snakehips

Can I please be the first to say adios, Alan, and thanks for all your hard work. Nah, only joking. FUCK OFF YOU CHARLATAN TWAT.

Lord above. I came on to have a laugh about Pardew leaving, decided to have a quick scroll through and found this. Life doesn't half have a habit of kicking you in the nuts sometimes. I only met him once in The Trent, and he seemed a good lad. However little I knew him, he remains part of my life in a way. Very, very sad news.

I'd love to know who Carr reports to first. Is it to Pardew or Llambias(Ashley)? Who gives Carr his brief? You could well be right that Parsnip calls the tune about players, but given the financial parameters that NUFC are now working to, the argument can be made that Llambias, and not Pardew, gives Carr the brief. Well its either one or the other i suppose. You're right again, Chez. I surrender, as you're too good for me.

Leazes, who on earth has this superiority complex????? Your answer I know will be m-m (and possibly Gemmill, though I'm not certain of your disdain for him recently), but I simply cannot see it - in any way, shape or form.

mediocre player playing for poor time goes to better team = plays better and 'shines' in better team. mediocre player playing for better team goes to worse team = plays worse and is instantly 'spotlighted' as being 'shite'. We've all seen this time and time again over the years with players. We only have to look 13 miles down the road to look at O'Shea and the orange-haired kid; both were playing for a magnificent footballing side where their 'faults' weren't exposed week in, week out. Now they are under the microscope - big time.

You can't do logical extension with Leazes, it's a waste of time. And while you're at pains to maintain the diplomacy with him, a blind man on a galloping horse can see why he gets stick with all due respect. To state my position clearly, for me the narrative that every deal is done with a view solely to sell-on profit is a nonsense and a completely emotion driven response to losing players we're attached to. There are numerous examples to discredit it; Barton on a free, Nolan, Enrique (the worst example of all for me as it happens...the expense of replacing him with a player at more or less identical cost not to mention the risk inherent in losing an established performer for an unproven one). Every contract term that's offered will be done with a view to getting the best fee if it comes to sale, but that's true of every contract that's ever been drafted post-Bosman. It doesn't automatically follow we'll sell just because we've got them on a longer deal though. The narrative that I subscribe to (I think I'm possibly alone in it in fact) is that players will simply be shipped unless they conform to the new wage structure and that that will be a decision taken entirely independent of footballing reasons in each case. Thus if we got rid of Colo it'll not be principally because we wanted to get a transfer windfall out of him, it'll be because under no circumstances could the club and players remuneration aspirations be reconciled. That for me will have been the main issue with Enrique. He'll have wanted improved terms because he'd had a couple of good seasons and it's normal for a player to be able to expect that will be forthcoming on renewal provided they're in demand with at least one other club, but to do so would have put him appreciably higher than Tiote, which then sets a precedent for every incoming and current players wage negotiations. It's wage pressure that will mean players leave and everyone at the club will be very clearly on notice about that and geared to dealing with the best exit for the club. That's not the same thing as saying that every player is bought and signed up to terms solely with a view to a transfer profit however, and I distance myself from that narrative at all times because the evidence is against it. I also subscribe to the narrative that player transfer fee surpluses won't necessarily get put back into the team. At the same time, I don't say things as naive as 'every penny in should clearly be mirrored in transfer fees paid out'. However I think the continued refusal to buy a striker with recent surplus funds was more prejudicial than prudent. Even the Bert Luque one?? And the Owen one?? To me, they were both cases of 'get him in', regardless of any future deals. Sorry, yes that was oversimplifying things to a degree. But to address it to those examples, what I mean is if you pay the sort of transfer fees we paid for those players, you don't sign them to a two month contract-the fee reflects the fact you've 'got' them for a certain amount of time, to do with as you see fit during that period, depending on prevailing circumstances. Which also means you're goosed if your club is in disarray, they've got no respect for you, you pay them too much and nobody else wants to take them off your hands at the wages you're paying them. Agreed. I was thinking that yesterday following the Tevez (and most Man City players in general) business.

I'd love to know who Carr reports to first. Is it to Pardew or Llambias(Ashley)? Who gives Carr his brief? You could well be right that Parsnip calls the tune about players, but given the financial parameters that NUFC are now working to, the argument can be made that Llambias, and not Pardew, gives Carr the brief.

You can't do logical extension with Leazes, it's a waste of time. And while you're at pains to maintain the diplomacy with him, a blind man on a galloping horse can see why he gets stick with all due respect. To state my position clearly, for me the narrative that every deal is done with a view solely to sell-on profit is a nonsense and a completely emotion driven response to losing players we're attached to. There are numerous examples to discredit it; Barton on a free, Nolan, Enrique (the worst example of all for me as it happens...the expense of replacing him with a player at more or less identical cost not to mention the risk inherent in losing an established performer for an unproven one). Every contract term that's offered will be done with a view to getting the best fee if it comes to sale, but that's true of every contract that's ever been drafted post-Bosman. It doesn't automatically follow we'll sell just because we've got them on a longer deal though. The narrative that I subscribe to (I think I'm possibly alone in it in fact) is that players will simply be shipped unless they conform to the new wage structure and that that will be a decision taken entirely independent of footballing reasons in each case. Thus if we got rid of Colo it'll not be principally because we wanted to get a transfer windfall out of him, it'll be because under no circumstances could the club and players remuneration aspirations be reconciled. That for me will have been the main issue with Enrique. He'll have wanted improved terms because he'd had a couple of good seasons and it's normal for a player to be able to expect that will be forthcoming on renewal provided they're in demand with at least one other club, but to do so would have put him appreciably higher than Tiote, which then sets a precedent for every incoming and current players wage negotiations. It's wage pressure that will mean players leave and everyone at the club will be very clearly on notice about that and geared to dealing with the best exit for the club. That's not the same thing as saying that every player is bought and signed up to terms solely with a view to a transfer profit however, and I distance myself from that narrative at all times because the evidence is against it. I also subscribe to the narrative that player transfer fee surpluses won't necessarily get put back into the team. At the same time, I don't say things as naive as 'every penny in should clearly be mirrored in transfer fees paid out'. However I think the continued refusal to buy a striker with recent surplus funds was more prejudicial than prudent. Even the Bert Luque one?? And the Owen one?? To me, they were both cases of 'get him in', regardless of any future deals.

Fish does like to sport a cravat with his blazer.

They'd look lush with Sports Direct on them.

Went to see TTSS on Monday. Alec Guiness is alive and well, following Oldman's performance.

I was being ironic man. I'm the first one to roll my eyes when I hear how it's been a 'long half-term' Shurrup man! I do 12-hour shifts man. I'm the only one who plays for sympathy round here Crisis Team does 7am-9pm Proper killer, but worth the 4 days off a week Am I missing something???

Although she'll never read this, I will tell you all something. I was away from home the whole of 1990. My son was fairly new and, due to a lot of ear problems, hardly slept one night throughout that time. Almost each and every night he would cry and cry due to the pain/ache. Mrs hips dealt with it all and hardly moaned once to me. Which reminds me, I need her to iron a shirt.....

Went to see it yesterday. Interesting stuff, but his work doesn't really get my pulse racing. Had a tootle down to The Laing as well. Some nice 18th & 19th C paintings. They also had some modern stuff on exhibition too. Yeah, blocks of wood stacked around; art? Yes, but total and utter shit in my opinion. I see another miner was killed the other day (not to mention the hundreds (?) that get killed across the world which we never hear about). Sad stuff. Thank fuck I don't make my living in that hell hole.

Workshy layabouts, the lot of 'em.