Taylor Swift

Sack this cunt.

This is Pardew's way of putting pressure on Kinnear and Ashley.

Grenier and Cabella for £25m would make far too much sense. Then we'll sign De Jong and Remy in the summer for £15m combined. That would still leave us with £20m for next January and the summer beyond to replace Coloccini.

I would say that we have around £40m, not £60m since our wages are much higher than last year's. The £40m factors in the wages for players like Cabella and Grenier, who at this point would be earning more than Cabaye did when he signed for us. There are also expected wage increases for Ben Arfa and assumed wages for new strikers. It is still a substantial amount of money that we have left to spend, and that is for this window and the summer window. We are still operating at a £25m surplus when you factor in the Wonga deal, so we should have £30m to spend next January and the summer after. If we decide to expedite that cash then we're looking at £50m now and January. Either way, there is a lot of room financially to spend exactly what we make, and make the team far more competitive, assuming Pardew doesn't get to pick the signings. Even if we spend £60m in the next two seasons without selling a single player, we should still be breaking even financially, and that's assuming the better players that we bought does not lead us into Europe.

Just saw a YouTube video of Grenier. Wanted to post 'Welcome to Newcastle'

By the way, I've seen people say that we're getting £60m more from the new TV deal. We're not. The bottom club sees an increase of around £20m and the title winners see an increase of around £40m. We should get around £30m more. Maybe some of it was spent last winter but with the Cabaye fee, we should have roughly £40m to spend now and the summer, and we should be able to afford higher wages for the players too.

It's like dumping your wife because you want to fuck Margot Robbie. Err, it might be good to know she's interested in your small penis before doing it.

I'm okay with promoting the Europa by increasing revenues and decreasing revenues in the CL but it's a subsidy, which will never fly. It's also harder to negotiate TV deals for the Europa. Eliminate it, have the CL, collectively bargain for better rights and spread the money. You will enable smaller teams to qualify and to build squads that are capable of winning domestic leagues and cups. In the end, that is the bread and butter. In general, I feel my proposals are realistic because none of the teams/leagues lose out financially. It's a win-win and can realistically be implemented. I feel any wage or transfer cap would never be able to be implemented for various reasons, laws being the most important. The EU have a history of over regulation that other institutions don't. Even if you got pass the EU, Chinese and other Asian leagues would never agree to cut themselves at the knees today because realistically the future is huge for them. In 20 years time, the Chinese league will be one of the best paying, and with that comes the highest quality players. It's the same reason players go to England these days.

You have some interesting views except for capping wages to a ratio of turnover. That is the worst way to promote competition, mate. You need to make it so that the commercial and sponsorship income that those clubs currently enjoy are accessible to a wider range of clubs. Why do those clubs enjoy those incomes? Because they are exposed to consumers and audiences around the world through the Champions League and through becoming competitive in their domestic league. So now you try to expose other clubs, too. How? Increase qualifiers into the Champions League. That will increase exposure, increase commercial income and increase access for newer clubs. How do you make clubs more competitive in their leagues? Protect them from the clubs that have more money, so that they're able to keep their best players longer. How do you do that? Ban loans because loans promote inequality. Banning loans will lead to lesser permanent transfers to the clubs with money and it would also lead to transfers that are far more expensive (because the players will be more mature). That will lead to greater income to the smaller clubs, and if it is wisely spent, will lead to them being more competitive vis-a-vis the clubs with money. You want to promote competition without making it easy to compete. A salary cap which essentially guarantees profits reduces the incentive to compete and grow because owners will be satisfied with making profits each year. A transfer cap would make it harder for promoted teams to compete because they won't be able to overhaul their squads in preparation of a tougher league, and it would also make it harder for newly qualifiers of the Champions League to be able to compete with the teams already in there, too. You need to promote good, sustainable risk-taking because good off-the-pitch management needs to be well-rewarded.

You would be entrenching the current system. Teams with huge revenue streams and massive stadiums would always pass this 'test'. But what about the likes of Liverpool who are trying to rebuild? They would most definitely be beyond any artificial wage 'threshold' that the league would set, and why would you blame them? They are trying to rebuild, to grow, because the rewards are great if they succeed. Make the rewards far more easily attainable and you will have more clubs competing for it. More clubs competing it will lead to a higher quality of matches and a higher quality of the league itself. But instituting a salary cap or a percentage of revenue would be the worst way to accomplish this because it would entrench the financial advantage that the teams in the Champions League already have. I mean, if you told me I could design one system that would forever protect the positions of the best four or five teams in the league, bar completely unrealistic rules, I'd institute a salary cap or a percentage of revenue that they could spend on wages. It would have a disastrous effect on competition. I really need you to explain how ensuring that clubs could only spend a uniform amount on players and wages would be disastrous for competition. Chelsea's revenue vs ours. Let's say you institute a salary cap of 70% of revenues. Clearly this allows Chelsea to spend more in nominal terms. It would entrench their position because they would be successful year-in year-out, success would lead to sponsorship and commercial income, which would lead to a more 'ability' to spend. So % terms are out. So you institute a nominal spending cap instead. At which level, though? £70m? Chelsea's revenues are £250m+. You'd be guaranteeing Abramovich £100m in profits every year and it would come directly out of the players' pockets into his. Those profits could also be spent on developing youth teams and facilities, something that we wouldn't be able to afford to. But anyway, say we put a cap at £70m, what happens to clubs like Wigan and Charlton and Forest, whose revenues are not even close to £50m. If they want to compete, they have to spend. But if they spend, they would lose money year after year, an unsustainable model. And if they don't spend, well, you're not promoting competition. The aim is to promote competition, to promote sustainable risk-taking. The aim is promote youth development and protecting smaller clubs from becoming feeder clubs for bigger teams. A salary cap - either a % wise or nominal wise - leads to an unhealthy league. You shouldn't cap spending but you should share the rewards and make it more attainable. That is the long-term fix that will lead to a healthier league because it is promoting competition.

They would have to spend far more than present because the smaller clubs are less likely to accept their fees, the players would be less likely to join them because there's no chance of escaping on loan. If you're Lescott or Sinclair, do you sign a five year deal knowing there's a good chance you're getting replaced in two years and thus being forced to sit on the bench for three years with no escape? Man City wouldn't be able to buy success as easily as they have done. They would have to spend more. And they would be competing with more clubs because the likes of Spurs, us and Everton would also be benefitting from Champions League money. We would also be competing with them for players from abroad and competing with them for sponsorship money.

Well I disagree that it would be unenforceable but it is your thread and I am loathe to derail it by talking about competition law and such, for numerous reasons. I disagree it is unfair because we are talking about making the game fair. What fans should be bothered about is a fair competition. If this means the worlds best players go to different leagues than our own so be it. The product we watch will be better, because it will be fairer. The game must always be bigger than the prize. The current wage system isn't fine. Money and success are inextricably linked in football. Until there is a fair financial system in place football can't be fixed. It is unfair to the players. Why should they be earning less from a game that they are a major part of it? A salary cap would actually lead to the best players being paid very well and the average players being paid very poorly - far poorer than present, poorer than they deserve to be. The current system is a meritocracy without excessively rewarding the best players and punishing the average players. Salary caps without maximum salaries have traditionally led to the best players being way overpaid and thus the average players being way underpaid. The evidence is there in the States, which is why a salary cap is coupled with a maximum salary, to protect the average players, the journeymen. Now if you have a salary cap and a maximum salary, you'd be guaranteeing profits for every club. If you don't guarantee profits then you're almost guaranteeing losses for the majority of clubs because how else could they compete with clubs that spend their caps? If they don't have the revenue to support the cap, then what do they do? Not spend, don't compete. Spend, lose money every year. You would have to go further and have transfers of wealth, and that is never going to happen.

You would be entrenching the current system. Teams with huge revenue streams and massive stadiums would always pass this 'test'. But what about the likes of Liverpool who are trying to rebuild? They would most definitely be beyond any artificial wage 'threshold' that the league would set, and why would you blame them? They are trying to rebuild, to grow, because the rewards are great if they succeed. Make the rewards far more easily attainable and you will have more clubs competing for it. More clubs competing it will lead to a higher quality of matches and a higher quality of the league itself. But instituting a salary cap or a percentage of revenue would be the worst way to accomplish this because it would entrench the financial advantage that the teams in the Champions League already have. I mean, if you told me I could design one system that would forever protect the positions of the best four or five teams in the league, bar completely unrealistic rules, I'd institute a salary cap or a percentage of revenue that they could spend on wages. It would have a disastrous effect on competition.

A wage cap would be unenforceable and unfair because of the different tax rates that exist in the EU, and also because it wouldn't be worldwide. The current wage system is fine. As much as seeing lazy players being paid £150k/week annoys me, in general, the players deserve what they're paid. They're very good at something that a majority of the world enjoys watching and spends time and money on. They're part of a very, very small minority that is a pure meritocracy. There is no feigning being good at football. You are, or you aren't. It's the way the world should technically work, so I don't mind it. A transfer cap also wouldn't work unless it is enforced worldwide. Eventually the Chinese league will have a lot of money rolling around, and the financial pull will be far greater than at present, which would lead to a shift in power. In the same way that the English league became the dominant league financially, which led to an influx of players from abroad, any league that offers greater financial rewards will eventually become the most attractive league. It's just the way it works. A wage cap is a good idea in theory, but where does the extra money go? It certainly won't lead to lower ticket prices or lower merchandise costs. If there is money to be made, it will be made. Better it goes to players who deserve it rather than clubs that are extracting surplus value from players. If clubs want to run themselves as businesses, which I agree and applaud in general, then they should be forced to compete for the best employees as every other business does. A salary cap would punish the players and unnecessarily reward poor owners.

Football should have a high level of parity, that means that different teams have a chance at winning things each season, and teams in lower leagues have a chance of winning things if they are run in an intelligent manner. This is currently not the case as the rich have the most resources and hoard even more resources (young players) to protect the status quo. Here are a few ideas to fix the footballing world: A. Ban all loans. The current loan system is fucked up. It incentivises financially advantageous teams to buy young players when they are cheap, loan them out to smaller clubs - hence outsource the development of the player (while receiving money) - then introducing them into their first team when they are much improved. If the development goes as plan, the player becomes a member of the first team squad who was acquired cheaply and can be sold expensively (Welbeck, De Bruyne, Courtois, Smalling, Ramsey etc. are all examples of this). The loan system perpetuates the unequal state of the footballing world. It incentivises young players to sign for clubs that offer them more money (ie. the clubs playing in the CL) because they will be provided with both better finances and first team football (at a smaller club). It also incentivises poorer clubs to sign players on loan since permanent transfers entail a higher of degree of risk. Say, if you sign a player for £4m and he doesn't work out, you won't be able to recoup the expense of the transfer fee and the wages. If you loan a player and he doesn't work out, however, you have only lost a loan fee, which is a fraction of a permanent fee, and have paid a lesser share of the wages of the player. The loan system thus promotes long-term inequality in the game. Ban the fuck out of it. No loans, no exceptions, no minimums or maximums or age restrictions or allowances. No loans, period. If a young player wants first team football, he will have to take his chance at the club that wants to sign him, risk losing the most important developmental years of his career sitting on the bench, or he will stay at his original club and grow. If a poorer club wishes to grow, they will have to focus on developing their own players, but now safe in the knowledge that the talent they develop will not have as much incentive to leave. This should lead to higher funding for youth team football because when the players do leave, they will be far more mature and thus attract a higher fee. If the rewards for developing players increase, the funding and the risks taken will also increase. For teams with more financial resources, they will also be far more careful signing young players. Either they will have to offer far higher pay to young players to entice them to sign, given the inherent risks of being benched for years, or they will have to wait and sign players that are first-team ready. First-team ready players will cost a lot of money. This should reduce the advantage of teams with greater financial resources. B. Eliminate the Europa League. The only people that care are the fans, and sadly, the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) shown by the players, clubs, and managers has continually led to a decrease in enthusiasm shown by the fans. It's a broken competition because present success does not beget future success. On the other hand, many teams complain that current success can lead to future failure in their own leagues. The competition is also unfair because teams who have failed at another competition are invited to join at a much later stage than any other team, and thus have a far greater chance of winning it than teams who were in it from the start (or relatively). Dump it. Shut it down. Throw it in the bin. Thus, the only competition that exists in the continent will be the Champions League, which leads to C. C. Increase the amount of teams that qualify. England gets 6, Germany gets 6, Italy gets 5, France gets 4, Spain gets 6 etc. Give teams a chance, spread the money around. The negative effects is that it will dilute the quality of the earlier set of games, but that is basically two months of European football. The first third of the competition will be played with a lot of newer, inexperienced teams, which will reduce the quality of the matches. However, the benefits far, far outweigh this. What this will lead to is more balanced domestic leagues. The teams with financial advantage will have a lesser advantage, and this advantage would not be unsurmountable over the medium term. At present, any team that wishes to challenge for the title must go through a period of genuine, medium term success on-the-pitch coupled with extremely good off-the-pitch management that can ride out the rough seasons. The majority of teams in development aren't able to survive the rough seasons to become long-term contenders (Villa, Liverpool, us, Everton, Spurs) because when we have a bad season, which is inevitable, the financial and prestige advantage of the Champions League disappears, which creates a cycle of rebuilding because your best players want to leave for the clubs which can offer them those things, and you're thus left having to sign newer, unproven players in the hope of catching up. It's a difficult process that is almost impossible to achieve. A bigger Champions League changes this. If you're Spurs, you finish 4th one year, have fun in the Champions League, make a lot of money, which means you can pay your players more, satisfying both their egotistical needs and financial needs, and you give it a go for another year, only this time it doesn't go as well. You finish 5th. In the current system, Modric leaves, then a year later, Bale leaves, and suddenly you're in rebuilding mode. In the new system, you have another year in the Champions League. Modric doesn't leave, you finish 4th the next year, Bale doesn't leave, you use the extra finances to buy new players and improve your squad, you finish 3rd the next year. Things finally go right for you and you might, in a crazy year and a crazy world where UEFA promote equality and parity, win the title. For us? We have a magical season, we finish 5th, we use the money to sign loads of new players (), give it a go, have a mediocre season, finish 10th. But wait, there are 6 spots for the Champions League and different teams have been qualifying. You show that to your players, you have another chance of qualifying for it. The new system also leads to a more equitable share of the finances; Man City and Chelsea aren't so easily able to gobble up players from other clubs. Lescott costs them £35m because Everton are in the Champions League and they don't need the money, Fellaini costs £27m because Everton are in the Champions League and don't need the money (oh, wait.... ), Barkley eventually costs Man Utd £40m, Rooney costs Man Utd £45m, Cabaye costs PSG £40m because we don't need the cash and we can tell him we're playing them in the second round of knockout stages. The clubs with outside investment, the sovereign states of the world would have to pay far, far more than they do today to sign players from other clubs because those other clubs would not need to sell. The teams with greater financial resources would thus be able to buy far lesser players, which leads to a healthier domestic league because the talent is spread within all the teams, and it will also lead teams from lower divisions taking more risks like signing players because they realise a promotion into the Premier League, coupled with a good year could lead them into the Champions League. The likes of Forest wouldn't need to live in the past, remembering previous glories from another generation. One good year and a promotion would have them one good season away from playing in the Champions League. They would have less want to sell their best young players, and teams would take more risks in signing those players. It would lead to a high likelihood of different teams eventually challenging for the title. Offering rewards like this, which are far more easily attainable than present, will lead to a healthier world of football in which teams are able to climb the depths of the leagues through natural, balanced growth.

It doesn't matter how much we get for him if we don't get a replacement. Ideally, we'd get Cabella and a winger. That'd be acceptable for me, given that Cabaye wants to leave.

I love how shit Man Utd are right now.

These bastards are good

Soft

We've done well. Ref is a cheat. No blaming the players or the manager. We would have won if the goal stood. They offered nothing.

Haidara stupid cunt

The only one offside is Cisse, stupid cunt

If we score, we win.

Good foul by Tiote.

Curbishley, Owen and Townsend all think it's a goal.