Rich

Will still watch Euro 2008, then there's the Olympics and Wimbledon. Wouldn't be bad at all if England had qualified.

...would appear to be the major "problem" that NUFC currently has, financially, if reports and previous findings are to be believed. Apparently last summer we added £10M onto the annual expenditure on wages (Mort's words), which was already said to be fairly obscene when compared to the club's turnover. So far this summer we'll only be seeing Carr, Ramage and Troisi leaving for definite, which probably won't make much difference at all to things. Then on top of that you might expect to see Emre, Ameobi and N'Zogbia follow them out of the door. People might add Smith and Duff to that list, but I'd personally be surprised to see either of them go. Rozehnal and Cacapa are another two, Diatta as well... but then who comes in to replace them!? I personally can't see the wages doing anything other than increasing still if we want high quality players. Now there's murmurs about Owen needing to take a wage-cut in his new deal, Taylor not being offered the money he thinks he deserves, but we apparently still managed to offer Modric a higher basic wage than Tottenham could muster. Is it more media bollocks, or is the wage bill having a massive affect on recruitment plans and re-signing plans as pertains to the players already on our books? What about the players we are going to try and sign? Is this why we're after younger players? (Less wages?) Anybody have any thoughts or know any more than I do (not hard when it comes to this sort of stuff, admittedly)? It's an issue that has obviously been carried over from the previous regime, then apparently made worse last summer, but I suppose it's the nature of the beast when you aren't in Europe or challenging for honours, if you still want a squad that can be competitive in the Premiership (imagine where we'd be without the likes of Owen, Viduka and Martins on our wage bill this season alone). I know this could be quite an expansive topic, but it's an interesting one with a fair few layers to it. Would people rather see Ashley take on a crazy wage-bill in order to see us have a proper crack at things, or is he right if he's trying to get it cut down to a more acceptable level? Do we have any chance of success if we're reducing wages? Does anyone know the percentages involved for the likes of Chelsea? Do they pay out more than they bring in? Funny old game.

Not actually. The £18m was supposed to be paid up over three seasons, so that would £6m out of a £20m budget. That's right like. However, does that mean we've potentially got £70M to spend as far as entire transfer fees are concerned if we structure all the deals like that? "Nobody knows" is the only answer to that, though, it's all just speculation. EDIT: But if the Sun is right (ha) it does mean that we were either going to blow the entire budget on Modric or that we have got upwards of £60M to spend in total transfer fees? Does anyone really think either of those is true?

Summer's going to be the most interesting for a while like, which is hard to believe after the last one. Not every quality player has to cost a lot of money, obviously, but it would still be nice to see us bring in a couple of signings of the calibre/cost of Modric. If that happens, I don't mind at all if we see the likes of Richard Dunne coming in for far smaller fees. A good player is a good player, regardless of the cost.

Alright, not saying everything they say should be treated as gospel, just saying the only words I'd pay any genuine attention to are those from within the club. You're right to say they'll not always tell it straight but I'd trust the words of Mort etc over the speculation of some Sun journo any day of the week. That's probably fair enough. But some of the really cynical types might say that's a more dangerous philosophy (if you get what I mean). It's mine as well, by the way, but I understand the potential pitfalls it brings. Yeah. I'm a student journalist and the power of the quote has been underlined many a time to us, but I guess even then it might not the absolute solid truth. Easy to say one thing and mean another, if thats what you're getting at. Aye, sort of. If we all believed everything that the chairman (past and present) told us, then I think it's fairly safe to say we'd all be up shit creek without a paddle amongst us. It's about finding that balance, I suppose, because we're never going to know what really gets said and done behind closed doors. I've just more or less given up posting/thinking either way, as some may have noticed, it's always somewhere in the middle for me. Pointless worrying about stuff you can't control, I say. NUFC no longer keeps me awake at night.

For what it's worth, I do agree that there is definitely some serious substance to this meeting, the only problem I have is people potentially believing absolute falsities about what it entailed and starting to string-up some of those involved with what a very likely to be lies. I'm very sceptical about the Sun's version of events, but I think you're right when you say this wasn't just a "transfer target" affair. That point about the Mail is right, too, they do occasionally get something on the money. I knew there'd been a time recently where they'd broken a story before anyone else, but couldn't remember which it was. Sums it up though, doesn't it? They get one thing right in a hundred and people still look upon them as a very creditable source. What's that website with all the press lies/falsities/wrongs on it again? They're wrong far more often than they're right.

Alright, not saying everything they say should be treated as gospel, just saying the only words I'd pay any genuine attention to are those from within the club. You're right to say they'll not always tell it straight but I'd trust the words of Mort etc over the speculation of some Sun journo any day of the week. That's probably fair enough. But some of the really cynical types might say that's a more dangerous philosophy (if you get what I mean). It's mine as well, by the way, but I understand the potential pitfalls it brings.

Excellent point as well. So then, who can tell us the truth? Everyone posting in this thread is clearly interested in knowing what was really said at today's meeting and what will come from it all in the weeks and months ahead. But if we can't believe the press, we can't believe the ITKs and we can't even believe the club...then...erm... ...I guess we just have to make it up ourselves then? No, of course not. We just have to let the people who run the show get on with it. Why should we be told, really? We're just the fans at the end of the day, we can't possibly ever hope to know every little thing that goes on, even in this information-hungry age. It probably wouldn't be beneficial to the club if everything they did was made public. This quest for knowledge we all have (and I assume it's the same everywhere these days) probably does football no good at all, when it comes to stability and all that. (add:) It must be a fucking nightmare for those at the top, because do they comment on speculation? Do they ignore speculation? Being a chairman/manager has never been more difficult.

As for this, I think it's fairly safe to say that the likes of the Sun would do that, most definitely.

Also, I certainly wouldn't advocate believing everything that comes from the club, Mel, as you mentioned you might do earlier. Mort's a lawyer (speaks for itself) for starters... and Keegan, while appearing to be totally trustworthy and honest, still probably doesn't give it straight 100% of the time - only when he has to.

That's not exactly the same as knowing exactly what went on in that meeting though, is it? Let's get some perspective here man. We're talking about a Sun article which details yesterday's meeting, not what was said before it.

That's right as well like and I have been guilty of taking that approach myself on the odd occasion. The fact is everyone takes it in their own way and on the merits of the article. A lot of it will come out in the wash, eventually, it always does. It's what I've already said, you can't always be at one end of the see-saw, there has to be some balance. Dismissing every story you don't like the look of as being "false" is a bad way of going about things, it's almost as bad as the exact opposite of it.

As for irony, GM, the fact that you'll accept the Sun's account on the fact that it's "plausible" and then go on to say "even if it's entirely speculative" when people were debating the accuracy and factuality of the article is surely ironic, is it not? Have I misunderstood the meaning of the word?

That's a good point as well, Melanie. If we only have £20M to spend, as the Daily Mail claims, was that all going on Modric? The Daily Mail has written some absolute poison about NUFC over the past few months, I'm staggered that some can still take it so seriously when there's nothing to back it up.

The irony. Of course people on here don't know either way and probably never will, but it's just amazing how the Sun has a full article about what the meeting entailed when there were only the six prominent figures present at the meeting. Who else do those people have to answer to? Who else do they have to tell what went on? I understand bits and pieces will get out to various people, but to know the exact content of the meeting literally hours after it occured seems a bit far-fetched to me. Especially when half of those (perhaps more) present were immediately back up here together for the Bobby Robson thing as well. I think it's fair to say that usually when a paper uses "an insider" or "a source" they have license to write whatever they like because it can't be proven that it was never said. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. The papers know that it's been left on a knife-edge and the club has given them absolutely fuck all today in terms of telling them what went on, so they have to follow it up with speculation that the regular fan can buy into. The people who write the stories aren't idiots, by and large, these are educated blokes who are good at their jobs and who sell papers with their stories. That's why they write for the nationals. Obviously not every story they print is false, but I'd wager a lot of money that the vast, vast majority of them are based on no more than hearsay and half-truths. They HAVE to write stories, that's the bottom line, these writers will have been told by their editors that we're once again the hot topic this week, we'll sell the papers, so they HAVE to come up with a whole article to fill the back pages. Alan Oliver has admitted to as much himself on the icnewcastle website, in a video, whether there is news or not, they have to fill the column inches to sell the paper. What sells papers better than massive shock headlines and drama. They can't just fucking say "well, Mort said it all went well", can they? Who's going to buy that? The broadsheets have used those quotes and then speculated around them, the Sun has claimed to know (as always) that they know exactly what went on in the meeting. Howay man. It's obviously not all black or white, no pun intended (on two counts), but people should be seeing through this stuff a bit more by now. We love the drama though.

It's the same in all the broadsheets as well, looking at it. The only quotes they've got are the brief ones from Mort that were aired on SSN, they've got fuck all else so are having to make it up as they go. Must be a cracking job you know, writing for a paper.

That Sun article is, unsurprisingly, utter utter gash. How the fuck would they know what was said inside of that meeting if the only people present were Ashley, Mort, Keegan, Llambias, Wise and Jimenez? Are we to assume that one of those six has told someone else exactly what was said and then in turn it's been fed to the papers? All utter gash man.

Just watched that Ramage video, fair play to the bloke for what he said, all very amicable. Good luck to him wherever he goes, but fuck Stephen Carr and his big fat hips.

To be fair, Ameobi had probably his best season for us that year. Pretty sure he scored around 10 goals. Nowt special but when you look at Owen being our top scorer with 12 this season, it was by no means bad. Doesn't change the fact that he was fucking bollocks and didn't work with Shearer at all like, but never mind.

I was embarrassed that day, to be honest, by both the football on display and the actions of the crowd. However, that season had been one colossal disappointment after the "Bowyer summer" and the subsequent Partizan debacle. People were quick to forget that Bellamy (our most important player) and Woodgate (possibly the second most) were crocked for most of the campaign, like, but obviously those two weren't the only problem. We had fucking Michael Bridges playing for us at some points man... and Ameobi played far more than he should have done that season as well.... Still doesn't hide the fact that the fans let themselves down badly at times - only 37k bothered to go to the Partizan (h) game and the Marseille (h) match wasn't even a complete sell-out either.

Nakamura ahead of Solano? I don't think lists like these are hard to do, tbh. Think they'll put a lot of effort into the top 10 then wing the rest. That's the impression I always get, at least.

Boooo!! Wish I'd only turned on after 90 minutes, to be honest. Enthralling extra time. Sad for Liverpool, fair play to Avram "I don't know what I'm doing" Grant and Frank Lampard, though. Should still be a barnstorming final, even though it won't quite have the same magic to it.

Not for everyone. Some people want them to beat us so that they might win the league!

How can it always be "luck" though? They're fucking shite to watch, I'll admit that, but it's not fucking "luck".

They can't man. They're not good enough to win the CL!! (Yawn) Another 30 minutes...