HawK

Is 90m on players not pissing money down the drain if he takes us down? Plus the 100m Ashley stands to lose next season in TV money? Come on, Ashley will be sweating, and something will give sooner or later. He hasn't spent any of his own money in that £90m. Besides the fact that this is all chump change and I doubt he gives 2 shits about the finances of the club other than when he's forced to pay in. The club's doing it's job advertising his main company.

If i worked in security I'd jump at the chance too tbf.

This'll be the match to catch McClaren's 'Pardew crying' moment.

Like Taylor, too much of a dunce to get disillusioned.

Our off the ball movement, in or out of possession, is absolutely atrocious. No-one gives a shit, there's no consequences. Kinnear would be better than this fuck.

Can't even hold a bottle.

What's Burton's stadium like?

Sissoko u twat.

Thought it was <13 ?

Aston Villa Fury Road

If this was currently a normal football club then yes. But it isn't and Pardew made a lot of us hate watching our own team and then have to put up with his lies. The crazy part is you not understanding that. Sorry mate but that is s****. Sunderland are our rivals and are around us. They must end up with less points than us, for us to stand any chance to stay in this division. To cheer them scoring because of some s*** manager, who left a year ago and has f*** all else to do with us is absolute madness and a little embarrassing. Yes it's nice to see him doing s*** as the bloke is a c***, but we can't be cheering on teams around us in the league who beat his team and then take over us in the league. we get relegated, but f***ing get in he didn't beat Sunderland. The stuff dreams are made of eh. It must be nice to not be completely broken. For us that are, cheering on the demise of Pardew is infinitely more satisfying than following or supporting Newcastle.

What. The. Fuck. The second video

Once an entertainer or sportsman is found to be a criminal of a sexual nature, you have to instantly dislike and disassociate yourself from any of his or her previous work or memorable performances, everyone knows that, except makems apparently. I had a ceremony where I burnt my treasured Rolph's Cartoon Club kit that I had as a boy in the back garden when he was sent to prison ofc.

I wonder if the lads behind sackpardew would lend the Palace fans a hand If they made an account on their forums and said 'Good evening young sirs, may we be of any assistance here? - sackpardew.com'

Reckon they'll try to band on to sackpardew.com? Just needs a bit of a colour remapping

Why is it that they are all called Sammy, or a derivative thereof

All of the BBC historical sex abuse cases enough for you? Not as if they've been low profile or anything. Seems your knowledge of the criminal justice system is as comprehensive as your knowledge of football. Or you're just quite thick (whoever you are) and don't understand the discussion. One person's word against another securing a conviction independent of witnesses and other evidence. No? Exactly. Pipe down. You are correct in saying one persons word against another will not secure a conviction, there will need to be other 'evidence' to support the claims of one more than the other. For example, in the Johnson case - if SAFC turned up and said he didn't turn up at the ground until 18:20, that would support the girl and possibly lead to a conviction It doesn't necessarily have to be DNA or fingerprint evidence, it could just be one person having the more believable version of events with other circumstances showing that they are more likely to be telling the truth than the other. I think people are misinterpreting what you are saying. So circumstantial evidence is admissible in court now? Where did I say that like? There?

I think it's generally inferred that'd we'd be in this 'constellation of teams' as well, like, regardless of circumstance.

All of the BBC historical sex abuse cases enough for you? Not as if they've been low profile or anything. Seems your knowledge of the criminal justice system is as comprehensive as your knowledge of football. Or you're just quite thick (whoever you are) and don't understand the discussion. One person's word against another securing a conviction independent of witnesses and other evidence. No? Exactly. Pipe down. You are correct in saying one persons word against another will not secure a conviction, there will need to be other 'evidence' to support the claims of one more than the other. For example, in the Johnson case - if SAFC turned up and said he didn't turn up at the ground until 18:20, that would support the girl and possibly lead to a conviction It doesn't necessarily have to be DNA or fingerprint evidence, it could just be one person having the more believable version of events with other circumstances showing that they are more likely to be telling the truth than the other. I think people are misinterpreting what you are saying. So circumstantial evidence is admissible in court now?

Aye. He's still a marginally better poster than you though. ffs

Jonjo Shelveyyyyyy He can really spot a pass Jonjo Shelveyyyyy And he's not very fast Jonjo Shelveyyyyy He's like Beckham with no hair Jonjo Shelveyyyyy He's on the pitch but i don't know where!

You surely can't be pining to watch us get raped again ? I am glad for the rest i kinda want to get it all ova and done with to be honest I'm not in the Adam Johnson thread again am I ?