Jinky Jim

Missed that one....Villa and wolves after that.....anyway Stifler is right...if we can pick up a few points in our next 3 games then we’ll be safe...BUT if we get nothing from WHU, Liverpool and Arsenal, then IMO it will be WBA and not Fulham who we have to keep an eye on.

Agreed, it's all about what we can do...however if we fail to accumulate any more points over the next couple of games, then it may well be WBA who we are looking over the shoulder at, instead of Fulham.

Perhaps after tonight’s result we should be more concerned with WBA than Fulham......an 8 point gap looks big enough but their next 2 games are Villa and Wolves...not inconceivable that they they could be 2 points behind us in a fortnight.....looks like perhaps 5 teams now involved in the scrap.

Exactly

I love your “positive Optimism “ towards us not getting relegated......shame you don’t see the same about our takeover.....but that’s another story?

Arsenal play Fulham on Sunday after a Thursday trip across Eastern Europe by Arsenal.......

Winning 2 games in a row is not “champions league form” no matter how you present it.......I agree that their form is not exactly brilliant, but as I’ve explained, it doesn’t take much, a bit of luck here, a VAR decision, and suddenly a couple of wins appears from nowhere. Personally I don’t believe they will have enough to overtake us, but I’m not blinkered enough to think we’re clear at the bottom yet.

So you don’t think they are capable of winning 2 games in a row.....who’s talking about champions league form, a peculiar expression. Any team, even those in the bottom 3 could fluke 2 wins...I’m merely saying don’t discount them just yet.

Hope you’re right....we’ll see. If WBA beat Southampton at weekend which I think they will and we lose to Burnley and WHU...a win against Villa put them 2 points behind us....I don’t think it’s beyond the realms of possibility that they will win both games.

Also don’t count out WBA yet...they have 3 winnable games in their next 4 against Southampton, Villa (without Grealish) and Wolves.....That could put them on 30 points...Lose Sunday and its all still up for grabs.

Arsenal have Europa league game away on thursday before Fulham.......put me down for Fulham win there.....Man Utd will be concentrating on Europa league as well by the time Fulham play them....Fulham are shite but don’t count them out just yet.

Benny Arentoft for me......Fairs Cup winner and regular first teamer in the old 1st Division.

Its been verified many times, every time someone queries it....cant find where it is in previous threads, but it’s been mentioned on loads of occasions and confirmed as real

I despise Bruce more than any manager ever to have managed our magnificent club...we’ve had 35 managers since i started going to matches in 1960 and only Carver comes close to being anywhere near as despicable as this cretin........I’m almost at a stage of preferring to see Bruce go before Ashley....not quite there yet but getting close.

That line up has got “go on Ashley sack me” written all over it.

Thought there was some interesting optimism Candi......I shouldn’t have been drawn in?

Couldn’t agree more....lovely sunny stress free weekend.

Slightly more interesting than the “will he’, “won’t he” resign feeds

Brilliant....that’s the one I remember Frank for.

For those of you around in the 60’s and 70’s.....Frank Worthington has Passed away....what an entertainer he was.

From today’s Chronicle.....just a rehash of what we already know. “Newcastle United chiefs offer Steve Bruce the chance to fight on despite horrendous run Owner Mike Ashley has been reluctant to change boss up until this stage and Bruce has not been told anything other than his Press conference start time on Friday this week. Ashley wants to give Bruce every chance to salvage the season and deliver survival, while paying out a seven-figure fee is also something he wants to avoid. This is because Newcastle's finances have been dented severely due to no fans coming through the turnstiles at St James' Park for 12 months and with uncertainty hovering over the club on the takeover front, he does not want to commit to a long contract for a new manager that could cost incoming owners £5million or more per year. Yet if Newcastle lose to Brighton, and do drop into the bottom three, parting terms with Bruce may be the clear and obvious thing to do if the club are to save millions in TV money next season. It would also ensure that would-be new owners don't demand a knockdown fee for a club that has been relegated.” WHAT beggars belief, if there is any truth in the article, is that Ashley is prepared to gamble his £350m cash cow on the slight chance that Bruce might just keep us up. I cannot fathom out why he’s not prepared to splash out, perhaps, £3m to get rid of Bruce, and either promote Jones or splash another £3 on, say, Howe.It wouldn’t necessarily have guaranteed survival but it would have been a much better gamble than keeping Bruce......Gamble £3-8m on a reasonable chance of survival or on Bruce......doesn’t make sense...then again nowt he does ever did, but we are talking about a £350m business purchase being risked on Bruce being our savior......strange!

Sounds like a Genesis Album....”And then there were 3”

I’m sure the South American internationals have been postponed, so he wouldn’t be on international duty They all have...so he wouldn’t be going even if fit.

Brighton have finished strong the last 2 seasons to scrape out of the relegation zone....fully expect us to lose to them next weekend....we’’ll need 38 points to survive...no way is Bruce going to get 10 more points from the last 10 games....I’ve already accepted relegation.

Interesting article in the chronicle........I’ve copy and pasted it below to save anyone from having to click onto their site. The Premier League were 'provisionally minded' to conclude that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) would become a director of Newcastle United as part of a proposed takeover last year. Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) hoped to take up an 80% stake in the club after joining forces with the Reuben Brothers (10%) and financier Amanda Staveley (10%). A takeover had never been closer in the Ashley era - a £340m deal was agreed - but the consortium encountered complications with the regulator, the Premier League, when it came to who was going to the club's ultimate beneficial owner. As ChronicleLive reported on August 2, the buyers offered assurances from the 'highest possible level' to try and establish that it was the PIF, rather than the Saudi government, who would be in charge. However, given how the crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, is the chairman of the PIF as well as the country's deputy prime minister, this was not a straightforward issue. A state formally becoming a director of a Premier League club would have been unprecedented and, if Saudi Arabia were put forward as a proposed director in the first place, the Saudi government would have inevitably faced awkward questions about pirate bay television broadcaster beoutQ. The consortium ultimately walked away last summer but, as ChronicleLive previously reported, both the buyers and seller remain committed to the deal if the Premier League were willing to give the green light. This takeover saga has now entered its next stage - arbitration - and Mike Ashley has been hell-bent on somehow finding a way forward. So much so, the Newcastle owner even took the arbitrators and the Premier League to the High Court in an attempt to remove Michael Beloff as chairman of an arbitration panel due to hear the Magpies' legal dispute with the Premier League The details of this particular case have been published on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute's website after the club's legal team, Nick De Marco, Shaheed Fatima and Tom Richards, successfully argued that there was a public interest in doing so. As a result, it can be revealed that the Premier League wrote a letter to Newcastle on June 12 last year after the league's organising body concluded that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 'would become a director' of the club. In the background to this letter, Judge Mark Pelling makes it clear that it 'was not suggested' that the Premier League had decided that Saudi Arabia 'had been or would be disqualified from being a director or that it would refuse to agree the proposed change of control'. But the letter set out the substance of the Premier League's reasoning. The letter confirms how the PIF 'expressly recognises that it will fall within the definition of director under [Premier League] rules, even though it would not be formally appointed as a director'. The Premier League agreed on this point. Having then taken external legal advice, the Premier League were 'provisionally minded to conclude' that Saudi Arabia would become a director under the rules as well'. The following was noted: PIF's directors are 'appointed by royal decree and its current board is almost exclusively composed of KSA government ministers'; PIF law puts it 'expressly under the direction of…a KSA government ministry'; the PIF's function is to 'serve the national interest of KSA'; and it would 'appear that the PIF is state-owned' and 'manages only state-owned assets'. It was made clear to Newcastle if the Premier League then decided that Saudi Arabia will not become a director, then it will 'proceed to a decision' on the application of the owners' and directors' test for the individuals who have been declared, including the PIF. However, if the Premier League board decided that Saudi Arabia also needed to be regarded as a future director, there had to be a 'declaration in respect of KSA and the board's decision' and the application had to 'be made in respect of KSA also'. As Judge Pelling points out, Newcastle disputed this conclusion and the 'lawfulness of the process by which it was arrived at' by the Premier League. The Premier League 'contends' that the PIF is 'controlled by the government' of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia but Newcastle 'does not accept' that - hence why this dispute has gone to arbitration. Judge Pelling said that the text of the letter 'makes it abundantly clear that the sole issue' that the Premier League had decided - and then only provisionally - was that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 'satisfied the definitions so that it was to be regarded as a director'. Therefore, according to Judge Pelling, the 'only dispute that can or will be decided in the current arbitration is whether this conclusion is correct' The three-man arbitration panel - Michael Beloff, Lord Neuberger and Lord Dyson - will make that call.