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

[Baggio]

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?

 

 

You're ignoring the fact that the club did move for Anelka early in the transfer window as they did for Boa Morte, so it wasn't a case of Shepherd having to get Souness out of the shit for not going for a much needed striker at all, it was a case of Shepherd having to get himself out of the shit because he didn't secure deals for either Anelka or Boa Morte earlier in the window, deals that would have been a lot cheaper than what he had to spend on Owen and Luque at the end of the transfer window because we were so desperate.

 

 

 

 

[Baggio]

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. 

 

Perhaps you should look at that thread again Chez before commenting, he was claiming we had to sell Parker before we even bid for Barton which was bollocks.

 

Perhaps he should try google to gets his facts right first.

[Taylor Swift]

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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

[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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

 

I'm looking at the facts, not the counter-factual

 

I think his injuries are irrelevant in analysing the decision-making too.

[Dave]

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

 

Can't see anyone disagreeing with that. A corner was genuinely turned in that second half and we've not looked back.

[Shearergol]

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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

 

Anelka had every chance of picking up exactly the same injuries as Owen. Owen's injuries had nothing to do with his past niggles.

[Isegrim]

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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

 

Anelka had every chance of picking up exactly the same injuries as Owen. Owen's injuries had nothing to do with his past niggles.

 

Exactly. I was critical when we signed Owen because of his poor injury record. But the broken foot and the damaged cruciate ligament had nothing to do with it but were just freak injuries that could not have been foreseen.

[Taylor Swift]

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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

 

Anelka had every chance of picking up exactly the same injuries as Owen. Owen's injuries had nothing to do with his past niggles.

 

Where have I said his injuries had something to do with his past niggles?

 

I'm in agreement as well that Owen's goal against Birmingham started the turnaround but you also have to consider the fact that we would probably not have been in that position in the first place if we signed someone else other than Owen.

[Shearergol]

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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

 

Anelka had every chance of picking up exactly the same injuries as Owen. Owen's injuries had nothing to do with his past niggles.

 

Where have I said his injuries had something to do with his past niggles?

 

I'm in agreement as well that Owen's goal against Birmingham started the turnaround but you also have to consider the fact that we would probably not have been in that position in the first place if we signed someone else other than Owen.

 

I'm making the point that signing Anelka instead of Owen wasn't a guaranteed way of more success. It's all about "ifs" and "buts".

 

 

EDIT: Your last line is nonsense by the way. I could quite easily say that we wouldn't have been in that position if we'd signed Cristiano Ronaldo, but we didn't.

[Taylor Swift]

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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

 

I'm looking at the facts, not the counter-factual

 

I think his injuries are irrelevant in analysing the decision-making too.

 

Alright then. Fact - Owen has played in 40 out of a possible 106 (35+38+34 so far) league games that he could have played for us. That's 38%.

[Shearergol]

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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

 

I'm looking at the facts, not the counter-factual

 

I think his injuries are irrelevant in analysing the decision-making too.

 

Alright then. Fact - Owen has played in 40 out of a possible 106 (35+38+34 so far) league games that he could have played for us. That's 38%.

 

Why does it take so many people to explain this to you?

 

Are you simply making the fact that we'd have been better off if Owen had played more games? No shit, sherlock. Because of the nature of his injuries, there WAS NO GUARANTEE that any other player we'd have bought at the time would have played more.

[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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

 

I'm looking at the facts, not the counter-factual

 

I think his injuries are irrelevant in analysing the decision-making too.

 

Alright then. Fact - Owen has played in 40 out of a possible 106 (35+38+34 so far) league games that he could have played for us. That's 38%.

 

My two sentences weren't independent, they had to be taken together, hence why i put them in the same post

[Taylor Swift]

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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

 

Anelka had every chance of picking up exactly the same injuries as Owen. Owen's injuries had nothing to do with his past niggles.

 

Where have I said his injuries had something to do with his past niggles?

 

I'm in agreement as well that Owen's goal against Birmingham started the turnaround but you also have to consider the fact that we would probably not have been in that position in the first place if we signed someone else other than Owen.

 

I'm making the point that signing Anelka instead of Owen wasn't a guaranteed way of more success. It's all about "ifs" and "buts".

 

 

EDIT: Your last line is nonsense by the way. I could quite easily say that we wouldn't have been in that position if we'd signed Cristiano Ronaldo, but we didn't.

 

The Ronaldo thing is bs. The Anelka thing is relevant because he was there for the taking (and was apparently wanted by our manager as well). That's why I've mentioned him and not picked some random bugger.

 

Of course it's all ifs and buts but my point is that the Owen signing hasn't turned out well.

[Baggio]

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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

 

Anelka had every chance of picking up exactly the same injuries as Owen. Owen's injuries had nothing to do with his past niggles.

 

Exactly. I was critical when we signed Owen because of his poor injury record. But the broken foot and the damaged cruciate ligament had nothing to do with it but were just freak injuries that could not have been foreseen.

 

What poor injury record?

[Dr Venkman]

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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

 

dont worry, keegan will be shipping him out and replacing him with someone else who can play in a 4-4-2, he'll have been on here and read your post about him only being effective in a 4-3-3 and taken it all on board

[Shearergol]

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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

 

Anelka had every chance of picking up exactly the same injuries as Owen. Owen's injuries had nothing to do with his past niggles.

 

Where have I said his injuries had something to do with his past niggles?

 

I'm in agreement as well that Owen's goal against Birmingham started the turnaround but you also have to consider the fact that we would probably not have been in that position in the first place if we signed someone else other than Owen.

 

I'm making the point that signing Anelka instead of Owen wasn't a guaranteed way of more success. It's all about "ifs" and "buts".

 

 

EDIT: Your last line is nonsense by the way. I could quite easily say that we wouldn't have been in that position if we'd signed Cristiano Ronaldo, but we didn't.

 

The Ronaldo thing is bs. The Anelka thing is relevant because he was there for the taking (and was apparently wanted by our manager as well). That's why I've mentioned him and not picked some random bugger.

 

Of course it's all ifs and buts but my point is that the Owen signing hasn't turned out well.

 

Sorry, I thought your point was NOT signing Owen would have worked out better. That's certainly how your initial post reads.

[Isegrim]

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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

 

Anelka had every chance of picking up exactly the same injuries as Owen. Owen's injuries had nothing to do with his past niggles.

 

Exactly. I was critical when we signed Owen because of his poor injury record. But the broken foot and the damaged cruciate ligament had nothing to do with it but were just freak injuries that could not have been foreseen.

 

What poor injury record?

He had a history of recurring hamstring injuries that every now and then lead to him missing matches during his Liverpool days. Something I found worrying back then because it was a sort of injury that was quite common at Newcastle back then.

[Baggio]

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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

 

Anelka had every chance of picking up exactly the same injuries as Owen. Owen's injuries had nothing to do with his past niggles.

 

Exactly. I was critical when we signed Owen because of his poor injury record. But the broken foot and the damaged cruciate ligament had nothing to do with it but were just freak injuries that could not have been foreseen.

 

What poor injury record?

He had a history of recurring hamstring injuries that every now and then lead to him missing matches during his Liverpool days. Something I found worrying back then because it was a sort of injury that was quite common at Newcastle back then.

 

That's what I thought too but apparently he didn't.

[Taylor Swift]

What the fuck?

 

Are you simply making the fact that we'd have been better off if Owen had played more games? No shit, sherlock. Because of the nature of his injuries, there WAS NO GUARANTEE that any other player we'd have bought at the time would have played more.

 

No shit.

 

I am making a judgment on his signing. My judgment is we threw away a lot of money and he hasn't been worth the £16m we paid for him.

 

I am also of the opinion that his finishing isn't 'world-class' and that he's no longer deserving of the 'world-class' label that so many seem quite happy to refer to him as. Comprende?

[Isegrim]

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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

 

Anelka had every chance of picking up exactly the same injuries as Owen. Owen's injuries had nothing to do with his past niggles.

 

Exactly. I was critical when we signed Owen because of his poor injury record. But the broken foot and the damaged cruciate ligament had nothing to do with it but were just freak injuries that could not have been foreseen.

 

What poor injury record?

He had a history of recurring hamstring injuries that every now and then lead to him missing matches during his Liverpool days. Something I found worrying back then because it was a sort of injury that was quite common at Newcastle back then.

 

That's what I thought too but apparently he didn't.

 

Well apparently it was a worry for him as well:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/euro2000/teams/england/752372.stm

 

Though it might have been overstated. Anyway I don't think he can't be blamed for his bad luck with injuries during his Newcastle days.

[ChezGiven]

What the fuck?

 

Are you simply making the fact that we'd have been better off if Owen had played more games? No shit, sherlock. Because of the nature of his injuries, there WAS NO GUARANTEE that any other player we'd have bought at the time would have played more.

 

No shit.

 

I am making a judgment on his signing. My judgment is we threw away a lot of money and he hasn't been worth the £16m we paid for him.

I am also of the opinion that his finishing isn't 'world-class' and that he's no longer deserving of the 'world-class' label that so many seem quite happy to refer to him as. Comprende?

 

In retrospect yes but not at the time. Huge and significant difference in evaluating the 'decision' to buy him, rather than the evaluation of the purchase in hindsight.

[Baggio]

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.

 

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka?

 

Anelka had every chance of picking up exactly the same injuries as Owen. Owen's injuries had nothing to do with his past niggles.

 

Exactly. I was critical when we signed Owen because of his poor injury record. But the broken foot and the damaged cruciate ligament had nothing to do with it but were just freak injuries that could not have been foreseen.

 

What poor injury record?

He had a history of recurring hamstring injuries that every now and then lead to him missing matches during his Liverpool days. Something I found worrying back then because it was a sort of injury that was quite common at Newcastle back then.

 

That's what I thought too but apparently he didn't.

 

Well apparently it was a worry for him as well:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/euro2000/teams/england/752372.stm

 

Though it might have been overstated. Anyway I don't think he can't be blamed for his bad luck with injuries during his Newcastle days.

 

I agree, I was worried that he misses an average of 20% of league games a season but it's all in the past now, lets hope he can stay fit in future.

[Taylor Swift]

What the fuck?

 

Are you simply making the fact that we'd have been better off if Owen had played more games? No shit, sherlock. Because of the nature of his injuries, there WAS NO GUARANTEE that any other player we'd have bought at the time would have played more.

 

No shit.

 

I am making a judgment on his signing. My judgment is we threw away a lot of money and he hasn't been worth the £16m we paid for him.

I am also of the opinion that his finishing isn't 'world-class' and that he's no longer deserving of the 'world-class' label that so many seem quite happy to refer to him as. Comprende?

 

In retrospect yes but not at the time. Huge and significant difference in evaluating the 'decision' to buy him, rather than the evaluation of the purchase in hindsight.

 

I hate going over covered ground already (especially since other people have done so) but we overpaid for him if you consider how desperate he was to leave, how Real were willing to let him leave, his performances in the 2 or so seasons prior to that summer and the other teams in direct competition with us for his signing. This isn't hindsight - at least the judgment on his fee isn't. I was excited to have him in the team but we overpaid.

[Dokko]

What the fuck?

 

Are you simply making the fact that we'd have been better off if Owen had played more games? No shit, sherlock. Because of the nature of his injuries, there WAS NO GUARANTEE that any other player we'd have bought at the time would have played more.

 

No shit.

 

I am making a judgment on his signing. My judgment is we threw away a lot of money and he hasn't been worth the £16m we paid for him.

I am also of the opinion that his finishing isn't 'world-class' and that he's no longer deserving of the 'world-class' label that so many seem quite happy to refer to him as. Comprende?

 

In retrospect yes but not at the time. Huge and significant difference in evaluating the 'decision' to buy him, rather than the evaluation of the purchase in hindsight.

 

I hate going over covered ground already (especially since other people have done so) but we overpaid for him if you consider how desperate he was to leave, how Real were willing to let him leave, his performances in the 2 or so seasons prior to that summer and the other teams in direct competition with us for his signing. This isn't hindsight - at least the judgment on his fee isn't. I was excited to have him in the team but we overpaid.

 

Not by much though. £12-13m is what i'd have priced him at.

 

Don't forget £3.5m of the fee was money owed to us from Madrid from the Woody sale in which we fleeced them in all fairness.

 

Overall i'd say we paid what he was worth to us at the time, however putting all our eggs in one suspect (in terms of injuries) basket was never a smart move, we needed another striker.

[Shearergol]

What the fuck?

 

Are you simply making the fact that we'd have been better off if Owen had played more games? No shit, sherlock. Because of the nature of his injuries, there WAS NO GUARANTEE that any other player we'd have bought at the time would have played more.

 

No shit.

 

I am making a judgment on his signing. My judgment is we threw away a lot of money and he hasn't been worth the £16m we paid for him.

I am also of the opinion that his finishing isn't 'world-class' and that he's no longer deserving of the 'world-class' label that so many seem quite happy to refer to him as. Comprende?

 

In retrospect yes but not at the time. Huge and significant difference in evaluating the 'decision' to buy him, rather than the evaluation of the purchase in hindsight.

 

I hate going over covered ground already (especially since other people have done so) but we overpaid for him if you consider how desperate he was to leave, how Real were willing to let him leave, his performances in the 2 or so seasons prior to that summer and the other teams in direct competition with us for his signing. This isn't hindsight - at least the judgment on his fee isn't. I was excited to have him in the team but we overpaid.

 

Either you're getting really confused, or I am. You claimed that we wouldn't have been in the situation where Owen needed to score at Birmingham if we hadn't signed him. Now you're saying it's simply about the fee?

 

Did spending £16m on Owen stop us signing other players in the future? I personally don't think so.

 

We should have paid the £11m for Anelka, but not instead of signing Owen, but as well as.