Are We An Attractive Club To Join?

[gazza ladra]

Absolutely! We're in Europe aren't we?

[Guest jackmisfit]

There is a lot more money these days. When it comes to foreign talent, most teams should be able to attract players due to the wages they can now afford to pay.

The big 4 can only have sign so many players and the rest of the world has a lot of really good talent to choose from. (even if it's only as a stepping stone, ie Tevez)

[Begbie]

I think we are an attractive club, we have some decent players that can attract others. But how is Big Sams reputation in Europe? And to be fair, I dont think he had the best rep. in Bolton. People consider his style as boring, only old players that could play for them etc.  To attract big name players today, to get a great players, I think we need a great manager. Just look at Svennis, he can attract good players to a mediocre club. Look at Benitez, he could just pick anyone he liked from spain, and has done Liverpool in to a top european side( nr 2 in europe actually).

[Guest Knightrider]

Depends who we're bidding for and who we're competing with, among a whole plethora of other variables. I'd say however we are far more attractive than most but in the overall scheme of things, we are not so different to many of our rivals.

[KaKa]

To be honest the club right now that is ging to be a big threat is Man City because of Sven. He has an absolutely huge reputation and we can already see it by the types of players he is bringing in. When you consider how useless City were last season it is no small feat. He also has very good contacts all over the world that appear to be helping him land players too. I think Man City are a huge threat right now.

 

I think everyone who ever doubted Sven might be in for some humble pie this season.

[olliemort]

Well Baptista said he sees us as a big club and he would be interested in playing for us!this is the guy whose playing for real madrid and played for Arsenal and Brazil!I think if we can offer players alot of money  alot of them would play for us!The only thing not attractive is the weather........and maybe no champs league............yet!!!

[PCW1983]

Depends how attractive you find the Queen on all those notes we have to offer people to sign ?!

[manorpark]

To answer the question  -  YES.  There can be no doubt about that, though that will not stop (some) people, quite eloquently, doing exactly that!

 

Reading some of the posts on here, it strikes me how much easier it is to sound "credible" about us these days, by writing in a negative or semi-negative way. It is far far easier to present 'negative speculation and opinion' as FACT, than it is to present the positive alternative.  The 'negative speculators' are more easily seen as (that dreaded word) "realistic", while the more positive amongst us are presented (by those same negative ones)  as "unrealistic" and "biased", or even "deluded".

 

The London-factor is much beloved of the negatives. It is a factor that is much overplayed, as is the (seen as) 'permanent big four' ("If the Big 4 want them, they will get them", etc).

 

So, lets forget all the above easy-generalisations - and point to what we are / what we have to make us ATTRACTIVE as a club:

(1) The location and the City : (The people who sell this short the most, are often those that live here. Even those that live here that love the place. They are often the worst, because they seem to think that 'being a local' is the only reason why 'this place' can be an attraction).

(2) Sam Allardyce : (no more needs to be said).

(3) The players we already have : (Many of those are seen in a far better light by their fellow players than some of us supporters see them).

(4) Our fame / Our Status. (It exists and is a BIG factor. Again, many of us seem to think that we are not seen that way. There is an inherent 'inferiority complex' - similar to in point (1) - in some people about this).

(5) Our new owner : (players KNOW about this. They can calculate what this will mean, when allied to what we already were financially. IE, we have been around and about the top ten richest clubs in the world, for years. They know what this will probably mean over the next few years).

(6) Our support, ie "us" !! : (It is a definite pull factor. Who would not like the chance to 'hack it' in front of 52,000 every other week?)

 

So (and there will be more I have forgotten) there are many many reasons to make the answer to the question a definite  -  YES.

 

A final few other points : The current 'big four' are obviously not permanent (think I said that already) . .  but also our other rivals, the 'newly rich' (note, I did not say the "other" newly rich, as we have always been rich) have all got far more negatives about them (just LOOK at some of the crap they are spending HUGE amounts of money on!) than we have.

 

and finally . .  wait (just wait!!) until the transfer window closes.  You will see!

 

[Guest black]

Attractive to who?

I think this question in itself is part of the problem.

If you look at some of the clubs most successful periods since the premier leagues inception (and let's only deal with period because it sums up the contempary game) whenever the club has invested in players of exceptional potential it has been it's most successful*.

Andy Cole, Craig Bellamy, Laurent Robert, David Ginola, Sir Les, Rob Lee and even Pedros return were all players that we had no real competition to sign (from the top flight - sorry but the smoggies didn't count) and in turn they wanted to play for the club. Players that have signed for us because our wages were better than those offered elsewhere inevitably haven't been successful.

 

I read somewhere today where a supporter was questioning how could a £3m defender from a Danish club could be any good because he is only valued at £3m arguing that a £3m pound English defender would be nothing but rubbish.

Here is the problem with not only supporters but clubs throughout the Premier League. Gone is the ability to realise that just because a top English player is valued a X amount, what is the point in pursuing a player of equal or more potential/ability from elsewhere because they don't cost as much/have premier league experience.

Currently we as a club aren't as attractive as we were when Shearer signed for us or even when Woodgate signed for us but at the same time we need to realise that we shouldn't be trying to attract players of Shearer's calibre.

To players like Viduka, Barton, Geremi, etc yes we are an attractive club to join.

We should be realistic in our expectations and our expectations should be to build a good solid squad of premier league standard players (something we've been short of throughout the squad in recent years) and search for and unearth that rare gem that is our next Andy Cole, Rob Lee or Pedro - a player who we are an attactive club to join.

Or we can just spunk a fortune on fees and wages on another Owen, Boumsong or Luque.

 

*Shearer will always be the exception to the rule but he signed for Newcastle for more than just the £££.

[manorpark]

 

*Shearer will always be the exception to the rule but he signed for Newcastle for more than just the £££.

 

Alan Shearer signed for us at the time, because everything about us said that we were about to 'take over', that we were indeed the next- big-thing, in a kind of "post Manchester United" era!!

 

It was that strong.

 

Shearer (simply) expected to win things here, he expected to dominate.

 

Added to that (but not the reason he signed) was this most "amazing" factor for him - This club that he was joining, that were about-to-take-over the league, was actually his beloved home town club, the famous 'sleeping giant' for so many years - Newcastle United FC.

 

That was fantastic, almost unbelievable for him.

 

But that is NOT why he joined us.  It is said (assumed) so many times that it WAS the reason he joined us  -  that it is accepted as 'true' by many. Particularly by the new/younger supporter, who was not old enough to know what was going on in 1996.

 

That does not make it true.

[Guest black]

 

*Shearer will always be the exception to the rule but he signed for Newcastle for more than just the £££.

 

Alan Shearer signed for us at the time, because everything about us said that we were about to 'take over', that we were indeed the next- big-thing, in a kind of "post Manchester United" era!!

 

It was that strong.

 

Shearer (simply) expected to win things here, he expected to dominate.

 

Added to that (but not the reason he signed) was this most "amazing" factor for him - This club that he was joining, that were about-to-take-over the league, was actually his beloved home town club, the famous 'sleeping giant' for so many years - Newcastle United FC.

 

That was fantastic, almost unbelievable for him.

 

But that is NOT why he joined us.  It is said (assumed) so many times that it WAS the reason he joined us  -  that it is accepted as 'true' by many. Particularly by the new/younger supporter, who was not old enough to know what was going on in 1996.

 

That does not make it true.

So you are agreeing with me?

[Guest Gemmill]

To answer the question  -  YES.  There can be no doubt about that, though that will not stop (some) people, quite eloquently, doing exactly that!

 

Reading some of the posts on here, it strikes me how much easier it is to sound "credible" about us these days, by writing in a negative or semi-negative way. It is far far easier to present 'negative speculation and opinion' as FACT, than it is to present the positive alternative.  The 'negative speculators' are more easily seen as (that dreaded word) "realistic", while the more positive amongst us are presented (by those same negative ones)  as "unrealistic" and "biased", or even "deluded".

 

The London-factor is much beloved of the negatives. It is a factor that is much overplayed, as is the (seen as) 'permanent big four' ("If the Big 4 want them, they will get them", etc).

 

So, lets forget all the above easy-generalisations - and point to what we are / what we have to make us ATTRACTIVE as a club:

(1) The location and the City : (The people who sell this short the most, are often those that live here. Even those that live here that love the place. They are often the worst, because they seem to think that 'being a local' is the only reason why 'this place' can be an attraction).

(2) Sam Allardyce : (no more needs to be said).

(3) The players we already have : (Many of those are seen in a far better light by their fellow players than some of us supporters see them).

(4) Our fame / Our Status. (It exists and is a BIG factor. Again, many of us seem to think that we are not seen that way. There is an inherent 'inferiority complex' - similar to in point (1) - in some people about this).

(5) Our new owner : (players KNOW about this. They can calculate what this will mean, when allied to what we already were financially. IE, we have been around and about the top ten richest clubs in the world, for years. They know what this will probably mean over the next few years).

(6) Our support, ie "us" !! : (It is a definite pull factor. Who would not like the chance to 'hack it' in front of 52,000 every other week?)

 

So (and there will be more I have forgotten) there are many many reasons to make the answer to the question a definite  -  YES.

 

A final few other points : The current 'big four' are obviously not permanent (think I said that already) . .  but also our other rivals, the 'newly rich' (note, I did not say the "other" newly rich, as we have always been rich) have all got far more negatives about them (just LOOK at some of the crap they are spending HUGE amounts of money on!) than we have.

 

and finally . .  wait (just wait!!) until the transfer window closes.  You will see!

 

 

No one is suggesting that we aren't an attractive club to play for to a certain type/level of player.  In my realistic/negative/call-it-what-you-like post, I just made the point that we have fallen away significantly from where we once were in terms of being able to attract bigger players.  No one really thinks we're on the brink of winning things like they did under Keegan - they know there's the possibility, but that in all probability they aren't coming to Newcastle United to win trophies.  And that's what the really top players look for in their choice of club.

 

Yeah Newcastle isn't a bad city, we've got a decent forward-thinking manager, and there is the potential that a new owner might splash the cash.  But don't Manchester City have that?  Don't West Ham (ok, Alan Curbishley, maybe not)?  Spurs?  Villa? 

 

Yes, we are an attractive club to join (more attractive than 50%+ of the other premiership teams), but don't kid yourself that we are that far removed from some of the clubs above when you take into account the lure of London, etc. 

 

By the way, there's a good reason that it's easier to sound credible/realistic when being somewhat negative about Newcastle United.

[manorpark]

 

*Shearer will always be the exception to the rule but he signed for Newcastle for more than just the £££.

 

Alan Shearer signed for us at the time, because everything about us said that we were about to 'take over', that we were indeed the next- big-thing, in a kind of "post Manchester United" era!!

 

It was that strong.

 

Shearer (simply) expected to win things here, he expected to dominate.

 

Added to that (but not the reason he signed) was this most "amazing" factor for him - This club that he was joining, that were about-to-take-over the league, was actually his beloved home town club, the famous 'sleeping giant' for so many years - Newcastle United FC.

 

That was fantastic, almost unbelievable for him.

 

But that is NOT why he joined us.  It is said (assumed) so many times that it WAS the reason he joined us  -  that it is accepted as 'true' by many. Particularly by the new/younger supporter, who was not old enough to know what was going on in 1996.

 

That does not make it true.

So you are agreeing with me?

 

I certainly am, I agree with most of what you say, except:

 

(1) The Shearer comment "sounded like" you were saying he joined us because we were his home-town club, though I think you weren't saying 'exactly' that (?).  I still found it a useful opportunity to re-present the facts of the Shearer-signing issue, though!

 

(2) When you say "we need to realise that we shouldn't be trying to attract players of Shearer's calibre", I disagree. That is exactly the sort of player we need to keep on trying to sign. We should also sign a lot of the Rozehnal / Geremi / Viduka level of player (DEFENDERS, ideally) to build up a reasonably sized good-quality squad. As we become 'more and more' attractive to 'more and more' players, our success rate in actually getting them, will rise  -  but we have to TRY, now, at this stage still.

 

[manorpark]

To answer the question  -  YES.  There can be no doubt about that, though that will not stop (some) people, quite eloquently, doing exactly that!

 

Reading some of the posts on here, it strikes me how much easier it is to sound "credible" about us these days, by writing in a negative or semi-negative way. It is far far easier to present 'negative speculation and opinion' as FACT, than it is to present the positive alternative.  The 'negative speculators' are more easily seen as (that dreaded word) "realistic", while the more positive amongst us are presented (by those same negative ones)  as "unrealistic" and "biased", or even "deluded".

 

The London-factor is much beloved of the negatives. It is a factor that is much overplayed, as is the (seen as) 'permanent big four' ("If the Big 4 want them, they will get them", etc).

 

So, lets forget all the above easy-generalisations - and point to what we are / what we have to make us ATTRACTIVE as a club:

(1) The location and the City : (The people who sell this short the most, are often those that live here. Even those that live here that love the place. They are often the worst, because they seem to think that 'being a local' is the only reason why 'this place' can be an attraction).

(2) Sam Allardyce : (no more needs to be said).

(3) The players we already have : (Many of those are seen in a far better light by their fellow players than some of us supporters see them).

(4) Our fame / Our Status. (It exists and is a BIG factor. Again, many of us seem to think that we are not seen that way. There is an inherent 'inferiority complex' - similar to in point (1) - in some people about this).

(5) Our new owner : (players KNOW about this. They can calculate what this will mean, when allied to what we already were financially. IE, we have been around and about the top ten richest clubs in the world, for years. They know what this will probably mean over the next few years).

(6) Our support, ie "us" !! : (It is a definite pull factor. Who would not like the chance to 'hack it' in front of 52,000 every other week?)

 

So (and there will be more I have forgotten) there are many many reasons to make the answer to the question a definite  -  YES.

 

A final few other points : The current 'big four' are obviously not permanent (think I said that already) . .  but also our other rivals, the 'newly rich' (note, I did not say the "other" newly rich, as we have always been rich) have all got far more negatives about them (just LOOK at some of the crap they are spending HUGE amounts of money on!) than we have.

 

and finally . .  wait (just wait!!) until the transfer window closes.  You will see!

 

 

No one is suggesting that we aren't an attractive club to play for to a certain type/level of player.  In my realistic/negative/call-it-what-you-like post, I just made the point that we have fallen away significantly from where we once were in terms of being able to attract bigger players.  No one really thinks we're on the brink of winning things like they did under Keegan - they know there's the possibility, but that in all probability they aren't coming to Newcastle United to win trophies.  And that's what the really top players look for in their choice of club.

 

Yeah Newcastle isn't a bad city, we've got a decent forward-thinking manager, and there is the potential that a new owner might splash the cash.  But don't Manchester City have that?  Don't West Ham (ok, Alan Curbishley, maybe not)?  Spurs?  Villa? 

 

Yes, we are an attractive club to join (more attractive than 50%+ of the other premiership teams), but don't kid yourself that we are that far removed from some of the clubs above when you take into account the lure of London, etc. 

 

By the way, there's a good reason that it's easier to sound credible/realistic when being somewhat negative about Newcastle United.

 

I don't think we are too far away from agreeing on this.  I would just put the emphasis more positively (in some aspects a 'fair bit' more positively) that you do.

 

For example "Newcastle isn't a bad city" (damming with faint praise" and very understated) . . .  and . . . . "more attractive than 50% of other Premier League teams" (if I thought it was just as low a % as that, I would be seriously depressed!!).

 

 

[Guest Gemmill]

(2) When you say "we need to realise that we shouldn't be trying to attract players of Shearer's calibre", I disagree. That is exactly the sort of player we need to keep on trying to sign. We should also sign a lot of the Rozehnal / Geremi / Viduka level of player (DEFENDERS, ideally) to build up a reasonably sized good-quality squad. As we become 'more and more' attractive to 'more and more' players, our success rate in actually getting them, will rise  -  but we have to TRY, now, at this stage still.

 

When you talk about players of "Shearer's calibre", you're talking about a bloke who was arguably in the top 3 strikers in the world at the time we signed him.  I think there'll be a lot of wasted effort expended if we're trying to sign players of that calibre because they simply aren't coming to a club that's unlikely to win trophies and has no Europe/Champions League football to offer.

[manorpark]

(2) When you say "we need to realise that we shouldn't be trying to attract players of Shearer's calibre", I disagree. That is exactly the sort of player we need to keep on trying to sign. We should also sign a lot of the Rozehnal / Geremi / Viduka level of player (DEFENDERS, ideally) to build up a reasonably sized good-quality squad. As we become 'more and more' attractive to 'more and more' players, our success rate in actually getting them, will rise  -  but we have to TRY, now, at this stage still.

 

When you talk about players of "Shearer's calibre", you're talking about a bloke who was arguably in the top 3 strikers in the world at the time we signed him.  I think there'll be a lot of wasted effort expended if we're trying to sign players of that calibre because they simply aren't coming to a club that's unlikely to win trophies and has no Europe/Champions League football to offer.

 

It has to be a gradual process, as we have slipped such a lot in recent years. But, it is still only in "recent" years.

 

We will find it so much more difficult to attract top quality than the current top clubs in our league (eg, Liverpool) do - at present, but we need to consistently establish our credibility, under Ashley.

 

Thinking/acting big (without looking ridiculous) in a commonsense/credible/normal way - until we ARE big - is all part of this . . .  we must do this!

 

We need to get the balance right - no more of the obvious "one-off we can't afford any more" trophy-type signings. It has to be seen as part of a consistent programme of advancement - but within that we need to be seen as a (new style, for us) long-term thinking club, that will not accept second-best for long.

 

We have to believe that this is Ashley's intention (unless we ever find out differently) - to be big and successful.

[Guest black]

I certainly am, I agree with most of what you say, except:

 

(1) The Shearer comment "sounded like" you were saying he joined us because we were his home-town club, though I think you weren't saying 'exactly' that (?).  I still found it a useful opportunity to re-present the facts of the Shearer-signing issue, though!

 

(2) When you say "we need to realise that we shouldn't be trying to attract players of Shearer's calibre", I disagree. That is exactly the sort of player we need to keep on trying to sign. We should also sign a lot of the Rozehnal / Geremi / Viduka level of player (DEFENDERS, ideally) to build up a reasonably sized good-quality squad. As we become 'more and more' attractive to 'more and more' players, our success rate in actually getting them, will rise  -  but we have to TRY, now, at this stage still.

You are correct, I wasn't just alluding to the hometown club. At that point we all thought that we were going to if not win the league, KK was going to again have us up there and challenging for the title and cup and if Shearer didn't think we were he was going to Man U no if's no but's.

 

Ok, I agree with the sentiment, yes we should be trying to sign the upper echelon of players but I also think we as supporters need to understand that the Rooneys, Lampards and Gerrards aren't obtainable to the club at this moment and therefore the signing of the Vidukas, Geremis and Rozehnals are what we should expect, welcome. That being said we should also hope that this is the minimum level of players we have in our whole squad, no Bernards, Damages or old bomb Carrs to make up the numbers.

[Guest ryunufc]

i do not regard nufc as an unattractive club to join. maybe we were 3 months ago but i think for now any player would consider to join us when the chance is offered, whether in the end he decides to turn us down for more attractive offer is another story. players preference to join clubs with european involvement is due to the attractiveness of the competition, sometimes it is not because pf the club although the profile of the club is enhanced because of it. this works the same with the reputation of the manager in charge or the high profile players the club have. owen, duff, luque, martins,parker decision to join us while we were not involved in europe are proofs that nufc as a club, and only as a club, is an attractive destination to play football.

[manorpark]

I certainly am, I agree with most of what you say, except:

 

(1) The Shearer comment "sounded like" you were saying he joined us because we were his home-town club, though I think you weren't saying 'exactly' that (?).  I still found it a useful opportunity to re-present the facts of the Shearer-signing issue, though!

 

(2) When you say "we need to realise that we shouldn't be trying to attract players of Shearer's calibre", I disagree. That is exactly the sort of player we need to keep on trying to sign. We should also sign a lot of the Rozehnal / Geremi / Viduka level of player (DEFENDERS, ideally) to build up a reasonably sized good-quality squad. As we become 'more and more' attractive to 'more and more' players, our success rate in actually getting them, will rise  -  but we have to TRY, now, at this stage still.

You are correct, I wasn't just alluding to the hometown club. At that point we all thought that we were going to if not win the league, KK was going to again have us up there and challenging for the title and cup and if Shearer didn't think we were he was going to Man U no if's no but's.

 

Ok, I agree with the sentiment, yes we should be trying to sign the upper echelon of players but I also think we as supporters need to understand that the Rooneys, Lampards and Gerrards aren't obtainable to the club at this moment and therefore the signing of the Vidukas, Geremis and Rozehnals are what we should expect, welcome. That being said we should also hope that this is the minimum level of players we have in our whole squad, no Bernards, Damages or old bomb Carrs to make up the numbers.

 

Just 'someone' would be good !!!! (I'm joking!)

 

I do share the frustrations of many of us though, in this current "lull" in activity!  Things will start moving very soon though, as the conclusion of the Review points Ashley in the obvious direction!

[Guest Benito7]

All Newcastle lack at the moment in terms of attracting players in is a) Champion's League football and b) that feeling that the club is really going places.

 

a) Is hard to achieve and will take time.

 

b) Is very achieveable for a guy like Allardyce.  If he can attract Hierro, Okocha, Djorkaeff etc to Bolton he will definitely be able to attract players here.  If we secure a signing that announces that the new Chairman has the ambition to really kick on then that sends out a signal that the club is going places again.  This combined with the other signings Sam has made and the players we have already with Big reputations (Owen, Martins, Duff) will make us very attractive to players from abroad.

[Tsunami]

It is stated that a PL defender turned us down when their club were apparently quite happy for them to come to us (sounds more like Heinze or even Dawson rather than the rumoured Yobo).

 

We have struggled to make other breakthroughs in the market & there is no sign of any signing that will "shock world football".

 

I think some people need to remove the rose tainted glasses. The fact is that we are struggling in the transfer market & the attractiveness of the club itself is open to question.

[Guest Gemmill]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Heinze turned us down.  Of course we aren't attractive to a player that's currently at Manchester United and who knows Liverpool are sniffing around him. 

[Slugsy]

We are not in Europe and we are not based in London.  Those two issues alone will make it difficult to get players, particularly foreign ones.

 

To attract players we will have to offer mega wages and I'm not sure where the new ownership stand on this matter compared to Shepherd's exuberant financial management.

 

[ChrisJbarnes]

tsunami- change your picture back to that sexy woman with big tits moving

[Dokko]

tsunami- change your picture back to that sexy woman with big tits moving