Eddie Howe

[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.

[Optimistic Nut]

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. 

[Weezertron]

Geordie Journos has a video out discussing the off camera press interview with Eddie. They said it was concerning vibes from Howe, whether you believe them or not. 

 

[The College Dropout]

It does sound like Howe has his back up a little bit. 
 

Pure speculation but my gut feeling is PIF considered last season a failure and have reacted to it. We spent a lot of money in the transfer market and none of the signings had the impact of Bruno, Botman, Tripppier or Isak. A partial reason why they’ve brought in a DOF who specialises in trading more.  I think PIF accept injuries were a major cause and Bunce has been brought in to mitigate that becoming a future issue. 
 

 

From what I read Staveley was a huge advocate for Howe and they were aligned on a lot of issues (Joelinton contract for example). That’s a huge loss for him. 

[ohmelads]

The quotes give off unhappy Benitez/Keegan vibes under Ashley. He'll be very tempted by the England job. England have a golden generation of players that many feel has been an opportunity missed under Southgate. In Foden they have the technical European-style midfielder that's been missing for generations and along with Bellingham, he's a generational talent with his prime ahead of him. It's looking increasingly clear that whatever Newcastle do, barriers will be put in place to ensure the cartel clubs position is untouchable and Howe is probably growing frustrated with that. Add in the turbulent and strange summer with the last minute sale of youngsters and departure of Ghodoussi and Staveley and it doesn't help us.

[Smal]

for someone who usually gives absolutely nothing away at all in his media, these are pretty pointed answers from Eddie. He clearly feels like he has to defend his position imo. 

[The Prophet]

If he's still making those kind of comments in a few weeks time, it'll be a lot more concerning.

[JJ7]

58 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, it’s iabout the way he's been appointed and the process.

Given the Sporting Director will no doubt be a major part of the fire/hire process for a manager, I’m not sure they’re going to sit down with Howe and seek approval when appointing someone to that role. It’s quite a coup to get Mitchell and like it or not, he’s not going to agree to come here and take direction from Howe. 
 

I’d like Howe to stay and work in the structure the owners (and most big clubs) want/have, but it’s the job of the owners to put the best people in post, not have a manager calling the shots. Whether post-Howe starts soon or in a few years time, they can’t just wait until he’s gone before putting the structure they want in place. It’s the most important thing for the long term. 
 

We don’t know what conversations have taken place though. I doubt Ashworth leaving was just because a new opportunity came up. I think it’s safe to assume he didn’t have the control he thought he would. Staveley going is probably linked to it all.

[timnufc22]

52 minutes ago, Upthemags said:

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

But every situation is different and has their nuances. We have a manager who likes to have a lot of control over many aspects, obviously player signings being the obvious one. With this in mind, wouldn’t you want to let him know what the structure will be going forward when appointing a new DoF? And clarify if he’d be happy to work with that structure? If they rate the structure above anything else then they’d have to make the hard decision to let Howe go, fine that’s on them sort of thing. It’s not about whether that’s right or wrong on a football level. But don’t have no detailed discussions with him, appoint Mitchell anyway and seemingly cross your fingers hoping it will all work out. 

[The Prophet]

Reading between the lines he's made this kind of play before, but he kept it internal because he had Staveley to fight his battles for him.

 

If you read the whole interview it isn't that concerning and it feels like him and Mitchell are still establishing a working relationship.

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by The Prophet

[ohmelads]

8 minutes ago, JJ7 said:

Given the Sporting Director will no doubt be a major part of the fire/hire process for a manager, I’m not sure they’re going to sit down with Howe and seek approval when appointing someone to that role. It’s quite a coup to get Mitchell and like it or not, he’s not going to agree to come here and take direction from Howe. 
 

I’d like Howe to stay and work in the structure the owners (and most big clubs) want/have, but it’s the job of the owners to put the best people in post, not have a manager calling the shots. Whether post-Howe starts soon or in a few years time, they can’t just wait until he’s gone before putting the structure they want in place. It’s the most important thing for the long term. 
 

We don’t know what conversations have taken place though. I doubt Ashworth leaving was just because a new opportunity came up. I think it’s safe to assume he didn’t have the control he thought he would. Staveley going is probably linked to it all.

 

Ashworth is apparently long term pals with Ratcliffe, who has also appointed his old mate Brailsford.

[JJ7]

Just now, ohmelads said:

 

Ashworth is apparently long term pals with Ratcliffe, who has also appointed his old mate Brailsford.

True, though there were noises at the time that he didn’t have as much control as he thought he would. Also around the PSR deadline, I read somewhere that one of the differences in views was that he was prepared for us to sell a ‘star’, whereas Howe and others wanted to resist that. 

[STM]

You'd almost think that someone in our hierarchy was offering Anthony Gordon to other clubs without the managers consent. 

[Coffee_Johnny]

13 minutes ago, Smal said:

for someone who usually gives absolutely nothing away at all in his media, these are pretty pointed answers from Eddie. He clearly feels like he has to defend his position imo. 

I don’t see any difference to standard Eddie stuff. He plays with a straight bat, whilst always diplomatic, I  really admire his honest, articulate,  humorous and assertive style. He’s a genuine person and backs himself enough to know what he is worth. 

[Elliottman]

2 hours 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.

Almost identical to the interviews you can watch with your own eyes. 

[ohmelads]

7 minutes ago, JJ7 said:

True, though there were noises at the time that he didn’t have as much control as he thought he would. Also around the PSR deadline, I read somewhere that one of the differences in views was that he was prepared for us to sell a ‘star’, whereas Howe and others wanted to resist that. 

 

Who knows, but it does look like Ratcliffe is hiring his cronies and for Ashworth, moving to a 'protected' club that can and will forever outspend us and work for his mate is a no brainer. The PSR deadline was surreal; it wasn't publicised at all until pretty much the day of it and clubs seemed to suddenly be in panic mode overnight and we were suddenly selling Minteh and Anderson. It was all very strange and makes you wonder if some clubs were contacted by the Premier League and informed of their 'situation'. It's hard to believe these wealthy clubs wouldn't have the accountants telling them this was coming. But that's another conversation.

 

To respond to the rest of your (previous) post, yes, they will want the best they can find. I just hope they look at Chelsea before making rash decisions.

[Memphis]

11 minutes ago, Elliottman said:

Almost identical to the interviews you can watch with your own eyes. 

 

But not quite, though.

 

The devil's in the details here. Howe's a very shrewd guy. He has chosen to do this. He chose to leave open the possibility he wouldn't be managing the first game. That was by design. He's sending a message to Eales and trying to make sure what he feels is his territory is honored. I certainly underestimated how the amount of turnover and the PSR stuff must have unsettled Howe. 

 

Ultimately I think he remains but with Eales saying Eddie is "at his best on the grass" and Eddie then responding like this, clearly they need to work on their communication, and fast.