TV money up £6m

[ewerk 31216]

Which regime recognised, by it's own admission, it got things horribly wrong and was taking "bad advice". Did something about it and has since ner put a foot wrong ????

 

[Kitman 2207]

As it happens I think we have been lucky with transfers, in the sense that no matter how good your network, you're always going to get a few duffers a la Obertan. As it happens we've had hardly any, and some have worked out better and more quickly than perhaps we had a right to expect. Which is brilliant.

[Toonpack 9973]

 

Hence the "ner" (in deference to those upset by said picture)

 

That said IMO (and to many I know) even that picture isn't a big deal.

[Baggio 0]

That's fine, but remind me which regime signed Joey Barton

 

 

http://www.people.co.uk/sport/football/news/2011/08/07/former-newcastle-chairman-says-barton-stay-is-vital-for-club-102039-23325046/

[PaddockLad 17664]

Not me, I don't remember reading that on here either.

 

this is it by Parky in the Alan Pardew thread:

 

Teams like Ajax operate like this as they constantly lose players to 'bigger' clubs around Europe. It doesn't affect them so much as they are one of the top dogs in their league which is far less competitive. The model can work as Spurs have shown over the last few years, but topping up with fresh talent every year is always risky. The balance has to be found with which players we can afford to lose and which we need to keep as the core. IMO none of our players are safe if a 'big' offer comes in. But as in the Carroll case we were right to take the money which was the same as having a good run in the CL two seasons running cash wise.

 

 

Thats what I'm getting at, if we are confident that our scouting network is second to none and we're confident we can replace like for like in the medium term, it does make you think.....60-80 million is 2 seasons champions league money (later stages money at the upper end of that too) without having to qualify for it. Going on immediate evidence, it took them a year to replace Carrol and we didnt bother getting another centre half when Taylor got injured either (that may have cost us a real crack at the top 4) so in a way we're being asked to be patient by the club as it is. A bit more paticence and we're sitting on a gold mine.

 

Who's up for it?...Toonpack? you're generally in favour of what Asley has been doing, what if he sold the family jewels this summer?...

[Kid Dynamite 7179]

That's fine, but remind me which regime signed Joey Barton

 

The deal was already done before Ashley bought the club iirc

[ChezGiven 0]

The 'luck' angle rests on 2 premises. Firstly, other clubs have not been able to do it so how can we know this secret formula and secondly that running a football club is difficult and takes some skill to do properly. Both of these premises are shite. There might be some luck at play but that's more to do with Liverpool and Chelsea being shite this season.

 

Apart from a very narrow trade off between entertaininment for the fans and points on the board, there are few strategic decisions in football other than appointing a decent manager. Selecting players is obviously the second one and the club has decided on its strategy in the transfer market and stuck to it. Good effective business management, yes (and you'd expect that from our lot as they have one of the biggest and strongest corporate cultures in their control, far more than abramovich and the oil barons anyway who make money through private not public concerns) but not rocket science. The decision not to try and follow the financial space race was a clearly stated, well documented and strategically sound direction to go in. The only question was would it work. The answer is yes. If I say I'm going to do something, go ahead and do it and it leads to the outcomes I said I hoped it would lead to and you call me lucky, I'm going to laugh and call you a knacker.

 

On that first question, it's also clear that other owners are either less experienced in football (Liverpool, Sunderland) or have pursued strategies that have we deliberately decided not to (Villa, Stoke). When you add in the likes of the Venkys, Al Fayed, Dave Whelan etc, you have very few owners in the premier league that either not 1. Private multi-billionaires who have thrown money at problems all their business life, 2. Foreigners, usually yanks with no more understanding of the game than our lot and backgrounds in unrelated private investment or franchised sports 3. Utter mugs. You'd have out our lot in 3 until about 18 months ago but now we are n that group like Swansea's owners, Arsenal's, Everton's.

 

Having lots of money does not mean lots of business acumen. There is nothing in Abramovich's past that suggests he knows how to run a clean, healthy, well run business. His whole existence is due to corruption and money in the right palms. If you want to compete with a cunt like that, it doesn't take more than 1 or 2 decent business brains, a flip chart and an hour or two to realise you might need to try something different. Executing on that and making it work is never considered luck.

Edited May 15, 2012 by ChezGiven

[Toonpack 9973]

this is it by Parky in the Alan Pardew thread:

 

Teams like Ajax operate like this as they constantly lose players to 'bigger' clubs around Europe. It doesn't affect them so much as they are one of the top dogs in their league which is far less competitive. The model can work as Spurs have shown over the last few years, but topping up with fresh talent every year is always risky. The balance has to be found with which players we can afford to lose and which we need to keep as the core. IMO none of our players are safe if a 'big' offer comes in. But as in the Carroll case we were right to take the money which was the same as having a good run in the CL two seasons running cash wise.

 

 

Thats what I'm getting at, if we are confident that our scouting network is second to none and we're confident we can replace like for like in the medium term, it does make you think.....60-80 million is 2 seasons champions league money (later stages money at the upper end of that too) without having to qualify for it. Going on immediate evidence, it took them a year to replace Carrol and we didnt bother getting another centre half when Taylor got injured either (that may have cost us a real crack at the top 4) so in a way we're being asked to be patient by the club as it is. A bit more paticence and we're sitting on a gold mine.

 

Who's up for it?...Toonpack? you're generally in favour of what Asley has been doing, what if he sold the family jewels this summer?...

 

I really don't believe he will, his model is set, club will live within it's means and if a big offer comes in it will be considered, but it will have to be BIG to be accepted.

 

This selling one of the crown jewels is not a one sided thing, there has to be a market for the player a,b,c etc. That market is the CL "club", the player we have has firstly to be better than what they already have, to be of interest to them, and secondly then that position has to be on their budgetted priorities to upgrade list. There's a limited number of our players (if any) who fit those parameters I reckon.

 

That said, there are dozens upon dozens of REALLY good players around Europe (and beyond) who don't play for BIG clubs, I'd rather take a punt on 3 of them at £5 mill each than one at £15 Mill.

 

And yes I do like what Ashley appears to be doing. He does not appear to be taking out and the club is constrained within it's means, those means are greater than most and are eminently "growable" if we keep progressing. There's a lot to like IMO.

[McFaul 35]

The deal was already done before Ashley bought the club iirc

iirc = when I've read Baggio's link.

 

Well to be fair I thought it was under Ashley, but even FFS said he had misgivings and all he was doing was supporting a new manager who he appointed.

[Baggio 0]

The 'luck' angle rests on 2 premises. Firstly, other clubs have not been able to do it so how can we know this secret formula and secondly that running a football club is difficult and takes some skill to do properly. Both of these premises are shite. There might be some luck at play but that's more to do with Liverpool and Chelsea being shite this season.

 

Apart from a very narrow trade off between entertaininment for the fans and points on the board, there are few strategic decisions in football other than appointing a decent manager. Selecting players is obviously the second one and the club has decided on its strategy in the transfer market and stuck to it. Good effective business management, yes (and you'd expect that from our lot as they have one of the biggest and strongest corporate cultures in their control, far more than abramovich and the oil barons anyway who make money through private not public concerns) but not rocket science. The decision not to try and follow the financial space race was a clearly stated, well documented and strategically sound direction to go in. The only question was would it work. The answer is yes. If I say I'm going to do something, go ahead and do it and it leads to the outcomes I said I hoped it would lead to and you call me lucky, I'm going to laugh and call you a knacker.

 

On that first question, it's also clear that other owners are either less experienced in football (Liverpool, Sunderland) or have pursued strategies that have we deliberately decided not to (Villa, Stoke). When you add in the likes of the Venkys, Al Fayed, Dave Whelan etc, you have very few owners in the premier league that either not 1. Private multi-billionaires who have thrown money at problems all their business life, 2. Foreigners, usually yanks with no more understanding of the game than our lot and backgrounds in unrelated private investment or franchised sports 3. Utter mugs. You'd have out our lot in 3 until about 18 months ago but now we are n that group like Swansea's owners, Arsenal's, Everton's.

 

Having lots of money does not mean lots of business acumen. There is nothing in Abramovich's past that suggests he knows how to run a clean, healthy, well run business. His whole existence is due to corruption and money in the right palms. If you want to compete with a cunt like that, it doesn't take more than 1 or 2 decent business brains, a flip chart and an hour or two to realise you might need to try something different. Executing on that and making it work is never considered luck.

 

Quality post that, Chez.

[JawD 99]

Good going by the club like, decent income from TV. Not going over old ground thats been done to death tbf, but what was last seasons TV income? Just wondering what the comparison is.

[Toonpack 9973]

Good going by the club like, decent income from TV. Not going over old ground thats been done to death tbf, but what was last seasons TV income? Just wondering what the comparison is.

There's a hint in the thread title

[McFaul 35]

The 'luck' angle rests on 2 premises. Firstly, other clubs have not been able to do it so how can we know this secret formula and secondly that running a football club is difficult and takes some skill to do properly. Both of these premises are shite. There might be some luck at play but that's more to do with Liverpool and Chelsea being shite this season.

 

Apart from a very narrow trade off between entertaininment for the fans and points on the board, there are few strategic decisions in football other than appointing a decent manager. Selecting players is obviously the second one and the club has decided on its strategy in the transfer market and stuck to it. Good effective business management, yes (and you'd expect that from our lot as they have one of the biggest and strongest corporate cultures in their control, far more than abramovich and the oil barons anyway who make money through private not public concerns) but not rocket science. The decision not to try and follow the financial space race was a clearly stated, well documented and strategically sound direction to go in. The only question was would it work. The answer is yes. If I say I'm going to do something, go ahead and do it and it leads to the outcomes I said I hoped it would lead to and you call me lucky, I'm going to laugh and call you a knacker.

 

On that first question, it's also clear that other owners are either less experienced in football (Liverpool, Sunderland) or have pursued strategies that have we deliberately decided not to (Villa, Stoke). When you add in the likes of the Venkys, Al Fayed, Dave Whelan etc, you have very few owners in the premier league that either not 1. Private multi-billionaires who have thrown money at problems all their business life, 2. Foreigners, usually yanks with no more understanding of the game than our lot and backgrounds in unrelated private investment or franchised sports 3. Utter mugs. You'd have out our lot in 3 until about 18 months ago but now we are n that group like Swansea's owners, Arsenal's, Everton's.

 

Having lots of money does not mean lots of business acumen. There is nothing in Abramovich's past that suggests he knows how to run a clean, healthy, well run business. His whole existence is due to corruption and money in the right palms. If you want to compete with a cunt like that, it doesn't take more than 1 or 2 decent business brains, a flip chart and an hour or two to realise you might need to try something different. Executing on that and making it work is never considered luck.

Forget about Liverpool and Chelsea being shite. The luck to my mind isn't based on the fact that we've qualified for Europe it's based on the fact, we've acquired a quality squad on the cheap. What decisions did Ashley make? He changed the manager, he wanted someone to control the dressing room better, he knew Pardew from 5am casino jaunts, he obviously felt he had something. Looking at Pardew's managerial record, it's not bad, but it's never shown signs of being better than it has been this season. It's easy to say it's a masterstroke in hindsight, but I can see past that, it's carried so much luck but fair play to Ashley for making that decision. He rolled the dice.

 

What other decisions did he make, he slashed the wage bill and signed cheaper players on less money. Again slashing an unsustainable wage bill was a good move, but replacing the high earners with higher quality significantly lower earners carries a remarkable amount of luck. That's what has happened, while his PRIME OBJECTIVE was purely fiscal, he's had the added bonus of metaphorically landing in the Tyne and coming out with a salmon in his mouth.

[Tom 14013]

I think Llambias gets the credit for Pardew btw.

[Kid Dynamite 7179]

I wouldn't say the wage thing was down to luck either. If rumours are to be believed with the old regime (luque/owen) we threw wages at players to get them to sign for us over other teams. We don't do that anymore, Ashley doesn't want mercenaries at the club and that shows in the spirit the team has shown as a whole. We could have offered Gervinho double what he gets at Arsenal but we stuck to our guns and he chose to sit on the bench at Arsenal. It paid off in the end.

Edited May 15, 2012 by J69

[Park Life 71]

Quality post that, Chez.

 

Clueless about Roman though.

 

Abramovich was importing Lada's from Poland and running a toy factory at the same age Chez was monged out in Uni Bar. The man is as hard as nails and a genius.

[ChezGiven 0]

Clueless about Roman though.

 

Abramovich was importing Lada's from Poland and running a toy factory at the same age Chez was monged out in Uni Bar. The man is as hard as nails and a genius.

I ran a business to pay my way through university, made enough to live a nice life style and pay the rent.

 

The point stands about Abramovich and how Russia worked after perestroika, the sort of 'acumen' he developed as communism collapsed and violence, bribery and political contacts became the M.O of any and all successful operators. He chucked millions in bribes at Yeltsin and his cronies to steal Sibneft. He used violence and political influence to further all his interests but in particular at acquiring Sibneft and becoming worth £12bn.

 

I would even go as far to suggest that his management of Chelsea reflects his Russian cultural influences, the closely guarded confidants with 'special access' to resources, like Pini Zahavi etc, enormous financial investments to out muscle opponents and even his abusive treatment of managers. The fact that he was a billionaire at 30 doesnt make him a genius of business but a genius of the chaotic, unregulated, violent, corrupt and amoral world of Russian business. He probably thinks Financial Fair Play involves ensuring UEFA officials are bribed equally.

[Park Life 71]

I ran a business to pay my way through university, made enough to live a nice life style and pay the rent.

 

The point stands about Abramovich and how Russia worked after perestroika, the sort of 'acumen' he developed as communism collapsed and violence, bribery and political contacts became the M.O of any and all successful operators. He chucked millions in bribes at Yeltsin and his cronies to steal Sibneft. He used violence and political influence to further all his interests but in particular at acquiring Sibneft and becoming worth £12bn.

 

I would even go as far to suggest that his management of Chelsea reflects his Russian cultural influences, the closely guarded confidants with 'special access' to resources, like Pini Zahavi etc, enormous financial investments to out muscle opponents and even his abusive treatment of managers. The fact that he was a billionaire at 30 doesnt make him a genius of business but a genius of the chaotic, unregulated, violent, corrupt and amoral world of Russian business. He probably thinks Financial Fair Play involves ensuring UEFA officials are bribed equally.

 

 

Yeah but he was an orphan! Top that fucker!!

[JawD 99]

There's a hint in the thread title

 

Fucking hell. Shoot me now

[Happy Face 29]

It's not luck to have players battling and winning goal line clearances and scoring wonderful individual goals in very poor overall performances, but even with the work that went into picking up good players very cheap, the number of cheeky points won with those players has still never filled me with complete confidence this is a sustainable level of point scoring for seasons to come, without further improvement.

 

Undoubtedly we were excellent occassionally and more than deserved points against 'top' teams like Man U and Chelsea and Liverpool and Spurs, but often we scraped through. Admittedly this happened less as the season went on, but it surprises me how litle discussed our "winning badly" approach has pervaded. People much preferring to trot out trite "the league doesn't lie" phrases.

 

Without looking at the points dropped when we played awful - Wigan(a), Fulham(a), Spurs(a), Wolves(h - second half), Everton(a). etc - here's the BBC overview (I'm biased) on points we won where we weren't the better side....

 

Newcastle 0-0 Arsenal "only Simpson's mis-hit cross caused Wojciech Szczesny any real difficulties"

Sunderland 0-1 Newcastle "a narrow win over Sunderland. The hosts were on top for periods."

Newcastle 2-1 Fulham "an ultimately edgy win over a tired looking Fulham side"

QPR 0-0 Newcastle "QPR looked the far more cohesive of the two sides"

Wolves 1-2 Newcastle "dubious decision denied [Wolves] a deserved equaliser.

Newcastle 1-0 Wigan "rough justice on Wigan"

Newcastle 1-0 QPR "The result was more than a little harsh on QPR, Best's immaculate winner was the only shot on goal the hosts managed"

Blackburn 0-2 Newcastle "Rovers will wonder how they did not salvage at least a point in a game they dominated for long periods"

Newcastle 1-1 Sunderland "Newcastle were sluggish and lacklustre"

Newcastle 2-0 Bolton "The game will rightly be remembered for Ben Arfa's stunning effort...not in keeping with the rest of a turgid affair which saw the hosts struggle to find their rhythm."

 

So that's almost half the season where we barely deserved anything from the games or not as much as we got (which was a third of our total points).

 

I'm all for winning bad, like the best teams do occassionally...rather than losing bad, but the line is too fine and it happens too often for comfort still.

[The Fish 10972]

It's not luck to have players battling and winning goal line clearances and scoring wonderful individual goals in very poor overall performances, but even with the work that went into picking up good players very cheap, the number of cheeky points won with those players has still never filled me with complete confidence this is a sustainable level of point scoring for seasons to come, without further improvement.

 

Undoubtedly we were excellent occassionally and more than deserved points against 'top' teams like Man U and Chelsea and Liverpool and Spurs, but often we scraped through. Admittedly this happened less as the season went on, but it surprises me how litle discussed our "winning badly" approach has pervaded. People much preferring to trot out trite "the league doesn't lie" phrases.

 

Without looking at the points dropped when we played awful - Wigan(a), Fulham(a), Spurs(a), Wolves(h - second half), Everton(a). etc - here's the BBC overview (I'm biased) on points we won where we weren't the better side....

 

 

 

So that's almost half the season where we barely deserved anything from the games or not as much as we got (which was a third of our total points).

 

I'm all for winning bad, like the best teams do occassionally...rather than losing bad, but the line is too fine and it happens too often for comfort still.

The problem with that is were we lucky, or efficient? Especially in the sun (A), Wig (H), QPR (H), Bla(A) games?

[Christmas Tree 4839]

I think its very very hard to get too over critical with this season not just because of where we finished but more so the transformation season that it was.

 

Pardews first full season where he could really play the style he wanted not the style to suit an inherited team.

New players fitting into key positions.

Key Injuries. There is no doubting the how solid and assured we were up until Taylors injury.

Ben Arfa. Fit - injured - not quite working - redemption.

A massive change in the striker department half way through the season.

Afircan nations cup

A new role for Jonas

And on top of all that, trying to get the 443 working while all the above was changing and evolving and overcoming the problems when for one reason or another it didnt.

 

Thats the way I view it and I think next season we will have a manager, staff and team that have all seen the occasions when we have purred and all know what we are trying to replicate week in, week out. Hopefully the added stability of staff and players will reap dividends.

 

In fairness a similar result to this season will probably be a tall order but I see no reason why we cant establish ourselves in the top seven and have a go.

[Happy Face 29]

The problem with that is were we lucky, or efficient? Especially in the sun (A), Wig (H), QPR (H), Bla(A) games?

 

Like I said, I don't think it's luck. It's spirit, individual brilliance, opposition strikers or any number of things. If it was only the 4 games above it would be less of a concern how often we as a team couldn't pull it together collectively to look more comfortable. But it was incredible the number of games we pulled points out of the bag despite ourselves.

[Park Life 71]

It's not luck to have players battling and winning goal line clearances and scoring wonderful individual goals in very poor overall performances, but even with the work that went into picking up good players very cheap, the number of cheeky points won with those players has still never filled me with complete confidence this is a sustainable level of point scoring for seasons to come, without further improvement.

 

Undoubtedly we were excellent occassionally and more than deserved points against 'top' teams like Man U and Chelsea and Liverpool and Spurs, but often we scraped through. Admittedly this happened less as the season went on, but it surprises me how litle discussed our "winning badly" approach has pervaded. People much preferring to trot out trite "the league doesn't lie" phrases.

 

Without looking at the points dropped when we played awful - Wigan(a), Fulham(a), Spurs(a), Wolves(h - second half), Everton(a). etc - here's the BBC overview (I'm biased) on points we won where we weren't the better side....

 

 

 

So that's almost half the season where we barely deserved anything from the games or not as much as we got (which was a third of our total points).

 

I'm all for winning bad, like the best teams do occassionally...rather than losing bad, but the line is too fine and it happens too often for comfort still.

 

Yeah but the majority of games in the PL are won by one or two descisive moments. Even Arsenal and Spurs were stuttering for long periods. Only two teams have managed to dominate the maj of their games and they finished in the top 2.

[Happy Face 29]

Yeah but the majority of games in the PL are won by one or two descisive moments. Even Arsenal and Spurs were stuttering for long periods. Only two teams have managed to dominate the maj of their games and they finished in the top 2.

 

I reckon Arsenal and Spurs won much more of their points than we did decisively. Irrespective of each teams slumps.