Consigliere
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 151,030
- Location
- SW17
I mean some of those eg Casemiro and Bruno, not "neglect".
Summer Transfer Window 23/24
- Thread starter Bigpig
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,595
- Location
- Surrey
Assuming you're genuinely asking no of course not. The problems with the Glazers stems from years of incompetent management, not to mention draining the club of over a billion.
All except the last three (and Mount still undecided) are examples of wasted/inflated transfer money. Can't disagree they spent on transfers, spent wisely though, nope? City don't seem to over pay, why do we? They also have first class facilities and actual plans and strategies.
Last edited:
Most people referring to fact that the club is now billions in debt whilst the glaziers lined their pockets.
All that money spent badly.
Last edited:
thats not the glazers tho
Maybe if better players were bought. I'm pretty sure no one would care if they were good and you'd won some trophies.
Of course it is, they had their golden boy (Woodward) running the show for a decade. They clearly don't know much about football nor strategy, other than commercial strategy that is.
Last edited:
woodwards gone and you still wasted money on antony and now you've risked another insane amount on an unproven talent in the prem league who scored just 9 goals last season
you cant keep blaming the glazers and woodward
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,595
- Location
- Surrey
See incompetent management above.
The glazers are still running and owning the club aren't they? Who else can you blame?
They wouldn't sanction the purchases until we lost badly and then ended up panic buying. Hence we paid so much for Antony.
We are still over paying because we're still not well run although things are improving. Plus prices are crazy generally. There is an apparent shortage of strikers. I do think it's crazy money for a largely untested striker but we're here because of years of poor management.
If the owners aren't responsible for the management team then who is?
Last edited:
Good to get Højlund done (assuming it happens).
As for the fee - of course it's a large fee. There are barely any strikers available so you have to take a punt on the best prospect and hope he's wearing your shirt when he bangs in 20+ league goals in a season. If he's already done that, you're talking a lot more money.
Kane would cost loads more in wages, and probably another £30m at least, assuming Levy would even consider selling him to a PL side. Plus he's 30 and not exactly the fittest player going.
The above flippant comments about spending just show how little people understand about the situation the club is in. It's been shown countless times the Glazers have bled the club dry at every opportunity. It's extra hilarious coming from certain Newcastle fans, who did nothing but blubber constantly about Mike Ashley, and almost overnight are now transfer-obsessed loons who want to spend money with reckless abandon
As for the fee - of course it's a large fee. There are barely any strikers available so you have to take a punt on the best prospect and hope he's wearing your shirt when he bangs in 20+ league goals in a season. If he's already done that, you're talking a lot more money.
Kane would cost loads more in wages, and probably another £30m at least, assuming Levy would even consider selling him to a PL side. Plus he's 30 and not exactly the fittest player going.
The above flippant comments about spending just show how little people understand about the situation the club is in. It's been shown countless times the Glazers have bled the club dry at every opportunity. It's extra hilarious coming from certain Newcastle fans, who did nothing but blubber constantly about Mike Ashley, and almost overnight are now transfer-obsessed loons who want to spend money with reckless abandon
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,595
- Location
- Surrey
Realistically it'd be another 50-60m probably and then wages 5 times what we're paying Hojlund.
Technically a club can only spend money it generates on players.
stadium, woman’s team, training ground etc is free game.
You can blame them on many things but not spending on transfers isn’t one of them.
Last edited:
I think you’re confused dude no one is blaming them for allowing the club to spend its own money.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,769
- Location
- newcastle
You keep whinging about them bleeding the club dry, £1.35b in 10 years isn’t bleeding the club dry. It’s not the glazers fault that you keep buying the wrong players for too much money. You lot will be turning in ETH next for poor buys.
Who’s fault is it then?