The investors are all in, obviously. The squad sucks. What if they get relegated? Is it only a one-off year set back, or does the money mean less if players don't want to be in the Championship? Been thinking about this and the new manager hire doesn't move the needle for me
Newcastle Relegation?
6,630 Views |
74 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by ElCheAg
They're only 5 points from safety with still lots of fixtures left.
"And liberals, being liberals, will double down on failure." - dedgod
I actually think Eddie Howe is a good manager. Bournemouth was never a big spender so they were never going to stay in the EPL long and he had some good years with them. I remember thinking a few years ago that Eddie would leave for a bigger club eventually.
I will admit though that I was surprised it wasn't a bigger name that they landed. I'm sure they'll spend some money in January to keep the team up as relegation is a huge setback, but I think they'll be big spenders in the summer.
I will admit though that I was surprised it wasn't a bigger name that they landed. I'm sure they'll spend some money in January to keep the team up as relegation is a huge setback, but I think they'll be big spenders in the summer.
Back in 2008, City wasn't able to get an elite manager from the get go. They weren't really even able to get elite talent either. They hired Mark Hughes from Blackburn who wasn't bad but was far from elite. I'd say that Eddie Howe's career is quite similar to Hughes' at the time. They overpaid for Robinho who did OK for them but it wasn't until the following season when they were able to make a significant jump up the table (10th year 1 and 5th year 2).
Newcastle will likely have to follow a similar blueprint. Hire a bridge manager (Howe is there to keep them up and advance them up the table but will likely be tossed aside when they have legit top 4 aspirations) and massively overpay for non-elite talent (City bought Jo for 18 million GBP!). The added wrinkle is the threat of relegation. If they are 18th in January, will 2nd or 3rd tier talent be willing to take the risk? Saudi will have to throw a ton of money at not amazing players and/or give them a palatable relegation release clause in their contracts.
Howe's immediate task will be to put them in as safe a position as possible so that it's easier to attract talent in January. If he doesn't, then January likely becomes a lot harder. If they stay up, they'll have a full off-season to bring in new talent and likely will be fine. If they go down, it likely only sets them back a year or two (but it would be hilarious). They would apply the same strategy...overpay for talent to win the Championship, then overpay for talent to ensure PL safety after coming up.
Newcastle will likely have to follow a similar blueprint. Hire a bridge manager (Howe is there to keep them up and advance them up the table but will likely be tossed aside when they have legit top 4 aspirations) and massively overpay for non-elite talent (City bought Jo for 18 million GBP!). The added wrinkle is the threat of relegation. If they are 18th in January, will 2nd or 3rd tier talent be willing to take the risk? Saudi will have to throw a ton of money at not amazing players and/or give them a palatable relegation release clause in their contracts.
Howe's immediate task will be to put them in as safe a position as possible so that it's easier to attract talent in January. If he doesn't, then January likely becomes a lot harder. If they stay up, they'll have a full off-season to bring in new talent and likely will be fine. If they go down, it likely only sets them back a year or two (but it would be hilarious). They would apply the same strategy...overpay for talent to win the Championship, then overpay for talent to ensure PL safety after coming up.
If they keep Saint-Maximin healthy and on the field I expect them to tread water all season. He has singled handedly kept them in the PL for the last 2 years. If he gets injured for any lengthy spell, they are going to sink like a rock.
I really hope they do get relegated. Delay their plans for maybe a year at least.
Strangely Attractive said:
I really hope they do get relegated. Delay their plans for maybe a year at least.
Same. I'm very down with some Saudi schadenfreude.
Would be great. My two favorite teams are LFC and whoever is playing Newcastle. Anytime someone can spend $300M+ and get relegated is fun.FILO505 said:
The investors are all in, obviously. The squad sucks. What if they get relegated? Is it only a one-off year set back, or does the money mean less if players don't want to be in the Championship? Been thinking about this and the new manager hire doesn't move the needle for me
If so, I'd as much this happen to Man Sheety than anyone else.jeffk said:Strangely Attractive said:
I really hope they do get relegated. Delay their plans for maybe a year at least.
Same. I'm very down with some Saudi schadenfreude.
Ddp
They won't get relegated. They are going to spend big money in the Jan window and start winning some games. Have been the victim of VAR 3-4 times this season. Should have beaten Brighton last weekend if it wasn't for the ref taking a piss.
I will be absolutely shocked if they get relegated. It garners clicks and offers time on the airwaves. But I bet most pundits if they are being honest believe Newcastle will stay up easily.
I think they will make 2 important signings in January. Not guys that are take you to the top guys. But quality players that keep them comfortably from relegation.
I think they will make 2 important signings in January. Not guys that are take you to the top guys. But quality players that keep them comfortably from relegation.
Wanting them to get regulated /= believing they'll get regulated.
We can all dream.
We can all dream.
It's really interesting to see how many people's feelings toward Newcastle have changed now. Went from relative apathy to absolute vitriol.
Yeah, it's interesting, but not that complex. I mean, that's kind of what this type of change of ownership (sportswashing) does. One moment you're not controlled by a murderous oligarchical petrostate and the next you are.
I mean its the same story as City and PSG.
Mathguy64
Joined:
Sep 7, 2011
Posts:
43,377
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There are not enough blue stars in the world to give here. I award you the coveted blue parachute of excellence!jeffk said:
Yeah, it's interesting, but not that complex. I mean, that's kind of what this type of change of ownership (sportswashing) does. One moment you're not controlled by a murderous oligarchical petrostate and the next you are.
wangus12 said:
I mean its the same story as City and PSG.
Yep.
I'd argue it is quite a different situation. Neither City or PSG have the history that Newcastle have. Newcastle is a case of a massive club that has undergone mismanagement for well over a decade.
Yes. I see your point. Suddenly being owned by the Saudi despotic petrostate is so much different than being owned by Abu Dhabi despotic petrostate or the Qatari despotic petrostate. To use the turn of phrase my friend JeffK used so eloquently.KCup17 said:
I'd argue it is quite a different situation. Neither City or PSG have the history that Newcastle have. Newcastle is a case of a massive club that has undergone mismanagement for well over a decade.
That's not the point I'm trying to make here. Let's set aside the issue of who the owners are for a moment. We can all agree on the moral issue that is presented by the Saudi's owning a club.
The point I was trying to make is around the wealth of the ownership group relating to the size of the club and supporters of other clubs response to that. The current perception (at least in my experience) is that wealthy owners should buy wealthy clubs. The outrage or hate towards a club increases when a wealthy owner comes in and buys a relative mid-sized club and turns them into a domestic giant. One could use Man City or RB Leipzig as an example. In Germany, everyone hates RB Leipzig because Red Bull went in and bought a minnow club, re-branded, invested and raised them into being a domestic giant. Whereas if that big corporation had purchased a larger club say a Schalke or Hannover the response would have been different.
The point I was trying to make is around the wealth of the ownership group relating to the size of the club and supporters of other clubs response to that. The current perception (at least in my experience) is that wealthy owners should buy wealthy clubs. The outrage or hate towards a club increases when a wealthy owner comes in and buys a relative mid-sized club and turns them into a domestic giant. One could use Man City or RB Leipzig as an example. In Germany, everyone hates RB Leipzig because Red Bull went in and bought a minnow club, re-branded, invested and raised them into being a domestic giant. Whereas if that big corporation had purchased a larger club say a Schalke or Hannover the response would have been different.
KCup17 said:
I'd argue it is quite a different situation. Neither City or PSG have the history that Newcastle have. Newcastle is a case of a massive club that has undergone mismanagement for well over a decade.
What history am I missing here?
Both City and Newcastle have been around since the 1880s. Have had large followings and little success. Both won the league a couple of times ages ago (of course City have won more now that they have that oil money). Both have a few FA Cups. The only difference between the two is that Newcastle sniffed success without actually achieving it in the 90s while City were languishing in the 2nd division. Other than that, they are pretty similar.
That's probably more of a consideration among UK-based fans. Those of us here are mostly interlopers or new arrivals to the scene. The nature of the new owners and potential ramifications of more of that type of takeovers are more the concern us here are probably thinking of.
Is it a massive club? They haven't won a league title in 95 years. They haven't won a trophy (not counting league 2) in 66 years. They had a hot streak with prime Alan Shearer and managed to get a couple of 2nd place finishes in the league and in the FA Cup in the 1990s and that's about it. Sure they're usually the only top club in the northeast, but nobody considers them to be massive.KCup17 said:
I'd argue it is quite a different situation. Neither City or PSG have the history that Newcastle have. Newcastle is a case of a massive club that has undergone mismanagement for well over a decade.
Which is completely justifiable.
Success is only a single measure of size of a club the next is size of support. Considering that even when in the Championship the average attendance rivals some of the top 6 I'd say it's a big club.
Leipzig homer here so I have to disagree and defend this. Leipzig is light-years different from City and PSG.KCup17 said:
That's not the point I'm trying to make here. Let's set aside the issue of who the owners are for a moment. We can all agree on the moral issue that is presented by the Saudi's owning a club.
The point I was trying to make is around the wealth of the ownership group relating to the size of the club and supporters of other clubs response to that. The current perception (at least in my experience) is that wealthy owners should buy wealthy clubs. The outrage or hate towards a club increases when a wealthy owner comes in and buys a relative mid-sized club and turns them into a domestic giant. One could use Man City or RB Leipzig as an example. In Germany, everyone hates RB Leipzig because Red Bull went in and bought a minnow club, re-branded, invested and raised them into being a domestic giant. Whereas if that big corporation had purchased a larger club say a Schalke or Hannover the response would have been different.
A) Red Bull sells sodas; it's not an evil sovereign petrostate.
B) Red Bull had to make a 10 year decision and buy a 5th tier club. Rules prevented them from buying anything larger. The fact that they skirted these rules is the reason for the angst - not the fact that they bought small… Leipzig was a major metro area that lacked good football since it was East German; so while Red Bull bought a small club, they were buying into a large untapped market… and it paid off; locals love having a top flight club, and one that isn't overrun with politically extreme ultras like the other tiny local Leipzig clubs are. Most neutrals outside Germany and many inside admire the fact that Red Bull invested in East Germany. There's still a ton of economic consequences from the Cold War. Consider that just this year, BMW finally decided to level the playing field and let workers in their Leipzig plant work fewer hours to match the work week of their West German counterparts.
C) Finally, and this is perhaps the most salient difference: Red Bull are using the club (and their larger soccer empire) as a revenue stream. Sure, they enjoy the free advertising to some extent, but they are specifically designed to be an independent revenue generating enterprise. Soccer makes money for Red Bull; they're not writing blank checks, it was an investment. They're well known and respected by neutrals for their ability to shrewdly buy young players for cheap, get them Champions League experience via Leipzig and Salzburg, and then sell them for large profits. It's completely an opposite situation than City or PSG, whose owners are willing to write blank checks with no expectation of getting a return. It's why they're always skirting FPF rules, whereas Leipzig have no issue there.
I appreciate the background on the club! I don't have any issues with the way Red Bull came in and re-invested and re-branded. I didn't mean to equate the Leipzig and Man City situations.
Point being I think the perception is a wealthy owner should buy a wealthy club and when that doesn't happen it draws ire from rival support because it is a perceived threat to the current power structure of the league.
All in all I agree that the new owners of Newcastle did not endear many fans to the club and actually pushed quite a few out the door for the moral implications that comes with a murderous despotic petrostate now owning the club. And this is coming from a big time Newcastle supporter.
Point being I think the perception is a wealthy owner should buy a wealthy club and when that doesn't happen it draws ire from rival support because it is a perceived threat to the current power structure of the league.
All in all I agree that the new owners of Newcastle did not endear many fans to the club and actually pushed quite a few out the door for the moral implications that comes with a murderous despotic petrostate now owning the club. And this is coming from a big time Newcastle supporter.
not quite the same. Newcastle is already an historic club. Neither City or PSG can say the same.wangus12 said:
I mean its the same story as City and PSG.
Furlock Bones said:not quite the same. Newcastle is already an historic club. Neither City or PSG can say the same.wangus12 said:
I mean its the same story as City and PSG.
Honest question - do y'all really consider the "historicalness" of a club when contemplating how you should react to a change in ownership? Because I definitely don't. I could see why it'd register for someone from England or Spain or Italy or Germany, but my American mind just doesn't really go there naturally.
If City's history/status is any indication, it appears that Newcastle will lose their status as a historic club in a year or two now that they've been purchased by oil money.
I mean I don't see many, if any, attribute differences between pre-oil money City and pre-oil money Newcastle. Maybe the Geordies are just really good marketers...
I mean I don't see many, if any, attribute differences between pre-oil money City and pre-oil money Newcastle. Maybe the Geordies are just really good marketers...
They aren't terribly far from atleast being competitive. Tifo did a really good look at this...
Summary - Need to offload several sub-par players but based on the current roster they could make a push for left footed RW, CB & RB/RWB all starter quality in Jan. Stick with the 3 man back line for now but switch to a 3-4-3 instead of the 3-5-2 they have been running. Could also go 4-2-3-1 or Howe's old 4-2-2-2 pretty easily as well if you get a strong enough CB.
Summary - Need to offload several sub-par players but based on the current roster they could make a push for left footed RW, CB & RB/RWB all starter quality in Jan. Stick with the 3 man back line for now but switch to a 3-4-3 instead of the 3-5-2 they have been running. Could also go 4-2-3-1 or Howe's old 4-2-2-2 pretty easily as well if you get a strong enough CB.
jeffk said:Furlock Bones said:not quite the same. Newcastle is already an historic club. Neither City or PSG can say the same.wangus12 said:
I mean its the same story as City and PSG.
Honest question - do y'all really consider the "historicalness" of a club when contemplating how you should react to a change in ownership? Because I definitely don't. I could see why it'd register for someone from England or Spain or Italy or Germany, but my American mind just doesn't really go there naturally.
I don't much care about that at all. I only care about the people that are buying these clubs and the fact that they just spend as much as they want. Just makes it harder for less financially backed clubs to compete but it's the way of the world.
At least Liverpool has a big budget so we can compete but we certainly can't spend like the oil backed companies.
It's similar to how I always felt about the Yankees growing up. Only select clubs in MLB can just spend like crazy so of course they're going to be great every year…so maybe I'm just jealous?
I think I do. If a massive historical club like Man U, Real or Bayern were bought by even richer owners I don't think I would have a strong reaction. But say a club with less history like MK Dons or Accrington Stanley were bought by massively rich owners I might have a different reaction to it.OregonAggie said:jeffk said:Furlock Bones said:not quite the same. Newcastle is already an historic club. Neither City or PSG can say the same.wangus12 said:
I mean its the same story as City and PSG.
Honest question - do y'all really consider the "historicalness" of a club when contemplating how you should react to a change in ownership? Because I definitely don't. I could see why it'd register for someone from England or Spain or Italy or Germany, but my American mind just doesn't really go there naturally.
I don't much care about that at all. I only care about the people that are buying these clubs and the fact that they just spend as much as they want. Just makes it harder for less financially backed clubs to compete but it's the way of the world.
At least Liverpool has a big budget so we can compete but we certainly can't spend like the oil backed companies.
It's similar to how I always felt about the Yankees growing up. Only select clubs in MLB can just spend like crazy so of course they're going to be great every year…so maybe I'm just jealous?
Featured Stories
See All
40:58
10h ago
5.0k
Baseball Thoughts: Aggies ascend to No. 1 after Commodore crushing
by Ryan Brauninger
Third baseman Gavin Grahovac named SEC's Freshman of the Week
by Richard Zane
No. 1! Texas A&M claims top spot in D1Baseball's latest rankings
by Richard Zane
Windy City Ag
Something going down today? FB Recruiting related?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
149