thomas

Probably thinking it's best to get one more look at that Kuyt fella before any bids are made. Fred didn't have the heart to tell him.

Arsenal, Everton and Tottenham for me. Opinion more based on experience with exiles and online supporters seeing as how I'm a yank. But god I hate the lot of 'em. Sunderland ... There's not much feeling I can muster about them further than smug satisfaction at seeing Keane failing.

There's no 'Juventus Brown Ale' for the fratboys to drink

Zog, 85th minute at 2-0 down.

A more useless and unproductive post has never been made.

Can't say I fully agree. I'm not Parkers biggest fan, far from it, but our frailties in attack are much less due to Parker going in full force on tackles and more due to absolutely shit positioning of the other midfielders, forwards and fullbacks. I think an anchorman is only as good as his supporting cast. Too many times a game you'll see Parker with the ball at feet, twisting, turning, trying to find a fucking outlet and yet there is none, so it gets passed back and lumped forward -- and where are our other midfielders during all this? Standing still as statues. Carrick on the other hand has the likes of Scholes, Rooney, Giggs, Ronaldo, Neville and Heinze "bombing forward" running into space, actually looking to get onto a pass, actually asking to be passed to. And though I too feel he doesn't stay on his feet enough, I don't buy that it's the biggest reason, or even one of the bigger reasons, that we're shite going forward/countering -- our midfield as a whole doesn't seem know how to transition, creating forward outlets and running into space is a mystery to them as off the ball positioning is a fairy tale.

That's not how you argue or prove something though. You can't say "because no one has proven me wrong I must be right". If I bang on with some nut theory about all Venezuelans being trained to invade mexico in 2012 I'm not right just because no one's proven me wrong. If you believe there is no correlation between success and TV money then back that up with something. However the TV revenue on http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/profits2.htm in our 4,3,5 th placed years really blows the 13,13,11,11 years out of the water. Now granted I'm sure there's been reworking of deals but I fail to see how you can go on and say there's no proof that more success brings more TV money in light of those stats. Add to that the quote at the bottom: and it becomes even more clear that money, least of all TV, is clearly tied into success on the pitch. And that's just the league.

Overreacting Mongs United

It *can* add up. There's more money in tickets the further we get in Europe -- i.e. the more successful we are. Season tickets maybe not, but maybe they'll expand the stadium and recoup some there. How much more per year exactly I don't know. More, but overseas like. Barring your friends the Singaporean ladyboys, Newcastle United doesn't have a big foothold in foreign merchandising markets. Here in Atlanta it's impossible to find a shirt in a non-specialty store that isn't ManU, Chelsea or Arsenal. Increased success and increased marketting by Belgravia could turn us into a more major "Brand", aka what's been done with Chelsea in the past few years. In my opinion this is the area with the largest amount of potential and growth. Not in the space of one year, no, of course not. But then that's not how they plan these things. If you look at it spread out across 10 years, I would think very much so. Bringing in £10-15m more a year for 10 years? Easily. Maybe. I don't think a casino or improved TV contract would be the end of the world either though.

Probably being pedantic, but it's just Premiership, Pick on someone else's post, at least all my players are playing in this country tongue.gif tongue.gif I'd have him over Bridge though and I reckon Southampton will be a premiership side again next year barring a downturn in fortune.

Gareth Bale Dean Ashton Mikel Arteta Gareth Barry Ledley King

:wullie: :wullie: More ineptitude by the club, there's nowt to remove

A point away, no less, to one of the best attacking teams in the world. And even 1-0 up at halftime even the most optimistic of us expected them to score at least one. I can think of maybe 3 teams in the league that one could expect to hold on to 1-0 away to Arsenal and we sadly haven't been one of them for many years.

Of the ones listed, has to be Given by a country mile.

It just seems to imply that an Offer period has begin, as per NUFCs complicance with the takeover code 2.10 [link] : The 5p is not a bid from Belgravia.

The attitude is there, the ability simply isn't. I'm absolutely sure Shola means well and genuinely wants to help the club and establish himself as some kind of front line leader like Al was but it's just not going to happen for him. It's pity more than anger I feel towards him most of the time.

legend :lol: :lol: Dave -- won't it look normal if you take off the height/width parts of the tag? odd could have sworn you can manually change the values : 1152 x 834 should do

A chess move indeed. He's forcing Belgravia to show their hand.

I think it's just his misguided way of dealing with the anger and frustration we're all sharing, by sniping at fellow supporters. Feel bad for the lad actually. [edit] Odd, where'd BottledDogs post go ...

Shay is the better of the two, plain and simple. The fact Harper has done "okay" while Shay's been out is not enough in my mind to warrant keeping Given out. That's what I find laughable. Has Harper been shambolic? No. But he's shown me absolutely nothing to convince me he deserves to keep the starting job over Given. He is a good #2 and true, at many other clubs in this league he may be good enough to be a #1. But not here, while Shay is available for selection.

that made my day bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif

Not if sorting out that hair is part of the contract

Scenario A isn't a straight scenario though. You're trying to corner people into saying they'll have one kind of reaction regardless of what kind of spending it is, since any spending is "a gamble". It's not though. Prudent spending, addressing the needs of the team, would result in at least some begrudged credit being given even if we go down, e.g. "at least they did that right". Being pandered to with a big name, big money trophy signing or two is going to definitely result in criticism, I think, even if we stay up. A far greater gamble. I'll go "on record" as saying I'll credit them with acting responsibly if we spend and spend well in January. I will definitely slate them if we do not spend or if the only spending is on trophy players. The manager picks the players to bring in. :) Again though, there's a distinction. It's not as simplistic as "debt/turnover = slating". Our debt/turnover ratio right now are the result of poor decisions by several parties involved. The reaction to it is well known though not completely understood by all. However, at this moment, increasing it in an effort to right a sinking ship, gamble though it may be, may be the only way to salvage this season and thus is acceptable. So to answer the reformed query with my own reformed answer , I will back responsible spending in January. Cheers And I believe the signing of Owen could well come into that category. He made a difference, although to avoid a battle last season Souness still had to be sacked. Had we not signed Owen the debt wouldn't be anything like what it is now, but.......... As I understood it Owen was signed after dipping into some kind of "Wor Al Replacement Fund" or somesuch. Still, point taken. So long as they're not complete shite I really don't care who the exact player is. The positions we need most (center back, right back, forward, left back) are of more concern. Having said that, I don't necessarily expect us to sign 4 new players but by fuck if turns out another winger gets signed and titus brambles name is still anywhere near the first team sheet, someone needs shooting.

Scenario A isn't a straight scenario though. You're trying to corner people into saying they'll have one kind of reaction regardless of what kind of spending it is, since any spending is "a gamble". It's not though. Prudent spending, addressing the needs of the team, would result in at least some begrudged credit being given even if we go down, e.g. "at least they did that right". Being pandered to with a big name, big money trophy signing or two is going to definitely result in criticism, I think, even if we stay up. A far greater gamble. I'll go "on record" as saying I'll credit them with acting responsibly if we spend and spend well in January. I will definitely slate them if we do not spend or if the only spending is on trophy players. The manager picks the players to bring in. :) Again though, there's a distinction. It's not as simplistic as "debt/turnover = slating". Our debt/turnover ratio right now are the result of poor decisions by several parties involved. The reaction to it is well known though not completely understood by all. However, at this moment, increasing it in an effort to right a sinking ship, gamble though it may be, may be the only way to salvage this season and thus is acceptable. So to answer the reformed query with my own reformed answer , I will back responsible spending in January. Cheers