Theregulars

Openly defending a racist to the hilt, to the extent that you wear t-shirts in public in support of him, despite his being found guilty is taking a liberty. This is a piece of business opportunism made to look cheeky by your display of business ineptitude.

I'm from London and live here but born and lived in Newcastle too. London is amazing, but nowhere near as good as people make out. I've been to at least 5 cities which are better outside the UK. Newcastle is smaller and has a bit less to do, but just has this charm, buzz and civic pride that London doesn't. I'd live up there if it made any sense from a career standpoint.

Jesus. Thought you were a batter poster than that pile of s****. Oh get over yourself. You've been responding with sarcastic one liners the whole time too. 'Would hate to have a goal threat in my side like' 'He's actually scored nearly 200 career goals. Means he's good.' Point a: both sarcastic and completely ignorant of the point trying to be made Point b: A simplistic argument that again ignores the entire point of the argument. If my daft and not-completely-serious post offended you, then you should reassess the above comments. Defoe is an extremely limited player who will score goals. It doesn't make him a great player or one anybody has to rate because of it. I think he's 's***' because he is extremely selfish, breaks down numerous attacks through his selfishness and poor decision making/intelligence, is extremely difficult to competently fit into a functioning side both as a lone striker and when paired with somebody who doesn't suit his game. I generally just think he's crap and that no side who ever wants to achieve anything would ever bother to play him. His 'smack the ball with the same technique every time he gets it' routine would be a useful attribute for a s*** or at least mid-table side, admittedly. Maybe at a stretch a wildcard option from the bench for a bigger side. This is my opinion and I won't change it. No matter how many goals Defoe scores this season and hilarious comments occur when he does. Because as long as he is playing every week for Spurs then they have absolutely zero chance of getting into the Champions League. His overall game and ability level will see to that. Great post, 100% agree.

Deserved winners on basis of second half.

Atkinson, man. What a child.

Livermore is Hughton's lovechild

NUFC injury curse alive and well then

Thought Colo trained? Epic blow.

You sound like them Two things: He had service (which he wont get) and we fell apart that game, even Alan Smith upfront would have put one past us. Also I think Shola off the bench is a better option than him, at half the price. He still played well in that game, which was my point. He's far from useless. Saha's a better player than Shola, but considering the price comparison there's not much in it for value. My point wasn't necessarily that he's better/worse than Shola, more that we are one squad striker light for this season and there's worse players for that role - not that I'd go and buy him, but if he was presented to me as 3rd/4th choice for our squad I wouldn't weep. I don't think I sound like them, I despise them just as much as the next person on here, but just as they are prone to silly hyperbole when rubbishing our signings, we can be too. As a football fan, Saha isn't a poor player. He has a poor injury record and will likely be overpriced in terms of wages, but he's not the joke signing that a lot of people on here want him to be just to have another stick to bash the Mackems with. We've already got a lot anyway. I'm not saying they've got one over us, nor does the signing make them any better than mid-table wasters, but call a spade a spade - he's not a bad striker.

Glad you're not the manager

Surely they Should be aiming a bit higher than Saha though?! Yup, maybe they should, or indeed maybe they have, but given that nobody wants to play there/they don't have the draw of European football, the likelihood of swift progress or any great players beyond Sessegnon, I reiterate that it's not a horrible signing - unless it's like 3-5 years, £50,000 per week. Then it's a total albatross. If it's 1-2 years with a non-enormous pay packet, as a transition signing to keep you ticking over for a year or two it's not awful.

Same thing happened to me - went away to University and when I returned all had been donated to Charity, including all NUFC kits 1993-2003. My dad genuinely tried to argue that he thought I'd outgrown them/shouldn't have football shirts if I wanted to grow up. He's been systematically buying them back for me from classicfootballshirts.co.uk until each one is replaced because I went so apeshit.

It's not as terrible a signing as you lot are making out. It's by no means a great one, but he'll stick a few goals away for them. Obviously will be nowhere near as prolific as the great unwashed are making out, and his wages are probably ludicrous, but it's not a horrible signing. If we signed him to be a back-up striker I'd be pretty fine with that - he tore us a new one when we got hammered by Spurs last year.

This deserves far more recognition than it got.

TBF sounds like it's West Brom. I didn't know that - was just adding 2 + 2 and getting 5, seemed interesting.

You are right, but it's entirely possible the stance may have changed in light of failure to land De Jong, Liverpool's over-valuation of Carroll and the looming reality of 3 strikers with a 50+ game season, one of whom is Shola who usually has injury issues, and 2 of whom may be gone for some time at the ACON.

Ah, the same club which has never taken a loss on a player in the Abramovich era.

There's one main reason it will never happen, we will never loan a player to nurture him for another club especially a rival one. Just like we didn't offer to take Carroll on loan from Liverpool? That was different, because there was going to be a future fee we would pay at the end of the loan to take him permanently. And surely it's therefore not beyond the realm of possibility that such a situation would be replicated with Lukaku? There's one main reason it will never happen, we will never loan a player to nurture him for another club especially a rival one. Just like we didn't offer to take Carroll on loan from Liverpool? That was different, because there was going to be a future fee we would pay at the end of the loan to take him permanently. Different regime but just like... Giuseppe Rossi. Aye, but it would never happen now. It's just not an Ashley MO. I don't think you could ever say something 'is just not Ashley' unless it's spending an absolute wedge on a 30-year-old or something. Anything which is cheap, anything which represents a potential bargain, and any potential situation we can exploit - be it a release clause, be it an unhappy player etc - totally reeks of Ashley. However, to repeat, I'm totally speculating. As timeEd32 suggests, it could be West Brom. It could be any team. I don't know, it just struck me as opportunistic and thus something appealing to those who run the club.

There's one main reason it will never happen, we will never loan a player to nurture him for another club especially a rival one. Just like we didn't offer to take Carroll on loan from Liverpool?

That's actually a really decent point I hadn't considered, it would make a lot of sense (especially top players who may want to see us assured of European football).

I imagined it would be QPR or Fulham at first, but it says definitely not Fulham, not sure QPR can logically pay for anybody else. Perhaps a newly promoted club not too far away like Reading or Southampton? As I said, pure speculation, but he would certainly 'fit the bill' of our policy being young, cheap (on loan, although I suppose Chelsea would have to pick up a lot of his wages) and potential to improve (I would imagine any deal would include a clause to buy permanently if he impressed). I don't necessarily agree they wouldn't loan him to a side who finished above them, I think they want rid of him. Remember him saying he wanted out as well - although the reason was lack of first team football, which he wouldn't get in abundance here.

Did anyone else read in the Times 'Decent bets' thing that Lukaku was being loaned to another PL club? Loan = cheaper + he's young = may be us. Pure speculation on my part.

Pipe down with your positive, analytical thinking. There's needless panic to be had.

Can't argue with such elementary mathematics.

Partner in my firm (we represent LFC) thinks we will get him for 10-12m, current position is just posturing by yanks. Deal will be 'undisclosed' as a result. Not sure how much use this is but he leads a team who do a lot of work for the club at corporate level.