he chose to bulk up (well, if 11 stone counts as bulking up) to cut down on the hamstring injuries.  I'd be very interested to see Owen in a 4-4-2 again, assuming Newcastle strengthen the midfield sufficiently so that it is a viable option.

 

Even when we've dominated games (West Ham and Spurs) he's looked off the pace in a 4-4-2, when he first came here he looked quality in a 4-4-2 with the midfield being N'Zogbia/Parker/Emre/Solano and that wasn't the best midfield I've seen but that extra yard of pace he had then meant he could get on the end of through balls which made him much more dangerous.

 

I wasn't talking about him losing his electric pace btw but I'm not sure how anyone who's watched him play for Newcastle can say he hasn't lost some of his pace since he's came back from injury, he's much more easier to mark now and defenders just play a high line knowing that if he does get in behind them then they are more than capable of catching him up before he gets within shooting distance.

 

The new formation has helped him in that Martins drags one of the centre backs out of the way (usually out to the left) meaning Owen can ghost in to that position, he's very hard to pick up in this formation unless the opposition get a DM to do a man marking job on him which isn't likely to happen as they would then struggle with the rest of the team, we've already seen teams try and set up to stop us playing which usually makes their own attacking play suffer.

 

If Keegan plans on sticking with this formation next season then I think Owen has the potential to score 20 league goals next season if he can keep himself fit because the poor teams just won't be able to pick him up, if we're going with a 4-4-2 however then I'd move him on as he's not shown he's worth half of his wages for me playing in that formation.

[Guest rebel_yell12]

I would agree about the first Tottenham match, he looked off though I can't remember what his "match-fitness" was like at that point (I don't think he was carrying an injury...honestly he was in and out so much at the start I have trouble keeping track).  Against West Ham, the first match he was already carrying his hernia injury iirc, so I am not sure he can be judged for that.  If I had two herniated muscles in either side of my groin, I'd be slower too.  In the second match v. West Ham, Keegan said he pulled Owen back to the right wing, so I don't know if Keegan agreed with you about the 4-4-2, or just thought Owen was a better option there than the relatively immobile Viduka or the less-disciplined Martins. 

 

I'm not saying Owen hasn't changed since his knee.  But he scored some very nice goals at the close of season that weren't "ghosting in" from deep -- Sunderland (oh, how sweet that moment was, even on this side of the pond) & Reading both come quickly to mind where he played on the last shoulder just as he's always done in a 4-4-2.  Same with his almost-goal v. Portsmouth.  I think he can still play off the last defender, with sufficient quality (ie decent) of midfielders.  His performances for England still show that potential: I think he's the same player now as he was in Sept-Oct 2007.  The times I thought he looked off-pace in the 4-4-2 was in the winter drought and those performances I mostly credit to the dross on the pitch:  a squad without Faye or Beye, no Geremi, no Martins, no Viduka, about half iirc without Barton...Owen managed to net two half-chances in that squad.

 

The fault of the 4-4-2 failure was not with the strikers.  Any of them.  Well...Smith never helped.  But I can barely make myself call him a striker.  I'd like to see it again at Newcastle (assuming some midfielders come in), as an option to the 4-3-3, and I think we'll see Owen in it.  I have this instinct that Keegan won't bench his captain much in the coming season.  Which will prove one of us to be mistaken, I suppose.  I guess my central point, which I've been saying for most of the season, is that Newcastle's major weakness now is in the midfield.  It's not the defense (the back four were pretty solid by the end of season) nor the strikers, though the squad is small the starting 11 is good in those areas.  But the midfield is...pretty sad really.

[Baggio]

His goal against Sunderland is a perfect example of him ghosting in from this new position he's playing.

 

Nosworthy and Higginbotham followed Martins and Viduka towards towards the near edge of the penalty area leaving a huge space near the back, Owen ran from deep unmarked and around the back of McShane to put a great header away.

 

As for England, I thought he was fairly average in both games against Russia especially the away game, he played well against both Israel and Estonia but the difference in quality between the England squad and those two is a gulf that you will never find us having with anyone in the Premiership.