I wanted to talk about Eddie Howe.
Should he remain as boss of Newcastle United?
Across two articles, I am presenting the case for and against Eddie Howe, presented in the style of a courtroom drama!
In this first article, we will hear from the Prosecution, arguing the case for the removal of Eddie Howe.
And remember: if the glove doesn’t fit… you must acquit.
Charge #1 – Squad building – Conservative to a fault
Eddie Howe’s squad evolution has been overly cautious, bordering on stagnant. There has been a reluctance to cycle the squad, players have been kept well beyond optimal performance windows and decisions have been consistently deferred to a later date.
This has created exactly what we see now, the fourth oldest squad in the league with too many players who even their mothers will admit won’t be at the club in two or three years time.
Case Exhibit A: The goalkeeping group
The club has spent only 10 million pounds on this group since the takeover (not including Odysseas Vlachodimos) and the average age of this group is 33 years old!
For successive summers the same pattern emerged, the one and only target was not available, alternatives were not pursued and the club pushed the decision down the line. Aaron Ramsdale is an average to slightly below average PL goalkeeper and we all knew in the summer and even more so now, he’s not the answer.
Case Exhibit B: Joe Willock
If you’re brave enough to revisit the derby, you’ll see Joe Willock attempt a hopeful, low-percentage pass across the pitch straight to the opposition. What follows is more telling—he stands still, his opposite number finds space between the lines, receives the ball, drives forward, and the move ends in a goal.
This isn’t about one moment; it reflects a wider reality. For two seasons now, it has been clear that Willock is no longer the player he once was—largely because his body no longer allows him to be. That’s unfortunate but it does not remove responsibility from Eddie Howe. The decision to keep him and to continue introducing him into games that consistently pass him by, sits with the manager.
In my opinion, eighteen months ago Joe Willock was worth over £30 million. I reckon that figure has now roughly halved. This is what happens when players are retained beyond their optimal window: value declines, impact fades, and the team carries the cost.
The accusation: He manages for stability, not progression.
Charge #2 – Summer 2025 – What just happened?
‘To overpay once is unfortunate, to overpay three times is plain reckless’
Anthony Elanga is a PL level squad player, he has elite pace but the fundamentals of his game are far from even being average. His decision making lacks timing and execution, his shooting, passing and first touch are all wildly inconsistent and the less said about his heading the better.
The issue here is not that Elanga is a bad player, rather that he was and will be for the foreseeable future a squad player, capable of occasionally contributing but not to be relied upon. You can’t pay 55 million pounds for a squad player, even more so in the age of PSR. This was an overpay – one overpay not so bad, three in one summer big problem captain.
Yoane Wissa played just 28 minutes of football in March—this, after being positioned as a key part of the post-Isak plan. From the player’s perspective, it’s baffling: the club pursues you all summer, spends £55 million, and then consistently selects William Osula ahead of you when you are fit. You cannot sanction a deal like that, use him in this way, and avoid criticism. Recruitment should be about future value, not past performance; this always looked like a high-risk move. But to then barely use him elevates it from risky to illogical. You simply cannot overpay for a 29-year-old and not play him—especially when time is not on your side and the data already suggests early signs of regression.
I’ll keep this brief because we all know the situation with Nick Woltemade. After six months at NUFC, there is still no clarity on how best to use him—and that sends a worrying message about the future. He is the club’s record signing, a centre-forward who should be the face of Newcastle for the next five years.
Yet at no point has Eddie Howe looked close to solving this puzzle. That’s a problem not just for now, but for what comes next. So the question becomes unavoidable: why not appoint a manager with a clear plan to get the best out of him?
The accusation: One mistake is understandable, three in one summer leaves me asking, Is this the man you would trust to rebuild?
Charge #3 – Identity crisis and European hangover 2.0
There has been no consistent attacking identity at any point this season. The team has struggled to create chances from open play, and more concerningly, there have been no real signs of improvement. Players have been regularly deployed out of position—at best, that suggests a manager searching for solutions; at worst, it suggests he has had six months to find them and still doesn’t know what they are.
The team also struggles to build from the back with any consistency. Football, at its core, is simple: progress the ball through passing or carrying. Right now, this side looks uncomfortable doing either. There are no clear patterns, no reliable relationships between players, no repeatable structures to move the ball up the pitch.
As a result, the players appear unable to solve problems on the pitch. When fans call for a “Plan B,” they are not asking for a completely different style—just for a team and coaching staff capable of adapting, finding solutions, and winning games without simply doing the same things with greater urgency.
Yes, this team presses—and intensity has become its defining trait. But maintaining that level across a season, particularly while competing in Europe, feels naive. This is the second season balancing domestic and European football, league form has continued to suffer and lessons appear to have not been learned.
Intensity may be the identity, but the question now is whether it is sustainable—and more importantly, whether it is enough.
The accusation: Naivety disguised as principles.
Charge #4 – In-game management – Net negative impact
Managers, in my view, are far less important than players—you simply need them not to be a negative influence through tactics, man management, or in-game decisions. This season, however, Eddie Howe has too often been exactly that.
His substitutions rarely improve the team; more often, they make it worse. They feel reactive rather than purposeful—changes made for the sake of change, rather than to shift the game in a meaningful way.
If you take the counterpoint—that it’s all about the players—then how do you explain what repeatedly happens when this team concedes after taking the lead? The structure disappears. The team begins to chase the game recklessly, committing numbers forward, leaving huge gaps, and creating very little while offering the opposition clear opportunities to exploit.
That is not just on the players—that is on the manager. Either the instructions aren’t getting through, or the team is being pushed to chase the game far too early. In either case, the responsibility sits with Howe.
Twenty minutes is a long time in football—long enough to regain control, rebuild pressure, and reassert structure. Instead, this team panics. It becomes stretched, predictable, and easy to play against.
We’ve seen it too often this season—away at West Ham and Brentford, at home against Sunderland and Everton to name but a few. It is no longer an anomaly; it is a pattern.
The accusation: The Manager is actively hurting this team on match day.
In the second article to follow, I will present the case for the Defence, arguing the case for Eddie Howe staying at Newcastle United.
(If you enjoyed this piece, you can find more of my work on substack.)