Yankuba Minteh (now playing for Brighton & Hove Albion)

[tarie4]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

IF HE WAS UPSET GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES…

IF…… GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES

 

Im glad about the Minteh sale given the circumstances. The alternative sales were worse. But im annoyed that we were in such desperate circumstances to begin with. I thought we were better managed than that. 
 

Howe surely has insight into the circumstances regularly??? I assume?? He would know those were the best sales possible in late June. He could be angry we were in that position. But that’s not what I’m hearing. But I don’t believe it can be true. 

As long as you continue to bring this up, I will continue to ask how we could have better handled the situation. Please provide specific details on how you would have addressed the 60 million deficit. Simply stating that we should not have acquired Barnes, who only accounts for 9 million, does not address the remaining 50 million.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

Villa are doing a cool thing where they ‘sell’ their brightest youngsters for decent money at 18-20 with buybacks. Madrid do that too. 
 

We could do that with Miley. We should have a backlog of options like that.  Which I think we are planning to do. 

 

Aye, even when Villa had that bad 5-5 years, their academy still seemed on point. Up there with Chelsea, City and Arsenal or at least not far off. We have Ashley and 15 years of neglect to thank for falling way behind. 

[timeEd32]

35 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

As long as you continue to bring this up, I will continue to ask how we could have better handled the situation. Please provide specific details on how you would have addressed the 60 million deficit. Simply stating that we should not have acquired Barnes, who only accounts for 9 million, does not address the remaining 50 million.

 

If you ignore the hyperbolic comments like Eddie doesn't understand PSR or Miggy should be sent to play with the kids then most of what TCD is saying is right. We made the most of a bad situation in the final week of June, but there's no way to end up in that position without some things going wrong along the way. And, honestly, I also thought we were better managed than that, which is why I thought the reports of us needing to sell throughout June were nonsense.

 

I think it's fair to say we clearly overspent last summer (Barnes is more like £12m btw). As for why you could come up with a bunch of reasons:

• Maybe we thought we'd go further in Europe and at least get into the Europa knockouts?
• Maybe we thought we'd finish higher in the league with that investment?
• Maybe we expected more sponsorships or a big value one fell through?
• Maybe we planned on an inflated deal before the new APT requirements came in?
• 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?
• Maybe Ashworth had planned on selling Joelinton and others and when he left we had to scramble for a plan B?
• Related, maybe once Ashworth left no one was strong enough to counter Eddie's desire to keep all his players?
• Maybe we just assumed we wouldn't be able to keep Bruno and pre-spent some of that money?
• Maybe we didn't think the PL rules had any teeth and then Everton/Forest happened?

 

We either planned poorly, bet on ourselves and lost due to injuries + the Tonali suspension, made faulty assumptions, or were thrown into disarray by Ashworth leaving (or some combination of all of those). I can understand defending the outcome (other than the Greek goalkeeper), but it's hard to completely defend the 12 months leading up to it now that we know how it ended.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2024 by timeEd32

[Menace]

In what world is Harvey Barnes valued at £12M?

[timeEd32]

4 minutes ago, Menace said:

In what world is Harvey Barnes valued at £12M?

 

Annual cost (wages + amortised fee)

[janpawel]

18 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

If you ignore the hyperbolic comments like Eddie doesn't understand PSR or Miggy should be sent to play with the kids then most of what TCD is saying is right. We made the most of a bad situation in the final week of June, but there's no way to end up in that position without some things going wrong along the way. And, honestly, I also thought we were better managed than that, which is why I thought the reports of us needing to sell throughout June were nonsense.

 

I think it's fair to say we clearly overspent last summer (Barnes is more like £12m btw). As for why you could come up with a bunch of reasons:

• Maybe we thought we'd go further in Europe and at least get into the Europa knockouts?
• Maybe we thought we'd finish higher in the league with that investment?
• Maybe we expected more sponsorships or a big value one fell through?
• Maybe we planned on an inflated deal before the new APT requirements came in?
• 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?
• Maybe Ashworth had planned on selling Joelinton and others and when he left we had to scramble for a plan B?
• Related, maybe once Ashworth left no one was strong enough to counter Eddie's desire to keep all his players?
• Maybe we just assumed we wouldn't be able to keep Bruno and pre-spent some of that money?
• Maybe we didn't think the PL rules had any teeth and then Everton/Forest happened?

 

We either planned poorly, bet on ourselves and lost due to injuries + the Tonali suspension, made faulty assumptions, or were thrown into disarray by Ashworth leaving (or some combination of all of those). I can understand defending the outcome (other than the Greek goalkeeper), but it's hard to completely defend the 12 months leading up to it now that we know how it ended.

 

 

 

We said 👏

[tarie4]

24 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

If you ignore the hyperbolic comments like Eddie doesn't understand PSR or Miggy should be sent to play with the kids then most of what TCD is saying is right. We made the most of a bad situation in the final week of June, but there's no way to end up in that position without some things going wrong along the way. And, honestly, I also thought we were better managed than that, which is why I thought the reports of us needing to sell throughout June were nonsense.

 

I think it's fair to say we clearly overspent last summer (Barnes is more like £12m btw). As for why you could come up with a bunch of reasons:

• Maybe we thought we'd go further in Europe and at least get into the Europa knockouts?
• Maybe we thought we'd finish higher in the league with that investment?
• Maybe we expected more sponsorships or a big value one fell through?
• Maybe we planned on an inflated deal before the new APT requirements came in?
• 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?
• Maybe Ashworth had planned on selling Joelinton and others and when he left we had to scramble for a plan B?
• Related, maybe once Ashworth left no one was strong enough to counter Eddie's desire to keep all his players?
• Maybe we just assumed we wouldn't be able to keep Bruno and pre-spent some of that money?
• Maybe we didn't think the PL rules had any teeth and then Everton/Forest happened?

 

We either planned poorly, bet on ourselves and lost due to injuries + the Tonali suspension, made faulty assumptions, or were thrown into disarray by Ashworth leaving (or some combination of all of those). I can understand defending the outcome (other than the Greek goalkeeper), but it's hard to completely defend the 12 months leading up to it now that we know how it 

If Barnes is valued at 12 million, what about the remaining 48 million? It could be argued that the 60 million requirement was entire business from Gordon, Tonali, Barnes, Tino, Miniteh, and Hall. I comprehend the concerns and hypothetical situations involved, but given that we did not sell any star players and are compliant, it is unclear how one can conclude that we are poorly managed. All that has been presented are hypothetical scenarios and "what ifs and Maybes" You do not provide any concrete solutions, only theories. I would appreciate it if you could outline what the board should have done differently, rather than presenting theories and hypothetical situations.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2024 by tarie4

[tarie4]

33 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

If you ignore the hyperbolic comments like Eddie doesn't understand PSR or Miggy should be sent to play with the kids then most of what TCD is saying is right. We made the most of a bad situation in the final week of June, but there's no way to end up in that position without some things going wrong along the way. And, honestly, I also thought we were better managed than that, which is why I thought the reports of us needing to sell throughout June were nonsense.

 

I think it's fair to say we clearly overspent last summer (Barnes is more like £12m btw). As for why you could come up with a bunch of reasons:

• Maybe we thought we'd go further in Europe and at least get into the Europa knockouts?
• Maybe we thought we'd finish higher in the league with that investment?
• Maybe we expected more sponsorships or a big value one fell through?
• Maybe we planned on an inflated deal before the new APT requirements came in?
• 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?
• Maybe Ashworth had planned on selling Joelinton and others and when he left we had to scramble for a plan B?
• Related, maybe once Ashworth left no one was strong enough to counter Eddie's desire to keep all his players?
• Maybe we just assumed we wouldn't be able to keep Bruno and pre-spent some of that money?
• Maybe we didn't think the PL rules had any teeth and then Everton/Forest happened?

 

We either planned poorly, bet on ourselves and lost due to injuries + the Tonali suspension, made faulty assumptions, or were thrown into disarray by Ashworth leaving (or some combination of all of those). I can understand defending the outcome (other than the Greek goalkeeper), but it's hard to completely defend the 12 months leading up to it now that we know how it ended.

 

 

 

This is what the board did. I am not interested in hypothetical scenarios or possibilities. I have already shared this information earlier.

 

Staveley made some moves, mate.

 

First, she gave big Joe a contract. Selling him for 40 million is just wishful thinking. We'd have to buy a replacement like Onana for 55 million. So not only did we spend more to replace him, but we also blew a big chunk of this season's budget and ended up in the same place.

 

Then, she sold Minteh for 33 million. Brighton paid 30 million for Pedro. That's some fantastic business, mate.

And let's not forget the shady deal with our pals at Forest.

 

But here's the thing, as of today, we're PSR compliant. We kept our purples and blues, and if we just spend 60 million between now and the end of the window, it's to improve the first 11, not to replace anyone. She left Mitchell in a strong position.

 

Could you please advise what, in your opinion, the board should have done differently to ensure that we are in at least the same position as when Staveley and her associates left us?

 

If you could kindly provide well-reasoned and thorough solutions on how to address the significant financial deficit we were facing, rather than hypothetical scenarios and uncertainties that have been provided all day, I would be more inclined to agree with your perspective. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.

[Jaqen]

It's always going to be slightly chaotic when you are trying to be competitive and ambitious whilst pushing FFP to the limits. There's just so much guesswork with what's actually gone on behind the scenes that isn't really wort arguing about and blaming it on specific signings like Barnes is just plain daft. 

[Unbelievable]

10 hours ago, timeEd32 said:

 

If you ignore the hyperbolic comments like Eddie doesn't understand PSR or Miggy should be sent to play with the kids then most of what TCD is saying is right. We made the most of a bad situation in the final week of June, but there's no way to end up in that position without some things going wrong along the way. And, honestly, I also thought we were better managed than that, which is why I thought the reports of us needing to sell throughout June were nonsense.

 

I think it's fair to say we clearly overspent last summer (Barnes is more like £12m btw). As for why you could come up with a bunch of reasons:

• Maybe we thought we'd go further in Europe and at least get into the Europa knockouts?
• Maybe we thought we'd finish higher in the league with that investment?
• Maybe we expected more sponsorships or a big value one fell through?
• Maybe we planned on an inflated deal before the new APT requirements came in?
• 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?
• Maybe Ashworth had planned on selling Joelinton and others and when he left we had to scramble for a plan B?
• Related, maybe once Ashworth left no one was strong enough to counter Eddie's desire to keep all his players?
• Maybe we just assumed we wouldn't be able to keep Bruno and pre-spent some of that money?
• Maybe we didn't think the PL rules had any teeth and then Everton/Forest happened?

 

We either planned poorly, bet on ourselves and lost due to injuries + the Tonali suspension, made faulty assumptions, or were thrown into disarray by Ashworth leaving (or some combination of all of those). I can understand defending the outcome (other than the Greek goalkeeper), but it's hard to completely defend the 12 months leading up to it now that we know how it ended.

 

 

 

Great post

[Unbelievable]

10 hours ago, tarie4 said:

If Barnes is valued at 12 million, what about the remaining 48 million? It could be argued that the 60 million requirement was entire business from Gordon, Tonali, Barnes, Tino, Miniteh, and Hall. I comprehend the concerns and hypothetical situations involved, but given that we did not sell any star players and are compliant, it is unclear how one can conclude that we are poorly managed. All that has been presented are hypothetical scenarios and "what ifs and Maybes" You do not provide any concrete solutions, only theories. I would appreciate it if you could outline what the board should have done differently, rather than presenting theories and hypothetical situations.

 

 

 

Jesus, a whole post with bulleted "things the board should have done differently" and you come up with a request for "concrete solutions"? You said earlier perhaps plans were made and fell through does not equate no or bad planning as a (correct) argument to TCD. How is that different to timeEd32's post above? The long and short of the situation is we ended up in a situation where we needed to panic sell on the final day of the reporting period to avoid a points reduction, which is not great management by any stretch of the imagination.

 

As I've said before, based on Eales statements in January last year, if we want to continue our growth under these FFP rules we will have to sell a crown jewel from time to time when their value peaks, and reinvest that revenue in players with the potential to improve and become a crown jewel. We managed to get around doing this by selling Anderson and Minteh, thankfully, but it's still left us with little to reinvest due to our unsustainable cost level compared to our revenue (that is not growing fast enough to allow us to compete with the top six without vastly overachieving). Handing out improved contracts to crown jewels, much as the have deserved them, is only going to aggravate that situation.

 

 

Edited July 30, 2024 by Unbelievable

[Froggy]

14 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

You think Kelly earns over £5m per year - £97k? I don't. I hope not tbh.

 

Anything higher than £80-90k is crazy IMO. And will likely mean we'll not be able to sell him for a fee.

 

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.

[Unbelievable]

5 minutes 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.

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

[Conjo]

5 minutes ago, Froggy said:

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

 

How do you know?

[Froggy]

3 minutes ago, Conjo said:

How do you know?

 

I know everything.

[tarie4]

3 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

Jesus, a whole post with bulleted "things the board should have done differently" and you come up with a request for "concrete solutions"? You said earlier perhaps plans were made and fell through does not equate no or bad planning as a (correct) argument to TCD. How is that different to timeEd32's post above. The long and short of the situation is we ended up in a situation where we needed to panic sell on the final day of the reporting period to avoid a points reduction, which is not great management by any stretch of the imagination.

 

As I've said before, based on Eales statements in January last year, if we want to continue our growth under these FFP rules we will have to sell a crown jewel from time to time when their value peaks, and reinvest that revenue in players with the potential to improve and become a crown jewel. We managed to get around doing this by selling Anderson and Minteh, thankfully, but it's still left us with little to reinvest. Handing out improved contracts to crown jewels, much as the have deserved them, is only going to aggravate that situation.

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.

[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, 2024 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.