Rich

On the radio they said the first goal was definitely onside. It was level at worst, definitely not "offside" in the literal interpretation. The red card came after Henchoz had got away with 2 previous fouls, further justification for the straight red (as well as it being what the law says.) Martins turned him and Henchoz rugby tackled him to the ground.

Undoubtedly a first-choice player, mind. Although he is shite.

In fairness to Roeder, I'd say having 11 players out before we kicked off today would qualify as "things going badly" and we put on one hell of a performance in the first half and had enough fortitude to hold out during the second 45 minutes. We also beat a high-flying Reading with the same starting 11. Don't know how we're doing it, but we are. He's obviously no Mourinho, but things have undoubtedly got better over the past weeks.

14 injuries must be a new PL record?

Harper Carr Bramble Moore Bernard Solano Parker Emre Duff Owen Dyer Subs Krul Sibierski Ameobi Unbelievable. Still won 3-1 like.

Mate, come off it. I was a bit confused by Hunty coming on for a striker instead of Luque... but am I wrong in thinking that AFTER that change was made we won 3-1 after being 2-1 up previously!? Huntington also got in an absolutely vital header on the Blackburn corner directly before the one we broke from and was fairly solid every other time he touched the ball as well. Totally unjust criticism and that fitting with someone who's merely following an agenda and/or has half a brain.

Eh? They were fucking atrocious today. I'm all for competitive spirit, but some of the challenges in the first half were outrageous. (Savage on Emre, Neill on N'Zogbia in particular standout, Martins took a couple of batterings as well.) Second half doesn't even need to be explained, they're a team full of thugs managed by a thug. We know that it's their game, but all I'm saying mate is when they do it against the likes of Arsenal people are saying get in their Blackburn etc but as soon as it's against us it's a complete different ball game. Personally I'm not sure if I ever remember supporting Blackburn when they've been that dirty. I love the way they hunt the ball in packs and battle for everything, but today they stepped over that line on a lot of different occasions. There is a difference between being fiercely competitive and downright dirty and today they swung into the second part on a fairly regular basis against little/no provocation from us. I think they were somewhat forced into playing like that due to the fact we raped them from the first whistle and they went down to ten-men, but it still doesn't fully justify it. Beat the filthy cunts anyway, so no worries from me. Hopefully they'll go down.

Eh? They were fucking atrocious today. I'm all for competitive spirit, but some of the challenges in the first half were outrageous. (Savage on Emre, Neill on N'Zogbia in particular standout, Martins took a couple of batterings as well.) Second half doesn't even need to be explained, they're a team full of thugs managed by a thug.

Emre looks like his ankle is absolutely fucked, looked horrible on the replay. Solano's groin went off the ball, Sibierski did his hamstring. All could be looking at fairly lengthy lay-offs from what it looked like on the TV.

HAVE SOME OF THAT YOU DIRTY FUCKING BASTARDS!!! Worst second half ever, was shitting my pants at the end. 3 more injuries to absolutely KEY players. Fantastic goal from Martins at the end to follow-up on a corker in the first half. Blackburn are the most dirty, foul team I've ever seen. Dermot Gallagher is an incompetent, baldy cuntstain of a referee. How the fuck did we end up with more bookings than them? Savage/Neill were allowed to get away with murder from the first whistle until the last and Pedersen did Emre, no doubt about it, unintentional my arse.

In regards to my post, again... even if we are taken over and Shepherd leaves, from the speculation over Belgravia (which is nothing more than that, of course) - it doesn't seem like a company who would come in and pump money into the club to the level of what some others do/might do. If a takeover did occur, NE5, could you accept that it might be necessary in order for us to keep doing as well as we have been under Shepherd (average league positions, stadium expansion, etc.)? Would you support something like that? (Just trying to work out where the battle lines are on this issue.) I wonder if there's a way Shepherd could "find" some investors, in order to hold his position AND be able to compete on a financial level with our supposed rivals. Could be the safest bet of all, but I still can't help but sway towards the club getting a total overhaul in order to really push onto the next level. I'm still not entirely convinced Shepherd has the capacity to ever see us into the "promised land", but it's obviously impossible to judge - especially based against an alternative that is completely unknown. Do you agree with me that we should be aiming to be the biggest club in the country, also? Or is that an impossible expectation/unreasonable request?

One thing I should also mention re: Shepherd is that can anyone honestly see the big man as having enough financial clout to compete with Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and now (potentially) Liverpool? West Ham, Aston Villa and Portsmouth might also find themselves on this list with their respective new owners. How on Earth are we going to match these clubs in a financial sense as long as Shepherd is in charge? I know right now the "big" clubs aren't our direct rivals, but we should surely still be aiming to get to that level. Or is Freddy relying on a fanciful UEFA, League or FA Cup win so that he can leave with his head held high? That's what I was use as a basis to support a takeover and it's something I have never really considered until this afternoon. Whether you think Shepherd is a good or bad chairman, is it even relevant? Surely in today's climate we need to start looking at things from a more financial perspective, in regards to where we might find ourselves in five or ten years. Everyone around us seems to be getting richer while we seem to be getting poorer, how long until these financial matters translate themselves onto the pitch/league standings? (i.e. How much longer can we expect to stay ahead of clubs with rich owners who will invest grand sums of money into them? Your Portsmouths, your West Hams, your Aston Villas?) I understand that money does not necessarily translate to success, but I can't help but feel that we're being somewhat left behind in the current climate and that unless some swift action is taken we could find ourselves a hell of a long way off competing with the "big" teams in a situation that could see us waiting for a trophy for perhaps another decade or more - we might even end up getting relegated. Surely a takeover ASAP, while we still have a good reputation and massive potential in relation to other, less-attractive clubs, is a better bet than waiting to fall behind the rest of the league while we cling onto our Geordie roots/chairman? How long will we keep being able to outbid clubs for players like Michael Owen if everyone else keeps getting bought-out and becoming instantly rich? Food for thought?

Fair points and it isn't a waste of time at all, unlike responding to people with agendas etc It is true that Owen had had a fair few niggling injuries. Be honest though, and when we signed him, most of us were delighted, whether you considered him as a replacement for Bellamy [expensive] or Shearer [as near as dammit to anyone anywhere]. I don't think he had had any injuries like the ones he has had since he joined us, he has not been out for a season anyway. Shearer also had a career threatening injury at Blackburn, then he proceeded to have 2 more after he joined us ? Would you consider him to be a risk ? The only reservation we should have about Owen is his committment to Newcastle, not his ability that is without question. I suspect though that if he comes back the same as he was and we can put a good team around him he will come to be a real Newcastle player and respond to the adulation he would get if he performs. I'm not so sure it was a case of all the eggs in one basket when we bought him, how can it be when we were in europe and expecting to stay near and with the other top teams ? In THAT position, players like Owen are what you want. My own personal take on him is that he was signed as the long term replacement for Shearer, and the club need a Bellamy type lower profile player to play alongside him, obviously for less money as we can't afford 2 such priced forwards. I think Bellamy and Owen together would have been brilliant, on a par with Cole and Beardsley ie two fast players keeping the ball down as opposed to 2 more physical players ie Shearer and Ferdinand. Bellamy would have been the perfect partner for Owen. Anyway mate, he's been very badly injured and now we just have to hope he comes back the same and gives us something back. In the short term though, the club needs a player in January to step straight into the team, and that player needs to be a player who can lead the line and play outside the box, along with scoring a few goals, because looking ahead to when Owen returns, this is the type of player he needs to be paired up with. Not much to ask is it :winking: Can't disagree with much of that, and especially agree with the final paragraph. I feel dirty :wink:

Andy I know you aren't a dimwit like Mick, Boo boo and the rest of the wankers. Owen is quality player. To have a chance of winning anything a club needs to sign quality player AND have a qualilty manager. Chelsea flattered to deceive for years until Abramovich finally pumped in the millions. They also needed the right manager. Macbeth will talk about finances above all else, he'll use a debt to further his agenda and he'll want to highlight that as much as he can, so if the club is in debt for £17m and we signed Owen for £17m he'll use that because it looks good. The fact is, Owen is quality. We needed a replacement for Shearer and we signed a player who can fill his boots. That's a great signing imo. The £17m that WAS wasted was without any shadow of doubt on Boumsong and Luque, what was also wasted was the money on Parker and Emre, players we didn't need. What would have been the reaction had it been mooted we were after these players but the Board blocked it on the basis they considered ( as I do ) that we didn't need them? Wouldn't have been good, would it? Selecting players to be signed is the remit of the manager and the manager alone. Souness selected these players for the club and the Board backed him, which is all fans can ask from a Board. Had those players and other Souness signings done the business not many would be slagging the club off. Think about it and don't blindly follow the idiots is all I ask. The bottom line is that problem is and was the waste of millions by Souness, an appointment made by the Board and an appointment that is a massive error. That is all there is to it. It's not about consistent mismanagement by the Board and/or about the Board being shite. It's about one crap appointment. I'm certainly not following anyone, and I hope it doesn't come across that way, I'm just trying to find some middle ground between the two camps that seem to develop over every important issue on here. In all honesty a lot of the time I find myself finding things on both sides of the divide that I can agree with and honestly that's the only way I'm ever going to get a true picture of things. I can't accept that you and NE5 are right 100% of the time in everything you say, much like I can't for Mick or Macbeth. For example, you've just claimed that the board's only real error came with the appointment of Souness and the subsequent millions thrown his way (a pretty monumental fuck-up, by all accounts), but I have to point to previous errors of the regime that have boiled my piss in equal measure. (Robson's sacking, the Gary Speed issue, the "Bowyer Summer" and the NOTW scandal - to name some.) Everyone makes mistakes, mind. However, by the same token I appreciate the finer points of what Shepherd has done for us as well... like you said, Robson proved to be a quality appointment and took us on one fantastic Champions' League campaign and one great UEFA Cup run, all under the stewardship of Shepherd and we've retained our Premiership status under his rule while spending large sums of money on players and improving the ground/training facilities immeasurably and we've had some fantastic games that I'll never forget. Freddy as a chairmen surely isn't as bad as he's made out to be. NUFC as a club has the makings of something pretty special and admittedly a lot of that is down to Fat Freddy, I do get extremely annoyed with him sometimes, but I also get that way with the players and the manager - it's part and parcel of his job, he takes the flak and I get over it when the good times come along again. Right now I'm in two minds over the takeover business because a part of me can't help but feel that we're not achieving our potential and we've done everything else BUT change the board, if you know what I mean? I would support a complete board/staff overhaul if I knew things would be run the way I think they should be... but, of course, I could never know that. There are so many things that go on at the club that embarrass me and I can't help but point the finger to the big chief because of them, because the buck ultimately stops with him. Maybe it's better the devil you know, though. Belgravia could come in and absolutely rape us, ripping the soul of the club out in the process. At least Shepherd is a Geordie and he probably does give a toss about how we do, he has some personal investment in us because he's from here. He has already taken us to some heights... so who's to say that he can't take us the whole way to a trophy if given some more time? But I can't help but feel that takeovers are the current "trend" and due to what has happened at Chelsea, Spurs, Portsmouth, Villa, Man Utd and West Ham (all have seemingly improved since being bought, to varying degrees) then we think that if it happens to us we'll go the same way. That's why so many people are eager for him to go because of the difference takeovers have made elsewhere. Basically, I don't blame Freddy for everything, but I do tend to think that NUFC, for our size/potential, leave a lot to be desired and that he is at the root of a fair few of our problems, but again he's also there to take credit for the good things as well. Urgh, I suppose I'm trying to say I'm not entirely sure either way!

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, and not wanting to waste your time, but can't inconsistency be compared to someone who has a questionable injury record? Who is to say that Anelka wouldn't have came here, played every game and banged in 30 goals last term? I know it's a bit outlandish, but you surely can't criticise me for highlighting/complaining about Owen's injuries when you're using a similar basis of evidence to analyse Anelka's previous form. I understand that these things in football are absolutely impossible to predict at the best of times, even for you and me, but surely there was some inkling we all had about what might happen to Owen after we spent that amount on him? (His previous injury record was fairly appalling as well, was it not?) My point is simply that it's a sure-fire case of "eggs in one basket" at a time when we desperately needed other things on top of a striker. Michael Owen as a footballer and nothing else - just going purely on football ability - is a fantastic asset to any football club, you're perfectly correct here, and is well-worth £17m because he is quite possibly the best in his particular field, he is the complete poacher and has a proven record for goals (as you rightly state.) I'm glad we signed him and I'm glad we got 11 games out of him, but surely I'm allowed to question the quality of his signing because he's been crocked for so long and may not be the same player when he returns? I'm not saying we were 100% wrong to sign him, definitely not, just that it was one hell of a gamble to take with such a huge chunk of money when we could have maybe signed 2 high quality strikers for the same fee. (Granted, they could have both been crocked as well, but there would have obviously been less chance of that.) I do also agree that we paid for goals, and he's upheld his end of the bargain when he's been fit. The "trophy" part of my other post comes from the circumstances more than anything, although I think we may have our definitions of what it means confused. (Personally I'm coming from the angle that a major part of Owen being bought for the money was Shepherd trying to appease the ignorant masses with an England international, rather than improve the team with less "fashionable" signings - I also think he was guilty of this with Luque.) I think that £17m could have been better spent on the first team than to blow it on one player, as good as he is. Surely two/three good players are equal to one great player? (Especially when he's been injured so much.) You might disagree with me here, and fair enough if you do, but I really feel we as a club need to start signing more "unfashionable" players for good money (not bad players, mind), instead of going for the headliner every time (Shearer, Rooney, Owen - mind, I wouldn't have said "no" to Rooney either as I understand where you're coming from in relation to needing star players.) Obviously there needs to be a balance, though, and we probably couldn't get by with 11 unfashionable players. Honestly though, I think I used "trophy signing" in the wrong context, I just feel the cash might have been more sensibly spent. (As with the Luque/Boumsong money!) The Owen signing came at a time when Shepherd was faced with replacing Bellamy, moreso than Shearer, and I suppose this is where it gets bloody complicated. Personally, I'd still rather that Bellamy was here than Owen (as I'm sure I've seen you say as well) - but because of Souness AND Shepherd, Bellamy was forced out of the club and we needed to buy a replacement... and so we ended up with Owen for something like £12m more than we got for the Welshman, this is where my objection comes from more than anywhere. To summarise, because that looks like waffle to me: I agree that Owen is top-quality, but I don't feel he was an essential buy at a time when there was so much else wrong with the squad, his injury problems have only helped to accentuate these feelings mind - I doubt I'd be complaining much if he'd kept fit and scored at the ratio he did in those 11 games!

NE5: Of course I didn't know he would be injured at the time (I never claimed to and made allowances for that in my original post here), but there were fairly good odds on it happening and so it has proved... I didn't realise it was August 2005 again though, we're here with the benefit of hindsight and you've called Owen a "quality" signing despite the fact he's only played 11 games for us so far. Not the most clever thing I've ever read. As for the "daft cliches", didn't see any myself. And as for buying "mediocre" players (is Anelka mediocre?) or "top quality players" (which is fine, apparently, even if they never play) I think you're clutching at straws. You've found another blanket statement to hide behind and I suppose you'll trot it out a hundred times again before people get bored of trying to debate with you. Basically, whatever someone says about our signings we're going to hear the same "mediocre" line from you. Just like we do with Shepherd. To answer your question, though, so you can't hide behind that old line as well ("when you respond to _____") I'd prefer the top quality players if we can afford them and if they want to come here and if they're what we need squad-wise or team-wise at the point in which they arrive. It's not a black and white question you're asking because there are so many factors to consider when we buy someone. As Freddy himself might say, it's pointless buying 11 Rolls Royce cars if they're going to spend most of their time in the garage, occasionally working brilliantly for a day or two - maybe then it makes more sense to buy 11 VW's that work adequately most of the time and do a better job over a longer period. Apologies for the analogy, but you can surely see the sense in it?

There must be some sort of unwritten rule, people have been banging on about it for years now!

Birmingham eh? Bit of a dodgy one, but can't complain too much. Mystic meg says tight win.

Keegan was a trophy signing. Big player, past his best, designed to make the fans think you are a big club, when you are in the 2nd division and have no intention of living up to your potential. However, a premiership club playing in europe don't make trophy signings, they make quality signings designed to go higher and win the trophies. These are players that the clubs above you want, because its the only way you will catch them and beat them. Understand ? Was Owen a trophy signing? A quality signing. Were Gazza, Waddle and Beardsley trophy signings by Spurs and Liverpool ? As you are against signing big money players, you should be happy we bought Carr instead of Miguel. So I hope in future you will praise the board for not making big money "trophy" signings, as you call them. Why don't you answer questions ie the league positions that have been posted, and stick to the points discussed At an absolutely critical time in our history (Shearer retiring and a replacement being needed) how can you possibly justify £17m for 11 games and 7 goals in the period of almost 17 months a "quality" signing? In theory perhaps, but not so in practice. To me it qualifies as a "trophy signing" because he was bought for his name value, whether he'd ever be fit seemed to be a complete afterthought (and he certainly had a dodgy record when it comes to injury.) Before you start with "Owen kept us up last season", which he certainly did help to do when he was fit, I can't help but feel that the chances of avoiding relegation, or finishing 7th, would have been equal (if not greater) with a player like Anelka coming in to play the vast majority of games - with the other £9m or so being used to strengthen other desperate areas of the squad. Like everything it's open to debate, and I agree with some of your points, I can't agree with this particular comment though.

Porto for Seitaridis, and the situation with us was a complete farce IIRC.

Spurs and Everton mainly.

£7m?! Who are they kidding? I'd be f*ckin livid, we sold that bag of sh*te Jenas for more and if the spuds can get £18m for Carrick I'd want considerably more than £7m for Zoggy! :wullie: 7m will be a good deal if that contract - ie. the one currently on the table - does remain unsigned. I'd say cash-in now, if we do face the prospect of losing him on a Bosman next Summer. I have to say i'm disappointed with Roeder's handling of N'Zogbia this season, purely because i felt that Roeder has underutilised Duff's versatility by not taking advantage of the said player's ability to slot in at either RW or upfront. Martins and Duff, as a forward pairing, would've provided a dual-counterattacking threat making us more effective as a hit&run team away from home, and more capable of building on a 1 goal lead at home. Zoggy's progress, his development, has stagnated as a result. I'd say he's gone backwards rather than just stagnated and while the media has blamed external reasons for it, perhaps it's because Roeder is moulding N'Zogbia in the wrong way? He certainly doesn't have the same self-belief as he did last season and his end product has been shocking - while last term he scored a few goals, got a good number of direct assists and generally was involved in a hell of a lot of our best moments via his direct running/good crossing. I can't help but feel he's suffering because he's not really being allowed to play "his way" anymore and might be being made to be more of a team player - God forbid anyone has flair players anymore, it seems people believe that to be successful everyone must be geared towards teamwork rather than just going out to "play", but right now I reckon we'd benefit more from last season's more unpredictable/exciting N'Zogbia. Is it really such an issue if he loses the ball a few times in the opponent's third if his unrelenting running earns us a goal or two? N'Zogbia is quite probably the player with the most flair in the squad and the most ability to change a game in a moment, much like Robert was when Souness was here (and we all know what happened there), I just hope the outcome isn't the same and that Charlie's problems are simply "second season blues" or short-term because of Boumsong/Duff/Faye.

Bramble's right-footed naturally but he's got a fairly good left peg as well, Ramage is definitely a righty too but has been doing extensive work with his left to the point where improvement can be seen (still just his glorified swinger). As for whoever asked about Given just "doing it", he's regularly used his left foot for a long time now from open play, I'm sure I remember him saying once he was practicing being two-footed in order to deal with back-passes better. I got the impression Shay was giving it a whirl tonight because it wasn't such an important game - to practice it in a real match - but he might have thought it a better bet than his right after his God-awful kicking against Portsmouth.

The "Jocks" who are involved in Europe are Celtic in the Champions League and Rangers in the Uefa who both like us have qualified and are top of their respective groups, not bad for "mickey mouse" clubs Even Scotland are top of their European group in the European Championships, Scottish football isn't as big a shambles at the moment as many on here would have you believe. Back into your hole, you skirt-wearing sissy :wink:

And another important factor people seem to miss is that we'd probably pay him a hell of a lot more as well. Still can't see it happening, could Huntelaar even partner Martins/Owen anyway? And if Owen is to ever get fit, how the bollocks can a club our size attempt to keep three £10M+ (similar-style) strikers happy?