Eddie Howe

[STM]

9 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

Playing devil’s advocate, we can’t be 100% sure the owners want to keep Eddie. 
if they are ruthlessly ambitious and impatient they may view last season as a failure, and the jury is out. If he fought to keep certain players who underperformed, maybe doubts are staring to creep in.

Does Eddie have his own conditioning coach with his inner group? 
 

 

If the owners view last year as a failure, then the issue is the owners not the manager.

[Holmesy]

9 minutes ago, STM said:

 

If the owners view last year as a failure, then the issue is the owners not the manager.

I’m not so sure. I think we underachieved overall - that run where we conceded 3-4 goals per game with the undroppable Dan Burn at LB was a car crash at times. We should definitely have accrued more points than we did, not loads more but enough so that our European chances were left in the hands of others IMO.

There was also some poor squad management that contributed to our injury list as well. 

The reason for my question about the fitness and conditioning coach is if it was Eddie’s coach, and most people put last season’s faltering momentum down to our huge injury list, could that be counting against him?

Maybe Staveley was more understanding about what happened last season but PIF weren’t 🤷🏻‍♂️

Again, all of this is just playing devil’s advocate because we don’t know.

 

 

 

Edited July 20 by Holmesy

[LiquidAK]

Given the hand he was dealt he overachieved last season. Same as he did in the previous two seasons.

[ponsaelius]

I have no issue with the club if they have some reservations long term.

 

Clubs should always back their managers but they also shouldn't do it to the extent where it places all power in one individual and makes continuity difficult when said manager goes (which they are always at risk of). The structures in place at a football club should be able to continue when an individual leaves. It seems to me that's what is trying to be put in place this summer.

 

Love Eddie but he must surely realise this is how all big football clubs operate.

[Geogaddi]

7 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

I’m not so sure. I think we underachieved overall - that run where we conceded 3-4 goals per game with the undroppable Dan Burn at LB was a car crash at times. We should definitely have accrued more points than we did, not loads more but enough so that our European chances were left in the hands of others IMO.

There was also some poor squad management that contributed to our injury list as well. 

The reason for my question about the fitness and conditioning coach is if it was Eddie’s coach, and most people put last season’s faltering momentum down to our huge injury list, could that be counting against him?

Maybe Staveley was more understanding about what happened last season but PIF weren’t 🤷🏻‍♂️

Again, all of this is just playing devil’s advocate because we don’t know.

 

 

 

 

Barring Villa every single club that finished above us last season have far more expensively assembled squads and pay far more in wages than we do. Man United also do but we finished above them.
 

We have no business competing with any of them really and it's only down to Eddie that we have managed to in the first place . That's before you even get into how everything that could go wrong for us did go wrong last season, 7th was a minor miracle .

 

 

Edited July 20 by Geogaddi

[80]

15 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Douglas with a very different tone to the rest of the press pack.

I think his comments were about as warm as could be. He was pretty effusive in his praise for Mitchell and especially Bunce. There's no doubt for me that he pretty desperately wants to stay here, but I think he's fighting to make sure his own role, as he understands it should be, is sustainable in the newly conceived structure.

 

I got the impression he thought the hires were very strong and justifiable for the club, and he'd be happy for us if it worked, even if it entailed him coming to the end of his own path with us due to incompatibility. He respects the moves. But he's working to try and make sure that path doesn't come to an end any time soon, while trying to protect his livelihood if it doesn't work out.

[Stuy_O]

1 hour ago, ponsaelius said:

I have no issue with the club if they have some reservations long term.

 

Clubs should always back their managers but they also shouldn't do it to the extent where it places all power in one individual and makes continuity difficult when said manager goes (which they are always at risk of). The structures in place at a football club should be able to continue when an individual leaves. It seems to me that's what is trying to be put in place this summer.

 

Love Eddie but he must surely realise this is how all big football clubs operate.

 

100%. I think Eddie is an exceptional manager but Newcastle are moving into a serious phase of development now and that will see fundamental changes. We have to start operating like our rivals. 

 

Eddie can't have full control over everything, and he can't have Staveley protecting him all the time. Like if Eales or Mitchell have expressed an interest in selling Wilson or Almiron but he's against it, then stuff like that will do him or the club no favours. Without being undermined - there's a bigger picture here for the club. 

 

 

Edited July 20 by Stuy_O

[Wallace]

If Eddie wants new players in then he has to accept others need to be sold to make room in the squad.

[Holmesy]

7 minutes ago, Geogaddi said:

Barring Villa every single club that finished above us last season have far more expensively assembled squads and pay far more in wages than we do. Man United also do but we finished above them.
 

We have no business competing with any of them really and it's only down to Eddie that we have managed to in the first place . That's before you even get into how everything that could go wrong for us did go wrong last season, 7th was a minor miracle .

 

 

 

I agree with most of your points, but you’re looking at it from a macro level - finished 7th.

If you break it down to the micro level there are things we could’ve done better to make that macro level even better.

7th is only good if your target was 7th. If the target was 5-6th for example, 7th is seen as a failure regardless of mitigating factors, especially if the thought is that some of those mitigating factors were deemed avoidable. 

They’ll no doubt have carried out a detailed postmortem on the business and footballing side of things to understand what we can do better in all departments going forward. I guess we’ll find out what they are.

 

[madras]

Just now, Holmesy said:

I agree with most of your points, but you’re looking at it from a macro level - finished 7th.

If you break it down to the micro level there are things we could’ve done better to make that macro level even better.

7th is only good if your target was 7th. If the target was 5-6th for example, 7th is seen as a failure regardless of mitigating factors, especially if the thought is that some of those mitigating factors were deemed avoidable. 

They’ll no doubt have carried out a detailed postmortem on the business and footballing side of things to understand what we can do better in all departments going forward. I guess we’ll find out what they are.

 

Anyone else read that and just hear a middle managers voice who nobody would actually realise if they came into work and didn't actually do anything ?

[LiquidAK]

3 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

I agree with most of your points, but you’re looking at it from a macro level - finished 7th.

If you break it down to the micro level there are things we could’ve done better to make that macro level even better.

7th is only good if your target was 7th. If the target was 5-6th for example, 7th is seen as a failure regardless of mitigating factors, especially if the thought is that some of those mitigating factors were deemed avoidable. 

They’ll no doubt have carried out a detailed postmortem on the business and footballing side of things to understand what we can do better in all departments going forward. I guess we’ll find out what they are.

 

The irony is you're the one looking at this in "macro level" and just going "7th was less than last year, therefore BAD" without appreciating any of the actual context.

[Nobody]

54 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

The manager dictates the style of play, the tempo, the tactics and the gameplan, and you think someone else should have final say on the players he gets to do that with?! WTF?! That’s absolutely mental!

Works pretty well literally everywhere else in the world. Some might say that the head coach has enough on his plate without having extensive knowledge of every other player on the planet and that should be someone elses job. 

[Holmesy]

6 minutes ago, LiquidAK said:

The irony is you're the one looking at this in "macro level" and just going "7th was less than last year, therefore BAD" without appreciating any of the actual context.

How?! 😀 That’s completely the opposite of what I’ve been saying.

 

Can we just establish if everyone knows what playing devil’s advocate means? 
 

This fucking place is like talking to a brick wall most of the time:

 

Plays devil’s advocate

“You can’t say anything bad about Eddie”

”I’m not saying anything bad about Eddie, I’m playing devil’s advocate”

 

Repeat forever! 
 

 

[LiquidAK]

Just now, Holmesy said:

How?! 😀 That’s completely the opposite of what I’ve been saying.

 

Can we just establish if everyone knows what playing devil’s advocate means? 
 

This fucking place is like talking to a brick wall most of the time:

 

Plays devil’s advocate

“You can’t say anything bad about Eddie”

”I’m not saying anything bad about Eddie, I’m playing devil’s advocate”

 

Repeat forever! 
 

 

 

"Playing devil's advocate"

 

"I'm just asking questions"

 

"The Saudi's are ruthless, they won't stand for second best"

 

All while wanking yourself into a coma, ad nauseum 

[Holmesy]

2 minutes ago, LiquidAK said:

 

"Playing devil's advocate"

 

"I'm just asking questions"

 

"The Saudi's are ruthless, they won't stand for second best"

 

All while wanking yourself into a coma, ad nauseum 

😂 

 

This fucking place man! 

[LFEE]

2 hours ago, Abacus said:

My guess is that Howe isn't interested in the England job, not yet, but he has to be diplomatic about that. And also use the speculation to his advantage at Newcastle.

 

So, then as for Newcastle. Originally when he joined it was to a shell of a club at exec level and he, along with Staveley, would have been involved in just about everything because - well - they had to be. He might even have enjoyed that, but it was never sustainable and it wasn't intended to be done that way forever. 

 

I'm pretty sure the appointment of a DOF was needed to ease that burden - I think Staveley said as much at the time - as well as always having been intended as part of a more structured set up.

 

Then, rumours of friction with Ashworth which if true would have instead complicated his job in some respects. Similar rumours that Ashworth thought he'd have more control than he did - if true, maybe this was with Staveley, Howe or a combination of those.

 

Roll forward to appointing Mitchell. If there was some sort of power struggle with the previous DOF, it's only natural he'd be cautious. From being in a position right at the start where he'd have been involved in everything through necessity, to one where some roles will be taken out of his hands or have reduced say, it's understandable he'd be cautious about how it would work again this time.

 

Then Bunce - brought in for player recovery etc. Is this an implied criticism of the injury situation last time? Will it mean not being able to play players in situations like with Longstaff when he was choosing to play through an injury? It's one criticism made of Howe last year by some fans at least, whether it was fair or not.

 

If I had to guess, this is where any stuff about boundaries is coming from, especially with Staveley gone too. Each of those appointments makes perfect sense to me. But I can also understand why he might say those things if he'd been a bit burnt by Ashworth.

 

That's all complete speculation, of course. We'll see how it goes, but personally just can't wait till the season starts and everyone can get on with their jobs. If all the pieces fall together, I think it could be his dream job since he looks and sounds happy to be back.

 Spot on IMO.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Paulinho said:

If you were viewing this scenario play out at a different club, would any of us really be thinking “yeah, no chance he’s leaving” after those comments? 

 

I'd hardly be thinking, "Christ, he's a dead man walking" like. 

[Abacus]

26 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

I agree with most of your points, but you’re looking at it from a macro level - finished 7th.

If you break it down to the micro level there are things we could’ve done better to make that macro level even better.

7th is only good if your target was 7th. If the target was 5-6th for example, 7th is seen as a failure regardless of mitigating factors, especially if the thought is that some of those mitigating factors were deemed avoidable. 

They’ll no doubt have carried out a detailed postmortem on the business and footballing side of things to understand what we can do better in all departments going forward. I guess we’ll find out what they are.

 

 

Yeah, I personally would prefer a set up where the manager makes all the big calls, especially if you have someone like Howe that I completely trust and has no doubt overperformed. But I'm harking back to the past with that sort of set up, and football is no doubt too big for that now.

 

Just on the injuries point, there were obviously a huge number of freak injuries (I'm still cursing Pope's injury) in a squad already stretched in a European competition we had no right to get to this soon and without the quality in depth to make up for it.

 

We all know that, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they've wanted to see if there are ways they were looking to improve here too, like they'll want to in every area. Given we're still playing catch up from years of neglect, it's all part of trying to get the most out of what you've got, isn't it? So, I do get your point.

[Dr Venkman]

If you need to build a really strong, competitive team whilst not being allowed to spend as much as your rivals, there surely can’t be many better options for head coach than Eddie? He’s exceptional at developing players.

[Memphis]

I will say the Athletic piece here has made me a bit more concerned about the situation. In it, Waugh includes the full transcript of several questions and answers I haven't seen elsewhere. 

 

That's rather more alarming than I initially thought. Didn't rule out being gone before the start of the season. 

 

Again, he's couching it as "having to work for Newcastle" but it certainly sounds more like it has to work for him.

 

And again he points out that being allowed to have a huge amount of control is the way he wants to work, and he's just not sure that's going to be allowed to continue.

 

I do think after reading the quotes there is a bit more to the story than I thought at first.

[TRon]

2 hours ago, ponsaelius said:

I have no issue with the club if they have some reservations long term.

 

Clubs should always back their managers but they also shouldn't do it to the extent where it places all power in one individual and makes continuity difficult when said manager goes (which they are always at risk of). The structures in place at a football club should be able to continue when an individual leaves. It seems to me that's what is trying to be put in place this summer.

 

Love Eddie but he must surely realise this is how all big football clubs operate.

 

Yep. I don't blame Eddie for setting his boundaries, but ultimately he's going to have to operate within the bigger structure. I'm sure we will do everything possible to keep him, but we've brought in Mitchell and Bunce for a reason. They'll have their roles, and ultimately Howe's role is coaching.

[timnufc22]

Like I say, I understand the positives and concept of bringing someone like Mitchel in and Bunce, even if you think that a DoF should have final say over player recruitment isn't necessarily the point here. It's the fact they've clearly had no detailed discussion with Howe over what the boundaries will be with a new DoF and whether he'll be happy with that. When I say boundaries I mean final say on player recruitment. I understand different scenarios may come up in other areas but this is the main thing. Would Howe really have made those comments if the board had said to him categorically "we're bringing in a new DoF to replace Ashworth but you have total assurances that any player signed will only be with your explicit agreement"?

 

The second thing is Bunce as director of performance. Have they really sat down with Howe and said along the lines of "We're bringing in a director of performance this summer who will primarily look at fitness; they will include giving suggestions around training levels and structure and making amended to this to minimise injuries, as well schedules around injury recovery"?

 

It doesn't look like any of this was firmly drawn up and agreed, which to me is a mess and I don't know what they're playing at. It looks reckless to me and dare I say almost unprofessional. The point isn't about appointing Mitchell in principle, its about the way he's been appointed and the process.

[Upthemags]

11 minutes ago, timnufc22 said:

Like I say, I understand the positives and concept of bringing someone like Mitchel in and Bunce, even if you think that a DoF should have final say over player recruitment isn't necessarily the point here. It's the fact they've clearly had no detailed discussion with Howe over what the boundaries will be with a new DoF and whether he'll be happy with that. When I say boundaries I mean final say on player recruitment. I understand different scenarios may come up in other areas but this is the main thing. Would Howe really have made those comments if the board had said to him categorically "we're bringing in a new DoF to replace Ashworth but you have total assurances that any player signed will only be with your explicit agreement"?

 

The second thing is Bunce as director of performance. Have they really sat down with Howe and said along the lines of "We're bringing in a director of performance this summer who will primarily look at fitness; they will include giving suggestions around training levels and structure and making amended to this to minimise injuries, as well schedules around injury recovery"?

 

It doesn't look like any of this was firmly drawn up and agreed, which to me is a mess and I don't know what they're playing at. It looks reckless to me and dare I say almost unprofessional. The point isn't about appointing Mitchell in principle, its about the way he's been appointed and the process.

Appointing a DoF and fitness chief is run of the mill club business. Very few managers in the world have the kind of pull, clout, talent, where a club needs to sit them down and get their approval beforehand. Eddie is not one of those managers, good as he is.

 

This will all work out fine I'm convinced. Just need the new blood to settle in, and assuming their isn't a seismic shift in the way operations are run, looks like Eddie will be sticking around

[The Prophet]

1 hour ago, Memphis said:

I will say the Athletic piece here has made me a bit more concerned about the situation. In it, Waugh includes the full transcript of several questions and answers I haven't seen elsewhere. 

 

That's rather more alarming than I initially thought. Didn't rule out being gone before the start of the season. 

 

Again, he's couching it as "having to work for Newcastle" but it certainly sounds more like it has to work for him.

 

And again he points out that being allowed to have a huge amount of control is the way he wants to work, and he's just not sure that's going to be allowed to continue.

 

I do think after reading the quotes there is a bit more to the story than I thought at first.

 

Is there though?

 

If you read the full interview, it's pretty much a cut and paste of his others. He's committed, he wants the best for the club, but he wants communication and boundaries drawn following the recent changes.

[Lush Vlad]

I’d forgotten how insufferable Craig ‘No’ Hope is.