Colos Short and Curlies

2 seperate commentators on Talksport today suggesting that if Ashley dropped the price back to £230m-£250m then the club would be sold to a Middle Eastern party in 2 hours. As the price stands no one from that neck of the woods is interested

Is every goal he scores a stunner? I think so! Bannnnnnnaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaa Tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeee!

He's already back, he's wearing a Joe Kinnear mask

Away trips to Croatia and Russia hopefully

Someones spreading shite about you

Have you been on RTG today?

I hate the formation as a rule but.... Beye - Colo - Bassong Ftw (need a couple of wing backs though.....)

Agreed. He won't be in charge of Spurs on the first day of next season. Nearly!

Kinnear missed both goals. Only at Newcastle

Tactically he might be limited, but I've a feeling the dressing room will be more fun for having Joe around. Tactics are low on our list of priorities right now. Basic football played with a modicum of confidence. Get a few wins on the board then you can start applying tactical genius

There's a reason nobody has signed him yet, his knee is fucked. Game by game basis, if he's not bringing in a wage he is likely to take it.

If Kinnear is being given the rope to sign Carr, surely he could go after Appiah as well to solve our midfield problems

At first I thought you were joking, but SC could be tempted by the money, plus Ranger will be brought in to score his obligatory 4 goals per game. Well Im working on the theory of having 4 start strikers and one "Prospect". You calling Nile a prospect? How very dare you. Not only that - a "Prospect" at that

See (4) Scenario put forward that KK is happy to return

They could stop the legal action at any time True, but while they in the process of legal action against each other, which they are (and this clearly isnt going to change), they can no longer work together. Apologies for any my miscommunication. I can see what you are trying to say, but lets go back to the beginning here to clear up this mess. (1) Keegan is taking the club to court for construcitve dismissal (no evidence that this is happening but the scenario assumed it was) (2) Reason for constructive dismissal is Wise (for simplicity) (3) Keegan can not return to club as it would render his case impotent (this is where you end) (4) Scenario put forward that KK is happy to return (you say he cant due to steps 1-3) (5) (The clever bit) as KK is happy he drops case and returns to club.

They could stop the legal action at any time

based on what exactly? or is this some ITK bullshit, or just some blind faith in Mike Ashley? The article is incorrect in saying that the club made a profit in the year ending 30th June 2007, it was a loss of almost £33 million. The source of this is the published accounts available for £1 from Companies House. It is now October 2008, so your opinion is 18 months out of date, so it’s unsubstantiated blind faith in Mike Ashley. Putting two statements together to create an argument relies on logic, something missing from that post. The Telegraph article is clearly based on a copy of the Seymour Pierce report and if you'd been following the story closely you'd have noticed that the Telegraph have had the inside track on this story before the other majors. Personally, i reckon the article is correct as its based on FSA compliant documentation. If Seymour Pierce were distibuting financial documentation at odds with the accounts the'd be comitting fraud. I'm lost. Are you saying you think we made a £3.5m profit or a £33m loss? Whatever Seymour Pierce are saying about the finances of the club is more accurate than the internet musings of a non-qualified fan who thinks business debt and household debt work the same way. Not sure than answers your question but thats my position. I think Mr Pierce is being slightly naughty here - as you would expect him to if you had asked him to sell the club... Loss per accounts (33m) Add back interest 7m Add back ammortisation 23m Add back loss of player sales 2m Gives you an 'operating loss' - i.e loss from day to day activities of less than £500k The depreciation charge for the year was £3.5million, adding this back gives you a 'cash operating profit' of just over £3m. Where he has been a bit naughty in getting to this number is including the compensation for Michael Owen's injury (£6.75m) So both numbers are correct, just depends on what definition of profit you want. Personally I don't think either of the numbers should be used in describing the state of the club, but thats just me (oh and not directly quoting you Chez, just carrying on the conversation)

thats the point, we dont know what the talks were about (well publicised are you kidding Edd!), what we do know are the clear contradictions in Ashleys employment terms towards Keegan, the rest is pure speculation. So, assuming Keegan was happy to work within the clubs structure, are you saying he still couldn't have come back for legal reasons? It looks like the terms offered were unreasonable to Keegan and were not to the terms of his employment, thus being a constructive dismissal and so engaging the legal stand-off. His walking has been supported by other managers responses, saying they it would not be acceptable to them including, Curbishley, ONeill, Ferguson, Wenger, Benitez, etc. Well that's lovely to hear, but is completely irrelevant to the question which you've ignored as I suspected you would. You said "he couldnt because of the legal implications, even if he wanted to." and I'm saying bullshit. Keegan isn't here because, for whatever reasons, he doesn't want to be. True or false? the question itself is irrelevant and inapplicable because of the legal implications, Keegan and NUFC could not work together because of the legal impasse. How is that so difficult to understand? Do you do divorce stuff as well ? never back down eh, even when owned. Is that more legal jargon cos I don't really understand what you mean ? Imagine that phrase in a courtroom. Tom C to Jack N 'blah blah blah' Jack N 'You want the Truth? You can't handle the truth!' Tom C ' Never back down eh? Even when you're owned!' (and shouldn't that be pwned seeing as we are on the interweb thingy?)

Owen would stay if we have a progressive owner and a forward thinking manager who look like they want to progress the club (and will pay his wages). Bar the top 4 (and City), I can't see a club who could afford the wages and that he would play for. One last nice contract for 4 years and then MO will retire to his horses.

thats the point, we dont know what the talks were about (well publicised are you kidding Edd!), what we do know are the clear contradictions in Ashleys employment terms towards Keegan, the rest is pure speculation. So, assuming Keegan was happy to work within the clubs structure, are you saying he still couldn't have come back for legal reasons? It looks like the terms offered were unreasonable to Keegan and were not to the terms of his employment, thus being a constructive dismissal and so engaging the legal stand-off. His walking has been supported by other managers responses, saying they it would not be acceptable to them including, Curbishley, ONeill, Ferguson, Wenger, Benitez, etc. Well that's lovely to hear, but is completely irrelevant to the question which you've ignored as I suspected you would. You said "he couldnt because of the legal implications, even if he wanted to." and I'm saying bullshit. Keegan isn't here because, for whatever reasons, he doesn't want to be. True or false? the question itself is irrelevant and inapplicable because of the legal implications, Keegan and NUFC could not work together because of the legal impasse. How is that so difficult to understand? Because its jibberish? You are claiming that Keggy may have a case of constructive dismissal and this legal situation prevents him from coming back. You have also quoted the LMA saying that this constructive dismissal centres around the management structure and Keggy being unable to work with them. Fine (ish) The question was 'if keggy was happy to work with the structure.....' Rendering the legal situation redundant as there is now no constructive dismissal scenario. How is that so difficult to understand?

Nope, football is about bad decisions.

4-0 win

Given Geremi - Colo - Bassong - Enrique Guthrie - Butt - ?? Owen Xisco - N'Zogbia Worth a shot - and playing a ?? would be better than Duff

(1) As I've said elsewhere Ashley's vision for the club was long term and involved building from the acadamy. Maybe he sees qualities in the two mentioned that goes on behind the scenes. If Keegan hadn't walked adn we had got 6 points from Hull and Blackburn, 1 from West Ham and beaten Spurs nobody would have had a problem. The Keegan factor has clouded every other action which has gone on at the club since last summer. (2) The £20m was over and above what the club could generate, maybe it would have been spent in January. We will never know

A bit like here really, a place where Newcastle United fans can meet & chew the fat about topics regarding Newcastle United. Of course it is a big step for some of us to put down our keyboards & go into a pub/club & tell some fucker how it is about Newcastle United. If that is all it is intended to be then was there any need to call it the Newcastle United Supporters Club? Doesn't matter who likes it or not, at the present time a group with a name like that will be seen to be a strong supported movement who represent the fans, like the group who got FC United formed in Manchester