fredbob

I cant believe this argument is actually still going on! Isnt this entirely down to the trajectory and speed of the ball as to which is harder to hit? Or am i missing something on the account that I play football regulary at a standard level?

I think so too, if he doesnt sell up then thats fine for me, if he appoints Kinnear then I'll go spare.

I think the results of the above poll and the fact that only 50 people bothered to turn up to their big meeting means they are anything but representative of Newcastle fans. It's arrogance beyond belief. God forbid that they would ever be given any real power. I don't think its looks too good on you either to criticise a group of people who are trying to do something for the greater good that they believe in, when you can't be arsed yourself to do anything, whether going with them or opposing them. I oppose them. And I'm offended that a few dozen publicity seekers claim to be "representative" of Newcastle fans, as it seems are the majority of supporters. Do they claim to representative of all supporters ? Do you understand that if the press label people as such - also as per Frank Gilmour and the NUISA - then its not that simple to stop them ? You are of course entitled to your opinion, but if not for movements in the past similar to this, we could still be stuck in the old 2nd division and experienced a past decade and a half like that of the likes of Sheffield Wednesday, which is pretty much how it was. And THAT'S my opinion, backed up with history and the record books. Still, if you're happy with that, its your prerogative. If they even play a small part in helping change owners then good luck to them. Whether the new owners will be good ones, thats the 64 dollar question that nobody knows. To be fair they kind of do. http://www.newcastle-united-supporters-club.co.uk/statement-1909.php This is kind of my gripe with them as well - that and the fact that they've signed the execution order for Ashley with zero hard evidence or understadning of what actually occured. If they had evidence, or did know what went on, then id be less critical of them.

Agreed which is why other than todays letter you havent seen anything for a fortnight or so and shouldnt for a while unless we are asked to comment on an event. Did the letter portray the feelings of the majority of those who turned up and if not why was it released? I just think its worrying that its seems from your replies that theres not great cohesion within the group and what is being released is actually the views of a vocal minority which shows litle regard to the rest of the group and shows that the organisation is just being used as a propaganda vehicle for a select few to publically air there contorted views.

It's written alot better but I still dont agree with that sentiment, the focal point is that they want to arrange a meeting to discuss the sale of nufc - but they have no right to be part of those talks, they're runnign before they can even walk. In my opinion the letter should be trying to open up an agenda free dialogue between the seperate parties and it should be done privately. After they've got a decent dialogue going with the club they should then be going for the jugular - they need to create a good rapport between the club and the NUSC and let the public know that this is the case. For me the letter just strikes me as being written by some locals who want agood nosey and dont really have any productive input or puropse. the letter certainly doesnt portray any purpose to these talks anyway.

Roughly translated as "Please let us talk to you so we can find out when your fucking off"

I get the felling that Ashley may be gearing towards taking us off the market, unfortunately though i also get the feeling that Kinnear will be put in charge and if thats the case I will 100% lose faith in them.

Hence why i put it in ' '. Its difficult to portray sarcasm in writing.

Its strange becasue for all of his flaws, he still has an admirable goal record in very difficult circumstances. I dont think there are too many strikers out there of his stlye who could get a similar goal record with what we've been doing for the past 3 years.

The flip side to that is that if he took off Ameobi, who else could of 'retained possession' in the opposition half? Id hazard a guess at saying that Kinnear sees Xisco as a pacey striker and not a ball retainer....

Sums my feelings up perfectly, point 1 should of been nailed with there very first public statement. Good post. its good, but what the NUSC need is some high profile people on their side, to publicly raise the stakes and the newsworthiness of it all, like Malcolm Dix did. Persoanlly i think they need to get there direction and organisation sorted out before they look for high profile backers. As it stands with whats been said and released so far, no one with an ounce of credibilty will go near them, which is unfortunate because the general idea has massive potential.

Sums my feelings up perfectly, point 1 should of been nailed with there very first public statement. Good post.

about what? have you read the thread - ie the last page ? To be honest, i have no idea why i even bothered replying. Move along, nothing to see here. basically, 3 people (mick, tron and ozzie mandiarse] have been dumped on their arse by me. They know it, and thats why they have disappeared But that is pretty par for the course.

about what? have you read the thread - ie the last page ? To be honest, i have no idea why i even bothered replying. Move along, nothing to see here.

about what?

He has a responsilibty to be careful with his words, like anyone else who represents an organisation at a high level. Surely?

Worth a try. The point stands though, Wise was emplyed as a memebr of the board to give a footballing perspective - would it not make sense to report to him as part of the board and dual role to recommend players - i still see nothing solid in that statement to suggest that Keegan and we had been definitively lied to. The fact that he was undermined on the last day of the season suggests to me that he DID have final say on transfers, the Zayette trial would back that up. Recommended by Wise, declined by Keegan. Skeljbred the same too.....

The club was already made to look stupid by making the manager's position untenable when there was no need to do so. The people who appointed the manager were made to look stupid by the manager inability to stick to a criterai set by the club...anyone can play this game. The bottom line is that if he scrapped th structure and backed the manager then we'd be in the exact same situation as we would should another owner come in, the only difference being is that we wont waste so much time unsettling the squad and manager with these drawn out talks.So it'd make sense to accpet him and let him get on with it if it were the case. A criteria that was set by the club? Was this the same criteria whereby things appeared to change as we went along. Ok, i was more talking about the transfer policy. However, wasnt Keegan lying as well then? And also the bit ive bolded only became an issue on the last day of the window, what forced him to do that? I still dont say how reporting to the Director of Football contradicts the idea that Keegan had full say on trasfers? Is it impossible to have full say on transfer yet have to report to a Director of Football who was also a member of the board? Massive red herring that is.

Becasue its near impossible for a british manager to drop the england U21 captain for that reason alone. Kinnear isn't British, wahey! it's daft though, if they have a backbone it wouldn't mean f*** all to them I always thought this - why is it that fans have this ability to be able to pick out crap players but the managers always seem to stick with them, through thick and thin.

The club was already made to look stupid by making the manager's position untenable when there was no need to do so. The people who appointed the manager were made to look stupid by the manager inability to stick to a criterai set by the club...anyone can play this game. The bottom line is that if he scrapped th structure and backed the manager then we'd be in the exact same situation as we would should another owner come in, the only difference being is that we wont waste so much time unsettling the squad and manager with these drawn out talks.So it'd make sense to accpet him and let him get on with it if it were the case.

Becasue its near impossible for a british manager to drop the england U21 captain for that reason alone.

What if one of them f***ed you grandaughter? I dont have any grand kids, so f*** away I say.

So it wasn't great to watch? It wasnt aesthetically brilliant, no. Not a thing of beauty? Nope not in my opinion. "brilliant" being the operative word here, mind. i wouldnt describe Nayims goal as a thing of beauty, nor Pedro Mendez strike against Man U as a thing of beauty, i wouldnt even describe Ronaldihno gaols against england as a thing of beauty, I'd put bentleys goal in with those. Lampards goal agaisnt Hull was much better. Do you play football regularly? Not a trick question, just interested to know, as I'd argue - from my experience of playing the game - that what Bentley did was more difficult than what Lampard did. The ball was rolling towards Lampard (always easier to make a good connection that way) and was begging for him to attempt what he did. I also thought the keeper might have had a better stab at getting to it. Fair play to Lampard though, it was still a great goal. I do actually yes, thats why i said "technically brilliant, aesthetically not brilliant" But in my opinion Lampards was better, easy on the eye, delicate and precise with his wrong foot. Bentley had an element of hit and hope about it and it swerved like f*** in the air. Not the best looking goal. I make a point, you resort to taking a pop with a smiley. Ho hum. Easy now, to be fair to me, you were arguing a point i wasnt making. Just becasue a goal is arguably harder to do, doesnt make it the best. Take Laurent Roberts wierd flick agaisnt Fulham (?) technically through the roof, aesthetically not - ergo not the best goal. Now take Catonas chip agaisnt Scum (?) again, techincally no way near as difficult as what Robert did, but id argue was a better goal. You see my point? Perfectly. It's the patronising way you made it that I struggle to understand. You were arguing a point i wasnt making. Apologies anyway.

What if one of them fucked you grandaughter?

So it wasn't great to watch? It wasnt aesthetically brilliant, no. Not a thing of beauty? Nope not in my opinion. "brilliant" being the operative word here, mind. i wouldnt describe Nayims goal as a thing of beauty, nor Pedro Mendez strike against Man U as a thing of beauty, i wouldnt even describe Ronaldihno gaols against england as a thing of beauty, I'd put bentleys goal in with those. Lampards goal agaisnt Hull was much better. Do you play football regularly? Not a trick question, just interested to know, as I'd argue - from my experience of playing the game - that what Bentley did was more difficult than what Lampard did. The ball was rolling towards Lampard (always easier to make a good connection that way) and was begging for him to attempt what he did. I also thought the keeper might have had a better stab at getting to it. Fair play to Lampard though, it was still a great goal. I do actually yes, thats why i said "technically brilliant, aesthetically not brilliant" But in my opinion Lampards was better, easy on the eye, delicate and precise with his wrong foot. Bentley had an element of hit and hope about it and it swerved like f*** in the air. Not the best looking goal. I make a point, you resort to taking a pop with a smiley. Ho hum. Easy now, to be fair to me, you were arguing a point i wasnt making. Just becasue a goal is arguably harder to do, doesnt make it the best. Take Laurent Roberts wierd flick agaisnt Fulham (?) technically through the roof, aesthetically not - ergo not the best goal. Now take Catonas chip agaisnt Scum (?) again, techincally no way near as difficult as what Robert did, but id argue was a better goal. You see my point?