KangarooVillan

21 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said:

Maybe, maybe not. 

We’ve spent a lot of money over the past 3 years and we’ve bought a few players that I don’t think have been great purchases.

Bissouma also no guarantee of being as good as he has been for Brighton. New system, new teammates, new manager, all can be a risk.

I’d also argue that more £40 mill purchases in the PL are busts than work out. Especially players who finally get that big pay day, not sure what Bissouma’s temperament is like, but motivation past the big contract is perhaps the biggest risk of all.

2 minutes ago, Spoony said:

I honestly don’t think it’s much more complicated than Ings not fitting the system and Watkins being (for whatever reason) absolute garbage this season.

With Ings I’m just not sure it’s ever going to work. He doesn’t suit the more fluid style of play it seems. He’d me my choice over Watkins for his finishing, but chances never seem to fall to him.

We get absolutely no goals from our strikers and they’re just all coming from the attacking mids. Not sure it’s necessarily a concern but it would be nice for the strikers to contribute.

I’m honestly starting to think the best striker for the way we play right now is Keinan Davis…at least his on the ball work is good even if he doesn’t score. Ings doesn’t get chances but also doesn’t contribute, Watkins just kills every attack he’s involved in. 

You could well be right - only thing is though, I watched a lot of Southampton the last 2 seasons and Ings play for them showed no indication he wouldn’t fit the current system. All of his dynamism and quick clever interplay seems to be gone. He was fluid and clever and deadly for the Saints, and I’m struggling to come up with any reason why that wouldn’t suit the current setup to a tee. 

Funny how all those scenarios he was getting pushed off the ball he now stands strong and keeps the ball. 

Hopefully this will be a lesson in considered patience for VT, but who am I kidding

I thought Ollie was no good today.

However, the fact that we have 2 strikers in our squad who we largely believe to be quality and both are underperforming - does that point to a bigger issue than both of their bad form?

Will be interesting to see what Ings does given the opportunity to start. 

Honestly cannot understand how anyone could criticise the player that put his body on the line more than anyone today, and has consistently done so for the last 3 years.

2 sloppy passes, one for a corner and one for a throw in are a small price to pay, without him we concede today.

Good result, decent gritty performance.

Still concerned that I haven’t seen us put together a full game performance this season.

Shattered Sanson wasn’t given an opportunity, feel like it would have done his confidence a world of good and his hold up play and possession in the middle of the park was exactly what we needed in the 2nd half.

1 hour ago, HalfTimePost said:

Perhaps, but Newcastle's FFP situation is they can spend circa £300m and be OK.

I'm not suggesting they'll be Man City in 3 years but the idea it'll take them 20 years is wide of the mark imo.

Sure but I think the original point was considering if they get relegated. If that happens, that heavily impacts that figure, and for every season they fail to return to the league/yo-yo between the prem and championship will set them back. Perhaps the biggest problem is less so how much you can spend, more so who you’re able to attract. Even that £300 million figure can quickly be chewed up in oversized contracts for underperforming players (assuming they’re paying overs for average players to entice them to a Championship/relegation battle club).

1 hour ago, HalfTimePost said:

 I just think this is short sighted. Yes they have to spend it well and they may very well spend it badly, but...

Man City were bought on August 4th 2008 then they won the FA Cup in 2011, the Premier League in 2012 and their first League and League Cup double in 2014.

Took them 3 years. This idea that it'll take Newcastle a decade or two is weird. They don't have the backroom team but the people they are after from Newcastle and Brighton show they're making strides there too. 

I really don't think any clubs with their own ambition of competing should be selling them anybody and helping speed up the process.

Difference between then and now; FFP.

edit: someone already said this

11 hours ago, paul514 said:

When he has proved himself in the championship, I’ll consider him competition.

Sure, but at some point we need to start giving these kids a chance, and signing an additional mature prem-ready on a multi-year deal will only hinder his development.

TAA, Reece James, James Justin and Tyreik Mitchell all had break our years at a similar age, fingers crossed KKH can do something similar.

1 hour ago, messi11 said:

Def we need to bed him in slowly

22 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

It will potentially set them back a bit but in the scheme of things it won't impact Man Utd. A year in the Championship to get their management team in place, get a Dir of Football and improve facilities could be of benefit to them. They would come up stronger and be a more appealing club to new players

Potentially, I don’t disagree on the basis that all of this is pure conjecture, but the FFP implications and then having to attract quality post-relegation does set them back years. They don’t have the recruitment of a Brentford/Southampton and they don’t have the academy prodigy that we had (and all the benefits that have come with that, both playing and FFP).

Newcastle probably lose St Maxamin if they’re relegated and then they are literally rebuilding from scratch.

Just now, Peter Griffin said:

I agree, in 10 to 20 years they will be competing with Man Utd. But next season the will not and selling players to Newcastle now won't make any difference to Man Utd. If they can screw Toon out of silly amounts of cash then they would be daft not to do so

Yeah but, I think (and I’m assuming here) the point of the OP was that if they get relegated this season, that may set them back 3-10 years.

9 minutes ago, Phil Silvers said:

Just had an Amazon delivery, friendly 6'3" ish black guy, I asked if he can play DM, to which he said damn right I can, I said why u not at afcon and he just left.

 

Wow modern day slavery just got proverbially real

4 hours ago, Peter Griffin said:

What is the big business sense? It wouldn't make any difference to Man Utd if Newcastle stay up

I assume it’s more a in 10-20 years type of thing.

I.e. Chelsea and Man City from a Man U pov 

10 hours ago, paul514 said:

I’ve no idea how much money we have left to spend but we still need a DCM a centre back and a right back just to fill the squad out.

for me I would have Zakaria (now), Botman and Aaron’s. (Now or in the summer).

I would also sell Danny ings and use the money to get Alvarez if he wanted to join us.

 

Got KKH for competition at RB?

48 minutes ago, DakotaVilla said:

I’m not saying he’s no good. I’m saying that he’s not of the required level if we want to be challenging for European football regularly. That is backed up by the evidence that no team at that level has ever shown any interest in him when normally anyone they think is good enough is hovered up sooner or later. 

 

Okay then let’s just replace the word good in what I said with at that level, it’s still a question you seem determined to avoid:

Lol stating that no team in the big 6 has come from him and therefore he’s no good is just arguing based on opinion by proxy 

Does the £160 million United has spent on Maguire, Lindelof, and Bailey who they’ve wanted mean that they’re up to the level of challenging for regular European football? 

1 minute ago, DakotaVilla said:

I’m not arguing on the base of opinion - we all have different opinions. Im making a statement of fact. He has never remotely been linked with the top 6 (or a quality overseas champions league team) and will never be as a starter. That should tell us something. 

Lol stating that no team in the big 6 has come from him and therefore he’s no good is just arguing based on opinion by proxy

Does the £160 million United has spent on Maguire, Lindelof, and Bailey who they’ve wanted mean that they’re good? 

No.

42 minutes ago, DakotaVilla said:

If they wanted him they would already have bought him or been linked with him. He’s never been linked with any of them for a reason. 

I mean let me ask you the reverse, which 12 CBs in the top 6 would you prefer over Mings?

25 minutes ago, DakotaVilla said:

We need two CBs. One right footed to cover/challenge Konsa and one to upgrade Mings and he can then be the left footed cover.

I’m still very confused why people want to replace Mings.

2 hours ago, lexicon said:

A bit basic, don't you think? How are those figures decided? 

I addressed all the individual stats on a previous page from fbref, which is a much more detailed site.

Does pretty good in NPG’s, xA and SCA’s.

Also decent stats for Progressive Passes and Receives as well as Dribbles Completed.

2 hours ago, Phil Silvers said:

I can dig that Peter.

However, I would counter that with, we were on a seemingly upward trajectory under Deano at the point that citeh would have started to try and unsettle Jack. Other owners will be fully aware of what NWSE are about and their financial clout. Had Jack have stayed, we could/would have added Ings Bailey and Buendia anyway and would have become stronger then when they first looked at us and Jack (this is all hypothetical of course). Basically they knew we shouldn't have players of his calibre just incase. Under Dean they may have thought without Jack it falls apart, at did.

It's just a fantastical flip side to what might go on. With this much money in the game I'm sceptical that skullduggery does exist.

Cutting us down when as and when and buying all the best players prevents our progress.as we cannot spend that 100 on a Jack equivalent. 

Ps. Wft we ended up with better in the end, maybe NWSE's gloves are off, the scum better watch out.

1 hour ago, lexicon said:

They can also drag you down if they're simply not good enough as they're a weak link in the team.

McGinn, for me, is clearly one of the weakest members of the first team and is moving towards being a squad rotation option. I can't see a team putting in a bid that'd really tempt us as I don't think they'd see the value in it but I'd snatch someone's hand off at say 35m.

 

20 hours ago, Adam2003 said:

I was thinking that and then I wondered if they thought “we want this £25m because we are skint, let’s let Rafa take the fall then bin him off.” Either way it is great for us.

Age old question of ingenuity or incompetence

22 hours ago, avfc1982am said:

No I'm not....I'm talking about much of the time. He needs several touches when he receives the ball before releasing it. It had nothing to do with the structure yesterday. Digne and Cash were in great positions to receive passes on several occasions and by the time Mings had the ball under control the space had gone. He stretches us through being ponderous at the back. That's just my opinion with what I see.   

I know what you mean, don’t think it’s a lack of control though more seems he trying to find the right option/there are none. Not sure if Konsas much different either.

That first half in particular seemed like we’d decided to be a possession team but no one had any idea what to with it.

I did think Ming’s marauding runs were good though didn’t get enough credit from that game though - thought he played well especially considering Konsa was absent.

Hause/Mings looked a lot better than Hause/Konsa as well.