BottledDog

Tal Ben Haim on his way shocker! Sam Allardyce says Tal Ben Haim refused to play against Arsenal at the weekend fuelling rumours he could be on the move. The Israeli international claimed he had a calf injury and could not play so Allardyce left him out of the side that managed to cope without him during an impressive 1-1 draw at the Emirates Stadium. Speculation has now mounted suggesting the player did not want to get himself cup-tied just in case Chelsea came back in for him before the transfer window closed. Allardyce has not ruled out Ben Haim leaving in the next couple of days but says it would have to be a big offer to tempt him to sell at this late stage. "Tal was determined he would not play," Allardyce said of the situation. "We were disappointed but if a player says he is not fit to play, he is not fit to play. "If there is a big bid coming for him, it will have to be really big. It will cost them much more now than it would have done three weeks ago because there are only two days for me to get a replacement. "It would be difficult for us to say yes, no matter how much money comes our way." Source: http://www.eatsleepsport.com/news_details.aspx?story_id=505508&l_id=1&t_id=7 Maybe a possibility.

He can't be that bad if Chelsea, Real and Inter have all been linked with him at some point recently. Chealsea and Real have been linked to a whole lot of players. Luque for one in Real Madrids case. I'm not saying he isn't good, I'm sure he is, but I don't think we can base much on who he has been linked with in the past.

I hereby formally request permission to knee-jerk. So come on, is it socially acceptable to knee-jerk yet? No, keep the faith. Whatever happens it is all part of the clubs grand plan.

So don't go for young English players then. Liverpool and Tottenham seem to be picking up good foreign defenders for considerably less.

Well the Newcastle bid included all sorts, "commercial and retail outlets, residential apartments, a hotel, leisure and entertainment facilities and a Las Vegas style casino of approximately 100,000 square feet". Newcastle the club would have had joint ownership and presumably joint profits. As it stands now though, we have lost that along with the £5 million MGM gave us as a sweetener a few years ago.

Right back Alvaro Arbeloa on his way to Liverpool. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=432523&in_page_id=1779 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/6313505.stm

Speak for yourself, thick fuck. Don't have the temperament for what? A cafe? A casino? What ARE you talking about? I'm not saying we are all like that, but howay Gemmill, the vast majority couldn't care less and would rather see money being spent on more important things rather that dolling up the city centre. I'm saying we, as in most who live in the city, don't have the temprement for big super casinos, pathside caffes (least of all the weather) and the whole theme bar style move the City is heading towards. It seems to me like the city is being built for tourists and visitors and not the people who actually live here. Now I wouldn't mind if there was a balance but there isn't. The City is more than just the centre and the powers that be need to turn their eyes outwards and start making moves to make things better outside of the centre for us. I don't have a problem with them trying to make the city centre a nicer place to visit tbh. When you go abroad to a nice city you go and look for the stuff you're saying we don't have the temperament for here. People like stuff like that and the city is much better off for a lot of the redevelopment that's been done on the quayside etc - there's a lot more to be proud of about Newcastle as a city in terms of how it looks, what there is to do etc than there was 10 years ago. Theme bars are a different kettle of fish and are shit without exception. I'm not saying that it should be done at the expense of poorer areas, but if we took the "we don't have the temperament for culture or nice things" attitude, the place would be a shithole. Like I said, I don't have a problem if it is balanced, but it isn't, the city gets all the attention, money and changes while the rest gets ignored or placated with new windows, new roofs and bastard road works to retar the roads, sorry but these places need more than that Mr Council. My temprement comments were daft I know, but I do believe if givena choice between a Casino or better transport, we'd choose the transport option. Yet the decision makers think we all want to go to the Sage, take their buses for a tour of the Quay etc. when we don't. Some obviously do but it seems like the city is building for the few and not the majority. Have you checked out the prices for the Sage? As if someone from the West End is going to go every week. But then all the councilors who make these decisions live in Gosforth and Jesmond in big expensive houses detached from reality or the people they represent, which includes the West End, Walker, Wallsend etc. and not just the city centre. And this isn't poor little me with a chip on my shoulder here either, as much as I may come across as such. Aye, your average Walker opera enthusiast has been priced right out of things by the Sage. I've been to a couple of concerts at the Sage tbh, and the prices were the same as you would pay to go to the Academy or the Arena. I've got no argument on poorer areas needing development, because I know they do, but it's not like we have been given a choice between a casino or public transport. The two are independent of one another. And let's be fair, the boost to the economy, not to mention the hundreds if not thousands of new jobs created, would have undoubtedly had a knock on effect on budgets for transport and the like.

Rejected!?!?! Fantastic news, leaves us just enough time for our £22 million pound bid.

Absolutely. Gone are the times when you could buy a player in 24 hour. Nothing to worry about. 8)

Where? What? You have to be kidding me.

That's the spirit.

It's not news, it's AlanOliver.com

Anal's my dad you bastard. /well, when I say my dad, I of course mean as in collectively, a father figure for us all.

Toon fears on Gooch moveJan 30 2007 By Alan Oliver, The Evening Chronicle A nervy and anxious Glenn Roeder was left sweating on his planned loan moves as the transfer window closure loomed ominously closer today. The Newcastle United boss was still waiting to hear from Standard Liege that all the paper work has been done which would allow American international defender Oguchi "Gooch" Onyewu to come on loan to St James' Park. And so too was "Gooch" after he travelled to Tyneside over the weekend to talk to United and undergo a medical as he yearns for the chance to pull on the black-and-white shirt. Roeder can only hope that the Belgian outfit do not pull the plug at the last minute because they are wary that United will not sign Onyewu in a permanent deal on at the end of the season. This is exactly the same scenario with St Etienne and their 28-year-old Martinque-born striker Frederic Piquionne who they want to sell for e7m. As a result, I am told that while Piquionne's loan move to United is not impossible, it is highly unlikely. And United's chances of landing the French striker receded further today with the news that Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger, having lost Robin van Persie for the rest of the season, was toying over a late move for the St Etienne man. Meanwhile, the news coming out of Holland is that United are ready to pay £5m to bring Ajax's promising young striker Ryan Babel to Tyneside. Babel is a player greatly admired by Roeder, but there has been no bid by United and there is absolutely no chance of the 20-year-old striker being signed before window closes tomorrow night. There is talk about a United approach for Babel in the summer, but Roeder knows the competition will be tough. I hear the he is one of Barcelona's targets which would leave United as also-rans. Someone who has been an also-ran ever since he arrived at St James' Park in August 2005 is Albert Luque and it looks as though the Spanish international will still be here at the start of next season. However, United have told Luque he can go to PSV Eindhoven if he can do a deal with the Dutch club in the next 24 hours. But PSV would only be able to pay Luque less than half of his £40,000-a-week wages he banks from United and it would be a major surprise if he decides to accept this. Source: icnetwork.co.uk

That's the spirit.

Speak for yourself, thick fuck. Don't have the temperament for what? A cafe? A casino? What ARE you talking about? God knows what he is on about. We love that shit in Gosforth.

That's the spirit.

Yup I guess we could still push forward with a 'fair to middling' casino but we will have lost the old MGM deposit. Disappointing, but at least Terry Mac and the lads will not have the added distractions I guess.

Where are the RVI or the VISA issuing office ITKs?

So, it has gone to Manchester. Although we would have planned for that eventuality, that's 5 million out of our coffers straight away.

We hardly have any money and can only use 2 loans. I don't think we are capable of bringing anyone else in even if we wanted to. If he is 'confident his search for defensive talent was nearing an end' without picking up at least one solid left back, then surely that has to worry you. I'm sure Roeder can see that, and hopefully this is just a case of the Journal spouting bollocks.

That you fail to see that somebody insulting you personally cannot be defended by saying that some other bloke at some other point in time (I still have no clue who he is whittering on about) made an 'offensive comment' is just hilarious. I will have to assume you are just standing up for your buddy without actually reading the posts as I would hate to think you are that stupid. Oh, dear. I even gave an example of supporting some of the boards decisions. You seriously need to get that chip off your shoulder. Again, I think you are getting confused. You judge a persons job on his results, his record. You can take into account factors that might have forced certain decisions, but when even at the time you disagreed with those decisions, that, my friend, has nothing to do with hindsight.

Definitely a triple unvailing planned. Please let the third be a decent left back. triple!?!? where is that info from? good news if true, even if only to make up the numbers Sorry, just wishful thinking... but you never know. I have to say though that this bit (refering only to Onyewu) in the Journal pisses me off a bit. "While there is still much work to do in his bid to add striking reinforcements, Roeder was last night confident his search for defensive talent was nearing an end." I hope Roeder himself doesn't feel that way. One more central defender should only be the start of it.

Definitely a triple unvailing planned. Please let the third be a decent left back.

of course, getting another board who lack ambition like the old one, is impossible and simply will not happen to us No board with ambition would employ Souness and Roeder. You'll now come out with Liverpool employing Souness so I'll just remind you that Liverpool employed Souness after he'd been a success at Rangers, we employed him after he'd been a failure at Liverpool and beyond. Quite, and if we are talking players (Francis Lee/Darren Bent etc), you could pull such examples for any board including the current one strangely enough. For instance when Robson wanted Miguel, the board held back and then chose to provide Carr instead. Was that an example of ambition? If you really think this board haven't shown they have had ambition, then you must have been living on Mars. Quite simply, if they say they didn't have the money to buy Miguel then that will be fact, unless of course you are one of those who slate them for spending money then also slate them for not spending money. What did you think of spending 6m on Marcelino, 4m on Goma, 4m on Domi and 4.5m on Pistone ? They had more than enough money to buy him when Robson asked for him. The board stalled and when his price rocketed, bought Carr. Marcelino, Goma, Domi and Pistone? Poor to middling buys, but as you argue yourself, you have to back the manager you appoint, right? so whats your stance on this ? Should the club spend big money on defenders or not ? Tell us what you think, then don't go back on your response when you feel like slating the club whatever they do. I had a feeling you would be thick enough not to grasp the point. I have no stance on it. It is another example of the idiotic debates that you start to help you prance around the main points, usually around the time you get frustrated and feel the need to ramp up the insults. I couldn't give a toss how much or little we spend on defenders if the end result benefits the club. I only hope for the club to use the money wisely, just as I'm sure you were suggesting when you got all excited over the possibility of Francis Lee, and it is something that Shepherd and his managers have for the most part failed to do. refer yourself to the first post in this thread which was insulting. Or is it different when its done by someone you agree with rather than disagree with ? Your point about Francis Lee is, to be honest, daft at best and untrue at worst. This board, since 1992, have backed every manager they have appointed to the utmost, far more than their predecessors did for over 3 decades. The very fact that someone new [sniffer] has came along who has also witnessed these eras and you STILL think you know best, shows nothing other than you will never know anything or understand anything, being unprepared to listen to others who try to tell you factual information that they have seen and you have not. A pathetic attitude. Shame you can't make your mind up whether you want to slate the board for spending money on players, or not spending money on players. Its the answer I expected from you too I am not interested in another persons post or whether or not they insulted you. You bring insults into a conversation where there were none, and the fact you cannot acknowledge that is disappointing, but not unexpected. As for whether or not the club splash the cash, as I have tried to get through to you, I don't vehemently support either position. I can only judge on how things turn out, and for the most part Shepherd has overseen a period of relative waste and failure considering the vast riches the club generates these days (something I am happy to applaud the board for btw). If the club has no money and we are honest about it then I would support the board being frugal, but don't expect me to forget why we might have suddenly found ourselves in that trouble. If you spent less time shoving people into stereotypical little boxes and accept that most of these arguments are far less black and white than you try to make out, then we might get somewhere. But you prefer to have us all on opposite sides, and are yourself unprepared to listen. Shame.