Toonpack

Not worth arguing because it's your usual utter garbage. Wrong way round, success breeds the ability to pay higher wages.

T'was my Mrs he spoke to. What else he said was "The chewing is a nightmare but Vic's vapour rub on your skirting boards is the absolute top anti-chewing tip I've been given" "It's great" "Don't know if I'll be at Newcastle next season" was the only NUFC related thing he said.

Aye current team is full of crap isn't it !!!!

As an aside, Perchenbauer doesn't know if he'll still be here next season - from the horses mouth btw. Pity really, we've just become related (Our new pup is his pup's half sister)

With a game to go, wonderfully astonishing!!!!!!!

Yes on all counts.

This is like arguing with a concussed amoeba !! I haven't happily anything, you set the premis. Given the choice from your list I could see improving on Williamson and Simpson is achievable and realistic (and no I'm not saying it's a must - I don't have the problem with Simpson some do for example). My third choice (or area of need) is cover for Ba/Cisse.

You set the premis, of the list of players I could only pick two who I thought could be realistically improved upon. Quite simple really. You're "rolling it out to Jonas" ahead of other areas of need is stupidity.

Worst three players at what ??? Cabaye is a worse goalkeeper than Timmy (as are the other outfield players) Cisse is likely a crap centre half Collo sadly would be a shit striker So Cabaye is shitter than Krul, Cisse is shitter than Collo who in turn is shitter than Cisse. If you insist on playing CM, I'd ship them all out and have Barcelona's first team (probs retain Collo and Cisse).

YAY!! lets replace a player at the top of his game becasue he might not be as good next season. Should be shipping the whole fucking lot out by that logic. If a players form/performance drops, absolutely look to refresh it but not until it happens or there are signs/factors leading to suppose it will (age being one example).

Context and comprehension dimwit. It's about what a player means as part of the team, in the position they play. You can't just rank a team 1 to 11 in degrees of goodness/shitness, comparison can only be per position. I really struggle to think of a realistic target player who would be better than Jonas at what Jonas does for the team. Can you ?? If you maintain your wish to replace Jonas, go ahead, but I reckon you'll be disgusted with the next transfer window if that is one of your measures.

That's the best one. Always been a bit of a contrary fucker myself, John Tudor was my fave as a nipper.

P.S. Best goal that never was (after Rob Lee's) Pop Robson direct free kick curler (Beckham/Ronaldo-esque) v Arsenal disallowed because that twat George Graham encroached and wasn't 10 yards, stupid Ref made us retake it, needless to say didn't score.

Two Tommy's (coincidently both of whom only scored 22 NUFC goals). Tommy Cassidy scored a pearler from about 25 yards (against who I can't recall, Burnley mebe's !?!?!?!) it never got over a couple of inches off the ground but went like a missile. Think it may have won goal of the season on Shoot. A fellow codger may recall it. Tommy Craig v Spuds in the gallowgate end left foot curler from way out wide, was sat right behind it in the East Stand, great view.

Think there has to be a big doubt about Taylor irrespective of his injury track record. Read a piece a little while ago by one of the top surgeons who deals with NFL players ruptured achilles', he said it's an 11 month recovery time and 80% of the players never get back to their pre-injury level of performance/athleticism. Appreciate it's a totally different sport but it's a very bad injury either way.

Total misrepresentation of what I said. Thick as mince at times CT, truly you are. You patently live in Championship Manager land where you just improve players at a whim, hey because it's easy, the computer says so. Have you ever considered that what Jonas brings to the team is a huge part of what allows Ba/Cisse/HBA/Cabaye to "prosper" ?? (via his carrier role - well put Barney btw) The conversation is about what our summer transfer activity should be, bearing in mind we are NOT in CM land and our targets/needs have to be realistic. Replacing Jonas is NOT a need, trying to find the next Jonas to develop would be nice but the NEED for a straight replacement is waaaay down the needs list . A new CB and FB will improve the team, we also NEED to replace Tiote/Ba/Cisse for two months in the middle of the season. If you think we should spend money this summer replacing Jonas, you are beyond a fool.

Wasn't particularly at you tbh, your final sentence just triggered the thought. My final underlined bit was aimed at everyone.

Any resemblance of the above post to anything ever written before, alive or dead, is purely coincidental and the views expressed do not represent the views of the entire moderating team, except those members of the moderating team who have every right to hold said views and may, or may not, hold said views. Furthermore, the views expressed (or not) in this post may or may not represent the views of the actual poster, of this post, in real life, because this is an internet forum FFS.

There's an obvious two who could be upgraded, but the rest are fine, if you want to be pedantic, I rate Jonas higher than Tiote, simply on the grounds of his availability to the side. You need cover for Tiote, Ba, Cisse before you need cover/upgrade for Jonas if only because they'll all be away for 2 months every ACN. Priorities IMO are: CB, FB, cover up front and a few young'uns. Jonas doesn't even register the slightest "blip" on my "need to do something" radar.

Despite all the other flair/quality available (bloody hell, when could I last say that !!!), Jonas will always be first name on the teamsheet for me, can't understand how people discount/deride (or can't see) what he brings to the side !!!!

Why??? Even if we don't get another point this season, it's been a great one, absolutely nothing to lose (in real terms) may as well "go for it" IMO

Keegangate best not discuss, overblown IMO. Second sentence, (this is not a pop at you) they were up front and have been since Keegangate. If you read that old statement from Lambias without the "whole things negative" LM glasses on: Paraphrased (and LM I know you are dim so by paraphrased I don't mean "Geronimo") Aim is 10th or above year on year Club will spend what it can afford Ashley hasn't taken a penny out etc etc Their intentions as stated have been backed up by real evidence IMO

That is very true, but as yet he hasn't and I would add he would have the right to charge interest on his loans, he doesn't do that either. I was wrong last summer, I thought the club would spend or he'd recoup, he didn't do either, the money stayed in the club and has been progressively spent. He may change his approach, but rather than recover his losses as a lump, I would have thought he'd charge interest on the loans, also no sign of that happening. Regarding your statement: "it would be nice to think that the board's objective is to get the best possible results on the pitch through self-sustaining measures. " My post above would suggest that is indeed the case (I do believe that is exactly the strategy). I also take issue with your "documented deception of the board", WTF is that about in relation to the financial strategy ???

It could be for us Chez, but I'm not so sure we insist on all money up front on sales (we did with Carroll, - I think it was only £30M of the £35M though - but not certain that's the rule) we do pay up front though. My issue with "net spend" is that for most clubs it's not so clear cut and as it tends to be used as a carte blanche measure of "ambition", in those circumastances it's severely flawed, given nearly all clubs pay an amount up front then the balance of the fee over a period of years. Someone "pays" £30 Mill for someone, they're probably only paying £10m up front then £5m each year for 4 years. If they sell a player for say £10Mill they probably get £6Mill up front then say £2Mill over the next couple of years. Their net spend (in the papers) is £20Mill when in fact it's really only £4Mill in real money terms, canny difference. Which gets even more complicated if the £30Mill player is sold whilst there's still a balance owing (Sunlun still owed Spurs a wedge when they sold Bent, but all that gets "reported" is the price players are bought/sold for in a particular year). There's no carry over, yet that £20Mill net spend is "cast in stone". Only if all fees paid/received were paid 100% up front would Net spend be a "real" measure. Despite the HUGE numbers in any net spend table, virtually all the "succesfull" clubs report profits on player trading.

Notice the trend ????? (you will if you add in the other positions)