Hughesy

Don’t really get the point of making up ITK stuff? It’s not amusing and just a bit weird. Not sure I quite get the upside.

Her rage at wasting MP time during a pandemic is a bit rich aswell, she openly admits she sent a letter the 1st time round. I’m quite sure they have enough spare time to deal with multiple issues, and likewise govt ministers. She's on there for the sole purpose of boosting her social media profile, pure and simple and shes succeeded there I'll give her that. She's a solicitor (calls her lself a lawyer to make it sound more interesting even though Lawyer is just an American term for Solicitior). My wife is a Solicitor as well. She's been qualified in excess of 20 years now and owns her own practice. Her main specialist areas are Family, probate and to a lesser extent, criminal. If you were unfairly dismissed from your job or you wanted to claim for an accident you'd had she would politely direct you to a specialist in that field as, in her words, she wouldn't necessarily know a great deal more than you do as it's not a part of Law she practices in. Similarly the red Michelle lass won't necessarily know a great deal more than your average, but fairly well educated person in the street, about legal matters in this takeover (which is why she got mostly everything wrong from March-August and tried to compensate for that by using fairly raunchy Profile photos to make up for her lack of and real expertise to keep people hanging onto her words). There’s literally nothing weird at all about a solicitor calling themselves a lawyer. The US term for a lawyer is usually attorney. You are incorrect. In America a Lawyer is trained in the field of general law and will offer advice in accordance with the law and an Attorney is qualified and also licensed to represent a client in court. It's not simply a case of them being two different terms. Happy to agree to disagree on this one! I am lawyer in England and I work for a US law firm. In England a solicitor can still call themselves a lawyer - this is 100% not an issue at all. In the US, the terms lawyer and attorney are used interchangeably - no distinction is generally made between the terms. But let’s leave it there - this is even more of a waste of time than the takeover debate.

Her rage at wasting MP time during a pandemic is a bit rich aswell, she openly admits she sent a letter the 1st time round. I’m quite sure they have enough spare time to deal with multiple issues, and likewise govt ministers. She's on there for the sole purpose of boosting her social media profile, pure and simple and shes succeeded there I'll give her that. She's a solicitor (calls her lself a lawyer to make it sound more interesting even though Lawyer is just an American term for Solicitior). My wife is a Solicitor as well. She's been qualified in excess of 20 years now and owns her own practice. Her main specialist areas are Family, probate and to a lesser extent, criminal. If you were unfairly dismissed from your job or you wanted to claim for an accident you'd had she would politely direct you to a specialist in that field as, in her words, she wouldn't necessarily know a great deal more than you do as it's not a part of Law she practices in. Similarly the red Michelle lass won't necessarily know a great deal more than your average, but fairly well educated person in the street, about legal matters in this takeover (which is why she got mostly everything wrong from March-August and tried to compensate for that by using fairly raunchy Profile photos to make up for her lack of and real expertise to keep people hanging onto her words). There’s literally nothing weird at all about a solicitor calling themselves a lawyer. The US term for a lawyer is usually attorney.

A lot of it isn’t well meaning tho. That lawyer lass has said he & Kennedy are misleading fans etc from day one and she’s not let it go since. What Keith is essentially saying is if you don’t believe or agree with what he’s doing then let him get on with it and we’ll see what happens. To be honest, from what I saw there was little that the lawyer said that was incorrect and she was bringing a dose of reality to proceedings. I don’t know if she’s self-promoting or not - I can’t see much upside for her if she is. But I don’t see an issue with her offering fans her informed opinion on the information that NCSL or Kennedy are putting out. She doesn’t need to agree with NCSL and that’s her right to offer her view in a public forum without abuse.

I haven’t followed enough of it to be honest, but as long as the links with the crowdfunding thing are above board and there’s no move to request any money whatsoever from fans in the future, then I can see your point. It’s up to him as to whether he engages with fans or not, but if he has a public presence people will ask questions (and should be allowed to) and you can’t stop that. But he shouldn’t get offended by questions and start abusing people - it’s embarrassing and really unprofessional. If he doesn’t want to engage and offer answers to questions, then ignore them.

Hold on - just because Keith has put an indeterminate amount of money into a project that may or may not have any bearing whatsoever on the takeover, it doesn’t mean he is totally immune from any well meaning questions or criticism at all. I don’t think he’s doing any harm and, quite frankly, he can crack on as far as I’m concerned but blindly following him and expecting him to not be asked any questions is a bit strange.

No one is actually trolling though - they’re asking valid questions about NSCL.

Jesus - Everton have done well to get that for him. I'd have thought he was partially damaged goods at this point tbf. Yeah that's great business for them. Hasn't he done really well at PSG? Seems like a good deal for PSG to be honest.

Absolutely want this takeover to go ahead, but there's something very strange about the NCSL group. I'm also not sure I 100% trust Kennedy as a reporter - especially given these connections to Wraith. Having said that, I don't really get what NCSL are getting out of this arrangement if they are just on a grift. As long as they don't start asking for money, they might as well crack on.

Always wanted someone like Tuchel here when he was at Mainz. I mean he would clearly never come here now, but would love to see a manager who could actually coach players.

I know the answer to this, but I'll ask it anyway - I'll never get why Ashley hasn't worked out that the most cost effective way to increase the value of the club is to hire a really good manager. Cheaper than having to keep buying players for large amounts of money and, if you hire someone who can actually coach as well, your players might improve and you can then sell them for loads of money. And you won't get relegated.

He's actually made me miss Pardew. Didn't think that could happen.

Absolutely loved Solano - made the players around him (especially Dyer and Bellamy) look so much better with his vision and intelligence.

People always talk about our defence letting us down in the Keegan era, but actually a top class keeper would have made a massive difference. Had we had a Schmeichel/Seaman/Martyn level keeper we would have won the league.

There are seem to be a hell of a lot of incredibly self-important Newcastle fans on twitter. Utterly bizarre. I'm constantly amazed that these twitter "personalities" think anyone gives a shit about their views, podcasts or youtube videos.

Bruce is bad, he makes me miss Pardew. Voted for Carver though. What a fucking list though... shameful.

Just can't see how a super league would work. Genuinely think it would die on its arse pretty quickly. People might be excited for a season or two, but a large proportion of non Big Six fans wouldn't watch (I certainly wouldn't - I barely watch the Champions League now) and I think Big Six fans would find it relatively dull after a while.

Totally agree - it's just a sad indictment of his terrible coaching.

Decent discussion on it here.

Spot on.

I certainly think it's debatable one - I'm not sure I get the uproar about this particular decision to be honest. Did Dier handball it deliberately? Probably not, but the extension of his arm happens after his jump and isn't being used to propel himself into a jump as far as I can see (or for balance). Was his hand in an unnatural position? I would argue it was. Do Spurs get an advantage from it hitting Dier's hand? Yes - it stops the trajectory of the ball towards the goal. If the penalty wasn't given, I wouldn't be annoyed about it, but I can certainly see why it was given. The idea that this, of all decisions, is the one that's got everyone riled up slightly baffles me.

That sounds really sensible - quite like the idea of different levels of punishment to allow some context to the decision.

Well there was always an element of doubt of whether it was deliberate or not in the previous rules before VAR but the current rules make it 1000x worse. Agreed. I just can see why this one was given, personally. But I seem to be the only person who does. And for the record, I was quite keen for us to lose today. Under the rules it is a pen, but I think the rule is a sham and clearly not thought through at all. What do you think the handball rule should be?

Well there was always an element of doubt of whether it was deliberate or not in the previous rules before VAR but the current rules make it 1000x worse. Agreed. I just can see why this one was given, personally. But I seem to be the only person who does. And for the record, I was quite keen for us to lose today.

I actually don’t think the handball law is a particularly easy rule to get right personally.