Jackie Broon

Think Napoli averaged 50k in Serie B a few seasons ago. Seems unlikely given that they average under 40,000 in Serie A.

? We didn't even average over 50,000 this season. Maybe not, but we have since we appointed Rafa.

We're the only English club, and quite possibly the only club in the world, to have had an average attendance of over 50,000 for a season outside of the top flight... If this comes off we might just do it again.

Has to be Wijnaldum, the other obvious options are just shit or have been out of form, he was clearly only arsed to play when he thought he was in the shop window.

Aye, they've moved up the table one place since he took over, and that one place was occupied by Aston Villa.

It's the hope that kills me. Just when I had given up they win 3-0, like the fuckin' Ramsay Bolton of football!

Am I right in thinking, along with Coloccini, he's about to become the first player in Newcastle United's history to have been relegated twice?

From what I understand it's quite the opposite. If someone writes something potentially defamatory the burden of proof in court would be on them to demonstrate that what they wrote is true, not the other way around.

Me too, although it depends how much the press decide to run with that angle after the story hits the headlines again tomorrow. But the mackems saying they haven't actually broken any rules and can't be punished might not actually be correct.

You don't know that. You're surmising. She may have still put in safeguarding procedures even with Johnson still there, but to be honest it's irrelevant. There would still have been no rules broken which could lead to a points deduction. I think it's wrong, and the rules should be changed, but as it stands that's the way it is. http://www.thefa.com/~/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/rules-of-the-association/2015-16/fa-complete-handbook-proof---oct-15.ashx page 126 J. RULES, REGULATIONS AND LAWS OF THE GAME (g) Safeguarding Children A Participant shall abide by any regulations for safeguarding children as determined by The Association from time to time. Page 319: REGULATIONS FOR FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION DISCIPLINARY ACTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 These Regulations set out the way in which proceedings under Rules E and G of the Rules of The Association shall be conducted. Page 326: 8 PENALTIES 8.1 The Regulatory Commission shall have the power to impose any one or more of the following penalties on the Participant Charged: (a) a reprimand and/or warning as to future conduct; (b) a fine; © suspension from all or any specified football activity from a date that the Regulatory Commission shall order, permanently or for a stated period or number of matches; (d) the closure of a ground permanently or for a stated period; (e) the playing of a match or matches without spectators being present, and/or at a specific ground; (f) any order which may be made under the rules and regulations of a Competition in which the Participant Charged participates or is associated, which shall be deemed to include the deduction of points and removal from a Competition at any stage of any Playing Season; (g) expulsion from a Competition; (h) expulsion from membership of The Association or an Affiliated Association; (i) such further or other penalty or order as it considers appropriate

If you, Durham, or anyone else can show me the rule Sunderland football club have broken then I'll quite happily take the points deduction. Acting immorally isn't a specific offence as far as I know. Don't get me wrong, I think the club have came out of this terribly, but no rules have been broken in respect of getting points deducted. The Daily Mail is a repugnant, contemptible mess of a 'newspaper', and is in no position to moralise on any subject, to anyone........ever. It would be the most abhorrent rag this country still has in print if it weren't for The Sun. I'd rather read Mein Kampf. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/safeguarding/introduction-to-safeguarding-children Margaret Byrne (and therefore the club) withheld information which it seems would have almost certainly changed the outcome of whatever safeguarding assessment/s were carried out.

Adrian Durham writing in the Daily Mail As much as I despise Johnson, and to a lesser extent Byrne for what they did, Sunderland AFC haven't actually broke any FA rules. If they did I'm sure a top 'reporter' like Durham would have been able to find it. He's almost as bad in print as he is on his radio show. I wouldn't be so certain. The FA have child safeguarding policies, given what Byrne has said about her not disclosing the details she knew to anyone, Sunderland cannot have carried out a valid safeguarding assessment.

Still going down but at least we're taking these fuckers with us!

Merson is just a white nose.

These hints at change in philosophy are just making me think back to what could have been had Ashley not set out on his gigantic failure of a strategy in the first place and just supported Kev. It's a bit depressing to think about really.

He's not getting sacked, it'll be gardening leave, then he'll be given the choice to walk or take over again if we go down.

That was probably very little to do with football though. They wanted a yes man who wouldn't resist selling our best players.

This There'll always be some clown happy to do it. I'm talking about someone in the same mould as Kinnear and Carver. Literally anyone is a candidate under Ashley. Someone like that isn't going to turn things around and keep us up, as dumb as they are, they'll know that. Ashley has only ever made that type of appointment when we've appeared relatively safe, to maintain our position on the cheap. This is a position of absolute desperation to turn things around with hundreds of millions of pounds at stake. Abandoning the 'head coach' policy and committing to the manager having full control could attract the likes of Moyes or Benitez. If Ashley doesn't do that, we're down.

I wouldn't be surprised to see civil case being brought against the club by the girl for the distress caused by him continuing to play.

Be careful what you wish for, he gets sacked he'll be back here within a week, nailed on

Manchester.

CPS guidance on evidence requirements for rape prosecutions: "The police will always look for corroboration or supporting evidence (such as medical or scientific evidence, CCTV evidence, or eyewitnesses to events prior to or after the incident) but it is not essential and a prosecution can still go ahead without it." Anyway, how would such a case be relevant to this? There is solid evidence of events before and after that strongly support her version of what happened and lots of stuff that casts doubt on his truthfulness, it's not purely her word against his. Of course it could go one way or the other, but I think you and a few others seem to be misinterpreting the level of evidence needed to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Because, whatever you think of them and there fans, they're a proper club with a proper support and history. I'd much rather see clubs like that doing well than all these nothing clubs in the premier league that make money / attract players because they're in/near to London.

Surely not FFS the Smoggies still get grief over a child abuse scandal which happened almost 30 years ago Aye, which is bonkers when you consider that the scandal was about children not having been abused. Higgs actually lived in Newcastle, I lived a couple of doors away from her at the time. Odd family, kids were virtually feral.

Is there some part of his defense I missed? From what I can tell his defense consists of 'I wanted to but changed my mind when I was kissing her, honest' backed up by 'I've always been an honor-less slime-ball but I'm actually being really honest now' and his girlfriend's supporting evidence that 'he's been really honest and open and told me everything... apart from all the stuff I've just found out about'. Where's all this doubt he's supposedly cast?