Paul Mitchell

[KingArthur]

12 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

Not a fan of the way he's speaking tbh.

• He has that management speak about him that I'm hardwired to distrust.
• The 'won't pay over the odds' thing makes no sense when he'd already bid way over the odds for Guehi by the time we walked away.
• Rightly or wrongly I'm not sure how professional it is to dig out your predecessor, and
• I have no idea what he's thinking of suggesting we potentially overpaid on our existing players!

 

I don't think 60+5 million is "way over the odds" for England international centre back who still has 10 years at the top...

[Abacus]

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Again, I have to be honest and say that what I'm hearing from Mitchell would make me inclined to agree. Nothing about this sits right at all. 

 

It was a weird quote re the England job so not surprised you could get this vibe - talk about being patriotic Englishmen, and also of not being afraid of interest for anyone at the club especially our head coach, was what he was quoted as saying.

[Shearergol]

Just now, KingArthur said:

I don't think 60+5 million is "way over the odds" for England international centre back who still has 10 years at the top...

 

We also didn't bid that much. But hey.

[Kid Icarus]

2 minutes ago, KingArthur said:

I don't think 60+5 million is "way over the odds" for England international centre back who still has 10 years at the top...

 

Is it way over the odds compared to our other players, who Mitchell insinuates we paid over the odds for?

 

 

Edited September 5 by Kid Icarus

[SUPERTOON]

Talking about paying over the odds, that £50 million bid for Elanga on deadline day is the very definition of it.

[junkhead]

26 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

Yeah, I get it.

 

Ultimately though, with better recruitment,  we could have brought in players for less than we did, that could have done just as well. We can't just assume this isn't possible.

 

We saw more of this earlier on. Signing the likes of Bruno and Botman for around £30 million a piece.

 

With where we were at PSR wise, we probably shouldn't have been spending what we did.

 

We were quite fortunate with Minteh and Anderson in the end, but at some point discussions were being had about Gordon, because the situation was so precarious.

 

Imo, our transfer strategy "Guehi or nothing" is not due to limitations in the scouting setup per se. 

 

I've already posted it several times but with Ashworth and Amanda's exits coinciding basically Eddie Howe remained the only influential voice in the old transfer committee. They were the people capable of the huge money decisions. We've seen how influential Amanda was in Gordon's transfer on the TV series.. 

So the whole £70mil responsibility suddenly fell on Eddie's shoulders. He knows that expensive failures can bring a lot of pressure, noise and negative emotion around the club. Character is a big thing for Eddie and I think it's hard for him to research that in detail with foreign players... I think he simply decided to play it as safe as he could with the transfer budget.

 

 

Edited September 5 by junkhead

[Menace]

2 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Talking about paying over the odds, that £50 million bid for Elanga on deadline day is the very definition of it.

 

Pretty sure it was lies but cant remember where I read it

[SUPERTOON]

Just now, Menace said:

 

Pretty sure it was lies but cant remember where I read it

The Athletic, Sky and all our journos reported it mind.

[TRon]

5 minutes ago, Menace said:

Hypothetically though, and not something I personally want.. who could Mitchell bring in that achieves more than what Howe has done with this team

 

Can Howe keep achieving with this team unless we buy players who appreciate in value though? How do we replace Longstaff, Almiron, Krafth, Burn, Targett, Schar and so on, which at some point we need to do, I think that's evident.

[Adam P]

Where has the 'Stavely was pushed out' narrative come from? I thought their debt to the parent company could no longer be financed through their equity share, so their position was financially unsustainable. I know she loved us and all that but she is a business woman not a fan.

[WilliamPS]

45 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Overpaying' at the time is now underpaying with hindsight, in 3 players alone we've signed roughly £275m worth of talent for around £140m

Hard disagree.

 

The increase in the likes of Gordon, Tino etc came through coaching and development at Newcastle. It’s value created at Newcastle. At the time they were signed they didn’t have that value. You don’t pay someone else for work you have to do yourself.

 

Hall and Tino in particular may well turn out well, but the risk is all on Newcastle, for example Tino could have had another injury. Hall is going through intense coaching and isn’t yet a starter, but the fees paid were fees for complete players. The risk and downside of it not coming off is all on Newcastle, there’s no refunds if a signing doesn’t make it.

 

Guehi may become a 70m player, but until he actually is one it’s not a sensible price to pay, otherwise you take all of the risk of him not stepping up.

 

 

Edited September 5 by WilliamPS

[KingArthur]

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

Is it way over the odds compared to our other players, who Mitchell insinuates we paid over the odds for?

 

 

 

I do not know who he is referring to. Hall was quite expensive, if you consider that he didn't play much. And yes I know we paid for potential and most likely he will become great. I think he might also refer to players bought in the past, that we are not able to sell. (Lewis, Almiron, Wilson, Dubravka?) Most likely wages are the problem here, and not the actual fee.

Around 60 millions does not buy you Stones or Colwill, and most likely not Konsa. Maguire is over the hill.

[Froggy]

4 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Talking about paying over the odds, that £50 million bid for Elanga on deadline day is the very definition of it.

 

I was gobsmacked to see this as Elanga is bog standard. I wasn't sure if it was Howe or Mitchell's idea but didn't want to say much on it as I was worried the move would go through and Howe would turn Elanga into the next Salah.

[KingArthur]

2 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

The Athletic, Sky and all our journos reported it mind.

"There was also dialogue with Nottingham Forest over Anthony Elanga, but contrary to reports in the East Midlands it did not extend to a deadline day bid of £50m."

[TRon]

4 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Talking about paying over the odds, that £50 million bid for Elanga on deadline day is the very definition of it.

 

Our interest in Elanga was something prior to Mitchell arriving, the alleged £50m bid this summer wasn't confirmed.

[Kid Icarus]

4 minutes ago, WilliamPS said:

Hard disagree.

 

The increase in the likes of Gordon, Tino etc came through coaching and development at Newcastle. It’s value created at Newcastle. At the time they were signed they didn’t have that value.

 

Hall and Tino in particular may well turn out well, but the risk is all on Newcastle, for example Tino could have had another injury. Hall is going through intense coaching and isn’t yet a starter, but the fees paid were fees for complete players. The risk and downside of it not coming off is all on Newcastle, there’s no refunds if a signing doesn’t make it.

 

Guehi may become a 70m player, but until he actually is one it’s not a sensible price to pay, otherwise you take all of the risk of him not stepping up.

 

The bit in bold is the reason you should be agreeing imo. There was risk, but there is now reward, and the decisions made to sign these players that were seen as overpayments at the time are now vindicated because with that coaching and development they're worth far more. 

 

I would say it's a risky strategy but Howe has been vindicated so many times in this regard that it's now more a sign of his and his coaches talent and in itself a model, rather than a risk. 

 

 

Edited September 5 by Kid Icarus

[Kid Icarus]

4 minutes ago, KingArthur said:

I do not know who he is referring to. Hall was quite expensive, if you consider that he didn't play much. And yes I know we paid for potential and most likely he will become great. I think he might also refer to players bought in the past, that we are not able to sell. (Lewis, Almiron, Wilson, Dubravka?) Most likely wages are the problem here, and not the actual fee.

Around 60 millions does not buy you Stones or Colwill, and most likely not Konsa. Maguire is over the hill.

 

Hall was admittedly expensive but we're still in that phase where we don't know for sure whether it was a bargain or an overspend. Chelsea fans certainly seemed to think that we'd robbed them blind. 

 

Targett is the only player I can point at and say it's really not worked out and that's mainly because of injury. 

[KaKa]

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

This is an appeal to ignorance argument though, someone no one should waste their time indulging in without any evidence supporting it. Particularly when what we do know has resulted in:

• hugely increased player value
• hugely increased club value
• success on the pitch
• success in the league

There's also a bit of an oxymoron going on here in that Minteh and Anderson bailed us out, one of which was bought for ~£6m and sold for £35m, and one of whom was a successful academy graduate. ie the two things we apparently aren't doing. Imo it's not that we're not doing it, it's that we need to do more of it. 

 

14 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

This is an appeal to ignorance argument though, someone no one should waste their time indulging in without any evidence supporting it. Particularly when what we do know has resulted in:

• hugely increased player value
• hugely increased club value
• success on the pitch
• success in the league

There's also a bit of an oxymoron going on here in that Minteh and Anderson bailed us out, one of which was bought for ~£6m and sold for £35m, and one of whom was a successful academy graduate. ie the two things we apparently aren't doing. Imo it's not that we're not doing it, it's that we need to do more of it. 

 

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

 

I think there is room for improvement in our recruitment, and I think we need more balance, as far as taking a bit more risk with players that are not as heralded and can be had for much less.

 

We were linked a lot with Wharton for example but hesitated and lost out there. And in general I just think the Championship is overlooked, considering the players coming through there that have had an impact in the league.

 

I also recall a fair bit being made about Nickson's knowledge of the South America market, and him having good contacts there, but we haven't done much there. João Gomes, João Pedro and Gabriel Sara have all come direct from there and looked really good.

 

Sprinkling in a few of these signings likely brings down our transfer spend significantly.

 

I'm just not sure our information or knowledge globally has been good enough, or strong enough to convince the manager. 

 

I think Mitchell is going to be more capable of selling this and convincing Howe of a broader approach.

 

Guess we'll see what happens. I'm optimistic though.

[SUPERTOON]

5 minutes ago, KingArthur said:

"There was also dialogue with Nottingham Forest over Anthony Elanga, but contrary to reports in the East Midlands it did not extend to a deadline day bid of £50m."

Where is that from, other quotes are saying it did happen. 

[KingArthur]

14 hours ago, The Prophet said:

Douglas' spin:

 

.

 

There was also dialogue with Nottingham Forest over Anthony Elanga, but contrary to reports in the East Midlands it did not extend to a deadline day bid of £50m.

 

 

 

[Bimpy474]

I think we're reading too much into what was said, as long as Eddie is comfortable and trusts Mitchell, that's all that matters. 

 

What would worry me is if that trust is not there, that would push Eddie out imo. 

[TBG]

Oh boy those first 15 pages or so.

[Matt1892]

14 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

The bit in bold is the reason you should be agreeing imo. There was risk, but there is now reward, and the decisions made to sign these players that were seen as overpayments at the time are now vindicated because with that coaching and development they're worth far more. 

 

I would say it's a risky strategy but Howe has been vindicated so many times in this regard that it's now more a sign of his and his coaches talent and in itself a model, rather than a risk. 

 

 

 

As an example then… if we think Anthony Gordon is worth £80 million now, we wouldn’t have overpaid if we had paid Everton £70 million for him back in January 2023?

[Yorkie]

31 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

You have to also remember that Howe turned down Celtic because he wasn't allowed the level of control that he needed. He came here partly because it 'felt right' - largely due to Staveley. 

 

Since then Staveley and Ghoudoussi are gone, - reportedly pushed out and heartbroken, and with the official reason being that they need to let Eales do his job.

 

Mitchell has come in apparently without Howe being asked or told until it had happened, Howe then does an interview about how he needs to be allowed the level of control that he needs to do his job

 

The transfer window in terms of incoming players is a complete disaster, Howe tows the line about everyone working together and pushing in the right direction, then Mitchell comes out with a series of closed door interviews (did Howe know these were happening) in which he says he was in a supporting role, that the current model isn't fit for purpose, that Guehi was a Howe choice, that Howe is best at training, that they couldn't stand in anyone's way if they wanted to leave - particularly if it was the FA, and that the plan will work next time because it'll be his. Blame insinuated as being on Howe, Ashworth, Staveley and Ghoudoussi, and as an adage insinuates that we paid too much for some of our players. He aso refers to himself in the 3rd person and is dripping in management speak. 

 

It all sounds like about 20 huge red flags to me.

 

I don't think anything you're saying is reaching - it's all plausible. However, I really do think we should exercise some caution when it comes to making conclusions about any of this, due to the nature of the communication. One of the journos is literally already back-peddling on Twitter re the vibes of the meeting. 

 

It's not an obscene thought that there isn't total parity behind the scenes. Mitchell could have aspirations of replacing Howe with someone more aligned to the role of coach-only. But the joker in the pack is results; if Howe continues to have us fighting in the right part of the table (which, despite the transfer window, we are equipped to do) then that should trump everything. 

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

If Howe understandably wants to keep hold of his best players (this transfer window is evidence of that) then it is better for us to spend less on incomings. Having Gordon, Isak, Bruno etc worth far more than we paid for them is meaningless unless they are sold. It does not change the fact that from an accounting point of view those players have been bought at a cost that needs to be balanced. If a buying club knows you need to sell in order to balance your deals then that will undermine the value of the player. 
 

Describing our recruitment process as not fit for purpose seems like a fair cop to me when over the summer window we have not added to the first team and when we’ve been after a right wing for how many windows now?