Mick

We've only really got two left backs, Babayaro and Edgar so it's not as if we've got a lot to choose from. If N'Zogbia is better than those two then that is good for us, it could just be Allardyce giving his confidence a boost by talking him up rather than the Souness/Roeder style of man-management which was to talk players down. We haven’t seen a lot of Edgar but when we have he’s done a good job for us, if N’Zogbia is better then it’s not as bad as we might think in that position. My priority wouldn’t be a left back anyway, it would be the dominant central defender we need, I don’t want us playing with a weakness but if we have to then I’d rather it was out wide than through the middle, we need to get the spine right first then work on our wide positions. Goals are rarely conceded from wide positions most come from in or around the box, obviously cutting out the ball before it gets to the middle will prevent a few.

I tried.

The post you were replying to was tongue in cheek and not meant to be taken seriously.

a lot of people (me included) said similar about solano Read the title.

I hope the clubs are playing hardball when it comes to wages, the players get enough and we all know how wages spiralled when the last TV deal was negotiated. I'd rather the clubs kept the cash and used it rather than handing it over to the players, tell them to piss off, greedy bastards.

Some of what has been said since the takeover has come as a bit of a surprise to me, the debt for one. Not that we've got it and not the amount becuase we mentioned it when our results were released. What I'm surprised at is that even without due diligence they only had to do a Google and they would have found a link to the latest set of results. I've read quite a bit of information about Mort (know your emeny) on the Internet and he doesn't come across as being someone to miss out on something as basic as that.

Always glad to help. http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/4940/cashdv2.jpg

I can understand how you come to that after reading his post.

It's not like you to totally distort what somebody posts, Ok, maybe it is. How the hell can I comment on any divine right to anything because I've never thought or said that we have a divine right to anything, the same way as I didn't think Shepherd had a divine right to failure, I don't suppose he had actually because most of his appointed managers shared it with him. As for the approach adopted by Hall and Shepherd, it was the same as the earlier boards when it came to taking from the club and leaving it in debt. I wasn't too bothered about Robson going, I was more than happy with his replacement, I wasn't bothered about Waddle either apart from the fee being a stitch up, Gazza and Beardsley, gutted.

No idea if Ashley would have wanted the club in 1992, probably not. In the region of £44 million was borrowed originally for the extension, that money was borrowed with the idea of it being financed through the sale of season tickets, we now have a reported debt of £80 million. The debt was not manageable, it has been growing for the last two years so it wasn't exactly under control. I can't remember how much it increased by last year but I'm sure it was by more than we spent on transfers, somebody else may be able to confirm or correct that. When have I ever said that the club has been run by shit directors for the last 15 years? I'll answer that one for you because you don't like answering, the answer is nowhere.

Of course it is, it's either Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. It never happens on any other day.

What do you class as success? You must think it's the amount of money we spend regardless of the outcome, at least that's the way it comes across. I'm giving you every opportunity to answer the question but you seem to want to avoid it for some reason, I've no idea why.

Stop trying to change history, the debt is in the region of £80 million and the last set of accounts showed the debt against expending the stadium was less than £40 million, I think it was £37. The amount of money spent is not a sign of one being better than the other, you've got a warped set of values, and it’s what you get for the money.

Do you always rephrase things when you're proven wrong? Also, what do you call success?

Pot and kettle come to mind.

Do you think that if you say it often enough it might become true?

Of course it would, the managers appointed by Shepherd.

In the wrong hands money means nothing, money + Souness = debt.

It's no worse than last year and it's got a better manager telling it what to do.

I couldn't give a toss about personalities, we don't know if Ashley will back his managers. If he doesn't back them as much as Fred and the Halls, who would you rather have ? Backing as much as Fred or the Hall's is meaningless, it's what we get for the money. If Ashley doesn't back Allardyce as much as Shepherd might have but we win something then it's better.

You might turn out to be correct with some of the above but the comment about Ashley not spending money is no more than a crock of shit, he's spent £133 million to buy the club and he's taken on £80 million in debt. For the first time in the history of Newcastle United we've got a sole owner, one who has dragged more cash out of his pocket than we've ever seen before. He has employed a top businessman who is now looking at the club to see how it stands. We might not be taking massive leaps but we do seem to be laying the foundations to move forward by make good decisions for the club. If things work out well for us I think you will be privately gutted.

NSG?

Tell them to fuck off in that case.

I think it probably has something to do with it, I also think we have some money to spend but not as much as we would probably have once they understood the state of the club, that's just a guess.