Taylor Swift

EXV did, he deleted the post. My bad. Thought I was pressing 'modify' and didn't notice till the post was gone!

is one of your rivals in the league 'League for Lovers'? :lol:

Liverpool have had 4 shots after HT. What the fuck did Rafa say to them?!

Next 'gameweek' we'll have a 'fantasy football' thread for Cali's sake.

Gerrard come on!!! FUCK!

I must admit it gets me involved in games where usually I couldn't give a fuck. That's the beauty of it. I need Bolton and Liverpool to score. Exactly. But I hate it when there is a real conflict of interest ie. my fantasy team vs the interests of Newcastle. Those games are always a bugger to watch. That's why I don't do the CL one and never did the WC or Euro Champs one as well.

FUCKING HELL! I HATE ROONEY! I HATE WENGER! WHY CANT FUCKING MICAH RICHARDS SCORE?! JOHN TERRY YOU USELESS TWAT MY FANTASY LEAGUE LEAD IS NON EXISTANT NOW!

Liverpool have had 11 shots on goal today, only 2 on target. Come on Gerrard, make my fantasy day.

Op Nit, what's your team name? I can only find Op Nutcases..

But I'm top of my league so far and was in the 20 in the NO league until only the last couple of weeks but I'm still there or thereabouts.

And my lead in my league is down to 2 points. Fucking hell.

Both people i'm in other leagues with. I haven't. I am extremely tempted to do it for the next gameweek with a few clubs having two fixtures. My original plan was to keep it until the last gameweek of the season so I can hopefully confirm my title by basically picking players playing at home but aaaaah, the temptation!!

I'm still ahead of you though

Has anyone used their wildcard yet?

Dave, how the hell did you fit in Drogba and Rooney? And how come so many of your players are playing tonight? Prudent planning?!?!

Fucking Fabregas is rested for tonight's game. Though I'm extremely happy Kanu isn't playing for once, the lucky tit keeps ruining my charge towards the title (I'm ahead but only by 10 pts in a 20 team league because this tit keeps scoring!). For tonight only, I'm a Stevie G fan.

LMAO at Arsenal and Whinger after all the whinging he's done this past week in regards to awards and them annoying stuff. Concentrate on your own team, oldie.

Same here mate.

Funny then that you should choose to believe everything that GW Bush talks about.

When Roeder first came in, our defence improved significantly as well. So I'm doubtful that it is actually Pearson's impact that has changed us. Roeder supposedly came in and the first thing he did was try to sort out the defence, which he did to a point. Then what happened? At the start of this season, we were shit again, what happened over the summer to Roeder's ability to teach his defenders how to defend? Sure we played against some average teams during the run-in but our defence wasn't making the mental mistakes it still is making.

Inappropriate? Childish? That's rich, given what I'm replying to. I'd say it sounds like you're one of those who takes the view something they don't agree with is "inappropriate". A common trait on this forum, it must be said. What do you want me to say in response to the kids question that is totally unrelated to football? I couldn't give a toss about any warehouse, I couldn't give a toss about what Fred has said in a brothel. I don't care that Geordie women are dogs and whatever it is he said about Shearer. I couldn't give a toss about dividends as long as money is made available to the manager to strengthen the team, which is what this Board has consistently done and which may not happen under another Board. You can believe the opposite if you like. That's my answer to the question. Perhaps you and your chum can now answer some of mine? Like why do you think it's guaranteed another Board will appoint the right manager, will provide as much funding for players, etc etc. They're all there in the thread but have been *childishly* ignored so far. How can you not care about a chairman giving our own money to his other family business when we are paying for it to be spent on the team? In response to your question - those that have taken over at other clubs haven't done badly have they? Fact is, only good businessmen can afford to take control of a Premiership club, and that can only be a good thing for the football club. Therefore, any replacement coming in is bound to be better. Going to have disagree vehemently with the last part of your paragraph. Any replacement that comes in is NOT bound to be better. If they know nothing about football (like Shepherd), then they'd be no better than him and probably worse because at least Shepherd tried to please the fans (seen by some of his reactionary moves) while the new bloke wouldn't have a clue what to do. And as of a year ago, many people (on this board as well) were saying that Shepherd was a good businessman and at least runs the financial side of the club well and that's why some of them were willing to stick it out with him in the hope that we get lucky with a manager. How times have changed eh?

Maybe this load of shite came from Shepherd himself? "I can only do my best here with the tools I've got, which in my opinion are more than enough to get this football club into Europe every season and something we now expect. Yes, there are always going to be setbacks. But if there is somebody out there who can do better than me and who would be willing to invest millions into the club, then fine. Every penny I have had from this club I have reinvested back into the club. I have never sold a single share since I came to the club and the money I have had has been reinvested in the way of buying shares. When people say that I have taken money out of the club, all I have done is to put the money back in by buying shares. Nobody can accuse me of taking money out of this football club and not reinvesting it." Source: Dead long link Err, aye? Aye aye bluewink.gif HTL in the familiar position of being owned. You're obviously too intelligent for me, mate. I haven't a clue what you're babbling about. As usual, I'll abuse you and offer nothing to the debate bluebigrazz.gif An internet tough guy, you appear in the thread posting personal abuse. Well done. Your contribution is as always, a joy and informative to read. Thanks. My pleasure mate.

If he does turn out to be as good as Given, we'd be one fucking lucky team.

No problem mate.

When people invest in stocks and shares it's a risk investment. They expect to get a higher rate of return on their money than sticking it in the bank where it would be safe. A football club is not like other businesses which can easily expand and diversify therefore the oportunity for share price growth is more limited. (Unless you want us to open a chain of hotels, casinos or supermarkets which would eventually become far more profitable than a football club and make the NUFC part of the business irrelevant). The dividends given out are at or below the rate of inflation (% of the club value). The losses you refer to are directly due to the amount spent on transfer fees and wages in a period where we have made extraordinary expenditure in transfer fees due to the need to replace our main striker with a quality replacement and then to repair the team after the wastefulness and incompetence of the previous manager, and also having to cover for incredible bad luck with injuries to Owen. This is also in a year when we were not in European competition, sot the profits were hit there. When losses are made it is because money is being reinvested back into the business. If a company acquires a smaller business it will affect its profits and may even make a loss for the financial year. As a shareholder would you expect to not receive a dividend because of this extraordinary expenditure? So relating back to the original question, the board obviously does back its managers. Too much for your liking it would seem. Perhaps you would be happier if the board gave less money to the manager for transfers, say only £5m a year on average instead of £10m? That’s £50m over 10 years. You seem to think that the amount of transfer money spent doesn’t affect team performance, so the income would be the same and the profits would be healthy. The board could give even bigger dividends and you’d be happy because the club was making a profit. NOONE believes the board are currently sinking their own money from outside the business into the club, and anyone who says others think this are being incredibly condescending towards their fellow supporters to say that they do. It's not extraordinary expenditure, it's normal expenditure ie. transfers. Another fool who believes the club has to spend money on players such as Owen and the rest, rather than settle for a team full of Faye's and other average players at relatively small fees. When did I say we have to spend money on the Owens to succeed? I said we HAVE to spend money to succeed. Don't know where you got the Owen part from. At least next time try reading other people's posts before responding, it'll help your posts to have some sort of relevance to the thread and not just be pure bollocks like it usually is.