TRon

Taylor doesn't have to leave, if he does it will be totally down to him. The Guardian article mentions that Nolan is part of a powerful dressing room clique, but while I'd be the last one to defend Nolan, it seems to me the spirit throughout the squad is as good as it's been for a long time. If Nolan has been instrumental in that he deserves praise, not underhand insinuations which this bint is indulging in. Steve Taylor is doing himself no favours if she's acting as his mouth piece.

It might have a bearing if Taylor didn't have previous history when it comes to negotiating a new contract. I see NOTW the leading national Sunday rag is trumpeting his cause today. Nice use of the media Steve. Very classy.

How come there isn't an option to sell Taylor and get rid of another two-faced judas cunt?

It's easy to blame the messenger here but clearly she's just a spokesman for Taylor who's contract is up in a year's time and is probably looking for another fantastic deal.

the big mistake was employing parker as a rob lee type, giving him too much attacking responsibility. as a holding midfielder he looked pretty good - he had a decent reading of the game, good stamina, strength, tackling etc, could hold the ball fairly well and pass it simply. ask him to do any more, as we did, and he looked pretty awful. pretty weird that we lined up plenty of times with Emre as the more conservative or defensive midfielder with parker ahead of him. it should have always been the other way round. Once again Johnny is spot on. These were the years of Souness and Roeder though. Can't imagine which thick-headed turd appointed these two as manager followed by Fat Sam. Must have been a fat Coc...Mike Ashley.

i'll bet you a pint he has a full england cap before december 31st 2011. I'll be surprised if anyone in the current U-21 squad doesn't have a full cap by then. Doesn't justify the stupid headlines which suggest Carroll is going to be called up for the world cup.

Villa always seem to start the season like a house on fire then implode at the final furlong.

I never loved him, but I rated him and feel bad for him now. Going from one sinking ship to another... Parker's problem was that he wasn't good enough for a top premiership side, and that while he was here some fans were yet to realize that we were not a top premiership side. Parker's mani problem was that he had Nicky Butt or Emre beside him so we always had a central midfield of tiddlers who didn't really boss the game.

I wouldn't want Parker back tbh. I think we really need a strong running midfielder to replace Nolan next season. Guthrie and Barton have their qualities but neither are really dominant box to box players.

I doubt previous stats will have that much bearing on a game as important as this. It would make more sense to compare it to a cup final.

Taylor will be a Newcastle player for as long as he wants to at the end of the day. I doubt anyone at the club wants him out so if he doesn't sign a new contract it's because he'd prefer a move for whatever reason. Simple as that.

I haven't felt this much nervous tension or anticipation before a game for a long time. I am loving the fact that all our important players look like being fit for this one. They will need to be because I expect Forest to come here and fight for their lives, but I also believe our team unity fighting spirit will see us through to a good result on the day.

Agree with everything you say, but I'll be surprised if we spend half of that figure. I was being generous and including wages tbh. Ashley might get away with spending less but he's been down that route before and it backfired, it would be pretty moronic to repeat the mistake. While the principle of running the club on a business footing is a sound one, sensible investment is always a part of that.

It's a fair shout but we aren't seriously going to bomb out Hughton if we get promotion, in the real world that just doesn't happen. At the moment we don't even know Hughton's capabilities. For all we know he might go on to be one of the shrewdest managers in English football. Hughes would be a good choice otherwise though.

The real test of Ashley's running of the club will come next season in any case. Although this season has gone better than anyone could have reasonably hoped adding quality to the squad is a must if we get promoted and will cost money. Forget the daft talk of winning the title, the objective should be to bring the squad up to premiership standard if only to protect Ashley's own investment. That will take about £20-30million, but promotion alone should be worth that much.

How do you think we will be in a position to challenge for the title in the near future? Assuming Mike Ashley doesn't want to spend £200million of his money, or borrow that amount Glazer style, where is the money going to come from? You tell me. You’re the one who says the club are going to make the vast profits. I was making the point that if we were making vast profits then there would have been no shortage of buyers at the price Ashley was asking. The reality is, without a rich sugar daddy owner who is willing to spend shitloads of his own money, not many clubs can generate the sort of money required to challenge for the championship straight away. As most sensible people have pointed out, we will need to build season on season for now, we can worry about challenging Chelsea and Man U a bit further down the line. Unless a mega zillionaire steps in with big cash and buys Ashley out of course.

How do you think we will be in a position to challenge for the title in the near future? Assuming Mike Ashley doesn't want to spend £200million of his money, or borrow that amount Glazer style, where is the money going to come from?

It’ll not last long. It’ll be back to Shepherd eats babies soon enough, but while the sun is shining. To make any headway in this debate we have to decide what the clubs long term objective should be. Should we ultimately looking to challenge for the title again, competing for a European place, or just be content to avoid relegation? There’s no way we can decide if the club is heading in the right direction if we don’t know what our intended destination is. I absolutely agree I would prefer us to spend £200million on players and challenge for the title again. It might take closer to £300million if you consider that Man City have spent £200million and are only pushing for top four at this point but let's not split hairs. You really have made a good point here, I don't know why I didn't realise this earlier.

You mean the Gaydamak way to administration (and near winding up) is better than the Ridsdale way? Personally as a supporter with no control of how the owner runs the club I would feel more secure with an owner who was stuck within the financial restraints of what the banks would lend them than one who could rack up the club's wage bill to well over what it could support in future years without their input and then run into financial problems themselves or just f*** off when they get bored or daddy pulls the plug. Owners putting in external money is also what's f***ed the game up so much financially as clubs without that artificial aid risk more just to try to keep up. Everyone is just waiting for Abramovich to get bored and leave Chelsea in the s***. If Lerner ran into external financial trouble now Villa would be in the s*** as they are running at a big loss year on year. Neither of these clubs could sustain where they are now without their owners. Liverpool and Man U have a different problem in that they can sustain where they are now without their owners (who are taking out rather than putting in) they just can't sustain it if they drop down the league. There are risks either way, one is dependant on football results, the other is dependant on external forces. Personally I'd rather the club's fortunes were dictated by the football than live with the chance that no matter how well you might be doing on the pitch the rug could suddenly be pulled from beneath your feet. That's not to say I'd turn my nose up at a rich benefactor, just that I'd feel it was a more solid foundation if it were self-sustaining as long as the footballing side of things didn't go tits up. Obviously having an owner with their own money has the advantage that they can put money into the club that a bank just would not risk. This is however promoting a far higher risk strategy to running the club than the one the old board were able to take, so I'm not sure why some who are post-fact dismayed with the risk level set by the last owners are happy with being completely dependant on the whims and finances of one man, especially when that man has shown nothing so far but an abject inability to run the club successfully or hire competent people to do so and a desire to offload any responsibility and sell at any opportunity when the club is in the s***. Having a rich incompetent owner of the club is of course better than having a poor incompetent owner of the club, however some seem to have extended that to meaning having a rich incompetent owner of the club is better than having a poor competent owner. It's not. People exaggerate how bad things had got footballing wise here prior to Ashley, we'd had a bad season due to having more injuries than I can ever remember having before, but we still pretty comfortably avoided relegation in the end and certainly had a massively better squad when Ashley took over to the "relegation enhanced" one we have now. If people judged the squad then with the expectations we have for the squad next year they'd be over the moon with it. Without all the injuries we'd have been competing for Europe again, if we were to have the same injury problems next year I think there'd be absolutely no question of us going back down again. People also exaggerate how bad things had got financially with regard to the debt. To put this in context for us prior to Ashley, the majority of the debt was the stadium expansion loan (around £45m) which couldn't just be called in on a whim. The last set of accounts before the stadium debt was shifted to be a current liability (due to the sale of the club) in 2006 had current liabilities from debts of £5.5m overdraft + £10.9m loans. This was with £9.3m cash in the bank as security against capital and interest repayments on the stadium loan. There would have been around an extra £5m overdraft and £5m in loans in 2007, ie a total of around £25m. I'd suggest this is a lower current debt liability than most premiership clubs other than those recently promoted or owned by a sugar daddy, and certainly within the means of a club with our turnover as was. Contrast this with the £40m overdraft facility Ashley was running the club with on top of his £150m loan. Is Ashley steering the club in the right direction or is he overcompensating after causing a skid? The main damage to the club under Shepherd was done by Souness with his reckless signings. This went a long way to devaluing the squad and putting Shepherd in a position where further strengthening of the squad was impossible without selling players especially considering the size of the wage bill. We were on a slippery slope by the time Shepherd left and to say otherwise is just spin as far as I'm concerned. Shepherd backed his manager with money the club didn’t have, in much the same way Ashley backed Fat Sam with money the club didn’t have. The difference is that Souness’ spending spree was offset against guaranteed future income, whereas Fat Sam’s was just money we couldn’t afford given the perilous state of our finances everybody keeps going on about. Not really sure where you are coming from tbh. On the one hand you are saying that Ashley should be spending big on quality players, then in the next post you are saying he shouldn't have backed Fat Sam at all. What is your point exactly?

You mean the Gaydamak way to administration (and near winding up) is better than the Ridsdale way? Personally as a supporter with no control of how the owner runs the club I would feel more secure with an owner who was stuck within the financial restraints of what the banks would lend them than one who could rack up the club's wage bill to well over what it could support in future years without their input and then run into financial problems themselves or just fuck off when they get bored or daddy pulls the plug. Owners putting in external money is also what's fucked the game up so much financially as clubs without that artificial aid risk more just to try to keep up. Everyone is just waiting for Abramovich to get bored and leave Chelsea in the shit. If Lerner ran into external financial trouble now Villa would be in the shit as they are running at a big loss year on year. Neither of these clubs could sustain where they are now without their owners. Liverpool and Man U have a different problem in that they can sustain where they are now without their owners (who are taking out rather than putting in) they just can't sustain it if they drop down the league. There are risks either way, one is dependant on football results, the other is dependant on external forces. Personally I'd rather the club's fortunes were dictated by the football than live with the chance that no matter how well you might be doing on the pitch the rug could suddenly be pulled from beneath your feet. That's not to say I'd turn my nose up at a rich benefactor, just that I'd feel it was a more solid foundation if it were self-sustaining as long as the footballing side of things didn't go tits up. Obviously having an owner with their own money has the advantage that they can put money into the club that a bank just would not risk. This is however promoting a far higher risk strategy to running the club than the one the old board were able to take, so I'm not sure why some who are post-fact dismayed with the risk level set by the last owners are happy with being completely dependant on the whims and finances of one man, especially when that man has shown nothing so far but an abject inability to run the club successfully or hire competent people to do so and a desire to offload any responsibility and sell at any opportunity when the club is in the shit. Having a rich incompetent owner of the club is of course better than having a poor incompetent owner of the club, however some seem to have extended that to meaning having a rich incompetent owner of the club is better than having a poor competent owner. It's not. People exaggerate how bad things had got footballing wise here prior to Ashley, we'd had a bad season due to having more injuries than I can ever remember having before, but we still pretty comfortably avoided relegation in the end and certainly had a massively better squad when Ashley took over to the "relegation enhanced" one we have now. If people judged the squad then with the expectations we have for the squad next year they'd be over the moon with it. Without all the injuries we'd have been competing for Europe again, if we were to have the same injury problems next year I think there'd be absolutely no question of us going back down again. People also exaggerate how bad things had got financially with regard to the debt. To put this in context for us prior to Ashley, the majority of the debt was the stadium expansion loan (around £45m) which couldn't just be called in on a whim. The last set of accounts before the stadium debt was shifted to be a current liability (due to the sale of the club) in 2006 had current liabilities from debts of £5.5m overdraft + £10.9m loans. This was with £9.3m cash in the bank as security against capital and interest repayments on the stadium loan. There would have been around an extra £5m overdraft and £5m in loans in 2007, ie a total of around £25m. I'd suggest this is a lower current debt liability than most premiership clubs other than those recently promoted or owned by a sugar daddy, and certainly within the means of a club with our turnover as was. Contrast this with the £40m overdraft facility Ashley was running the club with on top of his £150m loan. Is Ashley steering the club in the right direction or is he overcompensating after causing a skid? The main damage to the club under Shepherd was done by Souness with his reckless signings. This went a long way to devaluing the squad and putting Shepherd in a position where further strengthening of the squad was impossible without selling players especially considering the size of the wage bill. We were on a slippery slope by the time Shepherd left and to say otherwise is just spin as far as I'm concerned.

...because Coloccini has done more this season, is the simple answer. Did or didn't Taylor play very well this season up until his knee injury? Williamson has looked better than Taylor alongside Colo in my John Humble. That said I've always been a bit of a Taylor sceptic. He seems very good at talking the talk but as a centre back I do believe he's guilty of always looking for the Hollywood tackle. Probably something that a lot of supporters don't want to admit but true nonetheless. Doesn't mean that Taylor has done badly, just brings a bit of perspective to the debate. we are a different set up at home since dropping the smith or butt idea. that may be part of it. I just think that Williamson is a more dominating centre half especially in the air, which compliments Coloccini well. I agree, I do like Taylor though and am not sure about this whole "yeah good, glad the cockney got knocked out" stuff that is starting to appear. Ok he is the "all action hero" a bit of a tit but a harmless one and I think his heart is in the right place so I don't understand why some sections seem to really have it in for him. Taylor is a Jack of all trades but master of none at the moment. He's the Aaron Hughes of this generation which is why we get seasoned posters suggesting he play right back. I still see him as a good prospect at CB but he's got way above himself. Whether he's worth what he thinks he is I highly doubt. He suffered hugely from not having a Woodgate type figure to guide him. He was leading the line from the age of 21 practically and I think it stunted his growth as a player and it might have made him a bit of a cock. I think being paid 40k a week made him a bigger cock tbh. If he needs Woodcock alongside him to justify his wage I don't think he should be commanding anything like that.

The previous owners generated a fair bit for themselves. although the club was left with a bit of debt mind... And how did they manage to do that? Why didn't they continue to do it if it was so easy? Howay, answer the question – how are these huge profits you were talking about going to be made? Read the post above yours for relevant information.

The previous owners generated a fair bit for themselves. although the club was left with a bit of debt mind... And how did they manage to do that? Why didn't they continue to do it if it was so easy?

...because Coloccini has done more this season, is the simple answer. Did or didn't Taylor play very well this season up until his knee injury? Williamson has looked better than Taylor alongside Colo in my John Humble. That said I've always been a bit of a Taylor sceptic. He seems very good at talking the talk but as a centre back I do believe he's guilty of always looking for the Hollywood tackle. Probably something that a lot of supporters don't want to admit but true nonetheless. Doesn't mean that Taylor has done badly, just brings a bit of perspective to the debate. we are a different set up at home since dropping the smith or butt idea. that may be part of it. I just think that Williamson is a more dominating centre half especially in the air, which compliments Coloccini well. I agree, I do like Taylor though and am not sure about this whole "yeah good, glad the cockney got knocked out" stuff that is starting to appear. Ok he is the "all action hero" a bit of a tit but a harmless one and I think his heart is in the right place so I don't understand why some sections seem to really have it in for him. Taylor is a Jack of all trades but master of none at the moment. He's the Aaron Hughes of this generation which is why we get seasoned posters suggesting he play right back. I still see him as a good prospect at CB but he's got way above himself. Whether he's worth what he thinks he is I highly doubt.

The previous owners generated a fair bit for themselves. although the club was left with a bit of debt mind...