Mowen

e.g.?

Am with you and Dave here. Count me in to, we just cannot compete with the oil money. Short term it would be great to have that investment. Long term is another problem. Just look at where it has gotten Chelsea probably the best team in europe and clear favourites to win the permiership? With the best strike partnership in the league? And the most handsome central midfielder

Right on the button - this side are not in the same class as KK's 92/93 promotion team ; even the midfield, supposedly the best part of the side, is mediocre and one paced. Promotion is still a long way off in my view and the Play-offs would be a success bearing in mind the problems surrounding the club. Defence is the best part of the team by an absolute mile. Coloccini ; Taylor ? The former is not as good as even Steve Howey was as a CB and Taylor is about on a par with Kevin Scott..... The 2 fullbacks are OK, but I wouldn't swap Venison or Beresford for the current pair. I'm not comparing it to that team, it's just the strongest part of the team, currently, by an absolute mile. We aren't anywhere near as good as we were in 92/93 (although my memories, due to age, of that season are minimal and I'm mainly basing it on what I saw the following year).

Also mentioned as a slight concern in an overall satisfying outcome. Rather than being jumped on as the main point of focus and the most important thing to come out of this.

Really? The moaning after Souness got the job was far worse, and he lasted a long time, considering. Eh? The moaning about Souness was the reason to blame for SBR's sacking? What? More like: if moaning by the fans took so long to get Souness sacked then why did comparatively mild moaning get SBR sacked so much more quickly? In other words, were the fans really to blame or was it a convenient excuse?

Slight difference with Chez and bob (if that's what you're referring to) is that bob ignored literally every other aspect that was covered cos he hates Keegan innit.

Right on the button - this side are not in the same class as KK's 92/93 promotion team ; even the midfield, supposedly the best part of the side, is mediocre and one paced. Promotion is still a long way off in my view and the Play-offs would be a success bearing in mind the problems surrounding the club. Defence is the best part of the team by an absolute mile.

Mort must have written the KK contract. True. He was also there when Wise, Jiminez, Vetere etc. were brought in and must have known how they were planned to be used. However if he was able to keep KK content better than LLamb we would have been in a better situation and the whole thing might not have been quite such a disaster. Yet another unknowable though by the looks of it.

Nope they were sent to Africa along with the scarves, and the flowers and wreathes were composted. Excellent idea Yep, absolutely spot on.

Hard to say. Certainly looks more shady now then he has in the past. On the other hand, things didn't start going tits up until after he left, maybe he was a better buffer between KK and MA than Lambicunt was.

The cunt's still on £1m a year if you believe certain reports.

I basically agree with you Dave. So long as Moat surrounds himself with people who understand football and have his full trust, uses common sense and is reasonably ambitious with the club I'll be fairly happy. If we improve (which I wouldn't have thought would be too hard from where we are now) our budget will grow considerably. The only real alternative is the sillyness of mental billionaires and, much as I'd enjoy that, I'm not sure it's really what I want.

Has Brown even played for Man Utd this season? Why the hell has Heskey been picked over Bent and Defoe? Johnson is quality going forward but isn't that great at defending which unfortunately he is employed to do I honestly lose my rag when people say Heskey shouldn't be in the England squad. Have you watched a single fucking game under Capello? Heskey is key to the way we line up, allowing us to get the most out of Gerrard and Lampard (more freedom to get forward without having to be dovetailed due to the knowledge we can hold the ball up front) and especially Rooney, our best player. No, he won't score that many goals, but in case you hadn't noticed we're the top scoring team in European qualifying with Rooney being the top individual goalscorer, because of the system we're playing. This is what makes Capello stand out. We've had a decent to very good collection of players for some time now - he's turned them into what looks to be a very good team. He hasn't done this just by picking the most prolific scorers and shoehorning them into a team regardless of whether it works. I don't know why I've bothered with this really, if you can't understand why Heskey is important to this team you're pretty much a lost cause anyway. My only concern with it is that if he's not starting for Villa he might not be properly match fit.

Can't fucking wait for this away day. Haven't been impressed at all by Forest when I've seen them in the last 4 years or so, haven't seen them this season though.

It's pretty shit for a lot of our fans too tbf. Ridiculous how much we're being shown.

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong. The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward. It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with. anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue. Class post.

Was this ever in doubt? i couldn't believe people were doubting the man and taking Ashley's side in this case. There was a third side, the club itself, which some people felt more important than either Keegan or Ashley. It's hard to understand I know, everything has to be black and white for some. This. Future of the Club >>>> Who was right or wrong in the Keegan/Ashley stuff Unless you're Keegan, that is: in which case you've been accused from all sides of being a spineless dummy-chucker who eats babies for supper. I think I'm missing your point, what does the fact that KK's been attacked a lot over the last few months have to do with the fact that the club should be before any legal squabbles? From a fan's perspective, aye, but people who claim KK shouldn't have gone through with the case for the club's benefit are living on the fucking moon. Well then I'll have to disagree. Think he should have put the club first, especially in the state we're in. Either way it's over now, would be nice if we can all just put this all behind us and concentrate on getting promoted. Shearer loves the club, should he have worked for free to stop the club going down? Should Taylor be working for free to take us back up? It'd be nice, but it's a mental idea to think it could happen. OK was fucked over, the fact the club were in a bad state doesn't lessen his entitlement.

Jonas's key attribute is taking pressure off the defence by being able to hold on to and carry the ball without losing it for significantly longer than any of our other midfielders. Relieving pressure on the defence this way means they're less open to scrutiny and more likely to perform well, and this justifys his place in the team. His contribution in the final third is negligable.

I am sure UV will reply properly but didnt he say "net" spend. Yet you didnt take the outgoings into account You are correct. I wonder, then, why UV bothered to put in the outgoing figure? Or omitted the money for Shearer. Presumably because the outgoing figure was what those players were sold for after KK had left, gives a decent demonstration of the fact the money was sensibly invested and not just being spunked up the wall for the sake of it with no hope of return (i.e. it was hardly spending in the Chelsea or Man City vein). The Shearer money distorts it somewhat and was spent shortly before he left, but even if you count it a total of £40m net in 5 years is hardly outrageous. No, it's hardly outrageous, though of course UV is talking about a period of only 4 years. Perhaps you or UV can provide us with a list of all the clubs who spent more in that period. Keegan was there for 5 years in total though wasn't he? The time period is clearly going to be longer if you add on the time between Batty signing and KK leaving so it would be 5 years if you're to go on and count Shearer's signing. I couldn't give a fuck what other clubs spent, nor do I have the faintest idea. Although as has been pointed out the money 'remained' in the squad and was ultimately recooped and more if you look past Keegan's tenure, I'd wager there aren't many transfer records that could stand up to that. The figures for other clubs are relevant if what you're trying to do is claim that Keegan didn't spend big or that our spending-power at the time wasn't a huge part of what we achieved in that time, which seemed to be the point UV, in his usual cack-handed fashion, was struggling to make. You can also consider how much the same players would cost in today's market. But without any of that, the figures are pretty much meaningless. Including Shearer it's something like a £40 million net spend. And this was before the days of CL cash and super-rich sugar-daddies. You've clearly mis-interpreted it like. It's not trying to say that spending wasn't a factor at all, it's putting it in perspective and the actual figures are significantly lower than you might believe if all you knew of KK was that he was a 'chequebook manager'. Also you can knock another couple of million off that net spend for the sales of Hottiger, Holland and Huckerby. I'm not getting the figures for the other clubs because I can't be fucking arsed If there was a section on .com that did it I might consider it. edit: and on a geeky / pedantry note I've just had a quick glance at .com, I would have sworn blind that we signed and sold Tino for £6.5m rather than signing him for £7.5m and selling him for £6m...do I just remember it wrongly?

We're not allowed to complain if we don't have any better options? f*** me, Shola's our best striker but you'd better believe I'll be complaining if that's still the case at the start of a Premier League season. I'll also be complaining if Shola's starting for us in the Prem next season cause i think he's quite cack actually. I won't constantly go over his shortcomings if we have no better options though for fear i'll sound like some tired old bint with nothing to do but nag. With Jonas, we know what he doesn't do and i can't see him changing. However, faced with the option of Nicky Butt or Keving Nolan playing LW, i'd go with Jonas and accept he's better the the CURRENT alternatives. Savvy? Yeah, fair enough. I think you've missed the point of an internet forum though in that it's essentially an outlet for whinging and/or argumentative cunts like me

We're not allowed to complain if we don't have any better options? Fuck me, Shola's our best striker but you'd better believe I'll be complaining if that's still the case at the start of a Premier League season.

Is what happened. Campbell was on £100k, Distin and James about £70k, Diarra wanted HUGE wages to leave Chelsea and both Crouch and Defoe were in excess of £50k. It was unsustainable. Obviously I don't have a source for these figures and they could well be embellished, but they were 'known' in the way that we roughly 'know' what the majority of our players are and were earning.

I am sure UV will reply properly but didnt he say "net" spend. Yet you didnt take the outgoings into account You are correct. I wonder, then, why UV bothered to put in the outgoing figure? Or omitted the money for Shearer. Presumably because the outgoing figure was what those players were sold for after KK had left, gives a decent demonstration of the fact the money was sensibly invested and not just being spunked up the wall for the sake of it with no hope of return (i.e. it was hardly spending in the Chelsea or Man City vein). The Shearer money distorts it somewhat and was spent shortly before he left, but even if you count it a total of £40m net in 5 years is hardly outrageous. No, it's hardly outrageous, though of course UV is talking about a period of only 4 years. Perhaps you or UV can provide us with a list of all the clubs who spent more in that period. Keegan was there for 5 years in total though wasn't he? The time period is clearly going to be longer if you add on the time between Batty signing and KK leaving so it would be 5 years if you're to go on and count Shearer's signing. I couldn't give a fuck what other clubs spent, nor do I have the faintest idea. Although as has been pointed out the money 'remained' in the squad and was ultimately recooped and more if you look past Keegan's tenure, I'd wager there aren't many transfer records that could stand up to that.

Everyones going back over the whole "wait he's a winger who doesnt cross constantly??" issue & getting wound up over it again for no reason. He had a good game from what ive heard. Tidied that up slightly for you.

Hustling tbh.