OTF

He certainly doesn't come across as clever, let's just hope he's good at getting deals done. His comparisons to elite clubs's strategies are misguided at best because such clubs are making transfers from a pre-existing platform of top quality players (with high wages) and facilities and huge commercial backing where as two and a half years ago we started with a squad bound for relegation (second bottom of the table deep into November) championship tier coaching, a barebones staff, run down behind the curve training facilities and hopelessly poor commercials. The first thing that needed to be done was improve the quality of the team to achieve the first target of avoiding relegation. Objective exceeded. The next was to improve the team further to compete for Europe. Objective exceeded. This has given us a legitimate springboard to improve our commercials beyond reasonable expectation in such a short period of time (without any obvious dodgy Man City style sponsorship dealings). Objective exceeded. The next objective was to bolster our squad for an extremely busy calendar with the addition of European games. Despite some great results a combination of an injury crisis (+ a lengthy suspension), European inexperience and inexplicably poor officiating saw us fail to qualify beyond the group stages. Tough break but who will forget us pumping PSG? The injury crisis hurt us in the league massively and through a cruel FA Cup twist we missed out on all European competition. That said we were never realistically in the running for Champions League so in some ways not having to play in a lesser European competition will improve our chances of qualifying for Champions League this season. To call these transfer windows not fit for purpose is wrong. Our turn around from whipping boys to dynamic top 8 competitors was remarkably quick. As I said on the back of this we've been able to legitimately turn around our commercial outcomes which will do more to fuel further purchases than trying to buy young talent from a wider pool and onsell it within a season or two (which is what Mitchell is impying is required). It's in fact exactly what we did with Minteh, buying him from a Danish side, farming him out to a strong European team in a technical competition that suits his ability and then onselling him for a massive profit. That we needed to do that to satisfy PSR is a sign that we've not been able to sell.pther players that we've been stuck with from poor transfer dealing prior to the takeover. The only feasible alternative would have been buying fewer players. Say for example not getting Barnes or Gordon. Recognising that we now must look to evolve our transfer strategies is not an acknowledgement that our previous transfer strategies were not fit for purpose. The positive writing is on the wall for those; we accelerated our transformation beyond any reasonable expectation given the financial constrainsts in which we were operating through recruiting a quality manager and staff and a series of players who vastly improved our playing roster and who not only fit in but also helped to establish a new and improved culture at the club. It's inexplicable that he called them not fit for purpose, there's no evidence of it. Sure we frustratingly had to lose two very promising young players, but Minteh hadn't player a single minute for us and Anderson, despite looking super promising hasn't shown significant end product in his many opportunities and was down the pecking order so not likely to get big minutes. Mitchell's attempts at buying Guehi don't bode well but Parish was clearly playing silly buggers there so we'll let that slide. Sporting Director is not someone we need to hear from, we will judge based on our overall operation, coaching, training and transfer dealings.

Exactly what page is that?

I'm a svelte millennial, ye old cunts.

You've made a bigger thing of this than anyone and you're wrong but your pride defies you. Mitchell spoke out of turn to deflect from the failings in the window, he could have done it with some validity by talking about the legacy of Ashley impacting sales. This could not have offended anyone currently at the club. Instead he called our transfer dealings under our new owners "not fit for purpose". There'a no hiding from that. As well as being wrong what he said was childish. Which club frequently buys players and then resells them for a profit in a year or two? We did with Minteh, but such sales are outliers, even at clubs who sell a lot of players. Finally, Mitchell sanctioned splashing the cash for Guehi (£65m+) in this window, but ended up looking the fool.

We flew a bit close to the sun and came close to having a PSR problem. We begrudgingly sold two players who weren't likely to get a lot of time on the pitch this season and we don't have a potential PSR problem anymore. We do have many players who we could sell for a profit, but we don't want to. In fact it's mostly financially irresponsible to, because they still have years to run and we won't make the most of their transfer fees if we don't spread it across more seasons. So the signings from the last two and half years of successful transfer windows have increased in value AND have brought us results on the pitch. Fit for purpose. It's the years prior to that that were not fit for purpose. Mitchell could have rightfully talked about those impacting our window (through lack of sales) but he didn't. Instead what he said was demonstrably wrong. And don't worry, no offense taken. That's as close to admitting that you're wrong as you're capable of. Thanks.

Have kicked a ball, just in a parents v. kids training session, but man it felt good.

Be specific, which STRATEGY wasn't fit for purpose? We primarily bought young high quality players who have increased in value. He's talking about doing similar but from a wider talent pool? He's talking about measuing his success in 5 years. He's taking veiled shots at Howe for this not being a successful window. He should not have mentioned Howe at all. Let's not forget that the purpose of signing players is to improve the team and ultimately results. Look at our record under Howe, we're the fourth highest ranked team in the league, the three above us spend VASTLY more on wages and have VASTLY larger budgets. The three teams below us also spent more by some distance. They can offer higher wages to players, can spend more on scouting and have better academy resources. Yet we're outperforming them in the single most important metric, results on the pitch. So again, please be specific about which transfer strategy is not fit for purpose?

In their dreams, more like 500000. Rugby League has a lot, lot more if you include touch, and tag variants. Unsurpisingly most people don't want to get smashed by 120kg monsters as a hobby. Football is the best sport in the world, can't wait until I can play again (hopefully next season).

Least Arsenal looking kit of recent times.. looked like an Italy third kit.

I think he was Poch's man rather than the other way.

Mate, he plainly said that our transfers were not fit for purpose. If that's not criticising our signings what is it? There can't be any accountability for myriad of players from the Ashley era that have hung around, setting those aside our transfers have a fantastic hit rate. He's suggesting that we need to be signing more youth players that we can develop, but there's many factors in why we can't immediately do that. Firstly we're playing catch up with our training facilities and youth setup, again part of Ashley's legacy. Unfortunately something like that doesn't change overnight. We don't want to sell any of the players we've bought under our new ownership except Targett who has been long term injured (otherwise he would have been sold), Ashby (who was a low cost signing for a young player) and Kuol (again peanuts paid for him and he's just turned 20). Trippier we seemingly may have sold but that was more relating to his personal life than to his ability as a player and his value as a senior team member. Mitchell even says he'll know whether he's done a good job in 5 years time....we were bought LESS THAN THREE years ago and he's judging that time... In that 2.5 years we have bought many players that have since increased in price: Guimaraes, Isak, Botman, Gordon. Tonali, Livramento and Barnes likely to also be amongst those. Hall is on the trajectory to be also. The eldest amonst them are Bruno and Barnes at 26 years old. The rest are under 25. The older players that were bought have been fantastic value (Trippier and Burn). Or did a job and were moved on for a good price (Wood). I don't think you can really criticise with any authority the overall transfer performance. If more focus was given to signing even younger players from a wider scouting pool we would not have had the same success on the pitch, our signings dragged us out of a seemingly certain relegation and took us into the champions league. They vastly increased our overall quality and first 11. On the back of these 'not fit for purpose' transfers we were still in a position to offer £65m+ for a single defender (who fits with the profile of our signings over the last 2.5 years anyway). To say that it has not been fit for purpose is out of order and incorrect. He goes on to blame Howe for not having an interest in other identified targets, insinuating that Howe's influence on transfers was high, and then compares us to super clubs (like Ashley did), before contradicting some typical Howe tight lipped media comments. He's got a lot of ground to make up in the next few windows. 'Is it fit for purpose? Not last winter gone, the winter before that. Is it fit for purpose in the modern game? Because other clubs that have adopted a different approach over time, with more intelligence, more data-informed than we are, actually prospered in this window. That's where we have to grow to be now. 'You look at the money we have invested up to this point, £250 million net over the last two-and-a-half years. Was our model in place to be able to spend more to the levels we would have liked to enhance the team? I don't think it was, because we haven't sold a player during that time, barring what we were forced to do through PSR. 'We didn't have the sales window we thought we would have – and we have to look at that strategy as well, was that right? It was all aligned with the head coach. There definitely has to be a more strategic approach that we haven't had the last two-and-a-half years. I'll know whether we've done a good job in five years' time.' Mitchell did not refer to Guehi by name, but said that Howe did not want to pursue other targets. 'We had a player as the key, core target,' he said. 'We were still in dialogue (with Palace) all the way through, but Eddie was very clear, and it's not up to me after seven weeks to say, "We'll do this and that", because I'm in a supporting role. 'There were (other) targets. Could there have been more? I would say potentially. But Eddie was very clear that he had to feel comfortable that the person added value, because we have really good players. That's why we ended up where we did. 'And he's smart, he was engaged in all the conversations about PSR, spend, cost, cash-flow, he's a smart head coach that has the capacity to be kept updated on those conversations. And that was the decision he took - it was that player, or he felt that he was comfortable with the quality. Mitchell also says it was important the club were not held to ransom on a player. 'It's about setting precedents to the market that we will pay fair value for the right profile,' he said. 'It shouldn't be misconceived as a lack of ambition. If we just spend, spend, spend once again, we become accountable to that by fines and points deductions, and that isn't good leadership, you're being negligent. We've got great players signed by great investment from this ownership, and you can sometimes 'That goes for scouting as well. I think good players are becoming harder to find because scouting is so competitive. 'But I think Eddie recognises good players and he also recognises this club is evolving to be bigger, and bigger and bigger. If you look at the super clubs, their infrastructure, their recruitment, they don't just look at one market only. 'They have a wider scouting and recruitment network. I think Eddie is smart enough to understand - and he definitely is - that to go to the next level that you do have to diversify. Otherwise, you just stay local and retire. I think our ambition is much greater than that.' 'Eddie has shown an ability to evolve over time . Coming to Newcastle posed different challenges to Bournemouth. Eddie is very smart and I think he knows there 'Every coach I've worked with, in the end, just wants good players. That's a simplistic view. But I think Eddie just wants good players. I think it's a collective responsibility between me and him, to understand there are other areas we can look at to bring those good players to his team to be coached by him.' Meanwhile, Mitchell insists that Howe was kept up to speed on developments this summer, after the head coach repeatedly said he was not in the loop on everything that was going on. 'Contrary to opinion, we speak every night more or less, and every day a minimum of once, on all different topics,' he said. 'I think this idea that me and Eddie haven't spoken all the way through the transfer window is false. All the way right up to the last minutes, he is fully updated and involved. 'We speak literally an hour a night. If we aren't able to physically communicate, we'll use WhatsApp. My idea, rightly or wrongly, was to over communicate. My wife doesn't get that! I felt that was necessary at this stage of the relationship. He was kept very updated on the transfer window.'

Our only ever Premier League Manager of the Season

If he came in with the belief that this was possible he doesn't even have a grasp of understanding of the club. In reality I don't think he would have harboured any desire to instate his own manager, he doesn't have a track record for it. IMO it's far more important to a DOF that they have autonomy and aren't puppets for the owners. That's what soured him on Tottenham; Levy.

Nailed it. Mitchell deflected from a disappointing window under his watch. A more mature response would have been to admit that it had been a frustrating window but that we were not going to make signings for the sake of it. Effectively what Howe himself said. Or he could have noted that we would have more of a focus on bringing in and nurturing young talent. To have criticised previous signings really hits a sour note when we've honestly had a fantastic success rate with signings since Howe's arrival before Mitchell. Trippier, Burn, Guimaraes, Pope, Isak, Tonali, Gordon, Barnes, Botman, Livramento, Hall, Wood, Minteh, Ashby, Kuol, Targett, Karius Overall that's a phenomenal hit rate. Targett has been disappointing due his injuries, though in his first season here he was an integral member of the side that helped us escape what seemed like an inevitable relegation. Wood we overpaid for, but it was a necessary signing to inject something different into our side. Plus we also managed to sell him for a good price. Ashby hasn't kicked on, but he was a young player with promise. Kuol has done nothing to suggest he will develop into a quality player. We got stitched up by AC Milan with Tonali, but now that he's served his time he's shaping to be a great player for us and he's only 24.