Fantastic news!

[Wullie]

Giving Butt a new contract doesn't mean we're not going to sign a new midfielder. The summer Shearer got his last one-year contract we spent £16m on Michael Owen.

 

Aye, I can really see Mike Ashley sanctioning that one.

 

:lol: modric  :lol:

 

Yeah because he was also trying to sell the club last January when he put up the money for that deal.

 

and now the fans are pissed because he wont spend after they've basically driven him out?

 

flawless logic.

 

He wasn't spending anyway. That's why Nicky Butt is still a first teamer.

 

Butt is still a first-teamer because £6m was spunked on Alan Smith with the Dyer money rather than an actual midfielder.

 

Mmm nope. Butt needed replacing in the summer but Dennis knew better.

 

Yeah, he signed Guthrie. Only a year after the board sanctioned a £5.8m transfer of Barton, as well as giving a big contract to Geremi.

 

So managers have signed, in their time under Mike Ashley four midfielders (or midfielders in the manager's eyes) in Barton, Geremi, Guthrie & Smith...that's not including Nacho Gonzalez.

 

That's not the board's fault that two managers have spent a fair bit on midfielders and yet Butt still plays.

 

He couldn't sign £18m Modric so went for £2m Guthrie? The obvious choice.

 

Which two managers are you on about?

 

Allardyce who signed the first three, and Keegan who signed Guthrie.

 

Blame Keegan, always the easy get out card.

 

Of course, it's all Ashley's fault that we've signed 5 midfielders and yet Butt is first-choice.

 

And Keegan himself said he signed Guthrie after he impressed against us for Bolton.

 

It is Ashley's fault because he didn't allow Keegan to go out and buy the players he wanted (which I'm pretty sure would have included midfielders other than Guthrie).

 

I'd say Modric was an example that we tried, but failed.

 

Oh well, no worries then. That'll comfort me while I sit and watch £500's worth of Championship football next season.

[Guest]

"In his time of owning it, Mike has cleaned up the balance sheets and Newcastle is one of the few clubs that has no debt whatsoever, so that makes it very attractive to an incoming owner." - Keith Harris.

 

I've seen no quotes since then which says otherwise?

 

 

Eh? Ashley's done nothing but whinge for months about the money still owed on transfers (as if every club isn't run that same way).

 

So the club has been saying it still has debts, 3rd-party says it hasn't...how's that the club's fault then?

 

I've got absolutely no idea what you're on about. What's Keith Harris got to do with anything?

 

Well you've just said the club said they'd paid off all their debts, but then said Ashley's been saying for months we're in debt...so what are you on about?

 

They said one thing. Then said another. They lied. It's not rocket science.

 

The most recent quotes I can find are from October saying we're close to being debt-free. If you can show me something from the club which says we're in debt still from after October, I'll believe you.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Giving Butt a new contract doesn't mean we're not going to sign a new midfielder. The summer Shearer got his last one-year contract we spent £16m on Michael Owen.

 

Aye, I can really see Mike Ashley sanctioning that one.

 

:lol: modric :lol:

 

Yeah because he was also trying to sell the club last January when he put up the money for that deal.

 

and now the fans are pissed because he wont spend after they've basically driven him out?

 

flawless logic.

 

He wasn't spending anyway. That's why Nicky Butt is still a first teamer.

 

Butt is still a first-teamer because £6m was spunked on Alan Smith with the Dyer money rather than an actual midfielder.

 

Mmm nope. Butt needed replacing in the summer but Dennis knew better.

 

Yeah, he signed Guthrie. Only a year after the board sanctioned a £5.8m transfer of Barton, as well as giving a big contract to Geremi.

 

So managers have signed, in their time under Mike Ashley four midfielders (or midfielders in the manager's eyes) in Barton, Geremi, Guthrie & Smith...that's not including Nacho Gonzalez.

 

That's not the board's fault that two managers have spent a fair bit on midfielders and yet Butt still plays.

 

He couldn't sign £18m Modric so went for £2m Guthrie? The obvious choice.

 

Modric was available. What other big money centre-mids were part of the transfer merry-go-round this summer? Deco? Oh aye... Chelsea or Newcastle, hmm.

 

I don't really get what your arguing Wullie man. Are you saying he Ashley hasn't/wouldn't spend big on players? He has done - Coloccini is hard evidence of that. And again, tbh, i believed Mort when he said we bid for Modric and i still do.

 

Fair enough, believe what you like. I believe he's a bare faced liar.

 

£10m on one player alone is not "spending big" in my eyes.

 

£6.3m on a left-back, club record.

£10.6m on a centre-back, club record.

£6m on Alan Smith.

£5.6m on a Spanish U-21 striker.

£5.8m on Joey Barton.

£7m+ on Jonas Gutierrez.

 

£7m+ on Jonas? How's that like?

 

He's got nearly all the rest back man.

 

Did we? I counted about 34.3 million on that list. Have we really recouped that much? In all seriousness by the way. Am I forgetting something?

[Mick]

could have said the same thing two months intio his first stint here. then he came back, we had a little movement,different player.

 

ask yourself if it;s his choice, the managers or the lack of effort,guile from midfield teammates that means he is too often the furthest forward of our midfielders ?

 

I don't think he's a very good footballer, he's horrible to watch.  I can't blame those who play with him because when we've had a midfield without him we've had a better one than with him.

 

We haven't lost a game this season when he wasn't playing. 

[Guest]

Giving Butt a new contract doesn't mean we're not going to sign a new midfielder. The summer Shearer got his last one-year contract we spent £16m on Michael Owen.

 

Aye, I can really see Mike Ashley sanctioning that one.

 

:lol: modric  :lol:

 

Yeah because he was also trying to sell the club last January when he put up the money for that deal.

 

and now the fans are pissed because he wont spend after they've basically driven him out?

 

flawless logic.

 

He wasn't spending anyway. That's why Nicky Butt is still a first teamer.

 

Butt is still a first-teamer because £6m was spunked on Alan Smith with the Dyer money rather than an actual midfielder.

 

Mmm nope. Butt needed replacing in the summer but Dennis knew better.

 

Yeah, he signed Guthrie. Only a year after the board sanctioned a £5.8m transfer of Barton, as well as giving a big contract to Geremi.

 

So managers have signed, in their time under Mike Ashley four midfielders (or midfielders in the manager's eyes) in Barton, Geremi, Guthrie & Smith...that's not including Nacho Gonzalez.

 

That's not the board's fault that two managers have spent a fair bit on midfielders and yet Butt still plays.

 

He couldn't sign £18m Modric so went for £2m Guthrie? The obvious choice.

 

Modric was available. What other big money centre-mids were part of the transfer merry-go-round this summer? Deco? Oh aye... Chelsea or Newcastle, hmm.

 

I don't really get what your arguing Wullie man. Are you saying he Ashley hasn't/wouldn't spend big on players? He has done - Coloccini is hard evidence of that. And again, tbh, i believed Mort when he said we bid for Modric and i still do.

 

Fair enough, believe what you like. I believe he's a bare faced liar.

 

£10m on one player alone is not "spending big" in my eyes.

 

£6.3m on a left-back, club record.

£10.6m on a centre-back, club record.

£6m on Alan Smith.

£5.6m on a Spanish U-21 striker.

£5.8m on Joey Barton.

£7m+ on Jonas Gutierrez.

 

£7m+ on Jonas? How's that like?

 

He's got nearly all the rest back man.

 

We've never had a high "net-spend" so why is it only Ashley who seems to be getting this thrown at him?

[Guest firetotheworks]

This is the first time Ive seen this thread today, I clicked on page 1 and started reading. Clicked on page 6 and its a Keegan vs Ashley debate again. Can we not have one thread that doesnt come back to this? Is it too much to ask, seriously.

[Guest]

Giving Butt a new contract doesn't mean we're not going to sign a new midfielder. The summer Shearer got his last one-year contract we spent £16m on Michael Owen.

 

Aye, I can really see Mike Ashley sanctioning that one.

 

:lol: modric  :lol:

 

Yeah because he was also trying to sell the club last January when he put up the money for that deal.

 

and now the fans are pissed because he wont spend after they've basically driven him out?

 

flawless logic.

 

He wasn't spending anyway. That's why Nicky Butt is still a first teamer.

 

Butt is still a first-teamer because £6m was spunked on Alan Smith with the Dyer money rather than an actual midfielder.

 

Mmm nope. Butt needed replacing in the summer but Dennis knew better.

 

Yeah, he signed Guthrie. Only a year after the board sanctioned a £5.8m transfer of Barton, as well as giving a big contract to Geremi.

 

So managers have signed, in their time under Mike Ashley four midfielders (or midfielders in the manager's eyes) in Barton, Geremi, Guthrie & Smith...that's not including Nacho Gonzalez.

 

That's not the board's fault that two managers have spent a fair bit on midfielders and yet Butt still plays.

 

He couldn't sign £18m Modric so went for £2m Guthrie? The obvious choice.

 

Which two managers are you on about?

 

Allardyce who signed the first three, and Keegan who signed Guthrie.

 

Blame Keegan, always the easy get out card.

 

Of course, it's all Ashley's fault that we've signed 5 midfielders and yet Butt is first-choice.

 

And Keegan himself said he signed Guthrie after he impressed against us for Bolton.

 

It is Ashley's fault because he didn't allow Keegan to go out and buy the players he wanted (which I'm pretty sure would have included midfielders other than Guthrie).

 

I'd say Modric was an example that we tried, but failed.

 

Oh well, no worries then. That'll comfort me while I sit and watch £500's worth of Championship football next season.

 

What a sh*t argument.

 

[Wullie]

"In his time of owning it, Mike has cleaned up the balance sheets and Newcastle is one of the few clubs that has no debt whatsoever, so that makes it very attractive to an incoming owner." - Keith Harris.

 

I've seen no quotes since then which says otherwise?

 

 

Eh? Ashley's done nothing but whinge for months about the money still owed on transfers (as if every club isn't run that same way).

 

So the club has been saying it still has debts, 3rd-party says it hasn't...how's that the club's fault then?

 

I've got absolutely no idea what you're on about. What's Keith Harris got to do with anything?

 

Well you've just said the club said they'd paid off all their debts, but then said Ashley's been saying for months we're in debt...so what are you on about?

 

They said one thing. Then said another. They lied. It's not rocket science.

 

The most recent quotes I can find are from October saying we're close to being debt-free. If you can show me something from the club which says we're in debt still from after October, I'll believe you.

 

Along with Keith Harris, I've absolutely no idea what October has to do with it.

[Wullie]

Giving Butt a new contract doesn't mean we're not going to sign a new midfielder. The summer Shearer got his last one-year contract we spent £16m on Michael Owen.

 

Aye, I can really see Mike Ashley sanctioning that one.

 

:lol: modric  :lol:

 

Yeah because he was also trying to sell the club last January when he put up the money for that deal.

 

and now the fans are pissed because he wont spend after they've basically driven him out?

 

flawless logic.

 

He wasn't spending anyway. That's why Nicky Butt is still a first teamer.

 

Butt is still a first-teamer because £6m was spunked on Alan Smith with the Dyer money rather than an actual midfielder.

 

Mmm nope. Butt needed replacing in the summer but Dennis knew better.

 

Yeah, he signed Guthrie. Only a year after the board sanctioned a £5.8m transfer of Barton, as well as giving a big contract to Geremi.

 

So managers have signed, in their time under Mike Ashley four midfielders (or midfielders in the manager's eyes) in Barton, Geremi, Guthrie & Smith...that's not including Nacho Gonzalez.

 

That's not the board's fault that two managers have spent a fair bit on midfielders and yet Butt still plays.

 

He couldn't sign £18m Modric so went for £2m Guthrie? The obvious choice.

 

Modric was available. What other big money centre-mids were part of the transfer merry-go-round this summer? Deco? Oh aye... Chelsea or Newcastle, hmm.

 

I don't really get what your arguing Wullie man. Are you saying he Ashley hasn't/wouldn't spend big on players? He has done - Coloccini is hard evidence of that. And again, tbh, i believed Mort when he said we bid for Modric and i still do.

 

Fair enough, believe what you like. I believe he's a bare faced liar.

 

£10m on one player alone is not "spending big" in my eyes.

 

£6.3m on a left-back, club record.

£10.6m on a centre-back, club record.

£6m on Alan Smith.

£5.6m on a Spanish U-21 striker.

£5.8m on Joey Barton.

£7m+ on Jonas Gutierrez.

 

£7m+ on Jonas? How's that like?

 

He's got nearly all the rest back man.

 

We've never had a high "net-spend" so why is it only Ashley who seems to be getting this thrown at him?

 

Well he's the owner. Who do you suggest the criticism should go towards?

[OzzieMandias]

"In his time of owning it, Mike has cleaned up the balance sheets and Newcastle is one of the few clubs that has no debt whatsoever, so that makes it very attractive to an incoming owner." - Keith Harris.

 

I've seen no quotes since then which says otherwise?

 

 

Eh? Ashley's done nothing but whinge for months about the money still owed on transfers (as if every club isn't run that same way).

 

Translation: Ashley said something about it once.

[Guest]

"In his time of owning it, Mike has cleaned up the balance sheets and Newcastle is one of the few clubs that has no debt whatsoever, so that makes it very attractive to an incoming owner." - Keith Harris.

 

I've seen no quotes since then which says otherwise?

 

 

Eh? Ashley's done nothing but whinge for months about the money still owed on transfers (as if every club isn't run that same way).

 

So the club has been saying it still has debts, 3rd-party says it hasn't...how's that the club's fault then?

 

I've got absolutely no idea what you're on about. What's Keith Harris got to do with anything?

 

Well you've just said the club said they'd paid off all their debts, but then said Ashley's been saying for months we're in debt...so what are you on about?

 

They said one thing. Then said another. They lied. It's not rocket science.

 

The most recent quotes I can find are from October saying we're close to being debt-free. If you can show me something from the club which says we're in debt still from after October, I'll believe you.

 

Along with Keith Harris, I've absolutely no idea what October has to do with it.

 

Because since October, the club's line has been it's debt-free, if you can find something since then where the club has said we're not debt-free, then fine.

[Guest]

Giving Butt a new contract doesn't mean we're not going to sign a new midfielder. The summer Shearer got his last one-year contract we spent £16m on Michael Owen.

 

Aye, I can really see Mike Ashley sanctioning that one.

 

:lol: modric  :lol:

 

Yeah because he was also trying to sell the club last January when he put up the money for that deal.

 

and now the fans are pissed because he wont spend after they've basically driven him out?

 

flawless logic.

 

He wasn't spending anyway. That's why Nicky Butt is still a first teamer.

 

Butt is still a first-teamer because £6m was spunked on Alan Smith with the Dyer money rather than an actual midfielder.

 

Mmm nope. Butt needed replacing in the summer but Dennis knew better.

 

Yeah, he signed Guthrie. Only a year after the board sanctioned a £5.8m transfer of Barton, as well as giving a big contract to Geremi.

 

So managers have signed, in their time under Mike Ashley four midfielders (or midfielders in the manager's eyes) in Barton, Geremi, Guthrie & Smith...that's not including Nacho Gonzalez.

 

That's not the board's fault that two managers have spent a fair bit on midfielders and yet Butt still plays.

 

He couldn't sign £18m Modric so went for £2m Guthrie? The obvious choice.

 

Modric was available. What other big money centre-mids were part of the transfer merry-go-round this summer? Deco? Oh aye... Chelsea or Newcastle, hmm.

 

I don't really get what your arguing Wullie man. Are you saying he Ashley hasn't/wouldn't spend big on players? He has done - Coloccini is hard evidence of that. And again, tbh, i believed Mort when he said we bid for Modric and i still do.

 

Fair enough, believe what you like. I believe he's a bare faced liar.

 

£10m on one player alone is not "spending big" in my eyes.

 

£6.3m on a left-back, club record.

£10.6m on a centre-back, club record.

£6m on Alan Smith.

£5.6m on a Spanish U-21 striker.

£5.8m on Joey Barton.

£7m+ on Jonas Gutierrez.

 

£7m+ on Jonas? How's that like?

 

He's got nearly all the rest back man.

 

We've never had a high "net-spend" so why is it only Ashley who seems to be getting this thrown at him?

 

Well he's the owner. Who do you suggest the criticism should go towards?

 

The manager who didn't replace Dyer properly. Parker was replaced with Barton, Dyer was replaced with Smith.

[Wullie]

Giving Butt a new contract doesn't mean we're not going to sign a new midfielder. The summer Shearer got his last one-year contract we spent £16m on Michael Owen.

 

Aye, I can really see Mike Ashley sanctioning that one.

 

:lol: modric  :lol:

 

Yeah because he was also trying to sell the club last January when he put up the money for that deal.

 

and now the fans are pissed because he wont spend after they've basically driven him out?

 

flawless logic.

 

He wasn't spending anyway. That's why Nicky Butt is still a first teamer.

 

Butt is still a first-teamer because £6m was spunked on Alan Smith with the Dyer money rather than an actual midfielder.

 

Mmm nope. Butt needed replacing in the summer but Dennis knew better.

 

Yeah, he signed Guthrie. Only a year after the board sanctioned a £5.8m transfer of Barton, as well as giving a big contract to Geremi.

 

So managers have signed, in their time under Mike Ashley four midfielders (or midfielders in the manager's eyes) in Barton, Geremi, Guthrie & Smith...that's not including Nacho Gonzalez.

 

That's not the board's fault that two managers have spent a fair bit on midfielders and yet Butt still plays.

 

He couldn't sign £18m Modric so went for £2m Guthrie? The obvious choice.

 

Which two managers are you on about?

 

Allardyce who signed the first three, and Keegan who signed Guthrie.

 

Blame Keegan, always the easy get out card.

 

Of course, it's all Ashley's fault that we've signed 5 midfielders and yet Butt is first-choice.

 

And Keegan himself said he signed Guthrie after he impressed against us for Bolton.

 

It is Ashley's fault because he didn't allow Keegan to go out and buy the players he wanted (which I'm pretty sure would have included midfielders other than Guthrie).

 

I'd say Modric was an example that we tried, but failed.

 

Oh well, no worries then. That'll comfort me while I sit and watch £500's worth of Championship football next season.

 

What a sh*t argument.

 

 

Your "argument" suggests that it's ok to go down with Nicky Butt in midfield because we tried to sign someone last April.

[Guest]

Giving Butt a new contract doesn't mean we're not going to sign a new midfielder. The summer Shearer got his last one-year contract we spent £16m on Michael Owen.

 

Aye, I can really see Mike Ashley sanctioning that one.

 

:lol: modric  :lol:

 

Yeah because he was also trying to sell the club last January when he put up the money for that deal.

 

and now the fans are pissed because he wont spend after they've basically driven him out?

 

flawless logic.

 

He wasn't spending anyway. That's why Nicky Butt is still a first teamer.

 

Butt is still a first-teamer because £6m was spunked on Alan Smith with the Dyer money rather than an actual midfielder.

 

Mmm nope. Butt needed replacing in the summer but Dennis knew better.

 

Yeah, he signed Guthrie. Only a year after the board sanctioned a £5.8m transfer of Barton, as well as giving a big contract to Geremi.

 

So managers have signed, in their time under Mike Ashley four midfielders (or midfielders in the manager's eyes) in Barton, Geremi, Guthrie & Smith...that's not including Nacho Gonzalez.

 

That's not the board's fault that two managers have spent a fair bit on midfielders and yet Butt still plays.

 

He couldn't sign £18m Modric so went for £2m Guthrie? The obvious choice.

 

Which two managers are you on about?

 

Allardyce who signed the first three, and Keegan who signed Guthrie.

 

Blame Keegan, always the easy get out card.

 

Of course, it's all Ashley's fault that we've signed 5 midfielders and yet Butt is first-choice.

 

And Keegan himself said he signed Guthrie after he impressed against us for Bolton.

 

It is Ashley's fault because he didn't allow Keegan to go out and buy the players he wanted (which I'm pretty sure would have included midfielders other than Guthrie).

 

I'd say Modric was an example that we tried, but failed.

 

Oh well, no worries then. That'll comfort me while I sit and watch £500's worth of Championship football next season.

 

What a sh*t argument.

 

 

Your "argument" suggests that it's ok to go down with Nicky Butt in midfield because we tried to sign someone last April.

 

No, my argument is that we didn't replace Dyer properly. If we'd signed say, for example, Diarra last summer rather than Smith, no-one would be worried about Butt being first-choice at the moment.

[Decky]

Giving Butt a new contract doesn't mean we're not going to sign a new midfielder. The summer Shearer got his last one-year contract we spent £16m on Michael Owen.

 

Aye, I can really see Mike Ashley sanctioning that one.

 

:lol: modric  :lol:

 

Yeah because he was also trying to sell the club last January when he put up the money for that deal.

 

and now the fans are pissed because he wont spend after they've basically driven him out?

 

flawless logic.

 

He wasn't spending anyway. That's why Nicky Butt is still a first teamer.

 

Butt is still a first-teamer because £6m was spunked on Alan Smith with the Dyer money rather than an actual midfielder.

 

Mmm nope. Butt needed replacing in the summer but Dennis knew better.

 

Yeah, he signed Guthrie. Only a year after the board sanctioned a £5.8m transfer of Barton, as well as giving a big contract to Geremi.

 

So managers have signed, in their time under Mike Ashley four midfielders (or midfielders in the manager's eyes) in Barton, Geremi, Guthrie & Smith...that's not including Nacho Gonzalez.

 

That's not the board's fault that two managers have spent a fair bit on midfielders and yet Butt still plays.

 

He couldn't sign £18m Modric so went for £2m Guthrie? The obvious choice.

 

Modric was available. What other big money centre-mids were part of the transfer merry-go-round this summer? Deco? Oh aye... Chelsea or Newcastle, hmm.

 

I don't really get what your arguing Wullie man. Are you saying he Ashley hasn't/wouldn't spend big on players? He has done - Coloccini is hard evidence of that. And again, tbh, i believed Mort when he said we bid for Modric and i still do.

 

Fair enough, believe what you like. I believe he's a bare faced liar.

 

£10m on one player alone is not "spending big" in my eyes.

 

£6.3m on a left-back, club record.

£10.6m on a centre-back, club record.

£6m on Alan Smith.

£5.6m on a Spanish U-21 striker.

£5.8m on Joey Barton.

£7m+ on Jonas Gutierrez.

 

£7m+ on Jonas? How's that like?

 

He's got nearly all the rest back man.

 

We've never had a high "net-spend" so why is it only Ashley who seems to be getting this thrown at him?

 

Well he's the owner. Who do you suggest the criticism should go towards?

 

The manager who didn't replace Dyer properly. Parker was replaced with Barton, Dyer was replaced with Smith.

 

He sanctioned the deal so deserves it aswell tbf

[Mick]

 

He sanctioned the deal so deserves it aswell tbf

 

I'm not sure I get that one, who did?

[Guest]

Giving Butt a new contract doesn't mean we're not going to sign a new midfielder. The summer Shearer got his last one-year contract we spent £16m on Michael Owen.

 

Aye, I can really see Mike Ashley sanctioning that one.

 

:lol: modric  :lol:

 

Yeah because he was also trying to sell the club last January when he put up the money for that deal.

 

and now the fans are pissed because he wont spend after they've basically driven him out?

 

flawless logic.

 

He wasn't spending anyway. That's why Nicky Butt is still a first teamer.

 

Butt is still a first-teamer because £6m was spunked on Alan Smith with the Dyer money rather than an actual midfielder.

 

Mmm nope. Butt needed replacing in the summer but Dennis knew better.

 

Yeah, he signed Guthrie. Only a year after the board sanctioned a £5.8m transfer of Barton, as well as giving a big contract to Geremi.

 

So managers have signed, in their time under Mike Ashley four midfielders (or midfielders in the manager's eyes) in Barton, Geremi, Guthrie & Smith...that's not including Nacho Gonzalez.

 

That's not the board's fault that two managers have spent a fair bit on midfielders and yet Butt still plays.

 

He couldn't sign £18m Modric so went for £2m Guthrie? The obvious choice.

 

Modric was available. What other big money centre-mids were part of the transfer merry-go-round this summer? Deco? Oh aye... Chelsea or Newcastle, hmm.

 

I don't really get what your arguing Wullie man. Are you saying he Ashley hasn't/wouldn't spend big on players? He has done - Coloccini is hard evidence of that. And again, tbh, i believed Mort when he said we bid for Modric and i still do.

 

Fair enough, believe what you like. I believe he's a bare faced liar.

 

£10m on one player alone is not "spending big" in my eyes.

 

£6.3m on a left-back, club record.

£10.6m on a centre-back, club record.

£6m on Alan Smith.

£5.6m on a Spanish U-21 striker.

£5.8m on Joey Barton.

£7m+ on Jonas Gutierrez.

 

£7m+ on Jonas? How's that like?

 

He's got nearly all the rest back man.

 

We've never had a high "net-spend" so why is it only Ashley who seems to be getting this thrown at him?

 

Well he's the owner. Who do you suggest the criticism should go towards?

 

The manager who didn't replace Dyer properly. Parker was replaced with Barton, Dyer was replaced with Smith.

 

He sanctioned the deal so deserves it aswell tbf

 

F*cking hell.

 

Abramovich sanctioned the Shevchenko transfer, Randy Lerner sanctioned Villa spending £12m on Milner, David Dein let Wenger spend £20m on Inamoto, Wright & Jeffers. Hang them all!

[Wullie]

"In his time of owning it, Mike has cleaned up the balance sheets and Newcastle is one of the few clubs that has no debt whatsoever, so that makes it very attractive to an incoming owner." - Keith Harris.

 

I've seen no quotes since then which says otherwise?

 

 

Eh? Ashley's done nothing but whinge for months about the money still owed on transfers (as if every club isn't run that same way).

 

So the club has been saying it still has debts, 3rd-party says it hasn't...how's that the club's fault then?

 

I've got absolutely no idea what you're on about. What's Keith Harris got to do with anything?

 

Well you've just said the club said they'd paid off all their debts, but then said Ashley's been saying for months we're in debt...so what are you on about?

 

They said one thing. Then said another. They lied. It's not rocket science.

 

The most recent quotes I can find are from October saying we're close to being debt-free. If you can show me something from the club which says we're in debt still from after October, I'll believe you.

 

Along with Keith Harris, I've absolutely no idea what October has to do with it.

 

Because since October, the club's line has been it's debt-free, if you can find something since then where the club has said we're not debt-free, then fine.

 

What club line? Ashley said in his "woe is me" statement that we still had loads of debt and he wasn't prepared to put any more money in. Are you suggesting that someone else has paid the debt off in the meantime?

 

Keith Harris is not the club - he talks utter shit. Americans, Nigerians, you name it, he's made it up.

[ElDiablo]

Ashley's awesome. Maybe we should call him?

 

http://annieinmn.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/busterbluth.jpg

[Wullie]

Giving Butt a new contract doesn't mean we're not going to sign a new midfielder. The summer Shearer got his last one-year contract we spent £16m on Michael Owen.

 

Aye, I can really see Mike Ashley sanctioning that one.

 

:lol: modric  :lol:

 

Yeah because he was also trying to sell the club last January when he put up the money for that deal.

 

and now the fans are pissed because he wont spend after they've basically driven him out?

 

flawless logic.

 

He wasn't spending anyway. That's why Nicky Butt is still a first teamer.

 

Butt is still a first-teamer because £6m was spunked on Alan Smith with the Dyer money rather than an actual midfielder.

 

Mmm nope. Butt needed replacing in the summer but Dennis knew better.

 

Yeah, he signed Guthrie. Only a year after the board sanctioned a £5.8m transfer of Barton, as well as giving a big contract to Geremi.

 

So managers have signed, in their time under Mike Ashley four midfielders (or midfielders in the manager's eyes) in Barton, Geremi, Guthrie & Smith...that's not including Nacho Gonzalez.

 

That's not the board's fault that two managers have spent a fair bit on midfielders and yet Butt still plays.

 

He couldn't sign £18m Modric so went for £2m Guthrie? The obvious choice.

 

Which two managers are you on about?

 

Allardyce who signed the first three, and Keegan who signed Guthrie.

 

Blame Keegan, always the easy get out card.

 

Of course, it's all Ashley's fault that we've signed 5 midfielders and yet Butt is first-choice.

 

And Keegan himself said he signed Guthrie after he impressed against us for Bolton.

 

It is Ashley's fault because he didn't allow Keegan to go out and buy the players he wanted (which I'm pretty sure would have included midfielders other than Guthrie).

 

I'd say Modric was an example that we tried, but failed.

 

Oh well, no worries then. That'll comfort me while I sit and watch £500's worth of Championship football next season.

 

What a sh*t argument.

 

 

Your "argument" suggests that it's ok to go down with Nicky Butt in midfield because we tried to sign someone last April.

 

No, my argument is that we didn't replace Dyer properly. If we'd signed say, for example, Diarra last summer rather than Smith, no-one would be worried about Butt being first-choice at the moment.

 

So hang on... because we didn't act properly in 2007, we don't have to act at all in 2008? What sort of warped logic is that?

[Tooj]

Ashley's awesome. Maybe we should call him?

 

http://annieinmn.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/busterbluth.jpg

 

Is that Meenzer btw?

[Guest]

"In his time of owning it, Mike has cleaned up the balance sheets and Newcastle is one of the few clubs that has no debt whatsoever, so that makes it very attractive to an incoming owner." - Keith Harris.

 

I've seen no quotes since then which says otherwise?

 

 

Eh? Ashley's done nothing but whinge for months about the money still owed on transfers (as if every club isn't run that same way).

 

So the club has been saying it still has debts, 3rd-party says it hasn't...how's that the club's fault then?

 

I've got absolutely no idea what you're on about. What's Keith Harris got to do with anything?

 

Well you've just said the club said they'd paid off all their debts, but then said Ashley's been saying for months we're in debt...so what are you on about?

 

They said one thing. Then said another. They lied. It's not rocket science.

 

The most recent quotes I can find are from October saying we're close to being debt-free. If you can show me something from the club which says we're in debt still from after October, I'll believe you.

 

Along with Keith Harris, I've absolutely no idea what October has to do with it.

 

Because since October, the club's line has been it's debt-free, if you can find something since then where the club has said we're not debt-free, then fine.

 

What club line? Ashley said in his "woe is me" statement that we still had loads of debt and he wasn't prepared to put any more money in. Are you suggesting that someone else has paid the debt off in the meantime?

 

Keith Harris is not the club - he talks utter s***. Americans, Nigerians, you name it, he's made it up.

 

Those being the Nigerians who were said themselves they were interested...can't speak for the Americans because no-one knows who's looked at the club and who hasn't, so we can't say he's "made them up".

[Wullie]

"In his time of owning it, Mike has cleaned up the balance sheets and Newcastle is one of the few clubs that has no debt whatsoever, so that makes it very attractive to an incoming owner." - Keith Harris.

 

I've seen no quotes since then which says otherwise?

 

 

Eh? Ashley's done nothing but whinge for months about the money still owed on transfers (as if every club isn't run that same way).

 

So the club has been saying it still has debts, 3rd-party says it hasn't...how's that the club's fault then?

 

I've got absolutely no idea what you're on about. What's Keith Harris got to do with anything?

 

Well you've just said the club said they'd paid off all their debts, but then said Ashley's been saying for months we're in debt...so what are you on about?

 

They said one thing. Then said another. They lied. It's not rocket science.

 

The most recent quotes I can find are from October saying we're close to being debt-free. If you can show me something from the club which says we're in debt still from after October, I'll believe you.

 

Along with Keith Harris, I've absolutely no idea what October has to do with it.

 

Because since October, the club's line has been it's debt-free, if you can find something since then where the club has said we're not debt-free, then fine.

 

What club line? Ashley said in his "woe is me" statement that we still had loads of debt and he wasn't prepared to put any more money in. Are you suggesting that someone else has paid the debt off in the meantime?

 

Keith Harris is not the club - he talks utter s***. Americans, Nigerians, you name it, he's made it up.

 

Those being the Nigerians who were said themselves they were interested...can't speak for the Americans because no-one knows who's looked at the club and who hasn't, so we can't say he's "made them up".

 

Who has paid off the rest of the debt then?

[Guest]

Giving Butt a new contract doesn't mean we're not going to sign a new midfielder. The summer Shearer got his last one-year contract we spent £16m on Michael Owen.

 

Aye, I can really see Mike Ashley sanctioning that one.

 

:lol: modric  :lol:

 

Yeah because he was also trying to sell the club last January when he put up the money for that deal.

 

and now the fans are pissed because he wont spend after they've basically driven him out?

 

flawless logic.

 

He wasn't spending anyway. That's why Nicky Butt is still a first teamer.

 

Butt is still a first-teamer because £6m was spunked on Alan Smith with the Dyer money rather than an actual midfielder.

 

Mmm nope. Butt needed replacing in the summer but Dennis knew better.

 

Yeah, he signed Guthrie. Only a year after the board sanctioned a £5.8m transfer of Barton, as well as giving a big contract to Geremi.

 

So managers have signed, in their time under Mike Ashley four midfielders (or midfielders in the manager's eyes) in Barton, Geremi, Guthrie & Smith...that's not including Nacho Gonzalez.

 

That's not the board's fault that two managers have spent a fair bit on midfielders and yet Butt still plays.

 

He couldn't sign £18m Modric so went for £2m Guthrie? The obvious choice.

 

Which two managers are you on about?

 

Allardyce who signed the first three, and Keegan who signed Guthrie.

 

Blame Keegan, always the easy get out card.

 

Of course, it's all Ashley's fault that we've signed 5 midfielders and yet Butt is first-choice.

 

And Keegan himself said he signed Guthrie after he impressed against us for Bolton.

 

It is Ashley's fault because he didn't allow Keegan to go out and buy the players he wanted (which I'm pretty sure would have included midfielders other than Guthrie).

 

I'd say Modric was an example that we tried, but failed.

 

Oh well, no worries then. That'll comfort me while I sit and watch £500's worth of Championship football next season.

 

What a sh*t argument.

 

 

Your "argument" suggests that it's ok to go down with Nicky Butt in midfield because we tried to sign someone last April.

 

No, my argument is that we didn't replace Dyer properly. If we'd signed say, for example, Diarra last summer rather than Smith, no-one would be worried about Butt being first-choice at the moment.

 

So hang on... because we didn't act properly in 2007, we don't have to act at all in 2008? What sort of warped logic is that?

 

We did act in 2008. We tried to sign Modric, and alledgedly Aimar as well.

 

In 94, Keegan tried signing Ferdinand at the same time as Darren Peacock, does that mean, because we didn't sign him until '95 and we ended up with Kitson up front for half a season when he sold Cole, that we blame Keegan for not qualifying for Europe that season?

[Guest]

"In his time of owning it, Mike has cleaned up the balance sheets and Newcastle is one of the few clubs that has no debt whatsoever, so that makes it very attractive to an incoming owner." - Keith Harris.

 

I've seen no quotes since then which says otherwise?

 

 

Eh? Ashley's done nothing but whinge for months about the money still owed on transfers (as if every club isn't run that same way).

 

So the club has been saying it still has debts, 3rd-party says it hasn't...how's that the club's fault then?

 

I've got absolutely no idea what you're on about. What's Keith Harris got to do with anything?

 

Well you've just said the club said they'd paid off all their debts, but then said Ashley's been saying for months we're in debt...so what are you on about?

 

They said one thing. Then said another. They lied. It's not rocket science.

 

The most recent quotes I can find are from October saying we're close to being debt-free. If you can show me something from the club which says we're in debt still from after October, I'll believe you.

 

Along with Keith Harris, I've absolutely no idea what October has to do with it.

 

Because since October, the club's line has been it's debt-free, if you can find something since then where the club has said we're not debt-free, then fine.

 

What club line? Ashley said in his "woe is me" statement that we still had loads of debt and he wasn't prepared to put any more money in. Are you suggesting that someone else has paid the debt off in the meantime?

 

Keith Harris is not the club - he talks utter s***. Americans, Nigerians, you name it, he's made it up.

 

Those being the Nigerians who were said themselves they were interested...can't speak for the Americans because no-one knows who's looked at the club and who hasn't, so we can't say he's "made them up".

 

Who has paid off the rest of the debt then?

 

The "debt" is player transfers which is still owed to clubs. Something every club has. If it's the same interview I'm thinking about he says he paid off £100m but there was still £20m or something left on transfers. Maybe he didn't understand that at the time being new to football.