TRon

Back then he was there first choice left back he has played quite a few games in CM, so he himself may want to leave & Blackburn may not regard as highly anymore. Plus Blackburn are on a downward spiral which means players are far harder to keep happy at the club. Warnock might be able to push for a move if the mood in the camp is not good.

By the same token, which self-respecting club would be renewing Butt's contract and putting him first name on the team sheet? Or buying Liverpool reserves and putting them straight into their first team? All that is being suggested is that Shola be given a contract so he can be a RESERVE target man. We can still spend £20m on a first team striker by all means.

From what I've seen he does nothing on the touchline anyway, so if he's barred from the dugout it will hardly make any difference. He only seems to have any input at half time and he can still do that.

They cost money, who knows how much is going to be made available, either with Ashley here or any potential new owners. If there was money to replace Shola and the other players who's contracts are running out, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Agree 100%, and until we know there is any money available we can't afford to get rid of players as we might not be able to replace them. The two of you are off your head. The last thing we should be doing if money is thight (which would be a disgrace, but that's another matter) is handing out contract extension to players who have proven themselves over years and years to not be good enough.. If we apply that logic to our club we would end up with a squad of about 6 players. Exactly. Yes in a perfect world we would get rid of shola, but unless we are in a position to actually bring in a player to replace him with we should keep him on for an extra year at least. Ofcourse Ranger and other youngesters should be given their chance, but what happens if they're aren't any good? NE5 has a point you know. A club of our size owes it to itself and us supporters to have a level of ambition that matches the club's stature. Over the past few seasons not only our results have dwindled, but it now seems our expectations are also getting significantly lower. I don't think that is acceptable. The owner, whether it was Shepherd, Ashley or a new man needs to be prepared to fund continuous improvement. If they aren't, we will fall further behind, because the competition certainly IS investing and improving. For me, it would be another sign of lowered ambition if we offered a below par player a new contract. If that's the best the owner can offer the club they are really letting us down and deserve to be hounded out. I agree with that, but then like i said, if we apply that logic, how many of our current squad deserve a contract?

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, but despite the fact we've scored in most matches, we don't actually have a lot of goals in our team. Owen and Martins yes, but the midfielders contribute very few so we are relying on our front pair an awful lot. I felt a lot more optimistic when we had Owen, Viduka and Martins in tandem. Then it didn't really matter if the midfield all sat back.

I'll be really surprised if we get anything more than a draw out of this. If Viduka was starting I'd be more hopeful, otherwise we may continue to struggle for goals. 1-1

They cost money, who knows how much is going to be made available, either with Ashley here or any potential new owners. If there was money to replace Shola and the other players who's contracts are running out, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Agree 100%, and until we know there is any money available we can't afford to get rid of players as we might not be able to replace them. The two of you are off your head. The last thing we should be doing if money is thight (which would be a disgrace, but that's another matter) is handing out contract extension to players who have proven themselves over years and years to not be good enough.. If we apply that logic to our club we would end up with a squad of about 6 players.

None of the established stars would stay, other than over the hill players like Butt, Smith, Duff and Geremi. They aren't going to get better deals elsewhere. The thought of Barton staying out of loyalty makes me laugh. Any quality player who can find a decent premier alternative would jump ship. On the plus side we don't have many of those players so most will probably stay

Done.

Owen and Ameobi are the two I would tie down. Harper I would like to keep but not at the expense of Krul. The truth of the matter is, I am not particularly bothered about any of them tbh, I would leave it to the new manager to sort out assuming the club is going to be sold.

They cost money, who knows how much is going to be made available, either with Ashley here or any potential new owners. If there was money to replace Shola and the other players who's contracts are running out, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Agree 100%, and until we know there is any money available we can't afford to get rid of players as we might not be able to replace them. We could replace him without spending a penny tbh. I'd give Ranger his chance to see what he can do for a start. In fact, getting Shola off the payroll and promoting Ranger wouldn't harm the team and trim the wage bill substantially. Is Nile Ranger a target man who will win the ball in the air? I always had the impression he was more of an Anelka type, big but better with the ball at his feet. The genuine target men in our side for me are Viduka, Shola, Carroll and Xisco. Viduka will cost 80k/wk to sit on his arse if we want to give him a new contract, Xisco wasn't getting a start ahead of Shola, and that leaves us with Carroll. I think with Shola at least you know what you will get and a 1-2 year contract would be a decent option for a back up target man.

What has he done to deserve a new contract btw? The only reason you can say potentially to give him one is how thread bare the squad already is, as especially as I can't see Viduka and Owen staying. But he certainly doesn't deserve one based on his performances over the last couple of seasons. My reasoning is that he wouldn't be on big money and he can come in and do a job as a target man if the first choice like Viduka is unfit, however likely it may sound. I would say we picked up some important points during Shola's spell in the first team and for a stand-in in he did a decent job.

Can those saying no give their reasoning (try and make it a bit more helpful than 'he's shit')

I know he's not good enough, but he's proved a useful stand-in while Viduka's been injured. I doubt he'd be on much money if Ipswich and Norwich can afford him and we could probably get a fee if we needed to sell him on once he's tied down. Along with Butt, Harper and Owen he is in the last year of his contract. For me Butt should not be a first team regular either but he's probably on a lot bigger contract.

Well, this is something NUSC is concerned about. We've been told several times that something will be have been decided/everything will be clearer by a certain date. We've got to that date and absolutely nothing has happened. It's a massive worry because we're being lied to and we're five weeks away from the transfer window opening. We're probably not going to be in the hands of new owners, unless things start happening quickly (which I admit is possible). We don't know if Ashley is going to provide some funds if he is still the owner. I'll say that I'm genuinely frightened by the prospect of January because we need new faces in, we have important players whose futures are very very uncertain and could leave in January. We're already right in the thick of a relegation battle and other clubs will use January to strengthen their squads. Meanwhile we're completely in the dark as to what's happening and I'm very concerned. Tom what do you think should happen if there are no buyers interested even at a "reasonable" price? I think that is the crux of the matter though, how hard is Ashley trying to sell the club? The last figures suggested by Keith Harris for a sale of the club were around £280-300million, which in a buyer's market in current financial conditions is very high. Why does he need to make such a large profit if he's genuinely wanting to get rid? If he doesn't want to invest in the club, he should drop his price and get the sale done. No one is suggesting he should lose money, but if he gets his money back or makes a small profit at least it allows the club to move on and no one loses. If he holds onto the club and doesn't want to invest then he is taking the piss quite frankly.

I don't mind him wheeling and dealing, it's the players he's likely to sell to raise funds which worries me. If it's Smith, Duff or Butt no problem.

The bit about his friendship with Bassong strikes true for me. I think if he was playing regularly, or at least getting the odd start now and then Zog would be very content here. If he's not being used then of course he's going to look for a move, I doubt it would be different for anyone else. If Michael Owen sits on the bench two games in a row stories of unrest start to appear, I'm not sure it's fair to single out Zog as being stroppy for this.

I say its the endless running with his head down until he runs into a defender loses posession and the whole team gets caught on the counter. Or maybe the going to sleep at leftback costing goals regardless of his natural position. He doesn`t score many and for some reason like the rest of the team can`t take a corner or cross spectaculary. If we get good money I won`t mind at all. Agree with this. And if that money doesn't get reinvested? I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest it will be. I'd rather hang on to the first team squad we've got right now than watch decent assets get hived off tbh. its aposition in which we have strngth though and it does seem like gutierrez's stronger side. like every player at every club, he'll have a price. There is strength until we have an injury or two. Yes like every player he'll have a price but my real point is people are getting excited about doing "good business" for Zoggy. Its only "good business" if the squad sees the benefit by reinvestment of the funds. I'm not convinced that we have that situation going on here right now - despite what JFK may be saying. he's one of the few we'd get decent cash for without weakening the first 11. Says it all. It does...I'd love to see us get offered decent money for good lads like Duff, Butt or Smith but because they're such top players no doubt they will be beyond the budget of most clubs. Incidentally great post Shak, sums up my position entirely. While I can see Zog has some flaws in his game, If I had to name five players I wanted to move on from the club, Zog wouldn't be on the list. With a squad full of one-paced journey men he's one of the few who brings something different to the table, and wouldn't look out of place at a decent club.

Larsson from Birmingham might be worth another shot. Especially as we still don't have a proper right winger.

"The last player we want to sell is James Milner. I am sure he will not be leaving St James' Park." If PSG want to pay 12m on the other hand.... Anyway, love the way some are harping on about a few decent goals (out of numerous appearances) as an example of Charlie's amazing potential (and the continued comparisons to Ronaldo are frankly an embarrassment). Can we point out the goals scored by Duff and Smith from 3-4+ seasons ago to support their continued inclusion in the squad? They've both scored some belters in their time too. No first touch, no composure, no vision, not that much speed, not that much technique, all of those are the key attributes that make Ronaldo the player he is and are the most starkly lacking attributes of Charlie's game. He has some good attributes (aggression, directness/takes players on and can pass) and i'd prefer if he stayed if he was happy to. However, if we could get a decent price, i'm sure we could find a player that adds more value to the side. We are of course required to sell to buy this window, as we all know. That bolded bit is what I am skeptical about. Wide players who produce quality consistently are out of our price range or over the hill such as Beckham and Geremi. I think I'd prefer to see Lua lua given a chance rather than waste money on more Duffs or Smiths if Zog is going to be sold. In a nutshell, I don't believe he will be replaced by someone better but I'm happy to be proven wrong on that one.

he would say that...wouldn't he. To me that translates as "he won't be leaving on the cheap so if PSG or anyone else want him they'll have to stump up serious cash"

We are crippling ourselves unless we are serious about either selling the club or running it properly with some reasonable investment. If either of those should come to pass by January then I don't see any need for protest. If not...well then Mike Ashley can go fuck himself tbh. If he wants to hang around and watch the club bleed to death he will deserve everything that comes his way. care to elaborate? I don't know at this stage but if you want a stab in the dark it could be more vocal protests....or possibly a bouquet of crysanthemums and roses.

http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2008/11/25/frenchman-could-find-exit-door-opens-soon-61634-22330045/ In any case, we need to start giving more first team experience to Lua Lua, who I think will turn out to be a much better player. Is he a left winger? He doesn't need to be when both Duff and Jonas can play on the left. I forgot about Jonas tbf. In which case Zog is definitely more expendable. If it was down to me though, I would keep Zog and sell Duff in an ideal world. Duff and Jonas are hard working but neither has goals in them. While i expect someone will show me some stats at this point it won't really change my view: I believe Zog is a goal-scoring midifelder in a team playing well, so he offers something a bit extra. We might have seen only glimpses of it since he's been here but it's there IMO.

We are crippling ourselves unless we are serious about either selling the club or running it properly with some reasonable investment. If either of those should come to pass by January then I don't see any need for protest. If not...well then Mike Ashley can go fuck himself tbh. If he wants to hang around and watch the club bleed to death he will deserve everything that comes his way.

The bottom line is if we sell Zog, that leaves us with Duff as our only left winger. No matter how good a lad he is, I don't believe in Duff, I can't see him as being anything other than a loser playing for a losing team in the long run. I would love it if we sold Butt, Smith and Duff in January. As it is I think we'll get more for Zog than we would for all three if they were put up for sale.