Howaythelads

Well you have made one football related post this year son, so I suppose it's too much to expect another anytime soon.

what tables are they mate ? The tables posted by macbeth (based on official club financial statements) that he commented on, duly dismissed by HTL. Eh? When did I say the daft tables posted by macbeth weren't facts? That is what you're really dripping about, isn't it? I accept something as fact but not something else? Here's the deal. macbeth posted facts, NE5 posted facts. They both tell a story but only one of them tells the story the poster claims it is telling. The facts posted by NE5 tell the story that previous boards were inferior to the current one, these facts ignored by many. Based on these facts an opinion has consequently been formed that it is possible for us to once again have a board like previous boards should the present one go. However, this is deemed to be impossible by the some, who dismiss events of the past as of no consequence. The facts posted by macbeth do not tell the story he portrays, what they tell is the story of his envy of Fred agend and they tell the story of one poor managerial appointment made not by Fred, but by the entire board. He continually ignores this, which I why I dismmissed his charts as nonsense. They do not say what he has in the past claimed they say. Understand?

Some things never change. Your post would have been better without the agenda of your daft charts, but we all know what's more important to you and that isn't football.

Nah, in this case he is. He's as bad as Ramage. Ramage is one of the shitiest players i've ever seen playing for us He is the new Andy "the nose" O'Brien O'Brien was never brilliant so don't get me wrong, but he's also better than Ramage. Miles better. He completely went to pieces when shithead took over from Robson. Zero confidence and confidence is vital.

The feeling IMO mate, is that the bandwagon jumpers who jumped onto the KK bandwagon, are disappointed at no trophy coming as they expected, and are ready to jump off. Good riddance to them is my take on it. Absolutely spot on. Couldn't agree more with all of that.

Fans who support the club through thick and thin, who don't moan about us being s*** when we're going through a "rough time". Change the record, granddad! I have. Last week it was "omg" to the "copy & paste" crowd. Now I'm making an intelligent and valuable contribution to the forum, attempting to educate the less knowledgeable among us.

Nah, in this case he is. He's as bad as Ramage.

Fans who support the club through thick and thin, who don't moan about us being s*** when we're going through a "rough time".

He is one of our best defenders because we only have ONE good one, Taylor, and the rest are like him - s****. On form, he is passable, but not our best. And he is only on form against s****, and even thenm its touch and go at times. He NOWHERE NEAR offers us value for money, and should be peddled asap. IMO. Taylor will in the end be better than Bramble (I hope) but right now he's just as dodgy as Bramble imo. Mind you, I don't believe Bramble is anywhere near as bad as you make him out to be.

Good thing the way you quote makes your posts unreadable. By the way, while I'm killing (wasting) time having a coffee before heading off to work, how many logins do you have for your "copy and paste" stuff?

It wasn't the current board who saved the club, you're wrong. It was Sir John who covered loans and put some of his own money in. Sir John has since taken his money back, and lots more. He's no longer on the board and as far as I'm aware the only person who put anything into the club other than through investing in shares. well, I say that without Keegan he wouldn't have done it. And Keegan was not chosen as manager by Sir John, he was chosen by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. I am sure you are also aware that he also spouted on about the Geordie Nation rubbish that Shepherd is condemned for. So please explain the difference ? Also, the current board has continued in the same vein, ie backing their managers, with him as the major shareholder ever since. So nothing has changed in that respect, other than we - including the major shareholder - has been unable to find a manager as good as Keegan. Exactly.

Just as well I don't go to the US until after the 15th. A nation of bloody basketball and rounders lovers, ffs.

I hate it when he commits a foul after 5 seconds and just carries on in the same way for the rest of the match. Oh, and by the way, Mel..... http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=36857.msg727382#msg727382

So you thought Zog was better than Parker?? Whilst i dont always agree with my fellow Gallowgate ender NSG, today i agree that Parker was fecking tripe. As per. Blimey! Agreed. I think Parker is probably the biggest single problem in the team. He's absolutely gash, whenever he plays there is just no creativity at all. It's been obvious for ages he can't combine well with Emre, a creative player. People are now also seeing he can't combine well with Butt, a defensive player. Who the hell can Parker combine well with? People are now suggesting Dyer. What I can't get my head around is why on earth are people intent on suggesting option after option to combine with Parker? Just get shot of the usesless t***. would you agree that parker started very, very well at SJP but has fallen away from the standard he set himself? remember his first season when he was played in a PURELY defensive midfield role and he was immense - a large, large part of keeping us up that season and pushing us up to 7th....he played like hargreaves when he's at his best...kept it simple, sat deep, chopped people up, ran himself into the ground (everton game!!), won tackles, moved the ball to someone else and didn't worry about getting forward or being creative now something has changed - be it from his side or the coaching side telling him to do something different, but it's changed suppose the argument is can we get him back to doing what i consider him to be good at? or more to the point, do we want to? No. I wouldn't agree. What he was doing was putting in 100% graft, throwing himself around and spilling blood for the cause. All very commendable stuff but it doesn't make him a good enough footballer. His reading of the game, anticipation and distribution of the ball are all poor and these are his major failings. He had one good season at Charlton and that's it as far as I'm concerned. However, as I don't watch Charlton a lot and certainly go to their matches so it's entirely possible that for that one season I was taken in by the media hype that ended with Chelsea spending millions on him before shifting him on to us.

Can't believe people are putting in names like Rooney, tbh. One of the few really class English players around today. Very strange you didn't pick up on that one.

Step in the right direction definitely. Ultimately if we don't win the league Fred will still get it in the neck from the serial moaners for anything the bloke gets wrong. Same as they blame him for everything the manager and players get wrong. That's my prediction, like.

Is the right answer. No, it's the wrong answer. Butt is a far, far better footballer than Parker, tbh. As others have said, Parker doesn't have a position. Imo that is because he isn't good enough at anything to make a position his own. Butt on the other hand is our best defensive midfielder, only some kind of negative bias can make anybody believe otherwise because the reality is he's the only one we have. He does a better job in that role than Parker. Emre and Dyer both offer more attacking threat when playing in a creative/attacking midfield role and so are both better than Parker in that role, a lot of that is down to the fact they are both naturally creative, attacking players. I doubt anyone should disagree with that since the general opinion anyway is that Parker should play the DM role. Agreed. Although roeder's general idea was to play him more as a box to box player, and has subsequently led to confusion as to his role on the pitch at times, he does not possess the quality to make a position his own. As a defensive midfielder his positional sense is poor and is easily duped into commiting himself and getting dragged out of position. Although it is a bit harsh on the lad, Scholes' goals at SJP highlighted this flaw in his game. Put simply, he is not disciplined enough. Going forward he can be useful (I think the Wigan match at the start of the season he showed that), but as mentioned in this thread, he spends far too much time on the ball and too often plays the sideways ball instead of driving forward. As a DM Butt is more disciplined and has a better positional sense, as well as matching Parker's qualities (strong in the tackle, and very determined), and we can all agree that Emre/Dyer are better going forward from midfield. So it is really a case of him not being good enough to make any position his own. That's it in a nutshell really. People who want him in the team always write about what he *could* do *if* he was used in a different way. Well my view is he doesn't have the attributes to be either a defensive midfielder, an attacking midfielder or a box to box type. He's not good enough, we'll improve if he's sent packing.

Agreed. Hopefully it'll mean he'll have less influence over the club. Hopefully certain people will stop blaming him for stuff that has nowt to do with him, like the manager signing players that turn out to be bad buys, for example. I doubt it somehow.

No. As I said in the other thread.

Well done, Fred.

What exactly about what he says in that article is Gormless? He speaks a lot of sense in my opinion. Agreed. Give up asking people to justify their posts, mate.

Howay man, all he does is pirouette, never passes forward, he should be a ballerina, etc. etc. etc. Repeat ad nauseum. Agreed.

Is the right answer. No, it's the wrong answer. Butt is a far, far better footballer than Parker, tbh. As others have said, Parker doesn't have a position. Imo that is because he isn't good enough at anything to make a position his own. Butt on the other hand is our best defensive midfielder, only some kind of negative bias can make anybody believe otherwise because the reality is he's the only one we have. He does a better job in that role than Parker. Emre and Dyer both offer more attacking threat when playing in a creative/attacking midfield role and so are both better than Parker in that role, a lot of that is down to the fact they are both naturally creative, attacking players. I doubt anyone should disagree with that since the general opinion anyway is that Parker should play the DM role.

Interesting but not a surprise that some of the members who believe Parker is a good player decided to post sarcasm toward a member who doesn't think Parker is any good.

Most managers would have recovered the mess Souness made, because all that needed to be done was playing players in their real positions and playing a basic 4-4-2. Insert "good" between "playing" and "players" and you'd be closer to the mark. Unfortunately, many of the players at the club are overrated, apart from the defenders, whom many people believe are shit but I suppose if you play them in their right positions and in a 4-4-2 they'll suddenly become ace.