80

Might as well weigh in for the fun of it, I'm sure I've read several times (most particularly in local press) that he's on 55k. Could be rubbish, but there you go.

As feared/suspected/expected.

Took me a while to work out what was wrong with the subtitle, then it clicked...

I think he bought the existing building...its currently being worked on now. This is being turned into a hotel but has nowt to do with NUFC iirc. So Ashley will build another hotel right next to an existing one ? Seems daft. If we increase the number of 4*/5* bedrooms within an x-mile radius of the stadium, doesn't that make us eligible to host a major final? [/blueskythinking] Pan-European exposure for SportsDirect

Don't think popping out for a couple of hours and not drinking any alcohol counts as partying like a rock star. A Christian rock star maybe. if you believe thier statement of course, which i certainly don't. Ian W is a very credulous chap. I envy that characteristic. Also known as incredibly naive. TBF I do believe them, after being caught red handed they wouldn't come out and apologise only to lie to everyone. They didn't look drunk or tired or anything in the photo (though I was concentrating on the abs obviously). I'm not cynical by nature though, must admit. That's had me caught out buy Mike Ashley a number of times. Personnally don't see any reason to doubt them tbh. I don't think it's naive to think that it wouldn't be 5 minutes before someone who was at the place to pipe up that they were drinking if they were. It may well be that Ireland and co are not the sharpest of tools, but they would have to be flatlining (as would the whoever set up the official apology) to lie about something like that. There is a story from someone about behaviour later in the evening that goes against the .co.uk statement, though. They aren't wanting it spread around too widely, though.

and is absolutely contradictory to the idea that Mike doesn't give a shit about what the fans think, but it's the same people who will repeat both statements, never mind the blatant contradiction That bit isn't true, I want to point out.

One reason why it may be worth persisting with converting Ferguson if he's got any aptitude for the role, despite those saying he's more obviously a winger.

I agree, sell all of our players. We dont need them. Shitheads, all of them, fuck them all.

He might be big, but Forster is probably the least vocal out of our three keepers. Celtic fans seem to think that he needs to come out of his shell more and be more imposing. I think that will change with (some years worth of) experience. Not a perfect excuse, but I think his manner is partly born of the fact he's an intelligent person - he has an outlook on his place in the scheme of things. That said, I don't think he's ever going to be a dominator - more a speak quietly and carry a big stick type at best.

This is an important point.

... and very likely will never be. I remember some people saying something like that about Carroll when he was younger. Well I certainly didn't. Which is to say that Carroll has always appeared to have the mental toughness required, which was clear in his first few outings in the season we got relegated. Krul hasn't shown that to me. Maybe this is his shaky season, maybe he will improve and make a solid goalkeeper in years to come, but I very much doubt he'll be ready by the start of next season. Krul doesn't really seem to have improved since Palermo, unfortunately. Always had concerns about his psyche and they haven't shifted despite his games recently. I was reticent to see him dropped for Harper - I was in the 'dozen and two 6s but only one of them is likely to improve' camp, and it sent a bad message to the squad - but I can't say I've got a lot of faith in him establishing himself as a top goalie as it was thought he might. Forster however looks sound. Some might think that analysis isn't statistical enough, but even despite mistakes he's made etc., when he stands in goal he looks like a strong part of the team, and there's something to be said for that. Certainly, when they don't look right, it's rare they fly right. I suppose Forster or none of them would be my answer, by the way.

And the more dire things look, the more I trust our players to dig in. I'm almost tempted to say a loss would be better than a draw against Wolves. Depends on which team scores the last minute equaliser, I guess...

Pardew has been given a lot of credit for our results under him, of course. Arguably too much, but that's another story... Don't want to see history re-written and turned into how everyone refused to recognise any of his achievements. Some people will presumably be happier about beating Wolves than Arsenal, in fact...

Just looking at our fixtures. Blackpool away looks absolutely critical to me. Speaking at this point in time i.e. given what I think it will say about how our prior two games will have gone, if we lose that I think we're down. I'd be confident of it. Further to that, less than 4 points from the next 3 games and I think we're down. We need to bay for fucking Wolverhampton's blood...

10 points will easily be enough. We need 6, and quite frankly if we don't get at least 6 points from our run home we don't deserve to stay up. Really? You think 42 points will definitely be enough to stay up? It's been enough every other Premiership 20-team season, bar one. So I don't see why this year will be any different. Really? It's far from being a normal year. West Ham or Wolves just need to get 1.25 points per game to change that, which they look capable of. I haven't thought about it too heavily for a few games, but I think I agree it'll be enough by the way. Seem to recall there are a lot of six pointers which will pit our dangerous rivals against each other and make one of them less dangerous. Still, I wouldn't call myself confident at 42... Call me at 44 and we can start talks. To change my position I'd need more than two teams to have their form absolutely collapse and I can only see one really clear candidate for that - Blackburn. Probably with Villa, given what I've heard about off field activities, and us bringing up the rear in pure form terms, with Blackpool following on to an even lesser extent.

Two more than us Hmm... '97 re-enactment? I think we're probably going to stay up still. As I explained in my thread, I think we'll have a morale-based revival once it gets very tight. Even if there is going to be/has been a falling out between the management, I have faith in the players to do well for our sake and not give us a repeat relegation. They wouldn't surrender like they did at Villa, where we still could have pulled ourselves out. My only real concern now I think of it is that they keep obeying Pardew's tactics in the face of manifest failure, so hopefully when/if things look serious enough they'll just disavow him and do what they think is best. It's going to feel fucking tight in the mean time, though. I almost suggest it needs to for us to return to winning ways. I hope I'm not wrong about them. We're also less likely to see Ben Arfa rescue us than they were - I imagined Wolves might have been his first game and would be marked with a victory. As others have suggested, having lots of teams beneath us is all well and good but most of them have more form than we have points. We need wins, not draws.

I can work with that.

So where's the sense in saying specific results dictate whether someone's a good tactician or not? In fact, going on this principle, there's no discussion to be had at all - either tactics aren't important at all or the best tactician is at the team that finishes first, and the second best tactician is at the team that finishes second, and the third... etc. etc. That's not what I'm saying at all. A good tactician is someone who knows how to approach games against the big guns and then how to approach games against the dross. It's fantastic that Wolves can win 1-0 against Manchester United, but if they lose to West Ham and Wigan then how is that good tactics on display? But then that is what you're saying - the only real indicator of a decent tactician is where their team finishes. The one who's approached the most games in the right way will be the one who won the league etc. if we can tell whether they had the 'right approach' by whether they won or not. In making your leap of logic, it neglects financial resources, talents and qualities of different parts of the teams, motivation, the aims of the clubs, both overall (whether it's a realistic Board asking for survival, or a prima donna-filled squad demanding trophies), or on the day (must win? must not lost? must not give the opposition three points? all different, of course). In contrast, I say tactics are subject to all these factors. It's the common explanation for why our home record was so unutterably shit in 04/05 under Robson - teams like Bolton came with the ambition of not losing and stifled our team which loved space and would otherwise score more points away from home where there was more of an onus upon our opposition to attack us and compromise the organisation of their defence.

So where's the sense in saying specific results dictate whether someone's a good tactician or not? In fact, going on this principle, there's no discussion to be had at all - I suppose the assumption is the best tactician is at the team that finishes first, and the second best tactician is at the team that finishes second, and the third... etc. etc.

So we are better than them then? Eh? As it happens we might have been, but regardless the point is clear that they're tactically excellent teams. It's no surprise or shame to have an immature, inexperienced and under-invested in team drop points against them because much better ones do too. Accordingly a manager can be a good tactician and still need a lot more ammunition on top - e.g. raw talent - to hope to ensure a good result against them - a loss doesn't prove anything negative about him. I don't think a manager whose team has spent alot of time down the bottom of the league this season is a "good" anything. But the ones at the top of the league this season must not be either seeing as most of them have lost to him with much better teams...

Bolton who are 7th and Stoke who are 10th? Why is it that when people review Hughton they say these were shit teams to lose to, but when they review Pardew the likes of Everton who were behind us in the bottom half become respectable? The irony of you mentioning those two teams in the context of tactics is that literally every shred of their reputation is built on scoring tactical victories against teams that are otherwise run better in almost every aspect. Is Mick McCarthy a good tactician, seeing as he's beaten Alex Ferguson, Carlo Ancelloti and Roberto Mancini and put three past Harry Redknapp for a draw for good measure? By the way, it doesn't matter who you're beating, but you get more points for winning than drawing, which is a lesson a scarily large number of teams seem to have learned better than ours.

I could probably pick two games from every club in the league where they've looked like that though. Couldn't you? That's football, surely? Also, I'm an advocate of the idea that stability is a huge foundation of success - especially for us - so there's a lot to be said for the idea that if anything was declining in the last two matches under Hughton, it's because he'd already been secretly sacked for Pardew and he and the squad were having firefight accusations and rumours sparked by Ashley in public and in private.

Seriously you're fast becoming as tiring as how NE5 was. Every fucking single thread, you try to insert your Carroll wank fest and attack the manager Nowhere near as tiresome as calling Lovenkrands a cunt though, which is the point.

which carroll isn't very good at. he wins everything in the air but unless he's in the box he has little idea where he's putting it. will liverpool learn that outside the box he's better with the ball on the deck than many realise ? Basically this Would be very satisfying to see Liverpool totally misuse the lad. He's not a target man so much as an extremely strong and tall forward.