Happy Face

I don't think profitability is bad. Just wondered why it's "great news" given CT's vocal concerns about the quality of the squad. Because it puts us in a position where we can make additions to the squad in a financially responsible way. I suspect and hope that Cisse was a glimpse of what Ashley is prepared to do when he knows that he owns a club that can run at a profit. But these results cover the year 10/11 right? CT's concerns haven't been addressed in 11/12, as you're hoping they would.

Coloccini's contract has no effect on the bottom line, it's just an extension of his current deal.

For years HF complains about the poor financial performance, then in a stunning display of inconsistent and incoherent contrarianism, complains about good financial performance as a sign of under investment. Couple of points here, 1. you have to earn money before you can spend it. 2. If you spend more than you earn at some point you need to earn more than you spend. I didn't complain.

I don't think profitability is bad. Just wondered why it's "great news" given CT's vocal concerns about the quality of the squad.

Following our magnificent start to the season, the club has lost 7 of it's last 16 games. Only Blackburn, Bolton, Wolves and QPR have lost more in the same period. I hope the progress made isn't fleeting.

Why? I would have thought that having an operating profit before player trading, whilst bringing in quality players, whilst being 6th in the league in March, whilst being 5 points ahead of Liverpool was a canny position to be in. Surely its the sort of position that makes owners feel better and more likely to offer better contracts to star players and take the odd punt now and again. Should I be sad? "No one really wants the club to making a huge profit, the aim is to invest in the playing squad, or the ground." http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/ If new wingers would make the difference you think it would, and that money is sat doing nothing for us, then you should be sad about that.

Why?

There will always be a justification for selling any player. Sold 4 of our top 7 players though, so Li3nz is right.

http://www.toontastic.net/board/topic/30154-player-of-the-season-poll/page__hl__season__fromsearch__1 Carroll wasn't included in the poll for our player of the season last year cos he'd already gone, but in addition to him, 50% of our 6 nominees have been shown the door. 2 of the top 3 including the actual winner.

i think he was actually close to the touchline. he wrong footed 2 defenders by rolling the ball out, then back, then out again then. It was actually unbelievable. Watched it on MOTD2 on V+ when I got in from work tonight. It was a thing of beauty.

http://www.karmaloop.com/product/The-Dixon-Flip-Regular-Tee-in-Black/166754

So that's all we need then, to sign 2 players as good as the best 2 wingers the club has had in 30 years. You should work for the club, genius

One of the lads was raging when a nail clipper landed on his head during the game. Calling them worse than muck. Debating whether or not to hand it to a steward and all that. Getting the pints in at half time another one of the lads who sits at the other end of the group complained that when he was shaking his "weez keyz" over his head he lost his nail clipper.

What I like about LM is he's consistent. He rarely changes his view to go with the prevailing winds. He's stalwart. Very British. He's absolutely certain of his convictions and whatever evidence there is to the contrary, however many people oppose him, he'll back his view to the hilt until it's proven either way. The wind will always change back his way, and he'll revel in the glory. Chez is more slippery, like a foxy fox. His view is shaped by the latest facts, always happy to change tack. It's all that time in France, he'd have backed the Vichy government. He'll take the fact that no-one made an offer for any of our players in the space of 30 days as proof positive that the club have learned the lessons of what it takes to compete at the top level. Ignoring the 5 years previous. He made the same mistake after the Summer 2010 window, only to see Carroll sold in Jan 2011. Chez rolled with the punch, did some fancy footwork, worked the angles, and came out jabbing with reasons why it was a great move for us. He's gone from describing Barton as the best player at the club to backing Pardew's decision to get rid (though he wanted to keep him) as great management. Chez prefers the immediacy of being right in short bursts regularly. Leazes likes the long slow build. He's like Sting fucking Trudie.

I didn't say that's the rule at all, i said that's Leazes' view. There's no tripe there whatsoever, it describes Leazes view perfectly, which he confirmed. He's made it clear repeatedly and on it goes. The only thing that will change that view is when we've spent another £25m or so without selling anyone. It makes Arsenal and Spurs second rate too. Not sure bout Man U though, They have definitely spent in excess of £90m since Ronaldo went the journey. For my part, I don't really care what the transfer deficit is. Even if we hadn't sold Carroll, and were in the hole transferwise I'd still be as annoyed that Williamson and Simpson remain first choice defenders for 5 months of our season. The fact there was a big windfall recently just rubs that salt into the wound.

Spending £10m, signing new contracts with your best players and not selling anyone in a window are all good things which i'm happy to see. They are things any second rate club can be seen doing though. QPR spent £10m in January too, and gave Helguson a contract. Stoke spent £10m on Crouch. Fulham spent it on Ruiz. I've not seen Leazes complain about any of those things either. Just that we don't reinvest what we earn from inbound transfer fees back on outbound ones. It's an argument that can't be beaten because it's a fact. Whatever the merits of the approach, however well Spurs or Arsenal do it, whether the money is reinvested in other ways, whatever else NUFC do well outside of that, you aren't going to be able to convince Leazes the above isn't true, because it is. That's the be all and end all of his view.

Looking at those Mackems holding aloft Sports Direct plastic bags yesterday, I felt a kinship with the fat man I haven't felt in 4 years. It may just have been how fucking stupid they are, or it may have been that he's got us back looking down on them from a better league position, as well as the inherently loftier moral position, but my pity for them gave me a moment of clarity where I remembered, things could have been worse, I could have been born a mackem.

Ryan Taylor Tweets Funny reading all the BITTER SMB's.... There was only 1 football team on that pitch today, an there's only 1 team in the north east. #TOON is calling a set of fans bastards ok by the FA?

JawD's

This is the week to announce Shola's testimonial. These windows of opportunity come around rarely.

Not sure why that posts been directed at me tbh

Who said that these contracts are being funded by the Carroll transfer? The fact that someone has added up the cost of the contract over its lifetime is a reflection of the desire to communicate the reality of these sort of deals for me. The article under discussion said it. See my last post. I made it clearer as i knew a few posters would be put out if i suggested it was the club pushing this line.

is that what we're being told though? was there an official line from the club saying the money used to extend those two deals was the carroll cash? as far as i can see it's just speculation from the mirror. i'm not saying they will reinvest all the 35m like - i don't expect them to - but there have at least been more encouraging signs of ambition since the carroll sale. Whether it's the reporters spin or the clubs, it's what's being suggested. I wasn't apportioning any blame to anyone for it. It's not just bollocks because of the reasons above, but also because we've actually spent £23m on transfers since selling Carroll. How much longer are we going to go on spending this finite amount of money?