Chris_R

Whilst you're probably right, the same words were said about Michael Owen. Never say never.

I agree that there are differences between mental and physical addictions, but I think you're being too dismissive of mental addictions by saying people are just too weak willed not to resist their urge. I could say the same about alcohol addiction (Which you labeled a physical addiction) - Just don't drink. Nothing bad will happen if you don't. OK, you'll feel shitty for a good while but you'll come to no long term harm through not drinking. Just don't go to the pub and don't buy a pint. Easy, addiction cured! The same could be said about heroin. OK, the withdrawl from heroin is (So I hear) pretty horrid, but ultimately nothing bad will happen if you go cold turkey. Just don't buy any more and don't inject it. Again, piece of cake. But it's not like that. So why do smokers / alcoholics / heroin addicts take their drugs? To relieve their symptoms they get through not having them. It's the same for mental addictions. If you're addicted to online gaming then you do it because it gives you a high when things go well. When you're not doing it, you want and crave that hight. Likewise for gambling, I imagine the high of winning is immense (I've won at casinos before and it's a fantastic feeling) and when you're not doing it you're desperate to recreate it. Nobody gambles thinking they're going to lose, they are all convinced that the next time will generate a win that will pay back all they owe. If they are lucky and get that win, they chase a bigger one. If they don't get it, then they are even more convinced that next time will be the time. I think you're underestimating how powerful the mind is and how when things go wrong in your head and your brain makes the wrong connections how hard it can be to get better. For example, do you think mental illness is less serious than physical illness? That people with clinical depression should just get on with things and cheer the hell up? That schizophrenics can magically stop hearing those voices, or that pedophiles can just stop fancying kids? It just doesn't work like that.

A) All addictions are at least partly mental. That's why smokers struggle to give up long after the chemicals leave their bodies. They always say "I need something to do with my hands" or "I always have a cigarette when I drink" yet can cope fine at other times. That's a mental thing, not physical. B) Why can't you get addicted to weed? You can get addicted to sex, chocolate, food in general, computers, TV and all manner of other things. Marijuana is a mind-altering drug and of course it's possible for it to become addictive. Not that I'm saying it always does, I smoked the stuff heavily for years and then stopped when I got bored with no problems at all but to suggest it's not possible to get addicted to something is a little far-fetched and completely wide of the mark. C) If Merson isn't addicted, why the f#ck do you think he keeps doing it? Do you think he has some kind of wish to live on the streets. Gambling's an addiction as real as any other.

Whoever said teams don't play all out attack anymore: they didn't play it then either. That's why we were so special. Tactics weren't invented with the advent of the new millenium.

Haha, brilliant. That said, I'm sure Keegan has learnt a thing or 2 since Budgie was with him all those years back. Let's not forget that Newcastle was Keegan's first managerial appointment, and he's since been to Fulham, Man City and England. He's also had 3 years out of the game to think through what went wrong when he was a manager and what he might have done differently if he had his time again. Well he's got his time again now. I don't think that nothing will have changed in all that time. Even if he can't sort out the defence himself, he'll doubtless get others in who can. Still a brilliant article into how things were the first time round.

Gascoigne at his peak was the greatest footballer in the world. Sadly his peak was very short, whereas Pedro was still turning it on well into his 30s and gave me far more enjoyment, not least becasue I saw him play for Newcastle whereas Gazza was here before my time. Despite this, I voted for Gazza even though Beardsley did much more with his talent than Paul did with his, because I've decided I'm voting on simply who was the best player at their peak.

No he doesn't. He wants players who can play in the Premiership without needing to spend time adapting to it. It's a completely different thing.

Not needed. Money grabbing, move engineering little toerag as well. Steer clear.

Great player, but on loan? Not interested. All that does is improve someone else's player. We've got Martins and Owen as midget strikers, let's concentrate on getting them to the top of their game before we bother with anyone else's players. Even if he came and did fab, we'd still not make europe, and we should be safe from relegation regardless. So there's no point getting him on loan IMO.

Couldn't agree more. I could NEVER support any team other than Newcastle (And England, of course). I don't understand "second teams" or following a team who you have no affinity with or anything like that. I know how I feel when I see local kids with Man U tops on, it makes me feel sick. However in these days of wanting to get revenue in to compete with the big boys, we need to expand and embrace people from other lands who want to follow Newcastle. These people will provide the financial platform we need to compete with the best, without them we'll be nothing but a small town, insular club.

IMO I was born a Newcastle supporter. There was never going to be another team for me. However I first vocalised these opinions in the 1980s, I had a Newcastle United pencil case for School and would always listen to the matches on the radio and even watch them on Ceefax if the radio wasn't carrying a broadcast. I clearly remember us getting relegated in 1989, the playoff matches against Sunderland, and the appointment of Ardilles. That said, my father worked weekends so could never take me to a match. I could only go to a game when I was old enough (In my father's eyes) to go myself so that meant that the promotion season under Keegan was the first time I got to go, though I was there right from the start of the season when expectations were still low. So I could in theory tick 1970s (Born), 1980s (Declared support) or 1990s (first match). I went for 1980s as I'm sure there are people who have never been to a match yet but still support Newcastle from afar and they will have still put something down I'm sure.

The bloke who normally drives their team bus has just retired.

Garrincha was born in Sunderland?

Every manhas his price, Debrby arent rolling in it, we need a RW so id ather overpay for a young unproven RW like Barnes then going for a proven more expensive RW like SWP. He might be worth £6m but i think give derby £7-8m and he'd come. Of course every man has his price, but the cost to Derby of getting relegated is massive compared to getting £7-8m for their best player. I'd be massively surprised if Derby sold Barnes in this window. They'd be throwing away far more money than they could recoup from his sale. Well it comes down to how much profit they want and how muchthey need the money, i think they know that they arent staying inthe premiership and it comes down to whether they want £4-6 million in the summer in the Championship or £6-9m now for the Championship, deep down the people in charge will know they are going down. I don't think Derby have given up hope of staying up. They've brought 5 new players in and are looking to bring at least another 2 in during this window. They've got a massive task ahead of them and it would be nothing short of a miracle if they stayed up, but that's what they're still hoping for. Anyway, time will tell. I'd be delighted if we got Barnes this window but I just can't see it. No harm in us asking the question though.

Every manhas his price, Debrby arent rolling in it, we need a RW so id ather overpay for a young unproven RW like Barnes then going for a proven more expensive RW like SWP. He might be worth £6m but i think give derby £7-8m and he'd come. Of course every man has his price, but the cost to Derby of getting relegated is massive compared to getting £7-8m for their best player. I'd be massively surprised if Derby sold Barnes in this window. They'd be throwing away far more money than they could recoup from his sale.

I wouldn't mind us taking a punt on Barnes. However I don't think we'll get him this window - Derby have invested heavily and brought in a lot of new players in an attempt to drag themselves up the table. To let go of their prize asset would all but condemn them to relegation and undo all the work they've done in this transfer window. So I can't see it happening myself. Best hope for us getting Barnes is for Derby to go down (Not that I wish them relegation, I'd much prefer to see Sunderland and Middlesbrough rooted to the bottom!) and then I think they'll accept a sensible offer.

As per what everyone else has said. He's old and if we were to sign him, it should have been before he went to Portsmouth. Not now. There's younger and better about. His legs have gone now, he's almost completely immobile. If Geremi has the legs of a 40 year old, then Campbell must be using Christopher Reeve's.

Mort does make the decisions and Ashley did say that it was Mort who rang him and told him that Allardyce had to go. Well he has to say that. Otherwise it completely undermines Mort's public position and would damage the relationship he has with Ashley. I doubt it went quite like that though in real life. Sure, Mort would have had some input and gave his opinion, but I know who would have had the final say on the matter and it wasn't Chris Mort. Surely we're past believing everything that's said in the papers? Even though it was a direct quote from an interview, sometimes people bend the truth when speaking in public to protect themselves and each other. Ashley will have had the final say on firing Sam, even if Mort had a lot of input and was the person to tell Sam to pack up and leave.

Thanks Mick Jonny - You know what I mean. I know he's not the chairman, but he's the guy who makes the big decisions. Mort has brains, there's no doubting that, and says all the right things to the media and does a good and worthwhile job for us but who do you REALLY think made the decision to fire Big Sam? Mort? I don't think so. Can you imagine Chris Mort ringing Ashley up and saying "Hi Mike, just thought I should tell you I've fired the manager. I'll let you know who the replacement will be." Of course I should have said "Wouldn't swap him for any other owner in the world".

Yes, Ashley turning into a bit of a legend alright. Wouldn't swap him for any other chairman in the world. Never thought I'd get to say that about the guy in charge of my club!

I thought what he said was that he wanted someone who wouldn't have to take time to adapt to the Premiership. That's a slightly different thing.

Hmm, I seem to remember it wasn't that long ago that we paid lots more for a player from a big Glasgow club than they got him for 6 months prior. Didn't turn out very well last time...

Not me. I was tempted to put it on, but it would have spoilt my lovely hair.

Man U Sunderland Tottenham Can't see beyond them really.

Yes, I genuinely believe Barton wants to reform. The problem is I think he's too much of a toerag to actually make changes to his personality. He'll always be a powderkeg ready to go off, on the pitch and off it. Sadly it's not the sort of thing that I think anyone is capable of changing, not when he's so obviously a bit unhinged.