2024/25 - Generic NUFC Chat. Cunts ☑️

[ewerk 32871]

5 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

His first paragraph sets the scene for everything that follows imo. We can't buy at peak age and peak price. You could take a lot of what follows out of context and say that it's direct criticism of Howe and his predecessors, but with the context of the first para, I'm not sure that that was the intention. 

 

The first paragraph is mostly nonsense. Of course the first team is going to be the priority given the complete lack of quality that the new regime inherited. The plan was never to be a Brighton and build slowly over seven or eight years. We have signed plenty of young players but it is rare to see a return on that investment within just a couple of years, Minteh being the exception. If this cunt wants us to be another Spurs where he was happy to see their best players sold off for big money then he's at the wrong club. That sort of strategy will never bring success.

[thebrokendoll 10156]

12 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

12 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

His first paragraph sets the scene for everything that follows imo. We can't buy at peak age and peak price. You could take a lot of what follows out of context and say that it's direct criticism of Howe and his predecessors, but with the context of the first para, I'm not sure that that was the intention. 

 

paragraphs 2 & 3 seem pretty specific to me.

Edited September 17, 2024 by thebrokendoll

[ewerk 32871]

9 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

We can't buy at peak age and peak price. 

 

Also, while I'm taking you to school, who have we bought at peak age and peak price? Look at our most expensive transfers, they were all at the age where they can improve and most of them have increased in value and the others definitely have the potential to do so.

 

[Gemmill 49357]

You're not taking anyone to school. Our PSR situation doesn't allow us to consistently buy at peak age and peak price. It's not sustainable. That's why we had to sell £65m worth of youth talent on June 30th. That's all the evidence we need to see that the bloke is correct in his assessment. 

 

A lot of people on here had a good fucking whine about that and would do the same again if it happened next summer, but someone coming in and going "well we can't keep doing that" is somehow "mostly nonsense". 

 

You can split hairs on peak age and peak price, as is your wont, but what he's very clearly saying is that we can't keep making big money signings because we are PSR constrained and it is impossible to balance the books. 

[Gemmill 49357]

We broke our transfer record buying Isak. 

 

Ewerk: Yeah but he was young and he got better so that doesn't count. 

 

 

Get fucked. That only helps if you then sell him. Unrealised profit doesn't contribute to your PSR. 

[ewerk 32871]

Oh so now we shouldn't have signed Isak? Honest to god, some of you deserved Mike Ashley. It's time to take your picture of Lee Charnley down off the wall.

 

We signed Isak for £60m and he's now worth at least £100m. That means we got a £100m player for much less than his true value. That is good business. The same goes with Gordon, Bruno and Botman. If we were bidding nearly £70m for Guehi then clearly we did have money to spend this summer, it just wasn't spent.

 

I've been saying for years that we need to become like Liverpool and Man City where we bring through young players and even if they don't make the first team then we sell them for good money. That isn't rocket science but no one can expect that system to be implemented and start showing results in two years.

[Gemmill 49357]

Just now, ewerk said:

Oh so now we shouldn't have signed Isak? Honest to god, some of you deserved Mike Ashley. It's time to take your picture of Lee Charnley down off the wall.

 

We signed Isak for £60m and he's now worth at least £100m. That means we got a £100m player for much less than his true value. That is good business. The same goes with Gordon, Bruno and Botman. If we were bidding nearly £70m for Guehi then clearly we did have money to spend this summer, it just wasn't spent.

 

I've been saying for years that we need to become like Liverpool and Man City where we bring through young players and even if they don't make the first team then we sell them for good money. That isn't rocket science but no one can expect that system to be implemented and start showing results in two years.

 

 

All true. As is the statement "AND IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE". In other words, it's not fit for purpose in a PSR constrained context. 

 

 

[thebrokendoll 10156]

3 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

We broke our transfer record buying Isak. 

 

Ewerk: Yeah but he was young and he got better so that doesn't count. 

 

 

Get fucked. That only helps if you then sell him. Unrealised profit doesn't contribute to your PSR. 

 

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

all our best players have been bought during the period since the takeover/howe, they contributed to us avoiding relegation, qualifying for the CL and narrowly missing out on europe last season.

in minteh we sold a player with potential for a huge profit. we sold a player in anderson who was average and very obviously part of a fiddle, I'm actually quite proud we stuck two fingers up to masters and his bent rules to comply with psr.

all in all, I'm not sure how any of this period hasn't been fit for purpose? 

if the context was not selling players bought in the ashley era it wouldn't have been very difficult to be specific on this surely?

[ewerk 32871]

See this is why you're a so called accountant and I work in business. You can't just look at the outgoings and say 'we're spending too much'. The person we should all be turning our attention to is Peter Silverstone, the man with what should be the easiest job in the world: commercial director for Newcastle United. Man City can reach down the back of the sofa and come up with a few commercial deals worth tens of millions yet he hasn't been able to replicate that even though our owner is literally the dictator of one of the world's wealthiest countries.

[Gemmill 49357]

4 minutes ago, thebrokendoll said:

 

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

all our best players have been bought during the period since the takeover/howe, they contributed to us avoiding relegation, qualifying for the CL and narrowly missing out on europe last season.

in minteh we sold a player with potential for a huge profit. we sold a player in anderson who was average and very obviously part of a fiddle, I'm actually quite proud we stuck two fingers up to masters and his bent rules to comply with psr.

all in all, I'm not sure how any of this period hasn't been fit for purpose? 

if the context was not selling players bought in the ashley era it wouldn't have been very difficult to be specific on this surely?

 

I'm not remotely suggesting we should sell our best players. I'm saying that ewerk's argument that we spent a lot but they appreciated in value is irrelevant to the context of being PSR constrained. You can't keep spending big and bringing nothing back in. That is the crux of Mitchell's point and he's right. 

[Gemmill 49357]

5 minutes ago, ewerk said:

See this is why you're a so called accountant and I work in business. You can't just look at the outgoings and say 'we're spending too much'. The person we should all be turning our attention to is Peter Silverstone, the man with what should be the easiest job in the world: commercial director for Newcastle United. Man City can reach down the back of the sofa and come up with a few commercial deals worth tens of millions yet he hasn't been able to replicate that even though our owner is literally the dictator of one of the world's wealthiest countries.

 

Pig farming is not big business. It's pig business. 

 

As to the rest of your point. Aye we should bring in more commercial revenue, but is the context in which we have been operating? No. So Mitchell's point still stands. 

[thebrokendoll 10156]

5 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

I'm not remotely suggesting we should sell our best players. I'm saying that ewerk's argument that we spent a lot but they appreciated in value is irrelevant to the context of being PSR constrained. You can't keep spending big and bringing nothing back in. That is the crux of Mitchell's point and he's right. 

 

we'd complied with psr though.... before he arrived.

he then spent a month attempting to overspend on a defender at peak price and age.

 

he should shut his fucking mouth.

Edited September 17, 2024 by thebrokendoll

[Dr Gloom 23395]

28 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

We broke our transfer record buying Isak. 

 

Ewerk: Yeah but he was young and he got better so that doesn't count. 

 

 

Get fucked. That only helps if you then sell him. Unrealised profit doesn't contribute to your PSR. 

do you agree with Mitchell when he said our recruitment policy wasn’t for for purpose?

[thebrokendoll 10156]

12 minutes ago, ewerk said:

See this is why you're a so called accountant and I work in business. You can't just look at the outgoings and say 'we're spending too much'. The person we should all be turning our attention to is Peter Silverstone, the man with what should be the easiest job in the world: commercial director for Newcastle United. Man City can reach down the back of the sofa and come up with a few commercial deals worth tens of millions yet he hasn't been able to replicate that even though our owner is literally the dictator of one of the world's wealthiest countries.

 

all silverstone has done is double the price of a membership and sticker a tenner on the cheapest tickets.

he's a cunt. 

[Gemmill 49357]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

do you agree with Mitchell when he said our recruitment policy wasn’t for for purpose?

 

Read my posts from this morning in this thread. He's undeniably correct in the sense that it is unsustainable in our current PSR context. 

 

I'm not saying we've made poor signings, and I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying you can't do what we've been doing on a consistent basis in our specific PSR situation. 

[Howmanheyman 36206]

Every other twat in this big 6 has been allowed to grow their squads with money pumped in at some point in time which generated success which lead to outside sponsorship as sponsors became more of a thing, this then lead to lucrative tournaments which then intensified their sponsorship reach. We needed to get quality in at a good age and hope to fuck they develop well and stay injury free to keep being at the right end of the table. Then the revenue should start coming in but the sponsorship money will remain middling if we remain a once in a while top 6 side. Our hands are tied but as I mentioned a few weeks ago, I caught a snippet of Silverstone talking and I got the distinct impression he's/NUFC are holding off accepting sponsorship deals which we'd be tied to in a few years time that we wouldn't want to be tied to. It must have pissed them off being stuck with castore and fun888 for as long as they did. Are they confident we can make the top 4 as is? Is the man city thing going to make our pathway a lot more clear? Who knows? I do know there were and still are some very jittery arses around places like Spurs when it comes to Newcastle United, maybe not in their stands but definitely in their boardrooms. 

[Dr Gloom 23395]

8 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

Read my posts from this morning in this thread. He's undeniably correct in the sense that it is unsustainable in our current PSR context. 

 

I'm not saying we've made poor signings, and I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying you can't do what we've been doing on a consistent basis in our specific PSR situation. 

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.

[Dazzler 11512]

31 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Oh so now we shouldn't have signed Isak? Honest to god, some of you deserved Mike Ashley. It's time to take your picture of Lee Charnley down off the wall.

 

We signed Isak for £60m and he's now worth at least £100m. That means we got a £100m player for much less than his true value. That is good business. The same goes with Gordon, Bruno and Botman. If we were bidding nearly £70m for Guehi then clearly we did have money to spend this summer, it just wasn't spent.

 

I've been saying for years that we need to become like Liverpool and Man City where we bring through young players and even if they don't make the first team then we sell them for good money. That isn't rocket science but no one can expect that system to be implemented and start showing results in two years.

 

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. 

[Dazzler 11512]

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 10156]

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 32871]

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 32871]

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 11512]

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 49357]

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 11512]

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.