Cronky

£7 million pounds would be a very good price for Zoggy, and if that's what's on offer, I'd take it. In the long term, I think his future would be better served as a full back rather than a winger. He's a good athlete, but his touch on the ball isn't great. Trouble is, he doesn't really have the steady, cool-headed temperament that you want from a defender at the moment, so it may be a while before he sorts himself out. At the moment, there seems to be a big gap between his own opinion of his ability, and the reality. He needs to do a lot of work on his game.

Just going by the Sky highlights, it looked like our best football came when Emre and Dyer were on the pitch. We looked composed, and capable of playing the ball on the deck. I'm now firmly in the camp of Butt or Parker but not both. Martins was a threat, but he does drive you spare. There was a point near the end, where there was a man unmarked fifteen yards ahead of him, who he could have reached with a simple ball. Instead, he tried to beat his man and lost it. The man has no footballing brain.

Woodgate a long way ahead in first place, followed by Moncur. Apart from those two, the picture's a bit bleak. For some reason, we just haven't produced or bought good CB's. (Taylor's developing nicely though)

If you're talking about blame, then the people who have decided to allow Freddie to run the club are just as guilty as Freddie himself. The point though is that the various Board members do not, in practice, participate in the running of the club in an equal manner (albeit by their own choice in the case of the Halls). Major decisions are run by them for their approval, but their role seems to be limited to saying yes or no, rather than actively shaping the decision itself. Now my point is that this way of running the club is becoming less and less satisfactory from the club's point of view, and the Halls have realised this. Trouble is, Freddie quite likes it the way it is, and won't go quietly.

Absolutely right. We're in sharp decline at the moment, and his return could be crucial to us. Despite all the sneering, no player did more to get us out of the mess we were in during the second half of last season.

You don't hear so much of cartilege injuries for some reason. They used to be all the rage. There seem to be an increase in groin strains, maybe because of the extra pace of the game.

the same major shareholders as in 1992 ? You are not seriously suggesting that Shepherd runs the club himself, and appoints the managers himself, without the major shareholders ? I've said this before, and I'm still staggered that people appear to believe this is the case. All the managers have been backed to the same degree by the same major shareholders too. It seems pretty clear to me that the Halls are no longer interested in the day to day running of the club, and haven't been for some time. I'm sure that their approval is sought before a major decision like the appointing of a manager is made, but that's as far as it goes. Up until recently, they've been happy to hand the reins to Freddie. I think they now realise that Freddie has been screwing up, and that there's a better alternative both for themselves and the club. you "think" they realise Shepherd is screwing up ? Don't you know ? Or are you just guessing. On the contrary, if THEY picked Souness, it is THEY who screwed up. And neither you, nor I, know. Do you ? If I ran Newcastle United, and I was the major shareholder, one thing I would NOT do is allow someone else to run it for me, or make the single biggest appointment in the football club, if I thought they were screwing up, and as you suggest, they APPROVED of the managerial appointments, at the very least. According to Sir Bob's book, in all his time at Newcastle, he only saw Douglas Hall 3 or 4 times. The guy lives in Gibraltar, and Sir John is retired. It's completely obvious that they're absentee owners. Neither of the Halls seem to be big football fans, and it suited them to take a back seat and let Freddie, who's the real enthusiast, run the show. Sir John doesn't want to take over again, and Douglas doesn't seem to have the ability. I think the way the last two managers have been recruited reflects this arrangement. I think Freddie did all the sounding out and then presented his chosen candidate to the Halls for their approval. Even if they weren't convinced that Freddie had found the best possible man, if they say no they really have to go ahead and find a better man themselves, and they've got no inclination to get involved in that way. I don't think they're interested in much beyond the business side. But personally - and this is where I differ from a few - I don't think the main problem has been the choice of manager. It's been the way the managers have been treated, and the position they're put in. Shepherd acts like a Director of Football, and the managers don't have the power and initiative that is needed, particularly in the transfer market.

the same major shareholders as in 1992 ? You are not seriously suggesting that Shepherd runs the club himself, and appoints the managers himself, without the major shareholders ? I've said this before, and I'm still staggered that people appear to believe this is the case. All the managers have been backed to the same degree by the same major shareholders too. It seems pretty clear to me that the Halls are no longer interested in the day to day running of the club, and haven't been for some time. I'm sure that their approval is sought before a major decision like the appointing of a manager is made, but that's as far as it goes. Up until recently, they've been happy to hand the reins to Freddie. I think they now realise that Freddie has been screwing up, and that there's a better alternative both for themselves and the club.

We can't talk about 'the current Board' as though nothing has changed since 1992. Sir John Hall ran things in a different way from Shepherd, and Shepherd himself has become more and more autocratic and involved in the football side over the years since he took over. Regardless of the amount of money being spent, and who the manager is, we'll continue to decline because in Freddie we've effectively got a Director of Football who knows bugger all about football.

Whether we should be afraid or not, the choice is simple. We either join those clubs who are attracting new investment, or we get left behind. At the moment, we're getting left behind. The Halls have realised this, but Freddie wants to stay in charge. Maybe Freddie's got it right, and the Halls and all the Directors of those other clubs have got it wrong. Or maybe not.

Well, there's a pattern here that's been established with the last three managers. The overall annual budget is about £9 million. Our overall spend in the Summer was £10 million, and it was clear from the last minute farce with Milner, that any further spending had to be financed by someone going out. On reflection, half the budget for the last 4 years was blown on one player. Funds were witheld before and after to enable that to happen. Freddie set his heart on the idea of one big-name striker to replace Shearer, which was a foolish strategy in any event, even if you consider that Owen was worth that kind of money (which I don't.) This kind of amateurish over-involvement by Freddie is what's brought about our decline over the last few seasons.

I thought the article was going to be about the strain that Roeder was under, which I do worry has affected his thinking since the Alkmaar game. I was quite relieved when I read it, because it's evidence of clear thinking. Lots of us have our doubts about Martins and Owen as a combination - neither of them show much ability to hold the ball up. If a good offer comes in that will allow us to bring in a different type of striker, then we should take it.

One thing that really gets on my tit is this claim that Shepherd has 'always' backed his managers with cash. There have been some eye-catching buys, but generally the pattern recently has been fairly modest for a club of our size. Saddo that I am, I did a little bit of research - Over the last 8 transfer windows, from the Summer of 2003, we have not spent any money at all in 4 of them. (Summer 03, Jan 04, Jan 06, Jan 07) In the Summer of 04, our transfer income actually exceeded the outgoings by £7 million, due to Woodgate being shipped out. So we've only spent money in 3 of the last 8 windows. Over this entire period, the net spend (ie transfers paid minus transfers received) amounts to £36 million, which averages to £9 million per year. Greater than most Premiership clubs I know, but nothing remarkable when you consider the club's turnover. Given that the club's spending has not, in fact, been anything that spectacular over this period, the insanity of blowing £17 million on Owen becomes even more exasperating.

I'm surprised that anyone still takes what Shepherd says seriously. He can't be trusted. We were going to spend money during January, and then didn't - supposedly because of the Halls driving the prices up by talk of a takeover. The man is a bull$hitter.

Batty - top of the list. A talented player who became more and more conservative as his career went on. Always looked busy without really taking responsibility. Keegan - good player, but never the great one that people said. That chirpy manner always irritated me. Robert - selfish, and once his one or two tricks had been sussed out, quite limited. Despite his high opinion of himself, it's interesting to see how his career has nose-dived since he left here.

Tony Green, Gazza, Beardsley. Sub - Rob Lee.

Not sure whether to laugh or cry about this. I do get the impression that even if Roeder hasn't actually lost the entire dressing room, there's been a rift between him and a few of the players. Attempting to bring them into line by threatening to ship them out won't work at all. He'll only further lose their respect. The possibility that, on top of that, there's a rift between Chairman and Manager, can't be a surprise. Shepherd has fallen out with the last two managers, and is always very quick to find a scapegoat. As for Big Sam coming, that presupposes that we're still in the Premiership. If the Chairman, Manager and Playing squad are at odds with one another, we'll have great difficulty picking up points. I was interested to read that Given today was talking about the need for 'unity' - which strongly suggested that disunity was a problem at the moment.

Good point. The key question is - will this project produce a profitable return on such a massive investment? Or - what is the real demand for another hotel, more luxury apartments and a conference centre in the city? It didn't work with Chelsea, and I really don't trust Freddie's judgement. He's a bit of a dreamer and an optimist who thinks things are going to go the way he wants them to.

It seems to me that the team at the moment is being built around Parker and this attacking midfield role that he apparently prefers. That certainly dictates the choice of Butt behind him (no pun intended) and means we don't have much creativity or incisive passing from the centre. I sense that it also affects Dyer, who is a key player for us and who we should be building the side around. I sense that Parker and Dyer don't combine together nearly as well as Emre and Dyer would. This point about Parker has been made before, I know, but it feels like in this mini-crisis, Roeder is throwing his weight behind the wrong man.

Pretty much sums it up for me aswell. Only until the Man City game really, i wanted him to stay. But the recent run of results and pitiful performances from the manager have got me thinking otherwise. We're not going to go anywhere with him in charge. A few weeks ago i said he had the strengths and i thought he would get better, especially with his own squad, but i just don't think he's up to it. Like i say - we'll go nowhere with this man in charge. Give the money to someone competent to spend. I think Roeder needs to get a grip. Our net spending over the last three transfer windows has been £10 million, so the idea that he'll be able to clear out half the side and replace them with better players is just daft. I was a bit concerned at his reaction to the Alkmaar defeat, with the players locked in the dressing room whilst presumbly he had a go at them. They must have been feeling shitty and that was probably the last thing they needed. The problem that night wasn't a lack of effort, it was a lack of organisation. Then Bramble gets scapegoated, despite having put in some good performances in the games leading up. Nothing can break a team's faith in their manager more than a feeling that someone, or some players, are being victimised. Basically, I think Roeder's reaction has been all wrong. The players need a lift, but I think he's making them feel worse.

I didn't want Roeder to get the job, but I've always felt until recently that he's made a good fist of it in difficult circumstances. It's seemed that we've had a united squad and that the players have been playing for him, whatever their limitations. It sounds now like that solidarity and mutual faith has been broken, and that's a real worry. We're not out of danger yet.

I think it's been apparent from early on that he has his limitations - poor touch and poor reading of the game - but his pace and strength can make things happen. It looks like we'll be short of funds for any rebuilding, and personally I'd sell either him or Owen. They're similar in many respects, and I don't think they'll combine well. Crouch is a good player, but again similar to Shola, although far more developed as a player. I wouldn't have them both, and personally I'd like to see Shola given a proper chance when fit, and in a role that would suit him. It would also save on the £10 million that Crouch would cost.

Going by the Sky-lights, we looked like a team who needed a win. I'm just a bit worried that Roeder's confidence took a bad knock in the Alkmaar defeat, and that's communicated itself to the team, as happens. Dyer played a major part in our revival half way through the season, and at the moment he doesn't seem to be playing as well. Not badly, just not as well. We don't have anyone to get us going. Duff created a few things, and deserved a bit of credit. The atmosphere in the ground seemed absolutely dead, when it wasn't openly hostile.

There's nothing to be said for relegation, but I'd agree that the only way the club can move forward is for a change at the top. We've flirted with relegation at times in the last two years, and this could turn into a third successive dodgy season. If the situation continues, one year we're bound to get a bit unlucky and go down. Shepherd is a meddling fool who undermines his managers. He has somehow got a few people to believe that it's all been the fault of the Halls, pulling the strings behind the scenes, and that we'd be better off if the last minimal check on his powers was gone. All a bit scary.

Personally, I'm a cock-up theorist rather than a conspiracy theorist, and what has happened to our club does nothing to change my thinking. Freddie has been far too hands on, he's over-involved in the football side of things, he has a manipulative and secretive style of management and has made a serious of costly blunders.