80

is Taylor better than Duff on the wing? he certainly isn't better than N'zogbia. Horrible window yet again Really..a player from Bolton and one from wigan?? Shows how low our expectations are..buying off clubs around us.. Yep should have signed Lampard and Ronaldo. No one's asked for massive signings FFS Just an improvement on our squad I think we have done that. we have. but most people made their minds up months ago that we havent. In what way do you feel we've improved the squad? given wanted out and handed in a transfer request. little we can do about that. harper is a more than adequate replacement and is free. £6 million up + big wages gone. just a loss/a draw at best. n'zogbia WAS NEVER GOING TO PLAY FOR US AGAIN. lovenkrands WILL PLAY FOR US. £6 million up. win by default. nolan is better than butt, smith, geremi and is far more reliable than barton. win. taylor plays in many positions and is a decent squad player (squad depth innit). win. overall, improvement. not a huge one but an improvement. Fine, but are you asking why the bit in bold came to be?

Indeed, we can only go on the tangibles - tangibles you are blind to. Shy of an unlikely surprise, they are bad - Ashley's organisation has, at best, failed to achieve necessary successes. At worst, they didn't attempt to achieve them. You seem to think we are operating in a sealed environment. We are not. Yesterday's result was us failing to win a relegation six-pointer at home. Those are the matches that must be won to stay up. Any assumption to the contrary takes it as true that we're as likely to draw against Man United, Liverpool (1-5) et al at home. In case you forgot through lack of interest, Sunderland won the converse fixture - a direct relegation rival of ours now holds a two point advantage over us.

Shy of a very big post-deadline surprise, this month-planned statement is going to be immense.

FYP. You made it sound like this is about camp hystronics. We are fucking beleaguered, man. Another cretinous post.

By that virtue shouldn't expect to sell anyone either. I take it these late bids won't be offered in Ashley's defence, then, seeing as he couldn't have expected them to be successful. Yes, I suppose we should've all agreed we were fucked beyond repair after the Summer window closed and squad morale/organisation was shattered with Keegan's departure. Bloody stupid post.

I think that if Ashley gets another shirt with Kinnear printed on the back, it'll give us all a spring in our steps and we'll stay up. Everything will be alright.

I think the implication is that Bent rejected it, not Tottenham, seeing as Bent was also telling that twat he's sitting at home and not in Liverpool.

Seeing as we're all having our say... He hasn't lost legend status in my eyes. Mainly because he never had it. I've never forgotten that he threw a wobbly and demanded a transfer when he wasn't immediately reinstituted to the team ahead of his best pal Harper, who was playing excellently at the time. I don't see him as evil, or a cunt or anything. I'm sure he has/had an attachment to the club, and he's played a significant part in our club for a long time. He's shown a not inconsiderable amount of commitment/stupidity to hang around as long as he did, and the club he now departs can be reasonably judged as being in a disastrous state. I'm not going to demand he sacrifices his career any further to maintain a reputation I never afforded him. He leads his own life and we lead ours - I've never seen him and the fabric of the club as being one and the same. I'd moved on before he left.

I think i missed something. http://www.newcastle.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=138983 Was supposed to have all been media lies, iirc.

Are you the one responsible for changing my thread titles, stopping me from posting threads and posting childish remarks with regards to my threads Explanation please If you mean it's happened again since, then no. As for this thread, it was started by a drunk bloke who was saying the same things that were being said in a multitude of other threads on same subject, albeit in a less coherent manner. It survived long enough as it was, but then you bumped it for no good reason only to further irritate and mislead others into thinking something important had just happened: So I took away the old title and gave it as accurate a new one as I could think of.

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).