Dr Venkman

Seriously?

Sums up my feelings

That ship has sailed tbh. I dont think so. We cant all sit here and piss and moan then ultimately do nothing about it. I'm not talking about a group effort but it would be interesting to see what people are doing as individuals. I think we will actually sign two more anyway, but would seriously consider my ticket if we bring in no one. Why would you give up something you've already paid for? Principles.

A budget which has bought a team full of Dutch, French, Italian, Argentinian & Senegalese internationals. Managed by a cheap manager, and every single one of them brought in because we thought we were getting them cheap, regardless of the needs of the squad.

go back to the Bobby Robson quote about the club. Nobody made Ashley buy us. Nobody said don't do due diligence or it won't be a good investment. But he can get to fuck if he thinks owning something that thousands of people are emotionally attached, and invested in does not bring with it a level of responsibility. He may be the owner but its more akin to an invasion. We shouldn't toe his line just because he had the money to purchase our club. I do agree with this to a certain extent, he has a responsibility to the club and the city. But how far that stretches in terms of practical things like player purchases is quite hard to say. As for Dave's post, nobody will be surprised I disagree with that. I don't see how you can possibly analyse the club's position and the players we can or can't buy unless you have an interest in the financial side. Otherwise you'd just be clamouring for us to sign everyone and wondering why we aren't competing with Man City. It's just part of modern football sadly. Why are you sad about it? You've already said you take pleasure in us making shrewd signings.

Who is saying we are dead clever? I think most people see the positives in our dealings as well as the pitfalls, right now those pitfalls are unfortunately shining through, in Jan it was very different. Liverpool are mugs for what they spent and brought in, or are they mugs to let Downing go for £6m now since he played in a match they won 6-0? It's one or the other. This is basically all anyone has ever claimed. I've never said our approach is the only one, I just see the positives in it. Certainly beats spunking money on the shite players we used to buy. Yep. It seems the Remy injury has tipped a few over the edge today, proper panic mode has set in...just pay whatever and buy whatever that's all that matters...spend spend spend. Like a bunch of women in a shoe shop. Oooh sparkly, two sizes too small but i've got to have them, now all i need is to buy everything else to match them. What the fuck are you on about man? We nearly got relegated and yet haven't bought a single player. How does it matter to you in the slightest whether a player costs £7m or £10m? Either is peanuts to a Premier League club in 2013. Are you not getting the part that we have a strict budget and won't go over it especially when the club owes Ashley £130m already thanks to the fat retard doing exactly what you want right now? Or do you want us to be more in debt to Ashley? Or blow budgets for the next few windows? Do you operate like that in your life? Just buy houses you can't afford, cars and insurance way above your pay? Nice living for about a year until reality kicks in. Transfers were moved forward in jan, we've spent a fair chunk of this windows money then and now we are looking to squeeze out the best deals and time is running out. That's why I care because come the next window and we need X player in X position we have fuck all money to do it with. Ashley isn't going to change, living within a budget is here to stay until he's gone, so blowing money is exactly the wrong thing to do under him as we will pay for it later. Even adding more debt to him lessens the chances we'll see him gone any time soon. Finally, the club hasn't done enough this season, but it could have all been sorted sacking the manager and bringing in a new face, most of our problems would have been solved right then rather than just buying more players for him to fuck up. What are you talking about man? We're a premier league club being run on a league one transfer budget. No-one's asking for the club to spend beyond it's means, we're asking for a fair level of investment befitting a club of our size and wealth.

Liverpool bring in a lot more money than us, they can afford to make mistakes to a point. Big mistakes like they've made won't put them out of business but they have pushed them further away from the CL and certainly any title ambitions. Had they spent that money wisely they'd be much better off. We can't not with our owner. Any mistake we make we are saddled with until the end of his contract, see Xisco or Smith, and since we nearly went down, any big mistake could cost us dearly. We are over cautious and it is frustrating but i was more frustrated at seeing Smith pick up £60kpw for doing nowt or even worse on the pitch being a liability. End of the day we all want us to sign more players, we all want a better team but spending money doesn't automatically equal better results and mistakes made we are lumbered with while spending over the top means we can't or simply won't spend next time round. You've got to consider this before saying oh aye, just chuck and extra couple of million at Gomis to make it happen...its nonsense even without our tight arse owner. Why is it nonsense? Nonsense is relying on Shola, again. We need some better footballers man, we need to pay clubs money for them and we need to pay them wages. We've got money, what's wrong with you people?

Ian, it is as simple as that. Pay money, the likes of an extra couple of million for this Gomis deal we can definitely afford, and give ourselves a better chance of winning games. Or take pleasure in getting bargains instead of winning football matches. What are you in it for? Our problems in the past weren't the money we paid, they were who we paid it for. You talk about wasted money, it's not wasted if you get the right manager and the right players. We've got a great scout, why don't we back him? Sure, but you haven't really advanced the argument much there. As I said, obviously nobody could disagree with the equation if paying more just equaled more success directly. And of course it depends on who you buy, but there again you minimise risk if every individual is less valuable. Assuming that you agree that some signings will inevitably flop. I do get pleasure in operating shrewdly in the market, presumably everyone thinks that's a positive to some extent. Otherwise why do we laugh at Liverpool for wasting money on Downing and Henderson etc? I do agree we have a good scout though, and he can be trusted more than most to deliver good players. Although I think his skill is more in identifying players who are available because of their situation (contract etc) than actual talent scouting. Everyone knows who most of the players are we buy. I 'advanced the argument' by pulling you on saying its not as simple as that, because it is. If we paid an extra couple of million Gomis would be an NUFC player. What's complicated about that? Being shrewd is good, being a great football team is better. I laughed at Liverpool for paying 20m for Henderson, they beat us 6-0 at St James' Park.

.....as opposed to big clubs like Real Madrid, Chelsea, Man U and Arsenal who all got their primary targets "over the line" ages ago. Oh hang on... they haven't ? Do yourself a favour mate and save the grief for September 2nd, it'll all come out in the wash in the last few days and then, weaker or stronger, is the best time to make judgement. Does wonders for blood pressure and general health just to ignore the bullshit until then. Why can't we treat the transfer activity as it is? An ongoing policy over many seasons, rather than designating a cutoff point at which we're allowed to be concerned? We can judge the clubs transfer policy today, it won't change

Ian, it is as simple as that. Pay money, the likes of an extra couple of million for this Gomis deal we can definitely afford, and give ourselves a better chance of winning games. Or take pleasure in getting bargains instead of winning football matches. What are you in it for? Our problems in the past weren't the money we paid, they were who we paid it for. You talk about wasted money, it's not wasted if you get the right manager and the right players. We've got a great scout, why don't we back him?

Are we getting further away from your point, or getting to the heart of it? You think the principle of not paying out extra fees comes above the principle of punching our weight in the league and giving the fans the team they deserve, or have I misunderstood? We can afford the extra money they're asking for, you know it, I know it. We're choosing not to.

The DoF has been bleating on about how important it is for us to bring in strikers. The manager has been bleating on about how important it is for us to bring in strikers. Everyone who has the power of observation has been bleating on about how important it is for us to bring in strikers. Everyone seems to recognise this need. We bring in a loan signing (in itself not a bad thing) that can't play for at least a month of the opening campaign. Something we knew about when we signed him. If not then it's even more embarrassing. 'ffs dis club' is not a bad way to look at it. Woefully bad planning compounded by seemingly putting all our eggs in the basket of a player who can't play. Excellent work. Not surprised people are 'ffs dis club'. Like I said, we'd have had Gomis too, but for thrid parties acting the cunt. We should have had another striker in, long before now. I'm not disputing that at all. We'd have had Gomis if we'd paid the money to make it happen. That's true. But, I'm not sure how comfortable I'd have been with being bent over by them/his agent (whatever the situation was). That's hard to accept when we've been left short for the start of the season, I appreciate. However, I can't really blame the club in this case. You'd have been uncomfortable? Why? I'd rather we had some good players on the team than taking pride in our bank balance. Why? Because we'd agreed a fee, as well as terms with the player. Then they wanted us to pay the sell on fee to his former club, or whatever. It's bollocks behaviour, and I'm glad we took a stand. It's more a point of principle, than any concern for our bank balance. I know I'm not the only one to have said this, like. In any case, I still think he'll end up here. They'll be far less bullish in their demands now time is running out. As a matter of principle I think we deserve much better than we're getting. Pardew, Kinnear, lack of investment when the whole league is awash with money. It's total bullshit and I absolutely cannot wait for Ashley to fuck off, or die. I'd sleep soundly if we paid an extra million here or there to play the game with agents, it'd improve our chances of winning football matches, what else are we in it for? This interest in getting a bargain or not giving into agents demands or whatever is mission accomplished for Ashley as far as I'm concerned. We've been collectively lulled into thinking that we exist as a club solely to nurse financial health, the fans aren't bothered if we're getting absolutely embarrassed at home to the mackems and Liverpool as long as we uphold our principles in the transfer market. I'm ashamed to be associated with them tbh.

The DoF has been bleating on about how important it is for us to bring in strikers. The manager has been bleating on about how important it is for us to bring in strikers. Everyone who has the power of observation has been bleating on about how important it is for us to bring in strikers. Everyone seems to recognise this need. We bring in a loan signing (in itself not a bad thing) that can't play for at least a month of the opening campaign. Something we knew about when we signed him. If not then it's even more embarrassing. 'ffs dis club' is not a bad way to look at it. Woefully bad planning compounded by seemingly putting all our eggs in the basket of a player who can't play. Excellent work. Not surprised people are 'ffs dis club'. Like I said, we'd have had Gomis too, but for thrid parties acting the cunt. We should have had another striker in, long before now. I'm not disputing that at all. We'd have had Gomis if we'd paid the money to make it happen. That's true. But, I'm not sure how comfortable I'd have been with being bent over by them/his agent (whatever the situation was). That's hard to accept when we've been left short for the start of the season, I appreciate. However, I can't really blame the club in this case. You'd have been uncomfortable? Why? I'd rather we had some good players in the team than taking pride in our bank balance.

The DoF has been bleating on about how important it is for us to bring in strikers. The manager has been bleating on about how important it is for us to bring in strikers. Everyone who has the power of observation has been bleating on about how important it is for us to bring in strikers. Everyone seems to recognise this need. We bring in a loan signing (in itself not a bad thing) that can't play for at least a month of the opening campaign. Something we knew about when we signed him. If not then it's even more embarrassing. 'ffs dis club' is not a bad way to look at it. Woefully bad planning compounded by seemingly putting all our eggs in the basket of a player who can't play. Excellent work. Not surprised people are 'ffs dis club'. Like I said, we'd have had Gomis too, but for thrid parties acting the cunt. We should have had another striker in, long before now. I'm not disputing that at all. We'd have had Gomis if we'd paid the money to make it happen.

Amazed? If he was doing it for the second reason IP suggested. Amazed?

You'll comprimise the peace talks that took place yesterday with those sort of posts. It was made clear there are no Pardew haters and no Pardew lovers. We all agreed this. I didn't agree to anything. There's always one.... Two

Where's Inochi when you need to him to shut down shit craic?

I remember being sneered at for suggesting this was the case when he was appointed.

I agree they lack something physically, for example why Marveaux isn't suitable for wide of a forward three. Anita also struggles under the high ball. I just think that those weaknesses aren't enough to justify the constant selection of Jonas and Tiote ahead of them. Although I would equally happy if Tiote recovered some form and made himself actually undroppable. I don't disagree that those two shouldn't be undroppable, like. I'm just not comfortable with the assertion that Anita and Marv should be guaranteed starters ahead of them simply because of their apparent 'class'. If they'd shown enough, during their few starts and sub appearances, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. No-one should be undroppable, but they should be in the team at home to everyone bar the sovereign states (not including Southampton and Swansea).

How much more do they have to do than be clearly better footballers than Jonas and Tiote? As for making themselves undroppable, that's down to the manager...... Listen, i don't like Jonas and i don't like Tiote (much) but Anita is powder puff and Marveaux goes missing. Simple. Neither of them have put in the kind of perfomance that screams for inclusion. That's a shame because we could do with their talents but they need to show more competitve spirit. More fire. I bet you were banging this drum re: Ben Arfa as well

How much more do they have to do than be clearly better footballers than Jonas and Tiote? As for making themselves undroppable, that's down to the manager......

Just a bad angle possibly?

Yep. Gouffran will get fitter, the part about Marveaux is weapons grade bull shit. He hasn't been given a decent run of games to get match fit and looks far from lazy. And whatever type of player Anita looks, he's a better footballer than Tiote and should have had his place from last Christmas onwards.