NJS

Compare it with the shit we got for the Mido stuff at Boro.

When ratboy scored the first goal against us there in 2000 a kid ran the length of the pitch to try and get in our end with no intervention. As far as I can remember every goal they've score against us ther has seen some kids on the pitch. A few bairns celebrating a win would be fine imo (though annoying). "Hard" lads looking for bother as some did is worth comment after the number of repeat events. I was standing behind the goal when that Cateron scored and no one ran on the pitch. PS Cateron was not Ratboy The two in the first one and the "equaliser" that never was certainly brought people on as did Hoytes I think - you may be right on that one but my point is that it certainly wasn't the first time and it wasn't the first time the coppers have had to wade it at the bottom at either side either.

When ratboy scored the first goal against us there in 2000 a kid ran the length of the pitch to try and get in our end with no intervention. As far as I can remember every goal they've score against us ther has seen some kids on the pitch. A few bairns celebrating a win would be fine imo (though annoying). "Hard" lads looking for bother as some did is worth comment after the number of repeat events.

Is this a different Man U to the club that has bought success since time immemorial? One good batch of youngsters does not change history - going back to Liverpool in the 80s and the rest, success in the English game has always been a function of wealth. So whats your point - every single successfull club in the world has bought its success? Mostly - success tends to be a feedback loop and it's hard to break the cycle unless you have an exceptional manager (see Clough) or stupid money (Chelsea).

I see what you mean - I thought you were advocating that becoming a good team "on the cheap" was somehow more noble than doing a Chelsea etc which I think is crap.

Tell that to Brian Clough and Nottingham Forest, or Sir Bobby Robson and Ipswich. I'll give you Forest - again more of an exception - Ipswich won a couple of cups which I'd love us to do but not great in the scheme of things.

Is this a different Man U to the club that has bought success since time immemorial? One good batch of youngsters does not change history - going back to Liverpool in the 80s and the rest, success in the English game has always been a function of wealth. I give you Arsenal and Leeds (under Wilkinson) Arsenal have always been one of the top 3 or 4 richest clubs before they built the Emirates - "old" money. Leeds were a one-off that didn't last - the Ridsdale madness came later and was unrelated.

Is this a different Man U to the club that has bought success since time immemorial? One good batch of youngsters does not change history - going back to Liverpool in the 80s and the rest, success in the English game has always been a function of wealth.

I'd assume that a DoF would have scouted Luque and not bought him because Michael Robinson thought he might be worth a punt. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Souness told the truth about Luque's signing - you can have any structure on the planet but if a chairman decides he wants to buy someone that's it.

Without going over old ground too much I think there was a shift. The bid for Woodgate and Modric did suggest reasonable intentions which in the end exploded as the pressure of the deadline approached. I think right from his first statements on joining Keegan was aware there wasn't going to be a ridiculous spree which makes the Henry/Lampard/Robinho smear look bollocks imo. I think when Keegan came in the general feeling was that Ashley was going to back him with decent cash which he had denied Allardyce as he wasn't his man. I really don't see Keegan being the type to take the job with a limited budget. Whether the Henry, Beckham stuff is true or bollocks no one really knows so your speculation is only as good as mine. It depends on how you judge his honesty - I recognise that he was probably spinning the Milner sale but as I said his other statements suggested to me a reasonable but not stupidly large budget. Of course I accept the suggestions that Keegan being Keegan he may have said "Yeah Mike, £20m's fine" while thinking he could wring more out of him but I think going as far as to suggest Keegan expected stupid money is wrong.

Without going over old ground too much I think there was a shift. The bid for Woodgate and Modric did suggest reasonable intentions which in the end exploded as the pressure of the deadline approached. I think right from his first statements on joining Keegan was aware there wasn't going to be a ridiculous spree which makes the Henry/Lampard/Robinho smear look bollocks imo.

I would think a 5 to 6 place improvement was possible before Keegan threw his toys out of the pram. Possibly but isn't the whole point of this wonderful structure to build a squad and club which achieves its target regardless of managerial comings and goings? Oh FFS. Honestly NJS. "Managerial comings and goings" is a ridiculous bit of semantic play to try and apply to this situation just to beat up on the "structure". Unless you genuinely believe the spirit and intent of such a structure is one that would be immune from ill effects even if it changed managers every two weeks. Which of course it isn't. No structure is. Just as no structure is equipped to handle the shitstorm of a cult icon manager walking out in a huff at the end of a summer transfer window. DoF or not we'd be in the same shape right now. Not every two weeks but the big selling points are supposed to be "stability" and "long term" planning. When I and others argued that a manager shapes his squad and team for his style/ethos, people on the other side argued that such criteria should be set at a club level, relegating the "manager" to exactly as described in the "fact" statement and to me inferring that stability is brought even with managerial changes. This is supposedly what happens at Madrid and all the other bollocks examples. If Keegan was so central to the plan for improvement and the structure merely "secondary" than why was the latter deemed more important when it came to the crunch? That suggests that Ashley thought it would survive managerial comings and goings with minimal impact. In that context "depending" on an inspirational manager as part of the plan is a major flaw.

I would think a 5 to 6 place improvement was possible before Keegan threw his toys out of the pram. Possibly but isn't the whole point of this wonderful structure to build a squad and club which achieves its target regardless of managerial comings and goings? If thats the case that presumes a replacement for Keegan (sale aside) who is is equal in motivating an average squad as well as he is - I'm not convinced any would have been available/willing to work with this structure.

I think a decent squad improvement (+5/6 places worth) for a reasonable outlay was all that most fans expected - as Isegrim says that didn't happen.

Jo being shit helped but he did play well.

hows that like? or are you just taking the piss? It's a sign that the refs will stick together - they probably think Styles has had enough stick this season. Basically football was fucked when Gerrard dived over that outstretched leg a couple of years ago and they invented the thought crime of intending making a foul tackle. Poll: "It doesn't matter if you play the ball".

The backing from Poll means there's absolutely no chance it will be rescinded.

Moyes new deal is supposedly £65k per week.

What was that about them speaking for all of the fans without mandate again? As for damage done, how does painting a few banners compare with serious squad under-investment?

" Presumably along with "Cockney Mafia In" and "Ashley, please keep killing our club" "If only we'd given the structure a chance and put up with finishing 13th for 4 or 5 years we'd have made the top half and what's more we wouldn't owe any money to anybody, so there". That would stretch all around the ground.

My take on that is that there is a possibility that Ashley could look ad the bids and decide that they aren't big enough for his liking and hang on till a suitable bid appears. In that context increasing pressure on him so that he says "sod it" and takes a bit less is worthwhile in the intestest of getting everything sorted. Conjecture of course but what would be wrong with that notion?

It amazes me how many people don't realise how good he is. Yes he is a fat, lazy bastard but he's a bloody good player as well.

6 months from when Keegan announced his injury is November so of he does get back in the next 6 weeks its as diagnosed (though at the top end of the estimate). But yeah let's let one of our few good players go - after all we have Ameobi and Xisco.

What I meant was that theres been so much BS surrounding all of this, theres no good reason why I should implicitly believe or trust Harris because of some notion of him being a reputable man. He works for an investment company - I wouldn't automatically trust such a person if they told me 2+2 =4. He may be telling the truth but even last week Kinnear said that he'd been told Ashley was talking to people.

Christ some people really do try hard to complicate things. Harris said the debt was paid off and turned into equity. What's remotely confusing about that? (I'll dig put the exact quote if you still don't understand/believe it) And why do you think he would lie about that when he's not associated with the club and his own companies reputation would be in tatters if he was found to be lying on national radio? You complain about "the lack of clear, unambiguous statements of truth" and then when someone gives one you essentially call him a liar. The quote was: “I know him well and I’m representing him now, he has actually cleared up Newcastle’s debt. On the balance sheet it shows they don’t owe money, they owe it to him. That’s not debt, that’s equity, a more efficient way for an owner who owns the whole business." How many people do you think understand that in comparison to the number of people who think what he has done is the equivalent of a normal person paying off a loan early? The article also mentions no viable bids (see P62 of this thread) so Ashley via Kinnear is lying.