Chris_R

I remember that game, I was there. He won literally everything that went anywhere near him, it was a majestic performance. I left in total awe of the man, and was ecstatic when we signed him.

You're Milburn side. I went in Turnstile 84 (Though the ticket said I could use any from 79 to 84) and I went into the ground through Access 8. I was seat J364, so I can tell you you're not right at the back. Middle of the tier I'd say, but 100% you're Milburn side.

Aye that's the plan like. I've been in the Gallowgate a couple of times this season, though it's a bit of an unbalance and i can't really make a fair judgement - cos one was the Arsenal game, and the other was the City game. I fell in love with the stand at the Arsenal game, but City was garbage. I wanted to try Leazes Level 7 cos that's where the Ultras are so i suppose you're guaranteed atmosphere up there. I'm unsure as to which side of the corner i'm on, though. (Milburn/Leazes) Probably Milburn, if you got the tickets from those on general sale. From where the Leazes ends and the corner begins it's normally the away fans. Then after them it's Newcastle fans as you get towards the Milburn.

Well it shouldn't be because of the club. I took the photos myself and there was nothing anywhere to indicate that I shouldn't take them. If they don't want people taking photos then they should put up signs and make people aware of this. I've never seen anything in all the years I've been going.

They're always vocal, but then aren't we when we travel away? Just make sure you make as much noise as you can, don't let them have it all their own way. There was a bit of friendly banter going on but you just have to ensure you give as good as you get (Stay the right side of the line though, don't get thrown out!).

Here you go. Gives you a bit of a panoramic view if you start from the first image and work your way to the third: http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/8260/p1901081655sb5.jpg http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/5453/p190108165401jw2.jpg http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9605/p190108165502ot4.jpg Resolution on the cameraphone was 5mp, but they're a bit blurry as I was ever-so-slightly inebriated.

Yeah, I was right next to the Bolton fans. I'm uploading them to Imageshack now (Not sure how to embed them on here and will probably make a fool of myself if I try!)

Got a few from the corner of the Milburn / SJH stand from the Bolton game the other day if you want them as well?

I'm not interested in us improving another club's young players. Let's either improve our own young players, or else get some better players in of our own. If Walcott could get us into Europe / save us from relegation then fine. If he was a real superstar player then fine. But not just to give a big club's reserves a runout when we're in no danger of going down and no danger of getting into Europe.

OK, fair point. Using alcoholism as an example was not the best idea. But I'm sure alcoholics don't drink in order not to die. They drink because they, like smokers or heroin users, get a craving for it that they can't resist. It's still a mental choice to smoke that next cigarette to get your high though, the same as it is to log onto a gambling website to get a different high.

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.