http://www.ananova.com/yournews/story/sm_555619.html

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

Answers

Lets find out who it is and burn their club to the ground...

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

Don't mince your words Gav, for once just say what you think! I'll carry the petrol, you get the torch.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

According to one report Fulham and Liverpool are interested in him. Now which one of those would ever poach another team's player?

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

Liverpool would never do something like that.

It's nice to see that Bobby is going through the proper channels and refusing to feed press speculation. Must p-off the press mightily. :- )

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

I f*cking KNEW it'd be the bin dipping thieving cnuts!

Boro are the only team to try and make a stand against them, I don't want Bobby to report them...I want him to get his mates together and go round and f*ck houllier over!

I've got a twat of a scouse mate who insists that the rules are old and should be ignored...everyone does it, it's the natural order for players to want to play for bigger clubs...human rights/freedom of movement...BOLLOX to all that, these people get paid a lot of money and should be made to respect their contracts...I don't give a shit whether it infringes their human rights....

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

My money'd be on Fulham (FCUK and all that).

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

Wonder how YBR would react to an illegal approach for Marcy?

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

Both Managers are French, so frankly it could be either of them - or Arsenal come to that. The French have no respect for Rules - especially other peoples! I found this out in business - they regard Rules/Laws purely as guidelines, to be taken into consideration but not necessarily followed.

Remember also that Bernard, like Gary Caldwell, is virtually out-of-contract and will soon be able to talk with anyone they wish - if we lose them it is our own stupid, incompetent, gormless, dozey bloody fault!

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

Liverpool can only really steal players...

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

That's a bit harsh Clarky. I thought we were trying to negotiate a contract at the moment, hence the anger at the tapping.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

Well the club has a policy of signing players in the close season 1 year prior to the expiration of their contracts. I suspect therefore that this is YBR's decision and he has not seen fit as yet to retain these players. Of course, we will still be in a position to offer them something come the summer. I must admit I questioned our judgement in allowing Glass to go last season - I've no idea how well Glass is doing and whether that decision has been vindicated or not. Certainly, Bernard doesn't seem to be at the forefront of YBR's mind when he selects his teams, so whilst I'd like to see Bernard get more of a chance, I'll have to accept YBR's judgement.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

If NUFC think nogotiating with players 2 months before they are free to "walk" is clever, or sound business practice, then I don't!

In the recent past, we've already seen the infinite wisdom of this practice with players like Hislop, Srnicek, Peacock and Glass - not the greatest players in the world, but saleable assets who were allowed to walk down Gallowgate on free transfers due to incompetence in contract dealings.

To be brutally honest, it shouldn't surprise anyone that other Clubs are starting to tap up Olivier Bernard with only 2 months to go until his contract is up - and getting angry over it is simply papering over the internal administrative cracks. Pathetic!

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

I agree that we should have sorted the contract out earlier if we really want to keep him, but the fact is, if he's being tapped up, it's an illegal approach. We are not at fault here in the slightest.

I think if he was on a three year deal and the offending club had seen something they liked and he was only in the reserves at NUFC the same thing could happen.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

Robson says he's turned down the new contract, though he hasn't actually said that yet, so our only chance of any compensation is through the league, when we prove the tapping. I still think Fulham are the more likely candidates, given that Houlier is just back and also I'd expect them to be looking for someone a bit more established. Mind I'm usually wrong so it's probably 'Pool. They've both nicked our players in the past. No way will it be Arsenal!

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

Paul - I'm not saying we are at fault in complaining about an illegal approach. However, I am saying we could and should have avoided the inevitable by sorting out his contract much earlier.

I suspect the reality is that we haven't been entirely sure about him as a player, and have procrastinated over the issue until it's too feckin late.

At this late stage it is inevitable that Clubs, who are apparently better able to decide he is a desirable player than we have been, will try to nick an edge in discussions with the player.

This is not dissimilar to what happened last season with Stephen Glass, and indeed has similarities to previous fiascos. Just because we don't think the player is Pele II shouldn't stop us securing them contractually, and then selling them if we ultimately decide they don't fit in with our plans - otherwise we allow relatively valuable assets to walk away for nowt! We never, ever learn anything.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

Pilgrim - my reference to Arsenal was toungue-in-cheek, and due exclusively to them having a French Manager! ;o{)

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

Didn't we offer Stephen Glass a contract but he turned it down?

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2002

I think your criticism of the club is way over the top on this issue Clarky. Peacock certainly, and I believe Hislop and Pav also, happened in the first season of the Bosman ruling when the club could not possibly have had it's current policy in place. I was alarmed at the loss of these players, so I asked the question at the AGM and was told that the club policy was to re-sign players during the close season prior to their final season, and this they have consistently done, sometimes re-signing important players even earlier than that. Apart from Glass, I can't recall us losing a single Bosman player, perceived to be of value, since that time.

As for Glass, Bernard and Caldwell, surely these would have been decisions made by our esteemed manager? None of them featured much in YBR's teams, and I suspect that when the time came for their contracts to be renewed, as per our stated policy, YBR had probably said something to the effect that he wasn't confident they were worth retaining, if they prove themselves over the current season we could make them an offer later. In the case of Glass he was made an offer (of only a single season) and it's obvious we could have outbid Watford if YBR thought he was worth it. Obviously he didn't and Glass was allowed to leave, mistakenly in my view and yours, but I'm sure it was a reasoned decision made by the club, and not incompetence at all. Notice that last summer the club also took the decisons to delay negotiation with both Barton and Lee, correctly perceiving that these players were unlikely to make a useful contribution, either as players or saleable assets, beyond this season.

Players wages are normally a hefty expense, and unless the player is clearly thought to have a transfer value, or likely to be able to make a contribution to the team, then it is surely prudent not to tie the club down in long expensive contracts for which the club will get little benefit. This is, as I say, a question of judgement, and judgement is certainly open to criticism, but the charge of incompetence is surely misplaced.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

As a matter of interest, if Bernard were to leave, he would not go for nowt because he is under 24 so we would be eligible for a fee - most liklely decided by a tribunal.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

Jacko, I`m impressed - how did you know that?!(:o)

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

Rumour has it West Ham are the guilty party. What did we ever do to Glenn Roeder??? To be honest I don't think it matters, I can't imagine Bernard is going to want to stay. He's clearly good enough to get first team football elsewhere (albeit at a smaller club) and he's not tied down by a contract. If he does go I'm not really bothered where.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

I just know these things Gal! I am a sad git with no life.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

Jonno - you're taking a purely football view: I'm taking a wider business view, and let us not foget that NUFC plc is after all a business

Are you seriously suggesting that Hislop, Peacock, Srnicek and Glass had "no resale value"? If so, then I have to disagree, and allowing a situation to develop where we let them walk for free in my book was incompetent from a business perspective.

Further, if we are now so tight on these issues, how do you explain the possible loss now of promising youngsters like Olivier Bernard and Gary Caldwell? No resale value? Bad judgement? Or incompetence?

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

The following "clutching at straws" story from Teamtalk:

Bobby Robson has urged the unsettled Olivier Bernard to do the "honourable" thing and sign the new deal he has been offered by The Magpies.

Bernard, 22, is out of contract at the end of the season and attracting interest from a number of clubs amid allegations he has been 'tapped' up over a summer switch.

But Robson feels the Frenchman should show some loyalty to the club and its supporters. He said: "Why would he want to leave Newcastle United with this public and this team and the future?

"He is a good understudy for Laurent Robert and will get his opportunity here. We have offered him an outstandingly good financial contract for his age and his ability. He should look at that and put some honour to his name, to the contract and to this club.

"We have developed him here for the last two years. We have put him in this position and I think that he should recognise and respond to that. I just hope common sense prevails".

"All I am saying to the boy is to do what is honourable, and stay with the club," added Robson.

Yeh, right!

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

I don't think you've addressed any of the points I made in my post Clarky. As I pointed out Hislop, Pav and Peacock went in the first season of Bosman, and the club could not possibly have had time to install it's current policy.

As for Bernard, Glass, and Caldwell it seems that they were or have been, all offered contracts, presumably later than the normal policy would dictate, because they had not shown enough (in YBR's view) to justify retention 12 months in advance of their Bosman-free dates. Bernard and Caldwell may yet stay.

All of these players added together don't amount to the loss of a Sol Campbell or a Mcmananananaman, two players which have been lost on Bosmans by other Premier clubs. Newcastle's record on Bosmans is really quite good IMHO

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

Also, I don't think the player's own mind is being factored into this. Bernard is young, knows he's got some ability and may just think he deserves a starting spot now. He may not be looking longterm to see that he may potentially be better staying here and slogging it out for another few seasons with a top team. Then again, do we know if that is important to him? Maybe he just wants first team football and isn't bothered where he gets it?

Obviously I'm totally speculating on this point as I don't know the player personally, just saying there is another side to the issue.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

The thing is, Bernard doesn't have the natural talent Robert does, so as long as they are both at the club they will rarely play in the same team.

That is unless he suddenly develops his defensive side. As a left winger I'd always pick Robert ahead of Bernard barring some really bad run of form.

Bernard isn't the type to change a game instantly with one move.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

Jonno - it was known long before the end of the season that Srnicek, Peacock, and Hislop would be out of contract at the end of the season. I clearly remember the looming situation, and will always believe we could have done far more than we did to retain these players.

The situation with McManaman and Campbell was totally different. These high-profile players had spent all their careers with their Clubs, and knew they could secure mega-bucks by moving. In addition, they were both highly ambitious and wanted to play for one of the biggest Clubs in Europe, and in Campbell's case he wanted to move to a more ambitious Club than Spurs.

Your comments on Bernard and Caldwell only lend support to my basic contention as timing in these issues is everything. Even if we are able to rescure the current situations with these players it will inevitably involve us offering them significantly more than they would have been possible earlier.

Our record in this regard is far from good and doesn't appear to be getting any better.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

My memory of Hislop and Peacock is that they wanted to cash in by letting their contracts run out and getting a signing on fee from another club. No loyalty and nothing the club could do would make them change their mind. I'm not sure what more we could do 'cos they didn't want to stay. Didn't Pav want a guaranteeed no 1 spot and more money - I loved him but he had a reputation as being pretty grasping?

If the club was at fault - and to be honest I don't think much blame is attached to them, then maybe they should have tried to cash in on them a year earlier.

In other circumstances I suppose it comes down to just how long before the contract runs out should we be negotiating. I can understand it if a player has obviously gained in value significantly (Hughes, O'Brien, Dyer, probably Bellamy soon) but otherwise the last year seems about right.

Todays Journal & Chronicle suggested that Bernard is likely to sign a new contract and we're not going to report West Ham.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

A couple of points - it's all very well getting players contracts tied up early, but don't forget that sometimes we don't necessarily want a player to stay. We've only recently gotten rid of most of the dead wood at the club, we had loads of players on the books who noboddy would buy and who we had to keep on paying because we had them signed on long contracts. The Des Hamiltons of the world. If Uncle Bobby didn't think Bernard had done enough earlier in the season to warrant a new contract we've got to accept that. Yes, we might end up losing him for nothing, but had we given him a long contract earlier we might equally have ended up paying a player we couldn't sell & who we didn't want. On a seperate note if Bernard chooses not to sign a new contract and goes elsewhere then that's his choice, he's perfectly entitled to do so and there's nothing dishonourable in that despite what Uncle Bobby seems to be suggesting.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002