Colos Short and Curlies

I hope Martinez doesn't completely change his approach after this game though. Much better to see a manager willing to attack and play football against every team and be as likely to nick a one nil against the big boys or suffer an arse tanning.

He went to the same school as me, was in my brother's year, my brother said he was a right fruit, probably one of those not interested in sport and stuff. I've had a good conversation with Robson Green about the Toon and football in general. He is definitely a fan

I would pay good money to see a photo shoot of Roxanne Pallett and Chery Cole in Toon shirts

Yes, and it's been done. Dion Dublin?

The day football dies. Mistakes/bad decisions are part of football, every one benefits or suffers from them at some point, adds a touch of unpredictability to the beautiful game Give over, would be my well reasoned and thought out reaction to that. You want perfect decisions then go play on a PS3. Heartache and feeling hard done by is all part of the game Aye well done, you're a laugh riot. So you're saying it's right that France are going to the World Cup on the back of that? You're saying it should go unpunished and that cheating shouldn't be taken out of the game? What's the difference between that goal and the disallowed goal against Fulham? And where do you draw the line at cheating? If Henry had kicked the ball out, claimed a corner and France had scored from it would it still be a crime against football?

The day football dies. Mistakes/bad decisions are part of football, every one benefits or suffers from them at some point, adds a touch of unpredictability to the beautiful game Give over, would be my well reasoned and thought out reaction to that. You want perfect decisions then go play on a PS3. Heartache and feeling hard done by is all part of the game It should not be, though. I'll gracefully agree to disagree with you on this one.

The day football dies. Mistakes/bad decisions are part of football, every one benefits or suffers from them at some point, adds a touch of unpredictability to the beautiful game Give over, would be my well reasoned and thought out reaction to that. You want perfect decisions then go play on a PS3. Heartache and feeling hard done by is all part of the game

The day football dies. Mistakes/bad decisions are part of football, every one benefits or suffers from them at some point, adds a touch of unpredictability to the beautiful game

Aye it made me sick when the Honey Monster was polaying in B&W stripes with KK as manager in the mid nineties. The comercialisation of the club has been going on long before Ashley took over, and the naming rights is just the latest step down that road. (not that I like or agree with btw, but it was inevitable at some point) I don't agree, I know what you're saying but a line has to be drawn somewhere. It's not as easy as just saying it's part of commercialisation of football, or it's inevitavble. Otherwise we should just admit that football has no meaning or importance beyond the profit and loss account. If that's the case then you'd be just as well off supporting John Lewis plc. When that happens the game will stop really meaning anything... then we've destroyed just what we were trying to build. We already have tbh. Football is eating itself thanks to the exposion of the Premier League. Its now too cash driven and as only a cousin of the pre 92 game. Video evidence is another step down this road, decisions now cost millions so they have be correct. Rubbish I say! Mistakes are part and parcel of what makes (made) football great. Its now a product, and as such has to be QC tested. Marketing is the most important part of modern football, and with that comes the inevitable commercialisation of history/tradition. Personally I hate it, and would love for the money 4 to fuck off to a European Super Soccer League complete with blue and red Pepsi grass, 4 quarters brought to you by Budweiser and commentators called Brad and Brad. Then we can rebuild football as it is supossed to be. Jumpers for goalposts, isn't it, wasn't it? Marvellous!

Aye it made me sick when the Honey Monster was polaying in B&W stripes with KK as manager in the mid nineties. The comercialisation of the club has been going on long before Ashley took over, and the naming rights is just the latest step down that road. (not that I like or agree with btw, but it was inevitable at some point)

I don't think any owner (bar Ashley) would consider the naming rights unless it was necessary. Supporters can't see the financial side of things, so if a new owner/President sees the ground as a way of easing the financial problems, buying a new player or whatever, it should be his call. Well, if the President, or whoever, wants to make such a change it would be up to them to communicate to the supporters/stakeholders why they wish to do it. Then, there'd be a vote. Hardly rocket science, is it? Surely the president is elected in the same way the Prime Minister is. Then it is up to the President to make the call on decisions such as this, not going back to the trust for their approval? You may as well just have a figure head president if that is the case

Not having a Newcastle Team in the latest Pro Evo. Going take me days to edit one in

Robin Van Persie - That Joe from X-Factor

Back to Sting... I'm sure that there was an article a few year back in the good ol Sunday Sun where it was claimed that he switched from being a Mackem to a Toon fan as a kid.

That you can't really enjoy being top of the league 100% because you know that there is a good chnace we will be back here in two years time

on the other hand wheres the harm in a preliminary hearing, the main obstacle i view for the nust is I can't see Ashley wanting to sell to them, they're negotiating position is weak to begin with and possibly offending the current regime by not meeting them isn't a good way to start. No offending has taken place, we've politely declined his offer under the logic of we dont want to waste their time if we cant raise the funds. I think the fact Llambias called an hour after we launched tells you that hes happy to sell. or he's simply curious about it, asking for a meeting to discuss it could also be a way of politely saying not interested in selling, thanks for the interest. Or Dezza has lost another bet and has to run naked through the meeting

It will become like American sports. Premier League North and Scotland (basically us the mackems, Rangers, Celtic), Premier League South (i.e. London), Premier League West (Cheating Scousers, their smaller brothers, Man City, Bolton), East (Leeds, Forest). By that point Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal will be in a Euro Super League. Give me divisions 1 -4 anyday

We will reclaim a piece of footballs soul and lead the way for others to follow. Will we fuck. The trust will fall apart from infighting. As a forum we can't even agree if Jonas' goal a the weekend was good or not

nah thats missing the point, I'm not advocating voting for a manager (as an example), but if el presidente makes a series of decisions that I disagree with, do I have a mechanism to get out of the trust

Oranges and Apples. If you buy a share in something and don't agree with its direction you should be able to pull out of whatever you've bought into. I don't pay for the right to vote in a General Election so have to take the decision on the chin. Similarly the support for NUFC won't go away because I disagree with the owners direction - otherwise I wouldn't be supporting Ashleys regime at present. Wishing to sell a share in the club because I don't agree with a decision shouldn't be the end of my options, and if I wish to sell then there should be something in place to allow it - whether this is on an open market or back into the club should be the only thing open for debate

Isn't that the story of NUST from day one though? Any good ideas/actions/decisions have been tarred by poor communication (where have we seen that before??) and a cock handed way of putting information into the supporters domain

So you would want your money back after one decsion you didn't agree with went through. Regardless of all other things that might be heading in the right direction. Great. Think he's just giving an example. Sorry, jumped into it. it does imply tho, that if you didnt agree with decisions you would to use an anolgy,.. take your ball home. That was the point. The manager point was just a one off, as it is likely to come up soon. But a shareholder could completely disagree with a number of key decisions and decide that their cash input leaves them in no better a decision than now (in that they disagree with the direction of the club rightly or wrongly). In that situation I think that there needs to be some mechanism to sell the shares, whether on a closed market or back into the club

I would think the liquidity would be the same as any private company .i.e. not very. If you don't like what the company is doing you can try and sell your shares, but it's down to you to find a buyer as there won't be a ready made market. Thats more what I was trying to get at - would there be a market as such for the shares. This potentially leaves the scheme open to a take over

A question if I may: How liquid is the investment? For example lets say I pay in £1,500 and the issue of the new manager comes up. Now (hypothetically) say I really want us to go for Roy Hodgson but the elected president (as is his right) comes out with Shearer being his number one choice. If I wished to withdraw my £1,500 due to me no longer believing in the direction of the board could I do this? Also, have the founders considered what is happen when (and it will) things go wrong and the tide turns against the trust/president? I'll stick my neck on the line and suggest that at least one of the guys pushing this idea would like to be el presidente. Are they prepared for the backlash on their decisions?

Franz Carr Badabinga Keith Gillespie