timnufc22

Exactly, and its a nice mask to hide behind at the same time - 'Im not going to do a Portsmouth etc'... but its all cost cutting to make the club attractive for a buyer. Well, people are fed up with them anyway, so making the club as attractive for a buyer as possible might not be a bad thing if this is indeed the case. It isnt, though the club is effectivley on hold until he does. And this is while he is, most likely, asking for a stupid price. And thats where we should try & force that price down by boycotting.

Exactly, and its a nice mask to hide behind at the same time - 'Im not going to do a Portsmouth etc'... but its all cost cutting to make the club attractive for a buyer.

Ultimately its all bollocks from Llambias dressing things up to try and make them look credible.

It's ironic because Hughton was probably hired initially because Ashley believed that he was a yes man. The soft spoken former No.2 seemed like a perfect alternative to big, combative personalities like Keegan or Shearer. All of this basically happened because Ashley realized that Chris Hughton has a spine. Yep, very ironic like you said, and its the crux of the whole thing imo. Nothing to do with results or performance.

Pretty much, I believe Hughton would have wanted to progress the team and club, and not stand still. I think he would have made it clear in order to progress he will need more support, and like I've said, they want a yes man instead.

Thats it, for me.

Hughton was bringing success, for a team looking to consolidate, and was heading in the right direction you absolute tit. Theres no logic there... you want top 6 on that budget?? You got rid of Hughton because he wasnt a yes man, he wanted his own no.2, he wouldnt have accepted player sales, probably told you how sick he was of your ego interfering with the team, and he was gaining a powerful position with his growing status with the fans.

Its a yes man he wants. Hasnt someone said Pardew is freinds with Llambias? It would make sense. It blatently looks to me that he wants someone who will not protest at potential player sales, minimum transfer money and team interference. Hughton wasnt sacked based on the football, but that he would have been banging on Ashleys door asking for more financial support, and would have protested at player sales, and they want the cosy Joe Kinnear type scenario back.

I think you're correct, but can't see it happening. Man Utd fans made much more of an impression standing outside Rooneys house the other month than we ever did when we had old women on tele telling the world their life was over because Keegan left. We protest for a day, keep it lawful, and it drifts away to nothingness. To make a difference, a boycott of games should be at the core of it. No, not everyone will, but dont underestimate the 'drip drip' effect of word of mouth, people just simply laying their cards down saying to mates and other fans that theyre not going anymore, and gathering momentum. I'd like to think a sizeable drop in attendance till the end of the season is possible. Protests outside a lot of the time. Its principle. I'd also like to think that mass protests would send a message to any potential new owners in the future that if we're pissed on like this we dont accept it. And maybe put them off coming? Surley not, theres obvious reasons why people would be protesting, its not like theyd look on tv and think 'they look a voilent lot, idiots'. Anyone with a bit of common sense who would like to buy the club would understand the feelings of whats happened, and has been going on.. if any potential owner is looking thinking 'Im not going to buy them cos I dont fancy shafting them with lies' then screw them too.

I think you're correct, but can't see it happening. Man Utd fans made much more of an impression standing outside Rooneys house the other month than we ever did when we had old women on tele telling the world their life was over because Keegan left. We protest for a day, keep it lawful, and it drifts away to nothingness. To make a difference, a boycott of games should be at the core of it. No, not everyone will, but dont underestimate the 'drip drip' effect of word of mouth, people just simply laying their cards down saying to mates and other fans that theyre not going anymore, and gathering momentum. I'd like to think a sizeable drop in attendance till the end of the season is possible. Protests outside a lot of the time. Its principle. I'd also like to think that mass protests would send a message to any potential new owners in the future that if we're pissed on like this we dont accept it.

Amen to that.

Thats right, but if the club is effectivley on hold in terms of progression as long as he's here, is not right to protect the future meaning of that statement above by boycotting games and potentially moving him near the exit door, and giving some meaning back to the league table.

Like someone said, the players are pissed off aswell! Theyre in the same boat as us, and will probably expect someone kind of response to the fat man - a response on the basis of standards if not anything else. They'd probably think 'are you hearing this mike?'. But ultimately I personally think a boycott of games on some kind of level should happen. I already had got tickets for Liverpool and Man City, but after that Im not sure im going to the rest of the games. No, your not going to get en empty stadium, but surley theres hope for a sizeable drop.

Surley Jol would want a) A decent wage b) Some finanical backing c) No interference Things that are not part of the Ashley regime. Is he really serious about taking the club forward? The Pardew appointment fits much more with Ashley's style, I think (or thought) part of the reason for Hughton going is Ashley wanting a jobs-for-the-boys enviroment, like it was with Kinnear and Wise. I dont think Hughton would have tolerated Ashley selling players, he wanted to keep and I think he would have been banging on his door wanting a bit more finanical backing.

How stupid is that comparing your job to football? ITS A SPORT for gods sake, I cant believe you've said that part in the bold and compared it to a united football team giving it their all, collecting a point, and in the end unable to nick a goal, talk about taking things in the wrong context. The players will lose the drive to win if they are applauded off? MAYBE the players will be more determined to get 3 points for the fans in the next game to reward their loyalty, ever thought of that? Do you not trust Chris Hughton to do his job, and let him dictate to the players the standards they need to set? The money is irrelevant if they are giving it a good go, yes if they are taking the piss and showing no interest the booing & stick is justified, but we've clearly got a determined squad of players giving it their all, so whatever happens after that shoudlnt involve the reaction some gave yesterday - like I said, thats Hughtons job to tell the players we need to do better at home, which is obviously will be doing.

So am I. But it doesn't mean I'll ignore the home form. Being better off than we expected doesn't mean everything else is forgotten. So your not going to ignore the home form and boo Chris Hughton and the players... R right I get it, now Hughtons going to try harder because fickle fans booed! Obviously! Aye lets boo that twat, he needs to know this is not good enough, and he will try harder!! Solution!! Do you not think the players & Hughton will appreciate some appluase instead, after giving it their all, and in the end unable to break through a tough Fulham team? You hear people saying the players need to stand up and be counted, to keep wanting the ball through tough times, and to be united... so how about the fans do that during tough times? Some fans throw their dummys out during tough times booing at the end, showing no unity and loyalty, so why not try be an example? They gave it their best shot, they couldnt get a goal, they didnt lose and got a point on the board - unlucky lads fair effort, keep going, we're in this together. You honestly think booing is the better mindset?

Are you thick or something? I said we 'never stood a chance with that team selection' - Lovenkrands was never going to take those chances. He's an absolutely abysmal footballer. Any opportunity Yeah, like i'm wrong. Why go on like a 5 year on an internet forum? That baffles me.

Ferk me, it wasnt too good to be true! lol

"We're Newcastle and we beat the scum 4-1" ? To the tune of 'wye ya kna'.

The truth is The Fat Cockney b****** is pissing all over the clubs history. how ? We have a good modern stadium which has been on the same site for generations. It means something to people its a real landmark for the city and to have it turned into a glorified advertising hoarding for Ashleys cheap and tacky supplier to the charva nation is pissing on the clubs history. so it's really about who is doing the advertising rather than the idea of the advertising in itself ? No not really. You keep pushing this angle. I would be just annoyed if TESCO was painted on the roof. so why are you so bothered about it being painted on the roof, i've rode past it twice today and couldn't see it and i don't think it'll be visible to away fans entering the city by train or over the redheugh bridge. pretty much the only ones who'll see it are those in the ground....just like the pitch surround advertising. I think it's quite clear that to many people in this thread, they feel like their beloved stadium has been violated and want to protect its wellbeing ...in much the same way as a father will wish to do the same for his daughter, and is unlikely to approve of his daughter's boyfriend making her wear trampy clothing and act like a whore... I'm not one of those people, by the way. You might be so smug about this, but why not just accept that to some people this is going too far, for obvious reasons? If your not bothered by it then fair do's, everyone has their own opinion, but again, why you'd be confused at the concept of people not liking it I dont know. I don't think I'm being "smug" about this, I don't see how you've come to that conclusion. I am however a bit more "hmm...whatever" than many other people in this thread are being about it, not because I don't care, more because I'm bemused that if as it seems, quite so many people are so massively offended by it (and you know, fair dos if they are, OK), but there's no sign of them actually doing anything about it - other than puerile chants on match days which contribute to a s**** atmosphere that more likely than not then rubs off on player morale. Sorry I got the wrong impression, I just dont think having the roof covered like that (with more to come) respects the prestige of SJP at all, the man has zero respect for nufc and the fans. And I think the money is irrelevant - at what point do you draw the line and say not everything has a price. Even if you were willing to let SJP be trodden on like this in return for money, I doubt we would gain any substantial income from a sponership deal like this anyway, and even then I dont believe Ashley when he says he says any of the income would go into the team, because lies is just normal PR to him.

We've competed well in most games imo - Stoke & Wigan are the 2 games that stick out as really bad performances. We battered Blackpool 2nd half & created loads of chances. We lack some quality in the final third, and after the poor support financially (would an extra 5-10m really have put us ininanical danger mike?) Hughton got in the transfer window it was always going to be a tough battle over the course of the season.

The truth is The Fat Cockney b****** is pissing all over the clubs history. how ? We have a good modern stadium which has been on the same site for generations. It means something to people its a real landmark for the city and to have it turned into a glorified advertising hoarding for Ashleys cheap and tacky supplier to the charva nation is pissing on the clubs history. so it's really about who is doing the advertising rather than the idea of the advertising in itself ? No not really. You keep pushing this angle. I would be just annoyed if TESCO was painted on the roof. so why are you so bothered about it being painted on the roof, i've rode past it twice today and couldn't see it and i don't think it'll be visible to away fans entering the city by train or over the redheugh bridge. pretty much the only ones who'll see it are those in the ground....just like the pitch surround advertising. I think it's quite clear that to many people in this thread, they feel like their beloved stadium has been violated and want to protect its wellbeing ...in much the same way as a father will wish to do the same for his daughter, and is unlikely to approve of his daughter's boyfriend making her wear trampy clothing and act like a whore... I'm not one of those people, by the way. You might be so smug about this, but why not just accept that to some people this is going too far, for obvious reasons? If your not bothered by it then fair do's, everyone has their own opinion, but again, why you'd be confused at the concept of people not liking it I dont know.

Probably rubbish but saw this on another forum: Three independent sources from within the bookmaking fraternity and not confined to London are adamant that JFK will be back in charge in the not too distant future - a nightmare scenario.

The point isnt that if the football was good we wouldnt notice it, the point for me is that it shows no respect for the prestige of the stadium, the picture speaks for itself.

It would still be terrible to have a different companys name there - obviously its even worse being sports direct, but like someone just said, the point is the scale of it, its on top of the damn roof. When you see SJP from afar, you dont see the smaller advertisements, but now you cant miss SPORTS DIRECT, which will dominate what you see from some views. Advertisements are part of the game yes, having advertisement boards etc, and yes they are irritating, but surley this is too far?