gjohnson

True. I'm an optimist but I wouldn't rely on Caulkin as we saw he isn't as informed as some think he is. He was tweeting all that cans nonsense at the outset and then as it dragged on then went silent with the odd "it takes as long as it takes". He only knows what Staveley tells him

No other teams fans will notice until it's them. They're too busy laughing at our collective disappointment at the moment

Actually, has anyone considered that it might actually be Staveley that the PL has the issue with? Ongoing legal battle which heavily involves Qataris, and if she loses she is basically up the creek without a boat let alone a paddle

For now, and completely as far as PIF involvement. Staveley and the Ruebens could do this totally on their own if they actually wanted to. Suspect there'll be another attempt if she gets her payout from the Barclays case.

to newcastle fans maybe but to anybody else not really Well to anyone who can detch the emotion involved in football. Any sensible 'top 6' fan would probably privately admit they'd be terrified of losing their place at the top table to a club that could outspend them in wages and transfer fees. Probably why Tottenham and Liverpool were most vocal allegedly, as they'd be the most likely to be displaced

The PL could make all this issue go away simply by opening up and publishing their actual reasons for delay. They would be judged less harshly if they just admitted it was because of other clubs, piracy, or human rights. The silence just makes them look at worst corrupt, and at best cowardly

Not a bad comparison really

18 sounds high? transfermarkt say he got 22 overall for us in the PL across his 4 seasons. He certainly got more that 22. Obviously only have my ever diminishing memory to back it up but I’d say that was very low. Mind you I was not just talking about the EPL. Ginola was better to watch, but Robert was far more productive. Even in his worst games there was always a chance of a screamer from nowhere or a decent free kick. Special mention for that backward overhead karate kick one against Fulham

This The PIF stuff is done, if it was a negotiating tactic it would have been done in silence like the majority of this. Mauriss may or may not be real, but even if he is it's a massive come down from 10 times City wealth

Nah gone from Tesco to the local garage

Mauriss isn’t interested nor Hans the funds. He’s got links to Qatar and has allowed his name to be linked with us so Qatar can object to the deal and say that we have an alternative. Not that's there's any evidence to support, but Qatar could really piss on KSA chips if they came in and bought us

No need to. It's as relevant to us as transfer links to Messi

Decent article but not particularly informative https://www.football365.com/news/opinion-newcastle-fans-premier-league-takeover-mike-ashley

Agreed. Disagree . His reputation is unchanged, other than it being revealed that having one contact is not enough to really know what's happening. Same with golfmag... genuinely believe he was telling the truth, difference is he isnt a journalist

No not at all blaming him for anything. Just stating that if he was releasing information which was getting people hopes up (which he was) he should have had some genuine confirmation from another source. What he's been doing is effectively interviewing and publishing like it was the true situation rather than reporting facts

How many do they need for it to be brought up parliament? Unless it's changed, 10000 used to be enough to get it proposed for debate. Doesn't mean it will be debated though, just put to the Speaker

I dunno, checking out his sources would do for a start. Facts can change, new evidence can come to light, what is true one day might not be true the next. Might want to check that fact

Not in the slightest. Not blaming him for anything other than neglecting checking on his sources. In this case Amanda has told him things and he's put them out there without checking if they are true or not....at least not that anyone can see If he's going to be publishing stuff with regard to the take over of course he should have been digging deeper to confirm what he's been told, and not look like Staveley's lapdog mouthpiece You're point is still nonsense. Regularly a journalist will report what a source says without having to go and check if what they say is true or not. There are plenty of stories which simply report, for example, what Boris Johnson says about something. His comments still get reported by journalists whether hes talking shit or not. It's not nonsense at all. Just because they do doesn't make it right. Yes Boris talks balls all the time, but it's always recorded by many outlets, then picked apart and checked over the next few hours and days. George having a private chat with Amanda is not the same thing in the slightest as it doesn't have national scrutiny where everyone is interpreting every word and checking with a dozen other MPs/advisors afterwards. His bullshit is easy to pull apart precisely because people check what he is saying. Also, if something hasn't been confirmed by at least a second source, you'll generally see the term 'allegedly, or unconfirmed reports'. BBC isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but anything they put out always has at least 2 verifiable sources. Speculation on their part is always tempered with 'allegedly'.

Not in the slightest. Not blaming him for anything other than neglecting checking on his sources. In this case Amanda has told him things and he's put them out there without checking if they are true or not....at least not that anyone can see If he's going to be publishing stuff with regard to the take over of course he should have been digging deeper to confirm what he's been told, and not look like Staveley's lapdog mouthpiece

Unfortunately it's a low bar. A really proper good journalist wouldn't rely on a single source, or would at least do the leg work investigating what his source had told him. George doesn't, he reports what he's told to report. It's a shame he's been reporting what we wanted to hear, but surely he should have been banging on the Reubens door to confirm, or talking to someone from PIF too. Not too say he hasn't been trying, but just spouting whatever Staveley has told him is pretty weak, and not too different to tabloids. That's bollocks tbf. He reported what he was being told, and said as much. He didn't make any bold predictions either way. It's not the job of every journalist to analyse the whole deal at all points. Why's it Bollocks? Never said anything about predictions at all or analysing the details of a deal. Just saying that a journalist should follow up on what they're being told is true before reporting it. If i were a journalist and was told from a trusted source that Donald Trump was actually a replicant from the future, I think i'd want first hand confirmation or evidence from second source before putting it in my paper. Not really. If I was a journalist and say, someone close to Joe Biden told me that, of course I'd report it. There's nothing wrong with reporting what a source tells you without delivering an opinion on it whether you think its ridiculous or not. That's not really being a journalist then is it? Caulkin's been Staveley's stenographer throughout this ordeal and he's been made to look an absolute mug, for the second time. Not once has he provided any sort of analysis or critique of what he's been fed or its reliability, he's just unthinkingly regurgitated it at every opportunity. It's pathetic to be honest. Penn gets it too

Unfortunately it's a low bar. A really proper good journalist wouldn't rely on a single source, or would at least do the leg work investigating what his source had told him. George doesn't, he reports what he's told to report. It's a shame he's been reporting what we wanted to hear, but surely he should have been banging on the Reubens door to confirm, or talking to someone from PIF too. Not too say he hasn't been trying, but just spouting whatever Staveley has told him is pretty weak, and not too different to tabloids. That's bollocks tbf. He reported what he was being told, and said as much. He didn't make any bold predictions either way. It's not the job of every journalist to analyse the whole deal at all points. Why's it Bollocks? Never said anything about predictions at all or analysing the details of a deal. Just saying that a journalist should follow up on what they're being told is true before reporting it. If i were a journalist and was told from a trusted source that Donald Trump was actually a replicant from the future, I think i'd want first hand confirmation or evidence from second source before putting it in my paper. Not really. If I was a journalist and say, someone close to Joe Biden told me that, of course I'd report it. There's nothing wrong with reporting what a source tells you without delivering an opinion on it whether you think its ridiculous or not. Yes and you'd be laughed out of the place when it was found he wasn't a replicant, and Joe Biden had fed you a line. It's nothing to do with opinion. I don't know Georges opinion. Yes he has reported what he has been told, but it is his responsibility to at least try and check what he is reporting is true. He may well have tried, but hasn't given any evidence he has. I do know that if I was writing articles based on a single source which turned out to be wrong, I wouldn't be employed as a serious journalist for too long and would probably end up at The Sun, or the National Enquirer

Cronky gets my point!

Unfortunately it's a low bar. A really proper good journalist wouldn't rely on a single source, or would at least do the leg work investigating what his source had told him. George doesn't, he reports what he's told to report. It's a shame he's been reporting what we wanted to hear, but surely he should have been banging on the Reubens door to confirm, or talking to someone from PIF too. Not too say he hasn't been trying, but just spouting whatever Staveley has told him is pretty weak, and not too different to tabloids. That's bollocks tbf. He reported what he was being told, and said as much. He didn't make any bold predictions either way. It's not the job of every journalist to analyse the whole deal at all points. Why's it Bollocks? Never said anything about predictions at all or analysing the details of a deal. Just saying that a journalist should follow up on what they're being told is true before reporting it Follow up with who? He was talking to someone directly involved in it! You want him to speak to someone less in the know? Am I just being obtuse or something here? All he would have had to say is 'i attempted to confirm with Rueben/PIF/Masters/PL/Ashley but couldn't get a comment'. That would have shown at least that he wasn't just taking Staveleys word for it

Unfortunately it's a low bar. A really proper good journalist wouldn't rely on a single source, or would at least do the leg work investigating what his source had told him. George doesn't, he reports what he's told to report. It's a shame he's been reporting what we wanted to hear, but surely he should have been banging on the Reubens door to confirm, or talking to someone from PIF too. Not too say he hasn't been trying, but just spouting whatever Staveley has told him is pretty weak, and not too different to tabloids. That's bollocks tbf. He reported what he was being told, and said as much. He didn't make any bold predictions either way. It's not the job of every journalist to analyse the whole deal at all points. Why's it Bollocks? Never said anything about predictions at all or analysing the details of a deal. Just saying that a journalist should follow up on what they're being told is true before reporting it. If i were a journalist and was told from a trusted source that Donald Trump was actually a replicant from the future, I think i'd want first hand confirmation or evidence from second source before putting it in my paper.