Chronicle Questions

[quayside]

No-one believes we seriously tried to sign Ruiz do they? That goes straight on the taking-the-p*ss pile along with Schweinsteiger, Johnson, Richardson, & N'Zogbia. You have to then wonder if they are happy to put in joke bids/enquiries on the last day and let the press run with the story as if it was serious, how many of the other supposed targets were just for show?

 

When we were promoted, we had Ameobi, Lovenkrands, Carroll, Best & Ranger as our strikeforce. With Ameobi & Lovenkrands you pretty much knew what you were going to get in terms of effectiveness in the Premiership. Best had been very poor for us in the Championship, Ranger looked promising but had very little game time, and Carroll had looked good but there were major doubts as to whether he'd be as effective in the Premiership. We really needed a proven striker then, but we made no attempts to buy one.

 

Carroll was far better than anyone expected, but picked up an injury which was going to keep him out for a good part of the second half of the season so we really needed to bring a first team striker in at the very least on loan in January, but we made no attempts to get one.

 

In the Summer Ba was picked up early on, giving us 5 strikers again. There were rumours about Ranger, Best & Lovenkrands being sold, but there were no bids and no serious interest. All the talk has been of playing 4-5-1. There's no way we were going to have 6 strikers on the books IMO (or 7 if you count Xisco). With that in mind you have to wonder how much actual effort was put into bringing in another striker by the man responsible for setting transfer and wage budgets, when his relatively low basic wage will almost certainly be significantly boosted by bonuses based on the club making a profit.

 

I guess we might see in January if they were really serious, but my money is on nothing happening then either unless it's a 1 in 1 out deal for a bargain basement striker, or a loan if we look in serious danger of relegation.

 

Or you could turn that round another way and conclude that Ranger, Best and/or Lovenkrands were retained because the striker negotiations were going badly and there was a real risk of no one coming in. But moving on do you really think Ashley is going to let Pardew have control of transfer and wage budgets? I doubt many other managers in the league have that control so why would Ashley, of all people, delegate the guts of the financial decision making to a man untrained in business or finance? He may be a prize c*nt (and naive) in many ways but he hasn't made his money entirely by accident. Golfmag's prophecy was without doubt founded on fact but that part of it doesn't work for me.

[TRon]

The questions are all valid but it's a bit pointless even attempting to answer them IMO. When you have had 7 months to replace your main striker but failed in several attempts due mostly to not wanting to spend the money to persuade clubs to sell, or wasting too much time on targets who had no interest in coming, then there really isn't any justification which would satisfy fans. Action speaks louder than words and our rubbish attempts to bring in the much needed striker said everything about how serious we were.

 

I agree our attempts were rubbish, but even more worryingly I think we were serious. It seems pretty obvious that the transfer market is a difficult place to do business. There are differering agendas from players, their agents and the clubs themselves and they all have to be dealt with. We seem to be ok at identifying and closing in on release clauses and free transfers. We can also pick out a bargain. But to me we have demonstrated that there is a lack of the right sort of negotiating expertise in our structure. There are times when a bit of flexibility is required. One of the journos (Edwards?) said we are always looking for the perfect deal when, at times, you have to bite the bullet and pay a full price for a player you really need - and I think that view is right.

 

Couldn't agree more. What annoys me, and I suspect a lot of other people, is that "the perfect deal" is sometimes paying a bit more to get a component you need rather than look at it in isolation. If we had to spend an extra £2m on signing a striker it would probably have been worth at least that just in finishing several places higher in the league table, generating excitement and therefore higher gates and so on. I just don't understand our mentality sometimes. By all means work within a budget, but when you've banked so much money from sales why not invest a bit more in the players who will take you on a level? It makes business sense to do so for most people.

 

I'm not entirely sure it was a case of just offering a higher price, but more worryingly that extra nous is needed when the target player's club do not want to sell.  Lets face it any idiot can transact a deal when the club wants to sell but we seem to lack someone with the the ability to make it happen when they don't.

During the last days of the transfer window the only forwards who moved were discards and if we are aiming higher than that then we need someone involved who is capable of making it happen.

 

Ruiz is the one I can't get my head around. If there were no players of the right quality available then fair enough, but why wait all summer then bid for Ruiz at the last minute? Because we were hoping to sign Mobidu Maiga despite Socheaux telling us repeatedly that they weren't going to sell without getting a replacement? What utter s***.

 

Did we bid for him ?

I think Sky need to keep some kind of frenzy going on the last night to maintain audience figures. They could have probably said early on that no one was going to be signed but that doesn't keep the large Newcastle interest going, so the mad presenters spout a load of guff and the punters keep viewing. Jim White strings the audience along building up their hopes and keeps them watching the adverts.

Considering his name had never been mentioned until the last day and no one from the club has mentioned him at all I wonder if there was ever anything in the Ruiz story apart from Sky feeding internet sites and vice versa. Cue hysteria and much wailing but nothing of any substance.

 

If Sky made up that crap about us having a helicopter waiting to whisk Ruiz to Newcastle then I'm surprised our board didn't call them on it and deny it outright. It would have totally blown Sky's credibility out of the water to make up such a lie, so the fact that no one from the club has denied it means:

 

a) it was true

 

b) Llambias was happy for the story to run even if it was complete bollocks

 

either way the board don't come out of it very well do they?

 

 

[Karjala]

b)

[johnnypd]

The questions are all valid but it's a bit pointless even attempting to answer them IMO. When you have had 7 months to replace your main striker but failed in several attempts due mostly to not wanting to spend the money to persuade clubs to sell, or wasting too much time on targets who had no interest in coming, then there really isn't any justification which would satisfy fans. Action speaks louder than words and our rubbish attempts to bring in the much needed striker said everything about how serious we were.

 

I agree our attempts were rubbish, but even more worryingly I think we were serious. It seems pretty obvious that the transfer market is a difficult place to do business. There are differering agendas from players, their agents and the clubs themselves and they all have to be dealt with. We seem to be ok at identifying and closing in on release clauses and free transfers. We can also pick out a bargain. But to me we have demonstrated that there is a lack of the right sort of negotiating expertise in our structure. There are times when a bit of flexibility is required. One of the journos (Edwards?) said we are always looking for the perfect deal when, at times, you have to bite the bullet and pay a full price for a player you really need - and I think that view is right.

 

Couldn't agree more. What annoys me, and I suspect a lot of other people, is that "the perfect deal" is sometimes paying a bit more to get a component you need rather than look at it in isolation. If we had to spend an extra £2m on signing a striker it would probably have been worth at least that just in finishing several places higher in the league table, generating excitement and therefore higher gates and so on. I just don't understand our mentality sometimes. By all means work within a budget, but when you've banked so much money from sales why not invest a bit more in the players who will take you on a level? It makes business sense to do so for most people.

 

I'm not entirely sure it was a case of just offering a higher price, but more worryingly that extra nous is needed when the target player's club do not want to sell.  Lets face it any idiot can transact a deal when the club wants to sell but we seem to lack someone with the the ability to make it happen when they don't.

During the last days of the transfer window the only forwards who moved were discards and if we are aiming higher than that then we need someone involved who is capable of making it happen.

 

Ruiz is the one I can't get my head around. If there were no players of the right quality available then fair enough, but why wait all summer then bid for Ruiz at the last minute? Because we were hoping to sign Mobidu Maiga despite Socheaux telling us repeatedly that they weren't going to sell without getting a replacement? What utter s***.

 

Did we bid for him ?

I think Sky need to keep some kind of frenzy going on the last night to maintain audience figures. They could have probably said early on that no one was going to be signed but that doesn't keep the large Newcastle interest going, so the mad presenters spout a load of guff and the punters keep viewing. Jim White strings the audience along building up their hopes and keeps them watching the adverts.

Considering his name had never been mentioned until the last day and no one from the club has mentioned him at all I wonder if there was ever anything in the Ruiz story apart from Sky feeding internet sites and vice versa. Cue hysteria and much wailing but nothing of any substance.

 

If Sky made up that crap about us having a helicopter waiting to whisk Ruiz to Newcastle then I'm surprised our board didn't call them on it and deny it outright. It would have totally blown Sky's credibility out of the water to make up such a lie, so the fact that no one from the club has denied it means:

 

a) it was true

 

b) Llambias was happy for the story to run even if it was complete bollocks

 

either way the board don't come out of it very well do they?

 

it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that there was no substance to the link. Twente said they only received a bid from fulham, ruiz said no discussions ever happened, and Jol said talk of a rival bid was incorrect. all this shit about a helicopter seems to stem from david craig and his bespectacled source at saint james park. their motivation for talking shit? only those two cretins know the answer.

[Benwell Lad]

The questions are all valid but it's a bit pointless even attempting to answer them IMO. When you have had 7 months to replace your main striker but failed in several attempts due mostly to not wanting to spend the money to persuade clubs to sell, or wasting too much time on targets who had no interest in coming, then there really isn't any justification which would satisfy fans. Action speaks louder than words and our rubbish attempts to bring in the much needed striker said everything about how serious we were.

 

I agree our attempts were rubbish, but even more worryingly I think we were serious. It seems pretty obvious that the transfer market is a difficult place to do business. There are differering agendas from players, their agents and the clubs themselves and they all have to be dealt with. We seem to be ok at identifying and closing in on release clauses and free transfers. We can also pick out a bargain. But to me we have demonstrated that there is a lack of the right sort of negotiating expertise in our structure. There are times when a bit of flexibility is required. One of the journos (Edwards?) said we are always looking for the perfect deal when, at times, you have to bite the bullet and pay a full price for a player you really need - and I think that view is right.

 

Couldn't agree more. What annoys me, and I suspect a lot of other people, is that "the perfect deal" is sometimes paying a bit more to get a component you need rather than look at it in isolation. If we had to spend an extra £2m on signing a striker it would probably have been worth at least that just in finishing several places higher in the league table, generating excitement and therefore higher gates and so on. I just don't understand our mentality sometimes. By all means work within a budget, but when you've banked so much money from sales why not invest a bit more in the players who will take you on a level? It makes business sense to do so for most people.

 

I'm not entirely sure it was a case of just offering a higher price, but more worryingly that extra nous is needed when the target player's club do not want to sell.  Lets face it any idiot can transact a deal when the club wants to sell but we seem to lack someone with the the ability to make it happen when they don't.

During the last days of the transfer window the only forwards who moved were discards and if we are aiming higher than that then we need someone involved who is capable of making it happen.

 

Ruiz is the one I can't get my head around. If there were no players of the right quality available then fair enough, but why wait all summer then bid for Ruiz at the last minute? Because we were hoping to sign Mobidu Maiga despite Socheaux telling us repeatedly that they weren't going to sell without getting a replacement? What utter s***.

 

Did we bid for him ?

I think Sky need to keep some kind of frenzy going on the last night to maintain audience figures. They could have probably said early on that no one was going to be signed but that doesn't keep the large Newcastle interest going, so the mad presenters spout a load of guff and the punters keep viewing. Jim White strings the audience along building up their hopes and keeps them watching the adverts.

Considering his name had never been mentioned until the last day and no one from the club has mentioned him at all I wonder if there was ever anything in the Ruiz story apart from Sky feeding internet sites and vice versa. Cue hysteria and much wailing but nothing of any substance.

 

If Sky made up that crap about us having a helicopter waiting to whisk Ruiz to Newcastle then I'm surprised our board didn't call them on it and deny it outright. It would have totally blown Sky's credibility out of the water to make up such a lie, so the fact that no one from the club has denied it means:

 

a) it was true

 

b) Llambias was happy for the story to run even if it was complete bollocks

 

either way the board don't come out of it very well do they?

 

 

 

Right now they come up smelling of s*** whatever they do and characteristically they neither seem to bother denying or confirming anything.

 

Sky aren't going to do anything that upsets their agenda on deadline day especially as viewing figures peak and they can always cite some internet site as their source if they need to. The whole summer consists of reams of media rumours of which only a very small fraction have any substance whatsoever. Nowadays they'll pick up on a a tweet from any source if it helps them fill space. It's how modern journalism works sadly.

Anyway News International companies are more likely to be hacking telephone conversations they're not supposed to be listening to, rather than taking calls from anyone wanting to give them facts.

[Benwell Lad]

The questions are all valid but it's a bit pointless even attempting to answer them IMO. When you have had 7 months to replace your main striker but failed in several attempts due mostly to not wanting to spend the money to persuade clubs to sell, or wasting too much time on targets who had no interest in coming, then there really isn't any justification which would satisfy fans. Action speaks louder than words and our rubbish attempts to bring in the much needed striker said everything about how serious we were.

 

I agree our attempts were rubbish, but even more worryingly I think we were serious. It seems pretty obvious that the transfer market is a difficult place to do business. There are differering agendas from players, their agents and the clubs themselves and they all have to be dealt with. We seem to be ok at identifying and closing in on release clauses and free transfers. We can also pick out a bargain. But to me we have demonstrated that there is a lack of the right sort of negotiating expertise in our structure. There are times when a bit of flexibility is required. One of the journos (Edwards?) said we are always looking for the perfect deal when, at times, you have to bite the bullet and pay a full price for a player you really need - and I think that view is right.

 

Couldn't agree more. What annoys me, and I suspect a lot of other people, is that "the perfect deal" is sometimes paying a bit more to get a component you need rather than look at it in isolation. If we had to spend an extra £2m on signing a striker it would probably have been worth at least that just in finishing several places higher in the league table, generating excitement and therefore higher gates and so on. I just don't understand our mentality sometimes. By all means work within a budget, but when you've banked so much money from sales why not invest a bit more in the players who will take you on a level? It makes business sense to do so for most people.

 

I'm not entirely sure it was a case of just offering a higher price, but more worryingly that extra nous is needed when the target player's club do not want to sell.  Lets face it any idiot can transact a deal when the club wants to sell but we seem to lack someone with the the ability to make it happen when they don't.

During the last days of the transfer window the only forwards who moved were discards and if we are aiming higher than that then we need someone involved who is capable of making it happen.

 

Ruiz is the one I can't get my head around. If there were no players of the right quality available then fair enough, but why wait all summer then bid for Ruiz at the last minute? Because we were hoping to sign Mobidu Maiga despite Socheaux telling us repeatedly that they weren't going to sell without getting a replacement? What utter s***.

 

Did we bid for him ?

I think Sky need to keep some kind of frenzy going on the last night to maintain audience figures. They could have probably said early on that no one was going to be signed but that doesn't keep the large Newcastle interest going, so the mad presenters spout a load of guff and the punters keep viewing. Jim White strings the audience along building up their hopes and keeps them watching the adverts.

Considering his name had never been mentioned until the last day and no one from the club has mentioned him at all I wonder if there was ever anything in the Ruiz story apart from Sky feeding internet sites and vice versa. Cue hysteria and much wailing but nothing of any substance.

 

If Sky made up that crap about us having a helicopter waiting to whisk Ruiz to Newcastle then I'm surprised our board didn't call them on it and deny it outright. It would have totally blown Sky's credibility out of the water to make up such a lie, so the fact that no one from the club has denied it means:

 

a) it was true

 

b) Llambias was happy for the story to run even if it was complete bollocks

 

either way the board don't come out of it very well do they?

 

it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that there was no substance to the link. Twente said they only received a bid from fulham, ruiz said no discussions ever happened, and Jol said talk of a rival bid was incorrect. all this s*** about a helicopter seems to stem from david craig and his bespectacled source at saint james park. their motivation for talking s***? only those two cretins know the answer.

 

In a nutshell.

[Dinho lad]

Yeah, and David Craig needs shooting in the head for saying that he received a call on his mobile from the Twente chairman telling him we made a bid.

 

absolute cock head.

[UV]

No-one believes we seriously tried to sign Ruiz do they? That goes straight on the taking-the-p*ss pile along with Schweinsteiger, Johnson, Richardson, & N'Zogbia. You have to then wonder if they are happy to put in joke bids/enquiries on the last day and let the press run with the story as if it was serious, how many of the other supposed targets were just for show?

 

When we were promoted, we had Ameobi, Lovenkrands, Carroll, Best & Ranger as our strikeforce. With Ameobi & Lovenkrands you pretty much knew what you were going to get in terms of effectiveness in the Premiership. Best had been very poor for us in the Championship, Ranger looked promising but had very little game time, and Carroll had looked good but there were major doubts as to whether he'd be as effective in the Premiership. We really needed a proven striker then, but we made no attempts to buy one.

 

Carroll was far better than anyone expected, but picked up an injury which was going to keep him out for a good part of the second half of the season so we really needed to bring a first team striker in at the very least on loan in January, but we made no attempts to get one.

 

In the Summer Ba was picked up early on, giving us 5 strikers again. There were rumours about Ranger, Best & Lovenkrands being sold, but there were no bids and no serious interest. All the talk has been of playing 4-5-1. There's no way we were going to have 6 strikers on the books IMO (or 7 if you count Xisco). With that in mind you have to wonder how much actual effort was put into bringing in another striker by the man responsible for setting transfer and wage budgets, when his relatively low basic wage will almost certainly be significantly boosted by bonuses based on the club making a profit.

 

I guess we might see in January if they were really serious, but my money is on nothing happening then either unless it's a 1 in 1 out deal for a bargain basement striker, or a loan if we look in serious danger of relegation.

 

Or you could turn that round another way and conclude that Ranger, Best and/or Lovenkrands were retained because the striker negotiations were going badly and there was a real risk of no one coming in. But moving on do you really think Ashley is going to let Pardew have control of transfer and wage budgets? I doubt many other managers in the league have that control so why would Ashley, of all people, delegate the guts of the financial decision making to a man untrained in business or finance? He may be a prize c*nt (and naive) in many ways but he hasn't made his money entirely by accident. Golfmag's prophecy was without doubt founded on fact but that part of it doesn't work for me.

 

I was talking about Llambias.

 

Though tbh I'd not be surprised in the slightest if Pardew's wages weren't also supplemented by bonuses based on the profitability of the business. There are plenty of Sports Direct store managers who were just doing the same job they always do and were not directly responsible for the company making the size of profit it did who got bonuses this year.

 

 

The hanging on to a player until we had a replacement logic wasn't used for Carroll, Routledge or Enrique, I'm not sure why it would be for the 3rd to 5th choice strikers.

[quayside]

No-one believes we seriously tried to sign Ruiz do they? That goes straight on the taking-the-p*ss pile along with Schweinsteiger, Johnson, Richardson, & N'Zogbia. You have to then wonder if they are happy to put in joke bids/enquiries on the last day and let the press run with the story as if it was serious, how many of the other supposed targets were just for show?

 

When we were promoted, we had Ameobi, Lovenkrands, Carroll, Best & Ranger as our strikeforce. With Ameobi & Lovenkrands you pretty much knew what you were going to get in terms of effectiveness in the Premiership. Best had been very poor for us in the Championship, Ranger looked promising but had very little game time, and Carroll had looked good but there were major doubts as to whether he'd be as effective in the Premiership. We really needed a proven striker then, but we made no attempts to buy one.

 

Carroll was far better than anyone expected, but picked up an injury which was going to keep him out for a good part of the second half of the season so we really needed to bring a first team striker in at the very least on loan in January, but we made no attempts to get one.

 

In the Summer Ba was picked up early on, giving us 5 strikers again. There were rumours about Ranger, Best & Lovenkrands being sold, but there were no bids and no serious interest. All the talk has been of playing 4-5-1. There's no way we were going to have 6 strikers on the books IMO (or 7 if you count Xisco). With that in mind you have to wonder how much actual effort was put into bringing in another striker by the man responsible for setting transfer and wage budgets, when his relatively low basic wage will almost certainly be significantly boosted by bonuses based on the club making a profit.

 

I guess we might see in January if they were really serious, but my money is on nothing happening then either unless it's a 1 in 1 out deal for a bargain basement striker, or a loan if we look in serious danger of relegation.

 

Or you could turn that round another way and conclude that Ranger, Best and/or Lovenkrands were retained because the striker negotiations were going badly and there was a real risk of no one coming in. But moving on do you really think Ashley is going to let Pardew have control of transfer and wage budgets? I doubt many other managers in the league have that control so why would Ashley, of all people, delegate the guts of the financial decision making to a man untrained in business or finance? He may be a prize c*nt (and naive) in many ways but he hasn't made his money entirely by accident. Golfmag's prophecy was without doubt founded on fact but that part of it doesn't work for me.

 

I was talking about Llambias.

 

Though tbh I'd not be surprised in the slightest if Pardew's wages weren't also supplemented by bonuses based on the profitability of the business. There are plenty of Sports Direct store managers who were just doing the same job they always do and were not directly responsible for the company making the size of profit it did who got bonuses this year.

 

 

The hanging on to a player until we had a replacement logic wasn't used for Carroll, Routledge or Enrique, I'm not sure why it would be for the 3rd to 5th choice strikers.

 

 

I've seen a few references on here and in the media to Pardew's pay being linked to performance but nothing much about Lambias. You obviously have some inside knowledge of how Llambias is paid. The published accounts tell us that he's pulling about £150k to £160k a year. It's believable that he's on an incentive scheme but tell us more please...

 

Your point about replacements is fair enough. although you could also argue that the Carroll offer was too much too late, a Routledge replacement was regarded (like the player) as not essential and Enrique was replaced in the same window. I'm not endorsing the way the club has played any of this out (especially the failure to sign another striker) just trying to point out that it's a futile exercise trying to pigeon hole every decision. 

[Cronky]

The thrust of the Luke Edwards’ article was that there were times when you do have to pay over the odds for the player you want. Fair enough, but was this really the time? So far as we can tell, we’d had bids accepted for the players on our A-list, but those players opted for other clubs that had better prospects. We were looking at our B-list, and as such it’s a bit more questionable whether you should over-pay, or hang on to a future transfer window when a better player might become available.

 

A lot of people seemed to be getting worked about us not signing Maiga or Roux, without knowing a great deal about the players. That’s what can happen at the end of the window, when a lot of pressure gets put on a club’s owners to ease the anxiety of the fans and the manager. Landing the wrong player for £10m, plus a 5-year contract at £40k per week is a £20m+ mistake. I can’t say that our position is so desperate that we need to take a risk.

 

Time will tell whether it’s all a big con and Ashley’s going to hang on to the money, or whether in time it’s going to be re-invested on the playing side as promised. However, I do believe that this owner is working to a different time-scale from most fans and journos, and now is not the time to judge.

 

[UV]

No-one believes we seriously tried to sign Ruiz do they? That goes straight on the taking-the-p*ss pile along with Schweinsteiger, Johnson, Richardson, & N'Zogbia. You have to then wonder if they are happy to put in joke bids/enquiries on the last day and let the press run with the story as if it was serious, how many of the other supposed targets were just for show?

 

When we were promoted, we had Ameobi, Lovenkrands, Carroll, Best & Ranger as our strikeforce. With Ameobi & Lovenkrands you pretty much knew what you were going to get in terms of effectiveness in the Premiership. Best had been very poor for us in the Championship, Ranger looked promising but had very little game time, and Carroll had looked good but there were major doubts as to whether he'd be as effective in the Premiership. We really needed a proven striker then, but we made no attempts to buy one.

 

Carroll was far better than anyone expected, but picked up an injury which was going to keep him out for a good part of the second half of the season so we really needed to bring a first team striker in at the very least on loan in January, but we made no attempts to get one.

 

In the Summer Ba was picked up early on, giving us 5 strikers again. There were rumours about Ranger, Best & Lovenkrands being sold, but there were no bids and no serious interest. All the talk has been of playing 4-5-1. There's no way we were going to have 6 strikers on the books IMO (or 7 if you count Xisco). With that in mind you have to wonder how much actual effort was put into bringing in another striker by the man responsible for setting transfer and wage budgets, when his relatively low basic wage will almost certainly be significantly boosted by bonuses based on the club making a profit.

 

I guess we might see in January if they were really serious, but my money is on nothing happening then either unless it's a 1 in 1 out deal for a bargain basement striker, or a loan if we look in serious danger of relegation.

 

Or you could turn that round another way and conclude that Ranger, Best and/or Lovenkrands were retained because the striker negotiations were going badly and there was a real risk of no one coming in. But moving on do you really think Ashley is going to let Pardew have control of transfer and wage budgets? I doubt many other managers in the league have that control so why would Ashley, of all people, delegate the guts of the financial decision making to a man untrained in business or finance? He may be a prize c*nt (and naive) in many ways but he hasn't made his money entirely by accident. Golfmag's prophecy was without doubt founded on fact but that part of it doesn't work for me.

 

I was talking about Llambias.

 

Though tbh I'd not be surprised in the slightest if Pardew's wages weren't also supplemented by bonuses based on the profitability of the business. There are plenty of Sports Direct store managers who were just doing the same job they always do and were not directly responsible for the company making the size of profit it did who got bonuses this year.

 

 

The hanging on to a player until we had a replacement logic wasn't used for Carroll, Routledge or Enrique, I'm not sure why it would be for the 3rd to 5th choice strikers.

 

 

I've seen a few references on here and in the media to Pardew's pay being linked to performance but nothing much about Lambias. You obviously have some inside knowledge of how Llambias is paid. The published accounts tell us that he's pulling about £150k to £160k a year. It's believable that he's on an incentive scheme but tell us more please...

 

Your point about replacements is fair enough. although you could also argue that the Carroll offer was too much too late, a Routledge replacement was regarded (like the player) as not essential and Enrique was replaced in the same window. I'm not endorsing the way the club has played any of this out (especially the failure to sign another striker) just trying to point out that it's a futile exercise trying to pigeon hole every decision.  

 

I quite obviously don't have any inside knowledge, but it's more than just believable that Llambias is on a profit based incentive scheme, it would be almost unbelievable if he wasn't. Not only is it standard business practice anyway, it's something Ashley is extra keen on. IMO it incentivises short term thinking and profits over strategies which grow the business in the long term, but it's obviously worked for Ashley in his shops.

 

 

I contacted Sir Alex about him early at the start of the summer to see if there was an opportunity to bring him to Newcastle, but it wasn’t until Wayne Routledge joined Swansea that we were able to bring him in.

[TRon]

The thrust of the Luke Edwards’ article was that there were times when you do have to pay over the odds for the player you want. Fair enough, but was this really the time? So far as we can tell, we’d had bids accepted for the players on our A-list, but those players opted for other clubs that had better prospects. We were looking at our B-list, and as such it’s a bit more questionable whether you should over-pay, or hang on to a future transfer window when a better player might become available.

 

A lot of people seemed to be getting worked about us not signing Maiga or Roux, without knowing a great deal about the players. That’s what can happen at the end of the window, when a lot of pressure gets put on a club’s owners to ease the anxiety of the fans and the manager. Landing the wrong player for £10m, plus a 5-year contract at £40k per week is a £20m+ mistake. I can’t say that our position is so desperate that we need to take a risk.

 

Time will tell whether it’s all a big con and Ashley’s going to hang on to the money, or whether in time it’s going to be re-invested on the playing side as promised. However, I do believe that this owner is working to a different time-scale from most fans and journos, and now is not the time to judge.

 

 

Shola, Lovenkrands and Best are among our four current best strikers. How can our B targets not be better options than them?

[mattypnufc]

Lee Ryder has said these will be answered/bilge regurgitated this week...

[Benwell Lad]

The thrust of the Luke Edwards’ article was that there were times when you do have to pay over the odds for the player you want. Fair enough, but was this really the time? So far as we can tell, we’d had bids accepted for the players on our A-list, but those players opted for other clubs that had better prospects. We were looking at our B-list, and as such it’s a bit more questionable whether you should over-pay, or hang on to a future transfer window when a better player might become available.

 

A lot of people seemed to be getting worked about us not signing Maiga or Roux, without knowing a great deal about the players. That’s what can happen at the end of the window, when a lot of pressure gets put on a club’s owners to ease the anxiety of the fans and the manager. Landing the wrong player for £10m, plus a 5-year contract at £40k per week is a £20m+ mistake. I can’t say that our position is so desperate that we need to take a risk.

 

Time will tell whether it’s all a big con and Ashley’s going to hang on to the money, or whether in time it’s going to be re-invested on the playing side as promised. However, I do believe that this owner is working to a different time-scale from most fans and journos, and now is not the time to judge.

 

 

Shola, Lovenkrands and Best are among our four current best strikers. How can our B targets not be better options than them?

 

If we signed a foreign striker who came in and provided a time on pitch/goals ratio the same as Best we'd be ecstatic  He seems to find lots of positions/chances which don't end up in the net too. 

I do know what you mean though - particularly in Lovenkrands' case.

 

 

[NG32]

Have they answered them yet?

[Benwell Lad]

The thrust of the Luke Edwards’ article was that there were times when you do have to pay over the odds for the player you want. Fair enough, but was this really the time? So far as we can tell, we’d had bids accepted for the players on our A-list, but those players opted for other clubs that had better prospects. We were looking at our B-list, and as such it’s a bit more questionable whether you should over-pay, or hang on to a future transfer window when a better player might become available.

 

A lot of people seemed to be getting worked about us not signing Maiga or Roux, without knowing a great deal about the players. That’s what can happen at the end of the window, when a lot of pressure gets put on a club’s owners to ease the anxiety of the fans and the manager. Landing the wrong player for £10m, plus a 5-year contract at £40k per week is a £20m+ mistake. I can’t say that our position is so desperate that we need to take a risk.

 

Time will tell whether it’s all a big con and Ashley’s going to hang on to the money, or whether in time it’s going to be re-invested on the playing side as promised. However, I do believe that this owner is working to a different time-scale from most fans and journos, and now is not the time to judge.

 

 

The media frenzy, particularly Sky, generated on deadline day (when almost next to fockall happened anywhere really) builds up hopes and then shatters them at the end. They enjoy playing with us.

Like you said expensive mistakes can easily be made under pressure, amazing thing is there'd have been post deadline delight if we'd made an Owen or Luque type signing, but Cabaye,Marvaux,Ba and Santon just weren't "sexy" enough signings for some fans.

Had the club's media department (??) levelled with us and said "we're trying but it now looks unlikely we're gonna get the players we want this window" there would have been disappointment but not the hysterical rage that followed.

The club failed in both their primary transfer objectives and communication, but the media enjoyed stringing us along (the Ruiz "drama" ffs) and now they will get another pay day when the club provide standard answers to a bunch of pointless questions.

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Yep, I think we should remember that the media have their own agendas and aren't necessarily the impartial crusaders for the common man that some people seem to think.

[jimmymag]

Pardew was as much to blame as anyone for building the fans' expectations by almost guaranteeing a new striker before the close of the transfer window.

 

He needs to keep his mouth shut in future until he introduces new players to the media in their black and white shirt.

[quayside]

No-one believes we seriously tried to sign Ruiz do they? That goes straight on the taking-the-p*ss pile along with Schweinsteiger, Johnson, Richardson, & N'Zogbia. You have to then wonder if they are happy to put in joke bids/enquiries on the last day and let the press run with the story as if it was serious, how many of the other supposed targets were just for show?

 

When we were promoted, we had Ameobi, Lovenkrands, Carroll, Best & Ranger as our strikeforce. With Ameobi & Lovenkrands you pretty much knew what you were going to get in terms of effectiveness in the Premiership. Best had been very poor for us in the Championship, Ranger looked promising but had very little game time, and Carroll had looked good but there were major doubts as to whether he'd be as effective in the Premiership. We really needed a proven striker then, but we made no attempts to buy one.

 

Carroll was far better than anyone expected, but picked up an injury which was going to keep him out for a good part of the second half of the season so we really needed to bring a first team striker in at the very least on loan in January, but we made no attempts to get one.

 

In the Summer Ba was picked up early on, giving us 5 strikers again. There were rumours about Ranger, Best & Lovenkrands being sold, but there were no bids and no serious interest. All the talk has been of playing 4-5-1. There's no way we were going to have 6 strikers on the books IMO (or 7 if you count Xisco). With that in mind you have to wonder how much actual effort was put into bringing in another striker by the man responsible for setting transfer and wage budgets, when his relatively low basic wage will almost certainly be significantly boosted by bonuses based on the club making a profit.

 

I guess we might see in January if they were really serious, but my money is on nothing happening then either unless it's a 1 in 1 out deal for a bargain basement striker, or a loan if we look in serious danger of relegation.

 

Or you could turn that round another way and conclude that Ranger, Best and/or Lovenkrands were retained because the striker negotiations were going badly and there was a real risk of no one coming in. But moving on do you really think Ashley is going to let Pardew have control of transfer and wage budgets? I doubt many other managers in the league have that control so why would Ashley, of all people, delegate the guts of the financial decision making to a man untrained in business or finance? He may be a prize c*nt (and naive) in many ways but he hasn't made his money entirely by accident. Golfmag's prophecy was without doubt founded on fact but that part of it doesn't work for me.

 

I was talking about Llambias.

 

Though tbh I'd not be surprised in the slightest if Pardew's wages weren't also supplemented by bonuses based on the profitability of the business. There are plenty of Sports Direct store managers who were just doing the same job they always do and were not directly responsible for the company making the size of profit it did who got bonuses this year.

 

 

The hanging on to a player until we had a replacement logic wasn't used for Carroll, Routledge or Enrique, I'm not sure why it would be for the 3rd to 5th choice strikers.

 

 

I've seen a few references on here and in the media to Pardew's pay being linked to performance but nothing much about Lambias. You obviously have some inside knowledge of how Llambias is paid. The published accounts tell us that he's pulling about £150k to £160k a year. It's believable that he's on an incentive scheme but tell us more please...

 

Your point about replacements is fair enough. although you could also argue that the Carroll offer was too much too late, a Routledge replacement was regarded (like the player) as not essential and Enrique was replaced in the same window. I'm not endorsing the way the club has played any of this out (especially the failure to sign another striker) just trying to point out that it's a futile exercise trying to pigeon hole every decision. 

 

I quite obviously don't have any inside knowledge, but it's more than just believable that Llambias is on a profit based incentive scheme, it would be almost unbelievable if he wasn't. Not only is it standard business practice anyway, it's something Ashley is extra keen on. IMO it incentivises short term thinking and profits over strategies which grow the business in the long term, but it's obviously worked for Ashley in his shops.

 

 

I contacted Sir Alex about him early at the start of the summer to see if there was an opportunity to bring him to Newcastle, but it wasnt until Wayne Routledge joined Swansea that we were able to bring him in.

 

I would agree that it is far more likely that Llambias is on some sort of incentive based on financial performance than Pardew. The proof will be in the next accounts when, unless something very strange happened, the club will have recorded a very decent profit. If his incentive is based purely on bottom line profit then yes it's relevance to a football club is highly questionable.

 

I remember that Pardew quote about Obertan. On thinking back to January my recollection is that everyone thought we had signed Sebastian Larsson and Routledge was shoved out on loan in the expectation of Larsson coming here. Something obviously went wrong with the Larsson deal and we carried on with Barton playing wide right. Btw I am not disputing that one in one out seems to be the policy, I am just not as convinced as you that we weren't trying to sign a striker in the summer. 

[Cronky]

The thrust of the Luke Edwards article was that there were times when you do have to pay over the odds for the player you want. Fair enough, but was this really the time? So far as we can tell, wed had bids accepted for the players on our A-list, but those players opted for other clubs that had better prospects. We were looking at our B-list, and as such its a bit more questionable whether you should over-pay, or hang on to a future transfer window when a better player might become available.

 

A lot of people seemed to be getting worked about us not signing Maiga or Roux, without knowing a great deal about the players. Thats what can happen at the end of the window, when a lot of pressure gets put on a clubs owners to ease the anxiety of the fans and the manager. Landing the wrong player for £10m, plus a 5-year contract at £40k per week is a £20m+ mistake. I cant say that our position is so desperate that we need to take a risk.

 

Time will tell whether its all a big con and Ashleys going to hang on to the money, or whether in time its going to be re-invested on the playing side as promised. However, I do believe that this owner is working to a different time-scale from most fans and journos, and now is not the time to judge.

 

 

Shola, Lovenkrands and Best are among our four current best strikers. How can our B targets not be better options than them?

 

Well any transfer is a gamble, and it's possible to spend a lot of money and not end up with a better option.

 

But I find the way you've put the dilemma quite strange. Instead of looking at the players you don't rate that highly and saying we can find someone better, shouldn't we be aiming to get in the best player that we can possibly land? At the least, better than Ba, who I assume you feel is our best striker at the moment.

 

To put it another way, if all we end up with is someone marginally better than our weaker players (as you define them), would it not be better to wait?

[Dave]

Wait for what? It's people like you who always claim the fans want for too much, now it's unreasonable to merely expect upgrades on the shite we have?

[Lotus]

I'm started to think he's a WUM tbh.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Nobody said it was unreasonable, Cronky was arguing that if all we can get are players that are slightly better than Loven and Shola, we might be better off holding onto our money for a while longer.

[Lotus]

Nobody said it was unreasonable, Cronky was arguing that if all we can get are players that are slightly better than Loven and Shola, we might be better off holding onto our money for a while longer.

 

He's also said that he doesn't feel that judging Ashley harshly over non spending of the Carroll money is unjustified and premature.

 

I think that is blatantly ridiculous.

 

 

[Dave]

Holding onto our money a little while longer for what to happen?