Cronky

yes you right... but no insurance is on 100% replacing the loss. in any kind of way NUFC still suffer. Well every club with international players suffers from time to time. Just because in this case, we're suffering more than others doesn't mean the rules should change retrospectively to suit us. so it's fair? ahhh come on... FA got profit also from international players... got profit also from NUFC each season. If it's not fair, then lobby for a change in the rules. But you can't change the rules in retrospect. No club likes to release their players for international duty, because of the risk of injury. There needs to be rules governing this area, or else international football will die, or at best become an irrelevant sideshow.

yes you right... but no insurance is on 100% replacing the loss. in any kind of way NUFC still suffer. Well every club with international players suffers from time to time. Just because in this case, we're suffering more than others doesn't mean the rules should change retrospectively to suit us.

Wrong,he had money to spend,he just didnt spend it I don't think you're right there. That fiasco where Milner was going to be sold but then got recalled when we failed to buy anyone else indicates strongly that any incoming transfers were going to have to be funded by sales. Another indication is the fact that we spent nothing in the January window.

The main point for me is that the release of players for international football is governed by a set of regulations and certain insurance provisions are in place. You can't try and change it retrospectively when it just so happens that a valueable player suffers a long-term injury. The same rules should apply to all. This extra 150T seems strange. You wonder whether Freddie's just using it as an excuse to prevent him playing for England.

And quite rightly so. Michael Owen should be sure that he's ready to play... not Roeder. Nope. It's the club that's paying his wages.

So Roeder says he hasn't even discussed the situation with Owen, but Owen says he's looking at the game in a fortnight's time. Anyone get the impression that - as with the end of last season - it's the player that's deciding when he plays rather than the manager?

So effectively all Shepherd denied was that Owen could walk out in a year's time. He didn't even say that there was no buy-out clause in a year's time, let alone a buy-out clause in two or more years. He then refused to take any questions on the subject. Sorry, but anyone who still says there's no buy-out clause just doesn't want to believe it.

From what I've seen, Sidwell is a better central midfield player than anyone we've got at the moment. It sounds like a good deal.

They're very different players, but I'd definitely take a swap. Anelka would offer us something different whereas Martins and Owen are fairly similar. Yes, there's a question mark over Anelka's temperament, but I'd take the risk.

O'Neill first choice. Failing that, I'd take a punt on Keane. He's demonstrated enough ability to show that he wouldn't be too great a risk, and he may just be outstanding. Then Moyes, who I think has consistently over-achieved with Everton.

Shearer Rooney Gerrard Adams Gascoigne Platt Robson Lampard Beardsley Steven Always thought Trevor Steven was very under-rated. Wouldn't have Beckham anywhere near the list.

As I recall, Shepherd said that there were no clauses other than what was normal in a contract. So of course it's anyone's guess what constitutes 'normal'. I don't understand why so many people are reluctant to believe in the existence of this clause. It's quite common with contracts for major players, and when you consider that Owen was openly reluctant to join us and we had to pay over the odds, I'd be amazed if he didn't manage to get a clause inserted. I think there is a clause, and I think if Man U match the figure, then he'd be off. What's more, I wouldn't blame him. He's a professional, he'll have the chance to play for one of the world's top clubs, and he won't actually be breaking the terms of his contract. The fault will lie fairly and squarely with Shepherd for signing the player on such unfavourable terms. You like "thinking" things up don't you, with no foundation, just like here http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=38074.msg770319#msg770319 Do you "think" the club recently, under the current board, finished in the top 5 for 3 consecutive years for the first time in half a century , or do you just "think" not ? Or are actual facts difficult to grasp ? No, I'm aware of the facts. You don't mention that since Sir Bob's sacking, we've finished 14th, 7th and now look on line for another mid-table finish. It's also true that in the last three seasons we've spent some time flirting around the relegation area. That's the current position, and those are the facts that bother me. Okay, I feel that there's something seriously wrong in the way in which Shepherd runs the club, and in particular the way he gets over-involved in football-related decisions. I've no proof, but I think there's plenty of evidence, not least in Sir Bob's own book. I also think Shepherd's style is a major factor in our decline. I think he got worried about some mistakes that Sir Bob had made in the transfer market (Bassedas, Viana), and decided to get more closely involved. If you interpret things differently, fine.

Until recently, I've felt that the players had been playing for Roeder, but since the Alkmaar defeat I've been a bit uneasy. I don't think Bramble deserves to be publicly made a scapegoat, which is what I think it will look like to the rest of the players. All these dark mutterings about a clearout won't necessarily have a motivating effect. It looks like he's lost his composure a bit.

Oh yes he does.

A few months ago, an article in the Times said that Freddie wanted Woodgate, but Roeder wanted Huth. This produced a deadlock until the very last minute, when the club made bids for both, and then later Zat Knight, in the hope of securing at least one of them. By then, of course, it was too late. It's possible that Woodgate met up with Roeder, but if Roeder wasn't that keen, that might well have come across and that lack of enthusiasm was enough to put Woodgate off. Another example of Chairman and Manager not working together properly. It's been the story of the last few seasons.

As I recall, Shepherd said that there were no clauses other than what was normal in a contract. So of course it's anyone's guess what constitutes 'normal'. I don't understand why so many people are reluctant to believe in the existence of this clause. It's quite common with contracts for major players, and when you consider that Owen was openly reluctant to join us and we had to pay over the odds, I'd be amazed if he didn't manage to get a clause inserted. I think there is a clause, and I think if Man U match the figure, then he'd be off. What's more, I wouldn't blame him. He's a professional, he'll have the chance to play for one of the world's top clubs, and he won't actually be breaking the terms of his contract. The fault will lie fairly and squarely with Shepherd for signing the player on such unfavourable terms. mackems.gif When there's a chance to slag the Board the terms are unfavourable, pity that in the same post you mentioned they are probably normal. Buy-out clauses are normal, yes. But it's foolish to have a low buy-out clause in the contract of a player who's openly reluctant to join you, and who might well be in demand by other clubs. The odds at you losing money are quite high. Freddie did it because he thinks in terms of buying individuals rather than building a team.

That would be the aim, but if he's still the Chairman, he'd have plenty of opportunities to undermine the role of the DOF, in just the same way as he's undermined the role of the manager. That's what worries me.

Shepherd is so involved on the transfer side that you wonder how exactly a DOF post would work. It might just complicate further an already unsatisfactory situation. Sir John Hall spoke about a DOF post a few months ago, and I wonder whether he feels that Shepherd needs to distance himself more from the playing side. Trouble is, unless Freddie is properly committed to the idea, there's likely to be problems.

Roeder didn't use injuries as an excuse because he didn't have to, he was in a no lose situation and under no pressure because Souness would have got the blame if things had gone pear shaped at the end of last season. He's the manager now and under pressure, his arse has gone and he's trying to blame anybody or anything that he can think of. I'd agree that things have changed over the last few weeks. I was only making the point that, in the season as a whole, we've not been lucky with injuries. The Alkmaar result seems to have changed Roeder's mind set. He scapegoated Bramble, who he'd previously had a lot of praise for. Now the guy struggles to make the subs bench. That sort of reaction from a manager can easily alienate a lot of the squad.

I'm a bit fed up with this whole issue. A bad run of injuries CAN be a reasonable explanation for a lower than expected league position. It's only when a manager exaggerates how bad the situation is that we can get disgruntled. In fairness, Roeder has been a bit unlucky. There are other problems as well, but he's been unlucky. I would say though that Roeder has made a bit of a rod for his own back. Because Souness talked a lot about injuries, Roeder started off with this policy of never mentioning them. That was a very unreal position to try and maintain, and of course it's unravelled.

Overpriced and vastly unproved. Would much rather go for Baines. If Bale does go to Man Utd, it will be as eventual replacement to Giggs in LM, the position Bale wants) rather than as a LB. Spurs offered the same but if Utd offer an amount that is ok to Southampton, there will only be one destination, Bale idolises Giggs like Walcott does Henry. I really don't understand the doubts about Bale. From what I've seen, it's a no-brainer. He and Richards would be a fantastic full back pairing, if any club is lucky to land them.

As I recall, Shepherd said that there were no clauses other than what was normal in a contract. So of course it's anyone's guess what constitutes 'normal'. I don't understand why so many people are reluctant to believe in the existence of this clause. It's quite common with contracts for major players, and when you consider that Owen was openly reluctant to join us and we had to pay over the odds, I'd be amazed if he didn't manage to get a clause inserted. I think there is a clause, and I think if Man U match the figure, then he'd be off. What's more, I wouldn't blame him. He's a professional, he'll have the chance to play for one of the world's top clubs, and he won't actually be breaking the terms of his contract. The fault will lie fairly and squarely with Shepherd for signing the player on such unfavourable terms.

I can't believe this. It'd be a great deal for us, but Arsenal's style demands good technical players, and that's not Parker.

Gareth Bale looks like a great, great player in the making. I'd pay big akkers for him.

Cup semi-final, Man U 2, Arsenal 1, the year they did the treble. 1999? Two great, evenly matched teams, going at it hammer and tongs, testing each other to the limit. Looking back, it was the game when I realised that top-class football in this country had moved on to a new level.