2024/25 - Generic NUFC Chat. Cunts ☑️

[Dazzler 8444]

36 minutes ago, thebrokendoll said:

 

you don't win fuck all if you sell your best players.

 

Liverpool sold Suarez and Coutinho and won plenty....

[thebrokendoll 8610]

4 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

Liverpool sold Suarez and Coutinho and won plenty....

 

they had other good players though.

we had hendrick, hayden and  fraser.

[ewerk 29479]

5 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

 

How did we get £100m players for less than they were worth? If they were £100m players then we'd have had to spend £100m on them, that's how the business works. No cunt was doing us any favours.

 

They were worth what we were willing to spend at the time (and in the cases of Gordon and Isak probably worth a bit less considering both weren't exactly playing brilliantly when we paid for them).

 

Saying that completely undermines the work the manager and coaching staff have put in to improve them. They are £100m players now - they absolutely were not when we signed them. 

 

You can underpay for a player just as you can overpay for a player.  You're not just buying a player on current form but on potential, which is what we have done and of course it takes coaching to see those players fulfil that potential.

[ewerk 29479]

9 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

Liverpool sold Suarez and Coutinho and won plenty....

 

The Coutinho transfer was the deal of the century for Liverpool. It's like someone offering us £180m for Bruno. You wouldn't want to see him go but you'd snap their hands off for the money.

[Dazzler 8444]

Just now, thebrokendoll said:

 

they had other good players though.

we had hendrick, hayden and  fraser.

 

When they sold Suarez they had Gerrard and Coutinho - here is there squad list - it's actually pretty fucking dreadful - especially considering they spent the Suarez money on shite like Balotelli and Rickie Lambert:

 

Liverpool FC - Club profile 14/15 | Transfermarkt

 

It was the Coutinho money they spent wisely iirc

[Gemmill 42591]

12 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

If we qualify for the champions league again - and the commercial people start doing their job properly - it might be sustainable. I don’t think the way we’ve spent money is too outlandish. We have made a number of astute signings - players bought for relatively modest fees who have seen their value rise while playing for Howe. This should be commended not criticised. And we haven’t allowed any club to have our trousers down over transfer fees, evidenced again when we walked away from Guehi when Palace started taking the piss.  
 

If we fail to qualify for the champions league again you might be right. I think the way he phrased it was very clumsy however and has created tension and column inches the club didn’t need. 
 

The problem really is we haven’t been able to recoup money for our players. That’s because we’re mainly talking about shite leftover from the Ashley era, some of whom we have struggled to give away for free because of their wages. He could have been clearer about that. Il
 

I’d be fuming if I was Howe too. He’s been stitched up in a public forum by his new colleague - he must have taken it personally given he was acting as de facto DoF with a big say over recruitment - when the truth is he’s done a brilliant job under difficult circumstances, essentially performing two roles at the same time.

 

The only transfer to criticise was ASM. I think we accepted less than his market value because we were so scared about any comeback from the powers that be because we were selling him to Saudi. I’d rather we were bolder on that tbh. We’ve played so nice so far while Chelsea continue to take the piss out of the rules.

 

What might be in the future isn't the context in which we're currently operating though, so you can't talk about what might be in the future.

 

Also, there wasn't any criticism of specific transfers - Howe has created that perception in the way he's responded. He was talking about the policy not being sustainable, he didn't suggest that any of the signings were poor or anything like that. 

 

And your point about us not being able to recoup on players is exactly what Mitchell says too. We aren't selling people but we're buying at big prices, and you can't do that. 

 

I'm not denying that it's created tension and the egos of the two involved have meant that rather than it be resolved by having a sit down it's been allowed to fester. Bad form on both of their parts tbh. 

 

I repeat though, nobody is questioning the quality of the signings we've made. You're making the same mistake Howe has made if you think that's what Mitchell has done. 

[Dazzler 8444]

6 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

You can underpay for a player just as you can overpay for a player.  You're not just buying a player on current form but on potential, which is what we have done and of course it takes coaching to see those players fulfil that potential.

But that doesn't change the fact that we didn't sign £100m players on the cheap, we made them.

 

The problem is that you then have to start flogging them for £100m to kick start the next phase of the growth.

 

Man City had a 10 year head start and managed to do all their infrastructure work before they were hamstrung and Liverpool had to sell two of their best players for crazy money to maintain their position and grow.

 

If we want to build a model similar to theirs then we are going to have to sell a couple of our best players to fund it. Them's the breaks.

[thebrokendoll 8610]

3 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

 

When they sold Suarez they had Gerrard and Coutinho - here is there squad list - it's actually pretty fucking dreadful - especially considering they spent the Suarez money on shite like Balotelli and Rickie Lambert:

 

Liverpool FC - Club profile 14/15 | Transfermarkt

 

It was the Coutinho money they spent wisely iirc

 

no disrespect mate but I'd rather gouge me eyeballs out with a rusty spoon than spend any of my time studying the transfer dealings of those murdering bindipping cunts.

[Dr Gloom 21283]

Just now, Gemmill said:

 

What might be in the future isn't the context in which we're currently operating though, so you can't talk about what might be in the future.

 

Also, there wasn't any criticism of specific transfers - Howe has created that perception in the way he's responded. He was talking about the policy not being sustainable, he didn't suggest that any of the signings were poor or anything like that. 

 

And your point about us not being able to recoup on players is exactly what Mitchell says too. We aren't selling people but we're buying at big prices, and you can't do that. 

 

I'm not denying that it's created tension and the egos of the two involved have meant that rather than it be resolved by having a sit down it's been allowed to fester. Bad form on both of their parts tbh. 

 

I repeat though, nobody is questioning the quality of the signings we've made. You're making the same mistake Howe has made if you think that's what Mitchell has done. 

You’re making excuses for Mitchell.

 

Like I said, the way Mitchell put it - to a room of journalists - was very clumsy with scant detail explaining what he meant. It’s no surprise that Howe is pissed off as it could clearly could be taken as a dig at him. And the reporters have rightly ran with the civil war narrative because Mitchell gave them no option to run a more positive story.
 

In my opinion Mitchell gave the interview to protect his own position after a throughly disappointing transfer window. It might be that none of it was Mitchell’s fault, that he came in too late to identify targets and he really was playing a supporting role to Howe at this stage, but it’s a press conference we didn’t really need. He could have been much, much more diplomatic 

[ewerk 29479]

12 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

But that doesn't change the fact that we didn't sign £100m players on the cheap, we made them.

 

We didn't make Isak into a £100m player. He joined us after the season had already started and was a one in two striker for us immediately. Likewise Bruno and Botman took no time to adjust. We paid less for them than their true value. The transfer market is the very definition of an imperfect market otherwise there would be no point in trying to get the best scouts.

[toonotl 2828]

To be fair to Mitchell, I've seen several journalists who were in the room with him comment that they perceived Mitchell's intention to be aimed at clearing the air and looking forward. His actual words -- on the other hand -- were combative in denigrating past work combined with an apparent attempt made to distance himself from the calamity of a transfer window. Deemed by sensible people to be a "fuck up".

 

I think there is some truth in both perspectives, which I think is Gemmers point (even if I do think he's being overly sympathetic to Mitchell). Mitchell is correct that the overall transfer strategy is not sustainable. For example, talking in general terms, we cannot rely on selling 65m worth of players on deadline and agreeing to bring in (or "fork out" for) a 20m make-weight to balance books. It is clear that the strategy leading to this situation is not sustainable as it produced a very volatile situation that we could have easily found ourselves not getting out of.

 

On the other side of the coin, I have a suspicion that Mitchell has engaged in a little bit of personal ass-covering that wasn't necessary or perhaps even intended by him until it came to the moment. It's a personal opinion, but the situation seems to indicate that he could've clarified his position (either during the interview or afterwards) to avoid being interpreted in the way he has been by most. And he hasnt done that.

 

I think there's no denying that the situation has not been managed effectively by any of Howe, Mitchell or Eales. But it's a learning process. Off the field is the same as on it, so long as they're trying their best, then mistakes are forgiven. 

Edited Tuesday at 09:05 by toonotl

[Gemmill 42591]

29 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

You’re making excuses for Mitchell.

 

Like I said, the way Mitchell put it - to a room of journalists - was very clumsy with scant detail explaining what he meant. It’s no surprise that Howe is pissed off as it could clearly could be taken as a dig at him. And the reporters have rightly ran with the civil war narrative because Mitchell gave them no option to run a more positive story.
 

In my opinion Mitchell gave the interview to protect his own position after a throughly disappointing transfer window. It might be that none of it was Mitchell’s fault, that he came in too late to identify targets and he really was playing a supporting role to Howe at this stage, but it’s a press conference we didn’t really need. He could have been much, much more diplomatic 

 

I'm not making excuses for anyone. I've said it was poorly worded and it's clearly caused a rift and needs to be solved. 

 

That Howe took offence is not in question. That the two men should have spoken to one another since is not in question. But also not in question is that spending top dollar and not recouping anything is not sustainable / fit for purpose in the context in which our club has been operating. That is not criticising individual signings or the people that made them, it is a simple statement of fact.

 

Taking offence at that, and not taking the time to have any sort of clarifying conversation with the person that made the comments is stupid. As is not taking the time to contact the person that you've clearly caused offence to. I think Howe's behaviour here has been as bad, if not worse, than Mitchell's tbh. This can be resolved quite easily. 

Edited Tuesday at 09:12 by Gemmill

[Gemmill 42591]

7 minutes ago, toonotl said:

To be fair to Mitchell, I've seen several journalists who were in the room with him comment that they perceived Mitchell's intention to be aimed at clearing the air and looking forward. His actual words -- on the other hand -- were combative in denigrating past work combined with an apparent attempt made to distance himself from the calamity of a transfer window. Deemed by sensible people to be a "fuck up".

 

I think there is some truth in both perspectives, which I think is Gemmers point (even if I do think he's being overly sympathetic to Mitchell). Mitchell is correct that the overall transfer strategy is not sustainable. For example, talking in general terms, we cannot rely on selling 65m worth of players on deadline and agreeing to bring in (or "fork out" for) a 20m make-weight to balance books. It is clear that the strategy leading to this situation is not sustainable as it produced a very volatile situation that we could have easily found ourselves not getting out of.

 

On the other side of the coin, I have a suspicion that Mitchell has engaged in a little bit of personal ass-covering that wasn't necessary or perhaps even intended by him until it came to the moment. It's a personal opinion, but the situation seems to indicate that he could've clarified his position (either during the interview or afterwards) to avoid being interpreted in the way he has been by most. And he hasnt done that.

 

I think there's no denying that the situation has not been managed effectively by any of Howe, Mitchell or Eales. But it's a learning process. Off the field is the same as on it, so long as they're trying their best, then mistakes are forgiven. 

 

Well said. 

[Toonpack 8683]

30 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

We didn't make Isak into a £100m player. He joined us after the season had already started and was a one in two striker for us immediately. Likewise Bruno and Botman took no time to adjust. We paid less for them than their true value. The transfer market is the very definition of an imperfect market otherwise there would be no point in trying to get the best scouts.

 

Bruno didn't start for about his first 5/6 weeks here, he was held back and trained/adjusted - Signed 30th Jan, full debut 8th March.

[Dr Gloom 21283]

36 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

I'm not making excuses for anyone. I've said it was poorly worded and it's clearly caused a rift and needs to be solved. 

 

That Howe took offence is not in question. That the two men should have spoken to one another since is not in question. But also not in question is that spending top dollar and not recouping anything is not sustainable / fit for purpose in the context in which our club has been operating. That is not criticising individual signings or the people that made them, it is a simple statement of fact.

 

Taking offence at that, and not taking the time to have any sort of clarifying conversation with the person that made the comments is stupid. As is not taking the time to contact the person that you've clearly caused offence to. I think Howe's behaviour here has been as bad, if not worse, than Mitchell's tbh. This can be resolved quite easily. 

agree to a point. I’d be seething if a colleague publicly undermined me too so I don’t blame Howe for being prickly in his interviews since Mitchell spoke out. It needs to be addressed internally sharpish. Pretty clumsy of Mitchell to kick it off in front of the media so soon into his tenure. He arrives with a big reputation and I hope it works out and that the “civil war” that most reporters are running with is resolved amicably but it isn’t a great start. 

[wykikitoon 19293]

Hasn't Howe come out several times and told cunts like Hope that there is no issue?

[sammynb 3148]

Most DOF want their own man/person in the head coach role. Mitchell would be no different and once the rumours of Howe to the England job, you can bet he was relishing getting in "his" guy.

EH probably knows he's pissed on Mitchell's chips - just look at Mitchell's face everytime the camera cut to him against Wolves.

[wykikitoon 19293]

1 minute ago, sammynb said:

Most DOF want their own man/person in the head coach role. Mitchell would be no different and once the rumours of Howe to the England job, you can bet he was relishing getting in "his" guy.

EH probably knows he's pissed on Mitchell's chips - just look at Mitchell's face everytime the camera cut to him against Wolves.

 

That's probably more to do with how shite we were at times  

Eales needs to sort this NOW like a lot have said.

[sammynb 3148]

1 minute ago, wykikitoon said:

 

That's probably more to do with how shite we were at times  

Eales needs to sort this NOW like a lot have said.

 

In truth I reckon he's just one of those dour cunts who thinks he's the man. Didn't smile after we scored though did he?

Sack all three and bring back Penfold/Bruce/Mclaren/Pardew - those were the days.

[wykikitoon 19293]

4 minutes ago, sammynb said:

 

In truth I reckon he's just one of those dour cunts who thinks he's the man. Didn't smile after we scored though did he?

Sack all three and bring back Penfold/Bruce/Mclaren/Pardew - those were the days.

 

Aye he didn't smile I noticed that when we scored  

[thebrokendoll 8610]

9 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

Eales needs to sort this NOW like a lot have said.

 

a rousing rendition of mr brightside on the karaoke machine at the stack a week on saturday should put things right.

[Howmanheyman 31578]

14 minutes ago, thebrokendoll said:

 

a rousing rendition of mr brightside on the karaoke machine at the stack a week on saturday should put things right.

 

 

"This next one is dedicated to two good friends and colleagues of mine going through a difficult patch at the minute.....

 

🎵

How can we be lovers, if we can't be friends?

How can we start over when the fighting never ends?

Baby, how can we make love, if we can't make amends?

How can we be lovers, if we can't be, can't be friends?

🎶

 

Edited Tuesday at 10:27 by Howmanheyman

[OTF 7090]

1 hour ago, Dr Gloom said:

You’re making excuses for Mitchell.

 

Like I said, the way Mitchell put it - to a room of journalists - was very clumsy with scant detail explaining what he meant. It’s no surprise that Howe is pissed off as it could clearly could be taken as a dig at him. And the reporters have rightly ran with the civil war narrative because Mitchell gave them no option to run a more positive story.
 

In my opinion Mitchell gave the interview to protect his own position after a throughly disappointing transfer window. It might be that none of it was Mitchell’s fault, that he came in too late to identify targets and he really was playing a supporting role to Howe at this stage, but it’s a press conference we didn’t really need. He could have been much, much more diplomatic 

Nailed it. Mitchell deflected from a disappointing window under his watch. A more mature response would have been to admit that it had been a frustrating window but that we were not going to make signings for the sake of it. Effectively what Howe himself said. Or he could have noted that we would have more of a focus on bringing in and nurturing young talent. To have criticised previous signings really hits a sour note when we've honestly had a fantastic success rate with signings since Howe's arrival before Mitchell.

 

Trippier,

Burn,

Guimaraes,

Pope,

Isak,

Tonali,

Gordon,

Barnes,

Botman,

Livramento, 

Hall,

Wood,

Minteh,

Ashby,

Kuol,

Targett,

Karius

 

Overall that's a phenomenal hit rate. Targett has been disappointing due his injuries, though in his first season here he was an integral member of the side that helped us escape what seemed like an inevitable relegation. Wood we overpaid for, but it was a necessary signing to inject something different into our side. Plus we also managed to sell him for a good price. Ashby hasn't kicked on, but he was a young player with promise. Kuol has done nothing to suggest he will develop into a quality player. We got stitched up by AC Milan with Tonali, but now that he's served his time he's shaping to be a great player for us and he's only 24.

[sammynb 3148]

32 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

 

Aye he didn't smile I noticed that when we scored  

It was a struggle to watch, I was a dour cunt also for those 90 minutes, well except for those two moments.

[Dazzler 8444]

43 minutes ago, sammynb said:

Most DOF want their own man/person in the head coach role. Mitchell would be no different and once the rumours of Howe to the England job, you can bet he was relishing getting in "his" guy.

EH probably knows he's pissed on Mitchell's chips - just look at Mitchell's face everytime the camera cut to him against Wolves.

His guy is Poch and that ship has sailed now. So Mitchell either has to make do or fuck off - Or sack Howe and come up with a canny explanation to placate the masses.