Rich

Aye, we need him fit more than ever now that we're an extra striker down and Emre/N'Zogbia are showing no signs of returning soon. Not to mention Nobby being "transformed" into a defender due to injuries/the ineptitude of the Irish goblin.

I'm gonna break it down, in typically optimistic fashion: 5th - Bolton are in trouble, if you ask me. They couldn't put Charlton away last night and are being hit by injuries to some very important players. Watford away at the weekend is hardly an easy game, either. Davies, arguably their pivotal player, is out for 3 weeks and Anelka is a major doubt this week. I'm sure I saw on SSN earlier that another one or two first teamers are now injured, as well. Ben Haim being out of favour is also an important factor as Meite and Faye together are dodgy, IMO. They also have to play away at Tottenham, Man Utd, Wigan, Arsenal, Chelsea and West Ham this season (in that order.) And they still have an FA Cup replay to attend to. 6th - Portsmouth haven't won for 5 games now in the league and are also coming off that disappointing loss to Man Utd in the FA Cup. Their remaining fixtures are very similar to ours in that they still have to play the big 4 at home, but they arguably have tougher away ties. Everton and Aston Villa being the two that stand out. We do have to go to Fratton Park, mind, in what could be a huge game. I'm not sure if they're good enough to remain this high up. 7th - Reading have just lost their best defender for the rest of the season (Sonko), which is a massive blow to them and Doyle is also out for a month or more. They still have to play away to Arsenal, Tottenham and Bolton and their other away games are hardly easy, either. It's going to home form or bust if they're to remain so high, with Villa, Portsmouth, Liverpool, Fulham, NUFC and Watford to visit - all winnable games, but I can see a lot of draws in there. They're unbeaten in 4 games in the PL, won 3, drew 1! 8th - Everton still have to play the big 4, Liverpool/Chelsea away and Man Utd/Arsenal at Goodison, but aside from that I doubt they're too fearful of their other games, especially at home. Johnson being out for another 2 weeks is obviously good news for us and McFadden's injury is more significant than most probably think. Struggling for firepower at the minute and Liverpool away at the weekend, the immediate future looks bleak. But with Johnson back and Fernandes arriving a little later they might start to charge with 6-8 games left. 9th - NUFC have easily the most crippling injury list AND the prospect of the UEFA Cup, two major disadvantages league-wise against the 4 teams mentioned above. We arguably have the "best" remaining league fixtures, with Man Utd/Bolton/Spurs/Everton already played twice and Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool all coming to St. James'. Reading (a) and Portsmouth (a) are two games where at least a draw seems essential for our European qualification hopes. I'm quietly confident that if we can keep a settled back four and keep Martins/Dyer/Milner fit, in particular, then we could sneak up into top-seven quite comfortably. 10th - Spurs - Have the UEFA Cup, same as us, but the bastards might be getting a bye which will help their league form immensely, due to having fresher players. Like us, are struggling with injuries to key players at the moment, but unlike us these injuries don't seem to be incredibly long-term. Still have Man Utd (weekend) and Arsenal to play at the Lane, but they have to visit Chelsea and are still in the FA Cup, due to their usual lucky draws. Hopefully they'll get tonked away at Fulham in the fifth round, but I wouldn't mind them having to go to a replay, even if it meant them progressing. They'll never win it as long as Man Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea are in it anyway. The more games Spurs play, the better as their league run-in is fairly straight forward, perhaps even better than ours.

Common misconception to be honest. That is how he managed to take over the Montreal Canadian ice hockey team. People actually thought he was the Gillette i.e. razors bloke but he isn't. His name isn't even spelt the same. I did know that, mate. Was merely an apparently ill-fated attempt at a pun. Miserable bugger. And are you telling me the entire city of Montreal, and the owners of the Canadiens in particular (probably respectful businessmen in their own right) didn't realise the spelling was different? These aren't Americans we're talking about here, you know? It would be highly amusing, though! "...So you AREN'T the bloke with the razors!? Gosh-darn it!" Canadiens former board member: "Can you believe he's spelt his name wrong right the way through the entire bid document? You'd think a bloke who'd made billions selling razors would be a bit sharper than that. Geddit? Sharper? Razors? Oh fuck off then!" Classic Scott Gemmill material. He's here all day folks... as always.

Right now we have to consider him a striker... but with Nicky Butt, Emre and N'Zogbia being unavailable it looks as though he has no choice but to play in the middle of the park. It's a shame because I think him and the Oba have looked good together.

No, no he hasn't His current deal runs until 2009.

Common misconception to be honest. That is how he managed to take over the Montreal Canadian ice hockey team. People actually thought he was the Gillette i.e. razors bloke but he isn't. His name isn't even spelt the same. I did know that, mate. Was merely an apparently ill-fated attempt at a pun. Miserable bugger. And are you telling me the entire city of Montreal, and the owners of the Canadiens in particular (probably respectful businessmen in their own right) didn't realise the spelling was different? These aren't Americans we're talking about here, you know? It would be highly amusing, though! "...So you AREN'T the bloke with the razors!? Gosh-darn it!"

In the fairness to the little Yorkshireman he has been extremely productive this season after I had all-but written him off... he still needs a shitload of work on his passing/first-touch (it was atrocious in the second-half), but his crossing/dribbling/shooting has come on leaps and bounds. He could be an exceptional winger if he keeps up this level of improvement in all areas of his game, proving that you don't need a footballing brain - or any brain - to be a success. I should also mention that he seems to be learning how to become a threat in the air. If you've noticed (against Spurs majorly) we seem to be aiming our goal-kicks towards him and he raped Lee Young-Pyo in the air both home and away, it was a massive factor in our wins because of the sheer amount of headers he won. Even against Villa we seemed to favour Milner .vs. Bouma with Harper's kicking, at least until Sibierski arrived to lose almost every header against the impressive Wild Man (Mellberg). I have to say that he seems to be the most obvious candidate for "most improved player" this season, even ahead of the revitalised Nicky Butt. Thing with Milner is, he's still got a lot of potential to fill, where Butt is only likely to get worse. Exciting times for Jinky James, most definitely. He's playing much like N'Zogbia did last season in that he can be quiet for a lot of games but when he does get involved it usually equates to a goal, or a dangerous set-play, or even just a decent chance. He is definitely our key threat at the moment. It's a massive pity N'Zogbia hasn't kept fit or kept up his level of performance because if he had of done then our flanks would have been imperious this season, especially when you again consider how young they both are. I thought N'Zogbia was our key man last season - he was certainly the most exciting to watch - and Milner is taking the reigns this term.

I think I'd rather have Shepherd in full-control than this Dubai lot, when I put my sensible cap on at least. There is a reason why Liverpool didn't accept the offer... granted, it may just be that Gillet "the best a man can get" will offer them more cash, but it might also have been that they realised they'd be villanised as well if DIC got their way and used the mighty reds as a cash cow (it would be a sin rivalled only by mass genocide, in fairness). It is a worry that we're falling behind a host of clubs financially, though. Suppose we've lived a charmed life since the Hall days in that respect and I can't help but feel that we missed the boat on numerous occasions. Proof that money without sensible management isn't as great as it sounds.

You could say the same for Babayaro. The fact that he was picked for the national team after no more than 135 minutes of first team action could suggest he is an awesome player or it could suggest the Dutch manager doesn't know what he's doing. I've seen enough of him as a player and MvB as a manager to know where my money is.. It's a bit like Eriksson and Walcott: his selection for the World Cup wasn't exactly based on his on the pitch performances was it? Oh, and don't start saying Walcott has potential so Babel must have too.. Again, I don't think Babayaro is utter shite on the pitch. I'd just be happy if we was on the pitch for often and showed more stomach for the fight than he usually does. It sounds to me like there's more to this Babel stuff with you than just the fact you don't rate him as a player. You think he's useless, but proven top-class managers and scouts seem to think otherwise. I know who my money would be with. He's played for Holland, hasn't he? And scored a few goals? Did they all go in off his arse, or something? You personally don't want Newcastle to sign him, based on your own view of him, we get that, but to pour cold water on people who get excited about us buying a 20-year-old Dutch international is a bit cheeky. Those people get excited because Roeder and the scouts have spotted potential in him, much like they did with Martins, and have apparently made a move. Those people get excited because an international manager has praised him and because the likes of Arsene Wenger have been credited with a solid interest in him. I think all of this holds more weight than your personal view of him, playing for a rival club as he does. Not to mention, again, that the kid already plays international football and comes from a big club, Ajax. Aye, he must be fucking gash.

Who's coming in to replace him? Surely 'Pool won't let Crouch go at this stage and after last night? (That's the rumour I've heard.) Apparantly were in for Marlon ' i look like the baddie in the mario brother film' Harewood and Teddy 'where's my walking stick' Sheringham. Worst transfer business in the clubs history if this comes off. Oh and we dont want the beanpole. We flogged him off years ago. Liverpool are welcome to him. Harewood does look exactly like a Goomba (Mario), as well. I love that someone else has noticed. http://www.dan-dare.org/Dan%20Mario/SMBMovie-Goombas.jpg

To offer a bit more perspective on this, I certainly don't think Luque is a "shite" footballer, either. I never claim, like some, that I could do a better job than him on a football pitch. I think his attitude has let him down here and his relationship with Roeder has deteriorated to such an extent that he will probably never play for us again, even if his move to PSV doesn't happen. I don't particularly like Luque much because I don't think he's done himself justice, or the shirt justice, but I'm not daft enough to say he'd be an awful signing for PSV because he might well flourish in that league, with that type of football and with those team-mates/manager. I just don't know. It's a fair assessment to say he's been shite for us, but who can say he will 100% categorically be shite for PSV? It's the same for Babel.

I've never said he's certainly going to make it, I've also never said he's going to be a complete waste of time, which seems to be your message (the latter). How can we know for sure? In my eyes we are potentially about to sign someone who is generally regarded as of the hottest properties in football (in his age bracket) for a very good price indeed. Not just from what van Basten has said but also from what other posters on this board have said (who have also seen him play a fair bit) and the fact that Babel carries this sort of reputation, I am fairly pleased that we might be getting him in. In my eyes it is set-up in a similar manner to the Martins deal, although at a far smaller price. (Martins was also frozen out of the first-team picture at a top-class club and had nothing but his reputation going for him, he certainly hadn't set the world alight in Italy - otherwise Inter wouldn't have sold him.) There are similarities here. At Babel's age, his value shouldn't diminish gigantically and even if he does fairly well here (gets played often, scores his share of goals and shows signs of developing) then his value might even go up a significant amount. To me it seems like a potentially sound investment by the club, who are desperate for a versatile forward player. It's not like we're paying mega-money for him, either, so I really don't understand your objection. He can't be purely "shite" every time he plays football otherwise we wouldn't be in for him, he wouldn't play for Ajax and he certainly wouldn't have been capped by the Netherlands.

Liverpool have no intention of selling their top scorer! And Crouchygol has no intention of taking a step back in his career anyway I'm glad to see him finding form again. I love the giant streak of piss, seriously.

If you're one of the people that have seen most of him, I'll produce as Exhibit A the fact that you rate Luque as good enough reason to disregard your opinion. Look at it this way.. Luque was a good player before he joined us and was never given the chance to prove himself. Babel isn't a good player to start with. What makes you think he will do OK for us? Okay... so because Karate_Kuyt doesn't rate Babel, while the likes of Wenger, van Basten and Roeder clearly do (to varying extents), we shouldn't sign him? I thought Sibierski was pure shite before we bought him, but he's done fairly well. I thought Duff was ace before we signed him and he hasn't done much of anything at all, yet. Transfers aren't an exact science, there isn't "right" or "wrong" and none of us know for sure how things will turn out, so it's ridiculous for you to be so against signing someone based on nowt but your personal opinion of the bloke.

Who's coming in to replace him? Surely 'Pool won't let Crouch go at this stage and after last night? (That's the rumour I've heard.)

A decent tidbit about Babel at the end of the Piquionne <a href="http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/newcastleunited/journalsport/tm_headline=safety-first-for-roeder%26method=full%26objectid=18554318%26siteid=50081-name_page.html">article</a> in today's Journal... I still think Roeder's lack of quotes on Babel means that he is our #1 transfer target, even at this late stage, as earlier in the article he himself says something along the lines of "the less you say about a player the more chance you have of getting him". It's a bit of a conspiracy theory, as such, but it makes sense. Babel is far more of a coup than Piquionne and so it makes sense that we would be doing our utmost to get him in, while not wanting to give anything away. Whereas Roeder has been very open about Piquionne. As for people who've said things won't happen because of the Villa game, it will be Shepherd and the like dealing with transfers anyway, not Roeder, so it won't make too many odds. Something will surely happen today.

Some decent stuff from this <a href="http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/newcastleunited/journalsport/tm_headline=safety-first-for-roeder%26method=full%26objectid=18554318%26siteid=50081-name_page.html">article</a> in the Journal this morning regarding Piquionne, from Roeder... Interesting reading.

Monkey, I think you're genuinely a top-class poster but that last line is pure bollocks. Smacks of nowt but ego to me and it basically alludes to you being 100% correct with this and everyone who disagrees with you being way-off. As for the "debate", I'd venture to say that there have been good points raised on both sides, but much like everything else that sparks interest on here the main protagonists are never going to agree. Anyone could simply sign-off by saying "agree to disagree", but wording it the way you did isn't the way to go about things. You've made points based on not much more than personal opinion with a lot of guesswork/prediction interwoven, just like everyone else has in here. I came at you without calling you a Mackem (laughable that people have), or ridiculing you, and offered an alternative to your story of "what might have been", now you're bowing out of the "debate". Bad form. Theres nowt else for me to contribute to in a thread where there are plenty of posts that do nothing except ridicule anyone with a different opinion. Its not arrogance, ego or me saying im 100% correct - ive not said any of that, and im not sure how youve got that from one line where im trying to cut myself off from debating this topic any further because id merely be repeating myself, and hence wasting time. What you also need to realise is that although I initially replied to you, I also have the habit of replying to other posts/posters within the same reply. I dont mind debating if youre going to bring up some actual points that can be debated, which youve done, I was more pissed off at the childish replies on here that noone can "debate" with since theyre just one line comments bearing no relevance and followed up with a smiley or two. Yes, I do, otherwise I wouldnt be arguing any different. IMO we lost the title for several reasons, but most of all because we lacked the defence to win it, that was the key difference between us and ManU. Games like Blackburn away when Shearer and that other Geordie lad, Fenton or something like that, bagged two sitters iirc, with horrible defending, is what cost us big time. Too many away games like that that season. Bring some good defenders in and wed have been a different team. I was hoping at the time wed move for someone like Southgate, who imo we could have landed at the time had we put a good bid in, or one of the many highly rated defenders from Euro 96, like Thuram who looked really good (and others who have turned out shiite but also looked good, cant really remember them now). Instead, we got noone for the defence. Why? Because we spent all our money on one forward for a world record fee. The defence was shiite for a side looking to win the title. Any team in the Premiership could score against us, and easily so, completely different to the likes of ManU. It was a lower mid table defence, the reason why the stats would probably show that defence to be in the near the top is because the rest of the team was very good, and at times sublime - St James' was a fortress, many a team spent most of the game pegged back in their own half Obviously there are always other factors into why we failed to move forward since 95/96, no doubt the new board put a chokehold on the finances, which was probably why Keegan walked - but thats not what is being discussed - its whether or not we were right to spend 15mill on one forward, when the squad could have done with several players and the defence particularly needed a top class recruit. For example, the notion that Asprilla caused the side to be unbalanced - imo it was Gillespie's injury that did that, not Tino's arrival. Like the defence, Gillespie's injury and the resulting lack of cover cost us the title, although imo not as much of a factor as the defence. We went from a fluid, two flanked team, to one with an out of position player doing nowt on the right, and Ginola being the only true winger getting marked out of the game - which is why in the second half of that season, the likes of Ginola and Ferdinand were shiite in comparison to the first half. We needed another winger, I remember it took ages for Gillespie to get fit, and when he returned he was poor, a shadow of what he was previously - like us needing a defensive recruit, did we buy a replacement right winger? No, we bought another striker with all the money we had, and as you suggest, probably more than we had. Thats the thing, we wont ever know. It could be either way, but it pisses me off that people say with such certainty "wed have gone down". Of course wed have gone down if we hadnt had Shearer AND noone to replace him, but then thats a silly notion to think that without Shearer wed have just sat around doing nothing. Shephard has never been that thick to think wed do well without a decent goalscorer. If we hadnt bought Shearer in the first place, or had sold him at some point during the time we were shiite, wed have replaced him like weve replaced him today. Maybe we got lucky with Martins, but the point is that there are plenty of good forwards out there, ones that we either dont know about or dont watch regularly because theyre not in this country and rarely on telly, and its just not on to say theres absolutely noone. Who knows. Maybe we wouldve been the ones who signed the promising Vieri from Juve (following summer after 96), and not Athletico, and wed have been laughing it up when hed have been banging it in for fun, or maybe wed have gone for someone like Yorke, or Heskey, or someone shit. Who knows. Shearer deserves praise for what he did, but again, its not about what he did. Its about what Newcastle United did at a point when they had enough money to spend to break the world transfer record and a team that was lost the title because of inadequacies in the defence and an injury that upset the balance of the team in midfield. IMO, they spent the money wrongly, and the fact that Shearer had to keep us in this league just 2-3 seasons after we lost the title suggests that it was the wrong thing to do. Top class response, that, more like the usual you. I'll happily take all that on board as my recollection of the 95/96 season is shabby at best, which is why I asked those questions that I did. I can't really argue much of it back with you, which is a great shame, but surely there's someone else who can take up the debate without being a complete arsehole over it. It's a shame that there are posts like that on this board and all people can do to reply is take the piss and make daft comments. Granted, not everyone has the time/knowledge to debate like demons, but there are plenty on here who do. To anyone else who wishes to join in, or just back to Monkey... do you think it was the defensive players themselves that were poor, or was it the style of play that put too much pressure on them? From what I remember of that season, Albert somtimes went on darts forward and our fullbacks were hardly defensive-minded. Was it the personnel or was it the style of play that was our undoing? The right-winger (Gillespie) argument is one I've never heard before and I'd love to hear some other opinions about it from some more that are older than me. The 95/96 is fascinating to me looking back, I was only 9 at the time like, so can hardly speak with authority on that particular year (regarding the defence.) My main defence of signing Big Al is for what he did in those subsequent years here.

Howay man HTL, any signings made towards the end of the window are quite blatantly panic-buys/fifth-choices/worse than shite... how the fook can you not know that? I mean, look at Martins, he obviously wasn't first choice... oh, right. Roeder/Shepherd cannot win when it comes to signings, or anything really. I personally think it's mainly because of the public front that they put on things - i.e. sometimes talking pure shite. Surely that could be perceived as being sensible, though? Probably better to deny interest than to tell the footballing world who your exact targets are, etc. Not saying that it's always what they do, but Shepherd hasn't got to be in the biggest job in the city by being as thick as people make out. Aye, he'd probably not win Mastermind, but his business savvy often gets blurred out because of his public image. I don't care much for him at all, I'm certainly not proud to associate him with NUFC or even happy that he's the public face of our club with how he goes on sometimes, but the bloke does do some things right, sometimes.

sorry mate, he's comming to us tomorrow. Hopefully Bale will join him but unlikely :'( For £3m? yeah i read the papers too 2.5m and future add ons. He's not in the Derby squad because hes travelling to London to have he's medical. Oh and Bale hasent officially rejected us yet but he's probably going to. Typical Spurs signings these days, must be nice

Yes, he basically made a public "come get me" plea to Keegan in an interview with the BBC iirc. Stoichkov was a top, top player who had passed his peak but was still a very good player, had more all round ability than Shearer but was of course a different type of forward with Shearer being alot more predatory and entering the peak of his career. He (Stoichkov) had had a good Euro 96, iirc all Bulgaria's games were at Newcastle and he absolutely loved the city, which is mainly why he was desperate to sign for us. Of course its not possible to say for certain what would have happened had we got someone like Stoichkov, or anyone else. I personally think hed have been as big a success as Zola, similar calibre forwards, because he had the ability to punish Premiership defences and with our midfield and the likes of Ferdinand, Beardo, Tino etc around him, hed have been a quality addition in my eyes, especially considering how open the Premiership was back then. Thats not the point though, whether Stoichkov wouldve been a success or not is iirelevant, the point was that we had money to spend on a side that only needed a strong defence to win trophies and establish itself as a top side, and if we needed cover for Ferdinand we could have gotten top class forwards for decent amounts and spent the bulk of that money on defenders and/or keepers. I also think that if we did indeed sign Shearer to prevent ManU getting him, it was just a pathetic show of throwing the towel in. No matter what side the competitor builds, success will always come if you have a good team with solidity and ability in every department. Real Madrid were meant to be unstoppable when they signed Zidane on top of Figo, and then Ronaldo. Of course a team like that will remain in and around the trophies, but good enough teams will regularly challenge them, and depending on how the season goes, will sometimes win or sometimes lose out. Again, pathetic to just throw the towel in and gamble in such a big way just to prevent a top player who we didnt truly need go to our rivals. All im arguing is that we should have spent the money in a way that befitted the team we had so that we could win trophies. Im not trying to deny that it was great for a local lad to come home, for him to lead the club to some good seasons, and to score heavily for us during his time here. What im looking at is what the right thing to do at that point in time was with regards to the club I support winning trophies and nailing its position down for many years to come as one of the realistic title challengers - and imo, it was just a bad decision to gamble all our money on one forward. I think ive made my points clearly, so will jump out of this "debate" because theres nowt else to say that hasnt already been said. Monkey, I think you're genuinely a top-class poster but that last line is pure bollocks. Smacks of nowt but ego to me and it basically alludes to you being 100% correct with this and everyone who disagrees with you being way-off. As for the "debate", I'd venture to say that there have been good points raised on both sides, but much like everything else that sparks interest on here the main protagonists are never going to agree. Anyone could simply sign-off by saying "agree to disagree", but wording it the way you did isn't the way to go about things. You've made points based on not much more than personal opinion with a lot of guesswork/prediction interwoven, just like everyone else has in here. I came at you without calling you a Mackem (laughable that people have), or ridiculing you, and offered an alternative to your story of "what might have been", now you're bowing out of the "debate". Bad form. At the time Shearer was arguably the best striker in world football and we brought him home. Do you genuinely think Keegan and that squad would have ever fully recovered from losing the title in 95/96? If you're not debating anymore, could someone else answer this for me? Was our downfall buying Shearer instead of strengthening the defence or the other factors surrounding the club at the time? Things like the losing of the title, Ginola wanting away, Asprilla "upsetting" the balance or the PLC business? Was the defence even THAT bad in the first place? Alternatively, what might have happened to NUFC had Keegan still left and Shearer hadn't have been around to bang the goals in for 9 years afterwards? Granted, things could have been brilliant, but things could also have been a hell of a lot worse than they are now, after Shearer. Anyway, I think you make some excellent arguments, as do some others - the usual suspects.

Think we've been telling him porkies? Or honest mistake? "My ambition is as big as my frame, how long since you last won something?" "Erm, well, its been a while, you could say to.." "Two years? Good enough for me. where do i sign?" Think it was more a turn of phrase than anything else. You dafties. Reeeeeeeally? Of course. Imbecile

We could really do with Wigan taking at least a point from Reading tonight league-wise. Let's hope that Sheff Utd can hold on an' all, and that 'Boro/Portsmouth is a stalemate. Don't give a toss about West Ham/'Pool.

Has Bale rejected Spurs officially yet? Or were SSN talking shite before?

I can't believe some of the shit I've read here on Shearer. The only thing that has been 100% right is that he was the one true world class player we had, and the idiocy of surrounding him with crap like Howey for example, beggared belief. Averaging more than 20 a season, frequently carrying the team in some ludicrous one man shows - even after the injury that slowed him down a yard - yet the number of "What have you done for me lately" dickheads have me shaking my head with disgust. There was also the fair point he should have gone a season earlier, at the very top. Like Bobby R should have. Yes. Bobby should have gone the previous season all right. Preferably upstairs in an advisory role. Somechance with these bloody directors. Completely agree with this, amazingly. I dread to think how good Man Utd would have been if they had been allowed to buy Shearer... that's the key to this argument from my perspective. We wouldn't have fucking touched them with a twenty-foot barge pole if they had Cantona/Shearer up front with Scholes, Giggs, Keane and Beckham behind them... not to mention Andy Cole, Nicky Butt, Gary Neville, Peter Schmeichel, etc. No matter how we diced that £15m (it's questionable whether we would have had that much cash to spend if it wasn't to be spent on Shearer as well) we would have been blown away. Maybe we would have still come 2nd every season, we might have even knicked a domestic trophy, but I'm not sure I would trade that for what Shearer brought to this club. He gave everyone some sort of hope, he was a symbol of Geordie pride and was a pleasure to watch. Is it 100% fact that Stoichkov wanted to join? What if he got a career-ending injury on his debut, what then? It's all conjecture. He could have simply not been as good as you predict he would have. Granted we didn't even win a fucking raffle with Shearer, but we also didn't get relegated or go bust, and we had some fairly amazing days/nights with the great man wearing the number 9. I know these days it's all about success on the pitch, maybe that's what it should be all about, but I think there's still something to be said for seeing a Geordie wearing that shirt and playing like a demon for the majority of 10 seasons.