NUFC Transfer Rumours

[Whitley mag]

10 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

I believe this may not be entirely accurate. Staveley stated that the Chairman of the board has the final say on all transfers. I think you may be mistaken in your assumptions. As I mentioned, Ashworth was the Director of Football. He was responsible for developing the club's strategy. Therefore, if you consider last summer to have been a strategic failure, the responsibility lies solely with Ashworth. However, I am curious to hear your perspective on why you believe last summer was a disaster. What do you think they could have done better?

Clearly the financial side would be signed off by PIF, but the final selection finance permitting was down to Howe that’s on record.

 

It’s been widely reported that Ashworth was unsatisfied with the scope of his job and he didn’t have the responsibility he first thought, does that really suggest he was behind the strategy, I believe outside of the financial problems for Staveley, the power lines were part of the problem and one of the reasons their exit was hastened.

 

Last summer I’d have targeted a pacy CB and right sided forward, Barnes was an expensive backup in a position we’d just spent 40 million on in January.
 

 

 

 

Edited July 25 by Whitley mag

[Joey47]

1 hour ago, TBG said:

Dwight McNeill continues to be discussed internally in my head.

When he was at Burnley he was one of my dream signings during the Bruce era  how far we’ve come… I’ve definitely become a bit spoilt and need to remind my self that back then all I wished for was a team that I could just enjoy watching. We have that now with Eddie Howe. 

[tarie4]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

 

Ashworth confirmed it. He more or less said there's no point in signing a player the manager isn't interested in.

 

By all accounts we operate via a transfer committee, which Howe is part of. Blaming him for apparent failures and not crediting him for any of the success is incredibly agenda driven.

Indeed. However, if the manager desires a player whom the board disapproves of, what course of action should be taken? Therefore, it is essential to have an individual with the authority to make the final decision, that individual is not Eddie.

[Sibierski]

2 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

 

 

Last summer I’d have targeted a pacy CB and right sided forward, Barnes was an expensive backup in a position we’d just spent 40 million on in January.
 

 

 

 

 

 

I think Barnes transfer was just a case of, player on list is available, we have money to spend, shall we do it? Yea.

 

Hindsight, probably would be don't make that deal, don't have PSR pressures come end of season, and not be panic stations. But I can only assume club looked at RW and felt Almiron/Murphy were good and didn't see Anderson as a LW, so option there was one of Joe/Willock and so a gap was available.

 

I guess with that, it's probably made the club evaluate what they view the squad as moving forward because it wasn't really a must do deal and we've probably paid a price for it but needing to move on Minteh who could be good, and the dodgy deal with Forest to lose Anderson.

[cubaricho]

The Barnes deal would look much different to the majority of people if he had been fit for the season rather than injured for most of it. We'd arguably have more points/had gone further in the CL with him around the whole time.

[tarie4]

20 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Clearly the financial side would be signed off by PIF, but the final selection finance permitting was down to Howe that’s on record.

 

It’s been widely reported that Ashworth was unsatisfied with the scope of his job and he didn’t have the responsibility he first thought, does that really suggest he was behind the strategy, I believe outside of the financial problems for Staveley, the power lines were part of the problem and one of the reasons their exit was hastened.

 

Last summer I’d have targeted a pacy CB and right sided forward, Barnes was an expensive backup in a position we’d just spent 40 million on in January.
 

 

 

 

 

You are once again basing your claims on "widely reported" information.

 

Newcastle United operates based on contracts, and these contracts typically include detailed job descriptions. Therefore, it is inaccurate to claim that he did not have the responsibilities he initially believed he had. His contract would have clearly outlined his job scope and expectations. Manchester United offered him a higher salary and improved terms, and like many individuals in such situations, he decided to make the move. It is also worth noting that these reports emerged after he was placed on gardening leave, which raises questions about their credibility.

 

Regarding transfers, we acquired Barnes as a left winger to replace Allan, who was sold. If we were to bring in a right forward, either Murphy or Almiron would likely have had to depart. As there were  no buyers for them we didnt buy a right forward. As for the center back position, we extended Paul's contract by a year to meet the requirements for European football. So we were overly stacked in that department.

 

 

Edited July 25 by tarie4
Corrections

[The Prophet]

12 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

Indeed. However, if the manager desires a player whom the board disapproves of, what course of action should be taken? Therefore, it is essential to have an individual with the authority to make the final decision, that individual is not Eddie.

 

There's a distinction between a player being pushed or recommended by a manager and a manager having final sign-off on a target.

 

According to the Athletic, Nickson and Andy Howe are responsible for the scouting and the selection of targets. They're then deliberated on by the transfer committee.

 

This idea that it's all driven by Howe is nonsense.

[Sibierski]

6 minutes ago, cubaricho said:

The Barnes deal would look much different to the majority of people if he had been fit for the season rather than injured for most of it. We'd arguably have more points/had gone further in the CL with him around the whole time.

 

Suppose it depends how much Gordon would've been rested and his numbers down a couple to be added onto Barnes. First 6 or 7 games in the season, he started just once. Don't think it would've changed that much IMO, just the option of some fresh legs.

 

Which goes back to the reviewing of future transfer approach. Are rotational fresh legs option at £40m worth it for future buys?

[The Prophet]

It was also widely reported Ashworh doesn't like to get involved in transfer dealings. He's more of an operations man, hence why he has Wilcox at Man United.

[tarie4]

25 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Clearly the financial side would be signed off by PIF, but the final selection finance permitting was down to Howe that’s on record.

 

It’s been widely reported that Ashworth was unsatisfied with the scope of his job and he didn’t have the responsibility he first thought, does that really suggest he was behind the strategy, I believe outside of the financial problems for Staveley, the power lines were part of the problem and one of the reasons their exit was hastened.

 

Last summer I’d have targeted a pacy CB and right sided forward, Barnes was an expensive backup in a position we’d just spent 40 million on in January.
 

 

 

 

 

If it's not too much trouble, could you please share the record you mentioned so that I may gain some insight? If you could post the link and tag me, I would greatly appreciate it. I am genuinely interested in reading it.

[The College Dropout]

13 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

It was also widely reported Ashworh doesn't like to get involved in transfer dealings. He's more of an operations man, hence why he has Wilcox at Man United.

Nah he did all the transfer dealings.  He may not have identified players. But he got deals done. Helped negotiate fee and wages.  He went to Sociedad to get Isak. He was dealing with the Joelinton contract. 

[tarie4]

8 minutes ago, Sibierski said:

 

Suppose it depends how much Gordon would've been rested and his numbers down a couple to be added onto Barnes. First 6 or 7 games in the season, he started just once. Don't think it would've changed that much IMO, just the option of some fresh legs.

 

Which goes back to the reviewing of future transfer approach. Are rotational fresh legs option at £40m worth it for future buys?

To be completely honest, that appears to be the current market value. If we were to sell Wilson, it is likely that acquiring a comparable backup option of similar quality would necessitate an investment in the range of 30 to 40 million. In the case of Allan being sold, wouldn't you agree that Barnes demonstrated sufficient competence as a replacement in terms of overall quality?

[Whitley mag]

31 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

You are once again basing your claims on "widely reported" information.

 

Newcastle United operates based on contracts, and these contracts typically include detailed job descriptions. Therefore, it is inaccurate to claim that he did not have the responsibilities he initially believed he had. His contract would have clearly outlined his job scope and expectations. Manchester United offered him a higher salary and improved terms, and like many individuals in such situations, he decided to make the move. It is also worth noting that these reports emerged after he was placed on gardening leave, which raises questions about their credibility.

 

Regarding transfers, we acquired Barnes as a left winger to replace Allan, who was sold. If we were to bring in a right forward, either Murphy or Almiron would likely have had to depart. As there were  no buyers for them we didnt buy a right forward. As for the center back position, we extended Paul's contract by a year to meet the requirements for European football. So we were overly stacked in that department.

 

 

 

Did we not sign Gordon to replace ASM ?

 

On Ashworth I would think it a bit naive as in most jobs to believe the job description is exactly as it says on the tin.

 

The below article doesn’t give the impression that Ashworth was in control of transfers, but that is was Staveley doing the deals.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5652769/2024/07/24/newcastle-eddie-howe-structure/

 

 

This article confirms he previously held veto on transfers 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5650178/2024/07/23/manchester-united-transfer-latest-arsenal-liverpool-real-madrid/

 

What does Howe want to stay?

Howe is not demanding a set number of signings nor stipulating specific targets be brought in. The head coach is not even insisting upon total autonomy on recruitment (he previously held the final say on incoming). On Friday, he admitted “things like that are still being worked on” and he does not know if that remains the case. Howe is seeking a collective approach to transfer business and wants to retain influence while working constructively alongside Mitchell — whose role was described by Eales as being “90 per cent recruitment”.

Let me know if I can do anymore research for you ?

[The Prophet]

46 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Nah he did all the transfer dealings.  He may not have identified players. But he got deals done. Helped negotiate fee and wages.  He went to Sociedad to get Isak. He was dealing with the Joelinton contract. 

 

That's not what I said to be fair.

[The Prophet]

26 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Did we not sign Gordon to replace ASM ?

 

On Ashworth I would think it a bit naive as in most jobs to believe the job description is exactly as it says on the tin.

 

The below article doesn’t give the impression that Ashworth was in control of transfers, but that is was Staveley doing the deals.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5652769/2024/07/24/newcastle-eddie-howe-structure/

 

 

This article confirms he previously held veto on transfers 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5650178/2024/07/23/manchester-united-transfer-latest-arsenal-liverpool-real-madrid/

 

What does Howe want to stay?

Howe is not demanding a set number of signings nor stipulating specific targets be brought in. The head coach is not even insisting upon total autonomy on recruitment (he previously held the final say on incoming). On Friday, he admitted “things like that are still being worked on” and he does not know if that remains the case. Howe is seeking a collective approach to transfer business and wants to retain influence while working constructively alongside Mitchell — whose role was described by Eales as being “90 per cent recruitment”.

Let me know if I can do anymore research for you ?

 

None of that puts Howe front and centre of the transfer strategy mind.

 

Having final say doesn't meant he was responsible for scouting and selecting targets.

[The Prophet]

It's almost certainly horseshit, but rumours on West Ham Twitter that we've bid for Duran.

 

Gagging for a substantive link at this point.

[Whitley mag]

10 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

None of that puts Howe front and centre of the transfer strategy mind.

 

Having final say doesn't meant he was responsible for scouting and selecting targets.

I agree there’s a transfer committee all I’ve said is he had final say previously.

 

Going back to the Amazon documentary though it was pretty clear that Staveley said Eddie really wants Gordon and she was doing all the negotiating.

 

Hey the manager should definitely have a say not disputing that, but my opinion is it was a bit cosy with Staveley and last summer was a misstep, granted the first window they had, my personal view is that to get to the next level and with the complexities of PSR, it needs a football strategist like Mitchell to maybe sometimes pull rank and say for example where selling Trippier in January to avoid trouble in the summer.

 

 

Edited July 25 by Whitley mag

[Ketsbaia]

Really hope a better option comes through than Thiaw. Not watched a lot of him, admittedly, but I think he's average and not worth £30m+

 

Not panicking yet but have only just noticed it's late July, rather than 2 weeks ago  

[janpawel]

While we're arguing about who does what in the hierarchy, 1 thing I don't believe is that we have simply waited for a reshuffle and for Mitchell to get used to things before we start our main activity like some think

 

Imagine we have been after Hujlsen who Bournemouth are singing, if he was scouted extensively and on our wishlist, I doubt we'd sit back and let him and other top targets get signed with no competition, just because we signed a new DOF

[gdm]

1 minute ago, Ketsbaia said:

Really hope a better option comes through than Thiaw. Not watched a lot of him, admittedly, but I think he's average and not worth £30m+

 

Not panicking yet but have only just noticed it's late July, rather than 2 weeks ago  

Why do you think he’s average if you’ve not watched a lot of him? 

[tarie4]

40 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Did we not sign Gordon to replace ASM ?

 

On Ashworth I would think it a bit naive as in most jobs to believe the job description is exactly as it says on the tin.

 

The below article doesn’t give the impression that Ashworth was in control of transfers, but that is was Staveley doing the deals.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5652769/2024/07/24/newcastle-eddie-howe-structure/

 

 

This article confirms he previously held veto on transfers 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5650178/2024/07/23/manchester-united-transfer-latest-arsenal-liverpool-real-madrid/

 

What does Howe want to stay?

Howe is not demanding a set number of signings nor stipulating specific targets be brought in. The head coach is not even insisting upon total autonomy on recruitment (he previously held the final say on incoming). On Friday, he admitted “things like that are still being worked on” and he does not know if that remains the case. Howe is seeking a collective approach to transfer business and wants to retain influence while working constructively alongside Mitchell — whose role was described by Eales as being “90 per cent recruitment”.

Let me know if I can do anymore research for you ?

Your links here do not prove or show Eddie has the final say. I'm sorry can your copy and paste the exact statement from the articles that lead you to making that assumption. I might have missed it whilst reading them. 

 

Going into a champions league campaign, premier league season and Cup competitions, you were okay with Gordon being the only option at LW (who we bought in the winter window) being the replacement on ASM (who we sold in the summer) I think going into the season with Barnes and Gordon as our options at LW was fantastic business. 

[KaKa]

6 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

It's almost certainly horseshit, but rumours on West Ham Twitter that we've bid for Duran.

 

Gagging for a substantive link at this point.

 

Because of how injury prone Wilson is can see us wanting the young striker we bring in to have Prem experience.

 

After the intel from Brummie this is pretty terrifying though. Do not like the sound of his character at all.

[janpawel]

I've not Seen Thiaw other than highlights, who knows if we got him he could become our VVD for 10 years 

 

But I really hope our next centre back to compliment Botman is of the Rudiger / Konate etc mould, athletic, fast and aggressive, to compliment Botman as more of a sweeper etc 

[KaKa]

4 minutes ago, Ketsbaia said:

Really hope a better option comes through than Thiaw. Not watched a lot of him, admittedly, but I think he's average and not worth £30m+

 

This is so problematic man, and pretty common on here, unfortunately.

[tarie4]

21 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

I agree there’s a transfer committee all I’ve said is he had final say previously.

 

Going back to the Amazon documentary though it was pretty clear that Staveley said Eddie really wants Gordon and she was doing all the negotiating.

 

Hey the manager should definitely have a say not disputing that, but my opinion is it was a bit cosy with Staveley and last summer was a misstep, granted the first window they had, my personal view is that to get to the next level and with the complexities of PSR, it needs a football strategist like Mitchell to maybe sometimes pull rank and say for example where selling Triplier in January to avoid trouble in the summer.

If I may recall the episode correctly, it was Dan Ashworth who presented the idea to Staveley and the board. He expressed his belief that Gordon aligns with the profile of the player the club is seeking. Therefore, it would have been a collective decision, with Dan and Eddie likely sharing the same perspective. I believe that Mitchell is seeking a similar collaborative relationship.

 

On the 2nd bit, No manager with any self-respect would ever agree to that. Just look at Poch at Chelsea. Those are exactly the kind of assurances Eddie was looking for from the board. Only a "yes man" manager would agree to that.

 

 

Edited July 25 by tarie4