TheFish

On 11/10/2023 at 16:36, tinker said:

I can see you have had a difficult start but 2 away games in the first 5  we have had 3, Newcastle and Liverpool in that as well who must be top 4 for home form, yet we rank mid table.....

Our two away games were Man City and Brighton. Your third away game was Burnley. That's a gimme, right?  

23 minutes ago, tinker said:

I'm not sure where you got that table from but you have played 4 away games to our 5 and we're both strong at home so straight away it looks suspect. 

It's lifted from Opta. It considers the strength of the opponent and it's only the first 5 games, not all 8 of them. 

14 minutes ago, oishiiniku_uk said:

I never said bad, I just disagreed that it had been a 'great' start. I think that wins against 2 teams who will likely be relegated & against a mid-table team who've dropped off since last season (Brentford are 15th) and a point against West Ham is about what you would expect from a team that are currently 8th and tracking as the 7th best team over the last 29 (in some cases 30) games. 

We're just going around in circles here, I think it's a great start because given the start we've had (no team had a more difficult first 5 games) we're still only 7pts off the top spot, we've got past Man City in the League Cup, we're unbeaten in the Champions League and top of the group.

You think it's not a great start. Either because you think the opponents are worse than I do, or you think Newcastle are better than I do.

We finished 4th last season, but that owed as much to our play as it did to teams like Chelsea, Liverpool, Tottenham having poor-to-terrible seasons. Also teams like Leicester, Southampton, Leeds, West Ham, having their own troubles. We were good, but objectively we don't have the squad to raise expectations so high that we look at this start as anything less than great.

Put it this way;

• Our League fixtures were: Not, Bri, MCI, Wol, Liv, Pal. (A much easier start, I'm sure you'll agree),
• Our League Cup opponents were League 2 Tranmere Rovers,
• our Champions League games were a thing of myth and mystery,
• we're 2pts ahead of where we were at this stage last season, and 10pts better than we were 2 seasons ago. We've eliminated Man City from the League Cup, and we're top of the Group of Death in the CL.

I'm happy as a clam.

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

You beat us but you played us at a good time. Buendia gout midweek with ACL mings done his in the game. I would gurantee if burn or trippier did theie ACL in the game it would have affected you the way it did us.

If it was now no chance would it would be 5-1

Also on a different nite what you made of tonali? He looked good agaonst us but since then hasnt really kicked on i think

Oh 100%. Before the game I was expecting a very different result, and up until Mings went off it looked like it would be a very tight affair which could go either way. 

Tonali is a good player who Howe wanted to ease into the team (as he did with Isak, Bruno and Gordon), but due to injuries for Longstaff and Joelinton he's been played a lot more. I think he's getting used to the speed and physicality of the league and without Joelinton and/or Longstaff he's having to do the kind of physical work they would usually shoulder. Which isn't really his game. He's not yet on the same page as some of his teammates, so he's missing runs or making passes for runs not made. I still think there's a good player there, he just needs a run in a settled side of our best side.

17 hours ago, oishiiniku_uk said:

Ah yes, the 1-0 'battering' of Brentford where you had fewer shots than them and half your xg came from a penalty. Do you class any victory above an odd goal as a battering?
And 'professional' is getting out of the San Siro somehow with a draw when they had 25 shots (a lot of them good chances) to your 6?

Couple more stats for ya: 8 of your goals, 9 of your big chances and 5 of your xg comes from a single game against a team that has 1 point from 8 games. You're seventh for points in 2023.

Plenty of teams have a significant number of injuries (ourselves included) and a number of teams are having to deal with playing in Europe for the first time in a while. Your situation isn't unique.
Seriously though, Why are you spending your time trying to convince fans of another club - on THEIR forum - that your team has had a great start? It seems like a fool's errand.

No I count a game when we were clearly the better side as a battering. We got out of the San Siro with a 0-0 draw when most of our team hadn't featured in Europe, let alone the Champions League, it was our first fixture in that competition for 20yrs, against a top European side, in a daunting stadium, and we managed the game well. Our defence was good and while we didn't offer much up front it was a very good result and a good professional performance. 

Re: your stats, that's right, we got 8 goals, 9 big chances and a good chunk of our table topping xG (I have 3.9 xG) came in one fixture. A fixture that caused Man City, Tottenham, much bigger problems. We're 7th for points in 2023, but we've had a very difficult run of fixtures and have come through it only 5pts off Man City. 

I'm not claiming our situation is unique, I'm just challenging your claim that we've had a bad start. I don't think that's true at all. 

7 minutes ago, bobzy said:

AIA are absolutely huge as an insurance group, but fair enough if you hadn't heard of them.  Astropay operates in the UK, as do the (often dodgy, should be banned from being sponsors) betting companies too.  Sela doesn't.  It has zero ties to the UK (bar being PIF owned like Newcastle) - I'm not even sure the company operates outside of Saudi Arabia so it seems a little bit odd that they'd want to pay £25m a year to sponsor a British team operating in European competitions.

Ah, I see your point, but I still think it's pretty commonplace for fairly unknown companies to splash their logo on the front of a PL shirt. Chiefly because it's a great way to get their name in the public consciousness. King Power is another example. And it's an example of a company linked to the owner. 

3 hours ago, oishiiniku_uk said:

Is it a great start? Since beating us on opening day Newcastle have:

- Lost meekly to Man City 1-0
- Beaten by 10 man Liverpool
- Outplayed by Brighton
- Narrow 1-0 over Brentford (who aren't great so far this season)
- Battered by AC Milan and fluked a 0-0
- Won against Sheff Utd & Burnley (who are both cannon fodder)
- 1-0 win against Man City in Carabao Cup (both teams rotated heavily)
- THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT IN EUROPEAN HISTORY!!! (home win against a PSG side who are struggling to top the table in a league in which they regularly spend 5 times more than any other team).
- Draw with West Ham (who are quite good).

Let's take a look at those results from another point of view;

• Beat Aston Villa who many are tipping for European spots
• Narrowly lost to the likely winners
• Narrowly lost to a resurgent Liverpool despite battering them
• Outplayed by Brighton
• Battered Brentford who are a top half side
• Produced a thoroughly professional point in our first away game in the Champions League for 20yrs
• Scored 8 away from home against Sheffield, who until then had only lost by the odd goal to Man City, Spurs, Palace, Forest. If some of those matches finished 5 minutes earlier, they would have taken another 4-5 points.
• Battered Burnley
• Beat Manchester City in the League cup despite both sides making a few changes. (bear in mind their squad is deeper than ours)
• Absolutely hammered PSG in the CL, keeping arguably the best player in the world quiet. We're top of the group, and are unbeaten. 
• Drew with West Ham who are good.

We're 8th in the league, only Brighton have scored more, only 5 teams have conceded fewer, highest xG in the league, 4th lowest xGA. And we've already got through some of the toughest fixtures in the season. All of this with an injury ravaged squad. 

It's been a very good start.

14 hours ago, oishiiniku_uk said:

Only because FFP, which didn't exist at the time of the Chelsea and Man City takeovers, prohibited you from spending more. PIF would have spunked a billion on players if it were allowed. If you want credit for spending a 'mere' 400 million over 3 windows while barely bringing anything in from player sales then you're not going to get it. 

I'm not asking for credit, not at all, I'm just saying we've not splurged in the way people expected. I mean, because of the way Ashley had run us, we could have theoretically splashed £500m on transfers in the first window alone. As it is, we've spent about the same as other clubs with ambitions of Champions League. 

16 hours ago, bobzy said:

I’m sure it is.

But the question for me would be why entirely unknown (in the UK) entities who don’t operate in the UK would pay more than known massive companies for a chance to be a sponsor on a British football teams’ top? Further, why would they not have already sponsored other sides or indeed be competing in the sponsorship market? And why would these companies, with very obvious links to the same owners as Newcastle, happen to be the biggest bidders for all of Newcastle’s sponsorship?

But sure, fair value and all that. 

For the first part, that happens all the time, doesn't it? I'd never heard of AIA, Astropay e.g. Plus 90% of the betting companies. 

The second part is absolutely right, of course it's nepotistic.

18 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I didn't say you got a fortune for ASM (though you got a decent amount to be fair - £26m was it?); just that you could shift him very easily.  I have no idea what your FFP circumstances would have been at that point (having spent over £400m on players, allowed a rolling £130m loss etc) but ASM going for £26m opens up your ability to spend quite substantially - basically £100m this season - if you were pushing those boundaries.  And you can do it at incredible ease because you're just selling to yourself.

Of course you're also ramping up the commercial department (again, whilst using yourself as sponsors; which is clever).  But you're never going to have financial difficulties because you can, essentially, circumnavigate a "normal" transfer market entirely.

The ASM transfer's an odd one, £26m is no small potatoes, but given we're basically owned by the same people, couldn't we have argued that £40m is closer to his 'value'? There was a point before the takeover where Milan were interested and Transfermarkt had him at €40m and even then, they often lowball the sum the player actually goes for. 

Honestly I think they were so worried about the perception of impropriety they didn't inflate the fee anything like they could have. 

32 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Aye, fair - somehow had completely forgotten about Arsenal .  Either way, in an era of FFP, you've spent a vast amount.

I didn't say you wouldn't be OK.  You're propped up by the Saudi state for God's sake; even if something went poorly on your accounts you'd just shift another player out there like ASM.  You'll have zero money problems at all.

We've spent way, way more than we previously had done. Before the last window we spent €329m, 1993/94-2020/21 we'd spent €397m. In the 14 seasons prior, we spent about €43m gross on average. Everton, for comparison, spent about €58m.

In Net Spend terms, for teams that've played more than 9 seasons since Ashley's takeover in 07, only Southampton spent less while in the PL (New €17m vs Sou €9m), using Everton again, they averaged €24.6m. Man City €104, Man Utd €70m.

56 minutes ago, bobzy said:

If it wasn't for Chelsea's currently ridiculous spend, you'd be ahead of the rest of the league by a mile since your takeover.

Not even close. We're 6th for gross spend and 4th behind Chelsea, Arsenal and Man Utd  for net.

25 minutes ago, VillaJ100 said:

Man U have fell so badly though as the ownership is very hands off and the day-to -day board like Woodward etc were just shit and couldn't run a football club. It's only because they're some sort of marketing and sales organisation now with the football an expensive nuisance that they've managed to stay mostly in the top 6 - most clubs run that badly would probably have been relegated. Man City don't have those problems, managers come and go and while probably not quite as dominant their backroom team know what they're doing unfortunately 

You're right, but I just don't know that Guardiola is going to be replaced without a significant drop off. Whoever they get in, just won't be as good at corralling those superstars into as ruthless and efficient an outfit as they are right now.

9 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Dunno about that.  Newcastle have spent the thick end of £400m on transfers since the Saudi takeover.  That's a lot of money.

Compared to the amounts spent by Man City and Chelsea, it's not really. We've spent, sure, but not in the same ball park as those two at the point of their takeover. 

Chelsea were the biggest spenders in the league for the first 4 seasons under their new owner, Man City were the biggest spenders in the league for 3/4. Newcastle haven't been the biggest spenders in the league yet.

49 minutes ago, Pinebro said:

Looks like European Football will take a toll on their league form.

Will be difficult for them to make top 4 again.

Finishing 3rd in their group and winning Europa may be their best ticket.

We're unbeaten in the League after our European nights. We've beaten Burnley and drawn away at West Ham. We were 5 minutes away from winning there as well. 

I doubt we'll break into the top 4 again, but that's chiefly because I expect the teams who last season had stinkers (by their standards), doing better this time around. Chelsea already look better on paper, Liverpool and Spurs look better on paper and on the pitch. 

We're currently top of the CL table with the toughest home game test passed with flying colours. While we've no chance of winning the Champions League I'd prefer to progress in that to the next round at least, then drop out with our heads held high. Better that than further fixture congestion in the Europa League and still have really good clubs to face like; Atalanta, Roma, Villareal, Marseille, Liverpool, West Ham, Brighton.

On 05/10/2023 at 14:01, S-Platt said:

I don't see Newcastle dominating like City I think that's all on Pep.  Just need someone break the camels back.  You would hope the Premier League would throw the book at them but we all know they won't.

I think you're right here. Man City are currently dominant because they've got a fantastic squad with arguably the best manager on the planet. We've seen how quickly Man United have 'fallen' when they've failed to replace their iconic manager, let see how Man City fare without Pep.

I think the Premier League is more competitive than people give it credit. Yes, Man City appear to have dominated the title for the last few years, but it has often been pretty **** close. Arsenal, Liverpool, Man Utd have all pushed them close. In the 7 seasons since Pep came in, Chelsea and Liverpool have won a title each, and on two occasions the title was decided by a single point. 

At the same time you have 2 or 3 clubs pushing those traditional 'Top 6' clubs by being wealthy and/or well run. Brighton, yourselves and Newcastle are now a genuine threat to clubs like Spurs, Man Utd, Chelsea. None of these clubs are throwing the kinds of sums that we saw Chelsea and Man City splash when they were looking to break into the top of the table discussion. 

On 06/10/2023 at 10:55, MrBlack said:

They have broke the rules, but the PL let them.

They have inflated sleeve and shirt sponsorship from companies that they are effectively owned by.  Deals that no independent company would match.

Yet the PL thought they were fair value.

Arguably is only a way to circumvent the unfair FFP rules established to protect the big 4/ scum 6, but clubs like us and most of the league can't do that because we don't have affiliated companies happy to throw tens of millions at us that they won't see an equivalent return on.

Anyway, that's only part of the reason I won't celebrate their breaking up of the sky 6. Mainly its the fact Saudi Arabia continues to kill multiple people every week for the most ridiculous of reasons (in breach of international law), and they're being gifted a way to continue their regime through the sporting world. It stinks, and Newcastle are a huge part of that now. 

I find issue with some of this.

This 'fair value' thing is a nonsense anyway; who decides what's fair? Especially when there are inflated or suspect sponsorship deals in the PL already, Everton's training ground sponsorship e.g. Is £25m a year unfair for a resurgent Newcastle United, in the Champions League, last seasons League Cup finalists, signing exciting talent, playing exciting football. A team with short term targets of expanding the Top 6 to a Top 7? Maybe it is, I'm not sure. And that's the problem with 'fair value'. 

The Sela deal is much bigger than our previous one, but still some way short of the deals for the other Champions League clubs. It also reflects the lofty ambitions of the owners (more on them later) and the likelihood that we'll meet those ambitions. The Noom sleeve deal is similar.

Could we have struck similar deals with some American hedge fund company? Maybe, who knows? As this was very much a confluence of events. Still early under the new ownership, NO existing CCO or CFO, no existing commercial relationships to build on or branch from, the owners wanting to promote Saudi Arabia globally, and of course unexpectedly getting into Champions League. So I've no doubt the new board cast around and miraculously uncovered a hitherto unheard of Saudi company to stump up the cash, and any argument about fairness is moot.

With regards to the ownership, I agree, they shouldn't own a Premier League football club. It shouldn't have been allowed to happen. The Owners and Directors test shouldn't permit foreign state ownership, they shouldn't permit someone who's even suspected of Human Rights violations anywhere near the table. But the PL saw the wealth and wanted a piece of it.

11 hours ago, tinker said:

He's a great player and has been a major part of your upturn.

You was the hungrier team on Sunday and deserved to beat us, fans played apart in that as well. 

Our performance was fractured, we started OK but when Mings was injured it took a big part of our spirit away.

Moreno....he was arguably our best player when we played you at our place and he did, with the help of Beundia, cause you real issues. It was a dominant performance from us, as dominant as yours was against (izaak is a top top striker, clinical and skillful) 

We are both up for good seasons,  hopefully,  and I'm pretty sure one of us, if not both, will be top 4.

I look forward to you coming to villa Park, hopefully it will be emery 2 howe 1 . UTV 

Cannot overstate his importance to the club. First player to join us after the takeover, immediately imposed his professionalism on the group, raised the standard of every player, he's captain in all but name. Model professional and a nice bloke by all accounts. On the new puff piece documentary he reveals that his Mrs was feeling lonely and homesick when in Madrid, so he put family first and moved back to England instead of staying at the La Liga Champions.

Definitely think both clubs can expect good seasons. So many people are expecting Liverpool, Chelsea and Spurs to have much better seasons than 22/23, but I wonder if that's as guaranteed as made out. Liverpool still don't have a top tier DM, Chelsea are in the middle of a huge overhaul, and Spurs are without Kane and there's no guarantee that Postecoglu will be able to translate his performances in the Scottish league to the Premier League. I don't think they're definitely going to be better than us and yourselves. 

25 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

Moreno only joined Villa but when he was up to speed he was exceptional for us; he's a big miss for Villa at the moment.

I had no idea he was rated that highly (Trippier) interesting if he keeps that standard up this coming season...

Really? That genuinely shocks me, he's one of the best right backs in the world. 

6 minutes ago, TRO said:

Make no mistake, of my point....Newcastle United are a very good team and are only due to get better.....Can they win the league? why not.

I am not arguing with the notion of Mings's injury.....but let me remind you, when he was on the pitch.....That first goal.....Firstly, Anthony Gordon was blessed by a half soaked Leon Bailey, who made a lazy gesture of a raised leg yards off Gordon, subsequently a well measured delivery ensued.....while I accept the intelligence and anticipation of Tonali's movement was top class, it was at the same time aided and abetted by a lethargic Kamara and a slow on the uptake, Lucas Digne.......All that for me set the tone, just as McGinn's challenges on Dan Burn in the very early exchanges at Villa Park, set that tone.

That game will not define either teams Seasons, and I accept they are both really good teams.

Oh and bye the way, the impressive way the Toon Army responded to Tyrone Mings injury, was top class.....surely that has to be an olive branch, to get 2 sets of supporters, to appreciate each other.

We cannot win the league, haven't the depth or quality to really challenge Arsenal, let alone the Light Blue Behemoth. You'll see on the weekend how big of a gap there is between us and a below full strength Man City.

I think a lot of that ridiculous animosity has disappeared now that both fans are happy with how things are going. No misplaced, misdirected anger. When Mings stayed down, I thought he was trying to win a foul/get Isak booked. But it soon became apparent that there was something very wrong. Awful to see a player go off on a stretcher, especially one who wouldn't fake it. 

I reckon you'll be among the pack chasing for the 5 Champions League spots, as will we. I don't know if Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs have done enough in the window/managers office to put the disappoints of last season behind them, but I'm worried they have and that they'll join Arsenal, Man City and Man Utd at the top of the tree once more.

Hope everyone who came up to St James' had a good visit, away from the football. 

30 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

See I believe that he is and proved it on that day, I also predicted that before the match.

Moreno was too quick for him...

I take performances over the course of a season, at least. Trippier was the best fullback in the league last year, and arguably has been since he joined us. 

Moreno had his number at Villa Park, no doubt, but the whole team played beneath themselves. 

10 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

In the 3-0 at Villa Park...

Bested him on every exchange, pre-match I remember saying that would be a weak point for you. It turned out exactly that...

Pity Moreno was missing last week.

Ahh, fair enough, yeah we were terrible that game and you were absolutely deserved winners. I don't think any of our lot got the better of their counterpart.

Moreno's not better than Trippier overall though. Don't want to get into a spat or anything, but I have to stick up for him.

14 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

Losing three first teamers is never good, Buendia is crucial to how Villa press.

Moreno had Trippier on toast and is the better player too; he was a major factor for Villa too.

Then Jacob Ramsey is a massive miss to how Villa play.

Then Mings, just a bad day all round...

Forgive me, is this an in joke or something? I don't get it.

22 hours ago, TRO said:

I think that’s right…..I think we played the wrong game……away, first game of the season against a vocal and partisan crowd, with high expectation was naive IMO

We are generally better than that, offering.

I take no credit away from Newcastle’s performance,but don’t expect such benevolence in future fixtures.

Before Mings went off I think it was a close game, but once you lost him to injury the game got away from you. Then as the game went on you seemed to tire and we got stronger. I don't think that result/performance is indicative of how either team will play the rest of the season. You'll still have a very good season, you're too good not to. 

I wouldn't be shocked to see us lose the return leg at Villa Park.

7 minutes ago, Harkanon said:

I think to claim these are brought in to slow down Newcastle has a whiff of victimhood.  The first two have been identified as activities already performed by others and clamped down on.  The last one - are you serious?

It's not victimhood mate, those rules were rushed in after the takeover. Which I get, it's an attempt to stop us dropping £500m on transfers every season, funded by a £12m a year training ground sponsorship deal with PIF, to propel us up the league like Man City or Chelsea. I don't think it's victimhood to say that those rules wouldn't have been introduced if we were still owned by Ashley. Though I'm not sure he paid fair market value for stadium naming rights, but that's not really important any more.

It wouldn't be fair or right if we just ignored FFP, and bought up the most expensive players we could, so these rules are justified. But to say they weren't brought in because of us is a little silly, in my opinion.