Cronky

The situation is too complicated for a simple mark out of ten. He inherited a difficult situation, and his task was to re-structure the club, on and off the field, without us getting relegated in the process. In that first task, he failed, mainly because - against advice - he chose a manager who was not suited or motivated for the particular task that he had in mind. We ended up hopelessly divided behind the scenes and he must bear responsibility for that - I don't think he'd deny it himself. Having said all that, I want to see him continue as owner because a) he has now collected valuable experience b) he has a more sensible view of his role c) he is the only owner of this club ever to have actually put their own money in (and in large quantities) and d) there is no wealthier alternative.

Thought I'd bump this one. The sending off yesterday was an illustration of why the penalty plus yellow punishment would be better than the current law. Even if the keeper had touched Lovenkrands (and it looked like he didn't), it wasn't a deliberate foul. Sending off a player for that is way too harsh.

In fairness, a lot of the time we've looked more like a mid-table side. I'm still not quite sure how we're 8 points ahead with a game in hand. Dare I say it, Hughton's made a bit of a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

He was in decline as a player, and even at his peak, was never the sort that could lift a bad side. He's a specialist finisher who needs other players to create things for him. He doesn't create much for his team-mates. I daresay his morale was low last season, and he was looking to leave at the end of his contract. In those circumstances, he's not going to be able to lift his team-mates. But all this was the inevitable end when Shepherd bulldozed through his signing when Owen had made it clear that he wanted to join Liverpool instead. I don't think the club behaved very well at that point, and I have the feeling that NUFC got what it deserved at the end. That underpins my reluctance to have a go at Owen. Poor Owen with his low morale problems last season.If £120,00 per week is not motivational enough for him to actualy show some resemblance of interest in performing for the people who pay his wages then he deserves all the negative comments being bandied about. Should have(I know we couldn't) paid him minimum wages and put him on a performance bonus per assist and goals scored. I wouldn't say money was the best motivator, especially if it's not dependent on how you perform. We shelled out the money to sign the player, forgetting that there's not much point in signing someone who doesn't really want to join. In any case, as we've seen this season, the main reason for Owen's performances weren't his motivation - he's just not that good any more.

I wouldn't say he gave up, but players aren't machines, and if a player's heart isn't in it, then that's going to come out somehow. That mad summer when we signed 2 reluctant players for £26 million and exorbitant wages, was a real disaster from which we haven't yet recovered.

He was in decline as a player, and even at his peak, was never the sort that could lift a bad side. He's a specialist finisher who needs other players to create things for him. He doesn't create much for his team-mates. I daresay his morale was low last season, and he was looking to leave at the end of his contract. In those circumstances, he's not going to be able to lift his team-mates. But all this was the inevitable end when Shepherd bulldozed through his signing when Owen had made it clear that he wanted to join Liverpool instead. I don't think the club behaved very well at that point, and I have the feeling that NUFC got what it deserved at the end. That underpins my reluctance to have a go at Owen.

He's never really been a big fan of Beckham, or Owen actually. Likes a bit of Shola though. Pretty good record, I'd say.

I've been one of the long-standing critics of his ability as a player, but I don't share all this anger. It was other people's decisions to pay £17 million for him, give him a £100K pw salary, pick him regularly for the side and make him the captain. He didn't deliberately get himself injured, and he didn't wish his decline as an athlete on himself.

I voted for Gerrard. That athleticism of his gives him the edge over Lampard and Scholes. Beckham isn't in the same league as those three.

Why shouldn't he go into town after a game? Why should they or anybody else be unable to go out in town? fair question Doesn't look very professional. Nothing against him going out drinking, but to go out with the fans again - do you really want that? if he wants to go out where the fans are thats his perogative imo, I ain't going to judge him on that when theres plenty of other things to judge him on, problem is though if he did there would be one moron somewhere whos had too many that may go too far. How many Chairmen / Owners go clubbing with the fans after the game? It's not exactly the norm. Chairmen have to hold the purse strings and it's inevitable that they're going to disappoint some fans, unless they're a bottomless pit of money. Even if there's no violence as such, the idea of the Chairman watching the game with the fans and then sharing a drink afterwards was always naive.

It's a bit unusual to have an operation on a hamstring injury, isn't it? Normally they take about a month, with no surgery involved. Maybe they've uncovered some long-standing problem.

I'd agree with this. Barry fulfils the role of defensive midfielder a bit better than Carrick, who is more of a playmaker. Barry's emergence has been an underestimated boost for the team. We've previously had to put up with defensive midfielders who can't pass or keep possession under pressure.

Shepherd was enthusiastic, but not the sharpest tool in the box. I've heard that it was his brother Bruce that was the brains behind his business, and of course it was Sir John Hall who shaped the modern NUFC. He was okay when he had Freddie Fletcher at the executive helm, but once Shepherd took charge things went downhill. Shepherd was a real fan and loved his job, but like many fans he was a bit of a dreamer and over optimistic. He thought that this hotel / conference centre plan would provide the way out of the financial mess that he'd dug himself into. Sir John Hall knew better and eventually pulled the plug on him.

Of the target men, Crouch is our best finisher, so I think he's bound to go. I'd still start with Heskey. I hate to admit it, but Milner now looks England class. I think he's a cert to go, and he'll push for a starting place. Walcott relies too much on his pace, and that won't be enough at the World Cup. SWP might drive you crazy with his decision-making, but he can be a threat against any opposition. It wasn't a great performance, as we lost the ball a lot, often with players like Rooney and Gerrard trying to do too much.

Sorry, but you can't.

everyone will have their own view on this. the trick is to get the finances into a position that will allow us to invest in the playing side without just racking up bigger debts year. on year. like i've said previously i don't even mind running at a manageable loss if all is going well on the pitch. Whats your view? When do you think the state the club is in stops being somebody elses fault? It's a strange question, because it's not as though there's a point where 100% of the blame transfers entirely from one owner to another. There can only be a percentage split, which of course can never be defined precisely. Obviously, the longer Ashley stays in charge, the less excuse he has for the problems remaining, and the more he can be held responsible.

I'd agree that abolishing offside altogether wouldn't improve the game. It would spread the play out, but it would make it a game of man-to-man marking like Aussie Rules football. The Americans experimented in the seventies with a line across the pitch 35 yards from goal, behind which all attackers were onside (ie this new line replaced the half-way line) The intention was to give players more space while retaining the essential strategy of the game. FIFA forced them to drop the rule, just to keep the laws univeral, rather than because it wasn't working. Other possibilities are to extend the 18 yard line right across the pitch, and use that as the offside line. There was also a tournament in the 1970's called the Watney Cup, where offside was limited to the penalty area. I seem to remember that it resulted in a fair few goals. Basically, the law can be adjusted in all sorts of ways other than total abolition.

How do you know it's true? Why did it only momentarily drop to £80m for Barry Moat? Why was that opportunity not afforded to the several other interested parties sniffing around? As nobody has said that they offered £100 million or £80 million and still got turned down, it's reasonable to conclude that those figures are correct. Plus it would be rather stupid for an already unpopular owner to publicly state a specific figure that he had no intention of accepting. That's really setting yourself up. Just because we don't have perfect knowledge doesn't mean that any speculation is as good as any other. You can believe that Ashley was lying about the figure if you want, but it's not very logical. I don't so much think the up front figure was a lie. I just don't know (literally have no idea) if he was actually willing to take a hit on the debt he's built up to himself in the clubs name, if he wanted those loans repaid instantly or what kind of interest rate he'd be applying for the new owners to take them on. As you say, unless anyone provides anything concrete, it's all speculation (whatever ITK claims people make). All I know is i didn't believe a word that came out of the club then, and I don't now. I do wonder why our debts are still outstanding if Ashley has expressed a willingness to write them off for any buyers coming in. Why doesn't he improve the club balance sheet by cancelling those loans like the owners have at Man City and Chelsea? The situation at Chelsea and Man City isn't clear to me, but certainly Abramovich's backing was defined as a loan for quite a long while, and I've not heard that City's debts have been written off. I'm not sure on this, but my assumption is that if you officially declare that a loan is effectively a grant, it then becomes income and is liable to tax. Either that, or a loan has certain tax advantages for yourself as the loaner. So if Ashley was to declare in advance of the sale that he was going to write off the loan, that would have consequences. In any event, who would it benefit if you declared that you were writing off the loan before you needed to? The situation for the club wouldn't change in practice, and you'd be giving up some element of leverage that you had with a future buyer, for no reward. Someone with more experience of corporate finance may wish to intervene here?

That's an interesting article. I think that most of the new Chelsea fans (the Post-Abramovich) are young and therefore don't have the same spending power which enables them to go to the less important games. The older fan is more likely to have a fixed attachment to their team and would therefore have been less likely to switch to Chelsea.

How do you know it's true? Why did it only momentarily drop to £80m for Barry Moat? Why was that opportunity not afforded to the several other interested parties sniffing around? As nobody has said that they offered £100 million or £80 million and still got turned down, it's reasonable to conclude that those figures are correct. Plus it would be rather stupid for an already unpopular owner to publicly state a specific figure that he had no intention of accepting. That's really setting yourself up. Just because we don't have perfect knowledge doesn't mean that any speculation is as good as any other. You can believe that Ashley was lying about the figure if you want, but it's not very logical.

I really like what I've seen of him, and I'm disappointed and surprised that he's not broken through with us this season. No problem with his talent, but like his brother he may lack a football brain and try to be a bit too individualistic. That can improve with coaching though.

Re Stoke - Arsenal, I thought it was an honest challenge for a 50-50 ball, and I hope that when Wenger calms down, he apologises for his comments. I do get exasperated at the way this obviously intelligent bloke talks such rubbish at times. I can only think that, like Fergie, he has this very involved, paternal relationship with his players, and when they get accused of something or hurt, he reacts not like a professional but like a Dad. ie whoever's right or wrong, he's going to stand up for them or take a swipe at whoever has upset them. It's irrational, but with Fergie and Wenger it seem to go with the territory of the relationship that he has with his players. I don't think it's necessary though.

Why? Why ? Are we on Portsmouth level attendances ? No. Are we overstocked with overpaid players ? Take away Smith and maybe half a dozen others, no. I find it odd we are losing money at all, let alone half a mill a week Other teams like Villa aren't so how come we are with higher attendances, less money paid out on fewer players ? do you mean exactly half a million every week...if so i agree. There are supposed to be a number of Prem and Football league clubs in financial danger. ALL of them are not exactly pulling them in through the gates. We are. I just find it hard to believe. Some are keen to accept it. I think we can ask why to that too. From what I understand, the chief factors are that the wage bill is still very high, and sponsorship income has all been blown in advance. A lot of high earners have left, but there are still a lot of players there who must be on good Premiership-style wages, and perhaps Champions League wages - Taylor, Colo, Enrique, Jonas, Smith, Barton, Nolan, Shola, Butt.

Villa or Everton. I'm a fan of both managers.

According to Sky TV, they will not. One or two cameras trained on the moment, I predict.