Rafa – To Be Manager Of Fantastic Newcastle Is A Great Privilege


Rafa Benitez had been interviewed by the Chronicle again today in what they are calling Part 2 of their exclusive interview with the Newcastle manager – let’s hope there are parts 3 and 4 to come.

Rafa has again given written responses to the questions posed by the Chronicle journalists and there are some good points made by the Newcastle manager.

Maybe the biggest is when he was asked if he is happy with his decision to stay at Newcastle United last May after we had been relegated.

One of our favorite photos of Rafa Benitez

This is how he answered that question:

“To be the manager of Newcastle United is a great privilege.” “I’m really enjoying being at this fantastic club so, of course, I’m happy with my decision, yes.”

Rafa was also asked why he thinks Newcastle have been so successful this season (we are top of the league with the most points –  the best goal difference – the most wins – the most goals scored and the least goals conceded) when the  other two relegated clubs Norwich City and Aston Villa have not done as well.

This is what Rafa said about that:

“The commitment of the players and staff from day one was exceptional.”

“Everybody was helping us and trying to improve in their own departments and the competition between players too has been fundamental to the results we have achieved so far.”

“We have also benefitted very much from not having a situation where jobs and funding had to be cut at the end of last season.”

“That allowed us to invest in some important changes to improve the squad and the facilities before the start of the season.”

“Also to have so many fans behind us, having a full stadium at home and an incredible away following too, everywhere we travel.”

“This gives you a great sense of the size of this club.”

Everybody put a little bit more effort in, if that was possible. It is not an easy division and it is not easy to ensure you can recover immediately from demotion.”

“Demotion means there have been a lot of things wrong with your club, which you have to address very quickly.”

“I think we have managed to do that well.”

Rafa will need to sort out his relationship with owner Mike Ashley this summer when he is scheduled to meet with him one on one – but we expect that meeting to go very well.

Rafa is exactly the right person Mike should leave to the club to – after his previous selections of people to run the club have been poor at best.

Mike’s got a winner running the club now – keep him.

Comments welcome.



You can share this articleShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestDigg thisShare on LinkedInShare on RedditShare on Tumblr

19 comments so far

  • WWSBRD

    Mar 25, 2017 at 11:57 AM

    Comment #1

    AncientC
    Well am gonna kill 2 birds with 1 stone here am going to admit I was wrong and offer evidence that Suarez didnt have a release clause (I was wrong because I thought he did and Arsenal just hadnt met it, though u seem to of gotten confused about that), seems he didnt have a release clause according to the PFA

    http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/striker-luis-suarez-left-to-rot-in-reserves-by-liverpool-until-he-is-ready-to-show-some-respect-8751148.html

    0
  • AncientC

    Mar 25, 2017 at 11:58 AM

    Comment #2

    WW, because Liverpool compensated Suarez in the form of a pay-rise. Why would Liverpool give Suarez a new contract and pay-rise, if there was no release clause? Further to the point, why would John Henry state:
    “He had a buyout clause of £40m. Arsenal, one of our prime rivals, offered £40m plus £1. What we’ve found … is that contracts don’t seem to mean a lot in England – actually, in world football.

    “It doesn’t matter how long a player’s contract is, he can decide he’s leaving. We sold a player, Fernando Torres, for £50m, that we did not want to sell, we were forced to.

    “Since apparently these contracts don’t seem to hold, we took the position that we’re just not selling.”

    WW, if you have any information that contradicts Suarez and John Henry himself, by all means, I would like to see it. In your own time…

    0
  • AncientC

    Mar 25, 2017 at 11:59 AM

    Comment #3

    In regards to your question about why Thauvin wouldn’t pursue action against Newcastle, if Newcastle didn’t honour his buy-out with Marseille. If there is one.

    0
  • WWSBRD

    Mar 25, 2017 at 12:02 PM

    Comment #4

    AncientC
    See above

    Also funnily enough ur quotes there mention Torres and them being forced to sell him for 50mill (which they didnt want to do)…do u know why they had to sell him for 50 mill?

    0
  • AncientC

    Mar 25, 2017 at 12:03 PM

    Comment #5

    Let me repeat that for you.

    John Henry ““He had a buyout clause of £40m.”

    0
  • AncientC

    Mar 25, 2017 at 12:05 PM

    Comment #6

    WW, who do you think knows more about Suarez’ contract. Peter Taylor, or John Henry, only the owner of the club that paid his wages.

    0
  • AncientC

    Mar 25, 2017 at 12:16 PM

    Comment #8

    WWSBRD, here is a link from the same paper. You will notice this article is dated well after your article. Throwing new light on the case.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/transfer-news-release-clause-in-luis-suarez-contract-was-activated-by-arsenal-but-liverpool-owner-9164948.html

    0
  • Fostino

    Mar 25, 2017 at 12:27 PM

    Comment #9

    In regards the mito goal…typical enough. Fell into a scoring into a scoring position and luckily found himself in acres of space. Marking poor. Wouldn’t read too much into it.

    0
  • WWSBRD

    Mar 25, 2017 at 12:27 PM

    Comment #10

    AncientC
    Not really they are just reporting what he said at a conference. The PFA backed them because of how it was worded in the contract meaning it wasnt a release clause it was an agreement that they would discuss a transfer if any club bid more than 40mill

    Torres had a release clause of 50mill which they had no choice but to accept because it was a release clause not an agreement to discuss a transfer in excess of 50 mill

    0
  • AncientC

    Mar 25, 2017 at 12:37 PM

    Comment #11

    A release clause is a release clause. John Henry admitted it was a release clause, he also claimed it was the first time Liverpool had rejected a release clause bid – meaning he honored them in the past. John Henry wanted to keep Suarez so badly, he rejected a release clause bid, then got away with it.

    A contract stating a club has to consider an offer at a certain amount, simply isn’t a release clause, it would be meaningless.

    0
  • WWSBRD

    Mar 25, 2017 at 12:44 PM

    Comment #12

    …it was meaningless hence why the club worded it in that way and led the agent to believe it was what it wasn’t (hence the anger when Liverpool were able to refuse the deal)

    Do u know what the PFA is?

    0
  • AncientC

    Mar 25, 2017 at 12:49 PM

    Comment #13

    John Henry stated “they offered £40million and one pound for him and triggered his buy-out clause.”

    I am not sure what part of this you are not understanding. I cannot really help you any further from here, “triggered his buy-out” is fairly straight forward.

    It was not known which way the case would go at court, contrary to what you are stating, but after Henry had Suarez on a new contract, he made the above admission. It is clear as day.

    0
  • Essex Geordie Bill

    Mar 25, 2017 at 12:51 PM

    Comment #14

    That was a great goal by Mitro but I don’t think he’d get the same amount of space in our league or the EPL to score like that.

    I mentioned Young Kluivert a few weeks ago, be a good buy imo.

    0
  • WWSBRD

    Mar 25, 2017 at 12:53 PM

    Comment #15

    AncientC
    Do u know what the PFA is?

    0
  • AncientC

    Mar 25, 2017 at 1:00 PM

    Comment #16

    WWSBRD, are you aware that Peter Taylor isn’t an expert in law, and his ‘opinion’ in 2013 was not in fact legally defining.

    Don’t you think John Henry would have came out after the saga, and stated that Liverpool were not obliged to sell, if that was the case.

    No… John Henry came out, and explicitly stated that Arsenal bid the buy-out amount. You can be sure John Henry knows the implications of his words.

    0
  • WWSBRD

    Mar 25, 2017 at 1:08 PM

    Comment #17

    AncientC
    Haha right ok am very bored of this now, believe what u will I have offered u enough evidence to prove my point, without insulting u I might add, if u want to continue to believe that football or rather Liverpool and John Henry are above contract law and the PFA would rather side with a football club ignoring a contractual obligation than a player then good for u, ur wrong but good for u

    Though since we are agreeing to move on how about u dont bring up this grudge when we disagree on other things? Seems the adult thing to do after all

    0
  • AncientC

    Mar 25, 2017 at 1:22 PM

    Comment #18

    WWSBRD – no grudge from me. I am disagreeing with you on a subject – it’s not personal.

    0
  • WWSBRD

    Mar 25, 2017 at 1:31 PM

    Comment #19

    AncientC
    If its nothing personal why did u bring the Suarez transfer again when I questioned ur comment on Mitro last night, question my character and today my intelligence?

    0

You must log in to post a comment.