Taylor Swift

7-1 for Bayern

What was Chiellini sent off for? The tackle (which apparently got ball) or mouthing off?

Torres must really hate Real because he's been fucking awesome so far.

The first goal was totally legit. Pepe didn't fall down because of Torres' hand on the shoulder. If anything, he fell because Torres' leg might have clipped his. Anyway, it was never a foul, just a Bramble-esque mistake. Gago has been the worst player on the pitch, and by far too. He can't find space, can't control the ball when he receives it and lags behind every Liverpool midfielder when they attack. Nicky Butt would have at least committed a foul or two to make his presence known but Gago's been a ghost. Casillas has been Real's best player and that's a shame because this is not the way I imagined this match turning out!

Who the fuck is commentating for itv on the Liverpool - Real match? What a fucking moron. I was thisclose to punching the tv. 'Gerraaaaaaaard' when Gerrard sidefoots a soft shot towards Casillas. Get a fucking grip you whiny piece of shit. 'Oh why is Torres so charged up? Has he been criticised in the Spanish press?' - no, you dumbfuck, it's because he's playing the team that he's been born and bred to hate. You would have thought that someone commentating professionally would put the facts that Torres came through the Atletico youth system and that Atletico and Real despise each other together. But no. This dick won't. Liverpool have been very good, though. But of course they get the lucky penalty. There's still time for a miracle; towards the latter end of the half, Real had started passing and moving the ball forwards. Get Robben in the game, make sure Ramos and Heinze offer support and just go for it. They have to.

I suppose it's the home advantage thing, although I'm not sure it's that strong in the latter stages of the CL when the quality of the teams are pretty similar.

Come on, Real!

Interesting question: In the first leg, would you rather win 1-0 at home or 1-0 away? Intuitive answer is 1-0 away since you have that away goal, but I don't know. 1-0 home means that the other team do not have an away goal, so if you fluke one in the second leg, the home team have to score 3 to make it through. If you have a 1-0 away win, 1 goal from the other team now creates a really perilous situation, especially if it's the first goal of the game. If you lose one more goal, you have to score 4.

I've been laughing off these relegation jibes since the 1st of September. What else can you do? Tell them that I'm confident the club will stay up and that next season will be much better so they better watch out? Haha, don't be ridiculous.

Free advertising (that would otherwise be very expensive) for his own company? Yep. But unless Ashley decides that Sports Direct will be paying market value for the space, then the club will lose out. Would be interesting if he's paying market value for the advertising boards he has up. I don't think so. But there's no financial opportunity cost for the club. If that hideous board wasn't up, there'd be nothing up (unless he decided that something had to be in that space). The only cost is aesthetics and that's negligible because people go to St James' to look down at what's happening on the pitch rather than glance upwards and sideways to look at the board. My view, anyway.

Free advertising (that would otherwise be very expensive) for his own company? Yep. But unless Ashley decides that Sports Direct will be paying market value for the space, then the club will lose out.

Exactly, not sure if sponsors would be prepared to pay a fortune knowing that everyone will still call it SJP. It might actually make people more hostile to the company, spoiling the name of the ground etc. As others have said, works better with a new ground than renaming an existing one. Just hope it never happens. You're assuming it's a national or international faceless company just getting some extra advertisement, but what if it's a locally owned shop with an owner who's recognisable around the area of Newcastle? That could be spun in a 'supporting the club' type of way. Just look at how the sponsorship of Northern Rock was received; this is what Freddy said at the time - '"We are absolutely delighted to extend our relationship with Northern Rock, a genuine Newcastle company which has brought the Geordies together under one roof and also on the field of play." I've italicised the interesting part. If you imagine some sinister company taking advantage of our dire situation then of course people aren't going to welcome it. But if a company, such as Northern Rock, one with a history of supporting and sponsoring sports teams and clubs in Newcastle, offer money to rename the stadium, I think it'd be received better. The average joe can and will still call it St James', but in the media, it will be called by its new name, which is why it might be worthwhile for the company. In every newspaper report, it won't say 'match played St James', it'll say 'match played at sponsored stadium name'. In the club brochures and programmes, the new name will be mentioned. On Sky Sports, the commentators will use the new name. I'll give the example of Boston Celtics' basketball arena, which is known by all of their fans as 'The Garden', but its sponsored name is TD Banknorth Garden (regional business company) so in every media publication, you'll see this new name even though the average fan calls it the Garden. That's the exposure that the company will receive. Once upon a time, there wasn't any sponsorship on football shirts. And I imagine that when the first clubs decided to sell that space, there were objections on similar principles to the objections for selling naming rights to a stadium now. Things change. I think it would be bad PR to do so, especially at this time, but there are genuine long-term benefits so the possibility should at least be explored by Ashley and his boys.

No one has said that there is a problem with the stadium. We just need money to replace the shit that we put out Saturday after Saturday. This is a way of generating extra revenue - needed revenue. If it's a really tacky name then it'd be an embarrassment but I think that if we got a local sponsor, some business with a true historical connection to Newcastle, then this wouldn't go down so bad. I'm just going off the American way of doing things where many of their stadiums have names of businesses that have headquarters in that city/region or the business is locally owned. In the end, every stadium in Britain will be renamed. Money's too big a factor in achieving success so turning down or neglecting an opportunity to make money will affect the chances of success. We need to maximise revenues and run everything off the pitch with the aim of maximising profit (which will be used to improve or supplement things on the pitch).

That's true, so if we could get some money, wouldn't this be something that we should do? Given that it would basically free money since no one would call it by the new name anyway.

Three examples of clubs in the Premiership who sold the naming rights are Arsenal (Emirates), Wigan (JJB) and Bolton (Reebok). Wigan are apparently looking for a new sponsor. Anyway, in America, Citi Field in New York (sponsored by Citigroup) will provide revenues of over £10m/year for the next 20 years.

We're a club in major financial trouble, struggling to survive in the Premiership and faced with the possibility of our better players (Owen.. maybe Bassong) leaving at the end of this season, meaning the probability of us getting relegated next season is even more likely. So with no money to spend, costs still need cutting, if the board decided to sell the rights to name the stadium to a company for the next 5-10 years to the tune of £5m per year, how would you feel about this? Arsenal's naming rights gives them about £7m per year for the next 15 years. That's an astounding £100m over the life of the contract. The Premiership is ever more money-oriented and we are abso-fucking-lutely desperate for money to spend on new players. If we could get some money, however much, to spend on new players this upcoming transfer window and the one after, would this be enough to persuade you to accept corporate sponsorship of St James'? Or do you think that tradition is tradition, that St James' has had its name ever since it was built and as its as much a part of the club as any other element, it should be protected on principle? I initially leant towards the latter view but when you see the American sports model and how, in the end, it benefits the club and franchise, I know I'll get over it if St James' was renamed. My view is it'll always be known as St James' anyway, in the same way as the Leazes is the Leazes and the Gallowgate's the Gallowgate. It's not like Arsenal's stadium where The Emirates is its first name and might be the name that sticks. But, I also know that many other people feel differently so get on voting.

Where has this rumour about us not playing him because we'll have to pay Depor extra money come from? Personally, I think it's bs.

Ticked that I got everything (match reports, team news, 'expert' opinions etc.) from 'other' websites and mentioned that this other site was none other than N-O. This place really is a catch-all for everything nufc.

KK said Thats the first time Ive seen him in a match." on 28th July 2008. Which is incontravertible evidence that Bassong knew what you'd expect him to know about his transfer from Metz to Newcastle. His level of English at the time would not have been good enough to understand the nuances of the deal. The key message from his agent would have been 'the manager likes you and wants you'. Of course if Keegan knew all about him and had already scouted him, why did he need to bring him in on trial? And why did he say "Thats the first time Ive seen him in a match."? What this debate demonstrates to me is how sensitised football supporters have become to discussing millions of pounds worth of money because the premise of this argument is that one person pops up during a weekly meeting, shouts a name out and from there on in, the player is this persons signing and its done and dusted. Even for Bassong's relatively small fee (Small!! Not even the worlds biggest clubs just throw 1.5m around on the off chance the player is ok), the decision to buy him would have been a mix of someone coming up with a list of needs, somone coming up with a list of players that meet these needs, some lengthy discussion about which ones to look at, further lengthy discussions about whether a trial is needed, the trial itself and as far as i can tell, Keegan having the final choice over the signing like he was meant to have all along. It seems to me that the quote from the player (who would know the least about how his name ended up on a piece of paper in a meeting on football affairs at SJP in 2008) is what he was told (the manager thinks you're great) and the quote from Keegan suggests, contrary to what Bassong thinks, Thats the first time Ive seen him in a match." Doesnt all this just tell us that a team of people were in place to manage transfers with the final say being Keegans? Which is pretty much how its been sold to us. Your scenario and conclusion is very plausible. But if true, you have to wonder why Llambias would come out with something like 'Bassong was Dennis' signing'. Either he genuinely believes that, in which case there's still the issue of why a higher-up of a football club is getting involved in something so petty. Or, he's being divisive on purpose, or does he generally just have trouble speaking in more moderate terms in the face of pressure (from NUSC, in this case) which consequently leads to even more questioning and pressure (the 'it is a fact' statement comes to mind). Maybe it's still to do with legal issues, but it seems that Llambias cannot concede that KK was a part of this or any other good signing. Maybe you're right in that a lot of people were involved in it with KK having the final say, in which case Llambias should say so instead of saying what he did. Saying what he did makes it seem as if Wise handpicked, negotiated and signed Seba then delivered him to KK saying 'here's a player for you' which obviously creates even more problems, if true.

It matters because Llambias said a week back that he was a Wise signing whereas now quotes from Bassong himself say the opposite. And the truth matters because we'll know whether Llambias is a lying cunt or not; whether one of the most powerful people at the club is lying through his teeth about something like this affects how trustworthy he is in the eyes of many fans and will affect how much these fans trust him and Ashley whenever they come with another soundbite. If they're lying cocksuckers then we'll pay no attention to what they say but if they're not, then obviously what they have to say about the plans for the club and what their intentions are matter a great deal.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/2008/09/05/kevin-keegan-quits-newcastle-and-sparks-8million-compensation-battle-115875-20724577/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/sep/03/newcastleunited?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/newcastle-get-pound8m-keegan-claim-1052768.html Three articles claiming it's £8m. Minor difference, I know, but a difference all the same. Note that all of this is still press speculation with not even a single article having a reputable and official source. This is not a matter of, as you say, 'public record'.

I also don't understand why you're so desperate to paint Keegan in such a bad light. You're the opposite of those who blame everything that happened on the 1st of September on the board, even though they and pretty much the rest of us, do not know what actually happened. It's close-minded and petty; 'aah everything KK does must be because he's selfish and he's always wrong no matter what' = 'ah Ashley is a fat fucker who's looking to bleed the club dry by putting in millions of pounds each year just to make sure we can the bills'. You don't know the figure. Neither do I or anyone else, but we're not the one twisting shit around to support our views.

I think an erroneous or invented figure would not have been acknowledged nevermind corrected by anyone in the KK camp or by the board. Why would they? The issue is still not resolved. There are still legal implications which is why Llambias couldn't even talk about Nacho in the interview a week back. I do have to say that you're a total fuckwit for believing that anyone who questions the veracity of newspaper reports is automatically a Keegan fan. You're conflating the issue of believing in newspaper reports with believing that Keegan is right. I have my views of the situation between KK and the board but they don't affect my logic in questioning the truth of newspaper reports. I'm disappointed to see that this is not the same for you. I'll repeat the point that johnny made earlier: the 240 articles that you mentioned are only articles that relate to the tribunal, many of which in fact do not mention an exact figure. Of the first five, as johnny checked, only one actually mentions the £9m figure and its source is actually another newspaper report! This is not fucking reliable. And questioning it does not make anyone a 'Keegan fan'. Anyway, weren't 90% of the people on this forum, me included, questioning every newspaper report in the previous summer? What's changed? You can say some of the stuff that was coming out from the media at that time was being fed by KK and that's why they painted the picture they did, but what benefit does KK have for revealing the figure that he's seeking? Why not keep it a secret? Wouldn't it be a better PR move not to reveal it?

why? Because we'd find out who was getting paid what. What about the right to privacy?

Yes, but that was because there was actual evidence that this happened i.e. we saw it happening, live, on tv. Except for newspaper reports, which are unreliable, at best, what is the evidence for this £9m claim?