James

Dave posts!

Bouma has broken his leg

What a waste of a post. All tongue in cheek. My point stands. I enjoyed it, that is the main thing

What a waste of a post. All tongue in cheek.

Right, these are my player ratings based on the nufc.co.uk updates: Harper 6 Taylor 5 Cacapa 5 Bassong 9 Enrique 2 Duff 5 Geremi 5 Guthrie 8 N'Zogbia 9 Smith 6 Ameobi 7

Nope, but Shola does get a chance to play against his other three brothers in the form of Ameobi Triallist, Ameobi Triallist and Ameobi Triallist.

It is quite simple with Newcastle triallists. If they play averagely, it is Average Trialist. If they play well, it is Alan Triallist. And if they are turd, it is Anal Triallist.

15min - A.Trialist trips Ameobi right on the edge of the area and United have a free-kick. N'Zogbia dummies to shoot but it's Geremi who tries to clip over the wall, the ball cannons off the the Rovers blockade and away for a corner. Geremi takes but fails to clear the first man.

Players with minor niggles are getting rested.

Fucking hell, where did Geremi materialise from...

Faye and Geremi are on holiday.

Technicality though. As Hearts were in the Cup Final, most people assumed that the notice period counted back from that game.

There won't be any more Websters due to the rule that a player has to hand in their notice within ten days of their club's final league game.

The Times isn't a rag though in fairness Correct, it makes perfectly good bog roll, as do all Rupert Murdoch owned companies.

'Flair' has been deeped.

He quitted.

As far as Murdoch-owned, wage exagerrating newspapers that produce no quotes that relate to the context of the rest of their articles go, the Times is right up there.

Fitter players concentrate better toward the end of games. Fitter players can demonstrate better technique towards the end of games.

How have we weakened our squad by 4 players? Diatta came in as a short term replacement for Rozehnal and if you want to include Troisi then surely you should add Frank Dequah who's been handed a professional contract with us as Troisi never made a first team appearance for us as far as I remember. Rozenhal, Emre, Ramage, Carr. Isn't that 4 players? You can also throw in Diatta and Troisi. And how many of those were seriously available for enough games in 2008 to be considered missing players now Deep? That's like saying if Arsenal let Rosicky, Eduardo and Van Persie go that they wern't weakening their squad by three. As you can see your argument is complete nonsense. When Owen was injured for the whole season and if we let him go, would we not be weakening our squad? Perhaps, if the four players mentioned actually improved the squad which they didn't, they were much of a muchness.

that a serious opinion or am i missing the sarcasm? either way i'd tend to agree, especially if you consider benfica might have an outside chance of a title challenge too... It is an opinion, but it only applies if we have missed out. If so, it is the fault of the previous chairman for playing in a market that was unsustainable in the long term. james, i'm gonna resist the urge to respond to this with "what the f*** are you on about" and instead say: unless this is an attempt to be witty i'm gonna assume you mean that we could only offer aimar 40k a week (for example) due to the extravagent wages FS and his board laid out on players, if that hadn't been the case we might have offered more wages to aimar and he'd have perhaps come? if i'm right with this interpretation that is so far beyond common sense & logical reasoning there isn't even a word or measurement for it if that's not what you meant or you were being funny then what did you really mean? My point is that the club can't afford to be paying the type of wages Shepherd was handing out, and thus when we offer players a fraction of Owen's wage, they are likely to be offended. in the style of kyle from south park: "reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?" so shepherd was handing out wages & that was bad, yet if he hadn't done that ashley would be able to offer aimar high wages to tempt him to the club? i was right in the first place, are you kidding me man? you can see that makes no sense right? you've invented your own version of catch 22 Shepherd created a market where any proven player would expect to get at least £50k. Had he not done so, expectations abroad would be lower, and therefore we could compete with Monaco and Benfica. Fact is that he was throwing cash away with only the short term in mind. that takes some believing.........if we offer more than benfica or monaco then if the player is after money alone he'd come regardless of wether he expected more or would have gor more a couple of years ago Like I explained in the post that started the argument, say Benfica offered to make you the highest paid player at the club, but Newcastle offerred a higher wage which is less than what gets paid to the likes of Duff, who would you choose for footballing reasons?

that a serious opinion or am i missing the sarcasm? either way i'd tend to agree, especially if you consider benfica might have an outside chance of a title challenge too... It is an opinion, but it only applies if we have missed out. If so, it is the fault of the previous chairman for playing in a market that was unsustainable in the long term. james, i'm gonna resist the urge to respond to this with "what the fuck are you on about" and instead say: unless this is an attempt to be witty i'm gonna assume you mean that we could only offer aimar 40k a week (for example) due to the extravagent wages FS and his board laid out on players, if that hadn't been the case we might have offered more wages to aimar and he'd have perhaps come? if i'm right with this interpretation that is so far beyond common sense & logical reasoning there isn't even a word or measurement for it if that's not what you meant or you were being funny then what did you really mean? My point is that the club can't afford to be paying the type of wages Shepherd was handing out, and thus when we offer players a fraction of Owen's wage, they are likely to be offended. in the style of kyle from south park: "reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?" so shepherd was handing out wages & that was bad, yet if he hadn't done that ashley would be able to offer aimar high wages to tempt him to the club? i was right in the first place, are you kidding me man? you can see that makes no sense right? you've invented your own version of catch 22 Shepherd created a market where any proven player would expect to get at least £50k. Had he not done so, expectations abroad would be lower, and therefore we could compete with Monaco and Benfica. Fact is that he was throwing cash away with only the short term in mind.

How have we weakened our squad by 4 players? Diatta came in as a short term replacement for Rozehnal and if you want to include Troisi then surely you should add Frank Dequah who's been handed a professional contract with us as Troisi never made a first team appearance for us as far as I remember. Rozenhal, Emre, Ramage, Carr. Isn't that 4 players? You can also throw in Diatta and Troisi. And how many of those were seriously available for enough games in 2008 to be considered missing players now Deep?

that a serious opinion or am i missing the sarcasm? either way i'd tend to agree, especially if you consider benfica might have an outside chance of a title challenge too... It is an opinion, but it only applies if we have missed out. If so, it is the fault of the previous chairman for playing in a market that was unsustainable in the long term. james, i'm gonna resist the urge to respond to this with "what the fuck are you on about" and instead say: unless this is an attempt to be witty i'm gonna assume you mean that we could only offer aimar 40k a week (for example) due to the extravagent wages FS and his board laid out on players, if that hadn't been the case we might have offered more wages to aimar and he'd have perhaps come? if i'm right with this interpretation that is so far beyond common sense & logical reasoning there isn't even a word or measurement for it if that's not what you meant or you were being funny then what did you really mean? My point is that the club can't afford to be paying the type of wages Shepherd was handing out, and thus when we offer players a fraction of Owen's wage, they are likely to be offended.

What if I say he's not like the others? What if I say say he's not just one of those players? What if I say he's the contender? What if I say he will never surrender?

The identities of the triallists are generally kept secret, as clubs don't want others finding out who we are after. Thanks for the heads up though