Hughesy

This please, since it's now pretty clear NUFC don't do deadline day. We use it to trouser cash Asset strip and pocket the proceeds.

Would love to know how many of the people who are complaining about the lack of transfer activity are the same people who: objected to the sacking of Hughton and predicted a disastrous season for us; complained about Pardew's appointment and predicted a disastrous season for us; complained about the sale of Carroll; stated that selling Nolan and Barton and replacing them the likes of Cabaye would mean a relegation battle; and complained about our style of football last season even when unbeaten for however many games it was. As a quick caveat, I am disappointed we haven't signed additional players. I think everyone is.

That's what I did when I went to Bruges - very easy trip.

It helps to start planning European jaunts..

1 hour in train Pretty regular service as well from what I remember?

Great games for going away. Got to get to at least one of these.

I'm confused. I keep forgetting the groups.

Don't forget the Belgian beer.

Luke Edwards on Carroll: "During my various conversations with people about Andy Carroll's move to West Ham it has been suggested to me that there is a January release clause in the contract the England international has signed with the Hammers. As I understand it any club, not just West Ham, can activate a permanent deal if the asking price is met in the next window. So in theory, Newcastle, if Demba Ba and Papiss Cisse are called up by Senegal for the African Cup of Nations can sign him permanently in the New Year."

Would you get to see much of Naples with their Ultra's out and about? Always dodgy with Italian sides these days I had thought about that - scrub that one then. I'll replace them with Bilbao.

I'd like: Marseille or Lisbon Napoli or Udinese AIK or Rapid Vienna. Purely from wanting to go to those cities, as opposed to a footballing perspective.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/9511033/Transfer-deadline-day-live.html His entry at 09.59: "A nasty knee injury to Ryan Taylor, picked up in the 1-0 win over Atromitos in the Europa League on Thursday night, leaves manager Alan Pardew woefully short of naturally left-sided players and he has asked managing director Derek Llambias to pull off a late deal. The Magpies may also fancy Rose, which would put them in direct competition with their local rivals." On second reading, slightly more ambiguous (ie no evidence at all) than I had thought when I initially scanned it.

Luke Edwards seems to think we might be after Danny Rose on loan.

The context is, it seems the club knew Liverpool weren't going to sell him to us a month ago and the whole stuff going on from that has been a smokescreen to keep the fans happy by apparently look like we were interested in him still. That's pretty much undiluted crap.

It was a political move by Liverpool - they could not be seen to give Carroll back to us after they had spent £35 million on him. That is quite clear.

Pardew never said it was a political bid by us. It would help if people read what he actually said and the context.

'You have to pay a lot of respect to Mike, we've had a couple of phone calls during the window and we could have cashed in on a couple of our players but he didn't and I thank him for that and our fans should thank him too.' I'm finished caring what he thinks about anything now. Utterly spineless. Keegan would vomit reading that and so should we. Keegan would have vomited and then resigned. Which would have helped a great deal.

Also not sure why you would schedule a medical for 9pm on the day the transfer window shuts?

Can we ban you please. Oh, here's the alright on the night brigade again. Think someone needs to produce a Venn diagram of the various schools of thought on this forum.

You'd have to assume that is probably the reason. I suppose they don't see the point in spending £5 million plus on their 4th/5th choice player who may not actually be a huge improvement on Simpson. They'd rather wait to see if they can get Debuchy now or in January. Whether we should have just paid the extra £1 million that Lille then decided for ask for is a different matter.

Was there any concrete interest in Clyne or was it a mixture of journalistic conjecture/wishful thinking?

Thought the accounts were quite a pleasant surprise mesel, but then again I'm not arguing against what's in them. I really don't want to continue this debate much further so I think I will limit myself to this last post in direct response to you. The accounts for 2010/11 show a loss of 3.9 million. Due to a profit on sales of 36.7 million, we had a profit before tax of 32.6 million. This was down to the sale of Carroll. So I am not sure what you are arguing, but my point was that our profit and loss shows that the Carroll sale made a massive difference to our financial health. This is set against losses of 12 million in 2006, 34.2 million in 2007, 20.3 million in 2008, 15.2 million in 2009 and 17.1 million in 2010. I am not sure if you are trying to say that our turnover was greater than our expenses if you exclude player amortisation. In which case you are correct. But I don't think you can exclude player amortisation when assessing our financial strength. I also don't know how you can claim that the consecutive losses for 5 seasons totalling c.80 million don't impact on Ashley's business plan. I am not denying that certain bids of 8 figures have been made. What I am suggesting is that Ashley has a figure in mind for each player that he will not go above because he does not see sufficient value. This has been influenced heavily by the losses the club suffered. That is all I want to say - I have more important things to do.

That's just embarrassing.

I've pretty much reached that conclusion.

. What are you trying to defend with your fallacies? What is the point you are trying to make? I am pretty certain that we wouldn't have made a profit without the Carroll sale. I don't have the accounts to hand but I don't seem to remember a 35 million plus profit in the year we sold Carroll. So one would assume that the Carroll money was pretty instrumental in the state of our finances. How do the losses Ashley shored up previously not have a bearing on what we are prepared to spend? Quite clearly Ashley wants to run the club along sensible financial lines, which means that we aren't prepared to pay over our own valuations on players (which is a sensible strategy to be honest). This strategy is a direct result of the losses we were making - it couldn't be any clearer. It has been stated numerous times that we now run the club in a prudent manner and I sincerely hope we continue to do so. No idea what you are getting at in the 3rd 'point'. Completely incoherent. The points I am making are perfectly clear. If you want some help, send me a PM and I'll walk you through it.