TomYam

I have only hideous memories of Johnson and believe him to have done possibly irreperable damage to this country. Although I can't say the same of Hall, much of the electorate remain in thrall to Johnson.

I always saw Hall as a populist, a narcissist, someome who'd say/do anything to get what he wanted. Yoo could say it was those traits that helped make us such a force for a few years, but it was also thse traits that almost destroyed us before he took total control in 1992 and at the point he sold his shares. He was our equivalent of Boris Johnson.

Again, I'd argue that he was responsible for the club almost going into oblivion. True enough Hall was also the guy who made KK manager and the glorious years that followed.l, but don't forget that his was a hostile takeover (late spring 1988) at a time when we had just finished 8th and things were looking brighter than for many years. The club was lloking for new investors, the PL was being mooted, etc. Had Hall approached the club instead of whipping up a firestorm, then the club wouldn't have auffered those calamatous seasons from 1988-92.

We haven't had a leading professional operation here since the Edwardian era! I'd argue the Hall era began in 1988 and led to in-fighting and relegation. Depending on your opinion, he either got had brilliant foresight to sign KK as manager or it was a deperate last roll of this dice that came up double six. We then went on a wonderful journey for a few years before Hall jumped ship when we hit choppy waters. Everything at the club was built on sand and when it was evident we needed roots investment he shut up shop and then sold up to the first person who was prepared to pay the inflated sale price (Ashley). Our owners are trying to make up decades of ground on the most professionally run clubs like Arsenal, Liverpool and ManU - especially in marketing.

I can't say I've given it too much thought but I suggest the essential features of our crest are tue seahorses, castle and black&white stripes. The lion and the little flag it's holding and even the banner with the club's name could be dropped to streamiline the crest. Whatever, I'd definitely cut the blue and red colours.

Clearly you're a young un. I'm 56 and calling us Newcastle or the toon is a recent phenomena (well, post 1992). When I was a lad in the '70s our fans would usually use 'United'. The increase in tv coverage and parroting of the term United as a descriptive term for one selected club has led to even the likes of Alan Shearer adopting this. It grates on me a great deal but, sadly, that ship has sailed.

I recently watched MOTD from 1977. Throughout the game the commentator described us ad 'United'. Back then, our fans called us 'United' - just as Manchester and Sheffield described half their clubs as 'United'. Things started to change in the 1980s and United started being used nationally for Manchester United alone. Surely it was because football became increadingly commercial and ManU were/are the epitome of that. It helped that SheffU slumped after 1976 and NUFC after 1977. Whatever the reason, it caught on like the plague and sadly the United tag has been hijacked by a singular club.

Not sure there's much 'hatred', just a little needle. Truth is Villa, Everton and us, possibly one or two other clubs, look at the Sky 6 and know that (with better timing, wealthier and more proactive owners and more friends in high places) their clubs could or should have been part of that 'elite' group.

No one at all. Straw man. Suggesting the arena site was an argument in favour of developing the whole site south of Scotswood Road - ie. not part of an industrial complex, but part of an NUFC led shiny extension of the city centre complete with apartments, community clubs, landscaping and light rail extension. Anyway, perhaps that ship has sailed due to ongoing plans for housing. Nobody but nobody wants a generic stadium or a suburban location. Many would support plans for a world class high spec design, capacity 68,000ish in a city centre location. Currently we could fill a 60,000 stadium. If the city continues to grow, the PL remains as popular internationally and the club continues its upwars trajectory, then I'd suggest 60,000 simply won't cut it in the medium term.

Probably the majority of clubs have moved at some point in their history, sometimes for growth and development and sometimes relating to cost effectiveness or ownership issues. Those that have remained in situ bear little resemblance due the building and rebuilding of stands - even the pitches are relaid intermittently. In English football in recent years a number of big clubs or big new stadium moves have occurred - perhaps those most relevant to us are Arsenal and Tottenham. Both big clubs moving largely due to footprint constraints and within a short stroll from their previous home. From what I read and hear the supporters of both clubs are largely happy with the moves, although there is always a 'but' (...but it's not the same atmosphere....but there are so many new faces here.....but everything it's not like the old days...). That is normal and would undoubtedly hold true if we were ever to move home but, if done correctly, sentiment and nostalgia shouldn't hold the club back. Interestingly, I remember a huge number of supporters (surely the majority) were enthusiastic with Hall's plans to move to Castle Leazes back in the mid '90s. Have those fans' minds changed subsequently? Whatever happens, I'm sure all options will be considered, but the one thing that all fans agree with is that NUFC must remain in the city centre.

I agree with your sentiment "atmosphere, location, tradition and a sense of community and belonging are everything", but disagree with your final analysis. Hypothetically, were the club to build a new stadium on Castle Leazes and extend Leazes Park to where St.James's once stood, why would we automatically lose atmosphere, location, tradition, and a sense of community and belonging? On the contrary, perhaps they could be enhanced? Additional, more tangible benefits such as increased capacity and further potential stadium uses would make a state-of-the-art stadium a greay addet for club snd city alike.

Probably down to a number of factors: 1. Major financial commitments to training and stadium infrastructure 2. Unfortunate timing re recent success. The rewards for two fifth places and Euro football, as well as FA Cup win were lessened by the impact of Covid they really needed those couple of points that would have resulted in Champions League qualification. 3. I suspect that Srivaddhanaprabha's King Power interests have been massively hit by the impact of Covid on the tourist and travel industries. It goes without saying that they don't have the resources of the other clubs recently competing in the top 8 of the PL and Covid will have hit them harder than their competitors.

I've yet to meet or hear of anyone who would prefer an out-of-centre stadium location. My belief is that a state-of-the-art stadium of about 70,000 capacity should be considered for the club to expand and for potential urban regeneration and civic enhancement - PROVIDING it was in a central location within easy reach of metro and train (like the Arena site).

Quite right, Wolfie - but that's why I highlighted the singular year of 1950 and not the 1950's. I chose that year because there was something of a changing of the guard over the next dozen years with ManU, Wolves and Spurs dominating. The, from the mid 60's came the new forces of Leeds and Liverpool.

I hear the ladies team have bagged a new signing - a Mexucan called Etta Paqueta Doritos.

Dial back to 1950 and there was no bigger club than Sunderland. In attendaces, success, wealth, even glamour, few clubs could match them (probably only Everton, Villa and Arsenal). That was then. Sunderland retain their (now ancient) history, but the only other element that suggests they are 'big' is their local support base. Right now they are minnows struggling to compete with Rotherham.

Scunny was his first choice, although their relegation to non-league football means Colchester have become more appealing

Might also go some way to explaining why Crystal Palace, who I believe have only once finished in the top 10 of the top tier in their entire history, are spending their 10th consecutive season in the PL.

I hear the reason Neil is leaving Sunderland is that he prefers Stoke's shirts

I've always found it odd that our club's date of origin is recorded as being 1892 rather than 1881. Stanley/East End, formed in 1881, is indisputably the foundation club of NUFC. The name change should not be the point of origin as it isn't for the many other clubs that have changed name. Manchester United, for example, are recorded as being founded in 1878, yet they changed their name from Newton Heath in 1902 at the point of liquidation and only moved to Old Trafford in 1910. Some would cite it's because we merged with our neighbours West End, but that doesn't hold water; West End went bust and East End simply moved into their superior ground St. James's. East End changed their name for two reasons: to try and appease the former rival fans of West End and to mark a new beginning as the sole club representing the city of Newcastle as a professional team. We immedoately applied for membership of the FL and joined the following year. So, for those that care about the clubs factual history, should the records be changed to reflect the true date of birth of NUFC?

Because the combinatiom of blood and sweat has a sweetness taste. Science, because of all those neurological X-rays whenever any boxer is poleaxed. Can I be your friend now? Please be my fwend..?

Fair enough. Our owners and management team will be looking at all possibilities re increasing the capacity. Rules regarding FFP and infrastructural investment will change over time and doubtlessly we'll be looking to facilitate and maximise all opportunities of development.

A half full 80,000 stadium means you think we'll be getting attendances of 40,000. I'd suggest that is a highly negative projection. If we had the capacity, all things considered, I envision match day attendances rarely dropping below 60,000. The ideal capacity for Newcastle United would be about 70,000. Providing we continue to progress as a club and there are no crippling external influences, we could fill that on a regular basis and preserve a good atmosphere.

Ronald Orr. Akey player in our greatest ever team.

Am I correct in stating that of the 9 hostung venues, 3 are in Manchester? ManU's home ground, ManU women's ground and ManC's ground. Then 2 in Sheffield area and 4 broadly in the south-east. Where is the geographical spread? Why are 3 in Manchester?