Makom

Where's this idea that keeps popping up that the shortlist is the same one as in January (Carver, Gard and McLaren) coming from? Is this just lazy journos, or does it have a (plausibly reliable) source?

The question is more properly framed, why would a player who is being courted by Spurs right now, choose to wait to see who our manager is and who else he signs?

Aye, I'm in tears. Come off it.

No I checked, it's still the system that was always here - mailing a semen sample to Monkey's lass, for a taste test.

My....name.....is.....Mako.....my...Voice...Is...My....Password Guess the film.

Fuck off man, I'm not that sad. Sending a recording of your voice over the net so you can be verified as a west side boy - Jesus man.

I feel for you though Steve, you couldn't pay me to live in SS. I came close to ending up in NS for work, but thankfully didn't have to go there in the end. Over on Newcastle Online, I've been abused by some cunt calling himself Wallsend Mag, which I think is a fucking cheek.

You tell me. I honestly couldn't tell you, because it's pure shite. I can only assume it's because I've pissed them off or otherwise embarrassed them over something or other (such as in here with this Burnley nonsense), and they've assumed that by calling me a mackem it will annoy me and count as some kind of victory for them. Psychology of the Playground and all that.

Seriously, you'll get no traction anywhere that counts on this idea that Mike's loan is actually 'debt'. When the football world complains about clubs being in debt they mean being in hock, owing money to third parties and/or beholden to paying interest. Owing money to the owner of the club on interest free terms is in no way the same thing, even though it's technically still debt. Personally, I'd actually steer well clear of it, as in this context, claiming that 'debt' has risen is actually equivalent to 'investment' by Ashley. You can use the fact it has risen to argue that it undermines Ashley's claim to have put us on a better financial footing, sure, because obviously making us cost more to buy without seemingly increasing the value of the club is daft, but casting it as anything other than that is quite disingenuous.

He said he went to the same school as Carver at some point in the Carver thread, and it seems to me from other things he's said, that he still lives in the same area, or close by. It was memorable because it's not far from me, and it's one of the very rare times I've seen someone on here say they actually come from the city. Made a change from being called a mackem cunt by people on the other side of the world or elsewhere in the UK. My estimate of how many posters on here actually live in the city goes down by the day. It seems to me there might be more people on here from the Aussie Newcastle than actually live close enough to me to call me a mackem to my face without taking the day off work.

Walking distance I'm guessing. If he's still in the area he went to school in. Of course, maybe he's moved and actually lives in Sunderland now, in which case, yes, three miles.

Not sure if it's a recommendation as such, but that takeaway shooting is on Crimewatch right now.

Now that one is lost on me. Bacon shed?

I don't live that far from you, you dopey cunt.

Gutted. They've cancelled Buzzcocks.

Officer Shearer judges you. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32872197

TV money for each game aired. Basically, even though we were shit, we got more of that money than any of the bottom half because of Sky's long established policy of giving NUFC maximum air time when we're in dire straits. There's gold in shite after all.

On PL record alone, McClaren makes Pardew look like a rank amateur, never mind the tin pot cup. But he still probably wouldn't be able to deal with the Ashley regime any better, or replicate what he did for Boro with us. His success at Boro cannot be divorced from the fact that it was in huge part down to factors entirely outwith his competence, and that it was for Boro. And even there, he got plenty of criticism for those things that were in his control. Although I fear if you put McClaren's Boro record in front of Charnley he's going to think he looks shit hot considering how bad we've been for many years, and how desperate McClaren will be for another chance in the PL. That's the consequence of having a football board that knows nothing about football.

Carver is staying in whatever capacity because he has a long contract, as has been said by others on here many times before.

You said Burnley went down cos they were the 2nd lowest spenders, but then also said Hull went down despite spunking £40m (on top of an already established PL squad). But yes, if Burnley had spent money on a PL standard striker, they clearly would have stayed up. But some are even railing against that in here too....

Ate, I did. I read it too fast. You should have used "but" rather than "&", that would have been the more appropriate clause given the intended meaning. But it's still not great for Burnley - it still means that despite the fact 5 teams were less accurate than them in front of goal, they still conspired to score the fewest amount of goals. And that's clearly not a statistical anomaly, given the fact they were the 5th highest in terms of chances created. Ergo - their strikeforce were misfiring, relative to the competition.

Well, I certainly watched QPR less than Burnley so I can't confirm this with my own experience, but I'm pretty sure one of the post-season reviews pointed out that one of Austin's strengths was the fact he was the initiator of many of his goals by dropping deep first, and then popping up in the box to benefit from the end result.

And? The fact that Burnley created lots of chances, and their shooting accuracy didn't translate to goals scored (and it's not even close if they were really 5th in terms of accuracy), is what I've been saying happened all along. It shows quite conclusively why they went down. I've no idea why people are trying so hard to claim otherwise.....

Not really. This all started in the wages thread, after I said: to which strawb said: to which I replied: Him being annoyed at having been shown to be wrong was why he turned up in here to give me shit in here, hence why the debate has eventually turned back around to the issue, once he realised his pisstaking about Garth Crooks wasn't getting him anywhere. I'm not saying it's Ing's fault per se (I've no idea if his prior performances warranted him being used as a sole striker), nor that the lack of goals is entirely down to him (as opposed to the strikeforce in general, which of course includes others in a one upfront). I'm simply trying to counter the idea that some originally were trying to argue there, that it's not manifestly unfair that misfiring strikers should not suffer any penalty in their careers when their teams go down for reasons that everyone agrees was a misfiring strikeforce.

You're assuming Sissoko is staying. And if he does stay, who can really say that he was a target of a bigger club right up until Carver's shit slide? We'll never know for sure. I can't see how, if he was genuinely an Arsenal target before Carver, why they wouldn't think they could still use him now. Unlike Ings, Sissoko was an established PL player well before Carver got his hands on this team, and surely Arsenal have the coaching staff to undo any lasting damage being exposed to Carver this season might have done to him, if they took him.