quayside

A few people now posting who have seen some of the match and realise we were mugged - happy days.

No worries - this is a safe website

I hate Stoke, they epitomise everything thats bad about the modern Premiership. There isn't much of an attempt to play football but they've found a squad, a set up and a method to get enough points to stay up. The fans are ok with it, they have supported a club that's come from nowhere and they don't care what it looks like. But that's the way it is, it's legal and if you want to get anywhere you have to deal with it. Like a few others we couldn't. Pulis is the spawn of Allardyce tbh...

We aren't the first side to be undone by Stoke's "direct" approach and we certainly won't be the last. It is clearly very difficult to play against. They don't know any other way and the only extent to which they have a plan B is bringing on Ricardo Fuller. We all knew what was coming as must Hughton. Ultimately we didn't have the physical presence in our back 4 to handle it - and Jones could have had a hat trick easily. I honestly don't know if we have the players in our squad to deal with the likes of Stoke but Campbell and Saylor would surely offer something in that sort of game in place of Collo and Perch. Hughton was unlucky in that neither were available (apparently Sol had an injury?) but he would have needed some balls to drop Collo who has mostly looked good this season. I'm still in Hughton's camp, he's still learning. I've always said I think we'll survive but it won't be without a lot of stress and some horrible results.

Surely STaylor will bag the right back slot with Simpson as second choice. Perch is third choice and getting far more games right now than he should because of injuries. The lad has had a f*cking hard start to his career with us tbh.

I can't see why Jonas couldn't play on the right as an option instead of Routledge, he is right footed with a possibility of using his left so why not - that won't be universally agreed though because, according to some, Jonas isn't even a footballer.

Pulis will deploy one of his thugs to make sure he doesn't.

Probably in hindsight - but Hodgson was new to the job and didn't have a lot of time. He wanted to try and keep the talented players that were already on the books.

Good manager but he's inherited a shyte squad with plenty of ego but not much depth, and one of his key players (Torres) isn't up for it.

Pissed off tbh. Tonights match was a blatantly cynical attempt to recreate the Keegan "entertainers" years and we get through another round in the Carling Cup - that's more money going in the fat koont's pocket.

Enrique did not travel with the rest of the squad. I'm itk on that - don't ask But maybe he's made his own way down to London...

He's starting to look more like the player who used to run the show at Citeh mainly because he's had a decent run of games in his preferred position. Praying he can go an entire season without picking up a significant injury or doing something psychotic.....

No Kinnear. Come on man the appointment of JFK was a lowpoint (there were other low points whilst he was here tbh) but Given went for the money and possibility of glory that Citeh were offering. Most would have done the same but Krul should now get the gig imo.

Krul may flap a bit but he is a good stopper, has a lot of talent and can learn the rest with experience. Has this rumour really got legs? Given wanted out of here and didn't make a secret of it, we have the same owner so wtf?

He is such an annoying c*nt - he is the worst example of the sort of manager the modern Premiership can produce. He will do a job of keeping clubs in the league and desperate owners/chairmen will always give him a job and he will preserve their asset and won't let them down. The football will be horrifically functional and physical. But the fact that he's managed in the Premiership for so long has given him some sort of delusion that he is able to work at a higher level and it is utter crap. Pulis is cast in the same mould imo.

Looks very good for an FC Twente "squad player". There are some signs that someone who is scouting for us has got a clue what they are doing.

Thinking about some of the back fours we have put out "pretty standard" will do nicely thanks.

We will probably already have about 3 new ones by the time we play them.

F*cking outrageous - how dare he.

Still can't decide who I think is best, you or UV. UV is class at this sh1t

He played 3 games on the telly last season. Once against you lot, and twice against Blackpool where he got destroyed and was at fault for five out of the six goals we conceded, so dunno where you got that from! Shame to see he's struggling, albeit not surprising. Definitely expecting a bit much of a player to start him for all of your opening games in a position which over the past few years, he's barely played in, and yet expect him to be solid. Hopefully he'll improve, but some slack does still need to be cut. He is not our first choice right back and was bought as a squad player. He's only getting games now because of injuries. My call would be for S Taylor to fill the right back slot when he returns with Simpson as second choice leaving Perch as a squad utility defender.

He is well spoken - but f*ck that he's on £50k or more a week, we're paying it and why would you get that for being well spoken? I think he's the best player in our squad (waiting on HBA) but Barton needs to justify his pay and he's made a decent start towards that this season.

If you mean that you don't think a significant football club could could go into administration or appoint a receiver then all I can say is that is one hell of a ballsy shout. If you mean that no significant football club would cease to exist through insolvency then you may have a point. As far as we are concerned the thought that Fat Sam was a miracle cure for insolvency is certainly interesting. I am not going to say we would have gone bust but we were certainly insolvent and it is a far from ridiculous suggestion that we could have ended up in going through some sort of insolvent process - especially given what happened in the banking sector about one year after we were sold.

you aren't going to hold him wanting his money back at some point against him are you when he's been effectivly keeping the club going for the last year or two are you ? That depends on how much of the extra debt we’ve accrued since he bought the club can be attributed to his mistakes. Taking money out of the club to pay for his mistakes would certainly be of dubious morality. using the same criteria i wonder what you think of shepherd ? Unless you count the stadium extension as a mistake (£45m of the debt), then the remaining debt left at the end of 15 years of Hall & Shepherd was around £25m. In the year prior to Ashley's takeover we were without the advertising revenue that Ashley complains about, we were paying the instalments for players like Owen and Luque that Ashley also complained about, we spent net £10m on new players, and we were also paying interest of £7.5m. In that year the debt increased by £9m. That is the context for the loses in cash terms when Ashley took over. In the first year of Ashley's ownership due to a new deal for prem clubs, TV revenues went up by £18m. If things had continued to be run as they had the previous year then even with another £10m net spend and a slightly increased wage bill the club should have easily broken even or made a cash flow profit and paid back some of the debt. Going from the figures in this post: http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,69123.msg2330046.html#msg2330046 As of May this year the debt stands at something like £134m (268-134 cost of club) + £36m overdraft = £170m That's an increase of £100m in 3 years, or £33m per year, and that's before you even start to look at the quality and depth of the squad when he took over to what it is now. So Ashley has put more debt per year on the club than the old owners racked up through 15 years of mistakes taking us from a club on the brink of the 3rd division to being one of the richest clubs in the world. Please don't try and tell me these losses are due to the mistakes of the previous owners, because the stadium debt had to be paid off, because of some missing advertising revenue, or even because of Michael bloody Owen. They are purely down to how Ashley has run the club and "turned around" the finances (he sure has!). Now, at the risk of having an opinion madras, to answer the thread, do you forgive "Mike and Dell Boy" because Hughton fortunately turned out to be a decent manager and got us promoted, and we have brought in a crocked youth prospect, a semi-retired defender, a dutch league sub and an exciting but temperamental prospect on loan to keep us in the premiership? Will you be happy if he uses the extra money the club brings in this year to pay off some of those debts? If we do start paying off those debts this year, will you be happy for the club to continue to do so for the next 5 years until we "achieve a 'break even' financial situation"? I've really got to hand it to you - you don't give up on this "old board were blameless" stuff. Anyway I'm not going to debate the numbers yet again. I am however interested in your comments about the squad. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be implying that the squad was much stronger in quality and depth when Ashley took over, by this I assume you mean the squad that had just come 14th in the league? I can't see that it was that much stronger than what we now have although it contained a few underperforming/non performing "big names" and the wage bill was almost certainly higher. Your description of our latest batch of signings is also interesting. Applying the same criteria how would you describe the likes of Duff, Martins, Sibierski, Olly Bernard, Gooch and Rossi? IIRC these were our incoming players in the season after we had just come 7th in the league.

Almost predictable isn't it? I agree Ozzie & Cronky are. There have been some interesting responses here. Gimp asked a 'genuine question' about how Keegan's critics compare him to Robson's situation. I gave an entirely factual response - no opinion offered at all - and I seem to be causing some annoyance. The fact is that when the basic details of Keegan's behaviour are presented, it doesn't look good. Well I think Keegan's appointment was Ashley's biggest mistake, which he compounded by trying to put him under Dennis Wise etc etc..... BUT I suspect Keegan probably had a bit more than a dubious Latin American loan signing to contend with. I suspect Keegan's lawyers hung a good chunk of his case on the Nacho Gonzalez loan because the evidence of "intervention" was easy to prove and probably undeniable. Their job was to win and they went with the area where they knew they could make their case. However I think there was probably a lot more that happened in that transfer window and I would bet that Milner's transfer and the use of the funds was the most significant factor behind Keegan's walkout.