Get your very own personalised DAN'S DOMAIN gifts!
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: If Rafa stays

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    20,893

    If Rafa stays

    I think he will stay if he gets anywhere close to his requirements, and that's not just money for players, as Rafa is more shrewd than that and he's looking at the big picture and the long term, unlike Ashley who is a short term money grabber.

    Rafa as a man is head and shoulders above Ashley and he has more of a point to prove here than Ashley. That's why I think he will even outstay the greedy, selfish, lying, money grabbing useless owner.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    16,352
    I think it's precisely because he's looking at the bigger picture that he won't stay.

    Ashley isn't interested in genuinely moving the club forward because that would take investment in the infrastructure and facilities as well as the playing squad and he's proved that he's not willing to do that.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,099
    It depends what the bigger picture really is, or can be for us.
    It depends on what people are expecting or are willing to accept.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    16,352
    Quote Originally Posted by ghostrider View Post
    It depends what the bigger picture really is, or can be for us.
    It depends on what people are expecting or are willing to accept.
    I think people are realistic tbh, Ghost.

    All we want is for the investment in the training facilities and Academy to be brought up to Premier League standard-which they aren't according to current and ex-players and, most importantly, the manager. It's the sort of investment that will pay for itself both in terms of how it affects the players on the pitch and in helping to produce and develop homegrown talent (i.e. rather than have to buy players). That and decent-not earth-shattering-investment in the first team.

    I think that's reasonable to expect.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippity View Post
    I think people are realistic tbh, Ghost.

    All we want is for the investment in the training facilities and Academy to be brought up to Premier League standard-which they aren't according to current and ex-players and, most importantly, the manager. It's the sort of investment that will pay for itself both in terms of how it affects the players on the pitch and in helping to produce and develop homegrown talent (i.e. rather than have to buy players). That and decent-not earth-shattering-investment in the first team.

    I think that's reasonable to expect.
    Agreed, that all sounds very reasonable in how you put it across, zippity, but is it exactly that?

    For instance, you say to bring the training facilities up to scratch. Fair enough in that...but how bad is it in terms of serving a purpose?
    Basically speaking, would a state of the art training facility place us any higher than we are?

    Not that I don't agree that it probably could do with bringing into line with premier league standards if it's that bad. I don't know how bad it is to be fair and I don't know which players are saying it's as bad.

    I mean, how much is molly coddling players going to enhance their desire to be better or to win?
    Here's an example. Take a boxer who trains the old fashioned way against one who's being graded by every digital set up along with every gadget imaginable to get them prepared. Who fights better? Who has more desire? Who has more character? Who has more will to win?

    I can't give you a right or wrong answer to them just as I can't in terms of state of the art training, but I will hazard a guess that our facilities will be plenty good enough to do the job they're designed to do, even if they can be upgraded at some expense.

    I look at it like this.... If players come to this club I assume they see the facilities before they sign. We've had plenty of decent quality players sign for us under this very same set up, so how bad is it?


    As for the reasonable spend on investment. What is deemed a decent spend that would be pacifying for many fans?
    You see, you may have a ballpark figure that you'd be happy with, but many will not be happy with that same figure and likely never be happy with any figure whilst Ashley owns the club...and this is the crux of the problem, in my opinion...not facilities and such like.

    There's a lot more to acceptance and expectation than meets the eye where Newcastle United is concerned, from inside and out, in my honest opinion.

    In your opinion what would you expect us to spend and where do you realistically think we could end up with a spend? Let's assume Rafa is signed on and Ashley still owns the club.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    7,641
    A state of the art academy and training facilities is what ALL other premier league clubs have invested large amounts of TV and sponsorship money to achieve.


    We simply must do the same to compete...

    A muddy field and a few bibs and cones would serve a purpose, but it would not be acceptable.

    The money the club makes should be reflected in its facilities

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    7,641
    As for spend....

    A net spend would be nice for starters...

    Rafa has made this club tens / hundreds of millions by going up and staying up (twice) and as of yet, he has spent nothing.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,099
    Quote Originally Posted by waalsendmick View Post
    A state of the art academy and training facilities is what ALL other premier league clubs have invested large amounts of TV and sponsorship money to achieve.


    We simply must do the same to compete...

    A muddy field and a few bibs and cones would serve a purpose, but it would not be acceptable.

    The money the club makes should be reflected in its facilities
    If we only have a muddy field and a few cones then I'm all for massive change. Is that what we have or does anyone actually know the true extent of our training facilities, because looking from the outside in it appears they don't seem to be too shabby in terms of serving a very fair and comfortable purpose.

    I could be very wrong and would like to see who's actually had a tour of the entirety, because it comes down to more than just a playing field and a few cones.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,099
    Quote Originally Posted by waalsendmick View Post
    As for spend....

    A net spend would be nice for starters...

    Rafa has made this club tens / hundreds of millions by going up and staying up (twice) and as of yet, he has spent nothing.
    A net spend is not the be all and end all if clever juggling can be done.
    You only have to look at the bigger clubs that appear to spend big and then realise that their net spend is very little.

    It's all about making average players better and decent players top class. It comes down to shrewd scouting, negotiating and honing which means that all parties at the club have a role to play, not just one person.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    7,641
    I did not say we only had a muddy field with a few bibs n cones. I said... that would serve a purpose...


    As a premier league club... we NEED to be doing far far more than serving a purpose and too many people (within the game who know far far more than you or i) have commented on our facilities NOT being fit for purpose.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    7,641
    Net spend is a necessity...

    You need to progress.

    You need to buy at least equal if not better than you sell.

    You cannot rely on bargains or luck.

    Eventually it tells when investment is poor....


    That is why under this owner, we have suffered 2 relegations.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,099
    Quote Originally Posted by waalsendmick View Post
    I did not say we only had a muddy field with a few bibs n cones. I said... that would serve a purpose...


    As a premier league club... we NEED to be doing far far more than serving a purpose and too many people (within the game who know far far more than you or i) have commented on our facilities NOT being fit for purpose.
    Like I said earlier, I haven't seen anyone say they weren't fit for purpose or seen evidence of the facilities being unfit for purpose.
    I could well imagine someone who's seen Man City or some other clubs new/revamped facilities may use that as some kind of yardstick against what we have but we seem to do fine as it stands...unless Rafa or the present or past coaches under Ashey have mentioned them not being fit for purpose.

    I think they may need a revamp but not fit for purpose? I'd say that i'd need more convincing than a few so called views from outsiders on it....unless, like I said, we do have legitimate insiders who have bemoaned it all. I just haven't seen anything on it. Do you know who's been having a pop at the facilities?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    104
    He's swimming against the tide lads! We should know that by now.
    Rafa has spent enough enough time in and around some of the top clubs in England and Europe, and if he feels that the facilities are not on a par i'm inclined to believe him.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,099
    Quote Originally Posted by waalsendmick View Post
    Net spend is a necessity...

    You need to progress.

    You need to buy at least equal if not better than you sell.

    You cannot rely on bargains or luck.

    Eventually it tells when investment is poor....


    That is why under this owner, we have suffered 2 relegations.
    If you buy badly and cannot offload for larger margins then I totally agree that net spend has to be a priority.
    Up to now we've managed to keep within the realms of minor net spend or evens, or even profit.
    It doesn't mean it's all good or all bad in whatever terms. It means you have to try and replace with like or better, overall and taking into account that you win some you lose some and then you have to juggle.


    So let's speculate and say we offload some of our players for biggish money. Let's say, for the sake of it 5 or 6 players gaining us 80 million or so.
    We add 50 million to the pot and recruit 6 or 7 players for 130 million.
    A 50 million net spend and a wage bill likely doubled.

    Would that be fair to fans?
    I'd be happy with it and I believe we will likely get something like that.

    But let's say we simply spend the 80 million. No net spend but potential larger profit on the outgoing players who many would be happy to see gone.
    Players like Perez and Shelvey, plus Yedlin and Manquillo...but maybe a shocker involved who fans would like to stay, in Lascelles or whoever, yet we gain 80 million with him being the massive profit maker.

    If we spend all of that it means a zero net spend but an investment regardless because profit was reinvested.
    It's a fine line between what investment actually entails in situations like this.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    7,641
    Phuck me

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    20,893
    Quote Originally Posted by ghostrider View Post
    If you buy badly and cannot offload for larger margins then I totally agree that net spend has to be a priority.
    Up to now we've managed to keep within the realms of minor net spend or evens, or even profit.
    It doesn't mean it's all good or all bad in whatever terms. It means you have to try and replace with like or better, overall and taking into account that you win some you lose some and then you have to juggle.


    So let's speculate and say we offload some of our players for biggish money. Let's say, for the sake of it 5 or 6 players gaining us 80 million or so.
    We add 50 million to the pot and recruit 6 or 7 players for 130 million.
    A 50 million net spend and a wage bill likely doubled.

    Would that be fair to fans?
    I'd be happy with it and I believe we will likely get something like that.

    But let's say we simply spend the 80 million. No net spend but potential larger profit on the outgoing players who many would be happy to see gone.
    Players like Perez and Shelvey, plus Yedlin and Manquillo...but maybe a shocker involved who fans would like to stay, in Lascelles or whoever, yet we gain 80 million with him being the massive profit maker.

    If we spend all of that it means a zero net spend but an investment regardless because profit was reinvested.
    It's a fine line between what investment actually entails in situations like this.
    And which 5 or six players could we sell for 80 million without decimating the team and having to rebuild from scratch.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    1,518
    Quote Originally Posted by ghostrider View Post
    If you buy badly and cannot offload for larger margins then I totally agree that net spend has to be a priority.
    Up to now we've managed to keep within the realms of minor net spend or evens, or even profit.
    It doesn't mean it's all good or all bad in whatever terms. It means you have to try and replace with like or better, overall and taking into account that you win some you lose some and then you have to juggle.


    So let's speculate and say we offload some of our players for biggish money. Let's say, for the sake of it 5 or 6 players gaining us 80 million or so.
    We add 50 million to the pot and recruit 6 or 7 players for 130 million.
    A 50 million net spend and a wage bill likely doubled.

    Would that be fair to fans?
    I'd be happy with it and I believe we will likely get something like that.

    But let's say we simply spend the 80 million. No net spend but potential larger profit on the outgoing players who many would be happy to see gone.
    Players like Perez and Shelvey, plus Yedlin and Manquillo...but maybe a shocker involved who fans would like to stay, in Lascelles or whoever, yet we gain 80 million with him being the massive profit maker.

    If we spend all of that it means a zero net spend but an investment regardless because profit was reinvested.
    It's a fine line between what investment actually entails in situations like this.
    Okay Mike.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    40,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Geordie1974 View Post
    Okay Mike.


    Mind boggles doesn't it.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    No sources for this but according to the "If Rafa Goes We Go" twitter, Rafa said what it would take to keep him here and sign the contract 3 weeks ago and since then nothing from the club.

    As i said, no source but it is something that I could see the club doing.

    And as Zip said on another thread, they'll piss Rafa off doing this then said with puppy dog eyes "we made an offer and we wanted him to stay but he chose to leave".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •