TRon Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem. Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment. This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”. Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement. It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top. Which is what those people are suggesting should happen, not what they believe will happen. No different to the people saying we should have a traditional manager who has the final say on transfers, when obviously we know that won't happen either. I doubt anyone here believes we can produce a great system that will bring in a very balanced quality squad. But that also doesn't mean the director of Football/head coach system is a bad thing, because that's not what stops us from getting that kind of squad, Mike Ashley and the constraints he puts on the kind of signings we can make stops us from getting that kind of squad and that won't change with or without the current setup in place. There's absolutely nothing in the Charnley statement to suggest that there will be a healthy relationship between the head coach, chief scout/DoF and MD/dealmaker, so I'm just astounded reading so many people's optimism regarding us openly stating that the new manager will have very little say in transfers. That is all. It's just a system devised for maximum profit in the transfer market, not one supporting what should be the main focus of a football club, i.e. the (first team) manager and his squad of players. There is if you read it with your eyes. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what he says. Whether or not it's true is another matter. That's how I read it as well. Charnley does specifically say that the manager would have input on new players signed, just not the final say. Personally I am encouraged that they are looking at someone like Garde who will dovetail well with Carr since they share similar philosophy and knowledge of French football. Yes I agree Garde would still have his hands tied somewhat, but he will be used to that at his previous club. It will still be a damn sight better than giving the job to Carver. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnonel Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 A coach should focus on coaching - nobody should interfere A scout should focus on scouting - watching loads of matches - finding out about personalities - contracts - etc - nobody should interfere Not sure how a head coach could be the best judge of a player when he spends 99% of his time watching his own players - how is he going to have any clue who players are in Spanish lower divisions? (Perez) etc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_69 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem. Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment. This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”. Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement. It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top. Which is what those people are suggesting should happen, not what they believe will happen. No different to the people saying we should have a traditional manager who has the final say on transfers, when obviously we know that won't happen either. I doubt anyone here believes we can produce a great system that will bring in a very balanced quality squad. But that also doesn't mean the director of Football/head coach system is a bad thing, because that's not what stops us from getting that kind of squad, Mike Ashley and the constraints he puts on the kind of signings we can make stops us from getting that kind of squad and that won't change with or without the current setup in place. There's absolutely nothing in the Charnley statement to suggest that there will be a healthy relationship between the head coach, chief scout/DoF and MD/dealmaker, so I'm just astounded reading so many people's optimism regarding us openly stating that the new manager will have very little say in transfers. That is all. It's just a system devised for maximum profit in the transfer market, not one supporting what should be the main focus of a football club, i.e. the (first team) manager and his squad of players. There is if you read it with your eyes. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what he says. Whether or not it's true is another matter. Given that the club openly admitted at the Keegan tribunal that it 'repeatedly and intentionally misled the press, public and the fans of Newcastle United' then it's impossible not to view everything they say with a huge amount of cynicism. I completely agree but in the statement Charnley specifically states that he, Carr and the Head Coach will work together as a team to identify areas that need strengthening and the player recruitment team will actively target players to suit the playing style of the Head Coach. He specifically states that they will work as a team. To say he doesn't say anything of that nature is total nonsense. However, given the club is run by idiots there's a good chance it's bullshit and they'll just buy players they believe they can make a profit on. Having said that, it's not in anyone's interest to do that because if the manager doesn't play the players he is given, their value will never increase - Ferreyra, Bigirimana, Marveaux, Anita, Ben Arfa, Haidara, Cabella etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem. Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment. This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”. Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement. It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top. Which is what those people are suggesting should happen, not what they believe will happen. No different to the people saying we should have a traditional manager who has the final say on transfers, when obviously we know that won't happen either. I doubt anyone here believes we can produce a great system that will bring in a very balanced quality squad. But that also doesn't mean the director of Football/head coach system is a bad thing, because that's not what stops us from getting that kind of squad, Mike Ashley and the constraints he puts on the kind of signings we can make stops us from getting that kind of squad and that won't change with or without the current setup in place. There's absolutely nothing in the Charnley statement to suggest that there will be a healthy relationship between the head coach, chief scout/DoF and MD/dealmaker, so I'm just astounded reading so many people's optimism regarding us openly stating that the new manager will have very little say in transfers. That is all. It's just a system devised for maximum profit in the transfer market, not one supporting what should be the main focus of a football club, i.e. the (first team) manager and his squad of players. There is if you read it with your eyes. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what he says. Whether or not it's true is another matter. Fair enough, if you choose to ignore that that specific statement is gradually broken down in the very next paragraphs. What he says boils down to: the head coach gets to state his wishes and we will then go out and look for the best deals we can find, which may not be what was requested but he needs to trust us to get it right some day. In the meantime we may decide to sell our best players if a good offer comes in, and he will just have to accept that and (again) trust us that we will replace them one day or other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem. Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment. This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”. Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement. It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top. Great post Unbelievable. One thing Charnley talked about yesterday is the need to work together and for the head coach to identify his needs to Carr to source the player and Charnley to negotiate and finalise the signing. So the process should work like this, HC says I need a CB with good height, technically sound and has a bit of pace, Carr identifies a number of candidates, with approximate costs, the three of them get together and draw up a priority list based on available budget, best fit for the club and likely price. Then charnley goes to work on getting the player in start from the top of the priority list. As you say they've been guilty way too many times in the past of getting that priority list right, with a focus way too much on price rather than ability and/or trying to get the player for under the likely selling price. They need to learn from those mistakes. Not just that. They have been guilty time after time of not bringing in players for the positions where we were weak. Charnely speaks of trust in the relationship, and how they may have to wait for the next transfer window for a certain addition because there will be a better deal to be had. That could in theory be defended, but we have seen time and time again they will happily go three, four windows without cover in a position (right back), or without a first team player of the required ability (centre back, centre forward). I see no reason why that would change with a statement that only hammers home more firmly that the head coach has very little say in the makeup of his squad. When you look at our strategy it actually makes in virtually impossible for a manager/head coach to succeed. In all of that time waiting for good quality purples (the 3-4 windows as you say) we're selling other players who are at their peak value contractually or due to outstanding form. Given we're only interested in ££££££££££'s it makes you wonder what the point of NUFC is sportingly. Perhaps the press () should ask that very question of Charnley. 'What exactly is the point of NUFC as a sporting institution?' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Tbf what he says has been in place during Pardew's entire tenure, difference is he didn't really improve those players for said profit. Let's just say we got a coach who gets on with Carr and sees football the same way he does, it's a lot more likely that the club would be a lot more successful albeit limited due to approach of how said plan is executed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Knowing Pardew though if asked by the bored about style of play, he probably made out he was going to play front foot, possession football. Players were then recruited based on that preferred style of play, only These players wee unsuitable for the reality of Pardew football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Knowing Pardew though if asked by the bored about style of play, he probably made out he was going to play front foot, possession football. Players were then recruited based on that preferred style of play, only These players wee unsuitable for the reality of Pardew football. Fucking bored alright. His teams were turgid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_69 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think Pardew had convinced himself that we did play front foot, attacking football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem. Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment. This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”. Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement. It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top. Great post Unbelievable. One thing Charnley talked about yesterday is the need to work together and for the head coach to identify his needs to Carr to source the player and Charnley to negotiate and finalise the signing. So the process should work like this, HC says I need a CB with good height, technically sound and has a bit of pace, Carr identifies a number of candidates, with approximate costs, the three of them get together and draw up a priority list based on available budget, best fit for the club and likely price. Then charnley goes to work on getting the player in start from the top of the priority list. As you say they've been guilty way too many times in the past of getting that priority list right, with a focus way too much on price rather than ability and/or trying to get the player for under the likely selling price. They need to learn from those mistakes. Not just that. They have been guilty time after time of not bringing in players for the positions where we were weak. Charnely speaks of trust in the relationship, and how they may have to wait for the next transfer window for a certain addition because there will be a better deal to be had. That could in theory be defended, but we have seen time and time again they will happily go three, four windows without cover in a position (right back), or without a first team player of the required ability (centre back, centre forward). I see no reason why that would change with a statement that only hammers home more firmly that the head coach has very little say in the makeup of his squad. When you look at our strategy it actually makes in virtually impossible for a manager/head coach to succeed. In all of that time waiting for good quality purples (the 3-4 windows as you say) we're selling other players who are at their peak value contractually or due to outstanding form. Given we're only interested in ££££££££££'s it makes you wonder what the point of NUFC is sportingly. Perhaps the press () should ask that very question of Charnley. 'What exactly is the point of NUFC as a sporting institution?' But Pardew finished fifth though? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem. Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment. This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”. Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement. It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top. Great post Unbelievable. One thing Charnley talked about yesterday is the need to work together and for the head coach to identify his needs to Carr to source the player and Charnley to negotiate and finalise the signing. So the process should work like this, HC says I need a CB with good height, technically sound and has a bit of pace, Carr identifies a number of candidates, with approximate costs, the three of them get together and draw up a priority list based on available budget, best fit for the club and likely price. Then charnley goes to work on getting the player in start from the top of the priority list. As you say they've been guilty way too many times in the past of getting that priority list right, with a focus way too much on price rather than ability and/or trying to get the player for under the likely selling price. They need to learn from those mistakes. Not just that. They have been guilty time after time of not bringing in players for the positions where we were weak. Charnely speaks of trust in the relationship, and how they may have to wait for the next transfer window for a certain addition because there will be a better deal to be had. That could in theory be defended, but we have seen time and time again they will happily go three, four windows without cover in a position (right back), or without a first team player of the required ability (centre back, centre forward). I see no reason why that would change with a statement that only hammers home more firmly that the head coach has very little say in the makeup of his squad. When you look at our strategy it actually makes in virtually impossible for a manager/head coach to succeed. In all of that time waiting for good quality purples (the 3-4 windows as you say) we're selling other players who are at their peak value contractually or due to outstanding form. Given we're only interested in ££££££££££'s it makes you wonder what the point of NUFC is sportingly. Perhaps the press () should ask that very question of Charnley. 'What exactly is the point of NUFC as a sporting institution?' But Pardew finished fifth though? In a year when Chelsea had Di Matteo, Liverpool were bombing and we had two inform strikers. Something we've not bothered our arses to recreate since. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sempuki Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The Sun reckon he is not coming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The Sun reckon he is not coming. He probably hasn't looked at page 3 yet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collage Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The Sun reckon he is not coming. He probably hasn't looked at page 3 yet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUFC_Chris Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I think it's pointless reading papers, they're just piecing together clues like the rest of us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/6284539/Newcastle-go-back-in-for-Steve-McClaren-after-Remi-Garde-move-called-off.html Toon go back in for Mac NEWCASTLE’S move to make Remi Garde their new boss is OFF — with Steve McClaren now in their sights. Frenchman Garde was the top target for Toon owner Mike Ashley, and the former Arsenal player and Lyon coach met club officials to discuss taking over on Tyneside. You need to pay Rupert Murdoch to read the rest Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorJ_01 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The Sun reckon he is not coming. He probably hasn't looked at page 3 yet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/6284539/Newcastle-go-back-in-for-Steve-McClaren-after-Remi-Garde-move-called-off.html Toon go back in for Mac NEWCASTLE’S move to make Remi Garde their new boss is OFF — with Steve McClaren now in their sights. Frenchman Garde was the top target for Toon owner Mike Ashley, and the former Arsenal player and Lyon coach met club officials to discuss taking over on Tyneside. You need to pay Rupert Murdoch to read the rest Nah, that much for free is just fine thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/6284539/Newcastle-go-back-in-for-Steve-McClaren-after-Remi-Garde-move-called-off.html Toon go back in for Mac NEWCASTLE’S move to make Remi Garde their new boss is OFF — with Steve McClaren now in their sights. Frenchman Garde was the top target for Toon owner Mike Ashley, and the former Arsenal player and Lyon coach met club officials to discuss taking over on Tyneside. You need to pay Rupert Murdoch to read the rest Oh hamburgers. The rest is baseless guff. Some rubbish about him being cheaper/easier to get in the summer than now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanSkÃrare Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2921544/Newcastle-set-wait-Steve-McClaren-dismissing-Bernd-Schuster-link.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/6284539/Newcastle-go-back-in-for-Steve-McClaren-after-Remi-Garde-move-called-off.html Toon go back in for Mac NEWCASTLE’S move to make Remi Garde their new boss is OFF — with Steve McClaren now in their sights. Frenchman Garde was the top target for Toon owner Mike Ashley, and the former Arsenal player and Lyon coach met club officials to discuss taking over on Tyneside. You need to pay Rupert Murdoch to read the rest Fair play to Garde, he knows he's better than to be a yes man. Welcome, McClaren. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenige Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/6284539/Newcastle-go-back-in-for-Steve-McClaren-after-Remi-Garde-move-called-off.html Toon go back in for Mac NEWCASTLE’S move to make Remi Garde their new boss is OFF — with Steve McClaren now in their sights. Frenchman Garde was the top target for Toon owner Mike Ashley, and the former Arsenal player and Lyon coach met club officials to discuss taking over on Tyneside. You need to pay Rupert Murdoch to read the rest Fair play to Garde, he knows he's better than to be a yes man. Welcome, McClaren. http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/219/935/1324355554298.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I do think McClaren is decent manager (or headcoach!), incidentally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_F Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I do think McClaren is decent manager (or headcoach!), incidentally. Decent, safe, won't rock the boat and comparitively cheap aye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/6284539/Newcastle-go-back-in-for-Steve-McClaren-after-Remi-Garde-move-called-off.html Toon go back in for Mac NEWCASTLE’S move to make Remi Garde their new boss is OFF — with Steve McClaren now in their sights. Frenchman Garde was the top target for Toon owner Mike Ashley, and the former Arsenal player and Lyon coach met club officials to discuss taking over on Tyneside. You need to pay Rupert Murdoch to read the rest Fair play to Garde, he knows he's better than to be a yes man. Welcome, McClaren. The same Garde who has basically been what we will ask him to be his entire managerial career? Seems legit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now