Eddie Howe

[Checko]

1 hour ago, Interpolic said:

I'm glad we went for it and always want us to play that way but do feel there may have been a bit of an oversight in not considering the opposition's motivations enough.  Milan had to win, they had to open up themselves sometime so perhaps we shouldn't have blinked first in that sense. 

 

Whether that was possible with the personnel and the fitness levels, no idea.  I'm sure we'll learn from it, this was new to almost everyone.

Yeah this is the thing...

 

I think we actually had better chances of winning if we were calmer and more patient and kept things tighter.

 

Look at the end of the game - we were chucking men forward and leaving gaps at the back because we had to score and they had a number of great chances. If we play it safer, last 10 mins it could have been them leaving the gaps, and us getting the chances. Playing on the counter is playing to our strengths.

 

Not saying we shouldn't have tried to be positive on the ball, but I think we could have been a lot calmer, more composed, patient. and just said - 'hey, we've got Europe in our hands, we have something tangible. If you want anything then you need to take the risks, and when you do.. we'll be ready to pounce.' Except in Italian, obviously. That's the tough, hard-nosed winner's mentality for me.

 

On the other hand perhaps they feel Europa League wasn't worth the fatigue so they'd rather go more boom and bust.

 

Either way, I don't want to come across as too negative - I'm certainly not upset with a positive attitude, and the players gave it a good go. Neither way guarantees success and I thought we played very well for a lot of the game. But I do think we missed a trick & that's why I described it in the match thread as a bit naive.

[Froggy]

1 hour ago, Cronky said:

It’s okay to defend Ten Haag - Man U is not an easy job - but the comparison with Eddie Howe is plain daft. Eddie inherited a far worse squad of players and Ten Haag has had much more financial backing.

 

Howe has had massive financial backing like. Your spending is fairly similar to ours despite us having triple your revenue. 

 

I'm not comparing Ten Hag and Howe though. I'm a big fan of Howe. I'm just saying that nothing that Goldbridge has said there is false. 

[El Prontonise]

4 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Howe has had massive financial backing like. Your spending is fairly similar to ours despite us having triple your revenue. 

 

I'm not comparing Ten Hag and Howe though. I'm a big fan of Howe. I'm just saying that nothing that Goldbridge has said there is false. 

 

Howe inherited a relegation side and also a squad that we can't sell on.

 

It's absolute bollocks

 

[Menace]

Apart from Howes team was fighting relegation and Ten Hags team was battling for a CL place the season prior? Very naive comment to make.

[Froggy]

13 minutes ago, El Prontonise said:

 

Howe inherited a relegation side and also a squad that we can't sell on.

 

It's absolute bollocks

 

12 minutes ago, Menace said:

Apart from Howes team was fighting relegation and Ten Hags team was battling for a CL place the season prior? Very naive comment to make.

 

Who said anything about where the teams were? You're strawmanning. 

 

Howe has spent similar to Ten Hag. Simple fact. So saying Ten Hag has received much more financial backing is false. 

 

We weren't anywhere near top four either. 

 

But anyway. 

[wormy]

 Is it just me or has threads getting hijacked over a Man U debate fucking skyrocketed this year? Exhausting. 

 

And this isn't just a dig at Froggy, even though I don't know how you have the energy to fight so many corners at once.  Seems everyone is as bad as each other for throwing and catching the bait.

[Froggy]

11 minutes ago, wormy said:

 Is it just me or has threads getting hijacked over a Man U debate fucking skyrocketed this year? Exhausting. 

 

And this isn't just a dig at Froggy, even though I don't know how you have the energy to fight so many corners at once.  Seems everyone is as bad as each other for throwing and catching the bait.

 

It usually goes like this:

 

1. Someone posts about Man United, usually having a go at players or Ten Hag. A lot of the time directly tagging me. 

 

2. I respond in a civil manner. Not having a go, just giving my two thoughts as it concerns my club. 

 

3. Posters go crazy to refute my points and criticise Man United even further, straying away from the original topic. At this point some people will have a go at me or respond condescendingly despite me knowing my own club better than they ever will. 

 

4. I respond to most posts, but start having a little nip back to the less than savoury posters.

 

5. Froggy's a cunt. Fuck Man United. Troll. WUM. He's hijacking threads again/Froggy's sound man, leave Froggy alone, Froggy's an excellent poster. 

 

6. Insert Kid Icarus vs. Froggy fight. This can lull at certain times of the year when we both pretend to have each other on ignore but eventually one of or both of us can't resist commenting. 

 

7. Man United lose.

 

8. Rinse and repeat. 

[wormy]

Why can't we all just skip to stage 7 in perfect harmony?

[Froggy]

1 minute ago, wormy said:

Why can't we all just skip to stage 7 in perfect harmony?

 

Because you all bully me when it happens. 

[wormy]

8 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Because you all bully me when it happens. 

 

 Fair point. I would hope you knew at least I was doing it in jest and value you as a poster here (not to force us to the lovey dovey pukey section of stage 5). But I think any mention I've made of you of late has been a childish dig so I plan to do my part in not even slightly fuelling this tedious cycle any longer.

 

Still hate you in the Fifa thread though. 

[kocunar]

46 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

 

Who said anything about where the teams were? You're strawmanning. 

 

Howe has spent similar to Ten Hag. Simple fact. So saying Ten Hag has received much more financial backing is false. 

 

We weren't anywhere near top four either. 

 

But anyway. 

Most relevant indicator of squad quality is the wage bill. If Man City spent 100m on transfer fees this summer and so did Scunthorpe United, they wouldn't have the same squad quality, would they?

[Checko]

15 minutes ago, Froggy said:

...

 

5. Froggy's a cunt. Fuck Man United. Troll. WUM. He's hijacking threads again/Froggy's sound man, leave Froggy alone, Froggy's an excellent poster. 

 

...

Out of curiosity, do you always have to have the final word?

[madras]

51 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

 

Who said anything about where the teams were? You're strawmanning. 

 

Howe has spent similar to Ten Hag. Simple fact. So saying Ten Hag has received much more financial backing is false. 

 

We weren't anywhere near top four either. 

 

But anyway. 

False equivalence and all that.

[The Butcher]

18 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

It usually goes like this:

 

 

 

5. Froggy's a cunt.

 

 

FYP

[Froggy]

Just now, kocunar said:

Most relevant indicator of squad quality is the wage bill. If Man City spent 100m on transfer fees this summer and so did Scunthorpe United, they wouldn't have the same squad quality, would they?

 

No, but if someone said City's manager had far more financial backing than Scunthorpe's, it wouldn't be true. 

 

Once again, not comparing Howe and Ten Hag at all. As good as Ten Hag's season was last year, Howe's was better. 

 

3 minutes ago, Checko said:

Out of curiosity, do you always have to have the final word?

 

I struggle to drop things yes.

[Froggy]

9 minutes ago, wormy said:

 

 Fair point. I would hope you knew at least I was doing it in jest and value you as a poster here (not to force us to the lovey dovey pukey section of stage 5). But I think any mention I've made of you of late has been a childish dig so I plan to do my part in not even slightly fuelling this tedious cycle any longer.

 

Still hate you in the Fifa thread though. 

 

I'm just honest with you. You can't hate honesty. You and your team are fodder. 

[timeEd32]

7 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

No, but if someone said City's manager had far more financial backing than Scunthorpe's, it wouldn't be true. 

 

Once again, not comparing Howe and Ten Hag at all. As good as Ten Hag's season was last year, Howe's was better. 

 

 

I struggle to drop things yes.

 

Even ignoring the different starting points (which is very relevant), you don't count wages in financial backing?

[Checko]

1 minute ago, Froggy said:

 

I'm just honest with you. You can't hate honesty. You and your team are fodder. 

I'm British and middle class. I find honesty that hasn't been thoroughly marinated in vast vats of circumspection very uncomfortable to deal with.

[Froggy]

2 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Even ignoring the different starting points (which is very relevant), you don't count wages in financial backing?

 

I was talking solely about transfer spend but wages of course count as financial backing. 

 

Look at our revenue compared to Newcastle's and see what percentage of that was given to each manager for transfers and wages. You'll need your owners to pump money in or you'll fall foul of FFP, whereas our owners will put in nothing. You could argue Howe was backed even more than Ten Hag has. 

 

We've both spent big. Simple as. 

[kocunar]

Your logic is definitely interesting. Luton town spent more percentage of their revenue on wages and transfers than Man City this year. I guess if they don't have 30 points by now, Luton's manager should be sacked. 

[timeEd32]

Just now, Froggy said:

 

I was talking solely about transfer spend but wages of course count as financial backing. 

 

Look at our revenue compared to Newcastle's and see what percentage of that was given to each manager for transfers and wages. You'll need your owners to pump money in or you'll fall foul of FFP, whereas our owners will put in nothing. You could argue Howe was backed even more than Ten Hag has. 

 

We've both spent big. Simple as. 

 

% of potential resources is comparing owners, so it's irrelevant here. This isn't a Glazers debate.

 

Man United have 9 players, almost a whole starting XI, making north of £200k/wk. NUFC have zero.

 

Man United have 15 players, nearly a whole matchday squad, making north of £100k/wk. NUFC have 5.

 

There are varying sources on this, but Man United's wage bill is conservatively £100m more per year than Newcastle's. You are lying to yourself if you think there is any kind of comparison to be made between the financial resources available to Ten Hag and Eddie Howe. And when you see this, combined with where each club was two years ago, you can see why that tweet and any attempt to defend it is complete nonsense.

[Checko]

To be fair Goldbridge didn't say 'backing', he said NUFC had "way more resources" last year. I would count salary spend as part of the club's resources [it's often seen as the most directly linkable financial figure to on-pitch performance] and Man U was second in the league, over 2 and a half times higher than Newcastle's in 22/23 (approx £213 million to £81 million) : Source - https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/chelsea-premier-league-wage-bill-30054153

 

Net transfer spend was roughly the same with Man U slightly ahead in 2022/23 but pretty negligable. I would say we certainly didn't have 'way more resources' as Goldbridge says.

 

Also his implicit point about ten Hag getting too much criticism and speculation in the media. That's fair enough, but his clickbaity videos do it as well.

 

So I would say some of his point is factually incorrect and his general point about the media is hypocritical, even if I do actually largely agree ten Hag's getting too much criticism. 

[Checko]

And back on topic, Eddie Howe has an excellent hairline.

[Froggy]

9 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

% of potential resources is comparing owners, so it's irrelevant here. This isn't a Glazers debate.

 

Eh? It's absolutely a Glazers/PIF debate. Who's financially backing the managers? Fairies at the bottom of the garden?

 

Since Ten Hag took over we've had over £1b in revenue, and he's got £400m. Since Howe took over you've had £350m in revenue, and Howe has got £400m.

 

Not sure how you don't see this as huge financial backing given that the amount you can spend directly correlates with how much revenue you make and how much money your owners put in to offset the loss. 

 

1 minute ago, Checko said:

Net transfer spend was roughly the same with Man U slightly ahead in 2022/23 but pretty negligable. I would say we certainly didn't have 'way more resources' as Goldbridge says.

 

I agree in a way. You absolutely have way more resources than we do, you're just not allowed to use them. Yet. 

[Checko]

We'll be announcing our official gold-mining partner soon enough.