OTF

Worrying with Anita. He looked like he was technically competent and had a great engine when he arrived though nothing he has done since has instilled any sort of confidence in his ability to improve our side. Conversely, it would be fairer to judge him after he had played continually in a position.

Against weaker opposition at home perhaps there's avenue to play Fergie at fullback (switching Santon to the right). Alternately both Santon and Fergie are comfortable pushing forward so allowing them to play together could be interesting.

Sir Alex Ferguson has gone on the record to say that he's never played a holding midfielder in his 25 years at the club, do you agree with that statement? Do you need to now? Ferguson is always complimentary towards St James' Park and the Newcastle supporters, to what extent do you feel this is genuine?

Fair enough. As other have noted the extra space afforded by coming from deeper may help in some ways. It would be great if he was up to the defensive duties, but with his frame it was always going to be a stretch.

Anyone else able to add some further comments on how everyone played? How was Simpson on his return from injury? Defensively it doesn't sound like we were given much of a test? Was Cabaye getting back to his best?

Tremendous to hear that he had a good game. Unfortunately wasn't able to watch this one. How did he handle the defensive duties?

How many times and for how long do you wish to be wrong? The deal was worth up to £10M over 2 years. Newcastle United ends Virgin Money sporsorship deal It's plain as day Newcastle United wanted to end the sponsorship deal. It wasn't mutual. Speculating that Virgin may have wanted to do the same shortly is only exceeded in its ridiculousness by its pointlessness. If you needed more comfirmation from an altenate source, then here's Llambias saying that it was the clubs decision to end the deal.

1. Assists 2. Free-kicks (depending on location) 3. Corner But that's hardly your point. I think Ferguson offers a great direct fresh option when he's on the pitch. There can be no argument about the quality of some of the balls he has put into the box. What I'm concerned about is sticking him out there for a full game and having his effectiveness reduced as a result. Make no mistake - when you've had Jonas and Santon playing in left channels cutting back onto their right and delaying firing balls into the box bringing on a direct left footed player like Ferguson has more of an impact. He'll be afforded extra time and space. Him having continual bright cameos will do more for him than having playing a whole game and not being as effective. You've seen him yourself in a reserves match across 90 minutes fail to have the same impact that he's shown in his first team cameos. Part of that is down to additional motivation wheen playing for the first team obviously, but I think the usefullness of him as an impact sub who can change things cannot be understated. On the Jonas front I was merely pointing out something that others were missing in their discussion. In the last 2 games Jonas has not been his usual efffective self. He had a bad patch last season as well.

Wins the most free-kicks in the entire league, plus a bunch of corners as well - we're not seeing much benefit from this because our free-kick takers have beeen ordinary this season since Ryan Taylor was injured, plus we seem to always have the same plan to loft it in to Wiliamson who doesn't create chances even if he is first to the ball. Jonas would get balls into the box quicker if he was played down the right, but I don't think his crossing would suddenly improve markedly. Ferguson should be used off the bench for impact. Starting him in the league would not be good for him or us IMO.

So you've not even read Virgin's comments then?

If you wish to be pedantic about it it's not 'perfectly harmonious' as Virgin wished to continue the deal into its second year. Perhaps then it's a goodwill gesture? By definition anyway it is being ended prematurely as the expected term of the deal was 2 years.

He's got a problem. Some of those that think he should be back are working on one of their own it would seem.

One difference with ours is that our deal with Virgin is being prematurely ended. Perhaps a condition of theirs to end things harmoniously?

In our defense.

Are you not permitted to go on your own?

Exactly. We've seen already that when it comes to divulging information in relation to SD sponsorship income the club is ambiguous. Why?

Thanks for the lengthy reasoned response. On the subject of stadium advertising the effectiveness of general advertising boards is compromised by larger SD hoardings with more visual impact IMO. That's not to say that this is the reason why there is so little alternate sponsorship in the ground. I would say they could gain additional revenue from alternate advertisement on the more prominent boards but they are not available as a result of the agreement between SD and NUFC. On the subject of Ashley I was saying that as the owner of NUFC he could make whatever deal he wanted. For example if the Virgin deal was good for 3 million for the second year Ashley could well seek to end it prematurely and replace it with a SD deal worth 2 million to he club. If he deems the immediate revenue loss to the club to be worth it for the benefit to his own interests in SD then there would be nothing stopping him - assuming SD are happy to make the 2M deal knowing full well that the market rate was 3M.

Should have added a safety wink in case anyone missed my sarcasm.

At an insane 90% off who can argue with it?

Unicef. The signs are clearly there. We're Barcelona Mark II... Pardiola.... Ferguson....

Hopefully Cabaye's back and Pardew starts Ben Arfa - surely they'll be extra keen knowing that the match will prominently feature in France. Obertan too, to a much lesser extent and making a big assumption that he's capable of producing with additional effort. Marveaux could also be back out there.. he's looked poor so far but has shown glimpses of what he's capable of. This will be a big test.

Why must it mean that? If Ashley has decided that having SD on the Newcastle shirt is worth more to him that the money coming in from Virgin's deal then who could stop him from going ahead with it even if it means a reduced revenue for NUFC? I'd wager that revenue from stadium advertising at the moment could be increased if the SD monopoly was removed. At the end of the day Ashley is entitled to do whatever he thinks better represents his collective interest, whether or not it's at the detriment of one entity seems to largely be irrelevant. At least there will be continuity between our stadium, the seats in the stadium, the advertising boards in the stadium and our strips. Can anyone explain why they would announce the premature end of one sponsorship deal without also announcing the details of the new deal? The only possible explanation I could come up with is that it's a condition of Virgin Money allowing the deal to end early without financial penalty?

The detail in the window itself is excellent... The content however...

I don't believe that Ferguson should start, but I do think he should be put out there at some point. His effectiveness is a combination of a few things, two of those being his freshness and the conditioning of their right sided defenders to expect out left sides players to cut back onto their preferred right foot. Ferguson clearly has a very good cross on him - the aforementioned factors make it easier for him to get clean and dangerous balls away. Starting him would negate some of that effect, and in addition other areas of his game seem to be relatively weak at the moment.

4-4-2 doesn't have wingers. I think the timing of this match is actually good for us. I'm convinced it will make us play better though I has no expectations in terms of a result.