Jump to content

Newcastle United transfer rumours in the press


Recommended Posts

Sometimes you have to pay the going rate, we've all seen what happens when you insist on every incoming deal being a "bargain" with the aim of selling on at a higher price later on. You get relegated. Twice. It's a false economy that costs you financially and in a sporting sense, shame we seemingly haven't learnt this by now.

We spent 80m when we got relegated...

The problem wasn't how much we spent, it was spending it on the incorrect players

 

Ofcourse McClaren takes a blame for poor coaching etc but in the past 2 seasons we havent consistently gone for bargain players

 

Bakumbu only made 17 starts last season  due to a poor injury record, with West Ham reportably having a 20m plus offer rejected, is he really worth us spending a large chunk of our budget on?

 

Its a big risk imo

We spent 80m after years and years of spending next to nowt and if you look at the players we bought it was the same old story of signing personnel mainly on the basis of resale value when we needed players for the here and now with the right talent and characteristics.

 

We very rarely pay the going rate for players that are likely to come in and do a job, it's always about saving a few quid here and there. The example here being Bakambu, yes he has no PL experience but looking at him, he's mobile, strong and a good finisher so there's no reason he wouldn't succeed. But we'll only ever sign players like that if it's below market rate and/or we think we can perhaps turn a profit later on. Having that attitude to all deals doesn't work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree spending big on unknown quantities is a risk, not sure about Bakumbu, and it is about the right players. You pay extra for players who have done well for a few seasons on end in premier league, but you can rely on them. Sigurdson for example, not sure we ever did / do have a chance to pick him up, but sorry for guaranteed double figures goals and assists from midfield in the premier league is easily the difference between a good season and a bad one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes you have to pay the going rate, we've all seen what happens when you insist on every incoming deal being a "bargain" with the aim of selling on at a higher price later on. You get relegated. Twice. It's a false economy that costs you financially and in a sporting sense, shame we seemingly haven't learnt this by now.

We spent 80m when we got relegated...

The problem wasn't how much we spent, it was spending it on the incorrect players

 

Ofcourse McClaren takes a blame for poor coaching etc but in the past 2 seasons we havent consistently gone for bargain players

 

Bakumbu only made 17 starts last season  due to a poor injury record, with West Ham reportably having a 20m plus offer rejected, is he really worth us spending a large chunk of our budget on?

 

Its a big risk imo

We spent 80m after years and years of spending next to nowt and if you look at the players we bought it was the same old story of signing personnel mainly on the basis of resale value when we needed players for the here and now with the right talent and characteristics.

 

We very rarely pay the going rate for players that are likely to come in and do a job, it's always about saving a few quid here and there. The example here being Bakambu, yes he has no PL experience but looking at him, he's mobile, strong and a good finisher so there's no reason he wouldn't succeed. But we'll only ever sign players like that if it's below market rate and/or we think we can perhaps turn a profit later on. Having that attitude to all deals doesn't work.

I agree in the relegation season we needed players for the here and now, players like Mitrovic a prime example didnt work out. We paid big on players like him and Thauvin, in hope the value would increase for possible future profit and the risk didnt pay off

 

However we havent done this for all players, this past season has been different, signing older players such as Gamez, Murphy etc it hasn't just been about cutting costs or future transfer fees but about getting the job done

 

People think we have this massive budget where we can hoy 20m bids at players such as Ake like Bournemouth have done, but the difference is they only needed to invest in a couple of players when we need (in my opinion) atleast six players.

 

We still have Riviere, Saviet, De jong, Hanley, Murphy, Gamez, Haidara, Lazaar etc who we need to shift off the wage bill, and our budget needs to stretch a long way

 

Our transfers are critical to the club staying up this season and hopefully building something for the future, we have to make sure recruitment is bang on this season

 

Although its frustrating, I understand the skeptism of the club spending big on one 'unproven' player

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes you have to pay the going rate, we've all seen what happens when you insist on every incoming deal being a "bargain" with the aim of selling on at a higher price later on. You get relegated. Twice. It's a false economy that costs you financially and in a sporting sense, shame we seemingly haven't learnt this by now.

We spent 80m when we got relegated...

The problem wasn't how much we spent, it was spending it on the incorrect players

 

Ofcourse McClaren takes a blame for poor coaching etc but in the past 2 seasons we havent consistently gone for bargain players

 

Bakumbu only made 17 starts last season  due to a poor injury record, with West Ham reportably having a 20m plus offer rejected, is he really worth us spending a large chunk of our budget on?

 

Its a big risk imo

We spent 80m after years and years of spending next to nowt and if you look at the players we bought it was the same old story of signing personnel mainly on the basis of resale value when we needed players for the here and now with the right talent and characteristics.

 

We very rarely pay the going rate for players that are likely to come in and do a job, it's always about saving a few quid here and there. The example here being Bakambu, yes he has no PL experience but looking at him, he's mobile, strong and a good finisher so there's no reason he wouldn't succeed. But we'll only ever sign players like that if it's below market rate and/or we think we can perhaps turn a profit later on. Having that attitude to all deals doesn't work.

I agree in the relegation season we needed players for the here and now, players like Mitrovic a prime example didnt work out. We paid big on players like him and Thauvin, in hope the value would increase for possible future profit and the risk didnt pay off

 

However we havent done this for all players, this past season has been different, signing older players such as Gamez, Murphy etc it hasn't just been about cutting costs or future transfer fees but about getting the job done

 

People think we have this massive budget where we can hoy 20m bids at players such as Ake like Bournemouth have done, but the difference is they only needed to invest in a couple of players when we need (in my opinion) atleast six players.

 

We still have Riviere, Saviet, De jong, Hanley, Murphy, Gamez, Haidara, Lazaar etc who we need to shift off the wage bill, and our budget needs to stretch a long way

 

Our transfers are critical to the club staying up this season and hopefully building something for the future, we have to make sure recruitment is bang on this season

 

Although its frustrating, I understand the skeptism of the club spending big on one 'unproven' player

You make a fair point yeah, we need to spread the transfer outlay well but I think if we spend it all on "bargains" they won't end up being bargains at all. We need to spend the going rate on at least 2 or 3 players that will come into the first team and be important players, ideally those players will be down the spine of the team or we're going to be very lightweight next year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...