Park Life

Some good points tbf.

Parky a year ahead on predictions yet again.

Fair call there. Jonas can cross from the edge of the box, or cut it back, from the wing though it seems that he doesn't have enough power to get the ball in with any sort of pace. That's not going to change any time soon. I'd say he's at his best when he's running at men getting in behind them, making his way into the box and then picking out our strikers in the box. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jonas lead the assists in La Liga last season (something liek that I;m sure I heard somewhere)...? Jonas can cross if you're standing 6 feet away from him and speak Spanish. That was a myth put about by Wise.

There are reasons I can't mention that tho innit.

Must be tough comparing him to the supreme crosser Jonas.

Would be a massive improvement on what we have and only if we stay up apparently.Good organiser and succint in the transfer market. Likes one big man up front and some power in midfield. Hope it happens.

Me and Mrs P are revisitng series three atm. Would have been nice if she hadn't given 2 of the disks to her 'friend'.

Glad to see others are getting upto speed on Benny. Not good at all for us this result. Fuck.

Or "You know exactly what you're doing" The way I see it.... Ashley has paid £138Million for the club. The value of which can depreciate. He's loaned the club £100M, the value of which is set in stone. Using transfer income to spend on transfer outgoings would mean the club is run within it's means and Ashley's return depends for the most part on the value of the club. Deferring transfer income, and using loans from Ashley to buy up front in full means that Ashley is assured his money back. So the £20M he's supposed to have since put in on top of the initial loan has bought players whose value might drop, Xisco for example. But the £6m Ashley pumped in for him is a loan he's guaranteed to be paid back in full. The club might only recoup £2M from his sale, but Ashley is still owed the full amount. I assume he saw the money being paid out on Luque and thought to himself, "well I'll fund those sorts of signings and be guaranteed the return irrespective of the success of the player". Happy Face on the case. The other thing is ST James Holdings is actually the benefactor, Ashley plans to get all his money back in two ways, the other being continually skimming off revenue and player sales till bit by bit most of his (St James Holdings) get their money back (hence the obsession with low outgoing on intangible assets ((players)). Of course when he sells he gets it back AGAIN. Double dabble as they say in Sarf Lahndan. How to buy a club ultimately for free while scaring everyone half to death that you've bought a 'wrongun'. Keeping the books straight is also all about being ready to sell asap (I give him a year and half or so). We have to sit tight and help the team etc while trying not to line his pockets cause we (the club) won't see any benefits.

I'd say he lacks pace and his crossing is inconsistent. He isn't consistent enough on his crossing, that I agree with. But I think he will improve it. In fact I'd say his crossing this season has been better then Young's. His pace really isn't bad. He looks slow compared to Ash and Gabby, but that's cause they are fuckin sprinters. He is quick enough and has outpaced more then one fullback this season. He just needs more routine on beating his man. I can see Robertson giving him an extra 5% on his ball skills.

Down with him.

When I have time later I will show you something. I agree total there has to be an enemy without and it has to be ever present and if there isn't one, well they just go ahead and create one.

Well yes and no, a lot were in the 80's as they were fighting against the USSR, but it's unlikely the current Islamofascist wave wouldn't have occur if this hadn't happened, it was always there waiting for the right time and lack of other enemies (and lets not forget terrorist issues pre-80's too). It even moves politically and is largely behind both the Zionist is racist and trying destroy freedom of speech in relation to "religion" movements here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7916191.stm Islamofascism is bound to get much, much worse no matter what anyone does, to the point where WW3 is likely to be drawn along those lines. Don't waste your time quoting the BBC on this.

John Robertson would have been consulted on the purchase I imagine.

Well you'll never convince me removing Saddam was an absolute bad thing™ (whatever the reasoning or lack of planning); leaving him in power was killing Iraqi's day in day out (directly and indirectly) and oppressing vast amounts of people with a police state that controlled things down to the very street level. Saddam had directly killed many hundreds of thousands of people over the years (through direct policies, not with his bare hands), and indirectly killed millions. Leaving him in power would have certainly made the last few years less bloody in Iraq, but that's an argument that can be applied to almost any conflict or tyrant no matter how bloody and brutal (it can be applied to Kosovo in fact). Ignoring that for now though, you need at least two sides to have a war. Iran was supplying several sides in the recent Iraq civil war (directly and through Syria), its intention was not just to honk off the USA, but also to destabilise Iraq by encouraging as much sectarian violence as possible. Iran directly killed many thousands of innocent Iraqi's (Kurdish, Sunni and Shia) for political goals, people that would not have died had Iran not supplied weapons money and other support to several sides. No matter how much you may or may not hate the USA, Iran was nothing but a "bad guy" in Iraq with much blood on their hands, any US guilt does not absolve Iran of that. Removing Saddam wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but the way it was gone about was. There's tons of asshole dictators oppressing/ torturing/ killing their people all over the world. That doesn't mean it's ok for the U.S. to go against the U.N. and invade them. In my opinion, that's where we fucked up. Unlike many of my countrymen, I hate this idea of the U.S. being this World Cop. It's stupid, wasteful, and ultimately only pisses everyone else off. I'd much rather see this country take all of the resources, money, and manpower and use it on itself rather than Iraq. I guess maybe if we had it all figured out with a strong economy, 1% unemployment rate, no racism, and parity between a governmental surplus and defecit for the past 30 years you might be able to talk me into it, but with things being what they are (and were, for that matter- when we got into this mess we weren't much better off as a country), it's hard for me to go rah, rah, rah, we just saved a bunch of Iraqis who never asked to be saved to begin with. It's nothing to do with being a world cop and all about strategic asset grabbing. CIA and Mi6 are still supplying arms and logistics across the planet, even to known Al Kidder (Chechnya etc) to make sure the get oil pipelines and strategic corridors. The last thing it is about is some kind of world cop thing, that's just for consumption by a clueless american public. I don't know man, I think you're right about the CIA and Mi6 part, but I honestly believe the rest of the military, congress, and certainly Bush were all about enforcing their will on the people who deserved it (in their opinion). I'm not one of those people who was all, "Bush is an idiot! Ha, ha, ha." The dude wasn't a great speaker by any means, and was corrupt as the day is long, but don't forget, the man is a Yale graduate. Did he act stupid? Did he do stupid things from time to time? Sure, but to make him out to be some Paris Hilton is to seriously underestimate him. I think he understood the "strategical importance" of places like Iraq, but I also think he was too shitty of an actor to completely not believe in all his Axis of Evil bullshit. I really do think there's a large contingent of people who were running this country around 2002 that were seriously invested in this World Cop idea like it was a second manifest destiny. Now, to imply they hadn't also considered the fallout of such activities and their subsequent effect on corporations like Haliburton, KBR, and contractors like Blackwater I think would be disingenuous. I think it was viewed as a two-birds-with-one-stone kind of deal. Not only do we get to spread democracy and Christianity, we also hook up the stockholders! Nice! I hear what you're saying but there is a long list of countries america is invested in logistically purely for strategic and asset gain. quasi terrorist organsations in London and parts of America are encouraged to recureit mujahaddin to fight against regimes we and the U.S. don't like and want to destabalise. I think the cia is sttill actually flying arms into Kosovo, albania, Chechnya, Kazakistan etc...A lot of the Arabs fighting for global islam have been recruited with the help of your money.

Ah, righto. Funny how he's never pursued the casino thing btw. iirc that got planning permission / approval or whatever when FS was chairman. I still think this redevelopment plan thing was Shepherd's cunning plan to finance the club - and I can't understand why it seems to have been dropped so readily by Ashley. Obviously in 2007 it would have been a lot easier to finance. i think the casino plan got dumped when newcastle as a city didnt win the super casino and mini super casino bid. the big one went to manchester - when everyone thought blackpool were nailed on - and boro got one of the smaller one's. this speculative land deal business is very interesting and something worthy of keeping an eye on; transferring club assets to other companies for accounting purposes and which allows you to sell them at a later date, pocket the money yourself and that money never hitting the clubs books. means that you can legitimately say you havent taken anything out of the club when in reality youve pocketed the sale of the land; all hypothetical obviously and nobody is suggesting that anything like that has or will ever take place at NE1. Most major businesses these days are littered with such activity; its become the accepted norm for companies to operate in this way. it keeps the corporate lawyers and accountants in employment. He seems too dumb to really get away with anything dodgy (yes I'm tempting fate).

As many predicted on here, KK being used for fishing.

I think the GB v HSV tie is the closest to call, Chamakh has been class for Bordeaux this season so has the wonderfully named Brazilian Mr Wendel, then again Olic has been brilliant too. I hope HSV or Hoffenheim win the kraut league this season. I saw something a few weeks back, HSV getting dominated at home for the first 45 min by Ein Frankfurt and I was beginning to wonder why Jol had reigned in his early season attacking style....2nd half he came out of his dugout a few times changed it around and by magic HSV started running the midfield and won the game. Thinngs are coming together for him with Petric, Trowchoski and Jarolim all moving into top gear. I rate Petric very highly. HSV need to get a draw at GB and at home it will be fairly easy (French aren't great travellers). Man City will be one of the funniest exists in this comp.

Get yersel down to South Tynside.

I think I'll have a look at the Bordeaux game. Hamburg could very well win this tournament.

I think for what they give the side it is about the same.

I never go on N-O, I wasn't aware there was a pro-Ashley faction. I assumed the only position you could reasonably occupy would be one that is against the current regime. I simply cannot imagine why anyone would think otherwise. It's kind of based around the idea the club would have been history (debt wise) if MA hadn't rode into town or summink. Imo there does need to be perspective amongst the critisism - in terms of it is good to see a lot of potentially promising youngsters coming to the club, it is refreshing, and because people aren’t happy with other things it doesn’t mean they cant appreciate more promising aspects. At the end of the day if 70% of the income is going out to wages then thats clearly a problem - but a lot of those wages should be clear in the summer - & we will see if they then act upon that. And at least Llambias is trying to explain things now, whether its utter lies, misguided ideas or total crap, a big problem was zero communication & we now have things to go off, and he's meeting fans. The flip side is the sheer lack of ambition wanting Kinnear long term, and the lack of clarity regarding Wise's role (no-one knows EXACTLY what he does/how much influence he has), which in turn discredits the image of the manager position. What I don't get is why some people are obsessed with debt. Every club has it. Whether we have too much debt is not up to the supporters to judge, that's up to the bank manager. Some people (not on here) seem more turned on by the club's books than the football. How does that work? If you get a hard on over the books, go and be an accountant imo. As if a numpty internet jockey can judge what the club/Ashley can and can't afford to spend, based on a set of historic records and guesswork! The example of Leeds is trawled up time and again. To me that's just scaremongering. I don't think Shepherd & Co were remotely as reckless as Ridsdale & Co. I don't doubt that we had overstretched ourselves and needed a period of retrenchment, but as always with the toon we've reacted in the opposite extreme and now our prem status is threatened through under investment - where a canny use of even the transfer profits to date would have made a massive difference. Aye, I agree in the way that some kind of debt will always probably come with success, definetely. In terms of wages, I'm not a mathematics genuis, but surley if 70% of the income is going on wages there's simply a problem there. I mean that the positive side is potentially having better young players coming through who are talented & hungry - something we have lacked over the years. I don't disagree at all with the need to bring wages down, ditch overpaid underperformers or invest heavily in youth. In particular I believe we couldn't sustain those wage levels in the medium term. What I can't understand is the thought that with a piss poor squad and manager we think we can get by with selling players and not reinvesting the money. In the short term it must be obvious that we can't rely on the current players to keep us in mind table, the evidence is there on the pitch and in our league position. I wasn't expecting mega-bucks but I was shocked that the January window went by with a net profit. That either smacks of complacency or obliviousness to our position. Judging by Llambias' recent statements, I'm beginning to think they are genuinely clueless about the state of the first team. That's not to say there aren't some positives by the way, but it won't matter if we're relegated, and that's what worries me most. There seems a genuine misunderstanding of footballing matters.

Best to keep them in surely Shirley??