Matt

"the full back spot"? Hughes played most of his games in "the full back spot" which mainly required the use of his better foot- right back. Ramage hasn't had that luxury. Hughes only played left-back occasionally and wasn't great, mainly because he had to keep shifting the ball onto his right.

His left foot is for standing on and nothing else. If we don't bring in a left back in January then someone needs shooting. I feel for sorry for the lad. I don't think he's any great shakes in his normal position, but he doesn't deserve to look a mug every week like he is at the moment.

And if he's great, we've got a striker reborn who can either do a job for us or go for better money than he would have done otherwise. If he's dismal, we could have dropped points in more 'easy' matches- sending us closer to the bottom of the table and needing to get points from tougher matches. It's very, very hard to take a risk like that when points are so absolutely vital. You can't blame a manager for picking someone you know will be average over someone who could be decent or terrible in equal measure in our position. If confidence is sky-high and the points are rolling in, it's a lot easier to give players a run in a winning side.

He'd get a run of games if it weren't for the fact he doesn't even do the basics. You can forgive a player for having a shitter- missing chances and misplacing passes- but not for having no clue as to where to stand/run/canter on the pitch. I'll be paying close attention to Uncle Albert tonight. We'll see if he can just get the basics right.

It's likely we will see fewer 'top dollar earners' at the club until we secure regular increases in turnover, but I doubt Belgravia would allow the playing side to flounder. That harms ticket sales, prize money and our attractiveness to potential sponsors. There are few assets at the club which are 'not needed' so I'm not sure what significang revenue could be derived from asset sales or downsizing- they will only serve to harm the core business. I also don't think it will be in their interests to appear too detached from the club. They will look to seize on the fact that the current board are not flavour of the month, look to quickly build bridges with fans while not hiding that they see the club as a business venture first and foremost (a bit like Lerner at Villa). The men at the top will be in a tax haven somewhere, but there will be a figurehead Chief Exec and it wouldn't surprise me if they considered a local for the position.

No it's not. Quite the opposite. Having paid a premium for the club Belgravia would have to find another very interested party that would be prepared to pay that premium. In effect they 'lose' that premium as soon as they complete the deal and would look to justify the premium by way of increased income from operations in future years.

The fans like our location. The council likes out location. We have £40m of debt outstanding with regards to investment on the SJP site. Moving the ground makes zero sense and it isn't going to happen. If they wanted a plot of land in the centre of Newcastle they could do it in any number of much cheaper ways. They could even offer to buy the land the club owns around the Metro station. It certainly wouldn't cost £40m, never mind the £200m it could cost to buy the club. They obviously want the property development and football club to help each other- it's the only way a scheme like this coudl work.

Belgravia can improve their revenue within NUFC by working (over time) to reduce the mistrust between the club and the fans and to reverse the attitude that we're funnelling cash into players pockets with little in way of return. That can only be acheived by sensible management of the wage bill and the small matter of winning more games (easy, eh?). They clearly have plans to redevelop land around SJP- very probably co-inciding with the developments on the Brewery site (anyone know when that's likely to go ahead?). Finally the future revenues from foreign TV deals are finally looking up. That's a gravy train they won't want to miss. What's not going to happen is coming in and cutting costs straight away. Costs may go down over time- but hacking away at the wage budget now would cost more in the long term as we'd be sitting a division lower. It will probably take 3 years to get a better wage structure in place and the abandonment of our policy of buying big-hitters. The finances just can't keep up with the outflow. The only way they'll make cash is by making us better.

So let's say we give the four new contracts now- even for one year (there's nothing to say the players would accept, perhaps fancying a lower wage but more security- like Chopra did last summer). That's a chunk of our already excessive wage bill used up. As senior pros, Solano and Moore will command a reasonable wage. We go into the summer transfer planning (which in theory should get underway as soon as January is through) knowing that a section of the wage is already used up. To use your earlier point, any new contract will also have it's associated agents fees and signing-on fees (though not as great as in the case of a Bosman). I'm not advocating reducing the squad size further without replacement- that should be obvious. My point is that rushing to put players on deals because we're terrified that we'll have no-one left come next September is not a good way to approach contract renewals. I don't think we're in any hurry to renew any of the four deals in question and as such can leave a decision quite late, hopefully evaluating what else is out there. Personally, I reckon we could get in better players- even as depth- come the summer. I don't think players in question would be overjoyed to hear that they'll be getting new contracts but they're no longer in the first-team picture unless there's an injury crisis. Certainly not if we're trying to trim their pay packet at the same time. In my eyes, it's not a case of 'giving players away'. You think that we'd be hard pushed to replace them so we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot to let competent professionals leave the club.

Erm, no. The contracts expire in June. They wouldn't be going anywhere. I don't suggest selling anyone anywhere in my post. Just not renewing contracts. Not renewing a contract is no guarantee that player will join another club. There are cases of players remaining at clubs over the summer and re-signing (presumably as they was no better option). It would be nice to think it wouldn't come to this. This scenario is only likely to affect Bramble- while I don't rate him, the wider perception of his ability is still harsh. I don't think he'll have a big queue of suitors. My comment about big-name replacements reflect the fact we rarely unearth rough-diamonds and too often find ourselves with expensive failures. You wanted me to provide you with names and prices- why? I only regularly watch the Premier League and the odd Nationwide game and can only admit to being clued up on the form of our own players. My best guess would be players with decent reputations and the accompanying price tag. What I'm saying is that some of the best value players out there could well be people most of us have never heard of. So coming out with suggestions would counteract my point that we perform poorly in our scouting of players. What I know is that Bramble is clumsy and stupid and Moore, while half-decent against less mobile players, needs 24 hours notice before a striker turns on the ball. There's no need to get patronising. I'm not stupid.

I'm not a European football scout- I don't see why I need to provide specifics for other players to know certains players aren't up to the job. I don't watch those other players but I do see our lot. Anyway no-one can decisively say how much a player would cost, only what they would reasonably offer for that player. Figuring that we should stick with what we have because there's not a big-name obvious alternative is not the way to improve the side. The footballtransfers.net usually has a good list of players available in the summer but they've not got round to the 'Bosman Team' for this season yet. What I'm saying is that sides have brought it players of comparable if not greater ability to Moore and Bramble on a regular basis. Christ, FM07 is probably pretty accurate with contract info maybe I'll give that a go. Both Neill and Distin are better options than we currently have and are on Bosmans- but I reckon we could do better than those- perhaps with a bit of scouting. Or is that too radical. Personally, I think there's a very strong possibility we'll be under new ownership by the summer (though perhaps not January given how long the Lerner-Villa deal took to go through the formalities). That would work out better anyway- there's more value to be had in the summer window as clubs are less reluctant to sell.

Yes, like this summer. But next time I'd hope we don't wait until bloody September to actually think about signings.

I wouldn't be paying that sort of cash for Neill or Distin with only months remaining on their contracts. £1m each tops.

Ben Haim is better than those players you mentioned. Moore has a serious problem in that he is incredibly slow. With his pace you have to get tackles right nearly every time otherwise there's no second chance. He doesn't. He seems keen on returning to Oz- so let him go.

Other players will be available on Bosmans in the summer- even if we were skint we could pick up better players in all cases with the possible exception of Solano. In addition there will be a raft of players entering the last year of their contracts whose clubs will be willing to do business at less than top dollar. Solano would be worth a 1-year extention if the terms were right, but I don't think the other three are worth bothering with.

Looking at that it reads like we were paying to acquire Souness over the length of his contract, once he was sacked we had to pay the remaining to Blackburn immediately. Could be wrong though. Not quite- it's not a matter of cash paid to Blackburn. You can't tell one way or another without seeing the club's bank statements. The chances are it was paid up front. The £800k signifies the write off of the remaining asset value on the acquisition of Souness. When we paid compo to get him as manager, the club treated this as an intangible asset to be amortised over the length of the contract (so that the accounting cost matches the "benefit" derived from it as time passes). Once he was sacked, he was no longer an asset so the remaining value had to be fully wiped out. What we paid for Souness in the first place depends on how long his contract really was. If it was 2 years, then £2.4m looks about right- but that will be for his cronies as well. Bargain, eh?

You jest surely- he's as Smoggie as they come.

Regarding Kiwi's point on Belgravia redeveloping the ground- considering that it would involve demolishing an asset whose redevelopment costs still lie as a £40m senior note it would have to be quite a spectacular development. Aside from that, the land on which SJP lies in under covenant and I'd be surprised if they could do anything to change that (imagine the outcry, not to mention the Council opposing anything that would take revenue out of the city centre). The idea of relocation is a non-starter for me, there are cheaper and easier ways to acquire land in Newcastle. Equally a sale and lease-back is unlikely unless the investors sold off the existing debt and did it with the whole stadium capital (I'm assuming the existing debt will not allow other borrowings to be secured on the stadium or ticket revenues). I don't beleive FS could buy out the club on his own. To secure a loan (which would be some feat) and transfer it on to the club would send us to the wall- we just don't have the cash. I'm no fan of Fred, I'm totally at odds at the way many functions of the club are operated, but at least I know that he wants the club to do well with a few quid on the side. The same can't be said of the Halls. Would you trust them? Have Cameron Hall filed any more accounts since 2001, what about that bankrupt Spanish holiday village they were building years ago. What about the current owners of the Metro Centre, who have to pump concrete into the foundations of the buildings to keep them standing? I don't trust them at all. It was SJH and Doug who got rid of Robson- not Shepherd. Fred just took the can. Aside from any nunber crunching on this issue- if Fred becomes so unpopular that it results in falling revenue, then rightly or wrongly he should go. A cancer removed or a victim of circumstance- it matters not. If that situation arises he HAS to consider his position, otherwise you can lump him in the same bracket at Johnny and Douggie.

No. There will be better players on frees in the summer. If we can't get a better youth team players in then we should also ask what the hell is going on at the academy.

Beats feeding off Mascherano I guess.

Was that not being directed towards the Estonians? Equally as desperate if it was.

The 'your support is f'kin shit' efforts perhaps would have been better directed at those not even at the game. Having paid the cash to attend and pulled off a mad dash to get into town in time, I was a bit pissed off to hear that to say the least.

See Steve, told you it wouldn't hurt....

Disagree. Van Persie has become an outcast after throwing the mother of all wobblers in the dressing room and Wenger picked up on this and got a bargain with the intent of calming him down. Kuyt will have a number of suitors and with a contract till 2009 Feyenoord could still get a good price next summer.

No, it's true. Every time he comes on I hope he suddenly shows why he cost £10m and has all those Spain caps, but once again he looked lost, disinterested and unable to do anything with the ball in build-up.