Lotus

The management of our football team is reckless. You know, the sporting side of it all...

Really? We won't need to replace one of our best players? Getting yourself set for this one good and early, mate. Sometimes you "need a replacement", like in the case of Enrique. Sometimes you would like someone in that position to give more depth. What if we'd got rid of Barton and then signed Cabaye, Marveaux and Abeid? Seems more about timing to me. Who's our RW then? Routledge - off Barton - imminent Leaves us with Raylor. Someone will say Guti just because he's right footed. Truth is, he plays on the left for a reason. Still, if you think the sqaud is fine i guess we'll wait and see if you're right. I never said the squad was "fine". I know we lack options on the right, I've said before that I think we shouldn't have let Routledge go. You pre-dismissed the suggestion that Gutierrez will play there, so I guess I shouldn't say that. Well, no one else seems to play him there and i'm thinking there's a reason for that. He works the LW position because he can cut inside and force the RB to think about tackling him with his weaker foot. Clearly that won't work as well against a LB. I'm convinced you know this. Think you're just scrabbling around trying to think of a a positive. Fair play i suppose. My emotional outlook is just different to yours (currently).

Reckon he's going to have a very different season without Enrique protecting his side.

Really? We won't need to replace one of our best players? Getting yourself set for this one good and early, mate. Sometimes you "need a replacement", like in the case of Enrique. Sometimes you would like someone in that position to give more depth. What if we'd got rid of Barton and then signed Cabaye, Marveaux and Abeid? Seems more about timing to me. Who's our RW then? Routledge - off Barton - imminent Leaves us with Raylor. Someone will say Guti just because he's right footed. Truth is, he plays on the left for a reason. Still, if you think the sqaud is fine i guess we'll wait and see if you're right.

Bridge was absolutely awful for Wham last season. He cost them games.

It's not a giant stretch of the imagination to think that however we do, we could be doing better with more/better players that we could easily have afforded to sign. It's what every club does to climb the league. Hardly an epiphany, like...

How is having a massive transfer budget a problem? The only way i can see is if there is no intention of spending most of it.

There has been cynicism around for a few years now, the previous owners were hardly whiter than white. But I agree, we are reaching new heights these days. It gets stupid at times. I just wish people would sometimes recognise the other side. Even the relegation we bounced back from well, and the Hughton sacking turned out not to harm us. The Carroll sale is a blow, but the money was clearly too good to turn down. Anyway, this isn't the thread for that discussion really, but it's a shame every debate just comes down to whether you hate or sympathise with Mike Ashley. Hopefully it will die down when the season starts. 2 points about the Carroll sale make me uneasy. First, they'd been touting him about so it wasn't like they didn't have time to get a replacement. They just didn't get one. Now, that can happen, no doubt about that so then we turn to the summer. I know it's not over yet but SO FAR Carroll has been replaced by Ba, i'm sure the wages are like for like, Nolan out and Cabaye in, fee more or less covers itself and same with wages so our only real outlay has been Marveaux. No fee to a club, just the wages and the signing on fee (as expected). Ba, Cabaye and Marveaux MIGHT turn out to be good players but there is no way a club with plenty in the bank is BETTER OFF not spending money. If picking up a couple of good freebies was all it took every club would be doing it. Players have fees because a certain level of expectancy comes with them, the more they cost the more they are expected to achieve. Obvious to us all, i'm sure. Newcastle have some areas of the squad that could do with some attention. If the club had some sporting ambition it would choose to use it's MASSIVE transfer surplus to address this. Nothing wrong with a couple of freebies with some promise but not having another striker, right winger, right back, back up CB and cover for middle is lacking sporting ambition. Maybe Erding will be good, if he signs that will be money well spent, that's what it's for. What about the rest? Squad needs investment. Club has funds. Ergo, use it.

Bit like Gervinho...

If people behave like fans/supporters then of course. If people start to behave like customers instead then he's in a big pile of his own poo.

I really don't like being the kind of guy who pisses on others chips but Ashley's judgement since taking over Newcastle has largely been poor. Consecutive mistakes cost the club heavily. As the 2011/12 season hasn't even started let alone finished i have no idea if his judgement will prove any better this year. We'll wait and see. We certainly can't look to his past at the club for a good precedent though.

Well, you and I are a very long way apart in terms of satisfaction if that's the eventual outcome. So if we sign Ba and another striker, you still won't be satisfied? How many strikers were you expecting us to buy this summer? No, Dresden said if we didn't sign another striker he would be ok with that. That means he's ok with swapping Carroll for Ba. That's not good enough for me like.

Well, you and I are a very long way apart in terms of satisfaction if that's the eventual outcome.

Not predicting the future but so far the Carroll money has allowed us to sign 2 freebies with dubious injury records. This is what has actually happened so far.

We're without our 2 highest scorers from last season. You can't assume we're better until you the new lot play. It's nice to be optimistic but don't confuse it with facts.

Jesus H.

Was that NE5 using a ghost account?

What we have is an owner who's made lots of consecutive bad decisions that have cost him money and us good football. Now what i'm worried about is that his decisions will still cost us good football. If he can make money back, good for him, but as a fan, it's my entertainment i'm interested in. I don't think we're running at a loss anymore so i think having the club punch it's weight for a season or 2 would be appreciated given how he's f***ed up so royally from the day he arrived. He f*cked up royally with Keegan, Wise, Kinnear leading on to relgation etc etc and that cost him money. He did at least then have the sense to fund a very expensive squad in the Championship (I know some put that down to luck) so that we got back up. The key thing really is, as I said on another thread, what level of exposure is he prepared to accept on his investment in the club? I freely admit I haven't got a clue if he wants to reduce his loan from cash surpluses in the club or if he is ok with things as they are. I have to say I can't see anything to suggest he is prepared to increase that exposure. I love it when you use dirty words

I don't believe we need to sell players to balance the books. If we do then they're f**king useless at running this football club.

Of course it is, but if they increase in value it's because they're doing the business for us, in which case why would we sell them? We should be signing players who we expect to perform well for us and that's it. Their value increasing should be inconsequential unless they specifically want out of their own accord. The scenario that people seem to be getting their knickers in a twist about is if a player like Cabaye does well, and then three years down the line attracts the interest of a CL club, who offer a big fee. Well at the worst, we've got three years of good performances out of a player who we didn't have to invest a lot of money in. Who knows, we may be on the fringes of the CL ourselves, and able to persuade the player to stay. A lot of people are worried that Mike will rub his hands, and sell at a profit. That's not necessarily the wrong decision, if the money is re-invested wisely. The likes of Arsenal (Anelka, Overmars, Petit) and Spurs (Berbatov) have been able to progress by selling players on at large profits. The main concern would be if Mike pockets the money himself and uses it for purposes outside the club, like the Glazers. I can't see any evidence that that is his aim. The Carroll sale gets cited as an example, but even Keegan has admitted that he went for an inflated price that he wouldn't himself have turned down. The danger is that because Ashley isn't popular, everything he does gets seen negatively - even the signing of Cabaye. I know a lot of people on here aren't sold on the plan that the club are working to, but more importantly the players who have come in seem to have been convinced that we're on the right lines. The main concern for me is that if we sell players for a profit the money doesn't ADD to our transfer fund but gets absorbed in pushing down running costs which appears to have happened with the Carroll sale.

What we have is an owner who's made lots of consecutive bad decisions that have cost him money and us good football. Now what i'm worried about is that his decisions will still cost us good football. If he can make money back, good for him, but as a fan, it's my entertainment i'm interested in. I don't think we're running at a loss anymore so i think having the club punch it's weight for a season or 2 would be appreciated given how he's fucked up so royally from the day he arrived.

Of course it is, but if they increase in value it's because they're doing the business for us, in which case why would we sell them? We should be signing players who we expect to perform well for us and that's it. Their value increasing should be inconsequential unless they specifically want out of their own accord. This is my take on it. Buying a player as a financial investment is a different motivation to trying to improve a team sensibley.

I'm afraid it's made me more cynical tbh. The idea that we're signing players who will be 'hard to hold onto' unless we're challenging for europe and then NOT signing quite enough players to actually do that just makes me wonder if the board are buying stock, waiting for it's value to go up, sell on and then say to the fans that the player wants CL football and as we all know, we can't quite achieve that with the likes off Man City and Chelsea with their spending power blah blah blah. Sounds like they're already sowing the seeds of the idea of selling these players on. I so hope i'm just being negative but i just felt that, listening 'between the lines' so to speak, there's no actual intention to build a footballing side, just an enviroment where by players are brought in, given exposure and sold on for profit.

That's a good point but i suppose not all signings will work out so having someone with some stock left in them makes sense. A little voice in the back of me mind thinks it might be something else though.

I doubt we were ever really serious about Wickam because he hasn't proved himself worth them money. Sturridge i think would be out of our range (not what we can afford but what we'd be prepared to pay).