Eddie Howe

[Froggy]

9 minutes ago, wormy said:

 

 Fair point. I would hope you knew at least I was doing it in jest and value you as a poster here (not to force us to the lovey dovey pukey section of stage 5). But I think any mention I've made of you of late has been a childish dig so I plan to do my part in not even slightly fuelling this tedious cycle any longer.

 

Still hate you in the Fifa thread though. 

 

I'm just honest with you. You can't hate honesty. You and your team are fodder. 

[timeEd32]

7 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

No, but if someone said City's manager had far more financial backing than Scunthorpe's, it wouldn't be true. 

 

Once again, not comparing Howe and Ten Hag at all. As good as Ten Hag's season was last year, Howe's was better. 

 

 

I struggle to drop things yes.

 

Even ignoring the different starting points (which is very relevant), you don't count wages in financial backing?

[Checko]

1 minute ago, Froggy said:

 

I'm just honest with you. You can't hate honesty. You and your team are fodder. 

I'm British and middle class. I find honesty that hasn't been thoroughly marinated in vast vats of circumspection very uncomfortable to deal with.

[Froggy]

2 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Even ignoring the different starting points (which is very relevant), you don't count wages in financial backing?

 

I was talking solely about transfer spend but wages of course count as financial backing. 

 

Look at our revenue compared to Newcastle's and see what percentage of that was given to each manager for transfers and wages. You'll need your owners to pump money in or you'll fall foul of FFP, whereas our owners will put in nothing. You could argue Howe was backed even more than Ten Hag has. 

 

We've both spent big. Simple as. 

[kocunar]

Your logic is definitely interesting. Luton town spent more percentage of their revenue on wages and transfers than Man City this year. I guess if they don't have 30 points by now, Luton's manager should be sacked. 

[timeEd32]

Just now, Froggy said:

 

I was talking solely about transfer spend but wages of course count as financial backing. 

 

Look at our revenue compared to Newcastle's and see what percentage of that was given to each manager for transfers and wages. You'll need your owners to pump money in or you'll fall foul of FFP, whereas our owners will put in nothing. You could argue Howe was backed even more than Ten Hag has. 

 

We've both spent big. Simple as. 

 

% of potential resources is comparing owners, so it's irrelevant here. This isn't a Glazers debate.

 

Man United have 9 players, almost a whole starting XI, making north of £200k/wk. NUFC have zero.

 

Man United have 15 players, nearly a whole matchday squad, making north of £100k/wk. NUFC have 5.

 

There are varying sources on this, but Man United's wage bill is conservatively £100m more per year than Newcastle's. You are lying to yourself if you think there is any kind of comparison to be made between the financial resources available to Ten Hag and Eddie Howe. And when you see this, combined with where each club was two years ago, you can see why that tweet and any attempt to defend it is complete nonsense.

[Checko]

To be fair Goldbridge didn't say 'backing', he said NUFC had "way more resources" last year. I would count salary spend as part of the club's resources [it's often seen as the most directly linkable financial figure to on-pitch performance] and Man U was second in the league, over 2 and a half times higher than Newcastle's in 22/23 (approx £213 million to £81 million) : Source - https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/chelsea-premier-league-wage-bill-30054153

 

Net transfer spend was roughly the same with Man U slightly ahead in 2022/23 but pretty negligable. I would say we certainly didn't have 'way more resources' as Goldbridge says.

 

Also his implicit point about ten Hag getting too much criticism and speculation in the media. That's fair enough, but his clickbaity videos do it as well.

 

So I would say some of his point is factually incorrect and his general point about the media is hypocritical, even if I do actually largely agree ten Hag's getting too much criticism. 

[Checko]

And back on topic, Eddie Howe has an excellent hairline.

[Froggy]

9 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

% of potential resources is comparing owners, so it's irrelevant here. This isn't a Glazers debate.

 

Eh? It's absolutely a Glazers/PIF debate. Who's financially backing the managers? Fairies at the bottom of the garden?

 

Since Ten Hag took over we've had over £1b in revenue, and he's got £400m. Since Howe took over you've had £350m in revenue, and Howe has got £400m.

 

Not sure how you don't see this as huge financial backing given that the amount you can spend directly correlates with how much revenue you make and how much money your owners put in to offset the loss. 

 

1 minute ago, Checko said:

Net transfer spend was roughly the same with Man U slightly ahead in 2022/23 but pretty negligable. I would say we certainly didn't have 'way more resources' as Goldbridge says.

 

I agree in a way. You absolutely have way more resources than we do, you're just not allowed to use them. Yet. 

[Checko]

We'll be announcing our official gold-mining partner soon enough.

[bobbydazzla]

9 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Eh? It's absolutely a Glazers/PIF debate. Who's financially backing the managers? Fairies at the bottom of the garden?

 

Since Ten Hag took over we've had over £1b in revenue, and he's got £400m. Since Howe took over you've had £350m in revenue, and Howe has got £400m.

 

Not sure how you don't see this as huge financial backing given that the amount you can spend directly correlates with how much revenue you make and how much money your owners put in to offset the loss. 

 

 

I agree in a way. You absolutely have way more resources than we do, you're just not allowed to use them. Yet. 

 

 

Before Howe took over we were a commercial void, a rotting carcass with free Shite Direct adverts plastered all over our stinking bones and our bargain basement players were having ice baths in wheely bins

 

We've had to spend £400m just to buy some players of top flight quality

 

Whereas you've got players worth hundreds of millions and earning hundreds of thousands a week stinking out your club. You've had your money and pissed it up the wall on shite. 

 

If I was the Glazers I'd be saying you can start getting some more cash when you prove you've got the brains to spend it wisely.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by bobbydazzla

[Froggy]

Just now, bobbydazzla said:

Whereas you've got players worth hundreds of millions and earning hundreds of thousands a week stinking out your club. You've pissed money up the wall on shite. 

 

Fully agree. Which is why you shouldn't use the existing squad against Ten Hag. Most of it was utter shite. Let him get rid of it all and build his own team. 

[bobbydazzla]

11 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Fully agree. Which is why you shouldn't use the existing squad against Ten Hag. Most of it was utter shite. Let him get rid of it all and build his own team. 

 

You're still vastly overpaying for shite even with Baldylocks in charge 

 

Who's he signed that's been any good relative to the size of their transfer fee ? And who from the squad he inherited has he coached to become loads better than they were ?

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by bobbydazzla

[timeEd32]

6 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Eh? It's absolutely a Glazers/PIF debate. Who's financially backing the managers? Fairies at the bottom of the garden?

 

Since Ten Hag took over we've had over £1b in revenue, and he's got £400m. Since Howe took over you've had £350m in revenue, and Howe has got £400m.

 

Not sure how you don't see this as huge financial backing given that the amount you can spend directly correlates with how much revenue you make and how much money your owners put in to offset the loss. 

 

 

I agree in a way. You absolutely have way more resources than we do, you're just not allowed to use them. Yet. 

 

Once again you're entirely skipping over wages, which is where there is a massive disparity. There's an entire group of players in world football that are simply unavailable to Newcastle due to their total cost. You have at least a handful of them.

 

You've moved the goalposts to the owners, but the original debate was about Ten Hag and also this factually incorrect line: "Newcastle is a ... club with way more resources." The idea that Newcastle has more resources is based on a theoretical pile of money that 1) we don't know how much they'd spend and, more importantly, 2) they aren't allowed to spend. In terms of actual resources that have been spent on the playing squad and everything else there is no comparison. Based on spend, Manchester United should be cemented in the top 4 and potentially challenging for titles. If you want to say Ten Hag needs more time so that money is invested in the players he wants then that's totally fair. But don't act like Eddie Howe and Newcastle are on equal footing with a club spending 2x the wages.

 

[nufc123]

2 hours ago, Froggy said:

 

I'm just saying that nothing that Goldbridge has said there is false. 

Its sort of is. When we cant afford 300k pw in wages we dont have more resources do we?

 

And one thing he doesnt mention is we sometime play half our team with Ashley signings. Your lot had Fernades, Bisska, Shaw, Maguire, Rashford before splashing. He also doesnt mention Howe took over a team on its way to CS.

[madras]

12 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Fully agree. Which is why you shouldn't use the existing squad against Ten Hag. Most of it was utter shite. Let him get rid of it all and build his own team. 

Eddie's was shite as well. He made something decent out of it.

[Froggy]

2 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

Who's he signed that's been any good ? 

 

Hojlund, Eriksen, Casemiro, Amrabat and Malacia all good signings. Casemiro could turn into a poor signing if his legs have gone already but he was very important last year despite his discipline issues 

 

Martinez looks to be a great signing, but injuries are unfortunate again. 

 

Antony is a poor signing. He's huffs and puffs but extremely underwhelming for the money paid, but he was available for half that and our board fucked it up. 

 

Jury's still out on Onana, but he's not even played half a season. Same with Mount who's struggled with injuries. 

 

7 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

And who from the squad he inherited has he coached to become loads better than they were ?

 

Most of the team last year. 

 

1 minute ago, madras said:

Eddie's was shite as well. He made something decent out of it.

 

I'm not comparing Howe and Ten Hag, but people seem really keen to. I'll say it once again, I think Ten Hag did a really good job last season. Howe did a brilliant job. 

[TheBrownBottle]

5 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

I think with the latest injury news Thursday, Sunday football is the last thing we needed this season. I’ve got no qualms about going for it and risking it all on last 16, the prize was sufficient to warrant going for broke.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think what’s getting lost on this one is that it wasn’t a display of all-out attacking football; it was just unintelligent football.  Schar and Burn were repeatedly further forward than Bruno and Joelinton.  Who is more likely to cause damage?  Schar gets caught upfield - but our completely disjointed midfield were behind him and had opportunities to stop the attack.  
 

We didn’t concede because of some heroic display of Keegan-style attacking football.  We conceded because we were stupid and naive.  Howe’s comments, for once, were not impressive on this one.  

[Menace]

Jury is completely out on Hojlund like. Still no prem goals and approaching January. Casemiro is a coin toss, he has huge wages and if you essentially got a good season out of him for north of £60m I don't think its a good signing.

[The Prophet]

This isn't the Eddie Howe thread.

[TRon]

42 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I think what’s getting lost on this one is that it wasn’t a display of all-out attacking football; it was just unintelligent football.  Schar and Burn were repeatedly further forward than Bruno and Joelinton.  Who is more likely to cause damage?  Schar gets caught upfield - but our completely disjointed midfield were behind him and had opportunities to stop the attack.  
 

We didn’t concede because of some heroic display of Keegan-style attacking football.  We conceded because we were stupid and naive.  Howe’s comments, for once, were not impressive on this one.  

 

 

well I agree with you that we were a bit brainless and naive, already said in the match thread on the day that if you have a fatigued team, it's not going to help bombing up and down the pitch. We just don't have the resources or the legs at the moment.

 

That said, I heard Howe saying that this is how we play and he doesn't want to change his philosophy on the basis of what might happen and I'm not going to argue. He's trying to drill an indentity in the players and he doesn't want them second guessing themselves.

[duo]

9 hours ago, 54 said:

In today's absolutely wild tweet:

 

 

[WideopenMag]

56 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I think what’s getting lost on this one is that it wasn’t a display of all-out attacking football; it was just unintelligent football.  Schar and Burn were repeatedly further forward than Bruno and Joelinton.  Who is more likely to cause damage?  Schar gets caught upfield - but our completely disjointed midfield were behind him and had opportunities to stop the attack.  
 

We didn’t concede because of some heroic display of Keegan-style attacking football.  We conceded because we were stupid and naive.  Howe’s comments, for once, were not impressive on this one.  

Yeah I agree with this tbh, we want to watch good football but we also want to win. We need to adapt and play smart when necessary if we want to win against top teams in finals etc

[Checko]

Just now, WideopenMag said:

Yeah I agree with this tbh, we want to watch good football but we also want to win. We need to adapt and play smart when necessary if we want to win against top teams in finals etc

Seriously? With your username?

[Whitley mag]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I think what’s getting lost on this one is that it wasn’t a display of all-out attacking football; it was just unintelligent football.  Schar and Burn were repeatedly further forward than Bruno and Joelinton.  Who is more likely to cause damage?  Schar gets caught upfield - but our completely disjointed midfield were behind him and had opportunities to stop the attack.  
 

We didn’t concede because of some heroic display of Keegan-style attacking football.  We conceded because we were stupid and naive.  Howe’s comments, for once, were not impressive on this one.  

I think we’ve been pretty well drilled for the most part under Howe’s regime defensively, but agree we’ve looked ragged in recent weeks.

 

The 2 homes against Dortmund and Milan we looked quite exposed at the back, not sure if it’s naivety or just a lack of quality to be honest, what’s stood out for me in 5 of the CL games is that we look short of real technical players, which in turn meant we starting forcing things and making errors.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Whitley mag