macbeth

does she restrict your sex allowance down to specific years now ?

There was talk last weekend of a UK bid to include Hampden, Celtic Park and maybe Millenium stadium. Although Welsh obviously coudn't be included in automatic entry Also the option of Twickenham too.

Sports Minister Richard Caborn says there is a "very good chance" England will bid for the 2018 World Cup. Caborn, who recently sampled the atmosphere of the tournament on a fact-finding mission to Germany, is convinced England has the facilities to more than match the success of the event this summer. Caborn said: "I think the way we're approaching this, I think that we obviously think there would be a very good chance of bidding for the World Cup. "Obviously as a Sports Minister I'd be disappointed if we didn't (make a bid for 2018) because I'd be at the forefront of pushing it, as I was with the Olympics. "There's no doubt its doable. You look at places like the Emirates Stadium and football grounds up and down the country and we have some of the best stadia in the world - I have no doubts at all. "(It would be) 2009 for the actual bid itself, but the feasibility report will come out in the next few weeks or months and will tell us what the cost benefit analysis would be and so on, and we will build on that information. "We will be looking at what our strengths and weaknesses are and will look to address those issues before we make a formal bid. "If we're going to do it, we've got to do it right, and it's got to be well thought out."

somebody moved the goalposts

Some pro-plus, sir ?

you responded with this, which indicates you actually did said that at the time I think you should drop your obsession with dividends mate, it's making you look silly, because you just don't know enough about the football club to back up your views, not to mention I've already proven you a liar once, and using poor judgement too ie Crozier, such is your desperation to get rid of Shepherd for anyone. I never bring up dividends these days. Don't need to, as you do. This was about grounds, and I posted about grounds, YOU then brought up dividends, although I'm not really sure why? Are YOU obsessed with them, guilt maybe ? As for Crozier, do you think he wouddl have done better or worse if he had appointed Souness ? PS - BTW - it may be a bit complicated for you, but when I put a question mark after a sentence, it means I'm asking you a question, not quoting you. Excellent, you should be on the stage !! Remember those 13 questions that were asked of you and you couldn't/wouldn’t answer ? But best of all is that in this little attempt at humour you forgot to put question marks in !! Apart from when you accused me of not approving of some transfers when I have never expressed an opinion on them, and demanding I replied to your made-up comments. Old age is a terrible thing

You wrote in the Mag that the club should move the pitch and rebuild the stadium 50 yards away, going to all that expense to build a stadium of less than 52,000 - as you say you don't think we would fill it ? If that is the case, what is the point of doing that rather than be happy with what we have now ? Which Mag was that in ? What is your opinion on the directors managing to achieve what our old directors failed to do in 80 years ? You tell me, its far easier if you just tell me what I'm going to say rather than me having to wait for your reply twisting what I'd just said. How do you call the board lacking in vision and ambition when you have said you think the club wouldn't fill a bigger stadium often enough to make it equally viable ? Beautifully constructed question Why do you not want the club to buy quality players when it means them going over budget sometimes ie speculating ? I'm happy we should spend all the money we have available on players, but not any more than that. Why do you actively support the club spending money on buying shares from Sir John Hall rather than spending it on players, or saving to spend on players ? Bit rich of you to say the current board have no ambition, where ? because from what I can see there is only one person here who lacks ambition, and its you. I bet the loved the old board, who sat in no mans land, looking at the books, taking no risks, and simply selling a player when they needed to pay off a debt or do something to the ground. Further shown by your failure to believe the club could fill a 70,000 stadium if they were even fairly successful. You have no idea of the potential of the club do you ? BIG jump there, even for you, and at your age. Just cos I saw us getting only 37,000 for a Uefa quarter-final 14 months ago you seem to think I show no ambition. 37,000 for a European quarter final would make a 70,000 stadium look like Stadium of Light. I think we all know the potential, or believe we do. Sometimes reality has to be looked at too Yes, I am a bit older than you. And ? Does this mean you are going to take my word as being more aware and experienced than yours ? You would do yourself a favour if you did ....... Maybe more experienced, but demonstrably not more aware You implied you wrote that, if you didn't I'll revert to my original statement. No you said I'd written it, not me. It is often like that: Reality >>>>> reported facts >>>>> journalistic guesswork >>>>> Sun made-up stories >>>>> complete and utter rubbish >>>>> NE5 proof The rest is your usual negative, unambitious rubbish mate. You would have loved the old board. I think you know, eerr, not very much about Newcastle United. Cheers, for the informed replies. Ditto. I always know where to get a good made up story. You could be the new old Mr Grace, seen it all, know it all, and everyone smiles at you. I can't be arsed with you mate. You have made your position quite clear, You think we should run the club with prohibitive transfer limits like Everton, Villa etc etc...then oddly complain the club lacks ambition. No I want us to spend the money we earn. You wish to put us in to debt that may take us down the Ridsdale route. Then decline to answer my question as to your opinion on the current board succeeding in developing the ground, which their predecessors going back 80 years had failed to achieve. What they have done they have done the best of their ability. As did the board in 1972, and in 1988. Capacity wise 52,000 is about right. They should have had the ability to have moved the ground to Castle Leazes. You indeed would have loved the old board, you putting my opinion, strangeto see that having implied (you giving my opinion again, strange ) you would be happy buying players for 2 or 3m quid, just so long as the club doesn't have the courage to attempt to tap its considerable fanbase, and take dividends. You should support the mackems, they fit your criteria perfectly, they only buy 2nd rate players for half a milliion quid or the equivalent, as we did ourselves for over 30 years before the Halls and Shepherd. You then say you doubt that a bigger stadium of 52,000 than necessary for NUFC to fulfill their potential. Priceless. Not to mention the lie you said previously, that you were happy with the way the club was run until the summer of 2003 - until I turned up the article you wrote in the Mag in 1998 complaining about money paid in dividends. Boring, boring twisting of facts, strange, and further highlights you complete and utter lack of knwoledge of financing I think you should stick to the outside knowledge of the club that you have from living in Dunfermline, because you certainly have absolutely no idea of the potential of Newcastle United. Have to be old and living in Newcastle to have an opinion. Snob What do you think of Englands performance under Eriksson, having been appointed by Crozier, the man you said was "perfect for Newcastle " - until you realised he wouldn't do the job for free.... never said that, you twisting comments again, go and get the quote if you want, strange And what do you think of Polygon taking over the club, what has happened to them, as you clearly think anyone but the Halls and Shepherd would do a better job ? Never said that. That was you twisting your opinion into being mine. Dreame, nothing but a dreamer ... As grass doesn't answer...and he seems to agree with you effect or something.....I'm curious to know your opinion, as you seem to consider yourself to be a financial expert or something....although not a footballing one....

I've been away, was it this one ... I understand everything you're saying although you may want to claim otherwise. I've gone on record in the past as saying the people who slate the Board for not buying anyone in summer 2003 are full of shit, because they don't understand the big picture of the previous 32 months during which the transfer deficit was over £45m, and the wage bill went up due to the increase in squad size. I've said a lot of times I don't want the club to become another Leeds, yet you think you have some kind of monopoly on that thought. Fact is, the choice was keep disruptive players at a risk or rebuild at a risk. They went for the rebuild. What would you have done? Would you have got rid of the disruptive players and left us in a relegation battle? It would have happened and very nearly did, the consequences of relegation can't be overestimated. As I have said I was sure we'd go down before we signed Owen, couldn't see any way for us to stay up. My issue with that summer fo 2003 and no signings is not necessarily the lack of signings but the club still spending £8.5m for no benefit to the club. If there was no money for players, for the reason you suggest (which is a fair argument) then there should not have been money available to spend on anything. I think you don't want to listen to reason. You may believe you don't have an agenda, but it comes across that way and it's definitely affecting your thought process. I am more than happy to debate with you. You have clearly thought about it, and come up with good points. I have tried to shy away from the "but Shepherd appointed Souness" comment, because that isn't what I'm worried about. (I also shy away from it as I am deeply uncomfortable with the Roeder appointment and I'd love Shepherd to have some luck this time). (But Shpeherd did appoint them both, and that is his key decision in his job spec) My upset comes from the deterioration of the club's finances over the last three years. I really want to try and understand, and your scenario helps although I have said I have reservations about the actual timing matching your suggestions. I couldn't currently go on to the RTG board and say how great Shepherd is, I could three years ago. Please keep arguing with me, I like a good discussion ! Cheers

You wrote in the Mag that the club should move the pitch and rebuild the stadium 50 yards away, going to all that expense to build a stadium of less than 52,000 - as you say you don't think we would fill it ? If that is the case, what is the point of doing that rather than be happy with what we have now ? Which Mag was that in ? What is your opinion on the directors managing to achieve what our old directors failed to do in 80 years ? You tell me, its far easier if you just tell me what I'm going to say rather than me having to wait for your reply twisting what I'd just said. How do you call the board lacking in vision and ambition when you have said you think the club wouldn't fill a bigger stadium often enough to make it equally viable ? Beautifully constructed question Why do you not want the club to buy quality players when it means them going over budget sometimes ie speculating ? I'm happy we should spend all the money we have available on players, but not any more than that. Why do you actively support the club spending money on buying shares from Sir John Hall rather than spending it on players, or saving to spend on players ? Bit rich of you to say the current board have no ambition, where ? because from what I can see there is only one person here who lacks ambition, and its you. I bet the loved the old board, who sat in no mans land, looking at the books, taking no risks, and simply selling a player when they needed to pay off a debt or do something to the ground. Further shown by your failure to believe the club could fill a 70,000 stadium if they were even fairly successful. You have no idea of the potential of the club do you ? BIG jump there, even for you, and at your age. Just cos I saw us getting only 37,000 for a Uefa quarter-final 14 months ago you seem to think I show no ambition. 37,000 for a European quarter final would make a 70,000 stadium look like Stadium of Light. I think we all know the potential, or believe we do. Sometimes reality has to be looked at too Yes, I am a bit older than you. And ? Does this mean you are going to take my word as being more aware and experienced than yours ? You would do yourself a favour if you did ....... Maybe more experienced, but demonstrably not more aware You implied you wrote that, if you didn't I'll revert to my original statement. No you said I'd written it, not me. It is often like that: Reality >>>>> reported facts >>>>> journalistic guesswork >>>>> Sun made-up stories >>>>> complete and utter rubbish >>>>> NE5 proof The rest is your usual negative, unambitious rubbish mate. You would have loved the old board. I think you know, eerr, not very much about Newcastle United. Cheers, for the informed replies. Ditto. I always know where to get a good made up story. You could be the new old Mr Grace, seen it all, know it all, and everyone smiles at you.

You wrote in the Mag that the club should move the pitch and rebuild the stadium 50 yards away, going to all that expense to build a stadium of less than 52,000 - as you say you don't think we would fill it ? If that is the case, what is the point of doing that rather than be happy with what we have now ? Which Mag was that in ? What is your opinion on the directors managing to achieve what our old directors failed to do in 80 years ? You tell me, its far easier if you just tell me what I'm going to say rather than me having to wait for your reply twisting what I'd just said. How do you call the board lacking in vision and ambition when you have said you think the club wouldn't fill a bigger stadium often enough to make it equally viable ? Beautifully constructed question Why do you not want the club to buy quality players when it means them going over budget sometimes ie speculating ? I'm happy we should spend all the money we have available on players, but not any more than that. Why do you actively support the club spending money on buying shares from Sir John Hall rather than spending it on players, or saving to spend on players ? Bit rich of you to say the current board have no ambition, where ? because from what I can see there is only one person here who lacks ambition, and its you. I bet the loved the old board, who sat in no mans land, looking at the books, taking no risks, and simply selling a player when they needed to pay off a debt or do something to the ground. Further shown by your failure to believe the club could fill a 70,000 stadium if they were even fairly successful. You have no idea of the potential of the club do you ? BIG jump there, even for you, and at your age. Just cos I saw us getting only 37,000 for a Uefa quarter-final 14 months ago you seem to think I show no ambition. 37,000 for a European quarter final would make a 70,000 stadium look like Stadium of Light. I think we all know the potential, or believe we do. Sometimes reality has to be looked at too Yes, I am a bit older than you. And ? Does this mean you are going to take my word as being more aware and experienced than yours ? You would do yourself a favour if you did ....... Maybe more experienced, but demonstrably not more aware

I think there's one too many Shepherd

If someone came in a bought NUFC and got rid of FFS and Douglas and said he was starting form scratch it woudl be interesting. Make everyone reapply for thier jobs. How many would reappoint Souness in this situation. The only reason he has any support from anyone is because he is the current occupant of the position of manager. The justification for keeping him on is that he deserves mroe time. I haven't read all the posts but I'd be surprised if someone hadsn't gone down the "Ferguson nearly got sacked" route, and tried to justify stability on the back of that. The assumption has to be that Souness has some master plan that will come to fruition and that defeats to Everton, and Wigan reserves are just blips on the way to heaven. Should Arsenal have stuck with Rioch as their manager ? Should sunderland stick with McCarthy, or have stuck with Reid, or Wilko ? Shoudl Spurs have stucjk with Christian Gross. Shoudl we have stuck with Ossie Ardiles or Dalglish or Gullit. In som ecases mistakes are made,the wrong person is appointed.