brummie

This is sadly the same at every ground these days (bar, curiously, Portsmouth, which is the one ground which still most resembles an old school English ground - coincidence?). The lack of noise produced by 76,000 people at Old Trafford is probably the most stark example.

I think most fans would have "sympathy" with Newcastle fans, with the extraordinary lack of success for the money spent, and the quality of players you've had (I don't want to get into a "our net spend is actually about the same as Fulham's" style argument, but you can't argue with signings like Shearer or Owen being of the highest level). However, the obssession with attendances / best fans in the world / we're a massive club thing is what annoys fans of other clubs. Yes, your support is pretty impressive, yes, we wish ours was that good, but it is done to death somewhat. Oh, and there is a general perception that NUFC are a Sky era club - fortunes improved as Sky started running the game, pretty much loved by Sky ever since. I'd still say the general "like / dislike" balance is in your favour though, just not anywhere near as much as it used to be.

And Paul McGrath, who he sold for peanuts, played on for another 7 years or so, and is in my (admittedly hugely biased) opinion, still the finest defender to play in the Premiership. But then again, I would say that.

I can only support teams who have already won it, so as not to reduce the number of clubs we can sing "have you ever won the European Cup?" at. I also like the fact that no London club has ever won it, and would like it to stay that way (particularly in the case of Chelsea).

I honestly think you can get a point there, your defence seems to be functioning relatively well, and spirits are up. Much like our point there this season - it can definitely be done, it is about spirit more than anything. Although the second half made the Alamo look like an evenly fought contest. And they mullered us in the carling cup. I'm tempted to have a punt on you.

I for one rejoice in, and embrace, the contribution the attractive lesbian community has made to our society. You are to be commended for your acceptance of this different culture.

I didn't even notice it, by that time I'd spotted the avatar and racism had been nudged from my mind by quality lesbianism.

I can only start to imagine how simple you'd need to be to automatically link that 7/7 demo with the vast, vast majority of British Asians, many of whom are actually Hindu and Sikh anyway, not forgetting the vast majority of law abiding British muslims who have absolutely nothing to do with islamic fundamentalism. To then make some sort of connection suggesting that that is in anyway connected to chanting "you're just a town full of pakis" suggests that you are possibly a bit of a numpty. I bet you're up in arms when the foreign press labels all followers of the England national team as hooligans because a few pissed up idiots go round causing trouble at big tournaments, though, aren't you?

All of this is entirely irrelevant to the point - are you suggesting that "paki" isn't viewed as an offensive racist word? And whether "brits" offends you or not is irrelevant to the point here - if you *do* find Brits offensive, how does that make "paki" any less offensive? Two wrongs do not make a right. You can't win a moral debate by saying "cos that's what people think"? I've no experience of rape, but I know that is morally wrong, and that is what most people "think", too. Where's the debate over whether the word "paki" is acceptable in modern British society? I'd have thought this was pretty much self evident. Agreed

Quite ironic that you should mention the Aussies, as in cricket they quite openly refer to the Pakistan team as "The Pakis". Your thoughts? My thoughts are that I don't know what the connotations are with the word over there but i certainly know what they are over here.

So if an English speaking Spanish bar owner says 'All these f***ing Brits bringing the tone down in our lovely coastal town' its not racist? The use of the term "Brits" is not racist, no. The suggestion that one national group is having a detrimental effect on an area is somewhat xenophobic. "Paki" has an entirely different connotation, as it has been used as a term of abuse. If you were to ask 100 British Asians whether they find the term derogatory, how many do you think would say no? And as for the chant "you're just a town full of pakis" - do you think that is not meant to be racist?

I have to say, I heard the "town full of pakis" chant from Toon fans down at our place this year, not in the ground itself, but outside the ground. There are certain clubs we get this from a lot, all the north eastern clubs included. When we played up at Wigan a few weeks ago, apparently the home fans were singing it there. It's not nice. Every club has racist elements still (us included), but I think coming from fans from towns which don't have a particularly large Asian population (compared to Birmingham), whilst it is obviously racist, it is more of an ignorant racism than an aggressive racism, if that makes sense. Not that it excuses it. Oh, and that "paki is short for Pakistani like Aussie is short for Australian" is laughable, btw.

Personally, I wish they'd all just feck off and form their own poxy league (and take Chelsea with them, preferably), we'll see how long it takes for their fans to start bleating because they can't find any Porto fans at work to take the piss out of after beating them on a Saturday, and how keen players are to join them given that they won't be able to play international football. Assuming that they haven't already ruined international football, of course, which they seem to be quite intent on doing at the moment.

Not that I give a shit about this incredibly puerile argument, but you could point out that if the capacity is 36,000 and the average for that season is over 35,000, then it is pretty much safe to say that every game was either close enough to a sellout to actually be one (ie 35,900 is a sell out effectively) or there were games when away teams didnt fill their allocation. not really as you have to remember that because it is an average then there has to be a good few games where the actual attendance is below even that. But not that many, as the attendance can never be above 36000 - so for the average to be almost 36k, the lowest gates must have been still quite close to that, or the average would be much lower. If you get my drift. Not that I care about their attendances, my main objection to Spurs fans is one half decent season and they think they're Barcelona all of a sudden.

Not that I give a shit about this incredibly puerile argument, but you could point out that if the capacity is 36,000 and the average for that season is over 35,000, then it is pretty much safe to say that every game was either close enough to a sellout to actually be one (ie 35,900 is a sell out effectively) or there were games when away teams didnt fill their allocation.

Not forgetting Fulham, who have been in foreign ownership for over a decade.

Ken Bates bought Chelsea for £1 in 1982. And when RA gets bored and decides to buy an F1 team or something instead, or decides he doesnt want to prop them up any more, that's how much you'll be able to buy Chelsea for again pretty soon.

Philip Green brokered Robert Earl buying into Everton last month and said this: ""Paul Gregg's stake in Everton was offered to me. I have always made it clear that I do not want to own a football club so I introduced Robert Earl, a good friend of mine. It is no secret that Bill Kenwright is a good friend of mine too' So unlikely to be him, I'd have thought.

It must be odd being a Toon fan at the moment, with your league form so poor (barring recent slight upturn) but your cup form being so good. From what I've seen of you in the UEFA cup, I've been pretty impressed, and you can't really argue with winning your group. However, in the League you've been pretty rotten. I was wondering how you feel about this - does doing well in the cups buy Roeder time in the league? Should it? What if you go on and win the UEFA (or Carling or FA, for that matter) cup but narrowly avoid relegation - this buys Roeder time, obviously. Browsing through this forum, I'm yet to see many people arguing for Roeder as a genuine, long term appointment - lets face it, there hasn't been much evidence suggesting he is the man so far. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you got to the final of the UEFA. Look at Boro last year - they made it (thanks to some very flukey last minute winners, but I suppose that's what cup competitions are about), and it got McLaren the England job. This could quite easily happen to you this year, which would I imagine buy Roeder considerable time to get it right in the league. Would that be a price worth paying?

Yes please. But where are you going to find one? I hear they've been in short supply up your way for a while. *gets coat*

There's a lot of things other fans can take a pop at Newcastle for, but support definitely isn't one of them. I don't know what Kingdawson was saying, tbh, you could see from the off that he was a windup merchant.

Why are so many Toon fans absolutely *obssessed* with attendances? And do you realise how you're living up to a stereotype other clubs have of you? Yeah, its impressive that you are so well supported, but it doesn't make you Real Madrid, and a lot of you seem to bang on about it absolutely endlessly. Big clubs win things. I'd have thought if you wanted to have a go at Spurs not being a big club, this would be the most appropriate fact to use, not harping on about how many fans they take to Middlesbrough. Oh, and Stevie, I've been to plenty of games at SJP when it has been half empty.

If the people behind our takeover are anything to go by, I don't really see the problem with foreign takeovers. Although in our case, it is pretty hard to see how anyone could be worse than what we had before, what we've seen from the new board so far has been nothing short of excellent. What makes me laugh is whenever there is a foreign takeover, people start screaming stuff like "they want to build a casino!!!!" - like that's the best accusation they can come up with for "wrongdoing". And much as I admire Arsene Wenger for his legendary achievements, his comments about how English clubs should be English owned so they don't lose their identity are possibly the most hypocritical things I've ever heard - he doesn't seem too bothered about maintaining Arsenal's identity when they're fielding 11 foreigners. Rafa is right, though, it is all becoming about who has the deepest pockets. There's always been an element of that in football, but nowadays it is becoming the only thing that matters.

Sky's live coverage is excellent (though their supporting stuff like You're On Sky Sports seems to suggest that there are only actually four clubs in the league, and that the league didnt exist before 1992), but the problem is that in charging them so much for the rights, the league really have no choice when they say they want to show matches at the absolutely ridiculous time of 5.15 on a Saturday. Stuff like that will be the death of football.

I wouldn't mind that if he hadn't nicked it of Torres. Don't you mean Totti?