Pacinofan

We're already ahead of ourselves and you (atm) by qualifying for Europe, and with a piece of silverware.

Those players would be part of three windows and an even less net spend of only 33 million, and up to now, there's only Carroll I wouldn't have had.

No, he hasn't Tom, not sure what his win/lose ratio is but the football alone is well worth the change, and not forgetting Hodgson got us knocked out of the League Cup by Northampton town. How much have Newcastle spent in the last three windows? About £10.4 million. Before we signed Cisse, it was about 400k outlay You see, you can't use gross spend for one club and net spend when comparing with another. This site says you've spent 23 million for this season, 13 million net. http://www.transferl...-transfers.html I would accept that they may have it wrong here and there, but on that premise Liverpool have spent 56 million this season, 35 million net. I think that our squad is stronger than yours, and so the money spent will show by the end of the season. That's what I think anyway. At the present moment we have a brilliant defence, midfield isn't bad but a bit short with both Gerrard and Lucas out for most of the season. Kuyt has always done a decent job on the wing, and Downing is great when he's good,but too inconsistent atm. In attack the weak link is Carroll. Suarez is a second striker, and Bellamy can't play every game which means that Carroll gets too many games for my liking. Kuyt plays ok with Suarez or Bellamy but we need him out wide. As a team we are playing some great football and there have only been a handful of matches this season that I haven't enjoyed watching them. Our problems have all been up front with some woeful finishing. Sort that in the summer and I think we'll be able to compete on a higher level.

What areas do you think you need to strengthen? LB, RW and obviously strikers. We need a good LB as back up for Enrique, although Glen Johnson has done pretty well there when needed. Kuyt is getting old now so a good right winger would be advantageous as Henderson is better in the middle than on the wing. I think we need two new strikers unless Carroll ups his game, and Bellamy can only play one game a week, great though he is. Other than that we have a very young reserve side with some really good players coming through. I think that's where the owners see the future of the team, with money only being spent on one or two top tier players bought each season to keep the team competing at the top. That's the idea anyway, whether it comes off or not remains to be seen.

No, he hasn't Tom, not sure what his win/lose ratio is but the football alone is well worth the change, and not forgetting Hodgson got us knocked out of the League Cup by Northampton town. How much have Newcastle spent in the last three windows?

I think the end of the season is the time to judge whether the club has progressed or not. For the fans it's been considerable progress, better football, better squad of players and a piece of silverware.

he's just won a winners medal in a Wembley final, and who do you think is more likely to break into the top 4 between us and Liverpool ? End of story So did the Birmingham players last year. I don't think either us or Liverpool will get top 4 but they have spent over 100mil not doing it and they are still below us in the table. God you must be fucking praying we don't finish above them this season I'd say that both teams are a work in progress and it'll take a couple of seasons for them both to find their real level once the current players have bedded in, and new ones have been added to strengthen the squads further. How much have Newcastle spent in the last three windows? The 111 million Liverpool have spent has strengthened the squad considerably from what it was before, I'm not sure Newcastle have done that yet, your first team certainly looks stronger. Hopefully this summer we'll be able to attract a couple of established high quality players to go straight into the first team, having at least qualified for the Europa League.

How come I've never seen you spouting this shit on an actual Liverpool board? You often brag about other teams boards that you visit, and how you've told them straight about how shit their team/people/hometown are, and yet, Liverpool, the place/team/people you hate most, you never mention anything about telling them straight. The Liverpool Way love the billy big bollicks types like you. Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe you have posted the above shit on Liverpool boards, I'd be interested in a link if you have.

They're almost universally hated in this country aren't they. I wonder what impact it would have on the country if we asked Ireland if they wanted Merseyside. Surely Merseyside is a drain on the countries finances. The GDP per capita was about 13k, even in Newcastle it's 16k. They're universally accepted as the biggest tramps in the UK, yet people like paciinofan say they have a well deserved inherent self arrogance. He has been conspicuous by his absence recently. Normally he'd be straight on here setting us right. Maybe even he realises how fucked up their reaction has been to this. Sorry Ewerk, been too busy and didn't really have the time or inclination to get involved in the resident bigots hate fest, the season of goodwill and all that. I don't have any problem at all with LFC's reaction. John Barnes is spot on imo.. John Barnes blasts Luis Suarez 'witch hunt' Former Liverpool and England footballer John Barnes has attacked a "witch hunt" against Luis Suarez after he was banned for racially abusing another player. The Liverpool striker was banned by the FA for eight games for using "insulting words" in reference to Manchester United defender Patrice Evra's colour. Barnes defended Suarez, saying: "As much as we will say ignorance is no excuse, ignorance is an excuse." He said that "cultural differences have to be taken into consideration". Barnes, who played for Liverpool from 1987 to 1997, endured racial abuse throughout his playing career. Speaking on BBC Radio Merseyside, he said: "From a cultural point of view, [suarez] has been backed by people from Uruguay saying the word he used is not deemed as a racist term." He continued: "As much as we will say that ignorance is no excuse, ignorance is an excuse." "Twenty years ago in England, the same people in England now condemning him were ignorant as to what racism is. Why don't they condemn themselves?" Barnes, who received 79 England caps, continued: "When Manchester United play Liverpool and 10,000 United fans are saying 'you Scouse thieves', I'd like them all to be banned." "And Liverpool fans too, when they say 'you Manc or whatever'. So where are we going to draw the line? Racism has to be zero tolerance but this is now a witch hunt." Barnes said: "By admitting [what he said], he obviously didn't feel that what he said was that significant. "Because he could easily have gotten away with it by saying 'I never said a word'."

You have obviously never met Didi Hamman, the fella you describe is nothing at all like Didi. Having been in his company on quite a few occasions I can honestly say, he's pleasant, intelligent, well up for a laugh and a joke and can drink with the best of them. He loves his horses and was known to give quite a few dropsies out to the old fellas sitting in the bookies. Didis only problem is, in some peoples opinion, he smokes like a chimney, always has done. Besides all that he's also very much a family man, was good with the young players and acted as a bit of a mentor to Steven Gerrard. As for representing LFC, I'm proud to have him do that, he's a good man all round. As a footballer, he was much under-rated. He was consistent, season after season, and was one of the best defensive mids we've had.

No probs Chez.

Incorrect. It involves more risk of failure, that's all. The richest clubs have a different risk environment. If the big money player fails (Torres) they just buy another one because they can. And they will. They have no need to engage in income growth through talent development as they have, in 2 cases, virtually unlimited income. In all other cases (Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool, us and Man U if you go back to Ronaldo) players are sold for more than they were bought to push the club forward. The extent to which it's fundamental depends on the overall model employed in each of those clubs but to varying degrees it goes on. How do you think Spurs built a team capable of qualifying for the CL? Arsenal just sold Fabregas, Nasri and Clichy. Having to take these risks is caused by income inequalities between clubs forcing less wealthy ones to develop their incomes to competen on the uneven playing field. Being able to buy Torres or Tevez for insane money and it not be the only roll of the dice you have is a luxury. Liverpool have gambled £70m on getting back into the CL, they'll be be lucky if their owners can absorb that level of failure and invest again. They may well be able to as they have a lot of cash, unlike us. 111m gross, 33 net, not sure where you get your 70m figure from Chez. The owners intend Liverpool to be self sufficient, and to that end have been, and still are, putting in plans to raise the revenue. Standard Chartered are paying 20m a year and the new kit deal will be worth 25m a year. A significant difference which should cover the loss of European football. The Carlsberg deal which ended the season before last was only bringing in 7m a year because of a Parry cock up after Istanbul. The Adidas deal brought in 12m a year.

The price was dictated by the Torres price, and Man City paid for £40m for Aguero. I understand how the price was worked out but when you compare Carroll to what they could've gotten for that money they still paid way way over the odds. The wise thing to do would've been to bank the £50m and wait til the summer to spend it. And the Aguero deal was reported as being £35m. http://www.telegraph...ester-City.html http://www.independe...ro-2328171.html Being the last day of the window, and already short of strikers, the club felt the need to buy and make a statement of intent at the same time. Personally I'd rather have hung on to Torres but the club felt it would have had a negative effect after he'd asked for a transfer. Statements of intent won't win you anything. It was a statement of intent to the fans mostly, and it remains to be seen what we do or don't win with the new influx of players.

£55m for Carroll and Henderson? Value for money? City paid less for Balotelli and Silva. I didn't say value for money at all, we have a Premiership full of players who aren't value for money, but yes I'm pleased with the money spent. Henderson at 16 million looks to have great technique, is young and has shown some really good signs of the player he'll develop into. Benitez had Silva all but signed two or three years ago, everything agreed, but fell through because the club wouldn't pay the price. He most definitely wouldn't have come to us recently with no CL to offer, neither would any other big player. The club went for youth and the future, I don't have a problem with that.

I see, Blackburn aside, I can't see where he spent excessively. Even at Blackburn he spent a British record 3.3 million on a player who left for 15 million 4 years later.

The price was dictated by the Torres price, and Man City paid for £40m for Aguero. I understand how the price was worked out but when you compare Carroll to what they could've gotten for that money they still paid way way over the odds. The wise thing to do would've been to bank the £50m and wait til the summer to spend it. And the Aguero deal was reported as being £35m. http://www.telegraph...ester-City.html http://www.independe...ro-2328171.html Being the last day of the window, and already short of strikers, the club felt the need to buy and make a statement of intent at the same time. Personally I'd rather have hung on to Torres but the club felt it would have had a negative effect after he'd asked for a transfer.

The price was dictated by the Torres price, and Man City paid for £40m for Aguero. No, the price for Torres was dictated by the Carroll price. Chelsea were told they could only have Torres if they paid 15 million over the Carroll price, so if Carrol would have gone for 30 million Torres would have cost Chelsea 45 million. I have heard Dalglish refer to Carroll as the minus 15 million man, but never the 9 million man. Alex, I wouldn't call a manager spending 33 million net a cheque book manager, but I suppose in comparison to some he is. I'm more than happy with what he's spent his money on anyway, even Carroll to an extent, although his form is disappointing.

Heard your match when I was driving home, what a brilliant defensive display and a fantastic result. Beat Chelsea and EVERYONE will take you seriously, well done Newcastle.

But Newcastle isn't THE North East, it's a city in the North East and as such you should have compared like with like. These figures don't include The Beatles and I can't see much of Newcastle there either, I'm sure I must have missed them all. http://www.alva.org....tor_statistics/

No, you actually compared tourism figures to the North East against figures for the city of Liverpool, and not the North west. To start with, I haven’t slagged Newcastle, why would I? I have nothing against any other city. There are some I don’t particularly like, but not to the extent that I’d want to write about them on a forum. I like Roman history, that’s why I love having the City of Chester on my doorstep. It really doesn’t matter to me when anyones history started. My own city has a fine history of it’s own whether you like it or not. There must be a few million disrespectful people then because it seems the biggest fucking band in the world is a bigger draw than Newcastles Roman heritage.

Whoops, looks like you're getting a bit angry there, calm down.

Jeez Tom, I haven't been there for years. Great venue though, loved the different genres of music over the three floors. Oh to be young enough again. You must have got around if you found Wood Street, it's a bit off the beaten track.

Aye, despite the fact Liverpool's bigger than Hull and Coventry's city center was the worst affected, as i've said . Pacinofan, you're not helping your cities image I really don't give a flying one about what you think of me, or the city I come from. Your ignorance was evident when you said Bristol was the most important port at the time of slavery. Liverpool overtook it in all respects. Really? Bristol was THE slavery port, Liverpool was eventually bigger yes, but you do realise we outlawed slavery in 1807? In the 1700's Bristol was known along the world for trading slaves... AND WHY THE FUCK DO YOU EVEN WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH IT? I mean i've been studying the slave trade in the past month for my University course, but I guess having a different view than you about your city makes me ignorant, good one! Edit: Might I add that Liverpool indeed did have a great effect on the slave trade, especially in the later years, but overall it was nothing on Bristol, and like I said, why are you so proud of it? You are ignorant. Like I said Liverpool overtook Bristol in all things, not just slavery. Liverpoool became the second port of the Empire in the early 1700's and as I've already stated, Liverpool earned more through the trade of other goods than than they earned through slavery, even in the slaving years. Liverpool controlled trade of all descriptions with 60% of all British trade and 40% of Europes. I'm not proud of it at all, I detest the thought of people being taken as slaves but I'm not going to shut my eyes to the fact that Liverpool was a major player in the trade.

honestly, it's always somebody screwing you over isn't it? Like I said, without the Beatles, Liverpool's tourism trade would nose dive. Same as if you shut down Glastonbury no fucker would go to Somerset. Edit Forgot about Cheddar Gorge Eh? The city council are made up of Scousers. Does no-one round your way ever criticise their councils then? FFS, what a straw clutcher. We have a major maritime heritage, we have fantastic art galleries and museums, the only national ones outside of the four capitals. We're the 5th best shopping city, amazing architecture, two cathedrals, one of them magnificent, even tours of Anfield are fully booked most of the time. Then there's a world class horse race that's always brought tourists from around the world. The Beatles would be a loss, but that's like saying if me auntie had balls and so on. The Beatles were Scousers born and bred, they became the biggest band in the world, they attract Beatle fans from all over the world, just part and parcel of what we have to offer the tourist..

Don't be stupid Fish there's loads to see in Liverpool besides the Beatle stuff, but it's great that they did come from here. It took the city council 25 years to capitalise on them as well, but they finally realised when you've got something fantastic, and a fantastic city as well, then flaunt it and they'll come.