merlin

If Shearer or any other Newcastle player said he'd love to score the goal that sent the Mackems down, you wouldn't have minded a bit...there is no difference, and any fan would expect one of the Mackems to say something on these lines IF they were playing us nearer the end of the season...

You obviously weren't at SJP in late 1993 when we stuffed a Souness-managed Liverpool 3-0 and were so much on top that the Sir John Hall Stand were singing 'Souness for Sunderland'....!! I reckon that was an appropriate judgment on our former, un-mourned manager - we may well have the pits in charge right now, but the words 'Devil' and 'Deep Blue Sea' come to mind....then again, with the Brains Dept running NUFC......... Did we turn them over 2-0 away that season as well? Andy Cole scored an amazing counter attacking goal in front of the Anfield Rd end if it's the game I'm thinking of. Only time we have beat them at there place in my life time in the league, we beat them in the league cup at around the same time as well. Yes, we did, and Rob Lee scored the other goal - we had tp prompt the Kop into singing 'You'll never walk alone' near the end(I think they were altering the Kop that close season). We've never dominated them like that since, even in the 95/96 season..

You obviously weren't at SJP in late 1993 when we stuffed a Souness-managed Liverpool 3-0 and were so much on top that the Sir John Hall Stand were singing 'Souness for Sunderland'....!! I reckon that was an appropriate judgment on our former, un-mourned manager - we may well have the pits in charge right now, but the words 'Devil' and 'Deep Blue Sea' come to mind....then again, with the Brains Dept running NUFC.........

Yes, I also noticed that and had a laugh about it ; the amazing thing is that this comment got through at ALL, because most Radio phone-ins operate a delay so that comments such as that can be edited out...

If this happens, we are just a bigger version of what Burnley used to be, and back to the days of the 80s when we sold top LOCAL talents like Beardsley, Waddle and Gazza to clubs who genuinely had ambition...

Maybe it could be named 'The Sugar Puff Bowl' in memory of KK's famous TV ad which reduced the population of Wearside to eating Shredded Wheat(or anything bar Sugar Puffs!)after seeing a B&W shirt on the Honey Monster.... A NUFC fan actually suggested this for the SOS when the Mackems were asking their fans to come up with a name for their new stadium - this was live on a Radio Newcastle forum show..!

Lowest league att. that I can remember was the final game of 77/78 at SJP against Norwich - we were already relegated, and 7,700 turned up ; the rest thumbed their noses at the Board.... Will be interesting to see what happens this season if the worst occurs, although if it does, we may not go down until the final away match.

That sentence in bold is probably one of the biggest piles of dogshit I have ever read on this forum This is the problem with anti-Ashley posters and the likes of the NUSC. Banging on about what's been done wrong without even attempting to acknowledge the point of the original post, which is about clubs going facing real financial difficulties if they spend beyond their means without any proportionate success. Does this sound like any club in particular? This is the problem about those who have bought into Ashley's propaganda and have posted on this thread without correctly interpreting what others have said - there was absolutely NOTHING in my posting which mentioned Ashley's spend - if you look again , you will see that I said he has messed up Jumbo style ; this has nothing to do with the spend but EVERYTHING to do with his decision-making...and I stand by that 100 % , as would anyone unless they think that creating a situation where KK walks out, employing a third-rater like Kinnear after making an abortive effort to sell the club(and then offering him a 2 year contract) etc etc...is good management.

That sentence in bold is probably one of the biggest piles of dogshit I have ever read on this forum Even if it had been, you have just trumped it - well done..!!

If people are prepared to accept the shambles that has been NUFC over the course of this(and other)seasons, they deserve all they are, and will, get. Face facts - Ashley, for all his good intentions(are they, I wonder?), has messed up jumbo style. I cannot think of ONE thing he has done this season which has put the club on a better footing.

Maybe - but it wasn't me that introduced Socialism into the thread... As`long as others are prepared to drop the subject, that's fine by me.

why? Because we'd find out who was getting paid what. i mean why do the lib dems want that? Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident. Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...! That all started in the 80s with the Tories under Thatcher, Brown and Blair just carried on with it. You can't pick out either party to blame for this, as it would have been exactly the same under either of them. That's not to say it's good what they did, but it's not a party political thing it's just a general problem with politicians in general being enslaved by the City. Total rubbish - GORDON BROWN re-set the rules for the FSA in 1997 and that is ALL that counts. The Tories have been out of power for 12 years, and it is a typical, head-in-the-sand view of Socialists to try to blame them for the current problems.. I agree that politicians are in hock to the City - but that is purely because ALL the major parties have let Industry and manufacturing go and built a Service Economy - something I believe was put together as part of the UK joining the then Common Market. ALL politicians are corrupt. Read and learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets) I was 'reading and learning' when you were but a dream in your father's eye(or should that be something else...?). The LAST place I need to look to know about the so-called Big Bang is Wikipedia ; as for the rights and wrongs of it, I didn't hear many complaints when people were making instant money on Gas shares... I have NO brief for the Tories, but Thatcher's Govt were left with little choice because the Labour Govt of Callaghan had left the UK in such a state(have you ever heard of the IMF ? They were called in in 1976 because the Govt had got the country bankrupt ; it might be advisable to do some research on the IMF, because if Brown's so-called 'Quantative Easing'(i.e.Printing Money) goes wrong, the IMF will be renewing its relations with the UK.... Also, the UK was run by Commie Union bosses who had the Labour Party by the b---s and would do anything rather than think of their members or the countries' welfare.... Fast forward to 1997 and Blair inheriting an economy in surplus ; enter Gordon Brown who immediately removes Tax Credits from Private Pensions(i.e. those being paid for by the MEMBERS THEMSELVES, and NOT out of taxes as per Brown's Client State of Public employees, which he then proceeded to expand with plenty of stupid non-jobs(Outreach Co-ordinators, anyone !??)so he could buy votes... Result ? UK Private Pensions lose 5Bn pounds a year, people now facing poverty in old age etc etc.. This action also affected the UK Stockmarket because people stopped investing in their pensions...result? Money goes into housing because people try to use the gain in house prices to fund retirement...and so on, and so on... Then we come to removal of 10p Tax band, Unlimited Immigration etc etc.... Want me to go on ? there were plenty of people complaining about the gas sell off saying that it was massivly underpriced in order to make the sale look a success (as they did with BT aswell). as for the IMF hadn't most of that been paid back by 1979 ? if the union bosses had the labour government by the balls you'd have thought there'd be no need for strikes. thatcher went too far with the unions to the point of giving business too much room to ride over it's workforce and her brand of moneterism failed. And who were those complaining about the sale price of Gas shares ? Basically Labour MPs/Union bosses because the Public seemed quite happy to buy them and make money...just as they were quite happy to see their house prices rocketing up, even though the reason was dodgy lending and stupidly-low Interest rates.. All very well to complain when things go wrong.... ...So the money owed to the IMF was repaid by 1979...are you sure..!!?? In any case, do you think that its right that a Govt of a country like Britain should EVER have to go to the IMF ?? And, to answer your point about the Unions, the very REASON that the Labour Govt went to the IMF was BECAUSE the Unions had them by the balls - the IMF made it a CONDITION of the loans that the UK HAD to enforce measures to control Public spending which Unions would never have accepted from the Govt itself. Thatcher's monetarism did NOT fail, because as you should know, the Bliar Govt inherited a SURPLUS.. If the monetary policy had failed, it would have been a deficit, just as Brown has created now. Thatcher's biggest mistake was allowing Europhiles like Hesletine and Clarke(and Major)talk her into joining the ERM, and also, for not keeping a tighter control on the destination of British companies as the Germans do with theirs...not that NuLab have been any better in that respect. I notice that you didn't address any of the points in my last paragraph.....! lots of financial commentators of the time said the price was "to sell", and since they've all said the privatisations were under priced. i said "most" of the IMF money had been paid back,not all. if previous governments (especially heaths) had played the unions differently the unions wouldn't have had the power they did (and yes the unions did need taking down a peg or two). i said moneterism failed, a policy that was abandoned around the time of lamont and his 15% interest rates. thatchers biggest mistake was to try and implement too harshly too quickly forgetting that those numbers were people with lives. i didn't address any of the points in your last paragraph as i'm not a labour supporter so won't defend them on those things. no doubt a labour supporter could do a similar critique for the tories years in power and their current policies (if you can find them) OK, you made some fair observations, but - why do you think Lamont HAD to introduce the 15% Rates ? It wasn't his idea, it was Major's - Lamont was told to defend Sterling at ANY price to try to stop it falling out of the ERM, which Major, wrongly, had taken the UK into when he was Chancellor. Speculators were simply making a fortune by exploiting this ludicrous policy(esp Soros), and eventually, Major had to admit defeat and withdraw Britain from the ERM...Lamont IMMEDIATELY reduced rates back to around 5% and said he was 'singing in the bath' after having done so... The lower rates then enabled the UK to go on a growth cycle that left the country with the surplus I mentioned earlier when Blair took over.

why? Because we'd find out who was getting paid what. i mean why do the lib dems want that? Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident. Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...! That all started in the 80s with the Tories under Thatcher, Brown and Blair just carried on with it. You can't pick out either party to blame for this, as it would have been exactly the same under either of them. That's not to say it's good what they did, but it's not a party political thing it's just a general problem with politicians in general being enslaved by the City. Total rubbish - GORDON BROWN re-set the rules for the FSA in 1997 and that is ALL that counts. The Tories have been out of power for 12 years, and it is a typical, head-in-the-sand view of Socialists to try to blame them for the current problems.. I agree that politicians are in hock to the City - but that is purely because ALL the major parties have let Industry and manufacturing go and built a Service Economy - something I believe was put together as part of the UK joining the then Common Market. ALL politicians are corrupt. Read and learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets) I was 'reading and learning' when you were but a dream in your father's eye(or should that be something else...?). The LAST place I need to look to know about the so-called Big Bang is Wikipedia ; as for the rights and wrongs of it, I didn't hear many complaints when people were making instant money on Gas shares... I have NO brief for the Tories, but Thatcher's Govt were left with little choice because the Labour Govt of Callaghan had left the UK in such a state(have you ever heard of the IMF ? They were called in in 1976 because the Govt had got the country bankrupt ; it might be advisable to do some research on the IMF, because if Brown's so-called 'Quantative Easing'(i.e.Printing Money) goes wrong, the IMF will be renewing its relations with the UK.... Also, the UK was run by Commie Union bosses who had the Labour Party by the b---s and would do anything rather than think of their members or the countries' welfare.... Fast forward to 1997 and Blair inheriting an economy in surplus ; enter Gordon Brown who immediately removes Tax Credits from Private Pensions(i.e. those being paid for by the MEMBERS THEMSELVES, and NOT out of taxes as per Brown's Client State of Public employees, which he then proceeded to expand with plenty of stupid non-jobs(Outreach Co-ordinators, anyone !??)so he could buy votes... Result ? UK Private Pensions lose 5Bn pounds a year, people now facing poverty in old age etc etc.. This action also affected the UK Stockmarket because people stopped investing in their pensions...result? Money goes into housing because people try to use the gain in house prices to fund retirement...and so on, and so on... Then we come to removal of 10p Tax band, Unlimited Immigration etc etc.... Want me to go on ? there were plenty of people complaining about the gas sell off saying that it was massivly underpriced in order to make the sale look a success (as they did with BT aswell). as for the IMF hadn't most of that been paid back by 1979 ? if the union bosses had the labour government by the balls you'd have thought there'd be no need for strikes. thatcher went too far with the unions to the point of giving business too much room to ride over it's workforce and her brand of moneterism failed. And who were those complaining about the sale price of Gas shares ? Basically Labour MPs/Union bosses because the Public seemed quite happy to buy them and make money...just as they were quite happy to see their house prices rocketing up, even though the reason was dodgy lending and stupidly-low Interest rates.. All very well to complain when things go wrong.... ...So the money owed to the IMF was repaid by 1979...are you sure..!!?? In any case, do you think that its right that a Govt of a country like Britain should EVER have to go to the IMF ?? And, to answer your point about the Unions, the very REASON that the Labour Govt went to the IMF was BECAUSE the Unions had them by the balls - the IMF made it a CONDITION of the loans that the UK HAD to enforce measures to control Public spending which Unions would never have accepted from the Govt itself. Thatcher's monetarism did NOT fail, because as you should know, the Bliar Govt inherited a SURPLUS.. If the monetary policy had failed, it would have been a deficit, just as Brown has created now. Thatcher's biggest mistake was allowing Europhiles like Hesletine and Clarke(and Major)talk her into joining the ERM, and also, for not keeping a tighter control on the destination of British companies as the Germans do with theirs...not that NuLab have been any better in that respect. I notice that you didn't address any of the points in my last paragraph.....!

why? Because we'd find out who was getting paid what. i mean why do the lib dems want that? Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident. Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...! That all started in the 80s with the Tories under Thatcher, Brown and Blair just carried on with it. You can't pick out either party to blame for this, as it would have been exactly the same under either of them. That's not to say it's good what they did, but it's not a party political thing it's just a general problem with politicians in general being enslaved by the City. Total rubbish - GORDON BROWN re-set the rules for the FSA in 1997 and that is ALL that counts. The Tories have been out of power for 12 years, and it is a typical, head-in-the-sand view of Socialists to try to blame them for the current problems.. I agree that politicians are in hock to the City - but that is purely because ALL the major parties have let Industry and manufacturing go and built a Service Economy - something I believe was put together as part of the UK joining the then Common Market. ALL politicians are corrupt. Read and learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets) I was 'reading and learning' when you were but a dream in your father's eye(or should that be something else...?). The LAST place I need to look to know about the so-called Big Bang is Wikipedia ; as for the rights and wrongs of it, I didn't hear many complaints when people were making instant money on Gas shares... I have NO brief for the Tories, but Thatcher's Govt were left with little choice because the Labour Govt of Callaghan had left the UK in such a state(have you ever heard of the IMF ? They were called in in 1976 because the Govt had got the country bankrupt ; it might be advisable to do some research on the IMF, because if Brown's so-called 'Quantative Easing'(i.e.Printing Money) goes wrong, the IMF will be renewing its relations with the UK.... Also, the UK was run by Commie Union bosses who had the Labour Party by the b---s and would do anything rather than think of their members or the countries' welfare.... Fast forward to 1997 and Blair inheriting an economy in surplus ; enter Gordon Brown who immediately removes Tax Credits from Private Pensions(i.e. those being paid for by the MEMBERS THEMSELVES, and NOT out of taxes as per Brown's Client State of Public employees, which he then proceeded to expand with plenty of stupid non-jobs(Outreach Co-ordinators, anyone !??)so he could buy votes... Result ? UK Private Pensions lose 5Bn pounds a year, people now facing poverty in old age etc etc.. This action also affected the UK Stockmarket because people stopped investing in their pensions...result? Money goes into housing because people try to use the gain in house prices to fund retirement...and so on, and so on... Then we come to removal of 10p Tax band, Unlimited Immigration etc etc.... Want me to go on ?

why? Because we'd find out who was getting paid what. i mean why do the lib dems want that? Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident. Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...! That all started in the 80s with the Tories under Thatcher, Brown and Blair just carried on with it. You can't pick out either party to blame for this, as it would have been exactly the same under either of them. That's not to say it's good what they did, but it's not a party political thing it's just a general problem with politicians in general being enslaved by the City. Total rubbish - GORDON BROWN re-set the rules for the FSA in 1997 and that is ALL that counts. The Tories have been out of power for 12 years, and it is a typical, head-in-the-sand view of Socialists to try to blame them for the current problems.. I agree that politicians are in hock to the City - but that is purely because ALL the major parties have let Industry and manufacturing go and built a Service Economy - something I believe was put together as part of the UK joining the then Common Market. ALL politicians are corrupt.

why? Because we'd find out who was getting paid what. i mean why do the lib dems want that? Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident. Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...!

Good post - agree with it all.

No, I don't think you are being cynical Dave - your assessment of what they will do IF the club stays up is probably spot-on. I also think things are going to get even tougher for retailers so Ashley will be even more inclined to cut corners and go for the cheap option as funds become tighter and his business with Sports Direct will, of course, come first. They are making it up as they go along so no-one should expect any better next season, but if the game at Hull is lost, this thread will probably be academic anyway.

Nobody else had the b---s to try for one before...we did it out of desperation because Beardsley was leaving. If the comment is in any way a dig at the guy's ability, you are wrong ; he did OK until he damaged his hamstrings on Luton's plastic pitch and was never the same after that ; scored twice at Old Trafford to give us a 2-2 draw, the second a great diving header, in one of his first games for us. He fell foul of the turmoil when the takeover was going on - he backed the Magpie Group and I met him at the offices - a really decent lad, had learned quite a bit of English and told me about the training regimes in Brazil..once Jim Smith took over as manager, he wanted Mira out because he knew John Hall wanted to replace him as manager when he got power, so anyone who backed the Magpie Group was persona non grata. Whilst he wasn't in the class of Ronaldo,Ronaldinho etc, he was still a decent player who was at the club at the wrong time.

It hasn't worked ANYWHERE, least of all in the UK, looking at the ridiculous debts that the current Govt have created, but there are far too many people who won't see the light - NOT that any of the UK political parties are any better... In fact, Blatter is correct - there SHOULD be more emphasis on forcing ALL clubs to develop their own players with an emphasis on English ones - clubs in the Bundesliga have mainly German players in their sides. I would like to see Murdoch's influence on English football greatly reduced, and that also applies to his influence in the media generally...

When the team loses or fails to score, that will be all 11 players without meaningful contributions. You cant underestimate the ability to collect the ball under pressure and either make space, beat a man and move the ball forward. If you look at the worst NUFC teams and the worst performances, you'll see players collecting balls under pressure without the ability to find a man, make space or beat a player. The team loses possession and eventually the pressure cranks up until we concede. Jonas collected the ball in his own and was surrounded by 3 man u players. If he loses the ball, man u go on the attack. He didnt and we went on the attack. Thats a meaningful contribution imo. You can quote all these fine theories until you are blue in the face - the only thing that matters is END PRODUCT ; Shearer produced this in bad sides, Solano did also - in past years, Beardsley and Waddle also did...Jonas is an Argentine international, but I wouldn't have him in the side as opposed to, say, Waddle if they were both the same age. Watch some of Waddle's amazing goals when playing in a mediocre Newcastle side in 84-85 - HE didn't need to be in 'a decent side' to produce either dangerous crosses or great goals...Jonas has dome neither in nearly a full season. the only thing that matters is not end product. some players get into the team because of end product and some dont. keane and viera were not in their respective teams for so long for their goals and assists. i know jonas isn't a def mid, but his ability to tackle back and keep the ball and run with is is something we desperately need in our team, cause no other fucker does it. WRONG - end product IS all that matters...Keane and Viera DID have end product because their job was to break up opposition attacks and win the ball for their creative midfielders, and they did it very well... Jonas' job is NOT to do what Keane and Viera did, but to create danger - REAL danger - in the opposition penalty area - in my opinion he does not do this anywhere near often enough, and so he has very little end product. Butt, Nolan and Guthrie are the ones who are responsible for winning the ball in midfield.. Ask Alan Shearer what his main job was, and he would tell you it was to get goals - although he did his share of helping out the midfield, that wasn't what he was there for - that's the point.

The club will be down for 4 or years, and any decent players will be gone(those who have got Enrique still in the side after relegation are living in dreamland). Many of you are in for the most enormous culture shock and reality check if the club is relegated, and Ashley will be gone soonest - he may have to cut his losses to sell, but then, he's getting used to that..!!

...but not for long.

When the team loses or fails to score, that will be all 11 players without meaningful contributions. You cant underestimate the ability to collect the ball under pressure and either make space, beat a man and move the ball forward. If you look at the worst NUFC teams and the worst performances, you'll see players collecting balls under pressure without the ability to find a man, make space or beat a player. The team loses possession and eventually the pressure cranks up until we concede. Jonas collected the ball in his own and was surrounded by 3 man u players. If he loses the ball, man u go on the attack. He didnt and we went on the attack. Thats a meaningful contribution imo. You can quote all these fine theories until you are blue in the face - the only thing that matters is END PRODUCT ; Shearer produced this in bad sides, Solano did also - in past years, Beardsley and Waddle also did...Jonas is an Argentine international, but I wouldn't have him in the side as opposed to, say, Waddle if they were both the same age. Watch some of Waddle's amazing goals when playing in a mediocre Newcastle side in 84-85 - HE didn't need to be in 'a decent side' to produce either dangerous crosses or great goals...Jonas has dome neither in nearly a full season.

You have just confirmed what I said - he is NOT effective in this side, whereas some players with slightly less ability on the ball would be...are you suggesting that we can change half the side to accommodate Guttierez, because I think Mr Cashley might disagree with you... Back in 66, Joe Harvey sacrificed such a player(Alan Suddick) so he could buy three others...the changes in the side kept us up, even though NONE of the 3 new guys had Suddick's talent.....