Birley Owl 1867 Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 Just now, Bluesteel said: I’ve not said how much it is, just that I don’t think it’s as high as 4m. Which is what everyone other than Nixon is saying. Nixon is often correct with the gist of what happens, but not always the full details. If you boys genuinely think we got 4m for Bruce and co then crack on. Thats the thing. Newcastle offered us 4m for bruce only. Sticking point is Clemence and Agnew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 Just now, RichieB said: Pretty much every media source at the time reported it would only take £1m to get Bruce. They were wrong then, what makes you think they are correct now. Plus it's being stated £3.5m and £4m now, a lot more than you thought. Be happy about that. But I get it, it's human nature to not want to be wrong They stated that NCL hoped/thought they would only need to pay 1m. Not that it actually was that much. Then there was as talk of it being up to as high as 4/5. But the gist from the chronicle journos was that it wasn’t quite that high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowl Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 15 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said: As much as Nixon seems to be an arrogant weirdo who chooses to block people for having the temerity to question him, he does seem to get a lot right. What other newspaper reports are you seeing today? The other one I have seen states £3.5M plus potential loans, which again is more than you were thinking. Do you have an in-depth knowledge of how well-informed Newcastle's local football reporters are then? Can't say I have ever given them a thought prior to the past 2 weeks. The Newcastle media will be getting info from their contacts at Newcastle. As Newcastle are one of the parties in the dispute their info is always going to reflect their PR views rather than the truth. With disputes like this it's best to always look at who is likely to be the source and then qusetion it's veracity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieB Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Bluesteel said: They stated that NCL hoped/thought they would only need to pay 1m. Not that it actually was that much. Then there was as talk of it being up to as high as 4/5. But the gist from the chronicle journos was that it wasn’t quite that high. Well it seems its at least £3.5m according to the media now, which is very good in my eyes and far better than the pathetic £1m initially thought. Could well be £4m or more too. Fact of the matter is neither of us know for certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Birley Owl 1867 said: Thats the thing. Newcastle offered us 4m for bruce only. Sticking point is Clemence and Agnew. Would be great but it has no more basis than the other press based scenarios. I’m skeptical on that to be honest, 4m plus for the three Steve’s....when Sarri and his team went for 5m. Itll no doubt come out in the wash at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 Just now, RichieB said: Well it seems its at least £3.5m according to the media now, which is very good in my eyes and far better than the pathetic £1m initially thought. Could well be £4m or more too. Fact of the matter is neither of us know for certain. I think a guess of 3m would be my gut feeling too as it’s bang in the middle of the various reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 55 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said: Why you thinking that? I really hope you are correct though. Can’t remember to be honest, although I only typed it an hour ago I’m too hungry to think now. It just seems like we’ve been interviewing some people - no proof of that though - and so DC at least knows that we need better than Bullen, and the fact that he didn’t appoint him after Carlos or Jos points to that too. Whether we’ll find anyone suitable is another matter so he could get it by default. I just feel calmer that whilst DC has his faults he at least knows that a manager with some credentials is required. Even Jos had a track record of some sort whilst Bullen has no permanent track record whatsoever never mind any managerial achievements. We may have overachieved getting Bruce and so have to adjust expectations but it shows where DC was aiming, thus meaning it’s a long list to work down before you get to Bullen, no offence to the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieB Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Bluesteel said: I think a guess of 3m would be my gut feeling too as it’s bang in the middle of the various reports. That might be a good guess. That's all it is though. It's being reported by various sources as being higher than £3m. So who knows eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan™ Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 From reading the Newcastle forums a fair bit a couple of weeks back it sounded like their local journos were all in the pocket of Ashley (in their opinions) and weren't well known for fair or accurate reporting of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 14 minutes ago, Bluesteel said: I’ve not said how much it is, just that I don’t think it’s as high as 4m. Which is what everyone other than Nixon is saying. Nixon is often correct with the gist of what happens, but not always the full details. If you boys genuinely think we got 4m for Bruce and co then crack on. But which sources have a consensus? Sky initially said £1M Our local papers £2-2.5 Newcastle journalists £3M Nixon - first to report and consistent throughout £4M Yet have laughed off the £4M but believe the Newcastle journo's on the basis of them being apparently reliable - based on what? 7 hours ago, Bluesteel said: Last few days it’s been said around 2.5m in local press down in Sheffield. But the consensus up in newcastle was that it was £3m for all three. So you think £3M for all 3 is right? Still a good figure for a manager on a 12-month contract then,, but you also refer to this: 1 hour ago, Bluesteel said: There are journos in Newcastle and the latest paper referring to loans also states under 4m. Which paper are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 The one this am about loans. I think 3m if that is the case is decent money. Even for all three. I think that is more likely than the upper ranges. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Bluesteel said: The one this am about loans. I think 3m if that is the case is decent money. Even for all three. I think that is more likely than the upper ranges. The one that states loans as well as £3.5M? Not that far off £4M as to make such a big deal of it not being £4M then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 I’m not making a big deal of it to be fair. I am answering the various quotes and questions (and a few negs ) I keep getting because I said I didn’t think it would be as high as the 4m everyone would ideally like it to be (including me) As I say. Nixon doesn’t get defended so strongly when his rumour is a stinker and not in our favour. If the Nixon thing is what people genuinely think is the most likely out of the various reports and not just the preferable rumour then fair dos. But thinking about it, I don’t. By the time we find out, if ever, will be old news anyway (and probably already is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieB Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 12 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said: The one that states loans as well as £3.5M? Not that far off £4M as to make such a big deal of it not being £4M then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 26 minutes ago, Dan™ said: From reading the Newcastle forums a fair bit a couple of weeks back it sounded like their local journos were all in the pocket of Ashley (in their opinions) and weren't well known for fair or accurate reporting of the situation. They don’t have a good relationship with Ashley. They were banned for ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Bluesteel said: I’m not making a big deal of it to be fair. I am answering the various quotes and questions (and a few negs ) I keep getting because I said I didn’t think it would be as high as the 4m everyone would ideally like it to be (including me) As I say. Nixon doesn’t get defended so strongly when his rumour is a stinker and not in our favour. If the Nixon thing is what people genuinely think is the most likely out of the various reports and not just the preferable rumour then fair dos. But thinking about it, I don’t. By the time we find out, if ever, will be old news anyway (and probably already is). You won't get any negs from me, having a debate is what it is all about on here. Just intrigued as to why you are so strongly in favour of other reports, especially when the most recent report that you refer to is one that states £3.5M + loans, so hardly worth arguing the difference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said: You won't get any negs from me, having a debate is what it is all about on here. Just intrigued as to why you are so strongly in favour of other reports, especially when the most recent report that you refer to is one that states £3.5M + loans, so hardly worth arguing the difference! Given that I was pulled up on it and told Nixon was re-iterating 4m today. I thought it interesting that a similar paper maybe even the same one said it was also under 4m today. Given that 3.5m is now being treated the same as 4m by proxy I’ll take that The loans is a new thing though isn’t it and wouldn’t likely be contractual or actually linked to compensation if it happened. Just the two clubs smoothing things over in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Bluesteel said: Given that I was pulled up on it and told Nixon was re-iterating 4m today. I thought it interesting that a similar paper maybe even the same one said it was also under 4m today. Given that 3.5m is now being treated the same as 4m by proxy I’ll take that The loans is a new thing though isn’t it and wouldn’t likely be contractual or actually linked to compensation if it happened. Just the two clubs smoothing things over in my view. £3.5M + loans might well work out more than £4M I doubt very much the loans is anything contractually based regarding Bruce and co but the reports refer to the link to compensation and that they might be a means to putting the issue to bed. I doubt very much we would be getting offered loan players if things had already been sorted regarding the 3 Steve's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyowl Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 Guess we will just have to wait for the accounts to come out! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieB Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, Bluesteel said: I’m not making a big deal of it to be fair. I am answering the various quotes and questions (and a few negs ) I keep getting because I said I didn’t think it would be as high as the 4m everyone would ideally like it to be (including me) As I say. Nixon doesn’t get defended so strongly when his rumour is a stinker and not in our favour. If the Nixon thing is what people genuinely think is the most likely out of the various reports and not just the preferable rumour then fair dos. But thinking about it, I don’t. By the time we find out, if ever, will be old news anyway (and probably already is). No, you've been telling everyone it isn't £4m as a matter of fact, as per just a couple of your posts from this thread... 8 hours ago, Bluesteel said: Nixon does get good info. The devil is in the detail though (as per most journos). He was adamant it was 4m for Bruce but it wasn’t 6 hours ago, Bluesteel said: Well there’s the local journalists for a start so you can have a look for them. Believe who you want. But it isn’t as high as 4m. When in reality you have no clue what the actual figure is just like the rest of us, it could be £3m, it could be £4m+... Who knows. So I'd suggest stating "in my opinion..." in future so people wouldn't challenge you on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now