Steve Bruce

[kurtsimonw]

9 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

What changed between RDM's short reign and Bruce's? The remit never changed, he just had less work to do because RDM oversaw most of the rebuild post-relegation.

He had the biggest or at least top 2 budget in the league and finished 4th and failed to get promoted. Didn't even threaten the top 2. That's been the crux of the argument against him from day 1.

But that's not the issue here. The point is, he was not "cash-strapped", nor did he have his hands tied during his time here. Relative to the rest of the league, he was eating very good as we say.

RDMs signings weren't that great? Why should Bruce be held accountable for them? 

In his 1 full season here, we had the 4th lowest net spend and the 7th lowest overall spend. Again, RDMs spend has nothing to do with Bruce. To suggest Bruce was spending as much as other clubs is just factually untrue. 

[Zatman]

Was RDM signings that bad. Only think McCormack, Tishbola that were proper duds. Gollini hard to judge and De Laet never got chance. Rest were good

[Mark Albrighton]

4 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Was RDM signings that bad. Only think McCormack, Tishbola that were proper duds. Gollini hard to judge and De Laet never got chance. Rest were good

I’d say they were a bit on the expensive side, all of them with maybe the exception of Elphick and Chester who’s transfer fees seemed relatively sober at the time. Knock off a million for Jedinak, a couple for Kodjia, etc then it’s not as chaotic.

But yeah, a lot of them served a function and a lot of them were readily utilised by Bruce and Smith.

[Keyblade]

15 minutes ago, kurtsimonw said:

RDMs signings weren't that great? Why should Bruce be held accountable for them? 

In his 1 full season here, we had the 4th lowest net spend and the 7th lowest overall spend. Again, RDMs spend has nothing to do with Bruce. To suggest Bruce was spending as much as other clubs is just factually untrue. 

I disagree with that tbh. Chester, Kodjia, Adomah and Jedinak were some of Bruce's most important players. Stalwarts in our team even up until we got promoted. I personally think he did a pretty good job considering the job he had on his hands. Really only McCormack and Tshibola I would say were completely useless signings.

Also you've admitted that wages were also a factor, so I'm not sure why you're only considering spending. Under Bruce, we've loaned or signed on a free transfer Johnstone, Tuanzebe, Terry, Snodgrass, Onomah, Samba, Grabban, Abraham, Bolasie, El Ghazi. That's almost a promotion-challenging starting XI, with wages that very few teams in the league, if any, could match. The first 7 all signed in the same season too. Would you honestly class that as having his hands tied, or that he was cash-strapped?

[Stuartc445]

3 hours ago, Keyblade said:

Every team bar maybe a handful in world football has some sort of financial restriction. Nobody is saying he had a blank cheque to go out and sign every player he could possibly think of. It's all relative. We were a Championship club. FFP has been something that every EFL side has had to work around. We had no disadvantage to any Championship team in that regard. In fact, like I highlighted above, when it comes to wages, we had significantly more leeway and breathing space than any other team. At the end of his second season, 14/28 players on the book were signed by Bruce and our wage bill completely dwarfed the rest of the league.

When it comes to net spend, we are third in the Championship table for net spend over the last 5 years. We were only in the league for 3 of those 5 years, yet are only 5 million per season and 20 million as a whole off leaders Stoke and West Brom who were relegated after the gigantic TV deal. At the end of 2017/18 we were also top of the squad cost table.

Apart from if you read what's been put in here that is pretty much what is being said.  

[Stuartc445]

1 hour ago, kurtsimonw said:

RDMs signings weren't that great? Why should Bruce be held accountable for them? 

In his 1 full season here, we had the 4th lowest net spend and the 7th lowest overall spend. Again, RDMs spend has nothing to do with Bruce. To suggest Bruce was spending as much as other clubs is just factually untrue. 

Come On Now Stop It, don't you know where you are this is the Steve Bruce thread Facts are not allowed here. 

[Rob182]

I love me some Rafa Benitez ‘Facts’

[useless]

in the winter before his full season Bruce was allowed to bring in Hogan, Hourihane, Lansbury, Bree, Bedeau, and Bjarnason, the club said at the time they were spending money early in preperation for the following season, that's why Bruce didn't have as much to spend in the summer before his first full season, because he spent much of it in the previous window. Even then, in the summer Bruce was still allowed to bring in all of Johnstone, Tuanzebe, Onomah, and Snodgrass, on loan, and on top of those sign Terry, Whelan, and Elmohamady all of whom would have cost the millions not just in terms of transfer fees, but wages too. No other manager received anywhere near the amount of backing that he received, it's not only about the players he was to bring into the club, but also the players he inherited, Chester, Baker, Kodjia, Adomah, Grealish, Jedinak were all

[Keyblade]

Why are we even arguing whether or not he had the biggest or one of the biggest budgets? It's a complete red herring. The original point of contention was that the Guardian article claimed that he was "cash-strapped". If you're going to contend that this is true, fine let's have that discussion instead of going down a rabbit hole of unrelated minutiae. That's this thread in a nutshell to be honest.

Edited July 17, 2019 by Keyblade

[TheStagMan]

27 minutes ago, Stuartc445 said:

Apart from if you read what's been put in here that is pretty much what is being said.  

NOBODY has said that. 

What people have disagreed with is the hyperbolic narrative that he was forced to wheel and deal and had no money to spend. We had some valuable assets that we turned into cash - from which he spent plenty and was backed financially to the point where the club basically went bankrupt. The money he had available to him here will seem like a kings randsome compared to what he is likely to be able to spend at the toon.

 

Plus he benefited from RDMs spend as some of the players RDM signed were crucial to Steve Bruce's Aston Villa, just as some of the players Bruce signed were critical to Smith's promotion team. 

[Keyblade]

I mean, even being allowed to spend what you've received in player sales is nothing to sniff at. Cast your minds back to when we sold Downing and Young for 40m, and Alex McLeish was only allowed to reinvest 1/4 of that in N'Zogbia and a couple of other cheap signings. 

[peterms]

6 hours ago, DCJonah said:

And once again Bruce throws his defenders under the bus. 

Well, if you're going to park the bus as a defensive tactic, the obvious weakness is a ground shot under the chassis.

Throwing the defenders under the bus blocks off that vulnerable area.

I think he should get some credit for what is clearly a tactical masterstroke.

[DCJonah]

25 minutes ago, TheStagMan said:

NOBODY has said that. 

What people have disagreed with is the hyperbolic narrative that he was forced to wheel and deal and had no money to spend. We had some valuable assets that we turned into cash - from which he spent plenty and was backed financially to the point where the club basically went bankrupt. The money he had available to him here will seem like a kings randsome compared to what he is likely to be able to spend at the toon.

 

Plus he benefited from RDMs spend as some of the players RDM signed were crucial to Steve Bruce's Aston Villa, just as some of the players Bruce signed were critical to Smith's promotion team. 

You can't talk sense to Alex Bruce. 

[AvfcRigo82]

Walk into this thread expecting more capers from Tyneside and we're back to arguing over Potato Head's time here!  Who gives a shit anymore?

He's about to make a laughing stock of Newcastle Utd. Let's enjoy it and breathe a sigh of relief he has been here and gone.

Edited July 17, 2019 by AvfcRigo82

[jdguitar]

The Express aren't pulling their punches about him; must be one of the only examples of the media not defending him:

[villalad21]

2 weeks ago i was confident OGS would be the 1st manager to get the sack, now i'm pointing more towards Bruce.

It's already getting toxic at Newcastle

Edited July 18, 2019 by villalad21

[villa4europe]

stuart pearce on talksport

he's done well at every club he's been at

he's a good man

this is part of the reason some people hate him, pisses me off that's for sure

[Demitri_C]

One final payday for fistface

[Demitri_C]

[kurtsimonw]

His first winter transfer window we had a net spend of £5m. We were then 21st in net spend in his full season, then we had a net spend of £3m last summer. He wasn't able to reinvest all sales in to signings. I don't think anyone is suggested we were the poorest, least spending team on the planet, but this idea that we were even remotely competing with our outlay under Bruces tenure (Not RDMs) is completely false.

This idea that "He had more to spend than most Championship clubs!" (which is debatable given the above), the fact is he did finish above those clubs. People are acting like he didn't finish 4th and that we spent more than Rotherham and finished below them.

Given that we're the biggest spending club in the country right now, what exactly are people's expectations for Smith? Genuinely interested given people seem so fixated by how much Bruce supposedly spent?

Edited July 18, 2019 by kurtsimonw