Toonpack

I think the magnitude of difference between a million and a billion gives him some justification for saying what he does. What I took issue with was: He says he put his money in. Did he fuck. He took much more out than he ever put in even before he sold it. You can argue about whether that is fair enough but that doesn't alter the fact he's lying. He says he'd be doing it like Ashley, despite the fact he did it in completely the opposite way, using credit to gamble on success. He also couldn't have paid off the loans because he didn't have anything approaching the necessary capital. The suggestion he's 'intensely' criticised Ashley in the past is also a fabrication I think. Got you. He probably did initially have a net personal investment in the club but that amount would have been nothing compared to what he eventually left with. Nope

£6 Million I believe it was, but it wasn't personal dosh it was a Cameron Hall Ltd loan at 6% interest which the club paid. A leveraged buy out if you will.

Amusing stat for Alex Ferguson's 25 years with Man U Top 4 now - Man City, Man Utd, NUFC, Chelsea Bottom 4 when he was appointed - Man Utd, Chelsea, Man City, NUFC

An infection is not an injury it's an infection and infections reduce the effectiveness of painkillers. BTW My sister in law worked for a bloke who got a finger infection from a seemingly inocuous cut, he manned the fuck up and just got on with his work, cost him his arm and nearly his life, but you're right, infections are nowt.

I was being unfair on Stevie then, its just a few times this season i've read 'we're just lucky' in reference to the team's performance and i thought he was 'still peddling this'. The lack of cover and luck with injuries is without doubt fair enough. I support the team and the manager, if we win the Champions League I'll stay hate that wrongun looking casino manager, and the fat thick barrow boy. Even if that means he was right all along? I know why you say it and there is more to his reign than just the affect on the team but there is a basic logic at play here that doesnt make sense to me. Focussing solely on the football, he makes a load of decisions which piss you off because of your belief about the impact on the football. Those decisions lead to (in your example) us winning the champions league. Ergo, all his football decisions were correct and your opinion was incorrect. I know its hypothetical but if the things he did which you hated turned out to be correct, then your hate was mis-placed. Not that this matters that much, its just the internal logic (from a football perspective) makes no sense. Even if Ashley's decisions to sack Hughton and replace him with Pardew, cash in on Carroll and sell Nolan, Barton and Ricky and replace them with younger cheaper options turn out to be a massive success that leads us back into Europe, it won't absolve him of the wrongs he did in the past. The way he acted with Keegan was massively wrong showed a massive lack of respect for a club legend (which he then managed to do again with another in Shearer) and more importantly us fans. Even if it turns out that everything (in terms of getting shot of Keegan and not giving Shearer the job) was the right decision in the long run, the way he did it makes him a cunt. If he continues now to move the club forward in the right way, I can forget about that and rejoice in his good work but that won't change my opinion of him as a man. I won't be shouting for his head but I won't be lauding him either. "Nice" people, don't make the amount of cash he has, sadly. His "kind of person" is in direct proportion to his wealth I reckon.

The general foot area is rather important in this sport. come on though, a month out for a toe infection? sounds a bit excessive doesn't it? i've heard of people playing on with a broken toe before, which tbf would be way more painful. i don't mind him being out for a game or two, not least so we can have a look at marveaux, but really? a month out for a sore toe? he should man up. Speaks someone who's never had one. Immensly painfull, and the point about infections is that they can get significantly worse (as in blood poisoning/ lose bits of your body type serious) if you aggravate them, like disturbing the infected area by kicking a ball for example, or maybe running even. Think dental abscess (if you've ever had one) on your toe.

Best "flash in the pan" for 61 years. Canny

Birthday Leazes I left out the "happy" word as it's not a word Leazes understands.

Let me aks you this, do you think This Newcastle team has put in its best performances in 14 or 15 years? We have been below average and I wouldn’t even be so generous to say the teams we’ve played (in general) have been any shitter. I know you don't see the games live, so it might be easier to forget, but look at the match reports if you think I'm negative. We only really turned up for Blackburn, and in parts for Spurs and at Villa... Arsenal "Two sides whose squad makeup remains in a state of flux ahead of the transfer window closing ultimately achieved their main objectives - of not losing or conceding a goal. The visitors could justifiably claim they had more possession but both 'keepers were rarely tested and the few opportunities were hit high or wide of the goals." Mackems "Sunderland will be angry that they did not get reward for a game which they controlled in large chunks." Fulham "an ultimately edgy win over a tired looking Fulham side." QPR Newcastle manager Alan Pardew: "I am not disappointed we did not get any more from this game because we did not deserve any more. Aston Villa "creating anything clearcut seemed to be beyond us" Blackburn "More goals could and should have followed with Ben Arfa, Best and Gabriel Obertan all coming close. To be back in this ground with supporters shouting "Ole!" as the home side sprayed passes around was as exhilarating as it was unexpected." Wolves "Wolves boss Mick McCarthy will rightly be aggrieved by two decisions." Newcastle manager Alan Pardew: "We were lucky today. We've been better than that and controlled the game much better in other matches. Today we had good fortune." Spurs "The equaliser came four minutes from normal time although both the home side and the visitors could have take away all three points” Wigan Newcastle manager Alan Pardew: "Great credit to Wigan in their approach to the game because they were faster and crisper than us” I wasn't discussing "your" position, we were debating Leazes position (which I note he has yet to clarify). As for "best performances in 14/15 years" I'll take result over performance any day. I've never been in team "they'd rather lose 4-3 than win 1-0". Anyway that wasn't the debate.

Current position. I'm not some kind of geek who's gonna look at historical position Meaningless, the "hardness factor" for those we've played is presumably affected by the fact we've played them and not lost to them. Using your logic. We beat Fulham, Fulham drew with Man City ergo our game against Man City should be easier than our game against Fulham. I missed no point btw.

You're becomming more Leazes by the day, I never said we NEVER won games against "poorer teams" just I have reflected that in the past we have had a habit of losing to them with monotonous regularity, this year we're not (so far). For what it's worth I do think we'll struggle on Monday mind, we're not built to handle the likes of Stoke's methods, will be happy to be proved wrong mind. It's what he's said ad nauseum since the start of the season, not just in this thread. Best he explains what he means. I believe he thinks we're shit but the others are shitter, we've had our best start in 14/15 years, maybe he can clarify why that is, in his opinion.

Kluivert Guivarc'h Bassedas Tomasson Sadly miss-used (or under-rated) by us, as his later career showed.

As an aside. My first ever "favourite" Newcastle player aided hugely by the fact my first Newcastle subbuteo team (around that time) had one figure thats hair hadn't been painted and so was instantly blonde Benny.

Does that excuse the approach. We needed cover for Enrique (and for RB too). We should have been in the market for Santon either way. The fact we sold Enrique meant we should have been looking for another body to bring in. The performance of the defence without Enrique would suggest your post is not true in terms of percieved need and real need. We didn't have a single defender on the bench on Wednesday. The defence conceded 4. Against the club that are bottom of the league. I think it's a real need. What defensive players we have are performing over and above expectation this season. 75% of them are players that were here when we got relegated though and they need numbers bolstered. we've won a few games against the weaker opposition in the league though, so TP and his thick chums including those "experts" on skunkers etc [who also have stopped backing the club with their own hard cash despite insisting the club is "on the right lines"] now appear to think it supercedes 15 years of playing regularly in europe, and is "better" We've had our best start in 15 years, I would suggest that the "weaker" opposition appears as such partly because we've beaten them, when previously we haven't. I don't think Leazes was suggesting the opposition this season is weaker than the 14 years previous, but that we've only proven ourselves capable of beating the weaker teams in the league this season (Blackburn, Wigan, Fulham, Wolves, Sunderland), but incapable of beating anyone better than them (QPR, Villa, Arsenal, Spurs). ....important and impressive as it is that we've won all of those 5 games we have, as well as a couple of the draws. I think he is, so I guess we disagree. Perhaps he can clarify. The fact remains, we are winning/drawing games we have previously lost. That fact, I believe in Leazes world, is simply becasue the teams that haven't beaten us are shitter than they have ever been than when we've faced them in the past 14 years. i.e. We're really shit, but we're lucky because the rest of them are really really more shit than us.

Does that excuse the approach. We needed cover for Enrique (and for RB too). We should have been in the market for Santon either way. The fact we sold Enrique meant we should have been looking for another body to bring in. The performance of the defence without Enrique would suggest your post is not true in terms of percieved need and real need. We didn't have a single defender on the bench on Wednesday. The defence conceded 4. Against the club that are bottom of the league. I think it's a real need. What defensive players we have are performing over and above expectation this season. 75% of them are players that were here when we got relegated though and they need numbers bolstered. we've won a few games against the weaker opposition in the league though, so TP and his thick chums including those "experts" on skunkers etc [who also have stopped backing the club with their own hard cash despite insisting the club is "on the right lines"] now appear to think it supercedes 15 years of playing regularly in europe, and is "better" We've had our best start in 15 years, I would suggest that the "weaker" opposition appears as such partly because we've beaten them, when previously we haven't.

This is the crux of it for me and how I believe Mike n Derek think they will run things. Buy Player A for £2m Play him for a season or two and sell for £5m Buy Player B who is better than Player A for £2m Possible? yes. Likely? no Yes it happens at times but frankly if you're selling Colo to Liverpool for £15m and think that Pierre DePoofPoof currently playing in the reserves at Lyon is a better prospect then its a gamble. For every Tiote, Cabaye and Santon theres a dozen Perch's, Goslings and Elliotts. To an extent Id even agree its worth a gamble selling 1 big name player per season and replacing them with 3 or 4 exciting prospects. The big worry comes when you sell 2 or 3 big names and suddenly drop 3 random foreign youngsters into the first XI and expect them to keep you afloat. There's no need to do that and no evidence we will, any more than any other team will. Buying a player is always a gamble, better you fail on a £2Mill one than a £10-15Mill one. This selling the best player every year premise neglects one major thing. There has to be a market for said player. If that market is a Champions league or richer club, then you're fucked no matter who you are (see Nasri, Arsenal to Citeh). Just because a player is "our" best player, doesn't make him immediately sought after by those further up the ladder. filling your team with "2m players" will only result in one thing. Who said we were, can't think of one off hand. It was a throwaway example dimwit are all of your posts dimwitted "throwaway examples" ? Nope, mine tend to be based on facts or at least rationalised, yours are just repeated tired old ramblings of nothingness.

This is the crux of it for me and how I believe Mike n Derek think they will run things. Buy Player A for £2m Play him for a season or two and sell for £5m Buy Player B who is better than Player A for £2m Possible? yes. Likely? no Yes it happens at times but frankly if you're selling Colo to Liverpool for £15m and think that Pierre DePoofPoof currently playing in the reserves at Lyon is a better prospect then its a gamble. For every Tiote, Cabaye and Santon theres a dozen Perch's, Goslings and Elliotts. To an extent Id even agree its worth a gamble selling 1 big name player per season and replacing them with 3 or 4 exciting prospects. The big worry comes when you sell 2 or 3 big names and suddenly drop 3 random foreign youngsters into the first XI and expect them to keep you afloat. There's no need to do that and no evidence we will, any more than any other team will. Buying a player is always a gamble, better you fail on a £2Mill one than a £10-15Mill one. This selling the best player every year premise neglects one major thing. There has to be a market for said player. If that market is a Champions league or richer club, then you're fucked no matter who you are (see Nasri, Arsenal to Citeh). Just because a player is "our" best player, doesn't make him immediately sought after by those further up the ladder. filling your team with "2m players" will only result in one thing. Who said we were, can't think of one off hand. It was a throwaway example dimwit

This is the crux of it for me and how I believe Mike n Derek think they will run things. Buy Player A for £2m Play him for a season or two and sell for £5m Buy Player B who is better than Player A for £2m Possible? yes. Likely? no Yes it happens at times but frankly if you're selling Colo to Liverpool for £15m and think that Pierre DePoofPoof currently playing in the reserves at Lyon is a better prospect then its a gamble. For every Tiote, Cabaye and Santon theres a dozen Perch's, Goslings and Elliotts. To an extent Id even agree its worth a gamble selling 1 big name player per season and replacing them with 3 or 4 exciting prospects. The big worry comes when you sell 2 or 3 big names and suddenly drop 3 random foreign youngsters into the first XI and expect them to keep you afloat. Far too realistic for those who still believe in fairies. Isn't this how ManU and all the other clubs in the history of the game have been successful though It's exactly how the succesfull teams (apart from the sugar-daddied one's) have conducted themsleves, why don't you look and see. do you mean, they buy "trophy players" ? To actually attempt to be successful, like the clubs that actually ARE successful ? And so generate bigger finance and revenues..... Your corner shop mentality persists....have you revaluated your man yet, now you have seen what he did "when he had money to spend for the first time" ? No, they buy players they can afford based upon their income, the fact that they tend to be "richer" means that the fee's they pay tend to be higher. We, even within our means, are "richer" than most, thus we should be more succesfull than most. Sadly, a) it's not an exact science and relative size does not = a guarantee of relative success, as we well know and b ) in the absence of any parity rules, the gap to REAL success is about £300million away, where's that sort of money going to come from ???

This is the crux of it for me and how I believe Mike n Derek think they will run things. Buy Player A for £2m Play him for a season or two and sell for £5m Buy Player B who is better than Player A for £2m Possible? yes. Likely? no Yes it happens at times but frankly if you're selling Colo to Liverpool for £15m and think that Pierre DePoofPoof currently playing in the reserves at Lyon is a better prospect then its a gamble. For every Tiote, Cabaye and Santon theres a dozen Perch's, Goslings and Elliotts. To an extent Id even agree its worth a gamble selling 1 big name player per season and replacing them with 3 or 4 exciting prospects. The big worry comes when you sell 2 or 3 big names and suddenly drop 3 random foreign youngsters into the first XI and expect them to keep you afloat. There's no need to do that and no evidence we will, any more than any other team will. Buying a player is always a gamble, better you fail on a £2Mill one than a £10-15Mill one. This selling the best player every year premise neglects one major thing. There has to be a market for said player. If that market is a Champions league or richer club, then you're fucked no matter who you are (see Nasri, Arsenal to Citeh). Just because a player is "our" best player, doesn't make him immediately sought after by those further up the ladder.

You can't win on the pitch if you're skint

This is the crux of it for me and how I believe Mike n Derek think they will run things. Buy Player A for £2m Play him for a season or two and sell for £5m Buy Player B who is better than Player A for £2m Possible? yes. Likely? no Yes it happens at times but frankly if you're selling Colo to Liverpool for £15m and think that Pierre DePoofPoof currently playing in the reserves at Lyon is a better prospect then its a gamble. For every Tiote, Cabaye and Santon theres a dozen Perch's, Goslings and Elliotts. To an extent Id even agree its worth a gamble selling 1 big name player per season and replacing them with 3 or 4 exciting prospects. The big worry comes when you sell 2 or 3 big names and suddenly drop 3 random foreign youngsters into the first XI and expect them to keep you afloat. Far too realistic for those who still believe in fairies. Isn't this how ManU and all the other clubs in the history of the game have been successful though It's exactly how the succesfull teams (apart from the sugar-daddied one's) have conducted themsleves, why don't you look and see.

Does that excuse the approach. We needed cover for Enrique (and for RB too). We should have been in the market for Santon either way. The fact we sold Enrique meant we should have been looking for another body to bring in. The performance of the defence without Enrique would suggest your post is not true in terms of percieved need and real need.

Define foreign?? If non English - Tony Green #1

You seem to be more the financial wiz than me, explain how we aim to be self sufficient and continue to progress on the pitch while our incomings (without player sales) are at best break even. we saw it in september, we'd sold Carroll for £35m yet when it came to Santon the words from Pardew was that we had to sell Enrique first before we could afford to buy him. Oops, missed this, sorry for the late reply. If we're breaking even now (outside of player trading), given the financial abyss we've climbed out of, I would expect (subject to continued reasonable football performance) to grow into "trading profit" at some point, given our "size". That said, player trading is part of the whole "pot" BUT you have to be able to trade on your terms, i.e. You replace players when you want to, or improve/upgrade a position and hopefully make a profit on the deal. Profit on player sales isn't quite straightforward though (because of amortisisation) as you don't need to spend £5 Mill on a player and then sell him for £10 Mill to realise a £5Million profit. What I mean is, if you buy a £5 Mill player and keep him for 3 years of a 5 year contract, as an example, his book value at the three year point is £2 Mill (he's amorticised at cost divided by length of contract) so whatever you sell him for over £2Mill is a "profit on player trading". So you can make profits on player trading without continually selling your best or most valuable players. Hence my view of the phrase "buying players with resale value", is simply about, not buying players who will be worth next to nowt when the contract is done or has run down. Why? - Because in the same scenario as my example above, (Mr £5 Million player, valued in your books at £2 Mill with 2 years left on his deal), say he's 32/33 and in the market is only worth a million (or nowt) when you want to replace/move him on, he represents a "loss on player trading" at that time, which is a real hit on your bottom line and your transfer fund. (Similarly paying a big fee for an older player knowing they'll be worth bugger all come the time they'll be moved on is an even bigger hit). Sometimes an older player will be worth "running down", Colo being the current example, he really should be renewed. The fees paid, if we do, as we believe pay it all up front, come out of that years cash reserves the "book cost" is the amortisisation figure. On your Santon/Enrique comment, that's a tad disingenuous the way you've stated it (even if Pardew said it that way). IF Enrique had wanted to stay we would not have been in the market for Santon. We did not sell Enrique to buy Santon, Enrique wanted away and had to be replaced. Chalk/Cheese to the scenario as portrayed. As for the Carroll money, which would indeed represent a significant "profit on player trading", given the lack of visible "big spend", I suspect that a significant wedge has been used to reduce MA's exposure, either via a direct recoup (as in a reduction of the debt to him) or it'll have been used in place of the annual subsidy he has thus far been putting in which I think off the top of my head was/has been circa £20 Mill a year (or maybe both).

Good stuff HF A "top flight only" one would be interesting. Would guess SBR in particular would rise somehwat