Heron

Absolutely. I just think there's folk citing Howe is the problem and that is by and large an easy thing to do - but I'm Intrigued about who is the solution. I (for one) do not think Howe is the problem, albeit there are problems for him to address.

You say about me reading the earlier posts but you have quote-replied to my question. Therefore, have you actually read what I asked? Which managers are available who could do better? -Tuchel has just arrived at England -Emery is already building something decent at Villa -Your third and final solution was Iraola Good lord.

So you'd risk what Eddie has built for Iraola? The other two are in essence irrelevant as one manages England and the other Aston Villa.

I think it's just that there are doubts about whether whoever we get could do more with this current squad/set up. Genuine question: which managers are available who could do better do folk think?

Team wins games - "Manager is an idiot" Team doesn't win games - "Manager is an idiot"

For me, there a lot of football fans out there who pretend to give a shit about what goes on in Saudi Arabia simply because of PIFs acquisition of Newcastle United as opposed to their humanitarian concerns and that is more the point I (personally) was getting at with regards to this particular article. Other than saying some WhatsApp messages suggest MbS has been involved then the article isn't really saying anything at all - and I don't think anyone suspected he 100% wasn't involved anyways. Hence why I think it's simply there to question our ownership/remove them as our owners as opposed to Saudi's morality. That's done so because the likelihood is that the journalist believes a) These types of ownership are ruining football (which is correct) and b) it's likely affecting his/her teams capability to be successful. However, in the UK I don't see many teams questioning the morality of other clubs owners - albeit I understand they're not in the same ball park. Folk are bothered about us because of our potential financial magnitude- which we've actually been stopped from accessing via a cartel of clubs and other lickspittles. So I find it all very disingenuous. Furthermore, to @TheBrownBottles point - in essence, almost each and every one of us are absolutely hypocrites. Not just on this forum but as a society. It's absolutely shocking that kids work in sweatshops making less than a quid for a football top but we then give the big wigs £80. It's absolutely shocking that people aren't brought to justice because they're rich and powerful and it's absolutely shocking what is going on in the PL. Nurses on next to nowt and footballers multi-millionaires. We all know these things but how many of us actually do anything at all about it. The excuse from every man and his dog (myself included) is "well what can I do about it?". No one will ever do owt about it if they don't try - but most don't because it doesn't directly impact them. Hell, even when we had Mike Ashley and it did - most did nowt then - but the media weren't arsed cause we weren't a threat to their clubs...

Exactly this. Seems to me it's a case of whether folk choose to be glass half full or glass half empty. I'm happy being the former. We haven't been playing well but we did against Man City, Everton and Brighton and could have conceivably won these games by taking our chances. Longstaff, Gordon and Isaks in particular. Against Southampton we played against 10men for most of the game. It hasn't clicked and there are issues to address for sure. There are in every team and every team should aim to continuously improve, but I find some of the criticism to be overtly negative tbh.

From my recollection Dan Burn had absolutely no wrong doing in the goal and actually had a very good game - with only one late mistake where he lost the ball at LB which was then recovered. He did his fair share recovering mistakes from the likes of Hall and actually I think Hall has improved defensively because of Dan Burn and his guidance. Just as Hall has probably alleviated some problems for Burn by being pacey and quick on the ball. Dan Burn is in the same realm as Longstaff for me, albeit he is probably slightly stronger in his respective position. Both have limitations but folk seemingly don't like them and so, become hyper critical of them simply to assert their desire to be right rather than have any objectivity about said players performances. Just my perception, but I sometimes think Geordie players are held to a higher level because they're local. I really don't get it. It's almost like a subconscious backlash against the utter shite stereotype about us only wanting 11 Geordies yada yada yada.

I think folk sometimes forget how run down we had been by Ashley like. Eddie Howe has been an absolute magician getting half of the existing squad to Champions League football and a cup final.

The article is predominantly in reference to the ownership of Newcastle United and its direct links to MbS. The references to Jamal Khasoggi aren't the main focus of the article. It doesn't tell anyone anything that they don't already know. It is done to shine a light on our ownership and whether or not its legitimate. Not to tell the world MbS is a murderer. Do you really think they're simply trying to bring MbS or the Saudis down with that article?

Football - including NUFC - is absolutely corrupt as fuck and entwined with a whole boatload of other political interests. For NUFC it's been a case of cannot beat 'em, join 'em and 99.9999% of football fans would all want the same for their own clubs and very few would oppose it (in the UK in particular) and they're lying if they said otherwise. No one would give a fuck if the Saudis owned us if they had the wealth of a fiver and a pack of haribo tangfastics. Folk are only arsed to protect their own investments and/or football club(s). No one gave a fuck about NUFC when Ashley was stripping it back and killing it off.

Seems a whole load of bluster designed to further unsettle NUFC to me tbh.

Not perfect but that's a proper pen.

He obstructs him getting put his six yard box. So that is by definition obstruction. Agree on the defending. Historically that would have been given offside.

I know but in a corner there's that much going on I can see why they might not at the time. I just see why O'Neil would be pissed off.

For me Tino was primarily at fault for being weak as piss with the shoulder charge which was effectively non existent and it was purely because he didn't want to give a pen away - it seemed.

He obstructs the goalkeeper. That for me is impacting play. Based on modern rules for offside, he is well out the way when the ball is headed and I can see why it was given, but for me, the modern rules are shite and it should just be if you're offside - you're offside. He has impacted the goalkeeper and thus impacted play. So I could also see why Wolves will feel aggrieved. The fact there's even discussion about it is mad as a ruling. It should be objective not subjective.

Mackem twat did well for the goal like tbf. Not sure it should have counted like.

1 - 0 to the referee.

You cannot be offside direct from a corner as the ball is considered to be on the goal line and thus all players are behind the ball. He becomes offside once the ball is headed.

Hull just hit the bar.