number37

Lloris treating the ball like he treats his car keys on a night out. 

Just now, cubaricho said:

I really want to get to Iran. Especially after that Bourdain episode about it. 

Do it if you can! I was there a couple of weeks ago and I absolutely loved it, was one of the best holidays I've ever had. 

56 minutes ago, Shadow Puppets said:

There's some incredibly thick people around like... the reaction to that goal last night. The only 2 angles we've seen from directly above the ball show quite clearly that the ball in touching the line / still in play, but thousands of Sounesses the country over are foaming at one still image taken at a completely irrelevant angle.

I was just happy he didn't turn round to Eni Aluko and say if this was a man's game for manly men then that goal would have been disallowed. 

17 minutes ago, Mike said:

This world cup stuff is cool but I need the cool security of Eddie on the touchline. These international motherfuckers got my heart pacing.

Jason Tindall at a World Cup in Mexico is the documentary/investigation we all need. 

Inshallah! 

12 points clear of Leeds, although we've played a game more. Still pretty good though and better than last season. 

Hugo Lloris is as trustworthy between the posts as he is behind the wheel. 

Probably demolish it so they can expand the East Stand. 

I really love the way Trippier gets involved with disciplinary type situations with the referee and our players, ushering them away so he can talk to the referee. He's much like a cricket or rugby captain where all communication goes through him only. Such a leader. 

15 minutes ago, Stifler said:

So apparently there are 2 more Rugby clubs close to going into administration, or atleast in financial difficulty. Some expert on the radio seemed to imply that one of them is Newcastle Falcons.

I wonder if PIF would be interested in buying them as well and gaining Kingston Park. Either use it as a ready made ground for our academy/women’s teams, or bring in the Rugby team to SJP?

They could also demolish some stands and put in temporary ones for a temporary home if they were to rebuild SJP.

 

 

 

Yeah, I actually think this is a good idea and in the grand scheme of things a rugby club isn't going to cost a great deal. The rugby club could share United's training facilities and the football club could make use of Kingston Park as you say. 

From a marketing and prestige perspective, falconry is a very highly sought after skill in Arabia (so the name fits) and there'd be no bother with the colours as green and white are the traditional colours of the club anyway. 

Money talks though so this would be venturing on charitable for PIF as you just don't generate cash or exposure in domestic rugby - hence the many administrations. 

Any excuse to dust this off though... 

If our forefathers had known that in 130 years time that would be a tribute to their achievement then I reckon they'd have told Newcastle West End FC to go fuck themselves. 

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

The point is it's not sacrosanct though, definitely not.

 

Even then, you can update it and improve it without encroaching too much.

 

I'll keep banging the drum for this 

Yep, would agree with that but the blue in the flag would need to revert to white as that was a genuine error that's persisted since it was made.*

*reason 100001 why I don't get invited to parties.

15 minutes ago, RS said:

Tacky and unnecessary. Richest club in the world doesn’t need to rename the stadium

 

(unless they just drop the ‘ and give us £500m spending)

I think you might be on to something there. 

PIF create or fund some trendy, vague company called s, who then sponsor the stadium name for £100m a year on condition their name is incorporated into the stadium name and so we'd have to tolerate: St. James's Park. 

I could accept that, might have to draw the line at having it in bold though. It's a stadium, not a discotheque. 

He's like an old doctor who refuses to retire or consider modern medical methodologies. Using the fact he graduated medical school in the long distant past and has been a doctor for decades means he knows what he's talking about. "End of". Unwilling to accept times change and he's probably doing more harm than good to his patients. There'll always be some GP practice out there willing to employ him on locum wages, ignoring the many times he's been referred to the GMC but somehow nothing has ever been enough to get him struck off. 

Got a headache? Let me drill a hole in there to let the evil spirits out. 

Haemorrhaging? Hand me my leaches (no, not my son and coaches). 

Suicidal? Roll your sleeves up. 

Depressed? Dust yourself down. 

Alcoholic? Not everyone's cup of tea. 

Seasonal affective disorder? Rent my villa in Portugal. 

It hurts when I train. Don't worry about training. 

Poor vision? Read my novels. 

Can't conceive? Keep bashing away.  

No one took the World Cup seriously for the first few editions. FIFA had to beg countries to take part. 

In international competition you need fixtures that matter because winning a cap as a player should be important. I appreciate football fans get tired of comparisons to other sports but in cricket and rugby you don't have "friendlies" you have Tests, which matter. A lot. These sports make use of representative sides like England A or England B where you can call up a player to give international experience without the pressure and prestige of a full international. They used to have these in football (Chris Sutton doesn't say hello) so maybe they should bring them back for those who get sick of England v Germany or England v Italy and much prefer matches against Guam or Trinidad and Tobago. 

Probably more chance of Dirk Kuyt flying in on his Mexican passport for a medical booked in ready for a Friday 3pm announcement than this display actually being a thing. 

We're just pawns in Wor Flag's game. 

7 minutes ago, Barnes23 said:

The LGBT displays have been about demonstrating our inclusivity as a fanbase, I'd define that as being NUFC related far more than any display this weekend could be. 

Oh, I agree. The only reason I mentioned it was because if things (to be incorporated into a display) are to be boiled down to be either football or non-football then strictly speaking it's non-football. Although, maybe it can be football because, and we may sadly never know, there may be one or more players who are gay and it's good to show them our love and support. 

As mentioned earlier and throughout, whenever Wor Flags venture into anything that's not football related then there's always the risk it's going to offend or antagonise a group of people. 

Support for LGBT rights and commemorating those who died in war have nothing to do with football but have had their respective displays because they have very real human elements but they can also be described as having a political edge if that's what you are looking for. 

Say if you have 25% of people strongly pro-monarchy, 25% strongly against but the other 50% not really giving a strong shit either way then if you mostly associate with your particular 25% then it's only natural that you'd place a stronger value on that opinion and assume a lot more people share that view than what maybe what's reflected in reality. 

I think with the national anthem, minute silence plus applause on 70 minutes then that's probably a good amount of tribute and reflection. If people do or do not want to partake in any or all of that then that's fine and entirely their opinion and right. A flag display on top of that may be venturing into final straw territory but of course that depends on the display, which we don't know. I can't imagine it being full on Alan Shearer testimonial style (although I hope not) but that FA Cup image in isolation can't hurt that much. 

24 minutes ago, madras said:

What if you're a masochist ?

 

 

 

It would be a bold move to begin a new friendship under those circumstances, maybe more so in public, but I reckon if boundaries and/or safe words are quickly established and agreed upon, then something beautiful can blossom. 

12 hours ago, HaydnNUFC said:

 

I think that's a really nice gesture. Treat people how you'd like to be treated. 

On 13/06/2022 at 15:20, number37 said:

Back in the olden days, there were a variety of match-ups for the Charity Shield (and predecessors) before it settled on the League Champion v FA Cup winner format we all know and love.

 

If the game was instead a match between a Premier League North v Premier League South all-star type affair, who would you have in your teams/squads? 

 

For the purpose of this, based on the season just gone, this is how North/South would be defined:

 

North

Aston Villa
Burnley 
Everton 
Leeds United
Leicester City
Liverpool
Manchester City
Manchester United
Newcastle United 
Wolverhampton Wanderers

 

South 

Arsenal 
Brentford
Brighton and Hove Albion
Chelsea
Crystal Palace 
Norwich City
Southampton
Tottenham Hotspur
Watford
West Ham United

 

What starting elevens would you have and maybe, say, five subs?

 

No restrictions on the amount of players you can have from a single team. 

15 minutes ago, Heron said:

TBH I think the people in this thread are making more of it all than it has ever been discussed in the group itself.

 

I think there's an argument that those who wouldn't want it are saying it's best that it isn't done to avoid offence or whatever too. Very few people on here are pro queen or pro royals, and it'd be interesting to see if they think the same.

 

We touch on politics with inclusion displays and remembrance displays so, I don't see the difference tbh. 

 

Nonetheless, It's been a discussion that has taken place and will likely take place again if Bournemouth is on, if and a big if, anything is done, it will be as apolitical as possible I am sure.

 

Just chill folk. 

 

 

 

In true King Charles style, I'll stick my neck out. I guess I can be considered to be pro-monarchy purely because I'm largely anti-politics and I don't fancy being banished to Wisconsin for not at least picking a side. 

I think it would be too risky, ultimately, to have a flag display (or just a single flag) for the Queen even if that image from earlier of her presenting our last FA Cup would be a suitable compromise and gesture to incorporate both her and the club without being overly pro-monarchy. It would have acknowledged a moment in history, both from the past and from what we're witnessing now, plus it would remind younger audiences of what a trophy looks like. 

Heron, you are right in that there have been previous displays that have, in one way or another, touched upon politics as sadly, very sadly, pretty much everything can, has and will be politicised whether that's ever the intention or not and so fundamentally this should be be no different. But it just is. 

We've seen displays proudly supporting the LGBT community, encouraging inclusivity regardless of sexuality, gender, race or religion. There'd be a minority (hopefully a tiny minority) of supporters who disagree with such sentiments but the displays go ahead. The source of 80% of our club's ownership originates from a country where such views are not as widespread as in the UK. We know all too well where this money comes from. 

There have also been displays to commemorate our armed forces, to reflect and pay tribute to their sacrifices in conflicts over the years in almost every part of the world. The reasons these sacrifices are made, as in the deployment of our armed forces, is by its very nature a political one but our tributes remain fully focused on the human side of war and the loss we all feel. 

So, yes, everything can be made political and of course any tribute to the Queen has considerable political elements but I also think that there can be a human element as well to acknowledge the passing of a woman who gave her long life to the service of this country. The reason for her being in such a role, the relevance of the role itself and its place in the modern world is absolutely up for debate and discussion, I'm sure a slight pause in such passionate discourse would have been alright. 

I think it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. It's impossible to satisfy everyone but it's quite a divisive topic that maybe isn't worth alienating a core group of fans over even if in practical terms most people probably won't care either way (regardless of belief) and would probably just want to crack on and watch the match. 

I know I've waffled without actually saying a lot so maybe I could be a politician after all, if I dumbed myself down a wee bit more. 

I think it's the way modern discourse has become. Extreme views one way or the other without any genuine desire to see compromise or a middle ground. 

It's like if the Premier League title was defended like it was a boxing title, as in it's on the line each time the champions play. 

Similar to the Ranfurly Shield in the NPC in New Zealand Rugby. 

Check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unofficial_Football_World_Championships

So Liverpool can take all day to make a sub, passing the arm band around?