Crayola Kid

It's a load of drivel though, as we had the second best defence in the league that season despite what the press tell you. We lost the league because Ferdinand's arse fell out, and also Lee stopped scoring for about 3 months too. If we'd have had Shearer for that run-in we would have won it, due to him being a lot tougher mentally than Sir Les. So I can totally understand why Keegan decided to bring him in. I've never heard anyone blame Ferdinand and Lee before. Is this a commonly held view? No. I agree with the point re Ferdinand, and know many others who went home and away every week back then who agree too. He lost it at the worst possible time - a moment of composure from him v Man Utd at home for example, and we'd have made it. Batty in, Clarke out - that was as much a reason as any for results dipping that season. Clarkey played it forward whenever possible, whereas Batty was all about keeping possession and so didnt look for the forward pass as often, or as quickly. The team was better at attacking quickly, Sir Les especially, and so just didnt do as well after that switch. Not sure whether Shearer would have done any better than Les in that run in as it was, but I reckon he'd have argued for getting the ball forward more quickly as a basic tactic

You're not boxing it down. You have to box it down

exactly, even villa flood people forward when they know they can break...been watching for 3 years pardew's tactics of leaving it to 1-2 players to try and break down a defence i think it's finally going to unravel 'cause he no longer has a ba or remy to do it for him Twice when we have managed to get bodies forward, Sissoko has played a rubbish first time pass under no pressure. He does this a lot

Combined, or individually?

Made more tackles than anyone else on our team, according to Who Scored. Proper livewire, and not as lightweight as he looked in photos

Gouffran strolling like a good un as they pass around him

For sure, the thing is, we all know there are costs but the 'net figure' posts and websites dedicated to 'net figures' never include them. Elephant in the room. Net figures as they are given are useful to get a picture of what is being spent and in what direction the investment is going but they arent all they are supposed to be?

It's been suggested that the tranfer policy is incomings must be paid for by outgoings. Any other income will be used for servicing debt and a rainy day fund if we're relegation threatened come January. Happy Face, as someone who pulls an enormous amount of detail from the financial side of how the club is run, can you not factor in some of the cash lost during a transfer, when looking for a net figure over a period of time? I mean, the agent must be paid for, the player takes a cut, a ten million pound transfer can't net a club ten million pounds, can it? I think of the movement of money in these deals as being like the movement of water in a game on 'It's A Knockout', spilling out everywhere. This isn't to say NUFC have spent more than the net amount, but all clubs, because money leaks out every time a player is bought or sold, that's why agents like to tout players around, and why certain agents move certain players as often as possible (or try to at least). Can you put a figure on it? Sure it will vary, but say it was a ten million pound sale - can anyone hazard a guess as to how much the selling club will bank? I know clubs have lots of costs, and some people will say that these payments should be lumped in with wages etc, but for me they are solely brought around by the transfer happening and so should come off the net figure when discussing transfer business over a set period. Ten million pound sale, what do you say? 8 mil in the bank? 7? 9.5? i just whack in the amounts reported when a sale happens. There are no reports of agents fees or owt so not something I could reasonably include and source. Fair enough, and it's the same everywhere (other media, forums), but it's a huge thing to miss when building an overall picture. If a player takes ten percent (a benchmark I've heard often enough?), then over a period where 50m is taken in sales, there are costs of 5m before any payments are made to agents. I imagine it to be around 15 percent, but that's without any specific knowledge other than such as you pick up when reading various sources. Shouldnt be used to defend our club when all clubs are in the same boat, but it does suggest money above that received in sales has been spent this year so far. Still, maybe Tiote will cover that

It's been suggested that the tranfer policy is incomings must be paid for by outgoings. Any other income will be used for servicing debt and a rainy day fund if we're relegation threatened come January. Happy Face, as someone who pulls an enormous amount of detail from the financial side of how the club is run, can you not factor in some of the cash lost during a transfer, when looking for a net figure over a period of time? I mean, the agent must be paid for, the player takes a cut, a ten million pound transfer can't net a club ten million pounds, can it? I think of the movement of money in these deals as being like the movement of water in a game on 'It's A Knockout', spilling out everywhere. This isn't to say NUFC have spent more than the net amount, but all clubs, because money leaks out every time a player is bought or sold, that's why agents like to tout players around, and why certain agents move certain players as often as possible (or try to at least). Can you put a figure on it? Sure it will vary, but say it was a ten million pound sale - can anyone hazard a guess as to how much the selling club will bank? I know clubs have lots of costs, and some people will say that these payments should be lumped in with wages etc, but for me they are solely brought around by the transfer happening and so should come off the net figure when discussing transfer business over a set period. Ten million pound sale, what do you say? 8 mil in the bank? 7? 9.5?

I think Pardew's 'shape' has for a long time been better described as 4 3 2 1, rather than a 4 2 3 1. The role Jonas played, until Gouffran took it over, may have had nominal attacking responsibilities, but was and is more about allowing fullbacks to overlap. In short, most of the line-ups above have one more forward than we will end up playing with, and one less covering-midfielder-shown-in-a-wide-position-on-the-sky-graphics-but-who-actually-sits-in-when-we-break. Three attackers behind a striker? Not likely, IMO. This is why I agree with those who think Colback will play most weeks when fit, I think it suits his game to a tee. It doesnt get the heart racing but going on what Pardew has served up before it's what I think we'll get. Krul Janmaat Colo Willo Haidara Anita/Sissoko Tiote Colback Cabella De Jong Riviere

Mike Ashley needs to up his game if he's going to keep seeing off the young pretenders: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/03/massimo-cellino-leeds-united-paddy-kenny

They were both long journeys home... I'll never forget listening to that Fenton game, genuinely traumatic. Ian, I was a young lad with a season ticket, but no sky tv. I had a new lass though, who's dad had sky, so I went round there. It was in Sunderland. The old man (god rest his soul) was out of his chair, screaming at both goals. What a fucking night. I was out like a shot at full time, me and the lass went to the local to pack as many drinks into an hour as was possible before the pub shut. I couldnt look at him, fuming like. Water under the bridge in the end, married his daughter, got on very well eventually. That was a fucking awful night though. That stupid cunt who lost his dog on youtube brought it all back a year or two ago, as well.

Think about Cabaye. Good player, found his feet, very good player. Current footballing logic dictates he has to go. Has to. Did. The next one will, too. Thats under any owner who isnt 'the proposed scenario'. Imagine a manager who is the equivalent of Cabaye, and somehow we get him. He finds his feet after showing promise in another league. He prospers. He'd have to leave, too. How many players and managers do we watch, as they improve and inevitably leave, before the Devil's deal becomes tempting? I watched the lads leave in the 80's, Waddle, Beardsley, Gascoigne. That was meant to be over, when we were bought out. It's back. The next Keegan, if he was manager, would catch the eye with us amd win the league with someone else. Fuck that man, I'm in for the ride.

I'd take the re-brand, but understand those who wouldn't. For me, football has changed so much already that you may as well take the ride and enjoy it. And in the scenario proposed, we're still called Newcastle, yeah? That's plenty. It would be generations before the legend of the clubs history was more about the new brand. When John Hall talked about a midweek european super league, he wanted us to get on board as he knew those who missed out were toast. I agreed when he said it, but we fell short, and when the real big money arrived we fell away. If we'd have made the jump before the money arrived, and gotten ourselves onto the top table it would have been huge for the club, the fans, the region as a whole. It didnt quite happen, I'd take a second chance under the proposed circumstances. It doesnt change anything that happened in the past, and it would be the only likely way of us matching the teams of the mid-90's and early 00's for skill and excitement. Those level players, if they arent good enough for Man City or whoever, they sit on the bench at a top club now, they don't sign for us. One last point. If we said no, and watched Red Bull Sunderland join the elite instead, would that be enough to make you regret it? Whats the real difference in saying 'you bought the league' and saying 'you won the derby cos you had the world record striker playing for you'?

Fred would raise 5m a season in sponsorhip money, in place of all of the SD signage. Then pay himself 5m a season in wages and dividends. Neither for me.

It's worse than 'for no money'. The out of contract players will get loyalty bonuses for seeing their contracts out, often estimated at around about a years wages.

Remember Glenn Roeders quotes about Oba Martins being on fire in training. Wished at the time of one of the journos present would have thrown back 'Yeah, Glenn, but that's against Titus Bramble...'

They have 10 games left, and they are all cup finals now! Good job Mackems fucking love cup finals!!!1!

Imagine what it would have looked like without Colo! He seems to have noticed that no-one seems capable of making anything happen, but he cant be playmaker from centre half ffs

Leeds situation was unique, in as much as the players Ridsdale brought in were 'leased' and not owned by the club IIRC. They've never recovered from that. Look, I'd rather we didn't go down, but we have too many s*** players on ridiculous wages, and getting relegated would be the ideal opportunity to offload them and start again, as Newcastle found out not too long ago. there was an article in the summer we went down (an agent interviewed by the northern echo, if memory serves), which spelled out some of the less obvious financial implications of selling high earners after relegation. brief example was coloccini. signed for ten mil one year before, paid across 4 years. so we had paid 2.5m, at the time of relegation. the article explained that to sell him, we would have to pay the rest of his fee in full, so 7.5m to pay (fifa regs, no pay, no transfer). then, we'd have to pay a loyalty bonus, likely to be a years wages, to the player if he had not asked to leave - which he would not as he would want the contractual bonus. thats likely to take our outlay to 10m, just to get him to leave. if we got 6m that summer, we'd have paid 4m to weaken our squad, albeit for a wages saving of around 2m (guess). if you want to get any players to leave, they will all cost money to shift if they are under contract. a tricky business, in some situations you will be better off keeping them on your books, maybe hoping for a loan, but this doesnt put anything towards new transfers or wages.

7th is the lowest place that can get Europa, but that means two top 6 clubs getting to the FA cup final - not many of them left, is there?

We were good and pleasing to watch. The only negative today was the defending on crosses. Still can't remember them creating a single chance that wasn't from a cross (freekick aside) which really shows how much Tiote and Anita bossed it. I suppose that's the compromise of asking the fullbacks to push up and provide width, the gaps in behind will be massive if we lose the ball at the wrong moment. The Everton away match was one of the most glaring examples of this, and we have played with this risk 'built in' to whichever formation we have used this season. It's great when it works, I guess!?

I pointed that out earlier, he helped out Anita and Tiote really well today, dropping in the space between their defence and midfield. and fed Remy from not great positions more than once, too. There was one header he dropped perfectly for the striker when it seemed a nothing ball forward (one of the few punts in the game)

I thought we had several long passages of smart one touch play which often threatened to open Hull up. Central midfield was ours, not easily but we won the battle with passing and movement, how often can we say that after a match? Hull don't often give teams more than the odd chance, but today we had 17 shots, so we were doing things right against a team set up to not concede first and foremost. Really enjoyed watching the game for a change, and whilst teams who are better and more attacking than Hull will make more of the gaps we leave, this post-cabaye shape shows promise. I'd like to see them approach Fulham in the exact same way, to see if we can pass around them as well. Even if we go behind, this system is worth persevering with for the foreseeable just to assess it's potential for next season (unless HBA can get back on the pitch, that would require a rethink but would be worth it)

It may be a fraction of the loan but that is not the point, would it be a fraction of the interest? we were paying the bank 6m a year interest before ashley (- by memory alone mind you). that was on less than the current loan to ashley. we couldnt borrow 100m for 6pc, so quite possibly more than that would be payable on a commercial loan.