madras

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ? I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it. It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them. surely this quote is contradictory. at one point you say they were right not to spend cos they didn't have the money yet you'll have a go at the new regime for not spending more then fat fred at a time when they debts were a lot higher. you do like your cake don't you. not in the slightest. When the new board have shown they have ambition for the club, if they do, like the old board did, then they will get the benefit of the doubt when they make mistakes. Which I have said earlier. We are in a serious position, do you realise this ? And why do you dispute the reason for it is down to the amount of Johnny average players we brought in last summer, when the chairman quite clearly stated that replacing one player with three of them was "good business". That attitude is right back to the days of Westwood, McKeag etc mate, and the ridiculous thing is all the people who think that everything the fat b****** did was wrong on account of him eating all the pies or something, including attempting to bring quality players to the club like the trophy winners do, agreed with Morts comments. Since when has buying mediocre players and operating on budget levels lower than your main rivals ever built successful clubs ? What a load of crap. they spent as much on average in the summer as the previous regime and the manager said money was there in january (fee agreed with boro for woodgate) which would have been more in one season than the previous one spent net in the majority of their seasons. Well, as all the bad buys in the past were all the fault of the fat b******, I presume nothing has changed i never said that I've lost count of the number who have, but you do appear to agree with them. agree with them about what ?

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ? I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it. It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them. surely this quote is contradictory. at one point you say they were right not to spend cos they didn't have the money yet you'll have a go at the new regime for not spending more then fat fred at a time when they debts were a lot higher. you do like your cake don't you. not in the slightest. When the new board have shown they have ambition for the club, if they do, like the old board did, then they will get the benefit of the doubt when they make mistakes. Which I have said earlier. We are in a serious position, do you realise this ? And why do you dispute the reason for it is down to the amount of Johnny average players we brought in last summer, when the chairman quite clearly stated that replacing one player with three of them was "good business". That attitude is right back to the days of Westwood, McKeag etc mate, and the ridiculous thing is all the people who think that everything the fat b****** did was wrong on account of him eating all the pies or something, including attempting to bring quality players to the club like the trophy winners do, agreed with Morts comments. Since when has buying mediocre players and operating on budget levels lower than your main rivals ever built successful clubs ? What a load of crap. they spent as much on average in the summer as the previous regime and the manager said money was there in january (fee agreed with boro for woodgate) which would have been more in one season than the previous one spent net in the majority of their seasons. Well, as all the bad buys in the past were all the fault of the fat b******, I presume nothing has changed i never said that

put "free bets" into google and see which is offering the best incentives.

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ? I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it. It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them. surely this quote is contradictory. at one point you say they were right not to spend cos they didn't have the money yet you'll have a go at the new regime for not spending more then fat fred at a time when they debts were a lot higher. you do like your cake don't you. not in the slightest. When the new board have shown they have ambition for the club, if they do, like the old board did, then they will get the benefit of the doubt when they make mistakes. Which I have said earlier. We are in a serious position, do you realise this ? And why do you dispute the reason for it is down to the amount of Johnny average players we brought in last summer, when the chairman quite clearly stated that replacing one player with three of them was "good business". That attitude is right back to the days of Westwood, McKeag etc mate, and the ridiculous thing is all the people who think that everything the fat b****** did was wrong on account of him eating all the pies or something, including attempting to bring quality players to the club like the trophy winners do, agreed with Morts comments. Since when has buying mediocre players and operating on budget levels lower than your main rivals ever built successful clubs ? What a load of crap. they spent as much on average in the summer as the previous regime and the manager said money was there in january (fee agreed with boro for woodgate) which would have been more in one season than the previous one spent net in the majority of their seasons.

It's obvious to most people, and common sense, but it won't stop two types of critics: the ones with an agenda who just need to throw s*** in the direction of the new board at every opportunity or those who get frustrated easily and want signings...any signings ..now now now! or those who just needed to throw s*** in the direction of the old board at every opportunity. And urged them to splash the cash every time we lost a game. Remind us all again. Have the new board got anywhere near looking like matching the old boards Champions League qualifications yet or showed any understanding of how it needs to be done ? i would just like to pouint out to all concerned that mackems.gif has changed his criteria on judging the board from how much (£) they back the manager to league placings. carry on.

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ? I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it. It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them. surely this quote is contradictory. at one point you say they were right not to spend cos they didn't have the money yet you'll have a go at the new regime for not spending more then fat fred at a time when they debts were a lot higher. you do like your cake don't you.

In most games at reserve level it is mainly kids against kids aka as the best Acadmeny players. So a big fucker like Carroll is going to dominate but put him against blokes who have a bit nouse, bulk & are bigger than him & he struggled. Not usually Academy players at Spurs, more often than not the youngsters who left the Academy last summer but haven't yet broken into the first team squad. Spurs played top of the table Villa tonight and played really well for a change to win 3-0. Pity Brummie isn't about now! Out of interest the teams were: Spurs: Button; Gunter, Archibald-Henville, Rocha, Martin; Parrett (Fraser-Allen, 50), Martin, Rose, Taarabt; Pekhart, Dawkins (Kasim, 82) Unused subs: Jansson, C Butcher, Cox Aston Villa: Sorensen; Hogg (Forrester, 66), Lichaj, Lund, Earls; Routledge, Salifou, D Bellon, Y Bellon (Albrighton, 59); Clancy (Bradley, 73), Berger Unused sub: Bevan May have overplayed the Acadmeny kid line slightly but the reseve teams nowadays are a lot younger to what these they used to be. Very true. With established average players costing millions, it makes a lot of sense to try to bring the kids on, if they make the grade all well and good, if they don't then they're a saleable asset (hopefully) to a Championship side or suchlike. But has it not become a beefed up junior league rather than a step to the first team. It depends on the club's philosophy on the youngsters and whether the manager is prepared to give them a go, but I do accept your point as the majority of clubs won't give their kids the opportunity to show what they can do in the first team. I suppose I get a bit of a distorted picture with Spurs' division, which also include Villa, West Ham and Arsenal, all of which, along with Spurs, do try to bring youngsters through. Ramos and Poyet were there tonight and apparently have seen enough of Danny Rose to be probably adding him to some squads this season with a view to making him a regular squad member next season. He has played well whenever I've seen him, tonight everything Spurs did went through Rose and Taarabt, looked very impressive, as did 16 year old Dean Parrett until he got a knock and was substituted. Ironically, tonight there were more experienced players on the pitch than I've seen in a long time. Spurs had Rocha (I won't count Gunter) and Villa had Sorensen, Routledge and Berger, that doesn't happen too often. which clubs have a "philosophy" of bringing youngsters through ? every manager of any team will give players the chance if they think the player is worth it.

n'zogbia with a prelude to birmingham.

before clicking into this thread i thought "fucking stupid,trying to replace like for like" then i lookd at the two players in question and take it back. i'm not one to say "told you so" or owt like that but.....you know theres a "but" coming...but they were "the" midfielders" not as today attacking or defensive...they done both and read the game to cover for others (and others of those teams done it for them). team players in a team game.

I don´t see any problem to throw in a young guy. I have seen it thousands of times and still sees it. it is just bullshit. I don't completely disagree with you, I'm just saying that neither you nor I is Kevin Keegan and obviously he has some reservations about throwing Carroll in. it's easy,you throw in the young kid if you think he's capable. (what would you know anyway at that distance eh oldtype?) (you've probably seen about 30mins less of him than i have)

once saw a fat horrid mag punch a kid (15?) in grimsby,one of the boxing day games (early 80's),then another mag grabbed him,told him he was out of order,cleaned him out with 2 punches.

Quite possibly the only man in history to transfer from Sevilla to Walsall. you really ought to take a look round the lower leagues for such transfers....maybe not sevilla but some big names let there cast offs go to leagues 1 & 2

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=33368.0 one day i'll get round to leicester and bournemouth

it's easy...those that know the game better than you and I watch. I have heard the same about brayson,chopra,allon,robinson etc. and none of those really proved us wrong in letting them go. FWIW (and it's worth little) ameobi looked twice the player carroll is in his first few camoes.

He had a better second half as did both teams, Carol covered a lot of ground and has a very good change of speed, he actually beat the Everton keeper to one ball which he really shouldn't have got anywhere near because of his starting position. does he look a lot more confident at that level as when i've seen him in the first team and at preston he looks a slightly hyper gangly teen ?

NE5...the books had to be put in order,the more I see the more I think how bad things were getting financially. I posted as much a while back when you stated that Mna utd et al aren't worried by their debt etc to which I responded that they were turning massive operating profits and we weren't....i don't believe you got back to me on how much debt you thought it was wise for us to carry while not making profits ?

Rubbish. The fault is the man who employed Souness followed by Roeder followed by Allardyce. If Shepherd had employed a top European manager after Robson, to take over an excellent group of players, we would have moved forward and upwards. Instead, Souness was given the job. Ashley and Mort would have to take some responsibility if we go down. Ashley bought the club in the summer and it was his decision to keep Allardyce on and then not give him much financial backing. This was despite the fact that many clubs around us were investing more heavily. It was also Ashley/Mort's decision to adopt a cautious approach in the transfer market so that players were sold before players came in resulting in transfer targets being missed. It was Ashley/Mort's decision to sack the manager despite not having a replacement lined up. And when their first choice turned them down it was their decision to take the risk of appointing a manager who hadn't managed a club for 3 years. And it was their decision to do this in a transfer window at a time when the club was not mathematically safe from relegation. Whatever anyone may think of those decisions Ashley and Mort have to held responsible for the consequences of making them. and there you have it. Although some people would watch us sliding down to the 3rd division and just as long as he doesn't call our women dogs or say we are idiots for buying 40 quid shirts [i mean who is daft enough to pay 40 quid for a football shirt] then he'll be better chairman and owner than the fat b****** and the Halls. Just for the record I didn't intend my post to be a ringing endorsement of the old board by the way. It's just a list of decisions Ashley/Mort have made that have imo played a huge part in where we find ourselves now. Some of the more "questionable" decisions they have made are almost direct repeats of decisions made by the old board that (admittedly with hindsight) we now know to have been highly damaging mistakes. I know. I don't deliberately intend myself to make ringing endorsements of the old board either, but just by pointing out that the things they did do right maybe suggests they did a lot more things that were right than people realise, or in some cases, are prepared to admit and I don't mean you. I just agree with you completely that, for better or worse, its been Ashleys club since last summer so its all been his responsibility ever since. If he didn't want Allardyce he should have replaced him, or backed him. It was his choice. he did back him to the tune of what the previous board did on average didn't he ? he also backed him more than Gordon McKeag but didn't break the world transfer record did fat fred break the record every season ? no so why should ashley. telll you what, put your stats where your gob is and post the season on season net spend since shepherd took over then we'll compare. I added to the last post. I'm not interested in "net" spend. For starters, the clubs have more money now. I'm more bothered about the clubs league position. The last board rose to the challenge of their competitors/rivals and beat most of them and qualified for europe more than all of them bar 4. Ashley has to do the same. How can you say you're not interested in net spend when you've been banging on about it all season? Rubbish. The fault is the man who employed Souness followed by Roeder followed by Allardyce. If Shepherd had employed a top European manager after Robson, to take over an excellent group of players, we would have moved forward and upwards. Instead, Souness was given the job. Ashley and Mort would have to take some responsibility if we go down. Ashley bought the club in the summer and it was his decision to keep Allardyce on and then not give him much financial backing. This was despite the fact that many clubs around us were investing more heavily. It was also Ashley/Mort's decision to adopt a cautious approach in the transfer market so that players were sold before players came in resulting in transfer targets being missed. It was Ashley/Mort's decision to sack the manager despite not having a replacement lined up. And when their first choice turned them down it was their decision to take the risk of appointing a manager who hadn't managed a club for 3 years. And it was their decision to do this in a transfer window at a time when the club was not mathematically safe from relegation. Whatever anyone may think of those decisions Ashley and Mort have to held responsible for the consequences of making them. and there you have it. Although some people would watch us sliding down to the 3rd division and just as long as he doesn't call our women dogs or say we are idiots for buying 40 quid shirts [i mean who is daft enough to pay 40 quid for a football shirt] then he'll be better chairman and owner than the fat b****** and the Halls. Just for the record I didn't intend my post to be a ringing endorsement of the old board by the way. It's just a list of decisions Ashley/Mort have made that have imo played a huge part in where we find ourselves now. Some of the more "questionable" decisions they have made are almost direct repeats of decisions made by the old board that (admittedly with hindsight) we now know to have been highly damaging mistakes. I know. I don't deliberately intend myself to make ringing endorsements of the old board either, but just by pointing out that the things they did do right maybe suggests they did a lot more things that were right than people realise, or in some cases, are prepared to admit and I don't mean you. I just agree with you completely that, for better or worse, its been Ashleys club since last summer so its all been his responsibility ever since. If he didn't want Allardyce he should have replaced him, or backed him. It was his choice. he did back him to the tune of what the previous board did on average didn't he ? he also backed him more than Gordon McKeag but didn't break the world transfer record did fat fred break the record every season ? no so why should ashley. telll you what, put your stats where your gob is and post the season on season net spend since shepherd took over then we'll compare. I added to the last post. I'm not interested in "net" spend. For starters, the clubs have more money now. I'm more bothered about the clubs league positions The last board rose to the challenge of their competitors/rivals and beat most of them, by virtue of qualifying for europe more than all of them bar 4. Ashley has to do the same. right then,lets keep it equal if it's not by backing but league position they shall be judged (talk about moving the posts) then ashley will have to have as long before judging him.

He was on our books. Spurs bought his old man a car & give him some £££'s (a big deal in the 1980s) so he never signed pro with us. Harry Redknapp says in his book that Shaun Murrays treatment at Spurs is one of the reason Jamie did not sign for them as kid. Played for Portsmouth, Scarborough & Bradford (like you said). Maybe the odd other club after that. he played for pompey after leaving spurs and played for them up here (i remember standing in the a-wing screaming at ray ranson to kick him as he didn't like the physical aspect..............i knew shaun for a long time as a kid,really nice lad,when he'd come back up he never played the big timer even when at spurs,he tried to chat my sis up and never let on what he done just that he knew me to play football with). went on to play for blackpool and notts county amongst others.

Rubbish. The fault is the man who employed Souness followed by Roeder followed by Allardyce. If Shepherd had employed a top European manager after Robson, to take over an excellent group of players, we would have moved forward and upwards. Instead, Souness was given the job. Ashley and Mort would have to take some responsibility if we go down. Ashley bought the club in the summer and it was his decision to keep Allardyce on and then not give him much financial backing. This was despite the fact that many clubs around us were investing more heavily. It was also Ashley/Mort's decision to adopt a cautious approach in the transfer market so that players were sold before players came in resulting in transfer targets being missed. It was Ashley/Mort's decision to sack the manager despite not having a replacement lined up. And when their first choice turned them down it was their decision to take the risk of appointing a manager who hadn't managed a club for 3 years. And it was their decision to do this in a transfer window at a time when the club was not mathematically safe from relegation. Whatever anyone may think of those decisions Ashley and Mort have to held responsible for the consequences of making them. and there you have it. Although some people would watch us sliding down to the 3rd division and just as long as he doesn't call our women dogs or say we are idiots for buying 40 quid shirts [i mean who is daft enough to pay 40 quid for a football shirt] then he'll be better chairman and owner than the fat b****** and the Halls. Just for the record I didn't intend my post to be a ringing endorsement of the old board by the way. It's just a list of decisions Ashley/Mort have made that have imo played a huge part in where we find ourselves now. Some of the more "questionable" decisions they have made are almost direct repeats of decisions made by the old board that (admittedly with hindsight) we now know to have been highly damaging mistakes. I know. I don't deliberately intend myself to make ringing endorsements of the old board either, but just by pointing out that the things they did do right maybe suggests they did a lot more things that were right than people realise, or in some cases, are prepared to admit and I don't mean you. I just agree with you completely that, for better or worse, its been Ashleys club since last summer so its all been his responsibility ever since. If he didn't want Allardyce he should have replaced him, or backed him. It was his choice. he did back him to the tune of what the previous board did on average didn't he ? he also backed him more than Gordon McKeag but didn't break the world transfer record did fat fred break the record every season ? no so why should ashley. telll you what, put your stats where your gob is and post the season on season net spend since shepherd took over then we'll compare.

Rubbish. The fault is the man who employed Souness followed by Roeder followed by Allardyce. If Shepherd had employed a top European manager after Robson, to take over an excellent group of players, we would have moved forward and upwards. Instead, Souness was given the job. Ashley and Mort would have to take some responsibility if we go down. Ashley bought the club in the summer and it was his decision to keep Allardyce on and then not give him much financial backing. This was despite the fact that many clubs around us were investing more heavily. It was also Ashley/Mort's decision to adopt a cautious approach in the transfer market so that players were sold before players came in resulting in transfer targets being missed. It was Ashley/Mort's decision to sack the manager despite not having a replacement lined up. And when their first choice turned them down it was their decision to take the risk of appointing a manager who hadn't managed a club for 3 years. And it was their decision to do this in a transfer window at a time when the club was not mathematically safe from relegation. Whatever anyone may think of those decisions Ashley and Mort have to held responsible for the consequences of making them. and there you have it. Although some people would watch us sliding down to the 3rd division and just as long as he doesn't call our women dogs or say we are idiots for buying 40 quid shirts [i mean who is daft enough to pay 40 quid for a football shirt] then he'll be better chairman and owner than the fat b****** and the Halls. Just for the record I didn't intend my post to be a ringing endorsement of the old board by the way. It's just a list of decisions Ashley/Mort have made that have imo played a huge part in where we find ourselves now. Some of the more "questionable" decisions they have made are almost direct repeats of decisions made by the old board that (admittedly with hindsight) we now know to have been highly damaging mistakes. I know. I don't deliberately intend myself to make ringing endorsements of the old board either, but just by pointing out that the things they did do right maybe suggests they did a lot more things that were right than people realise, or in some cases, are prepared to admit and I don't mean you. I just agree with you completely that, for better or worse, its been Ashleys club since last summer so its all been his responsibility ever since. If he didn't want Allardyce he should have replaced him, or backed him. It was his choice. he did back him to the tune of what the previous board did on average didn't he ?

i understand what HTT is on about but i think he's struggled to get it over well. i think what he's getting at is whereas if we were in mid-table the football would have taken a back seat by now,but now we all know who reading play next and are doing calculations on scraps of paper about how many points we and the others should get.....it does get you going.it may not be enjoyable but for me the sense of relief on that day in leicester was greater than the joy of winning promotion the following season,barcleona,milan,feyenoord or 2 FA cup semi wins. don't read this wrong ,i'd prefer to win, but being where we are does get the adrenalin going in a different sort of way.

This thread has gone from being potentially brilliant, to being the same as all the others once the usual suspect(s) got involved. you're right of course, all it lacked was a "splash the cash you fat b******" What the f*** are you on about? do you copy and paste every post you make No it's a serious question as you seem like a fully fledged flid that deserves his eyelids welded together. it isn't so difficult to work out I am going to wrap a shopping trolley around your head and smash a paving slab into your teeth. don't worry NE5. my guess is he wont.

rebel yell....re butt....i watched the match but you'll need to explain. better than barton on the day (and at least barton done something yesterday for a change)

play like we did yeaterday for the remainder of the season and we wont go down on the other hand that was possibly about the best we've played in the last 18months and who is too say we'll get one more performance like that before the end of the season let alone several.

Did you not see him getting held back! It was right in front of the linesman's eyes! you need to watch it again,he wasn't held back but moved in to the back of a defender after being legitimatly muscled off the ball. and made out he was blocked (had a blackburn player tried it he'd have been slaughtered) however to blame him fot the goal is too far. the blame was more organisational with enrique being trapped on his own. i guess with us pressing for the goal and time running down someone got caught too far up field when they should have been covering or maybe we did actuall deliberatly commit more going for the win and got caught out.