Conjo

Aww What are the odds on Ameobi and Løvenkrands staying injury free for the rest of the season?

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/5233/hatersb.jpg pojpoij;j;o How can you not like the guy, even though his performances can be inconsistant to say the least.

I don't understand the concept of charvers. There is no red line in the looks of the people you have posted, and urban dictionary says it's primarily people from Newcastle who wears berghaus coats.

Didn't N-O sell Newcastle fan t-shirts a while? Seem to remember a certain STR8888888888888888 Like a banana shirt had it's round a while back. We need a Shola eating apple on a bike shirt as well.

Better than ∞ chances like the man in your avatar... He has to be able to get any chances before we can know for sure. 0 in 1 this season. He might be a 1 in 2 player.

What pleases me the most is how different all the goals were, which shows that we can be very unpredictable and versatile.

1 goal and 5 assists this season. Joint second highest assists in our squad together with Ameobi. Not too shabby, considering that he has no end product.

It tells us something if a crisis in the "april fools proportion" is that Leon fucking Best is injured. Hes played well this season, but we really need to buy better strikers in the summer, even if we were to be relegated.

He was bloody awful man! Ah yas, Craig Moore. Shepherds big masterstroke. He was so please with him self, and bragged in the press about how he had sold Hughes for £1m and replaced him with free agent Moore, which strengthened the squad at the same time

Didn't he score a pretty decent goal against us?

Unless your response is to a previous post, I don't really see what relevance your post has to his. I like quaysides post.

Agreed. 100%.

Would you rather have had that money or stayed up with the extra point that I'm fairly sure a player of Milner's (and/or N'Zogbia's) productivity would have earned us over a season? To those mentioning Spurs sell-to-buy policy, if you suggested to Harry Redknapp that they had one, I suspect he'd laugh in your face. Point is, spurs have done it and found success, so now they don't have to sell to buy anymore. Please understand. You're spreading a myth. Please understand. The sale of Carrick in 2006 allowed them to buy Berbatov. In summer 2008 they sold Keane & Berbatov for a combined £51m, and bought Modric, Pavlyuchenko, Bentley, Gio and Bostock for a combined £36m. They had a slow start that season which resulted in Redknapp being hired. Redknapp bought Keane, Defoe, Palacios, Bassong, Crouch and Kaboul of note (and sold Zokora & Bent) and got them CL the following season. When in the CL, they do not have to sell players. The sale of Keane and Berbatov allowed them to push on. Looking past free transfers & loans & Woodgate, they havn't bought a single player that didn't have a good chance to have same/higher re sale value since 2006 at least.

Yup, quality always conquers and given a run of games like Besty, he'll be banging them in like nobody's business. Delighted he's signed a new contract. Check my Avatar to grasp how his appetite for a bulging onion net is, quite simply, insatiable!

you forgot to add the "we want to be challenging for Europe every single year." bit in the thread title.

Would you rather have had that money or stayed up with the extra point that I'm fairly sure a player of Milner's (and/or N'Zogbia's) productivity would have earned us over a season? To those mentioning Spurs sell-to-buy policy, if you suggested to Harry Redknapp that they had one, I suspect he'd laugh in your face. Point is, spurs have done it and found success, so now they don't have to sell to buy anymore. Please understand.

How many missed free kicks have resulted in a goal against them? Anyone know?

Best has been a good buy after all. Who would have thought? How much would we get if we sold him now, and how much would it cost to replace him? No brainer to keep him, possibly as a starter if he continues the form he has been in.

Oooooor, you could argue that the sale of their players has allowed them to build on with the money generated so that they now don't have to sell their best players.

That's not what I meant at all, it's just that it's a better comparison than only using Enrique, Colo, Barton and Smith. It's not about the previous regimes spending habits, but how much the club can sensibly spend. Just because we have got rid of many big earners doesn't mean that the club can afford to start paying out as much money as it has previously.

I know what you mean Dave, but surely you can't want the club to be held to ransom by every player? I agree that it's impossible to say "he's worth £Xk a week" though, as all footballer's salaries are insane anyway. Of course I'd rather the club wasn't held to ransom by every player, but not every player can justify their wages. Some of the players on our books can't even justify League Two wages and yet we don't seem to have a problem paying them. Enrique can, quite clearly. Sure, we can't offer European football etc and I have doubts over the club's ambition at present so it's understandable if the players do too, but I just find the concept of prioritising the finances over the team f***ing ridiculous. We're meant to be football fans. It's as if some would rather we turned a profit than finish higher up the league. That's because many of us would like to have a club to support in coming years as well. That would probably not be the case if we went on like we did. Of course, nobody wants to prioritize finances over the team, but sometimes you have to. Take one step back to get two steps forward. Finances of football clubs are pretty well documented these days. and it does matter. If the club pays money it doesn't have, why shouldn't someone express their concern about the club paying more than it can? Like we did when? Also, tell me how many clubs have ceased to exist since the Premier League began. 1. Like we did under Shepherd. 2. Don't know, BUT: We were in equal trouble like Chelsea before Abramovich came in, and Leeds, who haven't had the best of years latley. Southampton, Portsmouth etc has also been in dire straits and several other smaller clubs. No need to tempt fate just because the numbers are few.

And they wouldn't risk it in case of injuries, and not being played because it would cost the club more money. Performance based contracts are well and good in theory, but not in this cynical world.

I know what you mean Dave, but surely you can't want the club to be held to ransom by every player? I agree that it's impossible to say "he's worth £Xk a week" though, as all footballer's salaries are insane anyway. Of course I'd rather the club wasn't held to ransom by every player, but not every player can justify their wages. Some of the players on our books can't even justify League Two wages and yet we don't seem to have a problem paying them. Enrique can, quite clearly. Sure, we can't offer European football etc and I have doubts over the club's ambition at present so it's understandable if the players do too, but I just find the concept of prioritising the finances over the team f***ing ridiculous. We're meant to be football fans. It's as if some would rather we turned a profit than finish higher up the league. That's because many of us would like to have a club to support in coming years as well. That would probably not be the case if we went on like we did. Of course, nobody wants to prioritize finances over the team, but sometimes you have to. Take one step back to get two steps forward. Finances of football clubs are pretty well documented these days. and it does matter. If the club pays money it doesn't have, why shouldn't someone express their concern about the club paying more than it can?

Duh, what were they expecting?