Eddie Howe

[Dr Jinx]

39 minutes ago, Zero said:

 

We decided not to sell Big Jol, and instead extended his contract, because of Howe. Ashworths original plan was to sell at Jan to meet the PSR requirement. 
 

Howe got no right to be upset for selling Anderson imo.

No I think they expected someone to trigger Bruno’s release fee. Hence the cut off date.

 

Big Joe is harder to replace in some respects due to him being an absolute beast of a man.

 

Bruno can only run the show when those other ingredients are beside him.

[Zero]

13 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

No I think they expected someone to trigger Bruno’s release fee. Hence the cut off date.

 

Big Joe is harder to replace in some respects due to him being an absolute beast of a man.

 

Bruno can only run the show when those other ingredients are beside him.

 

Ashworths original plan was not to give Joe a new contract and cash in in Jan. Have that plan materialised, we won’t need to make further sale in June no matter Bruno release clause was triggered or not. We don’t need to gamble our luck in June and hence make urgent sales at deadline.

 

I mean it’s fine to scrap the sales plan in favour of Howe. But the consequence, in hindsight, was the sales of Minteh and Anderson. It’s really fine because under the current PSR we cannot keep all of them. BUT, Howe cannot blame the club for this. The club altered the plan because of him. Or should the club keep Joe, Bruno and Anderson and then get the rumoured 10 points penalty?
 

 

 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by Zero

[Wallace]

I think the injuries in January may also have had an impact on the PSR situation.  Some of those we might have sold were injured and others were needed due to the lack of cover.

 

I guess they were hoping that there would be interest in other players before having to sell Anderson and Minteh but the players most would be happy to see leave probably won’t go until other club’s preferred options are no longer available.  They are the players that move in the last week of the season.

[Tiresias]

Howe could be frustrated with the commercial side not getting the revenue up quick enough, and Howe is entitled to be upset we had to sell for PSR, i think we all are a bit upset at that but yeah not sure what else the club could do at that point. 

 

It is worth pointing out that if true that the plan was selling Joelinton Howe is absolutely in the right, we will need to sell a star at some point but don't understand the rush to. 

[Coffee_Johnny]

48 minutes ago, Cf said:

 

I never said he was a callous duplicitous liar, just that he lies through his teeth to the media

 

 

My summary does sound a bit harsh, and I didn’t imagine you did mean that (in such stark terms). But you did say that he say he lies through his teeth, says the opposite of what he really means, and implied he had no consideration for his outgoing players. 🤷‍♂️ 

[The Prophet]

Some snippets from Douglas' latest article:

 

"The first priority – which has been initially addressed in the last couple of days – is surely now to make sure everyone is on the same page after the appointment of Paul Mitchell and James Bunce to key roles in the football operation."

 

...

 

"And that is the bigger issue at play here. How happy were those in positions of real influence at Newcastle at how the 2023-4 season went?

 

A 7th place finish was about par for them but there was disappointment at the way the club went out of all three knockout competitions, where they were sabotaged by injuries. Poor recruitment and miscalculations in previous transfer windows left them hamstrung."

 

...

 

"Enter Mitchell, who seemed personable and clued up when he chatted to journalists in Germany. His CV is impressive and he brings very different skills than Ashworth did. He is a contacts man – “not necessarily a 10-year appointment,” according to one source i spoke to last week – and has been brought in offer fresh insight and expertise in recruitment."

 

...

 

"Ultimately the club will live or die this season on their recruitment. i understands there is a decent transfer budget to bring in “quality over quantity” – the current thinking that two or three players who can immediately challenge for the first team need to come in.:

 

 

[SUPERTOON]

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Some snippets from Douglas' latest article:

 

"The first priority – which has been initially addressed in the last couple of days – is surely now to make sure everyone is on the same page after the appointment of Paul Mitchell and James Bunce to key roles in the football operation."

 

...

 

"And that is the bigger issue at play here. How happy were those in positions of real influence at Newcastle at how the 2023-4 season went?

 

A 7th place finish was about par for them but there was disappointment at the way the club went out of all three knockout competitions, where they were sabotaged by injuries. Poor recruitment and miscalculations in previous transfer windows left them hamstrung."

 

...

 

"Enter Mitchell, who seemed personable and clued up when he chatted to journalists in Germany. His CV is impressive and he brings very different skills than Ashworth did. He is a contacts man – “not necessarily a 10-year appointment,” according to one source i spoke to last week – and has been brought in offer fresh insight and expertise in recruitment."

 

...

 

"Ultimately the club will live or die this season on their recruitment. i understands there is a decent transfer budget to bring in “quality over quantity” – the current thinking that two or three players who can immediately challenge for the first team need to come in.:

 

 

Interesting those in the club feel we had a poor window last summer. Quite a split on here over that.

[The Prophet]

1 minute ago, SUPERTOON said:

Interesting those in the club feel we had a poor window last summer. Quite a split on here over that.

 

It says transfer windows as a collective, so perhaps it's not recruiting in certain positions over a certain number of windows.

[SUPERTOON]

Just now, The Prophet said:

 

It says transfer windows as a collective, so perhaps it's not recruiting in certain positions over a certain number of windows.

Possibly, only RW I can think of though that we haven’t directly strengthened. 

[The College Dropout]

Lines up with my assumptions. 
 

If we finished 4th or 5th. Would we have seen so many changes? If our signings made a bigger impact would we have got a transfer guy to replace Ashworth (not a transfer guy)?  Did the rush to sell players at the last worry some people at PIF? 
 

While I think we signed good to great players last summer.  The window didn’t make enough sense and wasn’t joined up. In time it will prove its value imo.  

[The College Dropout]

I don’t think any of last summers signings have made the impact Tripps, Isak and Bruno made. 
 

We needed a starting left back but we signed a boy that spent most of the season on the bench and wasn’t ready. 

Weve needed a starting RW for some time. We spent that money on a LW that often sat on the bench when fit. 
 

Dropped a massive bag on a lad that got a years suspension. 
 

Livramento was a great signing on paper. But Howe seemed reluctant to utilise him fully. 
 

Again if we were happy with the transfer activity I don’t think we get a transfer guy in Mitchell.  

[Conjo]

10 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Interesting those in the club feel we had a poor window last summer. Quite a split on here over that.

 

In hindsight it wasn't due to the unprecedented amount of injuries + our main signing of the summer getting banned for 10 months. When the summer window closed I thought it was pretty decent though.

[The College Dropout]

I do think Howe thought Hall would be ready and it became clear that he wasn’t.  But that happens when you sign boys. We needed a Kelly type signing.  
 

[Checko]

Howe tends to play the media with a straighter bat than Geoffrey Boycott in a drag club. That's what's really so notable about his comments for me, not the specifics of what he said but that he would publicly allude to dissatisfaction at all.

 

[Holmesy]

The signing of Barnes over a quality right winger was the only signing that on the face of it looked a bit shortsighted. II'm sure he'll turn out to be a worthwhile signing, but it was clear our right side wasn't strong enough at the time, and that remains our biggest issue even now. So, why double up on the left when we had so many others who can play there?

We're like a Ferrari with a space-saver wheel on the front driver's side (Unless Dan Burn plays LB, in which case we've got a space-saver wheel on the front right and a monster truck one on the back left).

[The Prophet]

9 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Lines up with my assumptions. 
 

If we finished 4th or 5th. Would we have seen so many changes? If our signings made a bigger impact would we have got a transfer guy to replace Ashworth (not a transfer guy)?  Did the rush to sell players at the last worry some people at PIF? 
 

While I think we signed good to great players last summer.  The window didn’t make enough sense and wasn’t joined up. In time it will prove its value imo.  

 

I'd say its reasonable to assume employing a Performance Director is probably a direct result of last season.

 

Mitchell has been brought into replace Ashworth and it seems Stavely sold her shares for financial reasons. Given we were linked with Freedman since around February, it appears we wanted a recruitment focused Sporting Director regardless.

 

Unfortunately it's all just come at the same time and resulted in a lot of upheaval.

 

The article doesn't mention the last transfer window specifically, but our transfer windows as a collective. It's probably referring to stuff such as not upgrading the right wing and relying on Wilson as second choice striker. Waugh said this morning Mitchell is completing a squad audit, which ties in with that.

[Checko]

Also, re our last summer window, let's face it, we spent a ton of money swapping one decent winger for another, bought two backup fullbacks and a super expensive Italian who didn't speak English and didn't particularly want to move from his club. There was always a good chance Tonali would struggle to settle in his first year, even without the betting thing.

 

It could turn out to be a good long-term window if Hall and Tino establish themselves and Tonali comes back good, but with champions league to offer signings, we didn't really strike while the iron was hot in terms of bolstering the first team with ready-to-go champions league quality players.

[The Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

The signing of Barnes over a quality right winger was the only signing that on the face of it looked a bit shortsighted. II'm sure he'll turn out to be a worthwhile signing, but it was clear our right side wasn't strong enough at the time, and that remains our biggest issue even now. So, why double up on the left when we had so many others who can play there?

We're like a Ferrari with a space-saver wheel on the front driver's side (Unless Dan Burn plays LB, in which case we've got a space-saver wheel on the front right and a monster truck one on the back left).

 

Once we sold ASM, we needed a left winger.

[Cf]

35 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

My summary does sound a bit harsh, and I didn’t imagine you did mean that (in such stark terms). But you did say that he say he lies through his teeth, says the opposite of what he really means, and implied he had no consideration for his outgoing players. 🤷‍♂️ 

 

My "translations" were tongue in cheek to a degree and I imagine Howe cares deeply for his players, current and former. But you've also got to have that cold streak of doing what is best for the team. If that means someone is surplus to requirements then they have to go. It's possible to do this whilst being respectful, speaking highly of them, etc.

 

He'll never say e.g. of Anderson in public that he was let go due to being the expendable one due to a factor of PSR and not being quite good enough, but I imagine in the background that's the conversation that was had. Obviously publicly he'll go with "good player, disappointed to lose him, etc, etc". I guess that's my point: we shouldn't read into such quotes as being Howe was against that transfer.

 

(The quotes about club structure etc are a different matter - that felt like a kettle of fish he opened intentionally)

 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Cf

[Holmesy]

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Once we sold ASM, we needed a left winger.

We had Gordon. And Willock, Anderson, Isak (obviously we don't want him to play there) and Joelinton can all cover left. We had just signed a new CM, which frees one of Joelinton/Willock up to do that if needed.

On the right we've got two players who are bottom half PL quality if that, and no one else for cover. It was a strange position to prioritise.

[Optimistic Nut]

4 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

We had Gordon. And Willock, Anderson, Isak (obviously we don't want him to play there) and Joelinton can all cover left. We had just signed a new CM, which frees one of Joelinton/Willock up to do that if needed.

On the right we've got two players who are bottom half PL quality if that, and no one else for cover. It was a strange position to prioritise.

 

Willock was already out for 3 months, that breaks down the Willock/Joelinton combination and switching places as the other wingers can't do that. Isak is the main striker with an injury prone back up so doesn't really free him up. Anderson was unproven with no numbers to back up his potential. 

 

Gordon is a better fit at RW than most of those "cover" options.are at LW and Barnes is better than most at LW. 

 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Optimistic Nut

[The College Dropout]

4 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Once we sold ASM, we needed a left winger.

I don’t agree. Especially not at that price. 
 

Gordon was the ASM replacement.  And neither were regular starters the previous season. If we needed a replacement for him sitting on the bench - it shouldn’t be £40m+ on 80k+.  
 

Having £90m of LW since the takeover and £0m of RW since the takeover doesn’t make any sense. Barnes will cost £12-13m per season FFP wise - it’s a heck of a lot for a rotation option.  
 

I thought Howe planned to start Gordon RW - but he clearly didn’t and doesn’t. 

[The Prophet]

1 minute ago, Holmesy said:

We had Gordon. And Willock, Anderson, Isak (obviously we don't want him to play there) and Joelinton can all cover left. We had just signed a new CM, which frees one of Joelinton/Willock up to do that if needed.

On the right we've got two players who are bottom half PL quality if that, and no one else for cover. It was a strange position to prioritise.

 

If we rewind to last summer, Gordon was still trying to nail down his position in the team. We had Joelinton and Willock who are midfielders by trade as options, or we could play our best player out of position. We had no recognised left winger.

 

We had Almiron and Murphy over the other side, who leave a lot to be desired in terms of quality, but are none the less established right wingers.

 

With hindsight Barnes got injured and Gordon went on to nail down the left wing spot, so we perhaps didn't need to go as big on a left winger, but hindsight is a beautiful thing 

[Cf]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

I don’t agree. Especially not at that price. 
 

Gordon was the ASM replacement.  And neither were regular starters the previous season. If we needed a replacement for him sitting on the bench - it shouldn’t be £40m+ on 80k+.  
 

Having £90m of LW since the takeover and £0m of RW since the takeover doesn’t make any sense. Barnes will cost £12-13m per season FFP wise - it’s a heck of a lot for a rotation option.  
 

I thought Howe planned to start Gordon RW - but he clearly didn’t and doesn’t. 

 

Whilst I appreciate there's other positions and priorities this is exactly the level of bench sitter we should have if we want to be at the top.

[The College Dropout]

14 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

I'd say its reasonable to assume employing a Performance Director is probably a direct result of last season.

 

Mitchell has been brought into replace Ashworth and it seems Stavely sold her shares for financial reasons. Given we were linked with Freedman since around February, it appears we wanted a recruitment focused Sporting Director regardless.

 

Unfortunately it's all just come at the same time and resulted in a lot of upheaval.

 

The article doesn't mention the last transfer window specifically, but our transfer windows as a collective. It's probably referring to stuff such as not upgrading the right wing and relying on Wilson as second choice striker. Waugh said this morning Mitchell is completing a squad audit, which ties in with that.

If Staveley was as involved as some reports have suggested and we finished 4th. I’m not certain she still leaves entirely. 
 

By Feb it was clear the window was not an immediate success. So that still lines up.  
 

Our transfer window as a collective got us to 4th the previous season. A success. Last summers has no obvious standout success story. 
 

The noise so far this summer is we are signing players for the first XI. We only signed 1 player for the first XI last summer. Thats an immediate pivot.