ToonTastic

You could simplify this with 'Ashley and Llambias are still running the club, acceptable or not?'

My issue is that time and effort were wasted on something we really don't need, at a time when we don't have one left back at the club and our "strikers" can't score for f***. You really think we've just stopped on the other two possible deals to sign this lad don't you. It's absurd. Not really no but the whole point is that this a pointless transfer. Say Harper is injured and Krul gets sent-off...are you happy with Soderberg or Alnwick stepping in? Most clubs have 3 senior keepers on their books. Even Sunderland signed another keeper despite having Gordon & Mignolet. When you put it that way, I guess signing Elliot makes sense. But I'd rather he was used as the third choice keeper instead of 2nd choice (which seems to be the plan if he does sign). Surely if we were that concerned about injuries and suspensions we could have saved ourself another wage by not letting Forster go to Celtic for a season ? Forster wouldn't have agreed to that. Plus, won't Celtic by paying Forster's wages? Forster wouldn't have a say he has a contract at the club. Who's to say he's to be sat on the bench, a moment ago Krul was getting suspended and Harper injured whats to say he doesn't get and keep his chance ? To many players unwilling to fight for their places now a days. Bet Hart's happy he fought for his place at Man City.

My issue is that time and effort were wasted on something we really don't need, at a time when we don't have one left back at the club and our "strikers" can't score for f***. You really think we've just stopped on the other two possible deals to sign this lad don't you. It's absurd. Not really no but the whole point is that this a pointless transfer. Say Harper is injured and Krul gets sent-off...are you happy with Soderberg or Alnwick stepping in? Most clubs have 3 senior keepers on their books. Even Sunderland signed another keeper despite having Gordon & Mignolet. When you put it that way, I guess signing Elliot makes sense. But I'd rather he was used as the third choice keeper instead of 2nd choice (which seems to be the plan if he does sign). Surely if we were that concerned about injuries and suspensions we could have saved ourself another wage by not letting Forster go to Celtic for a season ?

.com has it as 2013 but I'm sure it's 2012. Jan 2009 he signed a 3 year contract http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/4359605/Steve-Harper-signs-new-Newcastle-deal-to-pave-way-for-Shay-Given-exit.html so it's 2012

There were no rules to stop them back then so they could yes as you have just shown with your example. http://thefa.com/TheFA/RulesandRegulations/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/FA%20Handbook%2009%2010/FA_Handbook_Full_Proof_NO_CROP.ashx/FA_Handbook_Full_Proof_NO_CROP.pdf

Keep a player fresh in case he needed to be called upon with a clause in the loan to allow him to return if need be. Anyone pointless conversation for something which happened when we were once good.

From speaking to Harper when he was playing under Robson (or not) he was told the club were not willing to let him leave not even on loan. At the time Portsmouth wanted him for first team. I remember reading in Bobby's book they paid him a lot more than his ability and squad status should have done to appease him being cover for Given. Doesn't mean he wanted to stay and sit on the bench though, he wanted to go on loan.

From speaking to Harper when he was playing under Robson (or not) he was told the club were not willing to let him leave not even on loan. At the time Portsmouth wanted him for first team.

Even with Foster at Celtic and Harper crocked ?

Love how xiscos wages goes up 10 grand for each year he's here

Very different leeds used loans to buy players we used loans to increase stadium size.

Or that loans are fine as long as they can be paid which ours could seen as they were backed by min 31,000 coming to the stadium. Think they would have been paid off 2012 or 2013 as well if I remember rightly. The rest of the debt was player installments

those quotes are taken from his talk sport interview where he also said there would be one price for him and one fee for anyone else wanting to buy the club, basically saying Ashley would not sell to him.

It is a bit of an eye opener. Maybe why outsiders like neil and brummie view the situation differently to the majority of Newcastle fans. Yeah, it's a good article. I said a while back that it's too early to judge Ashley, and I still feel that. He has a long term plan but of course most supporters want things to happen now. I actually like his ability to stick to his plan no matter what other people might be saying. Once an owner starts making decisions to please the fans is when things get dicey. It's ok but nothing to special he still shows the club is lacking players and hasn't spent the money that was not expected. It also uses the Ashley quote of still having debt (which was basically player fee installments that most sensible clubs make use of) whilst Derek had said just before this quote that the club had no other debts than those owed to Ashley. The huge losses as they put it were over 3 years meaning they could be more than covered and paid for without causing the club any problems as long as the bank loans are not used to buy players there are no problems at all and ours weren't. Also don't forget these 3 years were when Ashley was in charge and had signed players under fat Sam that cost a fortune. All well and good backing his current work but don't forget he's the cause of many of the problems as well including cash flow through player contracts.

Aye, interesting read really, aren't many clubs spending big at all so far. People should probably remember this. Not many clubs have sold a player worth £35m to have funds available to buy experienced players

To non NUFC members, it's different I've edited OP as you don't need a season ticket to get an away ticket. You do need to be a member though.

To non NUFC members, it's different

Appears to be a webchat after all the discussion gone on since the Barton stuff http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/newcastle-united/nufc-news//tm_headline=webchat-with-chief-sports-writer-lee-ryder%26method=full%26objectid=29182907%26siteid=72703-name_page.html

Surely people would question more a £5m bid for a hugely injury prone player and £7m for a guy who couldn't pass a medical at Stoke ?

Been there, done that, sick of being fed bullshit (or weren't you paying attention on the last few deadline days) The worst is when the deadline comes and goes and we're then told to get behind the players we have now cause theres nothing we can do about it any more with the transfer window now shut.

As has been said a new Visa should take 7 days.

Guess this could cause alot more problems for all the papers as well http://sports.yahoo.com/soccer/news?slug=ap-englishpremierleague-media the PL really are trying to control football far to much.

Recent managers, maybe not. But Ossie Ardiles (unwisely, as it turned out) staked his whole strategy on young players, many of whom (Watson, Clarkie, Elliott etc) went on to become key players for Keegan. To be fair Ossie didn't really have much choice.

There is apparently a code of conduct within the club with set out repercussions for breaking any of the rules. Players weren't happy when it first came in and thats when the group of players was set up to discuss with the board.

Having read the stuff from Pardew in the Journal it's pretty refreshing. He's finally saying that he's telling the board we need players and it's up to them to do it. He's finally not accepting responsibly for certain failures, he even mentions the failures of pre season which is good. Whether that means he won't last long in the job I don't know but if he starts being honest, says where the club is going wrong, admits they don't have all the answers so he's going to the likes of Alex Ferguson for help I won't have any problems with him.