UV

Not true at all. To use a house as an an analogy, I can buy a house to rent out & sell in a few years time. I could do it up and have it completely renovated, maintaining it to a high standard in the hope that I can get a professional couple in to pay top whack rent on it, or I can just sit back and do nothing to it, renting it out to students/get money from the council for renting it to ASBO families. I'd get the mortgage paid, plus a bit of profit either way. If I spent time and money on it I might make a little bit extra, but I'd have to spend thousands to make back an extra hundred or so a month, so is it worth it? When I want to sell it I'll just tart it up a bit to make it look superficially good if I can be bothered, even if I don't I'll still make a good profit on the house due to the house market increasing. My point is, with the price of admission these days, and especially with the new TV contract money, a football club owner can sit back and get loads of money in for their investment, all they have to do as a minimum is keep the club in the Premiership. Whether they choose to speculate a significant amount of that money they get in to try and get success (and higher profits) is up to them, but it's not necessarily a given that they will do this as you seem to think. IMO you'll see an initial one off sweetner investment in players from these takeover groups, and then they'll sit back and it will be business as usual for the clubs while they cream the profit off the top. Wow you opened my eyes there, I didn't realise they'd want the club to do well! That makes them different from every other club in existance how exactly? There are currently only 4 (soon to be 3?) CL places. Do you think Portsmouth, West Ham, Villa, etc are going to spend the amounts of money that Chelsea and Man U do year on year in an attempt to possibly get in the CL? Why do you think any potential new owner of us would? This is a gem. We made a "huge" loss because that financial year we invested heavily in players, having to replace our main striker. A different, profit driven owner could quite easily have made a tidy profit by not making that investment in players, and being happy to finish in 15th. The financial difference between us finishing in 7th and in 15th is, what, £4m? Unless you're confident of getting into the CL, financially it makes sense to make the minimum investment in the team required to keep it in the Premiership. Yes, the squad is so poor, that with half the first team out for most of the season we're still in the top half of the league, and in touching distance of a European place, but of course that's just down to our terrible manager being "lucky".

Are we though? Obviously we're falling behind the teams regularly in the CL as the money from that increases, but it's irrelevant to Chelsea anyway, Man U have always had loads to spend, and Arsenal have a new stadium to pay off. Liverpool and Arsenal haven't spent anywhere near the full amount they have pulled in from being in the CL in recent years. As for the recent takeover clubs, well they may have an initial burst of spending promised to the old owners to make them and the new owners look good and get the fans on their side, but don't expect them to keep pouring in money year on year that isn't generated by the club. Don't think all these takeovers are being done by altruistic philanthropists just in it for the love of the game, and solely for the good of the team being taken over. They're in it to make money. They may be better than the old regime, but then again they may be even more incompetent, and just be content to spend the bare minimum to keep the team in the Premiership and sit back and share out the new TV cash amongst the themselves, reaping a healthy return on their investment. Remember, there's a consortium out there looking for a club with a Mr G. Souness at the helm. Be careful what you wish for.

Haven't been following it that closely, but I was under the impression that that was just a rumour spread by bitter Evertonians. Was there actually some basis in it?

you mean 'these details are flexible' Identical meanings tbh. Subtle difference in the implied amount of flexibility tbf

What? Duff, Parker, Emre, Owen Please list the many examples of it never working out that way for us.

It's Nesta. He's out of contract in June, and is coming here on loan with a view to us signing him on a free in the Summer.

I now have this picture of Roeder sitting next to Southgate in the back row of a classroom full of 35 year old has-been footballers, sticking his hand in the air saying "Sir! Sir! What's a 'bung' sir? Gareth says you know loads about them."

> Hands off Toon Ale, scousers!

whats durham got to do with anything? They don't monitor temperatures in Newcastle, was the closest place I could find! Can't find a thermometer that goes low enough tbh. [move]point[/move] elbee909

That's where you went wrong.

Welcome. Maybe you can start by explaining why you believe your defensive unit is so strong when you've been able to play pretty much your first choice defense for the vast majority of the season and have conceded the same number of goals in the league as our injury-ravaged makeshift one? I'm not saying we have not conceeded this season, i am basing my judgement on what we could have conceeded at stages. We have conceeded in alot of games this season for some reason or another (alot of long rangers, maybe from where we are missing carrick) but last season the same central partnership was immense. I don;t think that fgorm was temporary and tose two do have true class. Ledley has been injured and playing at 80% for quite a few matches. Althogh davenport has done enough he definately weakens and makes for a nervous defence at times. Obviously your defence is also unsettled but looking at the two defences on paper i do think we have the better defence Last season in your best ever premiership finish your imense central partnership conceeded a whopping 4 less goals than ours which was almost as injury hit last year (but not to the current extremes), and we had to put up with Souness for half the season! so what are you trying to say? we are not comparing ourselves to newcastle at every step of the way. It was stalteri that cost us alot of goals last season but daws and king won us alot of games tbh p.s. i'm nbot the type to come on gloating after a victory ( although i think it will be a draw) Well you were in the post I quoted: "I don;t think saying King is better than Ramage and our defensive unit is stronger is too far off the mark?" I'm trying to say that your defense isn't as good as you seem to think it is, even when compared to one as allegedly shambolic [TM association of football pundits] as ours, and backing it up with facts rather than opinion.

Welcome. Maybe you can start by explaining why you believe your defensive unit is so strong when you've been able to play pretty much your first choice defense for the vast majority of the season and have conceded the same number of goals in the league as our injury-ravaged makeshift one? I'm not saying we have not conceeded this season, i am basing my judgement on what we could have conceeded at stages. We have conceeded in alot of games this season for some reason or another (alot of long rangers, maybe from where we are missing carrick) but last season the same central partnership was immense. I don;t think that fgorm was temporary and tose two do have true class. Ledley has been injured and playing at 80% for quite a few matches. Althogh davenport has done enough he definately weakens and makes for a nervous defence at times. Obviously your defence is also unsettled but looking at the two defences on paper i do think we have the better defence Last season in your best ever premiership finish your imense central partnership conceeded a whopping 4 less goals than ours which was almost as injury hit last year (but not to the current extremes), and we had to put up with Souness for half the season!

Should have just watched the game on TV instead, he'd have been able to analyse the player he was watching better.

Welcome. Maybe you can start by explaining why you believe your defensive unit is so strong when you've been able to play pretty much your first choice defense for the vast majority of the season and have conceded the same number of goals in the league as our injury-ravaged makeshift one?

BBC Live Text tells you all you need to know tbh.

:lol: That is one of the saddest, most pathetically childish things I have ever seen on the internet. Congratulations FP. :lol:

Fine. I admit my poll question could have been better. I don't want to know what's the best place to WATCH football, but the best place to ANALYZE football. So I'm not talking about atmosphere etc. Poll question altered. Votes Reset. Reset the poll because you didn't like the result. Diddums.

I edited in a further response:

Are you really THAT stupid? 1) I didn't say YouTube 2) I didn't 'say internet 3) There are no live-full 90 minutes matches on YouTube 4) YouTube has no widescreen and does not havev any decent quality. So FUCK OFF (just trying to fit in here a bit with all the cursing) I see why you have a downer on You Tube. Paddy doesn't fit in the picture. Your point is that we should base all transfer decisions on HDTV quality pictures only then?

If watching on TV gives a full picture of a player's abilities, then why do scouts and managers go to watch a player live when thinking about a transfer? Do you suggest all transfers be done based solely on YouTube clips from now on?

http://www.cheers-becker.de/coach-02.JPG tbh

The supporters of every single team in the league would say exactly the same thing.

You're right, when commenting on how easy it is to sign players, examples of the lack of transfer activity from other teams in the same league is completely irrelevant. How could I be so foolish, I shall base all my future arguments on what Newcastle United can do solely on what happens when I play football manager. I see how it works now - say for instance, if we were in the market for a goalkeeper, Ben Alnwick is the only one we could have possibly looked to buy. Now I understand how this all works I won't make such a silly mistake again. Sorry, I didn't realise your comprehension skills were poor, I'll try and spell it out for you. Every other club in the premiership is constantly looking for new players in certain areas. They have all made "plans" on who they would like, ready for the transfer window (except us of course). If transfers are easy and quick as you claim, then you would expect a glut of transfers would be made within the first few days of the transfer window opening. After 8 days only 8 transfers in have been made by all the teams in the premiership combined (according to a usually reliable source, maybe there are 1 or 2 more not listed). This suggests that transfers are in fact not easy and quick, and that anyone who thinks it's just a matter of "planning or identifying any targets in advance of the window opening" is a simplistic idiot. Do you see how it works now?

You're right, when commenting on how easy it is to sign players, an illustration of the lack of transfer activity from other teams in the same league is completely irrelevant. How could I be so foolish, I shall base all my future arguments on what Newcastle United can do solely on what happens when I play football manager.

Not to premiership clubs according to the BBC, however Larsson isn't on the list so you may be right, but I can't think of any others. Edit: Oops I also missed Watford out of the Premiership :/ Moses Ashikodi [Rangers - Watford] Nominal fee