Newcastle Could Get £25M Man On The Cheap Next Month

We have seen the various reports out today – one in the Chronicle – that Newcastle could bring in 28 year-old Brentford playmaker Alan Judge in January for a fraction of the £10M we were willing to pay for him in August.

At that time Newcastle called off the deal when they found out that Alan would not be fit from his double leg fracture until January and the price next month could be £1M or less – maybe only £600K.

That’s because Alan’s contract at the Bees runs out in June.

Saido Berahini – 23 year-old West Brom striker

Another player we could get on the cheap next month after being willing to pay out £25M for him in January is 23 year-old West Brom striker Saido Berahini.

Saido has not played much at all this year dure to injury and a lack of form and he is only just coming back into fitness and first team consideration at the Baggies.

Saido’s case is different from Alan’s because he joined West Brom back in 2004 and came through the Youth Academy there.

That was after he fled his native Burundi as a child with his family, and received political asylum in Birmingham.

So even when his contract runs out next June, West Brom will still be due some compensation so he will not come free even then.

If a transfer fee cannot be worked out in January it will got to a tribunal who will decide how much he’s worth.

But with the lad not playing much at all this year and not showing much form that compensation will be nowhere near £25M.

It will depend on whether Rafa rates the player and Benitez arrived at Newcastle some six weeks after the January transfer window closed.

Saido showed a couple of years ago he can score goals in the Premier League when he hit 20 goals in 45 appearance in the 2014-2015 season.

He has played for all the England Youth sides and in total played 47 times and scored 24 goals in England’s colors, including 11 appearances for the England U21 side scoring 10 goals.

He has never been capped at the full International level, but as we said it will depend on whether Rafa rates him or not as to whether Newcastle are interested next month.

Comments welcome.

30 comments so far

  • G

    Dec 20, 2016 at 10:32 PM

    Comment #1

    I would pass on both to be honest, Judge just hasn’t looked so good to me, ans Berhadino is another one season wonder I reckon.

  • welshgeordie9

    Dec 20, 2016 at 10:37 PM

    Comment #2

    One forward we should try and get in the summer and that’s Charlie Austin, with our creative players he would get us goals,

  • lesh

    Dec 20, 2016 at 10:43 PM

    Comment #3


    Who’s this Charlie Austin then?

  • Rotonda heights

    Dec 20, 2016 at 10:46 PM

    Comment #4


    don’t start ed off again!

  • firebug666

    Dec 20, 2016 at 10:47 PM

    Comment #5

    Back to the Shelvey case:

    When the story broke this is what was said:

    Newcastle United midfielder Jonjo Shelvey could be hit by a lengthy ban after he was charged with using racist language towards an opposition player. Shelvey has not indicated yet whether he will contest the charge, which relates to an incident during Newcastle’s 2-0 home defeat to Wolverhampton Wanderers two months ago.

    The other player involved is thought to have been Wolves’ Moroccan international Romain Saiss, although the abuse was reported by one of his teammates, who claimed there had been racist language used.

    Saiss’ only speaks a small amount of English, but the FA have decided to charge Shelvey after interviewing several Wolves players, who are thought to have given conflicting accounts of the type of insults exchanged.

    However,? all claimed there was at least some reference to Saiss nationality and/or ethnicity during the argument.

    The allegation was made to referee Tim Robinson immediately after the game, but only emerged after the FA had carried out a thorough investigation.

    If found guilty, Shelvey is likely to be hit with a five-game ban, although there will also be huge damage done to his personal reputation given the nature of the offence.


    This bit is very interesting:-

    Saiss’ only speaks a small amount of English, but the FA have decided to charge Shelvey after interviewing several Wolves players, who are thought to have given conflicting accounts of the type of insults exchanged.

    So during the investigation, they didn’t even agree on what was said.

    I find it unbelievable that Shelvey could be found guilty on such evidence. If The wolves players were conflicted in their stories how can the FA find him guilty.

    Not only does it stink, but it lays bare just how pathetic the FA are. So far I have seen nothing that would suggest racism was involved, this is a case of the FA and the panel of idiots again showing the world how out of their depth they are.

    Need to calm down now!

  • Jimmy……Jimmy……Jimmy Smith

    Dec 20, 2016 at 10:49 PM

    Comment #6

    I suppose the squad can cover all positions in the absence of Shelvey and those away at ACON. We do have depth and quality to come in. Anita, Yedlin, Clark, Hayden and Dummet can all cover more than one position, while Gamez, Haidarra and Hanley have all hardly been seen so far, and are capable of filling the breach, and perhaps even excelling. We would still put out an 11 that would be better than the opposition. Good signings would be very welcome, but we aren’t in desperate need.

  • manxpie

    Dec 20, 2016 at 10:51 PM

    Comment #7

    So i wonder what was said to shelvey in saiss’s native tongue that will never be known? I bet it wasn’t all nice and sweet!

  • manxpie

    Dec 20, 2016 at 10:58 PM

    Comment #8

    Plus did they interview several Newcastle players before charging him? Like what you’d normally do in an investigation?
    Load of crap and if I was the club I’d be asking a hell of a lot of questions about the “investigation”

  • firebug666

    Dec 20, 2016 at 11:02 PM

    Comment #9


    From earlier:

    There can be no video or audio evidence against Shelvey relating to the abuse charge, as I have just been watching the highlights of that match.

    The incident was suppose to have happened in the same minute that Anita is being sent off, during the sending off the camera is focused on the ref and Anita, and Shelvey is seen walking out of the picture, no exchanges are on view.

  • firebug666

    Dec 20, 2016 at 11:04 PM

    Comment #10


    It’s all down to hearsay from wolves, and the can’t even agree on what they heard, surly that alone should have the case thrown out.

  • Jimmy……Jimmy……Jimmy Smith

    Dec 20, 2016 at 11:04 PM

    Comment #11

    People remember things differently, and some will have their own agendas. The FA will feel under pressure to punish if there is a clear indication of racial abuse. It’s an awkward situation, but at the end of the day, it would appear that Shelvey did say something untoward, and so some sort of punishment probably appropriate. I suppose if the club does appeal, the intricacies of the case will become more apparent.

  • firebug666

    Dec 20, 2016 at 11:05 PM

    Comment #12

    * they can’t

  • Australian Pie

    Dec 20, 2016 at 11:09 PM

    Comment #13

    If we can bring in Judge for a very small fee then why not? I am sure his wages are not ridiculous playing at Brentford, seems a small outlay for a potentially influential player.

    Berahino is a bit more difficult, if he is interested in getting his career back on track on a good but reasonable wage and we can bring him in for 10mil then again would not be a bad bit of business.

    Because these two are being talked about though I doubt either are in Rafa’s plans, it will be the unknown!

  • firebug666

    Dec 20, 2016 at 11:10 PM

    Comment #14


    If they all give conflicting accounts then which account do you trust?

    I would also ask what did the player say to Shelvey to receive the alleged response?

    And how many ways can you call someone an Arab?

    Especially if the person in question is an Arab, and if that is what he was called.

    It’s all sounds like handbags to be fair, but the wolves players want Shelvey banned, if he is innocent, it a hell of an unjust burden to bare mate.

  • firebug666

    Dec 20, 2016 at 11:13 PM

    Comment #15

    Australian Pie

    Not sure about Judge, but I don’t think Berahino is worth 10m on current form, I would hope Rafa is looking at better players for us, so we can keep them when we go up.

  • Jimmy……Jimmy……Jimmy Smith

    Dec 20, 2016 at 11:15 PM

    Comment #16

    It doesn’t appear to me that he is innocent. The question seems more of the degree of guilt and the appropriateness of the punishment.

  • Essex Geordie Bill

    Dec 20, 2016 at 11:17 PM

    Comment #17

    So I hereby refer back to the paranoid lets nobble their team thinking by the FA.

    One thing I’m curious about is, does the player in question have a strong body odour. If so then it is hardly a insult.

  • firebug666

    Dec 20, 2016 at 11:20 PM

    Comment #18


    It sounds like there was an exchange of words….insults if you like, therefore if one is guilty then both have to be, why then is only Shelvey being charged?

    Shelvey has claimed all the way through this that he is innocent, I choose to believe him, I don’t think he is a racist, nor do I believe he would use racist abuse against a fellow player.

  • firebug666

    Dec 20, 2016 at 11:25 PM

    Comment #19


    Reports suggest that Shelvey is considering appealing the ban and fine, that does not sound like a guilty man, to me he wants to clear his name from the stigma of racist that will following him through his career, and put him under the microscope in every match he plays, he could also kiss any chance of an England call up goodbye.

  • firebug666

    Dec 20, 2016 at 11:28 PM

    Comment #20

    The worst-kept secret in Burnley is out: Joey Barton is returning to the club on a short-term deal, subject to international clearance.

  • Jimmy……Jimmy……Jimmy Smith

    Dec 20, 2016 at 11:32 PM

    Comment #21

    The rub will be that in the exchange, one of countless that occurs in matches, day in, day out all over the world. Shelvey has apparently said something considered beyond the pale. He’s allegedly gone too far, and the FA agrees. The punishment it must be said is not hugely excessive, if the insult was racially based, which really is and rightly should be a big no no. You get 3 for a red, and Shelvey is on 80 000 a week. But of course we don’t know the full ins and outs of it, and we should, because it helps in the public discussion about a sensitive social issue.

  • firebug666

    Dec 20, 2016 at 11:37 PM

    Comment #22


    I agree that until the full facts are known, we are all speculating, I just find it very strange that they find him guilty, when during their investigation the wolves players all gave conflicting accounts.

    I really don’t think he is guilty of racial abuse, but then what do the FA consider racial abuse?

    And what prompted Shelvey to respond?

    We need the facts to know what the FA have based their decision on.

  • Essex Geordie Bill

    Dec 21, 2016 at 12:40 AM

    Comment #23

    I’m sure the question has already been asked but would the evidence stand up in a proper law court.

  • Jimmy……Jimmy……Jimmy Smith

    Dec 21, 2016 at 12:58 AM

    Comment #24

    I don’t know if calling someone a “smelly arab” in the heat of football match should be illegal, but it should be publicly condemned, and I think a ban and fine appropriate, if of course there is compelling evidence that it was actually said. Three witnesses is quite compelling evidence. If the witnesses have colluded and lied, then that surely would be illegal, although frankly a bit fanciful. If an appeal is upheld due to a technicality, it would of course be good for us, but not entirely satisfactory. Far better for Shelvey to sincerely convince that he didn’t say anything untoward.

  • Mister Tuff

    Dec 21, 2016 at 6:17 AM

    Comment #25

    Everything so far about the Shelvey case is speculation. The FA will publish their “written reasons” in due course – which should include all the “evidence”. But do not hold your breath the FA seem to take ages to put stuff in the public domain.

    Comments about man marking Shelvey I agree with – put somebody on him so he does not have time on the ball and he’ll not be spraying passes all over the place.

  • lochinvar

    Dec 21, 2016 at 6:28 AM

    Comment #26

    The problem with the FA and much of the media is that they are cocooned from real world experiences and have little understanding of what might be described as industrial language that originates in previous generations and robust workplaces such as shipyards and the pits.

    Language is constantly evolving and many words especially “on the street ” can mean different things to different people.

    The A word allegedly used is not racist when used on a different way or context – in fact it’s almost a term of endearment in banter . As I recall in Scotland in particular it is or was used to describe someone as being less than reliable much in the same way as dodgy or chav might be used elsewhere. The pronunciation is also important it was often spoken in an abbreviated form separating the A from other letters.

    If used in an aggressive form with foul language and reference to colour then of course that is deemed not to be acceptable these days.

    However the indications are that Shelvey didn’t use it in that context and with conflicting evidence as to what or wasn’t said then the FA are on thin ice and it rather confirms that they are out of their depth in dealing with such issues. In competitive sports and contentious moments bad language is evident be in rugby, tennis , football or even cooking – ask Gordon Ramsey !

    It could be that the FA would have better served the debate by warning Shelvey of use of foul language and imposed a fine in much the same way as the police would in a street disturbance. As it us the FA have opened a can of worms and it’s not pretty and many feel that this type of non sporting incident should be dealt with by others better qualified to do so.

  • lochinvar

    Dec 21, 2016 at 6:47 AM

    Comment #27

    Scottish slang definition:
    ” Arab – Mild nuisance, troublemaker
    Supporter of Dundee United”

    In that context the FA are discriminating against us Jocks !

  • lochinvar

    Dec 21, 2016 at 7:11 AM

    Comment #28

    From The Guardian: and just how do they or us or anyone else know what was said or not said at the match and in the private FA hearing ?

    Newcastle United are expected to appeal against Jonjo Shelvey’s five-match suspension and £100,000 Football Association fine after an independent disciplinary commission found the former England midfielder guilty of directing racially aggravated language towards an opponent.

    That misconduct charge was imposed following allegations that arguably Rafael Benítez’s most influential player directed racially abusive language towards Romain Saïss, a Moroccan midfielder, in the 87th minute of the 2-0 Championship defeat by Wolverhampton Wanderers at St James’ Park on 17 September.
    It is understood that at Tuesday’s hearing in Birmingham the three Wolves players called as witnesses gave slightly varying accounts of the alleged insult………

  • Jib

    Dec 21, 2016 at 7:22 AM

    Comment #29

    A couple of thoughts


    “Any appeal must be lodged within seven days from receipt of written reasons which will be produced in due course.”

    This could still drag on well into the New Year.

    A QC is not going to produce written reasons until after the holidays .

    The appeal will go in on the 7th day probably.

    Then the FA then have to take legal advice on the appeal.

    I can see Shelvey playing in the FA cup tie v Birmingham at this rate – which would mean his return game would be v Wolves at Molineux 11th Feb !!!


    A few have talked about the stigma of racism effecting JS’ future.
    The only 2 cases I can think of are Terry and Suarez and neither player seems to have been adversely effected by their racism sanctions.

    If it stops him being selected for England – good.

  • anthc

    Dec 21, 2016 at 9:34 AM

    Comment #30

    Regardless if guilty or not I think the fine is ridiculous. I know some might say 100k to a footballer is nowt but I know I couldn’t afford a fine of half a months salary. I know the fines need to be a deterrent but sometimes are way out of proportion and no doubt fund the Xmas party for the fa boys club.


You must log in to post a comment.