bealios

Or maybe we try and not be as rigid and predictable and pick a team based on tactics and form and the oppositions weaknesses. One up front might be the best choice with some teams, two first choice strikers will be better with others.

The whole "purples" system with an automatic first choice for every position and an understudy/reserve behind each one was/is incredibly flawed. It ignores injuries, and your purples have no competition for places, so half your purples play like pinks. Ignoring the obvious undroppable star players, and I honestly thing we don't have any other than maybe Janmaat and Kruul, you really need a squad of at least 18 players who can realistically offer competition for each place. There is no reason given the money available in the league that we should not have Mitrovic, Cisse, Perez and Austin as our available strikers, complemented by De Jong. We should be selling Gouffran and Rivière, not Cisse. It's probably the same in terms of wages.

Quite depressing that it doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to think we could have had a front two of Ba and Remy at one point, in the same side as HBA and maybe even a properly managed Cabella.

Pretty sure unfair contract terms act only applies to consumers, can't imagine a relatively large legally advised company can use it

Yes Absolute disgrace. Why? The fact that England or Spain could be outvoted by Timor Leste and Montserrat (for example) is a total joke. They have nothing to do with the game. You can't have a global governing body that only focuses on the elite players. One of the reasons Blatter is so popular is because he treats the smaller and poor nations well. Its like saying the richest guy in America's vote in an election should count for more than an ordinary working class person Yes you can, and no it's not. Football is a non-essential part of society. Would you be happy if a all football decisions in this country were dictated by Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal i.e. Distribution of TV money?

Great that people will get off their arse to do something, so really cannot knock whoever is running this. Personally doubt it will achieve its aim - to force Ashley out, at least not on its own. There are probably only a couple of things which will make him sell - relegation, or a silly £300M+ offer. He was definitely selling last time we went down, despite what the Ashley Out website says. It was the lack of a buyer with cash which stopped him. This time we're not in the middle of a huge economic slump and there is more TV money. Perfectly feasible that if we went down we would have a number of buyers willing to offer Ashley back most of his investment and take a punt on getting back up before the parachute payments run out. And if he has had a couple of years of sustained abuse he might just take it. So I wouldn't say a campaign like this has no merits, it can make a difference, but I think to get rid it might take a year or two in the wilderness of the Championship to really get him to sell up.

He's coming here isn't he.

Problem is that most people outside of the Newcastle supporting community get all of their information on Newcastle from the media. So the typical cabbie driving me home at 1am spouting nonsense about Pardew and NUFC has probably not read Sackpardew.com and has probably seen the "Cockney Mafia Out" banner multiple times.

I've seen enough of him to think he's a very capable back up squad player, but shouldn't be our "purple" central midfielder. Good signing for free, just a shame that he's probably now seen as an automatic starter in CM, and given our next manager is likely to have other priorities to deal with with limited resources (CB, AM, CF), we're probably stuck with him for a while. I'd start him over Anita and Tiote as things stand.

Didn't they same about Ronaldo when he first came to Man Utd? #cluthcingatstraws

Can't see Moyes playing a weakened side in a League Cup semi. It is by no means nailed on that they will even get 5th place, and Man Utd having a season without European football is unthinkable (for them anyway). They must see the League Cup as a fall back route into Europe, and a chance to beat City in the final as well to save a bit of face. Here's hoping anyway.

Pretty much all borrowing is "mortgaging future income". You're basically taking a lump sum up front and in return you meet the interest payment from your future income. A football club has the ability to offer future income as security (on top of the stadium in the traditional way as you say), but that's just security for the loan - the bottom line is are you borrowing so much that you can't comfortably afford the interest on top of all other expenses such as wages. I don't know if Southampton's rise has been based on debt - I expect it is easy enough to find out. You're right though, if they have over-borrowed after seeing what has happened down the road then that is just daft. But borrowing in itself isn't a bad thing. Typically if a business isn't borrowing it doesn't mean that it is being run in the best way possible, quite the opposite, it means that it is losing opportunities that the extra capital might bring.

The one thing that might shake everything up and benefit the likes of NUFC, Southampton, Everton and probably a handful of others who are reluctant to break the bank to make the Top 4 is if they change the Europa format and allow entry to an expanded Champions League through a similar system to the Intertoto which allowed you into the UEFA Cup. It would mean that the Europa places wouldn't be such a poisoned chalice as you could by playing a handful of games a bit earlier in the summer qualify for the same tournament as the usual CL teams. Initially thought the "big clubs" would be against it, but when you look at the like of Man Utd, Chelsea, nearly Arsenal etc. finishing outside of the top 4 in recent years, they might see it as a safety net to ensuring they start each season with a chance of qualifying. I'd quite happily take a handful of games in July/August for a Champions League place later in the season.

Depends what you mean by limited budget. I would say that level of expenditure in light of the huge increase in TV income was reflective of a sensible and prudent level of investment in the circumstances, marginal improvements of the squad within sensible means without threatening long term health of the club.

It was actually supposed to be just somewhere to discuss a club who are seemingly trying to achieve success without oil or sovereign wealth, rather than focused on how negative NUFC are. I'm generally positive about all things NUFC at the moment, in that I think we're playing some decent stuff, Pardew doesn't seem to be as bad or unable to change as we all thought last year, and JFK seems to have dropped off the scene. But long term it seems fairly clear at the moment that plan is to occupy the sweet spot between 6th and 10th in the table for minimal expenditure, and it will take something fairly drastic to change that. But that's beside the point, not every thread has to become a Pardew/Ashley is shit/mint thread

Seems like we have a thread for each of the more hateful clubs around, thought it might be worth having one for a club that seems to be trying to operate a model that Ashley would like to operate, albeit being less twatish about it. Thought this was an interesting read this morning: http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/25420261 I know there is always one surprise club each year and the media tend to get excited about it and have a love in, but reading that it does remind me a little bit about what was going on at NUFC in 1992/1993. Quite depressing that even Southampton operating on a limited budget are asking themselves not "Can they win the league" but "How they win the league". Pie in the sky maybe, but much better to hear than "How can we finish mid table without doing so well that we have to play in that pesky Europa League."

Our seasons seem to be defined by how well the supposed fringe players perform. 2011 - 2012 it was Perch and Taylor, this year it's looking like Shola and Willo

Sorry if this has already been answered, but even though there is no TV, is there a chance this might be filmed for a DVD release like the Shearer Testimonial? With it coming just before Christmas as well, must be worth doing a DVD release with proceeds going to charity etc.?

Brilliant bloke. Went out with him and Rob Lee for a few beers after the QPR championship game a few years ago. I had had far too much beer but he was still happy to talk about the Keegan era, how close they got to the title, how gutted they all were when Keegan left etc. for what seemed like hours, and I can't imagine I was the most sparkling conversation at that point.

Wages are an operating cost and shouldn't really be taken into account, otherwise you should take into account tv income etc. agents fees on the deal is probably fair enough, it's part of the transfer fee.

Can't tell you how thoroughly depressed I was this morning reading the Chronicle website which within the space of a couple of column inches managed to cover the fact that Bent is now our priority, and that he is not part of Villa's plans and is going to train with the reserves. Replacement for Shola at £4m, fine. Striking priority, GTF.

Why would it mean the club is being sold? I'm going to ask this in every thread until someone comes up with a reason! True. Ashley is incredibly loyal to those around him. In his eyes JFK helped him out when he most needed it, when no-one in the football world would have touched the NUFC job with a barge pole in the days and weeks after Keegan left. In Ashley's eyes, he helped take a little bit of the flack away from him. Might feel somewhat responsible for his subsequent heart issues. Sticks JFK in on a 3 year fixed contract, knowing that any new owner would need to pay the whole contract out (which would come out of the club's funds not Ashley's pocket). So there you go, clearly selling the club. What other possible reason could there be to appoint JFK as director of football. That's a ludicrously tenuous reason though. I agree nobody can think of a good one, but that's not it. True, but thought I would give it a go. The fact that Llambias has gone sort of disproves my theory, as he may have kept him on as well and bumped his contract up to ensure he also got a pay off. Llambias was on a fairly meaty payout as part of the deal for the sale that fell through to Moat, so if it was being sold then fairly convinced that he would have been kept on. Llambias going is either a reaction by Ashley to underperformance last year, or more likely that Llambias just wants out and doesn't want another year similar to the relegation year - which I think it looking more and more likely.

Why would it mean the club is being sold? I'm going to ask this in every thread until someone comes up with a reason! Ashley is incredibly loyal to those around him. In his eyes JFK helped him out when he most needed it, when no-one in the football world would have touched the NUFC job with a barge pole in the days and weeks after Keegan left. In Ashley's eyes, he helped take a little bit of the flack away from him. Might feel somewhat responsible for his subsequent heart issues. Sticks JFK in on a 3 year fixed contract, knowing that any new owner would need to pay the whole contract out (which would come out of the club's funds not Ashley's pocket). So there you go, clearly selling the club. What other possible reason could there be to appoint JFK as director of football.

The Footballer who could Fly - Duncan Hamilton Have to say, read this on holiday last year as it was bought for me, and thought it was a great read, I would recommend it. Has a Newcastle angle, but also Nottingham. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Footballer-Who-Could-Fly/dp/1846059801

I haven't looked at the table recently but weren't we only 4 or 5 points off top 10 anyway? Doesn't say much that if the group of players you mentioned below had played together all season we would have won two of the games that we drew but otherwise it would have been the same!