Article: The harsh reality of transfers | Football, Newcastle

One of the things being raised about our summer recruitment or transfer policy is the amount of time we had to get players in and agree the right deals, particularly for a striker.
Lots of fans were frustrated by how quickly other teams made signings, even late on deadline day, while we seemed to have a much slower and drawn out approach. I mean, how tough can transfers really be?

I think though it's worth trying to be more pragmatic about it and maybe less quick to assume very little was really done. The tendency is to judge the effort to make signings on the result – have we made the signings or have we not? In reality, that's a very simplistic view of it because we're not privy to the dealings behind the scenes. Our anger, disappointment and disillusionment of this current hierarchy makes us naturally assume a deliberate lack of effort.

In truth the actual nuts and bolts of transfers can be tough or pretty easy. Usually this is determined by a willingness from the buyer to spend as much money as it takes and then a resulting keenness from the seller to do the transaction. Often the more stubborn traders are normally persuaded to flog something they originally deem off market by an offer too good to turn down.
This is fine for a club like Liverpool when they bought Andy Carroll (and many of their summer signings in fact), because they had substantial funds to cough up inflated prices. Suddenly potentially 'difficult' transfers become MUCH easier to push through. Ashley couldn't get Andy in the chopper quick enough!

It is now clear that regardless of our income or perceived budget, we are not prepared to pay huge sums on playing staff so we don't have this luxury. Couple that with the knowledge from reluctant clubs that we appear to have money in the bank they can grab and potential transfers suddenly become even tougher. Clubs play hard ball, they shift the goalposts in terms of price, or decide to play a game of bluff leading up to the window slamming shut. If they can afford not to sell the player, they can gamble with all the cards – it's the buyer that is most likely to get anxious and pay up.

Alongside this, we have to remember that good players (the ones we hope we are targeting) are harder to prise from clubs. They are at a premium and proven strikers especially are the rarest and most coveted commodity. So if there was one area of the pitch you might have most hassle with it would be here and the best prospects are usually chased by clubs of some stature.
Look at early (supposed) targets like Gameiro and Gervinho and the options they maybe had, then consider how much tougher it makes it for NUFC to convince them to join without throwing money at it. Match the transfer fee and you still have to agree wages, stump up signing on and agency fees – and that's after the player stops leaving you dangling as they smoke out other offers.

We still want the best players we can get or there's no point, but doing that on a budget makes life far harder. I just think sometimes it suits us to believe transfers are easy and in an age where clubs spend quite unbelievable sums for players that its quite a disposable thing. Amounts like £5m, £10m, £15m, even £20m are deemed peanuts in today's market but these are still significant outlays for any business.
I'm not defending the board at NUFC, but if I was the man actually signing cheques like that I'd be keen not to make 'knee-jerk' signings. Remember that this is club money which is largely your money, and as those last few desperate window hours drew in I know I'd maybe opt for a bit longer to mull things over.

It's easy for us as supporters to say spend, spend, spend and then blame the chairman or manager when the players we bring in are poor. We don't actually stump up the millions and we don't have to do any of the business it involves. Although we'd maybe like player transfers to be as easy and quick as they are in Football Manager, it's worth considering that the annoying reality is far more intricate than that.

 

Just thought I would comment since no one else would

I didn't read it all as it was rather long put from the bits I read I here what your saying!

 

Let's not forget that the club's age and wage caps also make life that more difficult in terms of signings - if it seems that the likes of Stoke, Sunderland and QPR have had a more successful time of it in the transfer window, it is largely because they are more willing to sign players we'd consider too old or on too high a wage. It can be frustrating missing out on older players who still have a good few years in them and could bring plenty of PL experience to the team just because they have little or no resale value, but then again, if it means no more Sol Campbells, then fair enough.

Otherwise, you've pretty much nailed it.

 

Just offering a more balanced way to view things I guess. I don't presume it explains the whole story but helps to have some perspective.

What view does everyone else have?

Cheers!

 

Yeah totally, all those extra constraints on type of player again narrow your options further and make it harder.

I think given the policy the club chooses to adopt, you either agree fundamentally with those choices or you don't. My feeling from the original post is that I don't think erring on the side of caution with club money in terms of keeping it in reserve for players you actually wanted is a bad thing.
These days often spending is seen as the be all and end all – but I fundamentally disagree with making token signings or panic buys.

Of course, my original post is completely irrelevant if the club's real transfer policy on the striker situation was never to buy one at all. Then potential transfers become VERY hard...

 

We had a history of signing players in their twilight years, particuarly when we were paying ridiculous wages. One or two of them had spent the whole or most of their career with another club, I doubt if they would give their time with us a second thought, Ian Rush, Stuart Pearce, come to mind (and I didn't dislike them) but we wouldn't entertain the likes of them now. I never want a Michael Owen situation here again, I never thought his heart was in it, and it killed me at times watching him. The club insisted they had been vigorously persuing primary targets throughout the summer, it looked like it was their second choices that fell through at the eleventh hour. The same thing happened in January, everything happened in the final stages of the transfer window and we left ourselves short of a striker. Seems no lessons were learned.

 

It's just a shame that players like Michael Owen excite the fans when they sign - only to be disappointed in the end. I'll admit, and I'm guessing it'll be the same with lots of us - I was excited when we signed Owen - quite excited, in fact. Top class player like that? Worth the money, surely!

But no, obviously not. Nowadays, it's much better to get an unknown guy who doesn't excite us much to come in and score the goals to make us get excited.


Whilst throwing money at clubs will make them sell us their players, the player's heart also has to be in it. Unfortunately, with Gameiro and Gervinho and Erdinc they just didn't want to come here. And would any amount of money the board chucked at them make them want to come here? I suspect not. It's a tricky one. Our top targets didn't want to come here. Our secondary target (Magia and the like) wanted to come but the club blocked the move (supposedly).

I'm still not sure where I stand with the striker situation. I understand why we didn't get our top targets. Gutted we didn't get a striker on the last day but I want to make sure, be completely positive that it's the right decision, and not a 'knee-jerk' reaction...

 

Maybe so, but perhaps lessons have been learned about the former approach to transfer dealings. Mike Ashley certainly discovered the legacy of those years the hard way by inheriting the books.
In many ways that's what has prompted the cynical, skinflint approach – and from that viewpoint you can defend it.

Huge outlay on a playing staff you couldn't shift because of big contracts, even if other clubs wanted them. They didn't.

Our financially bloated relegation squad hamstrung us on so many fronts because it gobbled up any emergency funds to bail us out. What's more, the overpaid and under-performing 'high-profile' players seemingly felt immune from the drop.

 

Obviously we aren't privy to the actual negotiations, but I do get the impression that Ashley and co drive too much of a hard bargain. It may turn out that clubs will realise that Ashley really will not budge in negotiations and be more likely to give in in future, but I see things continuing as they are; we try to unsettle the player, offer the release fee or well below the asking price and stick to it. Then a similar approach to player negotiations should we make it that far. It's frugal, but in a market with so much competition and rarely a requirement to sell the player, I think a bit more leniency, on the right targets, would be welcome.

 

To put it one way i'd rather we'd wait till January to find the perect striker for us rather than have thrown money at anyone and everyone during the summer

 

I reckon we'll try and thrash out a deal for Maiga still for January. Apparently Cisse wanted to come, what would have we all thought? They wanted 15mil too, we offered 12 'apparently'

 

I don't mind waiting, we can't do any other really, I rarely get angered about things at the club these days, disappointed yes but I think we've had to learn to take it on the chin. A big deal was made by the club about signing a striker, this left us disappointed when no striker was signed but rather that, than be lumbered with the wrong choice.

 

The difficulty with setting your price and your budget is, you have a maximum you stick to or not at all.

I think being hard-nosed in negotiations is only any good if you are exactly that – otherwise the rumors go around that you can be pushed into spending more and held to ransom.

Mike Ashley isn't emotionally involved or excited by the football side of things to go that extra mile. He just isn't likely to take leave of his senses like that and say "what the hell!"
His mentality for running the club is routed in his business approach which we know is very dogged when it comes to overheads and maximising profit.

I'm sure he drives just as much a hard bargain in the way he operates Sports Direct...

 

Exactly, but what I can't get over is the lack of transparency in the club's communication with us. Why can't they just admit that the club's current circumstances/ market conditions make signing key players difficult instead of putting on the same patronising show every transfer window with the string of promises followed by the ridiculous (or just plain fictitious), doomed-to-fail last-minute bids for players just to "show willing" and "appease the fans"?

 

I think they wrongly assume that communication now is pointless and fans believe what they want to believe. In my opinion this this regime could still make up a lot of ground with supporters if they just tried to be a bit more humble, honest, transparent, friendly and communicative.
Even having the decency to spout veiled nonsense in person, hold press conferences, fan forums or whatever instead of hiding behind Pardew would be nice.

The Geordies are great people, why have they always been so reluctant to face them?