tmonkey

Same as in every mosque. Unfortunately, that doesnt fit in well with media elements and rags like the Sun - if its not extreme, it doesnt suit the picture they like to portray, therefore it doesnt exist. Hence, views like those of Phil K, who think its OK to be racist towards asians/muslims because they "deserve" it. That kind of mentality is exactly how the terrorists themselves think. Terrorists dont see corrupt governments seperate from the millions of innocent civilians - they lump them all together, no different to those who hate all muslims because of the acts of a minority - hence why in their mind its OK to carry out acts of revenge on the general public.

Hed make a top class right back if he could be converted to that position willingly. Obviously never going to happen, but its a novel idea, not unheard of either, and he does have all the attributes youd want in a fullback - strong tackling, stamina, decent passing and crossing - no different to Zavier Zanetti in a way. I like Parker but Javier Zanetti was world class, so there's one difference straight away. Aye, but I meant in terms of attributes, hes not too dissimilar if we were to look at the basics only, whilst its also worth noting that Zanetti has played many a time in central midfield. Obviously Parker will never, ever be anywhere near as good as Zanetti, but he does remind me of a poor man's Zanetti sometimes, especially when he managers to play his way out of tight situations.

oh yeap, NUFC are a great side to put you back in your stride. We sure helped Kuyt get into the swing of things. Aye. Particularly remember: - Scholes getting criticised for form, with Dyer saying he should take his England place. Result? Scholes tore us to shreds like a man possessed. - Owen on a goal drought. Ends goal drought by scoring a hat-trick against us. - Rooney struggling for goals. Struggle ends when he scores a brace. Any top striker in poor form must look at us on the fixture list and smile.

Hed make a top class right back if he could be converted to that position willingly. Obviously never going to happen, but its a novel idea, not unheard of either, and he does have all the attributes youd want in a fullback - strong tackling, stamina, decent passing and crossing - no different to Zavier Zanetti in a way.

To be honest, Ball used to be pretty decent before his injury problems, and if on a free/very low transfer, short term contract, and on moderately reasonable wages, I would take him providing we got rid of Babayaro/Bernard and also signed a "proper" first team left back. I would have thought that after the way Sibierski has turned out, we wouldnt scoff at players considered shiite, because theres a chance that they might turn out to be pretty decent and useful. Who knows, Ball would probably be better backup than Ramage at left back.

Martins, if only because Owen isnt far off being as injury prone as they come. Doesnt matter how good Owen is, in my mind hell always be one collision, tackle, or outstretched boot away from picking up another injury, and therefore we can never build around him. Even if hes fit for 6 months and scoring plenty, therell always be the worry that in the next game hell do his hamstring, or his knee, or break a bone somewhere. The wages hes on is a big factor for me too. Even if released on a free transfer, we could still afford to roughly sign a 10mill striker on 50k per week purely from the savings we would make from his wages alone (100k per week, lets say hes paid 50 weeks per year, 5mill a season, thats 20 mill over 4 years). Add on a transfer fee, and it wouldnt be silly at all to get rid. Even though hes a class forward and we probably wouldnt be able to sign someone of his calibre, I think we'd do alot better with someone of Robbie Keane or Darren Bent's calibre, even though theres a relatively big gulf in class/ability.

The word 'just' makes it racist. However, Brit(ain) Scot(land) Paki(stan) means that it shouldnt have negative connotations. Unless 'Brit' is offensive. Shouldnt, but unfortunately does have negative connotations, and is offensive. No different to "nigger", which iirc is derived from "negro" and means "black" in one of the latin languages. Calling a black skinned person "black" shouldnt be offensive, but it obviously is if the general perception of the word is derogatory and offensive. Thats the same for all offensive words. Its not what they literally mean, its what theyre perceived to mean that matters. "Fuck" for example is another word for sex, if you apply the same logic, it shouldnt be offensive because when you say "fuck off" youre merely saying "sex off", but of course it is indeed offensive because or the perception and the understanding of the F word.

Last time I went to an NHS hospital, I didnt see any non-black nurses. Not saying thats a bad thing at all (assuming they all speak English), just that those who have a dislike/hatred for foreigners are going to be in a bit of an ironic situation when its very likely that a heart attack or stroke will lead to them being dependant on the very thing they hate. Guess its a reason to go private :wink:.

Been to plenty of games where it has looked to me like im the only non-white person in the entire ground, but never heard any racist chanting nor ever had anything said to me. Shame that this has happened, but hopefully itll never be more than an uneducated/ignorant minority who act like this. Can understand if it might be offputting, but just remember that a proportion of all people in every country on this planet are wankers, and that whatever they say/think means f*** all. Maybe theyll realise the errors of their ways when however many years later they end up being rushed to an NHS hospital and find its a foreign doctor/nurse who theyre dependant on for living.

Aye. Not a big fan of Bridge. Not sure why truthfully. IMO Baines is a class act for the future, whereas Bridge is a competent fullback who is very good at bombing forward, but also very one dimensional. Baines on the other hand is an intelligent defender, has good distribution, and extremely good shooting. Hasnt got the running power of Bridge, but is better at everything else.

No harm in getting both Distin and Woodgate, assuming both want to come here itd surely be financially viable and well within our reach - whilst getting rid of Bramble and Moore in the process. Probably wouldnt even be a big outlay at all if we could recoup 2-3 million. Distin, Woodgate, Taylor and Ramage would be a great squad of centrebacks to have. Wouldnt matter if Woody was injury prone with that squad, nor would Taylor's growth be stunted as hed still play regularly no doubt (imo its better for a defender of his age to develop as someone who plays regularly, but isnt a guaranteed first teamer - eg Terry a few years back when he was behind Desailly and Gallas). Wed cover so many bases with that squad - if a left back gets injured, Distin can play there and Taylor/Ramage alongside Woody, likewise if Distin gets injured (rare), if Woody gets injured, theres Taylor/Ramage to play alongside Distin, if a fullback gets injured, Taylor can fill in on the right, if both Distin and Woodgate get injured, then we have the defence that is playing right now which wouldnt be too bad for a last choice partnership. Obviously, this wont happen. We've rarely had one good centreback at the club at any point in time, let alone 2-3.

That kinda shows an ignorance towards how different teams play though tbh. Truth is - Reina is better for us, Given is better for you. Sometimes the simple thing to do is admit each team has the best goalie for their teams strenghts. There is no need for the big discussions. We play with a far higher defensive line than Newcastle, so we need a 'sweeper keeper type like Reina to allow us to do that. Given isn't that sort of keeper, so why do you think we'd be harder to score against with a goalie who wouldn't work in our team? This is why Reina is perfect for us, and why Given, as good as he is, wouldn't be as good for us. Really, sometimes - just lets be happy with what we have without having to try and make our players to be something they aren't! Our teams play different styles, we have very different goalies,which suit our needs. Given wouldn't suit our needs. Reina wouldn't suit Roeder's type of football. Ive always seen sweeping to be one of Given's strongest attributes. Hes always been very quick and alert to any balls played through when the defence has pushed up, he actually has more problems when the defence is playing deep because of the odd communication problem that happens once in a while - in fact, im not sure hes ever had any problems at all when its come to mopping up quickly, which he has had to do many a time and always done excellently. Add the considerably safer hands when dealing with crosses, considerably less mistakes, and considerably better shot stopping, then I can only say that ive not seen the same Reina you have for you to be considering him to be better. Reina does sweep more aggressively, but as you say, Liverpool require him to. How do you know Given wouldnt be just as good in that department (which imo he is, as proven for us whenever hes needed to be)? Given is a (relatively) small, agile, smart goalkeeper, great concentration, good at clearing aimlessly, and unless you want to put someone with Dyer's frame in goal for pace, then thats an ideal build and set of attributes for a "sweeper keeper". It may be that one keeper is better for one team, and the other better for another team - its obviously a subjective discussion, no way to tell unless a swap were to take place - but imo its more a case of Liverpool fans not wanting to accept that Given is a better keeper then what they have.

Don't want much do you? :roll: You think that's alot quite frankly I don't. A striker at Newcastle should be getting a goal every 2 games. I admit he has come to a different league but he has now found his feet now it's time to produce. The very best strikers in WORLD football have those kind of ratios. Fuck me. This is Newcastle thought Dave! Its not like our last 1 in 2 striker cost a world record fee or anything! Owen was pretty cheap, one third of the world record fee in fact. Therefore, if 1 in 2 strikers are so cheap, we should have one playing for us right now. As a side note to our ridiculous lack of a 1in2 goalscoring forward with brilliant linkup play, skill, and work rate, Martins is a young lad. He shouldnt be "expected" to produce consistently for at least another 2-3 years, let alone this season. Over the next 2-3 years, all we should be expecting from him is a gradual and slow improvement in his touch, linkup play, awareness/positioning, and shooting accuracy. Were not talking about going from average to amazing in these categories, just a reasonable improvement to levels that someone of his abilities should be able to get to. If he manages only to improve his shooting accuracy during this period, then thats enough for me to justify his large fee, because overall hes still a dangerous player whos main fault is that hes consistently missing the target.

Thats the thing, what Given doesn't do very well is something he can get away with, what he excels in is something that often wins us games. Its like writing off Van Nistlerooy because he rarely scores from outside the area and isn't exactly quick! Aye, spot on. Given definately has weaknesses, and they do lead to a goal once in a blue moon. For example, hes piss poor when it comes to penalties, in comparison to keepers like Buffon who actually excell at saving them hes a novice. As another example, if a cross comes in well flighted into the penalty box, and an opponent meets the ball with a good header getting it low either side of Given so that its "unsaveable", Given will concede. Other keepers, who might be considered better, will get their fingertips to those "unsaveable" shots (not literally unsaveable, but onces youd expect a keeper to have no chance in saving). Thats not what Given is about, and it doesnt really matter, because penalties and "unsaveable" goals arent frequent - its the shots on target that are just about saveable, or the shots that have an awkward swerve or bounce, or the crosses that should end up in the keepers' hands, or the through balls that should be cleared by the keeper, or when players are in a one-on-one with Shay - all of those are extremely frequent, and Given down the years has been so utterly efficient and consistent at "winning" in all those situations that it imo gives him an advantage over keepers like Lehman, Van der Sar, Cech, Reina etc, because they havent shown the same level of consistency or efficiency at dealing with all those basic parts of goalkeeping as Shay has shown, despite being behind considerably better defences. Its not to say Given is perfect, hes bound to make a mistake once in a while, but including those mistakes hes still alot more consistent/efficient than most others, and thats all you truly need in a keeper for a top side. Not suprised that he wanted out a while ago, but also not too suprised that hes not at a top side already. The likes of Lehman and VD Sar are just about good enough for their respective teams to win trophies with them - from their point of view, yes, Given would most likely be an improvement, but not a 10mill+ improvement, which is what I expect he'd cost, money which could be used to fund big signings for other positions. Apart from Buffon (who imo is a wonder keeper, no weaknesses and is very good in every department), extremely few top sides buy keepers for anything approaching 8-10 mill, they all tend to scrape by with what theyve got and whatever they can land on the cheap. Look at Barcelona - theyve got a poor keeper overall in Valdes, without a doubt their weakest link, yet wont spend anything in that department.

Put Reina behind Newcastle's defence, and we would concede goals left, right and centre - much more than we already do. Put Given behind Liverpool's defence, and theyd be alot harder to score against. Extremely few easy goals because the number of keeping mistakes would go down considerably, and anything that "should" be saved would be saved because thats what Given excells at - not a truly world class keeper like Buffon or Cassillas for example, but like them its extremely rare to see anything saveable go in. Given is definately better, just like Liverpool's defence is definately better than ours.

Hes basically a talented fooballer with an apallingly blase attitude. Such a shame, because hes got all the ability needed to be a good left back, just none of the desire, commitment and effort. Needs to be shipped out, hes put in far too many terrible performances like this one, and has had too many chances.

Destroys lives, families, communities, induces crime, spreads aids, etc etc. Anyone participating and profiting from that should be punished.

Shearer was never "quick", but a decrease in pace due to injury was enough to force him into a different, and without a doubt, lesser player. Same will be the case for Owen if he comes back slower. He'll still score when chances land his way, but he'll be easier to mark and some through balls or half chances that hed previous have gotten on the end of and tucked away will become wasted passes and no-chances. Good example is the goal at home to City (still on youtube), half a yard slower and that would not be a goal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBrp2MyEf3w I knew thered be a video of you on the internet somewhere! :wink:

Who knows, this could be the making of her. Maybe she'll get to do an advert for Virgin Mobile?

In my eyes, hed definately be the lowest risk goalscorer we could get our hands on. And for me, he ticks all the boxes we need: - pace - natural athleticism - rarely injured - decent/consistent finisher - ability to play on own - Premiership proven Would love for us to get him purely because were not then reliant on Owen for goals like we are right now. It also gives us an upper hand when it comes to Owen's position at the club - we can either use him alongside Bent, rotate him, or sell him when he gets fit, and make back much of the money it would have taken to sign Bent - let his injury proneness be a problem for another club. Hate to harp on about this, but it still applies - I still think Anelka is the one realistic signing that would solve all our striking problems, and he ticks all those boxes like Bent does, and then some. He can play as the main forward or as a support striker, hes got better movement, and without a doubt he has alot more ability than Bent. I know Bolton signed him for 8mill, and therefore a sale is pretty unlikely, but hed still cost less than Bent, who imo will fetch upwards of 12mill - which would surely have Bolton selling. Question is, would it be better to spend 12mill on a younger and less problematic but inferior forward, or 12mill on a significantly better forward? Considering the gap in ability/class, I would go for the latter, despite his "baggage". Would be delighted with either though.

unbelievable. I will leave macbeth - and maybe his monkey - to explain that Carr cost a lot less money and maybe he felt at that time he needed to watch the books. I wait for you to post in future criticising the club for overspending. As classic a case of "damned if they do damned if they don't" as it would be possible to find. And for the record, I would have liked Miguel, I think he is one of the best right backs going. No money for Miguel, yet we had 25mill to spare to sign Rooney that same summer? Care to explain that, bearing in mind that Sir Bobby wanted us to buy Miguel for 5/6mill before Euro 2004 - which Shephard refused - and the 25mill Rooney bid was made after Euro 2004? Sir Bobby wanted Miguel at a time when Shephard had a huge amount of cash tucked away, yet Shephard denied Sir Bobby those funds because he had other plans for that money, ie a mammoth bid for Rooney later on (and eventually, Owen when Souness wanted Anelka). did Bobby Robson also want Rooney ? I would be staggered if he didn't. I will allow macbeth and his monkey - again - to explain the importance of financial restraint to you, and while following their policy made Carr the player we got and not Miguel. They should be pleased that we did this. I'm not even going to comment on preferring Anelka to Owen, its nothing other than mind blowing stupidity. Scroll up a bit and see my post again, I edited it straight away to make it clearer - once you do, youll realise youve entirely missed the point of it with regards to your first question. As for asking me again, its been answered in that post - we werent in a tight financial situation, there was tons of money to spend, the difference is that Robson wanted to spend it on several good players, whilst Shephard wanted to sign several budget players and splash the cash on one big summer signing. Whether he was correct to do so or not (hindsight shows he was badly mistaken) is irrelevant - its all about Shephard refusing to back his managers with regards to who they want, and forcing their hand by holding back funds and eliminating those preferred players, and eventually/submissively getting approval for whoever it is that he (Shephard) wants. how do you know ? Do you have proof ? He is saying today he doesn't and hasn't. I would say, possibly, that Shepherd, as with most chairman, wouldn't have heard of some of the foreigners we have bought, which blows away your opinion completely. Is that meant to be a reply? Asking completely ambigious questions that make little sense? Cant deal with the issued raised, so now youre asking for proof? Anyway, ill answer yet another pathetic attempt to avoid actually discussing a serious negative issue with Shephard. How do I know? Do I have proof? Because we pulled out of the Miguel deal because of the 5/6mill price tag, and we then made a 22-25 mill bid for Rooney a few months later. How else do I know? Sir Bobby wouldnt have wanted Miguel and whoever else it is he wanted (Beattie?) if he knew before Euro 2004 that wed later be bidding 20+ mill on Rooney. Makes no sense. How else? Because Sir Bobby either did not know about the Rooney bid until it was made, or (as someone said on here) was merely asked if he would like Rooney. That wouldnt have been until after Euro 2004. So all that time, there was money sitting in Freddy's coffers, and he was refusing to spend money on who the manager wanted. And hes not saying "he doesnt" piss about with low bids when the manager wants a player he doesnt. Hes saying he doesnt sign players without input from managers - completely different topic altogether, and its not what is being argued against Shephard. In case youve forgotten, its another straw-man arguement - build a straw man up that you can knock down and pretend it represents the opposition. I will repeat myself here. What is being argued is that Shephard firstly refuses to spend the required amount on players who his manager wants, but then spends big on players who he wants after his managers' targets have been rejected. Stick with the points being discussed. the points are in the initial thread. He says the manager has chosen his own players. Thats it. Thats your "answer" to the points ive made? "He says the manager has chosen his own players". Thats all you could come up with. He doesnt even say that. He says: "I don't interfere with transfers and it is ludicrous to suggest that I bring in the players or make signings without the manager being involved" and "There is no way I have ever said to a manager 'There is Mr X - you have got him whether you like him or not'. which is completely different to "I let my managers choose who we sign". So, after straw men and red herrings, you now resort to lying in your pro-Freddy quest. Pathetic. Cant you simply accept defeat, or just say "ok, this is certainly a negative aspect of Freddy, I agree" instead of putting your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes, crouching in the corner and rocking back and forth whilst saying "Freddy is the best chairman ever, Freddy is the best chairman ever"? So lets get this straight - after refusing to acknowledge Freddy's serious fault here, youre now saying that its OK for Freddy to undermine his managers in the transfer market as long as we sign big names? :rolllrg:

Tomasson, from his stats, has been benched so far this season for Stuttgart. Would be a very handy squad forward to bring in, and shouldnt cost too much. Good linkup player, knows how to put the ball in the back of the net, intelligent player on and off the ball.

Spot on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

unbelievable. I will leave macbeth - and maybe his monkey - to explain that Carr cost a lot less money and maybe he felt at that time he needed to watch the books. I wait for you to post in future criticising the club for overspending. As classic a case of "damned if they do damned if they don't" as it would be possible to find. And for the record, I would have liked Miguel, I think he is one of the best right backs going. No money for Miguel, yet we had 25mill to spare to sign Rooney that same summer? Care to explain that, bearing in mind that Sir Bobby wanted us to buy Miguel for 5/6mill before Euro 2004 - which Shephard refused - and the 25mill Rooney bid was made after Euro 2004? Sir Bobby wanted Miguel at a time when Shephard had a huge amount of cash tucked away, yet Shephard denied Sir Bobby those funds because he had other plans for that money, ie a mammoth bid for Rooney later on (and eventually, Owen when Souness wanted Anelka). did Bobby Robson also want Rooney ? I would be staggered if he didn't. I will allow macbeth and his monkey - again - to explain the importance of financial restraint to you, and while following their policy made Carr the player we got and not Miguel. They should be pleased that we did this. I'm not even going to comment on preferring Anelka to Owen, its nothing other than mind blowing stupidity. Scroll up a bit and see my post again, I edited it straight away to make it clearer - once you do, youll realise youve entirely missed the point of it with regards to your first question. As for asking me again, its been answered in that post - we werent in a tight financial situation, there was tons of money to spend, the difference is that Robson wanted to spend it on several good players, whilst Shephard wanted to sign several budget players and splash the cash on one big summer signing. Whether he was correct to do so or not (hindsight shows he was badly mistaken) is irrelevant - its all about Shephard refusing to back his managers with regards to who they want, and forcing their hand by holding back funds and eliminating those preferred players, and eventually/submissively getting approval for whoever it is that he (Shephard) wants. how do you know ? Do you have proof ? He is saying today he doesn't and hasn't. I would say, possibly, that Shepherd, as with most chairman, wouldn't have heard of some of the foreigners we have bought, which blows away your opinion completely. Is that meant to be a reply? Asking completely ambigious questions that make little sense? Cant deal with the issued raised, so now youre asking for proof? Anyway, ill answer yet another pathetic attempt to avoid actually discussing a serious negative issue with Shephard. How do I know? Do I have proof? Because we pulled out of the Miguel deal because of the 5/6mill price tag, and we then made a 22-25 mill bid for Rooney a few months later. How else do I know? Sir Bobby wouldnt have wanted Miguel and whoever else it is he wanted (Beattie?) if he knew before Euro 2004 that wed later be bidding 20+ mill on Rooney. Makes no sense. How else? Because Sir Bobby either did not know about the Rooney bid until it was made, or (as someone said on here) was merely asked if he would like Rooney. That wouldnt have been until after Euro 2004. So all that time, there was money sitting in Freddy's coffers, and he was refusing to spend money on who the manager wanted. And hes not saying "he doesnt" piss about with low bids when the manager wants a player he doesnt. Hes saying he doesnt sign players without input from managers - completely different topic altogether, and its not what is being argued against Shephard. In case youve forgotten, its another straw-man arguement - build a straw man up that you can knock down and pretend it represents the opposition. I will repeat myself here. What is being argued is that Shephard firstly refuses to spend the required amount on players who his manager wants, but then spends big on players who he wants after his managers' targets have been rejected. Stick with the points being discussed.