Toonpack

Even if that was true, t'is better to be lucky than good.

Evidently (or alledgedly) Nicolai Boilesen is the subject of the AZ/Ajax "watch" Never heard of him. Interestingly same person says Carr's player dosiers/reports are weighted 50/50 between football appraisal and "off the field" player attitude/behaviour as a club directive.

From the person who "broke" news on "Cisse day" before anyone else (albeit without a name, just knew a striker deal was happening on the day): "we are looking to pick up a young centre half from the Championship, either on loan or to buy, with a major defensive summer signing being lined up. Carr's watching AZ Alkmaar v Ajax on Sunday".

Good post this, exactly what I was saying to my mate in all. I think Mike is a gambler and has seen the great start we've had and the position we're in, particularly with the poor form of Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool, now he's seeing a good shot at a European spot with improvements to the team and he's pulled the trigger. We've got a talented young side capable of scoring against anyone as well as closing games out (Man Utd away was a defensive masterclass), I'll always be a bit wary of Mike as you and I have both (I'm sure others have too) stated that no one knows this blokes aims and goals for the club and that will always make people wary of his intentions. IF we sign Aly Cissokho (I don't think we will) our first 11 would be - Krul, Santon, Taylor (ana), Colo, Cissokho, Ben Arfa, Tiote, Cabaye, Jonas, Cisse, Ba, without injuries that's a top 6 side imo I honestly believe that side on paper is better than Liverpool's. We lose out to the 'top' sides because of our depth but again this is the gambler side in Ashley wanting to hit the highs without having much besides youth as cover, which allows us to have a good first 11 and then have back-ups that wont cost much as opposed to say Chelsea who's back-ups are on more money than our 1st teamers. I'm not 'won over' by Ashley but, this is where I apologise to lads like Chez, the guy has been ruthless and smart in his transfer movements recently. I was worried when we lost Enrique, Barton and Nolan (I now don't blame him after hearing all the articles about how they were trying to basically run the team and demand things) but he had no choice with Enrique and to be honest with hindsight the Carroll deal was genius, the team we have now would embarrass the team we had in our 1st season up and whether he's looking to 'cash in' or not doesn't matter if we keep bringing in these very good transfers (I know it's tough to keep finding the Tiote's but he's done it so far which one of us when Enrique went for £5m thought he'd take the £5m and get a player who really isn't too far behind him). It's good to see the team 'buying smart' for instance as much of a wankfest the scousers have over Suarez we have brought in Cisse, Ba, Cabaye, Tiote and Santon for around the same £23m fee (not to mention the comparison we could make with Carroll ). Now I'm still in the camp of sceptics with Ant and Stevie that I worry about this blokes actual intentions but as we keep progressing I'm more and more at ease, we've all said we needed a striker before Carroll went and when he left we wanted two, now we've got two (who,like Stevie says, are a big improvement on Carroll) aye it took a year to get them both but this is Businessman Ashley not wanting to pay over the odds and he's bided his time and when the players his staff have told him they want have come available at a good price he's pulled the trigger. Overall we maybe have 'rode out luck' at times and got lucky with situations (i.e. Ba's release clause from West Ham and Freiburg capitulating) but it's what you need sometimes, it's obvious he trusts Pardew more than any manager we've had under him previously which can only be a good thing. As Alex mentioned earlier the guy has obviously learnt and changed tact from when we had the Wise etc debacles and if the Dekka quotes from a few day ago are true about how they see the Wise, Vetre etc appointments as massive mistakes this is further progress tbh. Sorry for the mental post but it's good to finally be able to look a bit more positively at things (not in your camp just yet CT but I'm more understanding) and be excited for our future once again as it's been quite a while since I was. (p.s this whole post is null and void if we sell Tiote and Colo as the window shuts ) I do think he’s a gambler, but in this instance I think the purchase simply fell in line with the budget/finance model he has in place in the club, if it hadn’t I doubt we’d have bought. I’ll be amazed if he’s dipped into his own pocket (gambled) for this window. If we get top end offers from teams our players will be sold (we are no different to anyone else in this) I do not believe however, unlike some, that sell them asap when a profit is available is the club (MA’s) policy. He’ll want top wedge if he’s in control of the sale (as in player in early part of contract etc). Your later point about Wise/Vetere brought something back to me from some time ago. There was an interview with Pardew, was in an interview on t’radio and I think branched off from talking about Carr’s influence, and he stated (paraphrased), - “MA was shocked by the football business (he thought business was business was business) and in his first couple of years he got some really bad advice, and made some huge mistakes which cost him a lot of money. He’s woken up to the game and he has brought in more “football people” and won’t be burned twice” MA is a scarily successful business man, he is not used to failure and to avoid that he’ll trample on anyone at anytime, fans to players to managers and he will absolutely do it “his way”. I totally approve of the “model” of living within the means of the club, because I believe that’s the way to long term sustainable growth (because of our size) BUT I am under no illusions that players will be sold if the offer is right and that MA would sell the club tomorrow if there was margin in it for him. The consolation is in what I said above – he doesn’t like failure and he has little track record of it, which is good. He will never be a “nice” owner.

Nah, Chez says that was to cover losses from the 2 years previous. This is either club commercial income for the current financial year (Virgin money money?), future player sale income or Mike Ashley's own money getting spent. I'm guessing it was more a sideswipe at Leazes' obsessive mantra than a forensic testing of where the funds have come from It was, good call. It's a bit quiet on the Leazes front now, bit like when we win games I've been out, I'm not on here all day. Are you drinking, or working ? I don't post during games, or immediately afterwards, because I'm actually at the game btw. For two or three days? Depends on the result

Aye, thats him. And "bottled" on all those occasions is just another way of saying we had players who simply didnt care enough. The reason they didn't care enough on most occasions was because they didnt have the required respect for the club (and there were numerous avoidable reasons for this). We paid the money and it gets you so far but it's only part of the equation. There were only flashes of the commitment required after the Keegan era. I explained this to him and he accepted it in the end. The two FA cup finals were obviously the closest single instances of us actually winning anything. If they happened now he would instead simply describe them both as 'easy' runs (based on his assessment of the opening fixtures for this season). Clearly lost any enjoyment he once got out of the club. rubbish. We will see how close the club gets under the current regime to even playing so many big games. What you say is akin to those idiots who said Keegan blew a 12 point lead, as if anybody has had a 12 point lead since and it happens every day. What wankers. I guess it was a "flash in the pan" then

Nah, Chez says that was to cover losses from the 2 years previous. This is either club commercial income for the current financial year (Virgin money money?), future player sale income or Mike Ashley's own money getting spent. Ashley covered the losses from the previous years, the question is what proportion of the Carroll cash he recouped in respect of that. If we've spent £10 Mill it's money from within the club budget, end of. Absolutely won't be MA's own cash (unless he didn't recoup and there's been Carroll cash sitting there). Doubt it's "future player sale cash" either, as that player (whoever it was) isn't sold yet. MA'd have to cover the interim and I doubt he'd do it. Depending how much MA "recouped" from the Carroll cash, plus the Virgin money, the club can probably afford this.

Nowt to do with MA taking a punt CT. If the player purchase fits within the club budget model, he'll be bought, if it's not we won't buy

Pardew's view on the game as overheard at security at the airport last night: "we were crap, thankfully they were worse"

In fairness he may be on tomorrow, it was a win, but a reasonably shabby one so he'll not be totally disappointed

Play distinctly averagely and still win. Splendid

Agree with all of that - I think you sum up the situation perfectly Just needs Leazes to quote and state "Exactly" and we'll have a full set

Makes sense. That's why buyers were all over PL clubs. My point still stands. Among all those clubs changing hands, we remain one of the most expensive. Doesn't tally with the financial mess being portrayed in hindsight. The financial "mess" is not hindsight, it's a nailed on fact and is evidenced in the accounts, liabilites exceeding assets, revenues spent in advance etc etc To contend there was nowt wrong is ridiculous. The sale price is driven by what someone is prepared to pay, no-one who did do due dilligence, in the previous year, was prepared to pay anything. People get stung on buying stuff all the time, if they don't do their research. More fool them, and more fool Ashley in particular, but thank fuck he had deep pockets.

you truly are a hopeless case. You saying the finances were sound when Ashley bought the club? I'm still waiting for you to show me where I said we would finish 4th Outside Liverpool and Man U I can't remember many clubs being sold for more than we were. Amazing to think we were such a hopeless cause. If Ashley had done his homework he wouldn't have bought the club, that's one of the reasons he runs it as he does. Based on what? What was written at the time Sourced from liars who also said "We did the typical due diligence one would do on a public takeover. There is no sense that anyone has tried to mislead us." ..and he bought shares. Stock prices reflect the market value, based on submitted accounts, don't they? Otherwise Shepherd would be done for fraud. Stock prices reflect what people are prepared to pay for the stock on the open market, the accounts purely reflect financial performance in a given year. When businesses change hands there's also usually an element inflated in the price based upon "goodwill" (a value that can't be defined exactly, customer loyalty etc etc). The year previous to the sale the club spent £6 Million courting potential buyers and facilitating due dilligence (and attempting unsuccesfully to refinance) those who did look in detail, ran a mile. I would suggest it's fair to say that anyone else latterly doing the same "depth of look" would have done similar, based simply upon the existing evidence.

the club, any club, that sells its best players and pockets the cash rather than allowing the manager to manage and build on its core of best players with the cash from sales is a selling club. What is so difficult about this that you don't grasp it, and continue to insist that we are doing things like Spurs do now, when this is clearly not the case. Newcastle United are too big a club to be a selling club, Mike Ashley was left a club maximising its potential income, or pretty damn close to it, when he bought it. The 14th biggest turnover in football should tell you that. How can he possibly mess up such a legacy ? Being such an astute businessman and taking over from such clowns as people like you say he did, only further clouds the issue, which is why we are selling our best players and pocketing the cash. At what stage does such a big club, one of the biggest in europe, have to stop selling its best players and pocket the cash - or I'll explain it in simple terms for you as you clearly didn't read Happy Face when he explained it for you - or divert it elsewhere, either to Sports Direct or other parts of the club. Do you or do you not think such a status ie 14th biggest turnover in football and one of the biggest in europe, is large enough to resist selling your best players and/or at least enabling you to back your manager with the full proceeds of the sale ? Or do you think this cash is being deliberately withheld ? Big clubs do NOT sell their best players and fail to back their managers, they keep their best players or if they have to sell or choose to sell, back their managers with the cash and so he builds on their core of best players. Oh but I did (page 32 I believe, was travelling last night/evening so didn't read it until today and couldn't be arsed to respond), he uses net spend as a measure, net spend over time is an irrelevance and therefore is as about as valid as nonsense. The ONLY figure that is of any value is total spent, and in that we're 8th over the last 6 years, not too shabby IMO. By HF's logic, Swansea (for example) are more ambitions, or more driven, than us because they have a bigger net deficit than we do, we however have spent seven and a half times MORE than them. so aye they're more ambitious than us, utter bollocks. no club that signs Wayne Routledge and plays him regularly can be seriously regarded as ambitious. So you agree HF's hypothesis was wrong then ???? are you saying Swansea are ambitious ? As you think NUFC are, then anything is possible. Answer the question !

the club, any club, that sells its best players and pockets the cash rather than allowing the manager to manage and build on its core of best players with the cash from sales is a selling club. What is so difficult about this that you don't grasp it, and continue to insist that we are doing things like Spurs do now, when this is clearly not the case. Newcastle United are too big a club to be a selling club, Mike Ashley was left a club maximising its potential income, or pretty damn close to it, when he bought it. The 14th biggest turnover in football should tell you that. How can he possibly mess up such a legacy ? Being such an astute businessman and taking over from such clowns as people like you say he did, only further clouds the issue, which is why we are selling our best players and pocketing the cash. At what stage does such a big club, one of the biggest in europe, have to stop selling its best players and pocket the cash - or I'll explain it in simple terms for you as you clearly didn't read Happy Face when he explained it for you - or divert it elsewhere, either to Sports Direct or other parts of the club. Do you or do you not think such a status ie 14th biggest turnover in football and one of the biggest in europe, is large enough to resist selling your best players and/or at least enabling you to back your manager with the full proceeds of the sale ? Or do you think this cash is being deliberately withheld ? Big clubs do NOT sell their best players and fail to back their managers, they keep their best players or if they have to sell or choose to sell, back their managers with the cash and so he builds on their core of best players. Oh but I did (page 32 I believe, was travelling last night/evening so didn't read it until today and couldn't be arsed to respond), he uses net spend as a measure, net spend over time is an irrelevance and therefore is as about as valid as nonsense. The ONLY figure that is of any value is total spent, and in that we're 8th over the last 6 years, not too shabby IMO. By HF's logic, Swansea (for example) are more ambitions, or more driven, than us because they have a bigger net deficit than we do, we however have spent seven and a half times MORE than them. so aye they're more ambitious than us, utter bollocks. no club that signs Wayne Routledge and plays him regularly can be seriously regarded as ambitious. So you agree HF's hypothesis was wrong then ????

http://www.foot01.com/equipe/lyon/cissokho-une-fausse-blessure-et-un-transfert-lundi-a-newcastle,82919 The absence of Aly Cissokho in the group that travels to Montpellier on Saturday surprised many, the defender of the official Olympique Lyonnais with muscle pain. Depending on progress, this package could be justified by the imminent departure of Cissokho. The regional newspaper says it will do in the next 72 hours the trip to Newcastle to undergo a medical examination. If it is positive, while Aly Cissokho could commit on Monday with the Magpies, who coveted for quite some time. No price has been raised so far, but we know that in this case Jean-Michel Aulas wanted to get a sum of around 10 th, even if now we talk now 9ME. A relatively respectable for a defender given the current status of the transfer market.

say something worthwhile or pipe down. It's my thread now Dave

the club, any club, that sells its best players and pockets the cash rather than allowing the manager to manage and build on its core of best players with the cash from sales is a selling club. What is so difficult about this that you don't grasp it, and continue to insist that we are doing things like Spurs do now, when this is clearly not the case. Newcastle United are too big a club to be a selling club, Mike Ashley was left a club maximising its potential income, or pretty damn close to it, when he bought it. The 14th biggest turnover in football should tell you that. How can he possibly mess up such a legacy ? Being such an astute businessman and taking over from such clowns as people like you say he did, only further clouds the issue, which is why we are selling our best players and pocketing the cash. At what stage does such a big club, one of the biggest in europe, have to stop selling its best players and pocket the cash - or I'll explain it in simple terms for you as you clearly didn't read Happy Face when he explained it for you - or divert it elsewhere, either to Sports Direct or other parts of the club. Do you or do you not think such a status ie 14th biggest turnover in football and one of the biggest in europe, is large enough to resist selling your best players and/or at least enabling you to back your manager with the full proceeds of the sale ? Or do you think this cash is being deliberately withheld ? Big clubs do NOT sell their best players and fail to back their managers, they keep their best players or if they have to sell or choose to sell, back their managers with the cash and so he builds on their core of best players. Oh but I did (page 32 I believe, was travelling last night/evening so didn't read it until today and couldn't be arsed to respond), he uses net spend as a measure, net spend over time is an irrelevance and therefore is as about as valid as nonsense. The ONLY figure that is of any value is total spent, and in that we're 8th over the last 6 years, not too shabby IMO. By HF's logic, Swansea (for example) are more ambitions, or more driven, than us because they have a bigger net deficit than we do, we however have spent seven and a half times MORE than them. so aye they're more ambitious than us, utter bollocks.

The chicken tikka bridies (a pasty to the non-teuchters) from one of the butchers there are immense

I like that.

at the time, bonny lad, at the time. You're showing your ignorance. Jack Walker bought the title, as you don't appear to know this. Of course I know but was hardly on the scale of City. We finished 6th that season, so 7th this year won't be too bad don't you think?? read the post properly man. I did, it reads like 95% of all your posts. as I have said to you, your posts are so varied, interesting and knowledgeable deluded, its unreal Deluded?? Finishing 7th? admitting players will get sold? Saying we can't compete financially with some clubs? Which one of these, enlighten me o wise one who has finished 7th ? You and others said we were going to finish 4th a couple of months ago ? When did I say that? The seasons not over yet but I think we are capable of finishing 7th, which would be progress progress to what ? I'm telling you now, the club has NO desire to do what is required to go higher than that. Consequently, it will go backwards and downwards, that is absolutely nailed on. It is a selling club again, like it was under the McKeags, Seymours etc, not a big club anymore. In my opinion (you can write this down so you don't missrepresent it). The club is operating in a way that will, and should, maximise it's potential over the long term in a wholly sustainable fashion, futhermore it will continue to progress in direct proportion to it's size. It is not selling club any more than any other, and it will not, as a rule, sell it's best players, unless it's for top wedge or the matter's out of their hands - player power/contract length etc. It is still a big club, and will continue to be so. If it has the money to spend, it will, if it doesn't it won't. (based on HF's table NUFC are the 8th biggest spenders in the last 6 years despite a year in the Championship, I expect that position to improve - because we will be able to afford it). AMEN P.S. There's a problem with the "we'll always sell our best players as a policy" statement/belief. To sell your best players pre-supposes there's a market for them, for that to be true said player(s) have to be better than what a team above you in the pecking order has already. If that happens to be the case, you're screwed by the nature of the game today, not any wish of your own. Furthermore, as we are a BIG club and our spending on playing staff is limited to a % of turnover (so it appears), that % for us is likely to be a bigger pie to share out than most. So in truth we are only really at the mercy of the Champions League clubs or those clubs who have benefited from CL recently (i.e. the richer one's than us), and that is something every club on the planet faces, any wish on our part to sell, or not, is irrelevant in that scenario. Outside of that players will be moved on, on our terms.

You are muddled. That is your opinion. Your opinion can be supported by facts but it is not a fact in its own right. Also, disregarding all that. Can I assume that from your point of view we are currently competing at the level you deem acceptable but you are disregarding it as acceptable because its not being done the way you want it to be done? What you want is for us to compete for EL qualification while spending lost of money on players. I think, he doesn't want us to sign good free players like Ba, but he'd rather we spent a fortune of someone's money (a banks money even) on expensive shite like Luque, Boumsong and Owen (as examples), relative league position is irrelevant, we just need to spend money as that's all that counts.

T'is true, but the problem is Leazes takes someone's opinion, completely disregards it, and starts stating their opinion is what he says it is, usually something completely different to the originally stated opinion. Hard for folks not to bite at that. Also it's a bit of a game, first person to get Leazes to answer a question, wins.

Highland Hotel on Crown Street, manager (or his son - I forget) is a mag, has all the dodgy satelite channels and for a small bar has about 20 TV's in it, every table has it's own, all of various sizes. The food there's excellent an all.