WhatTheFunk

I see what you did there top post by the way

On a serious note, I don't even think Allardyce's reign here should "count". He was brought in to do a long term job, and by the sounds of things when he came in, he seemed like the right man, at the right age, with the right experience to do it. He got nowhere near enough time obviously, and his short term success rate was abysmal. Many things were down to him, good and bad....but there were outside factors as well he could do nothing about. Personally dont have any hard feelings towards the fella, and still think he is a top manager. As for Keegan....I'm sure he can't wait to get this season over and done with. I just hope that he can get a few wins under his belt ASAP to ensure safety, and hope he uses the rest of it to assess his players, giving every single one of them a chance.

You know...that sounds like a broken record. We've been writing off season after season. Think we're due some good times again soon.

sweary words? get a grip dave You have just given me MASSIVE deja vu. was SO glad it was the words deja vu that came after the word MASSIVE! could say it was a MASSIVE relief You are talking to the wrong person. Its Yorkie and Kev you have to look out for. Gejon too? Oh and Bontempi. Always thought he was a lass

sweary words? get a grip dave You have just given me MASSIVE deja vu. was SO glad it was the words deja vu that came after the word MASSIVE! could say it was a MASSIVE relief

sweary words? get a grip dave

Talking, organising, commanding his box, takes pressure of defenders. In my opinion Correct. Imo Not knocking Shay here by any means. But I feel a spell on the sidelines would do him well. A spell on the sidelines that isnt due to injury.

3 goals. Enough? Surely not!!!!! Srnicek; Barton(Watson), Beresford; Batty, Howey, Albert; Asprilla, Lee, Ferdinand, Beardsley, Ginola OUT

I wonder what you thought of the Rooney bid by Shepherd, somehow hypocrite comes to mind, not that that's new as we've spent more in the last two windows than we did in the two before that while being in a similar position, I don't remember you moaning back them. I can understand a player preferring to sign for ManU, but Spurs ? Strange that isn't it, we lost 2 of our best ever players to Spurs in the 1980's and you defend that board too........yet slate the board who didn't lose our best players and signed quality ones instead. Where did you go wrong in the logic stakes I wonder Didn't we lose Andy Cole to Man Utd.? Ferdinand and Ginola to Spurs? And can anyone honestly say, that hand on heart, they believe Shearer would have signed for us had he not been a Geordie? Managers decisions. I know some people won't get it and you were one. There is clearly no point in trying to explain to you why players like Gazza and Waddle [and Beardsley] wanted to leave the club, as it won't change your "opinion". Cheers I responded to this post as an after-thought. Please respond to my response to your previous response. bloody hell! some response that was cheers in fact, I left the real biggie to see if you would see the point. Please explain to us the difference between Beardsley, Wadddle and Gazza leaving the club - 2 of them staunch NUFC fans and Beardsley in particular who waved to the Kop his future employers while wearing a black and white shirt. Whereas Shearer [better than all of them] stayed with his club ? Now. I just KNOW that this won' t attract an intelligent response, including from the likes of MICK who says he has also seen this era of the club, which must a clear lie because nobody that I know personally that witnessed the 30 years previouis to 1992 has the view that this particular KBJ does The whole scenario of someone slating the owners of the club like MICK does who attracted him back to the club is fantastically unbelievable. These 20000 supporters who will support the club for evermore and all of that............ Whatever did they do on saturday afternoons before IKEA opened Well I've never claimed to know more about the club than your good self for several reasons. Mainly that you are older than I am, and you have been a supporter for a lot longer than I have (only been supporting the club for 16 years). Now I can only comment about Shearer for obvious reasons. Shearer never left the club because the club was able to continue to pay his massive wages. Also because we had a chairman and board who were willing to splash the cash on managers and big name players, and always had an ambition to try and win something. This naturally appealed to Shearer. Add to that the fact that he loved being the local hero who was chasing Milburn's record. I guess year in year out he felt there was hope that this would be the year when things would turn around (especially after the Gullit fiasco). However, I wonder if he would have left the club had SBR not joined. By his own admission, SBR revived his career. I had a face to face encounter with Gazza, and this is a true story, when he had just joined Rangers. The scots were in Cyprus to play Anorthosis in the champions league qualifiers. We had just signed Barton and Ferdinand, and were heavily linked with Gazza at the time. I met him in the gym at the hotel where the team was staying, and i asked him why didnt come back to newcastle. Gazza smiled and said "because they're crap!!". I looked at him confused, and said I thought Newcastle could do very well and that I was hoping we'd push for the title, and told him it was better than the mickey mouse league he was in. He laughed and said "I know mate, I'm only joking. They're my team, and I wish. but my time with them is finished. I hope they win the league too ya knaa". Beardsley left to win things, as the club wasn't in good shape at the time. But he did come back when Keegan spoke to him and told him all about his and the board's vision for the future. Waddle I don't know much about at all tbh. Now, you keep avoiding the point that we ALL (including Mick) agree that the club was shit, and thanks to the Halls/Shepherd we progressively became less shit, and eventually turned into perennial big hitters. But you must admit that at some point, the Halls/Shepherd took a wrong turn somewhere, and one mistake led to another and another and the club is NOT as highly rated as it was in '96 let's say. Sure, they made a lot of lasting improvements, such as the stadium, global profile etc.... but they took their eyes off the ball when it came down to footballing matters, and we have slipped down in that regard. I don't think anyone can deny that fact. There is a new regime in place, who have taken over the club BECAUSE of these strengths that the Halls/Shepherd installed. However, they have also pointed out the weaknesses that always stopped us from taking it that one extra step and pushing for winners' medals. They can see the same potential the Halls/Shepherd (god im sick of typing that) saw, and they want to try and do it their own way. What everyone is saying is that these fellas deserve the time to realise their vision, and two half-transfer windows is by no means enough time. Also, what do you think of Keegan's comments where he says that it was HIS choice not to bring in players? Isnt it your view that the board should follow the manager;s instructions? Isn't that backing the manager? as much as it is backing him with cash when he pinpoints a player or two he would like? I'm curious to know your take. We've heard it from the horse's mouth.

Like our managers decision to wait until the Summer to get the players who he wants? Or is Keegan now a yes man covering for the board? Didn't we get shot of Ferdinand in the aftermath of the floatation and needed to raise cash? Wasn't he sold over Dalglish's head because the board thought the offer was too good to turn down? Right decision or wrong isn't the point. The point is, we still lost one of our best players to Tottenham. Ginola wanted to go as he had a fall-out with KD didn't he? It certainly wasn't a tactical sale. As for Cole....well at the time we sold our top scorer to our fiercest rivals. Can you imagine Arsenal ever selling Henry in his prime to Man Utd.? Keegan didn't sell Cole because he wanted rid. He needed the cash.

I wonder what you thought of the Rooney bid by Shepherd, somehow hypocrite comes to mind, not that that's new as we've spent more in the last two windows than we did in the two before that while being in a similar position, I don't remember you moaning back them. I can understand a player preferring to sign for ManU, but Spurs ? Strange that isn't it, we lost 2 of our best ever players to Spurs in the 1980's and you defend that board too........yet slate the board who didn't lose our best players and signed quality ones instead. Where did you go wrong in the logic stakes I wonder Didn't we lose Andy Cole to Man Utd.? Ferdinand and Ginola to Spurs? And can anyone honestly say, that hand on heart, they believe Shearer would have signed for us had he not been a Geordie? Managers decisions. I know some people won't get it and you were one. There is clearly no point in trying to explain to you why players like Gazza and Waddle [and Beardsley] wanted to leave the club, as it won't change your "opinion". Cheers I responded to this post as an after-thought. Please respond to my response to your previous response. bloody hell! some response that was cheers

Naah it's an ability on FM

I wonder what you thought of the Rooney bid by Shepherd, somehow hypocrite comes to mind, not that that's new as we've spent more in the last two windows than we did in the two before that while being in a similar position, I don't remember you moaning back them. I can understand a player preferring to sign for ManU, but Spurs ? Strange that isn't it, we lost 2 of our best ever players to Spurs in the 1980's and you defend that board too........yet slate the board who didn't lose our best players and signed quality ones instead. Where did you go wrong in the logic stakes I wonder Didn't we lose Andy Cole to Man Utd.? Ferdinand and Ginola to Spurs? And can anyone honestly say, that hand on heart, they believe Shearer would have signed for us had he not been a Geordie?

not suggesting anything Dave. I find the hypocrisy of standards - which boils down completely to personalities - quite amazing. Simple fact is that I've seen this before. Unambitious board who aren't prepared to compete with the winning clubs but attempt to pacify fans with talk of "youth systems", "the future plans"....blah blah, other such bollocks. Simple fact also is that you need players the top teams want if you want to challenge them, never mind beat them. Particularly incredible is the fact that Keegan showed everybody this the first time round. I don't think Mort has the slightest clue about football and how it works. They / he [interesting one this, will it be Ashleys fault as major shareholder or Morts as chairman if Keegan fucks off or fails] will have to catch on quickly or Keegan will put them under pressure or bugger off. Quite right too if he does under those circumstances. I simply don't buy the people who are now supporting this deluded "kids policy" instead of spending money, when all we heard every other week under the old board was "splash the cash you greedy fat b******" Amazing. The sooner we are back in europe the better. And if Ashley and Mort don't realise this, for me they can both bugger off. Right. I think it's now plainly obvious that your agenda is merely to attack the new board regardless. When you say things like "people are supporting the kids policy INSTEAD of buying big players" etc.... That's a load of bollocks LM and you know it. People are saying that it will do us no harm to try and uncover a few gems in the process, until we are able to attract the Berbatovs of this world!! No one is saying the board to should aim to produce an entire first team from youth talent!!! But if one or two turn out to be useful, then why not? Amazing Shame, but I think for a long time the agenda of numerous people was simply to attack the old board whatever they did regardless. And still is, in fact. Buying up the best kids and ignoring the present is nothing other than taking a punt at gaining success on the cheap, and doesn't bode well I'm afraid. I've tried to tell you it doesn't work, because it hasn't in the past at pretty much any other club plus common sense tells you it isn't so simple as this - so if you think differently, then of course thats your opinion. I look forward to seeing your u-turn. Do you mean when we tried it with Bassedas, Cort, Bramble etc...? You could look at Craig Bellamy and Laurent Robert if you like, but it wouldn't suit your "opinion" would it. As you are unable to distinguish the difference between the board backing their managers, and where it becomes the managers responsibility to make good judgements rather than poor ones [bobby Robson too] there is really no point in attempting to explain this to you. You've got me all wrong, and you are still seemingly reluctant to read my posts properly, and answer to "facts" you pointed out. Bellamy and Robert are EXACTLY the type of signings we should be making. As we did with Ferdinand, Ginola and Batty. Quality players, in their prime, that would have walked into the top clubs at the time. I am in no way disputing that whatsoever. What I'm saying is that for some reason, we haven't gone out and bought these players in the summer (for somewhat obvious reasons being the takeover and big sam's uncertainty over his own future and the assessment the new owners felt they needed to make). We couldn't sign this type of player in January due to the arrival of a new manager, and little time left in the window. Now...would it have been better not to have signed anyone at all? I'm in no way arguing that we shouldn't go after the top players. But what I'm saying is that if for whatever reason we didn't or couldn't, then there is no harm in bringing in some youth, and taking a chance that one or two might turn out better than average. They could either be integrated into the first team, or sold at a profit. WHAT'S THE HARM IN THAT? (question in caps so you don't miss it). As for your argument, which you continue to avoid answering to.....i listed the players you said were youth players we bought the last time we went down the "kids policy" route. I responded by saying that those were NOT youth team signings, and that some were even above 20 at the time and established internationals/first team players. Please read the post carefully so you don't misinterpret what I'm saying, and give a fair response, as I'm trying to have a debate. If you choose not to, then don't waste my time or yours. I'm hoping....but I'm not holding my breath. EDIT: Oh and by the way, you conveniently ignore the FACT that we made a bid for Jonathan Woodgate this window. A big player in his prime. I've answered your post. I would also point out that we didn't buy Woodgate, unlike last time, also in the January window. Perhaps, as has been pointed out, Woodgate saw Spurs as a more progressive club than us ? How does that grab you, because they certainly weren't when we were run by the halls and Shepherd. And strangely too, they were more progressive than we were before the halls and Shepherd. Work it out for yourself, but don't let personalities or the facts I've just told you, affect your "opinion" We didn't get Woodgate because the fact is that we have gone backwards since he was here the first time. We started to go backwards because Shepherd made some abysmal decisions in appointing Souness and Roeder (still believe Big Sam was a good decision). No one disputes the fact that the Halls/Shepherd/Keegan were the ones to thank for putting Newcastle back on the map, and turning us into perennial big hitters. But when things start to sour, and people with responsibility begin to make mistakes, then they need to go. Just as one needs to sell a player once he's past it regardless of how good they were in the past. The new regime has been in for 5 minutes, and you're accusing them of lack of ambition. I think that is bullshit, and smacks of bitterness. Shepherd had been there for years, and people got on his back when they had seen enough. Believe you me, if the new board are here for a while, and begin to make mistakes year after year, and show signs of ineptitude year after year, I'll want them out too. So far they haven't had anywhere near enough time to do what they want to do, but imo they have signaled their intentions loud and clear. Obviously, action speaks louder than words, and we can only hope, wait and see. As for you answering my question regarding the players you claim were youth signings....I still can't find the answer. How on earth were Bramble, Cort, Bassedas (), O'Brien, LuaLua comparable as youth signings to Tozer, Kadar, Baheng, Zamblera and Sodeberg??? Well done, you join the ranks of those who rather absurdly think that for some reason the major shareholdes ie the Halls, stood back and allowed someone with less shares to make the major decisions all on his own. There are plenty of them around. Either that or they are just making their comments up to suit their "opinion" BTW, Bramble etc were older. Young players who it was thought would increase in value and be good players for the club. What is your problem with signing players under that particular criteria, and why do you think signing 17 year olds for nothing when we need players now is a better policy ? Keen them coming. Make it fit your "opinion" as long as you like. You're wrong though. I don't see it as "Wrong" re: Bramble etc. What I'm saying is that we haven't gone down the path of bringing in players in numbers to play in the youth team to be developed here. We have never really focused on that policy, and never made it one of the priorities. What's the harm in trying now? In my opinion, which I believe is the same as yours, the club should go for the best possible players they could manage to attract at any given time, in the summer or january, and I maintain that opinion. Some are attainable and realistic, some are youth players for the academy, some will be young but be able to cut it in the first team, and some will be seemingly past it but able to offer experience and solidity for a short term fix. I stand corrected. It was the Halls/Shepherd who fucked things up in the end and needed to go. Not Shepherd on his own.

See...I dont know, I would have thought Spurs would strengthen in central defence if anything more than the full back positions. Hasnt that been your main problem lately with injuries to King and Dawson? Then they go out and get you Woody + 3 other fullbacks. Strange one I think Gilberto will be playing left back only until Bale get's fit again(Probably out for the season though), and then he'll switch to Lm. With Bale out of contention, were looking at Hutton and Chimbonda in contention for the rb spot and lee and Gilberto for the lb, with Gunter able to play both Right and left back. Centre back position, we are sorted tbh. King, Woodgate, Dawson, Kaboul and Rocha (not to mention Huddlestone can fill in there) should be ok for the rest of the season but we desperatly need a defensive midfielder in the summer. Was hoping for a reply from MJ tbh....you're a bit thick it seems

I'll pm him with a link. nee worries

Isn't Bramble a perfect example? not really, he came for a big fee after 2 premiership seasons. the young lads we've signed now have little first team experience between them and are going to play with the academy teams and reserves. more comparable to Bernard, or our intentions for N'Zogbia (though he developed quicker than expected), or as Nut pointed out, the likes of Pinas and Gudjohnsen that Dalglish signed. let's hope they turn out more like Robson's duo than Dalglish's. Correct. Recall also that KK plucked Aaron Hughes at a very young age, and he spent quite a while playing youth team football.

Isn't Bramble a perfect example? Obviously not!!!! Bramble went straight into the first team!! He had played a full season in the premiership and finished in the top 6 with Ipswich!!! NONE of the youth players we have signed have played top flight football. None of them cost 5 million +

not suggesting anything Dave. I find the hypocrisy of standards - which boils down completely to personalities - quite amazing. Simple fact is that I've seen this before. Unambitious board who aren't prepared to compete with the winning clubs but attempt to pacify fans with talk of "youth systems", "the future plans"....blah blah, other such bollocks. Simple fact also is that you need players the top teams want if you want to challenge them, never mind beat them. Particularly incredible is the fact that Keegan showed everybody this the first time round. I don't think Mort has the slightest clue about football and how it works. They / he [interesting one this, will it be Ashleys fault as major shareholder or Morts as chairman if Keegan fucks off or fails] will have to catch on quickly or Keegan will put them under pressure or bugger off. Quite right too if he does under those circumstances. I simply don't buy the people who are now supporting this deluded "kids policy" instead of spending money, when all we heard every other week under the old board was "splash the cash you greedy fat b******" Amazing. The sooner we are back in europe the better. And if Ashley and Mort don't realise this, for me they can both bugger off. Right. I think it's now plainly obvious that your agenda is merely to attack the new board regardless. When you say things like "people are supporting the kids policy INSTEAD of buying big players" etc.... That's a load of bollocks LM and you know it. People are saying that it will do us no harm to try and uncover a few gems in the process, until we are able to attract the Berbatovs of this world!! No one is saying the board to should aim to produce an entire first team from youth talent!!! But if one or two turn out to be useful, then why not? Amazing Shame, but I think for a long time the agenda of numerous people was simply to attack the old board whatever they did regardless. And still is, in fact. Buying up the best kids and ignoring the present is nothing other than taking a punt at gaining success on the cheap, and doesn't bode well I'm afraid. I've tried to tell you it doesn't work, because it hasn't in the past at pretty much any other club plus common sense tells you it isn't so simple as this - so if you think differently, then of course thats your opinion. I look forward to seeing your u-turn. Do you mean when we tried it with Bassedas, Cort, Bramble etc...? You could look at Craig Bellamy and Laurent Robert if you like, but it wouldn't suit your "opinion" would it. As you are unable to distinguish the difference between the board backing their managers, and where it becomes the managers responsibility to make good judgements rather than poor ones [bobby Robson too] there is really no point in attempting to explain this to you. You've got me all wrong, and you are still seemingly reluctant to read my posts properly, and answer to "facts" you pointed out. Bellamy and Robert are EXACTLY the type of signings we should be making. As we did with Ferdinand, Ginola and Batty. Quality players, in their prime, that would have walked into the top clubs at the time. I am in no way disputing that whatsoever. What I'm saying is that for some reason, we haven't gone out and bought these players in the summer (for somewhat obvious reasons being the takeover and big sam's uncertainty over his own future and the assessment the new owners felt they needed to make). We couldn't sign this type of player in January due to the arrival of a new manager, and little time left in the window. Now...would it have been better not to have signed anyone at all? I'm in no way arguing that we shouldn't go after the top players. But what I'm saying is that if for whatever reason we didn't or couldn't, then there is no harm in bringing in some youth, and taking a chance that one or two might turn out better than average. They could either be integrated into the first team, or sold at a profit. WHAT'S THE HARM IN THAT? (question in caps so you don't miss it). As for your argument, which you continue to avoid answering to.....i listed the players you said were youth players we bought the last time we went down the "kids policy" route. I responded by saying that those were NOT youth team signings, and that some were even above 20 at the time and established internationals/first team players. Please read the post carefully so you don't misinterpret what I'm saying, and give a fair response, as I'm trying to have a debate. If you choose not to, then don't waste my time or yours. I'm hoping....but I'm not holding my breath. EDIT: Oh and by the way, you conveniently ignore the FACT that we made a bid for Jonathan Woodgate this window. A big player in his prime. I've answered your post. I would also point out that we didn't buy Woodgate, unlike last time, also in the January window. Perhaps, as has been pointed out, Woodgate saw Spurs as a more progressive club than us ? How does that grab you, because they certainly weren't when we were run by the halls and Shepherd. And strangely too, they were more progressive than we were before the halls and Shepherd. Work it out for yourself, but don't let personalities or the facts I've just told you, affect your "opinion" We didn't get Woodgate because the fact is that we have gone backwards since he was here the first time. We started to go backwards because Shepherd made some abysmal decisions in appointing Souness and Roeder (still believe Big Sam was a good decision). No one disputes the fact that the Halls/Shepherd/Keegan were the ones to thank for putting Newcastle back on the map, and turning us into perennial big hitters. But when things start to sour, and people with responsibility begin to make mistakes, then they need to go. Just as one needs to sell a player once he's past it regardless of how good they were in the past. The new regime has been in for 5 minutes, and you're accusing them of lack of ambition. I think that is bullshit, and smacks of bitterness. Shepherd had been there for years, and people got on his back when they had seen enough. Believe you me, if the new board are here for a while, and begin to make mistakes year after year, and show signs of ineptitude year after year, I'll want them out too. So far they haven't had anywhere near enough time to do what they want to do, but imo they have signaled their intentions loud and clear. Obviously, action speaks louder than words, and we can only hope, wait and see. As for you answering my question regarding the players you claim were youth signings....I still can't find the answer. How on earth were Bramble, Cort, Bassedas (), O'Brien, LuaLua comparable as youth signings to Tozer, Kadar, Baheng, Zamblera and Sodeberg???

Spend big =/= spend well. You HAVE to spend big to attract the players who will be good enough to improve us. Again, the Barnes deal has proved that. would barnes have improved us ? i wouldn't have put him inour starting 11 and derby fans don't reckon he's kicked on since looking good last season in an easier league. i don't even think he has been an auto first choice for them this season so it just maybe that the powers that be didn't judge £3mill a decent price for his potential. as for spending etc and attracting players. man city seemed to do it at the start of this season. Man City had the advantage that although Sven seemed to be hated by England fans, he was still a manager players wanted to play for. Hopefully Keegan will have that still too. Barnes would certainly improve our midfield. Taking Emre, Butt, Barton, Geremi and Smith out of central midfield would improve any team. aye righto Ok, I'll put it another way. He's better than all of those. No disrespect Gol...but that's bullshit. Saying that he MAY turn out to be better is probably a fairer statement. All the players mentioned above (bar Smith) are full internationals (or have been) in that position on the field. Barnes is still a relative unknown in top flight football.

not suggesting anything Dave. I find the hypocrisy of standards - which boils down completely to personalities - quite amazing. Simple fact is that I've seen this before. Unambitious board who aren't prepared to compete with the winning clubs but attempt to pacify fans with talk of "youth systems", "the future plans"....blah blah, other such bollocks. Simple fact also is that you need players the top teams want if you want to challenge them, never mind beat them. Particularly incredible is the fact that Keegan showed everybody this the first time round. I don't think Mort has the slightest clue about football and how it works. They / he [interesting one this, will it be Ashleys fault as major shareholder or Morts as chairman if Keegan fucks off or fails] will have to catch on quickly or Keegan will put them under pressure or bugger off. Quite right too if he does under those circumstances. I simply don't buy the people who are now supporting this deluded "kids policy" instead of spending money, when all we heard every other week under the old board was "splash the cash you greedy fat b******" Amazing. The sooner we are back in europe the better. And if Ashley and Mort don't realise this, for me they can both bugger off. Right. I think it's now plainly obvious that your agenda is merely to attack the new board regardless. When you say things like "people are supporting the kids policy INSTEAD of buying big players" etc.... That's a load of bollocks LM and you know it. People are saying that it will do us no harm to try and uncover a few gems in the process, until we are able to attract the Berbatovs of this world!! No one is saying the board to should aim to produce an entire first team from youth talent!!! But if one or two turn out to be useful, then why not? Amazing Shame, but I think for a long time the agenda of numerous people was simply to attack the old board whatever they did regardless. And still is, in fact. Buying up the best kids and ignoring the present is nothing other than taking a punt at gaining success on the cheap, and doesn't bode well I'm afraid. I've tried to tell you it doesn't work, because it hasn't in the past at pretty much any other club plus common sense tells you it isn't so simple as this - so if you think differently, then of course thats your opinion. I look forward to seeing your u-turn. Do you mean when we tried it with Bassedas, Cort, Bramble etc...? You could look at Craig Bellamy and Laurent Robert if you like, but it wouldn't suit your "opinion" would it. As you are unable to distinguish the difference between the board backing their managers, and where it becomes the managers responsibility to make good judgements rather than poor ones [bobby Robson too] there is really no point in attempting to explain this to you. You've got me all wrong, and you are still seemingly reluctant to read my posts properly, and answer to "facts" you pointed out. Bellamy and Robert are EXACTLY the type of signings we should be making. As we did with Ferdinand, Ginola and Batty. Quality players, in their prime, that would have walked into the top clubs at the time. I am in no way disputing that whatsoever. What I'm saying is that for some reason, we haven't gone out and bought these players in the summer (for somewhat obvious reasons being the takeover and big sam's uncertainty over his own future and the assessment the new owners felt they needed to make). We couldn't sign this type of player in January due to the arrival of a new manager, and little time left in the window. Now...would it have been better not to have signed anyone at all? I'm in no way arguing that we shouldn't go after the top players. But what I'm saying is that if for whatever reason we didn't or couldn't, then there is no harm in bringing in some youth, and taking a chance that one or two might turn out better than average. They could either be integrated into the first team, or sold at a profit. WHAT'S THE HARM IN THAT? (question in caps so you don't miss it). As for your argument, which you continue to avoid answering to.....i listed the players you said were youth players we bought the last time we went down the "kids policy" route. I responded by saying that those were NOT youth team signings, and that some were even above 20 at the time and established internationals/first team players. Please read the post carefully so you don't misinterpret what I'm saying, and give a fair response, as I'm trying to have a debate. If you choose not to, then don't waste my time or yours. I'm hoping....but I'm not holding my breath. EDIT: Oh and by the way, you conveniently ignore the FACT that we made a bid for Jonathan Woodgate this window. A big player in his prime.

See...I dont know, I would have thought Spurs would strengthen in central defence if anything more than the full back positions. Hasnt that been your main problem lately with injuries to King and Dawson? Then they go out and get you Woody + 3 other fullbacks. Strange one

No we didn't get Alvaro, but we signed Mendieta

That's no leg it's a trotter! Talk about Cinderfella and his\her 2 ugly sisters! God i'd need a tetanus jab to go down on that! Some fucking party this turned out to be

Yup. You should also try the brun ost, mackerel in tomato sauce and fish balls. Good stuff