Paul Mitchell (Bald c*nt)

[robbo_11]

2 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

Burnley wouldn't sell Trafford to us when we tried to buy him this summer after Mitchell had left, because they didn't like Mitchell

 

Aye right

 

I thought we had agreed a fee, but Man City triggered a buy back clause within an hour of the deadline? I'm sure it was Hope who also reported that.

[Stottie]

It is speculation to say we could have placated Isak with a new contract, because he's probably too greedy as demonstrated by his recent actions. I doubt our PSR would have let us pay enough.

 

After two years with us, Isak was good, but not "OMG so amazing, we must give him 200k plus and that release clause he wants" good. He's only reached that level in the season just gone. The massive cockup was perhaps not Isak's contract but not replacing Wilson quickly and handing huge leverage to Isak.

 

[bobbydazzla]

Just now, robbo_11 said:

 

I thought we had agreed a fee, but Man City triggered a buy back clause within an hour of the deadline? I'm sure it was Hope who also reported that.

 

That was what was reported, which makes a mockery of the claim that "Burnley wouldn't sell Trafford to NUFC because of Mitchell" 

 

They were allegedly about to sell him to NUFC, until MCFC activated the clause

 

[Dr.Spaceman]

2 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

That was what was reported, which makes a mockery of the claim that "Burnley wouldn't sell Trafford to NUFC because of Mitchell" 

 

They were allegedly about to sell him to NUFC, until MCFC activated the clause

 

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse here 

[Smal]

3 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

That was what was reported, which makes a mockery of the claim that "Burnley wouldn't sell Trafford to NUFC because of Mitchell" 

 

They were allegedly about to sell him to NUFC, until MCFC activated the clause

 

it could still explain why we weren’t able to do the deal much earlier. We were supposed to be in for Trafford as soon as the season ended back in May. Hell, we were supposed to be in for him last summer.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2025 by Smal

[bobbydazzla]

11 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse here 

 

"Burnley wanted to sell Trafford to anybody but Newcastle and that I'm told is because of Paul Mitchell"

 

But we didn't miss out on Trafford because Mitchell, which is what others were suggesting after reading the above. Burnley agreed to sell Trafford to us (according to reports, after Mitchell had gone) but then MCFC swept in with their clause 

 

Mitchell didn't prevent the purchase of Trafford. It's possible his presence might have delayed our attempt to sign him, but he didn't prevent it. MCFC prevented it.

 

I'm not defending Mitchell by the way, he strikes me as a cad and a bounder.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2025 by bobbydazzla

[Mike]

37 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Turns out those Monaco forum posts were being far too kind, this bloke is utter poison. 

 

 

 

 

What'd they say?

[bobbydazzla]

14 minutes ago, Smal said:

it could still explain why we weren’t able to do the deal much earlier. We were supposed to be in for Trafford as soon as the season ended back in May. Hell, we were supposed to be in for him last summer.

 

 

 

Who knows, it’s all plausible 

 

But when it comes down to brass tacks, MCFC were the ones who stopped us buying Trafford. If the reports about us having a deal agreed are true

 

They wanted him and had the mechanism to get him. Whether it was last summer, early summer or when it actually happened, they could have done us whenever they felt like it  

[Kid Icarus]

28 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

What'd they say?

Combination of them not liking him, him being a disruptive influence, undoing good work, and the Leonard Nimoy Simpsons gif once he'd left.

[Mike]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

Combination of them not liking him, him being a disruptive influence, undoing good work, and the Leonard Nimoy Simpsons gif once he'd left.

 

 Bloody hell.

[TRon]

For all the evidence that he was a mouthy cunt, our recruitment policy is turning out to be not fit for purpose. Although not in the time period he was referring to, but currently it's a bit crap. 

[HalloNUFC]

On the backdrop of woltermade signing.

 

Would he became successful here, it would be a different story but the deal 

Itself wouldn't happen under this frauds watch.

He would probably mess the deal by negotiating for 5/6 millions, taking the surprise away & alert other suitors.

 

 

[Jackie Broon]

7 minutes ago, HalloNUFC said:

On the backdrop of woltermade signing.

 

Would he became successful here, it would be a different story but the deal 

Itself wouldn't happen under this frauds watch.

He would probably mess the deal by negotiating for 5/6 millions, taking the surprise away & alert other suitors.

 

 

 

Aye, like Tony Jimenez with Luka Modric, two bald cunt peas in a pod they are.

[Rich]

The cuntiest of bald cunts this cunt like.

[r0cafella]

Just now, Rich said:

The cuntiest of bald cunts this cunt like.

[El Prontonise]

29 minutes ago, Rich said:

The cuntiest of bald cunts this cunt like.

 

Only surprising thing is he's not Dutch.

[duo]

That decision not to give him a new contract has cost us

[Dyeyzzon]

Worst non-Ashley DoF of all time?

[Smal]

Just now, Dyeyzzon said:

Worst non-Ashley DoF of all time?

nah, was genuinely worse than Kinnear and Wise

[JT24]

I'm glad we're still talking about this guy.

[Lotus]

20 minutes ago, duo said:

That decision not to give him a new contract has cost us

Maybe Isak would only have signed one with a release clause around £120M and Mitchell thought, not worth it then? 

[andycap]

Has this fella not done us a favour by showing how much a cunt isak is? We all thought he was a lovely lad when really he was money hungry selfish bugger. 

[gbandit]

Just now, andycap said:

Has this fella not done us a favour by showing how much a cunt isak is? We all thought he was a lovely lad when really he was money hungry selfish bugger. 

No, read between the lines. Isak would have pulled this anyway, even with a contract extension. He had three years left for fuck’s sake. All that Mitchell has shown is that he’s incompetent

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, gbandit said:

No, read between the lines. Isak would have pulled this anyway, even with a contract extension. He had three years left for fuck’s sake. All that Mitchell has shown is that he’s incompetent

I don’t think so. He wanted to discuss a new contract and yeah, maybe an extension with a clause if some club met a ridiculous fee.

 

But he/his agent was told so bluntly to basically put up or shut up, it led us here.

 

If we’re going this route again, we really need to get that one right. Personally, I don’t think it’s necessary.. Eddie Howe should only have the CEO/Owners above him. Let him have the say so on the people coming in to support him.

[et tu brute]

42 minutes ago, duo said:

That decision not to give him a new contract has cost us

Or you can switch it around and say Staveley telling him he will get an improved contract cost us