Cronky

Messi is better, yes, but he's the only player that I'd feel confident to say that about. And of course he's not in the Premiership.

On his day, he's fantastic to watch. Recently against Croatia and Blackburn he was amazing. Too bad his day is once every couple of months. Well obviously I'm not going to agree with that. Over the last couple of years, we've not always seen him at his best, because he's not been not been played at his best role. The price of versatility is that you get asked to fit in around the needs of the team. Let's also remember the lad is still 22. He's still about six years off his peak. The performance I remember is when he was still a teenager, and he'd just moved to Man U. It was his first game back at Everton, and he had death threats, abuse every time he touched the ball - a lot of pressure on a young lad. He played a brilliant game with a cool head, and not a hint of nerves or undue aggression. Balls of steel. A player who could yet win us a World Cup.

I'm a big fan of Rooney. Per-obably the best English player that I've seen.

I think that there are supporters of other clubs looking at us and asking, why are they so angry at Mike Ashley? For Liverpool, it's all about expectations based on past achievements. Not winning the Premiership is failure for them. It's all quite strange. There were quite a few Arsenal supporters a few weeks ago, moaning at Arsene Wenger and demanding that the club spend more money.

I think it's fair to say that, as the years went on, Shepherd became more and more powerful and his decisions became worse. With Freddie Fletcher gone and the Halls taking more and more of a back seat, it became a one-man band. Every Chairman makes mistakes, and it's not a business where you can be sure of any outcomes. But some of his decisions in the last few seasons were daft and unprofessional IMO eg buying Owen at an inflated price, appointing Roeder and Souness, not supporting Sir Bob over the Shearer situation. He wasn't working in partnership with his managers. All this business of producing statistics about his entire reign, and / or lumping it on to the entire Hall era misses the main point. As time went on, like Thatcher, his actions became more and more questionable and in the end he had to go for the good of the club.

I find that committee member's statement really irritating. He's assuming that supporters are divided into two groups - those that hate Ashley and who will act to get rid of him, and those who hate Ashley but who won't take any action. He doesn't have the wit or imagination to realise that there's another way of looking at things. This really is just a pressure group, promoting a single view.

Which is why if those statuses, justifiable or not, are not put into context and not used in every single argument, Newcastle will struggle to truly move forward. I don't understand your point. Could you elaborate?

An Ashley voodoo doll and king kev wig. That really, really made me laugh out loud.

It's a piece of journalism, so everything's a bit hyped up, but underneath there's a valid point struggling to get through. The fanaticism of our supporters is both an asset and a problem. It can create pressure on the players, manager and board which doesn't help. As with all crowds, there's also been a tendency to pin too much faith on heroes. Over the last few years, Shearer and Keegan have been elevated to God-like positions which have distorted a lot of the club's thinking.

Problem is, they tasted a little bit of power, with forcing Ashley out. They like it, and now they want a bit more, regardless of the consequences.

he said in public what is said in private all the time. again i'll ask which players at nufc have nufc as their first choice and would have turned down any of the top 4 for us. ? Well possibly Jonas, if word is to be believed, but your basic point is right. If a big four club comes in for a player, one can generally say that they will be the player's preference. Owen wasn't any different - he wanted to join Liverpool, and made that clear. However, we ignored that publicly stated wish and made a bid that was so large that Real couldn't consider Liverpool's offer. We took advantage of Owen's desperation to leave Real in time for the World Cup. Comparisons with other players in other situations is irrelevant. Owen's position was pretty unique. And when Owen made his statement, he was clearly asking us to back off and leave the field clear for Liverpool. To still go ahead was daft.

It'll be difficult to get any good player to sign up in January if the owner, and therefore the manager, is going to change in the near future.

I was referring to the fact that, a week before he signed, Owen made a public statement that he would only come to our club on a loan basis. Shepherd's response was to put in an inflated transfer offer to Real, which effectively made us the only option if he was to get first team football. Owen was put in a position where he either stayed in Real's reserves and his place in the World Cup squad was put in jeopardy, or he signed for us. Even then we had to offer him a stupid salary to make it palatable. In those circumstances, 'he didn't want to join us in the first place' seems a fair and accurate comment. Ignoring Owen's stated wishes and manipulating the situation in that way was possibly Shepherd's most stupid action as Chairman, and the competition for that accolade is fierce. We're been reaping the consequences ever since.

Off to Man City at the end of the season, so he can be nearer to his horses. Sorry to remind everyone again, but he didn't want to come here in the first place.

I think after Ashley took over, the unexpected problems that he found were the degree to which the club was overspending on salaries, and how much of future income had already been spent. There was a basic income / expenditure problem that was going to take a while to turn round, and which restricted his investment on the transfer side. He has said that he was planning to put in £20 million of his own money every year, and there have been complaints about that not being reflected in the transfer budget. Well, nowadays, player's salaries are by far the biggest outgoings that a club our size has to make. But overall, no, I don't think he was in it for a fast buck. I think he wanted a long-term involvement and it's the Keegan departure and the reaction of the majority of fans that have made him change his mind. You really can't tell him to go, and then when he does, say that it was what he was plotting all along. That's trying to have your cake and eat it.

Poor bloke. He doesn't appear to realise how stupid he's sounding.

He look good on the ground but weak in the air, for a CB. In English football, I think defenders have to make more headers against physically strong opponents, and it's not what he's used to. I think he'd do well as a DM though. Now that Keegan's gone we can buy Faye back, push Colo forward and problem solved. (Ho ho ho)

Despite them being different players, I think they are. All of the strikers are fighting for a place upfront alongside Rooney. You're right, it is Rooney plus AN Other. But I'd put Rooney with a target man, and that's not Owen's role. On Ashley Young, I think when Capello played him in that friendly against the USA, Young looked a bit out of his depth. A bit think, basically.

Owen's overall package is irrelevent. If you're in dire need of a goal in a crucial game, who would you prefer to bring off the bench, Michael Owen, or Emile Heskey? There's a case for using him from the bench, like Real did, in the end. Either Capello feels he has other options, or he thinks that it's better to leave him out altogether, I don't know. Heskey is a totally different player. They're not really competing for the same place.

Capello has more or less spelled out why he's not picking Owen. He doesn't think he offers enough in terms of creating things for others. That's the reason why the big four don't want Owen either. The game has moved on, and the overall package that Owen is offering isn't enough for the very top level.

Souness said that there were a couple of ex-players who were persistently causing trouble for managers. I assume that one of those he had in mind was Supermouth, who always seems eager to draw attention to himself. I really don't know who the other would be. Possibly Moncur, but he's always seemed quite fair to me.

Coloccini hasn't looked aggressive enough in his defending. I think he should have cut that cross out.

That's what I thought - mentally, he didn't look there. I don't know if he was asked to do a role he didn't like, but he just didn't get himself involved.

Any chance of a break now from the Duff bashing? I thought he had a good game today. Always involved. There seems to be no leadership or communication at the back. We got away with it today, and hopefully Joe will be able to sort a few things out over the next fortnight. We'll look a lot better once we get our full backs fit. Taylor and Bassong did their best, but defensively they struggled. Everton found it very easy to get their crosses in. Guthrie looked good again, I thought. Showed a lot of courage and initiative.

Well, I've read a lot of comments on his board at various times, about managers like Moyes, Curbishley, Redknapp, Hughes, O'Neill - people who have some proven ability, but for reasons that aren't clear some people take against them as potential managers for NUFC. If you look at Joe Kinnear's record, it's pretty tidy. There are no guarantees in this, but who's to say he wouldn't do a good job here? The reasons for favouring one manager rather than another often seem a bit arbitrary to me.