Ant1815

Barton got quite a cheer from our lot, although you could hardly hear it for the Arsenal boos. Quite a few chorus' of 'There's only one Joey Barton' too.

No he won't. He'll find it very easy actually. This time next year he'll be free. All those millions that a club will save on transfer fees will be available to stick straight on his wages, and that's exactly what they'll do to tempt him. The top four won't be in for him but there'll still be plenty of interest from other clubs. The advantage they have over us is that they can sit back for a season and see what he does in order to judge his worth.

Wow, you're such a Geordie hero. Your Mam must be geet proud lyke

After you've been living away from the North East for so long your accent can get really screwed up.

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/freemovementofworkers.htm Not hogwash at all. The EU was perfectly happy for many member states to effectively ditch that principle (for a time at least) when some of the new Eastern European nations joined and it became an inconvenience to allow their citizens full movement and employment rights. In this respect Blatter is perfectly correct, laws can be changed. The only question is wether the EU is prepared to change them or not. At the moment it seems as though not but who knows what 'arrangements' might be worked out over the next few years.

No great feelings about Mort one way or the other, but the one thing about him that did irritate me slighly was the fact that every time he opened his mouth he seemed to contradict the last thing he said.

I think that a lot of it depends where you live and who you brush up against in the real world. Most NUFC supporters are in the North East and wouldn't usually come across many spurs fans and so, like you say, probably wouldn't have much of a strong opinion either way. I moved away from the North East 20 years ago and I have to admit that I don't really hate Sunderland that much any more. I think I've met about three of their supporters in the 20 years that I've been down here and they've been decent blokes. A far cry from what you'd hear from the people on this board that still live in the area. The flip side, of course, is that I'm surrounded by other fans; and I have to say that I find spurs fans really annoying for a variety of reasons.

I think this all stems from Ashley being in a bit of a dilemma really. Of course he wants the club to be challenging for the top. Successful businessmen like him don't usually sit back and accept second best. However, being the able businessman that he is, he also wants to run the club as a valid financial concern...and the two are in some ways mutually exclusive. Apart from maybe Arsenal (and they too have spent big to get where they are) the top four don't seem to be being run as normal businesses. ManU and Liverpool have huge debts, and it seems to be common sense that they can't defy gravity forever, and Chelsea are bankrolled by a benefactor that makes Ashley look poor. With this in mind it appears that there's no way we can break in to that top four soon unless we spend huge and adopt a debt culture as well, in the hopes that it will pay off. Ashley is probably being pulled in two opposite directions: The Keegan, spend really big and challenge the top dogs soon mindset, and the other philosophy of building gradual foundations, keeping the finances in control and eventually challenging for the top in five or six years, which Mort probably favours. I've got a feeling that this meeting will decide which way NUFC will be going. I've no idea what the outcome will be but we all know that Ashley is a bit of a gambler and Keegan can be very persuasive

The thing I don't understand about all this uproar regarding Keegan's comments is this: Didn't he pretty much say the same thing when he was first appointed by Ashley? I seem to remember in his first interview he said he'd got a three year contract, but in that time it would be almost impossible to challenge the big boys and that a cup win was a more realistic target (or words to that effect) Now, after a defeat to Chelsea, he pretty much just reaffirms what he said before....and all hell breaks loose.

My best mate is married to a Russian and I've been over there a few times. The Moscow police will be rubbing their hands with glee about this. It's a bribe culture and they can usually find stuff to pull you up on. There are very strict rules about carrying documentation with you etc. I should imagine that quite a few fans will be coming back with lighter wallets than they'd anticipated. Mind you, if they've paid those ridiculous hotel prices in the first place then maybe they can afford it.

Doh! a second too late. People are quick round here.

"I've also paid off £100million worth of debt so today this club doesn't owe a buck to anyone. http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/1301_ashley.shtml

Am I getting wooshed here? Whats the point in an away kit that clashes with the home kit?! See above

Away kits have been primarily driven by commercial exploitation rather than on-field footballing reasons for nearly 20 years now, and third kits exclusively so. Way back in the 70's and early 80's you'd rarely see a team in their away kit unless there was a clash with their opponents home kit, but then they figured out that away kits were a potentially source of lucrative revenue and now teams regularly turn out in away kits even if there's no clash at all. As for third kits, there's absolutely no footballing reason to have them whatsoever. It's virtually impossible to have a kit clash with both home and (properly designed) away kits. How many kits have Spurs got this year? 4

A few comments about Arsenal's defence on here. I was at the game last night and I noticed something about the Arsenal defence that I found strange. If you were watching on TV you may not have noticed because it was all off ball. Basically the defence was lined up all nice, very straight back line, good positioning...but then as soon as Peter Crouch ambled forward they all moved back with him. I was pretty perplexed about this, they did it a few times. I just kept thinking why don't they just hold position and he'll walk himself off-side It seemed as though Peter Crouch was dictating how much space he wanted and the Arsenal defence just followed him.

What's it like for parking? I've never been there before and so I'll be just sticking the address of the ground into my sat nav. It'll probably take me through the worst most congested route as usual :-[

Yes. You were right, but your level of knowledge meant that it was no more than a guess on your part. Well done Experience you mean and actually buying services from other companies and settign up contracts for about 8 years. I tell what i am guessing, you did a-level law recently and you think you're a smart arse? Blimey. If you act this pissy when people say you're right, and throw smileys in to try and show that there's no bad intent, how far do you throw your toys out of your pram when people show you you're wrong?........which you are by your second guess. Now you've had a guess about me so let me make one about you.......you're a bit of a tosser aren't you?

Yes. You were right, but your level of knowledge meant that it was no more than a guess on your part. Well done

So can e-mail. I think a preference for using hard copy FAX, if it was used, is probably more to do with (possibly perceived) security concerns. Wrong. correct. Plus the security issues with e-mail. Imagine old 'Arry sat there on a chair behind his team of komputer 'ackers..... "you wot? intercepted a message? nookarstle? defow? 7 mill? bollocks to that! Alex....Defow, Yids, 8 big ones, sharpish" Nope. Not wrong, and not Correct E-mail can be considered as a legal document, and an E-mail contract can be as legally binding as any FAX copy. E-mails are admissable as court evidence too. Why do you think that companies put all those legal disclaimers all over the bottom of them. Of course the standard rules of proof need to be applied. Hard copy documents can be forged too, and e-mail can be just as secure as FAX if you use something like PGP. Thats why i said 'unless under litigation'. Of course they are evidence and when my last company was under investigation by the FDA, my email account was submissable evidence. An email has theoretical legal consequences but saying 'yes' by email binds you to nothing in a court law. It is evidence though. When i set up contracts with my agencies, i email a copy for them to sign-off on content. Once you have verbal or email agreement on content then signed hard copies are sent. A fax is an acceptable alternative but not water-tight. An email is next to worthless. No. You are not entirely correct. You seem to be mixing up two separate concepts. Legally binding and burden of proof. The two aren't entirely the same. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that if you can get away with murdering somebody then it isn't a crime. clearly that isn't the case. I'm not sure what country you're in as there seem to be a fair few people on here from abroad, but In England and Wales a verbal agreement and an e-mail is just as legally binding as a written document. The problem is proof. Verbal agreements can clearly be very fragile because no hard evidence is present. They are just as legally binding.....but the catch 22 is that you've probably got no proof that you have one in the first place, and so they frequently are in practical terms pretty useless. E-Mail is on a slightly higher level. You have more proof than verbal, but again, because of likelihood of forgery, hacking etc then there is still an increased burden of proof. Written and signed contracts are used not because they are more legally binding than e-mail, or even a verbal contract, but because there is less burden of proof. You can usually clearly show that you've got a written contract without too much problem. Although, it isn't foolproof...these can still be contested in certain circumstances. But then that's probably what you meant all along and I'm just being a bit anal about it

So can e-mail. I think a preference for using hard copy FAX, if it was used, is probably more to do with (possibly perceived) security concerns. Wrong. correct. Plus the security issues with e-mail. Imagine old 'Arry sat there on a chair behind his team of komputer 'ackers..... "you wot? intercepted a message? nookarstle? defow? 7 mill? bollocks to that! Alex....Defow, Yids, 8 big ones, sharpish" Nope. Not wrong, and not Correct E-mail can be considered as a legal document, and an E-mail contract can be as legally binding as any FAX copy. E-mails are admissable as court evidence too. Why do you think that companies put all those legal disclaimers all over the bottom of them. Of course the standard rules of proof need to be applied. Hard copy documents can be forged too, and e-mail can be just as secure as FAX if you use something like PGP.

So can e-mail. I think a preference for using hard copy FAX, if it was used, is probably more to do with (possibly perceived) security concerns.

Slightly disappointed that it looks as if nobody is coming in, but not too bothered to be honest. Keegan hasn't had a single game in charge yet with our full squad available, and it's still way too early to say how the players will adapt to the new playing style. After the rest of this season in charge he'll have a far better idea of who and what we really need and so hopefully we'll get some higher quality and more appropriate signings in the summer.

Come on, I want someone to make me feel better about the above point... I thought he dealt with it quite well actually. Said that he'd only been out of the game for three years and that it hadn't changed much in that time. Said he'd been out of the game far longer before he first took the Newcastle manager job and that hadn't been a problem for him. And he said it was probably a benefit to him to have a break away from the game and get a sense of perspective about it.

I haven't read through the entire thread so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned at all, but Kelmsley was on radio 5 live today and said he'd spoken to Ashley. Apparently the situation is that Sam wasn't employed by Ashley, but after the takeover the board were prepared to give him some time to see what he could do. Ashley wanted entertaining attacking football for his wee investment and came to the conclusion that he wasn't going to get it with Sam. Ashley wants to invest a lot of money into the club and he wants to be confident that the manager he gives it to will spend it the right way. Or words to that effect.

I'd be very surprised if it's Redknapp. The speed of Sam's dismissal, and comments from Mort suggest that the board are already in contact with Sam's replacement, and Redknapp is adamant that there's been no contact between him and Newcastle. Then again you never know what to believe really....