Yankuba Minteh (now playing for Brighton & Hove Albion)

[Froggy]

6 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

Free transfer = high sign on fee + higher wages, but even so that is shocking if true.

 

Fraser on £42k was the most shocking one for me.

[Unbelievable]

1 minute ago, tarie4 said:

Hey, just like TCD, you're not explaining how we'd cover the 60 million PSR gap. The bullet points don't mention it. Unless I missed something, I'd expect something like...

 

1. The acquisition of Barnes resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of 12 million.

 

2. The acquisition of Tonali resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of 15 million.

 

3. The acquisition of Hall resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of 7 million.

 

Not 

 

1.Maybe we thought we'd go further in Europe and at least get into the Europa knockouts?

2.Maybe we thought we'd finish higher in the league with that investment?

3.Maybe we expected more sponsorships or a big value one fell through?

4.Maybe we planned on an inflated deal before the new APT requirements came in?

5.Maybe we thought it'd be easier to sell one or more of Miggy, Lascelles, Targett, Lewis, Fraser, Dubravka, Wilson, or Trippier in January or June?

6.Maybe Ashworth had planned on selling Joelinton and others and when he left we had to scramble for a plan B?

7.Related, maybe once Ashworth left no one was strong enough to counter Eddie's desire to keep all his players?

8.Maybe we just assumed we wouldn't be able to keep Bruno and pre-spent some of that money?

9.Maybe we didn't think the PL rules had any teeth and then Everton/Forest happened?

 

These are not solutions but hypothetical scenarios. If one suggests that the board did not handle the situation appropriately, their solutions should be more specific.

"5.Maybe we thought it'd be easier to sell one or more of Miggy, Lascelles, Targett, Lewis, Fraser, Dubravka, Wilson, or Trippier in January or June?"

 

As it turned out, we were unable to sell the players we intended to, rendering that argument moot. However, we were able to sell Minteh, who was a valuable asset. The primary contention from TCD and others is that Minteh should not have been sold. In light of this, I would like to understand the alternative course of action that the board should have taken. It is important to note that no other clubs were interested in the other players we sought to sell, or the offers received were insufficient.

 

Once more, I find myself perplexed by the notion that our management is lacking. Instead of offering vague possibilities and uncertainties, it would be more prudent to present concrete plans to address the 60 million deficit.

 

 

As club management/ownership you'd make plans and those plans will be underpinned with assumptions such as provided by timeEd32. There may be alternative plans depending on how things transpire over the season (progress in CL, continue in Europe, qualify for Europe, new sponsors coming in and being approved by PL, a good bid coming in for Joelinton/Bruno/Isak or a few of our more expendable players, etc.) and you'd be prepared to be flexible and change between plans if needed. You cannot prepare "concrete solutions" beforehand without knowing exactly how a season will unfold.

 

Also, "The primary contention from TCD and others is that Minteh should not have been sold." is simply wrong. TCD, I and others who are sad that it's had to come to selling Minteh and Anderson, have never argued he shouldn't have been sold. If you leave yourself exposed in such a way and none of your plans have come off desperate measures may need to be taken, which is of course defendable. Doesn't mean we should be happy it had to come to this. Eddie Howe is on record as regretting us having to sell Anderson, a player whom he rated. Is he allowed to say that, or should he come up with "concrete solutions" for tarie4 on the N-O forum, or alternatively STFU?

[tarie4]

Just now, Unbelievable said:

 

 

As club management/ownership you'd make plans and those plans will be underpinned with assumptions such as provided by timeEd32. There may be alternative plans depending on how things transpire over the season (progress in CL, continue in Europe, qualify for Europe, new sponsors coming in and being approved by PL, a good bid coming in for Joelinton/Bruno/Isak or a few of our more expendable players, etc.) and you'd be prepared to be flexible and change between plans if needed. You cannot prepare "concrete solutions" beforehand without knowing exactly how a season will unfold.

 

Also, "The primary contention from TCD and others is that Minteh should not have been sold." is simply wrong. TCD, I and others who are sad that it's had to come to selling Minteh and Anderson, have never argued he shouldn't have been sold. If you leave yourself exposed in such a way and none of your plans have come off desperate measures may need to be taken, which is of course defendable. Doesn't mean we should be happy it had to come to this. Eddie Howe is on record as regretting us having to sell Anderson, a player whom he rated. Is he allowed to say that, or should he come up with "concrete solutions" for tarie4 on the N-O forum, or alternatively STFU?

You're avoiding the main issue again. We didn't sign anyone in January, so the 60 million deficit was already there in the summer of 2023. The board, including Ashworth, was aware of this. The primary objective, as confirmed by Staveley, was to retain all of our key players. This goal was successfully accomplished.

 

You say we should not have left ourselves exposed, Look, we took a risk by buying players like Gordon, Tonali, Hall, Barnes, Tino, and Miniteh. But if we hadn't taken that risk, we wouldn't have any of them now. And it turned out well, didn't it?

 

Staveley said she didn't want to leave before we were PSR compliant so that Eales and the board would be in a strong position, and I honestly think she did a great job. For Minteh and Anderson, we gained Gordon, Tonali, Hall, Barnes, Tino, new contract for big Joe, Pope, Botman Isak etc.

 

Staveley and the others really did a great job there, mate. They took some risks, but it all worked out in the end. Can you say it didn't?

 

 

 

Also, to say Eddie is on record regretting the sale of Anderson is moot. Eddie is also on record regretting letting Shelvy, Wood, Paul and Matt go. He is a professional and gives a professional answer. The correct one imo. 

 

 

[tarie4]

24 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

 

 

As club management/ownership you'd make plans and those plans will be underpinned with assumptions such as provided by timeEd32. There may be alternative plans depending on how things transpire over the season (progress in CL, continue in Europe, qualify for Europe, new sponsors coming in and being approved by PL, a good bid coming in for Joelinton/Bruno/Isak or a few of our more expendable players, etc.) and you'd be prepared to be flexible and change between plans if needed. You cannot prepare "concrete solutions" beforehand without knowing exactly how a season will unfold.

 

Also, "The primary contention from TCD and others is that Minteh should not have been sold." is simply wrong. TCD, I and others who are sad that it's had to come to selling Minteh and Anderson, have never argued he shouldn't have been sold. If you leave yourself exposed in such a way and none of your plans have come off desperate measures may need to be taken, which is of course defendable. Doesn't mean we should be happy it had to come to this. Eddie Howe is on record as regretting us having to sell Anderson, a player whom he rated. Is he allowed to say that, or should he come up with "concrete solutions" for tarie4 on the N-O forum, or alternatively STFU?

Club management and ownership do not create detailed plans, they establish clear objectives. For instance, in a recent interview in Germany, Eales discussed objectives rather than plans. Similarly, Staveley mentioned in an interview that the primary objective was to retain all of our star players.

 

After establishing the clear objectives they then formulate plans, it is important to remember that the objectives should remain constant, even if the plans need to be adjusted due to unforeseen circumstances.

 

In this case, the objective was to retain all of our star players, and this was successfully achieved. In the business world, such an accomplishment is typically rewarded with a bonus.

 

However, it is puzzling to observe that some individuals discuss plans without clearly defined objectives. PIF sets objectives, and the board is responsible for meeting them. Failure to do so should result in appropriate consequences.

 

For instance, Eddie's objective for this season is to qualify for European competition. The specific strategies he employs to achieve this goal are secondary. If he fails to meet this objective, it would be reasonable for him to face job termination.

 

I trust that this explanation clarifies the importance of objectives in business and sports.

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Froggy said:

 

Capology has Kelly on £150k a week and marked as verified. 

 

https://www.capology.com/club/newcastle/salaries/

 

You can debate the accuracy of this, but they're bang on for us anyway.

That’s crazy if true. I still don’t think it’s true. 

 

1 hour ago, Unbelievable said:

Free transfer = high sign on fee + higher wages, but even so that is shocking if true.

Aye. £150k would make Kelly one of our highest earners. Probably higher than Trippier.  That’s wrong. 
 

IMO that’s a killer for the wage structure.  If Hall cements his place at LB, he fairly gets to demand £170k+. When Botman gets an extension, 150k is the start of negotiations.  Those salaries for free transfers makes renegotiation for existing players very difficult. I said this of Villa when they brought in Kamara and Tielemans. 
 

Paying crazy high salaries for free transfers is fine when you’re Real Madrid.  Everybody else should pay a nice sign-on bonus and the higher end of what the player would ordinarily get - not double. 

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Unbelievable said:

 

 

As club management/ownership you'd make plans and those plans will be underpinned with assumptions such as provided by timeEd32. There may be alternative plans depending on how things transpire over the season (progress in CL, continue in Europe, qualify for Europe, new sponsors coming in and being approved by PL, a good bid coming in for Joelinton/Bruno/Isak or a few of our more expendable players, etc.) and you'd be prepared to be flexible and change between plans if needed. You cannot prepare "concrete solutions" beforehand without knowing exactly how a season will unfold.

 

Also, "The primary contention from TCD and others is that Minteh should not have been sold." is simply wrong. TCD, I and others who are sad that it's had to come to selling Minteh and Anderson, have never argued he shouldn't have been sold. If you leave yourself exposed in such a way and none of your plans have come off desperate measures may need to be taken, which is of course defendable. Doesn't mean we should be happy it had to come to this. Eddie Howe is on record as regretting us having to sell Anderson, a player whom he rated. Is he allowed to say that, or should he come up with "concrete solutions" for tarie4 on the N-O forum, or alternatively STFU?

No point discussing with @tarie4. They’ve read our perspective from at least 3 ppl at this point and hasn’t conceded any ground.  
 

At this point Tarie is suggesting the club doesn’t make plans and that’s all good. 
 

It’s not a valid conversation.  

 

 

Edited July 30 by The College Dropout

[tarie4]

27 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

No point discussing with @tarie4. They’ve read our perspective from at least 3 ppl at this point and hasn’t conceded any ground.  
 

At this point Tarie is suggesting the club doesn’t make plans and that’s all good. 
 

It’s not a valid conversation.  

 

 

 

You have read our perspective from atleast 6 pple and haven't conceded any ground too.

 

Pot kettle comes to mind.

 

Again you misquote me,  I didn't say the club doesn't make plans. I said it sets clear objectives and then set strategic plans from those objectives. 

 

Clearly proves my point. I mean this is from someone who says Brighton bent is over in the Minteh deal. 

[TRon]

We need that RW in before the season starts. If we end up starting Miggy against Brighton with Minteh lining up opposite there could be repercussions that reverberate through the ages.

[The College Dropout]

I’ve conceded ground. Given the circumstances it was the right thing to do.  
 

If you sell a highly rated 20 year old without a way to benefit from future success - it’s because you don’t have leverage and have been bent over. Or you extracted a premium on the transfer - which we didn’t, it wasn’t the highest bid. 

[80]

Strictly speaking, we don't know whether there are any clauses attached to the Minteh sale, do we?

 

I agree it feels unlikely that we do. But - from what I gleaned at the time - the Everton sale was set to go through, with Minteh being keen, until Brighton came in and our attention totally switched to them. So maybe the terms were preferable.

[Unbelievable]

1 hour ago, tarie4 said:

Club management and ownership do not create detailed plans, they establish clear objectives. For instance, in a recent interview in Germany, Eales discussed objectives rather than plans. Similarly, Staveley mentioned in an interview that the primary objective was to retain all of our star players.

 

After establishing the clear objectives they then formulate plans, it is important to remember that the objectives should remain constant, even if the plans need to be adjusted due to unforeseen circumstances.

 

In this case, the objective was to retain all of our star players, and this was successfully achieved. In the business world, such an accomplishment is typically rewarded with a bonus.

 

However, it is puzzling to observe that some individuals discuss plans without clearly defined objectives. PIF sets objectives, and the board is responsible for meeting them. Failure to do so should result in appropriate consequences.

 

For instance, Eddie's objective for this season is to qualify for European competition. The specific strategies he employs to achieve this goal are secondary. If he fails to meet this objective, it would be reasonable for him to face job termination.

 

I trust that this explanation clarifies the importance of objectives in business and sports.

 

I love how you've just assumed when I speak about plans there are no underlying objectives to them   

[tarie4]

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I’ve conceded ground. Given the circumstances it was the right thing to do.  
 

If you sell a highly rated 20 year old without a way to benefit from future success - it’s because you don’t have leverage and have been bent over. Or you extracted a premium on the transfer - which we didn’t, it wasn’t the highest bid. 

We all want the best for Newcastle while we may have differing opinions on the matter, let us respectfully agree to disagree. 33 million was fantastic business for an untested player.

[tarie4]

4 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

 

I love how you've just assumed when I speak about plans there are no underlying objectives to them   

You have not provided the requested information. I have asked for it, but you have not given it to me. Please provide these underlying objectives.

[Zero]

3 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

We all want the best for Newcastle while we may have differing opinions on the matter, let us respectfully agree to disagree. 33 million was fantastic business for an untested player.

33m is just a fucking standard price for a prospect like Minteh. I guarantee we cannot find such a prospect in other leagues like Minteh that could just cost 33m. WTF is untested? He was playing in champions league last season

 

We better hope Minteh is a bust, or else this is going to be a fucking disaster 

 

 

Edited July 30 by Zero

[tarie4]

11 minutes ago, Zero said:

33m is just a fucking standard price for a prospect like Minteh. I guarantee we cannot find such a prospect in other leagues like Minteh that could just cost 33m. WTF is untested? He was playing in champions league last season

 

We better hope Minteh is a bust, or else this is going to be a fucking disaster 

 

 

 

Arda Güler cost Madrid 20 million plus add ons. I know who is the better prospect. Do you? Man City bought J. Alvarez for 14 million. I don't think Miniteh will start for Brighton this season. Let's wait and see.

Imagine Brighton paid 30 million for Pedro. Who would you start out wide if they both played for Newcastle? Pedro would be better than Almiron and Murphy, but Minteh wouldn't.

 

 

Edited July 30 by tarie4

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

22 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I’ve conceded ground. Given the circumstances it was the right thing to do.  
 

If you sell a highly rated 20 year old without a way to benefit from future success - it’s because you don’t have leverage and have been bent over. Or you extracted a premium on the transfer - which we didn’t, it wasn’t the highest bid. 

You have such a weird anti club agenda. Seemingly designed only to forward your own at its expense.

[TRon]

26 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

We all want the best for Newcastle while we may have differing opinions on the matter, let us respectfully agree to disagree. 33 million was fantastic business for an untested player.

 

I hope you're right and he turns out to be a flop. Personally I'd have preferred him being brought into the squad and challenging for that RW slot which is a big weak point for us IMO as I like the look of him a lot.

[The Prophet]

57 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

You have read our perspective from atleast 6 pple and haven't conceded any ground too.

 

Pot kettle comes to mind.

 

Again you misquote me,  I didn't say the club doesn't make plans. I said it sets clear objectives and then set strategic plans from those objectives. 

 

Clearly proves my point. I mean this is from someone who says Brighton bent is over in the Minteh deal. 

 

Tarie man, please just stroke his ego so we can put this latest tedious shite to bed. It's spilling into other threads and it's a fucking excruciating read. Stinking the place out doesn't cover it.

[KaKa]

3 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

Free transfer = high sign on fee + higher wages, but even so that is shocking if true.

 

I think Howe rates him really highly and it is again more evidence that he wasn't brought in as a squad player. 

 

I doubt he would have agreed to join as a squad player in the first place, and that salary if accurate is further evidence that he is seen as a first team player.

[tarie4]

16 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

I hope you're right and he turns out to be a flop. Personally I'd have preferred him being brought into the squad and challenging for that RW slot which is a big weak point for us IMO as I like the look of him a lot.

I hope he doesn't fail. I wish him the best of luck in his career. I really want him to reach his full potential. I would never wish for a player to fail.

He has left, and we cannot change that. Let us accept it and move forward. Miniteh and the board that sold him have done so, and now it is time for us, the supporters, to do the same.

[tarie4]

14 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Tarie man, please just stroke his ego so we can put this latest tedious shite to bed. It's spilling into other threads and it's a fucking excruciating read. Stinking the place out doesn't cover it.

Very well. I will defer to your judgment sir.

[80]

6 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

I think Howe rates him really highly and it is again more evidence that he wasn't brought in as a squad player. 

 

I doubt he would have agreed to join as a squad player in the first place, and that salary if accurate is further evidence that he is seen as a first team player.

If true, we have to hope like hell Howe had good judgement on this one, mind - considering his injury history. £7.5m+ a year on another Wilson for half a decade would be painful.

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, 80 said:

Strictly speaking, we don't know whether there are any clauses attached to the Minteh sale, do we?

 

I agree it feels unlikely that we do. But - from what I gleaned at the time - the Everton sale was set to go through, with Minteh being keen, until Brighton came in and our attention totally switched to them. So maybe the terms were preferable.

All reports suggest there’s nothing (beyond what fifa mandate). 

 

20 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

I think Howe rates him really highly and it is again more evidence that he wasn't brought in as a squad player. 

 

I doubt he would have agreed to join as a squad player in the first place, and that salary if accurate is further evidence that he is seen as a first team player.

In a full strength team is he meant to start at LB for the duration of his 4-year contract?

 

I would be shocked if Kelly is earning 150k. Surely that would make him our highest paid defender. And a top 5 earner at the club. 
 

Thats more than any Arsenal defender other than Saliba. 

I refuse to believe it.  

 

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

You have such a weird anti club agenda. Seemingly designed only to forward your own at its expense.

It’s not anti club.  I’m just calling it as I would for another club.  If Man U or Everton had to sell their best youngster, for a fee less than another club was offering, no buyback, no sell-on, in the position they most need - just to contribute towards a PSR shortfall we would all laugh and say it’s an example of poor management. 

[80]

5 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

All reports suggest there’s nothing (beyond what fifa mandate). 

 

In a full strength team is he meant to start at LB for the duration of his 4-year contract?

 

I would be shocked if Kelly is earning 150k. Surely that would make him our highest paid defender. And a top 5 earner at the club. 
 

Thats more than any Arsenal defender other than Saliba. 

I refuse to believe it.  

 

Have there been any reports specifically commenting on it? From what I remember there's just an absence of it being mentioned, which isn't too conclusive. 

 

Re: Kelly, I'm always reluctant to give too much credit to these kinds of reports. Although, as you said recently, the sheer absence of talk about Targett interest makes you wonder if there's credence in him getting big money after all, even though I normally dismiss that as rubbish too.