Chris_R

Cunt Fuck Wank Shit Bugger

Twats.

Cheers. So obvious when someone tells you it. And "I yell at mice" has become my preferred one, that's what I've been reading it as every time someone rights IYAM.

Can I just ask, what the hell does IYAM stand for? I've been trying to figure it out for ages and can't come up with anything even close. Normally I'm OK with acronyms like that but I'm struggling. So far I've thought of (Amongst others): - I Yell At Mice - Into Your Aching Mouth - If You're A Mackem - It's Yule At Mine All possible, but they don't seem to make sense in the context used. Help?

Couldn't agree more. My question though would be WHO is to blame for the silence. Either: Ashley is directing this, in which case he feels that because he owns the club outright then he doesn't need to explain himself to anyone. Whilst this is true to an extent, Newcastle United is a business and a business has customers. Continually treat your customers like shit and, even if they're extremely loyal, they'll find a way to hit you in the pocket somehow and both you and the club will end up suffering. I would therefore question Ashley's suitability to own the club. Or: Llambias, as the chairman is responsible for the silence. Mort used to speak out so perhaps this is the case as the silence seems to coincide nicely with the regime change. If Llambias is responsible then I would say outright that he is totally unsuited to the role of heading up a multi-national company like Newcastle United and should be dismissed with immediate effect. Either way, one of them's to blame. Either they quickly start communicating with the people who are the fans (And customers) of the club, or one of them goes and is replaced by someone who actually has the power of speech.

Ignorance? I'm posting links to studies that have been carried out. How's that ignorance? Surely being ignorant is burying your head in the sand and screaming "RACIST" without having the ability to look at the facts? I think the biggest ignorance of all would be to say that the only difference between black people and white people (Or Asians or any other group) is the colour of their skin, and that it's completely beyond the bounds of possibility that any other differences exist in relation to physical or mental abilities. See above. If you take issue with the comment, post something that disproves it rather than resorting to calling me "Ignorant" or just saying "Yikes". It's called having a debate, you should try it. Surely that's fairly irrelevant. What's happened has happened. If a series of tragic, shameful circumstances have forced an inequality upon the various races then that's highly regrettable, but it doesn't change the fact that this inequality exists (Which by what you say you're tacitly agreeing to, and therefore to my whole argument ). And if the inequality exists, be it geneitc or caused by years of oppression and slavery, why is it wrong to mention that it exists? Like I said in my post before, talking about it and acknowledging a difference is the first step to addressing it.

Do you not think that, rather than it being that black people are in some way genetically pre-disposed to crime, that the disproportionate amount of black people in the prison system is more to do with the fact that poorer people in run down urban-centre communities are more likely to commit crimes that land them in prison and these communities have a higher percentage of black people than the general population? Maybe black people are often poorer because they are less intelligent than white people? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence [can opened, worms everywhere] I know, I'm being deliberately provocative. Seriously though, there ARE differences between the races. We're taught that everyone is equal but we're not. Look at the 100m final at the Olympics. Many whites there? No, because black people are faster runners over short distances. Look at the swimming events. Many blacks? No, because white people have lower bone density so can swim better. Look at the distance races: Lots of Africans and Asians, as genetically they're more adapted to doing well in these sort of events. This isn't all coincidence, and we're all aware of it and it's not THAT taboo to talk about it. Though people are still careful about what they say as the PC brigade's ears prick up whenever you start such a conversation. Move it a step further though and start making other comparisons between the races (Eg intelligence) and suddenly you're a racist. But perhaps if we're rational about it for a moment and talk like adults it's simply that there ARE differences between us? Is it possible that when there's these glaring physical differences that mentally (In all respects, including intelligence and predisposition to commit crime) that we're all exactly equal? Of course not. But the very act of making that suggestion gets everyone very uncomfortable in their seats. That's not to say, for example, that all black people are less intelligent than all white people or that all Asians are more intelligent than all white people. I'm sure there's millions of black people who are far more intelligent than myself for example and I'm certainly not racist in any way, shape or form. I'd like to point that out very strongly before the mongs descend, and if anything I'm posting the things I have in this thread just to give a balanced argument which is more fun than all of us just adding our own version of "Rebrov's a racist cunt". I always ensure I treat everyone I meet as an individual, but that's the important thing - Treat people as individuals rather than treating everyone as equal, which they're blatantly not. Many people have descended, quite understandably, on the "Rebrov's a racist cunt" side of things but I'd have to say I'm yet to read anything where anyone has attempted to show that his comments are inaccurate, rather than just have a go at the guy and say he shouldn't have said it as he's a racist. Maybe burying such conversations under the "racist" banner isn't really that helpful in the long run? Maybe what he's said is accurate, for whatever underlying reasons, and that areas with higher concentrations of black people are more likely to have higher concentrations of crime? Maybe, if we were adult enough to acknowledge comments like this rather than burying our heads in the sand and refusing to discuss the matter beyond branding the speaker as a racist and a bigot, then that's the first step to addressing what could be a very real issue?

Then british people are all alcoholics (same as the germans), Belgians are all paedophiles (sp), Dutch people are all Junkies, and not to forget all the islamic ppl are terrorists. "Naturally" of course... :-( No, no, no. You're either being really stupid or else you're using the word "All" to deliberately sensationalise things. Either way, it's just daft. Rebrov hasn't said that all blacks are criminals, and neither have I and neither has that report from the home office. The point is though that black people are statistically more likely to commit crimes that land them in jail, and that's an inescapable fact. If you then say in return "If I go to England then I'm naturally more likely to meet alcoholics" and statistics back you up (I have no idea if they do or not) then that would be fine. Didn't Silvio Maric say something about the women being ugly in Newcastle during his spell here? If we add Fat Fred's comments about Geordie women being dogs does that count as a statistic making it ok to offer the opinion? Yes, that's precisely what it means. Well done.

He missed the match as he got mugged by a black man just before kickoff.

Then british people are all alcoholics (same as the germans), Belgians are all paedophiles (sp), Dutch people are all Junkies, and not to forget all the islamic ppl are terrorists. "Naturally" of course... :-( No, no, no. You're either being really stupid or else you're using the word "All" to deliberately sensationalise things. Either way, it's just daft. Rebrov hasn't said that all blacks are criminals, and neither have I and neither has that report from the home office. The point is though that black people are statistically more likely to commit crimes that land them in jail, and that's an inescapable fact. If you then say in return "If I go to England then I'm naturally more likely to meet alcoholics" and statistics back you up (I have no idea if they do or not) then that would be fine.

'A lot of dark skinned people live there. So naturally the crime rate is higher than anywhere else.' OK, it's not the type of comment we like to see. But just to play devil's advocate here, what has he said that's actually incorrect? Have a look here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/s95race05.pdf These are official Home Office figures, and whilst I've not read the report in full it does show that black people account for 2.8% of the population of the UK but yet make up 13.5% of the prison population. Now doubtless the PC brigade will say that "Oh, black people don't get a fair chance as the police / justice system is racist" but really that's not going to account for the fact that if you're black, you're almost five times as likely to commit a crime that leads to you going to jail as if you're white. Maybe Rebrov has a point, however distasteful people find it?

Shearer's header was immense, really rolled back the years there and got me up off my seat cheering. Awesome.

If that cockney crook gets anywhere near our football club I'll explode with rage.

I swear down, if they're saying no to Terim and they wheel out Poyet or someone I'll be fucking livid.

I'd like to keep Owen and Harper, as well as possibly Edgar. The rest in bold can gtf. Owen will leave as well though. No idea about the reserve / youth players.

Fantastic! Perhaps not the cleverest thing to do but perhaps if a couple of people are doing this it indicates the strength of feeling amongst the players.

Among other reasons, because we'd not be able to compete financially with the big boys any more.

As always, Sir Bobby speaks and everyone else should listen.

If that truly is his attitude to the club I love then the sooner he sells up or chokes on a f***ing white truffle the better. Well tbh it IS Llambias' job to sort this mess out. He's the chairman after all. He's paid to sort these kind of things out and to me at least, with my tiny amount of knowledge about the goings on of the last few days, he's the person to blame in all of this. not ashleys fault for appointing him like and who decided the transfer policy Of course it is. But that's a different (Though related) issue. Perhaps Llambias should be sacked for his handling of the whole affair, but that doesn't make Ashley responsible for the decisions Llambias made. Of course there's a possibility that Llambias rang Ashley up, explained the situation and asked for advice, then Ashley said "Just fire Keegan". In which case it is Ashley's fault. I guess that in the absence of any concrete information, it depends on which version of events we choose to make up as to who we then decide to blame.

If that truly is his attitude to the club I love then the sooner he sells up or chokes on a f***ing white truffle the better. Well tbh it IS Llambias' job to sort this mess out. He's the chairman after all. He's paid to sort these kind of things out and to me at least, with my tiny amount of knowledge about the goings on of the last few days, he's the person to blame in all of this.

If Keegan had turned up it would have become about him not Barton. The hearing would have become even more of a circus than it already is and he was right to stay away IMO.

Ashley and Llambias would be commiting PR-suicide if they appointed Wise as interim manager.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/newcastle/article4678988.ece Saying he had a wish list valued at £200m including Henry, Ronaldinho and Lampard says nothing really. There could be 100 players on that wishlist, so the £200m argument goes straight out the window. It's not like he was saying we must spend £200m, it's just that the total value of his wishlist was £200m. Also, Henry, Ronaldinho and Lampard are only 3 names. Lampard's future has been the subject of speculation all summer, Henry has moved to Barca and not done as well as expected and Ronaldinho has been linked with a number of clubs of late. It's not that far fetched that we'd be in for those kind of players when we've got a billionaire chairman.

To those suggesting the idea of a boycott of a certain portion of the next match rather than a march: I don't think that will work, as if you have 5,000 people missing for 20 minutes, nobody will notice. If you have 5,000 people marching through Newcastle, nobody can fail to notice. For a boycott to work, you need something crazy like 30-40,000 people to not turn up in order to make the stadium look deserted before it even started to become effective. A march on the other hand would be effective with far fewer people, and if we could get 30-40,000 then it would be incredible. Add to that, only 50,000 people can take part in a boycott. The whole north east can take part in a march, irrespective of whether you have a match ticket or not.

Not reading all 8 pages as it's way too late at night, but I broadly agree with you and think you've written a lot of sense there. However the only things I'd say Ashley / Llambias / Wise / Vetere could be blamed for are: - Telling Keegan he has the final say on transfers then trying to do deals behind his back. That's not on. - Selling players (Or trying to sell players) without having adequate replacements lined up. Our squad is paper thin already, and the thought of playing through until Christmas without Owen or Barton and nobody in to replace them is quite scary. Of course in response to this, we don't know if deals were done behind Keegan's back and we don't know that if Barton or Owen had gone that replacements wouldn't have been brought in.