UV

We said that in the Summer before we knew if Carroll would be any good in this division, but we weren't even in the market for one. Carroll's done better than anyone could have hoped for so what makes people think we'll be going for another striker in Jan?

The useless cunt - bribing people for votes on behalf of Russia. You set 'em up - I'll knock 'em down. Canny avatar at the minute lad - didn't have the 16K RAM pack with mine, and had to live with the massive 1K on-board memory. For the kids on here that's K (not M) and stands for Kilobytes. That's not the proper 16k RAM pack though, that's the memotek knock off with a dodgy connection. On paper it looked great as it was cheaper than the official one, but after a while you realised it wasn't as good and was really a false economy that made the ZX81 much worse to use. Pretty clever metaphor for Ashley's running of the club cp40

So far we've had a typical newly promoted side start to the season - play better than expected, pull off a few shock results against the top teams, feature briefly at the top end of the table. Most players are fit, fresh and confident from their promotion at the start of the season, and the team can compete above it's level. As the season goes on though the teams with the smaller squads (ie newly or recently promoted teams) will be much harder hit by injuries, suspensions and fatigue and will suffer against the established teams with stronger squads. We do however start from a base of having a stronger squad than the typical newly promoted team, so I think we should have enough to stay up unless we get unlucky with injuries (we're currently faring about average). It will come down to luck though which personally I'm not happy about as I think more could have been done to lower the risk. Lucky with injuries - 11-13 Average with injuries - 14-17 Unlucky with injuries - relegated Unfortunately that isn't the only option.

That's right keep on convincing yourself that the BBC program will end of corruption in FIFA and those criticizing it are just turning a blind eye to corruption. Have a look at BBC's statement So what did they seek to achieve by screening it before the vote? Were they really expecting that somehow FIFA would suspend voting because of BBC's allegation? Don't be naive man. There would not have been an material difference (in terms of stopping corruption) had BBC screened the show after the vote. The only thing achieved by screening before the vote was to damage England's chances and get some cheap sensationalism for BBC, nothing else. I happen to believe that exposing the corrupt is not only worthwhile but essential, especially for an institution such as the BBC. I doubt it will end corruption but does that make the show any less newsworthy. Screening the show after the vote would've been pathetic, a total cop out. I don't disagree with your first sentence. What you have yet to demonstrate though is how is screening before the vote better/more effective in terms of whatever you want to achieve vis-a-vis corruption. The same program after we lose the bid would look to the rest of the world like sour grapes. FIFA would say that if we thought there was corruption why didn't we bring it up before the vote so they could do something about it, we're obviously just bitter about losing and use that to dismiss the allegations and sweep it under the carpet. They'll still dismiss the allegations and try to sweep it under the carpet, but at least now the dismissal of it can be seen as the self-serving attempt to hang onto their own cushy numbers it is without allowing them to use the sore loser excuse.

From the Championship report we paid out £1,073,076 from 1/7/09 to 30/6/10 So at least* £1,344,700 was on: Plus any contract extensions between July and September. * The Martins, Bassong, Beye & Duff transfers were in the period covered by the Championship report and not the PL one, so that's likely to be a substantial part of the £1,073,076

That's right keep on convincing yourself that the BBC program will end of corruption in FIFA and those criticizing it are just turning a blind eye to corruption. Have a look at BBC's statement So what did they seek to achieve by screening it before the vote? Were they really expecting that somehow FIFA would suspend voting because of BBC's allegation? Don't be naive man. There would not have been an material difference (in terms of stopping corruption) had BBC screened the show after the vote. The only thing achieved by screening before the vote was to damage England's chances and get some cheap sensationalism for BBC, nothing else. Do you think the people implicated in the program didn't know about the allegations already and would have voted for England if only the program had been shown later? There's a case for saying it should have been shown as soon as possible, but not later. If anything this will improve England's chances. You're the corrupt FIFA official. Do you: Sulk about the program and vote against England just because of it, knowing it will only increase suspicion that you're self-serving and corrupt and encourage more journalists to come after you. Vote for England even if you fancied a nice Summer holiday on the Costa del Sol hoping it will show just how impartial and incorruptible you are and get those nasty people who want to stop you getting rich from backhanders off your back for a bit.

Here we go. So who's doing our transfers now? You realise we don't have a 'Director of Football' anymore, right? An agency I reckon. Probably the one which was in charge of transfers in Summer 09. Just because there's no Director of Football on the books doesn't mean we don't pay someone to do that job. If it hadn't been for the announcement of his appointment it's not as if you would have known about Denis Wise from his constant talking to the press and appearances at all the youth and reserve games is it? Or do you reckon Ashley has given newbie manager Hughton more power than he was willing to give to Keegan? Very much doubt it myself. I think the normal process is that the manager tells the board what positions he needs players for, the board tells the scouts to identify suitable players for our wage structure, style of play and transfer budget and then they come back with suggestions. The manager then says yes or no. Whatever is going on at the club regarding player recruitment, it seems to be working. However, I refuse to believe that Hughton has no say at all in the players joining the club I never said he has no say, and I pretty much agree with your description of how it probably works (although I suspect that the "scouts" are more likely to be player agents who will give the club a list of their clients who they want a transfer fee out of so they can look them up on youtube). How much control the manager has depends very much on how heavily the players are vetted before he gets to see the options and how much say he has in the final choice (he may just have a veto). He may also have little say in which players are sold. It's working well enough at the moment for the amounts we've been spending, as we've had good value for money on most of the bargain basement signings we've made since he's been in charge, but the problems will come if we ever step that up and bring in more expensive players. Not much fuss is made over a signing for £1 or £2M that doesn't work out, but when that gets to £5M+ expectations become (somewhat unrealistically) higher and a lot more is expected of the player. If they don't perform it will be Hughton's head on the line and his reputation which will get tarnished. Keegan knew this and that's why he wanted full control. Hughton wont leave like Keegan as at the moment he knows he's lucky to have the job, but he'll be the scapegoat if they don't fit in and do well.

I'm not sure about the logic that breaking off negotiations and putting someone on the transfer list without telling them is "doing everything to keep him". They still haven't even got round to putting in the paperwork. http://www.givemefootball.com/pfa-transfer-list You'd almost think the transfer list announcement was done purely as a point scoring exercise. When you think about how secretly the club tries to do business these days, isn't it strange how easily some information leaks out?

Here we go. So who's doing our transfers now? You realise we don't have a 'Director of Football' anymore, right? An agency I reckon. Probably the one which was in charge of transfers in Summer 09. Just because there's no Director of Football on the books doesn't mean we don't pay someone to do that job. If it hadn't been for the announcement of his appointment it's not as if you would have known about Denis Wise from his constant talking to the press and appearances at all the youth and reserve games is it? Or do you reckon Ashley has given newbie manager Hughton more power than he was willing to give to Keegan? Very much doubt it myself.

made up OIC

Where's this £50k number coming from?

Personally, I wouldn't praise or condemn Hughton over something he has little say or control over.

He's been effective this season, of course he has - that can't be denied. 7 goals is a fantastic return for a midfielder in a short space of time. I'm just slightly disappointed that he's only averaged just over 1 shot per game. It just seems a bit strange for a midfielder that isn't a 'defensive' one. Maybe taking long-range shots has been seen as a quick way to lose possession (I know he tried a couple vs the mackems for his hattrick) so the management team have asked for a pass-first, shoot-second approach from outside the area? 8 years under Allardyce will do that to a player. Didn't he fine players for shooting from outside the box at Bolton? Sam Allardyce (Doctor of Science) - coaching the skills out of football since 1991

Surely that's grounds for constructive dismissal for Fat Sham?

Ashley must be fuming, it appears he's lost his position as the stingiest and stupidest owner in the league. Blackpool players were offered a bonus last year if they managed to avoid relegation and stay in the Championship, but because they got promoted and so didn't "stay in the Championship" the club tried to get out of paying the bonus (and risked breaching the players contracts thus allowing them to leave for nowt). I doubt Mike will stand for this for long though, I'm sure he'll come up with something soon to get his title back.

No-one is saying the premier league is by far the best league in the world like. Feeble attempt at a strawman. At the end of the day it's a cup competition, and any team that makes it to the final stages could win it depending on a lot of factors on the day. Liverpool won it FFS, and it's been decades since the last time they had a sniff of winning our league. A better indicator would be consistency in getting to the latter stages and strength in depth. Finalists: 6 English (4 teams) 6 Spanish (3 teams) 5 Italian (3 teams) 3 German (2 teams) 1 French 1 Portuguese Semi-finalists: 15 English (5 teams) 14 Spanish 7 Italian 4 German 2 French 1 Portuguese 1 Dutch Quarter-finalists: 26 English 21 Spanish 15 Italian 9 German 6 French 4 Portuguese 3 Dutch 2 Turkish 1 Russian 1 Greek Spain and England stand out by miles, not much in it. Not much sight however of teams from the mighty Dutch league Mr Petrovic

No he hasn't. We've got a poor squad in comparison to a lot of the rest of the league, but take out our best 3 players - arguably this season Carroll, Barton & Tiote - and are you saying none of the others could get in a bottom of the league Dutch team? Bollocks. Also, he's not taking about entertainment value as a lot of people in this thread are, he's talking about skill levels. Last year was the first in 5 years at least one English team had not been in the final of the "Champions" "League". Currently English teams are 1st, 1st, 1st & 2nd in their CL groups, while no other country even has 4 teams in the group stages. Yet this season is only a third of the way in and there can't be many teams in the PL who have not already beaten one of the current CL teams in the league or cup, we've beaten two of them and even West Ham have beaten Spurs. In fact teams have not just beaten these CL teams by backs to the wall defending and getting lucky on the break, but have outplayed them. A lot of games in our league may be dull, but a lot of that is down to very good defenders nullifying very good attackers. Don't try and tell me it's because most of the players have no skill and are crap, because that's just complete bollocks.

Beggars can't be choosers, and as beggars is what Mike Ashley has turned this club into, I'll take the points regardless of where they come from thanks. Why is this debate going on in the Hughton thread anyway? The difference in home and away results or results against perceived good and perceived poor opposition isn't down to any significantly different tactics or level of performance from us, it's down to the tactics of our opponents and how able we are to combat them. For the most part our performances (if not results) have been pretty decent and consistent, and a damn site better than I and I should imagine most of you thought they would be. However when teams set out to defend against us and do a decent job of it, we simply don't have the players to break them down. That's not Hughton's fault, and there's not much tactically he can do about it. I'm not saying Hughton's a great manager, because until he's managed for a lot longer than he has now, you don't know whether he's a one trick pony who has got lucky with a certain way of working with a certain group of players who will eventually get found out. The fact that he has a limited squad in a lot of ways makes his job a lot easier - less choice means that most of his selection decisions are made for him and tbh there's not much he can do wrong (although there are many, many managers out there who would easily fuck it up). We can't even be sure it wasn't Calderwood or isn't Nolan who is actually the main person behind getting the players to perform as a team. However for now IMO Hughton's got the team playing near as well as any manager could get them to, and almost certainly better than anyone Ashley would get in to replace him, so the debate about why we unbelievably can't always beat teams who were better than us 2 years ago before we shed over £15m net worth of players has no place in this thread.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/football/view/162602/Andy-Carroll-should-quit-Newcastle/ It's lucky he didn't want to moralise about the trouble Carroll has been in or he may have spent even more than half of the article detailing each incident. He has a point though, if only Gazza had left friends and family in little Newcastle at 21 and moved to a bigger city where he could get away from those hangers on and live a peaceful life things could have been so different. Perhaps Carroll should follow the example of Dyer whose career blossomed once he moved on.

Me too, appalling management and planning for the future... particularly considering we could have done without spending money and wages on a player we didn't need. The fact Zoggy hasn't gone on to sign for Barcelona or someone makes it slightly easier to accept. Everyone knows the ideal situation for a squad is to have a single 20 year old for each position (maybe with a few utility players as backups in the unlikely event one or two get injured, suspended, or go off form), and the only way a young player can develop is to play every minute of every game of a 50+ game season. Hughton out for not selling Gutierrez who is keeping young Ben Arfa out of the team ATM TBH. Disgraceful treatment of the young lad.

Hmm. Indeed. Page 3: http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/7e/54/0,,10794~152702,00.pdf Far and away the highest agent fee per transfer in the Championship last year, nearly 10% of the entire football league amount.

Basically the crux of the whole thing. It's insane that anyone is giving this any time... thankfully we beat Sunderland so it should die down for a bit. Make your mind up, did they offer him a new contract at the start of the season or was it always going to be reviewed in January? According to what Hughton has allegedly been telling people, he was offered a new contract, he wasn't happy with the terms, the offer was withdrawn. The media subsequently "make up" stories about Hughton being replaced and other managers being contacted. Purely coincidental I'm sure, and simply because they hate us and want to destabilise the club.

If someone paid you a million quid a year to have a cock tattooed on your forehead you'd probably take it. People would laugh at you and take the piss, but they'd soon shut up when you told them how much you were getting for it. If someone asked you to have a cock tattooed on your forehead for nowt, they just told you you were advertising the fact you were willing to have something like a cock tattooed on your forehead, and trust them they'd be working hard to get someone to pay you to change it to a pair of tits, what would you do? People would laugh at you and take the piss, you might even lose your job and be worse off financially for it, and when you told people you were doing it for nothing they'd laugh even harder and tell you how apt it was. The advertising round the pitch is option 1, all this Sports Direct advertising is option 2. It is in no way beneficial to the club, and if anything it will drive away other potential sponsors who wouldn't want to be associated with it.

Tbf I had to laugh at the idea that he sent us out too fired up.

Advertising that generates income = Business men What does free advertising that generates no income for the club = ? If the advertising space everywhere physically possibe is allegedly for sale, and one of the most popular clubs in the most popular league in the world can't sell it how many prospective owners is that attracting?