David Icke - Son of God

1. That's a load of s***. 2. That's a load of absolute s***. It's not - Firstly he's scored sixth goals this season; that's half a dozen and some of them haven't even been stormers. Secondly he's played seven games less this season than permacrock Owen. Feel free to expand your argument though and prove me wrong though. has a different partner every match (almost). no delivery and plays in a s... team! what do you expect? So has Owen, i'm sure he wasn't expecting to play alongside Andy Carroll this season. Seriously, this "Martins is better than Owen is better than Martins is better than Owen" argument is tiresome. You can only go on who does their job the best and Owen does just that.

1. That's a load of shit. 2. That's a load of absolute shit. This "Martins only scores screamers and hardly any of them" business is particularly tiresome. He scores tap-ins, he scores headers, he scores typical centre forward's goals and yes, he scores the odd brilliant long ranger. It's almost as if that goal at Spurs has gone down on his record as a bad thing - only at NUFC. Not saying he doesn't score simple goals, he just doesn't do it enough if he wants to be considered a top class striker. His ability in front of goal isn't one of his main problems - his lack of pace and a footballing brain are. Anyone who say's he is our best striker needs their head seeing to. Owen is world class and we'll not see his ilk at this club in a long time.

1. That's a load of shit. 2. That's a load of absolute shit. It's not - Firstly he's scored sixth goals this season; that's half a dozen and some of them haven't even been stormers. Secondly he's played seven games less this season than permacrock Owen. Feel free to expand your argument though and prove me wrong though.

Martins is NOT our best striker. We can't rely on his half a dozen stormers a season to keep us up, especially when he's just as bad as Owen on the sicknote front. We've got to look at it this way - Owen is going, Viduka is going, Martins may go but he's not prolific even if he stays, Smith is a midfielder now, Carroll isn't good enough and Ameobi is....well, Ameobi. The midfield and strikers could soon be a problem. For the first time in a long time our defence could be our strongest area.

The only strikers i would keep would be Martins and Loven. Carroll - is a championship striker imo and Xisco - if he was good would of played more games considering the awful amount of injuries to our strikers. Personally I think our front line is complete dirge barring Owen. We're going to be in this situation next season if wre stay up and none of the other strikers at the club are capable of scoring enough goals to keep us up.

Wise's shite, please. He discovered Bassong yer kna!!11!!1one

That investment really shouldn't be equated to the amount of transfer funds we have available; given the size of the club, the lack of spending this season, our lack of debts to pay for and the clearing of deadwood, we should have a more than decent war chest (going by history) despite MA's lack of investment. What I'm really worried about is MA tightening the purse strings to tap our income for himself. That's a huge assumption to make and one that flies in the face of everything the current regime have done so far. I have no faith in them to invest heavily. All the noises coming from the club are that we're going to be ran on a tiny budget (Llambias' £8 million comment in the interview with Thompson House, DL saying we have a 'great squad', offering Kinnear who is currently the third lowest paid manager in the top flight a new deal etc.) in the hope we tread water long enough for the club to start 'making money' or for the youth players Wise and his scattergun approach to scouting have picked up turn out decent enough to play in the first team. If they were serious about investing they'd have put money into the club in January and not left the wheeling and dealing until the final day. We're in the shit and needed new players then but few were forthcoming. I don't believe that they'll pour a large amount in this summer to bail water out of this sinking ship, no way.

If we don't go down this season we'll go down next unless MA sells up. Ten million pounds is a paltry amount to put in during the summer especially when the squad is in the state ours is. Anyone who says they'd be satisfied with that level of investment is a liar or an idiot.

They like to come across as being completely in charge, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if a lot of them have a whole range of restrictions on them. After all, the manager isn't the head of the football club, he's part of the structure. (Disclaimer: obviously when the club is so successful that you can afford to spend almost anything and never need to sell, the manager's position is a lot stronger. e.g. Fergie) They have limits imposed on them regarding fees, both transferwise and wagewise. Nothing much else though.

No, Keegan only signed the good ones Fair question though, everyone is clammering stake this as evidence that the club is run by liars without taking account of the fact that it undermines the claim that Keegan 'had to leave because of interference'. What fucking interference? The only players we now know for a fact he had a hand in signing were Guthrie and Bassong. Jonas, Colo, Xisco, Gonzalez are still unaccounted for but due to the league they played in i'd wager Wise, Vetere and Jiminez were behind them. There is also the matter of the Milner transfer and the noises made with regards to areas we needed to improve in. Oh, and there's also the Owen contract which Keegan was calling to be extended all summer. Just because Keegan signed one player (To be honest I had it on good authority that Guthrie, Bassong and Zayette were KK's only dealings. I was thrown when DL said otherwise.) doesn't mean there was no intereference. There are still a boatload of unanswered questions, such as why Mike Ashley said that there would be no interference until Keegan left when apparently he knew he wouldn't have control. It's not a black and white issue. With him on the record as being happy as fuck about Jonas and Colo, it seems a massive shame that the club's fortunes have been determined by a disagreement of opinion over a non-entity like James fucking Milner. What a waste if true. Getting rid of Milner for £12 million looked like a masterstroke...until it was revealed they've got until around 2030 to pay off the fucking transfer. I don't think it was the only problem, but along with Barton it was the one that broke the camel's back. Thats my point, this stuff about Bassong shows there was less areas of contention than previously thought. I don't think it does. As i've said i've been told that Bassong and Guthrie were Keegan's only two signings. Aside from tampering with the players we've bought and sold there's other elements such as lack of transfers, squad depth, Owen's contract and the apparent breakdown in communication between Llambias and Keegan which resulted in Llambias "wanting to punch him". The camel in question had a lot of shite heaped on it before the Milner deal was thrown on the pile. The shite that the camel had heaped on it is the same sort of shite that most camels have to put up with tbh. Not many managers can dictate who gets contracts for how much and what the transfer spend should be, which players are not to be sold at any price etc. I think you'll find most top flight managers get to do just that, as seen by the outpouring of sympathy towards Keegan by other Premiership managers after he walked.

No, Keegan only signed the good ones Fair question though, everyone is clammering stake this as evidence that the club is run by liars without taking account of the fact that it undermines the claim that Keegan 'had to leave because of interference'. What fucking interference? The only players we now know for a fact he had a hand in signing were Guthrie and Bassong. Jonas, Colo, Xisco, Gonzalez are still unaccounted for but due to the league they played in i'd wager Wise, Vetere and Jiminez were behind them. There is also the matter of the Milner transfer and the noises made with regards to areas we needed to improve in. Oh, and there's also the Owen contract which Keegan was calling to be extended all summer. Just because Keegan signed one player (To be honest I had it on good authority that Guthrie, Bassong and Zayette were KK's only dealings. I was thrown when DL said otherwise.) doesn't mean there was no intereference. There are still a boatload of unanswered questions, such as why Mike Ashley said that there would be no interference until Keegan left when apparently he knew he wouldn't have control. It's not a black and white issue. With him on the record as being happy as fuck about Jonas and Colo, it seems a massive shame that the club's fortunes have been determined by a disagreement of opinion over a non-entity like James fucking Milner. What a waste if true. Getting rid of Milner for £12 million looked like a masterstroke...until it was revealed they've got until around 2030 to pay off the fucking transfer. I don't think it was the only problem, but along with Barton it was the one that broke the camel's back. Thats my point, this stuff about Bassong shows there was less areas of contention than previously thought. I don't think it does. As i've said i've been told that Bassong and Guthrie were Keegan's only two signings. Aside from tampering with the players we've bought and sold there's other elements such as lack of transfers, squad depth, Owen's contract and the apparent breakdown in communication between Llambias and Keegan which resulted in Llambias "wanting to punch him". The camel in question had a lot of shite heaped on it before the Milner deal was thrown on the pile.

No, Keegan only signed the good ones Fair question though, everyone is clammering stake this as evidence that the club is run by liars without taking account of the fact that it undermines the claim that Keegan 'had to leave because of interference'. What fucking interference? The only players we now know for a fact he had a hand in signing were Guthrie and Bassong. Jonas, Colo, Xisco, Gonzalez are still unaccounted for but due to the league they played in i'd wager Wise, Vetere and Jiminez were behind them. There is also the matter of the Milner transfer and the noises made with regards to areas we needed to improve in. Oh, and there's also the Owen contract which Keegan was calling to be extended all summer. Just because Keegan signed one player (To be honest I had it on good authority that Guthrie, Bassong and Zayette were KK's only dealings. I was thrown when DL said otherwise.) doesn't mean there was no intereference. There are still a boatload of unanswered questions, such as why Mike Ashley said that there would be no interference until Keegan left when apparently he knew he wouldn't have control. It's not a black and white issue. With him on the record as being happy as fuck about Jonas and Colo, it seems a massive shame that the club's fortunes have been determined by a disagreement of opinion over a non-entity like James fucking Milner. What a waste if true. Getting rid of Milner for £12 million looked like a masterstroke...until it was revealed they've got until around 2030 to pay off the fucking transfer. I don't think it was the only problem, but along with Barton it was the one that broke the camel's back.

No, Keegan only signed the good ones Fair question though, everyone is clammering stake this as evidence that the club is run by liars without taking account of the fact that it undermines the claim that Keegan 'had to leave because of interference'. What fucking interference? The only players we now know for a fact he had a hand in signing were Guthrie and Bassong. Jonas, Colo, Xisco, Gonzalez are still unaccounted for but due to the league they played in i'd wager Wise, Vetere and Jiminez were behind them. There is also the matter of the Milner transfer and the noises made with regards to areas we needed to improve in. Oh, and there's also the Owen contract which Keegan was calling to be extended all summer. Just because Keegan signed one player (To be honest I had it on good authority that Guthrie, Bassong and Zayette were KK's only dealings. I was thrown when DL said otherwise.) doesn't mean there was no intereference. There are still a boatload of unanswered questions, such as why Mike Ashley said that there would be no interference until Keegan left when apparently he knew he wouldn't have control. It's not a black and white issue.

No, Keegan only signed the good ones

His agent knew Kevin Keegan for fucks sake. Bassong was probably well in the loop as to what was going on.

Pisses all over the myth that Keegan had become too 'out-of-touch' - ie. no longer a holder of the mechanics of being able to spot promising players, he no longer had the contacts in the player agent merry go round etc - thanks his lengthy hiatus from professional football. A myth that was peddled here. Apologies but how does it "Piss on the myth." You think he was watching Ligue 1 closely in be tween training and trying to keep us up? Bear in mind Ligue 1 is not a prominent league here and he won't have just discovered him sitting at home. You must also take into consideration that Bassong was at Metz a team that was relegated, so an even bigger find. Accept that the scouting team found him, knew he was good enough the "Trial" confirmed it and he was signed. Fuck me sideways Straight from the horses mouth and you're still denying it.

I don't know why you've stuck the second part in given that Oba/Owen has looked the best pair up front in a 442 for us this season. Agree with the first sentance mind. Hughton is clearly going to opt for a BM-LM partnership so we can play his hit and hope dross at the first opportunity.

Owen is the best striker, nay player by a mile. If he's fit he should be the first name on the team sheet, whether that be at the expense of the headless chicken Martins or not.

But the chronicle did write an equally biased report before the NUSC released theirs. All the quotes from Lee Ryders original report... http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-...72703-23007850/ Quotes omitted and only reported later thanks to NUSC... There's an incredibly clear delineation there between the propaganda and factual/stupid stuff. Proof if any was needed that Thompson House are in the pocket of Disco Dekka. He's even admitted himself that the quotes are accurate.

At least we've still got you to maintain the moral highground for the rest of us kids though, eh The real point is surely finding the best way to approach "working" with the board. Many people feel that having a group which claims to represent them going about things in the wrong way is worth debating? Those people are unwilling to make their voices heard though by going to an NUSC meeting or even contacting the SC via phone or e-mail. A lot of people may well think NUSC are going about things the wrong way but if they only air their grievances on two bit message boards then they have no right to complain when NUSC doesn't adopt the position which most closely mirrors theirs. As for those people who think doorstepping Llambias and other club officials is counter productive and wont achieve anything then why are relations between Estland and NUSC cordial and why are the club going to work with NUSC when it comes to communication in the future? I reckon it's probably because we enjoy talking on our two bit message-boards and there's even a chance someone might seriously consider what we say, unlike if we went to one of your two bit "supporters' club" meetings, which seem to be highly tedious and during which anybody who doesn't say "Ashley Out!!11" gets totally ignored. We have every right to complain when NUSC claims to speak for us and doesn't, and we have every right not to go along to their meetings or join their club. It's not the law you know, you can still be a Newcastle supporter and not a member of NUSC, in fact the last time I looked the overwhelming majority of fans we're not members. This whole: "You can't comment if you don't go to the meetings and sign-up" thing is total bollocks, what kind of moronic logic is that!?! I don't like NUSC, I disagree with everything they stand for (all one of them), even if I did agree with them I think they're totally fucking it up and I still wouldn't want anything to do with them, I also think some of their leadership are in this for the wrong reasons, but I should go along to a meeting and join up you say? Hmmmmm, let me think... ...er, no; I don't think so, not today thanks. How is it moronic logic? You're happy to whinge about NUSC and how they're ran but you're not actually going to do anything proactive about it. They're not suddenly going to change direction because one numpty, who is in a minority of actually liking the current regime, is sitting on Newcastle-Online acting like a prissy bitch. If you're incapable of understanding why I wouldn't want to help something I totally disagree with then, well I'm not really sure how to put this in any more simple terms than this: Unless NUFC changes significantly, I want it to fail. It shows no sign of changing whatsoever. I am not going to get involved with something I want to fail. If you still don't understand then tough shit, I ain't wasting my time explaining it again. You want it to fail unless it changes but you wont make any attempt to change it. I understand it, but it just shows you up to be a feckless moron.

The above post is complete bunkum. Firstly supporters trusts are entirely viable ventures, even for clubs like Newcastle. Schemes are ran throughout the leagues by supporters of different clubs. Liverpool supporters have set up "Share Liverpool" to do exactly as NUSC suggest our fans do. This isn't some 'pie in the sky pipe dream' as you call it. They're not looking to buy the club outright ala Peter "Walter Mitty" Lee. It's entirely possible but as is pointed out it's a long way away. They've done more things than just discuss stewarding with the club, such as try and win supporters their VAT back and offer free legal advice to those supporters who run into trouble with the rozzers at the match. When issues have been brought forward by supporters to NUSC they've acted upon them and tried to sort them out. There may not be many but the club is six months old for crying out loud. You say they're interested in getting more members and nothing more but one of the main complaints on here is that they're not. People have bemoaned the fact NUSC has an apparently paltry membership (fastest growing supporters club in the country FYI) and they're not looking to increase it by dropping the membership fee. As for the lack of meetings that is being remedied as we speak as they held their first 'on the road' get together in Prudhoe this Monday - one of hopefully many (EDIT: Speaking of which, John Anderson spilled the beans that Given to City was left to the last minute on purpose so the club could use the "We didn't have time to spend the cash" excuse, rather than tell the fans we actually weren't getting it until July...apparently) Your whole argument seems to be based on petty grievances. Now that is sad.

At least we've still got you to maintain the moral highground for the rest of us kids though, eh The real point is surely finding the best way to approach "working" with the board. Many people feel that having a group which claims to represent them going about things in the wrong way is worth debating? Those people are unwilling to make their voices heard though by going to an NUSC meeting or even contacting the SC via phone or e-mail. A lot of people may well think NUSC are going about things the wrong way but if they only air their grievances on two bit message boards then they have no right to complain when NUSC doesn't adopt the position which most closely mirrors theirs. As for those people who think doorstepping Llambias and other club officials is counter productive and wont achieve anything then why are relations between Estland and NUSC cordial and why are the club going to work with NUSC when it comes to communication in the future? I reckon it's probably because we enjoy talking on our two bit message-boards and there's even a chance someone might seriously consider what we say, unlike if we went to one of your two bit "supporters' club" meetings, which seem to be highly tedious and during which anybody who doesn't say "Ashley Out!!11" gets totally ignored. We have every right to complain when NUSC claims to speak for us and doesn't, and we have every right not to go along to their meetings or join their club. It's not the law you know, you can still be a Newcastle supporter and not a member of NUSC, in fact the last time I looked the overwhelming majority of fans we're not members. This whole: "You can't comment if you don't go to the meetings and sign-up" thing is total bollocks, what kind of moronic logic is that!?! I don't like NUSC, I disagree with everything they stand for (all one of them), even if I did agree with them I think they're totally fucking it up and I still wouldn't want anything to do with them, I also think some of their leadership are in this for the wrong reasons, but I should go along to a meeting and join up you say? Hmmmmm, let me think... ...er, no; I don't think so, not today thanks. How is it moronic logic? You're happy to whinge about NUSC and how they're ran but you're not actually going to do anything proactive about it. They're not suddenly going to change direction because one numpty, who is in a minority of actually liking the current regime, is sitting on Newcastle-Online acting like a prissy bitch.

At least we've still got you to maintain the moral highground for the rest of us kids though, eh The real point is surely finding the best way to approach "working" with the board. Many people feel that having a group which claims to represent them going about things in the wrong way is worth debating? Those people are unwilling to make their voices heard though by going to an NUSC meeting or even contacting the SC via phone or e-mail. A lot of people may well think NUSC are going about things the wrong way but if they only air their grievances on two bit message boards then they have no right to complain when NUSC doesn't adopt the position which most closely mirrors theirs. As for those people who think doorstepping Llambias and other club officials is counter productive and wont achieve anything then why are relations between Estland and NUSC cordial and why are the club going to work with NUSC when it comes to communication in the future?

Truth. Not really. They're reporting what happened in the meeting. To report private views expressed afterwards would invite an unholy shitstorm of abuse from the anti-NUSC brigade on account of the amateurish point scoring it would rightly have been viewed as at the expense of a players reputation. So instead they amateurishly decided to score points by mentioning that llambias had been indiscreet. They're not fucking Reuters, they're a supporters club. To expect a BBC level of impartiality is fucking stupid, especially when they're directly opposed to Disco Dekka and his pals in charge.

You got me... I'll bear that in mind when I want a meeting with the Chief Exec of HMV, I've spent a fortune in there over the years! Aye, because shopping at HMV is exactly like supporting a football team Don't be such a bloody gonk. I wasn't the one who compared fans to customers. Don't be such a fricking blick. Jesus wept.