UV

Unless he and his agent are lying, then the fact other clubs are talking to him means we have given him permission to look for another club, so why would he need to hand in a transfer request?

That's if you believe Ashley ever intended to sell. "putting it up for sale" is different to accepting what were probably reasonable offers. Well I believe he's been trying to sell for a year now, since way before the evil banner. However this claim that he couldn't sell the club is ridiculous. Unless Harris was lying, there were at least 7 parties interested enough to provide documentation of their ability to buy the club before they were shown the accounts. These didn't include the Nigerians or South Africans who were all mouth and no trousers. Any of those parties could have bought the club if they thought the price was fair for a club at risk of relegation. Despite worries that the banner is putting off buyers, I doubt "must have 100% gullible supporters" is high on the list of priorities for prospective purchasers, especially considering these people were interested in the first place.

Yes, if ever proof were needed of the damage a protest banner can do to a team's performance you only need to loo... oh wait.

Don't be daft. There are plenty of people who love it, even though it's retarded. Jealous?

I don't remember this tbh, I'd be interested to see it if you can find it somehow. (not sarcastic) http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2008/03/01/opening-up-toon-s-books-72703-20545643/ That's all about the 06-07 finances, I think fredbob was talking about increases in the wage bill since then. That's what I assumed and was interested in anyway

I don't remember this tbh, I'd be interested to see it if you can find it somehow. (not sarcastic) Well it only failed 1 year in 2 on average. Could do better obviously, but not too bad. Certainly better than what we have now with what you are claiming is still too large a wage bill. Well I repeat, there are only 5 major "liabilities" attributable to the old board, and their wages are covered by new additional revenue available to Ashley. If we are paying the price for any decisions in the past, they are all under Ashley's ownership. Are we really lowering the wage bill though? We don't know what any player is on really, but we can guess. Out: Ramage (20) Diatta/Rozehnal (30) Carr (40) Emre (55) Feye (30) Milner (20) Total = 195k/w In: Bassong (20) Gutierrez (50+) Guthrie (20) Coloccini (50+) Xisco (25) Gonzo (25) Total = 190+k/w You may argue about Gutierrez and Coloccini, but Gutierrez was on a free after breaking his contract and so would demand a higher than normal wage, and Coloccini's agent mentioned several times that he didn't want his client to miss out on the wages of a lifetime while threatening that he would leave the following year for free (these are the signs of a "good attitude" demanded by the new transfer policy I believe). I don't think I'll be far wrong. Fixed. Actually it hasn't worked out too well for Spurs yet, but that can mainly be put down to some stupid structure they had where they bought players the manager didn't want, and then blamed him when they couldn't perform together. I know it seems like a lifetime ago, but we were in Europe the year before Ashley took over.

The problem is that there are players who really deserve to be on that list but aren't. Aye. Taylor if he played more games. Butt. Interestingly, according to the bonus marks in the Fantasy Footy*, Butt has been one of the best 3 players in the game for 6 of our league games this season, and was MotM for 2 (Man City & Spurs). * Player performance is assessed by Press Association analysts, all of whom are ex-professional footballers, who attend each match. This assessment takes into account the quality of a player's overall performance and their contribution to the match result.

Yes, it's hard to argue with how the list was put together tbh, unless you think the majority of sports writers have a grudge against Newcastle defenders compared to every other team in the league. The table is misnamed as it's not really "flops" (ie players who have done worse than expected) but simply the players who have come out with the worst average marks in each position. So as for the players people are mentioning who they think should be on the list, are they the worst in their position in the league? Definitely not.

Im suggesting that the money the clubs generating is being eaten by wages. As we dont have a benefactor type owner, surely the most sensible thing is to reduce the wage levels to a sensible level, freeing up money and adding it to the supposed £20m ~Ashley was affording, as opposed to relying on the £20m Ashley was supposedley affording us and adding to that wage bill. Financially spekaing, Spurs are really doing the business. They have a low wage bill, yet they arent compromising the quality of the squad, they're also investing in players who dont lose there value too much, we're in a position where our wage bill is crippling our potential to spend becasue no matter how mch we're spending we're always adding to an already inflated wage bill which further spas resources. Throwing money at the problem wont solve a thing becasue our starting point is so precarious. A great man once said, ambition first then balance the books later, well when is later? The only high earners left at the club from before Ashley was the major shareholder are Given, Martins, Owen, Duff & Butt. Say that's a total of £350k/w or about £18m/year. That's the same as the increase in TV revenue we received in 07-08 (£18m). If we still have an overly large wage bill now, it's of Ashley's making. People can't keep blaming the old board forever. I'd be surprised if Spurs haven't caught us up in wages tbh, although if their wages are structured more around win bonuses than basic pay they may be in for a cheap year.

I've seen it used plenty as a picture to go alongside the text when talking about the subject, but I've not seen any journalists taking the piss out of it or using the text of it to take the piss out of the supporters.

Not everyone gets all the practice at being laughed at that you've had. That's quite funny for you.

If the "Toon City Ultras (but not with the hooligan connotations)" pick it up it might.

I don't get this thinking me. Thick as mince to who and since when do fans care what others think about? I don't and nor should anyone else. We're not LFC fans who need to be loved and and respected for some strange reason, in fact I know why, to validate themselves. Another thing, I honestly doubt anyone registered a flicker of emotion regarding that banner outside of Newcastle, certainly not the cockneys I know most thought it was funny and harmless. For me the pissy whinging element of reaction to it is embarrassing, small minded and tantamount to thick as mince. The real reason why some are against it is because they don't agree with the sentiment behind it, it has fuck all to do with being embarrassed, fuck all. That's just an excuse. Embarrassed by a few words? being "embarrassed by a few words" by someone else other than yourself, is the most embarrassing thing of all, and its been going on for a few years. With some obvious people making u-turns to suit the personalities, which I've already mentioned earlier. I just feel sorry for them. Poor things. You are absolutely right, its an excuse for an agenda or because they don't agree with the sentiment behind it. Who the hell thinks Mike Ashley is doing a good job for starters ? You`ve got to be fucking joking HTT and NE5. Right explain to me how anyone owning or working for NUFC, Ashley,Wise etc have any Mafia connections or ways of doing things ? Its a useless use of a word. Its like calling an apple and orange and then stating it doesn`t make you look thick. Right now I couldn`t give a flying fuck who owns this club or who plays for it or who manages it. We have been shit for years and we will be. Speaking for myself I entered this thread because I couldn`t understand why "Cockney Mafia" was used in the first place. Ashley & Wise Out would have been the most to the point logical thing to write on your banner. Some people in this thread seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing and to me purposely missing other peoples points. Its like arguing with the misses reading this shit sometimes. Jesus, if you're going to analyse the usage of words like that, god knows what you think of "Toon toon, Black and White army" We'd better change it to "City city, Black and White group of people who support the same association football team". Not sure it will scan though. How about another rewrite: We are the Geordies (and people born outside the region who happen to support Newcastle United for family or other reasons), the Geordie (and people born outside the region who happen to support Newcastle United for family or other reasons) boot (or other footwear) boys (girls, men or women), and we are mental (or sane) and we are mad (but to repeat actually most of us are quite sane), We are the loyalest (actually that's quite subjective and we're probably just as loyal as any other supporters of a similar sized team and grammatically it should really be "most loyal") football (association that is, no offence to any other code) supporters the world has ever had (although there is no empirical evidence to support this claim).

Here ya go then :

I know it's easy to stereotype footballers as thick, and by their actions a lot of them may not appear to be the sharpest tools in the shed, but they'd have to be pretty moronic to think the banner had anything to do with them, so your insinuation that they would be is far more closed-minded and ignorant than that banner. This sums it up:

Unless it was with the club's consent that would be tapping up. So either: 1) Spurs and Villa are tapping up our player in which case we should report them to the FA. 2) We've given him permission to talk to other clubs, so we are trying to offload him in which case I don't see what he's doing wrong. 3) This is all a load of bollocks 2 or 3 IMO

He wouldn't cost a bomb like so we'd get plenty of bang for our buck, but his hamstring and groin can go off at any time so this transfer could easily blow up in our face.

That's disgraceful "journalism".

I'm sure you'll find some, you were saying that last year. Why do you think I'd want to find excuses? I must of imagined the whole Keegan debacle then. Silly me. You might have noticed he's gone now and a much more pliable man is in place. Surely this month we'll be able to sign at least some of all these great players that the system identified which Keegan blocked because he'd never heard of them? We could even possibly get Modric now. He's not exactly set the Premiership alight at Spurs, and Harry may not think he's necessary (as they have a glut of midfielders) if he can get £20m to spend elsewhere on his squad.

I'm sure you'll find some, you were saying that last year.

You started it.

I should hope not. Where am I supposed to get quotes from? The owner who puts out a quarterly press release? The MD who speaks to no one? The invisible DoF who has never publicly spoken about NUFC since he joined a year ago? Tricky. Never mind, we have honest Joe to keep us all straight and tell us exactly what's going on. Do we have scouts in Uruguay? That's quite impressive tbh.

I have never thought that the FTC has no say whatsoever in the transfers made under Ashley's version of the DoF system. It would be a completely mental system if that were the case. However neither Kinnear nor Keegan have/had the ultimate say on what happens, and no one really knows exactly how much their input influences the decisions made. The system is working exactly now as it did under Keegan. Keegan had as much influence on the signings made during the Summer as Kinnear will this month. If the FTC is highly influential under the system, then Keegan/Kinnear are the ones who should be given the most credit/criticism for the Summer/January transfers respectively. If however the FTC is merely someone to be appeased then it is Wise who should be given the most credit/criticism for whatever happens this January as he was this Summer by most. I think maybe you just want to distance your precious system from any poor signings that may be made in this window.

Do you honestly think the management structure has changed and is any different for Kinnear than it was for Keegan? We're still operating under the DoF structure you champion, the fact that Kinnear knows just as little as Keegan did about what's going on with transfers is evidence enough of that. Funny that because I seem to remember Kinnear saying he was the one sitting down with players discussing details of contract with players, something that Keegan himself said he had no part of. "Michael told me that when Kevin [Keegan] was here he had previously been offered only 12 months and I did not really see any value in that," explained Kinnear. "So I just said, 'What if we can tie you up for the rest of your career, more or less, would you be happy with that?' and Michael said, 'Yes, I would be delighted'. "So I spoke to Mike [Ashley, the Newcastle owner] and said could we give Michael three years plus the possible option of another one and Mike said, 'OK, do it'." So we can expect to see Owen signing a new contract as the next news then? He's said he wants to wait until the Summer before deciding whether to sign or not, that doesn't mean that Owen isn't happy with the length of contract offered after discussions with Kinnear. I can't say I'm surprised to see you going on about something else after I've proven you wrong though. "Proven" me wrong with a quote from honest Joe and no supporting action to back it up. Of course no one knows for sure what the structure is, but do you honestly think it changed post-Keegan now that we have a (hopefully) temporary manager in place? If so, why didn't Ashley offer to change the structure for Keegan? Why hasn't Ashley come out and said the structure has changed which would go a significant way towards healing the rift with some fans? Of course it's still in place, don't be so naive.

Do you honestly think the management structure has changed and is any different for Kinnear than it was for Keegan? We're still operating under the DoF structure you champion, the fact that Kinnear knows just as little as Keegan did about what's going on with transfers is evidence enough of that. Funny that because I seem to remember Kinnear saying he was the one sitting down with players discussing details of contract with players, something that Keegan himself said he had no part of. "Michael told me that when Kevin [Keegan] was here he had previously been offered only 12 months and I did not really see any value in that," explained Kinnear. "So I just said, 'What if we can tie you up for the rest of your career, more or less, would you be happy with that?' and Michael said, 'Yes, I would be delighted'. "So I spoke to Mike [Ashley, the Newcastle owner] and said could we give Michael three years plus the possible option of another one and Mike said, 'OK, do it'." So we can expect to see Owen signing a new contract as the next news then?