LATEST TRANSFER NONSENSE MAKES HORRIBLE SENSE

Put together the conflicting press reports about Newcastle United's late-window transfer movement and they begin to make a horrible kind of sense.

After speculation in Holland's largest daily De Telegraaf yesterday that Newcastle's bid for PSV defender Erik Pieters is stalling in favor of a cheaper loan move for surplus Man City defender Wayne Bridge, the Journal's Mark Douglas reports today that Newcastle is ready to improve its bid for Pieters in part because a move for Bridge "would not fit into United's budget." WTF?

Both outlets are reliable; it's likely neither report is baseless. The difference is, the Dutch report is relying mostly on PSV sources, and the Journal report is relying mostly on Newcastle sources. It's not a matter of which journalist we trust; it's a matter of which sources we trust.

Let's look not at the commentary in the stories, but the facts. Bridge's cost to Newcastle for the season is quoted at £2 million on the fee and £40-45,000 a week on the wage. That's between £3.5 and 3.7 million. PSV is reportedly demanding £6.5 million on the fee and the player is demanding £30,000 a week on the wage. That's about £7.6 million this season. Granted, Pieters' fee can buy more than one season. But his wage still runs, and the difference in fee looks too large for time to soften it.

So if Bridge isn't in Newcastle's budget, Pieters isn't either, unless PSV cuts its fee. Suddenly the stories don't seem so much in conflict. Add in Douglas' assertion that Bridge "does not fit into the [NUFC] blueprint of wanting major re-sale value from new signings" and we start to understand what the budgetary issues really are with the Man City deal.

Similarly, over the weekend reliable French media outlets reported that Newcastle was prepared to meet Lyon's £8 million asking price for defender Aly Cissokho, while today Douglas reports that price is too high and Cissokho is fading from the picture. But the French media are relying on sources in Lyon who are increasingly desperate to move the player, while Douglas is relying on sources in Newcastle who are looking to send a pessimistic message that will loosen the fee. The optimism in Lyon may be stemming from Newcastle's willingness to keep the Cissokho option open if all else fails. But we know Newcastle, and we know that move will happen only if other bids don't materialize in Lyon and Cissokho's price plunges as the window closes.

It's hard to maintain much more hope than that for Pieters. The laugh line of the day, and perhaps the summer, is that "The Journal understands it is now a case of persuading Derek Llambias to meet PSV’s valuation." To his credit Douglas goes on to add, with presumably irony-soaked understatement, "Previous experience would suggest that is far from straightforward."

Given the reporter's track record, there's little doubt today's Journal story is adequately sourced. Someone within NUFC must be telling Douglas - one guess would be Alan Pardew - that the bid for Pieters may be raised. Having been in Douglas' shoes, I can tell you that at a certain point a reporter has to report what sources are saying and mute skepticism in the name of preserving access to the club you're covering, not to mention having anything to print.

But so long as Llambias, the man making the bid, still has to be convinced of the other side's valuation, any significant improvement in the bid falls under the categories of wish and prayer. Read the news carefully, and while it may be contradictory on the surface, it points the same direction in the end - a discouraging direction for Newcastle United fans.

Comments

[Michael]

It's looking increasingly like Pieters or no-one. Like you, I'm edging towards the second option.

"...and we know that move will happen only if other bids don't materialize in Lyon and Cissokho's price plunges as the window closes."

Which, despite the lesson of Andy Carroll staring them in the face, is the one thing that nobody at Newcastle seems to have grasped about incoming transfers. As the transfer deadline draws nearer values go up. Exactly the same effect happens after you sell a player and other clubs realise you're in need of a replacement.

We'd known for months that Enrique was leaving and people inside the club must have known that Carroll was almost certain to depart. The smart move would have been to sign replacements beforehand. With the current ownership, about the only thing you can guarantee is that they never learn.

[Pradajames]

Pieters over Bridge makes even more sense when you throw in the fact that, with Bridge coming on a loan, NUFC will be in the same situation next off season...only between £3.5 and 3.7 million lighter in the pocket.

If you end up bringing in Pieters (or Cissokho), its more value in the long run since:

a) either player would be locked up for more than one season
b) either player should likely increase in market value during their time w/NUFC.
c) Bridge's loan deal would likely carry an additional fee in order to make it permanent, laying to a further outlay of cash on a player in his 30's.

Frankly, I think the Bridge rumors are a plant to help bring the prices down on Pieters/Cissokho by indicating a "plan b" for NUFC.

[Ryan]

Here's a good "What If" scenario. What if Pieters, Maiga, and Bridge's respective clubs won't drop their prices? It's not like these players have fallen out of favor with their clubs and their clubs are desperate to move them (well, maybe in Maiga's case). So, what happens if the prices don't fall? Most clubs would buck up and pay the asking price to get the desired players in the door. Sadly, Newcastle is more likely to stand pat than do this, I think we all know it.

If we were just trying to supplant depth and didn't truly need that player, then that's one thing. However, given the fact that we have a large hole at LB and a large hole at striker, they need to be filled. So, if the powers that be know we have the holes (as they clearly do), and refuse to fill them because they would be overpaying in their eyes, it would be a travesty. To fail to address known needs, and put a team on the pitch every weak with known gaps that were not filled, is not the right way to run any club. Fiscal responsibility is one thing, not giving your club the players it needs to cover it's weaknesses and then telling them they are expected to be a top 10 team is sheer madness. As the saying goes, you have to spend money to make money.

[Ryan]

I suppose Bridge could be viewed as expendable as well, but again, I hope the powers that be have considered what their plan is if the prices aren't lowered at all. Will they simply stand pat? Or bring in someone who is of inferior quality that won't help the problem (a la Perch)?