Exiled in Texas

It's tough on Harper but I'm loving the fact that Krul is getting a chance to play and get the experience that he is always mentioned as not having. What's the point having promising youngsters if you never give them the opportunity to make the next step up. Might as well not have Krul if he is never going to have the chance to make the next step. I trust CH to let Krul gain experience from the game while Harper is out, and then decide what's best for Newcastle (both rest of this season and looking forward).

Barton 8 - bit generous, but he made a good fist of playing out of position, and those two Beckham-like crosses won us the game. Yep, West Ham looked good in the first half because the right Mid was AWOL in center and left midfield, meaning that right back had to meet the ball carrier up field, which opened huge spaces behind him. In first 10-15 mins I thought Hammers were going to run all over us through their left wing as we were completely missing a right side presence. Once Barton went back to playing right mid, then it eased up the pressure on Simpson and balanced our play.

Probably one less relegated if Liverpool are 18th. And the stars are aligned ......

Yes - teams just have to come to grips with the actual decrease in asset value over the life of the contract.

So Rooney decides that he doesn't want to sign a new contract with Man U. See out the contract, and then move on. Man Utd got what they paid for - i.e. Rooney for 5 years or whatever. Other than the drama of it all, and that fact that it's happening with a current Man Utd player, rather than a "soon to be" Man Utd player, I don't see how this is any different to some League 2 striker telling his club that he won't sign a new contract.

Glitter would take them up! Up the what?

When I certified as a referee I was told... "referees must start out perfect, and then must get better"

That's the whole issue regarding the discussion of 'psychological slavery'. I'm not saying they're on the take, but are mentally being conned and allow reputation and an 'easier life' to get in the way of true officiating. I absolutely agree that there's an aspect of psychological slavery in place for a referee. It starts with the Mummies and Daddies watching their little 3 yr old playing footie and wanting it all their way, and it continues right up through clubs games and academy and school and into the pros. Almost every decision is only 50% right - i.e. only half the players/fans agree, and the other half think that it was a bad call. The fact is that referees are often wrong - and even when they are right only half the players agree.

Sorry - all this talk of corruption etc is total bollocks. Corrupt means taking bribes or such to influence a game. Are you really saying that a referee is getting a brown envelope full of money to ensure that team X wins? Not likely. Now referees being pressured? For sure. Pressured to get the big calls right? - of course. Pressured not to get something wrong and change a game? - absolutely. Pressured to deal with the big game environment? - and let the players decide things? Yes. Yes, referees want to get the bigger games. But that means doing well in their game assessments, not by letting X team win. I would be pretty sure that all Prem League games are reviewed with the referee to go over the key decisions - what they saw, why they gave what they did etc. Take off the Team Glasses and take a totally unbiased look at a game. Or better yet, pick up the whistle and take on a competitive game - try refereeing a few games and see how much harder it really is when every decision you make has an instant reaction.

The Brown Ale logo or the Blue Star logo only seem acceptable because they are Iconic images associated with Newcastle as a city. I doubt that other local industries/companies logos would work as well, even if they were not SD. Even if you put up the logo of a financial company who employed 10,000 workers in Newcastle it would still look as bad as the SD logo.

Big Mal - Former Man Cty manager Malcolm Allison has died, Malcolm Allison, the coach who helped inspire Manchester City to great success in the late 1960s, has died at the age of 83. Allison arrived at City in 1965 as assistant manager to Joe Mercer. City went on to win the Second Division crown in 1966, the League title in 1968, FA Cup in 1969 and European Cup-Winners Cup and League Cup in 1970. Allison managed 11 clubs at home and abroad, leading Sporting Lisbon to the Portuguese League and Cup in 1982. He took charge of Crystal Palace on two separate occasions, and also had spells as manager of Bath, Plymouth, Galatasaray, Toronto City, Middlesbrough and Bristol Rovers. During his playing days, Allison made more than 250 appearances at centre half for West Ham, before losing a lung as the result of tuberculosis in 1958. "Big Mal" - as he was known - always had an eye for publicity, and was famed for the "Lucky Fedora" he wore during one of Crystal Palace's Cup runs and his love of cigars - but his later years were dogged by ill health. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/9096162.stm

But if they can sell the club for more money that they owe their creditors (RBS), then the club is not insolvent. True the owners are set to loose £140M between them, but the club is still worth more than their debts, so only the owners loose money during the sale. (in simple terms)

The LOTG are clear about what is a foul - kicking, triping, pushing etc. The opinion part it is whether the referee actually think that a trip, or kick or push etc actually took place. (see De Jong vs Ben Arfa or either of the two penalty decisions for a difference in opinion from the referee and others). Foul recognition is all about the referee's opinion about what is/is not a foul.

Actually not quite true - the Dallas Stars bankruptcy protections expired on September 1st this year, but there are no plans to force the team into full bankruptcy.

Fouls are opinion. Throw-ins, corners, goal kicks are fact. Being in an offside position is fact, but not illegal. It's the involvement in play that is "in the opinion of the referee"

NESV you are our saviours!! We love you. Wait, hang on. Better bid elsewhere? NESV **** off we never liked you anyway.......Mr Lim, you are our saviour! We Love you!!

These are two separate issues - on field decisions and post-game review. IMO the post-game review is the easier of the two to implment, and could be brought in very quickly if they wanted to. The On-Field decision making is a much bigger issue and should be dealt with separately as it's got many more points to work through and could easily get bogged down in technical discussions. Focus on the Post-Game review and it could be brought in easily.

Agreed because that argument is technically flawed. It works on the assumption that the referee saw everything, and therefore made all their decisions based on total knowedge of each and every event. However, we know that referees either only see part of the incident, or at times don't see anything at all. Howard Webb said after the WC Final that had he seen what De Jong really did he would have used Red not Yellow card, but the alignment of the player meant that he only had a partial view, and could only summise what might really have happened. There is a huge difference between a situation where the referee waives off a call because he saw it and said "no foul" and one where he didn't see enough to call a foul. So, the FA and FIFA need to accept that the referee sees one view, in real time only and does not have the luxury of mutiple replays from all angles, and that they need to assist the referees in cleaning up the game and not rely on the referees to do all the work for them. And I would also only limit this to acts of misconduct (dangerous play, Unsporting behavious etc) and not attempt to get into reviews of Penalty claims or missed offside calls as there can be no post-game revision of the scores etc.

why ? they done it with tackles from behind, professional fouls and some hand balls and the rules are already in place for them to do it as many of the refs asked about the incident have said it was a foul. So why aren't there more red card today already? Because, they are game changing events that get's the referee blamed for ruining/changing the game regardless of the fact that they were deserved or not. Assuming that the ref had a clearer view of De Jong tackle and now the game is played with city down a player for 86 minutes. You would have the pundits and media and fans saying that the game was ruined by an card-happy ref. (Think what the WC final would have been like if the Dutch were down 2 player within 20 mins - Webbs fault or Dutch player fault.) Yes, it shoudl happen more often. But there needs to be some push from the FA by dealing with tackles that were missed to show that more tackles should be dealt with.

Asking the referees to step up and call more Red Cards is extremely unlikely to happen. That's like asking referees to call more Penalties (and that includes those against Man Utd at OT). It's hard enough for a referee to determine a clear stonewall penalty case in the first place, let alone call marginal ones that will decide the games. Can you imagine what Fergie would do to a referee that called a PK to "Make a Point". It's tough enough as it is to be a referee and call a fair/honest game (which clearly will not please both sides). The disciplinary reviews should be taken offline and done by a video review panel - one that does not have to go back in the middle of OT in a weeks time. The NFL manages to handle incidents that are missed by the referee but are determined to be dangerous by a review panel, so it about having the will to do something about it, because the way is obvious.

If I'm gonna loose a game.....I want to loose to wonder goals like that one. Amazing.

Did I write that??......Hahaha - should may more attention to my sources when cut/pasting

I really should know more about Tom Hicks, seeing as I live in Texas where he owns the Dallas Stars NHL Franchise (and until just recently the Texas Rangers baseball team. He recently sold the Rangers for over $500M, but the franchise was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy which protects the company from creditors while it attempts to reorganise into a viable entity. The rumors in TX are that Hicks is still relatively broke (probably less than 100 mil ), and would like to sell the Dallas Stars as well.

Won't need to outlaw it as soon a couple of guys are going to be the poster children of what happens when things go wrong. It's like buying a house so you can rent it out and have the rent pay for the mortgage (thereby getting a free house). But when the interest rates go up, and you can't cover the mortgage payments, then you loose the house. H&G are about to find out that the foreclosure signs are out, and that all the bank cares about is getting back they money that they lent.

Rivalries are definately needed in MLS to add some "juice" to games that can be a bit flat. I really enjoyed this season at FC Dallas but a lot was due to seeing Thiery Henry when Red Bulls came to town, or Ljundquist with Chicago. Was not jazzed by any of the opposition as rivals yet. Hopefully that will come, and seeing as FCD are now in the playoffs, a nice series or two should help get some rivalries going to next season.