Eddie Howe

[Yorkie]

46 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

despite spending a quarter of a billion last summer to try and improve the squad. 

 

If you're going to keep talking in these terms why don't you at least refer to the net spend (~£90m)? And why won't you acknowledge that the team was always going to get worse when Isak left, regardless of who came in?

 

I'm not saying the signings have been good but referring exclusively to the spend and removing all other factors is extremely selective.

[Fak]

Is Howe in charge of transfer fees?

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Yorkie said:

 

If you're going to keep talking in these terms why don't you at least refer to the net spend? And why won't you acknowledge that the team was always going to get worse when Isak left, regardless of who came in?

 

I'm not saying the signings have been good but referring exclusively to the spend and removing all other factors is extremely selective.

Fair critique, we ended up with 130m net I think? 

 

I don't think anyone expected us to be able to replace Isak like for like, but that's the point where your leaning on the manager to come up with something, not just plug in too inferior players and say crack on. Even if we took this naive approach I still wouldn't expect such a fall off and that's the rub. 

 

Morons like True Geordie aside I haven't seen many people (particularly on here) dismiss the mitigations, it's more a question of does the mitigation warrant such a underperformance and those skeptical amongst us have concluded no, not to this extent. 

[Yorkie]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Fair critique, we ended up with 130m net I think? 

 

I don't think anyone expected us to be able to replace Isak like for like, but that's the point where your leaning on the manager to come up with something, not just plug in too inferior players and say crack on. Even if we took this naive approach I still wouldn't expect such a fall off and that's the rub. 

 

Morons like True Geordie aside I haven't seen many people (particularly on here) dismiss the mitigations, it's more a question of does the mitigation warrant such a underperformance and those skeptical amongst us have concluded no, not to this extent. 

 

I agree with basically everything you've said, my point is about the bit in bold.

[r0cafella]

Just now, Yorkie said:

 

I agree with basically everything you've said, my point is about the bit in bold.

That's the thing Yorks, I don't think anyone on here (from what I recall reading) is dismissing them. personally I can't be arsed writing a proviso at the start of every post acknowledging them. 

 

I use this place as my yardstick because by in large I know the people posting on here support the club and aren't bots farming for engagement, the same can't be said for other cesspits. 

[Curva Sud Milano]

3 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

I wouldn't call it Bizarre personally, to me the decision to keep him is the payment coming due, he's done a lot for us and our owners are obviously aware of that hence wanting to be as patient as possible. 

 

The Woltemade thing makes no sense to be as seems to be a much bigger issue than it actually is. I like the lad and think he's a talent but him being moved on isn't going to make or break anything and thus I struggle to care too much about his future with us :lol: 

 

Perhaps I'm seeing things from an Italian perspective but I assure you that if a major Italian club had spent as much as Liverpool this year, Slot would have been sacked before Christmas. I find Liverpool's decision to keep him all season absurd and incomprehensible and I'm very surprised their fans didn't take to the streets en masse.

Regarding Howe the decision to keep him isn't as absurd or unspeakable as Liverpool's... it's certainly less serious, but I truly believe it's bizarre and risky. It's based (as you say) on a debt of gratitude that exposes your work to enormous risks, besides being unrewarding ("We're keeping you because we're grateful to you, not because you're an excellent coach").

As for Wolte, his sale isn't a technical disaster... it's a financial disaster.

[Ben]

2 minutes ago, Curva Sud Milano said:

 

Perhaps I'm seeing things from an Italian perspective but I assure you that if a major Italian club had spent as much as Liverpool this year, Slot would have been sacked before Christmas. I find Liverpool's decision to keep him all season absurd and incomprehensible and I'm very surprised their fans didn't take to the streets en masse.

Regarding Howe the decision to keep him isn't as absurd or unspeakable as Liverpool's... it's certainly less serious, but I truly believe it's bizarre and risky. It's based (as you say) on a debt of gratitude that exposes your work to enormous risks, besides being unrewarding ("We're keeping you because we're grateful to you, not because you're an excellent coach").

As for Wolte, his sale isn't a technical disaster... it's a financial disaster.

 

TBF there is no indication Wolte will be sold and if he is we dont know the fee, so talk of financial disaster is premature 

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, Curva Sud Milano said:

 

Perhaps I'm seeing things from an Italian perspective but I assure you that if a major Italian club had spent as much as Liverpool this year, Slot would have been sacked before Christmas. I find Liverpool's decision to keep him all season absurd and incomprehensible and I'm very surprised their fans didn't take to the streets en masse.

Regarding Howe the decision to keep him isn't as absurd or unspeakable as Liverpool's... it's certainly less serious, but I truly believe it's bizarre and risky. It's based (as you say) on a debt of gratitude that exposes your work to enormous risks, besides being unrewarding ("We're keeping you because we're grateful to you, not because you're an excellent coach").

As for Wolte, his sale isn't a technical disaster... it's a financial disaster.

I can see what you mean from the Italian perspective, particularly in the Liverpool case. 

 

I also believe stocking with Eddie is risky but so is sacking him, the ownership probably concluded sticking is the lesser of the two evils. 

 

For Wolte, if Bayern are keen I can imagine we break even on an accounting bases however if they aren't interested we have an expensive problem. Signs point to us not changing our approach tactically so Woltemade is almost dead weight for us. 

[Kid Icarus]

The mitigations have been ignored plenty like. It's not about prefacing what's said with an acknowledgement of them before making a point, it's about the point itself undermining any notion of acknowledging the mitigating circumstances. Eg, that Howe 'got what he wanted and then wasted x, y, and z'

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

The mitigations have been ignored plenty like. It's not about prefacing what's said with an acknowledgement of them before making a point, it's about the point itself undermining any notion of acknowledging the mitigating circumstances. Eg, that Howe 'got what he wanted and then wasted x, y, and z'

That's where the difference in opinion come in no? I perfectly understand the mitigations as mentioned I just don't agree they warrant such a poor campaign. 

 

And it's fine right, I respect your opinion and the other posters who are rock solid with what they believe. 

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, r0cafella said:

That's where the difference in opinion come in no? I perfectly understand the mitigations as mentioned I just don't agree they warrant such a poor campaign. 

 

And it's fine right, I respect your opinion and the other posters who are rock solid with what they believe. 

I know you do, my point is just there are plenty who have said things and continue to say things that do disregard those mitigating circumstances altogether.

[Curva Sud Milano]

12 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

For Wolte, if Bayern are keen I can imagine we break even on an accounting bases however if they aren't interested we have an expensive problem. Signs point to us not changing our approach tactically so Woltemade is almost dead weight for us. 

 

Do you think that Rummenigge, after calling you "idiots" for the amount spent on Wolte (who was coming off a great season), wants to spend a sum close to what you paid after he had a terrible season? As I said before, it could only happen if he has a great World Cup, and by great World Cup I mean being decisive in the games that matter, not scoring a hat-trick against Iran.

 

 

Edited May 4 by Curva Sud Milano

[r0cafella]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

I know you do, my point is just there are plenty who have said things and continue to say things that do disregard those mitigating circumstances altogether.

On here? Maybe I am too selective with the comments I read  Or tend to take those comments in the immediate aftermath of games with a dose of salt. 

 

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, r0cafella said:

On here? Maybe I am too selective with the comments I read  Or tend to take those comments in the immediate aftermath of games with a dose of salt. 

 

Yeah very much so on here. I know because I'm incapable of not replying to them when it happens and making the same points ad nauseum.

[r0cafella]

Just now, Curva Sud Milano said:

 

Do you think that Rummenigge, after calling you idiots for the amount spent on Wolte (who was coming off a great season), wants to spend a sum close to what you paid after he had a terrible season? As I said before, it could only happen if he has a great World Cup, and by great World Cup I mean being decisive in the games that matter, not scoring a hat-trick against Iran.

I mean that old man has a big mouth, what do you want to do?

 

Joking aside, they can pay us 14m less than what we paid and we break even. If my memory serves me that's less than the gap in the valuations between Bayern and Stuttgart last summer. Bayern are also sending Jackson back to Chelsea and Kane is a year old, they might want to do something. 

[Wallsendmag]

The loss of one player should never account for such a massive drop off from one season to the next, especially when all of the money from the sale, and more, was given to the manager to be reinvested.

 

If the loss of one player can cause what we've watched this season then the entire project (on the field) was built on sand.

 

Facts are we are playing in a totally different way now, and it's to our detriment. We don't attack as a team, we don't defend as a team (pressing from the front), our midfield can't control a game, our wing play is poor, and our goalkeepers are shambolic, Pope's decline started well before this season and should have been addressed, and Ramsdale was never the answer.

 

If they are backing Howe, and the signs are that they are, they need to give him all of next season unless we find ourselves in the relegation zone. No point in us being 14th in October or going into Xmas time and then they decide to pull the plug. However if we are 14th or thereabouts after 38 games he should be replaced. We simply can't afford another season like this one, performances or results wise.

[r0cafella]

Just now, Wallsendmag said:

The loss of one player should never account for such a massive drop off from one season to the next, especially when all of the money from the sale, and more, was given to the manager to be reinvested.

 

If the loss of one player can cause what we've watched this season then the entire project (on the field) was built on sand.

 

Facts are we are playing in a totally different way now, and it's to our detriment. We don't attack as a team, we don't defend as a team (pressing from the front), our midfield can't control a game, our wing play is poor, and our goalkeepers are shambolic, Pope's decline started well before this season and should have been addressed, and Ramsdale was never the answer.

 

If they are backing Howe, and the signs are that they are, they need to give him all of next season unless we find ourselves in the relegation zone. No point in us being 14th in October or going into Xmas time and then they decide to pull the plug. However if we are 14th or thereabouts after 38 games he should be replaced. We simply can't afford another season like this one, performances or results wise.

I think they have to keep an eye on the gap between us and the European places. If the points gap ever looks insurmountable that's the point you call it a day imo. 

 

If it continues in its current guise it can't be allowed to linger until the end of next season imo. 

[Hanshithispantz]

Howe wanted Trafford and Guehi but Mitchel blocked them both. Like it's pretty obvious that Howe has failed this season regardless of how bad the summer was, but I think people are under playing what actually did happen during that window and the one before it. 

[SUPERTOON]

1 minute ago, Hanshithispantz said:

Howe wanted Trafford and Guehi but Mitchel blocked them both. Like it's pretty obvious that Howe has failed this season regardless of how bad the summer was, but I think people are under playing what actually did happen during that window and the one before it. 

Not sure he blocked the Guehi deal tbf. Palace just wanted money we wouldn’t and couldn’t afford to pay. My main issue with last summer is the drop off in quality between who tried and failed to sign, to who we ended up signing. Elanga in particular. 

[Wallsendmag]

Just now, SUPERTOON said:

Not sure he blocked the Guehi deal tbf. Palace just wanted money we wouldn’t and couldn’t afford to pay. My main issue with last summer is the drop off in quality between who tried and failed to sign, to who we ended up signing. Elanga in particular. 

 

Aye I was always under the impression that Parish didn't particularly want to deal with us, Palace being one of the clubs opposed to our owners. Also Guehi didn't really push things so a deal was never really on the cards.

[The Prophet]

7 hours ago, Zero said:

You can say Eddie deserves the chance but you really can’t ignore the huge risk behind this decision. 
 

I mean, no one wants Eddie / the club to fail. None. We all hope it works. We just can’t ignore what has happened this season and say this is a decision without risk.

 

 

 

 

No decision is risk free.

[Cf]

The money spent argument also completely ignores the absolutely hollowed out squad we were left with from the Ashley era.

 

No-one is doubting we spent money but we started with a relegation squad.

[Yorkie]

1 hour ago, r0cafella said:

That's the thing Yorks, I don't think anyone on here (from what I recall reading) is dismissing them. personally I can't be arsed writing a proviso at the start of every post acknowledging them. 

 

TheBB said "we spent a quarter of a million to improve the squad" which isn't even true, let alone dismissing mitigation. 

 

45 minutes ago, Wallsendmag said:

The loss of one player should never account for such a massive drop off from one season to the next, especially when all of the money from the sale, and more, was given to the manager to be reinvested.

 

If the loss of one player can cause what we've watched this season then the entire project (on the field) was built on sand.

 

I wasn't saying this. 

[The Prophet]

Just now, Cf said:

The money spent argument also completely ignores the absolutely hollowed out squad we were left with from the Ashley era.

 

No-one is doubting we spent money but we started with a relegation squad.

 

Aye, squad cost and wage bill are more accurate measures. Granted that has likely gone up after the summer.

 

Gross spend tends to be used in bad faith, particularly as it ignores half of that summer spend was to replace Isak.

[Yorkie]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

 

Aye, squad cost and wage bill are more accurate measures. Granted that has likely gone up after the summer.

 

Gross spend tends to be used in bad faith, particularly as it ignores half of that summer spend was to replace Isak*

 

*with only a selection of obviously far inferior players to choose from.