Shearergol

Scholes does play, as well as Park.

No news from my ITK. Probably just means it will actually happen

He's been shit since he left us (agree though)

Haven't Liverpool already claimed to have signed him? Or did I imagine that?

I think I've only seen one West Ham match all season. Are they never on TV?

Lucky for us we got Luque then. Or we could have signed Anelka along with Owen, and forgot the other two. Ahhh, hindsight. We should have signed all 4. Increases the chances of 2 of them being any good

Souness wanted Anelka though, it was Shepherd who was left to sign the players and he failed to land him. He wanted Anelka and Boa Morte. When both bids were refused he came out with the "Newcastle will not be held to ransom by anyone anymore" comments. The sad thing is, we only needed to increase our bid for Boa Morte by £1m to get him, and he wanted to come.

Zamora and Sears played last week. Ashton and Zamora the match before.

Apart from convicted rapists when they do the Lottery.................. And Lord Archer....

Brilliant feeling actually looking forward to games now isn't it

Yeah, but ssshhhh Can we change the topic of conversation now, seeing as Owen is the main topic of debate in the top 2 threads? (6 in 6 btw )

No shit. I am making a judgment on his signing. My judgment is we threw away a lot of money and he hasn't been worth the £16m we paid for him. I am also of the opinion that his finishing isn't 'world-class' and that he's no longer deserving of the 'world-class' label that so many seem quite happy to refer to him as. Comprende? In retrospect yes but not at the time. Huge and significant difference in evaluating the 'decision' to buy him, rather than the evaluation of the purchase in hindsight. I hate going over covered ground already (especially since other people have done so) but we overpaid for him if you consider how desperate he was to leave, how Real were willing to let him leave, his performances in the 2 or so seasons prior to that summer and the other teams in direct competition with us for his signing. This isn't hindsight - at least the judgment on his fee isn't. I was excited to have him in the team but we overpaid. Either you're getting really confused, or I am. You claimed that we wouldn't have been in the situation where Owen needed to score at Birmingham if we hadn't signed him. Now you're saying it's simply about the fee? Did spending £16m on Owen stop us signing other players in the future? I personally don't think so. We should have paid the £11m for Anelka, but not instead of signing Owen, but as well as.

I think it's clear you're not a fan of Owen. Still, looking forward to the West Ham match?

HTT will have a scale somewhere....

Best striker in Europe. Still misses one on ones, as proved twice last night. Rather have Viduka tbh Oh dear, I see trying to talk football is wasted here. Maybe I'm missing the point too then. You're saying that Owen isn't a world class finisher because you're not confident about him in a one on one situation? I then point out that Torres (I'm sure you'll agree he's one of the best, if not the best striker in Europe at the moment?) also misses one on ones. As far as I can see, that's a football debate. If you feel it's wasted, that's your own issue I'm afraid. That depends if you don't see being a World class finisher and being a World class striker as 2 different things. I personally do so no, I wouldn't say the finishing part of Torres game is World class however that doesn't mean he's not a World class player. Fair enough, agree to disagree then. I personally think Torres is a world class finisher, as is Owen (to a lesser extent).

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka? Anelka had every chance of picking up exactly the same injuries as Owen. Owen's injuries had nothing to do with his past niggles. Where have I said his injuries had something to do with his past niggles? I'm in agreement as well that Owen's goal against Birmingham started the turnaround but you also have to consider the fact that we would probably not have been in that position in the first place if we signed someone else other than Owen. I'm making the point that signing Anelka instead of Owen wasn't a guaranteed way of more success. It's all about "ifs" and "buts". EDIT: Your last line is nonsense by the way. I could quite easily say that we wouldn't have been in that position if we'd signed Cristiano Ronaldo, but we didn't. The Ronaldo thing is bs. The Anelka thing is relevant because he was there for the taking (and was apparently wanted by our manager as well). That's why I've mentioned him and not picked some random bugger. Of course it's all ifs and buts but my point is that the Owen signing hasn't turned out well. Sorry, I thought your point was NOT signing Owen would have worked out better. That's certainly how your initial post reads.

Best striker in Europe. Still misses one on ones, as proved twice last night. Rather have Viduka tbh Oh dear, I see trying to talk football is wasted here. Maybe I'm missing the point too then. You're saying that Owen isn't a world class finisher because you're not confident about him in a one on one situation? I then point out that Torres (I'm sure you'll agree he's one of the best, if not the best striker in Europe at the moment?) also misses one on ones. As far as I can see, that's a football debate. If you feel it's wasted, that's your own issue I'm afraid.

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka? I'm looking at the facts, not the counter-factual I think his injuries are irrelevant in analysing the decision-making too. Alright then. Fact - Owen has played in 40 out of a possible 106 (35+38+34 so far) league games that he could have played for us. That's 38%. Why does it take so many people to explain this to you? Are you simply making the fact that we'd have been better off if Owen had played more games? No shit, sherlock. Because of the nature of his injuries, there WAS NO GUARANTEE that any other player we'd have bought at the time would have played more.

Best striker in Europe. Still misses one on ones, as proved twice last night. Rather have Viduka tbh

How much money have we lost because he's not been on the pitch though? How much more revenue could we have accumulated over the past 3 years if we instead spent £5m less on someone like Anelka? Anelka had every chance of picking up exactly the same injuries as Owen. Owen's injuries had nothing to do with his past niggles. Where have I said his injuries had something to do with his past niggles? I'm in agreement as well that Owen's goal against Birmingham started the turnaround but you also have to consider the fact that we would probably not have been in that position in the first place if we signed someone else other than Owen. I'm making the point that signing Anelka instead of Owen wasn't a guaranteed way of more success. It's all about "ifs" and "buts". EDIT: Your last line is nonsense by the way. I could quite easily say that we wouldn't have been in that position if we'd signed Cristiano Ronaldo, but we didn't.

There will likely be a Termination clause in Barton's contract, which will likely take the (amended) form of the standard boiler plate clause as contained in normal contracts of employment. The clause would, if properly drafted, allow for NUFC to unilaterally terminate the contract should Barton go to prison. A basic Termination sub-clause might read as follows: i.e. "The Employer reserves the right to terminate the Employee’s employment without pay or payment in lieu of notice if it has reasonable grounds to believe the Employee is guilty of gross misconduct". In what is essentially a commercial contract, such as Barton's, the Termination clause would generally list everything and anything that could be caught (i.e. X.1 - imprisonment; X.2 - substance abuse, X.3 - gross misconduct as defined). The only issue with footballers is that they pay big money to specialist sports lawyers to ensure that any onerous clauses etc. are removed or have the edge taken off them. Rather like the Chelsea / Mutu saga? Did they have to pay anything out to him or just let him go? If Barton does go down, which is reasonable to expect, I don't think I could see KK getting rid, he seems to like him. If this is the case, would it be a matter of 'suspending' Barton's wages, so to speak, until his term is up OR would he continue to be paid? Chelsea cancelled his contract without having to pay him compensation. They even got money for him when he moved to a new club. Strange situation really. I would have thought that as soon as they cancelled his contract they lost his player registration.

I know, I'm agreeing with you.

Next season

I'm surprised you were that positive since you thought we should have stuck with Allardyce instead of taking a risk bringing Keegan back. ...and you still maintain Owen isn't a good finisher. I said he's not a World class finisher which he isn't. Perhaps that's the difference between going to games and seeing some of the chances he misses compared to watching highlights over the Internet. Ooooh, handbags...

Favourite player I guess?