Unbelievable

An onslaught?

Positives: Jonas and Duff

It's a good thing the midfield is up to scratch and has created loads of chances..

Good start Jonas. So Zog in midfield now..?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have Duff out on the left and Guti at the right with Milner in the middle..? Looks like we have a left footed winger on the right and vice versa..

Duff's looking confident and seems to have found back some of his pace..

We'd have a better chance of scoring if Smith wouldn't touch the ball..

Strange remark. They´re holding out for more money with Colo, so if we stilll sign him we will have been held to randsom. The others most people had hardly heard about and are very much gambles and at least two of them squad fillers. If this is all we get this is anything but "respectable" in my book..

Also, what does "without just cause" mean in this context? Looks like completely unenforcable, and I would imagine a lawyer like Chris Mort would love nothing more than to test the waters on something as fishy as this..

Serious question and don't get me wrong, this is not at all to say I would have been happier if we would have paid 8 or 10 million for Gutierrez, but have you considered we may have targeted Jonas BECAUSE we could attract him on a bargain, rather than despite this fact? Personally I can imagine the club looking at the Webster ruling and sounding out potential targets who were eligible to move due to this new regulation, which is good business sense of course if (and only if) the player is of the required quality and deserves to be applauded if (and only if) it means the money available for transfers goes towards other (squad and first team) signings we desperately need. Ultimately it is about making the money available go as far as you can, and to that effect there is nothing wrong with a bargain or two, but the real question here is whether enough money has been/is being made available to strengthen the squad to the level required to realise the club's ambitions. If you're suggesting we were tapping them up before they handed their notice in I hope you're wrong. There are pretty serious consequences for that kind of thing in this situation, and I'm not talking about a couple of million quid donation to a charity. I wouldn't want us to be the ones to test the water. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be that stupid. Agree with the rest of it. If there's money left over because we've bought some bargains, then there's no reason why we have to wait a season to see if these bargains come good when we could additionally bring in a new quality striker for example and hopefully speed up the process of getting back up the table. Within reason of course, I'm not a fan of making too many changes to a squad at a time, and they'd have to be a player Keegan wants too, I'm not at all suggesting buying for buying's sake. I would be very, very amazed if we hadn't talked to the player before he handed in his contract. I seem to remember reading somewhere we had this one covered for months. Also, I would be interested in knowing why you think there would be any such severe consequences if we had indeed acted like I claim?

Reading from here they seem chuffed with 3m euros: http://www.forum-fcmetz.com/showpost.php?p=1918555&postcount=57 It seems that they rate him and pissed off that its just 3 m euros. You seriously need to brush up your French..

Reading from here they seem chuffed with 3m euros: http://www.forum-fcmetz.com/showpost.php?p=1918555&postcount=57 Sounds promising. He's saying it should be Metz who pay us 3 million to take him from their hands..

The mind boggles..

Serious question and don't get me wrong, this is not at all to say I would have been happier if we would have paid 8 or 10 million for Gutierrez, but have you considered we may have targeted Jonas BECAUSE we could attract him on a bargain, rather than despite this fact? Personally I can imagine the club looking at the Webster ruling and sounding out potential targets who were eligible to move due to this new regulation, which is good business sense of course if (and only if) the player is of the required quality and deserves to be applauded if (and only if) it means the money available for transfers goes towards other (squad and first team) signings we desperately need. Ultimately it is about making the money available go as far as you can, and to that effect there is nothing wrong with a bargain or two, but the real question here is whether enough money has been/is being made available to strengthen the squad to the level required to realise the club's ambitions.

The standard of player they are signing so far is higher than ours.

Where did he say that?

More communists on this board than I would have held possible it seems..

Why? The more I watch this Planet Football and see the back pages dominate the front pages and people like Coleen McLoughlin - who is just a plain little girl from Liverpool - set up as role models, I think to myself: What the hell is going on? Sounds more like a dig at "journalism" than at her specifically. Besides, what has she done that warrants her being made some sort of role model? Don't think I'm going to get into a discussion about the merits of her However, there are far better candidates to have a go at. Has Simon Jordan perhaps singled her out because of who she's married to? There's an irony there somewhere, as well as the irony of some orange faced t*** of a chairman of some second rate London club seeing himself as a person /celebrity chairman in a position to be critical of others. Wonder what Bristol City's chairman thinks of Steven Gerrard's wife, or what Doncasters chairman thinks of Danielle Lloyd? You still don't get it. She is being singled out by the press as some sort of interesting persona, while she really isn´t. All she´s ever done of note is marry a footballer. There are other women married to top football players who don´t get that sort of media attention because they don´t relish it. She is the perfect example of what that part of the rant was about, i.e. football, and in particular press coverage, is now sometimes more about wags and money(-chasing agents) than it is about grass and sweat. You are making her out to be some sort of victim of the situation, whereas she is actually making a professional career of being a footballer's wife, and in that sense she embodies much of what is wrong with the sport nowadays..

Why? “The more I watch this ‘Planet Football’ and see the back pages dominate the front pages and people like Coleen McLoughlin - who is just a plain little girl from Liverpool - set up as role models, I think to myself: ‘What the hell is going on?’ Sounds more like a dig at "journalism" than at her specifically. Besides, what has she done that warrants her being made some sort of role model?

mackems.gif

No he isn't, not at this moment anyway.. He's just one of the young goalkeepers who may be heir to the throne.. Along with who? BOy Waterman? Hes a shocking excuse for a keeper good shot stopper, but poor in all other aspects. Im not saying he's ahead of Stekelenberg and others but for his age he is arguably their most gifted. Piet Velthuizen is ahead of him for one, and has received a call-up for Oranje already. I don't rate Stekelburg that much, but he will be behind him for sheer lack of experience alone. The fact is Krul needs to be playing if he is to achieve his potential, and as it seems this will not happen at Newcastle this upcoming season I would not be surprised if he moves, hopefully on a loan to a good club.

No he isn't, not at this moment anyway.. He's just one of the young goalkeepers who may be heir to the throne..

Hmmm..

They're clueless.. That's like saying Newcastle is a Welsh club..

The Sun called him 'ace'. I'd believe The Sun over someone calling themselves "Unbelievable" tbh Whatever you want. He's Dutch, so I've seen him play since he first broke in the Ajax team, about 5 years ago, which I presume is more than some Sun journalist. I think he's an ok player, but nothing special..