quayside

I prefer the total mindfuck of Google translator It leaves a mystique of after reading it you're not only no further forward in understanding, you're actually more confused than beforehand. Agree - it is one of the few things that makes all the crap in the world media seem bearable

The signing of an established Premiership player like Cole is typical of Hodgson's grounded approach to football management. Although tbh he hasn't got a difficult act to follow - some of Fat Benny's dealings in the transfer market were beyond laughable.

i fck hope not! Elliottman, I find your avatar strangely fascinating - who is she?

I don't think we should write him off in any position until we've seen him play in a Newcastle shirt.

It doesn't destroy the "no capital outlay" statement. It just means we've spent some money on a player, whether that money is going to be funded by the sale of any of our current players or out of the club's (.i.e. Ashley's) funds is the test. We won't know if there has been capital outlay on new players until the window ends. We don't even know what capital outlay means. My call on this is that it means a very simple sell to buy policy. Whoever is sold this transfer window will generate the funds to pay for whoever comes in. We've bought Perch and that means the intention is that someone is going to be sold. I wouldn't rule out the club making another transfer window "profit" either. For example S Taylor could go for £7m (say) and Hughton may well not get all of that to spend.

Roeder had an extremely limited budget in comparison to Souness and Allerdyce and got us an equal or higher position. I'm not saying he was good, I'm saying he was good in the circumstances. That second season was horrible, but in hindsight the injuries were ridiculous. I often felt like Roeder was lied to. Scouting Kuyt, yet ending up with Rossi and Sibierski. Nah, he was just f***ing rubbish - at everything. Such a poxy, amateurish manager in every respect, yet deluded himself into thinking he was this disciplined, professional boss with stubborn morals. He just didn't pull it off and the Kuyt thing just epitomised it. Supposedly going down this route of careful, proper consideration of a player - he had to see him about fifteen times before making a decision. The irony was that he went to the Holland/Ireland game to run the rule over him again... all the while, Benitez was there to sign him. In fairness to Roeder he did sign Martins - and for that he does deserve credit as Oba was a good striker - but it was blatantly panicked and could have been a bit of a catastrophe given the best we had at the time was Shola, who ended up being out for the season too. He dallied in that transfer market and we ended up with Rossi, Sibierski and Bernard - and the whole season dropped like an absolute stone, after so much hope following a mint climax the year before. That's before we start on Damien F Duff... Roeder has claimed that Duff wasn't his signing, although he was happy to have him in the squad. The board had allocated £15m to be spent on the squad and it all went on two players, and the biggest crime was that none of the players who came in was a functioning left back.

It doesn't destroy the "no capital outlay" statement. It just means we've spent some money on a player, whether that money is going to be funded by the sale of any of our current players or out of the club's (.i.e. Ashley's) funds is the test. We won't know if there has been capital outlay on new players until the window ends.

It wouldn't surprise me if we are seriously bidding for players - it just probably means that a player or some players in our current squad are going to be sold. Even if the club really does mean the "no capital outlay" statement then, to me, that means a net spend of zero on buying/selling, it does not not mean that we won't buy anyone.

Sam Allerdyce. the thought of that terrifies me. i think i'd probably stop watching england play if he got the job, althought gareth barry seemed to be in prep already for it with all the long high balls punted forward against slovenia I bet Fat Sam cracked into a smug grin when he watched Germany score their first goal from a long speculative punt into our area.

He made mistakes and those were certainly among them. Picking Upson ahead of a number of players who had better seasons would also be on my list. As would his failure to create an environment where the players performed without inhibititions, it was all too predictable and the team looked petrified of failing. Players like Rooney and Lennon who were there to hurt the opposition just didn't perform. And Capello must carry the can for that. But he was also a bit unlucky. Not having Ferdinand available and eventually ending up with his fourth choice centre back on the pitch was always going to leave a void. And although the selection of Green was a mistake, the howler that gifted the USA that crucial goal was not one even a Championship keeper should make. And it set the tone for what followed - nervous and stilted performances. The goal by Lampard was another piece of bad luck. Of course England were being out played in that first half but that goal gets them back in it against the run of play and the whole moral of the side would have been lifted instead of being crushed by a blatant injustice. I'm not saying we would have won the match if the goal had been allowed I'm saying that it is undeniable that it had a major influence on the way the match panned out. The bottom line is that if Capello goes it is a certainty that he will be replaced by someone with a worse track record. And now that Capello also has the experience of managing a side in the World Cup what better candidate for the job is out there?

I agree with that. He's got a great track record as a club manager, and he did well in the qualifiers, but until now he has never managed in the World Cup Finals. And that is a very different gig to any other. He's shown that he wasn't sure what to do in South Africa. But he's intelligent enough to realise how he screwed up even if he won't admit it in public. Sadly the way of the world is that he won't get a chance to use the experience of this failure. A sacrifice must be made and, lets face it, the chances are it will go some way beyond not picking Upson again. There is no scope for learning on the job and valuable experience may well walk out the door just as it has done before in the last 20 years or so.

Venables is only one of two managers of England to play in a tournament on home soil. During his managerial career he won two trophies at Barca, one being the Spanish League Cup and he won an FA Cup with Spurs. He's hardly set the world on fire and I don't know where his reputation comes from. The record of Capello pisses all over the record of Vanables, it's miles better, 14-3 to Capello says it all. Terry Venables is 100% English though, you can never be sure what's going on when our national side is in the hands of Johnny Foreigner. Tel's natural successor is out there and I'm sure he's very willing

Spot on. quayside, I think you are a good poster, but I think you are talking utter s*** about England - I have never read a string of posts I disagree with more. Sorry. FFS any reference to the advertising situation is irrelevant. Check out that Pringles advert with Anelka (the face of the French World Cup?) , it means nothing and the players do whatever they are told to by their agents. I'm just passing an opinion on why we screwed up on the pitch. As I said - a string of posts. Your stuff about Rooney and how it's not his fault - sorry, don't work for me. At all. Fair enough - but I think he cares, Stick the whole pressure of the nation on any one player who is part of a 23 man squad (and a management team) and most players will under perform imo.

Spot on. quayside, I think you are a good poster, but I think you are talking utter s*** about England - I have never read a string of posts I disagree with more. Sorry. FFS any reference to the advertising situation is irrelevant. Check out that Pringles advert with Anelka (the face of the French World Cup?) , it means nothing and the players do whatever they are told to by their agents. I'm just passing an opinion on why we screwed up on the pitch.

You are right, they do care. Does anyone really think the likes of Rooney,Terry, Gerrard aren't arsed about pitching up at the ultimate high profile event and looking like utter tits? The problem is probably that they care too much and are too scared to perform. Perhaps its what they care about, the pride of the nation or personal glory? Rooney certainly played like he cared more about himself than the team. The pressure put on Rooney to perform and "score a goal" was ridiculous, so much crap written about Rooney and when all is said and done he's a member of a squad and has to do a job. Who cares whether he scores as long as the team win? He looked to me like a player struggling to perform to the huge expectations that were put on him.

You are right, they do care. Does anyone really think the likes of Rooney,Terry, Gerrard aren't arsed about pitching up at the ultimate high profile event and looking like utter tits? The problem is probably that they care too much and are too scared to perform.

Isn't Dawson left footed like Terry? If so maybe Capello doesn't want two left sided central defenders lining up together? Dawson and Terry are both right footed. Ok my bad. But do they not both play on the left side?

Isn't Dawson left footed like Terry? If so maybe Capello doesn't want two left sided central defenders lining up together?

Not having a go here but what made you think he was brilliant? Seems to have totally lost his spark to me. I thought the whole Studio team for ITV was as weak as piss. For Keegan it's that old "England supporting pundit having to front up to a seriously underwhelming result" syndrome. It's not easy tbh....

As it stands right now and no "capital outlay" (so lets assume no one leaves and no one joins) our best back four is: S Taylor Williamson Collocini Enrique IMHO

Definitely. That would not have been a realistic option. We would then have gone through the close season with no manager and therefore no-one to direct any transfers. And what new manager would have fancied coming here when he'd seen the previous one - a bloke with a good record - sacked without a ball being kicked? Yup - plus Ashley didn't know anywhere near enough about football to make a decision like sacking Allardyce.

Do they? I'm not saying you are incorrect, they could restrict the land to be used as a football stadium only. That would increase risk but not to the point where it is impossible to lend on. It would appear that Ashley has expoloited this by using the stadium as a degree of collateral. The LTV ratio and the interst will be variable as to the risk but there is still no real reason why any owner would not mortgage the stadium. (of course none of us have seen a copy of the terms and conditions) Also the ability to dictate use of a site will not necessarilly be a factor in risk, for example the Local Planning Authority dictates what sites should be developed and how. The valuation of the site will take this into account, the valuation of SJP will take the fact it can only be a football ground (for example) into account but it doesn't give rise to a situation whereby it is that great a risk where no bank would loan against it (particularly in the care free lending period that existed whilst Shepherd and Hall were in charge). And with all that in its favour Shepherd and Hall didn't borrow against it. Why do you think that was the case? From what you have said it would seem that future season ticket, hospitality and broadcasting income would present a greater risk to a bank - how much of that could the bank be sure of receiving in the event of the club going bust or even being relegated? Yet they loaned against that and not against the stadium. In all likelihood it's simply just as Matt said above that there was no NEED to mortgage the stadium, not because it was impossible to do so. If there are other options - as there plainly were - mortgaging the stadium is the last resort. I really don't comprehend why anyone would think there is zero collateral value in the stadium. If NUFC goes completely out of business there are 2 options. 1) United of Newcastle FC is formed, starting at the bottom of the league structure, but still with a massive level of support (or maybe Gateshead would be adopted as the successor to Newcastle and offered the facility of SJP). The ground would be massively under utilised for a number of years but would still generate revenue for the owner of it. 2) No-one wants to bother with starting a new football club in Newcastle (), in which case what is the council going to do? a) Put it's foot down and just let the the land rot with an ever dilapidating stadium standing on it as a massive eyesore? b) Allow it to be used for other purposes - a massive concert/random sporting event venue. c) Allow it to be knocked down and allow a hotel or shopping centre to be built on prime land? It wont be option (a) for long that's for sure. Obviously we are all speculating here but there is always the possibility that the council has a clause in the lease that prohibits any structure permanantly built by the club on its land to be used as security for an external loan. I have certainly seen such clauses in my limited exsposure to commercial property transactions. On a 99 year lease? 99 year leases/long leasehold/effective freeholds are completely different to your typical 10/15/25 year lease. When did the 99 years start as a matter of interest? The standard conditions that you get in just about every lease - .i.e the right of the owner to agree the purpose the land is used for and the right to agree what is built on it - have caused some friction between club and council over the years. But other than that none of us knows what the lease says and what restrictions are on it tbh.

Do they? I'm not saying you are incorrect, they could restrict the land to be used as a football stadium only. That would increase risk but not to the point where it is impossible to lend on. It would appear that Ashley has expoloited this by using the stadium as a degree of collateral. The LTV ratio and the interst will be variable as to the risk but there is still no real reason why any owner would not mortgage the stadium. (of course none of us have seen a copy of the terms and conditions) Also the ability to dictate use of a site will not necessarilly be a factor in risk, for example the Local Planning Authority dictates what sites should be developed and how. The valuation of the site will take this into account, the valuation of SJP will take the fact it can only be a football ground (for example) into account but it doesn't give rise to a situation whereby it is that great a risk where no bank would loan against it (particularly in the care free lending period that existed whilst Shepherd and Hall were in charge). And with all that in its favour Shepherd and Hall didn't borrow against it. Why do you think that was the case? From what you have said it would seem that future season ticket, hospitality and broadcasting income would present a greater risk to a bank - how much of that could the bank be sure of receiving in the event of the club going bust or even being relegated? Yet they loaned against that and not against the stadium. In all likelihood it's simply just as Matt said above that there was no NEED to mortgage the stadium, not because it was impossible to do so. If there are other options - as there plainly were - mortgaging the stadium is the last resort. I really don't comprehend why anyone would think there is zero collateral value in the stadium. If NUFC goes completely out of business there are 2 options. 1) United of Newcastle FC is formed, starting at the bottom of the league structure, but still with a massive level of support (or maybe Gateshead would be adopted as the successor to Newcastle and offered the facility of SJP). The ground would be massively under utilised for a number of years but would still generate revenue for the owner of it. 2) No-one wants to bother with starting a new football club in Newcastle (), in which case what is the council going to do? a) Put it's foot down and just let the the land rot with an ever dilapidating stadium standing on it as a massive eyesore? b) Allow it to be used for other purposes - a massive concert/random sporting event venue. c) Allow it to be knocked down and allow a hotel or shopping centre to be built on prime land? It wont be option (a) for long that's for sure. Obviously we are all speculating here but there is always the possibility that the council has a clause in the lease that prohibits any structure permanantly built by the club on its land to be used as security for an external loan. I have certainly seen such clauses in my limited exsposure to commercial property transactions.

But then we are back to whether SJP would be the sort of collateral a bank could accept and FWIW I can see any number of reasons why it might not be.

Do they? I'm not saying you are incorrect, they could restrict the land to be used as a football stadium only. That would increase risk but not to the point where it is impossible to lend on. It would appear that Ashley has expoloited this by using the stadium as a degree of collateral. The LTV ratio and the interst will be variable as to the risk but there is still no real reason why any owner would not mortgage the stadium. (of course none of us have seen a copy of the terms and conditions) Also the ability to dictate use of a site will not necessarilly be a factor in risk, for example the Local Planning Authority dictates what sites should be developed and how. The valuation of the site will take this into account, the valuation of SJP will take the fact it can only be a football ground (for example) into account but it doesn't give rise to a situation whereby it is that great a risk where no bank would loan against it (particularly in the care free lending period that existed whilst Shepherd and Hall were in charge). And with all that in its favour Shepherd and Hall didn't borrow against it. Why do you think that was the case? From what you have said it would seem that future season ticket, hospitality and broadcasting income would present a greater risk to a bank - how much of that could the bank be sure of receiving in the event of the club going bust or even being relegated? Yet they loaned against that and not against the stadium.