Everything falling into place?

[Mick]

 

I presume you mean NE5 not me?

 

Its daft anyway, go back 3 months and we were all saying that we needed to build a better squad to get us into the top 5 or 6 and then invest when we have european football. All the press about £50m being available f***** with expectations but its ironic that those who shout and scream about the s**** that Oliver comes out with cant apply the same logic to the national press.

 

I'm sure he didn't mean you. 

 

I'm really struggling to understand the people who are appearing to be gutted because we've spent nothing.  Personally, I was pissed off when we spent money on players who left at a massive loss, we might even make a profit on a few at this rate.

[ChezGiven]

 

Unless you've got a problem as well?

 

I agree with the rest of your post too fwiw.

 

Meet #5, you know the time and place

[ChezGiven]

 

I presume you mean NE5 not me?

 

Its daft anyway, go back 3 months and we were all saying that we needed to build a better squad to get us into the top 5 or 6 and then invest when we have european football. All the press about £50m being available f***** with expectations but its ironic that those who shout and scream about the s**** that Oliver comes out with cant apply the same logic to the national press.

 

I'm sure he didn't mean you. 

 

I'm really struggling to understand the people who are appearing to be gutted because we've spent nothing.  Personally, I was pissed off when we spent money on players who left at a massive loss, we might even make a profit on a few at this rate.

 

Someone said it earlier, we are in danger of becoming a blue-print football club. Whilst i wouldnt go that far, i'm really struggling to see beyond Distin and Ben Haim as players we've missed out on. Neither of those missed opportunities had anything to do with our spending ability.

[Guest SeattleToon]

I think it's also important to note that we now have TWO PROVEN players at every single position....no more Carr at LB, Solano at RB, and inexperienced youngsters elsewhere on the pitch. It's been a long time since we've had that kind of depth.

 

Goalkeppers: Given & Harper

Right Back - Geremi & Carr

Center Back - Taylor, Rozenhal, Cacapa, Ramage

Left Back - Dragutinovic, Babayaro

Right Wing - Milner, Solano

Center Midfielder - Barton, Emre, Butt, Smith

Left Wing - Duff, Zoggy

Strikers - Martins, Owen, Viduka, Ameobi, Luque

 

And note that Big Sam has spent very little money putting this squad together. Three of his signings have been on free transfers (Geremi, Cacapa, and Viduka), two have been offset by sales (Smith & Barton), and the other two will cost less than 5 million pounds in transfer fees combined (Rozenhal & Dragutinovic).

[gazza ladra]

I think it's also important to note that we now have TWO PROVEN players at every single position....no more Carr at LB, Solano at RB, and inexperienced youngsters elsewhere on the pitch. It's been a long time since we've had that kind of depth.

 

 

We've also got quite a bit of versaility.

 

Goalkeppers: Given & Harper

Right Back - Geremi, Carr, Taylor,  Solano

Center Back - Taylor, Rozenhal, Cacapa, Ramage, Dragutinovic

Left Back - Dragutinovic, Babayaro, Duff

Right Wing - Milner, Solano, Smith, Geremi

Center Midfielder - Barton, Emre, Butt, Smith, Zoggy, Geremi, Harper 

Left Wing - Duff, Zoggy, Luque, Milner

Strikers - Martins, Owen, Viduka, Ameobi, Luque, Smith

[Tsunami]

My team for the start of the current season is below. Looks all good but I still want a very good left back and a world class Right winger. I am hoping for Deco and Shorey/Drenthe.

 

 

                Given

 

Gerami Taylor Rozenhal   ?

 

   ?       Smith Barton Luque

 

            Owen Martins

 

Subs: Harps, Dragutinovic, Cacapa, Viduka, Milner, Zog.

 

 

Sorry, but that line up & formation would get overpowered at Bolton & Barton is injured. Luque ahead of Milner & Zog???. Owen & Martins up front will not work as a pair.

 

Your saying Owen and Martins won't work based on what? Two games at the end of the season when Owen just came back from a massive injury surely your joking. Milner does not play on the left wing and Luque now is coming back to his best and at his best he is one of the best left wingers in the world. Also that formation was just a general team I wasn't lining it up against Bolton.

 

Owen & Martins are too similar & they will only be in the same team if Sam plays a 3 & even then there can be no guarantee they would both start.

 

Luque is not one of the best left wingers in the world & IMO it is not even his "best" position (if I had to play him I'd give him a go behind a front 2). If his pre-season performances (forget the goals) are an indication of his best then we'd best get rid.

 

Sorry, but Luque has a long way to go to get a starting berth. Milner can play on the left & so of course can Zog. Both are better options.

[NE5]

Invicta_Toon, that's utter s****!!

 

I wouldn't want my midfielders to be over thirty, but given that good defending is much more about positioning and timing than physical ability, I actually would prefer having some experienced over-30 defenders.

 

After all Bramble and Onyewu both demontrated that being young and strong means nothing if you are always getting caught out of position.

 

Paolo Maldini is still going strong at 39, Nesta is 31, Cannavarro and Materrazzi are 33, Thuram is 35, Gallas is just turning 30, Desailly started for Chelsea until he was 33, Laurent Blanc and Frank LeBoeuf both were effective into their 30s, Baresi played for Milan until he was 37, Costacurta until he was 40....anyway, you get my point.

 

When it comes to defenders, old is not necessarily bad, and arguably better than young and inexperienced.

 

This post rates close to 10/10.  I can guarantee no detractor will have the balls to debate or dispute it on it's own merits but may well hark back to the days before Shepherd and Hall as a crutch defence and attempt to divert the issues addressed.

 

 

You would be wrong then.

 

I can guarantee that no detractor, especially those who weren't around pre - 1992 and think that NUFC have always won trophies galore and the Halls and Shepherd are responsible for bringing an end to decades of glory, would have the balls to dispute that a young quality defender is just as good a buy as an older quality defender, as he can spend his career with you, but whether they are young or old, you have to be prepared to pay a fee if they are under contract. And the competition will be hot if they are good, and the competition will not be so hot if they are not so good.

 

And if they are good, they won't sign for clubs that they think are not going to be successful, or clubs that offer less money than someone else.

 

We did quite well to sign Woodgate. For big money. There was also unknown, or cheap foreigners over the years such as Dumas, Marcelino, Goma, Boumsong, Babayaro, Pistone, Charvet, and younger players such as Bramble, O'Brien, Griffin, as part of a "plan" for those who think everybody but us has a "plan". Lets hope these new defenders are better than most of that little lot, the vast majority of whom were celebrated when arrived because we needed defenders.

 

The bottom line, is that if you want quality, you invariably pay, either with a transfer fee or in wages. Woodgate is the absolute proof. Or rather, if you don't, then your chances of success - depending on your ambition for the club - is seriously diminished.

 

But - at least in terms of the ones who we paid money for, they tried, and backed the manager.

 

 

 

I cant fault that. I do think there is evidence though that Allardyce can get good players for small amounts or on a free. We are lucky to have him and we both know who to thank.

 

As I've said earlier, he's said he can't get the players he wants because we have no European football so it makes sense if he's looking to bring in players that can get us into Europe on short term contracts so he can try for the players he wants in January/next summer.

 

Dismissing people because they're free is stupid when nearly everyone would have taken Campbell and Distin under the same circumstances.

 

Spending money on players you don't want to keep numpties on messageboards happy is not the way forward either, both manager and chairman have said the money is there so I really can't see what your problem is, and before you start I couldn't care less about Shepherd or Hall now, they're history and Ashley will get my full support until I think things are going wrong, that's not 2 weeks after taking over either.

 

I think numpties on message boards - or anywhere for that matter - are people who think that success can be obtained without spending money, people who slate the last board for not spending cash despite spending bucketfuls and are now saying not spending any is the way forward, people who think having a DOF cures all your ills, and biggest of all people who think all you need is a "plan" to be successful and we haven't had one having played in the Champions League, europe regularly and reached a couple of Cup Finals in the last decade.

 

There are 2 possibilities here

 

One is that Ashley came in and knew it would cost 200m quid to buy the club and clear the debt. If this is the case, the slate is clean and he has written this money off and is running the club in the way he sees fit.

 

Two is that he didn't, meaning he's not a shrewd as people are making out ?

 

And another 3rd option, which Vic touched on, is that Allardyce is still thinking in Bolton mode, and not high enough for Newcastle.

 

Which is it ? bear in mind his comment about "they would be stupid not to back me now"

 

 

[TRon]

Invicta_Toon, that's utter s****!!

 

I wouldn't want my midfielders to be over thirty, but given that good defending is much more about positioning and timing than physical ability, I actually would prefer having some experienced over-30 defenders.

 

After all Bramble and Onyewu both demontrated that being young and strong means nothing if you are always getting caught out of position.

 

Paolo Maldini is still going strong at 39, Nesta is 31, Cannavarro and Materrazzi are 33, Thuram is 35, Gallas is just turning 30, Desailly started for Chelsea until he was 33, Laurent Blanc and Frank LeBoeuf both were effective into their 30s, Baresi played for Milan until he was 37, Costacurta until he was 40....anyway, you get my point.

 

When it comes to defenders, old is not necessarily bad, and arguably better than young and inexperienced.

 

This post rates close to 10/10.  I can guarantee no detractor will have the balls to debate or dispute it on it's own merits but may well hark back to the days before Shepherd and Hall as a crutch defence and attempt to divert the issues addressed.

 

 

You would be wrong then.

 

I can guarantee that no detractor, especially those who weren't around pre - 1992 and think that NUFC have always won trophies galore and the Halls and Shepherd are responsible for bringing an end to decades of glory, would have the balls to dispute that a young quality defender is just as good a buy as an older quality defender, as he can spend his career with you, but whether they are young or old, you have to be prepared to pay a fee if they are under contract. And the competition will be hot if they are good, and the competition will not be so hot if they are not so good.

 

And if they are good, they won't sign for clubs that they think are not going to be successful, or clubs that offer less money than someone else.

 

We did quite well to sign Woodgate. For big money. There was also unknown, or cheap foreigners over the years such as Dumas, Marcelino, Goma, Boumsong, Babayaro, Pistone, Charvet, and younger players such as Bramble, O'Brien, Griffin, as part of a "plan" for those who think everybody but us has a "plan". Lets hope these new defenders are better than most of that little lot, the vast majority of whom were celebrated when arrived because we needed defenders.

 

The bottom line, is that if you want quality, you invariably pay, either with a transfer fee or in wages. Woodgate is the absolute proof. Or rather, if you don't, then your chances of success - depending on your ambition for the club - is seriously diminished.

 

But - at least in terms of the ones who we paid money for, they tried, and backed the manager.

 

 

 

Your argument is pie in the sky thinking and not based on realism. Yes we would prefer top younger defenders but at this moment in time following two years of inept leadership they won't come. Allardyce wanted Haim but he chose Chelsea. FFS even golden oldie Sammi Hypia turned us down. So which top defenders did you have in mind? Please don't hark to the past when we signed Woodgate as an example. That is no use to us at this moment in  time.

 

Right now, which top young defender should we be buying? John Terry? Maybe where you live in Zumba Bumba land you might think it's a possibility?

 

 

[Cronky]

Invicta_Toon, that's utter shite!!

 

I wouldn't want my midfielders to be over thirty, but given that good defending is much more about positioning and timing than physical ability, I actually would prefer having some experienced over-30 defenders.

 

After all Bramble and Onyewu both demontrated that being young and strong means nothing if you are always getting caught out of position.

 

Paolo Maldini is still going strong at 39, Nesta is 31, Cannavarro and Materrazzi are 33, Thuram is 35, Gallas is just turning 30, Desailly started for Chelsea until he was 33, Laurent Blanc and Frank LeBoeuf both were effective into their 30s, Baresi played for Milan until he was 37, Costacurta until he was 40....anyway, you get my point.

 

When it comes to defenders, old is not necessarily bad, and arguably better than young and inexperienced.

 

no coincidence you only name premiership defenders from Chelsea, who play so deep you don't exactly need to be quick

 

 

evra 26

heinze 29

vidic 26

brown 27

ferdinand 28

ben haim 25

carvalho 29

terry 27

agger 23

aurelio 27

toure 26

eboue 24

chimbonda 27

king 27

meite 27

samuel 26

yobo 27

lescott 25

shorey 26

bouma 28

huth 23

pogatetz 24

woodgate 27

rozehnal 27

 

 

 

What strikes me about that list is they're nearly all in their late 20's, and the very youngest is 23. It's asking a lot of Taylor at 21 to do a job for us at the top level in the Premiership, and you can see why Allardyce is looking for experience.

[Baggio]

Invicta_Toon, that's utter s****!!

 

I wouldn't want my midfielders to be over thirty, but given that good defending is much more about positioning and timing than physical ability, I actually would prefer having some experienced over-30 defenders.

 

After all Bramble and Onyewu both demontrated that being young and strong means nothing if you are always getting caught out of position.

 

Paolo Maldini is still going strong at 39, Nesta is 31, Cannavarro and Materrazzi are 33, Thuram is 35, Gallas is just turning 30, Desailly started for Chelsea until he was 33, Laurent Blanc and Frank LeBoeuf both were effective into their 30s, Baresi played for Milan until he was 37, Costacurta until he was 40....anyway, you get my point.

 

When it comes to defenders, old is not necessarily bad, and arguably better than young and inexperienced.

 

This post rates close to 10/10.  I can guarantee no detractor will have the balls to debate or dispute it on it's own merits but may well hark back to the days before Shepherd and Hall as a crutch defence and attempt to divert the issues addressed.

 

 

You would be wrong then.

 

I can guarantee that no detractor, especially those who weren't around pre - 1992 and think that NUFC have always won trophies galore and the Halls and Shepherd are responsible for bringing an end to decades of glory, would have the balls to dispute that a young quality defender is just as good a buy as an older quality defender, as he can spend his career with you, but whether they are young or old, you have to be prepared to pay a fee if they are under contract. And the competition will be hot if they are good, and the competition will not be so hot if they are not so good.

 

And if they are good, they won't sign for clubs that they think are not going to be successful, or clubs that offer less money than someone else.

 

We did quite well to sign Woodgate. For big money. There was also unknown, or cheap foreigners over the years such as Dumas, Marcelino, Goma, Boumsong, Babayaro, Pistone, Charvet, and younger players such as Bramble, O'Brien, Griffin, as part of a "plan" for those who think everybody but us has a "plan". Lets hope these new defenders are better than most of that little lot, the vast majority of whom were celebrated when arrived because we needed defenders.

 

The bottom line, is that if you want quality, you invariably pay, either with a transfer fee or in wages. Woodgate is the absolute proof. Or rather, if you don't, then your chances of success - depending on your ambition for the club - is seriously diminished.

 

But - at least in terms of the ones who we paid money for, they tried, and backed the manager.

 

 

 

I cant fault that. I do think there is evidence though that Allardyce can get good players for small amounts or on a free. We are lucky to have him and we both know who to thank.

 

As I've said earlier, he's said he can't get the players he wants because we have no European football so it makes sense if he's looking to bring in players that can get us into Europe on short term contracts so he can try for the players he wants in January/next summer.

 

Dismissing people because they're free is stupid when nearly everyone would have taken Campbell and Distin under the same circumstances.

 

Spending money on players you don't want to keep numpties on messageboards happy is not the way forward either, both manager and chairman have said the money is there so I really can't see what your problem is, and before you start I couldn't care less about Shepherd or Hall now, they're history and Ashley will get my full support until I think things are going wrong, that's not 2 weeks after taking over either.

 

I think numpties on message boards - or anywhere for that matter - are people who think that success can be obtained without spending money, people who slate the last board for not spending cash despite spending bucketfuls and are now saying not spending any is the way forward, people who think having a DOF cures all your ills, and biggest of all people who think all you need is a "plan" to be successful and we haven't had one having played in the Champions League, europe regularly and reached a couple of Cup Finals in the last decade.

 

There are 2 possibilities here

 

One is that Ashley came in and knew it would cost 200m quid to buy the club and clear the debt. If this is the case, the slate is clean and he has written this money off and is running the club in the way he sees fit.

 

Two is that he didn't, meaning he's not a shrewd as people are making out ?

 

And another 3rd option, which Vic touched on, is that Allardyce is still thinking in Bolton mode, and not high enough for Newcastle.

 

Which is it ? bear in mind his comment about "they would be stupid not to back me now"

 

 

 

He's said he's got money but the players he wants want come because we have no European football - You seem to be ignoring this and trying to get it through to you is like banging your head against a brick wall.

 

Do you think Allardyce is lying?

[Baggio]

Invicta_Toon, that's utter s****!!

 

I wouldn't want my midfielders to be over thirty, but given that good defending is much more about positioning and timing than physical ability, I actually would prefer having some experienced over-30 defenders.

 

After all Bramble and Onyewu both demontrated that being young and strong means nothing if you are always getting caught out of position.

 

Paolo Maldini is still going strong at 39, Nesta is 31, Cannavarro and Materrazzi are 33, Thuram is 35, Gallas is just turning 30, Desailly started for Chelsea until he was 33, Laurent Blanc and Frank LeBoeuf both were effective into their 30s, Baresi played for Milan until he was 37, Costacurta until he was 40....anyway, you get my point.

 

When it comes to defenders, old is not necessarily bad, and arguably better than young and inexperienced.

 

This post rates close to 10/10.  I can guarantee no detractor will have the balls to debate or dispute it on it's own merits but may well hark back to the days before Shepherd and Hall as a crutch defence and attempt to divert the issues addressed.

 

 

You would be wrong then.

 

I can guarantee that no detractor, especially those who weren't around pre - 1992 and think that NUFC have always won trophies galore and the Halls and Shepherd are responsible for bringing an end to decades of glory, would have the balls to dispute that a young quality defender is just as good a buy as an older quality defender, as he can spend his career with you, but whether they are young or old, you have to be prepared to pay a fee if they are under contract. And the competition will be hot if they are good, and the competition will not be so hot if they are not so good.

 

And if they are good, they won't sign for clubs that they think are not going to be successful, or clubs that offer less money than someone else.

 

We did quite well to sign Woodgate. For big money. There was also unknown, or cheap foreigners over the years such as Dumas, Marcelino, Goma, Boumsong, Babayaro, Pistone, Charvet, and younger players such as Bramble, O'Brien, Griffin, as part of a "plan" for those who think everybody but us has a "plan". Lets hope these new defenders are better than most of that little lot, the vast majority of whom were celebrated when arrived because we needed defenders.

 

The bottom line, is that if you want quality, you invariably pay, either with a transfer fee or in wages. Woodgate is the absolute proof. Or rather, if you don't, then your chances of success - depending on your ambition for the club - is seriously diminished.

 

But - at least in terms of the ones who we paid money for, they tried, and backed the manager.

 

 

 

Your argument is pie in the sky thinking and not based on realism. Yes we would prefer top younger defenders but at this moment in time following two years of inept leadership they won't come. Allardyce wanted Haim but he chose Chelsea. FFS even golden oldie Sammi Hypia turned us down. So which top defenders did you have in mind? Please don't hark to the past when we signed Woodgate as an example. That is no use to us at this moment in  time.

 

Right now, which top young defender should we be buying? John Terry? Maybe where you live in Zumba Bumba land you might think it's a possibility?

 

 

 

Whatever Ashley does he won't be happy, simply because it's not Shepherd.

 

He was moaning that he might buy Ronaldinho and Deco the other week ffs.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Invicta_Toon, that's utter s****!!

 

I wouldn't want my midfielders to be over thirty, but given that good defending is much more about positioning and timing than physical ability, I actually would prefer having some experienced over-30 defenders.

 

After all Bramble and Onyewu both demontrated that being young and strong means nothing if you are always getting caught out of position.

 

Paolo Maldini is still going strong at 39, Nesta is 31, Cannavarro and Materrazzi are 33, Thuram is 35, Gallas is just turning 30, Desailly started for Chelsea until he was 33, Laurent Blanc and Frank LeBoeuf both were effective into their 30s, Baresi played for Milan until he was 37, Costacurta until he was 40....anyway, you get my point.

 

When it comes to defenders, old is not necessarily bad, and arguably better than young and inexperienced.

 

This post rates close to 10/10.  I can guarantee no detractor will have the balls to debate or dispute it on it's own merits but may well hark back to the days before Shepherd and Hall as a crutch defence and attempt to divert the issues addressed.

 

 

You would be wrong then.

 

I can guarantee that no detractor, especially those who weren't around pre - 1992 and think that NUFC have always won trophies galore and the Halls and Shepherd are responsible for bringing an end to decades of glory, would have the balls to dispute that a young quality defender is just as good a buy as an older quality defender, as he can spend his career with you, but whether they are young or old, you have to be prepared to pay a fee if they are under contract. And the competition will be hot if they are good, and the competition will not be so hot if they are not so good.

 

And if they are good, they won't sign for clubs that they think are not going to be successful, or clubs that offer less money than someone else.

 

We did quite well to sign Woodgate. For big money. There was also unknown, or cheap foreigners over the years such as Dumas, Marcelino, Goma, Boumsong, Babayaro, Pistone, Charvet, and younger players such as Bramble, O'Brien, Griffin, as part of a "plan" for those who think everybody but us has a "plan". Lets hope these new defenders are better than most of that little lot, the vast majority of whom were celebrated when arrived because we needed defenders.

 

The bottom line, is that if you want quality, you invariably pay, either with a transfer fee or in wages. Woodgate is the absolute proof. Or rather, if you don't, then your chances of success - depending on your ambition for the club - is seriously diminished.

 

But - at least in terms of the ones who we paid money for, they tried, and backed the manager.

 

 

 

I cant fault that. I do think there is evidence though that Allardyce can get good players for small amounts or on a free. We are lucky to have him and we both know who to thank.

 

As I've said earlier, he's said he can't get the players he wants because we have no European football so it makes sense if he's looking to bring in players that can get us into Europe on short term contracts so he can try for the players he wants in January/next summer.

 

Dismissing people because they're free is stupid when nearly everyone would have taken Campbell and Distin under the same circumstances.

 

Spending money on players you don't want to keep numpties on messageboards happy is not the way forward either, both manager and chairman have said the money is there so I really can't see what your problem is, and before you start I couldn't care less about Shepherd or Hall now, they're history and Ashley will get my full support until I think things are going wrong, that's not 2 weeks after taking over either.

 

I think numpties on message boards - or anywhere for that matter - are people who think that success can be obtained without spending money, people who slate the last board for not spending cash despite spending bucketfuls and are now saying not spending any is the way forward, people who think having a DOF cures all your ills, and biggest of all people who think all you need is a "plan" to be successful and we haven't had one having played in the Champions League, europe regularly and reached a couple of Cup Finals in the last decade.

 

There are 2 possibilities here

 

One is that Ashley came in and knew it would cost 200m quid to buy the club and clear the debt. If this is the case, the slate is clean and he has written this money off and is running the club in the way he sees fit.

 

Two is that he didn't, meaning he's not a shrewd as people are making out ?

 

And another 3rd option, which Vic touched on, is that Allardyce is still thinking in Bolton mode, and not high enough for Newcastle.

 

Which is it ? bear in mind his comment about "they would be stupid not to back me now"

 

 

 

He's said he's got money but the players he wants want come because we have no European football - You seem to be ignoring this and trying to get it through to you is like banging your head against a brick wall.

 

Do you think Allardyce is lying?

 

If you look at our dealings in the past we managed to sweeten the lack of Euopean/Champions League football through grossly exaggerated wages and minimum release clauses (means to an end).

 

If Mort/Ashley/Sam have put a stop to this and offered a fair wage but no 'compensation wages' as it were then it has to be a good thing and falls in the middle of your two arguments.

 

So I wouldn't say Sam is lying, but under the Freddy regime I reckon one or two of these players would have been persuaded to sign due to our 'ambtion'.

[NE5]

Invicta_Toon, that's utter s****!!

 

I wouldn't want my midfielders to be over thirty, but given that good defending is much more about positioning and timing than physical ability, I actually would prefer having some experienced over-30 defenders.

 

After all Bramble and Onyewu both demontrated that being young and strong means nothing if you are always getting caught out of position.

 

Paolo Maldini is still going strong at 39, Nesta is 31, Cannavarro and Materrazzi are 33, Thuram is 35, Gallas is just turning 30, Desailly started for Chelsea until he was 33, Laurent Blanc and Frank LeBoeuf both were effective into their 30s, Baresi played for Milan until he was 37, Costacurta until he was 40....anyway, you get my point.

 

When it comes to defenders, old is not necessarily bad, and arguably better than young and inexperienced.

 

This post rates close to 10/10.  I can guarantee no detractor will have the balls to debate or dispute it on it's own merits but may well hark back to the days before Shepherd and Hall as a crutch defence and attempt to divert the issues addressed.

 

 

You would be wrong then.

 

I can guarantee that no detractor, especially those who weren't around pre - 1992 and think that NUFC have always won trophies galore and the Halls and Shepherd are responsible for bringing an end to decades of glory, would have the balls to dispute that a young quality defender is just as good a buy as an older quality defender, as he can spend his career with you, but whether they are young or old, you have to be prepared to pay a fee if they are under contract. And the competition will be hot if they are good, and the competition will not be so hot if they are not so good.

 

And if they are good, they won't sign for clubs that they think are not going to be successful, or clubs that offer less money than someone else.

 

We did quite well to sign Woodgate. For big money. There was also unknown, or cheap foreigners over the years such as Dumas, Marcelino, Goma, Boumsong, Babayaro, Pistone, Charvet, and younger players such as Bramble, O'Brien, Griffin, as part of a "plan" for those who think everybody but us has a "plan". Lets hope these new defenders are better than most of that little lot, the vast majority of whom were celebrated when arrived because we needed defenders.

 

The bottom line, is that if you want quality, you invariably pay, either with a transfer fee or in wages. Woodgate is the absolute proof. Or rather, if you don't, then your chances of success - depending on your ambition for the club - is seriously diminished.

 

But - at least in terms of the ones who we paid money for, they tried, and backed the manager.

 

 

 

Your argument is pie in the sky thinking and not based on realism. Yes we would prefer top younger defenders but at this moment in time following two years of inept leadership they won't come. Allardyce wanted Haim but he chose Chelsea. FFS even golden oldie Sammi Hypia turned us down. So which top defenders did you have in mind? Please don't hark to the past when we signed Woodgate as an example. That is no use to us at this moment in  time.

 

Right now, which top young defender should we be buying? John Terry? Maybe where you live in Zumba Bumba land you might think it's a possibility?

 

 

Sorry, but I don't accept a club like Newcastle United, with our status now as a football club after the last 15 years where we have showed our ambition and made ourselves known to every supporter in europe, can't attract top footballers, whether we are temporarily out of europe or not.

 

That is realistic.

 

What I state is plain, simple, fact. Quality invariably costs money. And if you aren't prepared to show it, the best players will go elsewhere. And Newcastle United are quite simply - now - one of the biggest clubs in the country and ought to be going to clubs and bidding for the players he wants, and buying the best players from the smaller clubs. What is really making me smile is people appearing to accept that the only touchable players are those out of contract. What utter bollocks.

 

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a player such as Curtis Davies [for instance] would prefer to remain where he is now rather than come to a club like Newcastle ? We've just done it with Barton, but that was easy because Man City wanted to offload him.

The simple fact is, this has all the indications of him being set a limited budget, and possibly a lower one that the old board did. Maybe they will learn, maybe this is wrong, maybe it is correct and fans reaction may make them realise they are wrong.

 

This is realistic. And the only people who can change this perception, and I'm far from the only one who has it, are the board themselves. And don't confuse the fact that I'm saying we should spend money as saying I'm supporting spending it for the sake of it, I don't, it depends on the managers judgement. I know poor judgements have been made in the past with the clubs money, in a buying and selling sense, I've been saying it for years, but you have to back your manager, and we are one of the clubs able to back them more than most. Providing they want to, that is.

 

I can understand Haim choosing Chelsea before us, even though personally I think he's mad, and after a few months of sitting on Chelseas bench may come to the same conclusion.

 

Allardyce will make a good job with what he has got and been given, but is that enough for you ?

 

 

[Guest alex]

I love the way people refer to him as Haim as though Ben is his first name. My mate used to do the same with (Lua) Lua Carry on now fellas

[NE5]

Invicta_Toon, that's utter s****!!

 

I wouldn't want my midfielders to be over thirty, but given that good defending is much more about positioning and timing than physical ability, I actually would prefer having some experienced over-30 defenders.

 

After all Bramble and Onyewu both demontrated that being young and strong means nothing if you are always getting caught out of position.

 

Paolo Maldini is still going strong at 39, Nesta is 31, Cannavarro and Materrazzi are 33, Thuram is 35, Gallas is just turning 30, Desailly started for Chelsea until he was 33, Laurent Blanc and Frank LeBoeuf both were effective into their 30s, Baresi played for Milan until he was 37, Costacurta until he was 40....anyway, you get my point.

 

When it comes to defenders, old is not necessarily bad, and arguably better than young and inexperienced.

 

This post rates close to 10/10.  I can guarantee no detractor will have the balls to debate or dispute it on it's own merits but may well hark back to the days before Shepherd and Hall as a crutch defence and attempt to divert the issues addressed.

 

 

You would be wrong then.

 

I can guarantee that no detractor, especially those who weren't around pre - 1992 and think that NUFC have always won trophies galore and the Halls and Shepherd are responsible for bringing an end to decades of glory, would have the balls to dispute that a young quality defender is just as good a buy as an older quality defender, as he can spend his career with you, but whether they are young or old, you have to be prepared to pay a fee if they are under contract. And the competition will be hot if they are good, and the competition will not be so hot if they are not so good.

 

And if they are good, they won't sign for clubs that they think are not going to be successful, or clubs that offer less money than someone else.

 

We did quite well to sign Woodgate. For big money. There was also unknown, or cheap foreigners over the years such as Dumas, Marcelino, Goma, Boumsong, Babayaro, Pistone, Charvet, and younger players such as Bramble, O'Brien, Griffin, as part of a "plan" for those who think everybody but us has a "plan". Lets hope these new defenders are better than most of that little lot, the vast majority of whom were celebrated when arrived because we needed defenders.

 

The bottom line, is that if you want quality, you invariably pay, either with a transfer fee or in wages. Woodgate is the absolute proof. Or rather, if you don't, then your chances of success - depending on your ambition for the club - is seriously diminished.

 

But - at least in terms of the ones who we paid money for, they tried, and backed the manager.

 

 

 

Your argument is pie in the sky thinking and not based on realism. Yes we would prefer top younger defenders but at this moment in time following two years of inept leadership they won't come. Allardyce wanted Haim but he chose Chelsea. FFS even golden oldie Sammi Hypia turned us down. So which top defenders did you have in mind? Please don't hark to the past when we signed Woodgate as an example. That is no use to us at this moment in  time.

 

Right now, which top young defender should we be buying? John Terry? Maybe where you live in Zumba Bumba land you might think it's a possibility?

 

 

Whatever Ashley does he won't be happy, simply because it's not Shepherd.

 

He was moaning that he might buy Ronaldinho and Deco the other week ffs.

 

And exactly how many people - including you - have moaned about buying "trophy players "

 

You have moaned to me on numerous occasions that we didn't buy Miguel instead of Carr ?

 

What is the difference between buying Carr instead of Miguel, and these cheap foreigners that we are hunting right now instead of a proven quality player for a fee proportionate to his talent and age ? Accepting the fact that we now are supposed to have someone with money and more business expertise and are better than the old board . So is it wrong to have more expectation.

What about my comment that Ashley came in knowing about the debt and wrote off the debt, or if he didn't then he isn't so astute as you are trusting him to be ?

 

If you think I'm applying double standards, which I'm not my stance is the same as always ie I don't believe in this trophy signing bollocks I think quality is quality and without it you are nowhere so you have to try and get it , but you won't get more of a double standard than what I've posted above. I could equally say that numerous people on here are now applying standards of consideration and understanding to Ashley that they never gave Shepherd and Hall, who had proved they at least had ambition for the club.

 

I've nowt to prove to anyone ref your daft comment about only being happy if its Shepherd, I sold Ashley my shares. But right now, having seen two good managers leave this club in the past, I know when I see the danger signs. Do you ?

 

 

[Mick]

 

Sorry, but I don't accept a club like Newcastle United, with our status now as a football club after the last 15 years where we have showed our ambition and made ourselves known to every supporter in europe, can't attract top footballers, whether we are temporarily out of europe or not.

 

That is realistic.

 

What I state is plain, simple, fact. Quality invariably costs money. And if you aren't prepared to show it, the best players will go elsewhere. And Newcastle United are quite simply - now - one of the biggest clubs in the country and ought to be going to clubs and bidding for the players he wants, and buying the best players from the smaller clubs. What is really making me smile is people appearing to accept that the only touchable players are those out of contract. What utter bollocks.

 

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a player such as Curtis Davies [for instance] would prefer to remain where he is now rather than come to a club like Newcastle ? We've just done it with Barton, but that was easy because Man City wanted to offload him.

The simple fact is, this has all the indications of him being set a limited budget, and possibly a lower one that the old board did. Maybe they will learn, maybe this is wrong, maybe it is correct and fans reaction may make them realise they are wrong.

 

This is realistic. And the only people who can change this perception, and I'm far from the only one who has it, are the board themselves. And don't confuse the fact that I'm saying we should spend money as saying I'm supporting spending it for the sake of it, I don't, it depends on the managers judgement. I know poor judgements have been made in the past with the clubs money, in a buying and selling sense, I've been saying it for years, but you have to back your manager, and we are one of the clubs able to back them more than most. Providing they want to, that is.

 

I can understand Haim choosing Chelsea before us, even though personally I think he's mad, and after a few months of sitting on Chelseas bench may come to the same conclusion.

 

Allardyce will make a good job with what he has got and been given, but is that enough for you ?

 

 

 

I've never seen "fact" used so often to express an opinion, it's your opinion that quality invariably costs money, it can cost money but you can also get it on a free, it's your opinion that Allardyce has been set a budget yet we're being told from within the club he hasn't.

 

None of that is fact, it's an opinion.

[NE5]

Invicta_Toon, that's utter s****!!

 

I wouldn't want my midfielders to be over thirty, but given that good defending is much more about positioning and timing than physical ability, I actually would prefer having some experienced over-30 defenders.

 

After all Bramble and Onyewu both demontrated that being young and strong means nothing if you are always getting caught out of position.

 

Paolo Maldini is still going strong at 39, Nesta is 31, Cannavarro and Materrazzi are 33, Thuram is 35, Gallas is just turning 30, Desailly started for Chelsea until he was 33, Laurent Blanc and Frank LeBoeuf both were effective into their 30s, Baresi played for Milan until he was 37, Costacurta until he was 40....anyway, you get my point.

 

When it comes to defenders, old is not necessarily bad, and arguably better than young and inexperienced.

 

This post rates close to 10/10.  I can guarantee no detractor will have the balls to debate or dispute it on it's own merits but may well hark back to the days before Shepherd and Hall as a crutch defence and attempt to divert the issues addressed.

 

 

You would be wrong then.

 

I can guarantee that no detractor, especially those who weren't around pre - 1992 and think that NUFC have always won trophies galore and the Halls and Shepherd are responsible for bringing an end to decades of glory, would have the balls to dispute that a young quality defender is just as good a buy as an older quality defender, as he can spend his career with you, but whether they are young or old, you have to be prepared to pay a fee if they are under contract. And the competition will be hot if they are good, and the competition will not be so hot if they are not so good.

 

And if they are good, they won't sign for clubs that they think are not going to be successful, or clubs that offer less money than someone else.

 

We did quite well to sign Woodgate. For big money. There was also unknown, or cheap foreigners over the years such as Dumas, Marcelino, Goma, Boumsong, Babayaro, Pistone, Charvet, and younger players such as Bramble, O'Brien, Griffin, as part of a "plan" for those who think everybody but us has a "plan". Lets hope these new defenders are better than most of that little lot, the vast majority of whom were celebrated when arrived because we needed defenders.

 

The bottom line, is that if you want quality, you invariably pay, either with a transfer fee or in wages. Woodgate is the absolute proof. Or rather, if you don't, then your chances of success - depending on your ambition for the club - is seriously diminished.

 

But - at least in terms of the ones who we paid money for, they tried, and backed the manager.

 

 

 

I cant fault that. I do think there is evidence though that Allardyce can get good players for small amounts or on a free. We are lucky to have him and we both know who to thank.

 

As I've said earlier, he's said he can't get the players he wants because we have no European football so it makes sense if he's looking to bring in players that can get us into Europe on short term contracts so he can try for the players he wants in January/next summer.

 

Dismissing people because they're free is stupid when nearly everyone would have taken Campbell and Distin under the same circumstances.

 

Spending money on players you don't want to keep numpties on messageboards happy is not the way forward either, both manager and chairman have said the money is there so I really can't see what your problem is, and before you start I couldn't care less about Shepherd or Hall now, they're history and Ashley will get my full support until I think things are going wrong, that's not 2 weeks after taking over either.

 

I think numpties on message boards - or anywhere for that matter - are people who think that success can be obtained without spending money, people who slate the last board for not spending cash despite spending bucketfuls and are now saying not spending any is the way forward, people who think having a DOF cures all your ills, and biggest of all people who think all you need is a "plan" to be successful and we haven't had one having played in the Champions League, europe regularly and reached a couple of Cup Finals in the last decade.

 

There are 2 possibilities here

 

One is that Ashley came in and knew it would cost 200m quid to buy the club and clear the debt. If this is the case, the slate is clean and he has written this money off and is running the club in the way he sees fit.

 

Two is that he didn't, meaning he's not a shrewd as people are making out ?

 

And another 3rd option, which Vic touched on, is that Allardyce is still thinking in Bolton mode, and not high enough for Newcastle.

 

Which is it ? bear in mind his comment about "they would be stupid not to back me now"

 

 

 

He's said he's got money but the players he wants want come because we have no European football - You seem to be ignoring this and trying to get it through to you is like banging your head against a brick wall.

 

Do you think Allardyce is lying?

 

If you look at our dealings in the past we managed to sweeten the lack of Euopean/Champions League football through grossly exaggerated wages and minimum release clauses (means to an end).

 

If Mort/Ashley/Sam have put a stop to this and offered a fair wage but no 'compensation wages' as it were then it has to be a good thing and falls in the middle of your two arguments.

 

So I wouldn't say Sam is lying, but under the Freddy regime I reckon one or two of these players would have been persuaded to sign due to our 'ambtion'.

 

 

Be careful you aren't labelled a Shepherd lover or anything else similarly daft, simply for pointing out something which is a very real possibility.

 

 

[Dr Venkman]

personally i'm happy that shepherd has gone, i'm happy with players gone and happy with who's arrived, obviously i could be happier but thats always possible, i'm happy with what chris mort is saying in the press, i'm happy that they're looking at the debt because in the long term thats a very important thing to get a hold of, all in all i'd say it looks like things are on the up, obviously you'll get people saying freddy always stumped up the cash etc etc, but there was always something not quite right about that man, whether it be sacking people, comments in the press, going over the managers head etc etc. Either way over the last ten years a LOT of ill feeling has grown towards him from the supporters and that does not happen over such a length of time unless there's a reason for it. Allardyce was a great appointment, but in all seriousness, i could have told you he was a good bet and i've never pocketed half a mil a year from the club.

 

I supose all of this makes me a loser, i'm looking forward to the new season.

[Baggio]

Invicta_Toon, that's utter s****!!

 

I wouldn't want my midfielders to be over thirty, but given that good defending is much more about positioning and timing than physical ability, I actually would prefer having some experienced over-30 defenders.

 

After all Bramble and Onyewu both demontrated that being young and strong means nothing if you are always getting caught out of position.

 

Paolo Maldini is still going strong at 39, Nesta is 31, Cannavarro and Materrazzi are 33, Thuram is 35, Gallas is just turning 30, Desailly started for Chelsea until he was 33, Laurent Blanc and Frank LeBoeuf both were effective into their 30s, Baresi played for Milan until he was 37, Costacurta until he was 40....anyway, you get my point.

 

When it comes to defenders, old is not necessarily bad, and arguably better than young and inexperienced.

 

This post rates close to 10/10.  I can guarantee no detractor will have the balls to debate or dispute it on it's own merits but may well hark back to the days before Shepherd and Hall as a crutch defence and attempt to divert the issues addressed.

 

 

You would be wrong then.

 

I can guarantee that no detractor, especially those who weren't around pre - 1992 and think that NUFC have always won trophies galore and the Halls and Shepherd are responsible for bringing an end to decades of glory, would have the balls to dispute that a young quality defender is just as good a buy as an older quality defender, as he can spend his career with you, but whether they are young or old, you have to be prepared to pay a fee if they are under contract. And the competition will be hot if they are good, and the competition will not be so hot if they are not so good.

 

And if they are good, they won't sign for clubs that they think are not going to be successful, or clubs that offer less money than someone else.

 

We did quite well to sign Woodgate. For big money. There was also unknown, or cheap foreigners over the years such as Dumas, Marcelino, Goma, Boumsong, Babayaro, Pistone, Charvet, and younger players such as Bramble, O'Brien, Griffin, as part of a "plan" for those who think everybody but us has a "plan". Lets hope these new defenders are better than most of that little lot, the vast majority of whom were celebrated when arrived because we needed defenders.

 

The bottom line, is that if you want quality, you invariably pay, either with a transfer fee or in wages. Woodgate is the absolute proof. Or rather, if you don't, then your chances of success - depending on your ambition for the club - is seriously diminished.

 

But - at least in terms of the ones who we paid money for, they tried, and backed the manager.

 

 

 

I cant fault that. I do think there is evidence though that Allardyce can get good players for small amounts or on a free. We are lucky to have him and we both know who to thank.

 

As I've said earlier, he's said he can't get the players he wants because we have no European football so it makes sense if he's looking to bring in players that can get us into Europe on short term contracts so he can try for the players he wants in January/next summer.

 

Dismissing people because they're free is stupid when nearly everyone would have taken Campbell and Distin under the same circumstances.

 

Spending money on players you don't want to keep numpties on messageboards happy is not the way forward either, both manager and chairman have said the money is there so I really can't see what your problem is, and before you start I couldn't care less about Shepherd or Hall now, they're history and Ashley will get my full support until I think things are going wrong, that's not 2 weeks after taking over either.

 

I think numpties on message boards - or anywhere for that matter - are people who think that success can be obtained without spending money, people who slate the last board for not spending cash despite spending bucketfuls and are now saying not spending any is the way forward, people who think having a DOF cures all your ills, and biggest of all people who think all you need is a "plan" to be successful and we haven't had one having played in the Champions League, europe regularly and reached a couple of Cup Finals in the last decade.

 

There are 2 possibilities here

 

One is that Ashley came in and knew it would cost 200m quid to buy the club and clear the debt. If this is the case, the slate is clean and he has written this money off and is running the club in the way he sees fit.

 

Two is that he didn't, meaning he's not a shrewd as people are making out ?

 

And another 3rd option, which Vic touched on, is that Allardyce is still thinking in Bolton mode, and not high enough for Newcastle.

 

Which is it ? bear in mind his comment about "they would be stupid not to back me now"

 

 

 

He's said he's got money but the players he wants want come because we have no European football - You seem to be ignoring this and trying to get it through to you is like banging your head against a brick wall.

 

Do you think Allardyce is lying?

 

If you look at our dealings in the past we managed to sweeten the lack of Euopean/Champions League football through grossly exaggerated wages and minimum release clauses (means to an end).

 

If Mort/Ashley/Sam have put a stop to this and offered a fair wage but no 'compensation wages' as it were then it has to be a good thing and falls in the middle of your two arguments.

 

So I wouldn't say Sam is lying, but under the Freddy regime I reckon one or two of these players would have been persuaded to sign due to our 'ambtion'.

 

 

Be careful you aren't labelled a Shepherd lover or anything else similarly daft, simply for pointing out something which is a very real possibility.

 

 

 

And you think paying over the odds in terms of wages is a good thing? It's one of the contributing factors as to why this club doesn't make a profit.

 

I suppose it was a good idea to pay Luque a bigger wage to make up for our lack of European football? Shame we offered him so much that nobody will take him of our hands, not even on loan.

 

 

[Baggio]

Invicta_Toon, that's utter s****!!

 

I wouldn't want my midfielders to be over thirty, but given that good defending is much more about positioning and timing than physical ability, I actually would prefer having some experienced over-30 defenders.

 

After all Bramble and Onyewu both demontrated that being young and strong means nothing if you are always getting caught out of position.

 

Paolo Maldini is still going strong at 39, Nesta is 31, Cannavarro and Materrazzi are 33, Thuram is 35, Gallas is just turning 30, Desailly started for Chelsea until he was 33, Laurent Blanc and Frank LeBoeuf both were effective into their 30s, Baresi played for Milan until he was 37, Costacurta until he was 40....anyway, you get my point.

 

When it comes to defenders, old is not necessarily bad, and arguably better than young and inexperienced.

 

This post rates close to 10/10.  I can guarantee no detractor will have the balls to debate or dispute it on it's own merits but may well hark back to the days before Shepherd and Hall as a crutch defence and attempt to divert the issues addressed.

 

 

You would be wrong then.

 

I can guarantee that no detractor, especially those who weren't around pre - 1992 and think that NUFC have always won trophies galore and the Halls and Shepherd are responsible for bringing an end to decades of glory, would have the balls to dispute that a young quality defender is just as good a buy as an older quality defender, as he can spend his career with you, but whether they are young or old, you have to be prepared to pay a fee if they are under contract. And the competition will be hot if they are good, and the competition will not be so hot if they are not so good.

 

And if they are good, they won't sign for clubs that they think are not going to be successful, or clubs that offer less money than someone else.

 

We did quite well to sign Woodgate. For big money. There was also unknown, or cheap foreigners over the years such as Dumas, Marcelino, Goma, Boumsong, Babayaro, Pistone, Charvet, and younger players such as Bramble, O'Brien, Griffin, as part of a "plan" for those who think everybody but us has a "plan". Lets hope these new defenders are better than most of that little lot, the vast majority of whom were celebrated when arrived because we needed defenders.

 

The bottom line, is that if you want quality, you invariably pay, either with a transfer fee or in wages. Woodgate is the absolute proof. Or rather, if you don't, then your chances of success - depending on your ambition for the club - is seriously diminished.

 

But - at least in terms of the ones who we paid money for, they tried, and backed the manager.

 

 

 

Your argument is pie in the sky thinking and not based on realism. Yes we would prefer top younger defenders but at this moment in time following two years of inept leadership they won't come. Allardyce wanted Haim but he chose Chelsea. FFS even golden oldie Sammi Hypia turned us down. So which top defenders did you have in mind? Please don't hark to the past when we signed Woodgate as an example. That is no use to us at this moment in  time.

 

Right now, which top young defender should we be buying? John Terry? Maybe where you live in Zumba Bumba land you might think it's a possibility?

 

 

Whatever Ashley does he won't be happy, simply because it's not Shepherd.

 

He was moaning that he might buy Ronaldinho and Deco the other week ffs.

 

And exactly how many people - including you - have moaned about buying "trophy players "

 

You have moaned to me on numerous occasions that we didn't buy Miguel instead of Carr ?

 

What is the difference between buying Carr instead of Miguel, and these cheap foreigners that we are hunting right now instead of a proven quality player for a fee proportionate to his talent and age ? Accepting the fact that we now are supposed to have someone with money and more business expertise and are better than the old board . So is it wrong to have more expectation.

What about my comment that Ashley came in knowing about the debt and wrote off the debt, or if he didn't then he isn't so astute as you are trusting him to be ?

 

If you think I'm applying double standards, which I'm not my stance is the same as always ie I don't believe in this trophy signing bollocks I think quality is quality and without it you are nowhere so you have to try and get it , but you won't get more of a double standard than what I've posted above. I could equally say that numerous people on here are now applying standards of consideration and understanding to Ashley that they never gave Shepherd and Hall, who had proved they at least had ambition for the club.

 

I've nowt to prove to anyone ref your daft comment about only being happy if its Shepherd, I sold Ashley my shares. But right now, having seen two good managers leave this club in the past, I know when I see the danger signs. Do you ?

 

 

 

Beause we had the money to buy Miguel since we bid £20+ million for Rooney perhaps?

 

Why did you defend Shepherd for signing the cheaper option in Carr but seem happy to slag the new board off for getting in cheaper players rather blowing money on players that don't want to come here anyway?

[Baggio]

Invicta_Toon, that's utter s****!!

 

I wouldn't want my midfielders to be over thirty, but given that good defending is much more about positioning and timing than physical ability, I actually would prefer having some experienced over-30 defenders.

 

After all Bramble and Onyewu both demontrated that being young and strong means nothing if you are always getting caught out of position.

 

Paolo Maldini is still going strong at 39, Nesta is 31, Cannavarro and Materrazzi are 33, Thuram is 35, Gallas is just turning 30, Desailly started for Chelsea until he was 33, Laurent Blanc and Frank LeBoeuf both were effective into their 30s, Baresi played for Milan until he was 37, Costacurta until he was 40....anyway, you get my point.

 

When it comes to defenders, old is not necessarily bad, and arguably better than young and inexperienced.

 

This post rates close to 10/10.  I can guarantee no detractor will have the balls to debate or dispute it on it's own merits but may well hark back to the days before Shepherd and Hall as a crutch defence and attempt to divert the issues addressed.

 

 

You would be wrong then.

 

I can guarantee that no detractor, especially those who weren't around pre - 1992 and think that NUFC have always won trophies galore and the Halls and Shepherd are responsible for bringing an end to decades of glory, would have the balls to dispute that a young quality defender is just as good a buy as an older quality defender, as he can spend his career with you, but whether they are young or old, you have to be prepared to pay a fee if they are under contract. And the competition will be hot if they are good, and the competition will not be so hot if they are not so good.

 

And if they are good, they won't sign for clubs that they think are not going to be successful, or clubs that offer less money than someone else.

 

We did quite well to sign Woodgate. For big money. There was also unknown, or cheap foreigners over the years such as Dumas, Marcelino, Goma, Boumsong, Babayaro, Pistone, Charvet, and younger players such as Bramble, O'Brien, Griffin, as part of a "plan" for those who think everybody but us has a "plan". Lets hope these new defenders are better than most of that little lot, the vast majority of whom were celebrated when arrived because we needed defenders.

 

The bottom line, is that if you want quality, you invariably pay, either with a transfer fee or in wages. Woodgate is the absolute proof. Or rather, if you don't, then your chances of success - depending on your ambition for the club - is seriously diminished.

 

But - at least in terms of the ones who we paid money for, they tried, and backed the manager.

 

 

 

Your argument is pie in the sky thinking and not based on realism. Yes we would prefer top younger defenders but at this moment in time following two years of inept leadership they won't come. Allardyce wanted Haim but he chose Chelsea. FFS even golden oldie Sammi Hypia turned us down. So which top defenders did you have in mind? Please don't hark to the past when we signed Woodgate as an example. That is no use to us at this moment in  time.

 

Right now, which top young defender should we be buying? John Terry? Maybe where you live in Zumba Bumba land you might think it's a possibility?

 

 

Sorry, but I don't accept a club like Newcastle United, with our status now as a football club after the last 15 years where we have showed our ambition and made ourselves known to every supporter in europe, can't attract top footballers, whether we are temporarily out of europe or not.

 

That is realistic.

 

What I state is plain, simple, fact. Quality invariably costs money. And if you aren't prepared to show it, the best players will go elsewhere. And Newcastle United are quite simply - now - one of the biggest clubs in the country and ought to be going to clubs and bidding for the players he wants, and buying the best players from the smaller clubs. What is really making me smile is people appearing to accept that the only touchable players are those out of contract. What utter bollocks.

 

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a player such as Curtis Davies [for instance] would prefer to remain where he is now rather than come to a club like Newcastle ? We've just done it with Barton, but that was easy because Man City wanted to offload him.

The simple fact is, this has all the indications of him being set a limited budget, and possibly a lower one that the old board did. Maybe they will learn, maybe this is wrong, maybe it is correct and fans reaction may make them realise they are wrong.

 

This is realistic. And the only people who can change this perception, and I'm far from the only one who has it, are the board themselves. And don't confuse the fact that I'm saying we should spend money as saying I'm supporting spending it for the sake of it, I don't, it depends on the managers judgement. I know poor judgements have been made in the past with the clubs money, in a buying and selling sense, I've been saying it for years, but you have to back your manager, and we are one of the clubs able to back them more than most. Providing they want to, that is.

 

I can understand Haim choosing Chelsea before us, even though personally I think he's mad, and after a few months of sitting on Chelseas bench may come to the same conclusion.

 

Allardyce will make a good job with what he has got and been given, but is that enough for you ?

 

 

 

Hasn't Allardyce already outlined his reasons for not wanting Curtis Davies?

 

Or is he lying again to protect the board?

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Invicta_Toon, that's utter s****!!

 

I wouldn't want my midfielders to be over thirty, but given that good defending is much more about positioning and timing than physical ability, I actually would prefer having some experienced over-30 defenders.

 

After all Bramble and Onyewu both demontrated that being young and strong means nothing if you are always getting caught out of position.

 

Paolo Maldini is still going strong at 39, Nesta is 31, Cannavarro and Materrazzi are 33, Thuram is 35, Gallas is just turning 30, Desailly started for Chelsea until he was 33, Laurent Blanc and Frank LeBoeuf both were effective into their 30s, Baresi played for Milan until he was 37, Costacurta until he was 40....anyway, you get my point.

 

When it comes to defenders, old is not necessarily bad, and arguably better than young and inexperienced.

 

This post rates close to 10/10.  I can guarantee no detractor will have the balls to debate or dispute it on it's own merits but may well hark back to the days before Shepherd and Hall as a crutch defence and attempt to divert the issues addressed.

 

 

You would be wrong then.

 

I can guarantee that no detractor, especially those who weren't around pre - 1992 and think that NUFC have always won trophies galore and the Halls and Shepherd are responsible for bringing an end to decades of glory, would have the balls to dispute that a young quality defender is just as good a buy as an older quality defender, as he can spend his career with you, but whether they are young or old, you have to be prepared to pay a fee if they are under contract. And the competition will be hot if they are good, and the competition will not be so hot if they are not so good.

 

And if they are good, they won't sign for clubs that they think are not going to be successful, or clubs that offer less money than someone else.

 

We did quite well to sign Woodgate. For big money. There was also unknown, or cheap foreigners over the years such as Dumas, Marcelino, Goma, Boumsong, Babayaro, Pistone, Charvet, and younger players such as Bramble, O'Brien, Griffin, as part of a "plan" for those who think everybody but us has a "plan". Lets hope these new defenders are better than most of that little lot, the vast majority of whom were celebrated when arrived because we needed defenders.

 

The bottom line, is that if you want quality, you invariably pay, either with a transfer fee or in wages. Woodgate is the absolute proof. Or rather, if you don't, then your chances of success - depending on your ambition for the club - is seriously diminished.

 

But - at least in terms of the ones who we paid money for, they tried, and backed the manager.

 

 

 

Your argument is pie in the sky thinking and not based on realism. Yes we would prefer top younger defenders but at this moment in time following two years of inept leadership they won't come. Allardyce wanted Haim but he chose Chelsea. FFS even golden oldie Sammi Hypia turned us down. So which top defenders did you have in mind? Please don't hark to the past when we signed Woodgate as an example. That is no use to us at this moment in  time.

 

Right now, which top young defender should we be buying? John Terry? Maybe where you live in Zumba Bumba land you might think it's a possibility?

 

 

Whatever Ashley does he won't be happy, simply because it's not Shepherd.

 

He was moaning that he might buy Ronaldinho and Deco the other week ffs.

 

And exactly how many people - including you - have moaned about buying "trophy players "

 

You have moaned to me on numerous occasions that we didn't buy Miguel instead of Carr ?

 

What is the difference between buying Carr instead of Miguel, and these cheap foreigners that we are hunting right now instead of a proven quality player for a fee proportionate to his talent and age ? Accepting the fact that we now are supposed to have someone with money and more business expertise and are better than the old board . So is it wrong to have more expectation.

What about my comment that Ashley came in knowing about the debt and wrote off the debt, or if he didn't then he isn't so astute as you are trusting him to be ?

 

If you think I'm applying double standards, which I'm not my stance is the same as always ie I don't believe in this trophy signing bollocks I think quality is quality and without it you are nowhere so you have to try and get it , but you won't get more of a double standard than what I've posted above. I could equally say that numerous people on here are now applying standards of consideration and understanding to Ashley that they never gave Shepherd and Hall, who had proved they at least had ambition for the club.

 

I've nowt to prove to anyone ref your daft comment about only being happy if its Shepherd, I sold Ashley my shares. But right now, having seen two good managers leave this club in the past, I know when I see the danger signs. Do you ?

 

 

 

Beause we had the money to buy Miguel since we bid £20+ million for Rooney perhaps?

 

Why did you defend Shepherd for signing the cheaper option in Carr but seem happy to slag the new board off for getting in cheaper players rather blowing money on players that don't want to come here anyway?

 

Its not quite a fair comparative, the Rooney money came about (a) after the Woodgate sale and (b) was going to be part funded by Northern Rock (like the Owen deal). I doubt NR would have been as willing to fund a £10m right back deal due to the potential income the Owen deal would bring them.

 

Apart from that agree with the second part of the post!

[NE5]

Invicta_Toon, that's utter s****!!

 

I wouldn't want my midfielders to be over thirty, but given that good defending is much more about positioning and timing than physical ability, I actually would prefer having some experienced over-30 defenders.

 

After all Bramble and Onyewu both demontrated that being young and strong means nothing if you are always getting caught out of position.

 

Paolo Maldini is still going strong at 39, Nesta is 31, Cannavarro and Materrazzi are 33, Thuram is 35, Gallas is just turning 30, Desailly started for Chelsea until he was 33, Laurent Blanc and Frank LeBoeuf both were effective into their 30s, Baresi played for Milan until he was 37, Costacurta until he was 40....anyway, you get my point.

 

When it comes to defenders, old is not necessarily bad, and arguably better than young and inexperienced.

 

This post rates close to 10/10.  I can guarantee no detractor will have the balls to debate or dispute it on it's own merits but may well hark back to the days before Shepherd and Hall as a crutch defence and attempt to divert the issues addressed.

 

 

You would be wrong then.

 

I can guarantee that no detractor, especially those who weren't around pre - 1992 and think that NUFC have always won trophies galore and the Halls and Shepherd are responsible for bringing an end to decades of glory, would have the balls to dispute that a young quality defender is just as good a buy as an older quality defender, as he can spend his career with you, but whether they are young or old, you have to be prepared to pay a fee if they are under contract. And the competition will be hot if they are good, and the competition will not be so hot if they are not so good.

 

And if they are good, they won't sign for clubs that they think are not going to be successful, or clubs that offer less money than someone else.

 

We did quite well to sign Woodgate. For big money. There was also unknown, or cheap foreigners over the years such as Dumas, Marcelino, Goma, Boumsong, Babayaro, Pistone, Charvet, and younger players such as Bramble, O'Brien, Griffin, as part of a "plan" for those who think everybody but us has a "plan". Lets hope these new defenders are better than most of that little lot, the vast majority of whom were celebrated when arrived because we needed defenders.

 

The bottom line, is that if you want quality, you invariably pay, either with a transfer fee or in wages. Woodgate is the absolute proof. Or rather, if you don't, then your chances of success - depending on your ambition for the club - is seriously diminished.

 

But - at least in terms of the ones who we paid money for, they tried, and backed the manager.

 

 

 

I cant fault that. I do think there is evidence though that Allardyce can get good players for small amounts or on a free. We are lucky to have him and we both know who to thank.

 

As I've said earlier, he's said he can't get the players he wants because we have no European football so it makes sense if he's looking to bring in players that can get us into Europe on short term contracts so he can try for the players he wants in January/next summer.

 

Dismissing people because they're free is stupid when nearly everyone would have taken Campbell and Distin under the same circumstances.

 

Spending money on players you don't want to keep numpties on messageboards happy is not the way forward either, both manager and chairman have said the money is there so I really can't see what your problem is, and before you start I couldn't care less about Shepherd or Hall now, they're history and Ashley will get my full support until I think things are going wrong, that's not 2 weeks after taking over either.

 

I think numpties on message boards - or anywhere for that matter - are people who think that success can be obtained without spending money, people who slate the last board for not spending cash despite spending bucketfuls and are now saying not spending any is the way forward, people who think having a DOF cures all your ills, and biggest of all people who think all you need is a "plan" to be successful and we haven't had one having played in the Champions League, europe regularly and reached a couple of Cup Finals in the last decade.

 

There are 2 possibilities here

 

One is that Ashley came in and knew it would cost 200m quid to buy the club and clear the debt. If this is the case, the slate is clean and he has written this money off and is running the club in the way he sees fit.

 

Two is that he didn't, meaning he's not a shrewd as people are making out ?

 

And another 3rd option, which Vic touched on, is that Allardyce is still thinking in Bolton mode, and not high enough for Newcastle.

 

Which is it ? bear in mind his comment about "they would be stupid not to back me now"

 

 

 

He's said he's got money but the players he wants want come because we have no European football - You seem to be ignoring this and trying to get it through to you is like banging your head against a brick wall.

 

Do you think Allardyce is lying?

 

If you look at our dealings in the past we managed to sweeten the lack of Euopean/Champions League football through grossly exaggerated wages and minimum release clauses (means to an end).

 

If Mort/Ashley/Sam have put a stop to this and offered a fair wage but no 'compensation wages' as it were then it has to be a good thing and falls in the middle of your two arguments.

 

So I wouldn't say Sam is lying, but under the Freddy regime I reckon one or two of these players would have been persuaded to sign due to our 'ambtion'.

 

 

Be careful you aren't labelled a Shepherd lover or anything else similarly daft, simply for pointing out something which is a very real possibility.

 

 

 

And you think paying over the odds in terms of wages is a good thing? It's one of the contributing factors as to why this club doesn't make a profit.

 

I suppose it was a good idea to pay Luque a bigger wage to make up for our lack of European football? Shame we offered him so much that nobody will take him of our hands, not even on loan.

 

 

I did insinuate not to use the extreme case. I should have known someone would. By the other extreme I could say if we carry on not paying the going rate and buying cheap players, as you seem to want to do, we would end up like the mackems have been [which is where we were right alongside them before the Halls and Shepherd], Sheff Wed, Wolves etc

 

 

[Baggio]

Invicta_Toon, that's utter s****!!

 

I wouldn't want my midfielders to be over thirty, but given that good defending is much more about positioning and timing than physical ability, I actually would prefer having some experienced over-30 defenders.

 

After all Bramble and Onyewu both demontrated that being young and strong means nothing if you are always getting caught out of position.

 

Paolo Maldini is still going strong at 39, Nesta is 31, Cannavarro and Materrazzi are 33, Thuram is 35, Gallas is just turning 30, Desailly started for Chelsea until he was 33, Laurent Blanc and Frank LeBoeuf both were effective into their 30s, Baresi played for Milan until he was 37, Costacurta until he was 40....anyway, you get my point.

 

When it comes to defenders, old is not necessarily bad, and arguably better than young and inexperienced.

 

This post rates close to 10/10.  I can guarantee no detractor will have the balls to debate or dispute it on it's own merits but may well hark back to the days before Shepherd and Hall as a crutch defence and attempt to divert the issues addressed.

 

 

You would be wrong then.

 

I can guarantee that no detractor, especially those who weren't around pre - 1992 and think that NUFC have always won trophies galore and the Halls and Shepherd are responsible for bringing an end to decades of glory, would have the balls to dispute that a young quality defender is just as good a buy as an older quality defender, as he can spend his career with you, but whether they are young or old, you have to be prepared to pay a fee if they are under contract. And the competition will be hot if they are good, and the competition will not be so hot if they are not so good.

 

And if they are good, they won't sign for clubs that they think are not going to be successful, or clubs that offer less money than someone else.

 

We did quite well to sign Woodgate. For big money. There was also unknown, or cheap foreigners over the years such as Dumas, Marcelino, Goma, Boumsong, Babayaro, Pistone, Charvet, and younger players such as Bramble, O'Brien, Griffin, as part of a "plan" for those who think everybody but us has a "plan". Lets hope these new defenders are better than most of that little lot, the vast majority of whom were celebrated when arrived because we needed defenders.

 

The bottom line, is that if you want quality, you invariably pay, either with a transfer fee or in wages. Woodgate is the absolute proof. Or rather, if you don't, then your chances of success - depending on your ambition for the club - is seriously diminished.

 

But - at least in terms of the ones who we paid money for, they tried, and backed the manager.

 

 

 

I cant fault that. I do think there is evidence though that Allardyce can get good players for small amounts or on a free. We are lucky to have him and we both know who to thank.

 

As I've said earlier, he's said he can't get the players he wants because we have no European football so it makes sense if he's looking to bring in players that can get us into Europe on short term contracts so he can try for the players he wants in January/next summer.

 

Dismissing people because they're free is stupid when nearly everyone would have taken Campbell and Distin under the same circumstances.

 

Spending money on players you don't want to keep numpties on messageboards happy is not the way forward either, both manager and chairman have said the money is there so I really can't see what your problem is, and before you start I couldn't care less about Shepherd or Hall now, they're history and Ashley will get my full support until I think things are going wrong, that's not 2 weeks after taking over either.

 

I think numpties on message boards - or anywhere for that matter - are people who think that success can be obtained without spending money, people who slate the last board for not spending cash despite spending bucketfuls and are now saying not spending any is the way forward, people who think having a DOF cures all your ills, and biggest of all people who think all you need is a "plan" to be successful and we haven't had one having played in the Champions League, europe regularly and reached a couple of Cup Finals in the last decade.

 

There are 2 possibilities here

 

One is that Ashley came in and knew it would cost 200m quid to buy the club and clear the debt. If this is the case, the slate is clean and he has written this money off and is running the club in the way he sees fit.

 

Two is that he didn't, meaning he's not a shrewd as people are making out ?

 

And another 3rd option, which Vic touched on, is that Allardyce is still thinking in Bolton mode, and not high enough for Newcastle.

 

Which is it ? bear in mind his comment about "they would be stupid not to back me now"

 

 

 

He's said he's got money but the players he wants want come because we have no European football - You seem to be ignoring this and trying to get it through to you is like banging your head against a brick wall.

 

Do you think Allardyce is lying?

 

If you look at our dealings in the past we managed to sweeten the lack of Euopean/Champions League football through grossly exaggerated wages and minimum release clauses (means to an end).

 

If Mort/Ashley/Sam have put a stop to this and offered a fair wage but no 'compensation wages' as it were then it has to be a good thing and falls in the middle of your two arguments.

 

So I wouldn't say Sam is lying, but under the Freddy regime I reckon one or two of these players would have been persuaded to sign due to our 'ambtion'.

 

 

Be careful you aren't labelled a Shepherd lover or anything else similarly daft, simply for pointing out something which is a very real possibility.

 

 

 

And you think paying over the odds in terms of wages is a good thing? It's one of the contributing factors as to why this club doesn't make a profit.

 

I suppose it was a good idea to pay Luque a bigger wage to make up for our lack of European football? Shame we offered him so much that nobody will take him of our hands, not even on loan.

 

 

I did insinuate not to use the extreme case. I should have known someone would. By the other extreme I could say if we carry on not paying the going rate and buying cheap players, as you seem to want to do, we would end up like the mackems have been [which is where we were right alongside them before the Halls and Shepherd], Sheff Wed, Wolves etc

 

 

 

How do you work out we'll end up like Sheffied Wed and Wolves when we've already signed the likes of Viduka, Barton, Smith and Geremi this summer?

 

All on good wages no doubt.

[NE5]

Invicta_Toon, that's utter s****!!

 

I wouldn't want my midfielders to be over thirty, but given that good defending is much more about positioning and timing than physical ability, I actually would prefer having some experienced over-30 defenders.

 

After all Bramble and Onyewu both demontrated that being young and strong means nothing if you are always getting caught out of position.

 

Paolo Maldini is still going strong at 39, Nesta is 31, Cannavarro and Materrazzi are 33, Thuram is 35, Gallas is just turning 30, Desailly started for Chelsea until he was 33, Laurent Blanc and Frank LeBoeuf both were effective into their 30s, Baresi played for Milan until he was 37, Costacurta until he was 40....anyway, you get my point.

 

When it comes to defenders, old is not necessarily bad, and arguably better than young and inexperienced.

 

This post rates close to 10/10.  I can guarantee no detractor will have the balls to debate or dispute it on it's own merits but may well hark back to the days before Shepherd and Hall as a crutch defence and attempt to divert the issues addressed.

 

 

You would be wrong then.

 

I can guarantee that no detractor, especially those who weren't around pre - 1992 and think that NUFC have always won trophies galore and the Halls and Shepherd are responsible for bringing an end to decades of glory, would have the balls to dispute that a young quality defender is just as good a buy as an older quality defender, as he can spend his career with you, but whether they are young or old, you have to be prepared to pay a fee if they are under contract. And the competition will be hot if they are good, and the competition will not be so hot if they are not so good.

 

And if they are good, they won't sign for clubs that they think are not going to be successful, or clubs that offer less money than someone else.

 

We did quite well to sign Woodgate. For big money. There was also unknown, or cheap foreigners over the years such as Dumas, Marcelino, Goma, Boumsong, Babayaro, Pistone, Charvet, and younger players such as Bramble, O'Brien, Griffin, as part of a "plan" for those who think everybody but us has a "plan". Lets hope these new defenders are better than most of that little lot, the vast majority of whom were celebrated when arrived because we needed defenders.

 

The bottom line, is that if you want quality, you invariably pay, either with a transfer fee or in wages. Woodgate is the absolute proof. Or rather, if you don't, then your chances of success - depending on your ambition for the club - is seriously diminished.

 

But - at least in terms of the ones who we paid money for, they tried, and backed the manager.

 

 

 

Your argument is pie in the sky thinking and not based on realism. Yes we would prefer top younger defenders but at this moment in time following two years of inept leadership they won't come. Allardyce wanted Haim but he chose Chelsea. FFS even golden oldie Sammi Hypia turned us down. So which top defenders did you have in mind? Please don't hark to the past when we signed Woodgate as an example. That is no use to us at this moment in  time.

 

Right now, which top young defender should we be buying? John Terry? Maybe where you live in Zumba Bumba land you might think it's a possibility?

 

 

Whatever Ashley does he won't be happy, simply because it's not Shepherd.

 

He was moaning that he might buy Ronaldinho and Deco the other week ffs.

 

And exactly how many people - including you - have moaned about buying "trophy players "

 

You have moaned to me on numerous occasions that we didn't buy Miguel instead of Carr ?

 

What is the difference between buying Carr instead of Miguel, and these cheap foreigners that we are hunting right now instead of a proven quality player for a fee proportionate to his talent and age ? Accepting the fact that we now are supposed to have someone with money and more business expertise and are better than the old board . So is it wrong to have more expectation.

What about my comment that Ashley came in knowing about the debt and wrote off the debt, or if he didn't then he isn't so astute as you are trusting him to be ?

 

If you think I'm applying double standards, which I'm not my stance is the same as always ie I don't believe in this trophy signing bollocks I think quality is quality and without it you are nowhere so you have to try and get it , but you won't get more of a double standard than what I've posted above. I could equally say that numerous people on here are now applying standards of consideration and understanding to Ashley that they never gave Shepherd and Hall, who had proved they at least had ambition for the club.

 

I've nowt to prove to anyone ref your daft comment about only being happy if its Shepherd, I sold Ashley my shares. But right now, having seen two good managers leave this club in the past, I know when I see the danger signs. Do you ?

 

 

 

Beause we had the money to buy Miguel since we bid £20+ million for Rooney perhaps?

 

Why did you defend Shepherd for signing the cheaper option in Carr but seem happy to slag the new board off for getting in cheaper players rather blowing money on players that don't want to come here anyway?

 

show me where I have ever said we should buy players who don't want to come to the club. As its one of the most important things I've always preached in a players make-up, far more than "technical ability", you won't.

 

While you know I rate Miguel like you do, I would far rather spend big money on forwards, unless you have a bottomless pit of it.

Maybe they agreed with this and were trying to be sensible with their money ?

 

Anyway, look again at the bit I put in bold