Mort - "not looking to make one-off signings to appease fans"

[Baggio]

Anelka and Boa Morte were Souness's favoured siginings, shepherd baulked at paying something like £16m combined on them, and instead paid £25m on Luque and Owen. We also made a bid for Torres at the same time too, which suggest Shepherd wanted a 'name' to replace the shearer cash cow, boost ticket sales/merchandising and felt Anelka wasn't a big enough draw.

 

Shepherd got Terry McDermott to contact Keegan and find out how much Man City sold Anelka for, apparently they sold him for £4.5 million so that's all he was prepared to offer for him which Fenebache would never accept.

[TRon]

Cant believe some people think Owen was just a trophy signing, there was a world class striker available in the season Shearer was leaving, we didnt really have a choice but to go for him.

 

I planned on not ever posting in this thread, but I'm just cutting in to say that Anelka was available and we were actually after him, and for a price much cheaper than what we eventually paid for Owen as well.

 

I remember Souness hinting that he wanted Anelka but somehow we ended up for Owen. It'd be interesting to know the details about why we ended up paying £5m extra for Owen instead of buying Anelka (and thus playing the 4-3-3 that Souness wanted to).

 

Similarly, I'd like to hear Shepherd's perspective on how we ended up with Luque and not Boa Morte (because we already know Souness' view).

 

I think most of us without a slant on this remember it the same way. Similar to how we faffed around with signing Distin allowing Keegan's City to move smartly and nick him from under our noses, leaving us to throw £5m at Ipswich for Bramble. Marvellous business.

 

 

[johnnypd]

Anelka and Boa Morte were Souness's favoured siginings, shepherd baulked at paying something like £16m combined on them, and instead paid £25m on Luque and Owen. We also made a bid for Torres at the same time too, which suggest Shepherd wanted a 'name' to replace the shearer cash cow, boost ticket sales/merchandising and felt Anelka wasn't a big enough draw.

 

Shepherd got Terry McDermott to contact Keegan and find out how much Man City sold Anelka for, apparently they sold him for £4.5 million so that's all he was prepared to offer for him which Fenebache would never accept.

 

that logic makes no sense, since liverpool sold Owen for £8m so why would he pay twice that to bring him here? double standard for the 'big name'?

[NE5]

 

no, you're wrong. I've answered them before and mick knows the reply, and there are still 2 open ones for him. You are the first to complain if I repeat things I've said before, well the answer is if he replied to the factual information I wouldn't have to.

 

Don't want to have to say this again, or you'll complain again

 

 

Which 2 questions are open for me?

 

I'm not really arsed with you. You have stated your case quite clearly, everyone can see you make judgements based on personalities rather than positions. You have no time for the chairman of the club who gave you our only 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in over 50 years and say its "the same as" directors who sold our best players for years and finished in the top 5 once in 40 years running the club.

 

Says everything really, its been said so many times. I guess that the people who can see this don't post [whereas the few who do are like yourself] but they will know the only reason I have to keep repeating this is simply because, as Gol says, you simply can't bring yourself to admit that its true.

 

I'll leave this thread now with your lack of response to myself and unsuitable reply to Gol, unless someone says anything of interest.

 

 

[Baggio]

Anelka and Boa Morte were Souness's favoured siginings, shepherd baulked at paying something like £16m combined on them, and instead paid £25m on Luque and Owen. We also made a bid for Torres at the same time too, which suggest Shepherd wanted a 'name' to replace the shearer cash cow, boost ticket sales/merchandising and felt Anelka wasn't a big enough draw.

 

Shepherd got Terry McDermott to contact Keegan and find out how much Man City sold Anelka for, apparently they sold him for £4.5 million so that's all he was prepared to offer for him which Fenebache would never accept.

 

that logic makes no sense, since liverpool sold Owen for £8m so why would he pay twice that to bring him here? double standard for the 'big name'?

 

I think it's a case of going out of your way to make a signing you don't want not happen well looking like you're doing the best to back the manager.

[TRon]

Anelka and Boa Morte were Souness's favoured siginings, shepherd baulked at paying something like £16m combined on them, and instead paid £25m on Luque and Owen. We also made a bid for Torres at the same time too, which suggest Shepherd wanted a 'name' to replace the shearer cash cow, boost ticket sales/merchandising and felt Anelka wasn't a big enough draw.

 

Shepherd got Terry McDermott to contact Keegan and find out how much Man City sold Anelka for, apparently they sold him for £4.5 million so that's all he was prepared to offer for him which Fenebache would never accept.

 

that logic makes no sense, since liverpool sold Owen for £8m so why would he pay twice that to bring him here? double standard for the 'big name'?

 

Once a scrap dealer...

[Mick]

 

that logic makes no sense, since liverpool sold Owen for £8m so why would he pay twice that to bring him here? double standard for the 'big name'?

 

I think the fitness record of Owen naturally swung it in his favour. 

[Baggio]

 

no, you're wrong. I've answered them before and mick knows the reply, and there are still 2 open ones for him. You are the first to complain if I repeat things I've said before, well the answer is if he replied to the factual information I wouldn't have to.

 

Don't want to have to say this again, or you'll complain again

 

 

Which 2 questions are open for me?

 

I'm not really arsed with you. You have stated your case quite clearly, everyone can see you make judgements based on personalities rather than positions. You have no time for the chairman of the club who gave you our only 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in over 50 years and say its "the same as" directors who sold our best players for years and finished in the top 5 once in 40 years running the club.

 

Says everything really, its been said so many times. I guess that the people who can see this don't post [whereas the few who do are like yourself] but they will know the only reason I have to keep repeating this is simply because, as Gol says, you simply can't bring yourself to admit that its true.

 

I'll leave this thread now with your lack of response to myself and unsuitable reply to Gol, unless someone says anything of interest.

 

 

 

So I guess there isn't 2 questions he hasn't answered then.

[Mick]

 

I'm not really arsed with you. You have stated your case quite clearly, everyone can see you make judgements based on personalities rather than positions. You have no time for the chairman of the club who gave you our only 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in over 50 years and say its "the same as" directors who sold our best players for years and finished in the top 5 once in 40 years running the club.

 

Says everything really, its been said so many times. I guess that the people who can see this don't post [whereas the few who do are like yourself] but they will know the only reason I have to keep repeating this is simply because, as Gol says, you simply can't bring yourself to admit that its true.

 

I'll leave this thread now with your lack of response to myself and unsuitable reply to Gol, unless someone says anything of interest.

 

 

 

I've never denied what Shepherd did well, I also see his faults, unlike you. 

 

I can understand why you think my response was unsuitable, it doesn't suit your agenda.

[Baggio]

Anelka and Boa Morte were Souness's favoured siginings, shepherd baulked at paying something like £16m combined on them, and instead paid £25m on Luque and Owen. We also made a bid for Torres at the same time too, which suggest Shepherd wanted a 'name' to replace the shearer cash cow, boost ticket sales/merchandising and felt Anelka wasn't a big enough draw.

 

Shepherd got Terry McDermott to contact Keegan and find out how much Man City sold Anelka for, apparently they sold him for £4.5 million so that's all he was prepared to offer for him which Fenebache would never accept.

 

that logic makes no sense, since liverpool sold Owen for £8m so why would he pay twice that to bring him here? double standard for the 'big name'?

 

Once a scrap dealer...

 

He probably thought £4.5 million was a fair price considering he let both Bellamy and Robert go for a similar fee.

[Shearergol]

 

Well that makes no sense does it. I guess it did in your head though, as you're obviously laughing inside.

 

Anyway, to go through the points:

 

Boumsong was actually on for Rangers' player of the year award, and their fans were gutted he was leaving (although happy with the £8.5m). You're proving my original point by trying to claim you thought he was s*** already (again, can you link to one of your posts where you claimed this please?). In fact, I'll even give you the chance of finding some posts from Rangers fans on other forums who claimed Boumsong was s*** for them, before he was sold. At the time, the only thing bad about the deal was the fee, and clearly only you had the foresight to see that it would be a bad signing. Well done at that

 

As for the "how's he getting on now?" - he's playing for one of the top teams in France, after playing for one of the top teams in Italy. What's your point? He clearly wasn't suited to this league (everyone can see that) but he's still playing for top European clubs. Funny that eh.

 

Right, Owen being injury prone:

 

2004-05 40 games played

2003-04 38 games played

2002-03 54 games played

 

So basically, until he signed for Newcastle he was playing consistently. Yet you want to claim now that you KNEW he was a bad signing because he wouldn't play enough games?? The cost per goal is 100% HINDSIGHT. Again, show me your reaction when he signed, and I'll back down.

 

You're your own worse enemy Mick - in your debates with NE5 you end up losing out because it would kill you to ever back down on anything.

 

Prove you're right by linking your posts.

 

 

 

Boumsong was at Rangers for half a season, during that time he faced nobody of any note and looked clueless any time he was put under pressure, I wouldn't really hold up a few games in a second rate league as a reason to think he's any good.  How many players come here for Scotland as the next big thing only to fail?  Rangers sold Barry Ferguson to Blackburn and he was shite here, in Scotland he was a hero.  The fact that Boumsong played 2nd division football in Italy means what?  As for now, he's playing back in France, he's played a hand full of games for Lyon.

 

Nice selection of seasons for Owen, he averaged 30 games a season for Liverpool over 7 years so I would guess that he actually played less than 70% of the total number of games they played when you add cup games.  I can't understand how anybody can try to argue that he wasn't injury prone, you've selected 2 seasons at Liverpool and in those two seasons he played 92 games out of his total of 216.  Most of his games at Madrid came from the bench, he hardly ever started and that's one of the reasons he wanted away.

 

I agree the cost per goal is hindsight, I don't see anything wrong with hindsight.

 

As for links to posts, the current forum doesn't go that far back.

 

I selected his last three seasons. It was hardly being selective to back up my argument tbh.

 

2001/2002 = 43 games played

2000/2001 = 46 games played

1999/2000 = 30 games played

1998/1999 = 40 games played

1997/1998 = 44 games played

 

So ONE season where he missed a fair amount of games, and you knew full well that he wouldn't play enough for us on the back of that?? He only missed 11 league games that season by the way.

 

Want me to put up Shearer's injury record? He averaged less games in the league for us over those 7 season. Shit signing?

[johnnypd]

Owen only started 20 league games for Madrid, they knew to use him sparingly. season before that he missed a fair chunk with a series of injuries and didn't look match-fit for a lot of the games he actually did play, many of those games cut short (went something like 4 months without completing 90 minutes at one point). there was also the fear a couple of years before that that Owen would never be able to play regularly again because of his dodgy hamstrings, something Houllier had to come out and angrily deny. so it is fair to say he had a reputation for being 'fragile'.

[Baggio]

The difference being Shearer missed large parts for us because of serious injury where as Owen suffered niggles (hamstring/lower back troubles) which cost him about 20% of league games nearly every season.

[Mick]

 

I selected his last three seasons. It was hardly being selective to back up my argument tbh.

 

2001/2002 = 43 games played

2000/2001 = 46 games played

1999/2000 = 30 games played

1998/1999 = 40 games played

1997/1998 = 44 games played

 

So ONE season where he missed a fair amount of games, and you knew full well that he wouldn't play enough for us on the back of that?? He only missed 11 league games that season by the way.

 

Want me to put up Shearer's injury record? He averaged less games in the league for us over those 7 season. s*** signing?

 

I don't know where you got your figures from but I've just checked his league record for Liverpool and it's:

 

1996-97, 1 league start in his break through season, nowt to do with injuries.

1997-98, 34 league starts.

1998 - 99, 30 league starts.

1999-00, 22 league starts.

2000-01, 20 league starts.

2001-02, 25 league starts.

2002-03, 32 league starts.

2003-04, 29 league starts.

2004-05, 29 league starts.

 

What has Shearer got to do with it?

 

Edit.

 

 

Owen started 221 league games Shearer started 233 during the same period, Owens record got worse Shearers didn't, Shearer managed 31 during his last season which was better than his average.

[fredbob]

"games played" vs "league starts" ??

[Mick]

"games played" vs "league starts" ??

 

League starts is usually a good indication and it's easy to see how they've done over a longer period of games, I would have thought fit players are more likely to play in the league than the cup.

 

You could miss almost half of the season and still play every game in the FA Cup.

[sicsfingeredmong]

I refer to Souness' final campaign in the hotseat.

 

 

First month of the premiership: no goals in the 'for' tally, and no wins on the board.

 

Owen, a proven goal scorer, as a signing - brought in to address the goal scoring drought, and afterall it was Souness who passed a piece of notepaper - with Owen's name on it - across the chairman's table. More of a signing out of neccessity, as opposed to some type of boadroom chartered gimick signing aimed at appeasing supporters.

 

Was that before of after Souness was denied the significantly lower funds to purchase his number one striker Anelka...

 

I don't want to get into this debate, but Owen was a trophy signing, to appease fans, to put bums on seats. No doubt Souness said aye to the idea of signing Owen, but the way I remember it he wanted Anelka first and we could have had him for £10m quid. The whole grande hotel business with Sky cameras poking out of the sky was all staged managed and need I say more about the official unveiling.

 

Owen was also a panic signing, we'd started the season goaless as you said which only helped us come to the eventual fee we paid for him, way over the top. Some £6m more than what Anelka would have went for and double what Liverpool had offered for Owen.

 

If Owen this proven goalscorer was a necessity, what was Anelka this proving goalscorer?

 

Spin it all you like, there is no denying what kind of signing Owen was.

 

Agree with the third point in bold, minus the 'also' reference that he was a 'fan appeasement' signing as well,  as that was our predicament at the time, but that and the followng ties in with the first section placed in bold.

 

Souness chose to blow most of his Summer kitty - ie. that 10m you speak of prior to the panic signings of Luque, & Owen in particular - buying central midfielders, Parker & Emre, as opposed to correctly prioritising by moving for a necessity player, somebody of Anelka's ilk, after handing out 10m+ during the previous window, to secure Buomsong and Babayaro, money doesn't grow on trees - especially in the wake of a 14th place finish.

 

The following i've said before, and you're welcome to disagree. Souness dug a grave for the club/team by failing to correctly prioritise earlier in the window, and he did mention that Dyer would usurp Bellamy as the team's goal scoring creative/forward in his accustomed nasty manner - so this imo was another factor as to why he neglected the team,s most essential needs re: the frontline ranks, and Shepherd imo had no other option - ie. moving for Owen, and paying big money towards the end of the window - but to bail his manager out of the proberbial s**** creek........ after the manager passed a piece of notepaper across the chairman's table of course

 

How much do you think the club could afford to spend that Summer, given that we secured finance - ie. didn't a sponsor pay a lump sum, rather than pay us in yearly instalments........ i'm sure Baggio will be able to Google this from somewhere in order to prove or disprove this - in order to facilitate the Owen deal?

[sicsfingeredmong]

When Bentley chooses Liverpool over us, have the board failed?

 

if it means they missed the boat in January ?

 

"we won't be buying any players unless they are for the future" ring any bells ............

 

 

 

I wouldn't say Woodgate was a signing for the future.

 

Seriously though the comments you're referring to were made under Allardyce and I don't think you can blame them for being reluctant to give him more money considering the poor job he was doing.

 

A mid-20's centrehalf with an innate reading of the game beyond his years, and as a straight out defensive package - ie. ability-wise - many a manager would plan to build their rearguard around such a player for a decade or thereabouts.

 

Sounds very much like a signing for the future, and at the same time getting the jump - by making a sudden & quick move in January - on any rival clubs looking to follow suit, especially in the ensuing Summer window when i daresay that many clubs, big clubs, would've been banging down the doors at a cash-strapped Elland Road..

 

 

Woodgate in January 2003 wasn't a signing for the future, [we won't even mention getting in first before all our rivals at the end of the season in question] but 2 months ago he would have been a good buy ?

 

Good one that .

 

 

 

Same rule applies just about re: the age issue, and fitness permitting - and Keegan keeps his players fit, he's one manager who would stand a good chance at keeping Woodgate on the pitch consistently - Woody's still the calibre of player a manager would hope a build a defensive rearguard around.

 

Calculated gamble, given his durability issues of recent years - Yes, no doubt.

 

Worthwhile gamble - Yes.

 

The transfer market is all about taking risks, acting on the pretense of such gambles.

 

 

[Guest rebel_yell12]

 

I selected his last three seasons. It was hardly being selective to back up my argument tbh.

 

2001/2002 = 43 games played

2000/2001 = 46 games played

1999/2000 = 30 games played

1998/1999 = 40 games played

1997/1998 = 44 games played

 

So ONE season where he missed a fair amount of games, and you knew full well that he wouldn't play enough for us on the back of that?? He only missed 11 league games that season by the way.

 

Want me to put up Shearer's injury record? He averaged less games in the league for us over those 7 season. s*** signing?

 

I don't know where you got your figures from but I've just checked his league record for Liverpool and it's:

 

1996-97, 1 league start in his break through season, nowt to do with injuries.

1997-98, 34 league starts.

1998 - 99, 30 league starts.

1999-00, 22 league starts.

2000-01, 20 league starts.

2001-02, 25 league starts.

2002-03, 32 league starts.

2003-04, 29 league starts.

2004-05, 29 league starts.

 

What has Shearer got to do with it?

 

Edit.

 

 

Owen started 221 league games Shearer started 233 during the same period, Owens record got worse Shearers didn't, Shearer managed 31 during his last season which was better than his average.

 

Right then, we agree that 1996-7 is pointless to look at (he played twice, scored once).  But his appearances at Liverpool (as opposed to starts) was not always due to injury -- they did have other strikers that played, especially prior to 2002.  In fact, if he appeared at all, that would indicate he was not seriously injured, would it not?

 

So, looking at Owen's record:

 

1997-8:  36 of 38 apps, no injuries that I recall -- he was benched to be rested because the manager felt too much was being demanded of a 17-18 year old body.

              18 goals, shared the Golden Boot (youngest, I believe to win this)

1998-9:  30 apps, matches missed in two periods, both for hamstrings.  Most were after the serious injury in April.

              18 goals, shared the Golden Boot

1999-2000:  27 apps, missed early part of season with old hamstring injury, then a couple reoccurences.

2000-01:  29 apps, primarily missed after serious concussion v. Derby County in Oct. and another hamstring problem in Jan.

2001-02:  29 apps, a series of niggling injuries -- the season he was "diagnosed" with a genetic defect in lower spine which affects both his posture and fitness.

              End of 2001, won the Ballon d'Or

2002-03:  35 apps.  To be honest, I don't remember what he missed those three matches for, but I'd guess some niggling little thing.

2003-04: 29 apps, a series of niggling injuries, as well as one match missed directly after his wife's riding accident, iirc.

 

2004-05:  35 apps, others he was left on bench.  Only one missed (not on bench) and that was out with the stomach flu.

 

In summation, Owen had three non-consecutive seasons beset by repeated and relatively minor injuries (1999-00, 01-02, and 03-04).  The pattern would predict Owen would be having niggling problems in 05-06 -- as he had done, as well, before the metatarsal.  He was fit the entirety of 2004-05, though not always heavily used by Real Madrid which probably had some bearing on that.  His record in 02-03 was solid, and 00-01 was not niggling injuries but two fairly serious ones (he was hospitalised for bleeding to the brain after his concussion).  Still, absolutely none of that could possibly have led anyone to logically conclude that Owen's fitness record would be as abysmal for Newcastle as it has been.  There seems to be some hindsight coming in here, lads.  If Owen had averaged 30 league matches per season for Newcastle (his career average prior to his horrific record 1 Jan 2006 to 1 Jan 2008), and maintained his standard goal-to-games ratio, he'd have about 45 goals for Newcastle at this point.  Personally, I don't think that would have been a disappointing return. 

 

One thing, lads, while we're talking about the Owen signing.  Didn't Souness just come out, around February I think it was, and denounce that signing entirely as Shepherd's work?  Whether he's denying credit or blame is for each to decide for themselves, I suppose, but while I quite rate Owen that deal was hinky from the start.  Owen wanted back to Liverpool, Liverpool were apparently willing to offer some form of fee (around 8-10 mil I believe) and Madrid refused to loan him (according to Owen's book).  Newcastle made an offer that would guarantee that Madrid would do just as they did -- tell Owen that he could take the move to Newcastle or stay at Madrid, but Madrid would not take half as much money from Liverpool simply because Owen preferred that English club to another English club.  Once Newcastle made the 16 mil bid, Owen's option of returning to Liverpool was gone. 

 

Personally, I think Shepherd wanted another Shearer-esque signing -- a great "hero" brought in who would score goals enough to camoflouge the massive issues with other portions of the squad.  I don't blame Owen for the move in the least, as he never lied about his first choice or his reason for coming to Newcastle.  But it was massively hinky, imo.  Shepherd's willingness to throw money about resulted in an absolute mess -- a manager who didn't want his new "star", a player who wanted to be at another club, and fans suspicious of the whole thing.

[NE5]

I refer to Souness' final campaign in the hotseat.

 

 

First month of the premiership: no goals in the 'for' tally, and no wins on the board.

 

Owen, a proven goal scorer, as a signing - brought in to address the goal scoring drought, and afterall it was Souness who passed a piece of notepaper - with Owen's name on it - across the chairman's table. More of a signing out of neccessity, as opposed to some type of boadroom chartered gimick signing aimed at appeasing supporters.

 

Was that before of after Souness was denied the significantly lower funds to purchase his number one striker Anelka...

 

I don't want to get into this debate, but Owen was a trophy signing, to appease fans, to put bums on seats. No doubt Souness said aye to the idea of signing Owen, but the way I remember it he wanted Anelka first and we could have had him for £10m quid. The whole grande hotel business with Sky cameras poking out of the sky was all staged managed and need I say more about the official unveiling.

 

Owen was also a panic signing, we'd started the season goaless as you said which only helped us come to the eventual fee we paid for him, way over the top. Some £6m more than what Anelka would have went for and double what Liverpool had offered for Owen.

 

If Owen this proven goalscorer was a necessity, what was Anelka this proving goalscorer?

 

Spin it all you like, there is no denying what kind of signing Owen was.

 

Agree with the third point in bold, minus the 'also' reference that he was a 'fan appeasement' signing as well,  as that was our predicament at the time, but that and the followng ties in with the first section placed in bold.

 

Souness chose to blow most of his Summer kitty - ie. that 10m you speak of prior to the panic signings of Luque, & Owen in particular - buying central midfielders, Parker & Emre, as opposed to correctly prioritising by moving for a necessity player, somebody of Anelka's ilk, after handing out 10m+ during the previous window, to secure Buomsong and Babayaro, money doesn't grow on trees - especially in the wake of a 14th place finish.

 

The following i've said before, and you're welcome to disagree. Souness dug a grave for the club/team by failing to correctly prioritise earlier in the window, and he did mention that Dyer would usurp Bellamy as the team's goal scoring creative/forward in his accustomed nasty manner - so this imo was another factor as to why he neglected the team,s most essential needs re: the frontline ranks, and Shepherd imo had no other option - ie. moving for Owen, and paying big money towards the end of the window - but to bail his manager out of the proberbial s**** creek........ after the manager passed a piece of notepaper across the chairman's table of course

 

How much do you think the club could afford to spend that Summer, given that we secured finance - ie. didn't a sponsor pay a lump sum, rather than pay us in yearly instalments........ i'm sure Baggio will be able to Google this from somewhere in order to prove or disprove this - in order to facilitate the Owen deal?

 

precisely.

 

We simply would have gone into that season with one striker, an ageing force about to retire, and left with nobody to replace him when he did having seen one possibility of signing one top player go begging. Still, if we'd gone down then we wouldn't have been in any sort of debt, so thats alright then.

 

 

[NE5]

When Bentley chooses Liverpool over us, have the board failed?

 

if it means they missed the boat in January ?

 

"we won't be buying any players unless they are for the future" ring any bells ............

 

 

 

I wouldn't say Woodgate was a signing for the future.

 

Seriously though the comments you're referring to were made under Allardyce and I don't think you can blame them for being reluctant to give him more money considering the poor job he was doing.

 

A mid-20's centrehalf with an innate reading of the game beyond his years, and as a straight out defensive package - ie. ability-wise - many a manager would plan to build their rearguard around such a player for a decade or thereabouts.

 

Sounds very much like a signing for the future, and at the same time getting the jump - by making a sudden & quick move in January - on any rival clubs looking to follow suit, especially in the ensuing Summer window when i daresay that many clubs, big clubs, would've been banging down the doors at a cash-strapped Elland Road..

 

 

Woodgate in January 2003 wasn't a signing for the future, [we won't even mention getting in first before all our rivals at the end of the season in question] but 2 months ago he would have been a good buy ?

 

Good one that .

 

 

 

Same rule applies just about re: the age issue, and fitness permitting - and Keegan keeps his players fit, he's one manager who would stand a good chance at keeping Woodgate on the pitch consistently - Woody's still the calibre of player a manager would hope a build a defensive rearguard around.

 

Calculated gamble, given his durability issues of recent years - Yes, no doubt.

 

Worthwhile gamble - Yes.

 

The transfer market is all about taking risks, acting on the pretense of such gambles.

 

 

 

correct again

 

 

[Shearergol]

 

I selected his last three seasons. It was hardly being selective to back up my argument tbh.

 

2001/2002 = 43 games played

2000/2001 = 46 games played

1999/2000 = 30 games played

1998/1999 = 40 games played

1997/1998 = 44 games played

 

So ONE season where he missed a fair amount of games, and you knew full well that he wouldn't play enough for us on the back of that?? He only missed 11 league games that season by the way.

 

Want me to put up Shearer's injury record? He averaged less games in the league for us over those 7 season. s*** signing?

 

I don't know where you got your figures from but I've just checked his league record for Liverpool and it's:

 

1996-97, 1 league start in his break through season, nowt to do with injuries.

1997-98, 34 league starts.

1998 - 99, 30 league starts.

1999-00, 22 league starts.

2000-01, 20 league starts.

2001-02, 25 league starts.

2002-03, 32 league starts.

2003-04, 29 league starts.

2004-05, 29 league starts.

 

What has Shearer got to do with it?

 

Edit.

 

 

Owen started 221 league games Shearer started 233 during the same period, Owens record got worse Shearers didn't, Shearer managed 31 during his last season which was better than his average.

 

Right then, we agree that 1996-7 is pointless to look at (he played twice, scored once).  But his appearances at Liverpool (as opposed to starts) was not always due to injury -- they did have other strikers that played, especially prior to 2002.  In fact, if he appeared at all, that would indicate he was not seriously injured, would it not?

 

So, looking at Owen's record:

 

1997-8:  36 of 38 apps, no injuries that I recall -- he was benched to be rested because the manager felt too much was being demanded of a 17-18 year old body.

               18 goals, shared the Golden Boot (youngest, I believe to win this)

1998-9:  30 apps, matches missed in two periods, both for hamstrings.  Most were after the serious injury in April.

               18 goals, shared the Golden Boot

1999-2000:  27 apps, missed early part of season with old hamstring injury, then a couple reoccurences.

2000-01:  29 apps, primarily missed after serious concussion v. Derby County in Oct. and another hamstring problem in Jan.

2001-02:  29 apps, a series of niggling injuries -- the season he was "diagnosed" with a genetic defect in lower spine which affects both his posture and fitness.

              End of 2001, won the Ballon d'Or

2002-03:  35 apps.  To be honest, I don't remember what he missed those three matches for, but I'd guess some niggling little thing.

2003-04: 29 apps, a series of niggling injuries, as well as one match missed directly after his wife's riding accident, iirc.

 

2004-05:  35 apps, others he was left on bench.  Only one missed (not on bench) and that was out with the stomach flu.

 

In summation, Owen had three non-consecutive seasons beset by repeated and relatively minor injuries (1999-00, 01-02, and 03-04).  The pattern would predict Owen would be having niggling problems in 05-06 -- as he had done, as well, before the metatarsal.  He was fit the entirety of 2004-05, though not always heavily used by Real Madrid which probably had some bearing on that.  His record in 02-03 was solid, and 00-01 was not niggling injuries but two fairly serious ones (he was hospitalised for bleeding to the brain after his concussion).  Still, absolutely none of that could possibly have led anyone to logically conclude that Owen's fitness record would be as abysmal for Newcastle as it has been.  There seems to be some hindsight coming in here, lads.  If Owen had averaged 30 league matches per season for Newcastle (his career average prior to his horrific record 1 Jan 2006 to 1 Jan 2008), and maintained his standard goal-to-games ratio, he'd have about 45 goals for Newcastle at this point.  Personally, I don't think that would have been a disappointing return. 

 

One thing, lads, while we're talking about the Owen signing.  Didn't Souness just come out, around February I think it was, and denounce that signing entirely as Shepherd's work?  Whether he's denying credit or blame is for each to decide for themselves, I suppose, but while I quite rate Owen that deal was hinky from the start.  Owen wanted back to Liverpool, Liverpool were apparently willing to offer some form of fee (around 8-10 mil I believe) and Madrid refused to loan him (according to Owen's book).  Newcastle made an offer that would guarantee that Madrid would do just as they did -- tell Owen that he could take the move to Newcastle or stay at Madrid, but Madrid would not take half as much money from Liverpool simply because Owen preferred that English club to another English club.  Once Newcastle made the 16 mil bid, Owen's option of returning to Liverpool was gone. 

 

Personally, I think Shepherd wanted another Shearer-esque signing -- a great "hero" brought in who would score goals enough to camoflouge the massive issues with other portions of the squad.  I don't blame Owen for the move in the least, as he never lied about his first choice or his reason for coming to Newcastle.  But it was massively hinky, imo.  Shepherd's willingness to throw money about resulted in an absolute mess -- a manager who didn't want his new "star", a player who wanted to be at another club, and fans suspicious of the whole thing.

 

 

Thanks, put it much better than I could have done

[ChezGiven]

If you think there was a chance we might have been relegated without him this season (most will assign the turnaround in our fortunes to his redeployment), then he has saved us over 16m.

 

It was his second half goal at Birmingham that turned our situation round. Priceless imo.

[Guest alex]

If you think there was a chance we might have been relegated without him this season (most will assign the turnaround in our fortunes to his redeployment), then he has saved us over 16m.

 

It was his second half goal at Birmingham that turned our situation round. Priceless imo.

There was a chance we could have got relegated without him in his first season here imo.

[ChezGiven]

How much do you think the club could afford to spend that Summer, given that we secured finance - ie. didn't a sponsor pay a lump sum, rather than pay us in yearly instalments........ i'm sure Baggio will be able to Google this from somewhere in order to prove or disprove this - in order to facilitate the Owen deal?

 

I take it your bottom lip is still going because I pointed out your sell to buy policy agenda you were pushing was bollocks then.

 

All you proved is that the timing of events could not be linked chronologically, nothing else.

 

Personally not bothered about the argument, just dont oversell your debating skills.