80

how could i argue logically with "coward"? He had to keep it snappy to make sure you'd read it. Make your mind up.

There wasn't the same sort of money being thrown around until recently. I'm not saying not having it would be the worst thing ever by the way, far from it. I don't have any real problems at the moment with its existence either is all. People said similar things about money in 2002. Its all relative. As I say, it can be thought that the regulation contributes to the dominance of money, helping to remove shrewdly-timed deals from the game and allowing the super-rich to only have to employ blocking tactics for a couple of months a year (I seem to remember Chez gave a good exposition as to why transfers won't take place until late in the Summer a while back, if that rings any bells).

Why should they? And why have a January transfer window, then? Its the same for every club in a free system, too, so that's irrelevant. And yet most do. It is often noted that the best performing clubs have the longest-serving managers; it could thus be thought that the poorer clubs, who are in a state of disruption as they have to sack the bad mangers they generally have to choose from are further disadvantaged by the system's entrenchment of their destability; bad managers managing teams that aren't even theirs, so they're kept on for longer, allowed a couple of precious windows to bring their own bad players in before the cycle is commenced all over again. Was this more the case prior to 2002/3? How much did Roy Keane spend on how many players at Sunderland, again? As a Newcastle supporter, you of all people must know how often teams can be dismantled and disrupted under this system. I am particularly embittered by this system as I feel it gave the old board (yeah yeah, blah blah) the excuse to evade the transfer issue, ultimately leading to the ignominious sacking of Bobby Robson. I directly associate it with our downfall.

No, the excuse for introducing it related essentially to Webster rulings - the argument was its adoption would prevent players breaking contracts all year round. Ridiculous system which should never have been introduced - the Spanish should've been allowed to hinder their own game however they wished. I find it really strange the way many talk about all-year transfers as though its some bizarre idea that would disrupt the game - we managed for over a century without any difficulty. There is a lot to be said for the idea that this system is what serves to distort the market - that wild, dangerous financial behaviour is encouraged by its existence, with a game of chicken played between buying and selling parties. If anything its easier as moves can be completed so simply - no need to speculate about what might happen in 5 months time as it'll happen swiftly if its going to.

The best players are. It's a character trait. So you'd describe Shearer as a "really injury prone, negative attention attracting mouthy twat"? Injury-prone would be a bit harsh, but otherwise that isn't too inaccurate a description.

This is actually one of my favourites. You're a genius. The best of the popular ones, for my money.

Lol, yet another jibe at Shearer. Will it ever end? how was that f*** was that a jibe at Shearer? by the end of 2005, just about everyone was questioning Shearer's constant place in the starting 11 tbh Really,ok that's your own view,mine?A proven goal scoring machine that he was.I never questioned his inclusion,if he was on the pitch you knew for sure he would give his all for the shirt. not getting drawn into this argument again but post 2003 (exception of penalties) he was no goal threat whatsoever and the stats prove it Lol, I think you will find that no one bar you was questioning his inclusion in the team at that time. I think you will also find that saying he was no goal threat whatsoever post 2003 is also extrememly harsh. While there is no denying he was much less of a player than he was before, he still scored some fine open play goals. You must be the only supposed Newcastle fan on the face of the planet who can say that they have ever been dissapointed to see Shearer's name on the teamsheet. Hilarious. That's bollocks tbf. There was loads of people on here, including myself, who wanted to see Kluivert and Bellamy up front at a time when Shearer was little threat other than from the spot. Yep.

His comments can be taken to suggest Mike Ashley was saying 'No I'm not done for'.

talking like that is how relegions get started. and at this stage despite some strong form I'm not sure if Nile Ranger is actually the son of god.... He's his daddy.

Born there. From his appearance, you'd think he hailed from Piltdown, but there you go.

Through the combination of hysteria and a Hughie Gallacher avatar, I thought this was an HTT thread.

No, he wasn't technically British. He was technically a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But Rep of ireland northern ireland and Great Britain are all in the British Isles. Yep. But that's geography, not politics/citizenship. Like being in Europe isn't the same as being in the European Union. God, can't believe I'm getting involved in this... If we ('Brits') are all simply citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, presumably the people of Great Britain aren't any more 'British' than the Northern Irish - if we're talking in the political/citizenship sense. We're all Ukish or something. Any reference to the mainlanders being 'British' would be made on the basis of geography, therefore. No, the people of Britain are British. Britain is part of the United Kingdom. So is Northern Ireland. There's a difference between nationality and citizenship. But you said the 'citizenship' sense. That said, there might well be a difference between nationality and citizenship, though some would dispute that idea. We must then get on to the business of how one's nationality is determined, if it's not simply a product of political status. You appear to be suggesting one's inhabitance of an arbitrarily defined geographical entity confers one's nationality. Is that really the case? If so, which geographical entity is the important one? Northumberland? Britain? The British Isles? Europe? The Northern Hemisphere? In certain senses of nationality, some would very definitely say they are not British regardless of the fact they have inhabited the geographical entity referred to as 'Great Britain'. They might form that view from something along the lines of perceived culture, language or history, for example. Following on from that logic, some would say they very definitely are British regardless of what geographical entity they have inhabited. So, to go back to Martin O'Neill - how many ways can we slice him as a Brit? Well, geographically he's from the British Isles. He's also a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the people of whom are referred to by the UK state as being 'British citizens' - in this context, I'm not 'British' either, I'm a 'British citizen' - there being a difference between the two. Finally, he can be sliced as a Brit if he is personally identified as such. As a Roman Catholic from Ireland, we might guess he doesn't do this himself, though I don't remember hearing him comment any particular way on the matter. Edit: Reading back, it looks like I've jumped in positioned for a conversation different to the one that was actually taking place. All the same, most of what I say stands.

No, he wasn't technically British. He was technically a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But Rep of ireland northern ireland and Great Britain are all in the British Isles. Yep. But that's geography, not politics/citizenship. Like being in Europe isn't the same as being in the European Union. God, can't believe I'm getting involved in this... If we ('Brits') are all simply citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, presumably the people of Great Britain aren't any more 'British' than the Northern Irish - if we're talking in the political/citizenship sense. We're all Ukish or something. Any reference to the mainlanders being 'British' would be made on the basis of geography, therefore.

Best compared to what though ? It was pretty decent by most people's standards, to be fair. I don't think the end of the Robson reign's success has been attributed to Gordon Milne's presence by anyone. Now that said, it was a quite different version of the 'DoF' system - there was no question regarding who was the important figure at the club and Milne was wholly subservient to our manager (a manager who also had some experience of DoF roles when he himself created ours).

I only expect it not to fail if a pre-fab system is imported from the continent. Arnesen-Jol was an example of this.

Robson would have stayed. Arguably a problem in his own right. Too old school for his/our good.

Hmm... my view on the Graeme Danby innovation has soured with hindsight.

Always had deep suspicions about Comolli, seems like a smoothy bullshitter. Spurs' progress came to an end when Arnesen left and he arrived. One problem with DoFs, particularly when tried in England at least, is they always appear to escape the blame - I think largely as football people (supporters, press and boards) still see the manager as the figurehead ultimately responsible for the team's performance. Whilst there's this philosophy floating around which says you should keep the DoF to retain continuity in the club's overall structure, instead of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' when a change of manager is required, I think those responsible should be much more prepared to scrutinise and replace such backstage figures. Trouble is, they always seem to have the ear of the chairman...

We didn't get one before today, we more likely than not won't get one after. Leaving the window open and not checking the news for 20 mins was responsible for that post... No, I'm sure normal service will now resume.

Well, a fucking explanation would be called for. A proper account of what has taken place. Resignation/sackings, recriminations, briefings, statements, litigation - it cannot be brushed under the carpet.

i also remember the forum voted on how they felt about Shepherd, and the overwhelming vote was for "Ambitious but flawed" not sure you could ever argue that Ashley has shown ambition based on his time here, so that's unambitious and flawed for him. Based on the tangibles, I'd have to agree. Even if this Keegan stuff hadn't taken place to any great extent, there would've been a spike in the disquiet about what was taking place as I think a lot of people, including myself, had given the new regime up until the end of this window before they would start to draw conclusions on how things were going. There have been a fair few words and rumours around about what was to come, and whilst they were often nice to hear and you'd have hoped to believe in them, indisputable actions were what they had to ultimately be judged upon. The three windows, prior to any of this Keegan business, had to be considered disappointing and concerning, in my eyes. Include all the Keegan stuff and... well, we are where we are.

Perhaps another couple of factors in the feeling towards Ashley being so strong so quick, in contrast to Shepherd, are 1) Ashley, unlike Shepherd, has a reputation for being competent - Oliver Hardy references don't stick so well - and 2) there was always hope of Shepherd being taken away by some glorious takeover, if we just weathered the storm... we got it... now people don't feel it was so glorious after all.

Regarding Sky, I have to say I never saw them say anything more than that their sources were telling them things. In contrast, BBC News 24 was repeatedly reporting it as a signed and sealed fact in headlines etc.

They are Indian. Ashley out, Ambani in. Google "sic". Was temporarily like entering bizarro world.

"Chief executive of Hydra Properties, Al-Fahim is reportedly 10 times richer than his counterpart at Chelsea, Roman Abramovich, and he has revealed there are plans to bring in a 'minimum 18' players to the club." http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_4086955,00.html I wish we'd held on to Milner till January.