Hughesy

He picked the wrong team, he was part of the problem. Ryan Taylor and Shola shouldn't have come out for the 2nd half as they were both as bad as they can get. Part of the problem - yes. He got things wrong today obviously. But I do wonder how much control people think managers have over individual players' performances. It isn't Football Manager or FIFA out there.

Are you happy with that performance and style of play? Nope, but I can see why we played like that. I think less resilient sides would have lost. Are you suggesting our gameplan was to play that s*** and keep giving the ball away? Are you suggesting that it is Pardew's fault that the players kept giving the ball away? When it's players like Ryan Taylor and Shola Ameobi, yes. What about the other 9? I think their performances could very well have improved considerably if the aforementioned two weren't on the pitch. Hmmm.

Are you happy with that performance and style of play? Nope, but I can see why we played like that. I think less resilient sides would have lost. Are you suggesting our gameplan was to play that s*** and keep giving the ball away? Are you suggesting that it is Pardew's fault that the players kept giving the ball away? When it's players like Ryan Taylor and Shola Ameobi, yes. What about the other 9?

Are you happy with that performance and style of play? Nope, but I can see why we played like that. I think less resilient sides would have lost. Are you suggesting our gameplan was to play that s*** and keep giving the ball away? Are you suggesting that it is Pardew's fault that the players kept giving the ball away?

Unbelievably short-sighted. Yeah we played badly. In fact we were awful. But - we got a point away from home against a team that will clearly be midtable or thereabouts come the end of the season. Decent result even if it was a crap performance. But - we are unbeaten. We deserved a point vs Arsenal and our wins against Sunderland and Fulham. This is the only game so far where we have got more than our play merited. Yep, that's what most (all?) are saying. I don't even know what your post means. Your second post IMO reflects why people are frustrated despite the results, that's why I thought your first was daft. To summarise - I think people are going massively overboard on our performances this season. You can't just overlook that we are unbeaten and 4th in the league. It has to be taken into consideration that we have deserved at least 7 points this season. Yes - we clearly have problems. We need to improve going forward, but all the Pardew bashing is ridiculous sometimes.

Unbelievably short-sighted. Yeah we played badly. In fact we were awful. But - we got a point away from home against a team that will clearly be midtable or thereabouts come the end of the season. Decent result even if it was a crap performance. But - we are unbeaten. We deserved a point vs Arsenal and our wins against Sunderland and Fulham. This is the only game so far where we have got more than our play merited. Yep, that's what most (all?) are saying. I don't even know what your post means.

23/09/2007 - 5th place after beating West Ham 3-2. What happened after that again? It's alright - we are 4th this time.

Yeh, because if we keep playing like that and with no flexibility to change...we're going to stay fourth It's a good point away from home but that doesn't mean it's a performance to applaud. Because that is what I said?? That we would stay fourth?

Unbelievably short-sighted. Yeah we played badly. In fact we were awful. But - we got a point away from home against a team that will clearly be midtable or thereabouts come the end of the season. Decent result even if it was a crap performance. But - we are unbeaten. We deserved a point vs Arsenal and our wins against Sunderland and Fulham. This is the only game so far where we have got more than our play merited.

Yeah - fourth in the league and unbeaten. What a crap job Pardew is doing.

That just isn't even close to true.

Midfield and striker (we added a striker to the same strike-force that finished last season) Okay, I'll give you the striker (pitiful as that argument is considering Ameobi and Lovenkrands are still starting games) but how are we stronger in midfield? Every player that came in replaced another going out. Cabaye replaced Nolan, Marveaux replaced Routledge, Obertan replaced Barton. Going further, Santon replaced Enrique, and even Elliot has replaced Forster. We can argue the toss about who are the better individuals, but how we have a stronger squad is beyond me. Isn't a stronger squad arguably about the players in it as opposed to the depth of the squad? If Pardew believes that the players who have come in are better than those that are left, that would mean we have a stronger squad.

It is NOT a leveraged buyout. Fact. End of discussion.

Joey will probably still insist on taking our free kicks instead of Cabaye.

Not seen Cisse play before - is he worth EUR15 million? How many good seasons has he had in his career?

Spot on. Probably not even 10 mins required. So there's little or no chance Ashley overlooked it? It would be impossible to overlook if you looked at the loan documentation in the first place. One of the first things a finance lawyer would do in a due diligence exercise would be to look for exactly that kind of provision. It would be beyond negligent for a lawyer not to look for a change of control clause or not pick up on it because it can obviously make a huge difference to any acquisition and the funding required. But if Ashley didn't do any DD, as we are led to believe, and didn't get lawyers to look at the loan documents - then it is conceivable that he wouldn't have known about it. However, nearly every loan document in the world has some form of change of control clause in it.. However (apologies for labouring this point), I find it very strange that Ashley would actually buy NUFC without doing any DD at all. It's a very very risky and strange way to do business. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/mort-brings-sea-change-to-tone-of-business-on-the-tyne-460911.html In that case - I have no idea how Ashley could not have known about the change of control clause. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I think by "typical due diligence one would do on a public takeover" he means they read the published 2006 accounts. Can't say I agree on that - in my experience, DD would definitely have been done on the loan agreements that the club had outstanding. I think either Mort is bending the truth and no 'proper' DD was done (although I am sure that Freshfields would have recommended that it was done) or 'proper' DD was done and Ashley knew about the change of control. If anyone undertakes due diligence on a public company the Stock Exchange must be notified and the fact it is happening made public. No such notification was made about Ashley. Also I remember Shepherd being shocked to learn that the Halls had sold, if due diligence had been taking place he'd have known all about it. Was no notification made at the time? I can't remember. So - basically we have established that Ashley was actually stupid enough not to do any DD. Although I still think that Ashley must have known that there was a very high chance of a change of control clause.

Spot on. Probably not even 10 mins required. So there's little or no chance Ashley overlooked it? It would be impossible to overlook if you looked at the loan documentation in the first place. One of the first things a finance lawyer would do in a due diligence exercise would be to look for exactly that kind of provision. It would be beyond negligent for a lawyer not to look for a change of control clause or not pick up on it because it can obviously make a huge difference to any acquisition and the funding required. But if Ashley didn't do any DD, as we are led to believe, and didn't get lawyers to look at the loan documents - then it is conceivable that he wouldn't have known about it. However, nearly every loan document in the world has some form of change of control clause in it.. However (apologies for labouring this point), I find it very strange that Ashley would actually buy NUFC without doing any DD at all. It's a very very risky and strange way to do business. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/mort-brings-sea-change-to-tone-of-business-on-the-tyne-460911.html In that case - I have no idea how Ashley could not have known about the change of control clause. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I think by "typical due diligence one would do on a public takeover" he means they read the published 2006 accounts. Can't say I agree on that - in my experience, DD would definitely have been done on the loan agreements that the club had outstanding. I think either Mort is bending the truth and no 'proper' DD was done (although I am sure that Freshfields would have recommended that it was done) or 'proper' DD was done and Ashley knew about the change of control.

Spot on. Probably not even 10 mins required. So there's little or no chance Ashley overlooked it? It would be impossible to overlook if you looked at the loan documentation in the first place. One of the first things a finance lawyer would do in a due diligence exercise would be to look for exactly that kind of provision. It would be beyond negligent for a lawyer not to look for a change of control clause or not pick up on it because it can obviously make a huge difference to any acquisition and the funding required. But if Ashley didn't do any DD, as we are led to believe, and didn't get lawyers to look at the loan documents - then it is conceivable that he wouldn't have known about it. However, nearly every loan document in the world has some form of change of control clause in it.. However (apologies for labouring this point), I find it very strange that Ashley would actually buy NUFC without doing any DD at all. It's a very very risky and strange way to do business. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/mort-brings-sea-change-to-tone-of-business-on-the-tyne-460911.html In that case - I have no idea how Ashley could not have known about the change of control clause. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Spot on. Probably not even 10 mins required. So there's little or no chance Ashley overlooked it? It would be impossible to overlook if you looked at the loan documentation in the first place. One of the first things a finance lawyer would do in a due diligence exercise would be to look for exactly that kind of provision. It would be beyond negligent for a lawyer not to look for a change of control clause or not pick up on it because it can obviously make a huge difference to any acquisition and the funding required. But if Ashley didn't do any DD, as we are led to believe, and didn't get lawyers to look at the loan documents - then it is conceivable that he wouldn't have known about it. However, nearly every loan document in the world has some form of change of control clause in it.. However (apologies for labouring this point), I find it very strange that Ashley would actually buy NUFC without doing any DD at all. It's a very very risky and strange way to do business.

Spot on. Probably not even 10 mins required.

The idea that anyone would ever rely on Joey Barton to 'tell the truth' is staggering.

No excuse for the lack of a striker.

Would be amazing if he came here..

McNulty of BBC reckon we have him signed, sealed and delivered.

What??