Mick

He had crutches and could move.

The one legged kid who scored a penalty at half time deserves a mention, he ran faster on one leg than Nolan does on two.

He wasn't very good, he's clearly lacking any confidence.

He defended that ball at a critical time in the game and played his part in us getting 3 points.

I think we would have been in trouble if he hadn't been on the line to clear the ball.

Coloccini for the second season in a row.

He's the best central defender I've seen play for us.

Pardew got every decision right today and even though I don't rate him, I'm glad for him.

Another class performance, he's just so good at the back and when taking the ball away from our goal. He was on both wings in the second half and didn't look out of place.

Did you have to post that?

No, he really is our top striker.

When Ashley took over the debt was over £72 million and we'd spent our sponsorship money from Adidas and Northern Rock which was still showing on the books as deferred income. We'd spent it but hadn't yet earned it at that time as we still had years to run on those sponsorship deals so it's also a debt. Edit. We also had additional income that year as we received £6.7 million in compensation for Owen.

Where did you get your information about us paying for Luque up front?

Ibrahimovic is rumoured to be on £8 million a year.

If we spend £24 million of the Carroll fee on a player it will leave £46,000 a week to pay him over 5 years, he'd more than likely be on less than Smith.

The £35 million is only a good price if it improves us.

I don't see any difference in the two situations other than money which wasn't used as a reason for not giving him a new contract. Carroll only asked for a new contract because he was being offered something which dwarfed the one he was on, I doubt any player in his situation would have handled it any differently. The club decided that they couldn't give him a new contract so soon after signing the previous one, they had no problem doing the same for somebody else who could have also been given a better contract in the summer.

How is not giving one player a new contract because he's just signed one any different to giving another one a contract within the same time frame? The money that Carroll was asking for wasn't given as the issue, him having just signed a contract was and both situations are the same. "He had a five-year contract and we said we would renew it in the summer but he wanted it renewed straight away and that is when the power shifted. "And it wasn't just about Andy Carroll [on Monday]. If we did a deal with him where does that leave everyone else at the club?

The argument against giving Carroll a new deal was that others would see it as a signal to go cap in hand for a new deal.

How many of our players could do better than playing for us?

That's exactly what happened with Carroll, and again, double standards.

What difference does the money make? The money wasn't mentioned as being the problem, expecting a new contract so soon after signing the previous contract was.

We'll have to agree to disagree especially as Pardew doesn't specify what you are mentioning.

The part which I think sums it up best is "The concept implies that a single set of principles encompassing all situations (a "single standard") is the desirable ideal." I would have had no problem with the Carroll contract request having been turned down if it wasn't for Tiote getting a new contract within months of his original. I don't have a problem with Tiote getting a new contract either apart from it coming after Carroll was refused one.