Bruno Guimarães

[Fezzle]

45 minutes ago, Abacus said:

It does take a bit of effort to think of the expiry of the clause as a negative, but we're pretty damn good at this by now.

If we signed mbappe for free on £50k a week somewhere on here would find fault with it. 

[gbandit]

Just now, Fezzle said:

If we signed mbappe for free on £50k a week somewhere on here would find fault with it. 

“Anyone else think that this is a sign that Mbappe’s on his way down? I get the sense he couldn’t handle the pressure at a club like Real so wanted to big a big fish in a smaller pond. I don’t know, I might be wrong but that’s how I see it”

[Fezzle]

Just now, gbandit said:

“Anyone else think that this is a sign that Mbappe’s on his way down? I get the sense he couldn’t handle the pressure at a club like Real so wanted to big a big fish in a smaller pond. I don’t know, I might be wrong but that’s how I see it”

Got to question his ambition 

[SUPERTOON]

 

[Erikse]

1 hour ago, Abacus said:

It does take a bit of effort to think of the expiry of the clause as a negative, but we're pretty damn good at this by now.

 

Might aswell put doable clauses in every contract. That way we won't have to sell our players on the cheap. I for sure won't be getting any sleep until they finally put a £100m buyout clause in Isaks contract to end my fears of him getting sold for £50m.

 

 

Edited June 25 by Erikse

[Kanj]

Only N-O would be worried about release clause, then, it expire. And then reset worry and repeat the manic behavior. 

[GideonShandy]

3 hours ago, Tiresias said:

Is it worth noting that Louise Taylor in the guardian is still reporting that the release clause ends at the end of June?

She has used "end of June" before in a general sense, meaning somewhere towards the end of the month.  She also reported that he'd bought a new house when he hadn't.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/26/eddie-howe-optimistic-guimaraes-will-stay-at-newcastle-this-summer

 

Not Worrying.

[lxsln]

Will the release clause start over next year?

[Gawalls]

4 hours ago, Fezzle said:

If we signed mbappe for free on £50k a week somewhere on here would find fault with it. 

Are we trying to save money on vowels for the back of the shirts now for Christ sake - you can’t run a club like this.

[Abacus]

4 minutes ago, Gawalls said:

Are we trying to save money on vowels for the back of the shirts now for Christ sake - you can’t run a club like this.

 Well, we've never once signed Jérémie Aliadière.

 

Questions must be asked.

[KaKa]

10 hours ago, Yorkie said:

Let's see what happens now we don't have the leverage to demand £100m.

 

Would love to see the lad turning out for us again next season, but a bit worried that he'll have been playing relentlessly for ages, come the end of Copa America. 

 

We need to become less reliant on him whether we sell him or don't.

 

The release clause was the value deal.

 

His actual value to the club will be higher than the release clause fee.

 

Typically the release clause agreed with a player is a compromise, to make it more straightforward for them to leave if certain clubs come in for them.

 

The release clause expiring doesn't mean we are more vulnerable to lower bids. You can still accept lower bids even with a release clause in place.

[HayDen Traces]

Retaining Bruno and Isak this window shows just how far we've come in a few short years.

Under Ashley they'd both have been stripped for parts and sold a long time ago...

[Menace]

Still plenty of time to be fair 😏

[Dokko]

I'm guessing with the last minute panic from the club and Bruno's previous comments about maybe having to leave, then the club always thought someone would trigger the release clause and he'd be someone else's payer right now. 

[Barnes23]

I hope that isn't the case as it would seriously call their judgement into question. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

It’s not the case, I’m pretty sure. 
 

Although if we were really shopping Gordon to Liverpool then I may have to rethink. Who knows. 

 

 

Edited June 30 by AyeDubbleYoo

[Dokko]

How can we be £50m+ in an overspend hole and not have foreseen it? Are we stupid enough to have that oversight? We either made a massive error in accounts or, expected a rather large sum of money coming in this month. So where was that coming from? 

 

Were already £28m down tomorrow with the Hall deal going through, which was planned well enough to avoid psr issues this year, yet we still lean into them massively. 

 

A rabbit off somewhere. Either incompetence or we planned a big sale, and with Bruno's weirdly timed out release clause, I know whixh way I'm leaning.

 

 

Edited June 30 by Dokko

[Tiresias]

I understand why everyone is upset but to some extent (and yes, temporarily, ignoring some rules not working as they perhaps should) this is the price of us underperforming last season. finished 4th season before and essentially budgeted that we would at the least maintain that level. We didn't, we had some horrendous luck, we missed Europe because Man City are cunts who didnt give a shit about the FA cup. 

 

We have lost a promising young player who hasnt yet kicked a ball in the league, and our own homegrown midfielder who wasn't really delivering at the expected standard. We can now strengthen the squad and go again. I would not expect Howe to be given the same patience he got last season though. If we don't kick on and look like solidly in European places I would expect Howe to be shown the door by Christmas because underperforming means financial pain, and we won't keep Gordon, Isak and Bruno if we don't finish top 4, and we won't attract the best either. 

 

 

Edited June 30 by Tiresias

[80]

3 hours ago, Barnes23 said:

I hope that isn't the case as it would seriously call their judgement into question. 

How so? Not that I'm disagreeing, just wondered what your issue with it would be. 

 

Personally, my problem would be that it's conniving to try and shift blame onto Bruno for him leaving if they wanted it at least as much. Although even then I suppose they might have thought they had to look as reluctant as possible to extract the most value, which I'd sympathise with.

 

To be really conspiratorial, I wonder if our grand plan was sabotaged by Ashworth and Ratcliffe putting the word out about our situation and getting other clubs to call our financial bluff.

[Barnes23]

20 hours ago, 80 said:

How so? Not that I'm disagreeing, just wondered what your issue with it would be. 

 

Personally, my problem would be that it's conniving to try and shift blame onto Bruno for him leaving if they wanted it at least as much. Although even then I suppose they might have thought they had to look as reluctant as possible to extract the most value, which I'd sympathise with.

 

To be really conspiratorial, I wonder if our grand plan was sabotaged by Ashworth and Ratcliffe putting the word out about our situation and getting other clubs to call our financial bluff.

 

I agree with that, but to me it's actually something more fundamental - the suggestion to me seems to imply a level of forethought to the clause and Bruno potentially leaving on the part of the club. I find it difficult to imagine a formulated transfer strategy which has losing Bruno at the centre of it that isn't sub-optimal, in my mind. I would sooner have spent less last summer, or sold others, before doing so (barring circumstances like Bruno himself pushing for a move - and of course we don't know all the details regarding the insertion of the clause in the first place or if there were any further stipulations). 

 

I think he should serve as the centrepoint of everything we are trying to build. 

[80]

9 minutes ago, Barnes23 said:

 

I agree with that, but to me it's actually something more fundamental - the suggestion to me seems to imply a level of forethought to the clause and Bruno potentially leaving on the part of the club. I find it difficult to imagine a formulated transfer strategy which has losing Bruno at the centre of it that isn't sub-optimal, in my mind. I would sooner have spent less last summer, or sold others, before doing so (barring circumstances like Bruno himself pushing for a move - and of course we don't know all the details regarding the insertion of the clause in the first place or if there were any further stipulations). 

 

I think he should serve as the centrepoint of everything we are trying to build. 

I'm with you on most of that. To steel man the club's position though, I think we've just seen how hard it is for us to sell most of our squad for any serious money. Factor in Bruno's age and understandable ambitions and it starts to feel more natural that he might have needed to be the one to go however horrible that is (unless he's genuinely willing to commit to us for the long haul and risk doing a Shearer in terms of winning nothing in his prime years).

 

Re: spending less last summer etc, I've thought that myself but if I understand right - and I might not - we were in such a deep PSR hole that we could've not bought Barnes, Tonali AND Livramento AND Minteh AND Gordon and still been uncomfortably close to the line, which would've totally changed our last year for the worse overall. The problem is the system doesn't seem to reward saving up a pot of money in the slightest.

[80]

As an aside, I have to hope Eddie was fully aware and on board with the idea of Bruno being sold if that was Plan A. The alternative - that he was blindsided and feels misled by the past fortnight - is much worse.

[madras]

1 hour ago, 80 said:

As an aside, I have to hope Eddie was fully aware and on board with the idea of Bruno being sold if that was Plan A. The alternative - that he was blindsided and feels misled by the past fortnight - is much worse.

I've posted elsewhere that plan A may not have been to sell Bruno but to be prepared as it would be out of our hands should the clause be activated.

[Coffee_Johnny]

1 hour ago, 80 said:

As an aside, I have to hope Eddie was fully aware and on board with the idea of Bruno being sold if that was Plan A. The alternative - that he was blindsided and feels misled by the past fortnight - is much worse.

There is no evidence that selling Bruno or any of the ‘difference makers’ was ever in the club’s plans. 

[80]

1 hour ago, madras said:

I've posted elsewhere that plan A may not have been to sell Bruno but to be prepared as it would be out of our hands should the clause be activated.

I guess the distinction is I'm defining Plan A as what I suspect they thought was the most likely outcome, and possibly the necessary outcome - not that it was their preferred outcome.