Toonpack

I don't disagree at all with what you're saying, but he loses the ball (this season and last to an extent) way too much for a player of his undoubted ability.

Who? Cheik! Think it's only J69 thinks he's shit....and has done for a while. Whilst I don't think he's shit, he most certainly isn't as "great" as some make him out. He's by no means shit. He's great at what he does and it's highly important (harrying opponents/breaking down play-we've scarecely ever had that), it's just he's a 'shit' footballer. ie he's not very good with the ball. His pass completion is always good because they're short lay offs once he's gained possession so that stat itself is largely meaningless. It's totally different to trying to make incisive defence splitting passes into space for your forwards to read. This is why for me if he does go we can't have the mentality it's some sort of irreplaceable loss. The function he performs is what has been shown to be so important to the team and so it's an exercise in making sure we've always got someone/our eye on someone who can perform the same basic role. He's not a natural footballer so that shouldn't be such a mammoth task, he just carries out a highly important defensive function. If he had an attacking side to his game it would be nigh on impossible to replace him (he'd be the 'complete' footballer) but he doesn't. Far from it in fact, for me he could train all week without a ball and probably be quite happy. Good post, but I think he showed last season that he's rather good with the ball as well. Yeah of course he has to keep it simple but he was Mr 100% last season, seldom gave the ball away. This season he's been a bit sloppy, unfortunately. Even last season, when he was playing "great" in general terms, he still had way too much of that in him IMO IF he could minimise/eliminate that part of his game (as much as anyone can in a contested environment) he would be a significantly better player. Of course. But as manc-mag says, if he would be a wiz with the ball he would be the complete midfielder. For a defensive midfielder, I think he's good with the ball. For the player he is, as he shows at times, it drives me nuts when he loses the ball, usually when doing something simple. He has enough about his game to be much better at what he does "as a package", that's my only crtiticism of him. Better ball retention, which based on the standard of much of the rest of his game shouldn't be difficult for him. He would need to learn how to shoot (or long raking pass) consistently to elevate himself to "complete midfielder" status IMO. Keeping the ball is key to being a good DM. Edit. I'm not saying he is a bad player, it's just he could and should be even better.

Who? Cheik! Think it's only J69 thinks he's shit....and has done for a while. Whilst I don't think he's shit, he most certainly isn't as "great" as some make him out. He's by no means shit. He's great at what he does and it's highly important (harrying opponents/breaking down play-we've scarecely ever had that), it's just he's a 'shit' footballer. ie he's not very good with the ball. His pass completion is always good because they're short lay offs once he's gained possession so that stat itself is largely meaningless. It's totally different to trying to make incisive defence splitting passes into space for your forwards to read. This is why for me if he does go we can't have the mentality it's some sort of irreplaceable loss. The function he performs is what has been shown to be so important to the team and so it's an exercise in making sure we've always got someone/our eye on someone who can perform the same basic role. He's not a natural footballer so that shouldn't be such a mammoth task, he just carries out a highly important defensive function. If he had an attacking side to his game it would be nigh on impossible to replace him (he'd be the 'complete' footballer) but he doesn't. Far from it in fact, for me he could train all week without a ball and probably be quite happy. Good post, but I think he showed last season that he's rather good with the ball as well. Yeah of course he has to keep it simple but he was Mr 100% last season, seldom gave the ball away. This season he's been a bit sloppy, unfortunately. Even last season, when he was playing "great" in general terms, he still had way too much of that in him IMO IF he could minimise/eliminate that part of his game (as much as anyone can in a contested environment) he would be a significantly better player.

Who? Cheik! Think it's only J69 thinks he's shit....and has done for a while. Whilst I don't think he's shit, he most certainly isn't as "great" as some make him out.

Agreed, Any other fucking team but us and Vukic's shot (great shot an all) would have bounced kindly for BA (two of Norwich's goals were bastard friendy "bounces")

Dominant performance tbh, just no luck in front of goal Attempts on target Newcastle 6 Swansea 0 Attempts off target Newcastle 11 Swansea 3 Corners Newcastle 9 Swansea 1 They're a well organised unit, 8 clean sheets now this season, Arsenal and Man U only put one past them. Felt yesterday if we'd got one, we'd have romped it. One of those days. Was surprised HBA wasn't tried mind, although what he could bring is based upon reputation and nowt he's consistently shown yet this season (in his brief appearances) Pardew see's him every day in training and obviously must have reservations. Obertan did OK but they started doubling up on him after about half an hour or so, then Spiderman started to get a bit more in the game but he's been off the pace a bit since his ban. Cabaye's delivery as has been stated was very poor.

Was still poor. Several times when ball went out for throw in he just had his back to the ball - didn't want it. Has poor end product - cannot fathom why he starts over Ben Arfa who is by far our most gifted player. Seems obertan will never shake the "shit" tag now. No player has a perfect game. Obertan did well yesterday, cabaye was more infuriating with his wasted corners but people still get on squids back. Unfortunate as it will damage rather than enhance his performances. Agreed 100% but that's the way of the football fan, keejerk reactions and kneejerk judgements which become "the law". Many a player has been branded "shite" early on at a new club (Enrique and Colo for recent examples and even Ba for a short while) Obertan is only 22, plenty of time.

They'd blame, Perch, Obertan, Pardew and MA/DL

It's one of those games, we get one, we'll get a few I reckon.

But he was never a 35mil player in the first place. One good season in the championship and half a season in the prem doesn't make him top player which is what you expect after spending that much. Too much weight on his shoulders that fee and combine that with the poor start he's had and constantly on the bench his confidence is shot Absolutely spot on!! did well for us in the championship and on our return to the Premier league, but teams sussed him out and although he is a good player the price tag will be a weight around his neck. £12 million would of been a realistic price and Ashley would of sold him for that. He wouldn't have sold for £12m. Correct, they turned down £30 Mill

This

in the REAL world, what you are advocating ie selling your best players, pocketing the cash and not backing your manager, will NEVER be successful. Fair enough if you support clubs such as Blackburn, Bolton etc though, which is their level in the scheme of things. As I said in my thread about Ashley and his apologists, it does appear that those apologists are indeed non-match going supporters, who aren't putting their cash into the club so have different priorities. Except for all the succesfull clubs that do it Any of these successful clubs start the season without a recognised left back?.... Didn't we buy Santon ? Manager seemed to think Taylor was a better option to start with though. Nlot sure what your point is, we will buy what we can afford, just like the rest, end of. My point is we dont have a left footed left back bacause we didnt buy a left footed left back...we bought an injury prone right footed left back because he was cheap and rumoured to be half decent 2 seasons ago pre injury. Your comparison with manu in this regard is fuckin bollocks old son. I accept we're in a brave new world of football and I completley accept that things have to be done differently but we're really not doing anything like spurs and manu have done in recent years and to suggest otherwise at this stage is shite. If we do the business in January I'll be very pleased and will accept that Ashley is steering us to acheiveing more this season than we did last season but I'm not holding my breath on that one. exactly The good old LM "exactly" Always the pointer to an incorrect/flawed post

in the REAL world, what you are advocating ie selling your best players, pocketing the cash and not backing your manager, will NEVER be successful. Fair enough if you support clubs such as Blackburn, Bolton etc though, which is their level in the scheme of things. As I said in my thread about Ashley and his apologists, it does appear that those apologists are indeed non-match going supporters, who aren't putting their cash into the club so have different priorities. Except for all the succesfull clubs that do it Any of these successful clubs start the season without a recognised left back?.... Didn't we buy Santon ? Manager seemed to think Taylor was a better option to start with though. Nlot sure what your point is, we will buy what we can afford, just like the rest, end of. My point is we dont have a left footed left back bacause we didnt buy a left footed left back...we bought an injury prone right footed left back because he was cheap and rumoured to be half decent 2 seasons ago pre injury. Your comparison with manu in this regard is fuckin bollocks old son. I accept we're in a brave new world of football and I completley accept that things have to be done differently but we're really not doing anything like spurs and manu have done in recent years and to suggest otherwise at this stage is shite. If we do the business in January I'll be very pleased and will accept that Ashley is steering us to acheiveing more this season than we did last season but I'm not holding my breath on that one. It's not shite it's an absolute fact. To make me shut up, show me how they've accumulated debt and spent over and above what they've earned for years on end to get where they are. Should be easy. We are doing now what they have done for years, we are behind in the game and have some catching up to do, we have EXACTLY the same "cut your cloth" approach as they do. They currently have silk purses we're making our way from a sow's ear.

in the REAL world, what you are advocating ie selling your best players, pocketing the cash and not backing your manager, will NEVER be successful. Fair enough if you support clubs such as Blackburn, Bolton etc though, which is their level in the scheme of things. As I said in my thread about Ashley and his apologists, it does appear that those apologists are indeed non-match going supporters, who aren't putting their cash into the club so have different priorities. Except for all the succesfull clubs that do it Any of these successful clubs start the season without a recognised left back?.... Didn't we buy Santon ? Manager seemed to think Taylor was a better option to start with though. Nlot sure what your point is, we will buy what we can afford, just like the rest, end of. 14th biggest revenues in world football.........haven't you said we were "cash rich" in the summer ? Where is the {Carroll] cash ? In the clubs bank account I would guess, that which hasn't been spent or repaid against the debt or covered previous losses anyway.

in the REAL world, what you are advocating ie selling your best players, pocketing the cash and not backing your manager, will NEVER be successful. Fair enough if you support clubs such as Blackburn, Bolton etc though, which is their level in the scheme of things. As I said in my thread about Ashley and his apologists, it does appear that those apologists are indeed non-match going supporters, who aren't putting their cash into the club so have different priorities. Except for all the succesfull clubs that do it when you have told us how your appraisal of Mike Ashley changed after the summer deadline, and/or how much longer you are now going to give him to "prove" his intentions, then you can tell us which of these successful clubs have not backed their managers, sold their best players and put together a team of cheap replacements ? First bit, not again, have done that many times. All of them have sold their best players at some point (even at the top of the pyramid - Man U and Ronaldo for example) and rarely do they spend more on a replacement (actually I'm struggling to think of anyone who has bought a more expensive replacement) ergo they all find cheaper replacements. List me some if you like.

in the REAL world, what you are advocating ie selling your best players, pocketing the cash and not backing your manager, will NEVER be successful. Fair enough if you support clubs such as Blackburn, Bolton etc though, which is their level in the scheme of things. As I said in my thread about Ashley and his apologists, it does appear that those apologists are indeed non-match going supporters, who aren't putting their cash into the club so have different priorities. Except for all the succesfull clubs that do it Any of these successful clubs start the season without a recognised left back?.... Didn't we buy Santon ? Manager seemed to think Taylor was a better option to start with though. Nlot sure what your point is, we will buy what we can afford, just like the rest, end of.

in the REAL world, what you are advocating ie selling your best players, pocketing the cash and not backing your manager, will NEVER be successful. Fair enough if you support clubs such as Blackburn, Bolton etc though, which is their level in the scheme of things. As I said in my thread about Ashley and his apologists, it does appear that those apologists are indeed non-match going supporters, who aren't putting their cash into the club so have different priorities. Except for all the succesfull clubs that do it

But he was never a 35mil player in the first place. One good season in the championship and half a season in the prem doesn't make him top player which is what you expect after spending that much. Too much weight on his shoulders that fee and combine that with the poor start he's had and constantly on the bench his confidence is shot £1 Mill more than David Villa, still unbelievable.

Stop cherry picking what I'm posting is nothing to do with our ex owners. You mentioned them not me. You're potty. This is a perfect example of how people make up comments and attribute them to me. I'm explaining how football clubs are successful. If you attribute that to how our football club used to be run, then that is your own comments. I hope certain people are looking. I didn't mention them or even refer to them in any way at all. The way to get success in football is the same as it has been for over 100 years. You keep your best players as much as you can, you buy quality footballers, you pay the going rate, you back your managers and you don't pocket the money from sales or divert it elsewhere, unless you are a selling club, and selling clubs are not successful on the pitch. The key phrase It what they all (and us) do, it really is that simple.

I would say there is a good chunk left. I would also say some has gone on transfer fees,agent fees,wages,general running costs and maybe Ashley has paid himself back some of the money he loaned the club. I don't really give a shit about keeping track of it. If we sell and we get decent replacements does it really matter if they cost £5m or £25m?? We shouldnt be selling our main players though thats the thing, but Ashleys got some so well trained that theyre already expecting it and it cant go on forever that we sell a first teamer and get a replacement for a fraction of his selling price and turn out as good, if it did the likes of Man U etc would be doing it every season. He's also got some so well trained that i think we must be the only fans eat up that it goes onto agent fee's etc If a team higher up the pecking order comes in everyone sells their players (unless they can afford not to, a'la Spurs/Modric, but even that one's not played out yet as he hasn't signed his new deal) even more so when the players contract is winding down. The clubs have little say. Man U can pay top dollar because they make top dollar with interest and a cherry on top. Their success and income makes them a bad example to use in comparison to anyone tbh. It's not about "training" it's just good old fashioned realism. In recollection though I'm sure Modric signed a 5 year contract last season, so his contract wasn't running out therefore Spurs weren't pushed into a corner regarding the transfer and because they saw him as vital to where they want their club to go so they refused to let him go. Which is pretty much the same situation in which us and Tiote will be in if a bigger club comes calling having signed a 6 and a half year contract (Could be wrong on the length of the contract) especially if we are to build a team and head in the right direction of building a team to compete and the higher end of the table which is where every fan wants us to be. I used Man U as an example because if the transfer strategy worked and was successful of selling top players and replacing them with cheaper replacements, they along with the other European elite would be doing it even if they did have all the money in the world. And Spurs have offered Modric £100k a week to placate him for them saying no to Chelsea (smashing their wage structure, should he accept, which he hasn't yet) even though, as you say he had recently signed a new deal. We wouldn't (couldn't) pay Tiote similar. Man U buy players at fee's within their means, between 1992 and 2011 their net transfer spend (a meaningless measure btw) averages out at £9 Million per year, considering their profits, that is frankly bugger all. According to their accounts they usually make an annual profit on player sales, so in essence they do sell high, buy cheaper. (Bayern Munich #1 in Deloitte's last year are the same btw). They all do it, but it's just a question of scale: They sell Ronaldo for £80 million and buy 3 replacements for £20 Million each, we "could" sell Tiote for £25 Million (which would be over the odds IMO) and buy 3 replacement players for £5/£6 Million. Same model just different magnitude. the point being, you are cherry picking. How many players have they sold for 80m quid And we won't sell Tiote for 25m quid and buy 3 "replacements" for 5/6m each [as is borne out by the Carroll cash disappearing]. The fact is, Tiote will be sold, a replacement will be bought for a fraction of that, the rest will be trousered, and the rest of the players will be wondering - again - what sort of club they are playing for and the best ones will realise - again - that they will have to move if they want to play for progressive clubs. Only a handful of non-matchgoing supporters, who put the balance sheet before results on the pitch as they don't put their own cash into the club, will be idiotic enough to try and make positive vibes from such a direction. They have on average only spent £9 Million a year since 1992, they still make more profit than that (by a mile) they sell and they buy, just at a different level to many of the rest. In their accounts they record annual profits from player sales (every year up until 2010) How is that cherry picking.

T'is true, but equally there's an awfull lot of "unfulfilled potential" in the game. Carroll has potential (as he's flashed that with us) the big question is whether he has the mentality or desire to fulfill it.

They do though, every single one of them (who doesn't have an Arab/Oligarch) it's just the "scale" that hides the truth. ALL the succesfull clubs do NOT go into debt to buy playing staff.

I would say there is a good chunk left. I would also say some has gone on transfer fees,agent fees,wages,general running costs and maybe Ashley has paid himself back some of the money he loaned the club. I don't really give a shit about keeping track of it. If we sell and we get decent replacements does it really matter if they cost £5m or £25m?? We shouldnt be selling our main players though thats the thing, but Ashleys got some so well trained that theyre already expecting it and it cant go on forever that we sell a first teamer and get a replacement for a fraction of his selling price and turn out as good, if it did the likes of Man U etc would be doing it every season. He's also got some so well trained that i think we must be the only fans eat up that it goes onto agent fee's etc If a team higher up the pecking order comes in everyone sells their players (unless they can afford not to, a'la Spurs/Modric, but even that one's not played out yet as he hasn't signed his new deal) even more so when the players contract is winding down. The clubs have little say. Man U can pay top dollar because they make top dollar with interest and a cherry on top. Their success and income makes them a bad example to use in comparison to anyone tbh. It's not about "training" it's just good old fashioned realism. In recollection though I'm sure Modric signed a 5 year contract last season, so his contract wasn't running out therefore Spurs weren't pushed into a corner regarding the transfer and because they saw him as vital to where they want their club to go so they refused to let him go. Which is pretty much the same situation in which us and Tiote will be in if a bigger club comes calling having signed a 6 and a half year contract (Could be wrong on the length of the contract) especially if we are to build a team and head in the right direction of building a team to compete and the higher end of the table which is where every fan wants us to be. I used Man U as an example because if the transfer strategy worked and was successful of selling top players and replacing them with cheaper replacements, they along with the other European elite would be doing it even if they did have all the money in the world. And Spurs have offered Modric £100k a week to placate him for them saying no to Chelsea (smashing their wage structure, should he accept, which he hasn't yet) even though, as you say he had recently signed a new deal. We wouldn't (couldn't) pay Tiote similar. Man U buy players at fee's within their means, between 1992 and 2011 their net transfer spend (a meaningless measure btw) averages out at £9 Million per year, considering their profits, that is frankly bugger all. According to their accounts they usually make an annual profit on player sales, so in essence they do sell high, buy cheaper. (Bayern Munich #1 in Deloitte's last year are the same btw). They all do it, but it's just a question of scale: They sell Ronaldo for £80 million and buy 3 replacements for £20 Million each, we "could" sell Tiote for £25 Million (which would be over the odds IMO) and buy 3 replacement players for £5/£6 Million. Same model just different magnitude.

I would say there is a good chunk left. I would also say some has gone on transfer fees,agent fees,wages,general running costs and maybe Ashley has paid himself back some of the money he loaned the club. I don't really give a shit about keeping track of it. If we sell and we get decent replacements does it really matter if they cost £5m or £25m?? We shouldnt be selling our main players though thats the thing, but Ashleys got some so well trained that theyre already expecting it and it cant go on forever that we sell a first teamer and get a replacement for a fraction of his selling price and turn out as good, if it did the likes of Man U etc would be doing it every season. He's also got some so well trained that i think we must be the only fans eat up that it goes onto agent fee's etc If a team higher up the pecking order comes in everyone sells their players (unless they can afford not to, a'la Spurs/Modric, but even that one's not played out yet as he hasn't signed his new deal) even more so when the players contract is winding down. The clubs have little say. Man U can pay top dollar because they make top dollar with interest and a cherry on top. Their success and income makes them a bad example to use in comparison to anyone tbh. It's not about "training" it's just good old fashioned realism.

Me too. No way was he worth that amount of money (even if we were cash rich).