Colocho

Look mate, you said you wouldn't give him a 5 year deal but you'd be happy to give him 3. What's the point? It makes no difference, hardly going to effect his current injury is it?

 

Fair enough if you say we shouldn't have signed him at all - but the contract length is completely immaterial. Nonsensical point.

No, but it decreases the risk of having a crock on our books long-term.

Hence what I said earlier about a five-year contract...

 

I don't understand what you're getting at. What contract length would you have given him and what difference would it make?

 

He's almost 26 and has started 65 league matches in his career, 33 of which came in one season.

 

Which is why I stated my concerns about him signing a five-year deal, when he signed... I'm sure his contract is highly incentivised, but ultimately, do we want crocks on our books? I would have offered him a three-year deal at the very most.

 

 

So what's the difference between offering him a 3 year deal or a 5 year deal? Contract lengths mean fuck all.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XsZ3DjRg8IE/TDXGbYqkW7I/AAAAAAAAxpc/gnWq8bOueWE/s1600/xisco21.jpg

Gosling I reckon.

Ranger hasn't demonstrated anything to suggest that he could become a Premier League player.

 

Has Sammy?

 

Yes. And I would say that Ranger did as well, before he started being a dick.

 

I was ridiculed 18 months or so ago, for saying by 2012, Ranger would be a League One player. He's never shown the potential to suggest he could become a regular starter for a Premier League club.

Are you sure that's what you were being ridiculed for back then? I mean, it's been 18 months of ridicule since then, must be quite hard to remember which one it was back then.

tbf ranger was a good impact sub last season, I think it was liverpool, he came on a stretched their defence no end.

Looked dangerous against Arsenal in the 4-4, but has offered little apart from 'looking dangerous'.

Hence what I said earlier about a five-year contract...

 

I don't understand what you're getting at. What contract length would you have given him and what difference would it make?

He's almost 26 and has started 65 league matches in his career, 33 of which came in one season.

Which is why I stated my concerns about him signing a five-year deal, when he signed... I'm sure his contract is highly incentivised, but ultimately, do we want crocks on our books? I would have offered him a three-year deal at the very most.

Hence what I said yesterday about a five-year contract...

Out of the City match according to Starforth.

So if I've got this straight you were just making a wish for him to get shot and being overly specific on the details of his attacker for some unstated reason? 

 

 

Ok, the unstated reason being the people of varying cultures may kick off like. Seems how blacky is the correct term to use.

 

No racism intended at all. It was a play on words. Simple as that.

 

Its a play on words to use 'blacky' and gun references because you are talking about culture? Yeah that doesnt sound at all thick or racsit...

 

well lets face it...

 

Im a realist.

http://www.tynetime.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Nile-Ranger.jpg

Sammy would be daft to sign for any longer tbh considering the wages will be pretty modest

 

An extra £50 per week with a 5% increase on his overall wage every 365 calendar days.

 

£2.50 goal bonus (Premiership only) and 10p per minute bonus for every minute he plays.

 

Now, the dealbreaker was that in order for him to sign it, Shola has to pay him half of his weekly wage for the next 3.5 years. Shola obviously didnt turn this down as it's his brother and he is pretty flush himself.

 

An even steven contract for Ashley to broker, whilst righteous wages go into Shola's bank for once.

 

Sammy's laughing his titties off.

 

Cushty.

It's a shame your about to be banned, tbh.

Seb Blatter....fucking bla bla fucking blatter.

 

I hope some blacky caps the motherfucker in the ass

Bye.

Ranger hasn't demonstrated anything to suggest that he could become a Premier League player.

 

Has Sammy?

 

Yes. And I would say that Ranger did as well, before he started being a dick.

I was ridiculed 18 months or so ago, for saying by 2012, Ranger would be a League One player. He's never shown the potential to suggest he could become a regular starter for a Premier League club.

Ranger hasn't demonstrated anything to suggest that he could become a Premier League player.

Has Sammy?

Anybody heard of the new group 'NUFC Fans United'?

 

http://www.nufcfansutd.com/

Yes.

Learned their lesson from the Ranger situation.

The scary thing is that some people do and say so many wrong/stupid things that it just desensitizes you.

 

Most people won't even be that mad about this. They'll just be "oh right, there's Blatter doing something daft again" and forget about it.

 

Part of the reason why he'll never be forced out of power.

Could say the same about Ashley and Llambias.

Harry's brick - reclaiming our piece of heritage.

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.182922225128966.47510.136396746448181&type=3

Tbh, it's looking like the SportsDirect.com@StJames'Park farce all over again.

It's like they've done it just to get Sports Direct in the news...

Chronicle confirm he will not play against City.

 

Pleased he has signed for us - but a five-year deal..?

 

It still hasn't been confirmed this is a long term injury so why not a 5 year contract? Some people just like to beat themselves up for the sake of it.

It probably isn't a long-term injury, but it is mid-November, and he has only started one league match...

It's worth noting that he has started only 65 league games in his entire career - and 33 of these starts were the season before last. He turns 26 in six months time, and I'm not sure the club did their 'due diligence' prior to offering him such a long-term contract.

"I heard a story a while back that someone working for the box office, I assume Simon Esland was threatened with their job regarding Arsenal away. We had a 2000 allocation which we sold, Arsenal offered more but we had to pay upfront for the extra tickets. NUFC asked Llambias if they could go ahead and get them, Llambias threatened him with his job if we didn't sell out. Thus, no more tickets came."

Chronicle confirm he will not play against City.

Pleased he has signed for us - but a five-year deal..?

So far we have taken reduced allocations at Stoke, City, Man U, Norwich, Wolves and QPR. We also got fewer tickets for the Mackem game because of segregation, which, as annoying as it seemed, was probably the right decision.

 

Of those reduced allocations Stoke and QPR were justified - Monday night games on TV etc.

 

The rest we would definitely have sold more tickets for - that isn't just speculation, that is all but factual based on the majority of those other games not even going to members sale.

 

Think we took a full allocation at Villa but didn't sell it. The facts that ticket prices were relatively high for this game, it was in the summer, we go there every year and maybe even the relegation memories probably stopped a few from attending this one.

 

The problem is we do not know for sure if it is us only taking smaller allocations, the other clubs reducing our allocations on the basis of persistent standing or a mixture of the two. I would imagine, despite the 3000/10% rule being in place, that it is pretty easy for a club to turn around and use persistent standing/police advice/segregation issues as a reason for giving less tickets.

 

If the club chose to take a reduced allocation at Norwich it is almost understandable given the high ticket prices and the distance it is to travel, however, with the benefit of hindsight that was the wrong decision. Surely though the club should be pushing for the maximum available allocations at places like City, Man U etc. on a saturday afternoon? The more support the team has the better and it also looks pretty embarrassing when we have like 1500 at OT given that we often criticise the size of the away followings teams like Fulham, Wigan, Bolton etc bring to SJP.

The rule is: 3,000 or 10 per cent of capacity, whichever is lowest. Host clubs can choose to increase that. They can also reduce it below those requirements with permission from SGSA.

What is the point of having 12th man membership?

Another money-making exercise by the club.

This is an issue that has be raised. We should be entitled to 2700 at Carrow Road...

If the 10% rule that the club quoted in the summer is true - we should have had 4000-6000 for the Manchester matches. What the fuck is the club playing at?!

I actually fuckin hope we dont get a Shearer statue. The guy scored goals, the guy is a geordie but he is also a prick of monumental magnitude also.

One of the greatest captains, and representatives this club has ever had.

I see sammy in a few line ups. I think it would be a big mistake to throw him in from the start against city personally.

Shouldn't start. Not good enough to make a difference.