TheFish

Very little confidence here, we're still down to the bare bones and the showing against Fulham wasn't great. 

We're in dire need of fresh legs in midfield. Bruno, Longstaff and Miley all add something, but none of them have the physicality of Joelinton nor the tenacity of Tonali so we're pretty easy to play through at the minute. With Dubravka incapable of playing that sweeper keeper role that Pope managed so that means we're playing deeper. So naturally when we are played through, they're pretty much through on goal. 

Also, because we're playing deeper the link between midfield and forward is stretched to it's limit meaning Isak, Gordon and Almiron are either isolated, or have half the pitch to get across.

I'm expecting another loss. 

6 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

Hey;

Yes, Philogene, Archer & Ramsey were youth products, same as Chukwuemeka who we sold to Chelsea.

Yeah they're all pure profit. You should be golden when it comes to FFP. I think I read you've a new Adidas deal as well? That'll help too. If you stay the course and get CL next season, well there's another flood of money and renown coming your way. 

6 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

Nah i dont mean any of the "blood on your hands" stuff, im not in to that, to me, Saudi is a country that is recognised, and all countries trade with it, why should football refuse to trade/deal with them when every other area of life, business and govt does, doesnt make sense to me, if the UK govt want to ban Saudi investment, make it illegal or something, if its illegal, its illegal, if its legal, its legal, that simple tbh, to expect football to be the moral standard and take the moral high ground, considering how bent it is from top to bottom, is laughable tbh, its like asking the mafia to not be naughty boys, football has no morals, it tries to pretend it does, but it doesnt really, so to expect football to act morally......that horse bolted a few decades ago tbh, and the gate doesnt even exist any more.

That's refreshing, often on other message boards the view is that any success we get, be it earned or no, is ruined because of the owners. 

6 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

What i do mean though, for any club or owner(s), inflating funding or sponsorship beyond what is reasonable and in line with the market, ie: almost entirely what Man City are accused of, what some people say Newcastle are trying to do (they may not be - but you know what i mean), or the nonsense that Barcelona, PSG, Real Madrid and all those other clubs seem to just get away with, with no real questions asked, or actions taken.

There were accusations that Newcastle's deal with PIF owned SELA was cheating the system, but that deal was scrutinised by the PL and £25m for a CL team backed by ridiculously wealthy owners, on an upward trajectory... it is about right. Less than the established elite, more than, say, West Ham. The deals struck by Man City for their stadium naming rights, or Everton and their training ground (ffs) were hugely inflated for the time. Agree with the rest of your post too.

6 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

the only issue i do have with saudi, is the risk of what they are doing with players, ie: they arent subject to FFP, they are throwing money around, and clubs can possibly benefit from this in some ways by artificial (but technically legal by FFP) money movements to increase/decrease costs, now, this isnt Newcastle biased, i think its something many clubs may try to leverage if it becomes acceptable, and i think it could quickly skew the wider game when FFP related clubs can deal with a league that has literally zero financial controls, its a recipie for disaster, my point is, i honestly think that if the saudi league clubs want their money sloshing around in the transfer market, they need to be subject to FFP (or some other controls agreed by all), and all its legal implications, anyway, thats another conversation.

Ahh, gotcha. Yeah the Saudi league could be the loopiest of holes for us and others. But I think it's the same as the Chinese league and the Russian league before that. They'll buy a ton of hasbeens and never-will-bes, but given the average attendance is something like 7k, I just don't see the money going into the league as fast as it goes out. With players like Henderson, Firmino and Benzema wanting out asap, I'm sure lesser players will want to leave soonish too. So for all it could be a way to offload expensive players now, I don't think that window will be open for very long at all. 

We sold Saint Maximin to a PIF owned club there for about €25m, his market value on Transfermarkt at the time was closer to €30m and I reckon he would have moved for a similar amount to other clubs had he not been leaving us. He was linked with a €40m move to AC Milan or Spurs earlier that summer.

11 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

Hey (Geordie fan i assume?).

There isnt any specific clarity around to what degree FFP is impacting us, however, the fact that Emery has admitted that the sales of A.Ramsey to Burnley, Archer to Sheff Utd and Philogene to Hull in the summer, were to help balance FFP, it points to the fact we are mindful of the limits, but yeah.......not sure where we are specifically with regard to FFP.

someone in here might though, as a few others know their stuff with regard to our FFP.....i dont

Did Ramsey, Archer and Philogene all come through the academy? If so, they're pure profit in terms of FFP. Just like Grealish was. 

11 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

Do you have any idea where Newcastle are exactly in terms of FFP?

Close tot he limit I think. Well, when I say that I mean we've spent a shit load and were we not in dire straits because of injuries and suspensions (Bruno is 1 yellow card away from a 2 game ban) I don't think we'd be bothering much with this window at all. As it stands I'd not be surprised to see us spend a bit on a player or two. I think the preference is a loan deal, with an option to buy so the fee goes on a later set of accounts, but who knows?

11 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

I think teams should be able to go above 105m, but with specific safeguards like the owner has to physically pay the money up front in to a secure bank account or something, to ensure any level of going above 105m, is entirely funded and secured, also imo it must be cash, not loans, or anything secured against the club, it must be provable, pure cash from the owner, that they have committed to a secured account that only the club can access to ensure it isnt removed etc etc, it also must be proven to be clean money, etc.

When you say clean money, do you mean not covered in the blood of dissidents ?  I think that's a fair idea, it speaks more to the original idea behind FFP/PSR; protecting the future of the club from the actions of bad owners. 

11 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

However, im not sure that would work right now due to some clubs allegedly artificially inflating sponsorship, funding etc, to give them more spending power, so with this issue, my proposal above would just make it more unfair/worse for the majority of clubs.

While i think FFP should be altered to some degree, i think the priority should be dealing harshly with clubs who are doing underhand stuff to inflate their spending power, you cant make any real changes until this is sorted imo, as any changes must be based on the idea that the current system to control finances is working for all teams, which it clearly isnt.

From a club whose owners are trying to find ways to pump more money into the club's accounts I am shocked and appalled at the insinuation. No, I get it, theoretically Newcastle could sell the naming rights to SJP for £100m for 1yr to A Totally Unrelated PIF Owned Company, and that's clearly unsporting horseshit. I have to say it stinks a bit when Man City are self-sponsored, Everton got more for their training ground sponsorship than we did for our front of shirt sponsor. BUT, I don't think it's within the spirit of the sport to suddenly have commercial revenues on par with clubs who've been at the top for years. 

From my perspective, I don't want to cheat at Football Manager, I want any future success to be earned. I just don't think the current PSR rules are up to date (£105m over 3 years in 2011 looks a lot different to £105m over 3 yrs in 2024). I also think that as it stands it keeps the gap between the haves and have nots wider than it should. How can clubs like Brighton, Aston Villa, Everton, hope to keep pace with the 'Big 6' when you have to sell your best players in order to create enough FFP wriggle room for the purchase of new players? Especially when you're likely having to sell your best players to one of the Big 6? You're strengthening them, weakening yourself and gambling that the (say) £100m you get for Jack Grealish translates to a better overall team. 

Say you want to spend again, and the best financial deal on the table is Man Utd's £80m bid for Ollie Watkins... You spend that on two £40m players, there's no guarantee that both or either will be a success. Suddenly you've made one of the teams most likely to be caught much better, and you're now having to find a reliable striker, and someone to buy the flops from you. And if Ollie flops at Man Utd? they don't care, because of their deals with pillow companies and tractor oil partners, they can write it off and go off and sign Ivan Toney as well. 

Is FFP/PSR restricting Aston Villa's ability to do business? 

Do you lot think the allowance should be increased beyond the current £105m over 3yrs? 

11 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Money shouldn't be a problem, although I don't pretend to know how FFP works. 

We need a right back, a centre forward and possibly a decent reserve goalie if such a thing can be found. Don't expect (or want) any 'marquee' signings, would prefer hidden gems - fortunately, DoF Monchi has a good track record of finding them. 

Level of optimism? Personally I don't dare to dream, but some are. 

Why do you need another striker? Watkins is banging in the goals and that Duran looks raw but talented?

For what it's worth, I think you'll get Champions League football but the depth and experience of teams like Arsenal and Liverpool will keep you from an unlikely title. 

What's your confidence levels? 

Top at Christmas if Liverpool and Arsenal draw. Less demanding European campaign than either of those. No League Cup distraction. 

Best home record in the league, best GF at home too. Only Newcastle have conceded fewer goals at home. Second overall for goals scored behind Man City. 7th for Goals conceded overall. 

Have you got much room in the budget to strengthen come January? If so, what do you need?

On 04/11/2023 at 20:58, viivvaa66 said:

Win tomorrow we would have a 5 points gap down to 6th, and 7 points down to 7th.  And a win takes us at least into top 4.

I don’t think Arsenal or Newcastle are as good as they were last season. Some of the Arsenal players seem to have dropped a level or two compared to last season, especially Saka, Martinelli and Ødegaard. Newcastle are very good at home, but away so far they nowhere near as strong as last season.

Of course we need to keep up our high level across the entire season to stay in contention for top 4. The top is brutal you have to win, or else you drop places and loses contact with the teams above you.

Hard to disagree. We've not been as good, but how much of that is because of injuries, European hangovers (our draws to WHU and WOL came after difficult CL games), or being figured out... I'm not sure. 

10 players out for the Bournemouth game, a couple of suspensions, a couple soft tissue injuries, but a good number of impact or illness absentees. It's these kinds of games where our injuries could tell. Bournemouth could very well take advantage or tired, distracted players. 

For me, focus has to be staying in touching distance with the Champions League spots. Think we'll have to spend in January, which will no doubt infuriate everybody. 

18 hours ago, Zatman said:

Its very Martin O'Neill style approach and while it works to a point its not a great policy

Oh, don't get me wrong, Howe isn't exclusive with his affection. Barnes, Burn, Gordon, Hall, Livramento, Targett, Trippier all have Premier League experience. But Botman, Bruno, Isak, Tonali, do not. And if Gordon had been plying his trade in the Bundesliga, I'm sure we still would have been interested (probably got him for less than £40m too).

With Ashworth running the recruitment side of things, I'm hoping we'll start discovering the same calibre of players that were unearthed during his time at Brighton. We've already got a couple of young players out on loan in the Netherlands and of them Minteh looks to be a genuine prospect. 

37 minutes ago, oishiiniku_uk said:

When you see the number of injuries you're accumulating and the tiredness of your regular starters, do you worry at all that Howe's high intensity style of football is not suited for the long-term (especially when you're playing extra games in Europe)? Bielsa's Leeds were billed as the 'fittest team in the league' and competitive against anyone until the wheels came off and then it crashed and burned quite spectacularly. And Klopp has evolved away from the 'Heavy Metal' gegenpress - either through choice or necessity - to something more conservative with significantly fewer sprints, less distance covered etc. I wonder how the rest of the PL season might go for Newcastle if they end up playing 50+ games and Howe can't (or won't) rest his first 11 more.

I don't think it's suited for the long term no, but I'm not worried. We've already evolved from the style we played when Howe first joined. I'm confident that when we have a left back that's comparable to Trippier (I mean, as close as we can get), we'll shift away from having 3 at the back in attack and to a more balanced side. We need more quality at DM, more depth across the squad. 

I think we need to migrate to being more comfortable knocking the ball around patiently. But that's going to take time and the right personnel. 

22 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

Really enjoy reading your posts Fish. Botman is a huge miss for you aswell, Lascelles is o.k but no more than that and got caught out and gave the FK that lead to second Wolves goal. You're far more vulnerable defensively this season with Pope maybe lacking a bit of confidence from being dropped from the England squad.

Interested what happened with Maddison. I was certain back end of last season he was going to sign for you if you made CL. Not sure if he just wanted to sign for Spurs more or you passed him up in the end but I think him at the top end of midfield would've given you an extra dimension rather than just add Barnes who's decent but dosen't offer a huge amount of difference to Gordon and Almiron. 

Similar story to Diaby really, we were quoted north of £55m for him and his wage demands were too much. When Spurs came in they were quoted £40m and they could afford his wages. 

He would have been an absolutely been the perfect signing for us. Slots into our system perfectly, elevates our profile, huge upgrade on our existing players.

32 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Yea im really happy with diaby, obviously you have had some bad luck with barnes with his injury but i think he will be good for you.

For me and i dont know of you will agree it seems the window before was a lot better for you than this current one.

Pope botman gumiraes isak that was a very successful season window fod u

Yeah last season was amazing in terms of signings. I think this season was more about squad building. Barnes isn't better than Gordon, but he's a goal threat from the bench and plenty good enough to play against the lower PL teams. Hall and Livramento are two for the future. So are Minteh, Heffernan et al. 

Tonali was bought to replace Bruno's role on the right hand side, with Bruno posting up on the left. 

I mean, it all makes sense, but it's not as exciting as last season's. We couldn't spend too much more because of FFP, so it makes sense to fatten out the squad with talented young players. 

3 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I was really surprised that newcastle opted for barnes instead of diaby tbh

We were quoted £60m+ for him and reportedly his wage demands ended our interest. We got Barnes for less and for less wages too. Dunno how much of an impact it had, but Howe really likes players with Premier League experience too. 

He'd have been a huge upgrade on Almiron and Murphy and as I said at the time, he's a really good signing for you.

On 29/10/2023 at 09:04, oishiiniku_uk said:

Yeah, I get that, and that may well prove to be more astute in 1-2 seasons time, but they knew their squad was going to be tested by Champions League this season. I think it will be harder to retain a CL position this season, due to increased competition and also greater demands placed on their squad. Easy to say this in hindsight, but maybe it would have been better to just sign one of Hall/Livramento and then spend money on a couple of players for the present (experienced players on loan or free transfers, for instance). Trippier and Burn looked knackered last night and in need of a rest, but Howe doesn't seem to trust Livramento or Hall to deputize for them.

EDIT: I'd not realized that both of those players are on loan with obligation to buy, so maybe they were the only signings that were viable for Newcastle with their current FFP situation. I'd guess the wages are low compared to more experienced players, also. So maybe it is a case of stockpiling them for the future before their value (and wages) increase significantly.

Livramento isn't a loan with obligation. His was a permanent deal from the off. Hall is a loan with obligation purely for the benefit of the balance sheets of us and Chelsea. We don't have his full amount on our books now, Chelsea have a guaranteed income next accounting period.

I don't know for sure, obviously, but my read is that the Champions League was a competition we were never going to win, so it was as much about getting experience in it and not getting embarrassed. It wasn't going to be the driving force behind our recruitment in the summer. The owners (I know, they're objectively awful people) have repeatedly stated they're in it for the long term, so while we'll likely not get CL football next season the aim is very much to become regular in that Competition. Better for the club to gradually improve the strength and depth of the squad instead of having too big of a gap between first and second 11. Any experienced player would want a big wage, and that's the area where FFP is tightest for us.

I'm sure the idea would have been to rotate Barnes and Gordon, Isak and Wilson, Almiron and Murphy, a three from; Anderson, Bruno, Joelinton, Longstaff, Tonali and Willock. Unfortunately injuries to Barnes, Isak and Murphy means Almiron, Gordon, Wilson (who can never stay fit for long), are having to play full 90s a couple of times a week. and injuries have meant we couldn't rotate the midfield three, Joelinton, Longstaff, Willock have all had injuries and now Tonali is gone until next season. We don't even have attacking options to pull up from the youth squads because the academy had been neglected for far too long. 

Wolves was what I feared; a tired, depleted squad unable to get over the line against an improving Wolves side. We'll have more of those until either our players come back in the new year, or we sign some more bodies in January. That we're still 6th is frankly shocking to me. That you're 5th, isn't. You've played well, you're scoring for fun, and our game aside only Liverpool have scored more than once past you. And while you're missing Buendia and Mings for the season, you haven't looked like you've particularly missed them.

4 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

Yeah, we've plodded on with Buendia and Mings our for the season, Moreno and Ramsey missing nearly the first three months, and no sign of coming back. Its a challenge for clubs like ours with little depth, but doable as we've demonstrated so far.

Probably helps we're not still in the league Cup and also don't play a particularly high intensity press to dictate our style of play. But I think you're, like us, on the threshold of coping OK. One more first teamer out for either of us starts making things look much worse.

 

The good news, I guess, is that we've had a gentler run of fixtures to get us back among the big boys. Now, with the ban and injuries, we face a sterner test, but in a way, these are games we'd struggle to get results from anyway. After Wolves we've got Man Utd (a), Arsenal (h), Dortmund (a), Bournemouth (a), Chelsea (h) and PSG (a).

Isak might be back for Chelsea, Anderson and Murphy too. December has 5 winnable games for us. then hopefully we'll get some recruitment done for early in January. 

Tonali gone for 10 months is bad, but it could have been much worse. Isak missing until the next International break is a blow too. Murphy and Anderson is disappointing, but they're not as vital as Isak. 

I'm not too disappointed with the result last night. We hit the bar a couple of times, Wilson should have buried his point-blank chance, but whaddyagonnado?

It would have been more comfortable had these injuries and ban happened closer to the January window, but I think we've enough to keep ticking along. Probably drop down the league a bit as close games go the wrong way. 

Hall and Livramento are going to get more game time as the season goes on. Livramento is closer to a start, but he's behind Trippier who's arguably the best right back in the league, and definitely our most important player on and off the pitch. Willock coming back is good timing, as he can play wide left, meaning Gordon can cover Wilson in the middle if the latter needs a break late on in games. 

17 hours ago, bobzy said:

I don't think Newcastle should be heading down the "misrepresentation" route  

Look, PIF and KSA are entirely separate entities! 

20 hours ago, oishiiniku_uk said:

Playing him together with Guimaraes is what seems odd to me. They both want to do the creative stuff, but maybe not so much of the defensive work. Either one of them plus two more physical & energetic CM/DMs makes more sense in Newcastle's system, I think.

I think that's kind of right but unfortunately we've not had a settled run of games with both Joelinton or Longstaff available. Those two players ar emore than happy to do the hard work and free up Bruno and Tonali to operate in a more attacking role. I think the idea was to replicate the threat we had on the right hand side through Bruno, Trippier and Almiron, but on the left. In so much as Tonali would be right sided with Almiron and Trippier and Bruno would build that kind of relationship on the left with Burn/Hall and Gordon. 

Tonali and Bruno are quite happy pressing opponents, but as you allude to, they much prefer to be creating danger instead of snuffing it out. I think most Newcastle fans were expecting us to go in for an out and out DM. However, I did see something online about Bruno's threat being at it's most impactful when he's joining the attack from deep, rather than when he's already up there. Not sure if that's because of a lack of quality around him, or whatever, but it was interesting nonetheless. 

If he's found guilty then he should face a similar ban that Toney's got. If AC Milan knew this was coming down the road and didn't mention it we should sue them for fraud, if Tonali didn't disclose it we should do him as well. 

Of all the recent signings, he's definitely not the worst for this to have happened to. Id be way more gutted if it was Isak or Botman in this kind of trouble.

14 hours ago, Zatman said:

Trippier served his ban in Spain for something the FA charged him with

Gambling on football, no?

3 minutes ago, bobzy said:

What do Inter have to do with anything?

If they knew about the impending punishment before the transfer and didn't tell Newcastle, they've defrauded us. Tonali with an 18 month ban is worth a lot less than Tonali without.

10 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Tough one.  I understand what you're saying to an extent, but the resolute of avoiding a ban shouldn't be "pssst, I know you don't want to leave but just go to Newcastle for a large fee and you can carry on with your career".

Granted, I haven't read into the case at all.

To be fair, if Inter knew anything about it we should sue their little pants off. 

16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Think there has to be reciprocity in how football associations handle these matters; it would be a joke if Brentford could just loan Toney to Celtic or something just to evade his ban and keep him fit and in form. Yes the Italian FA's rules may not be the same as our FA's rules, but if an English player broke our rules while or before playing in Italy we would want them to enforce our rules. 

No, I get that, and like I say if he's been gambling on football results, that's that. But given Italy has a strange set of laws about which betting sites you can or can't use, and the gambling was (reportedly) card games and not football, I'm not sure why a ban should be brought over to the English league?

I'm not sure it's an FIGC rule he's broken, or an Italian Law. If it's the former, then that's one thing and perhaps a ban should be ported over, if it's an Italian Law, then it's another thing entirely. 

From all I've read, he's guilty of betting on card games through a website banned in Italy. Now, while it's stupid of him to use a banned website, I'm not sure it's within the purview of the English FA to punish him? 

If he's been betting on football, then yeah he's got to face the same kind of punishments as Toney did. But this sounds more like a dumb mistake, than a nefarious bit of trying to beat the bookie with insider knowledge. I mean, what happened to Paqueta, and he was surely affecting the games he played in to win some money on the side for his family.

On 13/10/2023 at 12:54, tinker said:

Your home record is as good as Man Cities, 9 points , Brightons is a 10 points and Liverpools also 9, so we are splitting hairs really, we have also played Chelsea away and Burnley. There's nothing between us, the table you have shown is obviously miles away from reality,  that's a gimme  

That table is an objective OPTA thing, based on their ranking of each team, accounting for the home/away strength. I think it's a good table to clap back at people who said we didn't have a hard start. Based on ELO ratings, we had the hardest start by some measure. 

Right now, Brighton, Villa and Newcastle are posing a genuine threat to the established elite teams. However this means that we're being judged against a much higher bar than we were a couple of seasons ago. That we're backed by an Oil State means that the expectations are even higher than yours, and because we're both considered 'bigger' clubs than Brighton they still get more of a free pass than either of our clubs. Two seasons ago, I'd not have been surprised to be questioning where the next point is coming from. Now our great start is dismissed. It's enough to make your head spin.