The Fish

Well he's not really, they've been widely praised and not just by nerds and geeks. They've oscar nominations and staggering sales, they're both critically and publically acclaimed, but because they're about superheros and explosions they're more often than not dismissed as shit by old men. That's fine, crack on and be earnestly intrigued by a VHS of a korean movie that is really important.

Speaking of that, who would be a good shout for the captaincy?

By your own admission you don't know the 1st 11 of the top clubs, so how would you possibly have heard of the kind of player we're going to get? Haven't you also dismissed stats previously? And Football brains?

How will you possibly know if they're good or not?

Your opinion is vitally important to my enjoyment of these movies.

Aye, but you're a big old cynic.

Expecting it to be shit, to be honest. Will Smith is going to Will Smith his way through the movie and Batman v Superman didn't convince me that DC can handle ensemble movies in the same was as Joss Whedon did with Avengers and The Russo brothers with Captain America: Civil War. I'm expecting Exposition->Set Piece->Exposition->All seems lost->Set piece->Fin. Which is fine for a pulpy comic book movie if the characters are funny/sympathetic. DC consistently fuck up the movie versions of their stable. These are fully fleshed out characters with rich and complex back stories stretching back decades. In Batman and Superman they have two of the most famous fictional characters of all time and yet when you see the latter on screen he's either a bumbling idiot or a scowling bore. Nolan made some cracking movies, but even his Batman was fairly 2 dimensional and it was in the villains that we got something interesting. When you compare them to the Marvel movies it's a stark contrast. Marvel Studios movies have a variety in tones, have some depth to their characters and yet still don't take themselves too seriously. Be it a heist movie (Antman), or the pseudo-thriller (Winter Soldier), irreverent slapstick (Deadpool) or the straight up Hollywood blockbuster (Avengers), there hasn't really been a true dud. There've been crimes committed in their name by other studios (the latest Fantastic 4 for example), but they've shown that if you trust the people who are conversant in the source material you'll get a product that, at the very least, appeals to and satisfies the nerd-crowd. I am fully aware you don't care but I just needed to get that off my chest. This place is therapeutic.

Could it be Wyscout?

I like the idea of Lascelles as Captain more and more. When Taylor was emerging all his chest beating rhetoric was cringe inducing, but when Lascelles talks I buy it.

I'm surprised he isn't pinning his hopes on Daniel Barlaser.

... You're saying we should go for a 32yr old striker who only managed 2 in 21 last season, because he scored 10 in 15, 2 years ago? Jesus wept, stick to general chat.

... or 2 from 21 which is his most recent return.

Good answer. what a knacker you are.

Ok, I'll go through it one more time; The kind of player that will be available to get on loan, we can attract on a full time basis... As proven by our acquisition of Gayle(fringe player at moderate club), Hayden(young player at top club) and Ritchie (1st team player at lower club). So given we have proven we can get a particular player in a position, why would we loan?

Ok, to sooth your nerves, we already have a team that is likely to be pushing for an automatic promotion spot. Signing Ritchie and Hayden and Hanley (to a lesser extent) shows we are still a big draw to players, with the first of those 2 swapping Premier League fringe for Championship 1st team. I don't think we can sign the likes of the Dutch player of the year but; We've a very healthy bank balance which will only get healthier when we sell Sissoko (and maybe others), We're the biggest team in that division We've a top class manager, We've a strong core to the side and that core is of lower-Premier League standard We've a single minded focus on getting promoted at the first time of asking We're a very attractive side for Championship starters and for Premier League bench warmers, plus players in leagues that will see us as a viable entrance to the Premier league, so we don't need to rely on loaning yet. also, you're yet to say what the virtue to loaning a player actually is. What's the actual benefit in it? The things you've mentioned could be achieved by permanently signing the kind of player that will be available to loan (see Hayden as proof)

So, to be clear, you'd be happy if quality players were brought in on a short or long term basis? What's the benefit of loaning players vs buying them though?

As has been said, loaning players doesn't really benefit a club like Newcastle. Say the player has a great season and is integral in our promotion, well the loaning club will take him back and we have to gamble on a replacement. If this young player grows into a better player because of first team games and working with Benitez, we have effectively wasted that effort and done a favour for the loaning club. We'd be better off buying a young player permanently safe in the knowledge we can still flog them on for reasonable sums.

Is that Zlatan having a good old handclaplaugh at the end there?

Must be like looking in a mirror?

Fucking hell I'm creased.