James

I thought he was a wide player but cuts inside in the final third rather than getting to the byline and crossing. Can be ineffectual as has no right foot.

Really hoping we miss out on this guy, the frenchies say he is shite, and there are photos of him brandishing handguns. Usual story of people overrating foreign players.

We made a mistake bringing him in in January, but that doesn't necessarily mean it would be a bad mistake now as was all fitness related last season.

Look at the articles and the fact that Mark Douglas is on holiday. All the Douglas articles look like they could have been written last week, have some sort of basis and held back for today. The other speculative transfer article was written by someone else and looks to have no basis whatsoever.

But we were well above our quota.

Has to include three keepers. Ranger doesn't count as he's under 21. Really do you bother to read up on things before spouting off? It doesn't. Villa only had Friedel & Guzan registered. I thought that was why we had Forster registered even though he was on loan and couldn't be recalled. Maybe we misunderstood the rules.

1. A club is not obligated to permit a player to speak to another club whilst under contract. 2. An "interest" clause would serve as an automatic trigger to allow such talks, if say the amount stated in the clause were offered (the proposed buying club would not have to pay the sum just to speak to the player, rather make an offer in that amount. 3. The selling club can then attempt to negotiate a higher fee without being obligated to sell, thereby taking the power away from the player (which differs from the position under a "buy-out" clause. 4. If the buying club offers more, the selling club is quids in. If not, tough luck. It's a fairly sensible idea if you ask me, but I would imagine that the FA and the PFA would rule in favour of the player, as contracts are not worth the paper that they are written on nowadays, seeing as every player has a Brabners lawyer and a Del Boy agent behind them. Still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, this bit. I know you don't agree, but to me it makes perfect sense, as it's a negotiating tool. It's a stark contrast to a "buy-out" clause, which essentially forces a club to sell to whoever meets the asking price (subject to the player's consent), which leaves the selling club largely impotent. But what is the point of having a fee and allowing us to agree personal terms, only to then enter a new negotiation over the transfer fee rendering any personal terms utterly pointless? It just seems utterly functionless tbh, not a bargaining tool in the slightest. Makes sense to me. Perhaps change the phrasing. You are allowed to talk to anyone who submits a £1m offer or greater. However we are under no obligation to accept the bid.

It isn't Harry-Norway is it?

Has to include three keepers. Ranger doesn't count as he's under 21. Really do you bother to read up on things before spouting off?

Shola isn't lazy. Don't see lazy players in need of a hip replacement playing through the pain for over a season for the good of the club.

Man he's just a website operator, what does he know.

We've signed a few teenagers such as Yven Moyo who have never been announced, suspect Abeid will be similar.

Smith and Xisco's wages mean the board will count them and the fear of having to pay their wages from 1st Sept despite being out of the could scupper a deal. Championship clubs could get Smith for £10,000 a week if they decide to wait for a loan at the end/just after the close of the window.

Think those aged 22 on at start of season have to be registered. So a player can turn 22 during the season.

We have 24 and must have three keepers.

Aye as we have to start getting rid of some players soon, Routledge is high on the list. Not sure about Guthrie though because he is ahead of Smith and generally did well as backup apart from one game. Xisco, Routledge, Perch, Smith and Ryan Taylor have to go. The rest should be allowed to stay as even if not first teamers they are adequate proven backup on lower wages than any backup we could sign.

Lovenkrands has contributed much much more in an NUFC shirt. Stop asslicking him man. No. I have my name for a reason.

The club have been offering charity nights as an alternative. Given, Harper and Shola have all had one.

Lovenkrands has contributed much much more in an NUFC shirt.

To be honest wouldn't be surprised if we aren't at all interested and we have had our name thrown in to try and smoke out others.

Why would we want to clog up our 25 with him?

My take on events: Everything was agreed then Marveaux became available. Suddenly we have 24 players so don't want to sign him before we sell as the final slot needs to be kept for our number one Target in case we can't offload.

With regards to the "undisclosed fee" I recall there being a rule that we do have to pay Rennes a very small fee to account for the fact that they trained him. but it is in the hundreds of thousands.

The big problem is that we are playing wages roulette risking that someone will come for the players outside of the 25. If I'm a buyer, I wait until the last minute then negotiate an incredibly cheap loan offer.

Who are our 25 men? http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,76735.0.html Currently at 24. Neil Taylor is 25. Therefore one in one out after him if we don't want to be paying wages for non-players (we are not Man City)