Ross Wilson (Sporting Director)

[Kid Icarus]

This been posted?

 

 

'Osasuna sources say Newcastle’s offer for Munoz wasn’t acceptable as it amounted to around €32million as a guaranteed fee with an additional €5m to potentially follow in add-ons. Osasuna, stood firm in demanding the full €40m, which Liverpool agreed to pay.'

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7372228/2026/06/19/victor-munoz-liverpool-newcastle/?unlocked_article_code=1.rVA.eDBP.H5LDSKLFwpzb&smid=ta-android-share

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Nah, that's the opposite of what was reported by most people.

 

I guess we'll believe this one though because it makes us look worse. 

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by AyeDubbleYoo

[The College Dropout]

Selling one of your best players early and failing to land your top target to replace him is difficult to spin into a positive.

 

[Ikon]

Not seen it before. No wonder it took more time than necessary and stalled. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 minute ago, Ikon said:

Not seen it before. No wonder it took more time than necessary and stalled. 

 

Confusing compared to everyone yesterday reporting we had a deal in place with all parties. 

[LFEE]

Aren’t the NYTIMES essentially a Liverpool propaganda outlet in the USA? Might be mistaken but thought they had ties with the owners.

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

This been posted?

 

 

'Osasuna sources say Newcastle’s offer for Munoz wasn’t acceptable as it amounted to around €32million as a guaranteed fee with an additional €5m to potentially follow in add-ons. Osasuna, stood firm in demanding the full €40m, which Liverpool agreed to pay.'

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7372228/2026/06/19/victor-munoz-liverpool-newcastle/?unlocked_article_code=1.rVA.eDBP.H5LDSKLFwpzb&smid=ta-android-share

In any case - we definitely invested (IMO) unneccessary time and effort in negotiating a fee when we could've activated the release clause at any point.

 

If we think this lad will be worth £70m that's an unneccessary risk and opens us up for gazumption.

 

Don't really understand the approach to that transfer. Why did we wait until Gordon was sold? Why didn't we activate the release clause? 

[Ikon]

3 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

Confusing compared to everyone yesterday reporting we had a deal in place with all parties. 

 

I forgot to add (if true). Having said that, wasn't it mostly "our" reporters saying that a fee was agreed? Either way, I think we wasted too much time and should have been more ruthless and decisive.

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Ikon

[AyeDubbleYoo]

As I said, whatever is the most negative will be believed. 

 

Or maybe just the most recent, dunno. 

[The College Dropout]

2 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Aren’t the NYTIMES essentially a Liverpool propaganda outlet in the USA? Might be mistaken but thought they had ties with the owners.

It's The Athletic. Waugh is their Newcastle guy, Pearce is the Liverpool guy I think

[The College Dropout]

My issue is negotiating anyway - if he's the guy for us, pay the fee to secure our target quickly. By all reports the agent only asked for 24-hours so the remaining 2-weeks is likely spent negotiating.

 

40m isn't a massive fee. What's the dicking around for?

[TRon]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

My issue is negotiating anyway - if he's the guy for us, pay the fee to secure our target quickly. By all reports the agent only asked for 24-hours so the remaining 2-weeks is likely spent negotiating.

 

40m isn't a massive fee. What's the dicking around for?

 

Agreed.

 

You could argue every penny is important, but we sold Gordon early for less than we could have got precisely because we didn't want to end up wasting time chasing lost causes like last summer. 

 

This penny pinching looks amateurish at best. Get a fucking grip Newcastle. 

[Ikon]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

My issue is negotiating anyway - if he's the guy for us, pay the fee to secure our target quickly. By all reports the agent only asked for 24-hours so the remaining 2-weeks is likely spent negotiating.

 

40m isn't a massive fee. What's the dicking around for?

 

What's bad is if we get towards the end of the window lacking in a couple of positions and try to sign players when we look deperate. That's when it's gonna cost unnecessary money.

[kingxlnc]

What I don't get is also the lack of honour - Munoz, if you've agreed to go to a team, honour that agreement man
Ditto Ekitike etc why do they all say yes and then back away

Sesko was probably the most obvious - he was blatantly delaying

[Tiotes Witch Doctor]

Just now, kingxlnc said:

What I don't get is also the lack of honour - Munoz, if you've agreed to go to a team, honour that agreement man
Ditto Ekitike etc why do they all say yes and then back away

Sesko was probably the most obvious - he was blatantly delaying

£££££

[kingxlnc]

Also 34m and 40m - not much difference esp for a 22 YEAR OLD WHO IS A SPANISH INTERNATIONAL 

Just the premier league inflation will make him a 50-60m player in one season 

You can't always get the perfect deal - esp in todays market which is RUTHLESS

[Hhtoon]

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

My issue is negotiating anyway - if he's the guy for us, pay the fee to secure our target quickly. By all reports the agent only asked for 24-hours so the remaining 2-weeks is likely spent negotiating.

 

40m isn't a massive fee. What's the dicking around for?

 

Repeat ad nauseam 

 

Come on, you've made the point, I'm sure everyone has read it now, move on for the sake of your own sanity!

[kingxlnc]

1 minute ago, Tiotes Witch Doctor said:

£££££

True

 

But what about the honour?! 

Trippier is a good example, even Bruno once he had given Newcastle his word he stuck to it. Botman also 

[LFEE]

24 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

It's The Athletic. Waugh is their Newcastle guy, Pearce is the Liverpool guy I think

Yeah but they are linked… Athletic > NYT > Liverpool owners?

 

Always seem to get favourable coverage.

[Kid Icarus]

30 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Nah, that's the opposite of what was reported by most people.

 

I guess we'll believe this one though because it makes us look worse. 

 

 

 

 

Most people? It's Chris Waugh in the Athletic. Hardly some nobody on Twitter or anything. 

 

And posting it doesn't automatically equal believing it. It wouldn't surprise me though. 

[Kid Icarus]

35 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Aren’t the NYTIMES essentially a Liverpool propaganda outlet in the USA? Might be mistaken but thought they had ties with the owners.

If they are, I don't follow the line of reasoning that benefits Liverpool to report that Osasuna has said Newcastle didn't meet their valuation. It would be a much better look for Liverpool if it was a choice the player made regardless of any fee. 

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Kid Icarus

[r0cafella]

4 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Yeah but they are linked… Athletic > NYT > Liverpool owners?

 

Always seem to get favourable coverage.

NYT is the parent of the athletic. 

[Shearergol]

17 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Selling one of your best players early and failing to land your top target to replace him is difficult to spin into a positive.

 

 

Can't help but think this has been said hundreds of times already since yesterday. Why do people feel the need to keep repeating it now?

[Interpolic]

5 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

 

Can't help but think this has been said hundreds of times already since yesterday. Why do people feel the need to keep repeating it now?

 

Cocaine? 

[Groundhog63]

I see managing a Premier League football team, especially one playing in the Champions League, is as much a piece of piss as being that club's Director of Football.

According to N-O's finest, anyways 😉

 

Piece of absolute piss, apparently.