Optimistic Nut Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 The £10m spent on Luque could have signed Anelka. I think it was more a fear on Souness' part that signing both would have meant having to drop Shearer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 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. Between the breaks I've taken to get some reading done, I think I'm really confused But, anyway, I disagree with that last statement. If we had signed Anelka, I think Luque would have proved to be more effective because Souness wanted to play 4-3-3. The real waste is the £10m that was spent on Luque. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 We could have even had Anelka a year later for around £8m, but opted for Martins at £10m instead. No way was signing Owen exclusive to signing Anelka at any time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 The £10m spent on Luque could have signed Anelka. I think it was more a fear on Souness' part that signing both would have meant having to drop Shearer. Souness wanted Anelka though, it was Shepherd who was left to sign the players and he failed to land him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 The £10m spent on Luque could have signed Anelka. I think it was more a fear on Souness' part that signing both would have meant having to drop Shearer. Souness wanted Anelka though, it was Shepherd who was left to sign the players and he failed to land him. He wanted Anelka and Boa Morte. When both bids were refused he came out with the "Newcastle will not be held to ransom by anyone anymore" comments. The sad thing is, we only needed to increase our bid for Boa Morte by £1m to get him, and he wanted to come. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Tbh though, Boa Morte's been sh*t since then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 The £10m spent on Luque could have signed Anelka. I think it was more a fear on Souness' part that signing both would have meant having to drop Shearer. Souness wanted Anelka though, it was Shepherd who was left to sign the players and he failed to land him. He wanted Anelka and Boa Morte. When both bids were refused he came out with the "Newcastle will not be held to ransom by anyone anymore" comments. The sad thing is, we only needed to increase our bid for Boa Morte by £1m to get him, and he wanted to come. They both wanted to come, that's the problem when you've got a scrap man negotiating for players. Perhaps he thought £4.5 million was a good offer for Anelka since he sold Bellamy for around the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Tbh though, Boa Morte's been sh*t since then. Lucky for us we got Luque then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Tbh though, Boa Morte's been sh*t since then. Lucky for us we got Luque then. Hahahaha Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Tbh though, Boa Morte's been sh*t since then. Lucky for us we got Luque then. Or we could have signed Anelka along with Owen, and forgot the other two. Ahhh, hindsight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Tbh though, Boa Morte's been sh*t since then. Lucky for us we got Luque then. Or we could have signed Anelka along with Owen, and forgot the other two. Ahhh, hindsight. We should have signed all 4. Increases the chances of 2 of them being any good Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 We should have kept Bellamy really Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 We should have signed Rivaldo when we had the chance. Damn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 We should have signed Ronaldo instead of Hugo Viana. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 We should have kept Bellamy really He's been shit since he left us (agree though) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieDazzler Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I see the Chron have stole my vid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Mentioned on .com's match report too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest float one in Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 We should have kept Bellamy really Wonder if it's entered Keegan's head to try and bring Bellamy back and play him instead of Martins in this 433? Not saying it's neccessarily a good idea, given his current fitness and general mentalness, but I bet he'd walk back here from West Ham and might well thrive under Keegan. It would put Shearer's nose right of joint though! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Mentioned on .com's match report too. I noticed a suspicious photo in the mackem match report. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 We should have kept Bellamy really Wonder if it's entered Keegan's head to try and bring Bellamy back and play him instead of Martins in this 433? Not saying it's neccessarily a good idea, given his current fitness and general mentalness, but I bet he'd walk back here from West Ham and might well thrive under Keegan. It would put Shearer's nose right of joint though! I was joking but I think he would come back. I wouldn't pay what West Ham payed like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 To be honest I'm not sure Keegan would rate Bellamy high enough to bring him back. I would think any striker we bring in would have to be top, top class, and Bellamy is a rung below that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest float one in Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 We should have kept Bellamy really Wonder if it's entered Keegan's head to try and bring Bellamy back and play him instead of Martins in this 433? Not saying it's neccessarily a good idea, given his current fitness and general mentalness, but I bet he'd walk back here from West Ham and might well thrive under Keegan. It would put Shearer's nose right of joint though! I was joking but I think he would come back. I wouldn't pay what West Ham payed like. I knew you were joking, but it just got me thinking about him. I probably wouldn't pay that either, and don't necessarily think we should sign him at all, but hypothetically speaking, putting a fit and firing Bellamy in place of Martins in the current team would improve us dramatically imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest float one in Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 To be honest I'm not sure Keegan would rate Bellamy high enough to bring him back. I would think any striker we bring in would have to be top, top class, and Bellamy is a rung below that. I agree he's a rung below top, top class, but I also think he's one of the best players I've seen playing for us in recent years. That season where he got those daft highlights in his hair (2004/2005 I think, Souness's first season) he was arguably one of the best strikers in the league (hope my memory isn't failing me - 2004 - 2007 is a bit of a blurr for me). He'd also be ideally suited to Martin's role in the current team. Again I'm not saying we should sign him, mostly because of fitness worries and attitude questions, but purely based on what he can do when he's on his game, I think he'd be an asset to the squad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 We should have kept Bellamy really Wonder if it's entered Keegan's head to try and bring Bellamy back and play him instead of Martins in this 433? Not saying it's neccessarily a good idea, given his current fitness and general mentalness, but I bet he'd walk back here from West Ham and might well thrive under Keegan. It would put Shearer's nose right of joint though! I was joking but I think he would come back. I wouldn't pay what West Ham payed like. I knew you were joking, but it just got me thinking about him. I probably wouldn't pay that either, and don't necessarily think we should sign him at all, but hypothetically speaking, putting a fit and firing Bellamy in place of Martins in the current team would improve us dramatically imo. oh noes, you just pushed this thread into ten pages of martins arguing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest float one in Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 We should have kept Bellamy really Wonder if it's entered Keegan's head to try and bring Bellamy back and play him instead of Martins in this 433? Not saying it's neccessarily a good idea, given his current fitness and general mentalness, but I bet he'd walk back here from West Ham and might well thrive under Keegan. It would put Shearer's nose right of joint though! I was joking but I think he would come back. I wouldn't pay what West Ham payed like. I knew you were joking, but it just got me thinking about him. I probably wouldn't pay that either, and don't necessarily think we should sign him at all, but hypothetically speaking, putting a fit and firing Bellamy in place of Martins in the current team would improve us dramatically imo. oh noes, you just pushed this thread into ten pages of martins arguing Sorry, I didn't mean to! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now