madras

call y'self a fan ? PAH!!

Is that because it'll be cheaper to go if we go down? I can imagine that the general patter in the stands might be a bit better if we go down - at least some of the moaners might not bother turning up. I'm one of the ones who will probably end up hardly seeing us play, since I only ever get to SJP when I'm up home at Christmas and rely on watching satellite matches in the pub, apart from a handful of aways per season. the banter. it'll be less serious.

Of course, not exactly Kate Moss yourself Gregory. Aye but I'm not a fat c*** anymore more either, I was and then I did something about it. Oooh, touched a nerve? No, just stating that I've sorted myself out, this time a year and a half ago I couldn't run 100 yards let alone play football. at the moment i'm still playing but constant hamstring problems and slowly heeling brokern toe could lead to a late fitness test.

i know 2 lads who were part of our regular circle till 3 or 4 years when they packed in who'll be going to SJP again IF we go down.

This. what if the player sticks out for a term contract ? Sack him off. He seems pretty desperate though, might accept it until the end of this season, give him a chance to prove himself. can't sack him if he doesn't join as he is holding out for a proper contract. (thats the story i heard before his trial for spuds)

This. what if the player sticks out for a term contract ?

i don't think it is fitmess as much as a medical problem.

What's the solution, then? Restrict loan deals to maximum two players from one club to another? Or just one? Setting aside the iffy aspects of the deal, Tevez's contribution alone saved West Ham from the drop, so even a single player can make that difference. maximum 4 game loan period,only for under 23's and not to clubs in the same division. Each player only to go out once a season. Hmmmm... don't know about that if the club taking him is actually looking for a purchase it seems only fair they should get a look at him. Maybe, but surely if you didn't include that factor there would be a shambolic situation whereby youngsters in need of first team football were constantly moving from team to team? not if teams were limited to how many loaness they could have (currently 5 a season i think). if the maximum was a 4 game spell (or 30 days) then they may be more selective on who they take on loan. oh and 1 loanee per match day squad except for excepional injury times.

the size of the TV deal doesn't matter if clubs see it as a green light to live TOO far beyond their capabilities. indubitably- remember the collapse of the ITV deal years back, that f***ed clubs who were budgeting for money they never had, as did leeds of course! like to throw leeds in for the sake of it, gets people's backs up :wink: football operates in a bubble, always has done...nobody can seriously think the PL is going to increase in popularity can they? except people employed either in or by the PL as it serves them to believe so...seems to me people are sick of it, sick of paying 60 quid a month or something for sky etc... as the economy gets worse it'll catch up with football, has to then we'll see what's what even if sky doesn't do an "itv" it matters little if you give the clubs 100mill a year tv money if they see it as a green light to up wages to 200mill a year. my opinion is the credit crunch has only speeded up what was happening anyway.

sure it's a girl ? no bumps on the frontage and if that her knee on the right in fact you're probably right in that it is the best looking girl they could find in scotland.

wasn't washington actually forced upon sunderland cos nee fucker else wanted it.

What's the solution, then? Restrict loan deals to maximum two players from one club to another? Or just one? Setting aside the iffy aspects of the deal, Tevez's contribution alone saved West Ham from the drop, so even a single player can make that difference. maximum 4 game loan period,only for under 23's and not to clubs in the same division. Each player only to go out once a season. Hmmmm... don't know about that if the club taking him is actually looking for a purchase it seems only fair they should get a look at him.

What's the solution, then? Restrict loan deals to maximum two players from one club to another? Or just one? Setting aside the iffy aspects of the deal, Tevez's contribution alone saved West Ham from the drop, so even a single player can make that difference. maximum 4 game loan period,only for under 23's and not to clubs in the same division.

The irrational part of my brain actually wants a European Super League. Get the Sky four and their good for nothing fans to f*** off to their own league so we don't have to deal with them and I don't have to stress over eight unwinnable games every year. The rational part then comes in to remind me that with a European Super League, the Premiership would quickly become the new Championship and NUFC would be royally f***ed. Oh well. hm, would it be so bad? surgically remove "the big four", their money and w***** players & fans from the league...there would be a consequent drop in income for the domestic leagues but that would force clubs to be run better and develop their own players more often, forge better links with fans & communities...plus the league would be competitive and probably enjoyable again for anyone not supporting the teams that f***ed off only caveat i'd add is that if they choose to go they can't come back, ever, especially once all their w***** fans and the world get sick of it get on with it (only half serious mind) a european super league could only run alongside the domestic leagues. how many full houses would inter get if they were mid table or lower half way through their super league season ? the way the champs league "league" element is set up is so teams still have an interest almost to the end.

the size of the TV deal doesn't matter if clubs see it as a green light to live TOO far beyond their capabilities.

just the players ?

i can see their point. they are in charge of EUROPEAN FOOTBALL and to have any 1 country dominate to such an extent isn't good for EUROPEAN FOOTBALL. it's not just that we always recently seem to have a team in the final but are starting to dominate at the semi stage aswell. for those xenophobes who complain that "they didn't whinge when the italians were dominating" they didn't dominate to the extent english clubs look like doing and they didn't whinge when english clubs dominated the european cup in the late 70's early 80's.

This final paragraph kind of hints at the alternative to Ashley's strategy, which is a speculate-to-accumulate policy of forking out for established players in the hope that you can then recoup the outlay by success on the field. Aside from the fact that we have Leeds as an example of what can happen with a run of bad results, is this a strategy that can work in the present climate ? With the gap between the top four and the rest being so large, and the huge cost, in fees and wages, of attracting the best players to a non-Champions League team, you could easily end up spending £50 million and end up with a team that's in the relegation zone. Even a few years ago, it was a risky strategy, but now it seems completely unrealistic. I get bored of Leeds being trotted out as a cautionary tale to everyone in the league. One example of a club that speculated and failed....but let's not forget they are still living to tell the tale. "Doing a Leeds" isn't the end of a club. It's highly likely they'll be in the same division as us next year ffs, even with all our frugality. What we did in the 90's shows that speculation works. The same as Villa are doing now. Look at the bottom five.... Newcastle Portsmouth Blackburn Middlesbrough West Brom What have they got in common? None of them have a net spend of more than £6m over the past two years. Look at the next nine up... West Ham Man City Wigan Fulham Bolton Tottenham Sunderland Hull Stoke Only Bolton and Wigan have managed to get in this position with a net spend less than £10m in 2 years. In football, the speculators DO accumulate. interesting list there with portsmouth,boro,blackburn,west ham,fulham and sunderland all recently stating that they had to sell to buy because ot earlier spending sprees which didn't pay off. (man city speak for themselves and i know little about the debts of wigan,hull or stoke).

That sentence in bold is probably one of the biggest piles of dogshit I have ever read on this forum This is the problem with anti-Ashley posters and the likes of the NUSC. Banging on about what's been done wrong without even attempting to acknowledge the point of the original post, which is about clubs going facing real financial difficulties if they spend beyond their means without any proportionate success. Does this sound like any club in particular? This is the problem about those who have bought into Ashley's propaganda and have posted on this thread without correctly interpreting what others have said - there was absolutely NOTHING in my posting which mentioned Ashley's spend - if you look again , you will see that I said he has messed up Jumbo style ; this has nothing to do with the spend but EVERYTHING to do with his decision-making...and I stand by that 100 % , as would anyone unless they think that creating a situation where KK walks out, employing a third-rater like Kinnear after making an abortive effort to sell the club(and then offering him a 2 year contract) etc etc...is good management. not arguing with any of that like, but i love the chelp that Happy Face has railed off into about spending on managers under ashley after a massive amount of the debt ashley paid off was built up by the previous owners in appointing s*** managers on big contracts, allowing them to spend a fortune on s*** players then sacking them and paying them off you couldn't make it up Ashley hasn't paid it off. He's changed the lender....to himself...so we save on the interest. Ashley has sacked managers at a rate 3 times more frequent than Shepherd did. Why do you support this course of action while deriding it from the previous chairman? But I don't see a problem in Ashley being repaid the loans he has made to the club. After all, if it was a PLC the shareholder(s) would all be entitled to dividends from the club each year. Is it really so dreadful to expect to be repaid for loans made to the club. It makes sound business sense to me, and once the loans are repaid, and providing the club is on a stable financial footing, then the club will, if run sensibly along the lines now set out by Ashley, generate ample funds for player purchases for years to come. Hopefully players will want to play for NUFC for the kudos of playing for a top well run and successful club, rather than that last big payday. I have no problem whatsoever with him loaning the club money interest free rather than a bank. It's just as beneficial for him as it is for the club. We save on interest and loan repayments until he sells. And just like the banks, he gets the full amount back, even if players he's signed decrease in value to zero and we're left with a shitty squad fighting relegation year after year. Started off brightly but you still insisted on twisting a perfectly good and reasonable post to fit your agenda How's that man? It's just as good for Ashley being the clubs moneylender as it is for the club. There's no negativity in that, no underhand, money laundering, assett stripping conspiracy theory. Just a fact that it's a common sense approach for both parties. I'd have thought my agenda would be the same as yours. We want Newcastle to do better in the league. But that's my point exactly. It does not matter to me if it's beneficial to Ashley as well. I couldn't care less what Ashley does or benefits from the club, so long as Newcastle United is better off as a result. He has made several serious errors in judgment, but one cannot ignore the massive job being done in terms of re-structuring the club's finances, and bringing on the youth policy, to ensure our survival as a football club once this whole crisis has blown over. Nail on head. Are we? Do you truly believe the under 18's and a low rate of interest on our borrowing are the things stopping our inevitable implosion? We clearly haven't been better off on the pitch in the short term. But it's a long and complicated process, trying to halt the slide we were on when the previous board had sold up. All things considered, including the uncontrollable economical climate, we could still come out of it in a better position than we would have had we owed everything to creditors. Only time will tell HF mate. Only time will tell. I put the same question to you that wasn't answered elsewhere. Do you think an improved under 18s team and an improved rate of interest on our debt will see us start climbing the league? What changes are planned to make sure we aren't fighting relegation next season? Well the idea of collecting rising youth talent from around the globe, and developing them, may save us a few pennies here and there when building a squad. If we're diligent and lucky, we could unearth one or two stars. The one thing I am still hoping for is that we sign a top top class youth coach with a track record of working with kids. Otherwise the whole plan is futile. I don't know much about Dickie Dollar, but I was hoping for someone like Roeder who has done it in the past. Joe Hart wouldn't be a bad shout either. Improving the interest rate on our debt will save us a few more bob as well. Adding bits of bobs to one another would increase transfer budget, hence giving us a better chance of buying better players. What Ashley REALLY needs to do now is to bring in a top quality manager. Keegan was one of course, but he was the wrong choice for so many reasons. Kinnear clearly isn't, and Ashley has got to realize this and move him on at the end of the season. Completeley agree with all 3 points (except maybe Keegan being the wrong man - he's probably the only man that could have kept us up last year). The first two pale behind the third one which is vital....and doesn't seem to be forthcoming. agree about keegan of the time but not so sure he was the right man to take us forward after the end of last season.

i know betfair has plenty of live football on (there are two japanese games on right now). anyone know of other sites that have live football on ? and yes i know the prem wont be on.

The problem with that is that it would instead be the club owners, the FA, and of course SKY who would be raking in the billions of dollars punters like you and me pour into the game through tickets, merchandise and TV subscriptions - unless of course you think ticket prices, merchandise and TV subscriptions would also be set, according to some fixed income:profit ratio? Players are paid so much because so much money is available - indeed it could be argued that they are merely taking a share of the revenue they raise. After all, who would pay Rupert Murdoch any money if it were not for the players? hows that again ? the FA and sky would get the same monewy as now and the clubs would be on the same deal as now but it means they'd be able to run on a sustainable budget. Not so - SKY are the middlemen in that they fleece the punters and shovel (chunks of) the cash at the clubs. This gives the bigger clubs the ability to offer bigger wages (and forces the not so big clubs to gamble financially to stop the bigger clubs from getting away). If SKY didn't charge so much, they wouldn't be able to offer the FA/clubs so much for the broadcasting rights, and thus with less income they wouldn't have the capacity to offer the wages they do. Obviously the likes of Chel$ki and Man Shitty are exceptions because their ability to offer stupid wages is not limited by their income. But for clubs that do not have a sugar daddy the theory stands - the ability of clubs to offer stupid wages is determined by their ability to raise income. But Chel$ki didn't start the trend, they were following Man Yoo and Arsenal - clubs who (at the time) spent within their means, rewarding their players very well without risking meltdown. If their ability to offer premium wages was curtailed, then they could only have made bigger profits as their wages expenditure would have been lower. It is the not the players of Leeds, Fiorentina and now apparently Valencia who get their sums spectacularly wrong - it's the directors who calculate those sums. Nor was it the players that Chel$ki and now Man Shitty sign who are shifting the paradigm and escalating wages. Or, more simply - the players are workers, and workers are entitled to share in the profits they generate. If the profits are vast, then the wages should be proportionally vast... the players are employees of the clubs..the clubs are making losses...should the players wages be proportionate ?

That sentence in bold is probably one of the biggest piles of dogshit I have ever read on this forum and that takes some doing. (surely i must have a few contenders for that)

Or they'd just start supporting someone else. you ever met anyone who has 'supported' manyoo, liverpool or whoever from the north east and then changed their allegiance during their adult life? the above is an often cited cliche but personally i haven't met anyone to do that...some of my mates from home are Tottenham, Manyoo & Southampton fans as they latched onto something about the clubs when they were young for whatever reason, the strip or saw them in a final or something before they knew too much about the game none of them have ever shown any sign of wanting to change just wondered if anyone knows anyone who has...? yes. i know plenty who were liverpool/leeds/man utd fans as kids then when we got old enough to go to the pub before games they came along, still supporting their first loves but by the end of the season they were supporting NUFC. one or two even admitted it was NUFC they supported all along and the other club was a front to be seen as a winner. now out of everyone i grew up with only two still support their plastic club...both liverpool.

that prodirect one is nice but the broad striped one in another thread is still the tops.

i never brought it up either but a thread is like a river and i follow it to the sea.