NJS

What?? There was no one else to play up front, who else should he have played? Carroll. Or a wandering stray dog. Because Carroll has been brilliant when he's played? The lads no better then Ameobi at the moment. I haven't seen much of Carroll therefore will give him a chance before I decide whether he's good. I don't need to see Ameobi play one second more to know he is nowhere near good enough. Seriously, if you think Carroll would have done any better than Ameobi today, you're just not watching the game. The lad had a decent shift. If you can accept that Stephen Carr can have non-cringeworthy games from time to time, why can't you give Ameobi the same benefit. How many times did he hit the target? How many chances did he create for others ? How many good passes? How many pointless free kicks did he give away? If thats a decent shift we will never get anywhere near the top 6. I'll say it again for those who arent listening "Who would YOU have played there instead?" Carroll aside, I would rather have matched their 5 in midfield with Lua Lua and not had him in the team.

The fact that he's not good enough for the top 6 has absolutely no bearing at the moment because 1. He's ours right now, like it or not. 2. Nobody will have him. 3. We're not going to be sitting anywhere near the top six for a while. So as long as he's ours and non-saleable, why not use him when we have to and give him credit when he preforms to the best of his (limited) abilities. I certainly wouldn't rather stick in a 19 year old who wasn't good enough for a Championship bottom side, much less the top six. 1/ What a reference. 2/ Norwich 3/ The only way to improve is to get players in who are better than the ones who have let us down in the last 3 years (at least)

What?? There was no one else to play up front, who else should he have played? Carroll. Or a wandering stray dog. Because Carroll has been brilliant when he's played? The lads no better then Ameobi at the moment. I haven't seen much of Carroll therefore will give him a chance before I decide whether he's good. I don't need to see Ameobi play one second more to know he is nowhere near good enough. Seriously, if you think Carroll would have done any better than Ameobi today, you're just not watching the game. The lad had a decent shift. If you can accept that Stephen Carr can have non-cringeworthy games from time to time, why can't you give Ameobi the same benefit. How many times did he hit the target? How many chances did he create for others ? How many good passes? How many pointless free kicks did he give away? If thats a decent shift we will never get anywhere near the top 6.

What?? There was no one else to play up front, who else should he have played? Anyone who is looking to blame ameobi need a f****** lead earring..."OMG keegans been here 3 days and we only drew!!! WTF!",shut the f****** door on your way out tbh. I'm not blaming him for not winning - just stating that he isn't good enough.

What?? There was no one else to play up front, who else should he have played? Carroll. Or a wandering stray dog. Because Carroll has been brilliant when he's played? The lads no better then Ameobi at the moment. I haven't seen much of Carroll therefore will give him a chance before I decide whether he's good. I don't need to see Ameobi play one second more to know he is nowhere near good enough.

What?? There was no one else to play up front, who else should he have played? Carroll. Or a wandering stray dog.

Ameobi was shit. He has always been shit. He will always be shit. I'm pig sick of people defending him and talking about potential - how many years will we do that? - should be no more - get rid now.

Bollocks its only 4 years since we finished s 4-3-5 sequence and have a 7th 2 years ago. Man City, Villa and Pompey are standard mid-table - we aren't. Also saying "we aren't a big club" based on this year and the previous 2 or 3 is beyond stupid.

On average 5th in the epl? how? Its based on points I think - table in one of those articles above ^^^ Wedon't come on average 5th every season, though. Our target should be solid top 6, then hopefully a push onwards from there.We ARE a mid table side, though, for now. Going by the goldfish span of the sky football fan then we are mid-table - my point was that even over a recent in football terms period of the PL's existence we are the closest to the infamous big four. I realise our next task is to get up to a level of 5th/6th/7th but that doesn't stop us from saying thats the least we should aspire to imo.

On average 5th in the epl? how? Its based on points I think - table in one of those articles above ^^^

As I've said before, a Blackburn fan I work with reckons Hughes is earmarked for the Man U job but what the timescale on that is debatable. I'd expect Taggart to do at least 2 or 3 years more and maybe then Queroz would have a go. That makes this possibility similar to the Mackems in that they don't seem to mind Keane being talked of for the Man U job as that would mean he'd done well for them. I'd be reasonably happy with Hughes - not ecstatic but it could be a lot worse. Part of me do does recognise what Wullie says about Keegan/Shearer and I agree it would generate excitement but I still have a nagging "it won't work" feeling.

Improvements on the pitch that see us 6 points off relegation as it stands?

Its interesting that we're on average 5th in the PL but all those articles dismiss us as a mid table club who have no right to expect anything else Are we allowed to aspire to be 5th?

So after reading those tables why don't they have a go at Tottenham? Twats.

I have to say that I try and be ruthless and cynical and say "win at all costs" - which is not necessarily what I think Chelsea were under Mourinho - and give my instinctive answer which is is style first. I guess thats why Ashley's words seem to make sense to me.

I don't think that was his tone tbf - I think he was trying to emphasise that he had done something "major" by putting that much money in to show he was serious rather than a figure of fun suggested by his sit with the fans image. I would stop short of kissing his arse but us being a debt free club is worthy of some gratitude I feel. Being debt-free doesn't affect the fans. If the efficient running of the club's finances eventually results in higher revenues which are invested in higher quality personnel, which in turn results in better performances on the pitch - then it affects us. Hasn't happened yet. I'll be grateful when it eventually - hopefully - does. Yeah, Luton fans aren't being affected at all mate. Or Leeds. Or the Mackems but for the Irish mafia.

I'd echo Wullie and also say that the sneering way they say he's a typical toon fan etc could come back to haunt them if he does take control and puts all his business acumen and money to work for us a la article.

That still needs a willing buyer at that price though. As a private asset if all someone is willing to pay is £1 then thats what its worth.

I would also add that despite their "geordie nation" bollocks the Halls were in it to make money which in the end they did. However if we had won the title in 96 who would have given a flying fuck?

I don't think that was his tone tbf - I think he was trying to emphasise that he had done something "major" by putting that much money in to show he was serious rather than a figure of fun suggested by his sit with the fans image. I would stop short of kissing his arse but us being a debt free club is worthy of some gratitude I feel.

On what basis? The shares at purchase were £140m and are now I guess not quoted. The club is worth whatever figure he wants to sell it for. If someone wants to pay £250m then fair enough but I can't see it happening which is why he has to expand it by being successful.

After today we should be forgiven. This of course fits the Keegan/Shearer scenario - in fact lets get Gazza in as well for the hell of it.

Exactly - Man U who are on a different planet to us made £25m profit after winning the league - we'd have to become as big globally as they are and do it for 10 years in a row for him to make money. Feasible?

Well he's completely removed the spectre of us doing a Leeds for starters. It also means that when people refer to ST money buying players and paying wages thats more true now than it was previously. Might not mean anything in practical terms but it makes me feel more involved - however sad that is.

Can you explain that? If the club had debt and now hasn't as the creditors have been paid then there is no debt. If he has become the clubs creditor which seems to be what you are saying (like the Glazers if I understand it) then I would be worried but it doesn't look like that.