timnufc22

Can see it being a draw, with some people expecting it to be easy.

I wouldnt want to change the formation with the players we have. But say we lost Ba, or just got another striker for depth, could Carroll play in the role on the left, switching through-out the game with Cisse? When you think back to him at his best, some games he seemed to be all over the pitch... at his best and fully fit, I think it may be possible (look at his run before the dive against us for example).

He was really p*ssed off in the match because he badly misplaced a pass, it was obviously early on he wasn't having a good day and was annoyed about it. Sad that the media tried to twist it, hopefully the fans don't go along with it. Regardless of the reason for it, its a bit frustrating seeing him sulking during the game. He's a top class player & a beast - his head shouldnt go down, he should play with more aggression than today.

Draw.

f***ing hell, Ba needs to grow up and stop being such a cock. He's really gone down in my estimation... Worra c***, get rid. Whats the point in that sarcasm? Its obvious his body language wasnt great during the game, whether Sky went overboard or not. Is it down to playing deeper, or simply not being in amongst the goals? Who knows, but he can play better than he did today if he plays with more aggression, and not with his head down, like he did sometimes today. Still a class player & important one. On the issue of him playing in that role, if he wouldnt fancy that (inter-changing) position long term then that'd be disapointing, because he can play there and still get goals.

Exactly, its about the team. And I wouldnt say he's been shoved out there either - he has the attributes to make it work, as shown in some games where hes played well, shown good feet, worked hard, looked a threat, and had chances. And they all switch positions through out the game anyway so its fluid - its not like he's playing as a winger in a 4-4-2. Its up to him, if he's more aggressive and gets his head up then it works for him and the team. If he's sulking because he dosent want to do something he clearly can do, and very well, then thats disapointing. Regarding the goal drought, no worries, hes a quality player and he'll score again regardless the formation - if he wants to. Like I said, its up to him, hes not going to score sulking.

I think asking for an improved contract months after singing a new one is wrong, and implies he was thinking of the money first. Canny disgraceful if you ask me. I understand we were probably wanting the money, but why go and ask for more money? If you wanted to stay why not just say 'I want to stay' and wait to see if any bid is accepted? Why hand in a transfer request? He'd been given the number 9 and was talking about what a dream it was as a young Geordie to be wearing it, banging them in, and he does that a few months later?

Carroll signed a new improved contract and only a couple of months later turned round and demanded another improved one otherwise he'd leave. I cant see how anyone can say he dosent deserve to be booed for that. For me I'd probably say Enrique dosent deserve to be booed after his services, or at least applause initially, coming through such a nightmare time for the club and coming out the other end with the club in a better place, regardless of his discontent in the last 6 months. Most fans thought selling Nolan & Barton we're mistakes and thought the club were going down the route of selling anyone on a decent wage.

______________________________Cisse_____________________________ =====================Shola Ameobi======================== Ba_______________________________________________________Ben Arfa Sammy Ameobi===================================Marvuex ______________Gutierez_________Tiote__________Cabaye_____________ =========Vuckic=======Abied/Perch=====Guthrie/R.Taylor========= ?__________________S.Taylor___________Coloccini_____________Santon Ferguson======Williamson============?======Simpson/R.Taylor/Perch _______________________________Krul______________________________ Squad looks decent, I know Guthrie & Simpson could be off. I think the formation would suit Vuckic & S Ameobi, a left-back, centre-back and young striker I'd say at the moment in the summer.

Personally I think the bit in bold is a bit of a trap people fall into. He himself took the independent decision to go and buy NUFC. No-one put a gun to his head to do it, it was his choice. And billionaire or not, its not like he decided to one day go to town and buy a nice coat. Having done that, and having made that choice, he then automatically owe's the club to act with integrity, having bought history, heritage and an institution, and run it as professionally as possible while protecting such things as heritage. Like when people say 'he put his hand in his pokcet for you when you got relegated'- I would expect him to correct his mistakes and take responsibility. He had acted disgracefully that year, so I wouldnt expect him to be an even bigger t*** by not at least attempting to put things right.

“Kevin Keegan can’t take pressure. His f****** head is all over the place.” “The Arabs wanted him, the fans wanted him — perfect!” “It would never be the right time. Shearer? There would never be a right time in football.” On Hughton “He would never have taken us where we want to be." “You guys don’t ­understand how f****** ­horrible we can be.” Well done Derek, it must be a brilliant life boasting about what a horrible bastard you are. Feel the power and all that eh? There was not a clamour for Keegan to come back, most thought it was out of the question, it was a pleasant suprise when it was announced, total myth.

So Shearer "destroyed" us did he? I've got no problem thinking it wasd didnt do well, did terrible etc whatever - but "destroyed" us lol. He didnt do well at all, but saying he destroyed us is like he's totally blind to the damage he & his mate did through the running of the club. Keegans said there were false bids agreeing a price then going away and bidding a lower price, says he was told he made the final decisions, he was lied to by Wise very blatently - most managers would have been tearing their hair out. Again, its as if he refuses to acknowledge that some of the things that went on were out of order. I dont like the idea of dismissing Hughton so easily, but we dont know what else was said. He slated the fans for giving Andy Carroll stick at the match, now he's out in public telling people in his view he's worth "fuck all".

I've got no problem with him stating his opinion that Shearer was the wrong appointment, but "Shearer destroyed us"? Now I'm the first to stay he didnt cover himself in glory, made some really bad decisions and wasnt ready... but destroyed us? Derek, the running of the club destroyed us that season before he was appointed. Running of the club which involved the same lack of class on display here. To talk about Chris Hughton in public, who done such a good job for the club, in such a dismissive way is a disgrace. To talk about Keegan in public like that is a disgrace - want to dig out that tribunal report? Im not suprised he couldnt handle being lied to! Ever thought of that? Arrogant prick. And slagging off Andy Carroll in public like that after he slammed fans who slagged off Carroll at the match!

St. James' Black White Army St. James' Black White Army ... kitbag.com, kitbag.com, kitbag.com... (to 'we hate sunderland')

Thats management of a player. Ashley lied to the fans who signed up to 3 year season tickets about Keegan making the decisions, Dennis Wise lied to the fans about his role, and lied to Keegan one minute claiming he had a "great player" for him and the next minute admitting he'd never actually seen him play. "But you going to have him anyway" too. The situation with Ashley & his mates is a little more serious, surley. Both lied to not draw any unwanted attention to the club, put it this way if Ashley and came out after Keegan had said he had full control over transfers and said that wasn't the case then how do you think that would have gone down? The same goes for Keegan when he said he was getting on well with Wise which was a lie as he told the tribunal that their relationship was strained, now how much attention would it have brought on the club if Keegan had came out at the time and said he didn't get on with Wise rather than lying about it? What about when Hughton lied to the fans when he said he was still looking for an assistant only to come out when he left saying he wasn't allowed to replace Calderwood? How would it have gone down if he said that at the time? People say stuff to keep things in house, it's always happened and always will. I agree with your sentiment. Keegan says he was told he'd make final decisions verbally, Ashley denies that. I just think Ashley & co didnt really lie to 'keep the peace', but lied as a more pure deception, it was fairly emphatic when he answered the questions about Keegan in that Nufc magazine. And that Dennis Wise Gonzalez situation was as blatent as you can get. It was never just about Nacho though, news was being drip fed by someone for months before that that Keegan wasn't in charge of transfers and at one point he said off the record he was "just the coach" or words similar to that. The point is though that what you say in public isn't always what's happening behind the scenes, people say things to protect the club and I don't see what Ashley did as different from any of the examples that I've given. I agree in principle but just think Ashleys behaviour is worse than your implying imo, but its about opinions so fair do's.

Thats management of a player. Ashley lied to the fans who signed up to 3 year season tickets about Keegan making the decisions, Dennis Wise lied to the fans about his role, and lied to Keegan one minute claiming he had a "great player" for him and the next minute admitting he'd never actually seen him play. "But you going to have him anyway" too. The situation with Ashley & his mates is a little more serious, surley. Both lied to not draw any unwanted attention to the club, put it this way if Ashley and came out after Keegan had said he had full control over transfers and said that wasn't the case then how do you think that would have gone down? The same goes for Keegan when he said he was getting on well with Wise which was a lie as he told the tribunal that their relationship was strained, now how much attention would it have brought on the club if Keegan had came out at the time and said he didn't get on with Wise rather than lying about it? What about when Hughton lied to the fans when he said he was still looking for an assistant only to come out when he left saying he wasn't allowed to replace Calderwood? How would it have gone down if he said that at the time? People say stuff to keep things in house, it's always happened and always will. I agree with your sentiment. Keegan says he was told he'd make final decisions verbally, Ashley denies that. I just think Ashley & co didnt really lie to 'keep the peace', but lied as a more pure deception, it was fairly emphatic when he answered the questions about Keegan in that Nufc magazine. And that Dennis Wise Gonzalez situation was as blatent as you can get.

Thats management of a player. Ashley lied to the fans who signed up to 3 year season tickets about Keegan making the decisions, Dennis Wise lied to the fans about his role, and lied to Keegan one minute claiming he had a "great player" for him and the next minute admitting he'd never actually seen him play. "But you going to have him anyway" too. The situation with Ashley & his mates is a little more serious, surley.

www.cafepress.co.uk http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/7808/kitbag3.jpg And the Back: http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8250/kitbag4.png The best response to this would be as many of those inside SJP as possible the next home game. If some kind of publicity could get going for kitbag as a result of 'renaming' the stadium, then it would hurt Ashley more than anything else. I urge anyone who wanst to give a response to order this t-shirt which takes 2 mins to design.

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club? You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field. Having the stadium as Sports Direct Arena will not increase the club's income, nor will it lead to it increasing its income. The name rights were on sale two years ago - nowt has changed, noone is interested. This is what's pissing me off most. Anyone not against this has the argument of 'well, it increases income'. It f***ing isn't. They're not spending a penny on this 'sponsorship'. They're 'advertising' the opportunity another company can have. If no one takes it up, the club isn't getting a penny for this monstrosity. And if it does get taken up, what would be your feelings about that? If we get taken over by a trillionaire and win the league with 11 Geordies in the team, I'll be over the moon. What's your point? My question was - do you want a sponsor to come in and pay £8-10 million per year for the naming rights on the stadium, or don't you? Quite simple. I dont, no.

Its about drawing the line. St. James' Park is what it is - nothing else. SD Arena, Adidas Arena, Aldi Arena, Tesco etc etc I dont want anything else even for money. Because if you keep accepting this crap at some point people will stop and wonder when the hell happened when we have SD on the seats, blue and red trims on the kit, "this substitution is sponsered by... ", Sponser music when we score, sponser on the pitch... not everything should have a price. You can still try for success (look at us the moment, only a start I know), its still possible, and I'd rather support a club with a bit of honour, principle, and identity which is still chasing success.

I can understand people being unhappy about the situation, but now that the proposal is out there, and the club is committed to it, do you want it to succeed or to fail? That's the real question now. It strikes me that the likely consequences of failure would be instability and uncertainty. Its the principle. It should be St. James' Park, anything else is bad form and classless. So that would be the right message to send out imo, in the hope it will 'officially' be SJP again.

At the moment. Will it be within 10 years. I highly doubt it. Its a stadium. In the same place it has been for 119 years. I don't care what it is called as long as the club keeps playing at the same place wearing the same black and white stripes in front of the same Geordies who made me fall in love with the club from the other side of the world with the players and fans showing the same passion for the club that makes the club special. And what if those black and white stripes go as well some day? If a company offered £20 million to redesign the club's home shirt in their colours would you gladly accept that? But that is a different kettle of fish to stadium naming rights. To answer the question no I wouldn't agree with that. Stadium naming rights however have been sold everywhere else in the world and proven to be a successful income for clubs. Again I will reiterate I am annoyed Sports Direct aren't paying money for this. I am not fussed the club are looking to sell naming rights for the stadium. But the poijt is where do you draw the line? Just because othe clubs have done it for money dosent suddenly mean the line in the sand disapears does it? Like someone said, will the black and white stipes being modified be enough for some? That line isnt there for you, fair enough, it is for me. For the 5th time in the last few pages: I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THE CLUB SELLING THE SHIRT DESIGN, CLUB NAME OR MOVING OUT OF NEWCASTLE FOR MONEY. Ok we all understand right? Do I need to put it in bigger letters? Stadium naming rights however is a successful business model practiced all over the world and all EPL and Championship clubs will be doing this in the next 10 years. Your missing the point. If Spurs modified their club colours for a comapny in return for money, and was labelled a succesful business model, would that then become acceptable? Just because of the money? The ground name, after all these years, is very much part of our identity to a lot of people, just like the colours. Its not to you, ok then fair enough, simple as that. Well considering it has worked for other clubs (ie Red Bull New York) and I am not championing the club to do that I am going to go with no here. But If Spurs did modify their club colours for a comapny in return for money, and was labelled a succesful business model, that can easily be classed as something which "worked" for Spurs. But it wouldnt "work" for me, just like changing the ground to Sports Direct Arena dosent work for me. for the 7th time. I would not be happy with or agree with the club changing the jersey, That is completely different to stadium naming rights. FFS people are acting like his moved the club to London. Not in the eyes of a lot of people! Its not far off at least modifying the club colours! Its a massive part of our identity, and its unacceptable to me, money or no money.

At the moment. Will it be within 10 years. I highly doubt it. Its a stadium. In the same place it has been for 119 years. I don't care what it is called as long as the club keeps playing at the same place wearing the same black and white stripes in front of the same Geordies who made me fall in love with the club from the other side of the world with the players and fans showing the same passion for the club that makes the club special. And what if those black and white stripes go as well some day? If a company offered £20 million to redesign the club's home shirt in their colours would you gladly accept that? But that is a different kettle of fish to stadium naming rights. To answer the question no I wouldn't agree with that. Stadium naming rights however have been sold everywhere else in the world and proven to be a successful income for clubs. Again I will reiterate I am annoyed Sports Direct aren't paying money for this. I am not fussed the club are looking to sell naming rights for the stadium. But the poijt is where do you draw the line? Just because othe clubs have done it for money dosent suddenly mean the line in the sand disapears does it? Like someone said, will the black and white stipes being modified be enough for some? That line isnt there for you, fair enough, it is for me. For the 5th time in the last few pages: I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THE CLUB SELLING THE SHIRT DESIGN, CLUB NAME OR MOVING OUT OF NEWCASTLE FOR MONEY. Ok we all understand right? Do I need to put it in bigger letters? Stadium naming rights however is a successful business model practiced all over the world and all EPL and Championship clubs will be doing this in the next 10 years. Your missing the point. If Spurs modified their club colours for a comapny in return for money, and was labelled a succesful business model, would that then become acceptable? Just because of the money? The ground name, after all these years, is very much part of our identity to a lot of people, just like the colours. Its not to you, ok then fair enough, simple as that. Well considering it has worked for other clubs (ie Red Bull New York) and I am not championing the club to do that I am going to go with no here. But If Spurs did modify their club colours for a comapny in return for money, and was labelled a succesful business model, that can easily be classed as something which "worked" for Spurs. But it wouldnt "work" for me, just like changing the ground to Sports Direct Arena dosent work for me.

At the moment. Will it be within 10 years. I highly doubt it. Its a stadium. In the same place it has been for 119 years. I don't care what it is called as long as the club keeps playing at the same place wearing the same black and white stripes in front of the same Geordies who made me fall in love with the club from the other side of the world with the players and fans showing the same passion for the club that makes the club special. And what if those black and white stripes go as well some day? If a company offered £20 million to redesign the club's home shirt in their colours would you gladly accept that? But that is a different kettle of fish to stadium naming rights. To answer the question no I wouldn't agree with that. Stadium naming rights however have been sold everywhere else in the world and proven to be a successful income for clubs. Again I will reiterate I am annoyed Sports Direct aren't paying money for this. I am not fussed the club are looking to sell naming rights for the stadium. But the poijt is where do you draw the line? Just because othe clubs have done it for money dosent suddenly mean the line in the sand disapears does it? Like someone said, will the black and white stipes being modified be enough for some? That line isnt there for you, fair enough, it is for me. For the 5th time in the last few pages: I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THE CLUB SELLING THE SHIRT DESIGN, CLUB NAME OR MOVING OUT OF NEWCASTLE FOR MONEY. Ok we all understand right? Do I need to put it in bigger letters? Stadium naming rights however is a successful business model practiced all over the world and all EPL and Championship clubs will be doing this in the next 10 years. Your missing the point. If Spurs modified their club colours for a comapny in return for money, and was labelled a succesful business model, would that then become acceptable? Just because of the money? The ground name, after all these years, is very much part of our identity to a lot of people, just like the colours. Its not to you, ok then fair enough, simple as that.