Kid Icarus

He's awful. Perfect mix of going down over nothing mixed with butter wouldn't melt shithouse tackles. Such a boring player as well

Pulisic misses the target, as is tradition

Oh no, don't boo my precious song about my precious queen Pathetic boot licking nonces

Remember when snowflakes were triggered American teens crying over the misuse of pronouns and not normal working class men who don't really like that their football club's owned by one of the world's most notorious wronguns I wonder what happened there

Improve their image, not improve.

Aye it's there from the journos but hardly outrage on here. Even then the ratio is still massively out. Could do without the cringe edgy patter as well, no doubt we're deemed oFfEnDeD like, when it's actually just 2nd hand embarrassment. You're right about the polarisation like, it truly turns people into total cunts.

I see the talking about Fewm to Fewm ratio is still about 200:1 Some bonus edgy revelling in it with jokes about human rights abuses from what I can only assume is a lad struggling with puberty.

I also don't get this whole thing about scoring apparently being the hardest part of the game tbh. Without question the hardest part of the game for me was always dribbling past a smart defender who knows when to back off, double up, turn you away from goal etc. I've never thought that scoring's that hard. It's why I find the superhuman individual Messi goals mind blowing way beyond any goal stats on their own.

If that's turned even one Farage loving Newcastle fan away from him, then

Not sure about striker, but Maldini would have easily been an excellent winger I reckon and at the end of his career could have done a job at defensive midfield. I know what you mean as well, the absolute best would have been great in more than one position (except goalkeeper) almost without exception

They were both as inconsistent as each other I think, I'd probably say Shaka was marginally better.

I think whichever way you want to define it, as sportswashing or the brainwashing of a fanbase or whatever, there's a lot to be said for how a pre-packaged, tribalist set of supporters will to go out and bat for you and your sins if you're associated with their club and appeal to their material interests is a very real phenomenon. How effective that is in softening your reputation is another matter, but I think the first part of it is true and self-evident. Why journalists seem to have no curiousity about why people might act in this way, in the psychology behind acting in self interest, where people draw their lines, how certain groups are primed for it, how emotional attachments can be exploited, examples of it elsewhere in society, what it tells us and the human condition, how we can work against it etc beyond 'football is tribalist' or 'it's an example of sportswashing' is just baffling to me. I wouldn't mind their complete like of curiousness if it wasn't paired with their know-it-all moralising and self-exceptionalism. Honestly, if I had the time and also had the motive to do it that they do, it would have been the first thing I'd done.

I don't think so personally like. I think I posted about this a few years ago, but I like seeing players being rewarded for how they play football rather than how they stop football from happening.

Yeah, completely misplaced and with a complete refusal to accept reality let alone explore any journalistic curiousity about why it's a reality. You'd think journalists would be curious about what makes sportswashing effective and maybe do some digging wouldn't you? For some it seems like their curiosity ends when they're able to put it down to people and things either being good or bad, then moralising about it. Completely infantile.

I agree, I think it's probably part of why I think Rui Costa was criminally underrated

I thought he was class, but he was definitely part of that group of the world's best players around the turn of the century that were a level below the best players that came before and after them.

He was absolutely incredible in World Cup 2006 and that team would have won the whole thing if it wasn't for their stupid manager making daft substitutions against Germany imo.

That would your line to draw in the sand and it was many (including mine) with Ashley too, but it didn't stop so many who despised Ashley still turning up every single weekend because their line was different to ours. I've no doubt that there'll be those who are uncomfortable with our new owners who'll still go to matches for the same reason.

it's just as unlikely that anyone would be able to break that emotional attachment in this situation, regardless of what they feel about the ownership.

So by walked you mean that you stopped supporting Newcastle? Because that's a totally different thing than not setting foot in SJP.

I sort of agree like, but then also imagine posting this 7 months ago.

No you wouldn't. You and all of us hated Ashley and wouldn't have dreamed of walking away. and no one's preaching, no one who has a moral problem with who were owned by shouldn't ever be obligated to walk away. It's the 'if you don't like this country you should leave' argument for when people point out that the country's in the shit. It's their club just as much as it is yours and it's not on you to dictate what people can and can't have a problem with.

Or alternatively, you could accept that you're on a forum, that it's a topic that's going to come up time and again, and that it's actually you that can make a choice about whether to engage with it or not instead of joining in. As it's often pointed out, not supporting Newcastle is out of the question, but that's exactly the case for every Newcastle fan with every opinion on the ownership.

Some seem to think this is an indication that Saudi Golf will be the sponsors? Is it not more an indication that they won't be?