Kid Icarus

Very surprised by Joelinton not starting. He loves ragdolling this lot.

Could do without that rat being fit, like. 

For me the biggest issues are offside and hand balls. One takes too long and uses an ineffective and pedantic looking method, the other too broadly open to interpretation.

Offsides are a yes or no, so bringing in the system used in the World Cup and Champions League hopefully moves them into the realm of goal line technology where they're universally accepted and almost taken for granted.

Hand balls need to go back to interpretation of intent in all cases, including when scoring goals. It won't be perfect, but it'll be better than what we have now.

Fix them and imo you remove a huge part of the problem with VAR.

Will be absolutely staggered if they vote to scrap it. 

I was going to say that stuff like this makes us compromised, but they did that by buying our football club tbh.

21 minutes ago, Pablo said:

I wish opposition fans didn’t want to come. We give up our seats for their support to have a nice weekend away. Let them enjoy Liverpool instead and encroach on the Kop.

Who on here really gives a toss about what away supporters want. We can fill their allocation 15times over with passionate supporters who are locked out.

Are you alright?

6 minutes ago, madras said:

There were 1237 respodents to the annual survey. Is that representative enough given the demographics ?

My understanding of 'the law of large numbers' is that generally anything above 200 is considered representative of a group providing there's nothing untoward going on with participant selection. It can be manipulated but considering NUST's survey was sent out to all members and is six times that number I think the only demographic that might skew the results is that it's been filled out by the demographic of people who tend to fill in surveys

Aye he's proper gone in the huff there like. I see his point, but he's alienating himself and has a pretty short-sighted view on things if he thinks beating Man City, staying in the same position they'd be in if they lost, and handing your bitter rivals the title constitutes winning. 

9 hours ago, JJ7 said:

‘the vast majority (almost half)’. Aye, ok.

It represents almost half of the respondents from a quarter of the possible age demographics. Could be wrong but I think outside of voting systems majority just means the most.

Would Pope be alright with being number 2? He's a fantastic goalkeeper and would definitely fall into the too good to be a number 2 category. 

3 hours ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

I remember that already relegated side who beat them 5-1 on the final game of the season. Meaning that Arsenal finished second and they finished third. 

So do I, it pales in comparison to losing to this Sheff United side at home.

Around 1200 contributed, that's canny good going considering anything above 200 is usually representative providing there's nothing dodgy going on. 

If Spurs lose at the weekend it's comfortably the most Spurs thing that's ever happened. Sheff United winning is nigh on inconceivable 

I normally hate Man City winning the title but fair play to the online Arsenal fans, they gave me a reason to prefer it.

Predominantly Gen X. 

5 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

Aye, they sit in the east stand.

That poll would suggest otherwise like, but I get that it's annoying being in the minority.

I reckon it's a good idea to at least have the curiosity to think on the reasons why our city or our country being financially reliant on a state like Saudi Arabia might not be the best idea in the long run like. There's a pretty good example of what that leads to going on right now as well.

4 minutes ago, Ben said:

I do

Well that's it settled then.

1 hour ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

I think we need to help people understand that we're not going to be leaving SJP for a bigger version of The Riverside or St Mary's. It will literally be one of the greatest football stadiums in the world, built with an effectively unlimited budget, potentially invigorating a dead area of the town.

 

Why would you not want that 

Because not everyone wants that.

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

My preference would be to stay at SJP - if SJP could be redeveloped to bring it up to modern standards and could be expanded enough to make it worthwhile.   I’m surprised they didn’t get 100% ‘stay at SJP’ given the way the question was presented.  It’s how I would have voted - and I’m one of those who think that the best option would ultimately be to move. 

 

But the question was disingenuous.  Pollsters and psephologists know that how a question is worded is vital - it’s why they tend to be careful in their phrasing. 

Disingenuous man Don't be daft. 

If the 3rd kit colours were based on the Juve 3rd kit template

and based on the Man United 3rd kit template

23 minutes ago, Harry 209 said:

Arsenal get a long-sleeved version of their new kit. I'm hoping we get the same. 

19 minutes ago, midds said:

Long sleeves just make everything better

3 minutes ago, BoSelecta said:

Not at all. I’m no apologist for the Saudis but I can also remark on how privileged and blinkered you have to be to see Newcastle Council trying to feed kids in poverty through a connection with the club and your reaction to that is ‘I’m concerned with the councils relationship with the Saudi regime’.

 

edit. Grammar 

The point is that the argument you're making now is how they get you. It's almost a check mate because it's very difficult to say you don't want your council to have close ties with Saudi Arabia for obvious reasons without it being met with the 'privileged' and 'blinkered' response. And that's exactly why they and tons of other organisations and states do it, so that they can make that argument or have it made on their behalf while they're essentially buying influence.

In reality though, it's a false premise based on the assumption that kids can only be fed if councils go cap in hand to the Saudis, which is obviously not true. 

8 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Yep. Any solution which means we can't build a stadium which can bring in the same income as the Emirates or Spurs new ground means we'll always be at a permanent disadvantage. I'm just not sure how we can turn St James into a multi-event site such as those given the building restrictions, but if it can be done, happy days. Otherwise we should really move if there is any options out there which can seriously be considered.

This is really a bit of a false premise like. I totally accept the argument about capacity or 'making every penny count' or whatever, but the idea that it's either a permanent disadvantage or a disadvantage that's significant or a true difference maker just doesn't add up. 

12 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

That's a massive oversimplification in my opinion.

 

I mean, if you asked me which of those three options I'd prefer I'd say "Renovated SJP", but that's based on the hope/assumption that we would be able to build a world-class stadium on the current site. What if we couldn't? What if the limit was another 8k seats on the Gallowgate and that's it? Then I'd probably rather move. 

 

Unless you specify what "Renovated" actually is, it's a really poorly worded question/choice of options. Perhaps that is/was intentional on behalf of the Trust, perhaps not.

I really don't see how it is tbh, any hope/assumption or any other caveats you want to throw in there is covered by, not excluded by, the definition of preference. And preference is how the question's worded. I agree that there could be extra clarification through an extra 'if we can't do X, Y, and Z, what is your preference?' question, but until we know what X, Y, and Z are they could be any variety of things, hypothetical and would split the vote.