Unbelievable

MARTINS!!!!

We've been a bit lucky Crouch and Defoe aren't in form at all today. Pompey are creating plenty of chances for them..

Dear me, Butt thought he was Kaka there..

No options in the middle of the park. Owen and the midfielders need to support him when he's running towards the wings..

So, almost time for a Martins sub then..

Martins and Jonas have combined well a few times today. Have to have them on the pitch at all times..

GOAL!!! Great interception Jonas

A bit inconsistent is Colo, isn't he?

Brilliant defending Colo

Enrique close..

What a bend he put on the ball. Playing well here..

Dear God, so close Martins..

Beye could/should have scored..

Oba and Owen up front is interesting..

I have a bad feeling about this one..

Shola's under 30, cheap and can offer a battering ram option on the bench which we don't have in our squad so I don't mind that so much. Nicky Butt is the one that pisses me off because I know he'll get picked week in, week out while he's here. So are most visitors of the Bigg Market on a Friday night. Doesn't make them qualified to play for Newcastle United though..

Sorry, its just like banging your head against a brick wall sometimes, thoses quotes are completely irrelvanent, we know thatKeegan has been undermined thats a fact, the 2 sides arent arguing this point which those quotes would back up. I feel the debate should of moved onto why he was undermined? Was it a simple case of him never having full control on transfers and was expected to accomodate any player the club decided to buy? (Thats seems to be the line alot of fans are taking) Or was it a case of him actually having full say on transfers but was unable to identify suitable targets that fit in with the transfer policy the club was trying to incorporate and therefore forced the clubs hand to act? In my opinion theres evidence that would suggest that the latter explanation is accurate. Cracking discussion you guys had on a Saturday night (night out on the toon not like it used to be?) From your two scenarios, I would suggest number one follows from number two.

This one is a peach as well. How irronical would it be if Ashley wasn't willing to let Kevin Keegan pursue his targets, but would be with Joe fucking Kinnear..

Your maths are bad, if you're saying letting Owen go would "save" money. Those two players would, unless they are Championship players or very young/unproven, probably run at least 7-10 mil per. At 50k per week, that's an outlay over four years of 34-40 mil. Keeping Owen, even on his current wages, is only 20 mil. A 12-15 league goals per season striker (like, oh say, Peter Crouch?) is worth about 15mil+ in the current market, I should think. So, replacing Owen would be about...12-15 mil for a conservative estimate. Plus the wages, of I'd guess around 50k minimum (that's what your fave Oba is on, iirc), over four years is 10 mil. That's 22-25 mil for a new player and keeping Owen is 20 mil. How is getting rid of Owen removing the financial burden then? Both of the options you've outlined are actually more expensive than keeping Owen. Fair enough, if you think scoring a goal every 1.8 matches isn't enough for a striker to contribute. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, after all. But it's enough for me. A striker scores goals. I don't ask Shay Given to do more than keep goals out, either (and he's a top-class keeper, no doubt). But then Owen will have no resale value by the end of his contract, and will become more immobile and over-reliant on chances being put on a plate for him as he ages. That wouldn't be the case for cheaper, younger alternatives (e.g. Frazier Campbell, Daniel Sturridge). We're going to have to replace him at some point, and I really struggle to understand anyone who claims Owen is either irreplaceable, or that we'll not see someone of his "calibre" for a long time. If we're worried about replacing him now, then we may as well pack our bags up and go home, because what will have changed in 3 or 4 years time when we come round to finally having to replace him? The situation will always be the same - established stars will cost a bomb, players who look like becoming established stars will only want to sign for CL clubs, youngsters who are available won't have shown enough to suggest that they'll be top class (hence why they're available), foreign unknowns likewise present a significant gamble, etc etc. We'll be in the same boat then that we are in today. It's amusing how other teams, even s*** ones, are finding strikers who look as good as Owen if not better (e.g. Santa Cruz, Zaki, Zarate) yet when it comes to us, these players dont exist because we cant replace Michael Owen, therefore they dont exist (because we cant replace Michael Owen, therefore...). Every year new talent is being introduced into the game, every year the big clubs will have to cash in on promising but not that promising youngsters who they can't accomodate into their first teams (e.g. Bentley at Arsenal), every year good but unestablished forwards will leave their clubs to play in a better league, for more money, for first team football, etc etc (think Jonas, who most of us had never seen or heard of, but a striking version). If you remove the filter "established, proven star forward, either an England international, established within the Premiership, or a household name on the international scene" in terms of looking for a replacement, then there are plenty of options to choose from - all of them admittedly having an element of risk, but then that's something that will always be present no matter who we go for. We've broken our transfer record twice for top class England international star strikers in the past dozen or so years, something you would assume would present the lowest risk and surest way of improving the team, yet both times we've neither won anything nor have we really improved as a team overall compared to before they had arrived. In fact, we'd probably have done better had we gone for alternative options (e.g. Anelka instead of Owen). So if he does leave, we should wish good luck to him to his face, say "f*** him he wasn't that good for us anyway" when he's left the room, and then go about finding a good replacement which is what I would hope we've got all those scouts for. Excellent post, especially the bits I've highlighted.

This isn't FM. Exactly.

This is the gest of your point, and for me and many others it would be a f***ing big deal, because we feel that a club of our size and status deserves better than being mid table dross being overtaken by teams like Wigan and Hull. If Ashley bought the club with no real intent on moving it forward, then why does he deserve our support? Somebody else could have taken us over and genuinely moved us forward, such as now seems to be happening to a few clubs that we considered smaller and less succesful than us not so long ago, the likes of Aston Villa, Man City and Portsmouth.. In short, Ashley or whoever takes over from him needs to set their sights higher than continuing where Shepherd stopped. With Shepherd we had highs and lows, why should we just accept lows from his successor just because he left on a low?

Shall I start a new thread asking where we would be in the league now if we still had Shearer at the age of 28? It's equally (ir)relevant if you ask me. Seriously, Ashley will be judged on his own merits. We all know we were on a downward slope with Shepherd, but at least he had proved in the past he could turn a football club around. If Mike Ashley gets us relegated, will people be using the starting demise under Shepherd as an excuse for Ashley's failing..? If so, that would be laughablem because Ashley was in a position to bring in the management structure and personnel of his own choice, so should be judged on his own decisions, not Shepherd's.

The stats are misleading a bit though considering about 60 league games were missed because of genuine long-term injuries which could have happened to anyone. (metatarsal at Spurs, and then the knee in Germany) Relevance?

The thread is irrelevant. We have no future with Shepherd, only a past, and everything people will say is by definition conjecture as there is no basis in reality for an argument either way. What is grounded in reality though is we have a future under Ashley (ban me if you like), who is now the "problem owner" of Newcastle United Football Club. The only relevant question now is whether you believe we have a future with Ashley.

Meh and No. The romantic in me would like to be appointed and for him to do well. The reality-prone portion of me can't see it. Weren't his European exploits based in reality?