Clear the Air Talks ?

[Yorkie]

I need to catch up on this a wee bit.   Is it possible for anyone to give me a bit of a summary of what's actually happened in the last couple of days? I'd be really grateful.

[colinmk]

I need to catch up on this a wee bit.   Is it possible for anyone to give me a bit of a summary of what's actually happened in the last couple of days? I'd be really grateful.

 

There was a board meeting arranged for Friday, KK was there and it went well apparently. Anything else being said is speculation afaik.

[Conjo]

So we've only got £20m to spend but were wiling to blow £18m of it on one player? Doesn't ring true to me.

 

Not actually. The £18m was supposed to be paid up over three seasons, so that would £6m out of a £20m budget.

 

That's right like.

 

However, does that mean we've potentially got £70M to spend as far as entire transfer fees are concerned if we structure all the deals like that?

 

"Nobody knows" is the only answer to that, though, it's all just speculation.

 

EDIT: But if the Sun is right (ha) it does mean that we were either going to blow the entire budget on Modric or that we have got upwards of £60M to spend in total transfer fees?

 

Does anyone really think either of those is true?

 

Over the course of three seasons, no doubt.

[Rich]

So if we bought say three players for the same price as Modric over three years... would there be no funds for next season, in that case?

[johnnypd]

So if we bought say three players for the same price as Modric over three years... would there be no funds for next season, in that case?

 

that's what i was thinking. no funds for the next two seasons, that doesn't make sense.

[Rich]

So if we bought say three players for the same price as Modric over three years... would there be no funds for next season, in that case?

 

that's what i was thinking. no funds for the next two seasons, that doesn't make sense.

 

Exactly, it's fucking tosh.

[NE5]

<snip>

 

it's nothing one big signature signing won't put right though.

 

Completely wrong.

 

Old-style (Freddy Shepherd) "one-off" trophy signings will achieve nothing, other than confirm that we are still second-rank 'triers / failures'.

 

 

 

That doesn't make any sense. So buying a world class player at a high fee would confirm us as second rank triers? What would buying second rank players do then?

 

its just to have a go at Shepherd though 

 

Not really, I am simply saying (the bleedin' obvious) that Keegans comments (no matter how 'clever' his intentions MAY have been) have only made it specifically more difficult for us to become a successful club (attract top players) and I was refuting a comment made that "a trophy purchase" (singular) would help mitigate the damage.

 

so - again - who are these "trophy" players that have been signed in the past ?

 

And what have you got against the club having, for instance, one or two players the top 4 would like themselves, rather than none ?

 

 

 

Hmmm, interesting.

 

Firstly, I did not bring up the subject of 'trophy players' - someone else did.  My response was that one-off big purchases are no good at all. A big purchase is only a sign that you are a club that means business, if it is 'the norm' (part of a continuous process) as it was starting to be when Keegan was last with us, and as it is all the time at Manchester United (for example). A 'one-off' big purchase is not the solution that the poster whose comments I was refuting, thinks it is.  ok?  Let's not get hung up on the past, or previous owners of the club etc, it is the future that matters.

 

Secondly - I have already said it really. To be successful, we should only (routinely) be buying top quality players. If we do not (cannot afford to) then we will not be successful.  Keegans comments help to make it more likely that we will indeed NOT become successful  I hope he is proud of himself.  I think he is a great bloke and a great manager, but in letting the "we are not big enough" Genie out of the bottle - he has done untold damage to our club (as I said in my earlier posts).

 

no, YOU said "Freddie Shepherd style trophy players". So who did you mean exactly ?

 

Please also explain why you think "trophy players" are different to "top quality players", and if you are only prepared to entertain a team with "many" of these players, where do you start buying them ie if you are against only having one ?

 

Why do you think it is not preferable to have one or two to none of these "trophy/top quality players "

 

If you think we have had "Freddy Shepherd style trophy players" in the past, what particular category would you have put Modric into ?

 

What category would you put Shearer, Ferdinand, Ginola, Asprilla, Batty into ? And some players bought after Keegan part 1 too. Or were you unhappy the club bought these players ? Please explain the difference, or why you didn't want them, because for the life of me I can't see a difference, other than having the urge to move the goalposts and slate the old board, which is not just yourself to be fair ie I'm not having a go at you personally ?

 

 

 

NE5 man, I'm not having a 'go' at the old board - they bought all the players when Keegan was last here. They were not perfect were they? But they did a lot of good stuff.

 

Trophy players and Top Quality players are the same type of player, but the implication of the use (by the other poster) of the words "trophy player" is that they are one-offs (not part of the norm). Perhaps that is my misunderstanding?  But, I think that is what most people understand by the phrase.

 

I am saying it IS preferable to have LOTS of Top Quality players. You must know that is what I am saying.

 

Shearer, Ferdinand, Ginola, Asprilla, and Batty were all part of (as I have already said) the one time when we were starting to do it right  -  buying top quality ('finished article') players was becoming the norm (that means NOT as one-off acquisitions).

 

a refreshing change to see someone answer this, and I agree with you. My point is that since those players, the club has still bought a lot of players with the intention that they would also be top class players, the unfortunate thing is that the managers judgement hasn't been as good as Keegans was. What I mean is, fundamentally, their has been no change in policy by the board towards the clubs dealings in the transfer market.

 

Basically speaking, if players such as Boumsong, Luque, Cort, Viana, Bramble, Parker, had performed as well as players like Bellamy, Robert, Speed, Hamman, and Dyer and Jenas initially in both cases, then things would have been a lot different. Every single one of these players were bought with the same hope as the players Keegan part 1 brought in. People only label them as "trophy signings" because they flopped when they were just poor signings. At least thats what I am presuming, as you are the first person who's ever replied to this question when I've asked it.

 

Keegan buys these sort of players, just like his successor tried to, and my point is that nobody will complain about it when the judgement is right, or  because its not Shepherd sanctioning them as chairman .....

 

Pretty piss poor standards to be honest.

 

Modric, was (I hoped) to be the 'start' of the routine/continuous acquisition of (only) top quality players AGAIN. This may still happen (though not starting with Mr Modric, of course).

 

Modric I would have considered to be exactly the same as all the other players bought in the hope they would be quality, and obviously hope he lived up to it, but yes it isn't to be. I hope the club analyse any mistakes they have made and learn from them, quickly.

 

Now, I have tried to answer your questions.

 

My interest lies not with the past (or any more questions from you about the past) but with the future.

 

Please comment on the future, and whether you think we will ever get over the 'damage' done to our fragile reputation with big foreign (mostly) players that we may wish to attract, by Keegans comments.

 

It was (with our recent few years of poor performances) always going to be difficult in the short-term to attract the best.  It is now (I think) going to be even more difficult, because of what Keegan said.

 

What do you think? 

 

 

aye, it might be. I think Keegan is playing a canny game with this. What he said is a bit out of order, but he's doing it for a reason. He wants to up the stakes, he must be getting vibes that the club isn't prepared to push up as fast as he wants to. I would agree with Keegan here, because the sooner we are back in europe the better, and from there, the sooner we are back in the Champions League the better.

 

Looking around for top youngsters has been tried before, it just doesn't work if you overdo it. You have to buy big players that the other trophy winners do, thats why they themselves do it !!! Would manu and Chelsea buy all the players they do if there wasn't a need to do it ? Of course not.

 

We may scout around for top youngsters, but the chances of more than 2 or 3 of them ending up as top players is pretty slim, we will have to bring in the other 8 or 9 players, that means paying the money and beating your opponents to them.

 

You can't get success on the cheap which is what sometimes it seems they are attempting, and building slowly for the future only means the clubs in front of us, with good management themselves, will only pull further ahead while we attempt it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

It's a "trophy player" when a disproportionate amount of the budget is blown on one star, shirt-selling signing.

 

names ?

 

 

[Rich]

It's a "trophy player" when a disproportionate amount of the budget is blown on one star, shirt-selling signing.

 

names ?

 

 

Owen is the only player that genuinely springs to mind to me of players we have actually bought when people bandy this "trophy player" stuff about, because until recently he'd been a massive failure for this football club.

 

Rooney is probably the best example of it, though, and we didn't even sign him.

[johnnypd]

i don't think there's a set criteria for trophy signings, but my interpretation is that we sign big names, often for big money, in place of genuine team building, to compensate for our lack of real trophies. Owen, Kluivert, even Duff, probably fit into this, Martins might do too. As Janitor says the best example was Rooney but we didn't even sign him.

[NE5]

It's a "trophy player" when a disproportionate amount of the budget is blown on one star, shirt-selling signing.

 

names ?

 

 

Owen is the only player that genuinely springs to mind to me of players we have actually bought when people bandy this "trophy player" stuff about, because until recently he'd been a massive failure for this football club.

 

Rooney is probably the best example of it, though, and we didn't even sign him.

 

Owens goals, and Martins, have just saved us from relegation.

 

Poor signing ? I don't think so.

 

I don't think ManU would consider Rooney a "trophy" signing, and to be honest I find it absolutely incredible that any Newcastle United supporter would be unhappy to have him.

 

Ridiculous.

 

 

[NE5]

i don't think there's a set criteria for trophy signings, but my interpretation is that we sign big names, often for big money, in place of genuine team building, to compensate for our lack of real trophies. Owen, Kluivert, even Duff, probably fit into this, Martins might do too. As Janitor says the best example was Rooney but we didn't even sign him.

 

I don't follow this Johnny, or even remotedly agree with it.

 

Its about assessing quality, and building a team of quality players. The higher the quality the better. If you can buy a player such as Rooney, then you know you have someone of the absolute top level and then look at other quality players for other positions.

Whats the point of building a team of players who aren't good enough ?

 

 

 

 

[Rich]

It's a "trophy player" when a disproportionate amount of the budget is blown on one star, shirt-selling signing.

 

names ?

 

 

Owen is the only player that genuinely springs to mind to me of players we have actually bought when people bandy this "trophy player" stuff about, because until recently he'd been a massive failure for this football club.

 

Rooney is probably the best example of it, though, and we didn't even sign him.

 

Owens goals, and Martins, have just saved us from relegation.

 

Poor signing ? I don't think so.

 

I don't think ManU would consider Rooney a "trophy" signing, and to be honest I find it absolutely incredible that any Newcastle United supporter would be unhappy to have him.

 

Ridiculous.

 

Just giving you the answer you were asking for, as I assume those two would be the players singled out as trophy signings/potential trophy signings.

 

As for the bold bit, it's a very superficial argument, as someone could easily counter with "if that £16M had been better spent, we might not have been fighting relegation to begin with", which would be a fair enough comment. Then we'd end up in that brilliant never-ending cycle again.

[fredbob]

i don't think there's a set criteria for trophy signings, but my interpretation is that we sign big names, often for big money, in place of genuine team building, to compensate for our lack of real trophies. Owen, Kluivert, even Duff, probably fit into this, Martins might do too. As Janitor says the best example was Rooney but we didn't even sign him.

 

Agree with that - signings made which arent made primarily for the benefit for the first team - in fact any signings which isnt 100% for the 1st teams benifit are trophy signings.

 

Another good example would be Butt.

 

An example of someone who isnt a trophy signing but relatively speaking was as much of a flop as Luque is Viana, this is where i differentiate trophy signings.

 

I dont think its a simple case as they "were expenisve but were crap so must be trophy signings" becasue for me Viana was contrare and proves that theory to be rubbish.

 

 

[NE5]

It's a "trophy player" when a disproportionate amount of the budget is blown on one star, shirt-selling signing.

 

names ?

 

 

Owen is the only player that genuinely springs to mind to me of players we have actually bought when people bandy this "trophy player" stuff about, because until recently he'd been a massive failure for this football club.

 

Rooney is probably the best example of it, though, and we didn't even sign him.

 

Owens goals, and Martins, have just saved us from relegation.

 

Poor signing ? I don't think so.

 

I don't think ManU would consider Rooney a "trophy" signing, and to be honest I find it absolutely incredible that any Newcastle United supporter would be unhappy to have him.

 

Ridiculous.

 

Just giving you the answer you were asking for, as I assume those two would be the players singled out as trophy signings/potential trophy signings.

 

As for the bold bit, it's a very superficial argument, as someone could easily counter with "if that £16M had been better spent, we might not have been fighting relegation to begin with", which would be a fair enough comment. Then we'd end up in that brilliant never-ending cycle again.

 

Faced with a choice of spending 16m quid on a proven player who you know is top class, or 3 or 4 sub standard players who are decidely risky, its a complete no brainer.

 

The quality player wins every single time, for me.

 

Alan Shearer spring to mind ?

 

Was he a "trophy" player then ? Owen was actually one of the few players around capable of stepping into his shoes, and not being fazed by it or anything. Its exactly the sort of player the club should have looked to replace Shearer with, which they did.

 

 

[Alberto2005]

Owen has been a poor signing.

[Rich]

i don't think there's a set criteria for trophy signings, but my interpretation is that we sign big names, often for big money, in place of genuine team building, to compensate for our lack of real trophies. Owen, Kluivert, even Duff, probably fit into this, Martins might do too. As Janitor says the best example was Rooney but we didn't even sign him.

 

I don't follow this Johnny, or even remotedly agree with it.

 

Its about assessing quality, and building a team of quality players. The higher the quality the better. If you can buy a player such as Rooney, then you know you have someone of the absolute top level and then look at other quality players for other positions.

Whats the point of building a team of players who aren't good enough ?

 

 

The point people are making is that these players were bought at the expense of other positions.

 

The fact is that we could have bought Rooney and ONLY Rooney... would that really have gotten us anywhere? What happens if he'd got crocked and never played a game for us? It's all hyopthetical man.

 

You have to admit that 2 years into the deal, Michael Owen at £16M looked like a massive mistake, as he played 14 games (didn't even complete all of them) and scored 7 goals out of what must have potentially been something like 90 matches, perhaps more. This doesn't even take into account the wages he will have accrued over that period, which must be somewhere up near the £10M mark, even after the compensation stuff.

 

If we'd signed Rooney for an insane amount of money directly after selling Woodgate and the same had happened to him in his first two seasons, I dread to think what the reaction would have been from the fanbase. It would have been justified as well man.

[OzzieMandias]

There was also Shepherd's attempt to buy Ronaldinho.

[Guest elpapi]

"The Chronicle said on Thursday there would be no parting of the ways at St James’s Park and this has turned out to be the case.

 

And yesterday our information was that while Keegan would face some straight talking, it would all end in handshakes - and this is exactly what happened."

 

that Oliver dude seems a canny guy... 

 

this guy is an insult to anyone who can rightfully call themselves a journalist 

 

 

[fredbob]

It's a "trophy player" when a disproportionate amount of the budget is blown on one star, shirt-selling signing.

 

names ?

 

 

Owen is the only player that genuinely springs to mind to me of players we have actually bought when people bandy this "trophy player" stuff about, because until recently he'd been a massive failure for this football club.

 

Rooney is probably the best example of it, though, and we didn't even sign him.

 

Owens goals, and Martins, have just saved us from relegation.

 

Poor signing ? I don't think so.

 

I don't think ManU would consider Rooney a "trophy" signing, and to be honest I find it absolutely incredible that any Newcastle United supporter would be unhappy to have him.

 

Ridiculous.

 

Just giving you the answer you were asking for, as I assume those two would be the players singled out as trophy signings/potential trophy signings.

 

As for the bold bit, it's a very superficial argument, as someone could easily counter with "if that £16M had been better spent, we might not have been fighting relegation to begin with", which would be a fair enough comment. Then we'd end up in that brilliant never-ending cycle again.

 

Faced with a choice of spending 16m quid on a proven player who you know is top class, or 3 or 4 sub standard players who are decidely risky, its a complete no brainer.

 

The quality player wins every single time, for me.

 

Alan Shearer spring to mind ?

 

Was he a "trophy" player then ? Owen was actually one of the few players around capable of stepping into his shoes, and not being fazed by it or anything. Its exactly the sort of player the club should have looked to replace Shearer with, which they did.

 

 

 

Well kind of yes. didnt we have to end up needing to sell players in order to finance the summer budget after Shearer had signed. Im not doubting the quality of the singin or the player but if i rememebr  correctyl signing Shearer compromised us as a club.

 

So in some respects yes he was a trophy signing. People have a definite view of what a trophy signing is and they dont discrimnate the facts a trophy signings ability or overall quality but people are able to assess there usefullness to a club.

 

For example if you ask them who they;d rather sign Klass Jan Huntelaar otr Thierry Henry, i can bet alot of money that a lot of  people would go for Huntelaar.

 

Now for you id imagine you;d go for Thierry Henry - and thats fair enough, i think people would describe him somewhat of a trophy player and if you can see the reasons why people would rather spend the same money on an unproven talent who has bags of potential then maybe you;ll figure out the difference.

[Rich]

It's a "trophy player" when a disproportionate amount of the budget is blown on one star, shirt-selling signing.

 

names ?

 

 

Owen is the only player that genuinely springs to mind to me of players we have actually bought when people bandy this "trophy player" stuff about, because until recently he'd been a massive failure for this football club.

 

Rooney is probably the best example of it, though, and we didn't even sign him.

 

Owens goals, and Martins, have just saved us from relegation.

 

Poor signing ? I don't think so.

 

I don't think ManU would consider Rooney a "trophy" signing, and to be honest I find it absolutely incredible that any Newcastle United supporter would be unhappy to have him.

 

Ridiculous.

 

Just giving you the answer you were asking for, as I assume those two would be the players singled out as trophy signings/potential trophy signings.

 

As for the bold bit, it's a very superficial argument, as someone could easily counter with "if that £16M had been better spent, we might not have been fighting relegation to begin with", which would be a fair enough comment. Then we'd end up in that brilliant never-ending cycle again.

 

Faced with a choice of spending 16m quid on a proven player who you know is top class, or 3 or 4 sub standard players who are decidely risky, its a complete no brainer.

 

The quality player wins every single time, for me.

 

Alan Shearer spring to mind ?

 

Was he a "trophy" player then ? Owen was actually one of the few players around capable of stepping into his shoes, and not being fazed by it or anything. Its exactly the sort of player the club should have looked to replace Shearer with, which they did.

 

Not really old enough to appreciate what Shearer truly meant at the time... but as far as his signing goes the record shows that we never reached the heights that we had done in the season before he arrived and then a year after he arrived the team had to be broken up because the club couldn't afford to sustain it any longer, quite possibly down to spunking £15M on one player, amongst other things.

 

Maybe that £15M would have been better spent elsewhere, or maybe they should have just spent £5M or £10M, but we'll never know that will we?

 

Just playing devil's advocate here.

[johnnypd]

i don't think there's a set criteria for trophy signings, but my interpretation is that we sign big names, often for big money, in place of genuine team building, to compensate for our lack of real trophies. Owen, Kluivert, even Duff, probably fit into this, Martins might do too. As Janitor says the best example was Rooney but we didn't even sign him.

 

I don't follow this Johnny, or even remotedly agree with it.

 

Its about assessing quality, and building a team of quality players. The higher the quality the better. If you can buy a player such as Rooney, then you know you have someone of the absolute top level and then look at other quality players for other positions.

Whats the point of building a team of players who aren't good enough ?

 

but since we've gone about buying these types of players we've been no better than mid-table and had these flirts with relegation so you can hardly say it's worked.

 

when we bid for rooney we'd just sold a world class centre-half and were desperate for another, but we tried to spend all our money on another striker even though we'd already bought one that summer. that, to me, is the epitome of a trophy signing.

 

likewise with Duff. the brightest player in the squad at that time was a left-winger and we had several other positions needing to fill, but instead we went out and bought Duff, simply because of his name, cos as we all know, he's fucking awful at football.

 

and when we signed Owen, Souness was pressing for Boa Morte and Anelka, ie players who werent big names, and in one case (Anelka) a player with a terrible 'le sulk' attitude who a portion of our fanbase would not have welcomed here. Shepherd refused to back this genuine attempt at team building and instead bought Owen because he is a big name player.

 

no one is saying these are bad players (other than Duff) as it is more than probable that these big names will also be good players.

 

last summer we kind of did the opposite and bought average squad fillers to bolster our thin squad. this hasn't proved entirely successful either. however, at one point in the summer we had only one senior centre-half, taylor, who is of below average quality, so we simply HAD to get numbers in for a variety of less glamorous positions. had we decided to spend £15m on say, a small quick goal-scorer, a totally unneccessary and perhaps damaging purchase, when we already had Owen and Martins for that kind of position, we would've spent the season with Taylor and Edgar as first choice, with the likes of Darren Lough and other academy or reserve players playing dozens of games. that's a bit like how huntington played loads of games last season despite not being good enough for League One, and his presence led to us being knocked out of europe and being mired in the bottom half of the table.

 

EDIT: to add to this, you can't separate us ending up with one senior centre-half and having to buy relatively inexpensive squad fillers, from our previous transfer policy. the reason we ended up with such an imbalanced squad, and no money left, is a result of the previous transfer policy of spending big in certain positions and neglecting elsewhere. iirc shepherd made a comment about either distin or bernard, when negotations went awry, that "we don't pay left-backs that much". which kind of sums it up.

 

Even when Real Madrid went for their Galacticos team it was called in spain the "Zidanes and Pavons" strategy. In other words, while they were breaking world record fees on big players, they were filling their defensive positions with utter shite from the reserves like Pavon and Raul Bravo. For the first couple of years while they still had effective players in less glamorous positions ie hierro and makelele it was a success. but when they went too far it didnt work, even for them. now they are being a bit more sensible and buying young talents like Ramos, Robinho, Drenthe, Sneijder, Gago, HIguain to complement big names like RVN or Raul and as a result have regained the league two years in a row. coincidence? i think not.

 

ultimately you need to back the manager at building a balanced squad, not just deciding to go out and buy big names but neglect the rest of the team, or going to extremes of generosity when it comes to getting an Owen, but refusing to pay more modest sums on a smaller name like Anelka, who happened to be the better player. i'd love us to spend big and you have to be successful these days, but it has to be done in the right manner. i bet there were many NUFC fans who'd neverheard of Modric, or, if they had, had never seen him play. but i'd rather get in a bunch of players of his calibre and age than go for famous names that everyone has heard of, but who are on the way down who will be on bloated wages.

[Rich]

Northern Rock paid for Owen like, by giving NUFC the sponsorship money in one chunk rather than over a number of years, in exchange for him doing all their advertising campaigns and stuff, no doubt.

 

That went well for them as well.

[Parky]

i don't think there's a set criteria for trophy signings, but my interpretation is that we sign big names, often for big money, in place of genuine team building, to compensate for our lack of real trophies. Owen, Kluivert, even Duff, probably fit into this, Martins might do too. As Janitor says the best example was Rooney but we didn't even sign him.

 

I don't follow this Johnny, or even remotedly agree with it.

 

Its about assessing quality, and building a team of quality players. The higher the quality the better. If you can buy a player such as Rooney, then you know you have someone of the absolute top level and then look at other quality players for other positions.

Whats the point of building a team of players who aren't good enough ?

 

but since we've gone about buying these types of players we've been no better than mid-table and had these flirts with relegation so you can hardly say it's worked.

 

when we bid for rooney we'd just sold a world class centre-half and were desperate for another, but we tried to spend all our money on another striker even though we'd already bought one that summer. that, to me, is the epitome of a trophy signing.

 

likewise with Duff. the brightest player in the squad at that time was a left-winger and we had several other positions needing to fill, but instead we went out and bought Duff, simply because of his name, cos as we all know, he's fucking awful at football.

 

and when we signed Owen, Souness was pressing for Boa Morte and Anelka, ie players who werent big names, and in one case (Anelka) a player with a terrible 'le sulk' attitude who a portion of our fanbase would not have welcomed here. Shepherd refused to back this genuine attempt at team building and instead bought Owen because he is a big name player.

 

no one is saying these are bad players (other than Duff) as it is more than probable that these big names will also be good players.

 

last summer we kind of did the opposite and bought average squad fillers to bolster our thin squad. this hasn't proved entirely successful either. however, at one point in the summer we had only one senior centre-half, taylor, who is of below average quality, so we simply HAD to get numbers in for a variety of less glamorous positions. had we decided to spend £15m on say, a small quick goal-scorer, a totally unneccessary and perhaps damaging purchase, when we already had Owen and Martins for that kind of position, we would've spent the season with Taylor and Edgar as first choice, with the likes of Darren Lough and other academy or reserve players playing dozens of games. that's a bit like how huntington played loads of games last season despite not being good enough for League One, and his presence led to us being knocked out of europe and being mired in the bottom half of the table.

 

ultimately you need to back the manager at building a balanced squad, not just deciding to go out and buy big names but neglect the rest of the team, or going to extremes of generosity when it comes to getting an Owen, but refusing to pay more modest sums on a smaller name like Anelka, who happened to be the better player.

 

 

Yup.

 

 

 

[johnnypd]

Northern Rock paid for Owen like, by giving NUFC the sponsorship money in one chunk rather than over a number of years, in exchange for him doing all their advertising campaigns and stuff, no doubt.

 

That went well for them as well.

 

The Northern Rock Curse. also hit Harmison and WIlko, as well as the company itself.