Wood dropped

[Frenchclaret]

I see Wood has been dropped to the bench today at Newcastle

[Vino blanco]

Has he found his comfort zone at Newcastle?

[Shaggy]

excellent business from mr pace selling wood for £25m

[Blakesboots]

No choice in the matter, but having that in the contract was a good piece of work by Wood and BFC.

[ClaretTony]

excellent business from mr pace selling wood for £25m

If it’s considered excellent business and there is any credit to be handed out then it’s those who dealt with his contract which was before Pace was here.

[Shaggy]

If it’s considered excellent business and there is any credit to be handed out then it’s those who dealt with his contract which was before Pace was here.

Ok fair enough then, first of all it is excellent business as we have sold him for considerably more than we purchased him and certainly had his best years. The credit then goes to Wood's agent and im assuming Garlick. fair play they done well.

So one thing we cant do then is Bash Pace for selling Wood.

[Vino blanco]

You don't like Mr Pace do you Tony?

[ksrclaret]

Gibson dropped by Norwich as well after his mistakes at Man Utd last week.

[bobinho]

Oh I’m sure he’ll find something to bash him for shaggy….

[Spiral]

Collins has scored 2 goals in 13 for us this season. Wood has scored 2 in 14 for Newcastle. Not that we had any say in the matter, but selling him was a hilarious bit of business for us.

[RVclaret]

Collins has scored 2 goals in 13 for us this season. Wood has scored 2 in 14 for Newcastle. Not that we had any say in the matter, but selling him was a hilarious bit of business for us.

It was great business. No way he would have been sold though without the release clause as Dyche would have refused it.

[bumba]

You don't like Mr Pace do you Tony?

No because he isn't in the loop anymore so has a problem with the new people at the club 🫣

[Roosterbooster]

Could be rested and not dropped

They are playing Norwich, and Schär and Shelvey also on bench. Essentially their spine

[elwaclaret]

No because he isn't in the loop anymore so has a problem with the new people at the club 🫣

I find it a little strange that messageboard members who want all the latest information about the club cannot see the loss of CT’s connection to the board at Burnley takes fans further out of the loop. I’ve no idea how many connections CT has remaining at Turf but I cannot see why any loss of contact is something to ridicule; first it beyond CT’s control to change, and second leaves us all even further in the dark as to what is going on behind the scenes. I hope rather Tony will be able to overcome his (justifiable) distrust in the new setup and can find a way to engage with the new regime.

[Burnley1989]

I find it a little strange that messageboard members who want all the latest information about the club cannot see the loss of CT’s connection to the board at Burnley takes fans further out of the loop. I’ve no idea how many connections CT has remaining at Turf but I cannot see why any loss of contact is something to ridicule; first it beyond CT’s control to change, and second leaves us all even further in the dark as to what is going on behind the scenes. I hope rather Tony will be able to overcome his (justifiable) distrust in the new setup and can find a way to engage with the new regime.

If you do have inside info, which I have previously your posts either get deleted or everyone asks for your source, I don’t bother anymore.

[Bangers&Mash]

I find it a little strange that messageboard members who want all the latest information about the club cannot see the loss of CT’s connection to the board at Burnley takes fans further out of the loop. I’ve no idea how many connections CT has remaining at Turf but I cannot see why any loss of contact is something to ridicule; first it beyond CT’s control to change, and second leaves us all even further in the dark as to what is going on behind the scenes. I hope rather Tony will be able to overcome his (justifiable) distrust in the new setup and can find a way to engage with the new regime.

I doubt he will find a way to engage, we aren't little old Burnley any more. We are now becoming more professional and a little less inbred in the way the club is run. It's a huge change, there is negatives to it, but we should embrace it and be pleased

[elwaclaret]

If you do have inside info, which I have previously your posts either get deleted or everyone asks for your source, I don’t bother anymore.

Because people cannot judge the reliability of your unquoted source. I can make any argument I want, but without a source how are people to understand and rely on it? - it is a must for any fact based argument. Only fiction writers don’t quote sources.

[Blakesboots]

I find it a little strange that messageboard members who want all the latest information about the club cannot see the loss of CT’s connection to the board at Burnley takes fans further out of the loop. I’ve no idea how many connections CT has remaining at Turf but I cannot see why any loss of contact is something to ridicule; first it beyond CT’s control to change, and second leaves us all even further in the dark as to what is going on behind the scenes. I hope rather Tony will be able to overcome his (justifiable) distrust in the new setup and can find a way to engage with the new regime.

I am not saying or pointing at anyone in particular, especially on this board but there was a worrying link between meetings and then information being in given out. Trust is a two way process.

The issues raised by the fans about the youth teams and information I think upset the club.

[Blakesboots]

Because people cannot judge the reliability of your unquoted source. I can make any argument I want, but without a source how are people to understand and rely on it? - it is a must for any fact based argument. Only fiction writers don’t quote sources.

You’re judging the information that’s given to you. Not one person would give up a ‘source’.

The insistence that people have to justify information with a ‘name’ that they feel they can trust doesn’t make sense to me

[ClaretTony]

Howe says he's made a number of changes simply because of the number of games in a short space of time

[Burnley1989]

You’re judging the information that’s given to you. Not one person would give up a ‘source’.

The insistence that people have to justify information with a ‘name’ that they feel they can trust doesn’t make sense to me

Exactly, it’s not rocket science

[tiger76]

Howe says he's made a number of changes simply because of the number of games in a short space of time

Makes sense especially as they are now safe, and maybe he wants to run the rule over some players ahead of next season.

I don't understand the obsession with ex players, Wood was a great player for Burnley, now he's decided to move on, and we got decent money for him, so let's focus on the players who remain at the club.

[Jakubclaret]

Somebody who could yet potentially relegate us on the last day I think it’s wise to leave the smarminess aside & perhaps past that point judge things, the profit just helped generate funding towards debt repayments & wasn’t invested back so it’s good business in the sense of repaying debt but whether that debt should there in the first place goes off in a different direction.

[elwaclaret]

I am not saying or pointing at anyone in particular, especially on this board but there was a worrying link between meetings and then information being in given out. Trust is a two way process.

The issues raised by the fans about the youth teams and information I think upset the club.

Fully understand your point; however (possibly before your time), CT was named and shamed by Stan Ternent on live TV for passing on information and wouldn’t speak to Tony for quite some time before he accepted that the rumour had probably come from other sources within the club. Part of the reason CT gets so much stick is that he has often walked the ‘trust’ tightrope with great sensitivity, and therefore been taken by many members as being deliberately vague as some kind of ego trip.

The board have to remember, like all good journalists (even friendly ones) Tony has an obligation to call out the club as well as act as a trusted mouthpiece for ‘good news’. Yes men may sooth egos but they do a disservice to the very people they are trying to butter up.

[duncandisorderly]

It was a player no one had heard of before, and no one has heard of him since, too, IIRR.
Something like Michael Wilson, or Matthew Walton or something equally mundane.

[elwaclaret]

You’re judging the information that’s given to you. Not one person would give up a ‘source’.

The insistence that people have to justify information with a ‘name’ that they feel they can trust doesn’t make sense to me

I suggest you never attempt writing an academic paper if that is the case. People can say anything the like, they don’t need to use sources; but they shouldn’t then complain if posters chose not to take them seriously. “I’ve heard” is about as reliable as ‘appearently’ its why serious books have references (often footnotes) and bibliographies.

[Rileybobs]

I suggest you never attempt writing an academic paper if that is the case. People can say anything the like, they don’t need to use sources; but they shouldn’t then complain if posters chose not to take them seriously. “I’ve heard” is about as reliable as ‘appearently’ its why serious books have references (often footnotes) and bibliographies.

We’re not talking about writing academic papers, we’re talking about people sharing little snippets of inside information that they get from people within the club, or players’ families etc.

[elwaclaret]

Exactly, it’s not rocket science

No its no different to Tittle-tattle, unless the poster can be identified as having credible sources (in their own right) in the first place. Then everything you say is expected to be ‘gospel’ or you get a backlash.

[Rileybobs]

No its no different to Tittle-tattle, unless the poster can be identified as having credible sources (in their own right) in the first place. Then everything you say is expected to be ‘gospel’ or you get a backlash.

Not if the poster is proven to be credible. Tony doesn’t share his sources when he shares information.

[Blakesboots]

Fully understand your point; however (possibly before your time), CT was named and shamed by Stan Ternent on live TV for passing on information and wouldn’t speak to Tony for quite some time before he accepted that the rumour had probably come from other sources within the club. Part of the reason CT gets so much stick is that he has often walked the ‘trust’ tightrope with great sensitivity, and therefore been taken by many members as being deliberately vague as some kind of ego trip.

The board have to remember, like all good journalists (even friendly ones) Tony has an obligation to call out the club as well as act as a trusted mouthpiece for ‘good news’. Yes men may sooth egos but they do a disservice to the very people they are trying to butter up.

Unfortunately, with the media departments everything has become a scripted and managed. Ferguson started it and now it’s become a norm. You can only be on one side of the fence nowadays.

[Jakubclaret]

No choice in the matter, but having that in the contract was a good piece of work by Wood and BFC.

Highly debatable.

[fatboy47]

No because he isn't in the loop anymore so has a problem with the new people at the club 🫣

The site editor being out of the loop, effectively means the users of this website are out of the loop...probably not the healthiest scenario in these "exciting times"

[Vino blanco]

If journalists (especially political) had to divulge their sources, there would be no news.

[Blakesboots]

We’re not talking about writing academic papers, we’re talking about people sharing little snippets of inside information that they get from people within the club, or players’ families etc.

Exactly.

[duncandisorderly]

If journalists (especially political) had to divulge their sources, there would be no news.

That'd brighten the place up a bit!

[elwaclaret]

We’re not talking about writing academic papers, we’re talking about people sharing little snippets of inside information that they get from people within the club, or players’ families etc.

You are missing the point. The point was someone complaining that his ‘gems’ were not accepted as genuine - I merely pointed out academia to demonstrate even qualified experts rely on sources to quantify their arguments, to validate their claims.

Some poster will claim anything is from ‘inside’, others you can normally judge by their post history as to reliability.

[Blakesboots]

No its no different to Tittle-tattle, unless the poster can be identified as having credible sources (in their own right) in the first place. Then everything you say is expected to be ‘gospel’ or you get a backlash.

I don’t mind being called out, but the nastiness that comes out from posters is really not okay. Some of it can be disgusting some of it is just funny.

There is a feeling of a number of ‘cliques’ within the board. Those cliques are very protective of their thoughts/processes

The club is trying lots of ways to engage with fans, it’s not always the way the older fans want.

[duncandisorderly]

Yay! It's been a long time since we a had a good old fashioned clique accusation!

[Blakesboots]

Highly debatable.

I don’t think there’s a fan out there that wasn’t happy with the money we got for a player on the wain.

[Blakesboots]

Yay! It's been a long time since we a had a good old fashioned clique accusation!

*cliques

[Blakesboots]

If journalists (especially political) had to divulge their sources, there would be no news.

Information given by sources is 7/10 to get something out there. As I’ve said, with media managers/departments everything is managed!

[Rileybobs]

You are missing the point. The point was someone complaining that his ‘gems’ were not accepted as genuine - I merely pointed out academia to demonstrate even qualified experts rely on sources to quantify their arguments, to validate their claims.

Some poster will claim anything is from ‘inside’, others you can normally judge by their post history as to reliability.

Well he complained that his posts were deleted. Judging from burnley1989’s posting history I’d have no reason at all to disbelieve any ‘inside info’ he shared. But yes, I agree with the rest of your post.

[Blakesboots]

You are missing the point. The point was someone complaining that his ‘gems’ were not accepted as genuine - I merely pointed out academia to demonstrate even qualified experts rely on sources to quantify their arguments, to validate their claims.

Some poster will claim anything is from ‘inside’, others you can normally judge by their post history as to reliability.

I see some of the point you’re making. Yet, having written academic reports through to MA I don’t see the relevance of a piece of gossip/information and citing/quoting another academic.

Should we start peer reviewed gossip to ensure the validity?

[Jakubclaret]

I don’t think there’s a fan out there that wasn’t happy with the money we got for a player on the wain.

Yes but that money wasn’t invested back in it’s entirety, it’s all good & well if the money is utilised towards the betterment of the club if it’s just spent towards debt repayments & funding somebody’s acquisition because they didn’t pledge the money upfront in the first place, it makes no odds if it’s 25m or he went for 250m the money isn’t there to be seen.

[Blakesboots]

Not if the poster is proven to be credible. Tony doesn’t share his sources when he shares information.

This! And he shouldn’t as that might and likely would break the relationship!

[Vino blanco]

Newcastle winning 2 nil at Norwich, so good decisions by Eddie Howe.

[tiger76]

I don’t think there’s a fan out there that wasn’t happy with the money we got for a player on the wain.

Exactly! and he's hardly ripping it up on Tyneside is he, 2 in 14 with 1 of those a penalty, plus he clearly wanted away so why keep an unhappy player who doesn't want to stay.

[taio]

Yes but that money wasn’t invested back in it’s entirety, it’s all good & well if the money is utilised towards the betterment of the club if it’s just spent towards debt repayments & funding somebody’s acquisition because they didn’t pledge the money upfront in the first place, it makes no odds if it’s 25m or he went for 250m the money isn’t there to be seen.

It's in our interests for the debts to be serviced and ultimately repaid. Careful balancing will be needed.

[RVclaret]

Yes but that money wasn’t invested back in it’s entirety, it’s all good & well if the money is utilised towards the betterment of the club if it’s just spent towards debt repayments & funding somebody’s acquisition because they didn’t pledge the money upfront in the first place, it makes no odds if it’s 25m or he went for 250m the money isn’t there to be seen.

So just to clarify, you’ve got inside info on the clubs account / bank to knowing where that money is? I’ll admit I don’t, but I can just go off the fact they had a close to £10m deal done for Orsic which Zagreb pulled the plug on at the last minute, not the clubs fault. That suggests to me they WERE prepared to reinvest the money. But perhaps you have inside info / are the club accountant so you’d know more in that case.

[elwaclaret]

I don’t mind being called out, but the nastiness that comes out from posters is really not okay. Some of it can be disgusting some of it is just funny.

There is a feeling of a number of ‘cliques’ within the board. Those cliques are very protective of their thoughts/processes

The club is trying lots of ways to engage with fans, it’s not always the way the older fans want.

Could not agree more. I don’t buy the ‘clique’ thing, for my own reasons. Without going into specifics Tony and I have known each other since he managed me for Junior Clarets, we share a mutual respect (in the main) but have often struggled to be in the same room for years at a time, for various reasons. I know Tony has some very good friends on here, but I remain very sceptical (knowing some of moderators) that there is any ‘clique’.