Greg

Inclined to agree. They've dragged this out for long enough, I'd give them an extra 48 hours out of courtesy then if nothing satisfactory has been received by then you've got Friday to put things in motion formally. f*** them, drag them through the s*** Not how legal processess work - the ridiculous delay on the takeover refusal / non decision really has no bearing on them having a reasonable period of time to respond to a letter before action.

I joined NUST a few months ago cos i thought they might represent the supporters better if they had a voice backed by large numbers...i cannot however accept any supporters organisation that says the PL are acting reasonable.......They havn’t done that during this last 7 months I am not NUST. You are their representative , no ? Not on this forum no - I am myself. All views expressed are mine. Are you a NUST rep or not ? When I post on this forum I post as myself. As I have done since the day I joined over 15 years ago back in 2004. I represent nobody other than myself unless I explicitly tell you otherwise.

I joined NUST a few months ago cos i thought they might represent the supporters better if they had a voice backed by large numbers...i cannot however accept any supporters organisation that says the PL are acting reasonable.......They havn’t done that during this last 7 months I am not NUST. You are their representative , no ? Not on this forum no - I am myself. All views expressed are mine.

I joined NUST a few months ago cos i thought they might represent the supporters better if they had a voice backed by large numbers...i cannot however accept any supporters organisation that says the PL are acting reasonable.......They havn’t done that during this last 7 months I am not NUST.

PL being perfectly reasonable - the initial deadline was way too ambitious. Still struggling to see this progressing to a successful case before the CAT, and maintain my point on standing. PL never going to just ignore it, suspect their next move will be to argue there is no case to be had. The letter before action didn't establish standing and lacked a fair few other key items you would expect to see.

It's not really a deadline though.

Ole at the wheel.

Main Event / Premier League.

Would be more effective but leaves Lewis more exposed. Need to find a way to make it work though as he's far less effective through the middle.

Rio or Les?

Think we might win today, Bruce has accidentally stumbled back to a system very similar to Rafa's.

Brexit started it.

:lol:

I am still struggling with the concept of them establishing the standing to bring the claim - to demonstrate that the claimant here has suffered a loss (in proper terms) from the anti competition actions of the Premier League. The process is also nowhere near as simple as it is made out in that article.

My personal view is that backing a spurious and futile legal attempt would be of little benefit to the Trust or anyone else for that matter. Read the letter, it's badly written noise. I'm still struggling to establish the standing required to bring such a claim. Serious legal action isn't played out on Twitter and through a local newspaper at letter before action stage.

It's a warm up not a training session.

Yes they were released- and were pretty crap. Trust also put out their response / own version to Members.

This is nothing to be celebrated. Those backing this idea knew full well this would be rejected - it is all part of their plan and strategy.

Campaigning against something with 500 members or campaigning with 20,000 - which do you think is likely to have most influence and a stronger voice?

Did you watch the game?

Fucking hell Ritchie.

Great saves Darlow.

Use the match thead: https://www.newcastle-online.org/forum/index.php?topic=104343.0

Don't they have allowances for substitutions? You'd think they'd have the same for goals. Subs are a ~minute. Goals are nothing if there aren't long celebrations. Otherwise there would be 5-6 mins added time each game with lots of goals. When are there ever 10 or 12 goals in a game The general rule of thumb is 30secs for goals and subs The subs thing isn't a general rule of thumb though, it's a rule. A rule that we are aware of. I'm sure we'd know if there was a rule regarding goals. Law 7. Allowance for time lost Allowance is made by the referee in each half for all time lost in that half through: substitutions assessment and/or removal of injured players wasting time disciplinary sanctions medical stoppages permitted by competition rules e.g. ‘drinks’ breaks (which should not exceed one minute) and ‘cooling’ breaks (ninety seconds to three minutes) delays relating to VAR 'checks' and 'reviews; any other cause, including any significant delay to a restart (e.g. goal celebrations) The fourth official indicates the minimum additional time decided by the referee at the end of the final minute of each half. The additional time may be increased by the referee but not reduced. The referee must not compensate for a timekeeping error during the first half by changing the length of the second half. So not goals. Any other cause, PGMOL have said standard PL practice is 30 seconds per goal. OK. But the example given is goal celebration. So it definitely doesn't stipulate goals. I haven't got a clue who PGMOL are, tbh. I get substitutions and goal celebrations as they are deliberate tactics to run the clock down. but you don't score a goal to run the clock down. Look them up - it’s not hard. I’d recommend Google. To quote them - and they run/ manage the referees “they do add time. It's around 30 seconds as a rule of thumb, unless they spend five minutes celebrating. Every situation is different, they'll take each one on its merit.” I think you should quote the whole answer: "Is the clock stopped for goals? No, it's not. But they do add time (to cover celebrations). It's around 30 seconds as a rule of thumb, unless they spend five minutes celebrating. Every situation is different, they'll take each one on its merit." So no, goals do not automatically mean added time. There might be no celebrations at all. Implied, not said.