80

Doubt anyone with any proper feelings for the toon can get into the directors area. If he was to come and stand in the Leazes corner then it might be a different matter. I don't think he meant physically...

Nothing to worry about, that'll have just been a side discussion over aperitifs while they were sorting out the compensation package for Bruce.

Would be a fucking empty forum in this world you propose.

Yeah, the bloke who wrote it must be feeling smug.

Ha... I thought it was mad to run a thread like this back in September.

All about Sunderland, for me.

Hard to agree or disagree. A cynic would say Owen scores you the penalty and you go in 1-0 up with 45 minutes to hold them back. Right now we are now better or worse. Owen and penalties don't mix either, mind.

Has to be Oba. Ought to be Duff for a 4-3-3.

“Shola has scored nearly 50 goals now, which is an incredible achievement” This is a pretty laughable statement - unless he means he's incredulous at the fact Ameobi hasn't yet scored 50 by the age of 27, but that seems unlikely going on the rest of what he says.

He slags Ameobi off something rotten at talk-ins, does he not? So it seems he's capable of saying things he doesn't privately believe...

No he is just a poor bi. This needs to get nominated for something.

What the club stands for? The club stands for its ingrained history and the city. It's about sticking by your team, for me that is local pride, my town, my roots. For others it's about choice but even then I would be surprised if anyone outside the odd fickle cretin would switch to another club. He's saying this club is starting to not represent the city any more, that's his point. I'd agree with the idea that if Ashley/Llambias take it down the route of hyper-commercialisation and hyper sterilise the place so as to make it 'fit for consumers', then it wouldn't stand for the city, it would just stand for a business registered with Companies House. A new club would then more likely possess the soul of Newcastle United. (I'm not getting into whether this is what Ashley/Llambias are doing - just talking about the principle). Forgive me, but bollox would it possess the soul of Newcastle United. Lets forget the usual overeaction that this thread seems to be embracing (there are always ups and downs), we have had it much worse and history has shown Newcastle United, our club, will always come through. Do you understand that that's what fs is going on about, now, at least? You both agree the club should represent the city, culture, history and any of that shit. He's just arguing that it could not do at some point, and you're saying that's impossible. It doesn't make him fickle if he thinks the best way he can support the tradition of Milburn, Gallagher et al is by not doing it through Ashley's business - taking him at his word, he's seen worse performances/finances/football; that's not what's lacking. As ever, I hope you're right on the last point. I expect you are, too. Ozzie makes a valid point. Tron misses the point.

What the club stands for? The club stands for the fucking city. It's about sticking by your team, for me that is local pride, my town, my roots. For others it's about choice but even then I would be surprised if anyone outside the odd fickle cretin would switch to another club. He's saying this club is starting to not represent the city any more, that's his point. I'd agree with the idea that if Ashley/Llambias take it down the route of hyper-commercialisation and hyper sterilise the place so as to make it 'fit for consumers', then it wouldn't stand for the city, it would just stand for a business registered with Companies House. Why would you stand by that? You should either fight to take it off them or abandon that company. A new club would then more likely possess the soul of Newcastle United. (I'm not getting into whether this is what Ashley/Llambias are doing - just talking about the principle).

I just can't quite see us going down. Despite everything... Hmm. Anyway, I went for WBA, Boro and Sunderland - having looked at the latter's fixtures.

I have no idea why you say that, but ok. I concede I would have Shearer ahead of Kinnear. Shearer won't work for this club as things stand, though, so we have to think about something else, in the meantime.

Furthermore, we ate so much salt without good reason last Summer that I'm a bit sick of it.

Not as thick as you and a damn sight richer. Great argument. Conjecture on both counts, you do know what that means don't you?

Right, I've been thinking about this. When can we say things started really going badly at the club? I'd say sometime after last season's January transfer window. Up to that point, yes we'd had some rocky patches with Allardyce, but apart from Keegan's return looking like a daring move, it seemed like Ashley was basically in touch with the club/supporters. Wise, Vetere and co. were appointed, yes, but all statements suggested things were going to be kept under control - Wise and Keegan agreed the latter was top dog. We felt positive, like we were all on the same side - that even if mistakes were made along the way, we'd get there one way or another. Now, you may be wondering why I'm saying all this. Well, something happened on the 30th January 2008. Something we should all take cognisance of. Something that goes to explain all that has taken place since. Jeremy Beadle died. 'Died'. In other words, he 'disappeared from the public gaze'. Gentlemen, I propose that he is not six feet under - he instead faked his own demise, killed Mike Ashley, assumed his persona - with the aid of a rubber mask - and set about pulling his most audacious prank ever upon 52,000 people to kick off a new series of the much missed Beadle's About. Take solace, this whole thing is a wind up.

The thought is actually laughable 'Just you wait..!'

No that's not my point. But we are arguing over who discovered the player and not the player himself. This is just a glorified "My Dad's harder than your Dad." As for your hilarious and witty Jon Snow comment. I applaud you Sir, please post more. Your last post in this thread demanded that someone accept a certain version of events. As for the last bit, it's pertinent - you made that demand in the light of good evidence evidence to the contrary, suggesting it shouldn't even be considered. Following the evidence is supposed to be what you're looking to get a job in doing.

Did Jon Snow tell you to always believe interested parties before anyone else?

He's never aired much criticism of that one. Fundamentally excellent post from indi, too.

Got to love the idea, at least I wonder where Jol fancies holidaying this Summer.

This.Thats all. Wouldnt they be suing him for 2m? Couldnt give a shit tbh,i just know if something meant so much to me i wouldnt be trying to skank money from it. Seeing as he was contractually obliged to pay up £2m if he broke the deal, he'd only avoid that if he claimed that they'd broken the deal. Bearing that in mind might explain him accepting an out of court settlement, eh? Doesn't want to be wrongfully sued but doesn't want to screw the club he loves - a settlement would thus not suggest his case wasn't watertight. Flawless logic, so far as I'm aware. Flawless logic? He was contractually obliged to pay the club £2 million if he walked. He walked. He doesn't want to pay the £2 milion to the club so he sued them in what is essentially a defensive action. Occam's razor, my man. It was for the benefit of those who'll blame him for taking compensation but will also take an out of court settlement as evidence he was in the wrong all along. It seems that for many, Keegan has to pay £2m to Ashley to prove he isn't a mercenary scumbag as 1) legally disputing who was in the wrong sees him accused of thieving from ordinary supporters and 2) if his case were valid, he wouldn't duck the court date and take less/no money. As I said, his accepting an out of court settlement might be to prevent indirectly his taking money from the supporters he loves. It would be pretty unwarranted to assume that's the case, however - in the same way other deductions have unwarranted quantities of faith placed in them. Your post essentially reasserts my point. You're putting yourself into contortions because you want to believe he loves you. What suggests that's the case? I'm not the one who's placed any faith in competing explanations for events in this conversation.

This.Thats all. Wouldnt they be suing him for 2m? Couldnt give a shit tbh,i just know if something meant so much to me i wouldnt be trying to skank money from it. Seeing as he was contractually obliged to pay up £2m if he broke the deal, he'd only avoid that if he claimed that they'd broken the deal. Bearing that in mind might explain him accepting an out of court settlement, eh? Doesn't want to be wrongfully sued but doesn't want to screw the club he loves - a settlement would thus not suggest his case wasn't watertight. Flawless logic, so far as I'm aware. Flawless logic? He was contractually obliged to pay the club £2 million if he walked. He walked. He doesn't want to pay the £2 milion to the club so he sued them in what is essentially a defensive action. Occam's razor, my man. It was for the benefit of those who'll blame him for taking compensation but will also take an out of court settlement as evidence he was in the wrong all along. It seems that for many, Keegan has to pay £2m to Ashley to prove he isn't a mercenary scumbag as 1) legally disputing who was in the wrong sees him accused of thieving from ordinary supporters and 2) if his case were valid, he wouldn't duck the court date and take less/no money. As I said, his accepting an out of court settlement might be to prevent indirectly his taking money from the supporters he loves. It would be pretty unwarranted to assume that's the case, however - in the same way other deductions have unwarranted quantities of faith placed in them. Your post essentially reasserts my point.