Punk77

And Magpie99: EPIC post! That's how I see the situation. MA has done his fair share of mistakes, but as you mentioned, he's learning from them. Also it should be mentioned that Fred left him a club with direct course for administration. I don't think MA knew how messy state was before he took over. If he had, he probably would not have touched the club with an iron rod . The fact that MA is learning for each day is the most important thing. I think some fans are too focused on the past and the errors made instead of looking forwards. There's so much good going on in the club now and that could partly be ascribed to the work of MA. Shouldn't he get credit for that? This summer could be the most exciting window since the bobby days. While so many other clubs overspend, making them completely owner dependent for years, we seemingly got everything under control. And that's so important when we know that the financial fair play rules will come into effect soon. Those rules could paralyze some of our closest competitors for the European spot, such as Everton and Villa. We could get a head start which they will struggle to recover.

He's actually not that great flicking through with his head, but he's lethal inside the box. Gradel is too unstable. As Magpie 99, I prefer Sinclair from Swansea

Yeah, simply because it was Owen. Disregarding totally that the man is a dick, that he would suck the coffin completely dry and that he's no better than the weakest link. Huh? coffers. I think. Spot on

Yeah, simply because it was Owen. Disregarding totally that the man is a dick, that he would suck the coffin completely dry and that he's no better than the weakest link.

Exactly, "Souness claims" .. Souness isn't what we call a credible source I saw pictures of Owen together with Souness before he signed. If he wasn't interested in signing Owen, why the heck did Souness bother chatting with him..

It's quite shocking really.. It's when I'm reading such articles that I'm actually glad that MA is our owner..

A chunk then I remember discussing MON when CH was fired. And most were happy to take him. Although that doesn't necessarily represent this forum

Just to repeat myself, a update from today regarding the consequences of the reign of MON: http://www.teamtalk.com/news/2483/6787295/Villa-suffer-huge-losses I cannot believe that a chunk of our fans wanted him as our replacement for CH

Good post Magipe99! Regarding MON, I was actually glad that Pardew took over instead him. I did some reading when the rumor about us taking on MON appeared. Here goes: MON was supported 100% by his Lerner financially for multiple seasons. He spent astonishing £120 million over 4 seasons on players. The problem was of course that he only bought rubbish: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1301712/Buy-buy-Martin-How-ONeill-spent-120million-years-Aston-Villa.html Then the reality hit MON, Milner had to be sold for two reasons: The deal was pretty good (on paper Ireland is a better player than Milner) and two Milner wanted a move. And for not receiving Lerner's backing in that single instance, he quit. Totally forgetting that Lerner has backed him 100% in every s*** transfer move he's made. According to this article, http://bleacherreport.com/articles/375262-randy-lerners-money-talks-at-aston-villa , MON sanctioned his below par players some generous salaries (notice in particular the writing in bold): " However, you don’t have to look too far to identify the main reason for the dramatically higher loss, as the operating expenses jumped by nearly 50% (£34.3m) from £70.8m to £105.1m. The primary driver for this growth was staff costs, which grew by a massive £20.2m from £50.4m to £70.6m in a single year. This was after the 2008 accounts reported that the wage bill had more than doubled to £50m." A good example of this policy is the salary of a very ordinary footballer, John Carew: he netted above £60 000 a week in Villa. So the result of MON's era was that he left ha club in a significantly worse situation economically (read the bleacher report), only to achieve some marginally better results than O Leary. On top of that they played utterly boring football. MON never rotated, and as a consequence he ignored talent and general player development (Curtis Davies, Delph for example), which made the club even more dependent on immediate external buys if the results didn't come. It's no coincidence that it was only after MON left, talents like Albringhton and Clark appeared. And the best part of all, the man himself wants to generously paid too for installing such a havoc. The conclusion is that any club that takes on MON must be willing to give him a tons of money. In return it gets, mediocre players on extremely good wages , s*** football, no talents and huge debt.

This pisses me off. Are you aware of how much sexy football De Jong has taken away from us? f***ing hate that cretin.

Gervinho: "Liverpool? They are a great team, like Arsenal,Chelsea, Man Utd, so let's wait and see at the end of season, things change quickly in football." Gervinho:" The sooner I sign for NUFC, the better. "

He hasn't lied to FA, he said that he took appropriate action based on what he saw at the time. I don't think he's allowed to say "based on what I've since seen on TV I've changed my mind" is he? I thought the appropriate action thing was based on what he thought he saw at the time. Nicely pointed out. And that should be an acceptable excuse for most missed situations, but not for assaults..Hence FA must intervene post match.

Exactly, you cannot have a good angle all the time. It's natural to miss a couple of situations. It's the pathetic attempt to sweep everything under the rug that pisses me of.

This is what I like with our current transfer policy. It's not enough that you're good on the pitch, you have to be a nice guy too. Where does that leave Owen? He was shit on both areas We had to have Souness at the helmet to spot such incompetence.

Doesn't need to be so. FA could sanction a rule that enables them to override referees decisions only in situations where serious violations (three match bans or more) were ignored: Eg. assault, two-footed tackles. Those situations tend to be fairly obvious when watched afterwards on TV, Consequently, they are not difficult to enforce But if the FA deems that the referee has ignored the incident then they must surely be forced to take action on the referee. That must depend on the report given by the referee. Referees should be allowed to make mistakes. What people react on is their refusal to admit that mistakes have been done. They may have valid excuses for not catching the incident, eg only viewable from a certain angle etc.. Doesn't need to be so. FA could sanction a rule that enables them to override referees decisions only in situations where serious violations (three match bans or more) were ignored: Eg. assault, two-footed tackles. Those situations tend to be fairly obvious when watched afterwards on TV, Consequently, they are not difficult to enforce True, I guess they could make an exception in cases of violent conduct. Suppose the only problem with that would be how they identified these cases... would it just be whatever makes the news? I don't think it will be hard to identify those cases at all. Just go through our assaults. Barton and Williamson's cases where fairly obvious. And Colo's assault on Elmander would also been easy to identify afterwards , if he escaped the wrath of the referee, which he didn't. Assaults are in other words easy to spot, because its deviant nature on a football pitch.

Doesn't need to be so. FA could sanction a rule that enables them to override referees decisions only in situations where serious violations (three match bans or more) were ignored: Eg. assault, two-footed tackles. Those situations tend to be fairly obvious when watched afterwards on TV, Consequently, they are not difficult to enforce

Indeed. I've no problems forgiving referees for their mistakes as long as they are willing to admit them. But it seems like they've acquired a kind of "siege mentality ": Everybody is after us, we gotto protect ourselves, never admitting mistakes, keeping up appearances etc.. By doing so, they're actually making the situation much worse. We get less respect for them. Admitting mistakes on the other hand requires balls, and for that you get respect.

I know that FA is tied in this matter. But my point is that there's a difference between believing that you saw the situation, and actually having complete oversight. It is obvious that Clattenburg could not have seen the elbow, if he's done that, he must give Rooney a red. Accordingly, Clattenburg did not see what REALLY did happen. He judged on what he THOUGHT happened. And that's fine in as a main rule: referees must take split decisions, under pressure from both fans and players. Players may block the view, or the referees themselves are far away, due to a counter attack for example. But when dealing with serious violations like the case of Rooney, the FA must have an opportunity to intervene anyways, independently of the referees' report about the situation. It's lack of that rule that frustrates me. Clattenburg made a call based on his perception of what happened, not the FACTS. We on the other hand watched the reality unfold on telly, and could see what really went down. And FA should therefore have the power to step in and make Rooney pay.

This is actually corruption. Man U without Rooney for 4 matches would have seriously dented their winning chances. I'm without words and furious. How is this possible? Clattenburg could impossibly have seen the situation properly, because if he had, he would be forced to give him the red card. The rules are obvious regarding assault. When it comes to assault on the pitch, FA must intervene REGARDLESS of the referees. And referees that obviously fail to react on horrific tackles or assault should be punished themselves. The obvious conclusion is that the who you are and which team you play for(most importantly) have serious outcomes for any reactions from the men in black. In mind I have 3 episodes that could have cost Man U a total of 9 points if the referees had done their obvious duty: * Neville's was not awarded a clear cut 2nd yellow against Wolfes. * Blackpool was up 2-0 against Man U, and was denied a CLEAR CUT penalty * Rooney should have been sent off against Wigan. The situation happened in the 1st half, and could have changed the match outcome. * Rooney absence would have dented their league chances..

Eh? so he snubbed chelsea? does that mean nufc didnt? WHere was that quoted from? Saw it from BBC gossip, but entire article - 'http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1361098/Newcastle-star-Cheik-Tiote-happy-snubbed-Chelsea.html' absolutely nought in there regards to Chelsea mind, odd nonetheless. he snubbed chelsea? does that mean nufc didnt? I think NUFC would have ignored any bid for Titoe. In fact I believe that no bid was even submitted. But a possible scenario is that Tiote's agent has whispered to him that Chelsea was interested. Agents are fucking cretins, so I believe that they're capable of such behavior. If Tiote was a weak soul, that utterance could have been enough to make him hand in a transfer request. Then Chelsea could place a bid. The article could be based on such a situation. But it's just as likely that the journalist is writing fiction.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/newcastle-united/nufc-news/2011/02/28/stephen-ireland-ready-for-everton-game-72703-28249280/ Good news..

Mostly then, still an exaggeration. He's given us two years of quality.

Could be bullocks, but Tiote could have handed in a transfer request. That would have dropped his price..

They're probably aware of this I take this loan as positive news. No way it would have gone through if Barton is not fit to play Everton.