Howaythelads

If it meant Moore coming in for Ramage, and Ramage replacing Baba as the left-back - and i'd be OK with that. We've got enough firepower from midfield to not need another sprightly wing-back... Ramage is good from a defensive side of things. Far better than Babayaro. (Nobby --- Taylor --- Moore --- Ramage) Ramage has proven to be totally inept at LB. From an attacking point of view, yes. But he is far superior defensively to Baba - which is what i feel is the most important thing. We need our four best defenders in our defense. I don't think he is, mate. When I say inept, I mean inept. He is hopeless at LB. Completely hopeles.

Course we f***ing should. I want to see us win the game, not sit back and watch them attack us. They had won the moment Drogba entered the field while we had no fresh legs. I said the same at 0-0. He should have taken Parker off early in the second half (given that he'd selected him) for Sibierski and gone 4-4-2.

If it meant Moore coming in for Ramage, and Ramage replacing Baba as the left-back - and i'd be OK with that. We've got enough firepower from midfield to not need another sprightly wing-back... Ramage is good from a defensive side of things. Far better than Babayaro. (Nobby --- Taylor --- Moore --- Ramage) Ramage has proven to be totally inept at LB.

Except we did actually lose. We lose due to the combination of a silly rash challenge by Butt, an overreaction by Robben, and ball being shifted forward. I am glad we did not lose in open play. And we generally played as well as Chelsea. He lost it in the subs, lack of for him. Rating: 3, thats being generous. Urrgh, feel like I'm going to be sick. I agree.

This game is gone. I'm on about the "big picture" when I refer to Parker. Unless you think tonight is the only game he's been shit, like.

:roll: Roeder - Selected the wrong team, was too negative, should have gone 4-4-2. Not hindsight either. Parker - He holds the team back. He's a player I've always thought of as average but he is starting to prove me wrong because he's actually shite. The sooner he goes the better because we play better without him. The worry is that Roeder may not have the balls to leave his captain out, so I hope the club gets an offer it can't refuse for Parker in January. BTW I've been saying this all along as well, so not fickle either.

Errrr yeah, that's what I thought. :roll: Actually, I think you need to plan to give yourself a chance of being successful in the transfer window. Obviously there are still things that can go wrong, but by planning you attempt to mitigate the risk of these events occuring. We failed to plan and so we left ourselves wide open to the F*** ups that ensued. Now stop playing Mr. Big Businessman ffs. bluebigrazz.gif How many back up plans would you need to ensure you never fucked up? So, just in case we dont get Huth, we'll go for Campbell and just in case we dont get him we'll go for Knight, then Woodgate, then ... ad infinitum untill you've been through every single f***ing permutation? Players were clearly available though! Huth nearly joined the smogs earlier in the window but that fell through due to a medical, why didnt we go for him then? Im sorry, I agree there is bad luck and good luck involved sometimes but when there are players clearly available and we don't manage to sign one and fail with last minutes bids this all points to bad planning. Can't read the posts that are being made? You may want to ignore those of myself and NE5 out of some immature motivation, but there are other people here making some sound and very logical comments and you're ignoring those too. It's nowt to do with bad planning. In other words the only people who aren't "idiots" are the ones who agree with you? I have nothing left to say on the matter, I have said all I have to say and unlike yourself and your "chum" NE5 repeating myself again and again and again and again gives me no cheap frills. Not bad planning :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh and by the way my mummy didn't tuck me up last night, yours did * * Childish insult, know you like those. Daft lad.

Errrr yeah, that's what I thought. :roll: Actually, I think you need to plan to give yourself a chance of being successful in the transfer window. Obviously there are still things that can go wrong, but by planning you attempt to mitigate the risk of these events occuring. We failed to plan and so we left ourselves wide open to the F*** ups that ensued. Now stop playing Mr. Big Businessman ffs. bluebigrazz.gif How many back up plans would you need to ensure you never fucked up? So, just in case we dont get Huth, we'll go for Campbell and just in case we dont get him we'll go for Knight, then Woodgate, then ... ad infinitum untill you've been through every single f***ing permutation? Players were clearly available though! Huth nearly joined the smogs earlier in the window but that fell through due to a medical, why didnt we go for him then? Im sorry, I agree there is bad luck and good luck involved sometimes but when there are players clearly available and we don't manage to sign one and fail with last minutes bids this all points to bad planning. Can't read the posts that are being made? You may want to ignore those of myself and NE5 out of some immature motivation, but there are other people here making some sound and very logical comments and you're ignoring those too. It's nowt to do with bad planning.

I don't think we needed Duff, tbh. I think I said so at the time, but maybe not. Perhaps someone will check for me. While not too disappointed that Duff came in, the only reason he's not a crap buy is the fee being relatively small. I'd rather we'd signed another centre forward given the injury to Owen, tbh. Ameobi is crap and Luque is a waste of space, that left us with just Martins and Sibierski, so we really needed 3 strikers, not just two. IMO.

Agreed. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,34084.msg656927.html#msg656927

Kaka for 25M Lennon for 8 Puyol for 10 Parker still in the team. An even bigger bluelaugh.gif

:roll: Failure to sign a player isn't bad planning, it can be any of a number of reasons. Hope your mum tucked you in.

Krul R. Taylor S. Taylor Ferdinand M. Taylor Milner Parker Emre Duff Bent Owen Not being funny, but £100m and you'd still want to see Parker and Emre in the middle? bluelaugh.gif Sorry, mate. Honest. That's me off for a can. Jesus christ cant you read, he was talking about a canny bench, i put up the other players, surely even you can see that? :roll: Or do you think i'd start Krul over Given, which would of been the most obvious thing to have a go at. :roll: :roll: :roll: You might, like.

How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. It was rhetorical, gemmill. But anyway, as you've answered it all I can ask is what's all this garbage about bad planning (from various people) then? If the manager didn't want the player and didn't go for him that sounds like he's sticking to a plan as far as I can tell. That an individual on this forum thinks we should have a signed a player the manager didn't want doesn't = bad planning by the club. Sticking to a bad plan is as bad as failing to plan tbh. Making the decision not to buy Campbell based on a flawed decision making process doesn't earn him extra points just because he had a (poor) reason not to buy the player. That's nonsense, Gemmill. What's more, you know it is. Some could say not selecting Luque is a bad plan, mate. Some would say selling Bellamy was a bad plan, others would say it's a good plan, isn't that right? :winking: Football is a matter of opinions. If the manager didn't want Campbell he can't be accused of having no plan just because some idiot on this forum thinks he should have signed him. Get it? I'm not suggesting that Roeder's plan is a bad one just because someone on here wanted to sell Campbell and Roeder didn't. To me signing Campbell was a no-brainer. I reckon Harry Redknapp would agree. Roeder fucked up with that signing and I think you know he did too. I really don't know why you're trying to defend the performance in the last transfer window. When you look at the sudden flurry of activity on the last day, you have to say that we had at least SOME money to spend. So then you have to ask yourself the question why had we left our business to the last day of the window. The answer is poor planning. No one would plan to do that much business on the last day. No one would plan to make their first enquiries about a player on the last day of the window (Viduka). No one would plan to try and hijack a bid for a defender that another club had all but signed (Huth). No one would plan to send one of their players into talks with another club only to have to call them back at the last minute (Milner). There was no plan to buy Antoine Sibierski - as pleasant a surprise as that signing has been, Roeder didn't plan for it, it happened when he shat himself at around 8pm on August 31st. It was also the lack of planning that saw us having to draft in Bernard the day after the window closed, having not scouted the player at all, the result of which being that he hasn't played a game for us since September. Why waste your time trying to defend that? It's a joke and you know it is. Gemmill, I'm not defending anything. The accusation is the normal type that points a finger at the club when something doesn't happen as though it is the norm'. It isn't. As you well know. This club has successfully signed dozens of players since the present transfer system began, to suggest they are suddenly shite at buying players in the transfer window because they had some failed bids in the last one is pure nonsense. Apart from the popularity for Campbell I'm not sure how bringing him in at the last minute would indicate any better planning than bringing in Sibierski and Bernard, something for which you're critical of the club for doing. Would you therefore be critical if, hypothetically, the club had signed a player at the last moment they didn't really want in Sol Campbell? Would that be different somehow? The club had transfer targets that didn't work out this time. Shit happens. I wouldn't expect the club to bring in a player they didn't want. I would however expect the club to want a player of Campbell's calibre and experience. That's where they went wrong in that signing. But that's not really key to my point. My point is that if we had money to spend and we knew what we wanted to spend it on, we wouldn't have left it to the last day of the window to make bids for the likes of Robert Huth and Zat Knight - Huth in particular had been available all transfer window. We waited until he was all but sat in his press conference at Boro then tried to hijack the deal. Why? Because our planning was appalling and we didn't really know who we wanted. So we procrastinated, left things til the last day, and then failed to secure the signings we had finally identified. When that happened we were left with no time to find alternatives. In anyone's book, in anyone's definition of the word, that is bad planning. No, its not. [/ HTL ] That's right.

How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. It was rhetorical, gemmill. But anyway, as you've answered it all I can ask is what's all this garbage about bad planning (from various people) then? If the manager didn't want the player and didn't go for him that sounds like he's sticking to a plan as far as I can tell. That an individual on this forum thinks we should have a signed a player the manager didn't want doesn't = bad planning by the club. Sticking to a bad plan is as bad as failing to plan tbh. Making the decision not to buy Campbell based on a flawed decision making process doesn't earn him extra points just because he had a (poor) reason not to buy the player. That's nonsense, Gemmill. What's more, you know it is. Some could say not selecting Luque is a bad plan, mate. Some would say selling Bellamy was a bad plan, others would say it's a good plan, isn't that right? :winking: Football is a matter of opinions. If the manager didn't want Campbell he can't be accused of having no plan just because some idiot on this forum thinks he should have signed him. Get it? I'm not suggesting that Roeder's plan is a bad one just because someone on here wanted to sell Campbell and Roeder didn't. To me signing Campbell was a no-brainer. I reckon Harry Redknapp would agree. Roeder fucked up with that signing and I think you know he did too. I really don't know why you're trying to defend the performance in the last transfer window. When you look at the sudden flurry of activity on the last day, you have to say that we had at least SOME money to spend. So then you have to ask yourself the question why had we left our business to the last day of the window. The answer is poor planning. No one would plan to do that much business on the last day. No one would plan to make their first enquiries about a player on the last day of the window (Viduka). No one would plan to try and hijack a bid for a defender that another club had all but signed (Huth). No one would plan to send one of their players into talks with another club only to have to call them back at the last minute (Milner). There was no plan to buy Antoine Sibierski - as pleasant a surprise as that signing has been, Roeder didn't plan for it, it happened when he shat himself at around 8pm on August 31st. It was also the lack of planning that saw us having to draft in Bernard the day after the window closed, having not scouted the player at all, the result of which being that he hasn't played a game for us since September. Why waste your time trying to defend that? It's a joke and you know it is. Gemmill, I'm not defending anything. The accusation is the normal type that points a finger at the club when something doesn't happen as though it is the norm'. It isn't. As you well know. This club has successfully signed dozens of players since the present transfer system began, to suggest they are suddenly shite at buying players in the transfer window because they had some failed bids in the last one is pure nonsense. Apart from the popularity for Campbell I'm not sure how bringing him in at the last minute would indicate any better planning than bringing in Sibierski and Bernard, something for which you're critical of the club for doing. Would you therefore be critical if, hypothetically, the club had signed a player at the last moment they didn't really want in Sol Campbell? Would that be different somehow? The club had transfer targets that didn't work out this time. Shit happens. I wouldn't expect the club to bring in a player they didn't want. I would however expect the club to want a player of Campbell's calibre and experience. That's where they went wrong in that signing. But that's not really key to my point. My point is that if we had money to spend and we knew what we wanted to spend it on, we wouldn't have left it to the last day of the window to make bids for the likes of Robert Huth and Zat Knight - Huth in particular had been available all transfer window. We waited until he was all but sat in his press conference at Boro then tried to hijack the deal. Why? Because our planning was appalling and we didn't really know who we wanted. So we procrastinated, left things til the last day, and then failed to secure the signings we had finally identified. When that happened we were left with no time to find alternatives. In anyone's book, in anyone's definition of the word, that is bad planning. Perhaps the quality the club wanted just wasn't there at a price they were prepared to pay. Huth, ffs. I'm glad that one didn't go through anyway. I'd sooner gamble on the likes of Ramage, tbh.

I hope he does aswell. Ok he didn't spend money stupidly but that doesn't make his poor planning any better. bluelaugh.gif

How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. It was rhetorical, gemmill. But anyway, as you've answered it all I can ask is what's all this garbage about bad planning (from various people) then? If the manager didn't want the player and didn't go for him that sounds like he's sticking to a plan as far as I can tell. That an individual on this forum thinks we should have a signed a player the manager didn't want doesn't = bad planning by the club. Sticking to a bad plan is as bad as failing to plan tbh. Making the decision not to buy Campbell based on a flawed decision making process doesn't earn him extra points just because he had a (poor) reason not to buy the player. That's nonsense, Gemmill. What's more, you know it is. Some could say not selecting Luque is a bad plan, mate. Some would say selling Bellamy was a bad plan, others would say it's a good plan, isn't that right? :winking: Football is a matter of opinions. If the manager didn't want Campbell he can't be accused of having no plan just because some idiot on this forum thinks he should have signed him. Get it? I'm not suggesting that Roeder's plan is a bad one just because someone on here wanted to sell Campbell and Roeder didn't. To me signing Campbell was a no-brainer. I reckon Harry Redknapp would agree. Roeder fucked up with that signing and I think you know he did too. I really don't know why you're trying to defend the performance in the last transfer window. When you look at the sudden flurry of activity on the last day, you have to say that we had at least SOME money to spend. So then you have to ask yourself the question why had we left our business to the last day of the window. The answer is poor planning. No one would plan to do that much business on the last day. No one would plan to make their first enquiries about a player on the last day of the window (Viduka). No one would plan to try and hijack a bid for a defender that another club had all but signed (Huth). No one would plan to send one of their players into talks with another club only to have to call them back at the last minute (Milner). There was no plan to buy Antoine Sibierski - as pleasant a surprise as that signing has been, Roeder didn't plan for it, it happened when he shat himself at around 8pm on August 31st. It was also the lack of planning that saw us having to draft in Bernard the day after the window closed, having not scouted the player at all, the result of which being that he hasn't played a game for us since September. Why waste your time trying to defend that? It's a joke and you know it is. Gemmill, I'm not defending anything. The accusation is the normal type that points a finger at the club when something doesn't happen as though it is the norm'. It isn't. As you well know. This club has successfully signed dozens of players since the present transfer system began, to suggest they are suddenly shite at buying players in the transfer window because they had some failed bids in the last one is pure nonsense. Apart from the popularity for Campbell I'm not sure how bringing him in at the last minute would indicate any better planning than bringing in Sibierski and Bernard, something for which you're critical of the club for doing. Would you therefore be critical if, hypothetically, the club had signed a player at the last moment they didn't really want in Sol Campbell? Would that be different somehow? The club had transfer targets that didn't work out this time. Shit happens. Do you agree that the attempted transfer dealings on the last day of the window was a sign of poor planning? Who said we should have signed Campbell on the last day of the window by the way? No, I don't agree it was poor planning. Some transfer deals work and others don't. Do you know what hypothetically means? Do you know what example means? Campbell left arse and signed for portsmouth well before the end of the transfer window. Newcastle didn't sign him because Roeder didn't want him and he obviously had other players he was interested in, deals that subsequently did not come off for whatever reason. What do you want the club to do? Sign Campbell earlier on big wages just in case these proposed deals don't come off? What do you suggest a club should do as standard practice when they have a definite transfer target? Should a club always sign an alternative earlier on, just in case their real target doesn't join? You're funny. You're also using that hindsight thing again, that you rely on so much. You said, "The fact we had failed bids on the last day of the season for defenders suggests bad planning does it not? Or was being left with 6 defenders the plan all along?" You also said, "Not going to comment on the fact that with at least 2 failed bids on the last day of the transfer window we obviously had the money for defenders but f*cked up due to poor planning NE5? Also not going for free's like Campbell, Trabelsi..." I mentioned Campbell simply as an example due to the fact you mentioned him and appeared to think the club should have signed him. Understand yet?

With £100 Mill to spend you'd expect to be challenging the title, could you see that team challenging? i personally couldnt! I agree. It looks shite to me, tbh. Well given the fact that you left it at, "i will give it to Wenger" does your opinion really count? Surely you of all people aren't taking the stance that your opinion is worth more than mine because I'm 48 and you're 12? Ok whats wrong with that team? Two fantastic young full backs who will only get better. Top class centre back with a very good youngster beside him who will also get better. Young, pacy wingers who are very capable to destroying defences, top class defensive midfielder alongside a midfielder who scores more than his fair share in a pretty average Everton Side. Young english striker who has always been good for a good is excellent in the air, has good hold up play and works his arse off and a lightening quick partner who is very two footed is settling into the premiership and starting to look a very good player. I also forgot to put Owen in there who will score goals when fit. If you want to leave your answer as is (ie complete kop out!) and then need to result to things like "but you're 12 years old" then fine but you do look a bit of a tit when questioning other peoples comments. I thought you were the tit actually when you said "does your opinion really count". Cheers

How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. It was rhetorical, gemmill. But anyway, as you've answered it all I can ask is what's all this garbage about bad planning (from various people) then? If the manager didn't want the player and didn't go for him that sounds like he's sticking to a plan as far as I can tell. That an individual on this forum thinks we should have a signed a player the manager didn't want doesn't = bad planning by the club. Sticking to a bad plan is as bad as failing to plan tbh. Making the decision not to buy Campbell based on a flawed decision making process doesn't earn him extra points just because he had a (poor) reason not to buy the player. That's nonsense, Gemmill. What's more, you know it is. Some could say not selecting Luque is a bad plan, mate. Some would say selling Bellamy was a bad plan, others would say it's a good plan, isn't that right? :winking: Football is a matter of opinions. If the manager didn't want Campbell he can't be accused of having no plan just because some idiot on this forum thinks he should have signed him. Get it? I'm not suggesting that Roeder's plan is a bad one just because someone on here wanted to sell Campbell and Roeder didn't. To me signing Campbell was a no-brainer. I reckon Harry Redknapp would agree. Roeder fucked up with that signing and I think you know he did too. I really don't know why you're trying to defend the performance in the last transfer window. When you look at the sudden flurry of activity on the last day, you have to say that we had at least SOME money to spend. So then you have to ask yourself the question why had we left our business to the last day of the window. The answer is poor planning. No one would plan to do that much business on the last day. No one would plan to make their first enquiries about a player on the last day of the window (Viduka). No one would plan to try and hijack a bid for a defender that another club had all but signed (Huth). No one would plan to send one of their players into talks with another club only to have to call them back at the last minute (Milner). There was no plan to buy Antoine Sibierski - as pleasant a surprise as that signing has been, Roeder didn't plan for it, it happened when he shat himself at around 8pm on August 31st. It was also the lack of planning that saw us having to draft in Bernard the day after the window closed, having not scouted the player at all, the result of which being that he hasn't played a game for us since September. Why waste your time trying to defend that? It's a joke and you know it is. Gemmill, I'm not defending anything. The accusation is the normal type that points a finger at the club when something doesn't happen as though it is the norm'. It isn't. As you well know. This club has successfully signed dozens of players since the present transfer system began, to suggest they are suddenly shite at buying players in the transfer window because they had some failed bids in the last one is pure nonsense. Apart from the popularity for Campbell I'm not sure how bringing him in at the last minute would indicate any better planning than bringing in Sibierski and Bernard, something for which you're critical of the club for doing. Would you therefore be critical if, hypothetically, the club had signed a player at the last moment they didn't really want in Sol Campbell? Would that be different somehow? The club had transfer targets that didn't work out this time. Shit happens.

How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. Aye that was a pretty clear sign to me, thought it might have been to others aswell but I often forget who im talking to on here! Eh? WTF are you on about now? Jesus. You must be one really dumb person. If you don't understand it I think you need to be looking closer to home for the dumb person. The fact we had failed bids on the last day of the season for defenders suggests bad planning does it not? Or was being left with 6 defenders the plan all along? No. how does it not? We obviously knew we needed the players otherwise we wouldnt have bid so how does leaving it too late not make it a bad plan? If I had some money to buy a relative an xmas present but failed to get it because i left it till the 24th December would the excuse "Well I did plan to buy it" go down too well? Some people have the nerve to call others idiots! :lol: You're complaining that the club didn't sign a player you wanted the club to sign but who the club didn't want to sign. Any failed bids during the transfer window were for players the club did want. Not all transfers come off, or do you think they do? Understand?

Or keep buying them and watch them sold off on the cheap a la Leeds, would you prefer us to go that way as long as we keep spending money? As for your "deluded as ever" comment, I put that down to you not being able to answer the question properly. All the talk of a possible buy out would include paying off or huge debts, of course they will want something in return but the only way to make money in football is for the club to be successful. how do you think the club will be successful without spending money There are 2 options. The first one would be for them to invest their own money into the club to give us that lift up into the CL places, from then on with the the extra income they can operate at a break even policy where they only spend what the club has made through profit. The second option would be to get a decent managerial set up installed similar to what Bolton have got and move the club forward from there. Have Bolton not spent any money? What have they won? They've bought Anelka this season but he was there only real big money signing. Bolton haven't won anything, having said that they didn't have to go into £87 million of debt just to win the Intertoto cup. With our higher financial turnover would be on a much higher level than Bolton, maybe the ways Spurs is run would be a better example. Well I thought you were generally on about Bolton and how they've approached things over a number of years. They've spent money, but won nowt. Just like us. The reason we're in such debt right now is down to one bad managerial appointment, no more than that. It happens. It will be turned around by a good manager. I'm hoping Roeder is that man, still not sure though.

How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. Aye that was a pretty clear sign to me, thought it might have been to others aswell but I often forget who im talking to on here! Eh? WTF are you on about now? Jesus. You must be one really dumb person. If you don't understand it I think you need to be looking closer to home for the dumb person. The fact we had failed bids on the last day of the season for defenders suggests bad planning does it not? Or was being left with 6 defenders the plan all along? No.

How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. It was rhetorical, gemmill. But anyway, as you've answered it all I can ask is what's all this garbage about bad planning (from various people) then? If the manager didn't want the player and didn't go for him that sounds like he's sticking to a plan as far as I can tell. That an individual on this forum thinks we should have a signed a player the manager didn't want doesn't = bad planning by the club. Sticking to a bad plan is as bad as failing to plan tbh. Making the decision not to buy Campbell based on a flawed decision making process doesn't earn him extra points just because he had a (poor) reason not to buy the player. That's nonsense, Gemmill. What's more, you know it is. Some could say not selecting Luque is a bad plan, mate. Some would say selling Bellamy was a bad plan, others would say it's a good plan, isn't that right? :winking: Football is a matter of opinions. If the manager didn't want Campbell he can't be accused of having no plan just because some idiot on this forum thinks he should have signed him. Get it?

With £100 Mill to spend you'd expect to be challenging the title, could you see that team challenging? i personally couldnt! I agree. It looks shite to me, tbh. Well given the fact that you left it at, "i will give it to Wenger" does your opinion really count? Surely you of all people aren't taking the stance that your opinion is worth more than mine because I'm 48 and you're 12?

I'm not. I've seen us knocked out of the League Cup and the FA Cup by teams worse than Wycombe.