Montey

Bruno is an amazing player and a fantastic presence in the team. The energy he gives everyone around him is incredibly important and his willingness to take personal responsibility is an example to every other member of the squad. But ... Has giving him the captains armband put too much weight on his shoulders? I wonder whether he's feeling the responsibility of captain too heavily and that his game is suffering as a result. Over many decades over many sports, I've witnessed world-class sportsmen crumble under the weight of captaincy. Some players, when made captain, feel like the responsibility is all theirs to lift the team, to find the goal, to make the tackle, to get the win. This grinds them down as they spend all their time in the head, trying to work out what they and the team need to do differently, and they lose their natural game. I wonder if this is what has happened to Bruno - the sense of responsibility he has, for wearing the captain's armband, is stopping him playing his natural, instinctive game.

I think a simple answer (to the question of stopping player simulation/faking) is to have the PL conduct a post game review (with all footage) and to issue yellow & red cards to players who bring the game into disrepute (e.g. simulation, diving, dissent, spitting, reckless play, etc.). I think the Australian Football League (AFL) has a model that would work (I don't know if other football leagues have a model too), whereby the league reviews every game and can charge players & clubs for on-field actions that contravene rules and can then impose sanctions. The AFL will review every game, will then "charge" players and/or clubs with offenses, will bring the player & club in to face those charges (in a pseudo court-room environment), and will decide if and what punishment is to be applied. This process is conducted every week of the season (at the beginning of the week, immediately following each weekend's games) and, I think, is massively responsible for keeping a lot of this rubbish (the rubbish seen in football) out of the game.

I generally agree and was heading towards choosing '9th' too. The thing that had me select '8th' is because we have two transfer windows to consider. If NUFC can get 2 more attacking players in the current transfer window then we could be in with a shot at 7th. But, if we have to wait until the next transfer window to get some additional attacking options (leading to a stronger 2nd half of the season) then we could/would achieve 8th.

I agree. From a purely aesthetic perspective, I really like the look.

I can think of one reason to not do it (which many won't understand): Meat Loaf!

... using mostly the same team as Steve Bruce!

Just keep in mind that any prospective new stadium (if they had decided they had to go that route to increase capacity, at a different location) could cost around £500+ million (London Stadium cost £486 million, in 2011 money - or £689 million, in 2022 money - according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Stadium). If a new stadium would cost ~£500 million, then a sizable budget would likely be available to move some historic buildings to enable the ground to be expanded without the expense of a whole new stadium. For example, £50 million to move the buildings and £200 million to expand and renovate St. James' Park saves then 50% of the cost of a new stadium.

I'm going to ask this again, because I think it's a worthwhile question that has been overlooked... Why not MOVE the Leazes Terrace buildings? Around the world it is a relatively common thing to move (either as a whole building, or by carefully pulling down and reconstructing) historical & listed buildings to a new location, to preserve their historical significance. Leazes Terrace could be moved closer to Richardson Rd (replacing the Tennis Courts, which could be rebuilt somewhere within a new St James' Park sporting facility), or to another location altogether.

Could they move the listed buildings? What I mean is, could they be pulled down ("brick by brick") and then be re-built ("brick-by-brick") somewhere else. Whilst I am not familiar with the specific laws, as they relate to those specific buildings, but I know elsewhere (around the world) it is not uncommon to move historically significant buildings. This allows the historically significant building to be retained, as it's the building that's significant and not the location. A really extreme example of this is that Cooks' cottage, as built by the father of Captain James Cook in Yorkshire, was torn down in 1934 and moved all the way to Melbourne, Australia (each brick individually numbered) where it still stands today. https://whatson.melbourne.vic.gov.au/things-to-do/cooks-cottage Could this not be done to create space for St James' Park?

There's an established Newcastle United Jets FC in Australia (city of Newcastle, New South Wales), too.

Does the NUFC Trust actually have any of the money? I thought it was a pledge to give money, but money would only be transacted if the target(s) were achieved. If I am correct, then the NUFC Trust isn't actually in possession of any money to give away - hence winding up the pledge program should be as simple as telling people that their pledges no longer have to be honoured, that no more pledges will be taken, and that the campaign is being wound up. If I am incorrect (that the Trust has received the money) then all of the money should be returned to those who pledged it, as it was pledge for a specific purpose and not for some plan-B option. If those who pledged money wish to give it to a charity then they can and should do so, separate from any action by NUFC Trust once they have received their refund. I will say, I always thought that, whilst the Pledge campaign was well intentioned, it was never going to succeed. To achieve even a 1% ownership stake in a £300M company was going to require £3M, plus transaction costs (broker's fees, etc). Even if NUFC Trust achieved pledges to the value of £3M (plus transaction costs), a 1% ownership stake was going to give them no influence within the board room - at best the ownership would have provided some fiduciary transparency, through annual reports (and £3M+ is a lot to pay to get an annual report). Fan ownership/influence may be an achievable dream in lower leagues (for clubs worth less than £10M. e.g. 10% stake in a £10M valued club), but it was never within the realms of reality for a club worth more than £100M. The only way "fan ownership" would ever be achieved for higher value clubs is if a small number of very wealthy "fans" were to participate, but then those few individuals would seek to hold the dominant voices (as they put up the majority of the money) in which case most fans would have no say anyway.

It's important to keep in mind that most transfer rumours will be player agents trying to stoke interest in their players or player agents trying to convince clubs their players may leave if they don't get a better contract. Most of these rumours will have no actual connection with the club or reality.

If some on this forum got to decide who NUFC's managers and executives were to be, Kevin Keegan would never have been employed as a manager.

There's some good one-touch football with movement - lets hope we start to see it in our games. We haven't seen it for years. My biggest concern is: there were a lot of "good shots" off stationary balls which, won't happen in game - the opposition won't allow the ball to just sit in front of a NUFC player for 5 seconds waiting for the NUFC player to catch up to the ball.

I didn't like it when Ashley attempted to rename St. James' Park - but the thing that really made my piss boil was that the club didn't benefit from it. If the club receives revenues, at a fair market rate (i.e. what should be reasonably paid to rename such a culturally significant landmark) then I still won't like it but I could live with it - if it still made reference to St. James' Park (e.g. "Saudia St. James' Park").

Surely it would be £50m + any outgoings, so the gross spend could be closer to £60m+. I also suspect that the new owners would be more flexible if an interesting opportunity emerged.

W. A. I. T. Friday @ 3pm.

I think Favre would be a great choice for NUFC, for where we are and where we'd like to be after the first few years of rebuilding the club.

I'm guessing we probably don't need two takeover related threads now. Since the Positive Optimism contributors have now been vindicated, we could probably close one of the threads (as by default they are now both in agreement that the takeover is happening).

Can someone, who lives in Newcastle, please order a taxi for Mr Bruce? I mean it, literally, have a taxi arrive at the gates of Darsley Park asking for Steve Bruce.

There's a little bit of plane spotting happening too (see the #NUFCTakeover Twitter tag for details).

Which, I believe, is the reason that Mike Ashley and NUFC have taken the PL to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, where such cases are determined.

If the Premier League (and the Cartel6) won't allow the PIF takeover then they won't allow any other takeover of similar capability. (In my opinion) the PL & Big6 stopped the PIF takeover because they don't want another money-bags club to compete with. If I (and others) am correct with this theory, it means that even if another buyer came along the PL & Big6 would stop any takeover unless it was a smaller buyer. This means that any takeover that would be approved would be one that kept us in a position mostly similar to where we are now. Consequently, to accept any other takeover (other than the PIF takeover) is effectively to accept that NUFC will never be a club in a position to regularly compete for anything (other than a Leicester like miracle every few decades).

I don't know if this is relevant in any way to the takeover... But apparently MASH Holdings has borrowed some money (I couldn't see how much) from HSBC. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06861426/filing-history

This (the lack of criticism by Ashley) is my glimmer of hope that this is a tactical decision on Ashley's side. If the delay was entirely due to the Premier League I would expect Ashley to put on the cleats and go in hard with both feet. The fact that he hasn't suggests that the delay is not entirely (if at all) caused by the Premier League. If the delay to arbitration is because of an alleged lack of disclosure by the buying consortium (i.e. PIF) then it's a question of whether the arbitration tribunal has unfairly made such a decision or whether the consortium really hasn't disclosed sufficient information. We're not likely to find this out until sometime after the arbitration process is completed. But, if it was because of the PIF then I think there is a reasonable chance that Ashley will start talking to other potential buyers and if one of these firms up then I expect Ashley will make a "tire kickers" comment about PIF shortly afterwards (as he did for other suiters). Also, if the delay is because the arbitration panel has made an unjust decision (delaying when no delay was necessary) then I expect this will be folded into the CAT cases as further evidence of anti-competitive behaviour. The last possibility is that Ashley has deliberately incurred this delay for his own reasons (possibly to cause CAT to happen first, possibly for other reasons we're unaware of). If the delay has been caused by Ashley I can only presume he believes such a delay helps him to complete the sale of the club. This is my glimmer of hope.