NJS

Good excuse to have a campaign to teach fans the proper words (verse + chorus).

I think you're dismissing practicalities a bit there LM - those 3 players over the next 2 or 3 years could make more of a difference to them and arguments about ambition aside, horse trading and mixing things up has always been part of football no matter who you are - think KK "swapping" Cole for Ferdinand as a good example. I don't think Henderson is destined to be a mega star which he would have to be imo to support your view. It makes no sense to dilute the ability of the squad with four average players (inc N'gog). Your basically cementing your place as a mid table team. What people quickly forget is wages. Henderson be on 20k max (1m a year), whereas these four average players will want a wage hike to move (30k x 2 and 40k x 2 is 7.3m a year). When you take this into account these average players simply arent worth it. Buy cheap, buy twice. Unless you think Henderson will never be beyond average and think they've "conned" Liverpool to get so much. Fair point on wages though.

I think you're dismissing practicalities a bit there LM - those 3 players over the next 2 or 3 years could make more of a difference to them and arguments about ambition aside, horse trading and mixing things up has always been part of football no matter who you are - think KK "swapping" Cole for Ferdinand as a good example. I don't think Henderson is destined to be a mega star which he would have to be imo to support your view.

I don't know the history but I've always found it strange that they ever put up with the draft and caps both of which are very anti-capitalist. The game was getting stale, since the cap and the "level playing field" the game although always popular has seen revenue explode. The "big market" owners don't like it but every year every team has a chance. Very anti-capitalist but a brilliant model for competition. I suppose trying to impose it on football would mean destroying the club academy system and putting all the emphasis on schools. There would also be an age problem doing that (I think) as footballers are ready earlier than NFL players.

I don't know the history but I've always found it strange that they ever put up with the draft and caps both of which are very anti-capitalist.

Strange that he attacks the "big society" when most people (probably including Cameron) expect religious groups to embrace it.

I'm a serial swearer but never (unless by mistake) use the c word in womens' company. I do make the effort to tone down a bit as well but not as deliberately as for the above.

Supposedly after Charlie Adam as well - even with some clearances they'll have an improved midfield (assuming Gerrard doesn't go in the huff about the signings). Not that impressed by Henderson at that price though.

I think I said before that the Tories think/hope they can get back to some kind of decent growth (probably coincidental to their actual policies) by the next election and think the pain is worth it for that reason rather than addressing underlying issues as you say. Of course the idealogical zeal of public services cuts is an added bonus.

I'm quite concerned that there's an element of complaceny at work where they think getting back up and surviving one season represents a "job done" and that they can move ahead with a new "vision". This would then suggest that removing the player power element as you say is the "right" thing to do at this time. The worry is that they don't understand the importance of that spirit we all appreciated last year and think its somehow not needed any more. As others have said if the replacements don't work out we're fucked.

Thing is human nature means they will say "Well if you're paying him x I want an increase to y" and a spiral of discontent starts. Then again if you paid everyone the same there'd be no concept of reward. My view has always been that they should all be paid a notional small wage (say 5k in the modern game) and then have performance related bonuses (which I know they have anyway but still) which could be individual and team based up to a decent level. Again though such a scheme would have to be universal.

The Ashley haters of course wont see wise management or greedy players, will they? Wise management would include a big picture view of the effect of losing those two particular players in terms of squad spirit as well as the "cold logic" of lucrative contracts for ageing players.

Are you Michel Platini?, because that is the whole drive behind the new rules. Idealistic as I said - ways round them will be found. As we've discussed almost ad nauseum the way rich owners have trumped the turnover = spending power model has only been to the detriment of football imo.

I think people sometimes want it both ways - they want to whinge about the Smiths and Luques of the world but also want to see good players who give their all justly rewarded. However the report from a few weeks ago about finances which highlighted the huge losses at most clubs did define wages as the main problem. Of course the idea that we can have a good team paying "peanuts" is idealistic especially as so called smaller clubs are paying daft wages as well. I guess I'd like to retain the concept of the possibility of paying high wages for the right people combined with a strategy to live within our means - if this appoach was a universal trend it could only be good for football in general.

I thought it was just a case of increased dosage = dodgy. I was mooted to have a gall bladder op a few years ago (turned out I didn't need it) and was told it would be iffy due to my weight because of dosage - that was just from the GP though.

I'd get rid of Ameobi, Best and Lovenkrands before I got to Ranger - he has a bit of promise despite being an idiot (at the moment to give him the benefit)

usual rubbish. I've said ages ago they made mistakes. Its black and white with you tbh, you hate Shepherd, and thought we would do better with someone else, but we haven't, and it might take a while before we do. It isn't worth replying to such a polarised, insular, incorrect view, and I'm not taking the piss. We are not competing at the levels we should be, thats a fact, however you want to dress it up, we have become a selling club again, so stop making excuses. Polite request ignored - too much to ask - you are a complete and utter waste of time as a contributor to this any other forum..

The thing is I don't think anyone objects to paying good wages to good players to attract them and going on from that attract others by association. Of course those wages have to be affordable in terms of squad numbers (ie if you have one Owen that doesn't mean you only pay peanuts for the whole defence) and of course in relation to overall finances. I remember that for many years of the previous regime we did have a very healthy wage/turnover ration but towards the end it did get skewed into dodgy territory but that was probably just another symptom of the way football has gone in general. The problem on the board now is that we can't discuss an individual issue without reference to LM's very black and white view. I can state that I think signing good players for high wages is fine as I just did but then say I think signing Owen was a mistake. That will be twisted into me saying I prefer Ashley's world view which is obviously not true. What I'm trying to say to you LM is that your view that everything done previously was great and beyond reproach and everything done by Ashley has been wrong is too polarised which is why you can't accept that issues CAN be debated without reference to one universal view either way. As everything else in life it's shades of grey that rule which I hope you can realise which would improve contribution from all sides and views. I hope you can respond to this sensibly.

I think it was clear that he was waiting for one of the 'big four' at the time to come up for him and only decided to join us when it was clear that none of the rest were interested. Liverpool were in for him but wouldn't pay anywhere near what we offered so he was waiting for them to change their mind and match us - It was a classic Shepherd tactic of bidding "too much" to give us a chance. Nowt wrong with that if it had all worked out but unfortunately it didn't.

When you think he was injured almost as much as Owen in a period in which Owen had two serious injuries and Martins didn't have any, it says a lot. I despise the pair of them tbh. I suppose at least Martins had the good grace to pretend he cared about the fans whilst the media savvy Owen could barely contain his disdain for us after 'lowering' himself to come here. The ONLY reason he came was money, Fred was the only mug dumb enough to shell out 16mil and 130k p.w. I said this previously, It's not a wise move to sign any player just on money, they need to want to come and play I disagree like, he came because he wanted more regular football in the run up to the World Cup and because Liverpool wouldn't pay what Madrid wanted for a player who'd left for £6m (or whatever it was) a year before. Not saying the money wasn't a factor but he definitely wanted 1st team football. Bit of both for me - I always felt that even given those two factors he was still reluctant to come. I didn't like how much persuading he took - I know he was a "superstar" but I've always stood by the idea that we should give British players a couple of hours to decide whether they want to sign for us (in principle if necessary) and foreigners a couple of days at the most. Any longer always makes me feel as if they're starting off on the wrong track.

One of the reasons I took this week off was to sort out my gardens but one day of labour on Tuesday convinced me the job was too big - just arranged for a bloke to completely sort it next week for a reasonable amount - result.

Well I know that and I was that type of dweeb as well, I was just unclear where Durham and Northumberland ended and began south of the Tyne. Just mentioned the Gateshead bit to wind-up the residents Historically with Sunderland being the big team of Durham, Gateshead had 8 Sunderland fans to 1 Newcastle fan I read. Even more so when we voted Gateshead out the league. I think this idea of SAFC being "Durham's team" is more of a modern SMB myth than anything else Stevie. I think most people's allegiance was more to do with following their Dad's team than basing it on geography - obviously as someone who was born in Co. Durham as was and closer to Roker than SJP I can say it was certainly not the case for me or any other NUFC fans from Shields I know. Gateshead is a funny one due to them having a biggish team of their own but when I used to to matches with the old supporters club when I first started I did know loads of lads from there who were Newcastle through and through - and I'd also add that when I started going by train I made many friends from other parts of Co. Durham as far south as Darlo as well so as I said I don't think its clear cut.

Arlington, Lincoln memorial/Vietnam memorial (quite close to each other), National Space Museum. Georgetown for night out.

I think the notion that players like Simpson (and Shola obviously) are okay and don't need improving on is as dangerous as replacing Barton etc.

I have to say I found Enrique's inability to pass the ball 5 yards to a teammate in his first season incredible but he has drastically improved on that score.