quayside

What and who is defending Barton of anything based on him being a better person? This place is like a mental institution at times. I'm guessing this is your interpretation of what I wrote? You said: So that was, in part, what I was referring to - yes.

This whole defence of Barton based on him being on some sort of "becoming a better person" mission doesn't wash with me. I have always thought he was a good footballer, and some of the twitter stiff was at first quite funny. But as a character, if you look at his track record, the very best you could say about him is that he's an attention seeeking, psychotic egomaniac. He had his ego bruised here and can't stand it. As for Llambias every time he makes some public pronouncement it seems to me to be oozing with cynicism and venom. I can't believe that isn't a true reflection of his character. I think he and Barton are both pretty reprehensible tbh although at least Barton is good at his job.

I find it quite disturbing that two nauseating creeps like Llambias and Barton are fighting for the moral high ground

Yup me too.

Fighting talk Colocho - sounds like you are ready to launch a protest. Bring back Harper, Nolan, Barton, Carroll and let Smithy get some some proper time on the pitch.

Looking at that Barton interview I am slightly confused about the bonus sheet point. The club was trying to get the players to sign up to a scheme whereby the players get bonuses which are presumably based on performance. According to Barton every other Premier club in history has such a scheme, yet our players "bonus committee" advised the rest of the squad not to sign it. If it is extra money being made available to the players why not sign up to it? I must have missed something here because I don't get it. Shame about that "bonus committee" being shunted out. Of course Smith's exclusion can't have anything to do with his ability and there can't be any other reason why any of the other players have moved on can there?

Quite easily, people suffering from depression don't walk around all day crying and telling people they will kill themselves. Unfortunately the biggest downfall in depression is those who don't seek help and keep everything to themselves while constantly hiding under a brave face. People will ask questions but personally I think it's a lot more respectful just to wait for the facts rather than speculate, if nothing ever does come out just appreciate the man he was and the loss he is. I do know something about depression, having relatives that suffer from it. Those that worked closely with them on a daily basis were aware of it. I was not trying to speculate (and in fact did not) I was just trying to explain that Gary Speed's standing as a person will raise questions on this. But I will withdraw from this discussion - as I said on a post above I have no wish whatsoever to appear in any way disrespectful.

many people do, collymores only came to light after his dogging scandal didn't it ? Not sure about that - I thought Collymore went missing at Villa with depression in about 2000 prompting his manager (John Gregory) to come out with the crass observation that he could not understand how a man earning £20k a week could be depressed. But didn't the dogging stuff come out later? Tbh I really don't want to overstep any boundaries here, this is a a truly horrible human tragedy, I was just trying to make the point that it is going to attract rumours because of the high regard with which Gary Speed was held in the game (and as a person generally) and the lack of any apparent reason for this to happen.

Let's face it an unexplained tragedy like this is bound to attract rumours. Gary Speed had no known history of depression (unlike Collymore) and he always behaved in a totally professional and ethical manner. He was a genuine role model. Because you could totally rely on him he would be in my top 5 players to have played for us. Surely though, however much you admired the man, you have the right to wonder why this has happened? If he did suffer from depression how did he apparently manage to keep it from everyone that played football with him?

Absolutely devastated. As good a role model for any young footballer as you could ever find, I just can't stop wondering what on earth drove him to this...

That's f*cking astonishing Me too.

The guy who did mine was called Dennis, he was class. I've had a tour from Dennis too! I did the stadium tour a few years back. An old guy called Alan was the guide - he was mint.

By who?! Starforth covers NUFC for the Shields Gazette, that comment was on his twitter. So if you want an answer you know where to go.

Well thought out post Ashley is a package deal - there are advantages to having him as our owner and there is also a very crap aspect to it. At the risk of being boringly repetitive I think Llambias is a major hindrance with his day to day running of the club, and Ashley could find a better person to do that job. So a bit like "Shola in the boardroom" then That would be a good simile if the advantages of Shola were more obvious

Well thought out post Ashley is a package deal - there are advantages to having him as our owner and there is also a very crap aspect to it. At the risk of being boringly repetitive I think Llambias is a major hindrance with his day to day running of the club, and Ashley could find a better person to do that job.

Howay man, Gastropubs aren't that bad.

From what you hear about the man it seems entirely believable that he would come out with this stuff. I don't think Llambias made decisions like the renaming of the stadium etc but the bloke clearly has zero class (good thread title btw). I have said on here before that Ashley would do well to get rid of him. He seems to be crap at every aspect of the job.

I've been in the same position as Ashley but on a slightly smaller scale I helped set up an engineering company and made an interest free loan for 3 years, three years later I took the loan back. I took that money out of the company as it was in the company bank account on the Friday and I had it in mine 4 working days later. Semantics - my definition of taking out is extracting money that you didn't put in. So let's just leave it and say I'm not in agreement with you

Of course it's taking out, I take money out of my bank account on a daily basis. I put it in and I take it out. Suppose you loaned some of your money to a company. If the company paid some of it back (with no interest) do you consider that you have taken money out of that company? I can't see that you have since all you have done is get a repayment of what you loaned in the first place. On the other hand if you charged 6% interest on the loan then you have taken money out because you did not put the interest into the company in the first place. The company has had to somehow earn the interest in order to be able to pay it to you. If I loaned a company money and they re-paid it of course I'd consider that I'd taken money out of that company. I understand that Ashley has saved us money by not charging interest, he's still taken at least £6 million out, even if it is the money that he put in. Well as I said I just can't see it that way. So you see repayment of a loan as the same thing as taking a salary or a dividend? BTW the interest reference wasn't specifically about Ashley it was just an example of what I would consider to be taking money out a company. I can see where you got your £1 million and £5 million figures from as the loans fluctuated during 2008 and 2009. But year on year (up until the latest 2010 accounts) the loans that Ashley put into the company increased and he's not taken a net reduction or anything like it.

Of course it's taking out, I take money out of my bank account on a daily basis. I put it in and I take it out. Suppose you loaned some of your money to a company. If the company paid some of it back (with no interest) do you consider that you have taken money out of that company? I can't see that you have since all you have done is get a repayment of what you loaned in the first place. On the other hand if you charged 6% interest on the loan then you have taken money out because you did not put the interest into the company in the first place. The company has had to somehow earn the interest in order to be able to pay it to you.

Look it up in the dictionary. Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion Embezzlement is the act of dishonestly appropriating or secreting assets by one or more individuals to whom such assets have been entrusted. How long did it take you to find something worded to make me look wrong? Most likely off wikipedia and edited yourself. Eh?! This a wind up? I think we can safely call it a draw and move on. No way do you get a draw out of that....

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? We can't have repaid 'debt' because the debt is held by Ashley and as Dekka keeps saying 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club' He has taken money out. He can't just take money out of the club. That's called extortion and is illegal. Or as its his business he can draw funds out in a comletely legal fashion. He could pay himself a salary (he doesn't) He could pay himself dividends (he doesn't) He could pay back some of the loan he has given the club (he has put more in than he has taken out - we don't know how much of the 2011 player slaes have gone to him yet, if any) He could use the assets of the club to advertise his other interests and not pay anything for it (this he has done) All ways of effectively taking money away from a business. Yup. There is also the "warehouse scheme" used by the previous regime. Club sells an asset to a shareholder who rents it back to the club giving a healthy return on the funds invested. There is also the Randy Lerner method of charging interest on money lent to the club. This whole issue of whether repayment of the capital sum of a debt is taking money out of the club has been debated at length on here before and will, no doubt, continue to reappear. My view is that repayment of money you loan to your own business isn't taking money out any more than repayment of a bank loan is taking money out. The use of the ground as an advertising vehicle could be taking money out. IMO it's a bit of a grey area unless there is another potential advertiser who would pay but is rejected because Ashley wants to continue to advertise SD. In that case clearly the club is being deprived of some external income to satisfy the owner and he is utilising something that could yield cash for his own purposes.

I think the real issue is not whether he is a very talented player (he clearly is) it is whether he can fit in to the style we play. We've got a very good run going and, so far, it is has been based on a way of playing that involves our attacking players doing a fair amount of breaking up. He doesn't do that sort of stuff. As it stands right now with the way we play he looks like a a bit of a luxury player.

Viduka was an ageing superstar in his 30s and looking for a final payout - Danny Guthrie is a journeyman player who is 24 years old. Big difference. journeyman is a bit extreme, he's only had 2 clubs permanently Fair point - I meant that in the context of his status as a player rather than the number of clubs he's played for. Viduka was a "big" player with a questionable attitude for many years and Guthrie has to date always tried his best and generally not been a front line player. It's good to see him stepping in and performing, personally I don't think there's much danger of Viduka syndrome.

Viduka was an ageing superstar in his 30s and looking for a final payout - Danny Guthrie is a journeyman player who is 24 years old. Big difference.