The College Dropout Posted Tuesday at 14:21 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:21 Again pure conjecture but it feels like Eddie was setup on a suicide mission, a crash out, he was meant to die at war with the 300. He came back with the enemies head on a stake and a bountiful of Gold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted Tuesday at 14:21 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:21 4 minutes ago, r0cafella said: For the record I totally understand the appeal of just leaving it to Eddie, he's our best manager of the modern era, why wouldn't you leave it to him is honestly sound logic. Coaching players is pretty full on let alone the hassle of identifying and signing players. Think we’ll bring someone in who does the administration side only but not the player identification part. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stottie Posted Tuesday at 14:22 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:22 Presumably this will be gardening leave, otherwise he takes the big book of NUFC targets compiled by Nickson and the other scouts with him. We may have had three summer windows with three different people handling transfers, but the net result has been a cup, two CL qualifications, a wage bill that is still only something like 8th highest, and lots of great players who could be sold for healthy fees if push ever came to shove. If three different people can get it right, maybe its not such a difficult or important role after all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KetsbaiaIsBald Posted Tuesday at 14:22 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:22 Eales -> Michell -> <- Staveley <- Michell <- Eales Staveley -> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT24 Posted Tuesday at 14:24 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:24 1 minute ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said: Eales -> Michell -> <- Staveley <- Michell <- Eales Staveley -> No thank you x Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted Tuesday at 14:25 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:25 Annoyingly Ashworth is probably what we need - someone to specifically build up behind the scenes capability to support the playing staff and coaching team. Howe and Nickson have done well with transfers they just needed a stronger network around them. I wonder if we can persuade Dougie Freedman who we offered the role to before Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted Tuesday at 14:26 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:26 (edited) Jurgen Klopp and Pep weren't told by someone else who they were signing, or at the very least were a huge part in their recruitment process. The two most successful clubs in the last 10 years in this country. It's absolute bollocks that we require some suit to pick players for a manager or indeed pick a manager for the club. It's quite clear that Howe and Mitchell weren't aligned, therefore it's right that Mitchell went. There's very few circumstances where Eddie Howe should have to leave. He is Newcastle. He should have whatever power he wishes. He's earned that right. Trippier Bruno Burn Targett Wood Pope Botman Isak Gordon Tonali Barnes Tino Hall Osula Kelly Greek fella (forced on him) I won't include a few keepers who were on the fringes but at my reckoning that's one hell of a hit rate and even the couple of failures (Wood, Kelly), weve managed to regain money. If this is the level of transfer we've got to look forward to and probably better, then I say Howe and Nickson are the best bet for the future. I'm more than happy for the club to have a director of some sort but not if they are going to get in the way of the most important man at the club. Edited Tuesday at 14:27 by STM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KetsbaiaIsBald Posted Tuesday at 14:27 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:27 I'll tell you one man who didn't have a sporting director, he didn't do badly... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT24 Posted Tuesday at 14:28 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:28 1 minute ago, STM said: Jurgen Klopp and Pep weren't told by someone else who they were signing, or at the very least were a huge part in their recruitment process. The two most successful clubs in the last 10 years in this country. It's absolute bollocks that we require some suit to pick players for a manager or indeed pick a manager for the club. It's quite clear that Howe and Mitchell weren't aligned, therefore it's right that Mitchell went. There's very few circumstances where Eddie Howe should have to leave. He is Newcastle. He should have whatever power he wishes. He's earned that right. Trippier Bruno Burn Targett Wood Pope Botman Isak Gordon Tonali Barnes Tino Hall Osula Kelly Greek fella (forced on him) I won't include a few keepers who were on the fringes but at my reckoning that's one hell of a hit rate and even the couple of failures (Wood, Kelly), weve managed to regain money. If this is the level of transfer we've got to look forward to and probably better, then I say Howe and Mitchell are the best bet for the future. I'm more than happy for the club to have a director of some sort but not if they are going to get in the way of the most important man at the club. Isn’t Txiki very much the head guy who leads transfers at City? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted Tuesday at 14:29 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:29 Just now, JT24 said: Isn’t Txiki very much the head guy who leads transfers at City? Aye, and I’m pretty sure Edward’s was in charge of transfers for the majority of time at Liverpool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted Tuesday at 14:30 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:30 1 minute ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said: I'll tell you one man who didn't have a sporting director, he didn't do badly... Different sport back then, footballers and agents didn't rule the way they do now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Tuesday at 14:30 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:30 2 minutes ago, gjohnson said: Dont think its Howe pulling rank, as Mitchell was technically above him...Think its more likely the PIF management have taken his comments as an insult to their competence, and have watched him like a hawk since then and not liked what theyve seen. Just my thoughts, could be anything...not a single one of us knows what goes on when those board room doors close I think Mitchell’s plans went against what Eddie would want - like almost fundamentally. After last season, I think PIF were less convinced about that old way of working which is why they changed things up. I think PIF had doubts about Eddie long-term or at least needed Eddie to bend more. Eddie’s justified the previous transfer approach. The 2 most contentious transfers - Tonali and Barnes - came up big when it mattered. Spend a little more on what you consider a ‘sure-thing’ profile wise. Eddie has secured the base. I think Mitchell was a practical demotion for Eddie. Not that he was in-charge before or will be now - but he had more influence. I don’t think he wanted Hall that first season but he was happy to work with it if he got Tonali and the like. Mitchell wanted less influence from Howe with a partial eye on possible successors. Eddie is the King now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stottie Posted Tuesday at 14:30 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:30 Wasn't Klopp given Salah by the Moneyball people? Iirc he wanted a German lad instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted Tuesday at 14:31 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:31 1 minute ago, SUPERTOON said: Aye, and I’m pretty sure Edward’s was in charge of transfers for the majority of time at Liverpool. He was aye. Klopp didn’t want salah or Robertson iirc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufc123 Posted Tuesday at 14:31 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:31 1 hour ago, SUPERTOON said: I reckon we see Nickson get promoted (at least for the summer window). Seems like the only person Howe can work with Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted Tuesday at 14:32 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:32 1 minute ago, Stottie said: Wasn't Klopp given Salah by the Moneyball people? Iirc he wanted a German lad instead. Yep Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted Tuesday at 14:32 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:32 1 minute ago, STM said: Jurgen Klopp and Pep weren't told by someone else who they were signing, or at the very least were a huge part in their recruitment process. The two most successful clubs in the last 10 years in this country. It's absolute bollocks that we require some suit to pick players for a manager or indeed pick a manager for the club. It's quite clear that Howe and Mitchell weren't aligned, therefore it's right that Mitchell went. There's very few circumstances where Eddie Howe should have to leave. He is Newcastle. He should have whatever power he wishes. He's earned that right. Trippier Bruno Burn Targett Wood Pope Botman Isak Gordon Tonali Barnes Tino Hall Osula Kelly Greek fella (forced on him) I won't include a few keepers who were on the fringes but at my reckoning that's one hell of a hit rate and even the couple of failures (Wood, Kelly), weve managed to regain money. If this is the level of transfer we've got to look forward to and probably better, then I say Howe and Mitchell are the best bet for the future. I'm more than happy for the club to have a director of some sort but not if they are going to get in the way of the most important man at the club. Michael Edwards ultimately stepped away from Liverpool after disagreements with Klopp. The club ended up bringing him back, as they thought the recruitment suffered once he left (see Darwin Nunez for £80 million as the main example) which was part of the reason Klopp then stepped down. Edwards is now the main man over there and runs the whole show as not even the DOF now but the CEO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memphis Posted Tuesday at 14:32 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:32 This is all too organized to have been a shock to anyone within the club. It was clearly set up to be announced today so as to avoid in-season distractions. Nothing wrong with the announcement itself. As to the decision, here are some theories: 1. Eddie Howe sniped another DoF. He didn't feel that he could work with Mitchell and was annoyed at having his transfer power reduced. He won the PIF power struggle and this is the result. 2. We have found a new CEO and since Darren Eales was instrumental in bringing Mitchell in - and they have worked together - change was needed and demanded by whoever is arriving. 3. Mitchell tried to snipe Eddie. He undermined him, with the backing of Eales, only to find that Howe massively overachieved in spite of them dragging their feet and not signing anyone. PIF saw through the scheme and backed Eddie. I think it's some combination of all three, but mostly 2. This is a pretty smooth exit, though it is abrupt, and everyone seems to be on board with how it's gone. That speaks to a pretty orchestrated process. I don't think this will impact this window all that much, but obviously it depends on the timing of the replacement. I would expect there to be a much more streamlined process and I would expect Eddie to get more power in this process, which I think he has earned. All in all, not all that bothered yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Tuesday at 14:33 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:33 1 minute ago, JT24 said: Isn’t Txiki very much the head guy who leads transfers at City? But he’s aligned to Pep they go back decades. Edwards for many years managed tensions with Klopp enough to win them titles. Mitchell I think was brought in to mark a pivot that didn’t align with Eddie. Eddie would have to concede or leave. Eddie conceding or leaving is impossible now. Eddie had tensions with Ashworth but it was working well enough that Ashworth wanted Howe at Man U. They could align enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HayDen Traces Posted Tuesday at 14:34 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:34 3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: I think Mitchell’s plans went against what Eddie would want - like almost fundamentally. After last season, I think PIF were less convinced about that old way of working which is why they changed things up. I think PIF had doubts about Eddie long-term or at least needed Eddie to bend more. Eddie’s justified the previous transfer approach. The 2 most contentious transfers - Tonali and Barnes - came up big when it mattered. Spend a little more on what you consider a ‘sure-thing’ profile wise. Eddie has secured the base. I think Mitchell was a practical demotion for Eddie. Not that he was in-charge before or will be now - but he had more influence. I don’t think he wanted Hall that first season but he was happy to work with it if he got Tonali and the like. Mitchell wanted less influence from Howe with a partial eye on possible successors. Eddie is the King now. All hail the king 🫅 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted Tuesday at 14:34 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:34 4 minutes ago, JT24 said: Isn’t Txiki very much the head guy who leads transfers at City? Leads transfers is not the same as choosing transfers. If anyone here thinks that Pep and Klopp had players landed on their lap that they didn't want well... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Tuesday at 14:36 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:36 Just now, STM said: Leads transfers is not the same as choosing transfers. If anyone here thinks that Pep and Klopp had players landed on their lap that they didn't want well... Agreed Txiki and Pep go back to Barcelona. They were aligned. Edwards and Klopp worked together for a number of years despite tensions. Both entities earning their stripes. I think Mitchell was proposing a departure and misalignment from Eddie. That doesn’t work at any club but certainly not this iteration of Eddie Howe at Newcastle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted Tuesday at 14:36 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:36 1 minute ago, The College Dropout said: But he’s aligned to Pep they go back decades. Edwards for many years managed tensions with Klopp enough to win them titles. Mitchell I think was brought in to mark a pivot that didn’t align with Eddie. Eddie would have to concede or leave. Eddie conceding or leaving is impossible now. Eddie had tensions with Ashworth but it was working well enough that Ashworth wanted Howe at Man U. They could align enough. Exactly, it's about a compromise and shared vision. Noone has to agree fully. Just enough so that they can work together. There's no evidence that Howe can't work with someone, he's worked with Staveley and Nickson, who will have had their own ideas or constraints. Mitchell had a model which clearly wasn't compatible with Howe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted Tuesday at 14:37 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:37 2 hours ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said: When Howe came out straight after qualifying with his comments about speed in the transfer market it didn't quite feel right to me. The fact he felt he needed to put some message/pressure out there smelt. Think you are picking that up the wrong way personally speaking. PIF and how they function/act in most things are notoriously diligent so not known for their speed. Probably something they’ve learned in their short time in football and EH putting out a reminder how quickly you need to act in certain cases. Don’t think it was aimed at PM directly. EH probably aware that he was probably going to depart along with Eales shortly so good time to clear the decks. I honestly don’t think there is much drama to see here at all. Especially when you put the two statements together 🤷🏼♂️ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Tuesday at 14:37 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:37 Just now, STM said: Exactly, it's about a compromise and shared vision. Noone has to agree fully. Just enough so that they can work together. There's no evidence that Howe can't work with someone, he's worked with Staveley and Nickson, who will have had their own ideas or constraints. Mitchell had a model which clearly wasn't compatible with Howe. Mitchell was brought in to pivot away from the previous approach imo and that meant a pivot from what Eddie wanted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now