Eddie Howe

[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.

[J7]

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 July 20 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.

[J7]

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.

[Matt1892]

When a club wants to change the set up behind the scenes it is likely to upset the incumbent manager, especially if it isn’t a way they want to work.

 

The difficulty for the club is how they manage the situation, they have a popular manager in place when they want a first team coach.

[Alberto2005]

I'm interested to know what Howe wants, I disagree if he's wanting to have complete control over signings. I'm not saying that's the case btw.

[KaKa]

Because of how awful Bruce was, we couldn't hire a Sporting Director prior to getting a manager in, which would have been the ideal way of going about things.

 

Howe came in first and settled into a way of working with Amanda and Mehrdad acting as defacto sporting directors, that essentially let him operate however he wanted.

 

On top of that Howe's history coming through at Bournemouth, is one where he had to take on a lot and have control over a lot of areas, and where he did delegate it was to people he was close with and knew well.

 

Ultimately, this way of working is not going to work at a bigger club, or one aiming for that kind of standard at least.

 

We'll soon find out if he is able to adjust or not. If not he'll have to work at clubs that are willing to let him run/control the whole show, and these are increasingly few and far between, and lower down the table.

[TRon]

3 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

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. 

 

It's understandable that Howe will have reservations, his only concern is to produce results, not look after the financials. For him, a Kieron Trippier or an Almiron are still assets on the pitch, but further up the hierarchy, if we could have got £30m for them in January, that's £30m we won't get 6 months down the line, and then we are forced to sell appreciating assets instead.

 

No one is in the wrong here, but I think for a healthy football club everyone needs to stick within their lanes and let the experts do the jobs they were hired for.

[Cf]

6 hours ago, Abacus said:

 

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.

 

Looking at your Guardiolas, Klopps, Artetas... Aren't they making all the big calls?

 

They're not some Brighton style where you can just swap the coaches in and out. They've made those teams in their images with long term projects. Yeah for sure there'll be teams behind them but they're very much in the driving seat, no? They're way more than the guy who takes training and pick the team. 

 

That's my one concern with Eales' comments about Eddie being best on the grass. I don't want us to have this mindset where the manager is an easily rotatable piece. 

[brummie]

3 minutes ago, Cf said:

 

Looking at your Guardiolas, Klopps, Artetas... Aren't they making all the big calls?

 

They're not some Brighton style where you can just swap the coaches in and out. They've made those teams in their images with long term projects. Yeah for sure there'll be teams behind them but they're very much in the driving seat, no? They're way more than the guy who takes training and pick the team. 

 

That's my one concern with Eales' comments about Eddie being best on the grass. I don't want us to have this mindset where the manager is an easily rotatable piece. 

 

They are, and I don't know about Liverpool and Arsenal, but re Guardiola, City have an enormous, slick off-pitch management organisation in place to support their manager.

 

Even they, with literally unending money, saw the importance of building a big structure to support the team.

 

One of the first things their new owners did was go out and take chunks of Barcelona's management structure and build around it.

[The Butcher]

After watching this I'm not worried at all. 

[midds]

I think there's been a lot of upheaval around the club in the last 6 months and he's still, understandably, a bit unsure as to how it's going to fit together and work over the next few months. New SD in Mitchell as well as losing 2 key allies in Staveley and Mehrdad from the board is going to have an effect. I don't think he'll go by any stretch but he's got legit concerns as to how decisions will be made and by whom. Don't blame him at all for keeping his cards close to his chest and being a bit cagey, he's just got to make sure we have a good start to the season and let the FA pick someone else

[janpawel]

46 minutes ago, Cf said:

 

Looking at your Guardiolas, Klopps, Artetas... Aren't they making all the big calls?

 

They're not some Brighton style where you can just swap the coaches in and out. They've made those teams in their images with long term projects. Yeah for sure there'll be teams behind them but they're very much in the driving seat, no? They're way more than the guy who takes training and pick the team. 

 

That's my one concern with Eales' comments about Eddie being best on the grass. I don't want us to have this mindset where the manager is an easily rotatable piece. 

Mentioned previously how Liverpool fans say their current DOF previously left them as him and Klopp didn't see eye to eye

 

He was responsible for mane, Salah, wijnaldum, fabinho, matip, selling coutinho for van Disney /Allison etc 

 

Klopp got Diaz, kept Henderson forever, nunez etc

 

Now klopp left, he has came back... 

 

A great manager doesn't mean they are great at necessarily having the football clubs at heart / moving them forwards

 

Having said this, I am NOT saying how is this brexit / must keep Wilson /Miggy type of person etc.. These are rumours at best really and we don't know how he truly thinks 

[OoOGazOoO]

Only really just caught up with the interview, the main take out from me is the sentence featuring "Working out boundaries", I imagine there is or could be something which is different to his optimal, but 'this is me telling you about it publicly'. Don't necessarily think it is a negative call out, just probably part and parcel of people departing and new people arriving. They may potentially be puffing out their feathers and trying to flex their muscle a bit, and Howe is trying to assert a bit of dominance.