80

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.

quite simply the most hypocritical thing I've seen in ages. I don't see him saying anywhere that the views are anybody else's other than his own by the way. Hasn't the club asked you for views on things DAve ? Please tell us the difference. Neither the club or the press have ever asked me for my views on NUFC, either for publication or for any other reason. Do you understand the meaning of the word ASSOCIATION? I can't see why it bothers you. I can only presume you are pissed off because it isn't you ? Frank has never said he is speaking for the supporters, he only gives his own views and does it because he is asked for them. Its more the fact that he claims to represent some sort of supporters club, which no-one I know of has ever been involved with/been associated with/ever heard about. He also happens to spout exactly what the southern media expect a stereotypical "crying on the telly geordie fan" to say. He's very rarely complimentary about the club, why do the press never ask him for comments when there's something positive happening at the club? ["Oh, but that never happens" I hear you cry] It's interesting that you should comment on this thread NE5, particularly that you should be 'defending' the guy, as my original post was going to make some tenuous allegation that YOU are Frank Gilmour...but that would be too far fetched he doesn't "claim" anything, from what I have seen. Its the same as Mark Jensen of the mag, they are telephoned and asked for their views. Now I'm not Frank Gilmour, but I know that Mark Jensen gets asked for his views. And no, I'm not Mark either. Thats all there is to it. These people don't write the lines, they are just asked for their opinions. I assume he claims to be the chairman of INUSA, that the press don't just refer to him as that for a laugh. Do you know if he's aware that heading an organisation with that title lends the idea that he speaks on behalf of a body of people credibility? Do you think he's aware that, in his position, he should distance his own privately held views from those of others supporters? It seems he normally claims to be airing the views of the 'masses', if anything. So far as I can see, he's just asked for them. The INUSA was borne out of the period when people were moved from their seats to make way for those corporate areas, and its just existed in some form ever since. I don't know what Frank does with regard to it, and to be honest, I'm not really bothered either. If someone rang you as a NO person, wouldn't you give your views ? Fair enough if you've got essentially nothing to do with it/him, but I do get bothered by the sense that I and others are being spoken for, especially if I think what is being said is media-friendly, ill-considered tripe. He's given more harmful lines to the cockney press than Ozzie ever could. It contributes to this whole thing of the media thinking we're Geordie idiots, no better than we ought to be and only worth paying attention to when in search of mirth. If the press asked me for my views, I can honestly say I'd take measures to make sure I didn't cross any lines. That would involve something along the lines of me being referred to as an administrator of a fansite and, if asked to speak for the fans, giving more than one side of the story if necessary. I'd seek to highlight any subjective views, I promise you that. possibly - and I'll stress that I've never done it either - but I would imagine these things are more difficult than they seem. Quite probably. We had a problem just recently when some random bloke made hysterical comments on an article on the main site and they got taken up by three papers (makes me suspect it was actually a journalist who wrote them - it was a bit of a coincidence they all quoted this site on the same day...). He was referred as Joe Bloggs 'of Newcastle Online' - he was absolutely nothing to do with us. A fair bit of effort was spent on trying to make the Sun change that on their website. The thing with Gilmore is it's not as though he was misrepresented once or twice and learnt his lesson. As it is, the guy's essentially faceless - he hasn't made that reasonable excuse to anyone I know of. I can't change what he says or stop him saying it, and drowning him out wouldn't be at all easy as he's a media personality, now. That's where the frustration kicks in.