TomYam

#Instil discipline after player power had seen the board cave in to the demands of senior players (Nulty, Gowling, Tommy Craig) and install - against their better judgement- Richard Dinnis as manager.

Gordon Lee was the most destructive manager we ever had, but he was quite competent. He forced out many of our best players (MacDonald, Hibbitt, etc) while executing a harrying and dull long ball style, helped achieve our highest placing for 26 years, walked out on us mid season and whispered dissent into the ears of our players after he left the club. He turned things upside down and then walked out - all in 18 months. Then the pendulum swung the other way as McGarry was brought in to instil discipline. 1976 -82 was a calamitous period of mismanagement, an unambitious and stagnant boardroom, decrepit stadium, tumbling attendances and a backdrop of economic woe.

Two points re the Spurs drama and a new stadium impacting Newcastle's hospitality industry. Spurs, being a London club and a tourist beacon doubtless has 'customers' with slightly different tastes and requirements. Do they have massage chairs available in row F? Second, if we were to move to a 72,000 capacity stadium that should mean 20,000 more mouths to feed and refresh. Even if those 20,000 somehow find a way to inhouse bacchanalian bliss, that leaves the remaining 52,000 to hit The Beehive, Clock and Garter.

The PL and team football shirts are very popular in Thailand. When I first came to work and live here more than 20 years ago the popularity of clubs was approx ManU 50%, Liverpool 25%, Arsenal 15%, others 10%. Today it's approx ManU 50%, Liverpool 25%, Chelsea 20%, 5% others. ManU marketing is everywhere, hence they are still hugely popular even when failing. Somewhat surprisingly, ManC still have a low support base, but that's partly due to ManU historically being called 'Manchester' here as opposed to the ubiquitous and deeply irritating 'United' in the UK.

Don't forget that Spurs were the initiators of the group of clubs that became the 'big or breakaway 5' and then went on to form the PL. Unlike the 3 red tops. they've won very little over the intervening 40 years, and had a lengthy period of mediocrity, but Spurs were intrinsic to the commercialisation and elitism you see in the game today. It so happened they started to be highly competitive again at just the right time - just as we went in the opposite direction.

Not keen either, but a lot of that is down to an intense dislike of current chairman Daniel Levy and utter contempt for former chairman Irving Scholar.

As far as the media is concerned only 3 clubs really matter - the same ones that have driven the domestic football agenda for almost 40 years. Add the fact the transfer window has been nobbled by PSR constraints, as well as increasingly clichéd and poor standards of journalism, and you have repetitive hyperbole such as the Isak to Arsenal link.

Agree with this. Southampton ascented to the FL in 1920'21 and quickly became stalwarts of the second tier. They got their first taste of top tier football in 1966-67 and have subsequently played at the highest level for 47 of the last 59 seasons. The Saints have finished in the top 4 only once - in 1983-4, when they were runners up to the Red Pool of Liver.

Aside from the appearance of KK, Waddle, Beardsley and Gascoigne, 1977-92 were the drabbest years in our history. The club had no money and the boardroom divided, traditional industry shutting down with resulting sky high unemployment, decrepit stadium, hooliganism and racism rife, plummeting attendances. Still better althan the Ashley years of torpor and torture...

I was meaning since the late '80s when 3 or 4 clubs assumed control over the governance of football in England. Of course the decade before that wasn't much fun either (with crumbling stadiums and rife hooliganism), but at least there was a far greater equilibrium.

Excellent post, BB. I agree wholeheartedly with all you've written there. It's deeply depressing that this is what football at a higher level has become, but it is what it is and Newcastle United must adapt to compete with the lionized 'elite'.

Season 1891-92:

It would likely be utterly transformative for that post-industrial part of town. Hard to envisage it now but, with its central location and proximity to the river, it could become a desirable neighbourhood.

I used the modal verb 'may' to denite the possibility that the atmosphere could be affected negatively. I suspect there'd be very little difference.

5,000 tourists at an expanded St.James's or new stadium may not have a positive impact on the match atmosphere but it'll certainly have a positive impact on the club's finances and city economy. You win more than you lose although it's another example of football as business and moving away from its community roots.

If we can amass 10 points over the following 4 fixtures - and we should, injuries notwithstanding - then we'd expect to finish no lower than 5th. The team just needs to be focussed and truly believe - and there's no reason why not because we did just that in 2023.

Come on Ipswich! Against all odds they'll stay up, but here's hoping!

A rat as co-owner, a rodent beyond description as captain, Marcus Ratford still at the club and thousands of mice in the stands. No wonder there is a plague on Old Trafford.

Entire quarter of the country? I believe Northumberland & Durham comprises 6% of England's geographical area. The population of our region is no more than 4% of England. Our remoteness (like Devon & Cornwall) is both a strength and weakness; a strong local platform but far fewer tourists and less money swishing about. Your final sentence is interesting. There is massive potential to expand our fanbase in Scotland. We really should be the best supported English club in Scotland due to proximity and history. Back to sweet spots, I've long thought 72,00 is an ideal capacity.

They used to say Arsenal was the club of the 'establishment', and that's probably largely true today. The 'gentlemany' label was forever sullied when dodgy David Dein took control of the club in the late '80s and the conniving, scheming and naked greed that followed. Arsenal's ancient history is rather shameful due to archfiend Henry Norris: FourFourTwo www.fourfourtwo.com Henry Norris: The man who moved Arsenal to Highbury – and became ...

This sort of crap jut makes me feel anti (organised) religion. Not especially keen on the force-feeding of LGBTQ or BLM etc but there are good reasons why it's been so. Give me rainbow laces over religious dictats any day.

In the years when Arsenal won 3 league titles they were competing with only ManU and Liverpool - no other clubs were able to compete financially. Since 2003, first Chelsea, then ManC and a boosted Spurs have overtaken Arsenal financially. As we all know, the strongest finances form the most competitive teams. Arsenal haven't kept step with the likes of ManC, ManU and Chelsea hence their lack of championship success.

I wouldn't say St.James's Park is 'bang in the city centre'. It's in the centre though. Same with Castle Leazes. The Arena is also in the centre - a woefully undeveloped area in the centre. The historical centre is the site of castle/St.Nicholas Cathedral although the modern centre is probably Earl Grey monument. Broadly, anywhere within a km of these locations would be the centre.

...it seemed that we would lose the race. He's been a great player for the club, but time's not on Schär's side sadly.

Eddie Howe's done a sterling job, but there has been a very evident drop off in intensity and quality. He definitely deserves time to get us back on track. Review at the end of the season unless the performances deteriorate to a more alarming extent.