Wullie

Does anyone on here work in the club shop? Who pays the wages? Also, you can buy a ticket in the club shop at the same time as a shirt. Is that going through a different till system or does it still say Sports Direct on the receipt? I assume even this cunt can't be that bent.

Tbh I'm not that surprised it's the case. We're basically Sports Direct's works football team and have been for ages.

The NUFC Direct website is operated by SportsDirect.com Retail Ltd. whose registered address is Unit A, Brook Park East, Shirebrook, NG20 8RY, Company Number: 03406347, VAT Number: GB 898 439743. From the shop website's T&Cs.

Don't worry, I've been assured the club doesn't need anybody running it.

Well there's absolutely no way that's the profit margin on football shirts, as Freddy Shepherd will tell you.

Owen and Luque, aye, and Boumsong, and Parker, and Emre, all in the same year, to the tune of £50m.

Unfortunately that'll mean more Michael Owen on screen, although I tend to skip the punditry on MOTD anyway. They really need to introduce some interesting statistical analysis like cricket does so well imo.

Or Spurs maybe. Barring the London location, we should be able to model ourselves on them. But the difference isn't really one of finance it's more about having competent people running the club. Yes, Spurs have done everything right that we have done wrong. Paying the money required for expertise in the management areas at all key levels being the obvious one. Ashley's your classic football know-nowt who thinks it's all about players and that the manager basically just picks the team on a weekend.

Where are you getting that number from? Someone will correct me but I'm almost certain that we made comfortable profits under Robson, and those were tempered by the enormous dividends that Shepherd and the Halls were creaming off the top, otherwise there would have been much more available. Things only went awry after the decision to give Graeme Souness £50m to blow. Well since 2006 anyway, big losses every season. I can't find figures before that. I guess when we were in the CL the return was better, yes. Edit: we made 0.6m in 2005. Why on Earth bring up "our most successful period" then mention 2006? And that 2005 number is after dividend, not really reflective of the club's numbers, just the greed of the owners.

Where are you getting that number from? Someone will correct me but I'm almost certain that we made comfortable profits under Robson, and those were tempered by the enormous dividends that Shepherd and the Halls were creaming off the top, otherwise there would have been much more available. Things only went awry after the decision to give Graeme Souness £50m to blow.

Financial performance has “improved” because we refuse to invest properly in players, which was Shepherd’s main outgoing. Using the word ‘improvement’ in that context is a misnomer imo, because we’re a football club. Might as well say “my personal financial situation has improved dramatically since I stopped paying for electricity, gas and food. Now I sit in the dark with a blanket and some stale bread and I consider myself much better off”

Rangers were slapped with a vast bill after it was discovered they'd been fiddling their taxes for years, and Coventry didn't own their own ground, and so had to rent it at an extortionate rate. Are these two clubs the new Portsmouth in that they'll be used to defend Ashley under any circumstances despite being nothing like us?

I think most would like another owner, but we need an alternative. Well of course, but in the meantime to suggest Ashley's tenure has been anything other than an unmitigated disaster is laughable in my humble opinion. Literally the only positive from the way he has run the club is that he has the money to fund the massive losses his mismanagement caused. That does not equate to being well run. It's akin to a rich man claiming he'd had a successful night at the casino having lost a million pounds. "How was that successful?" "Because I can afford it"

Ozzie and quayside, six years now living by the same mantra. "Anyone will do, as long as it's not Shepherd"

I'll tell you now, he's not capable of delivering within my expectations. Ashley's, perhaps, but not mine. And Wullie is spot on about Pardew. He's not a good man manager at all. Keegan was, he'd have players running through walls for him but if they crossed him they'd be out. He got the best from everyone, made them feel 10 feet tall going onto the pitch. We believed we could beat anyone, and because of that we often did. Padew's a coward, he often has us beaten before the game even kicks off. Sure the players like him, but that's because there's no pressure on them and no expectations. I'd much rather we had a good manager the players feared than a weak and cowardly one that they liked. Complete conjecture. But if we're looking at the mood of the players. Whether they're performing above or below their potential. We can say that they are definitely lacking in confidence right now - Cisse in particular - and they're not playing as well as they should be. But there have been periods where they have excellent under Pardew and played out of their skins. How much of that is down to the manager (either way) is open to debate. If the players like him and want to play for him... and he likes the board and wants to work with them... can we really ask for more? Here's the question... if Pardew is so bad and holding us back, let's say we sack him tomorrow, who do you want to replace him with and where do you think their Newcastle side would finish? When have they been "excellent under Pardew and played out of their skins"? When we finished fifth, other than half a dozen games in March/April, the football was fucking stinking.

How's he meant to be "good enough" at 17 man, and better than Player X who's 26 and been playing in Ligue 1 regularly for 8 years and is available for £3m? Howay. That's completely hypothetical. 1) and academy player would be cheaper and negate the need to but a replacement. 2) good enough is old enough it's really that simple. We were awful before the influx of foreign players, we are exactly the same now. It's the coaching not the foreigners. Gerard was in the Liverpool team when he was 18? Also it's entirely unfair to compare a 26 year old player with a 17 year old kid regardless of nationality. So f*** that Stephen Gerrard was in the Liverpool team when he was 18? How is one example proof of anything? You mention Carroll - the only reason that bloke is anywhere today is because we went down and he had the opportunity to develop by playing first team football. If we'd stayed up, he certainly wouldn't have got a look in - he barely even got one in the first half of the Championship season because he looked a bit s**** until a few months in and we brought in Marlon Harewood to play instead. If we'd stayed up, we'd have bought someone else and he would have drifted down the leagues, and maybe worked his way back up like Danny Graham did when he couldn't get a kick at Middlesbrough. I'm not really sure what to say if you think football doesn't help footballers develop. The game is littered with players who've played 300 games before they're any good at all. Didier Drogba was rattling around in Ligue 2 until he was about 24 - by your logic, he should have been the same Drogba at 16 as he would go on to be at 25 when Marseille bought him. Literally not once said that, your cherry picking what you want to hear to support your own argument. I used one example to prove the point that "good enough is old enough". You've completely and utterly missed the point and pretty much everything you've set out in your response, I didn't say. I never once said playing football doesn't help you, I never once suggested that a player would be the same at 16 as he was at 25, though he was a slightly late developer. I contended that it is wholly incorrect to suggest that our importing of foreign talent if f*** all to with the lack of English talent. We are s***, we were s*** before, it means nothing. People must think there is the English Zidane sitting on a bench somewhere but he can't get a game because a 2m player from Porto is ahead of him. You're using examples like Zidane to create a ridiculous hyperbole. Of course there are young English players at every club who can't get a game because it's easier, cheaper and less risky to buy a foreign ready-made replacement. Are there? Care to name any of them? It's impossible to say that with any certainty at all, the better players make it, the lesser players don't. When the league was predominantly English we were equally as s*** as we are now . I'm not particularly au fait with the youth systems of other teams but we've got several players who've been doing nothing but playing reserve football for five years and now look ill equipped to deal with the Premier League. Hate to agree with Wullie, but he's right here. It's not about having a Zidane sitting on the bench somewhere, it's about giving players the games they need to get up to standard. Being patient with them instead of buying a cheap import who is already ready. And you're sure if they get that game time they will be up to that standard? No. That's the point. Football's partly a game of risk and Premier League clubs don't want to take it when they've got enough money to go abroad and get someone with more experience. It's not even about English vs foreign really - coming to our academy was the worst thing Kadar and Vuckic ever did. They'd have been far better off staying in their native countries or the Bundesliga and playing games at 18, instead of getting to 21 with half a dozen League Cup appearances between them. I can agree on that. Our academy's need a change as well, you are right. They would have been far better off away from here. There are some very well run academies though, Southampton seems to constantly produce. I feel like ours is particularly bad tbh Based purely on what it has produced, ours is fucking dross. Southampton's has flourished whilst they've been out of the top flight, destitute and able to give Bale, Walcott, Ox regular games at 16 years old. Give them five years in the Premier League and you'll see their flow has suddenly dried up very quickly as their kids stagnate playing against other kids for an extra two or three years before even being considered for selection.

How's he meant to be "good enough" at 17 man, and better than Player X who's 26 and been playing in Ligue 1 regularly for 8 years and is available for £3m? Howay. That's completely hypothetical. 1) and academy player would be cheaper and negate the need to but a replacement. 2) good enough is old enough it's really that simple. We were awful before the influx of foreign players, we are exactly the same now. It's the coaching not the foreigners. Gerard was in the Liverpool team when he was 18? Also it's entirely unfair to compare a 26 year old player with a 17 year old kid regardless of nationality. So f*** that Stephen Gerrard was in the Liverpool team when he was 18? How is one example proof of anything? You mention Carroll - the only reason that bloke is anywhere today is because we went down and he had the opportunity to develop by playing first team football. If we'd stayed up, he certainly wouldn't have got a look in - he barely even got one in the first half of the Championship season because he looked a bit s**** until a few months in and we brought in Marlon Harewood to play instead. If we'd stayed up, we'd have bought someone else and he would have drifted down the leagues, and maybe worked his way back up like Danny Graham did when he couldn't get a kick at Middlesbrough. I'm not really sure what to say if you think football doesn't help footballers develop. The game is littered with players who've played 300 games before they're any good at all. Didier Drogba was rattling around in Ligue 2 until he was about 24 - by your logic, he should have been the same Drogba at 16 as he would go on to be at 25 when Marseille bought him. Literally not once said that, your cherry picking what you want to hear to support your own argument. I used one example to prove the point that "good enough is old enough". You've completely and utterly missed the point and pretty much everything you've set out in your response, I didn't say. I never once said playing football doesn't help you, I never once suggested that a player would be the same at 16 as he was at 25, though he was a slightly late developer. I contended that it is wholly incorrect to suggest that our importing of foreign talent if f*** all to with the lack of English talent. We are s***, we were s*** before, it means nothing. People must think there is the English Zidane sitting on a bench somewhere but he can't get a game because a 2m player from Porto is ahead of him. You're using examples like Zidane to create a ridiculous hyperbole. Of course there are young English players at every club who can't get a game because it's easier, cheaper and less risky to buy a foreign ready-made replacement. Are there? Care to name any of them? It's impossible to say that with any certainty at all, the better players make it, the lesser players don't. When the league was predominantly English we were equally as s*** as we are now . I'm not particularly au fait with the youth systems of other teams but we've got several players who've been doing nothing but playing reserve football for five years and now look ill equipped to deal with the Premier League. Hate to agree with Wullie, but he's right here. It's not about having a Zidane sitting on the bench somewhere, it's about giving players the games they need to get up to standard. Being patient with them instead of buying a cheap import who is already ready. And you're sure if they get that game time they will be up to that standard? No. That's the point. Football's partly a game of risk and Premier League clubs don't want to take it when they've got enough money to go abroad and get someone with more experience. It's not even about English vs foreign really - coming to our academy was the worst thing Kadar and Vuckic ever did. They'd have been far better off staying in their native countries or the Bundesliga and playing games at 18, instead of getting to 21 with half a dozen League Cup appearances between them.

Pardew's a fucking awful man-manager. Good man-managers get their players brimming with confidence, not negativity and fear. I agree the players seem to like him as a person - that's not really a virtue as a football manager, in the slightest. My favourite managers have been the ones that let me get away with the most. As for him being a great fit for our recruitment policy, words fail me. We buy players totally unsuited to how he wants to play.

How's he meant to be "good enough" at 17 man, and better than Player X who's 26 and been playing in Ligue 1 regularly for 8 years and is available for £3m? Howay. That's completely hypothetical. 1) and academy player would be cheaper and negate the need to but a replacement. 2) good enough is old enough it's really that simple. We were awful before the influx of foreign players, we are exactly the same now. It's the coaching not the foreigners. Gerard was in the Liverpool team when he was 18? Also it's entirely unfair to compare a 26 year old player with a 17 year old kid regardless of nationality. So f*** that Stephen Gerrard was in the Liverpool team when he was 18? How is one example proof of anything? You mention Carroll - the only reason that bloke is anywhere today is because we went down and he had the opportunity to develop by playing first team football. If we'd stayed up, he certainly wouldn't have got a look in - he barely even got one in the first half of the Championship season because he looked a bit s**** until a few months in and we brought in Marlon Harewood to play instead. If we'd stayed up, we'd have bought someone else and he would have drifted down the leagues, and maybe worked his way back up like Danny Graham did when he couldn't get a kick at Middlesbrough. I'm not really sure what to say if you think football doesn't help footballers develop. The game is littered with players who've played 300 games before they're any good at all. Didier Drogba was rattling around in Ligue 2 until he was about 24 - by your logic, he should have been the same Drogba at 16 as he would go on to be at 25 when Marseille bought him. Literally not once said that, your cherry picking what you want to hear to support your own argument. I used one example to prove the point that "good enough is old enough". You've completely and utterly missed the point and pretty much everything you've set out in your response, I didn't say. I never once said playing football doesn't help you, I never once suggested that a player would be the same at 16 as he was at 25, though he was a slightly late developer. I contended that it is wholly incorrect to suggest that our importing of foreign talent if f*** all to with the lack of English talent. We are s***, we were s*** before, it means nothing. People must think there is the English Zidane sitting on a bench somewhere but he can't get a game because a 2m player from Porto is ahead of him. You're using examples like Zidane to create a ridiculous hyperbole. Of course there are young English players at every club who can't get a game because it's easier, cheaper and less risky to buy a foreign ready-made replacement. Are there? Care to name any of them? It's impossible to say that with any certainty at all, the better players make it, the lesser players don't. When the league was predominantly English we were equally as shit as we are now . I'm not particularly au fait with the youth systems of other teams but we've got several players who've been doing nothing but playing reserve football for five years and now look ill equipped to deal with the Premier League.

How's he meant to be "good enough" at 17 man, and better than Player X who's 26 and been playing in Ligue 1 regularly for 8 years and is available for £3m? Howay. That's completely hypothetical. 1) and academy player would be cheaper and negate the need to but a replacement. 2) good enough is old enough it's really that simple. We were awful before the influx of foreign players, we are exactly the same now. It's the coaching not the foreigners. Gerard was in the Liverpool team when he was 18? Also it's entirely unfair to compare a 26 year old player with a 17 year old kid regardless of nationality. So f*** that Stephen Gerrard was in the Liverpool team when he was 18? How is one example proof of anything? You mention Carroll - the only reason that bloke is anywhere today is because we went down and he had the opportunity to develop by playing first team football. If we'd stayed up, he certainly wouldn't have got a look in - he barely even got one in the first half of the Championship season because he looked a bit s**** until a few months in and we brought in Marlon Harewood to play instead. If we'd stayed up, we'd have bought someone else and he would have drifted down the leagues, and maybe worked his way back up like Danny Graham did when he couldn't get a kick at Middlesbrough. I'm not really sure what to say if you think football doesn't help footballers develop. The game is littered with players who've played 300 games before they're any good at all. Didier Drogba was rattling around in Ligue 2 until he was about 24 - by your logic, he should have been the same Drogba at 16 as he would go on to be at 25 when Marseille bought him. Literally not once said that, your cherry picking what you want to hear to support your own argument. I used one example to prove the point that "good enough is old enough". You've completely and utterly missed the point and pretty much everything you've set out in your response, I didn't say. I never once said playing football doesn't help you, I never once suggested that a player would be the same at 16 as he was at 25, though he was a slightly late developer. I contended that it is wholly incorrect to suggest that our importing of foreign talent if fuck all to with the lack of English talent. We are shit, we were shit before, it means nothing. People must think there is the English Zidane sitting on a bench somewhere but he can't get a game because a 2m player from Porto is ahead of him. You're using examples like Zidane to create a ridiculous hyperbole. Of course there are young English players at every club who can't get a game because it's easier, cheaper and less risky to buy a foreign ready-made replacement.

This is just a bizarre paragraph. You like that we've got a crap manager because he "makes up for it with harmonizing the club"? Are we a football team or a fucking old folk's home? I've missed all these young, hungry players too - we sign players because they're cheap.

We need three quality players and a new manager to be a good side on paper? And that's a good thing?

How's he meant to be "good enough" at 17 man, and better than Player X who's 26 and been playing in Ligue 1 regularly for 8 years and is available for £3m? Howay. That's completely hypothetical. 1) and academy player would be cheaper and negate the need to but a replacement. 2) good enough is old enough it's really that simple. We were awful before the influx of foreign players, we are exactly the same now. It's the coaching not the foreigners. Gerard was in the Liverpool team when he was 18? Also it's entirely unfair to compare a 26 year old player with a 17 year old kid regardless of nationality. So fuck that Stephen Gerrard was in the Liverpool team when he was 18? How is one example proof of anything? You mention Carroll - the only reason that bloke is anywhere today is because we went down and he had the opportunity to develop by playing first team football. If we'd stayed up, he certainly wouldn't have got a look in - he barely even got one in the first half of the Championship season because he looked a bit shite until a few months in and we brought in Marlon Harewood to play instead. If we'd stayed up, we'd have bought someone else and he would have drifted down the leagues, and maybe worked his way back up like Danny Graham did when he couldn't get a kick at Middlesbrough. I'm not really sure what to say if you think football doesn't help footballers develop. The game is littered with players who've played 300 games before they're any good at all. Didier Drogba was rattling around in Ligue 2 until he was about 24 - by your logic, he should have been the same Drogba at 16 as he would go on to be at 25 when Marseille bought him.

How's he meant to be "good enough" at 17 man, and better than Player X who's 26 and been playing in Ligue 1 regularly for 8 years and is available for £3m? Howay.

That's just not true though is it, realistically? If you're a youth player on Chelsea's books, you've got to be one of the world's greatest young players to get so much as a place on the bench in the League Cup. By the time you're 21, you've simply not played enough first team football to keep up with your peers in other countries who've been playing senior football for years. Well it is true, but mainly because of my ambiguous sentence structure I see your point though but if they are truly good then it is in the clubs best interest, and also the players naturally, to be playing regular first team football. Be this a loan or a transfer to a lower club. There's no agenda against English players. If we have a whole generation of English players who are inferior to, let's say, Spanish players then why should the English players get priority at club level? The English players will have to settle for playing further down the table(s). By forcing clubs to play English players then you aren't increasing the quality of English produce, just reducing the quality of the premiership. The problem is at the root of it. Aye you knew what I meant. I disagree fundamentally with your statement in bold because, simply put, players improve by playing senior football. That's inarguable, and they're not getting those opportunities to develop because of how easy and cheap it is to buy a player from Europe. The money in the game has made it impossible to give those opportunities so freely. Easy example off the top of my head - Paul Dummett. Vastly improved in a short time by playing senior football, highly rated left back at an age where he needs to play to develop comes back last January after impressing up north and what do we do? Buy Haidara. Why? Because despite being over a year younger than Dummett, Haidara has three years top flight experience in a major European league, playing against other professional footballers and in big stadiums, as opposed to playing against kids and amateurs in front of three men and their dogs at Kingston Park, which was what Dummett had been doing for years before he went to Scotland.