@Carra23@kieolfc We overpaid for Wirtz & Isak. We’d still get a decent fee for Gakpo in Jan or next szn so why gamble by selling one of our best attackers like it’s footy manager? Top clubs sell when a player’s surplus & the replacement’s better. You don’t sell someone starting every game for us
@Carra23@kieolfc Gakpo should only leave if we sign a top RW who’s a guaranteed starter not Sarr or some unproven young prospect. & why sell to City? Weakening ourselves while strengthening a rival is nonsense. It’s the owners getting the £80m not us so stop worrying about it they’re not hard up
@Carra23 Replacements should be phased in before players leave, like Diaz was before Mane. Selling first and hoping the replacement works is an insane gamble for supposedly one of the richest clubs in the world. Why would the owners even take that risk when there’s no need to??
@Carra23 Disappointed with this take. We shouldn’t sell Gakpo when we’re already short in attack by not replacing Salah and Diaz alongside Ekitike being injured. There’s 2 days left what’s the point in panic buying a rw and selling one of our statistically strongest attackers to a rival?
@pythaginboots@Ball_spectator Bit disappointed in this post tbf you’re normally spot on but Van Dijk is still levels above most CB’s let’s not act like he’s finished when he’s still our best CB by a country mile
@pythaginboots@FabrizioRomano Could Abdallah Sima of Brighton not be converted to a striker? Decent goal stats for a lw, strong, tall fast and young. Reminds me of Isak at times when I watch him
@NOT_MOTD Fucking atrocious take. Isak isn’t a Geordie and he’s leaving for a record fee, not for free. Newcastle are shite, like we used to be —selling Coutinho, Suarez, Torres was part of the process. Players leaving is okay if the club gets a massive payout which Newcastle would be 🤦🏻♂️
@Ryan_NUFC94@mattletiss7 You’re wrong. Law 5 says advantage only applies if the team benefits immediately. Once a shot is taken, advantage has been played. The ref can’t then pull it back for a penalty. If the attack breaks down immediately yes but a shot means advantage was given. Simple.
@CharlieFarley_1@AdamCrafton_ You’re wrong. Law 5 says advantage only applies if the team benefits immediately. Once a shot is taken, advantage has been played. The ref can’t then pull it back for a penalty. If the attack breaks down immediately yes but a shot means advantage was given. Simple.