What Needs To Happen vs. What Will Happen

[Mick]

 

I think that no matter what time period you fancy looking at, there has been an increase in individual quality, and quite a rapid one.

 

Football is a squad game, we've got an extra competition to play in this season over last and we're numerically down, we had 5 leave and 4 come in.  We’ve probably saved a shit load of money in that same window.

[Guest tollemache]

Anyway, if they couldn't get the right price in the summer why the optimism that they will now? In January, a window Pardew (and Llambias IIRC) has/have previously said is notoriously bad for value? When we're doing s***, shipping goals and everyone knows we're on our knees?

 

We don't need to 'buy squad players for the sake of it', we need first team improvements to make the likes of Simpson and Williamson the squad players they should be. The position with those two in particular has been the same for years, it's bloody embarrassing.

 

If the club are willing to back Pardew this time then I believe they'll have to fork out a bit more than they'd like. If they do so then they'll get credit from most.

 

The idea in the summer was to sign a couple of first-choice defenders. It didn't work out and everyone, including the owner, wishes it had. It may be that we've manoeuvred ourselves into a situation where we have to spend a bit more in January and everyone, including the owner, will be disappointed by that. It'll be interesting to see what effect it has in January - to what extent they'll be prepared to push the boat slightly further out or whether they'll even need to. But I don't think one dud transfer window constitutes enough evidence to suppose they'll do the wrong thing.

[mrmojorisin75]

what I've seen so far (what with reading a lot less into this season's dip than most) that I don't feel like raising major questions over his ability.

 

you should be, you really should

[Beren]

I don't think it's irrelevant at all. It makes sense that the person the owners would charge with the management of the football team would fit in with their strategy and ambition of the club as a whole, does it not?

 

If I'm reading you right, you believe he was hired because he would be onside with how Ashley wanted to run the club, but not at the expense of ignoring his managerial ability. Yet his demonstrable managerial record prior to being hired was pitiful so I'm not sure how Ashley could have known otherwise. Which personally leads me to believe that he was hired purely because he would be onside and obedient.

 

Those were the alarm bells of doubt for me - which have not been assuaged by Pardew and his inability to get our side to look like we have an attacking strategy beyond one of the Dembas/HBA conjuring up some magic from long balls and defensive spillages.

 

[Re: last two games, I agree with Disco: http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,58111.msg4109281.html#msg4109281]

 

I also don't think our failure to land a fourth centre-back was based on the club not being able to find someone for the right price. Nineteen other clubs in the league appear to have four centre-backs. I flat out refuse to believe Mariappa was affordable to Reading, but not us, for example (£2m he went for in the end, was it?). Evidence/past history would suggest a more likely explanation is that the owners thought squad depth was an unnecessary expense as we had coped with three centre-backs adequately for 18 months already. [/iMO]

[Guest tollemache]

 

I think that no matter what time period you fancy looking at, there has been an increase in individual quality, and quite a rapid one.

 

Football is a squad game, we've got an extra competition to play in this season over last and we're numerically down, we had 5 leave and 4 come in.  We’ve probably saved a s*** load of money in that same window.

 

This is the last time* I'll make the point that the plan clearly wasn't to lose numbers. We tried to sign more players and ended up not succeeding. No evidence to suggest that Ashley, Llambias or Pardew didn't grasp the idea that more players would've been nice. I'm glad we saved a load of money I suppose, though obviously everyone remotely involved in the club would rather have had those extra players.

 

There's a sense on here that Ashley is somehow trying to fuck up the club's chances of being successful, when all the noises he's been making have been about setting it up to run sustainably. That is a good thing even if it means a dud window here and there. We've got more than enough commercial potential to run within our means and be quite successful at the same time so if that's what the long-term plan is, I'm happy to see him stick to it. It just so happens that that approach will prevent him from having to spunk any more of his own money into the club's coffers, and will give him a more valuable club to sell if / when he feels like it. So what? What's good for him is good for the club on that score. We don't want to be dependent on rich chairmen and there's no reason for Newcastle in particular to be that way.

 

 

 

 

* Clearly bloody not is it

[mrmojorisin75]

i've said similar to disco as well, easy to look good against open teams and score goals when the better team knows they can pelt them past you whenever they like

 

everton will answer a lot of questions imo

[mrmojorisin75]

There's a sense on here that Ashley is somehow trying to fuck up the club's chances of being successful,

 

i don't think that's true, there's an acknowledgement on here that his lack of football understanding and overly rigid approach to transfer deals in the summer has cost us

[Guest tollemache]

I don't think it's irrelevant at all. It makes sense that the person the owners would charge with the management of the football team would fit in with their strategy and ambition of the club as a whole, does it not?

 

If I'm reading you right, you believe he was hired because he would be onside with how Ashley wanted to run the club, but not at the expense of ignoring his managerial ability. Yet his demonstrable managerial record prior to being hired was pitiful so I'm not sure how Ashley could have known otherwise. Which personally leads me to believe that he was hired purely because he would be onside and obedient.

 

Those were the alarm bells of doubt for me - which have not been assuaged by Pardew and his inability to get our side to look like we have an attacking strategy beyond one of the Dembas/HBA conjuring up some magic from long balls and defensive spillages.

 

[Re: last two games, I agree with Disco: http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,58111.msg4109281.html#msg4109281]

 

I also don't think our failure to land a fourth centre-back was based on the club not being able to find someone for the right price. Nineteen other clubs in the league appear to have four centre-backs. I flat out refuse to believe Mariappa was affordable to Reading, but not us, for example (£2m he went for in the end, was it?). Evidence/past history would suggest a more likely explanation is that the owners thought squad depth was an unnecessary expense as we had coped with three centre-backs adequately for 18 months already. [/iMO]

 

I'd agree with you had we not attempted to sign more defenders. But we did!

 

Re his footballing ability, you're almost reading me right. I believe he was signed because he agreed to buy into the long term plan, and I agree his record was patchy (wouldn't necessarily say pitiful). But if you're questioning the motivation behind hiring him then the implication is that you think Ashley was happy to put the club in the hands of a total muppet if it meant he was an agreeable one. And that, from Ashley's perspective, would've been utter madness. He needs the club to be successful in order to maintain or ideally increase its value and not lumber him with a living nightmare. So regardless of Pardew's actual ability, to suggest that the man who gave him such a long contract didn't truly believe he was a good football manager isn't really credible.

 

With your first two lines there, I don't follow you. I agree, and can't see where I disagreed previously...

[Beren]

I don't think Ashley hired him to fail (or "fuck up the club's chances of being successful"), I think he hired him to keep us profitable (which is, staying in the division) for the bare minimum. Everything above that (ie. footballing success) is a distant secondary aim/bonus.

 

Edit: anyway, it's late.

[Guest tollemache]

There's a sense on here that Ashley is somehow trying to f*** up the club's chances of being successful,

 

i don't think that's true, there's an acknowledgement on here that his lack of football understanding and overly rigid approach to transfer deals in the summer has cost us

 

I don't have the stomach to go fishing for examples but I've picked up a definite vibe that he's somehow selling the club down the river. Clearly, he's trying to make the club successful. He's a very good reason for trying to do that. The rigidity of his transfer policy I'm prepared to back even if it will occasionally backfire and I think that's one of the major differences between me and most people on here. It might be that he has to relax things slightly in January in order to shore up the effect of it having arguably (but we can't say definitely yet) backfired in the summer, but I'd still back him if he went straight back to being very rigid and all about sustainability in the summer.

 

I'd be in two minds if we narrowly missed out on similar targets again in January. I think it's worth stretching a little to prevent there being two consecutive dodgy transfer windows and you'd have thought to some extent Ashley would agree - if he misses out by £3m now on a player who might help him bag extra prize money and keep one or two of his other star players next year then he's dropped a bollock. It's a delicate balance I suppose.

[Mick]

 

This is the last time* I'll make the point that the plan clearly wasn't to lose numbers. We tried to sign more players and ended up not succeeding. No evidence to suggest that Ashley, Llambias or Pardew didn't grasp the idea that more players would've been nice. I'm glad we saved a load of money I suppose, though obviously everyone remotely involved in the club would rather have had those extra players.

 

There's a sense on here that Ashley is somehow trying to f*** up the club's chances of being successful, when all the noises he's been making have been about setting it up to run sustainably. That is a good thing even if it means a dud window here and there. We've got more than enough commercial potential to run within our means and be quite successful at the same time so if that's what the long-term plan is, I'm happy to see him stick to it. It just so happens that that approach will prevent him from having to spunk any more of his own money into the club's coffers, and will give him a more valuable club to sell if / when he feels like it. So what? What's good for him is good for the club on that score. We don't want to be dependent on rich chairmen and there's no reason for Newcastle in particular to be that way.

 

 

 

 

* Clearly bloody not is it

 

We finished 5th last season and with that we brought in finances which should have but weren't used to either stabilise the club or take it forward.  I doubt anybody thinks Ashley is " trying to f*** up the club's chances of being successful."  Having said that what he tries to do and what he actually does is two different things and like it or not, he's played his part in taking us backwards this season.

 

What do you class as being "quite successful"?  Why does it concern you if the club is more valuable for him to sell or not?

[Guest tollemache]

I don't think Ashley hired him to fail (or "f*** up the club's chances of being successful"), I think he hired him to keep us profitable (which is, staying in the division) for the bare minimum. Everything above that (ie. footballing success) is a distant secondary aim/bonus.

 

I don't think it's profitability at all costs by any means - I think it's a question of trying to be as successful as you can possibly be without making a loss. I don't think that you can look at the individual quality of our signings and deduce that we're just happy to stay in the league. I also think it's abundantly obvious to anyone - including the owner - that it is perfectly possible for this club to run at a profit or at least break even and build a side that will be very comfortably top half to say the least and squirm into the Champions League at best. There's no reason in the world why running the club at a profit should mean we don't try to challenge the best teams in the league. If we didn't have the stadium and fanbase we do, he'd have to accept that our natural level was a little lower, but we do and it's not.

 

The owner obviously felt it was within the financial reach of the club to have Debuchy and Douglas on the books without selling anyone, so there's clearly a sense that the squad can and should be bigger and better than it is now. And we're not that far off it being a really fucking good squad. If Debuchy and Douglas come in (assuming Douglas does the business over here), look what our first XI reads like! You'd be thinking in terms of going for 4th / 5th again for sure. So I don't see this massive lack of ambition.

[Guest tollemache]

 

This is the last time* I'll make the point that the plan clearly wasn't to lose numbers. We tried to sign more players and ended up not succeeding. No evidence to suggest that Ashley, Llambias or Pardew didn't grasp the idea that more players would've been nice. I'm glad we saved a load of money I suppose, though obviously everyone remotely involved in the club would rather have had those extra players.

 

There's a sense on here that Ashley is somehow trying to f*** up the club's chances of being successful, when all the noises he's been making have been about setting it up to run sustainably. That is a good thing even if it means a dud window here and there. We've got more than enough commercial potential to run within our means and be quite successful at the same time so if that's what the long-term plan is, I'm happy to see him stick to it. It just so happens that that approach will prevent him from having to spunk any more of his own money into the club's coffers, and will give him a more valuable club to sell if / when he feels like it. So what? What's good for him is good for the club on that score. We don't want to be dependent on rich chairmen and there's no reason for Newcastle in particular to be that way.

 

 

 

 

* Clearly bloody not is it

 

We finished 5th last season and with that we brought in finances which should have but weren't used to either stabilise the club or take it forward.  I doubt anybody thinks Ashley is " trying to f*** up the club's chances of being successful."  Having said that what he tries to do and what he actually does is two different things and like it or not, he's played his part in taking us backwards this season.

 

What do you class as being "quite successful"?  Why does it concern you if the club is more valuable for him to sell or not?

 

I don't care how valuable the club is per se, but he certainly does, and the more successful it is the more valuable it gets. What I mean is, he has plenty of motivation for trying to be as successful as possible within the club's means. To think he'd settle for being a mid-table team if he thought for one second he could get us higher than that would be totally against his interests. "Quite successful" for us, I think, would be to put together over the next few years a side that consistently gets into Europe and is capable of playing in the Champions League. And thanks to Graham Carr and a string of fantastic transfer coups, I don't think we're a million miles off even now.

 

I agree Ashley must take some responsibility for the transfer window not going very well. But that's all it was - one transfer window.

[High Five o]

 

This is the last time* I'll make the point that the plan clearly wasn't to lose numbers. We tried to sign more players and ended up not succeeding. No evidence to suggest that Ashley, Llambias or Pardew didn't grasp the idea that more players would've been nice. I'm glad we saved a load of money I suppose, though obviously everyone remotely involved in the club would rather have had those extra players.

 

There's a sense on here that Ashley is somehow trying to f*** up the club's chances of being successful, when all the noises he's been making have been about setting it up to run sustainably. That is a good thing even if it means a dud window here and there. We've got more than enough commercial potential to run within our means and be quite successful at the same time so if that's what the long-term plan is, I'm happy to see him stick to it. It just so happens that that approach will prevent him from having to spunk any more of his own money into the club's coffers, and will give him a more valuable club to sell if / when he feels like it. So what? What's good for him is good for the club on that score. We don't want to be dependent on rich chairmen and there's no reason for Newcastle in particular to be that way.

 

 

 

 

* Clearly bloody not is it

 

We finished 5th last season and with that we brought in finances which should have but weren't used to either stabilise the club or take it forward.  I doubt anybody thinks Ashley is " trying to f*** up the club's chances of being successful."  Having said that what he tries to do and what he actually does is two different things and like it or not, he's played his part in taking us backwards this season.

 

What do you class as being "quite successful"?  Why does it concern you if the club is more valuable for him to sell or not?

 

I don't care how valuable the club is per se, but he certainly does, and the more successful it is the more valuable it gets. What I mean is, he has plenty of motivation for trying to be as successful as possible within the club's means. To think he'd settle for being a mid-table team if he thought for one second he could get us higher than that would be totally against his interests. "Quite successful" for us, I think, would be to put together over the next few years a side that consistently gets into Europe and is capable of playing in the Champions League. And thanks to Graham Carr and a string of fantastic transfer coups, I don't think we're a million miles off even now.

 

I agree Ashley must take some responsibility for the transfer window not going very well. But that's all it was - one transfer window.

 

Agree with much of what you say, but we have had some obvious needs long before the summer window. RB /CB being two tbh

[samag]

to be honest i do not think we are miles away from getting it right.its about balance as much about numbers. We still have some dead wood to get rid of which would then free up spaces in the squad. The trick is replacing them with players we need, and having a balaced squad. at the  moment we have too many forward( Xciso Ranger ) and not enough defenders.

[mrmojorisin75]

There's a sense on here that Ashley is somehow trying to f*** up the club's chances of being successful,

 

i don't think that's true, there's an acknowledgement on here that his lack of football understanding and overly rigid approach to transfer deals in the summer has cost us

 

I don't have the stomach to go fishing for examples but I've picked up a definite vibe that he's somehow selling the club down the river. Clearly, he's trying to make the club successful. He's a very good reason for trying to do that. The rigidity of his transfer policy I'm prepared to back even if it will occasionally backfire and I think that's one of the major differences between me and most people on here. It might be that he has to relax things slightly in January in order to shore up the effect of it having arguably (but we can't say definitely yet) backfired in the summer, but I'd still back him if he went straight back to being very rigid and all about sustainability in the summer.

 

I'd be in two minds if we narrowly missed out on similar targets again in January. I think it's worth stretching a little to prevent there being two consecutive dodgy transfer windows and you'd have thought to some extent Ashley would agree - if he misses out by £3m now on a player who might help him bag extra prize money and keep one or two of his other star players next year then he's dropped a bollock. It's a delicate balance I suppose.

 

look, to take the 2 most obvious examples simpson and williamson: anyone with an ounce of football understanding should have known that we should have cashed in on them during the summer when their stock was as high as it was ever going to get...we all knew williamson could not maintain that level and simpson was a very limited fullback

 

take 2 other obvious examples, debucy and douglas, as proposals to replace them...yes they'd have cost money and maybe we'd have had to break our initial valuation somewhat in both cases but let's say for example we paid 6-7m for debuchy and 5-6m for douglas then sold williamson for a combined sum of say 5-6m (not unrealistic imo)...if we'd done that we'd likely have had the defence set for the next 3-4 years and also likely not be in the middle of the fuckfest of a season we're currently in

 

if we couldn't have a net spend for the summer of 7-8m after finishing 5th then something is clearly wrong unless the team doesn't need improving, ours did

 

you say it's a delicate balance but fuck me this is basics man

[Guest tollemache]

There's a sense on here that Ashley is somehow trying to f*** up the club's chances of being successful,

 

i don't think that's true, there's an acknowledgement on here that his lack of football understanding and overly rigid approach to transfer deals in the summer has cost us

 

I don't have the stomach to go fishing for examples but I've picked up a definite vibe that he's somehow selling the club down the river. Clearly, he's trying to make the club successful. He's a very good reason for trying to do that. The rigidity of his transfer policy I'm prepared to back even if it will occasionally backfire and I think that's one of the major differences between me and most people on here. It might be that he has to relax things slightly in January in order to shore up the effect of it having arguably (but we can't say definitely yet) backfired in the summer, but I'd still back him if he went straight back to being very rigid and all about sustainability in the summer.

 

I'd be in two minds if we narrowly missed out on similar targets again in January. I think it's worth stretching a little to prevent there being two consecutive dodgy transfer windows and you'd have thought to some extent Ashley would agree - if he misses out by £3m now on a player who might help him bag extra prize money and keep one or two of his other star players next year then he's dropped a bollock. It's a delicate balance I suppose.

 

look, to take the 2 most obvious examples simpson and williamson: anyone with an ounce of football understanding should have known that we should have cashed in on them during the summer when their stock was as high as it was ever going to get...we all knew williamson could not maintain that level and simpson was a very limited fullback

 

take 2 other obvious examples, debucy and douglas, as proposals to replace them...yes they'd have cost money and maybe we'd have had to break our initial valuation somewhat in both cases but let's say for example we paid 6-7m for debuchy and 5-6m for douglas then sold williamson for a combined sum of say 5-6m (not unrealistic imo)...if we'd done that we'd likely have had the defence set for the next 3-4 years and also likely not be in the middle of the fuckfest of a season we're currently in

 

if we couldn't have a net spend for the summer of 7-8m after finishing 5th then something is clearly wrong unless the team doesn't need improving, ours did

 

you say it's a delicate balance but f*** me this is basics man

 

There's a huge amount of speculation in there. You might have some of these answers though, so let's try and pin it down:

 

1. Do you know how long was left on Simpson and Williamson's contracts?

2. Do you know that there was any interest in them?

3. Do you know what the actual cost of signing Debuchy and Douglas would've been?

 

Plus: What we needed to do was not swap Williamson and Simpson for Douglas and Debuchy, it was to end up with all of them. Otherwise we still have to go out and buy a second choice right back and a backup centre half, which would probably cost more than we'd just have raised by selling our original two.

 

I really don't think it's as basic as you make out. Perfectly intelligent people (and Ashley's CV does indicate a certain shrewdness doesn't it?) cock up running football clubs all the time.

[Varadi]

If the club are willing to back Pardew this time then I believe they'll have to fork out a bit more than they'd like. If they do so then they'll get credit from most.

 

That's the key point right there for me. If Pardew is the man they want in charge long term they simply have to give him the tools to do his job, even if that means accepting that not every signing must be a massive bargain.

[mrmojorisin75]

the fuck tollemache?  obviously as i've speculated the entire scenario then clearly i don't, none of us do but they were indicative prices and the amounts being talked of in the press

 

i think we're all aware we need to keep the squad trim so i was suggesting selling them for a top class first choice player who could then be supported by the likes of perch or kids coming through

 

anyway i've seen enough of you from today to know this is a worthless road to go down

[Cronky]

Ashley sets the budget, but beyond that he doesn't get involved in choosing which players we hang on to or buy - as far as we know. You can either say he's being stingy or disciplined, but at some point someone does have to set a limit, and we've seen in recent years with Villa and QPR that it's quite possible to spend a lot of money and end up no further on. (Or even ourselves a few seasons back, come to think of it)

 

Where I think the football people at our club have got it wrong is in two areas. Firstly in over-rating some of the existing squad, who IMO aren't quite as purple as they thought. Tiote is the prime example. The only two players that should have been ring-fenced were Krul and Ben Arfa. Anyone else should have been sold if a big enough offer had come in, and it does appear that we had some offers. It's by skilful trading - selling when someone is over-rated and buying players who are under-rated - that a club like ours can advance. Instead, Pardew and co's policy seemed to be - hang on to what we've got at all costs.

 

The other area which looks to have misfired is the balance of the squad. We've ended up with three centre forwards and no secondary strikers, and too many anchor men in midfield rather than a player who can really get forward down the middle. It's not Ashley's fault that we brought in Bigi and Anita - good players both but not quite what we needed.

 

He also mishandled the whole Ba / Cisse issue - a combination that is no closer to working. Ba has been allowed to dictate his terms for staying, which is very corrosive for team spirit.

 

It feels like Pardew wanted to make the transition to a better footballing side that played through the midfield, but didn't bring in the particular players that were needed. We've ended up looking incoherent.

[James]

I really want Pardew to succeed in turning things around, if he does not include foresee years of instability and a line of managers who are not cut up for the job and/or likely to fall out over club spending.

 

Investing in Pardew now to increase his chance of turning all around is probably going to be the most cost effective Option too.

 

So we need to stick with him, stay up and build our hopes up for next year.

 

If Pardew goes so must Llambias as the club needs to find a new way to operate.

[J7]

As others may have said, we blew our chance in the summer. Far easier to attract players when you've had a good season, difficult now. It maybe years before we have another season like last. We've just wasted our chance. And it's all very well Llambais and Ashley wanting us to be profitable, but I don't see any effort there to improve our turnover. More important seems to be pushing Sports Direct and Ashley's businesses as opposed to building the club with decent commercial partners. Our turnover used to be good in comparison with other Prem Clubs, now it's pretty poor. The tacky image the club has persued has limited good commercial deals and stopped us being able to plough more money into the playing squad. It's depressing stuff.

[Guest]

The only reason to sign players in this window is because you really need them, prices are always inflated.

 

On the other hand, you have players approaching the end of their contracts who clubs might cash in on before losing for nothing. Wank material for Ashley.

[Guest Brazilianbob]

Why is everything that goes wrong is deemed to be Ashley's fault?  Yes he is the owner and sets the parameters for the running of the club, but for me this is down to Llambias.  He is the managing director and in my view the buck stops with him.

[Wullie]

The elephant in the room here is that  barring an absolutely unprecedented run of good form, our better players are probably going to leave en masse in the summer. I said in the summer after we didn't invest that next summer we would face a rebuilding job unlike any we've ever had to do and I think that is now a reality regardless of who joins in January.