Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Rafa Benítez (now unemployed)

Greg

by Greg
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

LV

LV

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

Might delete it if its going to cause a pile on in hindsight, ffs. If he's got his own views on Rafa and thats what he wants to believe then so be it. 


He’d created his own pile on long before you posted that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
magvicar

magvicar

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

 

Aye over football opinions. Felt a bit guilty when folk on other forums were calling him a weirdo and that.

People are more than entitled to their opinion, even on what they think I may or may not be. I'm absolutely fine with it all.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
MrRaspberryJam

MrRaspberryJam

Posted
Posted
Just now, magvicar said:

People are more than entitled to their opinion, even on what they think I may or may not be. I'm absolutely fine with it all.

 

 

Magvicar it just didn't sit comfortably with me the moment I posted the link. I should have known it could have caused a pile-on and I regret it, please accept my apologies. I am happy to discuss with you whatever you want, even if I think your views on Benitez are a wee bit crazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris_R

Chris_R

Posted
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, magvicar said:

He spent money that was brought into the club.

He was handed a good old pot of money to get deals done.

 

If you want to buy a car with no cash but you have a gold watch that will cover the cost then it's still a buy for what the buy was if someone else offered cash.

 

This net spend is just a smokescreen.

 

 

What a nonsense argument. :lol:

 

If the club had sold, I dunno, say the training ground and invested in the team, then sure the net spend argument would be redundant if we tried to count the sale of the training ground in the net spend - That's your "selling a watch to buy a car" argument where the sale item is irrelevant to the purchase.

 

But that's not what happened here. Here the team was weakened by sales, then strengthened by purchases and so net spend absolutely is relevant. Here it's more about looking at a collection of cars and assessing its worth. If you sell your watches to buy a few new cars, of course the car collection gets better. But if you sell some cars to buy some cars then the "net spend" is relevant in assessing whether you made good purchases. I can't believe I'm having to explain this with crayons like this, so I can only assume you're trolling at this point. Discounting net spend is laughable because it's 100% related to what he could field on the pitch vs if he bought without selling.

 

You can't genuinely say with a straight face that our squad we got promoted with was identical in strength to that promoted squad PLUS Sissoko, Wijnaldum, Townsend, Janmaat, Cabella, Cissé etc as if we had never sold them, because that's just nonsense.

 

 

Edited by Chris_R

Link to post
Share on other sites
magvicar

magvicar

Posted
Posted
Just now, MrRaspberryJam said:

 

Magvicar it just didn't sit comfortably with me the moment I posted the link. I should have known it could have caused a pile-on and I regret it, please accept my apologies. I am happy to discuss with you whatever you want, even if I think your views on Benitez are a wee bit crazy.

I have no issues with what you put up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
magvicar

magvicar

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

What a nonsense argument. :lol:

 

If the club had sold, I dunno, say the training ground and invested in the team, then sure the net spend argument would be redundant if we tried to count the sale of the training ground in the net spend - That's your "selling a watch to buy a car" argument where the sale item is irrelevant to the purchase.

 

But that's not what happened here. Here the team was weakened by sales, then strengthened by purchases and so net spend absolutely is relevant. Discounting net spend is laughable because it's 100% related to what he could field on the pitch vs if he bought without selling.

 

You can't genuinely say with a straight face that our squad we got promoted with was identical in strength to that promoted squad PLUS Sissoko, Wijnaldum, Townsend, Janmaat, Cabella, Cissé etc as if we had never sold them, because that's just nonsense. So of course net spend is important. It's ridiculous to suggest it isn't.

Why did we sell them?

Was it to weaken the team or was it because those players wanted nothing to do with championship football?

So we sell them and tell the manager to go and get players who will get us out of the championship. A massive gamble that paid off.

 

It has to be looked at in more than just one way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris_R

Chris_R

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, magvicar said:

Why did we sell them?

Was it to weaken the team or was it because those players wanted nothing to do with championship football?

So we sell them and tell the manager to go and get players who will get us out of the championship. A massive gamble that paid off.

 

It has to be looked at in more than just one way.

 

Of course they didn't want to play Championship football, but we could have - in theory - forced them to. They had contracts.

 

Net spend is absolutely relevant. You may not like to admit it, but it is. Benitez had to sell to buy, and he did. If we'd kept say Sissoko for whatever reason, as we absolutely could have done, then he'd have had less to spend. The 2 things are inextricably linked. If you cannot see that, you must either be trolling or stupid. Either way I'd rather do something else than continue this conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Paully

Paully

Posted
Posted

I genuinely can't get my head around any NUFC fan having a go at Rafa! It's mental!

 

Never mind what he did as manager for us - he brought Amanda to the table - no Rafa, no takeover, simple.

 

Mental some people!

Link to post
Share on other sites
magvicar

magvicar

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

Of course they didn't want to play Championship football, but we could have - in theory - forced them to. They had contracts.

 

Net spend is absolutely relevant. You may not like to admit it, but it is. Benitez had to sell to buy, and he did. If we'd kept say Sissoko for whatever reason, as we absolutely could have done, then he'd have had less to spend. The 2 things are inextricably linked. If you cannot see that, you must either be trolling or stupid. Either way I'd rather do something else than continue this conversation.

It's pointless forcing players to play in the championship who want away. At best you get half hearted unhappy players and at worst you get a player value that massively diminishes.

 

Whether you're a club that hands out cash on the hip or sells to buy it all comes down to the same thing in terms of getting players over the line.

Of course if we sell players that do not want to go and would be beneficial to progress, then obviously it becomes a major issue, especially if we don't replace with like for like and as good if not better.

 

Of course at times this has happened but generally players wanted out and there's only so much you can do when players want out.

 

As I said there's more than one way of looking at this.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
KaKa

KaKa

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Kid Icarus said:

Literally everything being said is an ahistorical, incoherent, inconsistent load of shite like. Fucking hell, it's actually impressive :lol:

 

 

 

 

Can't believe folks are still engaging him. Something seems a bit off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris_R

Chris_R

Posted
Posted
Just now, magvicar said:

As I said there's more than one way of looking at this.

 

Yeah - a right way and a wrong way.

 

This isn't solely at you, but the whole "it's a matter of opinion / I'm entitled to my opinion" thing that we see in society from time to time is fundamentally flawed. I mean everyone IS entitled to their opinion in so far as we cannot physically prevent them from having one, but not all opinions are equal.

 

Let's say that I say the moon is made of rock, and someone else says it's made of cheese. The cheese-moon person is absolutely entitled to their opinion, but it should not be given equal weight to the counter opinion that the moon is made of rock, when people have been there (don't even fucking start :lol: ) and actual moon rock samples have been brought back and analysed.

 

Same with vaccines. And Brexit. And Trump. And 5G. And flat earthers. And racism/homophobia/transphobia. Religion (Yes, that's bollocks too. All of it.). And so on. We continuously are told that they're "entitled to their opinions" which results in them being given a platform to spout bollocks to the detriment of society as a whole, when really we should deplatform them and ignore them, and let them just scream into a void somewhere rather than legitimising utter nonsense by lending it even a slither of credibility.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
magvicar

magvicar

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

Yeah - a right way and a wrong way.

 

This isn't solely at you, but the whole "it's a matter of opinion / I'm entitled to my opinion" thing that we see in society from time to time is fundamentally flawed. I mean everyone IS entitled to their opinion in so far as we cannot physically prevent them from having one, but not all opinions are equal.

Opinions are just that. If they aren't backed by facts they become opinionated debates.

 

23 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by magvicar

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bishops Finger

Bishops Finger

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, magvicar said:

Most I reckon.

I think the players were a bit dejected under Rafa. Rafa seemed cold. Bruce at least came in with some zest even amid a mixed reception.

I think Shelvey brightened up and I'll never forgive Rafa for destroying Mitrovic for us.

 

But that's juyst my take as unpopular as it seems.

Mate, are you in a glue filled room or something. Get outside and get some fresh air ffs lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
magvicar

magvicar

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

OH BOY OH BOY. [emoji38]

 

We've gone from Rafa v Bruce to the moon being made from rock v the moon being made from cheese.

 

Or talcum powder.

Agreed, wrong place. I'll delete it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KaKa

KaKa

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

Same with vaccines. And Brexit. And Trump. And 5G. And flat earthers. And racism/homophobia/transphobia. Religion (Yes, that's bollocks too. All of it.). And so on. We continuously are told that they're "entitled to their opinions" which results in them being given a platform to spout bollocks to the detriment of society as a whole, when really we should deplatform them and ignore them, and let them just scream into a void somewhere rather than legitimising utter nonsense by lending it even a slither of credibility.

 

 

 

What the fuck is this shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...