Ericz

Remember: Ashley is only willing to pay peanuts. Therefore Carlton Cole is a big no-no.

Ryan Giggs, 38, for 5 million sounds like a better deal.

It is sad. Let's see how they fare in the grand scheme of things. If we stay up, major spring cleaning is needed in the summer. You don't have to worry about that i.e. major spring cleaning. That's certainly one area Mike excels in.

The consolation is it's not going to be any worse than Joe Kinnear and Alan Smith.

Is Nate that mystery mod that never posts, I don't believe he is a real person but only a figment of Daves imagination. Good game. Good game ! All these while, it was pretty tight at the top.

This http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/8909/nufc10homen.jpg This must be one of the best shirt that I've seen. Any idea where I might be able to get it?

Dave pretty much sums it all up :-)

I do admire their spirit. Compared to many self-proclaimed fans out there, they are in fact attempting to do something and/or putting their words/thoughts into action, rather than engaged in mere chatters. I don't see why others criticism(s) against them can be warranted.

If I am not mistaken, legislation is able to achieve that aim. It depends on how the legislation is being drafted/worded. There would definitely be some consideration which will not put the current shareholder(s) in an unduly unfair circumstances. It could be a forced sale and purchase type of transaction. The true question is whether is it sound enough for parliament to adopt such measures. The magical 25% is because usually for special resolution, one will need 75% of the votes cast in order to veto certain decision. The 25% is good because we can convince a minority or a minority can convince us whether to veto a particular decision by the majority. The ability for the Supporters' Trust to veto decision on its own may unduly hinder the proper functioning of the club. As a matter of fact, I am of the view that the veto powers of the Supporters' Trust should be limited and can only be used in certain circumstances, likewise, their powers should be limited as well. binnsy is right. In reality, it could be 10 to 12% to be reasonably sufficiently to achieve most, if not all, of the advantages I have mentioned above. What I am opposed to is absolute ownership or majority ownership by the Supporters' Trust. For the first question, as above mentioned, it is possible by way of legislation. The second question is an interesting one. I would think that fans who wants and able to contribute to the club can be a part of the Supporters Trust. The membership fees should be a reasonable/nominal one and the Supporters' Trust is free to accept donations. However, it must be mentioned and emphasized that not being part of the Supporters Trust does not mean that you are not a fan of Newcastle United. As for whether NUST gets it by default, regrettably, they do have grounds to claim it. I am not sure as to how the situation will unfold. It can go either way really but the name of the Supporters' Trust must be 'Newcastle United Supporters' Trust' and not some wacko names. Yes, I am sure they have different roles but I do not see any reason why as to they should not be together. From a corporate governance point of view, I do see certain benefits from such an arrangement i.e. check and balance, accountability, transparency and and involvement for the fans as stakeholders. Arsenal's Supporters' Trust has been doing quite well with these in recent years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_Supporters_Trust

What do you think of an idea where there is a compulsory legislation or regulation stating that there should be a compulsory 25% ownership of the football clubs by its Supporters' Trust? What is a Supporter's Trust? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supporters%27_trust What are the advantages of such a legislation? * Providing an identity for fans * Forging a greater bond between the fans and the club they support * Closeness between the club, the players and the fans * Ability to take a more active role in the management of the club * Possibility of a Supporters' Trust providing funding to the Club * More transparency between fans and the club - could lead to more understanding * Safeguard to irresponsible owners - check and balance What are the disadvantages? * Business not lucrative enough to attract investors * Possibility of Supporters' Trust causing unnecessary hindrance to the club * Possibility of the management becoming a populist management Other issues * Other conditions to think about: - i.e. Supporters' Trust can ONLY hold 25 % shares, should it be restricted to only local fans or international fans? * Other problems to think about: - i.e. What if the club issues shares - will it not dilute the ownership of the Supporter's Trust or must the Supporter's Trust engage in compulsory acquisition? How to bring it up to the Government or respective authority? Please discuss. I would like to hear your views.

ESPN: Campbell eyes move to Newcastle United by Harry Harris, Football Correspondent ( Link: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=691372&sec=england&cc=4716 )

I'm merely reiterating the point made by many others before me and that is, "In the commercial world, a Director's duty is to the corporation/company." Only then can the Director be considered a professional one. They don't owe a duty to any of you i.e. fans. Like it or not, football is now a business or a rich man's plaything / trophy. Unfortunately, the world is cruel. Welcome to the real world. That being said, character and personality do play a part. Some people have personality that are so arrogant and reluctant to communicate to anyone. In my perspective, generally, that is something that can never be changed.

I think that human beings simply love to over-complicate matters. Mr Keegan is doing what most people (yes, even the most passionate of Newcastle fans) would have done. He is making a rational decision and few self-proclaimed Newcastle fans, when placed in his position, would take a different course of action. Is it in accordance to one's or Mr Keegan's principles? I have no idea, much less have knowledge of what his principles are. In fact, I do find some posters here rather amusing, their false pretences of adopting a moral high ground atop a pedestal, chastising the poor man (not so poor now obviously), when even they themselves, passionate fans so to speak, if placed in Keegan's position, may very well possibly adopt the same decision. We're talking about the right to a £25million compensation, not a £2,500 compensation. What will the outcome be if it's a £2,500 compensation? Face it, we will never know. It's a moot point. JUST MOVE ON.!

An important question for all of you passionate fans here: - If you (anyone of you here) were in Keegan's position, what would you have done i.e. pursue a £25million compensation or forfeit all your rights?

From legal and footballing perspectives, it is a good decision as it sets a precedent for future constructive dismissal of this kind in the world of football. What's unfortunate is that this club is the losing party.

You are wrong. You can't just buy a team to get promoted and then buy a whole new team to stay up because the current lot aren't good enough. You have to assess players on whether they have a long term future in the top division. We have a group of players who are clearly not good enough for the top flight, correct? In that case, most of them, must leave for players who are good enough to get us back into the top flight i.e the best the championship has to offer. If there are players of premiership quality who want to play us then fine, but i suspect there are not many. There's nothing wrong with speculating as to which of our squad could cut it in the premierleague but i'm saying that it's a more worthwhile topic when we are promoted. So you would prefer us to be like West Brom of last season and not the West Ham, Manchester City or NUFC teams that last got promoted? Forgive me if I find that impossible to understand. None of them sides consisted of good premiership players, some of them simply had good first seasons in the premier league and invested heavily. West Ham for example nearly got relegated the season after, with the same players. Who ever mentioned being like West Brom? They never invested, when the got promoted. I'm saying that we should invest in premiership players when/if we get promoted in order to stay in the league. Not spending money we don't have, on premiership players who won't come to us. How many Chamionship clubs do you see signing "a pile" of premiership players? Players do improve you know? The clearly obvious point that you are missing is that some players may not be ready for the PL yet, but with a good run and experience, they could be excellent in two seasons time. Take Glen Johnson or Gareth Barry as an example of how a player can develop. PS West Ham stayed up, so you kinda shot yourself in the foot with that one. I just think we should concentrate on building a side too get us out of the championship before we start to think about building a premiership side. I'm not for one second ruling out the signings of solid premiership players such as how Birmingham signed Carsley on a free from Everton (very astute IMO). However, we have to be realistic and although we might get one or two players of premiership quality, we can't refuse proven chamionship players to get us out of the league in the first place. By all means if Darren Bent wants to take a step down into the championship then fine but we all know that's unlikely. Therefore the option of a Beckford is appealing logically and financially. Understand your point but the more important questions are:- (1) Who's the owner? (2) How long more? (3) What's the transfer budget? (4) Who's the manager? All the above bearing in mind that we don't have much time : ( I don't think, at the end of the day, we're in the position of being able to cherry-pick freely.

For me, Taylor has the knack of scoring those important goals that can change or win a game. Also, let's not forget, at times, some of his really bada@@ fouls go unnoticed by the referees which isn't something to be proud of but does help in one way or another. Besides, in a financial sense, he has good investment value even if the club does not want to keep him in the long run. Hence, he should play in order to grow that value further.

I wouldn't say he told a lie. He obviously didn't want Milner to leave but he would have agreed to it thinking that he was getting £12m to replace him. If he was allowed to get a replacement for him we probably wouldn't have went down. Come to that, if Milner stayed he would have probably got a few goals which would have got us another point or two. In fact, I believe Kevin Keegan alone will be able to galvanise the entire team and win matches, with or without Milner. On the surface of things, without going into too many guesses or presuppositions, I feel that Keegan has valid reasons to leave Newcastle Untied this time round. I don't think he should be faulted for doing so.

I feel that Coloccini should be given more time. After all, he only joined Newcastle about a year ago. Typically, foreign players playing in foreign leagues will need some time to adapt. Perhaps for the rest less Gutierrez, there shouldn't be any excuse. As for Duff, he lost a lot of his skills from back then. I'm not sure if he's still worthwhile in keeping. I'm more inclined to say no. Last but not least, regarding the companies rumoured to takeover, I think it is also important that there won't be a second case of Mike Ashley. If Mike Ashley II appears, I can safely say it will be the end of the club aka maybe even a Leeds United II. The intentions of the parties are important, as are their future plans for the club i.e. business model, annual budget outlay (I don't think Mike will care about it honestly as he's only concerned in getting $$$ to minimise his losses), ambitions etc. I have my concerns regarding The Profitable Group which I shall reserve my comments at the moment but do try to take a look at those companies, their management teams, management philosophies and achievements. Perhaps those will be of certain assistance.

I'm just wondering who is optimistic about the next season? and why? Perhaps he/she can share some of his optimism or cause(s) for optimism with all of us.

One thing for certain is the longer Mike Ashley takes, the lesser time the club has on their hands to be fully prepared next season.

I'm inclined not to take an over-optimistic stand in our future based on our track-record in the past few seasons. Furthermore, it appears that there are many unresolved issues starting with: - Will there be a transfer of ownership? Who will be our new owner? What is his underlying intention and plans for the club? What is his character like? Who will be our manager? (Will he be suitable for the role?) Which players will be staying with the club and which players will be leaving? How much will next season's transfer budget be? Who will be a realistic target? etc. I would say that the time isn't exactly on our side either.

Is Manu playing with 4 strikers now? Rooney, Ronaldo, Tevez, Berba?

What's are the statistics like for teams that got relegated and promoted the following season?

How about a female manager for a change? http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38251000/jpg/_38251518_louise298.jpg She might be more motivational than Kinnear. And I bet she knows about football too.