Should Newcastle Have Gone After Jimmy Bullard?

We know a lot of Newcastle fans were surprised when the transfer of Fulham’s Jimmy Bullard, for £5M, went though smoothly yesterday, when Jimmy signed along the dotted line for Hull City.


Jimmy Bullard – went to Hull City yesterday for £5M

We thought that Joe Kinnear didn’t rate the player, because he’s been wanting away from Fulham for some time, and of Newcastle had wanted him we could have been in there in early January.

We think Joe has to be careful about getting players that can do the job for us through the end of this season, and players who can do the job long term, and at 30 uea5rs old  Jimmy would not be one for the future, although he should be able to play a good 5 years yet.

We have to day we’re a bit surprised because Jimmy has played extremely well these last two seasons, and Fabio Capello has even called him in to the England squad.

Stephane Mbia is a good player, but at 22 years old he’s not proven in the Premier League, and is apparently twice the price of Jimmy, and you know exactly what you’re getting from Bullard, who can perform better than most in the Premiership, and is a box to box midfielder, in the same vein as Joey Barton.

Add to that his fighting qualities, and he would have soon been a crowd favorite on Tyneside.

But in today’s Newcastle Journal, the player was said to be looking for a four-year contract on wages of more than £50K a week, a figure Newcastle did not want to meet, with their wage bill far too high already.

It must still have been tempting for Kinnear, because we think Jimmy’s transfer to Tyneside would have been well received by most fans, after all he played a huge part in keeping Fulham in the Premier League at the end of last season, with some sterling displays of guts and skill.

We can solve the wage bill problem big time in the summer by not renewing the contracts for Viduka, Smith and Cacapa, and with Michael Owen also leaving that could amount to a savings of £270K week in wages if those four all leave. That’s £14M a year in savings.

The statements of the financials from the Newcastle club basically show that Ashley has wiped out the debt, so we look good from that viewpoint,  but we still have a mismatch in that we are spending more than we are bringing in, and the biggest expense out of whack seems to be the wage bill.

Of course we’d need to bring other players in to replace the above four, but they’re likely to be younger and on lower wages.

And since Joe passed on Jimmy Bullard, we can only assume that Joe has better options on players in central midfield, who will be coming to the club in the next 9 days. 😀

Comments welcome.

50 comments so far

  • Toon_Sydney

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:01 AM

    Comment #1


    1. WANTED 50K A WEEK


  • Toonkistan

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:03 AM

    Comment #2

    Ed…the answer is NO…..should go for the brum lad…..

  • Nenad

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:06 AM

    Comment #3

    “have gone”… It’s past man. Eho cares now.

    Besides, he is a tossa.

  • Mickalonius

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:07 AM

    Comment #4

    Hope your right Ed! Also hope that things happen this week…

  • Darling27

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:14 AM

    Comment #5


  • Toon Graeme

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:18 AM

    Comment #6

    Too expensive for us at the moment. Think we should shelf all the high earning sicknotes + MO will be off so thats more cash saved and think we will rebuild in the Summer – god willing in the prem.

    Not bothered about Bullard TBH – but we need signings before the end of the month.

  • Sharrow

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:22 AM

    Comment #7

    Morning All

    I agree with Ed, not one for the future but could have been great over the next two and a half seasons – wherever we end up.

    Anyway, I can’t help but notice that the KK plan to sign hungry players on the fringe of the England Team for the First Team is pretty much what Martin o’Neil is doing at Villa. That approach coupled with the Ashley plan to recruit young talent would have been a very powerful combination.

    Yet Ashley simply wouldn’t let KK lead. Remember the story of how Wise derrided KK in meetings over KKs desire to partner Heskey withg Owen. I find that all truly bizarre from both a footballing and business management perspective. It represents (yet another) enormous missed opportunity for the Toon – on a par with Bobby Robson not taking over in 1997….

    What I do thank Ashley for is paying off the debt. The finances look terrifying and a goodly portion of that is down to the last splurge of FFS and Sam Alladyce. The wages Smith and Cacapa are on are, frankly, insane.

    I am going to have to find something REALLY REALLY absorbing for the next ten days to take me away from transfer news………..

  • babadin

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:23 AM

    Comment #8

    Hi all, 1st time I’m posting!

    I’ve been reading for a while and some interesting comments. With regardsd to Bullard thanks but no thanks!

    As for Owen possibly going to Villa, I’m 50-50 about it. Would like to know your thoughts?

  • Sharrow

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM

    Comment #9

    What do people think of the paper talk about MON wanting Owen for Villa this window?

    Player exchange + cash?
    Save the wages but miss the goals?
    What do people think?

  • joonzy

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:25 AM

    Comment #10

    Barton is back fit now so it’s an attacking CM we need. Hull will regret paying him that money for such a long period. We are quite desperate for a LB, a creative CM first and foremost. If there is still some money then CB and striker needs looking at for reinforcements but i’d be delighted with a LB and a really good CM. Personally i’d go for Nicky Shorey as he’s pretty solid. May even get him on loan with a view to permanent. For CM i’d try and get Michael Johnson. I just hope that we don’t sell Shay but if we do i’d insist that either Johnson or Ireland are part of the deal.

  • Jan Stavik

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:27 AM

    Comment #11

    No, we don’t need players of Bullard-standard. Soon to be 30, 5m in fee and almost 50k a week is way too much for players like him.

    Better players should be the priority, I wouldn’t mind us singing van Bommel for free in the summer (Bosman) simply because he’s a far better players even if he’s 31.

  • Turkish Magpie

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:30 AM

    Comment #12

    Why is knowone looking at RB?

    we’ve a CB (Taylor)and a LB(Edgar) playing there!

  • bettyswollocks

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:34 AM

    Comment #13

    turkish – edgar is a CB as well

  • craig s chisholm

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:34 AM

    Comment #14

    i see that lovenkrands scored 18 goals in his last year a rangers,, thats what we need, them goals would win us games.

  • The Real Entertainers

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:35 AM

    Comment #15

    I believe his wages alone, were the reason we didnt go for Bullard.

    Ashley is trying to reduce the wage bill and knows he can get players in younger and cheaper in the wage department, even if we have to pay out more in the transfer!

  • Spartan

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:38 AM

    Comment #16

    I’m obviously the only one to think so
    but I think we should have got Bullard and also Heskey. I think Guthrie and Barton will be a good central pairing, and Joans and Duff for the wings but that doesn’t leave much (Zog Butt Geremi). Zog’s OK if he wants to stay and play butthe other 2 are past it. All our strikers get injured easily so Heskey would be usefull. But like everyone else I think priority is defence (Enrique is useless) and I’m not convinced with Colloccini (and don’t have any confidence in Taylor or Edgar).

  • Turkish Magpie

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:40 AM

    Comment #17

    Exactly bettyswollocks!

  • Icelandic magpie

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:45 AM

    Comment #18

    No. He’s to similar to Barton. We need someone who can add some flair to our midfield and who is willing to take the ball and create something rather than bass the ball back to the defence or to the flanks. We NEVER create anything through the middle of the pitch.

  • waddler

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:57 AM

    Comment #19

    No, he’s too old and wanted 50K a week.
    Go for young up and coming players to encourage the academy boys.
    We simply must send a message out to the top kids around the world that Newcastle are serious about giving them a chance to play at the top level.

  • azim

    Jan 24, 2009 at 10:58 AM

    Comment #20

    wonder how fulham is going to cope with his absence?

  • J

    Jan 24, 2009 at 11:00 AM

    Comment #21

    If its a choice between a:

    30 yr old, who will only do a job for us for 2 years max AND having 50k a week


    a 22 Yr old who could pottentially go up tons in price and be a hit for only 25k a week.


    Not really a hard choice.

    GET M’BIA!!!!!!!!!!

  • bro56

    Jan 24, 2009 at 11:02 AM

    Comment #22

    hes just an uglier Robbie savage, horrible player. good for 10mins on match of the day.. not what we need..

  • Ross

    Jan 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM

    Comment #23

    i’d have loved to have seen bullard at the toon, but can fully understand why we didnt press on to try and sign him. As it has already been said the wage bill is high enough, and bullard was wanting alot with regards to his age and how long he has left in the tank. We’re desperate for numbers though. We just dont have the bodies.

  • Tom

    Jan 24, 2009 at 11:18 AM

    Comment #24

    No. Too old, wanted too much for wages.

  • crazydave

    Jan 24, 2009 at 11:18 AM

    Comment #25

    I think there is a rat away with this transfer, I would have thought there would have been a few teams in for Bullard, not just Hull, and it seem to go through very quickly. Just my thoughts anybody else think its a bit fishy?

  • craig s chisholm

    Jan 24, 2009 at 11:22 AM

    Comment #26

    too old and too expensive – in case anyone has forgotten, for some reason our wage bill has increased by a huge amount even though we have sold and released stacks of expensive players – i just cant work it out but there you go. we cant afford anyone on more than 3 quid a week.

  • craig s chisholm

    Jan 24, 2009 at 11:23 AM

    Comment #27

    i think ashley paid himself a 30 million salary and thats why it looks liek we made nothing. anyone and everyone knows figures can by made to look like anything you want them to. i still think he is making loads.

  • GeordieJayne

    Jan 24, 2009 at 11:39 AM

    Comment #28

    Regarding reducing the wage bill.

    Since the accounts were done have we not already sold a number of players ie Emre, Milner and co so the wage bill is already reduced.

    Why dont we just sell all of our players and just play the youth.

    Selling our players is suicide at the moment, we need every man and their dog to help us stay up

  • Davy Craig

    Jan 24, 2009 at 11:39 AM

    Comment #29

    This is a difficult one as Jimmy Bullard is proven in the Premiership and could have been the creative force we need in midfield – NOW not for the future! However, wages and a 4 year contract were more than likely the reason we didn’t go for him.

    I hope I’m wrong but I can see us getting no one at all in this window – the deals should have been just about done for the opening of the window with players coming in straight away. It just shows how shoddy things have become.

    I just feel sick at the minute. 🙁

  • GeordieJayne

    Jan 24, 2009 at 11:40 AM

    Comment #30

    craig figures can indeed be massaged. At least that is what Cashley is saying Fred Shepherd did.

  • Davy Craig

    Jan 24, 2009 at 11:40 AM

    Comment #31

    GeordieJayne – I totally agree!

  • magforlife

    Jan 24, 2009 at 11:48 AM

    Comment #32

    Theres something not right about this transfer, Bullard moved from Wigan as he was desperately homesick for London but now ends up at Hull? He is a game changing player on his day but 5 million?If he had been on offer for a small fee he would have been good value but if Hull keep spending like this they will end up potless like us.

  • workyticket

    Jan 24, 2009 at 11:50 AM

    Comment #33

    craig s chisholm // Jan 24, 2009 at 11:23 AM

    “i think ashley paid himself a 30 million salary and thats why it looks liek we made nothing.”

    No he didn’t Craig, you’re just making stuff up to make Ashley look bad again. I’ve read the accounts, and one of the main reasons why we’re losing so much money is because Fat Fred (and Fat Sam) bought a load of old has beens with no resale value on excessive wages. Keegan wanted to continue this so that’s why he left. We have a wages to turnover ratio of 73% when it needs to be 60% or lower.

  • simon376

    Jan 24, 2009 at 12:01 PM

    Comment #34

    Yeah we didn’t bring any ‘old has beens’ who might have done a job for a couple of years for us, we brought in a couple of good players who are still adapting, a couple of young players who look good and a couple of others who are shocking and look where we are. If only Keegan had been able to bring in those players.

  • joonzy

    Jan 24, 2009 at 12:11 PM

    Comment #35

    I think at 2.5 million and 30k a week people would have said that Bullard would have been a sound addition. To be honest though I’m pleased we didn’t pay over the odds. Hull however will say that if they stay up he was worth 10 million and 100k a week. Relegation from the Prem is financial suicide. Hull at least have made a statement of their intent. If we sign 2 or 3 quality players before the window closes then we will have done too but if not then I think our intentions will have been shown in a very different light. The situation is retrievable at NUFC but we have to start somewhere. Just 1 good signing to lift the mood, a CM who can create and make us play. 10 million is enough to find a player like that so hopefully we can do it. I keep hearing JFK say he’s waiting for an answer from clubs regarding offers we have made. That’s utter rubbish. Either they accept it or reject it. I worry that the truth is that these offers are fictional and we haven’t offered money for anyone. We have just over a week to prove we are a club with a future or not. Our biggest game is just around the corner, 2 defeats to the mackems is unthinkable.

  • Chris G

    Jan 24, 2009 at 12:21 PM

    Comment #36

    waddler // Jan 24, 2009 at 10:57 AM

    No, he’s too old and wanted 50K a week.
    Go for young up and coming players to encourage the academy boys.
    We simply must send a message out to the top kids around the world that Newcastle are serious about giving them a chance to play at the top level.

    Good point, but I don’t think it will ever happen while JK is in charge. He always choses his under-performing favourites, and never gives the kids a chance.

  • workyticket

    Jan 24, 2009 at 12:25 PM

    Comment #37

    simon376 // Jan 24, 2009 at 12:01 PM

    “…If only Keegan had been able to bring in those players…”

    We’d be an even bigger basket case than Leeds Simon. That’s why Fat Freddy and Hall ran away, clutching their huge dividends.

  • Ericles

    Jan 24, 2009 at 12:26 PM

    Comment #38

    No. Not a future prospect. A journeyman. Not the sort of quality for NUFC.

  • Jan Stavik

    Jan 24, 2009 at 12:57 PM

    Comment #39

    Good, then we close the case and agree that it was okay that Newcastle didn’t get Bullard.

    We urgently need a left back and a central midfielder. Now its one week left of the transfer window and we have two games during that week.

    I struggle to see that we can bring in more than maybe one or two players in such a short time, lets see… But don’t be surprised if we end up with only Løvenkrands this window.

  • shearer4pm

    Jan 24, 2009 at 1:10 PM

    Comment #40

    get onyewu back!!!!! 😛


You must log in to post a comment.