mrmojorisin75

But, must we rush from one stupid extreme to the other stupid extreme? I was one of those optimistic IDIOTS who immediately (initially) thought that Ashley would get the balance right . . . me too, didn't/doesn't have to be like abramovich but so far this ain't enough by anyones standards on a side note if someone had told me in may smith & duff would still be at the club on august 28th i'd have been in fucken tears, i almost am now just thinking about it again Every time I go into my local shops, the owner gets out a freash packet of tissues for me (without being asked) on that one (Smith/Duff) !! PS, unusually, I think that DUFF is the worse of the two. What an ***h*le !!!! yeah i agree about duff, waste of skin

But, must we rush from one stupid extreme to the other stupid extreme? I was one of those optimistic IDIOTS who immediately (initially) thought that Ashley would get the balance right . . . me too, didn't/doesn't have to be like abramovich but so far this ain't enough by anyones standards on a side note if someone had told me in may smith & duff would still be at the club on august 28th i'd have been in fucken tears, i almost am now just thinking about it again

agree with everything not in bold

dude it might be worth locking it now...!

Pretty much all clubs in the Premier League have 1-3, how many have spent more than £10m net this summer? Honest question, I don't know. Our spending power reflects our finishing positions over the last couple of years, surely. We're therefore cutting our cloth accordingly. If we finish this year well in the top half I'd expect higher spending next year to build on that. Is that concept difficult to accept for our fans? well your first point is bullshit dave, are you saying our crowds & turnover are anywhere neat pompey, hull, stoke, blackburn, 'boro etc...? our spending power reflects what we're spending dave, nothing more nothing less...i find your argument laughable - you can only increase spend if you improve matters on the pitch without spending? that's the rationale and it isn't how football works i'll let NE5 and others take it from here First point, see the bit where I said 'pretty much all'. Obviously some clubs have bigger stadia than others, but most in the Premier League get 30k+, and all get the increased TV money. Second point, where did I say we should be (or are) spending nothing? I didn't say that at all. i'll rephrase then; why must/does spending have any link to last seasons performance? or the last few seasons even? i guess you're gonna use the europe argument (i.e. players won't come) but that's doesn't work either, the amount we're willing to spend has nothing to do with europe at this point imo as the amount clubs get from the waffa are negligible anyway so come on then, given our "status" compared to many other clubs in the league with regards my original 1-3 why are we not spending more? (lets just assume there's a standing agreement this becomes moot if we spend rather than you tell me the windows not closed yet) The previous few seasons determine our cashflow, our status and reputation, our potential for the future. How can it possibly not be relevant? The top four is virtually inpenetrable because they can all bank on the ludicrous amounts of money flowing in from the Champions League every year. If Liverpool finished 5th for three years on the spin do you think their spending would continue as now? i can't do this again dave, others will pick it up and run with it if they can be arsed lets just hope we're gonna pull something out of the hat eh?

Serious questions need to be asked, given KK's comments on the squad. This is regardless of the money spent btw. I could well see Keegan f***ing off again if we get noone in. Seems like him saying we need a couple or three or four as a direct ploy to get Ashley & co to get their arses in gear. There is still time but a little worrying to say the least. he's made a commitment, he'll not leave now regardless imo - worst case he'll see the season out then go if he feels that strrong no way on earth keegan will want to be remembered for walking out on us when we were in trouble, as opposed to what he did last time

Pretty much all clubs in the Premier League have 1-3, how many have spent more than £10m net this summer? Honest question, I don't know. Our spending power reflects our finishing positions over the last couple of years, surely. We're therefore cutting our cloth accordingly. If we finish this year well in the top half I'd expect higher spending next year to build on that. Is that concept difficult to accept for our fans? well your first point is bullshit dave, are you saying our crowds & turnover are anywhere neat pompey, hull, stoke, blackburn, 'boro etc...? our spending power reflects what we're spending dave, nothing more nothing less...i find your argument laughable - you can only increase spend if you improve matters on the pitch without spending? that's the rationale and it isn't how football works i'll let NE5 and others take it from here Mrmojorisin75, I re-read Dave's words. I think you misunderstood what he meant. He is not comparing Newcastle United's crowd with the crowds of the others. He is merely stating that pretty much all the clubs in the Premier League has huge crowds and increased TV money. It is a fair statement if you look at the crowds that attend Championship games, League 1 games etc. I see no problem with that. As for the other statement, let us all be realistic, in this capitalist market today, football is a sport no doubt but also a sound and profitable investment. How many will be like Roman Abramovich? The world is realistic. No matter passionate a person may be towards sports, profit/money is still the important thing. Of course, there can be exception but it is rare in today's modern capitalist market. Football does not work like in the past anymore sadly. Things have changed and move on. What Dave said is the bible for the modern capitalist football market today. Ericz i'm no finance guy but i reckon if you took our figures for 1-3 and compared them to the rest of the league we'd likely be overall 5th (and wage bill granted), 3rd for crowd lest we forget i don't think i did misread at all, i know what he's saying i just don't agree with it, never have done

I'd be more worried if I was a City supporter wrt something not being right. They are spending big mind. That is a different kind of "not right", but I wholeheartedly agree with you on that - if "whatshisname" was the owner here I would be ****ing myself . . . !! agree, everything has to be put in perspective i guess

Pretty much all clubs in the Premier League have 1-3, how many have spent more than £10m net this summer? Honest question, I don't know. Our spending power reflects our finishing positions over the last couple of years, surely. We're therefore cutting our cloth accordingly. If we finish this year well in the top half I'd expect higher spending next year to build on that. Is that concept difficult to accept for our fans? well your first point is bullshit dave, are you saying our crowds & turnover are anywhere neat pompey, hull, stoke, blackburn, 'boro etc...? our spending power reflects what we're spending dave, nothing more nothing less...i find your argument laughable - you can only increase spend if you improve matters on the pitch without spending? that's the rationale and it isn't how football works i'll let NE5 and others take it from here First point, see the bit where I said 'pretty much all'. Obviously some clubs have bigger stadia than others, but most in the Premier League get 30k+, and all get the increased TV money. Second point, where did I say we should be (or are) spending nothing? I didn't say that at all. i'll rephrase then; why must/does spending have any link to last seasons performance? or the last few seasons even? i guess you're gonna use the europe argument (i.e. players won't come) but that's doesn't work either, the amount we're willing to spend has nothing to do with europe at this point imo as the amount clubs get from the waffa are negligible anyway so come on then, given our "status" compared to many other clubs in the league with regards my original 1-3 why are we not spending more? (lets just assume there's a standing agreement this becomes moot if we spend rather than you tell me the windows not closed yet)

Serious questions need to be asked, given KK's comments on the squad. This is regardless of the money spent btw. agreed, if 5 players sign and they all cost 500k each then the only thing that matters is on the pitch

it is if they can secure a replacement in 4 days, otherwise we'll be throwing lua lua in or relying on geremi/smith We could also play Zog, Duff or Jonas there if pushed. Our best run of form last season was when Milner was out of the team. I don't think he'll be a massive loss. me either, i'm just saying it's another body down and i consider smith/duff to be worse options in any position than milner

Pretty much all clubs in the Premier League have 1-3, how many have spent more than £10m net this summer? Honest question, I don't know. Our spending power reflects our finishing positions over the last couple of years, surely. We're therefore cutting our cloth accordingly. If we finish this year well in the top half I'd expect higher spending next year to build on that. Is that concept difficult to accept for our fans? well your first point is bullshit dave, are you saying our crowds & turnover are anywhere neat pompey, hull, stoke, blackburn, 'boro etc...? our spending power reflects what we're spending dave, nothing more nothing less...i find your argument laughable - you can only increase spend if you improve matters on the pitch without spending? that's the rationale and it isn't how football works i'll let NE5 and others take it from here

it is if they can secure a replacement in 4 days, otherwise we'll be throwing lua lua in or relying on geremi/smith

1. huge crowds 2. big turnover 3. increased TV money once the initial debt was cleared dave it didn't have to be run off his own money, it could be surely run spending a good amount (more than 10m net anyway) based on the 'spurs model' of signing players who'll likely keep some value in the market this will go on forever if the usual suspects come in but no's 1-3 are enough for me i never expected abramovich-esque levels of spending but i truly expected more than this - yes i know i'm not allowed to form an opinion before sep 2nd so in the event we buy some players please disregard

doubtful if alls he's on about is getting an improved contract with us...milner just strikes me as honest, maybe it's 'cause he still looks like a kid more likely 'cause he uses the PFA to represent him rather than one of these agent cunts

No, no it could'nt. Imagine if we did Spuds would be gutted should be ashleys masterplan, totally f*** his spurs mates over now right at the end of the window when it's become totally apparent that without more signings they're gonna struggle ashley steps in and nicks anyone quality from them! Whereas, in fact, he is doing exactly the opposite. The 'promised land' of us being owned by a billionaire appears to have turned sour. He owns us - but does he have our interests at heart - or does he have the interests "of some other club (s)" at heart? The whole "we are second class citizens thing" (Keegan) and "we are not spending big money thing" (Ashley) . . . is VERY odd. the implication being he's blown 200m to run us into the ground? not very likely really is it

while i don't agree most fans would keep him there's a very real difference between wanting to leave the club and having a pay dispute with his bosses, this should hopefully be reflected in the way the fans treat him wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't mind

there's an FA list of transfer listed players, i'd imagine that'd do

And then you return to reality and remember that he is another thick footballer who earns more than any of us for doing f*** all. Your last point is the best one (although I happen to agree that we shouldn't be pandering to Barton either....we should've cancelled the c***s contract). I don't know what "reviewing" contracts every year is supposed to mean. Maybe they did "review" his contract and decided it wouldn't be appropriate to reward him with an improved deal since he hasn't improved as a player? Or is review just a euphemism for more money? James Milner has been a dependable regular who has made his own contribution to some very average, under performing performances over the last few years. He doesn't deserve a new contract, and if Villa are willing to pay 10 million then sell him. If not, then the fucker can rot in the reserves. I'm sick of this plucky, hardworking James Milner myth. He has made his own valuable contribution the failures of recent seasons. read the PFA rep statement man, it makes more sense then and you'll stop talking s**** - as i said unless the PFA are bullshitting there's an informal agreement to review player contracts each season based on progress, i think it says particularly for the younger players - this makes sense if they're saying in negotiations "well we're not gonna pay you "x" amount but we'll give you "y" and in the summer we'll see how you did..." that's the nature of all performance based negotiations - the point being milners guys are saying the club refuse to honour this agreement, not that they looked at his contract and told him he's not worth any more based on performances also do you know what he earns? therefore how do you know he's not worth another contract? How do you know that the club did not review his contract and decided that he does not deserve a new one? Plus its perfectly possible for one to say Milner does not deserve a new contract even if one does not know how much he is getting currently. It's simple really, let's say he is earning 'X' amount in 2006/2007, if he has not improved in 2007/2008 then he does not deserve a new contract regardless of what X amount is. right i've read the PFA statement again in more detail and it comes down to this: "It was made clear on two occasions there was not going to be a new contract. Therefore he felt that he was left with no option." therefore i'm talking shite as it happens, read it before i woke up, but basically he's handed in his request as the club have refused to offer him an improved contract which he feels he deserves so to rip up most of what i've said before then i have no problem from either side, the club or the player; if milner feels he's not valued enough he's within his rights to ask for a transfer imo...you have to presume there's a strong "taylor influence" here this coming so soon after his deal was signed i'll reiterate though, none of us know what he's being paid, he might be in the right and i'd be tempted to think he is

And then you return to reality and remember that he is another thick footballer who earns more than any of us for doing fuck all. Your last point is the best one (although I happen to agree that we shouldn't be pandering to Barton either....we should've cancelled the cunts contract). I don't know what "reviewing" contracts every year is supposed to mean. Maybe they did "review" his contract and decided it wouldn't be appropriate to reward him with an improved deal since he hasn't improved as a player? Or is review just a euphemism for more money? James Milner has been a dependable regular who has made his own contribution to some very average, under performing performances over the last few years. He doesn't deserve a new contract, and if Villa are willing to pay 10 million then sell him. If not, then the fucker can rot in the reserves. I'm sick of this plucky, hardworking James Milner myth. He has made his own valuable contribution the failures of recent seasons. read the PFA rep statement man, it makes more sense then and you'll stop talking shite - as i said unless the PFA are bullshitting there's an informal agreement to review player contracts each season based on progress, i think it says particularly for the younger players - this makes sense if they're saying in negotiations "well we're not gonna pay you "x" amount but we'll give you "y" and in the summer we'll see how you did..." that's the nature of all performance based negotiations - the point being milners guys are saying the club refuse to honour this agreement, not that they looked at his contract and told him he's not worth any more based on performances also do you know what he earns? therefore how do you know he's not worth another contract?

a couple of points: 1. artilcle in the guardian this morning very good - points out that he's seen taylor go public and get what he wants therefore this is not so much for a move but to force the clubs hand; that's backed up by NUFC.com but also: 2. his agent, which is the PFA lest we forget not some fucking bloodsucker, have gone into great detail about the situation which is basically that the deal he signed was 2 years old and there's an understanding within the club that contracts will be reviewed every season but the club have flat out refused to enter talks with milner so he's taken this step with these in mind i think it's a murky this one; why did THE CLUB break the story? because they knew the papers were about to break it? to force villa to make an offer? to make a cunt out of milner? perhaps a combination... unless the PFA are lying then it's bad form for the club to have an agreement and then go back on it regardless of anything else, don't care what anyone says...nor do i think milner would be the type of person to lie about it, therefore i'm believing him and the PFA on that part whatever you think of milner on the pitch he shouldn't be treated this way off it - makes me sick the way we pander to fucking scumbags like barton (amongst many others) yet milner is forced to hand in a request to get discussions about a contract for me we should sell him now if the fees they're talking about are correct 'cause he's simply not that good and hasn't improved enough to earn a big increase however

piss myself if spurs outbid the others for him...

aye there's a silver lining

balls in our court, long term contract signed for presumably not much - 9m or fuck off please villa