thomas

Very good point, that could be why Wise and Jimenez are in Dubai next couple of weeks. Which would be understandable if the club was owned by someone with limited funds (ie previous regime) and wanted it to expand, but in Ashley's circumstances it really does make me ask: why? You don't become billionaire without exploiting every money making opportunity. I'd imagine a medium term lease on the surrounding land including allowed development would be very profitable to the club. That's a massive assumption. Not like this entire pyramid of quotes isn't built off of them tbf.

After reading that I expect some on here to take it all in and use it against the club. How does the phrase go? "no smoke without fire"? mackems.gif mackems.gif mackems.gif mackems.gif

tbh I'm more happy about the potential that move has to piss off spurs supporters.

There's not a lot of information on Intermedia out there, but it looks more like they specialize in media -- they've bought tons of cable channels and print magazines. Doesn't look like there's any interest at all in them owning franchises of any particular sport or much in the way of investing in England.

Looked too much like Bret Hart imo, wouldn't want him here.

Death is a little harsh. Maybe wish that he'd come to grips with his true level in football.

First they came for the transfer forum and I didn't speak up. Then they came for the fixture lists and I didn't speak up. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

Thought it would more resemble http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/738/fisherpricephoneki0.jpg

So was that a woosh or what?

I'll gladly hop on board the bandwagon of people with a functioning brain who realize that things have changed in the footballing world so drastically that comparing the first reign of Keegan to the second as some kind of means of comparison of the owners/boards at the respective times would be the trite, nonsensical act of an utter buffoon.

There hasn't been a blueprint until now. What there has been is some assumptions off quotes 8 and 12 months old respectively that people have taken and built grandiose pipe dreams and strawmen out of and argued about for roughly seven trillion pages. Done here = assumptions and pipe dreams Done by The Times = blueprint gotcha :blush: Got me indeed. I responded to this before I read the article. Check my statement -- The blueprint is still an unknown.

There hasn't been a blueprint until now. What there has been is some assumptions off quotes 8 and 12 months old respectively that people have taken and built grandiose pipe dreams and strawmen out of and argued about for roughly seven trillion pages.

Laurent White

It's like the Peter Pan of forum one liners.

was hoping that first post would be "... or get banned" but that'll do.

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?action=profile;u=5771;sa=showPosts;start=275 The fuck you were laughed at. You said sweet fuck all about the Smith signing at the time and weren't even registered when Duff signed. Any other "facts" you'd like to dream up so you can play the "I told you so" game?

The sad thing is I checked to see whether or not you threw that in there. :lol:

I'm up at 5:30 on a Friday, Shorey better not be as good as this day gets.

I read them as potentially ditching Barton and vetoing transfers due to age. Maybe you need to re-read it. Maybe I do, perhaps you could help me by explaining what the bits I've bolded mean? Terminating Bartons contract is hardly dictating transfer policy (as per your statement "Is dictating the transfer policy as alleged in this report (eg ditching Barton and vetoing transfers due to age) not interfering with the manager's duties?") as much as it is common sense and perhaps even a contractual obligation. Nor does it say he would specifically veto anything based on age, merely that a long term approach to development would be taken. There are so many shades of grey painting everything that I'm wondering how you see it in such black and white terms. edit: no pun intended. Anyone making mention of it will be shot on sight. Thank you.

Going by the Turkish calendar yes he would be 21, however by Gregorian calendar standards we would call him 19.

How about not another thread about the old board, jesus fucking wept.

Don't really want Taylor at RB though Can't Geremi play there comfortably enough or am I dreaming? See Newcastle 0-3 Liverpool. Not sure where you're going with that, Beye played 90 minutes in both of our 0-3 losses to them, and Geremi had a game + 45. Not saying Geremi should start every game at RB, but he could fill in, and we're going to get slaughtered against the likes of pool and man u anyway, rather harsh to judge him on that.

Don't really want Taylor at RB though Can't Geremi play there comfortably enough or am I dreaming?

I'm all for whichever solution sees us getting rid of while recouping the most money. Couldn't care less what the public perception of it is.

Why? The 3 year paymemt plan seems a good deal to me. Of all the season ticket holders who will be renewing, what percentage do you think will be able to afford a £1300+ one-off payment? Can't see many doing it myself. Transparent attempt to bolster the flagging banking and credit industries. Take out a 1334 loan at a reasonable rate, pay it off in 2 years and you'll still come in under the 3 year deal but get the one-off price.