Jump to content

Steve Bruce favourite for Newcastle job


Guest Arnold

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, WC1Owl said:

Then he'll get the sack. He'll get whatever his contract says he's due for that (for the sake of argument, let's say it's the whole of the remaining year's salary) and he won't be managing Newcastle.

 

Where's the business sense in that? Do you also believe it made sense not to take (an alleged) £2m bid for George Hirst, not play him, and end up with nothing?

So far I'm yet to witness how this hardball approach to negotiating has benefited the club. The scenario you've presented is a bit silly. Who cares if Bruce manages Newcastle, this isn't a game of spite. Ultimately it comes down to what makes the best business sense, not whose balls are the biggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mkowl
1 hour ago, keepitsteel89 said:

So erm why did the star put out an article after consulting with a finance expert from a top university saying what I said.. 

Because it's the Star and the so called expert should learn to read accounts better 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bobness said:

 

Where's the business sense in that? Do you also believe it made sense not to take (an alleged) £2m bid for George Hirst, not play him, and end up with nothing?

So far I'm yet to witness how this hardball approach to negotiating has benefited the club. The scenario you've presented is a bit silly. Who cares if Bruce manages Newcastle, this isn't a game of spite. Ultimately it comes down to what makes the best business sense, not whose balls are the biggest.

As far as Hirst is concerned, I;ve never heard a 2 mill bid, only 1 mill, and DC knew we would get more through a tribunal, only for Leicester to f*ck us over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bobness said:

 

Where's the business sense in that? Do you also believe it made sense not to take (an alleged) £2m bid for George Hirst, not play him, and end up with nothing?

So far I'm yet to witness how this hardball approach to negotiating has benefited the club. The scenario you've presented is a bit silly. Who cares if Bruce manages Newcastle, this isn't a game of spite. Ultimately it comes down to what makes the best business sense, not whose balls are the biggest.

Playing hardball and good business deals often go hand in hand..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be reight here, Newcastle have form when it comes to poaching managers, upsetting the club they are currently employed by and eventually getting them on the cheap, Steve McClaren at Derby anyone?I seem to remember Derby doing a nose dive in form when it was plastered all over the press about Newcastles interest in McClaren, can't for the life of me remember how Derby finished up that year, did they just miss out?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Horse
18 minutes ago, Dronfield Blue said:

 

Good looking lad when he was younger.

moyes.jpeg

 

That reminds me that I need to get the new Resident Evil game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are looking for £4.5 million in compensation for Bruce and £1.5 million for Clemence and Agnew. Massive chasm between what Ashley is willing to pay and what we want. This is not going to end well.

 

We will end up with a bitter manager who doesn't want to work here anymore. This has to be up with the 2007 preseason for the worst one yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

Lovely bloke is Moyes. Often see him when I’m in Preston and always has time to chat to people. 

 

I'm sure he is, always comes across that way.

 

I think the Man U job was the wrong job for him, he should never have been offered it. Newcastle would be a good fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bobness said:

 

Where's the business sense in that? Do you also believe it made sense not to take (an alleged) £2m bid for George Hirst, not play him, and end up with nothing?

So far I'm yet to witness how this hardball approach to negotiating has benefited the club. The scenario you've presented is a bit silly. Who cares if Bruce manages Newcastle, this isn't a game of spite. Ultimately it comes down to what makes the best business sense, not whose balls are the biggest.

 

Where's the business sense in caving? If we accept a penny less than what's in the contract, people will know next time that we will do it again.

 

This isn't analogous to an unrealistic player valuation. We know it's a realistic clause because Bruce signed it.

 

This isn't about spite or posturing. It's about honouring a deal. The whole point of the clause is to deter poaching.

 

Not going to comment on the George Hirst thing, it's not relevant to this.

Edited by WC1Owl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...