BTRFTG

Perhaps the reason nobody bothered to reply is you signally appear ignorant of the fact that transfer fees comprise a minor percentage of the overall liability incurred when signing a player. Those 67 or so didn't play for nothing and that's why the Johnson/Ashton folly continues to bring this club to its knees. And if you still need the answer, I suggest you look at the holding accounts, in particular those shortly to be published.

Funny then that Cooper's turned Forest around because he famously is a data driven man. Given there's so much money riding on such matters these days the data isn't often wrong. Several rose-tinted here have referenced their keeper saving Wells shot on target for our goal, save it wasn't, it was going wide. Having seen the replay I'm not convinced their keeper touched Wells shot against the post either (there's no noticeable deflection) and as the officials were closer than I I've no reason to think they got it wrong. Given there was no perceived deflection the shot wouldn't have registered on target anyway given it hit the post. You are correct in stating stats do not tell the whole story. In the case of the front 3 if they, too, recorded poor and badly controlled touches plus 'taking the wrong option', that the front 3 are an utter waste of space wouldn't be in doubt.

At risk of incurring the wrath of those who incorrectly believe there's something worth persisting with with Wells, his shot, parried by the keeper, was going wide. Our 2nd shot on target was Flappy's tame header easily mopped up by their keeper early doors, though so weak as easy to miss. Wells, like Martin, again registered zero shots on target, but no surprises there.

We had 2 shots on target one of which was the goal. We had 1 corner. We had 33% of the possession. Fans need to stop deluding themselves.

Yes, but a striker is more important as we haven't one of those on the books. Problem, however, is despite Pearson's best efforts to date we've still a vast squad of rubbish, so I'm not sure there's much wriggle room to purchase new talent. Hopefully we might sneak in one or two better quality players on loan.

I'm not. He's crap. Our problem is we didn't let him go earlier. Both James and King have done well to date. Their 'game' goes under the radar for those fickle City fans who rate running and pointing above contribution. City's problem is lack of midfield creativity with sod all upfront. Paterson didn't provide creativity when he was here, neither did any of the other half dozen or more Johnson acolytes in his likeness.

What! And get stuck when they swing the bridge!

Er, we take and have been taking Premier 'solidarity' payments for years. We rely on them. As a Championship outfit we take the lion's share. Is that fair to L 1 & 2? Doubtless they'll use your argument to say we cheat the system.

Give me bridge delays any day. For some of us the 112 mile journey home topped out at 190 miles, two sections of the M4 eastbound closed, pretty much the whole of the M25 South, anticlockwise closed (all for roadworks so forget A303 or route via Bracknell) forcing all traffic from the West to use the clockwise M25 North and M11 to get to South East London. Guess what, that resulted in accidents. Highways England my ****.....

Looks like a highly frustrated bloke talking through gritted teeth - which is exactly what he is .....

2 in our squad? City played like they were all deuteranopic given the number of times they passed the ball to Bomo. Shame your photo shows the ball to be white, as Wells for sure failed to see it else he'd surely have scored rather than scuff it wide of the post.

To those moaning yesterday was the end of days..., worst performance in years..., an absolute shocker - it wasn't. You've overlooked some positives, albeit mostly at the back. But ask yourselves this. At half time, as many were doing in the stands, what would YOU have done to shake things up? Look at who's performing on the park, look at what's on the bench or in the wider squad and ask, what would YOU have done to change things around? The funny thing? In the stands the common concensus was, ' I really don't know, there aren't any options, are there?' A fish rots from the head down. Anybody tagged as a striker or frontman in the present squad is, from a playing perspective, rotten. Has been for ages, stinks to high heaven and will only decay further. Ditto anybody supposedly creative in midfield. Those selected aren't any good but they're the best of a bad bunch. Given their lucrative contracts getting rid is more problematic and takes longer than getting the bins emptied on Brighton Seafront. We know that. Pearson sure as hell knows that, so until the stench starts to dissipate and he's allowed to buy an air freshener or two we'll have to endure days like yesterday. It takes time for compost to rot as well as this, it's a 'seasons in the making' pile. Yet once buried in the soil it's amazing what later flourishes.

Frankly, he's gone so far under the radar as it's difficult to know whether or not he's around half the time. He's also one of those individuals as to be difficult to work out an epithet for. He used to be objectionable, though appears to have mellowed of late. He talks sense, but therein no epithet. In truth and from a personal perspective, I find him anonymously bland. I'm struggling, but if you've any suggestions I'm happy to adopt.

That Bomo were taller, more athletic, more talented and pacy goes without saying. That they are head and shoulders one of the best sides seen at AG in years, ditto. That we only got beat two when five or more would have been the deserved result says everything about our defence and nothing about our creative midfield (sic) and strikers (sic). Bomo were a joy to behold but enough of them. Against blistering pace and visionary passing I thought our backline did ok, particularly the two youngsters at full back. To those who criticise them, Tanner backing off for their second, for example, you signally fail to read the game. Both were constantly between a rock and a hard place yesterday having always to pick up both wide man and rampaging full back. They were two on one all game, given their so-called 'colleagues' in front gave them sod all support. Screwed if they went to cover one, screwed if they tried to hedge their bets. Pearson's tried to instill some steel in the midfield so it was sad to see Williams injured (again) so early and King looked like he was carrying a knock long before he eventually departed, which beggars why the substitutions were made when they were? Until Dasilva appeared James looked the only City player cognizant of the fact football is a contact sport. And therein lies the problem, whilst those 3 are great at holding, disrupting and breaking-up play, creators they are not (not we've anybody to exploit creativity should we acquire it.) So it's Groundhog Day (again) in knives out for the usual suspects. That we created four gilt edged chances not one of which made their keeper break sweat sums us up. Two to Wells who when he plays serves only to remind he IS, pound for pound, the biggest waste money ever at AG. It isn't, 'he's in the wrong position', or 'we don't play his game'. He's crap, period. When he is in the right position and is given gilt ball he squanders it, over and over and over. His lack of control best summed up by another farcical moment on the touchline just in front of the Dolman, he halfway in his own half trying to relieve pressure, bloke up tight closing down. Sunday morning hungover player simply knocks it off the opponent's shins for the throw-in, consolidate, go again. Not Wells. Such is his lack of control it's a ball knocked straight into touch. Shocking at any level, though to his credit this time he didn't fall over feigning injury, though with the image of those laughing in his face still fresh probably not altogether unsurprising. Like paleontologists who find remains of dinosaurs yet can't fathom how they fit together or what purpose their hosts served, we live Jurassic Park 9 through Martin. So he's no movement, pace or touch. Can't hold the ball up, rarely threatens his marker, leaves not a trace he's ever been on the park. Genus 'Izegoodenufftoscorus'? On the evidence of his woeful header late on - NO. Flappy produced one of his finest ever flappy and pointy performances. He might as well not have bothered. "He runs and runs and runs and covers loads of ground," say his acolytes. I remind, too, so do headless chickens. The point with Flappy it's all to no avail. He never gets there, never closes his opponent down. For him marking must obey social distancing rules. His touch is poor. And perchance he does get the odd chance, again yesterday, break out the chorus of 'how high or wide do you want the goal'? Those who say we played with 10 men when King went off, we didn't. Make that 10 from the start as Weimann contributed zip again yesterday. At least the Mock Mick did threaten a few spin turns of note, but such scant gold leaf cannot disguise the turgid mass that lies beneath. He hung Pring out to dry first half whilst delivering little. I said at the time he should never have been offered a new contract. I hate having been proved right every game since. To those who say it's unfair to pick out those 4, it isn't. Here's why. They are players who should be good enough to occasionally hold the ball up, knock it around, relieve the pressure from the defence. But they aren't and don't. 1-0 down, minute or so to half time and we've a throw-in half way into their half. We've been on the rack. How difficult to take it, keep it, force them to concede short throws? See the half out. Re-group. Go again. But City contrive to do what they do best, throw-in, one touch, lost possession, cede 70 yards uncontested, allow 2 on 1 against Tanner, ship another. Game over. Their second is down to our front line, not the defence. And in that Pearson and the coaching staff must take criticism. Under WeeLee ceding possession within one touch of a dead ball play was mandatory. It pretty much still is and Pearson's been here long enough to have ensured, even with the rubbish at his disposal, that it shouldn't be.

So you'll be demanding City decline the Premier payments they receive, won't you? I thought not......

Wasn't that bad given my previous 4 trips there finished 0-0. Geordies were also (absolutely true this,) buying the shirts off City supporters backs just so they could get in. Never seen that before.

Oakwell, New Year's Day, first time we'd played them in a very, very long time. No public transport but that didn't deter the ground-spotters. AKA the 'Black Hole of Calcutta' game. All day Monsoon, freezing wind, the only cover being the underside of a very small platform (think it was the Police above.) Like Shackleton's finest and purely for survival once the Old Bill refused to open the gates to let us go (game was immaterial,) the terrace decanted like penguins into the space. Barely room to breath let alone move to see the game. Utter misery.

The credit/football is quite apposite. Like footballers agents when looking for transfer targets or improved contracts for clients, punters moan about companies holding data on them until, that is, it's of use to them. As a student I once did temping on the Electoral Registration non-returns in pre-gentrification Lambeth, dodgy areas (think Hartcliffe minus the charm.) Standard welcome when knocking on a door was to be told where to go, quickly, if I knew what was good for me. "They don't need to know F'all about us, now F'off...." "Absolutely, no problem............but don't say I failed to warn you when you get turned down for 'Tick' or 'The Never Never' because you're not on the list...." Never got more than back turned and three steps before the cry came: " 'Ere, get back 'ere. Our names is ....." Footballers to take note.

Yet another reason why I'm really, really, really begining to dislike modern day footballers. As paying punters don't we have a right to know what it is were buying, how competent (or otherwise) we might expect players to be? If players don't like being in the spotlight, then FRO.

Hugely popular & successful racehorse owner to boot. Lake View Lad & Many Clouds but two of his finest. Not sure what it'll mean for Preston but he'd already begun to scale down his racing operation & his passing could hit several NH yards real hard. Not so many old school types holding 'strings' as they used to.

Fair play to them as they've worked hard at reducing costs and have turned a cumulative 'profit' (sic) of €1.2m over the past two years but they report using the Gordon Brown accounting method ("I'll resign if PSBR >40% of GDP" , it hit 114% save he didn't count PFIs & Public Sector Pension liabilities.) Amazingly they made €800k despite estimating an in-year loss of over €300m income. Something in the State of Denmark doesn't add up. They've loans on just about everything, including nearly €600m over 30 years to refurbish the stadium. I suspect asset values, particularly with players, may well take a hit over the next few years. Point I was making is whilst revenue is an interesting measure its only half the equation.

They are but that's akin arguing who's the best looking bloke in the burns unit.....

Some folks just don't get it. Ashley acquired £65m of debt when buying the club. That has to be serviced. He loaned, interest-free let it be known, £144m to pay off the debt and invest in club improvements. To date only £33m of that loan has been repaid. Profits made during the intervening years are retained by the club and are their assets, which Ashley will recoup once he sells it. That's why he refused to be pushed out without a deal that suited him. In almost the anthesis of the Glazers he hasn't had need to cash strip the asset, rather he'll make his money via capital appreciation of the asset at sale. Smart move from him. It's also interesting how folks see 'profits' (sic). Now were they the difference between income and the actual costs of running the club that would be fine, but those reported aren't. I've already highlighted Ashley, like SL, advanced huge discounted loans to the club. They come at cost, though not in year to the club. Sports Direct only briefly in 2011 'sponsored' Newcastle, but as the fans kicked up so much fuss over the stadium name the deal died a death and was quickly replaced by the Wonga deal. How appropriate, sponsored by a shyster payday loan operation, robbing Peter to pay Paul, only quickly to go bust themselves, leaving a trail of debt in their wake. Otherwise Sports Direct only advertise at St James' and it's worth, well that depends upon the quality of the product? I've seen mention of the £1m per season post 2015 and £2m for 2020 but have no other commercial detail. Doubtless there were relegation clauses considered. I'd have to look at the balance sheet to see whether the difference in what was contracturally payable and that which has been paid has been accounted for. Could be Newcastle are owed a considerable sum by Sports Direct, which will be accounted for when the club is sold. As for revenue - so what? You'll note the top two 'earners' on that list hold somewhat unusual incorporations. They are fan 'owned' and for good reason. Both are technically bankrupt and that's a political way of keeping them going. It's only the fear by Spanish Banks of pulling the plug that allows them to exist. They're the social collective, magic money tree made form. Fans who claim ownership yet don't have a pot to p*ss in. Only this week Barca's auditors reminded disgruntled fans that were the club a PLC or Ltd enterprise they'd cease trading immediately. With the sheer volume of the 'greatest fans in the world' (sic), I could never fathom why Newcastle didn't follow suit ....

We aren't 'sponsored' by Lansdown, but were he to seek sponsorship the way contract law works it there has to be a 'consideration', you can't pay for 'nothing' in return. Doesn't necessarily have to be the renaming of the stadium, which is pretty meaningless anyway as folks will call it what they like, rather the point I highlighted is it's duplicitous for fans to crave and spend sponsorship monies then bemoan the quid pro quo. "We are all prostitutes and we all have our price", as so aptly The Pop Group pointed out.

You sound like a true Geordie. So fans were only too glad to take & spend sponsorship money from Sports Direct but object to then having to use its name? Just how do they think such things work? The removal of Robson's statue was a fan promoted, urban myth, though I think police had raised safety objections re it's location given its focus for fan demonstrations spilling out onto the adjacent carriageways. It may come as a surprise to many but Ashley doesn't spend his days managing the club, he handsomely pays a chief executive to do that. It took but 6 years after Ashley's acquisition for Shearer's name to be dropped from the bar and the reason for so doing was simply nobody went there. It had become dilapidated & was dying on its arse, hence as with such 'fad' premises it was wholly refurbished and rebranded to attract a different clientelle, not just the Saturday football crowd. Shearer (doubtless aided by an envelope of cash,) was so upset he's plastered all over the reopening with comments about how great a venue it is and how the new name better reflects Newcastle's heritage. Recall Ashley so wanted to distance himself from the previous regime he, er, appointed Shearer as interim manager, with disastrous consequence. Hero to Zero faster than their crowds fall when on a losing streak. As for ticket prices. This season they've the 13th cheapest ticket in The Premier, they're 14th on average weighting and 8th most expensive (but that's for their Platinum Club.) The bulk of their tickets aren't that dissimilar from what we pay at AG. So like a Monty Python sketch all that's left to ask is 'What Did Mike Ashley Ever Do For Newcastle?' Kept them afloat, that's what.