lovejoy

Agreed.

Wasn't assombalonga that one, was it?

Graeme Bailey has deleted his last tweet as far as I can see.

i´d much rather have someone like mourinho than de boer, but we´re trying to be as realistic as possible.

moyes would be absolutely ideal, I think. Ashley has gone for him before apparently, will be interesting to see if he does again.

Based on what? Done nothing at all as manager of West Ham and couldnt get Watfords team up despite being given the best players in the league Far too much of this bullshit, like. Classy attacking player = classy attacking manager. It's such baseless bollocks. Defender = defensive seems to be proving itself mind yeah, southampton looked proper defensive at the weekend!

I'll say what I've said before, anything and everything is for sale in that respect. Who's going to pay £350m for us exactly? Won't happen.

Multi-millionaire? I doubt it. Obviously has a quid or two but has a very expensive lifestyle and he'd better factor in an expensive divorce if his wife fidns out the extent of his philandering. Whatever cash he has, I hope he's putting enough of it away because he's going to need it when he eventually 'leaves' NUFC..! I didn't say multimillionaire. I'm not sure how expensive his lifestyle is tbh, I've absolutely no idea what his lifestyle is like. I agree on the divorce/philandering part mind.

I'm not aware that they've ever taken legal action against any newspaper? They've threatened to but have we seen them in court, and win? As for the Independent article, the newspaper says it 'understands', and carries no direct quotes. Also, as the games in question have yet to take place, how can we ascertain that the article has 'no substance. It's not actionable even if he lasts until 2018. by legal action, i meant a lgeal letter and demand of an apology. pretty much what they´ve done to the telegraph today, and to others in the past. Like I said, the Independent story would not have been legally actionable. Sending a lawyers' letter (which would not be sent to a newspaper as it's not in the PCC tariff of complaints) isn't legal action, nor is asking for an apology or even asking for, and getting, a retraction. None of these things have happened. As you correctly observe they just ban newspapers willy-nilly. I maintain this is actually more about money than anything else. I'm not aware that they've ever taken legal action against any newspaper? They've threatened to but have we seen them in court, and win? As for the Independent article, the newspaper says it 'understands', and carries no direct quotes. Also, as the games in question have yet to take place, how can we ascertain that the article has 'no substance. It's not actionable even if he lasts until 2018. by legal action, i meant a lgeal letter and demand of an apology. pretty much what they´ve done to the telegraph today, and to others in the past. Like I said, the Independent story would not have been legally actionable. Sending a lawyers' letter (which would not be sent to a newspaper as it's not in the PCC tariff of complaints) isn't legal action, nor is asking for an apology or even asking for, and getting, a retraction. None of these things have happened. As you correctly observe they just ban newspapers willy-nilly. I maintain this is actually more about money than anything else. You obviously have a legal background, which I don't. So I'll remove the term legal is at merely a technicality. The course of action they take against newspapers who print stories they deem to be incorrect, hasn't been taken against the journalists /papers who've printed the pardew has two games stories. There's a reason for that, imo. I'm also pretty sure they've taken action in the past when pardew stories gave surfaced. Just 'law for journalists' - and law as part of my degree. Nothing criminal or exciting. I'm 99% sure that not once have Newcastle completed - and won - a legal action against any newspaper but I'm happy to be proved wrong. Like I say, take out the word legal, the course of action taken previously, hasn't been taken.

Pardew will quite comfortably be a millionaire as well btw.

I'm not aware that they've ever taken legal action against any newspaper? They've threatened to but have we seen them in court, and win? As for the Independent article, the newspaper says it 'understands', and carries no direct quotes. Also, as the games in question have yet to take place, how can we ascertain that the article has 'no substance. It's not actionable even if he lasts until 2018. by legal action, i meant a lgeal letter and demand of an apology. pretty much what they´ve done to the telegraph today, and to others in the past. Like I said, the Independent story would not have been legally actionable. Sending a lawyers' letter (which would not be sent to a newspaper as it's not in the PCC tariff of complaints) isn't legal action, nor is asking for an apology or even asking for, and getting, a retraction. None of these things have happened. As you correctly observe they just ban newspapers willy-nilly. I maintain this is actually more about money than anything else. I'm not aware that they've ever taken legal action against any newspaper? They've threatened to but have we seen them in court, and win? As for the Independent article, the newspaper says it 'understands', and carries no direct quotes. Also, as the games in question have yet to take place, how can we ascertain that the article has 'no substance. It's not actionable even if he lasts until 2018. by legal action, i meant a lgeal letter and demand of an apology. pretty much what they´ve done to the telegraph today, and to others in the past. Like I said, the Independent story would not have been legally actionable. Sending a lawyers' letter (which would not be sent to a newspaper as it's not in the PCC tariff of complaints) isn't legal action, nor is asking for an apology or even asking for, and getting, a retraction. None of these things have happened. As you correctly observe they just ban newspapers willy-nilly. I maintain this is actually more about money than anything else. You obviously have a legal background, which I don't. So I'll remove the term legal is at merely a technicality. The course of action they take against newspapers who print stories they deem to be incorrect, hasn't been taken against the journalists /papers who've printed the pardew has two games stories. There's a reason for that, imo. I'm also pretty sure they've taken action in the past when pardew stories gave surfaced.

I'm fairly sure Edwards' ban from last time was still in effect mind. he´s a smarmy cunt edwards, brian mcnally called him out the other day about his for sale article being bollocks, it appears he was right. fuck them all anyway, eith one or two exceptions, they´re all either bullshitters, cowards, or both.

we´ll never know though, every appointment he has made, hughton aside, has been a total shock.

i dont think we will, i think we´ll get an improvement, he wont risk us going down again. Todays statement is a positive in terms of pardew, and a new manager is concerned, imo. Personally I don't think Ashley will go on the open market for a manger. His tendency has generally been to appoint somebody he already knows well. keegan? shearer? he didnt know either of those well. he´ll go for someone who will work under his blueprint, of spending nowt (net). i still think it´ll be the french fella, moyes or bruce.

needing access to the club is a fucking myth anyway. I could write an article every single day about this shambles and ive never been in the media lounge in my life. certain journalists use it as an excuse to hide behind for not writing whats actually happening. edwards wont get any tougher now hes banned either, makes no sense at all.

i dont think we will, i think we´ll get an improvement, he wont risk us going down again. Todays statement is a positive in terms of pardew, and a new manager is concerned, imo.

I'm not aware that they've ever taken legal action against any newspaper? They've threatened to but have we seen them in court, and win? As for the Independent article, the newspaper says it 'understands', and carries no direct quotes. Also, as the games in question have yet to take place, how can we ascertain that the article has 'no substance. It's not actionable even if he lasts until 2018. by legal action, i meant a lgeal letter and demand of an apology. pretty much what they´ve done to the telegraph today, and to others in the past.

Might have already been said since I posted it the other day, but the fact they've not challenged the two games to save his job stories speaks volumes.

No herrera? Mata will make way imo

Tomorrow's express running story he has two games left.

I'll never understand why players are kept as a fall back, loan them out and recall if needed is surely the answer?

I like Martin Jol, I have to say. Was his time at Fulham that bad?

May have already been said, but don't the club usually take legal action against articles with no substance? Has that been done with the independent article about him having two games?