ikri

And there's some more irony for you. When Reynolds got their new stadium built he didn't really consider the location or the impact it might have if 25,000 all turned up at once. Unfortunately for the club, Darlington council did consider it, due to the stadium's location there's no adequate parking nearby for any great numbers of fans to use. The council stepped in to stop any more than about 12,000 people entering the stadium. So even if they were to go on a bizarre cup run playing against all of the Sky 4 at home they'd be prevented from selling all their tickets. There's even been talk of knocking down a whole stand to build offices, homes & shops just so they can make better use of the stadium than just having an empty stand at every game.

They'll be deducted points, but they're pretty safe in their division even if they lose points. I think there were 3 teams that started this season in that division with negative points & they're well behind Darlo.

Another way to look at him is his cost to us. Conservatively estimating his wage as £100,000 per week, plus the transfer fee, minus the compensation from the FA comes to a total of around £33million for his services. He's played something like 68 games for us in all competitions (excluding friendlies) & scored 30 goals. Not a bad return in terms of goals to games. But... £33million / 68 games = £485,000 per game £33million / 30 goals = £1,100,000 per goal That's just shit.

No such spot. Unless we lose so heavily to Man Ure that the space-time continuum rips asunder and we end up back in 2006.

I think I'm a bit beyond that point. My biggest fear right now is "if Joe Kinnear is their idea of a great long-term manager, just how ridiculous would be their choice for the man to replace him?" Win a chance to manage NUFC! Free competition entry with every purchase of 1 season ticket

Being ultra generous to Llambias here so bear with me. I hope that it's just a reaction to a question rather than a statement to the media, The Journal asked about JFK's future & Llambias has had to come up with an answer that wasn't we're replacing Kinnear in the summer since sacking a manager who is recovering from a triple heart bypass via a local newspaper is more than a bit shit. Just answering No comment would be taken in the same way as saying that he's being let go. I hope that they have already decided to replace JFK in the summer but need to figure out how best to do it without looking like bastards.

He recruits players. So it's his fault Keegan walked and we ended up in complete and utter turmoil? That'll be why people want him out then. See what I mean? No I fully understand why people want him out, I'm just saying he won't be sacked and he does a good job. How do you know he does a good job when you don't even know what it is? We know he recruits players, other wise his job title wouldn't be Executive Director (Football) - Recruitment or something to that effect I remember reaing it when he signed and thinking thats a bloody weird job title. I'll find a link later when I have enough time. I was under the impression it was his job to recruit young talent. However in January Kinnear then stated he'd need to speak to Wise about his first team signings. Aye, they basically lied. I trust the Sun more than I do statements on nufc.co.uk now. Maybe his role's changed, or evolved. Who knows? I can't say that the precise nature of Dennis Wise's job description strikes me as one of the club's major issues right now, though. I think in the context of us getting in a manager better than Joe Kinnear it's extremely relevant. Like it or not, other managers will not look on the Keegan affair favourably and would seek clarity on the matter if approached. Well, just because we haven't seen his job description doesn't mean a potential manager won't get to discuss it. They'll get to discuss it but I doubt it will change, I honestly when Redknapp came for the interview that was the only reason he didn't take it and, if it wasn't for that we'd have wobbly face as manager now. Even though Redknapp was never actually offered the job? Well he definately had an interview, Keegan knew of the DOF plan when he took over, I'm sure they would have said this to redknapp and he basically would have said he wanted to work of his own accord, like he is at Spurs now. The reason Redknapp never took the job is because he was never actually offered it. That isn't what he says. Problem is, with two prolific self publicists (read: liars) contradicting one another, it's hard to tell where the actual truth is. From what I remember, Redknapp was spoken to about whether he'd be interested in the job but claimed that he'd never move from the south coast so taking the job would be out of the question. He wasn't offered the job because we already knew that he'd refuse it, but he was sounded out.

and he did this because 2 vital strikers were passed fit to start for him for the first time, meaning we had 3 very good strikers to attack with. his methods didnt just "click" suddenly. did we attack teams in the same manner with smith, ameobi and owen upfront? no, we didnt. dude, you're starting to annoy me with the repetitiveness of this now...i agree with you in the sense that when we had those three things clicked and he changed the system to accommodate, and it worked very well what was the alternative before they came back? what would a better manager have done with the tools at his disposal? only thing i can see is throw in untested bairns in the hope they'd do better than duff/smith etc... what else could have have done with such s****? which, again, is my entire point. the thread (i think) is bashing somebody because the football we're playing isnt great but with all the players missing what are people expecting? we looked s*** last year before martins and viduka came back so, like you say, how else can we attack teams with any potency without our best 3 strikers? if we get owen, martins and viduka (and possibly barton) all fit and playing we'll look infinitely better, like we did last year. It's not a bashing thread, more of a questioning one of where are we going? Not now, but come next season. Will we look to bring in a highly rated manager who will build a squad over the next couple of years that will play attractive progressive football? Or will we look to hire a cheap coach who will toe the line and buy hard working players who will graft out a result and try and keep us out of relegation trouble? I'm asking because it's undeniable that Kinnear was offered a two year contract extension. How does that sit with the expectations of last summer when Keegan was downplaying Ashley's aims of a top four place, saying we could aim for top eight maybe? Only the board can answer that in May, the decisions they make will tell us a lot. Good post. I would like to think we will bring in a highly rated manager playing attractive football but I cant see such a manager coming here with the current footballing set up (i.e. without full control over transfers and in all likelihood with little funding available) There will be funds available according to Llambias, the money raised from Given and N'Zogbia, plus we should be losing a few highly paid wasters at the end of the season. Someone on TT claims to be ITK that Steve Bruce is coming here in May, read what you want into that. I don't think Bruce is mates with our lot in charge can't see it happening. Gus Poyet if Kinnear can't return imo. Whelan would never let Bruce join us anyway, he hates ashley after ashey reported his company for price fixing. And yet we got Taylor from Wigan for a knockdown price & sold them Insomnia for what was to them a record fee. Not sure Whelan has the cash available to be too picky nowadays.

Have the FA changed the rules recently? He can't be given any extra punishments since the ref already gave him a red card. If the ref had completely missed the tackle & waved play on then the FA could give him an extended ban, but he's more likely to receive a 2 match ban for the straight red.

No. How would you have reacted if Ashley had cut out the Keegan bit and replaced Sam with JFK? I'd have been as bemused as I was when JFK was announced. But it's a f***ing stupid question Why’s that? The club's position at each time was vastly different. No one else wanted the job on the terms it was being offered on when JFK took over, knowing that if the club's sale did go through they'd probably be out of a job immediately. Venables would have taken the job, but only for the whole season, which in hindsight was a far better option. But it still shows that there was a desire to place a better manager than Joe Kinnear in the job. Heart bypass or not, I don't believe that JFK was ever in the club's plans for next season.

No. How would you have reacted if Ashley had cut out the Keegan bit and replaced Sam with JFK? I'd have been as bemused as I was when JFK was announced. But it's a fucking stupid question

No.

I can't remember any as bad as Derby away under Allardyce. True, going to Derby and saying he would be happy with a point is disgraceful, im no supporter of either FSA or JFK btw. Just think that FSA was a better manager for us than JFK is now. Don't get me wrong, I think that Fat Sam is, overall, a better manager. But he was completely the wrong man for us. If we had played shit and won he'd have been OK. If we'd have tried to win games and lost he'd have been OK. But to play dreary, shit football, to create a mindset where the team had already given up any thoughts of trying to win a game away from home, to continue playing players like Smith when Martins was available all led to his job here being a disaster. It might have worked at Bolton, where grinding results at Premiership survival was to be successful, but here it was doomed to failure. To quote James (the band, not the poster) If I hadn't seen such riches I could live with being poor

£20.3 million and before you ask, £54.5 million. Edit That was loss before tax, operating loss for the two years was £50.7 million. 2nd edit Where was that coming from without Ashley? I’ve already suggested some ways Shepherd could have raised some extra cash, but would concede that finding £60m to cover outgoings and strengthen the squad would have been difficult. What has to be concern is that for all Ashley’s cost cutting measures our operating loss was still £20m. What else do you think he should have done to reduce it further? Not sacking Big Sam would have been a good start. He was after all a manager with a proven record of running a premier league club on a shoestring, but what Ashley should have done was restructure the debts over a longer period of time and left a bit of money for product development. By insisting on paying everything off right now he’s devalued the product to such an extent that revenue streams are tumbling. His business strategy is all about cutting cost and completely ignores protecting / increasing revenue streams. It’s a very narrow minded approach, not to say odd. The really important question is - are the club’s outgoings falling faster than it‘s income? If Fat Sam had stayed in charge we'd have been relegated, playing his brand of anti-football all the way. Our biggest game this season would have been against Glenn Roeder's Norwich side. Most games would have probably attracted no more than 20,000. You think JFK is a better manager then? I think he's completely out of his depth here, I think his ideas are 10 years out of date at the very least. But for all that, I think he's better suited to Newcastle United than Fat Sam ever was. He's at least attempted to win games, not tried to hold on to a 0-0 draw for 89 minutes before grabbing a last-minute winner from a set piece. You seem to have forgotten just how shit we were under Fat Sam.

£20.3 million and before you ask, £54.5 million. Edit That was loss before tax, operating loss for the two years was £50.7 million. 2nd edit Where was that coming from without Ashley? I’ve already suggested some ways Shepherd could have raised some extra cash, but would concede that finding £60m to cover outgoings and strengthen the squad would have been difficult. What has to be concern is that for all Ashley’s cost cutting measures our operating loss was still £20m. What else do you think he should have done to reduce it further? Not sacking Big Sam would have been a good start. He was after all a manager with a proven record of running a premier league club on a shoestring, but what Ashley should have done was restructure the debts over a longer period of time and left a bit of money for product development. By insisting on paying everything off right now he’s devalued the product to such an extent that revenue streams are tumbling. His business strategy is all about cutting cost and completely ignores protecting / increasing revenue streams. It’s a very narrow minded approach, not to say odd. The really important question is - are the club’s outgoings falling faster than it‘s income? If Fat Sam had stayed in charge we'd have been relegated, playing his brand of anti-football all the way. Our biggest game this season would have been against Glenn Roeder's Norwich side. Most games would have probably attracted no more than 20,000.

Yes, day to day bills like the tax man, short term loans, players wages, transfer instalments, that sort of thing. What was the shortfall for 06/07? £33 million apparently http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2007/profit13.gif

Shearer. Even if he wasn't scoring he's 10x the leader than Owen is.

Didn't Sir Bobby want 3 Portuguese players in that window? Viana (obviously) & Ronaldo were 2 of that 3 but I can't remember who the 3rd player was.

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/safc/Sunderland-eye-top-young-keeper.4987413.jp Is it just me or is he channelling Roeder?

It's like getting a choice between a) being bummed to death by a zebra b) being bummed to death by an ageing zebra with bad timing Neither are exactly fantastic options, one option just has better movement

silly boy. Fancy hoping the club fail. Is English your 2nd language? You've taken his post to mean exactly the opposite to what he meant. Either you failed to comprehend basic English or your drunk.

Sounds like bollocks, normal recovery time for a triple heart bypass is usually mentioned as 3 months as an absolute minimum, 6 months normally and sometimes up to a full year. If he's back in charge of the team after 8 weeks he'll be back in hospital 2 weeks later.

I bet macphisto just made this post to throw everyone else off the scent. macphisto is really Mike Ashley.

Making decisions isn't the club's strong point. We'll just cross our fingers and hope Kinnear gets better and comes back. If he doesn't, we'll just leave Hughton in charge and cross our fingers that he'll do fine. If he keeps us up, we'll give him a 3 year contract. No-one seems to have the bollocks to do anything but the default decision at this club. I'm not sure that Llambias feels able to make decisions on his own in the way that Mort appeared able to. Llambias doesn't seem to want to do anything without first getting Ashley's backing.

He chose to pay off the debt in full rather than pay off some and invest more in the team. At least one of the major loans had a condition where it had to be repaid should the club change hands. He didn't choose to repay the loans, in some cases he was forced to. No doubt you'll twist this to prove that it was Ashley's fault for not doing due process. How the hell can he increase profits if the club is making a loss? Possibly because we still had payments to make on Emre & Luque 2 years after they left the club. Other than the £30million he's put in to keep the club running? He placed his business in the hands of people he knows and trusts. That Bastard! I agree that putting the club up for sale was a huge mistake, but who in their right mind would accept an offer for the club that was significantly less than what he paid for it & subsequently invested in it? I don't especially like Ashley, this season has been handled appallingly by everyone involved but he's not some pantomime villain sat in his mansion figuring out how to screw the club over this week.