Newcastle United 2015-16 season

[Day]

McClaren didn't take us to the next level, mid table and 3rd is pretty much the same thing.

Plus he spent loads of money to get us to 3rd which was no improvement, and don't forget it was Nigel's team so we have to credit him for assembling the team.

I know, doesn't make sense to me either.

By the way is Clough still taking credit for Burton's results still now they are in League 1?

 

[Mostyn6]

I'm assuming you know the answer to your question so why not answer it...

With loans fees, I'm guessing a pretty penny.

not at all. No fee for youth loans, like Wisdom. Bamford came later. You'd probably find he spent f all. 

He probably spent more from the time when Derby were riding high and clear at the top to a few months later when we were playing like a league two side and sitting in eighth.

That's not your original argument though. You implied he only achieved success from spending loads of money, which is bull-sausage.

[mcsilks]

McClaren didn't take us to the next level, mid table and 3rd is pretty much the same thing.

Plus he spent loads of money to get us to 3rd which was no improvement, and don't forget it was Nigel's team so we have to credit him for assembling the team.

I know, doesn't make sense to me either.

By the way is Clough still taking credit for Burton's results still now they are in League 1?

 

Cut this obsession you have with Clough would you or just get a bed together.

[Anon]

The "McClaren was always going to leave" conspiracy theories read like the incoherent ramblings of people who believe the moon landings were faked. Was he interested in the Newcastle job? Of course he was, but you realise that it isn't out of the ordinary for players and managers to be tempted by bigger clubs in higher leagues. The only thing anyone could be legitimately angry about is the possibility that he was stringing us along over the summer with the idea that he would somehow force Derby to sack him so Newcastle would avoid having to pay compensation. Well, his evil master plan of insisting he wanted to remain Derby manager worked wonders as we handed him his P45.

So let's say all of that speculative nonsense is true and the board felt that he couldn't be trusted. Why not tell us? If the relationship with McClaren had really deteriorated to such a point, why would they protect him?

[Mostyn6]

Quite a lot I'd assume. He brought in Dawkins, Wisdom, Keane and Cisse over that time. The key point I'd make though is that he took over a very capable squad early in the season. He got Martin, Russell, Eustace, Grant and Forsyth early in their Derby days, as well as an already strong squad. 

Equally, "14th to 4th" is meaningless regardless of the time of the season as position change to performance is much more complex than can be summed up like that. 

In any case personally I feel he did very well to get such a performance out of the club over that time, but to reiterate my point from last season, I felt he bred a culture of bottling it, as demonstrated by the team failing every time an achievement was there to take. We were incapable over his time of making either the top two ours, of putting the game to bed at Wembley when we were in control, and ultimately even holding onto a playoff place last year. Like a marathon runner who gets vertigo seeing the finish line. 

Overall though, he has been our best manager in a long time, and his time here will be fondly remembered, regardless of how it ended. That all said, my own feelings on his departure and how he handled it will admittedly mean I'll crack a smile if Newcastle are in trouble this season, but to be honest I wouldn't wish that on him or the club. I hope he does well there and gets the recognition in the top division he deserves.

glad your last paragraph was what it was, but I don't agree that the jump from 14th to 4th was meaningless.

If you cast your mind back, that run put us on the map. Top of the European form and passing charts, scoring shedloads of high quality goals, and bringing the fans and sponsors back in droves. The allround mood changed as a result of that surge up the table.

[Day]

 

Cut this obsession you have with Clough would you or just get a bed together.

Wouldn't want to share a bed with him, would end up bringing Crosby and Garner with him, not sure we would all fit in

[LesterRam]

Wouldn't want to share a bed with him, would end up bringing Crosby and Garner with him, not sure we would all fit in

no, but like to try you mucky bugger..

[Albert]

glad your last paragraph was what it was, but I don't agree that the jump from 14th to 4th was meaningless.

If you cast your mind back, that run put us on the map. Top of the European form and passing charts, scoring shedloads of high quality goals, and bringing the fans and sponsors back in droves. The allround mood changed as a result of that surge up the table.

The statement "jump from 14th to 4th" is a meaningless one, as it's poorly defined and offers little to no information. 32 points in his first 12 games however speaks volumes of his impact. It's just the way you tried to put it into context that was pretty wishy washy. 

[Albert]

The "McClaren was always going to leave" conspiracy theories read like the incoherent ramblings of people who believe the moon landings were faked. Was he interested in the Newcastle job? Of course he was, but you realise that it isn't out of the ordinary for players and managers to be tempted by bigger clubs in higher leagues. The only thing anyone could be legitimately angry about is the possibility that he was stringing us along over the summer with the idea that he would somehow force Derby to sack him so Newcastle would avoid having to pay compensation. Well, his evil master plan of insisting he wanted to remain Derby manager worked wonders as we handed him his P45.

So let's say all of that speculative nonsense is true and the board felt that he couldn't be trusted. Why not tell us? If the relationship with McClaren had really deteriorated to such a point, why would they protect him?

How is conspiracy anything?

The facts are:

- Newcastle wanted him

- We finished 8th

- McClaren had the meeting with the owners

- He was sacked

- He went to Newcastle

We have nothing more solid than that to work off. Unless you can demonstrate some inconsistency with the theory that McClaren was sacked for not committing the club for the 2015/16 season in the required way at the meeting, then all your post becomes is meaningless waffle. 

There is nothing wrong with the idea that Newcastle didn't want to pay compensation and were as such playing the waiting game to force our hand. At the time McClaren declined the role, he declined it with the risk of a relegation on his CV, once the season was over they didn't come back for him until he left us. It is completely reasonable to think this was a ploy, and the actions of the board are entirely consistent with this. 

[Anon]

not at all. No fee for youth loans, like Wisdom. Bamford came later. You'd probably find he spent f all. 

That's not your original argument though. You implied he only achieved success from spending loads of money, which is bull-sausage.

I though this too, but there's another thread where people went digging through our accounts and found an outlay in fees of around 10 million under McClaren. I don't understand how this is possible because that sum doesn't seem to correlate with the players brought in, but since nowadays every fee is undisclosed and we're never told if loan fees are involved I give up trying to understand.

[Anon]

How is conspiracy anything?

The facts are:

- Newcastle wanted him

- We finished 8th

- McClaren had the meeting with the owners

- He was sacked

- He went to Newcastle

We have nothing more solid than that to work off. Unless you can demonstrate some inconsistency with the theory that McClaren was sacked for not committing the club for the 2015/16 season in the required way at the meeting, then all your post becomes is meaningless waffle. 

Why the hell should I have to prove a negative? It's your theory, so you provide proof that's the reason he was sacked. As I said, the Derby board didn't see fit to mention any allegation of this nature after the sacking. So show me where this idea has come from.

There is nothing wrong with the idea that Newcastle didn't want to pay compensation and were as such playing the waiting game to force our hand. At the time McClaren declined the role, he declined it with the risk of a relegation on his CV, once the season was over they didn't come back for him until he left us. It is completely reasonable to think this was a ploy, and the actions of the board are entirely consistent with this. 

Again, I'd struggle to describe remaining in the job as a "ploy". Show me what McClaren did to force the board's hand, because as far as the evidence is concerned he said he wanted to remain in the post.

[Albert]

Why the hell should I have to prove a negative? It's your theory, so you provide proof that's the reason he was sacked. As I said, the Derby board didn't see fit to mention any allegation of this nature after the sacking. So show me where this idea has come from.

Again, I'd struggle to describe remaining in the job as a "ploy". Show me what McClaren did to force the board's hand, because as far as the evidence is concerned he said he wanted to remain in the post.

You are not being asked to prove a negative, you are being asked to demonstrate what you are saying is the truth. What we know is that he was sacked, we have literally no idea of what went on in that meeting. The club did not specify that he was sacked for finishing 8th. 

Again, you can have a self consistent theory that is lacking the evidence to test it. The theory is just as valid as "sacked for 8th" however. Remaining in the post and waiting for Newcastle's move is a ploy, and if the board were in a position where they felt that he would ultimately leave, and Newcastle would get their man, while they'd miss out on their's, could ultimately force them to sack him (as happened). That would remove the issue of Newcastle paying compensation, which they may not have been willing to, at least not so far out from the next season, when their own season was now over. 

[Anon]

You are not being asked to prove a negative, you are being asked to demonstrate what you are saying is the truth. What we know is that he was sacked, we have literally no idea of what went on in that meeting. The club did not specify that he was sacked for finishing 8th. 

You are literally asking me to prove that something people have assumed was said behind closed doors wasn't said at all.

Again, you can have a self consistent theory that is lacking the evidence to test it. The theory is just as valid as "sacked for 8th" however. Remaining in the post and waiting for Newcastle's move is a ploy, and if the board were in a position where they felt that he would ultimately leave, and Newcastle would get their man, while they'd miss out on their's, could ultimately force them to sack him (as happened). That would remove the issue of Newcastle paying compensation, which they may not have been willing to, at least not so far out from the next season, when their own season was now over. 

So, what would you have had McClaren do? Short of issuing a statement denouncing Newcastle. A ploy suggests some kind of pro active plotting on his part, but his role is entirely passive.

[Day]

How is conspiracy anything?

The facts are:

- Newcastle wanted him

- We finished 8th

- McClaren had the meeting with the owners

- He was sacked

- He went to Newcastle

We have nothing more solid than that to work off. Unless you can demonstrate some inconsistency with the theory that McClaren was sacked for not committing the club for the 2015/16 season in the required way at the meeting, then all your post becomes is meaningless waffle. 

There is nothing wrong with the idea that Newcastle didn't want to pay compensation and were as such playing the waiting game to force our hand. At the time McClaren declined the role, he declined it with the risk of a relegation on his CV, once the season was over they didn't come back for him until he left us. It is completely reasonable to think this was a ploy, and the actions of the board are entirely consistent with this. 

More solid facts to go on, all our cdm's and strikers were injured for the run in. He turned Newcastle down in January. We had a new investor come into the club that was looking to increase his stake and in the summer eventually took over the club.

It's fairly common that a new owner comes in will want his own man in charge but I'm straying away from facts here so I'll also add some opinions now in response to your theory. Newcastle wanted McClaren in January, compensation would have had to be paid there was no way around this, they wasn't playing the waiting game, they wanted him. Having spent £50m this summer the money was there to get their man.

McClaren refused as he felt he had a job to finish at Derby which he had and who wouldn't want to finish a promotion job off, he could have easily walked away, managers have done in the past. Clough walked away from taking Burton into the league to join us in a right mess. (Obsessed I know but great example). Nothing about being scared of a relegation on his CV. If he was scared about his CV he would never have took the England job. 

Newcastle with no backup plan decided to stick with Carver, look for other candidates and wait until the summer. Sensible move maybe not with the league position but if you don't feel like the right man for the club is available you don't appoint any Tom Dick or Harry.

Derby have a meeting with McClaren, already a plan in place to replace McClaren with Clement, use the not happy with the end to the season line, McClaren argues he was crippled with injuries, Derby argue you should have had a backup plan. Things get heated, this isn't going to work out, sorry, bye. Didn't Clement slip up saying he had spoken to the club a few months prior? Maybe wrong on that. All that with Rush with a sun tan, pics out there taken in Spain. 

Why would Derby miss out on compensation if they thought Newcastle were still trying to unsettle him to move, why wouldn't Derby contact Newcastle and say look you want McClaren, we want this much, take him and we all move on?

Derby wasn't interested in all that as Clement was their man. They wanted him in early, get the signings in nice and early and time to work with the squad.

Newcastle can't believe their luck, the number 1 target they wanted is now available, unattached and no compensation what a Brucey bonus!

Just another theory, I could probably type out another 10 theories but this is the one I believe the most. 

[Albert]

More solid facts to go on, all our cdm's and strikers were injured for the run in. He turned Newcastle down in January. We had a new investor come into the club that was looking to increase his stake and in the summer eventually took over the club.

It's fairly common that a new owner comes in will want his own man in charge but I'm straying away from facts here so I'll also add some opinions now in response to your theory. Newcastle wanted McClaren in January, compensation would have had to be paid there was no way around this, they wasn't playing the waiting game, they wanted him. Having spent £50m this summer the money was there to get their man.

McClaren refused as he felt he had a job to finish at Derby which he had and who wouldn't want to finish a promotion job off, he could have easily walked away, managers have done in the past. Clough walked away from taking Burton into the league to join us in a right mess. (Obsessed I know but great example). Nothing about being scared of a relegation on his CV. If he was scared about his CV he would never have took the England job. 

Newcastle with no backup plan decided to stick with Carver, look for other candidates and wait until the summer. Sensible move maybe not with the league position but if you don't feel like the right man for the club is available you don't appoint any Tom Dick or Harry.

Derby have a meeting with McClaren, already a plan in place to replace McClaren with Clement, use the not happy with the end to the season line, McClaren argues he was crippled with injuries, Derby argue you should have had a backup plan. Things get heated, this isn't going to work out, sorry, bye. Didn't Clement slip up saying he had spoken to the club a few months prior? Maybe wrong on that. All that with Rush with a sun tan, pics out there taken in Spain. 

Why would Derby miss out on compensation if they thought Newcastle were still trying to unsettle him to move, why wouldn't Derby contact Newcastle and say look you want McClaren, we want this much, take him and we all move on?

Derby wasn't interested in all that as Clement was their man. They wanted him in early, get the signings in nice and early and time to work with the squad.

Newcastle can't believe their luck, the number 1 target they wanted is now available, unattached and no compensation what a Brucey bonus!

Just another theory, I could probably type out another 10 theories but this is the one I believe the most. 

There are a number of possible theories that fit what happened. But that's the point, you can't take any single one as gospel, yet a lot of people want to blindly defend McClaren in this whole situation. I'm grateful of what he did here, but for whatever the reason, the way he left was poor, and in the end he's at Newcastle. People will take from that what they will. 

I would add though that Derby being in discussion with other coaches prior to an official approach being made is unusual. There was a strong feeling that McClaren was going to leave, and that is entirely consistent with Derby looking into alternatives. 

As for the compensation, we don't know the terms of McClaren's termination. If or when that comes out, it may well give us more information as to what happened. If he did end up leaving with no or minimal compensation, it would potentially suggest that something was negotiated with him on the idea that he was off to Newcastle. 

You are literally asking me to prove that something people have assumed was said behind closed doors wasn't said at all.

So, what would you have had McClaren do? Short of issuing a statement denouncing Newcastle. A ploy suggests some kind of pro active plotting on his part, but his role is entirely passive.

No, I'm asking you to demonstrate why you think he was sacked for coming 8th. We know he was sacked, we know we came 8th, the connection is no more solid than the connection with the Newcastle speculation however. The club didn't give either as the reason when he left. The only thing we were told was that "The decision follows a thorough review of the 2014/15 season by the club’s Board of Directors." which could mean literally anything. 

Again, you are making an awful lot of assumptions. We don't know what happened and what was said in the meeting with the owners. That's as far as we know. 

[Inverurie Ram]

He doesn't even know where the door is.

 

[Anon]

No, I'm asking you to demonstrate why you think he was sacked for coming 8th. We know he was sacked, we know we came 8th, the connection is no more solid than the connection with the Newcastle speculation however. The club didn't give either as the reason when he left. The only thing we were told was that "The decision follows a thorough review of the 2014/15 season by the club’s Board of Directors." which could mean literally anything. 

Again, you are making an awful lot of assumptions. We don't know what happened and what was said in the meeting with the owners. That's as far as we know. 

I find it baffling that you expect me to prove another theory in order to disprove one that you have provided no evidence for.

So how about this, I think McClaren was sacked because Mel Morris and Paul Clement are part of the lizard Illuminati. Unless you can conclusively prove why McClaren was really sacked then, by your logic, my theory is just as valid as any other postulated.

[Chris Mills]

Hope he takes them down so we can wave on the way up!

[Albert]

I find it baffling that you expect me to prove another theory in order to disprove one that you have provided no evidence for.

So how about this, I think McClaren was sacked because Mel Morris and Paul Clement are part of the lizard Illuminati. Unless you can conclusively prove why McClaren was really sacked then, by your logic, my theory is just as valid as any other postulated.

You have provided no more evidence for your theory than I have for mine.

[AndyinLiverpool]

I am quite happy to see Newcastle fail but only part of that is to do with McClaren.

Mostly it is to do with their graceless fans, their campaigns, their websites etc.

Oh how Pardew must be enjoying this.