Dr Venkman

if wise is going at the end of the season and there wasnt another dof coming in would it really be that surprising that he'd come back to keep us up, again? i'm not surprised by anything anymore tbh. That was going to be my answer to your question. Whats this about Wise going at the end of the season? Just a rumour? just read it in the OP mate, speculating on rubbish more than likely, but i'm bored

if wise is going at the end of the season and there wasnt another dof coming in would it really be that surprising that he'd come back to keep us up, again? i'm not surprised by anything anymore tbh.

gash, everything about it was utterly gash, infact that's probably doing gash a dis-service. just got one step closer to renewing my season ticket though coz there's no fucking way i'm doing that if we're still in the premier league next season with jfk here.

I don't think that people like you realise no club is successful without being in debt, this may be the problem. The world isn't perfect mate. i'm happy to take your word for it, is your inference this then, debt = success?

i dont think NE5 sees debt as something that is finite, this may be the problem.

i'm out if its on 3G, i've promised myself i'll never play on it again after my most recent injury

Pull the other one no need, the first one worked it seems

good footballing teams should look to get the full backs wide every time the keeper has the ball so he can throw it out to them and start from there imo. its just f***ing pointless hoofing it up to our front line, the irony is martins is the best of the lot in the air and he's a dwarf. and regarding the team selection, absolutely no excuse for starting duff over jonas, pathetic. That's a very basic part of football (fullbacks going wide when keeper has the ball). It's just keeper can't always play it to the fullbacks because they are being marked too closely or aren't good at playing from the back. The problem with Taylor and Enrique is that they aren't exactly the most composed fullbacks. indeed it is basic, thats why we should do it, if the full backs are too tightly marked then that leaves space in behind the players that are marking them

quite funny people are calling it a 'tackle' at all imo, was the ball even involved?

Worst name related insult since Pee-gan. Wierd having a casino manager in charge. Probably knows gambling is a disease.. Good point about his previous job. What ultimately is the difference between fleecing money out of deluded folls at a casino, and fleecing money out of deluded fools at NUFC? casino customers have a chance of going home happy?

anyone think enrique's recent performances might be down to skilled man management?

makes absolutely zero difference to whether i renew or not

good footballing teams should look to get the full backs wide every time the keeper has the ball so he can throw it out to them and start from there imo. its just fucking pointless hoofing it up to our front line, the irony is martins is the best of the lot in the air and he's a dwarf. and regarding the team selection, absolutely no excuse for starting duff over jonas, pathetic.

you think thats bad, how do you think they'd feel if they were MEDIOCRE!?

arshavin looking brilliant like

Have you any proof that the Hall's were having a say in the running of the club in the last few years? have you any proof that they weren't ie that they were daft enough to leave millions completely in the hands of someone else with less shares having previously been partners ? Daft idea isn't it mackems.gif it was a completely daft idea yeah, one of the daftest imo

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight ? You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ? Are we still on this question? he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies. it's not the only question on here that goes unanswered though is it ? do you keep on borrowing while making a loss and debts mounting until you are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? he's a bit shy with the answer. the truth being he knows you can't borrow indefinitly but to say so would break his argument. so instead he'll reply (not answer) that you won't compete without spending (whilst neglecting to say where the money will come from,maybe throwing in a reference to other clubs in debt of which none are actually in our position) I've answered you. You don't know if the next player will be the one that gives you great value, you don't deliberately buy a player that doesn't give good value, and re the question that mandiarse refuses to answer because he KNOWS he has agreed with at least 4 of those 6 appointments, is that you don't deliberately appoint managers who you think will fail either. The worst scenario is the one that Ashley is taking which is not to take the risks to compete, so stand by for a dose of REAL mediocrity, far worse than what you previously thought it was. err, no it isnt. yes it is. It led to near bankruptcy and one foot in the 3rd division. no it isnt, the worst case scenario is that we're in so much financial trouble that the club folds. could anything worse happen to a football club? infact i'll answer for you, no, nothing could be worse than that. eeerr..........if not for the Halls and Shepherd, we would have folded as a 3rd division club in 1991. errr, my point still stands, take your board vs board blinkers off eeerr, no, I think its you that is wearing blinkers. Ashleys current methods will not succeed if you live until you are 200. jesus christ. i didnt say ANYTHING about ashley or ANYTHING about shepherd. you stated that the worst case scenario was that the board didnt take risks to compete and we ended up mediocre as a consequence. explain to me how not existing as a football club is preferable to mediocrity..... I've showed you that mediocrity, and settling for it, leads to worse, don't you get this ? here are two scenarios, mediocrity and lack of existence mediocrity > lack of existence. they are not the same thing, dont you get this?

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight ? You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ? Are we still on this question? he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies. it's not the only question on here that goes unanswered though is it ? do you keep on borrowing while making a loss and debts mounting until you are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? he's a bit shy with the answer. the truth being he knows you can't borrow indefinitly but to say so would break his argument. so instead he'll reply (not answer) that you won't compete without spending (whilst neglecting to say where the money will come from,maybe throwing in a reference to other clubs in debt of which none are actually in our position) I've answered you. You don't know if the next player will be the one that gives you great value, you don't deliberately buy a player that doesn't give good value, and re the question that mandiarse refuses to answer because he KNOWS he has agreed with at least 4 of those 6 appointments, is that you don't deliberately appoint managers who you think will fail either. The worst scenario is the one that Ashley is taking which is not to take the risks to compete, so stand by for a dose of REAL mediocrity, far worse than what you previously thought it was. err, no it isnt. yes it is. It led to near bankruptcy and one foot in the 3rd division. no it isnt, the worst case scenario is that we're in so much financial trouble that the club folds. could anything worse happen to a football club? infact i'll answer for you, no, nothing could be worse than that. eeerr..........if not for the Halls and Shepherd, we would have folded as a 3rd division club in 1991. errr, my point still stands, take your board vs board blinkers off eeerr, no, I think its you that is wearing blinkers. Ashleys current methods will not succeed if you live until you are 200. jesus christ. i didnt say ANYTHING about ashley or ANYTHING about shepherd. you stated that the worst case scenario was that the board didnt take risks to compete and we ended up mediocre as a consequence. explain to me how not existing as a football club is preferable to mediocrity.....

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight ? You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ? Are we still on this question? he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies. it's not the only question on here that goes unanswered though is it ? do you keep on borrowing while making a loss and debts mounting until you are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? he's a bit shy with the answer. the truth being he knows you can't borrow indefinitly but to say so would break his argument. so instead he'll reply (not answer) that you won't compete without spending (whilst neglecting to say where the money will come from,maybe throwing in a reference to other clubs in debt of which none are actually in our position) I've answered you. You don't know if the next player will be the one that gives you great value, you don't deliberately buy a player that doesn't give good value, and re the question that mandiarse refuses to answer because he KNOWS he has agreed with at least 4 of those 6 appointments, is that you don't deliberately appoint managers who you think will fail either. The worst scenario is the one that Ashley is taking which is not to take the risks to compete, so stand by for a dose of REAL mediocrity, far worse than what you previously thought it was. err, no it isnt. yes it is. It led to near bankruptcy and one foot in the 3rd division. no it isnt, the worst case scenario is that we're in so much financial trouble that the club folds. could anything worse happen to a football club? infact i'll answer for you, no, nothing could be worse than that. eeerr..........if not for the Halls and Shepherd, we would have folded as a 3rd division club in 1991. errr, my point still stands, take your board vs board blinkers off

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight ? You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ? Are we still on this question? he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies. it's not the only question on here that goes unanswered though is it ? do you keep on borrowing while making a loss and debts mounting until you are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? he's a bit shy with the answer. the truth being he knows you can't borrow indefinitly but to say so would break his argument. so instead he'll reply (not answer) that you won't compete without spending (whilst neglecting to say where the money will come from,maybe throwing in a reference to other clubs in debt of which none are actually in our position) I've answered you. You don't know if the next player will be the one that gives you great value, you don't deliberately buy a player that doesn't give good value, and re the question that mandiarse refuses to answer because he KNOWS he has agreed with at least 4 of those 6 appointments, is that you don't deliberately appoint managers who you think will fail either. The worst scenario is the one that Ashley is taking which is not to take the risks to compete, so stand by for a dose of REAL mediocrity, far worse than what you previously thought it was. err, no it isnt. yes it is. It led to near bankruptcy and one foot in the 3rd division. no it isnt, the worst case scenario is that we're in so much financial trouble that the club folds. could anything worse happen to a football club? infact i'll answer for you, no, nothing could be worse than that.

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight ? You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ? Are we still on this question? he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies. it's not the only question on here that goes unanswered though is it ? do you keep on borrowing while making a loss and debts mounting until you are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? he's a bit shy with the answer. the truth being he knows you can't borrow indefinitly but to say so would break his argument. so instead he'll reply (not answer) that you won't compete without spending (whilst neglecting to say where the money will come from,maybe throwing in a reference to other clubs in debt of which none are actually in our position) I've answered you. You don't know if the next player will be the one that gives you great value, you don't deliberately buy a player that doesn't give good value, and re the question that mandiarse refuses to answer because he KNOWS he has agreed with at least 4 of those 6 appointments, is that you don't deliberately appoint managers who you think will fail either. The worst scenario is the one that Ashley is taking which is not to take the risks to compete, so stand by for a dose of REAL mediocrity, far worse than what you previously thought it was. err, no it isnt.

whats the suggested date?

I walked through Sunderland a few Fridays ago after Football, having seen the locals, I'd rather go out in Chernobyl. Its funny when Mackems talk about our city being shite and Geordies being idiots, but their star striker opens his new over-priced shop in Newcastle, and they all hold their parties here too. where is this shop?

I've answered the point by madras many times. Nobody wants to go into receivership. As for buying players, the next player may be the one who repays his fee and makes a big difference to the team. You have no way of knowing this in advance, apart from those who deal in hindsight and hindsight only. "Are they successful becasue they are in debt or are they coping with debt because they are successful? " THIS comment is nicely phrased, the answer is a bit of both - but the way to go is the same as I've just said. I don't understand why people want us to operate like clubs such as Charlton. They will soon have what they want though, just like when they said we would be better off with a change of owner "no matter who". Shame indi has bowed out - for now - as he can make some decent points even if I don't agree. The reason for "childishness" if you can call it that IMO is brought about by people asking the same things and not understanding the reply. but would you agree that when you get to the point where the debt is crippling you that it becomes very very dangerous to gamble on that next player that 'might' be the one that drags you out of it? its unlikely that one man can do that himself is it? surely a period of re-building is acceptable once things get to a certain point? you seem to have acknowledged that freddy was doing this with allardyce. is it just a case of not trusting ashley to do it because he has no previous form in football and you're judging him on his first act? seems a bit unfair.

whats funny about going to the pub ? Why don't you try it.