timnufc22

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?

There's some things that shouldnt have a price, and the prestige of SJP is one of them. Yes, advertisement boards are around the pitch & in the stands, but this is surley different and a massive bridge too far. Even more illustrious companies shouldnt have their name plastered all over the gallowgate end like that... of course its not worth a couple of million imo.

Schmeichel Neville Adams Terry Cole Beckham Scholes Keane Giggs Shearer Zola A bit boring maybe but that midfield, and individual players at their best, were just immense.

Yeah thats true, I dont think there would have been too many managers (certainly quality managers) who would have accepted that treatment, so in hindsight the result was a picking from limited amount of managers who'd be ok with that.

I'm sure he didnt carry as much weight during most of his time at Bolton, like someone said, you'd think he'd make sure he was slimmer, or instructed to lose weight.

After they blatently lied to him breaking any trust, and tried to change his contract? Surley the point is we can agree that in hindsight it was probably best for all concerned that Mike Ashley & co didnt undermine & attempt to change the contract of whichever manager they hired?

And the good old 'Wayne was unlucky there', 'Rio this, Rio that'.

Surely, even those who don't think Keegan did anything wrong can agree that in hindsight it was probably best for all concerned that he didn't come back. Wasnt one of the reasons everyone was furious at Ashley when Keegan went was because he was doing a really good job up till that point? And everyone knew hes a quality manager?

Dont the signs he wants to put up say "SportsDirect.om@St. James' Park"? If so, most people were up in arms at that, and rightly so imo, so whats changed now? I understand that it will always be St. James' Park, and its not as if that name is going away, but its just something to dont tamper with imo, where's the respect for the history & heritage... not everything has a price surley... and especially in todays climate when the price would not be anywhere near the emirates sponsership.

Theres very little between Nolan & Jonas as to who to drop for Arfa, I could understand either swap. I could also understand putting Jonas on the right to make it harder for Baines & Pieinar going forward. Surley Tiote will be in for Smith, but I trust Hughton.

Possibly in a 3, with someone else in the hole. Say Jonas, Tiote & Barton in the middle.

Ring the box office up and order them that way, become a member for £20 for the season.

His style at Liverpool was so defensive, when they played at SJP in 2004 they ended up with Heskey left wing and Smicer up front on his own. He will still probably be decent for them with his experience.

Almost predictable isn't it? I agree Ozzie & Cronky are. There have been some interesting responses here. Gimp asked a 'genuine question' about how Keegan's critics compare him to Robson's situation. I gave an entirely factual response - no opinion offered at all - and I seem to be causing some annoyance. The fact is that when the basic details of Keegan's behaviour are presented, it doesn't look good. Another fact is that Wise rang up Keegan and said "I've got a very good player for you". Then Wise later said to Keegan he'd actually never seen him play... which was after he told Keegan to look at Gonzalez on Youtube when Keegan didnt like the look of Gonzalez credentials. What sort of treatment is that? Its not just a simple disagreement over a loan signing, which looks nice and innocent... but the DOF lying to the manager, showing a total lack of resprect and breaking any trust. Another fact, is that had Keegan stayed on the basis of Llambias' letter sent to him - "It will continue to be the position that no player will be bought for the first team without your approval, save of course for commercial deals which remain within the sole discrection of the Board." - then they could have brought in any player without his agreement and have it classed as a commercial signing. And Keegan wouldnt have been able to complain or leave afterwards referencing board interference as he'd have agreed to Llambias' terms in that letter - terms which wernt agreed on when he joined. Other witnesses at the tribunal claimed Dennis Wise was not prepared to accepted that Keegan had the final say. Total mess man. And can I ask where these young south american players are? That deal was really 100% legit wasnt it? The treatment was totally shabby, and more than just a simple disagreement. No-one claims Keegan is perfect, but I dont understand why a Newcastle fan would think this treatment didnt matter, and say 'it dosent look good on Keegan' when reading what happened. The mistake imo wasnt appointing him, the mistake was to treat him like the way they did and push him into a corner afterwards! It took a long time for the truth to out (and there may yet be more to come) but when it did it clearly showed KK had been badly treated. The problem is by the time the tribunal arrived at a verdict a lot of supporters had committed themselves to blaming Keegan and can’t admit they got it wrong. I'll try and be brief. The tribunal found that it was not a part of Keegan's contract that he had to accept Wise as the final decision-maker on transfers, and as such he was entitled to the £2 million specified in his contract. Gonzalez had been imposed on him, he was found right in law and there's no argument on that particular point. What was outside the tribunal's brief - although they did mention it in passing - was the general problems in the working relationships between Keegan and the Ashley set-up that had existed for some time beforehand. There had been rumours about it early on, and it had become obvious after Keegan's outburst after the Chelsea game and the subsequent meeting in London. Keegan did not like working to a DOF, and he did not like working in the context of a limited transfer budget. He was unable to change those issues, and that, I believe is the fundamental background to his walkout. Supporters of Keegan's actions often seem to speculate that there is more evidence of the Board's wrong-doing over transfers which for some reason was never cited at the tribunal by Keegan's lawyers and has never come to light since. That strikes me as a tacit admission that the Gonzalez affair, in itself, doesn't amount to a great deal. Well, on that I can agree. Only I don't think the hidden tensions were due to other players being imposed on him. I just think Keegan didn't like working under the constraints, financial and procedural, that he was under, and was looking for a way out. Preferably with far more money than he was entitled to, of course. Thats fair enough, tho at the same time the bits above in bold are facts... if Keegan wanted to leave purley because of finanical restrains and having a DOF theres no denying he was treated like crap at the same time. "Although we heard a considerable amount of evidence as to events which took place in the months which followed Mr Keegan's appointment, in view of our conclusions, we can proceed at once to the events which culminated in Mr Keegan's resignation on 4 September 2008" from the tribunal is what some might point to with regards to the structure potentially causing problems earlier, and also "This lack of clarity, indeed confusion, in the understanding of the Club's own representatives as to this critical issue makes it, in our view, even less likely that it would and should have been clear to Mr Keegan from what he was told at the meeting on 16 January 2008 that he would not have the final say." To me, it looks like a jobs-for-the-boys mindset, and it was a mess, no doubt about that. And some would say the way the Gonzalez thing was played out towards Keegan, and the distinct lack of respect, shows Wise's overall attitude in a nutshell, and what it might have been like a lot of the time. For me, the treatment over the Gonzalez deal and the way they tried to change his contract are a shambles enough to see how he was backed into a corner. I believe he was up for bringing back better times here and proving some people wrong, wanted to get the side back into the top 6, the game at Old Trafford showed brilliant spirit.

I'd prefer to see his appearance at SJP greeted with silence, with no acknowledgement. That would probably say more than anything else. He didnt get 2 serious injuries on purpose, that was unlucky... the money he got I also wouldnt blame him for really, the contract was offered to him. It was his performances in the last 6 months which angered me the most (and a few comments he made when joining Man U), the situation was a mess but he could have shown more enthsusiasm as an experienced player. On the flip side he was brilliant under Keegan playing deeper, and some of the games like Sunderland at home, and Spurs 4-1 away are great memories which he was very much part of.

Theres no doubt Robson was making mistakes that season, selling Solano, the handling of Jenas and the handling of Viana some of them imo. But at the same time, the amount of negativity towards the whole team in general was far too much imo. The hostile atmosphere at SJP towards our own players through-out that season was way over the top, and the Wolves game was such an over-reaction without any prespective. I dont think Shepherd & co would have been so eager to get rid of Robson had the support for him stayed more, even with some dissatisfaction at the same time, whihc like I said, was warranted too. But you'd really thought we'd got relegated or something, I think expectation went far too high... disapointment yes, but it was total implosion. Its obvious they didnt have any confidence in him going into the 04 season, the way Sheperd undermined him with his public statements was disgraceful. He should have had his final season and left with a golden handshake imo.

Almost predictable isn't it? I agree Ozzie & Cronky are. There have been some interesting responses here. Gimp asked a 'genuine question' about how Keegan's critics compare him to Robson's situation. I gave an entirely factual response - no opinion offered at all - and I seem to be causing some annoyance. The fact is that when the basic details of Keegan's behaviour are presented, it doesn't look good. Another fact is that Wise rang up Keegan and said "I've got a very good player for you". Then Wise later said to Keegan he'd actually never seen him play... which was after he told Keegan to look at Gonzalez on Youtube when Keegan didnt like the look of Gonzalez credentials. What sort of treatment is that? Its not just a simple disagreement over a loan signing, which looks nice and innocent... but the DOF lying to the manager, showing a total lack of resprect and breaking any trust. Another fact, is that had Keegan stayed on the basis of Llambias' letter sent to him - "It will continue to be the position that no player will be bought for the first team without your approval, save of course for commercial deals which remain within the sole discrection of the Board." - then they could have brought in any player without his agreement and have it classed as a commercial signing. And Keegan wouldnt have been able to complain or leave afterwards referencing board interference as he'd have agreed to Llambias' terms in that letter - terms which wernt agreed on when he joined. Other witnesses at the tribunal claimed Dennis Wise was not prepared to accepted that Keegan had the final say. Total mess man. And can I ask where these young south american players are? That deal was really 100% legit wasnt it? The treatment was totally shabby, and more than just a simple disagreement. No-one claims Keegan is perfect, but I dont understand why a Newcastle fan would think this treatment didnt matter, and say 'it dosent look good on Keegan' when reading what happened. The mistake imo wasnt appointing him, the mistake was to treat him like the way they did and push him into a corner afterwards!

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7215/1036096.jpg Uploaded with ImageShack.us Possibly my favourite.