Jump to content

No deals yet for St James's four


Scottish Mag
 Share

Recommended Posts

If so, Roeder should be deciding which players to retain imo. The contract negotiations are then down to Shepherd (i.e. deciding how much to offer etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's just as well we didn't do what Roeder said a month or so ago and tie up player contracts sharpish to avoid it affecting their game. Because if we had, Bramble would already be sat on a nice new contract and Roeder would have effectively re-signed a player that he now doesn't think is good enough. <_<

:angry:

 

It would be laughable if it wasn't us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it my imagination or is this being done a bit too much in the open.

I'm guessing it's a bit of propaganda to try and take some of the heat off Roeder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless we sign Woodgate and Cannavaro on tha same day, it will be a hell of a job to put a positive spin on giving Bramble a new deal.

 

Cannavaro is deffo coming, but Rodders is having difficulty getting Woodgate.

 

[btw] '...The St James' four' <_< sounds like a bunch of lags who have been subjet to some miscarriage of justice :angry: Maybe it's us who have suffered the miscarriage of justice, in respect to two of them :woosh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patrokles

I don't see the problem...finally they seem to be waking up to the idea that long term contracts on stupid money are only worthwhile if the player is actually any good. WOOT!

 

I don't have a problem with them not offering Bramble a contract. I'm slightly perturbed by the fact that as recently as a month ago he was all set to get one at Roeder's behest though.

 

He'd looked to have put his iffiness behind him a month ago, though. It's fully conceivable he was on the equivalent of a 'final warning'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who think The Times is a more credible source here is todays story on us..

 

Just a rehash from Anal O's article yesterday

 

 

Eager not to be perceived as rewarding failure, Newcastle United are delaying contract negotiations with senior players. While Paul Huntington, the teenaged defender, is to sign a new deal stretching until 2010, despite his traumatic experience in the Uefa Cup last week where he was at fault for one goal as Newcastle crashed out to AZ Alkmaar, players such as Titus Bramble, Oguchi Onyewu and Craig Moore are unlikely to remain at the club.

 

Glenn Roeder, the manager, has previously intimated that Bramble might extend his five-year stay at St James’ Park, but planned talks with the former England Under21 central defender’s representatives did not take place this week and the mood has hardened after defeats by Alkmaar and Charlton Athletic.

 

Moore, the Australia defender, is expected to begin a new career in the Far East, while Newcastle are not minded to transform Onyewu’s loan spell from Standard Liãge into a permanent arrangement.

 

Antoine Sibierski, 32, recruited from Manchester City on a free transfer last summer, recently spoke of committing his future to the club, but Newcastle are insistent that a single-season deal is more appropriate than the two years the Frenchman is requesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the problem...finally they seem to be waking up to the idea that long term contracts on stupid money are only worthwhile if the player is actually any good. WOOT!

 

I don't have a problem with them not offering Bramble a contract. I'm slightly perturbed by the fact that as recently as a month ago he was all set to get one at Roeder's behest though.

 

He'd looked to have put his iffiness behind him a month ago, though. It's fully conceivable he was on the equivalent of a 'final warning'.

A player who's been as inconsistent as him (over his entire Toon career that is) shouldn't have been on a 'final warning'. I doubt he was anyway though. Just more evidence of Roeder's cluelessness that, firstly, he was being considered for a new contract and, secondly, on the back of one poor match, he now isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i definitely do not want bramble to be in our team next season.

solano should be first choice right back for next season with a long term plan for a replacement....

le sib has done his bit for us but is he good enough, sadly no.

milner needs mentoring and he will become a better player. he's worth taking a gamble on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patrokles

I don't see the problem...finally they seem to be waking up to the idea that long term contracts on stupid money are only worthwhile if the player is actually any good. WOOT!

 

I don't have a problem with them not offering Bramble a contract. I'm slightly perturbed by the fact that as recently as a month ago he was all set to get one at Roeder's behest though.

 

He'd looked to have put his iffiness behind him a month ago, though. It's fully conceivable he was on the equivalent of a 'final warning'.

A player who's been as inconsistent as him (over his entire Toon career that is) shouldn't have been on a 'final warning'. I doubt he was anyway though. Just more evidence of Roeder's cluelessness that, firstly, he was being considered for a new contract and, secondly, on the back of one poor match, he now isn't.

 

As with everything, though, you expect new management to give everyone a fresh start. Bramble had been reasonable under Roeder with a couple of mistakes here and there. So it's possible that Roeder's idea was to let him carry on with the recent improvement, continue to prove he could focus, etc, whilst still adopting a zero-tolerance policy if he went back to old ways. What happened under previous managers shouldn't necessarily be relevent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the problem...finally they seem to be waking up to the idea that long term contracts on stupid money are only worthwhile if the player is actually any good. WOOT!

 

I don't have a problem with them not offering Bramble a contract. I'm slightly perturbed by the fact that as recently as a month ago he was all set to get one at Roeder's behest though.

 

He'd looked to have put his iffiness behind him a month ago, though. It's fully conceivable he was on the equivalent of a 'final warning'.

A player who's been as inconsistent as him (over his entire Toon career that is) shouldn't have been on a 'final warning'. I doubt he was anyway though. Just more evidence of Roeder's cluelessness that, firstly, he was being considered for a new contract and, secondly, on the back of one poor match, he now isn't.

 

As with everything, though, you expect new management to give everyone a fresh start. Bramble had been reasonable under Roeder with a couple of mistakes here and there. So it's possible that Roeder's idea was to let him carry on with the recent improvement, continue to prove he could focus, etc, whilst still adopting a zero-tolerance policy if he went back to old ways. What happened under previous managers shouldn't necessarily be relevent.

I'd argue it would be gross stupidity not to take a look at that tbh. Especially when you consider how long Bramble has been at the club relative to Roeder being manager. Not that I think Bramble had been playing well enough under Roeder before the Alkmaar game to warrant a new contract anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patrokles

I don't see the problem...finally they seem to be waking up to the idea that long term contracts on stupid money are only worthwhile if the player is actually any good. WOOT!

 

I don't have a problem with them not offering Bramble a contract. I'm slightly perturbed by the fact that as recently as a month ago he was all set to get one at Roeder's behest though.

 

He'd looked to have put his iffiness behind him a month ago, though. It's fully conceivable he was on the equivalent of a 'final warning'.

A player who's been as inconsistent as him (over his entire Toon career that is) shouldn't have been on a 'final warning'. I doubt he was anyway though. Just more evidence of Roeder's cluelessness that, firstly, he was being considered for a new contract and, secondly, on the back of one poor match, he now isn't.

 

As with everything, though, you expect new management to give everyone a fresh start. Bramble had been reasonable under Roeder with a couple of mistakes here and there. So it's possible that Roeder's idea was to let him carry on with the recent improvement, continue to prove he could focus, etc, whilst still adopting a zero-tolerance policy if he went back to old ways. What happened under previous managers shouldn't necessarily be relevent.

I'd argue it would be gross stupidity not to take a look at that tbh. Especially when you consider how long Bramble has been at the club relative to Roeder being manager. Not that I think Bramble had been playing well enough under Roeder before the Alkmaar game to warrant a new contract anyway.

 

Maybe it has been taken into account, though. Clearly a player with a history of mistakes should be dealt with less tolerantly than one who has made the odd one or two; but at the same time, a new manager shouldn't necessarily come in and judge a player solely on his past. If he's doing alright under the new manager, then it's reasonable to revise pre-conceptions. Obviously, when the mistakes do come again, then the past is more relevent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the problem...finally they seem to be waking up to the idea that long term contracts on stupid money are only worthwhile if the player is actually any good. WOOT!

 

I don't have a problem with them not offering Bramble a contract. I'm slightly perturbed by the fact that as recently as a month ago he was all set to get one at Roeder's behest though.

 

He'd looked to have put his iffiness behind him a month ago, though. It's fully conceivable he was on the equivalent of a 'final warning'.

A player who's been as inconsistent as him (over his entire Toon career that is) shouldn't have been on a 'final warning'. I doubt he was anyway though. Just more evidence of Roeder's cluelessness that, firstly, he was being considered for a new contract and, secondly, on the back of one poor match, he now isn't.

 

As with everything, though, you expect new management to give everyone a fresh start. Bramble had been reasonable under Roeder with a couple of mistakes here and there. So it's possible that Roeder's idea was to let him carry on with the recent improvement, continue to prove he could focus, etc, whilst still adopting a zero-tolerance policy if he went back to old ways. What happened under previous managers shouldn't necessarily be relevent.

I'd argue it would be gross stupidity not to take a look at that tbh. Especially when you consider how long Bramble has been at the club relative to Roeder being manager. Not that I think Bramble had been playing well enough under Roeder before the Alkmaar game to warrant a new contract anyway.

 

Maybe it has been taken into account, though. Clearly a player with a history of mistakes should be dealt with less tolerantly than one who has made the odd one or two; but at the same time, a new manager shouldn't necessarily come in and judge a player solely on his past. If he's doing alright under the new manager, then it's reasonable to revise pre-conceptions. Obviously, when the mistakes do come again, then the past is more relevent.

So, are you saying it should be relevent now then? If so, I agree. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patrokles

I don't see the problem...finally they seem to be waking up to the idea that long term contracts on stupid money are only worthwhile if the player is actually any good. WOOT!

 

I don't have a problem with them not offering Bramble a contract. I'm slightly perturbed by the fact that as recently as a month ago he was all set to get one at Roeder's behest though.

 

He'd looked to have put his iffiness behind him a month ago, though. It's fully conceivable he was on the equivalent of a 'final warning'.

A player who's been as inconsistent as him (over his entire Toon career that is) shouldn't have been on a 'final warning'. I doubt he was anyway though. Just more evidence of Roeder's cluelessness that, firstly, he was being considered for a new contract and, secondly, on the back of one poor match, he now isn't.

 

As with everything, though, you expect new management to give everyone a fresh start. Bramble had been reasonable under Roeder with a couple of mistakes here and there. So it's possible that Roeder's idea was to let him carry on with the recent improvement, continue to prove he could focus, etc, whilst still adopting a zero-tolerance policy if he went back to old ways. What happened under previous managers shouldn't necessarily be relevent.

I'd argue it would be gross stupidity not to take a look at that tbh. Especially when you consider how long Bramble has been at the club relative to Roeder being manager. Not that I think Bramble had been playing well enough under Roeder before the Alkmaar game to warrant a new contract anyway.

 

Maybe it has been taken into account, though. Clearly a player with a history of mistakes should be dealt with less tolerantly than one who has made the odd one or two; but at the same time, a new manager shouldn't necessarily come in and judge a player solely on his past. If he's doing alright under the new manager, then it's reasonable to revise pre-conceptions. Obviously, when the mistakes do come again, then the past is more relevent.

So, are you saying it should be relevent now then? If so, I agree. :lol:

 

The first post said not necessarily relevent. :unsure: I was merely describing circumstances under which it might be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily relevant but relevant in this case? Pretty superfluous point to make then eh? :lol:

Edited by alex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the problem...finally they seem to be waking up to the idea that long term contracts on stupid money are only worthwhile if the player is actually any good. WOOT!

 

I don't have a problem with them not offering Bramble a contract. I'm slightly perturbed by the fact that as recently as a month ago he was all set to get one at Roeder's behest though.

 

He'd looked to have put his iffiness behind him a month ago, though. It's fully conceivable he was on the equivalent of a 'final warning'.

A player who's been as inconsistent as him (over his entire Toon career that is) shouldn't have been on a 'final warning'. I doubt he was anyway though. Just more evidence of Roeder's cluelessness that, firstly, he was being considered for a new contract and, secondly, on the back of one poor match, he now isn't.

 

As with everything, though, you expect new management to give everyone a fresh start. Bramble had been reasonable under Roeder with a couple of mistakes here and there. So it's possible that Roeder's idea was to let him carry on with the recent improvement, continue to prove he could focus, etc, whilst still adopting a zero-tolerance policy if he went back to old ways. What happened under previous managers shouldn't necessarily be relevent.

I'd argue it would be gross stupidity not to take a look at that tbh. Especially when you consider how long Bramble has been at the club relative to Roeder being manager. Not that I think Bramble had been playing well enough under Roeder before the Alkmaar game to warrant a new contract anyway.

 

The same kind of gross stupidity used in the argument that Roeder's previous managerial disasters weren't relevant to his being employed by NUFC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solano & Milner yes, the other two No.

 

 

It's be maddness not to keep Solano.

It'd be daft not to keep Milner (for all that he's not always that effective).

 

 

Bramble and Le Sib.... well if they were cheap enough then keep them (at least for 1 year), but for Bramble especially it'd have to be frozen wages or a cut.

 

But that's assuming we can bring in someone better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solano and Milner should definitely get a new contract. Sibierski I'm not too sure about but I wouldn't be too unhappy if he got a one year extension.

 

I think it's fair to say that Bramble has been given far too many chances at this club and that it's time we let him leave.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.