midds

Bollocks. We had a home draw with a great tie to look forward to if we won against Hull 2nd 11. There is nothing good about this in the slightest. I never said there was.

Aye but what a blow to confidence. Losing to one of the worst form teams isnt what we needed. Reminds me of losing to Blackburn last season when Derbyshire scored late on. It happens. Just got to get on with it and keep plugging away. If anyone wants to stop following the team then that's their decision but I'm a bit embarrassed for them tbh.

Contrary to popular opinion this isn't the end of the world. Disappointed we lost but staying up was always far more important than a good cup run. We've got loads of injuries and we dominated it tonight. Could easily have won it but we didn't. That's the way it goes sometimes.

Sounds like they've dominated the game and created enough chances to win this easily... Still, any excuse to have a good old-fashioned hissy-fit. Fucking drama queens.

When we signed Shearer, where did the money come from? Where were we in terms of league standing? Fair point we were one of the best teams in the country when he signed and we got obviously found the money from somewhere to make it happen. This arab bloke has waltzed in with loads of cash to spend and he wants instant success so he's prepared to pay through the nose to get the big names in. He's clearly not prepared to build things up slowly and if they've got the cash to make a real go of it then that's their good fortune. We signed a raft to players for big money to get to and stay near the top of the League and they're just starting the process. At least part of the money for Shearer came from later sales of Sir Les, Huckerby, Kitson etc. True, but at the time I remember lots of fans saying very similar things about us signing Shearer as I'm reading today about Kaka. It was jealousy back then and it's jealousy now. Don't buy this 'bad for the game' stuff. City are about to raise the (financial) bar and it's up to the other clubs to compete. If they can't, City could dominate in the same way Man U have done for the last 15 years. It's not just raising the financial bar though. It's launching it into another planet. The world's highest paid players at the moment are on around £150k a week but even the more conservative estimates in today's rags were claiming they will double(!) that figure for Kaka. It's obscene and will have a knock on effect for every other club in the top divisions around the world. Even Chelsea weren't anywhere near this bad when Abramovich went on his initial spending spree. It will have a knock-on effect yes. They obscene money they're shelling out is going straight to other clubs to spend on alternative players. They aren't giving it to charity, they'll be giving it to the clubs who can spend it on strengthening their own squad at the expense of losing one of their top players. The City transfer fees will eventually trickle down the divisions so from that respect I'd argue it is probably beneficial to the game. There's 2 ways of looking at it imo. Possibly, yeah. With the transfer fees anyway. When I said a "knock on effect" I was thinking more of wages really. It will cause a lot of unrest and higher pay rolls at all the clubs. Why is Kaka worth 300k a week but Ronaldo, Messi, Gerrard etc are only getting half that amount? Likewise with Bridge earning 90k while the likes of Clichy, Lescott etc are on 40-50k and so on and so on until lower league clubs are getting hit in the pocket. The best players will always earn the most money. That's always been the case. The money City hand over in transfer fees could go towards keeping other players happy if need be.

Rooney's pinged his hamstring. That might be about 3 weeks out? Tevez on...

When we signed Shearer, where did the money come from? Where were we in terms of league standing? Fair point we were one of the best teams in the country when he signed and we got obviously found the money from somewhere to make it happen. This arab bloke has waltzed in with loads of cash to spend and he wants instant success so he's prepared to pay through the nose to get the big names in. He's clearly not prepared to build things up slowly and if they've got the cash to make a real go of it then that's their good fortune. We signed a raft to players for big money to get to and stay near the top of the League and they're just starting the process. At least part of the money for Shearer came from later sales of Sir Les, Huckerby, Kitson etc. True, but at the time I remember lots of fans saying very similar things about us signing Shearer as I'm reading today about Kaka. It was jealousy back then and it's jealousy now. Don't buy this 'bad for the game' stuff. City are about to raise the (financial) bar and it's up to the other clubs to compete. If they can't, City could dominate in the same way Man U have done for the last 15 years. It's not just raising the financial bar though. It's launching it into another planet. The world's highest paid players at the moment are on around £150k a week but even the more conservative estimates in today's rags were claiming they will double(!) that figure for Kaka. It's obscene and will have a knock on effect for every other club in the top divisions around the world. Even Chelsea weren't anywhere near this bad when Abramovich went on his initial spending spree. It will have a knock-on effect yes. They obscene money they're shelling out is going straight to other clubs to spend on alternative players. They aren't giving it to charity, they'll be giving it to the clubs who can spend it on strengthening their own squad at the expense of losing one of their top players. The City transfer fees will eventually trickle down the divisions so from that respect I'd argue it is probably beneficial to the game. There's 2 ways of looking at it imo.

That's the problem though, they can't. The distance between those with money and those without will grow wider and wider and make the league less and less competitive at the top level. Clubs will be relying on foreign investment and spending lots on players and wages will spiral out of control. The best players from the have-nots will end up mostly playing for the rich clubs. So I completely disagree with you that it's not bad for the game. Fair enough. I'm talking about competing by finding and developing young players who will eventually be better than the 'finished article' that City are targetting. If they can't compete financially then they have to change the way they operate to make sure they do compete on the field.

Being a cynical twat I think ITV may have made a few quick phonecalls...

When we signed Shearer, where did the money come from? Where were we in terms of league standing? Fair point we were one of the best teams in the country when he signed and we got obviously found the money from somewhere to make it happen. This arab bloke has waltzed in with loads of cash to spend and he wants instant success so he's prepared to pay through the nose to get the big names in. He's clearly not prepared to build things up slowly and if they've got the cash to make a real go of it then that's their good fortune. We signed a raft to players for big money to get to and stay near the top of the League and they're just starting the process. At least part of the money for Shearer came from later sales of Sir Les, Huckerby, Kitson etc. True, but at the time I remember lots of fans saying very similar things about us signing Shearer as I'm reading today about Kaka. It was jealousy back then and it's jealousy now. Don't buy this 'bad for the game' stuff. City are about to raise the (financial) bar and it's up to the other clubs to compete. If they can't, City could dominate in the same way Man U have done for the last 15 years.

Thanks for the quick response Mike. Obviously it goes without saying that spending wisely is better than spending big - but you knew that already...

Not for me. If clubs can't compete with transfer fees then they've got to strengthen the scouting/coaching network they've got. Instead of lashing out big money on average players they need to find good prospects and develop them properly. They'll end up with a better player for less outlay. The best players will earn the most money and probably play for the best teams. If clubs can't nurture their own then they'll be replaced with clubs that can. There is an alternative to spending big.

When we signed Shearer, where did the money come from? Where were we in terms of league standing? Fair point we were one of the best teams in the country when he signed and we got obviously found the money from somewhere to make it happen. This arab bloke has waltzed in with loads of cash to spend and he wants instant success so he's prepared to pay through the nose to get the big names in. He's clearly not prepared to build things up slowly and if they've got the cash to make a real go of it then that's their good fortune. We signed a raft to players for big money to get to and stay near the top of the League and they're just starting the process.

How many Newcastle fans complained when we broke the world record to sign Shearer? If City have the money, they've got every right to spend as much or as little ofit as they want. No point complaining, it just smacks of jealousy imo.

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,59196.0.html

Football fans stagger me from time to time. For years we've bemoaned the fact we don't identify young players and bring them in for little or nothing but as soon as we start doing it and people twist it and use it to have a pop at those they've got an agenda against. This lad may be turn out to be shite but he might just be a cracking little player. If just one or two of these young lads 'makes it' then it will have been worthwhile. We clearly can't develop our own so we've looked abroad and still people fucking whinge. Best of luck to the lad and if the same people who spotted Bassong have scouted this lad I'm quite happy to back their judgement and take a punt on him.

I'd have rather given Beattie the deal they offered Shola tbh.

Beattie's gone to Stoke.

still get man utd fans telling me that alan smith is a class player. He might be? Darts, poker, snooker?? he's got to be good at something. Not football though.

It's like choosing to have either a heart attack or lung cancer.

Can't see the harm in taking him for a week to see what he's all about. We're not obliged to sign him permanently and if Kinnear doesn't fancy him then we thank him for his time and send him back. After having spoken to Scottish Mag this Saturday I've got major doubts he'll set the world alight but it's worth a shot I suppose.

Harry Redknapp is, and always has been, a complete wanker. He talks himself up, unsettles players he fancies and gets away with it because the sycophantic cunts who write for the rags lick his ring. And the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree either. His son's a fucking cockend too.

Afraid not. Afraid so on the right (I assume you mean MOTD, not MOTM???) Ah right. I thought it wasn't available on i-player. Edit: Knew it was something like that!

Afraid not.

Fuck me.