Howaythelads

Better than Heskey ffs! He's also better than ameobi.. whats your point? I just find it laughable that he rates someone like Heskey and lables someone like Keane as "shit". Keane may not be the most consistent footballer in the world, but he's no shit! aah ok.. tbh i don't rate either of them- keane is a good finisher though I don't agree. He seems to need about 5 chances to score 1.

Keane is shit. He's as over-rated as Jenas was by some here. How can you say he is SHIT when he has been a starter for a top 5 side for a couple of years? Keane is quality, if he was shit he would be playing in League Two. I'm saying he's shit because on the basis of his performances that I've seen I think he's shit. Wtf has being a starter in a top 5 side got to do with it? Did you think Bramble was quality for us when we finished in the top 4? Or Jenas, or O'Brien? Do I need to go on with this list?

Keane is shit. He's as over-rated as Jenas was by some here.

Up front they are decent but the rest of the squad is pretty weak imo Only decent? mackems.gif mackems.gif Average....

Nah. Owen will be the PL player of the year if he stays fit and plays enough matches.

Bull. When Arsenal were in the middle of their unbeaten season, did you ever think their team was 'too foreign'? Edit - Do you think Arsenal's table-topping side at this moment of time is 'too foreign'? Is it getting to be an offence now to mention the "foreign" word, or something? Nowt personal mate, but I think you've latched onto this single part of what TT has written and it's blinding you to the point he's really trying to make. He does have a point, you know. Benitez has brought in a lot of players, most foreign. Some have probably never heard of Portsmouth. No matter that they think they're at 100%, it only takes that slight lowering of standard due to what they think (or don't think) of the opposition due to ignorance and they will fall flat. It happened today and it'll happen again for them and I hope it happens all the time, tbh. It does take time for foreign players to make the adjustment and it's not just the pace of the game here, it's keeping on top of their game when they go to the so-called unfashionable places like Portsmouth, Wigan etc etc. They may think they are mentally right, but sometimes they are not. That's very true HTL, but this is down to Benitez to solve this problem. Wenger does (and did) fine with his French players. It's not 'foreign' that's the problem, it's the ability to motivate these players. I don't think TT is trying to make the same point you are though, he's implying just because Rafa is foreign he underrates the Premiership, and I disagree with that because there have been many other foreign managers who have been successful in England. Ok, fair comment.

I don't see much quality in the spurs squad, tbh.

Enrique is injured i think? Oh yeah, curse of the nufc LB... Harper Beye, Cacapa, Roz, Zoggy Geremi Butt Smith Milner Martins Owen How come that twat Emre can play 2 matches for Turkey, but still doesnt seem to ready for us? Good for building up match fitness for a mickey mouse team. We don't need to rush him back in for us.

Ok, mam.

I was 29.

I don't generally find things on there objectionable other than their pompous attitude, but encouraging people to effectively boycott a business is wrong. It's nowt to do with them in my opinion. Your analogy about TV makes me laugh tbh. Do you believe in censorship and classification of films on TV? Or do you believe the most sicko films you can imagine should be shown at any time of the day on the basis there is an on/off switch? My opinion on TV programmes and films has nothing to do with it. Back to the Rosies issue. They are not "encouraging" anyone to do anything. They are explaining a situation and giving people the opportunity to make their own decision. Just because .com has said they will not be going into a pub does not mean that no-one else should. You mentioned it. I'll draw my own conclusions about whether you believe decent standards and responsibility are good things or not. Your post shows you're fairly naive, especially the last sentence because it's obvious they want people to follow their example, otherwise what would be the point? Which also shows your third sentence to be naive also. Perhaps the next time someone makes a racist remark on this forum and is banned for it, you'll complain against the ban on their behalf? After all, they have a right to say what they like and nobody forces anybody else to read it. Or is that different, in your opinion? "Far be it from us to tell you lot what to do, what to shout or where to drink, but you may be interested to know of a growing boycott of the above Tyneside matchday boozer. Without going into massive detail, the new owners of said bar have now turfed out the popular manageress and her staff in what are less than savoury circumstances. The NUFC.com grog budget will no longer be spent in Rosie's as a result of this - and we would urge anyone and everyone to join us." If we are allowed to pick and choose parts of their statement then there is an opposing one for you to mull over. Racism is a different matter, and is not comparable to an opinion on a pub, when was the last time you saw Mr Eats from the Sunday Sun whipping up a frenzy of violence and extreme views? You can call me naive if you want, but maybe you should stop taking yourself so seriously. I am sure I will be able to live with your opinion of me, seeing that you only know me through a message board. It always makes me laugh when someone uses the easy throw-away remark about "taking yourself so seriously" toward someone because they have a different opinion to their own. My example of a person posting a RACIST REMARK attracted the response from you I expected. What you fail to understand is that the impact of a boycott on a business can lead to failure of that business. This will be more important to the business owner, their family and their current employees than a "RACIST REMARK" made on the internet. But you believe the opposite for some peculiar reason. Do you support yourself, by the way? Or are you a sponger off someone else? The second option might explain your complacent attitude. I really don't expect a person like you to understand that there actually could be a serious side to this, my guess is you're too busy looking after number 1 to give a shit about anyone else. I beg your pardon? My personal circumstances are of no concern to you, but to answer your question Yes I do support myself, if you mean do I work. I have 3 children, who I bring up on my own and I work to provide for them. Not that its any of your business imo. I also presume that you have no concern for the manageress of Rosies who did a damn fine job(did you ever drink in there btw) and who was sacked without notice when the new owners came in. I suppose her welfare is less important than the pub owners. I do appreciate that there is a serious side to this, but I cannot see how people boycotting Rosies makes much of a difference to you(unless you are the new owner-and if you are maybe you would like to explain why the bar staff were sacked). My argument was that .com were expressing their opinion and no-one has to do what they say. But people will and it's daft to think otherwise. This is why nufc.com have done it otherwise they wouldn't have bothered. By the way, what makes you think I may be the new owner just because I think some clowns running nufc.com have overstepped the mark? Regarding the previous manageress. There are employment laws in this country. Yes, her welfare is also important in this but if the new owners have done anything illegal she will be able to pursue compensation. There will have to be a reason for her to be sacked. It is doubtful the people at nufc.com have the facts, it seems more likely to me that they've gone ahead with promoting a boycott that is potentially damaging based on gossip. This is irresponsible and an abuse of the popularity of their website and that's my point. I believe in people taking responsibility. It seems you don't unless you simply don't understand the point I'm making. Well done for looking after 3 kids and working and that's not sarcasm. I admire you for that and I apologise for asking. I have a wife and two kids and it's hard enough.

Have never thought enough of them to write them off early, mate. I'd written them off before the start. Their deluded supporters believe they have the best 4 strikers in the country, they believe it's not a matter of getting into the top 4, it's that they're dead certs to finish higher than 4th. They're better than Arsenal and Liverpool, according to some of their supporters I heard on national radio just before the start of the season. I wonder if reality is setting in yet.....

Bull. When Arsenal were in the middle of their unbeaten season, did you ever think their team was 'too foreign'? Edit - Do you think Arsenal's table-topping side at this moment of time is 'too foreign'? Is it getting to be an offence now to mention the "foreign" word, or something? Nowt personal mate, but I think you've latched onto this single part of what TT has written and it's blinding you to the point he's really trying to make. He does have a point, you know. Benitez has brought in a lot of players, most foreign. Some have probably never heard of Portsmouth. No matter that they think they're at 100%, it only takes that slight lowering of standard due to what they think (or don't think) of the opposition due to ignorance and they will fall flat. It happened today and it'll happen again for them and I hope it happens all the time, tbh. It does take time for foreign players to make the adjustment and it's not just the pace of the game here, it's keeping on top of their game when they go to the so-called unfashionable places like Portsmouth, Wigan etc etc. They may think they are mentally right, but sometimes they are not.

Which means of course that he's not actually a great manager.

I don't generally find things on there objectionable other than their pompous attitude, but encouraging people to effectively boycott a business is wrong. It's nowt to do with them in my opinion. Your analogy about TV makes me laugh tbh. Do you believe in censorship and classification of films on TV? Or do you believe the most sicko films you can imagine should be shown at any time of the day on the basis there is an on/off switch? My opinion on TV programmes and films has nothing to do with it. Back to the Rosies issue. They are not "encouraging" anyone to do anything. They are explaining a situation and giving people the opportunity to make their own decision. Just because .com has said they will not be going into a pub does not mean that no-one else should. You mentioned it. I'll draw my own conclusions about whether you believe decent standards and responsibility are good things or not. Your post shows you're fairly naive, especially the last sentence because it's obvious they want people to follow their example, otherwise what would be the point? Which also shows your third sentence to be naive also. Perhaps the next time someone makes a racist remark on this forum and is banned for it, you'll complain against the ban on their behalf? After all, they have a right to say what they like and nobody forces anybody else to read it. Or is that different, in your opinion? "Far be it from us to tell you lot what to do, what to shout or where to drink, but you may be interested to know of a growing boycott of the above Tyneside matchday boozer. Without going into massive detail, the new owners of said bar have now turfed out the popular manageress and her staff in what are less than savoury circumstances. The NUFC.com grog budget will no longer be spent in Rosie's as a result of this - and we would urge anyone and everyone to join us." If we are allowed to pick and choose parts of their statement then there is an opposing one for you to mull over. Racism is a different matter, and is not comparable to an opinion on a pub, when was the last time you saw Mr Eats from the Sunday Sun whipping up a frenzy of violence and extreme views? You can call me naive if you want, but maybe you should stop taking yourself so seriously. I am sure I will be able to live with your opinion of me, seeing that you only know me through a message board. It always makes me laugh when someone uses the easy throw-away remark about "taking yourself so seriously" toward someone because they have a different opinion to their own. My example of a person posting a RACIST REMARK attracted the response from you I expected. What you fail to understand is that the impact of a boycott on a business can lead to failure of that business. This will be more important to the business owner, their family and their current employees than a "RACIST REMARK" made on the internet. But you believe the opposite for some peculiar reason. Do you support yourself, by the way? Or are you a sponger off someone else? The second option might explain your complacent attitude. I really don't expect a person like you to understand that there actually could be a serious side to this, my guess is you're too busy looking after number 1 to give a shit about anyone else.

TV....

How is him an average young english defender, and how is him overpaid? Ow is im an average player blud, ow is im overpaid? Thats how I read that anyway ?? How is him? One of his more understandable contributions, imo.

Name, address and phone number of this Derby supporter please? :parky:

Because they think they're more important than they really are? They're mongs, tbh. The irony. I don't recognise who you are so I can only assume you've : 1. Posted here before under a different name and wish to hide the fact. 2. You post on a different forum under a different name where I don't post anymore. Perhaps you told me Jenas was 'ace' and Ameobi is the next Shearer. 3. Maybe I just haven't noticed anything you have to say on here. I'll not bother throwing myself off the nearest bridge at your low opinion of me.

I don't generally find things on there objectionable other than their pompous attitude, but encouraging people to effectively boycott a business is wrong. It's nowt to do with them in my opinion. Your analogy about TV makes me laugh tbh. Do you believe in censorship and classification of films on TV? Or do you believe the most sicko films you can imagine should be shown at any time of the day on the basis there is an on/off switch? My opinion on TV programmes and films has nothing to do with it. Back to the Rosies issue. They are not "encouraging" anyone to do anything. They are explaining a situation and giving people the opportunity to make their own decision. Just because .com has said they will not be going into a pub does not mean that no-one else should. You mentioned it. I'll draw my own conclusions about whether you believe decent standards and responsibility are good things or not. Your post shows you're fairly naive, especially the last sentence because it's obvious they want people to follow their example, otherwise what would be the point? Which also shows your third sentence to be naive also. Perhaps the next time someone makes a racist remark on this forum and is banned for it, you'll complain against the ban on their behalf? After all, they have a right to say what they like and nobody forces anybody else to read it. Or is that different, in your opinion?

Yes

Irony? No, you've lost me. A pub cannot do fundraisers for locals like the lad who ran in his toon top the length of Britain? A pub landlord canot give his opinion on how shitly staff are treated down the local bookies/pub/whatever? What the fuck are you talking about. They can say what the fuck they like. They can say whatever the fuck pisses them off, interests them, grinds their fucking gears. It's their site. they pay for it. If you find it of use that's all well and good. if not, they couldn't/or at least shouldn't give a shit. I don't frequent the site, but find it useful whether it be seeing whether my opinion coincides with their match reports or just checking up on transfers or old stats. They are not the fucking BBC, it's not like you pay taxes for their impartiality. Have you changed your mind about me "growing the fuck up" then? If you don't understand what irony is, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. I'll just ask you a simple question: Should the owner of a pub not have the same rights as the owner of a website to do what they want with their business? Having re-read your post it's pretty obvious that you totally misunderstood what I was saying, which was: that it's inconsistent for someone to criticise people for passing comment on what someone else has said, by saying that the original person has the right to say whatever they want and should be free to criticise the actions of a third person. Do you understand what I'm saying? I never actually gave my own opinion on the matter so the majority of your post is completely irrelevant to what I did say, but I'll give it now. I think that the pub owner has the right to run his pub as he sees fit, that .com have the right to run their website as they see fit, and we have the right to criticise them as we see fit. Is that ok with you? Sorry. Ignore me and my post pub rants. I'm a terrible drunk. :-[ Good one, mate.

I don't generally find things on there objectionable other than their pompous attitude, but encouraging people to effectively boycott a business is wrong. It's nowt to do with them in my opinion. Your analogy about TV makes me laugh tbh. Do you believe in censorship and classification of films on TV? Or do you believe the most sicko films you can imagine should be shown at any time of the day on the basis there is an on/off switch?

Why's that like?

Irony? No, you've lost me. A pub cannot do fundraisers for locals like the lad who ran in his toon top the length of Britain? A pub landlord canot give his opinion on how shitly staff are treated down the local bookies/pub/whatever? What the fuck are you talking about. They can say what the fuck they like. They can say whatever the fuck pisses them off, interests them, grinds their fucking gears. It's their site. they pay for it. If you find it of use that's all well and good. if not, they couldn't/or at least shouldn't give a shit. I don't frequent the site, but find it useful whether it be seeing whether my opinion coincides with their match reports or just checking up on transfers or old stats. They are not the fucking BBC, it's not like you pay taxes for their impartiality. Have you changed your mind about me "growing the fuck up" then? If you don't understand what irony is, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. I'll just ask you a simple question: Should the owner of a pub not have the same rights as the owner of a website to do what they want with their business? Having re-read your post it's pretty obvious that you totally misunderstood what I was saying, which was: that it's inconsistent for someone to criticise people for passing comment on what someone else has said, by saying that the original person has the right to say whatever they want and should be free to criticise the actions of a third person. Do you understand what I'm saying? I never actually gave my own opinion on the matter so the majority of your post is completely irrelevant to what I did say, but I'll give it now. I think that the pub owner has the right to run his pub as he sees fit, that .com have the right to run their website as they see fit, and we have the right to criticise them as we see fit. Is that ok with you? I think what you were saying was pretty obvious, tbh. Maybe it was a "time of day" thing. Or night....whatever.