2sheds

You mean you still aren't 'pleasantly suprised' by Owen yet? A complete waste of money for a trophy signing designed to make Fat Fred look good for a while. A total disaster from start to finish. > sheds are made from planks aren't they Two thick short ones (to finish off your joke properly) I'm not saying I haven't heard that many many times before tho

You mean you still aren't 'pleasantly suprised' by Owen yet? A complete waste of money for a trophy signing designed to make Fat Fred look good for a while. A total disaster from start to finish. >

Don't really see your logic there. Does that mean world war two should never be mentioned or given reference to in anything other than WWII films? What about 9/11? It seems a bit of a strange line for the scriptwriters to come up with on a London-based soap, but we should remember that they make references to real tragic events all the time in fictional programmes and films. Do you think a storyline in Eastenders slagging off the victims of auschwitz would be acceptable in order to get ratings? References to controversial, real-life events and issues appear all the time in fictional storylines on TV. This is a character whose views represent the views of plenty of people, as right or wrong as those views may be. It's not condoning those views, it's a fictional character, it's a story. Would a film such as American History X be condoning racism, or just presenting a fictional character and a story? I'm not really sure where you're going with this, but I don't see the difference with what was said on EastEnders and what you see on thousands of films, tv progs etc. If your point is that the content wasn't appropriate for a daytime soap opera then I can have some sympathy, but you seem to be suggesting the programme was "slagging off the victims" ?? 'Slagging off the victims' may have been the wrong phrase to use but they are still being used for cheap ratings. I'd also like to add that major storylines are frequently pulled from soaps if they coincide with a major news event, so there is some degree of sensitivity in the soap world. I won't comment on films as TV operates to different standards to those of the cinema.

Don't really see your logic there. Does that mean world war two should never be mentioned or given reference to in anything other than WWII films? What about 9/11? It seems a bit of a strange line for the scriptwriters to come up with on a London-based soap, but we should remember that they make references to real tragic events all the time in fictional programmes and films. Do you think a storyline in Eastenders slagging off the victims of auschwitz would be acceptable in order to get ratings?

Exactly its a fictional soap. Therefore there was no need for the scriptwriter to use Hillsborough (a real event where people died)in the storyline.

Sacking Bobby was the biggest mistake I've seen Newcastle make in the 30+ years I've been going to games. I knew on that day we were pre-destined to be eternally shite.

If Israel beat Russia tomorrow expect a 'miracle recovery' from Owen so he's available to ply against Croatia. Of course he always has Newcastle's interests at heart

Who are the 17 psuedo-mackems who voted no?

Imagine if factory workers had a squad rotation system where they could miss 50% of their shifts and still get paid? Then if their shifts were spaced out to a maximum of two a week? Then a factory worker turned in and was 'subbed' half way thru his shift and spent the rest of the time sitting on his arse watching his workmates graft? Then if they turned around and complained of being 'tired'? Bunch of whinging twats and thats regardless of the high wages.

Yes

Try paying to get into SJP in dollars you fuckwitt. If you can't be arsed to look up british based billionaires in the british currency don't bother.

No because we are in the UK where the currency is pounds sterling. Besides which the dollars value is dropping like a tarts knickers these days so all those estimates of wealth are undoubtedly wrong. 'We are in the UK where the currency is the pound sterling'....well, I hope you enjoy it while it lasts, pal, because after last Friday's stitch-up by your Govt, your currency will soon be the Euro - you, know, the one that the Frech & Germans are complaining about because its now 'too strong' against the dollar, so they can't sell the Yanks their cars, cheese, wine, perfume etc etc.... Maybe the assets should have been quoted in Euros...!! The Frech(sic) can't sell the yanks their cars,cheese wine perfume etc etc etc because of the strong euro? And the US was always such a loyal customer to France My point is that Ashley made his fortune in pounds sterling, quoting a foreign currency is laziness.

Why aren't these figures in dollars? It is after all the 'international currency'

No because we are in the UK where the currency is pounds sterling. Besides which the dollars value is dropping like a tarts knickers these days so all those estimates of wealth are undoubtedly wrong.

Well Ashley has about $4 billion. Chelsea definately have a richer owner, Abramovich has a personal fortune well over $10 billion. Liverpool's Gillet and Hicks combined are worth about $4.5 billion. Man UTD's owner definitely isn't richer, neither are West Ham or Villa's owners (though they're all billionaires). As for Thaksin at Man City, he isn't even a billionaire, not even close. So I'd say two clubs have richer owners then Newcastle, but one of them (Liverpool) insignificantly so. Then again Ashley's right in saying it all depends how much each is willing to spend. Nobodies going to spend a billion or more on a Football club so... Why are you quoting their wealth in fucking dollars?

I predicted what you were going to say in my first post in this thread That either makes me intelligent or you boring and predictable with a bog standard set of lines you trot out. Which one is it? And 270 posts later I'm still waiting of an appropriate reply are you or are you not saying that you would prefer Bates to Shepherd on the basis that he has either : 1. Won 2 cups that nobody except you gives a toss about 2. Won a meaningful cup or two in comparison to ourselves who didn't perform in 2 Finals, also against superior opposition ie the new league champions on both occasions ? If number 1, you're an idiot. If number 2, you're still an idiot for thinking for thinking so, because as has been patiently pointed out by myself and HTL, the chairmen don't usually have any input into team selections, tactics and motivation of players. Just for clarification. This is one last chance for you to recover some sort of standing, and I'm doing it because I feel sorry for you. Your question is invalid - I have never stated which chairman I would prefer. And I would never say which one I would prefer if I had to do so on satisfying one of two criteria. So the answer is number 3 - you're the idiot All I have ever stated in this thread (on several occasions) is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw coming to SJP. You can't seem to accept this rather basic fact. shame you're too idiotic to accept you took the thread into the direction you say you didn't. And also too idiotic to acknowledge the fact that if you weren't saying you prefer Bates to Shepherd, there was absolutely no point in you saying anything ie you didn't add anything worthwhile but you never do. As you fail to acknowledge the fact that chairman don't kick a ball, nor decide tactics and team selection, I will take it as a yes that you think they actually do these things OK quote me where I have specifically said I would prefer Bates to Shepherd (or vice versa) To be fair, what the f*** have you been banging on about if you werent trying to make some relative judgement about their worth to their respective clubs? The whole Bates v Shepherd thing is ridiculous anyway as its an established fact that Bates is a c*** of the highest order. We'll never agree on our last chairman but am not arsed whether we do or not. Exactly. Absolutely spot on, Chez. The only possible reason behind the shed bloke making this assertion was to imply Bates is better than Shepherd. He can claim differently all he likes (which is hilarious, tbh) but there can be no other reason. Little boys I have maintained only one thing - and for the umpteeth time it is that Bates saw more trophies going to chelsea than freddie saw for us. Thats it. End of fucking story. At no point have I said who I'd prefer as chairman. Perhaps if you actually read what I've posted and stopped putting words in my mouth you would get this. Eejitts

This is ridiculous. To quote one member of this forum: And this hysterical post is in caps aswell so it must be even more valid than a normal post.

You really think so? I read that as 'lets blame the media for Owen not being up for Newcastle games but always willing to pull an England shirt on' Triue Faith told me nothing new

I predicted what you were going to say in my first post in this thread That either makes me intelligent or you boring and predictable with a bog standard set of lines you trot out. Which one is it? And 270 posts later I'm still waiting of an appropriate reply are you or are you not saying that you would prefer Bates to Shepherd on the basis that he has either : 1. Won 2 cups that nobody except you gives a toss about 2. Won a meaningful cup or two in comparison to ourselves who didn't perform in 2 Finals, also against superior opposition ie the new league champions on both occasions ? If number 1, you're an idiot. If number 2, you're still an idiot for thinking for thinking so, because as has been patiently pointed out by myself and HTL, the chairmen don't usually have any input into team selections, tactics and motivation of players. Just for clarification. This is one last chance for you to recover some sort of standing, and I'm doing it because I feel sorry for you. Your question is invalid - I have never stated which chairman I would prefer. And I would never say which one I would prefer if I had to do so on satisfying one of two criteria. So the answer is number 3 - you're the idiot All I have ever stated in this thread (on several occasions) is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw coming to SJP. You can't seem to accept this rather basic fact. shame you're too idiotic to accept you took the thread into the direction you say you didn't. And also too idiotic to acknowledge the fact that if you weren't saying you prefer Bates to Shepherd, there was absolutely no point in you saying anything ie you didn't add anything worthwhile but you never do. As you fail to acknowledge the fact that chairman don't kick a ball, nor decide tactics and team selection, I will take it as a yes that you think they actually do these things OK quote me where I have specifically said I would prefer Bates to Shepherd (or vice versa)

I predicted what you were going to say in my first post in this thread That either makes me intelligent or you boring and predictable with a bog standard set of lines you trot out. Which one is it? And 270 posts later I'm still waiting of an appropriate reply are you or are you not saying that you would prefer Bates to Shepherd on the basis that he has either : 1. Won 2 cups that nobody except you gives a toss about 2. Won a meaningful cup or two in comparison to ourselves who didn't perform in 2 Finals, also against superior opposition ie the new league champions on both occasions ? If number 1, you're an idiot. If number 2, you're still an idiot for thinking for thinking so, because as has been patiently pointed out by myself and HTL, the chairmen don't usually have any input into team selections, tactics and motivation of players. Just for clarification. This is one last chance for you to recover some sort of standing, and I'm doing it because I feel sorry for you. Your question is invalid - I have never stated which chairman I would prefer. And I would never say which one I would prefer if I had to do so on satisfying one of two criteria. So the answer is number 3 - you're the idiot All I have ever stated in this thread (on several occasions) is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw coming to SJP. You can't seem to accept this rather basic fact.

Souness was world class tbh. Agreed An arsehole as a manager but twice the player roy keane was for example

Policy suspended for this post I have been posting in this thread and I see no reason why I need post this in some other thread I've never looked at. Assuming you're once again banging on about some thread I've never looked at, that is. By the way, the reference to NE5 and leg humping is amusing. The fact is, I've been responding to your posts directly, not NE5's post. Only on the odd occasion (in any thread) do I respond directly to a post from NE5. On the basis NE5 and I believe the anti-Fred stuff is a gross over-reaction, comments of "tag team" have appeared in the past, but as usual those who make such comments aren't following the posts carefully enough. We share an opinion about the previous Board that on this forum is a minority one. The rather juvenile reaction to that from some people is therefore predictable and to be expected. Re read the bits in bold again. I am more than happy to address the points in your post under the conditions I have indicated. However linking why the teams did not play well at the final to the board is a concept your mate introduced into this thread. Read from post 133 and you'll see what I mean. You popped up shortly afterward and backed him in this line of debate. I haven't addressed the issue at all but you two have been going hammer and tongs against my supposed position on the matter. Perhaps now you can see why I would prefer to separate you two. Better still why not communicate directly to NE5? After all its the words he puts into my mouth you take issue with :giggle:

Dave I need to separate the wheat from the chaff

Another classic I predicted what you were going to say in my first post in this thread That either makes me intelligent or you boring and predictable with a bog standard set of lines you trot out. Which one is it? And 270 posts later I'm still waiting of an appropriate reply

HTL if you want me to address your post form a separate thread and I will go through it line by line I do think its quite a good post worthy of a response - in all seriousness I won't bother with your mate there though FWIW you are now the leg humpee after the sycophant display of NE5 in his last few posts