Hughesy

If we are just fantasising about dream scenarios, I'd like to buy Torres from Liverpool for around £2m and a princely wage of around 22k. Ideally after scoring against the scousers he'd race to the the Kop end lifting his shirt to reveal an "UP YOURS BIN-DIPPERS" vest on his debut. Because that's what I said...

Has anyone said that we should sell Ranger??? I don't think they have. I think people have pointed out, rightly so, that a strikeforce of Carroll, Ameobi, Best, Lovenkrands and Ranger isn't going to keep us up. I don't want to buy overpriced players on high wages, especially players on the wrong side of 30 - the only basis on which I would buy Keane was if it was an amazing deal for us (ie low fee and relatively low wages), which is unlikely to happen. But anyone who is sitting here thinking that Ranger can be part of a Premiership strikeforce NEXT SEASON is a complete loon.

Yes. That's priceless.

Not actually read all this thread - but are people genuinely suggesting that Ranger should be one of our main strikers if we go up? Seriously...? Rather than buying someone like Keane?

anyone else think this sounded a lot like a Michael Owen transfer? I'll level with you I'm a huge fan of Robbie Keane and have been suggesting to mates and alike before we signed Owen that we tried to sign him when spurs had 47 striking options, could have probably got him for about £7-£8m at the time and got away with paying him about £40k a week. My biggest worry is we end up with Michael Owen again in the summer, and as ridiculous as that might sound, I wouldn't write it off straight away. Not really - Keane is a far more 'technical' player who doesn't/didn't rely on pace in the way Owen did. Not necessarily saying I'd buy Keane mind you.

Signing the likes of him is a better transfer policy according to you. Two can play this game... Signing Viana was better than Speed? Signing Owen better than Bellamy? Signing Luque better than Rob Lee? Signing Duff was better than Solano? Signing Coloccini/Boumsong better than Dabizas/Woodgate?

Yeah, cos I said Routledge was better than Robert. :clap2:

From the official Premier league website. Dodgy as.

Name me a more effectice midfielder at SJP in the last 30 years. Goals/assists he has no peers. I agree with you. For one season. Maybe one season and a half. In terms of consistency, Solano. Which season and a half? In his third season, he was unstoppable for the majority. Robert official stats: 2004/05 5 assists (33rd in the league) and 3 goals (115th in the league) 2003/04 7 assists (14th in the league) and 6 goals (50th in the league) 2002/03 5 assists (36th in the league) and 5 goals (69th in the league) 2001/02 16 assists (1st in the league) and 8 goals (40th in the league) Not sure he was unstoppable for the majority of the 3rd season you know... If he was, a fair few others were unstoppable as well.

Name me a more effectice midfielder at SJP in the last 30 years. Goals/assists he has no peers. I agree with you. For one season. Maybe one season and a half. In terms of consistency, Solano.

I knew people would pick up on Robert. Yes he was a decent player. He was amazing for 1 and a half seasons. He never maintained that form - that's why he was not a consistent top 4 player.

How exactly are you classifying "a club like us"? ie one which not so long ago was constantly in the top 20 of the highest turnovers in the world in spite of supposed completely incompetent ownership (so obviously with a lot of room to improve it's finances), and which would certainly go straight back in the top 30 at least immediately on promotion. Which clubs has it worked for out of interest? don't confuse turnover with doing well. seems like you are forgetting the outgoings. Not at all. When run properly we have a financial advantage over a lot of teams in this country, all but half a dozen or so at the moment. We can afford higher transfer fees and wages than a lot of teams in the Premier League. There are limits of course, but just because we didn't cross the line and win the league or a cup when we were actually trying doesn't mean we should just give up and be happy to just get by as a club without any ambition other than to stay in the Premiership. This lad is proposing "a club like us" shouldn't get ideas above our station and should settle for buying a couple of cheap players on low wages a year. This is apparently the road to success, but actually it's the road to mediocrity which leads you down the path of falling attendances and reduced merchandising ending up back where we were 30 years ago. Eh??? I'm not proposing we settle for mediocrity... I'm just suggesting we have a more sensible transfer policy. I can't see any merit in us buying foreign players for large sums of money for the reasons I listed earlier. I would also prefer we didn't buy players from top 4 clubs. Yes you are. Completely. Any player over £6m who was any good would have been bought by a bigger club than us, no sorry, by a FAR bigger club than us, and they wouldn't want to play for us anyway even if we fluked into the top 4 because Newcastle's s*** so why bother. Let's just go for players who noone else wants or ever wanted (don't want any cast offs from "big" clubs do we) to avoid disappointment. What an amazing strategy for success. I'm still waiting for a list of the teams it's worked for. Because buying cast off from big clubs worked so well, didn't it? Duff, Butt, Geremi, Owen, Smith, Babayaro, Carr. They all performed and provided good value for money, didn't they? Oh wait... they didn't. As for our record of buying expensive foreign players (or players on high wages)? Martins, Luque, Coloccini, Boumsong, Viana, Kluivert, Bassedas, even Emre and Robert ffs. Even if you think that some of those foreign players are decent, they certainly were never good enough to play for a top 4 team - which is what we were aspiring to be. You think that Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal or Chelsea wanted any of them? Genuinely? So why should we go and spend huge amounts of money on them? You seem to think I am denigrating us as a club - the complete opposite. I'm suggesting we shouldn't buy players who aren't good enough for those teams. We need a better scouting network and we need to steal a march on the richer, bigger teams who will be hoovering up the good, established talent. I love the way you suggest that a strategy we haven't even tried is worse than one that's failed.

How exactly are you classifying "a club like us"? ie one which not so long ago was constantly in the top 20 of the highest turnovers in the world in spite of supposed completely incompetent ownership (so obviously with a lot of room to improve it's finances), and which would certainly go straight back in the top 30 at least immediately on promotion. Which clubs has it worked for out of interest? don't confuse turnover with doing well. seems like you are forgetting the outgoings. Not at all. When run properly we have a financial advantage over a lot of teams in this country, all but half a dozen or so at the moment. We can afford higher transfer fees and wages than a lot of teams in the Premier League. There are limits of course, but just because we didn't cross the line and win the league or a cup when we were actually trying doesn't mean we should just give up and be happy to just get by as a club without any ambition other than to stay in the Premiership. This lad is proposing "a club like us" shouldn't get ideas above our station and should settle for buying a couple of cheap players on low wages a year. This is apparently the road to success, but actually it's the road to mediocrity which leads you down the path of falling attendances and reduced merchandising ending up back where we were 30 years ago. Eh??? I'm not proposing we settle for mediocrity... I'm just suggesting we have a more sensible transfer policy. I can't see any merit in us buying foreign players for large sums of money for the reasons I listed earlier. I would also prefer we didn't buy players from top 4 clubs.

How exactly are you classifying "a club like us"? ie one which not so long ago was constantly in the top 20 of the highest turnovers in the world in spite of supposed completely incompetent ownership (so obviously with a lot of room to improve it's finances), and which would certainly go straight back in the top 30 at least immediately on promotion. Which clubs has it worked for out of interest? What's hard to understand about the fact that, even when we were in the top 4 of the Premiership, we don't have the draw to bring in top quality foreigners? Really good foreigners don't want to come to live in Newcastle and as a result we end up paying inflated fees and wages to entice players to come, most of whom aren't actually good enough for top 6 teams.

Despite the fact that it was the ridiculous overspending in the first place which ultimately lead to our relegation and forcing us to buy 'cheap shit'??

Thanks Mike Not sure if you are being sarcastic or what - but as a general rule it makes sense. I'd also add to that and suggest we should never buy players from the 'Big Four'.

More a point for next season.... but, as a general rule (and yes, there are exceptions...), I've come to the conclusion that a club like us is far better off spending smaller amount of cash of foreign players than ever splashing out big money for more 'established' players. My theory being that if we are paying big money for a player (ie 6 million plus), if he is any good, a far bigger club than us will have bought him already. Possibly not a groundbreaking theory or one that will be met with universal appreciation, but as a general rule I think it works.

Has Carroll actually lost a header yet???

Yup, deserves some credit for the debt thing. No excuse for every other mistake he's made mind, but that bit he got right. He had to pay it off. It's not like he did it out of the kindness of his heart. It's amazing how some fans just don't seem to realise the position we would have been in had that debt still been around the club. It's quite fortunate really, in a sick kind of way. You do know why the money had to be repaid, don't you?

Since when has Butt been an attacking midfielder??

Solano and Robert play on the wing, I presume James means best attack midfielder we have had that played through the middle. Who else has been better than Dyer in that position in the previous 10 years? That's pretty specific, bearing in mind that in a four man midfield you've now ruled out 2 of the players because they played on the wing and therefore not being included and we usually played with one defensive midfielder AND Dyer played for us for about 5 of the last ten years AND in our most successful period!! He'd almost get the title by default.. however rubbish he was.

That is a post shocking enough to bring me out of a two year retirement. Dyer was the most overated player we had in the 00's. He dribbling ability consisted of occasionally being able to carry the ball 10 yards and then passing it off. He was exceptionally quick and had decent movement, but no discernible talent with the ball whatsoever. He lived off this inflated reputation he earned back in 2001/01 for years; without delivering anything of note. People talked about Robert / Solano being lightweight and going missing, but this guy did it a hell of a lot in the centre. At least those two actually had a final end product. Good riddance to a player who got away with so much, and delivered so little. There you have the correct answer.

I am sure Solano might have quite a lot to say about that. As might numerous other players, but how anyone could ever think Dyer was our best attacking midfielder in the last decade is beyond me.

Whilst I appreciate what you are saying, you can't have great, or even good, technique if you can't control a ball, shoot or pass. Dribbling fast with the ball does not make a player technically gifted.

Dyer's technique great??? Seriously the guy had pace and that was about it. His awareness of what was going on around him was terrible, he couldn't shoot or pass the ball over any kind of distance greater than 5 yards. The fact he played for us when we were in the Champions League has absolutely no relevance to an analysis of him as a player. I thought it at the time and I still think it now. Or are you not allowed to criticise a player who played for us in that era on the basis that they are better than what we have now? What kind of twisted logic is that??