sicsfingeredmong

Nail on head. Likewise.

He's accomplished much here both as a player and a manager. Revolutionised the club during his first spell as manager, *and re-educated the team as to how to play football the right way during his brief second spell. *His influence over the closing stages of last season saved us from the relegation axe, and with this Mr Ashley's 'investment' was also kept afloat. *In essence this is my response to Baggio's thoughts 'that during his latest managerial spell KK has done nothing which is deserving of appreciation etc'. Keegan owes Mr Ashley nothing, likewise he doesn't owe us/the supporters anything either - especially the wankers who are drumming up this 'he's left us in the s**** for a second time' line. My sentiments about Keegan's departure. My respect for him - as a manager - would've diminished fractionally if he'd stayed while having his strings pulled by a set of puppeteers who deem themselves to be more important football-related figures than the manager. No manager, and he is 'old school, with any sense of professional integrity will just sit back while having their power to manage compromised ie. at the front-office level: transfer activity & coaching staff acquistions/dismissals. Keegan has walked away from an unambitious w***** in the form Ashley. He wants what's best for the club, he always has and his ability to take the club forward. He shouldn't be weighed down by the sort of lack of ambition not seen since McKeag's reign imo, when the latter funnelled off our best players. I refer to the board in the final hours of the transfer window and their attempt to flog/sell-off players currently in Keegan's 1st team frame, Owen in particular. He's walked away with his professional integrity intact and fair play to him. However for Newcastle-Upon-Thames it's a different kettle of fish. And from which source did you get the bit in bold which seems to be the basis for your assumption on the board? http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=52796.msg1326676#msg1326676 This i posted a few months back, pertaining to Keegan's lack of involvement at front-office level. This was dismissed out of hand at the time, as 'overwritten bollocks' by Ozzie, when all the facts were 'not' readily available on the net. I formed a viewpoint/a stance based on intuition as to how a club should be run, as opposed reaching a conclusion pertaining to the pros & cons of our continental set-up based on set of Googlized links set in concrete. It's ironic that my intuition is once again being dismissed almost out of hand because all the facts have not been made available through Google. What's more ironic that this sort of line has once again being drummed up by another bloke, *yourself Alpal, who supported Souness' reign right up until the very end......................... yet my judgement on these issues are baseless assumptions. Irony works in funny ways . *Admittedly though you knew when it was right to jump off that particular sinking ship though . Original typo/or word accidently left out has been duly edited Alapal as it's one crux of this post. I mean the section placed in bold.

It sounds like the Board wanted to sell Owen. Keegan vetoed the idea. It's only a problem if the Board had ignored him and flogged the player anyway, unless you're saying that they had no right to make the suggestion in the first place. He's a player in the final year of his contract, who has refused to sign a new, improved one. Most clubs would sell in that situation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/7593683.stm Going by reports the idea of selling Owen wasn't even suggested to him mate. He discovered this after the fact, the opportunity to refuse or rebuff the idea reportedly wasn't put to him. Given that Keegan vetoed a couple of the transfer deals - which the board firmly had in the pipeline - on the final day of the Jan transfer window it's easy to see the board going over his head this time. What can't be argued is that it's untenable when any manager doesn't have complete control over decisions pertaining to the football front-office, player and staff acquisitions/departures. It's their head which is on the line - ie. results-wise on the pitch - if the replacements hand-picked by the player recruitment department are not up to scratch in comparison to any key player forcibly removed against the manager's wishes ie. especially if they succeeded by selling Owen over KK's head. With this in mind Keegan was well within his right to walk away.

I refer to the board in the final hours of the transfer window and their attempt to flog/sell-off players currently in Keegan's 1st team frame, most notably Owen. He's walked away with his professional integrity intact and fair play to him. However for Newcastle-Upon-Thames it's a different kettle of fish. Now was it a case of us being prepared to sell if a good offer came in, which Keegan said himself on Friday when he said, "everyone has their price", or were we actively trying to sell? No-one knows at the moment, apart from what Keegan himself said last week. This is at odds with KK's assertation that Owen's contract situation would soon be sorted out, something he wanted wrapped up throughout the course of transfer window. Reading between the lines, while looking at what has been imo uneasy working relationship between board & manager.... and this goes way back to the final day of the Jan transfer window when KK vetoed 'bargain buy' transfer deals for players he deemed 'not good enough for him and NUFC. Imo he was playing the media game, voicing his concerns in the midst of Milner's departure in relation board's attitude towards selling what are saleable commodities when acceptable offers come him. Given that he was in the midst of trying to rebuild an already thin squad, as opposed diminishing it, i'd say that he was opposed to the board's tit-for-tat/spreadsheet orientated buying & selling policy.

He's accomplished much here both as a player and a manager. Revolutionised the club during his first spell as manager, *and re-educated the team as to how to play football the right way during his brief second spell. *His influence over the closing stages of last season saved us from the relegation axe, and with this Mr Ashley's 'investment' was also kept afloat. *In essence this is my response to Baggio's thoughts 'that during his latest managerial spell KK has done nothing which is deserving of appreciation etc'. Keegan owes Mr Ashley nothing, likewise he doesn't owe us/the supporters anything either - especially the wankers who are drumming up this 'he's left us in the s**** for a second time' line. My sentiments about Keegan's departure. My respect for him - as a manager - would've diminished fractionally if he'd stayed while having his strings pulled by a set of puppeteers who deem themselves to be more important football-related figures than the manager. No manager, and he is 'old school, with any sense of professional integrity will just sit back while having their power to manage compromised ie. at the front-office level: transfer activity & coaching staff acquistions/dismissals. Keegan has walked away from an unambitious w***** in the form Ashley. He wants what's best for the club, he always has and his ability to take the club forward shouldn't be weighed down by the sort of lack of ambition not seen since McKeag's reign imo, when the latter funnelled off our best players. I refer to the board in the final hours of the transfer window and their attempt to flog/sell-off players currently in Keegan's 1st team frame, Owen in particular. He's walked away with his professional integrity intact and fair play to him. However for Newcastle-Upon-Thames it's a different kettle of fish.

Jesus Wept.

You'll find little argument from me with regards to the first point, or the rest of the post for that matter. Point 2: I've previously highlighted the purchases of Robert and Jenas. Two signings which occured during SBR's opening seasons of transition ie. his second Summer window, and of course Jenas arriving later in the season. On both occasions we beat European football-involved clubs to the punch, Barcelona for Robert & Jenas for Leeds respectively. At the time a cashed-up Leeds, and Barca's player pulling power for obvious reasons, were two major obstacles that stood in our way with respect to signing both players. As you say the 'we can't compete with European-involved teams in the transfer market' argument is bullshit. There's alot of goal-post shifting from many 'Ashley Apologists' going on at the minute. With regards to the final paragraph. It's ties with a single season where we spent in excess of 20m on the signings of Bellamy, Robert and Jenas. And those departures were not financed on the back of major selling, or the product of a tit-for-tat buying & selling policy.............. contrary to the grocery store/balance the spreadsheets buying & selling policy adopted over the previous two Summer windows. Coming into the Summer i expressed a concern that Ashley would complacently look at the positive run of results late last season, and as a result would supply Keegan with just enough funds for him to tinker with the squad, where there was still the need for significant spending/strengthening. This is how the Summer window has played out imo. With regards to backing his now 'appointed/1st choice manager' Ashley has been nothing short of a disgrace, and the appointment of Keegan - to bring entertaining/winning football back to SJP, with minimal financial backing - resembles a publicity gimick now imo. Another gimick/PR stunt to accompany a growing resume ie. his heartfelt 'i stand as head of the Toon Army' Braveheart'esque speech & 'i've always hated Spurs' remark press releases, and of course propensity to mingle with the everyday matchgoer & pose for photographs. Ashley may be as many as stated 'a breath of fresh air', but the 'Our Mike' grocery/corner store/'balance the books' transfer policy is unbefitting of a club trying to keep pace with the likes of Spurs and Man City............. and unbefitting for a manager who returned to the fold to complete unfinished business.

Fair point. Keegan and others - ie. in their playing days - were forced to seek greener pastures in their hope of fulfilling their ambitions of winning silverware. That was the reality amidst an era when 'a' board operated within the constraints of a cornerstore transfer policy.

Well if we can get defence sorted, then all of our attacking options should have more freedom going forward. Milner just needs to score more, and improve his crossing, cant ever knock his work rate, and his pace and keeping the ball etc His 'lack of' in this department is one of his major weak points, especially for his position. And he doesn't have the necessary attributes needed to counterbalance that, which i'll touch upon below. Solano was an exception to the rule because his ability to bring the ball under control - ie. from a ball delivered with pace from the right back position - before firing in a pin-point cross with two touches was top drawer. The same could be said with regards to his general link-up play in the final 1/3 ie. those 1-2 passing sequences with Bellamy in & around the box. For somebody who isn't blessed in the pace department i have seen no 'Solano' in Milner, and that's how i've judged his contribution with us in the Premiership at the RW position. To this day i haven't seen the sort of touch & guile coupled with the awareness of the what is going around him - ie. recognising and utilising his forwards' movement. Off the ball Solano was smart as they came, always a dangerous far-post goal poacher when the build-up play in the final 1/3 was being instigated down the left channel & left-centre corridor. These qualities are what made Solano a mainstay in the position, despite him not being the sort of cliched dribbling winger whom we commonly associate with as being an impact player attacking-wise on the wing, or somebody who gave his opposite number nightmares when going forward with the ball at his feet.

Sell him while his pricetag is high and over the odds imo, while there is demand from Villa.............. and hijack SWP's mooted move to Man City.

What expenditure Ashley is attempting to slash off the daily spreadsheets - ie. not matching Owen's current deal, resulting in the current stand-off between both parties - is more than balanced by the tilting of the scales towards a top 6 finish. This season and beyond. He's obviously not the one-on-one ball carrying threat he once was, but instinctive 'box players' who have the knife edge precision in front of goal to match are indeed a rarity. Owen's rescued the team when points have been up for grabs, when the scoreline has been hanging in the balance....... with & against the run of play alike. Saturday was another example. Bolton could very well have walked away with a sucker punch result, 1 or 2 points respectively would've been an undeserving outcome. And this trend - re: Owen's contributions on the scoresheet - dates back to a pair of flirtations with relegation now. Points pulled out of the box, when the result is capable of tilting either way = higher league placing. That equates to extra revenue, whether that be the European income stream or just the F.A.'s prizemoney allocation when taking into account how our/a league would be affected without those predatory & instinctive 'strikers' goals which are often the catalysts behind those single goal wins. Where would Arsenal have been without Ian Wright's contributiuon during their '1-0 Boring Arsenal Days'. Such players are tough to find, and the board/Ashley must be rendered blind by the daily spreadsheets if they're unable to see the bigger picture......... if they're happy to see Owen walk at the end of the season due to them trying to slash a reported 1.5m - ie 30k a week - off the wage bill.

Athletic but the Premiership is the measuring stick for which he should be judged on, and that should be based on a steady run of games in the 1st team.

Something i have absolutely no issue with.

Having absolutely no sense of humour at all i'll assume that's directed at my post/s, and as usual yours is another mindnumbingly stupid contribution to a thread. If so you have very little idea as to how a manager can play a role from the guf-out in altering the tempo, pattern of play etc when a result hangs in the balance dug-out - whether that be at half-time or as Madras inferrs 'the manager's coaching ideology as to how much freedom he allows his matchwinners in accordance with their ability play anywhere across the defensive line, and this originates from the training ground as well. This comes into effect when two well coached & matched midfield/outfield units are cancelling each other out in the engine room. Or would you rather the managerjust sat there in the hotseat, all the while biting their fingernails and hoping the result swings the team's way with just a little help from Lady Luck as per our former manager you backed to the hilt ie. Souness. There you go. This should suffice.

If you occasionally remembered how to use a full stop then some of this might be readable. With a little more time at my disposal i've made the necessary edits, to the above quoted post only. The other two posts are fine. Feel free to evaluate them from now on - ie. C+ etc.

Having absolutely no sense of humour at all i'll assume that's directed at my post/s, and as usual yours is another mindnumbingly stupid contribution to a thread. If so you have very little idea as to how a manager can play a role from the guf-out in altering the tempo, pattern of play etc when a result hangs in the balance dug-out - whether that be at half-time or as Madras inferrs 'the manager's coaching ideology as to how much freedom he allows his matchwinners in accordance with their ability play anywhere across the defensive line, and this originates from the training ground as well. This comes into effect when when two well coached midfield/outfield units are cancelling each other out in the engine room. Or would you rather the manager sitting in the hotseat and biting their fingernails while hoping the result swings the team's way with just a little help from Lady Luck as per our former manager you backed to the hilt ie. Souness.

how so? Because successful teams have never had these fantasy players, and yet people on here think that signing Elano will have a dramatic effect. It won't. Are u for realzy??? Every successful team had a "fantasy player" it was built around. Last 4 Champions league winners: Man Utd: Ronaldo Ac Milan: Kaka Barca: Ronaldinho Liverpool: Gerrard Real and Chelsea have 11 fantasy players, Zenit is built around Arshavin, Arsenal had Henry then Fabregas, Valencia have Silva I could go on... Almost every successful team has a central player that they build the team around. At the end of the season for us it was Owen. However if we play 442 it needs to be a midfielder. Absolutely correct. And Ferguson, at varying stages in a game, provides Ronaldo license & freedom to roam across the midfield line ie. the 'fantasy player', or the luxury type. Much of Man United's effectiveness, or it's ability to swing a game when a result is in the balance, eminates from Ferguson's useage of Ronaldo which never gives the defending outfield the same look, and thus player mismatches and structural questions are often posed. Ferguson has outstanding individuals at his disposal - ie. the likes of Ronaldo, Tevez, Rooney - and their ability as footballers plays a part, but much of the damage inflicted by United's outfield is the result of their opposition being unable to suddenly adapt to & handle United's attacking/structural change-ups.

That throwaway line is complete nonsense, to borrow your own phrasing. 442, 433..... either way imo. And you're placing a ton of faith in young Guthrie, he'll really have to step up to the plate immediately by your estimation. As a player he is still very much a project type, a work in progress. Guthrie's potential impact, or contribution within either system, at this stage cannot be accurately guaged as a way of dismissing the notion 'that we need a midfield playmaker' in the Elano type of mould. Upfront with our three pronged attack we lack a pure 'in-the-hole playmaker' in the Beardsley mould. Playing in behind the target-man, and thus breaking away from theclose man-marking shackles for which he is normally accustomed to and no longer capable of dealing with, compliments Owen's off-the-ball smarts. In the current formation, against lesser able competition, how often have we seen Owen ghost his way into the box unchecked? The answer is many times. While Martins offers a long-distance shooting and dribbling threat he lacks the guile/short & deft passing game & vision to spot and release his deeper playing forward ie. Owen. Admittedley our front 3 carved up the lesser likes on the table, but against a cohesive & disciplined outfield - ie. for example with a top drawer deep playing DM patrolling the hole to diffuse the combined threat Owen & Martins pose - which can maintain their shape over the course of 90 minutes we'll continue to look pedestrian against the top echelon, or close clubs who are thereabouts, without a deeper ball-playing threat across the midfield line. At this in point in time, looking at the midfield ranks, we lack explosiveness and the sort of instinctive unpredictablity the top sides have, and as such we're not a sideline-to-sideline attacking unit. With question marks hanging over Viduka's durability, combined with Ameobi & Smith's unproductivity, it would be foolish for Keegan for base his 4-3-3 attacking impetus on haviing his fullbacks & wide operating attacking midefielders - ie. Spiderman - bomb forward supplying crosses into the box. To base his attacking strategy solely on width would be shortsighted and extremely one-dimensional, just as was the case a few years back with SBR when Shearer was no longer capable, or showing signs of anyway, of getting onto & converting the ammunition fired from the flanks by Robert and Solano ie. 03/04, and to a lesser extent in 02/03 when the warning signs first began to emerge with regards to Shearer's diminishing mobility & energy reserves. Dyer's non-development played a part, but the as mentioned style of play adopted by SBR - ie. in his final 2 season here - heralded his undoing imo.

Good signing. Room for comprimise had to occur, both on Ashley/our Front Office and Depor's part. A continual Mexican Stand-off would've just further wrecked havok on KK's rebuilding plans, afterall Coloccini was possibly KK's 3rd target/choice behind Woodgate and *Dunne. *if there was truth to the paper talk. 10m for a mid-20's centrehalf, with pedigree on his side, is just about the going rate so i don't have issue with the transfer fee. In terms of showing ambition & backing the manager there is still plenty of work to do over the remainder of the window. A mobile/big centre forward and an auxillary/creative central playing forward/attacking midfielder are the remain the two biggest 'need areas' to feel.

And i'm sure Deryck meant well............. yelling goodbye to a player who accomplished more good than bad for his club's hated rivals, out on the pitch. Deryck i'm sure was being just a little angel.

Yep, we've certainly improved since he left. I for one am much happier with the current state of play now that we don't have to worry about Bellamy's name appearing in the press. In the final 1/3 of the pitch, out on the paddock....... have we? What happens out on the pitch is what matters most.

Match-day attendees who act the smart arse routine, heckle & abuse players are fair game, and as such are open to a return spray from a player. In addition to this some bloke. as reported, saying 'see you later Craig' to a visiting & injured player from the perceived sanctity of the family enclosure - where he obviously thought he was a protected species, while acting like a smart arse - is a coward's act imo.

Ameobi has been a very fortunate bloke to still have a career here when combining his ability to make a name for himself in the top flight, his ability/worth for a big club which shouldn't have to shoulder passengers ala Shola, and the occurances which have led to him remaining in the first team picture - ie. Bellamy's depature and the subsequent failure to replace him immediately, one particular manager rating Shola higher than Kluivert, injuries at various stages to key players, and transfer deals which have failed to materialise.

It makes for an interesting precendent being set though, or the potential for one anyway. Lendoiro, according to Collocini's agent, pulled a similar move with another Primera club last Summer after an intial agreement had been reached. I think it was Zaragoza. This surely must constitute 'restriction of trade/movement', especially if two clubs have met this 'alleged' 10m fee/agreement reached between player/agent & the club president. Lendoiro might not be concerned with any potential action being taken by FIFA, it's the European Union he should be worried about. If this stalemate continues, i can see the EU monitoring the situation and the possibilty is there that it may flex it's muscles by legislating & changing the width of the goal posts ie. deleting FIFA's '15 day window', and extending that window so it covers the Summer transfer window. Either way though, Webster isn't good for football as it destroys the sanctity of a contract.

IMO the F.A. will make an example of him. Potential season ban lurks in the pipeline, and this would just about render him untouchable ander the provision that we sack him. He would present as a major gamble for any other club to bring him on board in the future. His football career hangs in the balance imo.