Football 2025-26

[charlierc]

I couldn't watch the England-Italy semi tonight as I had another commitment but good to see that spirit of finding a way to get the job done still works. 1-0 wins all the way just wouldn't make for a good story right?

[charlierc]

4 hours ago, thetime said:

Liverpool spending some serious cash this summer, Isak next? 

If they sign Ekiteke, which looks like it should be confirmed soon enough, probably not. Would've thought as suggested that they might now look at central defence as that seems to be a bit of a thin area. Maybe a left winger as well if Diaz leaves.

 

Feels like a few troublemakers are trying to will Isak moving to a Saudi club, which really would wind up some of our more emotional fans I daresay, but consensus from the NE media is that they think he'll stick around. I'm not sure on best other options tbf - like Liverpool, Arsenal are close to another striker, Spurs could afford it but seem to be looking elsewhere, Chelsea, Man City, PSG, Real Madrid & Bayern Munich don't seem to be in the market for new strikers, Barcelona barely have any money and are splurging it on Marcus Rashford anyway, and beyond that - who knows?

 

One suspects any new deal offered for Isak will cost quite the bomb, mind. Same with one for Livramento given Man City had been sniffing around him. Guess that's the growing pains of trying to compete with clubs with enormous bank accounts.

 

Can't help but think we need more of a recruitment department than leaving it to Howe & his nephew, mind.

[rock_on]

The women's football was gripping stuff last night but only attracted a peak of 9.5m in the end. It's a shame that women's football at major tournaments doesn't galvanise the public the same way the men's tournaments do. There will be group stage matches at the World Cup that will attract that sort of peak so it seem's a bit sad women's football hasn't cut through the same way. 

[rock_on]

53 minutes ago, rock_on said:

The women's football was gripping stuff last night but only attracted a peak of 9.5m in the end. It's a shame that women's football at major tournaments doesn't galvanise the public the same way the men's tournaments do. There will be group stage matches at the World Cup that will attract that sort of peak so it seem's a bit sad women's football hasn't cut through the same way. 

 

Can't edit this post so will reply to it - the peak was actually 10.2m. Better but still millions lower than a men's semi-final would get. (For context the Euro 2024 men's semi-final against the Netherlands peaked at 20.3m). It's a shame women's sport isn't engaging as many viewers as men's sport. We as a society need to do better. 

[thetime]

34 minutes ago, rock_on said:

 

Can't edit this post so will reply to it - the peak was actually 10.2m. Better but still millions lower than a men's semi-final would get. (For context the Euro 2024 men's semi-final against the Netherlands peaked at 20.3m). It's a shame women's sport isn't engaging as many viewers as men's sport. We as a society need to do better. 

 

Women's sport is not as popular as men's, thats just not football. Wimbledon men's final attracting more than double that of the women's final. I think women's football is doing very well, compared to 10 years ago. More tv exposure, higher crowds, higher wages. That being said it cant compete with men's football, it just doesn't hold much interest to the general public. 

 

Personally watched most of the darts last night, turned over for the extra time of the football. Which is the norm for me, unless utd play. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rock_on]

9 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

Women's sport is not as popular as men's, thats just not football. Wimbledon men's final attracting more than double that of the women's final. I think women's football is doing very well, compared to 10 years ago. More tv exposure, higher crowds, higher wages. That being said it cant compete with men's football, it just doesn't hold much interest to the general public. 

 

Personally watched most of the darts last night, turned over for the extra time of the football. Which is the norm for me, unless utd play. 

 

 

It should be though - other than engrained sexism there's no reason the women's game (especially at international tournaments like this) shouldn't be as popular. Yes the situation has improved in recent years to a point but society could still do better in bridging the gap between the men and women's game. The fact 10 million people aren't watching because it's the women when at the end of the day it's still football is a sad indictment of the amount of general sexism in this country. 

[charlierc]

2 hours ago, rock_on said:

The women's football was gripping stuff last night but only attracted a peak of 9.5m in the end. It's a shame that women's football at major tournaments doesn't galvanise the public the same way the men's tournaments do. There will be group stage matches at the World Cup that will attract that sort of peak so it seem's a bit sad women's football hasn't cut through the same way. 

These things take time. It's easy to forget professional women's football was banned in the UK for decades, in which time men's football because enormous, and that even as recently as the 2015 World Cup, it was relegated to BBC3 with piecemeal coverage at best. I think it's great that it's making progress but the goal of parity in popularity will take a very long time. Both this edition and the last Euros getting primetime coverage is only a good thing for that though. 

[lost]

Under 21 final only pulled in 3.7m. Ageism seems to be a bigger issue.

[rock_on]

19 minutes ago, charlierc said:

These things take time. It's easy to forget professional women's football was banned in the UK for decades, in which time men's football because enormous, and that even as recently as the 2015 World Cup, it was relegated to BBC3 with piecemeal coverage at best. I think it's great that it's making progress but the goal of parity in popularity will take a very long time. Both this edition and the last Euros getting primetime coverage is only a good thing for that though. 

 

Yeah having it on BBC1/ITV is definitely a massive result for the women's game, it's also good that even with relatively low viewing figures (especially for non-England matches) neither channel is going to dare to push it back to BBC3/ITV4 for political reasons so it'll get more exposure over the next few major tournaments and hopefully build towards parity. The exposure seems to have helped the women's game as well - I barely remember women's football being talked about at club/international level until the Euros/World Cup got moved to the main channels. I know that's mainly due to the England hosting the last Euros but it's good to see a long term impact from that with women's football much more popular than it once was and the media taking an interest in it. Obviously you can't get away from the fact kick off times have been favourable for them (even the men struggle to get 10m peaks on a weekday daytime kick off at major tournaments). 

 

[thetime]

4 hours ago, rock_on said:

 

Yeah having it on BBC1/ITV is definitely a massive result for the women's game, it's also good that even with relatively low viewing figures (especially for non-England matches) neither channel is going to dare to push it back to BBC3/ITV4 for political reasons so it'll get more exposure over the next few major tournaments and hopefully build towards parity. The exposure seems to have helped the women's game as well - I barely remember women's football being talked about at club/international level until the Euros/World Cup got moved to the main channels. I know that's mainly due to the England hosting the last Euros but it's good to see a long term impact from that with women's football much more popular than it once was and the media taking an interest in it. Obviously you can't get away from the fact kick off times have been favourable for them (even the men struggle to get 10m peaks on a weekday daytime kick off at major tournaments). 

 

 

Its up to the women's game to build on the success of the national team. The domestic attendances are pretty poor, league 1 standard apart from Arsenal. On that basis, the tv figures are very good. 

 

The latest tv contract is 65m compared to the men's 6.7b.

 

The interest just isn’t there 

[pink_triangle]

2 hours ago, thetime said:

 

Its up to the women's game to build on the success of the national team. The domestic attendances are pretty poor, league 1 standard apart from Arsenal. On that basis, the tv figures are very good. 

 

The latest tv contract is 65m compared to the men's 6.7b.

 

The interest just isn’t there 

I am not sure comparison with the men’s game is the best way to judge. The men’s game has had many more years to build up publicity and support. I think instead a better metric is to look what attendances were 10 years ago and I imagine they are significantly up.

[thetime]

Isak is being a bit naughty, doesn't look like he will be a Newcastle player come September. 

 

Perhaps Utd can sign him, with Garnacho part of the deal. Andy Cole/Keith Gillespie vibes. 😃

[rock_on]

3 hours ago, thetime said:

Isak is being a bit naughty, doesn't look like he will be a Newcastle player come September. 

 

Perhaps Utd can sign him, with Garnacho part of the deal. Andy Cole/Keith Gillespie vibes. 😃

 

If he does go he'll be remembered as ungrateful sodbag - he's been practically hero worshipped at Newcastle the whole time he's been here. What more does he want?

[rock_on]

20 hours ago, thetime said:

 

Its up to the women's game to build on the success of the national team. The domestic attendances are pretty poor, league 1 standard apart from Arsenal. On that basis, the tv figures are very good. 

 

The latest tv contract is 65m compared to the men's 6.7b.

 

The interest just isn’t there 

 

The men's game could easily elevate the women's game by playing the women's matches back to back with the men's ones or dedicated two days of the weekend (Fri/Sat) to men's game and women's game (Sun/Mon). It just requires a bit of creativity and less greed in the men's games. 

[thetime]

11 minutes ago, rock_on said:

 

If he does go he'll be remembered as ungrateful sodbag - he's been practically hero worshipped at Newcastle the whole time he's been here. What more does he want?

 

I suppose he wants to play for one of the big clubs, in the hunt for league titles and champions leagues.

 

Which has in the majority, always been the case. You can understand, if it's Liverpool in for him. Wrong way of doing it though. 

Edited July 24, 2025 by thetime

[rock_on]

3 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

I suppose he wants to play for one of the big clubs, in the hunt for league titles and champions leagues.

 

Which has in the majority, always been the case. You can understand, if it's Liverpool in for him. Wrong way of doing it though. 

 

We are a big club though.

[thetime]

41 minutes ago, rock_on said:

 

We are a big club though.

 

You certainly are compared to Brentford. 

[rock_on]

15 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

You certainly are compared to Brentford. 

 

We have one of the most dedicated and largest fanbases in world football, we are a big club compared to any other team.

[charlierc]

5 hours ago, thetime said:

Isak is being a bit naughty, doesn't look like he will be a Newcastle player come September. 

 

Perhaps Utd can sign him, with Garnacho part of the deal. Andy Cole/Keith Gillespie vibes. 😃

Gary Neville suggested this a few months ago and was mocked for it. The idea of Man Utd buying Isak, that is, not the Garnacho sweetener. I wouldn't want him because we have other positions to strengthen rather than left wing, where I think he's best from. 

 

Only wish is to not sell Isak to Liverpool. A club that ironically I thought might try to buy Gordon from us if Luis Diaz went through with his quit threat given they were curious about Gordon's availability last year. PSG could work for Isak imo. But it depends who meets the asking price at the end of the day. 

[charlierc]

1 hour ago, thetime said:

 

You certainly are compared to Brentford. 

Kinda ironically Wissa is doing his own Isak-like protest because he wants to join us. Such is the way this business is conducted I guess. 

[thetime]

10 minutes ago, charlierc said:

Gary Neville suggested this a few months ago and was mocked for it. The idea of Man Utd buying Isak, that is, not the Garnacho sweetener. I wouldn't want him because we have other positions to strengthen rather than left wing, where I think he's best from. 

 

Only wish is to not sell Isak to Liverpool. A club that ironically I thought might try to buy Gordon from us if Luis Diaz went through with his quit threat given they were curious about Gordon's availability last year. PSG could work for Isak imo. But it depends who meets the asking price at the end of the day. 

 

Utd dont have the money, so its wide of the mark. 

[Skip997]

21 minutes ago, charlierc said:

 

Only wish is to not sell Isak to Liverpool. A club that ironically I thought might try to buy Gordon from us if Luis Diaz went through with his quit threat given they were curious about Gordon's availability last year. PSG could work for Isak imo. But it depends who meets the asking price at the end of the day. 

I’d rather stay away from Isak and Gordon, both would be overpriced and I’m not convinced about the latter. Anyway we don’t need attackers we need central defenders. As far as I’m aware we currently only have three 

[lost]

Struggling to work out what the issue is. Newcastle are in the champions league which effectively is the standard big name players demand.

 

Is it the rumoured £300k a week? As Newcastle are supposedly the richest club in the world does that suggest FFP is set up in a way that 4/5 specific clubs will only ever be able to be the ones who sign or hold onto the £300k a week players or what ever the equivalent is in the future?

Edited July 24, 2025 by lost

[charlierc]

1 hour ago, lost said:

Struggling to work out what the issue is. Newcastle are in the champions league which effectively is the standard big name players demand.

 

Is it the rumoured £300k a week? As Newcastle are supposedly the richest club in the world does that suggest FFP is set up in a way that 4/5 specific clubs will only ever be able to be the ones who sign or hold onto the £300k a week players or what ever the equivalent is in the future?

We're not privvy to internal discussions or able to speak to Isak as an individual. But I'm guessing part of it is cash, part of it is thinking of joining a supposedly more prestige club or part of it is that players just like pursuing new challenges and that whole thing about helping develop 'a project' isn't just some recycled claptrap. 

 

Pretty sure we could pay £300,000 a week if we could given other Saudi PiF clubs pay that in the Saudi Pro League but European FFP demands we have to be a big 6 level money making machine to do that. Which is probably where conspiracies about a big 6 cartel start from. 

 

I don't think it helps Newcastle seem quite disorganised. Paul Mitchell was a failure as Sporting Director with no replacement yet sourced, we've had a CEO whose been minimally working for ten months after being diagnosed with cancer yet no word of a replacement despite knowing said CEO needs to leave to prioritise treatment and the chairman is also chair of another 5 Saudi companies but who wants final say. Think the structure needs tweaking.

 

Not helpful is that the journalist who broke this said Isak might leave but also might not, might sign a new contract but also might not and might be actually injured but also might not. The guy should just keep going and say all the other things he might or might not do.

[charlierc]

12 hours ago, Skip997 said:

I’d rather stay away from Isak and Gordon, both would be overpriced and I’m not convinced about the latter. Anyway we don’t need attackers we need central defenders. As far as I’m aware we currently only have three 

Technically 4 if you count Rhys Williams, although I don't think he's played much for Liverpool since the lockdown season in 2021 when everyone else was injured.

 

Indeed the Guardian said as such - their article about Isak seemed to go against the tide by saying that signing Ekiteke means Liverpool feel the priority should now be a defender. Plus you can argue Salah and van Dijk getting a pay rise doesn't exactly free up wage bill space.

 

Begs the question imo if Isak has hindered himself waiting this long to say he might want a move. Arsenal are close to signing Gyokeres, Chelsea just signed two strikers, Spurs could afford him but probably don't have the wage structure, Barcelona just signed Rashford, etc. I'm not saying this as copium but rather wondering if the options for those who can pay 300 grand a week just aren't there in the same way they would've been if this request came a month ago. Well unless he joins a Saudi club or something.