Teasy

keegan has also done that just as much. When, where? Nobody is truthful all the time, but I don't remember him contradicting himself on such a big issue. I mean he obviously said he was in control of transfers and then said he left because he felt he couldn't manage without full control. But that could point towards a policy change or interfering from the board late in the window. Of course it might not be that but its not conclusive unlike the comments from the board room. "On Monday, Keegan said he was "reluctant to tell all I know because I really do not know everything" about Wise's role but insisted he was "very happy" with the situation. However, Keegan's comments seem to contradict the opinion he gave to BBC One's Inside Sport last October, when he said he felt that kind of structure is unworkable. When Keegan was asked about reports linking him with a return to Newcastle as director of football under then-manager Sam Allardyce, he said: "It's absolutely impossible to give Sam a job at Newcastle and then go and fetch someone who is going to be some sort of threat, it doesn't work. "Sam would be a fool to let it happen and the guy who goes in would be a fool to accept it. "The chairman, who is not a fool, would be a fool to go and do it, too. It doesn't work." see sig for a few more Keegan saying he was happy with the situation at the time doesn't neccesarily contradict what he said about Directors of Football. He may have been told that Wise's title was little more then a title and he was not going to be in overall control of Footballing matters. He may not have been of course but the point its not a direct contradiction and certainly can't be called lies. What is a direct contradiction is saying that Keegan is in full control of first team including transfers and then later saying he was never in control of transfers.

keegan has also done that just as much. When, where? Nobody is truthful all the time, but I don't remember him contradicting himself on such a big issue. I mean he obviously said he was in control of transfers and then said he left because he felt he couldn't manage without full control. But that could point towards a policy change or interfering from the board late in the window. Of course it might not be that but its not conclusive unlike the comments from the board room.

Now who's making assumptions? We don't know if Keegan has lied at all or if he did then to what extent. After all if the goal posts were moved then he may not have been lying at all. He might never have been told he was in full control and he may have backed the boards words because he was promised certain transfers, who knows this is just guess work now. We do however know that the likes of Wise and Ashley have lied big time, because they were stupid enough to contradict there own words earlier in the year.

No we also have various members of the board room contradicting themselves/each other on what Keegan's position was at the club Which means they either lied about his position in the first place or moved the goal posts. It seems some people have incredibly short memories if this kind of thing is being forgotten already

Now? Yeah. We've all sat and stated the blatently obvious " If we don't invest we really may/will get relegated" You hope he realises this and says right i'll invest and lower my price or take it from his profits. Hes supposed to be a businessman even though he came into his money he didn't earn it. f he thinks, he can suvive with jk, and spending nowt, then thats what he will try and do,...it will be a close run thing with relegation, if thats his plan,.... rule nothing out, these days. Why take the chance. If we go down we have to sell players buy players to get us up it puts us back 3 years. he will take the chance, cos hes given up on us, i wouldnt be surprised, if we only get frees or loans in jan, or bargain basement deals. It doesn't matter if he's given up on the whole owning a Football club idea, he certainly won't have given up on the £233 million he's got invested in it. He'd have to be an absolute moron to risk losing it all which he will pretty much if we go down.

At the very least the money we got for Milner covered the the money we'd spent on players that summer. At best we tried to bring a player in with that money but it fell through. Either way we didn't profit on players, we broke even which is what we'll do in January if Ashley's still around.

I'm sure if we got an offer similar to what happened with Milner then we'd take it and use that money to try to bring players in, as I said selling to buy is quite likely. Selling for the sake of it isn't.

Should change the title to "Joke Thread"

I don't trust him at all. If he could sell off players to make himself some extra cash without reducing the sale price or risking everything he's put into the club then I definitely wouldn't put it past him to do just that. Lucky for us he can't.

Selling to buy is a case of a manager or director of Football or whatever selling players he doesn't want in order to bring in players he thinks are better. That's fair enough but that's not what Skirge was saying. He was talking about Ashley accepting any offer that comes in for any of our players in order to cash in. Which doesn't make sense at the best of times, let alone a time when the club is for sale and threatened with relegation.

Funny, but seriously, why do you agree with it? How does selling players for cash help Mike Ashley? Any player sold reduces the value of his asset at least as much as the cash brought in if not more and the more players sold the bigger the chance his asset goes completely down the toilet of relegation. Which would effectively lose him hundreds of millions of pounds. I'm not saying I think Mike Ashley loves Newcastle United and wouldn't want to make money at our expense if possible. But what Skirge is suggesting won't really make him any money and the risk to his asset is huge.

I don't see what's so wrong about his post. How about it makes absolutely no sense.

Probably about £250,000, about 20% of our total wage bill being spent on utterly useless players, and its not as if they're the only ones

This is what I was talking about earlier, the irrational idea that Ashley wants to cash in by selling players. That won't make him any money long term and will only risk losing him hundreds of millions more. So unless you think the man wants to lose money why would he do it?

Why would he want to do that? What's his motivation.. please explain. Personally I think this is irrational scare mongering.

Kinnear has come out and said that we'll pretty much have to sell players before we can buy. Although if no sale of the club is imminent and there is someone Kinnear wants, Ashley may give him a bit of money. He's gone on record as saying that "Dennis has also been given the task of removing some of the players that I feel are not good enough for the club". http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/7744828.stm I don't think anyone would rationally believe that is what Ashley wants or will do. Fair enough, its safe to assume that the likes of Owen and Given and most other first team players don't fall into that category though. Just find it strange when people say they think we'll sell the likes of Given, Martins, Owen ect if a good offer comes in

Not just that, it'd probably knock twice that much off the value of the club if he left.

We're not going to sell first team players like Given and Owen, not unless they expressly ask to leave, that's if anyone goes at all. What is this 'we're going to sell everyone' panic based on anyway? Don't tell me there's a single person here who thinks that Ashley's stupid enough to believe he can loot the club before its sold to make extra cash?

Yeah whatever. Definitely didn't expect a draw but at least I wasn't one of the "thashing is inevitable" doom mongers

Like I said, no reason to believe we'd get a thrashing, you bunch of pessimistic bastards Though I certainly didn't expect a draw.

Which of are biggest wage earners won't be playing? Geremi? Viduka? Smith? I'd rather not pay to say Viduka and Smith limp around, though I'd prefer Geremi to start over Butt anyway. It's actually quite comical that those three you mentioned could be amongst our biggest wage earners. Then we wonder why we are struggling. I agree with this. Instead of blaming Keegan/Ashley/Wise/The wrath of God, we should look to our incredibly wasteful and inefficent habit of signing out of favor players from bigger clubs, and putting them on long contract with astronomical wages. This started with Shepard and continued into Allardyce's first window. Agreed, apart from the depiction of Chelsea as a bigger club when in fact all they are is a smaller club with a sugar daddy

I think Viduka is our second highest earner.

Agree with this.

Shut up man, this was all said before Man U away, just go along with it. Yep same bollocks was said back then, and I said the same as I am now. If Football was that easy to predict nobody would watch it. We've shown in quite a few games recently that we don't collapse when we lose a goal, so I don't see any reason to predict a thrashing.

We don't have a single point at Stamford Bridge in the last 8 seasons. Even when we deserve a point we get ripped off with offside goals so I'm not expecting any points this time. But all this thrashing talk is just getting on my tits, there's no reason to expect anything of the kind.