Lush Vlad

Hard to hate/dislike Liverpool and Spurs, these days. They would have been up there on my list, in the past. Really like Pochettino and Klopp. Plus Spurs have done it the right way, IMO. They've got a load of quality players, but don't really have a superstar. I'm sure Poch gives youngsters a chance, as well. When Spurs had Redknapp and then Sherwood and Liverpool had Dogleash and then Rodgers. It was quite easy to hate them.

Oh I don't think there is any case for them to answer or that the FA should be doing anything. I was more pointing out just how badly they have handled it and how I can't see how anyone can argue any different.

Fair play, good punt! After City went 1-0, I really fancied 3-1. But like you said previously, betting in play can get a bit silly. Even for tiny stakes, you can end up losing a fair bit, just fucking about and doing next scorer, final score, last scorer etc.

The club needs to make a statement when the trial ends. If it turns out they did know, then someone should be sacked. I can't believe some of the head burying going on, from quite a lot of seemingly decent, level headed mackems and all. The chief inspector has already said the club knew about the case and the details. It has been mentioned under oath a few times that Byrne knew and had the whatsapp exchanges, police interviews etc. I think by Johnson and by DCI whateverhernameis. It would be pretty easy to disprove this and why would Johnson lie about this bit under oath? Wouldn't sunderland then have grounds to sue him? The fact they didn't in the first place, after he was sacked, is pretty damning Plus, the whole lying in court thing isn't a great idea........ Byrne may end up being used as a scapegoat. But even if the club release a statement, saying they were unaware and Byrne had kept it to herself, so she has been sacked because of it. Would you honestly believe that? Do you not think other people at the club, in positions of power, would be interested in what was going on, in such a high profile case? Do they not have board meetings or does nobody talk to each other at SAFC? Would Short not be asking what the situation is, with one of the club's star players, who is on bail for a very serious allegation? Our club is run by a pack of cunts and I have no problem in pointing this out, when they've acted badly. I just don't understand why sunderland fans are still trying to act like the club have done nothing wrong? I mean it's bad enough that he was never suspended, pending the outcome of the trial. Instead, they trotted him out every week, for your fans to applaud and cheer for. Now, it sounds as if they have been complicit in the whole thing, for 8-9 months. Yet they decided to do nothing and let him play, knowing full well he was guilty of at least the grooming and the kiss.

So would he lie in court? Tell the court that SAFC knew, had copies of the interviews and whatsapp exchanges? Surely that could be pretty easily disproved, if so. So why would he risk blatantly lying, like that? I'm sure the detective involved in the case, had already said something the other day about all of this. So it's not like it's Johnson's word vs Byrne's.

The Blues Brothers and Reservoir Dogs

Only if what Johnson is saying is true. We only have his word for it so far. We really need a statement from the club, and hopefully the PFA who were also involved in his suspension being lifted. We'll see what happens at the end of the trial. Also this Didn't the detective involved also say that they met with the club, spoke about safeguarding young uns and they were made aware of the case etc? I forget the exact wording, but it wasn't just that they knew that there was a case. It seemed to indicate, that the club were aware of some of the more intricate details.

It comes down to when he told the club that he was guilty of the charges he pleaded guilty to. If they continued to play him after that they deserve all the stick they get. Bet they're gutted Hur hur.

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,97593.0.html Obviously meant it a little tongue in cheek, but point is a centre back was a major issue since last summer, still is now and we missed a chance to do something about it in Jan. 88.1% were happy at how January went. OK doesn't equal happy. You're either happy with it or not. Being OK with it is being happy with it. That wasn't the question, though. The poll was about our transfer window. Not specifically about a centre back. I actually went for 'pretty good.' As I expected f*** all and we actually managed to sign some decent/reasonable players. However, I did state that we're still light at the back and it may cost us. I can't be arsed to read back through. But I'm sure at the time, most people were bemoaning the lack of defensive reinforcements. In an ideal world, we would have signed two more players. A proper centre back and a goalscorer. But considering I had very low standards going in, I was happy with it. Transfer window was pretty good to ok = 90% of people are happy we didn't sign a centre back. Oh and I'd also say in this instance, that 'ok', would be more a feeling of indifference and middle of the road. Not being overly happy about anything. But I suppose that ruins your 90% argument

Me neither. But looking at our defensive record this season, it can't really get much worse.

First horseracing bet for ages on Friday. Landed me about 60 odd quid. However, Arsenal let me down for £180 in an 8 fold. Plus, Hearts let us down for £125 each, in an acca group/syndicate that I'm in. Bittersweet.

Hopefully Saivet and Doumbia, get an hour or more.

I absolutely love the mad bastad. My favourite ever NUFC player. Named my cat after him, he was the last player I had on the back of a shirt and he just keeps raising the bar! However, the years, have not been kind to him he looks completely different now and I don't just mean his waist line. My mate is just back from Columbia. He was living out there for about 4 years. He reckons Tino is still huge over there. With only Valdarama, James and Falcao being a bigger star, than him. He's a mackem and all. So I don't see why he would make that up.

Feel for you, but this is the chance you take with ante post. I tend to stick to using free bets from that skybet club and/or only betting small amounts. So I'm not so gutted when they invariably don't run, or they end up not training on and being shit, anyway Got told Amazing Maria for the 1000 Guineas, a couple of years back. Was just topping up each week at 20/1 and 16/1. Got pulled on declaration day!! Probably lost about £80-90. Ended up being shit as a 3 year old, then winning a group 2 and two group 1's, as a four year old. My free bets for this year's classics, have been on Lumiere and Ballydoyle for the 1000 Guineas and Air Force Blue and Emotionless for the 2000. I got 14/1 and 8/1 on the O'Brien nags and they're second fav and fav, now. Had them in multiples, as well. So if the first leg wins, I'll be able to lay off for a tidy profit.

I forgot how much him using terms such as 'the group' and 'set play' annoyed me. He has loads of weird little sayings and terms, like that, that he always uses.

I have no idea what the original debate was even about

I don't have a huge problem with the rest of what you've put. But this printing money thing, is absurd? How is it printing money, when it could quite clearly lose and there is a fairly substantial risk involved? It's not like it's a bet to lay and you're making 2-3 points in the process. That's printing money. As for a punt on a losing 1/5 shot, still being a good bet. I beg to differ. IMO, betting is about value, as much as anything. I would rather stake small, on better odds. I'm rarely tempted by a single bet on one lower than evens. I suppose it depends what type of punter you are? The best bet I have had, was a £1 reverse forecast in the 100 Guineas. 20/1, beating a 16/1. Returned about £250 odd. I've been burnt plenty of times, betting big on shorter priced favs. I haven't immediately thought afterwards "oh well. In my head, I fancied that to win. So it's a good bet." If you follow tipping and naps tables, where a £1 level stakes is used. Then the favourite often yields a lot of wins, but with a low or minus profit. Obviously, I'm not saying you'll always bet on the fav. But it just shows that betting on short priced things, that you think will win, isn't exactly a system that will win you lots of money. It's not an exact science and there are to many variables, to break it down as simply as you have. I don't call fancying something to win at short odds, then watching it get turned over and losing, a good bet. But maybe that's just me? Anyway. Back on topic. I'm at a 7 (70%) and we are s*** at football and I think, we will most probably go down.

We should be looking at that and putting a package together. But with Ashley, I fully expect him to just sit and do nothing, until it's too late.

I was more in awe at how serious you appeared to be taking it?! I wasn't deadly serious, no. I was hoping you weren't, either? It's a light hearted system, where people are kind of saying on a scale of 1-10, how worried are you about relegation? You've come in and suggested people should be putting a load of money on us getting relegated, because they 'personally' think it is quite likely to happen? I've quite often fancied teams to win games, or thought a both teams to score bet, was nailed on. Funnily enough, I didn't go and withdraw my savings, to bet on them and 'print money'.... So because I apparently think there is a 70% chance that we'll go down. That means it's going to happen and is worth a large bet? Sorry, I'm still failing to see your logic? A bet always carries a significant risk, regardless of odds. Especially if you start lumping on short priced things and favs. L'Ami Serge got turned over at 1/5 on Saturday, in a three horse race, by an 8/1 shot. I would have said prior to the race, that there is about a 90% chance of the horse winning. Sure glad I didn't spunk a load of money on that, just because of how sure I was. I don't bet a great deal, no. But I'm glad I don't use your percentage system, to guide me. Oh and no. Not really Richie Rich. I might have 2 grand in a joint savings account. Sorry if that came across as me trying to boast about having loads of money. I can assure you I do not

There was talk of him being interested in the job, a while back wasn't there? Was it when Pardew left? I know a lot of Liverpool fans that say his football is pretty dull. But I'd love him here and he supposedly wants to return to the Prem. I just don't think he would come here. Not this season, anyway. Probably not ever.

The first two, maybe. Benitez? No way. He's managed top/elite clubs and done pretty well, everywhere he's been. Why would he decide to manage a team, that looks odds on to get relegated?

Could that not be something to do with the manager and his tactics? Most the team are guilty of this. Hence the shambolic away record, where we've only managed to score 7 goals and get a whopping 7 points.

I feel like a lot of the time with our injured players, that there is often a case of 'absence makes the heart grow fonder.' You can't really argue with his overall goal scoring record for us. On the whole, it has been pretty good. But I thought this season, he looked uninterested and even worse than usual. His touch, ability to stay on side and quickness to react to anything, were all severely lacking. After the West Ham game, I would have been happy to never see him play for us again. I don't think his return will change much, TBH. I'd say Perez is a better finisher and all round player than Mitrovic. Yet I'd start Mitrovic ahead of him, almost every time and we seem to play much better with him leading the line. I think I'd say the same for Mitrovic starting over Cisse. I'm not sure we'll ever see them up top as a two, so I've kind of ruled that out, for now. Have we played with two out and out strikers at all, this season?

Still going..... http://i.imgur.com/36G14Bk.gif Similar age to Doumbia and all.

So how would sacking him and appointing someone no better improve things ? We might actually luck out and end up with a decent manager? What's the alternative? We're going to just leave McClaren in charge, then get relegated, then appoint someone else when we're in the championship? After Pardew we ended up with Carver for half a season, who inexplicably almost took us down having been in an OK position. I'd rather stick with him tbh, it'll be touch-and-go whether we stay up in that case, whereas you can rely on Ashley to f*** it up massively if there's a decision to make. Fair enough. I'd rather gamble. I don't see us getting out the s*** with McClaren. At least some new chump, might get us some points on the back of the new manager bounce. A bit like sunderland have for the last few seasons. Or, Ashley might get extremely lucky and end up getting someone half decent. it would be down to luck to get someone half decent, we may get someone even worse also.... So you're happy to just plod on, with someone clearly out of their depth? Who in the middle of February, still has no noticeable style of play or seems to have any idea on how to set us up? Righto. I just find the notion, of settling on some shithouse, useless manager, just because 'the next guy might possibly be worse'. A bit of an odd one? So we should just lap up the shit served up to us and just be happy that it's not Terry Vegetables? The sort of past it manager, that Ashley and Co, might appoint as a replacement? It can't really get much worse, can it? We've been in and around the bottom three, since the start of the season. His record isn't much better than Carver's and that's with a far better squad, IMO. Happy to agree to disagree. As we're just going to derail the thread, arguing the same point over and over.