mrmojorisin75

All true and I tend to agree but if this management lark was as easy as sending the best 11 players out to win games, we'd all be doing it. I honestly think we have bigger problems than we realise and some are underestimating the competition. We have many players lacking in confidence and just playing won't eradicate this, we also have many under performing players and at current our squad doesn't have any real shape or pattern to it, furthermore if as many new faces come in as expected, these players and this new team will take time to gell. It will take months of hard work on the training pitch to turn our team into a solid competent one that can keep clean sheets and score goals as a unit. Individually we may have the players (or a few of them) but we've always had that and that alone doesn't guarantee things. I'm probably being conservative here I know but I don't want to build my hopes up too much only to see them dashed so therefore my expectations for next season are quite sedated and I'd be very happy with a top 10 finish so long as we are heading in the right direction on the pitch and just as importantly off it as that's the key to long-term success and not fly by night success. What I fear is we'll start the season well (honeymoon period etc.) and be up there at October time, and that people will expect us to stay there, and when it doesn't happen, people turn on the manager. I think Big Sam is correct in preaching caution and I hope fans don't get too heady with their expectations because we are a f***** club and that won't be reversed over night. I'd be happy if we did nowt all season until the final few months, ending strongly like we did under Roeder as caretaker, then aim high the following season like FS should have done in his manager search after Roeder took us to 7th. Anyway regardless, I am convinced or rather very positive that say in a few years time, we'll be doing alreet because we have a top manager on board and a new owner to come in who will be demanding success himself. Do you think we're in any worse a position than what Portsmouth were when Redknapp took over? He made wholesale changes in a short period of time and took them halfway up the league. They were in the sh*t with players like Robert, Mbesuma, Viafara, Priske, Silva, etc. He came in, sorted them out player-wise, and they were unrecognisable. Just took a half decent coach to organise them. I think Allardyce is a much better coach than Redknapp and will easily be able to do the same with us. Redknapp knows that place inside out so didn't exactly have to start afresh and while his impact has been huge, their problems weren't as big as ours and lets not forget about the pressure aspect, all he has to do there is keep them up and he's a success and that makes managing a whole lot easier. I'm not making excuses here BTW for Big Sam, had he taken over from Sir Bobby when we finished 5th I'd be expecting a top 5 finish and actually think we'd have had that under him but this Newcastle is a world away from that Newcastle. He's taken over a club where half the team have zero respect for the shirt or the staff, where the rest lack motivation, confidence and are underperforming, we also have a side that is unbalanced, new faces will need to gel, it will take months for his ideas and methods to register never mind to get to grips with, the players are in for a culture shock when they come back for pre-season training. Add on top of that the teams who are above us having had at least 2 years of consistent building already in place, their own new faces to come in to improve them further and all kinds of things. Don't get me wrong I hope we do do as well as you and others are hoping for or expecting, I'm just keeping my own expectations low for now because I don't believe things will change overnight. OR the players might come back for pre-season, see that they've got a manager they shouldn't fuck with or he'll bin them, they've got professional training regimes and are being taught tactics...they might all take to it like a fish to water and thus improve on pretty much everything from last season and who knows the new signings might do the same meaning we have lift off gonna be interesting to find out eh?

All true and I tend to agree but if this management lark was as easy as sending the best 11 players out to win games, we'd all be doing it. I honestly think we have bigger problems than we realise and some are underestimating the competition. We have many players lacking in confidence and just playing won't eradicate this, we also have many under performing players and at current our squad doesn't have any real shape or pattern to it, furthermore if as many new faces come in as expected, these players and this new team will take time to gell. It will take months of hard work on the training pitch to turn our team into a solid competent one that can keep clean sheets and score goals as a unit. Individually we may have the players (or a few of them) but we've always had that and that alone doesn't guarantee things. I'm probably being conservative here I know but I don't want to build my hopes up too much only to see them dashed so therefore my expectations for next season are quite sedated and I'd be very happy with a top 10 finish so long as we are heading in the right direction on the pitch and just as importantly off it as that's the key to long-term success and not fly by night success. What I fear is we'll start the season well (honeymoon period etc.) and be up there at October time, and that people will expect us to stay there, and when it doesn't happen, people turn on the manager. I think Big Sam is correct in preaching caution and I hope fans don't get too heady with their expectations because we are a f***** club and that won't be reversed over night. I'd be happy if we did nowt all season until the final few months, ending strongly like we did under Roeder as caretaker, then aim high the following season like FS should have done in his manager search after Roeder took us to 7th. Anyway regardless, I am convinced or rather very positive that say in a few years time, we'll be doing alreet because we have a top manager on board and a new owner to come in who will be demanding success himself. couple of things - i think you are firstly being a little conservative but more importantly i think you're overestimating the opposition for the types of places we're on about....everton/bolton/villa are no great shakes it's just we've been worse than them for a while now, well not villa of course we beat spurs twice last season, lets not forget, with a poor manager and injuries galore regardless of how much they harp on about how well they played we still beat 'em as for the bedding in time thing in my opinion it all depends on the players - if they're of good enough quality they'll gel regardless of time...look at chel$ki's first season under ranieri....with GOOD players they still gelled and were up there most of the season (they finished 2nd right?) so while we're not gonna obviously spend 100m like they did that summer if we spend an amount and spend it well then why can't we push the other teams?

fucken spot on mate fat sam is also probably gonna have as much backing financially & otherwise as any manager we're had in a long while too i don't think a knee-jerk sacking is in order if it all doesn't go totally right next season but i agree with the sentiment it's time we had a manager to get these well paid bastards running through walls for the club and seeing a draw at charlton or somewhere as a result

IF.... IF.... IF.... IF.... Fact remains right now we've got a tiny squad. The likes of Carr and Duff (suppose you could add Emre, Zog, and Dyer) may or may not perform next year, we dont know. Allardyce might sign another couple of players... but we dont know if he will or not, not for certain. We dont know which of his targets he'll get. And we dont know how well they'll fit into his team/premiership football. It's not realistic to proclaim we should be over taking any club right now. There's still alot of work to be done. But this is all unimportant anyway, as I've never said we shouldn't aim to do it... I just said I don't think we'll succeed this season. There's too much rebuilding to be done. If you really believe that Allardyce has a solid long-term plan then we need to drop all this "7th or he's failed" crap. So long as we're showing signs of improvement (top half finish) next year then surely we're on the right track? Its a lot easier and faster to screw up a team than it is to build one. i've personally never said anything like "7th and he's failed" and i don't believe that - next season will be what it is and none of us really know how it'll pan out however i'm just a glass half full kind of dude and given the players we have right now, plus the additions that WILL come in the i see no reason why we shouldn't be pushing other teams for europe noone should make proclamations either way but as allardyce got a team of largely free transfers and cheap buys challenging for 5th why don't you think he could do it with us when he'll have SOME money to spend?

The way some people talk, they must be either very young (ie - never knew what football coverage was like pre-Sky) or (simply) are not football fans. I remember my first introduction to Sky Super Sunday. I couldn't believe it! I was suddenly faced with a 'two hour' build-up to every match, followed by much better coverage of the actual match - then in-depth analysis afterward. The way I described it then (to others who did not have Sky) was - "every match is treated like the FA Cup Final!!!" In those days the only "really long" coverage you got on TV of a match, was on actual Cup Final day (the build up, analysis, live match, etc). How can any football fan not just "Love It" (as KK once said). And that (sort of thing) is another reason (among many) to like Sky Football . . . . . don't you think it has gone just a bit too far though? once sky started, to all intents and purposes, dictating the fixture lists for the season i think some control was lost and now there's likely no turning back plus the point has been made elsewhere about bias coverage, if man u and chel$ki were limited to one game between them per week and it'd make a huge difference i reckon It is not perfect. Neither the coverage itself (preference for some teams / over-hyping at times) or the impact of it (a knackered Fixture List / players mad wages) but it is just SO MUCH better than before. We, the supporter, are just so much better off than we would be without it. Not having it now, would be like turning off the light and not even having a candle to see by . . . in my opinion. oh aye, i'm in agreement with you - look at my earlier post a prime example to refer to is the champions league when they changed to 2 group stages;it was overkill and people lost interest so they soon changed it back what we need is a similar reeling in of the amount of coverage back to something like when it started, or at least something in between then and now I am a great believer in 'supply and demand' enabling things to find their right (sustainable) level. Again, that method (philosophy) is not perfect, but I think that Sky coverage of football will find its natural level. hm, perhaps touches on the point i made to another lad about skynews before - are sky showing so many games 'cause we want them or do we want so many 'cause they're showing them? the champions league isn't a perfect example as the 2nd group stage was obviously affected by a lot of factors that don't apply to a national league same with skysports news - when there's nothing happening they MAKE the news man, how many threads on here are discussing bollox rumours that come from SSN on a quiet day? anyone know how many games they show in spain and germany for example?

the rugby/cricket thing is tenuous in my opinion home match atmosphere and knee jerk overreactions i agree - sky has unfortunately (as we all know to our utter embarassment) given greater access to a fucken camera to people who i doubt should be allowed out the house unsupervised remember all that crying shit that started a few years back? if the cameras aren't there and it doesn't get national coverage it's questionable whether that odious little bandwagon would ever have started rolling...

The way some people talk, they must be either very young (ie - never knew what football coverage was like pre-Sky) or (simply) are not football fans. I remember my first introduction to Sky Super Sunday. I couldn't believe it! I was suddenly faced with a 'two hour' build-up to every match, followed by much better coverage of the actual match - then in-depth analysis afterward. The way I described it then (to others who did not have Sky) was - "every match is treated like the FA Cup Final!!!" In those days the only "really long" coverage you got on TV of a match, was on actual Cup Final day (the build up, analysis, live match, etc). How can any football fan not just "Love It" (as KK once said). And that (sort of thing) is another reason (among many) to like Sky Football . . . . . don't you think it has gone just a bit too far though? once sky started, to all intents and purposes, dictating the fixture lists for the season i think some control was lost and now there's likely no turning back plus the point has been made elsewhere about bias coverage, if man u and chel$ki were limited to one game between them per week and it'd make a huge difference i reckon It is not perfect. Neither the coverage itself (preference for some teams / over-hyping at times) or the impact of it (a knackered Fixture List / players mad wages) but it is just SO MUCH better than before. We, the supporter, are just so much better off than we would be without it. Not having it now, would be like turning off the light and not even having a candle to see by . . . in my opinion. oh aye, i'm in agreement with you - look at my earlier post a prime example to refer to is the champions league when they changed to 2 group stages;it was overkill and people lost interest so they soon changed it back what we need is a similar reeling in of the amount of coverage back to something like when it started, or at least something in between then and now

The way some people talk, they must be either very young (ie - never knew what football coverage was like pre-Sky) or (simply) are not football fans. I remember my first introduction to Sky Super Sunday. I couldn't believe it! I was suddenly faced with a 'two hour' build-up to every match, followed by much better coverage of the actual match - then in-depth analysis afterward. The way I described it then (to others who did not have Sky) was - "every match is treated like the FA Cup Final!!!" In those days the only "really long" coverage you got on TV of a match, was on actual Cup Final day (the build up, analysis, live match, etc). How can any football fan not just "Love It" (as KK once said). And that (sort of thing) is another reason (among many) to like Sky Football . . . . . don't you think it has gone just a bit too far though? once sky started, to all intents and purposes, dictating the fixture lists for the season i think some control was lost and now there's likely no turning back plus the point has been made elsewhere about bias coverage, if man u and chel$ki were limited to one game between them per week and it'd make a huge difference i reckon

you patently know more about it than me, however from a perspective point of view i'll stand by my original point - surely "monday night football" and "superbowl sunday" and this type of thing were already there in american sports? i distinctly remember shitloads of films from the 80's growing up with references to them and i'm sure it was all before murdoch pitched up hasn't murdoch just taken something that was already in existence and marketed the shit out of it? obviously i'm open to correction there but if so then i still stick by my point that regardless of murdoch or not the artifically created (as opposed to the states where it was presumably more natural) sunday/monday as the big football day type shit hints at influence from american sports for me as for the ticker i was referring to skynews not skysports news - i thought that the news ticker was a feature of cnn for years? i must be wrong

Sorry, got to take exception to that last bit. Murdoch is not an Americanizing influence. Au contraire. I'll give you fast food and the gratuitious use of the letter zed, but the aesthetics of Sky and the Murdoch media empire are most definitely not American. US sports fans experienced the same bewildering overhaul of sports television when Fox (Murdoch) acquired the rights to American football. And FoxNews --- CNN + Sun sensationalism and rightist agitprop-- is also quite un-American and unprecedented. We've never had a television channel that is essentially the propaganda organ of a political party. Unprecendented and quite un-American. so you don't see that the development of skys "monday night football", "super sunday", "the clash of the titans" (or whatever tag line they give any man u game each week) has been directly influenced by american sports tv coverage? i do as for the link to cnn/skynews what i'm talking about is that they started as a serious news channel to rival the bbc and i used to like it, then they slowly started to let the cnn style "ticker news" creep in that allows them to gloss over real stories - when do either cnn or skynews really report stories in depth? unless it's about iraq of course as for the sensationalism of the sun i wasn't saying that was an american influence, i was patently pointing out that the link there is murdoch rather than the usa....the point remains about skynews mirroring cnn's style

i'd say it was about right in the beginning, when sky first kicked off as they kept most of the games 3pm saturday and moved one game to a sunday 4pm and then the odd game to monday 8pm plus they showed some of the normal tuesday/wednesday night games once they pushed beyond that it started to go wrong, the advent of PremPlus was the nail in the coffin in my opinion anyway just part of a wider move towards the americanisation of everything - look at skynews these days compared to what it used to be at the beginning, it's now just basically cnn combined with the sensationalism of the sun...

sorry like but if we think everton and spurs are uncatchable then i want to wake up in another time and place right now i agree, with the current state of our squad, we're a ways away from them however you have to assume that allardyce will sign a minimum of 4 defenders and will make them into a unit like he did at bolton, to assume otherwise accepts defeat before we even start again assumptions but we now have a VERY effective target man, englands number one striker, and a bundle of pace, goals, strength and unpredictability in martins.... let's again imagine allardyce gets the likes of n'zogbia/duff/emre to remember what they're actually supposed to do/be good at and sets the team up to play with a gameplan rather than just walk onto the pitch and see what happens everton have been up and down since moyes took charge, they were decent last season but no more decent than allardyces bolton so with a bit of investment why could we not overtake them? everton, to my knowledge, were hardly hurt by injuries either which could have a massive effect as their squad ain't that big, same goes for blackburn/villa etc... to sum up, unless allardyce is forced to operate on free transfers/cheap buys, i see no reason at all why we shouldn't be aiming for these clubs...spurs are a bit further on than the rest but lets not forget they started badly last season then picked up due to (simplified account) basically out attacking teams - their defence is still a load of shite so again while i doubt we'll overhaul them i don't see it as an impossibility - a bad injury to berbatov/robinson/lennon could see their season take a different complexion (happened to us with owen right?) lets not start this season beaten before we've even started man

that lad taiwo at marseilles looks like a very good player from the little i've seen of him surely a lot depends on how much allardyce gets to play with? i mean another person on another thread mentioned germans and i couldn't agree more...germans and argies are about the best defenders going, it's bred into them.... if we have enough money that's the way to go, mertsaeker (spelling?) stands out for me when i've seen him and before his injury metzelder was outstanding but i'm not to sure these days (?) it's been mentioned elsewhere but for whatever reason expectations have gone wildly in the opposite direction to what i expected post shepherd selling - to me campbell, brown, shorey et al are not the answer....they were when we were patently skint but if we have enough money now to buy good age & quality then forget the likes of campbell there's too much being made of us needing "experience", what we need is good players regardless of age and i think that'll take $$$$ look at roma with mexes and chivu, you don't hear them harping on about signing maldini do you? (don't bother with the man u 7 goal bonanza, i know but it's an anomaly) good players is good players end of story...we've got one in taylor and all we need is another 1-2 CB's with different characters to him in order to keep him under wraps and protect his weaknesses

not necessarily true, people get headhunted every day my mates wife was headhunted to move from down south to edinburgh; in order to get her they increased her wages wages massively, paid the mortgage on a flat they both owned so that my pal could live there in an interim period for the move, AND bought their house outright in cash at market value rather than have them wait for it to sell difference is some bird going to work for a bank doesn't tend to make the national newspapers

Yeah but that doesn't count in this comparison, cos Spurs only pay peanuts compared to us. You can almost guarantee that if we signed him, we'd get MJ with his "we were offering £6m up front with £1.5m a year for the next 3 seasons, as well as £30k a week wages with bonuses, while Newcastle offered £12m and £50k a week wages. This is why Comolli has lined up Trezeguet, for whom we've bid £3m plus £500k a year with £25k wages". as well as "this is MJ's son, he's away in the Seychelles with the money he made putting a bet on Joe Harvey being newcastle manager. he told me to say that spurs have also been linked to Skillardinho who is captain of the brazil under 15s. Comolli has legally adopted him and gave both his parents oral sex, so we're just waiting for the paperwork to go through, everyone who has seen this lad believes he is 3 times better than Maradona at the same age. ITKs are also saying Newcastle are close to agreeing a £17m double swoop for Benson and Hedges of non league Tipton. Levy thought long and hard about making a bid but believed the rumoured £400,000 per week wages would upset the applecart, what with Berbs on two guineas and thrupence a year. anyway got to go apply for my season ticket, queue from WHL already reaches Cape Town." fu-uh-nny

http://football.guardian.co.uk/rumourmill/index/0,,2101018,00.html I have always had a major regard for Danny Murphy and cannot for the life of me understand why Spurs do not use him. Cos he's always injured? Plus, he's past it. I'd rather have Speed. That and: 1) He's s**** 2) Jenas, Zokora, Huddlestone, Tainio and possibly Ghaly >>>>>>>>> Murphy 3) He's s**** 4) He's s**** and finally.................. HE'S s**** No way will I accept that Murphy is s*** as you say. He is just one of those guys that has to know he is playing every week in order to be effective. If he comes off the bench or only gets the odd appearance here and there then yeah he does tend to look poor. You only have to look at the performances he put in at Charlton. People where calling for him to be back in the England squad! It's a shame this has all been forgotten because of what has happened at Spurs. all of that granted, surely you think we should be aiming for better?

actually is's not pal, it's a column where they compile the rumours from other places/papers and put them together in a humourous fashion if you look around the rumour will exist somewhere very different from a joke column The humour starts after the mention of Beye (if you exclude the laughing stock and casual comments that have already caused a stir amongst some, including yourself). There is no mention of Murphy anywhere, he is just part of the joke. if you're telling me you've scoured the world and can find no mention of murphy then i'll defer but as someone who's read that site day in day out since about '99 or whenever i first found it then i'll stick to my guns...

you couldn't be more right...bollox at least i amused myself anyways

actually is's not pal, it's a column where they compile the rumours from other places/papers and put them together in a humourous fashion if you look around the rumour will exist somewhere very different from a joke column

agreed there's far too much of the "he'll never come here" and "he'd go there before us" type crap running about for me it's the old oscar wilde quote (paraphrasing) "i might be living in the gutter but i'm looking at the stars" if we operate in the transfer gutter then that's where we'll end up, if we aim for the stars then who knows?

what parallel universe are you living in where a striker with the reputation of torres would even be allowed to get near spurs? i could see them changing the flight path of his plane if he was gonna fly into the uk just in case he got too close!! i love this newly developing belief that spurs are something special when they've acheived precisely the same as keegans newcastle, i.e. played some nice football but ultimately bottled it when it counted the only way spurs could get near the lad is buy outbidding everyone else and they'll never do that... spurs, jesus, and west ham!! ha ha....don't make me laugh, oh you already have

harsh. actually very harsh you're right, i suppose what i meant was not good enough in a team pushing for europe and higher, i.e. his stints at liverpool (mostly) and spurs being largely average punctated by the odd moment of quality from a free kick or a nice pass...but not consistent enough overall, plus he offers little defensively as you point out and would need a 4-4-2 he was good enough for the level charlton were operating at when he was there of course however the fact he's nowhere near a spurs team with the amount of pace and passing options he'd have tells it's own story... just think we should be aiming higher than that to be honest

possibly a tenuous link to when they used to tag us as NUCC (Newcastle United Comedy Club) albeit a not very good one

no more than lazy journalism in my opinion...or maybe i'm being influenced by the giuly type rumours flying about but this falls in the same category the way i see it is allardyce used to buy players the wrong side of 30 out of necessity rather than desire....why on earth the papers think he'll carry this on at our place is beyind me, he's too clever for that only expanation if he starts out like that is that ashleys told him he's on the bones of his arse until january or something and i just don't see that as feasible murphy was never good enough in any team he's played in - we should be looking at least a level or two above this type of signing, people who say we can't break into the top 4,5,6 next season would be proved right by this type of signing allardyce is surely too smart?

i concur, especially about dyer...i wonder if during ashleys review of the club they make it to dyer? if they do i'm betting the word "twat" comes up pretty quick, closely followed by "how much!!??" and "why?"