dilligaf

only a scratch? not that sure then?

Is it any different than 'Sol Campbell doesn't see why Newcastle can't grab a place in Europe in their first season back in the top flight.'

I just cant get my head around that. betting that we'd lose, How do you feel during the game? When youre watching do you want us to lose? Even if I was 100% sure we'd lose I just couldnt, I'd find something else to bet on.

I was thinking similar, if we somehow scrape a result, would they think we dont need better than weve already got?

well maybe, just maybe we wont be bottom monday night

2 years has got to be about the slowest kneejerk ever

Next seasons goal has to be avoiding relegation, anything else is just funtime. Dont agree with that, our target should be mid table, with our core players and the right investment that should be attainable. If we only just avoid relegation so be it, at least then we should know where we need to strengthen for the following season. But dont aim low.

As has been said we need a couple of PL standard midfielders and a striker and they dont come cheap. So i agree with the OP as a minimum as long as we dont sell any of our main players.

There we go again, saying the debt has been paid off. If i do a transfer balance from one credit card to another I suppose I could tell the wife that Ive paid the credit card off It doesnt mean that I am now debt free. How can we be better off financially if we now owe more and are earning less? Is it just because theyve said we have a financial plan in place? a plan that we dont really know about and wont untill next season. and yes the past is history, but we judge people on there past actions and Ashley's past actions havent exactly been deserving of our trust has it?. as for your last sentence.....twat OK, you're right, the debt at the moment still exists. However, the difference with your credit card example is that no interest is being paid, so in financial terms the monthly club outgoings are the same as if the £110m debt did not exist. The problems evident at Man Utd and Liverpool at the moment are not the sheer size of the debt as such, its the fact that such large debt needs servicing with interest payments, and that for both clubs, a couple of years outside the CL places and they would be absolutely fucked as they couldn't afford the interest. NUFC do not have that to worry about. If the club was sold, it would have been effectively sold debt free (save for Barclays as I've said). I'm certainly not going to put on an internet message board how I know that, and if you don't want to believe me I'm not too bothered, but do you really think that this summer Ashley was trying to sell NUFC for £200M + and he actually had some interested parties (including Shepherd at one stage)? Keeping on topic, the original question is a bit daft. Of course the club is heading in the right direction this season, as we are top of the league. Is the club heading in the right direction, assessed over Ashley's entire reign? Of course not, we're a league lower. How long will it take NUFC to get back to the point we were at before he took over? We'll find out next season. My own view is that squad wise we were a lower middle table club, and had really been that way since Robson left, bar an overperforming run in under Roeder and some fortunate results elsewhere. Its not that I want to disbelieve you as I hope you are right, but one person on a message board saying something is true without proof doesnt mean it is. No disrespect intended. From what I can see , he had interested parties because the price was £100m, not untill the nondisclosure was signed were the debts shown, then no one was interested. Which tells me the debts wanted back are a lot more than just the Barclays loan. but as I say I hope you are right.

There we go again, saying the debt has been paid off. If i do a transfer balance from one credit card to another I suppose I could tell the wife that Ive paid the credit card off It doesnt mean that I am now debt free. How can we be better off financially if we now owe more and are earning less? Is it just because theyve said we have a financial plan in place? a plan that we dont really know about and wont untill next season. and yes the past is history, but we judge people on there past actions and Ashley's past actions havent exactly been deserving of our trust has it?. as for your last sentence.....twat

I was thinking about this earlier Youve got to have aspirations otherwise whats the point. With the fanbase, attendences etc we should be at least aiming high even if its not attainable atm to be a team that avoids relegation every year but makes a profit just isnt good enough really

The price for the club was £100m in the summer, and this would have been for a debt free club, apart from the Barclays overdraft facility. THere would have been no money owed to Ashley. The price dropped to £80m at the last minute, but nobody had the cash. I thought everyone had accepted this? THe idea that Ashley was trying to sell the club for £100m and after the sale the new owner would still owe Ashley £100m is nonsense. And your source for this is? The horses mouth. He told you personally? interesting that no one has pointed to where it is officially stated that the debt was to be written off yet

The price for the club was £100m in the summer, and this would have been for a debt free club, apart from the Barclays overdraft facility. THere would have been no money owed to Ashley. The price dropped to £80m at the last minute, but nobody had the cash. I thought everyone had accepted this? THe idea that Ashley was trying to sell the club for £100m and after the sale the new owner would still owe Ashley £100m is nonsense. And your source for this is? Thats what I'd like to know, people keep saying 80 or 100 mil debt free, but where has it come from? have people just assumed? is there actually any solid proof thats what it was? I dont recall anything officially being said (obv could be wrong)

Genuine question A lot seem to think that Ashley is/was willing to write off the debt to sell, how do we know that? as anyone who was interested had to sign non disclossure agreements. I would have thought that we would have been snapped up debt free for 80mil, even running at a loss. It seems to me that he wanted 80mil plus the debts to him still had to be paid and thats why we had no buyers. If thats the case (but its only my take on it) then we are a lot worse off. Only time will tell I suppose.

I think the point youre missing is that as club owner it IS 100% down to Ashley since the time he bought the club No absolutely, you're 100% right. The club was didn't owe anyone anything when Ashley bought it, the sponsorship money hadn't already been spent, and it didn't need personal investment from the new owner to keep it afloat, forget I said anything. Phew glad you saw sense, you had me worried for a while we'll agree to differ, pointless arguement really because none of us knows for sure, its all ifs and buts, all we know for sure is that we are now in a lower league, earning less money and owing more than when he took over.

I got nothing against Harper at all, all Im saying is anything that is said by anyone being paid by the club has to be viewed with that in mind

There's no mention of Ashley, and he doesn't even get close to saying that relegation was a ever a good thing. What I mean is, anything Harper says is irrelevant as hes got a job he'd like to keep. Presumably we can infer from that that anything any player, any manager, any member of our staff says is irrelevant too? I guess that just leaves Johns mates twitter page and Simon Birds column left then for informed opinion. Yep, you got it Weve all got opinions, but anyone whos being paid by the club and can be told not to say anything (eg Carrol saga) will not give there 100% honest opinion.

There's no mention of Ashley, and he doesn't even get close to saying that relegation was a ever a good thing. What I mean is, anything Harper says is irrelevant as hes got a job he'd like to keep.

Harpers hardly gonna say that Ashleys a cunt and being relegated is the worse thing that could have happened to the club is he?

I think the point youre missing is that as club owner it IS 100% down to Ashley since the time he bought the club

That girl is laughing at them both right now. She's got exactly what she wants. Has pretty much just used Taylor to get back at Andy Carroll, and now Carroll is royally screwed. It's all worked a treat. Pathetic. this is fact is it? or are you just guessing?

Lets not

Who would you pick instead of the two-time transfer requesting, ship jumping prick? Why is he 'ship jumping'? It's not like he's a Newcastle fan, he saw a better offer and left, as most players do. He probably had some decent offers during his time but decided to stay put. He was solid for us and never gave anything less than 100%; I don't understad why some football fans think that players with no connection to a club have some sort of loyalty to stay the?re. Would you commit yourself to your current employer for life? So he's a quitter. Again, who would you pick instead? Not at all, again, are you going to stay in the same job all of your life? Even if one came up allowing you greater satisfaction and more money? Given has no loyalty to Newcastle at all, it's a totally differnet situation to someone like Rooney. I wouldn't pick anyone instead, because I think the 'quitter' part of the title is ridiculous, and I think we've actually had excellent keepers throughout the time I've supported the club. He was under CONTRACT and basically was saying he wouldn't play for us again, more or less on strike and forcing us to sell him. I loved him as a player but this outrageous behaviour means I'll not be welcoming him. He should have seen out the season and we would have sold him anyway. Imagine if the club decided to tear up the contracts of some of the highly paid wasters, the players would be in uproar. Funny how it's OK when the shoe is on the other foot. What a load of bollocks, At the time the whole team was up for sale. NUFC said he was for sale for 14 mil City offered 5, Given said he wanted to talk to them, City offered 5.8 we accepted, there was no strike and he didnt say he wouldnt play for us again.. we didnt have to accept 5.8. "Shay feels compelled to consider his position in the light of the interest being expressed in him by Manchester City, Arsenal and Tottenham." How can someone under contract "consider" their position? What does that mean? The only time a player should be able to do any considering is when the contract is up. Consider his position could mean anything, It doesnt say he asked for a transfer or that he waouldnt play for the club again. and going by whats classed as a quiter surely we should have Hughie Gallacher up front after all he wanted the move to Chelsea or maybe Solano or maybe even any player who has left the club, I mean that Milburn fella what a quiter going off to be a player/coach in Belfast

Who would you pick instead of the two-time transfer requesting, ship jumping prick? Why is he 'ship jumping'? It's not like he's a Newcastle fan, he saw a better offer and left, as most players do. He probably had some decent offers during his time but decided to stay put. He was solid for us and never gave anything less than 100%; I don't understad why some football fans think that players with no connection to a club have some sort of loyalty to stay the?re. Would you commit yourself to your current employer for life? So he's a quitter. Again, who would you pick instead? Not at all, again, are you going to stay in the same job all of your life? Even if one came up allowing you greater satisfaction and more money? Given has no loyalty to Newcastle at all, it's a totally differnet situation to someone like Rooney. I wouldn't pick anyone instead, because I think the 'quitter' part of the title is ridiculous, and I think we've actually had excellent keepers throughout the time I've supported the club. He was under CONTRACT and basically was saying he wouldn't play for us again, more or less on strike and forcing us to sell him. I loved him as a player but this outrageous behaviour means I'll not be welcoming him. He should have seen out the season and we would have sold him anyway. Imagine if the club decided to tear up the contracts of some of the highly paid wasters, the players would be in uproar. Funny how it's OK when the shoe is on the other foot. What a load of bollocks, At the time the whole team was up for sale. NUFC said he was for sale for 14 mil City offered 5, Given said he wanted to talk to them, City offered 5.8 we accepted, there was no strike and he didnt say he wouldnt play for us again.. we didnt have to accept 5.8.

Harsh. In a schoolish-report card you'd have "Must improve dramatically, not remotely good enough" last seasons end This season maybe "Improved, but still far short of requirement. Can do better, but at last heading, albeit slowly, in right direction" Ive seen some on here say we're heading in the right direction but untill next season we dont know where we're heading, if all weve got to look forward to is avoiding relegation for the forseeable future, spending as little as possible, then thats not the right direction at all. if on the other hand we avoid relegation next season and push on after that then fair enough I'll agree that we are. but at the moment