Flair

Sweet fucking Allah a striker drifting into a wide position, have you never watched football? What all the fucking time? As I have said before he is being played upfront because your homie didn't buy any strikers and he let the best one go with no replacement. Just for the record, I am neither Muslim nor Sikh as you appear to think. We've never played him on the wing though you fucking fool. Not in any of the striker-rich 3 seasons he's been here Maybe because we have always been short in the fucking attacking department in recent memory? Have your Ashley apologist spectacles blinded you? Martins, Owen, Viduka, Carroll at one point - he STILL didn't play on the wing You mean when Viduka was absent the whole time? How many games was Mickey playing? Carroll was like 19 and wasn't quite ready then. I seem to remember Martins was injured aswell.

Sweet fucking Allah a striker drifting into a wide position, have you never watched football? What all the fucking time? As I have said before he is being played upfront because your homie didn't buy any strikers and he let the best one go with no replacement. Just for the record, I am neither Muslim nor Sikh as you appear to think. We've never played him on the wing though you fucking fool. Not in any of the striker-rich 3 seasons he's been here Maybe because in recent memory, we have always been short in the fucking attacking department? Have your Ashley apologist spectacles blinded you?

Surely not, Ashley's 5 year plan ofcourse?

Sweet fucking Allah a striker drifting into a wide position, have you never watched football? What all the fucking time? As I have said before he is being played upfront because your homie didn't buy any strikers and he let the best one go with no replacement. Just for the record, I am neither Muslim nor Sikh as you appear to think.

So Skidders, when I told you Lovenkrands was a winger, I was wrong eh? Did you see the amount of times he was on the wing and not in the box? Take notes son.

He was free lad. Hardly a 'wonderflop'. Or is that a 'big money' signing according to the likes of Ashley/Pardew?

WTF are you on about? Newcastle Jets Game with a Newcastle United shirt.

And I haven't. How would you like Ashley to show that ambition? Get the club into debt trying to reach a pretty unattainable top 4 position. With the money in the teams that are up there now, how much do you think it'd cost? That’s how everybody bar Man City do it. Your missing the key point. You can’t rest on your laurels in football. The moment a club stops trying to go forward it’s guaranteed to go backwards, and once that happens revenue streams start to fall and the club enters a vicious downward cycle. Nobody wants Ashley to run up huge debts in a mad dash to win the Champions League. They want him to have ambition for the club beyond having a profit on the balance sheet at the end of the season. As it stands he’s run up huge debts going nowhere. Diminishing our standing has club has cost a fortune. There’s ambition. There’s Ridsdale style madness, and there’s Bob Murray style complacency. The later of the three most reassembles how NUFC are being run. thats spot on really. And as for Ridsdale, Leeds are now on the way back, and while they have had these few years in the doldrums, talk to a Leeds supporter now and he will tell you about reaching the European Cup Semi Final, long after the downward slide has faded out of memory. Football is all about highs and lows, glory, and enjoying the highs. We don't have an FA Cup win in our lifetimes to remember and say "I was there" [i was 8 months old when we last won the FA Cup]. What I find staggering is the amount of supporters, taken in by this scaremongering about the Leeds model, who appear to be saying they would rather have semi-permanent almost complete obscurity and a healthy balance sheet while flitting between relegation and re-promotion instead, is their irrational hatred of the Halls and Shepherd, through not understanding what they did for the club. Is it really THAT extreme ? Hall and Shepherd did a lot for the club and it was only in the last two or three years of their tenure that things started to go awry. Backing a manager with £50m is no bad thing, backing Souness with that amount of money was a major cock up. However, when you look at the big picture the good they did far outweighed the bad. What I don’t buy is the idea Ashley saved the club from administration. We had about £70m of debt most of which was a structured loan for redeveloping the ground, in others words most of it was a sound long term investment. The debt was nothing out of the ordinary for a PL club. The operating costs were a different matter. A £30m a year loss isn’t sustainable and something had to be done. Something sensible, not Ashley’s ham fisted cost cutting assault on the fabric of the club that got us relegated and cost the club £50m. I don’t want to talk about Shepherd and Hall but as long as they are blamed for Ashley’s mistakes it’s hard not too. They were far from perfect but they are not to blame for the state the club is in now and the sooner people stop letting Ashley of the hook the sooner we’ll get shot of him. Don't just point fingers without offering alternative solutions. A solution? How about a gradual reduction in the operating deficit set against a background of stability, thereby retaining our Premier League status and boosting the coffers by at least £50m. The bottom line in all of this is the price Ashley paid. If the club was about to go tits up he should have paid a price that reflected the amount of investment needed to steady the ship. Instead what he did was piss money down the drain because (according to you) somebody set him a deadline and he shit his pants. Operating at a huge loss and you suggest gradually reducing it. Surely it's like an oil leak, you want to plug it asap, I would have thought. If you do it slowly, more leaks out. Relegation wasn't because of cost-cutting either, it was because of the farcical events of the season, and big money players not being up for it (generally what happens when you sign trophy players, they couldn't give a fuck) The bottom line in all of this is the price Ashley paid. If the club was about to go tits up he should have paid a price that reflected the amount of investment needed to steady the ship. Instead what he did was piss money down the drain because (according to you) somebody set him a deadline and he shit his pants. I don't see how the price he paid relates really. I doubt if he'd have been able to buy it for the lower, reflected price you suggest. Then he shouldn’t have bought it then should he. Nobody was holding a gun to his head. He took a huge gamble, fucked up and nearly four years later we had to sell our best player because the club is (apparently) still neck deep in financial shit. It's pathetic. Perhaps, but there's nothing at all to suggest we'd have been better off with the alternative. Even before relegation Ashley had put a lot of cash in, cash that I dare say wouldn't have been provided by the previous owners. What would have happened if Ashley had stayed well away is the great unknown. We might have gone into administration or we might not. We might have been bought by Sheik Mansour for £100m or Barry Moat for a quid. There’s no way of knowing, which is why it’s better to stick with what has happened and on that front Ashley has been a disaster. We're higher in the league than we were when we came in, so on that front, disaster is an exaggeration. We took a huge step backwards in farcical circumstances, but even the relegation wasn't disastrous, because we've gone from strength to strength since. Gone strength to strength, aye. You mean delving into the free agent market to sign Shefki.

Yeah lets all go sign your petition and get rid of Ashley! Nothing productive to add? Then, belt up.

What did you expect with Ashley in charge? Sums the level of ambition currently at the club up. 'Lets replace Andy Carroll with Shefqi Kuqi.' Shefqi fucken Kuqi, the man only famous for one thing, belly flopping. Couldn't make it up.

I thought your home boy was brimming with it?

Couldn't care less. We are talking football, one is entitled to their opinions.

So using the club to bolster Sports-direct sales, even fkn naming the ground Sportsdirect.com@St.James' Park isn't attempting to make sponge of Newcastle United. Add to that, when one considers we have a net spend of -£47million in the transfer market, have gained parachute payments, reduced wages to lower than low rates and still you think your home boy isn't making a profit. He runs the club like a pound shop and you think that he isn't remotely profiting from it. So are you saying he IS making a profit, contrary to what the accounts say? Btw, you've already told me you're down south, so if anything, he's YOUR home boy. Oh and is lending the club over £100m not a decent price to pay for some advertising, irrespective of how rank it looks? Mong. The accounts? You mean the out-dated ones? Moreover, I doubt the accounts would factor in his gain from Sports-Direct sales... Lending the club £100m? Fuck me.

He hasn't bought the club to make money is the part I completely disagree with. Why? Using the club to bolster Sports-direct sales, even fkn naming the ground Sportsdirect.com@St.James' Park isn't attempting to sponge of Newcastle United, is it now? Add to that, when one considers we have a net spend of -£47million in the transfer market, have gained parachute payments, reduced wages to lower than low rates and still you think your home boy isn't making a profit. He runs the club like a pound shop and you think that he isn't remotely profiting from it.

Mike Ashley isn't bankrolling us. Like Shepherd didn't. Well with the free loans he has put into the club he clearly is bankrolling us to some degree. Of course it is his money, his club and his choice as to how far he is prepared to invest, or indeed speculate, with Newcastle United. For me it comes back to the question why would anyone want to own a big club in the world's top league? There are five reasons I can think of, but I would be interested to see if anyone on here has any others? 1. A hobby - a bit of interest, crack, fun etc. 2. Kudos, you are a massive egotist and wish to show off etc by owning something very expensive and exclusive 3. Advertising - a big club presents a huge international opportunity to promote your interests 4. Money, there's a lot of money sloshing around the game and a bit of wheeling and dealing you can perhaps make a pretty penny - either through transfer dealings and other income or through eventually selling the club on at a profit, ideally both. 5. Ambition - you are driven to make that club a success for its own reasons, money, kudos and advertising would be a bonus behind this. I understand your neverending war with Leazes, but I suppose outside of that I want to ask you - where do you think Ashley's approach lies within the above? I think he is mostly 3 and 4 with a splash of 2 and in the early days 1, 5 is the least important to him with the exception of having just enough ambition to be involved in the top flight to keep 3&4 up there on a budget. The Halls and Sheperd were mostly 4 and 5 combined. I know which I would prefer, but I also know how much debt the latter accrued at the club, which of course brings us full circle. Ashley started as a 1,3 and 5. Failure to do due diligence and the fallout with the fans puts him now at a 3 and 2. I don't think 4 is really what he's about, he makes enough from Sports Direct, the ball ache of trying to make a premiership club profitable for him on a personal level is probably pointless, because the profits would be relatively small to him anyway. If you offered him break even right now he'd probably bite your hand off though. It was much easier for the Halls/Shepherd to be a 5, because they were doing it 1) in the middle of a footballing boom and 2) without any personal risk I think he is at 4 to recoup what he lost at the minimum, which you state (I perhaps should have expended 4 to include 'not make a loss' but that was tacit). I don't agree that he thinks he makes enough from SD, many rich people are invariably interested in making more and more money. Otherwise he would have quit when he reached his first million/10 million/100 million/billion. Why make a special case out of us? Because football clubs are generally not profitable, if he wanted to make money, he'd buy a business where his staff get £6 an hour, not £30k per week. It's easy to say he's at a 4 to recoup his losses but the more likely scenario is that it's to reduce the club's annual losses, otherwise it'll never be in a position to spend money to a) pay it's debts and "speculate" Fuck me your dense.

Oh the irony, how you used to whinge like fuck via PM when you thought people were targeting you and now you're doing just the same to someone else. And then you go and post shit like that. Seriously man get a grip or fuck off. It gave me a virus, ban him please.

Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now...

Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it.......

His only commitment to Newcastle United is how to make a quick buck. Will he spend £35million in the summer? I can bet my bottom dollar that we will sell as much in the summer even if we do.

Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits.

How is your petition going? Allright about 25 signatures. The weight of that bad boy on Big Mike's Sports Direct funded castle will surely make it implode. Surely, you should be referring to your boy as 'Mikey'.

The Leicester game (Aitken's debut) we came back from 4-2 down, not 4-1. We were winning that one 2-1 at one point. Others that stick in my mind were a couple of away games during SBR's reign where we ended up winning 4-3. Leeds and Derby were the opposition I think. Am sure Lua Lua got a last minute winner at Derby. Wasn't the Derby one 3-2. Malcolm Christie got a goal as I remember it. 4-3 with Leeds, we were 3-1 down and I think it was Solano who got the winner.

This is ridiculous.

How is your petition going? Allright about 25 signatures.

Better than anything we have got or will have under this regime. I will take him in a heartbeat.