January Transfer Window

[Howaythelads]

Aren't we all jumping the gun a little bit? Its only just the start of November. Agreed we need a bit of work on the team (especially back four) But these guys are meant to be professionals, surely they should be able to start hitting the cows arse with the banjo soon.

 

Sorry mate, but no amount of work on the back four is going to get the team creating chances and scoring goals. When we start doing that some of the nerves will go and the pressure will reduce on the defenders.

 

They aren't that good at the back that's for sure, but I'm convinced the main problem is a lack of goals in the team.

[Guest Toon Sarnie]

Aren't we all jumping the gun a little bit? Its only just the start of November. Agreed we need a bit of work on the team (especially back four) But these guys are meant to be professionals, surely they should be able to start hitting the cows arse with the banjo soon.

 

Sorry mate, but no amount of work on the back four is going to get the team creating chances and scoring goals. When we start doing that some of the nerves will go and the pressure will reduce on the defenders.

 

They aren't that good at the back that's for sure, but I'm convinced the main problem is a lack of goals in the team.

But surely, football is about scoring goals and not conceding? Agreed the strike force isn't doing well, but if we could at least stop goals going in, we would have a fighting chance with the midfield and up front?

[Howaythelads]

Aren't we all jumping the gun a little bit? Its only just the start of November. Agreed we need a bit of work on the team (especially back four) But these guys are meant to be professionals, surely they should be able to start hitting the cows arse with the banjo soon.

 

Sorry mate, but no amount of work on the back four is going to get the team creating chances and scoring goals. When we start doing that some of the nerves will go and the pressure will reduce on the defenders.

 

They aren't that good at the back that's for sure, but I'm convinced the main problem is a lack of goals in the team.

But surely, football is about scoring goals and not conceding? Agreed the strike force isn't doing well, but if we could at least stop goals going in, we would have a fighting chance with the midfield and up front?

 

The point is we don't have a strike force. That's the difference.

[Guest Toon Sarnie]

I know what you mean, but we have got people capable of scoring, they just need to get their well manicured, highly paid finger out of their arse. It's a vicious circle if you ask me.

 

[Howaythelads]

I know what you mean, but we have got people capable of scoring, they just need to get their well manicured, highly paid finger out of their arse. It's a vicious circle if you ask me.

 

 

I don't think we do have any real goal threat in the team. Simple as that really.

[thomas]

Not many straight answers so far like.  I think the lack of straight answers says it all really.

  Scenario A isn't a straight scenario though.  You're trying to corner people into saying they'll have one kind of reaction regardless of what kind of spending it is, since any spending is "a gamble". 

 

It's not though.  Prudent spending, addressing the needs of the team, would result in at least some begrudged credit being given even if we go down, e.g. "at least they did that right". 

 

Being pandered to with a big name, big money trophy signing or two is going to definitely result in criticism, I think, even if we stay up.  A far greater gamble.

 

I'll go "on record" as saying I'll credit them with acting responsibly if we spend and spend well in January.  I will definitely slate them if we do not spend or if the only spending is on trophy players. 

 

The manager picks the players to bring in.

:)

 

... the issue is the club is being slated by a number of people for being in debt and for having a wage/income ratio that is too high. I want to know whether come January people are supporting the club spending even more despite that situation.

 

Again though, there's a distinction.  It's not as simplistic as "debt/turnover = slating". 

 

Our debt/turnover ratio right now are the result of poor decisions by several parties involved.  The reaction to it is well known though not completely understood by all. 

 

However, at this moment, increasing it in an effort to right a sinking ship, gamble though it may be, may be the only way to salvage this season and thus is acceptable.

 

So to answer the reformed query with my own reformed answer , I will back responsible spending in January. 

 

Cheers

[Guest Toon Sarnie]

Well,unless we get a sudden influx of top class players, we are gooshed.

[Howaythelads]

Not many straight answers so far like.  I think the lack of straight answers says it all really.

  Scenario A isn't a straight scenario though.  You're trying to corner people into saying they'll have one kind of reaction regardless of what kind of spending it is, since any spending is "a gamble". 

 

It's not though.  Prudent spending, addressing the needs of the team, would result in at least some begrudged credit being given even if we go down, e.g. "at least they did that right". 

 

Being pandered to with a big name, big money trophy signing or two is going to definitely result in criticism, I think, even if we stay up.  A far greater gamble.

 

I'll go "on record" as saying I'll credit them with acting responsibly if we spend and spend well in January.  I will definitely slate them if we do not spend or if the only spending is on trophy players. 

 

The manager picks the players to bring in.

:)

 

... the issue is the club is being slated by a number of people for being in debt and for having a wage/income ratio that is too high. I want to know whether come January people are supporting the club spending even more despite that situation.

 

Again though, there's a distinction.  It's not as simplistic as "debt/turnover = slating". 

 

Our debt/turnover ratio right now are the result of poor decisions by several parties involved.  The reaction to it is well known though not completely understood by all. 

 

However, at this moment, increasing it in an effort to right a sinking ship, gamble though it may be, may be the only way to salvage this season and thus is acceptable.

 

So to answer the reformed query with my own reformed answer , I will back responsible spending in January. 

 

Cheers

 

And I believe the signing of Owen could well come into that category. He made a difference, although to avoid a battle last season Souness still had to be sacked. Had we not signed Owen the debt wouldn't be anything like what it is now, but..........

 

BTW Responsible spending simply means that you won't be happy if the club doesn't sign the players you'd like them to sign. Does it not?

[thomas]

Not many straight answers so far like.  I think the lack of straight answers says it all really.

  Scenario A isn't a straight scenario though.  You're trying to corner people into saying they'll have one kind of reaction regardless of what kind of spending it is, since any spending is "a gamble". 

 

It's not though.  Prudent spending, addressing the needs of the team, would result in at least some begrudged credit being given even if we go down, e.g. "at least they did that right". 

 

Being pandered to with a big name, big money trophy signing or two is going to definitely result in criticism, I think, even if we stay up.  A far greater gamble.

 

I'll go "on record" as saying I'll credit them with acting responsibly if we spend and spend well in January.  I will definitely slate them if we do not spend or if the only spending is on trophy players. 

 

The manager picks the players to bring in.

:)

 

... the issue is the club is being slated by a number of people for being in debt and for having a wage/income ratio that is too high. I want to know whether come January people are supporting the club spending even more despite that situation.

 

Again though, there's a distinction.  It's not as simplistic as "debt/turnover = slating". 

 

Our debt/turnover ratio right now are the result of poor decisions by several parties involved.  The reaction to it is well known though not completely understood by all. 

 

However, at this moment, increasing it in an effort to right a sinking ship, gamble though it may be, may be the only way to salvage this season and thus is acceptable.

 

So to answer the reformed query with my own reformed answer , I will back responsible spending in January. 

 

Cheers

 

And I believe the signing of Owen could well come into that category. He made a difference, although to avoid a battle last season Souness still had to be sacked. Had we not signed Owen the debt wouldn't be anything like what it is now, but..........

As I understood it Owen was signed after dipping into some kind of "Wor Al Replacement Fund" or somesuch.  Still, point taken. 

 

BTW Responsible spending simply means that you won't be happy if the club doesn't sign the players you'd like them to sign. Does it not?

    So long as they're not complete shite I really don't care who the exact player is.  The positions we need most (center back, right back, forward, left back) are of more concern.  Having said that, I don't necessarily expect us to sign 4 new players but by fuck if turns out another winger gets signed and titus brambles name is still anywhere near the first team sheet, someone needs shooting.

 

 

[Guest kiwi]

Spend. Not indiscriminately.

Bridge has been touted as comming here for ages - get him, which sorts the left side of the defence. Moore in the middle with Taylor alongside. Replace Carr with Ramage who is no worse but thinks he's a defender and not a right wing.

Tactically 4 4 2 is supposed to be overlapping fullbacks/wingers but there is a lot to be said for having a solid back four who are covered on occasional forward forays by a defensive midfilder and two midfield wingers who will drop back. If they are overlapped they are not needed forward as the attacking midfield should be in support ie Dyer.

Nobby is fine on the right with Milner as cover and learning, Luque up front can do sod all for 89 minutes but if he gets a goal he's worth his money. I'd be inclined to play Martins with him and have Dyer just behind which leaves Emre to distribute and Parker as a holding midfielder so he can run in circles. Zog on the left. Butt seems to be playing well at the moment. Midfield problems are I think a combination of which partnerships for which tactics. Not that I have a clue.

What I do know is we don't need another aging star but I would have Viduka. Like Sibierski he is big and we do need at least one physical striker.

 

However

We need a quality left back + Viduka as Rossi is going. To small for this team.

With a fit squad thats it - I'd take my chances.

[Cajun]

At the end of the day its the board/chairman who employ the manager therefore it surely falls on their shoulders if the man they have employed to take charges of transfers etc f*cks up!

 

This whole thread is just a great big "well YOU wanted this" for future reference but as Wullie pointed out, its the board who have put us in this position and as much as you would like some ammo to fight your corner when it does all go tits up people will still know where the real problems lie and not "well poster xxxxx said we should do this"

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Do you reckon Fred is factoring in his Owen Compo fund?

 

He's been down to injury lawyers for you, no win no fee and is coming home with 15 big ones.

 

Beckham in January. Thats my guess, not my hope but my guess.

 

Personally I'd go for 2 decent full backs and look for a big striker on the cheap.

[Martin Lol]

Spend. Not indiscriminately.

Bridge has been touted as comming here for ages - get him, which sorts the left side of the defence. Moore in the middle with Taylor alongside. Replace Carr with Ramage who is no worse but thinks he's a defender and not a right wing.

Tactically 4 4 2 is supposed to be overlapping fullbacks/wingers but there is a lot to be said for having a solid back four who are covered on occasional forward forays by a defensive midfilder and two midfield wingers who will drop back. If they are overlapped they are not needed forward as the attacking midfield should be in support ie Dyer.

Nobby is fine on the right with Milner as cover and learning, Luque up front can do sod all for 89 minutes but if he gets a goal he's worth his money. I'd be inclined to play Martins with him and have Dyer just behind which leaves Emre to distribute and Parker as a holding midfielder so he can run in circles. Zog on the left. Butt seems to be playing well at the moment. Midfield problems are I think a combination of which partnerships for which tactics. Not that I have a clue.

What I do know is we don't need another aging star but I would have Viduka. Like Sibierski he is big and we do need at least one physical striker.

 

However

We need a quality left back + Viduka as Rossi is going. To small for this team.

With a fit squad thats it - I'd take my chances.

 

Spending, discriminately or otherwise, is only part of the problem.  Purchases have to be made but they have to be funded.  The non-performers have to go and so (imo) do the ones that do very little apart from receiving hugely inflated salaries.  This of course should have been done last summer in the longer window but it wasn't, Newcastle are now in the bottom 3 and a drastic situation requires drastic action.  I would be looking at 5 or 6 going out and double that number coming in.

 

Realism also has to set in.  Someone said sign Klose.  There is absolutely no way Klose will join Newcastle in January.  He may have done in the summer but with your league position right now and the internal problems, he would give it far less than a minutes thought before saying no.  You don't want especially talented players playing pretty football either.  Strikers who get in where it hurts and defenders who don't go walkabout when marking and put the ball into row Z if necessary.  Results are more important than style.

 

Buying a dozen or so players doesn't have to cost a lot either.  Bosmans, players with only one year remaining or low initial fee with add-ons should be Newcastle's priorities, not spending another £10m on a striker (if there is £10m to be spent).  A low initial fee with add-ons would be especially useful if you are getting players in just to get you out of the current situation and shouldn't harm your delicate finances either.  Spurs bought Andy Reid for an initial £2m rising to £4.1m, sold him for £3m before any extra payments were made, profit £1m on a player who was a flop.

 

Newcastle need 2 new full backs.  Last year Spurs needed 2 as well and signed LYP and Stalteri for a combined fee of £1.35m.  Not the best but better than what we had and better than what you've got now.  But they were just short term improvements, a year later they are both only squad players and both positions have been upgraded again.  That's what Newcastle need to do all over the pitch.  Not go for the level they really want because there isn't the money, just get upgrades.  This could have started in the summer.  Arthur Boka was excellent as LB for Ivory Coast in the World Cup, good defensively, strong going forward.  A regular international and only 23.  He moved from Strasbourg to Stuttgart on the last day of the summer transfer window.  Just an hour before the window closed.  For €1.75m.  That's £1.17m.  Is anyone going to tell me he's not significantly better than what you've already got?

[WhatTheFunk]

Ok, here is the chance for everybody to lay their cards on the table.

 

I know you all hate Fred and would prefer to see the Board removed, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

 

Between now and January the Board may or may not sack Roeder, but that's not an issue I want to address in thread.

 

The question is simple. As Macbeth keeps telling us, and various people now beat up the Board over it, the club is in debt.

 

So select the scenario....

 

A) The Board should gamble by spending cash in January in an effort to avoid relegation, in the knowledge that we may still go down and then what......? One division down, bigger debt.......

 

B) The Board should be prudent with the finances and refuse to release any funds, meaning we go with the current squad and try to avoid the drop with what we have.

 

Which is it to be?

 

If you select option A and we still go down and the club is in greater financial cack, will you then blame the Board for doing what you wanted saying they shouldn't have spent even more cash?

 

If you select option B and we go down will you then blame the Board for not splashing the cash in January despite saying right now that they shouldn't have spent in January.

 

It's not that black and white HTL. The board could still release the funds, yet be prudent at the same time. GR could go for cheap experienced journeymen who would be brought in to ensure that we have some physical and mental presence.

 

I don't really believe that our squad is full of nancies who don;t have the bottle for a fight. I believe that ANY man would have the bottle for the fight if the person in charge can motivate them in the right way. On the other hand, you could have hard men who do not need motivation to fight, but who lack the necessary application to keep us afloat.

 

The board have failed simply because they have overspent at the wrong times, and underspent at the wrong times. They have also made uncalculated appointments in managerial and coaching positions. They simply must pay for their erroneous ways, and there is no two ways about that. You keep going on about how Parker/Dyer/Luque etc.. shouldn't be here because they're not up to much. Well, neither is our "board" or "chairman".

 

I think it's quite obvious that your thread is simply there to show your argument that the board is damned if they did and damned if they didn't. The risks have already been taken previously which have led us to this impasse, or moot point. The board is between a rock and a hard place, and if I were FS, I would be looking to sell my shares off at the soonest opportunity.

[OzzieMandias]

Insofar as HTL's hypothetical scenario makes any sense at all, it's merely indicative of the vicious circle that Fat Fred's poor management of the club has created – poor performance on the pitch leads to less money for players which leads to poorer performances on the pitch which leads to even less money for players... and "less money for players" means both smaller transfer kittys AND the worsening ratio of wages to turnover. The less money we're making, the bigger the percentage of the total that gets spent on wages, and the less money there is to spend on other things.

 

The wages/turnover thing will have to be addressed sooner or later. Common sense suggests that the January transfer window might not be the best time for radical measures. The financial problems are going to be much harder to deal with if we get relegated.

 

In reality, things are rarely as simple as either/or. I'd agree with posters upthread who suggest we spend wisely on a small number of players in the key positions that most obviously need strengthening. In the short-term – which is to say, in the interests of avoiding relegation – experienced scrappers are right now probably going to be more use than long-term prospects who might or might not work out. Someone mentioned SBR signing Kevin Gallagher; that's the right kind of thinking.

[Skirge]

Fred can say there will be funds ready for Roeder but lets face it, we all know its still upto Fred to et the deals done he will spend but it wont be a lot but he can blame how hard it is to sign players not just like he did at the start of the season.

[Dave]

I call straw man.

[Howaythelads]

At the end of the day its the board/chairman who employ the manager therefore it surely falls on their shoulders if the man they have employed to take charges of transfers etc f*cks up!

 

This whole thread is just a great big "well YOU wanted this" for future reference but as Wullie pointed out, its the board who have put us in this position and as much as you would like some ammo to fight your corner when it does all go tits up people will still know where the real problems lie and not "well poster xxxxx said we should do this"

 

Good of you to admit you don't have an opinion worthy of the label.

 

Just love that hindsight, don't you.

 

BTW It's obvious what the thread is about, I'm not hiding the fact so do you think you've posted some kind of revelation there, or something?

[bodson]

Get 2 new  wing backs and one centreback

 

L.Neill 

 

R.Kovac

 

E.Edman

 

 

 

 

[Cajun]

At the end of the day its the board/chairman who employ the manager therefore it surely falls on their shoulders if the man they have employed to take charges of transfers etc f*cks up!

 

This whole thread is just a great big "well YOU wanted this" for future reference but as Wullie pointed out, its the board who have put us in this position and as much as you would like some ammo to fight your corner when it does all go tits up people will still know where the real problems lie and not "well poster xxxxx said we should do this"

 

Good of you to admit you don't have an opinion worthy of the label.

 

Just love that hindsight, don't you.

 

BTW It's obvious what the thread is about, I'm not hiding the fact so do you think you've posted some kind of revelation there, or something?

 

As I said before, it is obvious what this thread is really about hence you taking away the option to blame the people really responsible and trying to have something to use in the future when it has gone tits up.

 

 

[Benwell Lad]

May be best not to spend in January, cos if the current squad can't get us out of trouble then the types of players we'll be iable to attract in our financial and on pitch predicament, are unlikely to be of a calibre to improve things significantly.

 

By then the biggest decision in the history of our club may have to be taken. If we don't have 25 points by January (unlikely right now), no one will be coming here and we will be thinking about Championship football and a budget which will mean getting rid of high earners NOT recruiting them.

 

Like every other team before us who looked like going down, or had just come up, it's a huge gamble between investing for success and the risk of bankruptcy caused by failure.

Whatever the shortcomings of the Mackems bosses (Murray and Fickling) when they got relegated first time, they did a pretty good job of getting rid of Peter Reids big earners and managed to keep the club from folding.

 

Those who run our club may have to think about doing a similar job in the not too distant future.

[Guest Phil K]

At the end of the day its the board/chairman who employ the manager therefore it surely falls on their shoulders if the man they have employed to take charges of transfers etc f*cks up!

 

This whole thread is just a great big "well YOU wanted this" for future reference but as Wullie pointed out, its the board who have put us in this position and as much as you would like some ammo to fight your corner when it does all go tits up people will still know where the real problems lie and not "well poster xxxxx said we should do this"

 

Good of you to admit you don't have an opinion worthy of the label.

 

Just love that hindsight, don't you.

 

BTW It's obvious what the thread is about, I'm not hiding the fact so do you think you've posted some kind of revelation there, or something?

Quite simple really - where were we when the Fat Git took over ?

Where are we now ?

Are we significantly worse off now or not ?

How many massive (and I mean MASSIVE mistakes) has this fool been responsible for ?

Who hired Souness on a big contract des[ite his taking Blackburn to the brink of relegation ?

Who hired Roeder (coming up for 3 out of 3 relegations) ?

 

A person is judged by RESULTS.

Shepherd's is DISASTROUS, not merely awful.

 

 

[Captain Underpants]

Get 2 new  wing backs and one centreback

 

L.Neill 

 

R.Kovac

 

E.Edman

 

 

 

Edman is way to soft for the premiership as earlier proven when playing for Spurs.

Neill is prob. on way to Liverpool and Kovac.. Well Kovac could be an option.

 

 

 

[NE5]

poor performance on the pitch leads to less money for players which leads to poorer performances on the pitch which leads to even less money for players... and "less money for players" means both smaller transfer kittys AND the worsening ratio of wages to turnover. The less money we're making, the bigger the percentage of the total that gets spent on wages, and the less money there is to spend on other things.

 

 

you were told this when you backed your man Souness to spend lorryfuls of cash and get rid of the "cancer". Glad to see you are now realising what a balls up of a judgement you made.

 

 

[NE5]

But HTL, spending cash could mean spending £1/2/3m. Which is nowt really... a few of games' gate receipts effectively and it's not going to send us into crippling debt come next season, which ever division we may be in.

 

We could improve our team greatly by spending that sort of money.

 

It's not just the spending of the transfer fee, it's the increase in wages to income ratio that is currently considered a big issue by some.

 

From reading the posts of Macbeth, Mick et al, I'd say that spending anything should be out of the question, tbh. Given the state of the club's finances.

 

Interestingly, according to Macbeth £3m isn't next to nothing and can make a huge difference, just look at the dividends per year and you can see that.

 

aye, he likes to tell us we would conquer the world with an extra 3m a year.    I am surprised neither he or the long term fan have commented on this so far, as they are both normally attracted to these topics, or should I say opportunities to criticise, and damn whatever they do, like flies to dogshit.