Rayvin

Why aren't we trying something different, that's what I don't get. What do we have to lose? Why not try two up front, see what happens. Could sacrifice Gouffran for one thing.

Why are we lofting balls into the box?! It's not working. Anyone could have told you that it wouldn't work against Stoke. Do they have any players under 2m tall?

The other depressing thing here is that Stoke are absolutely fucking terrible... and we still aren't going to beat them.

This is going to be horrifying isn't it...

Well, that's a traditional Pardew start.

That'd be a bit harsh There'd be no post match argument if you ban him...you know you all love it.

That really does sound like something he'd say.

Perpetual war has its uses though. I don't think any of our political overlords are expecting a conventional 'win' here, just considering that there are wider strategic benefits at stake. Which is really depressing. Really don't buy into this pacifying business either... we'd be exactly the same if the US had been destabilising and periodically bombing Europe for the past 50 odd years. Perhaps religion wouldn't be the rallying cry, but knowing Europe it'd be fascism.

Stoke to remember how to score at home, several defensive howlers, and probably the worst result we can manage while still somehow being good enough to keep Pardew in the job for another week.

God, I'd forgotten that he made those comments... the guy is such a fuckwit.

I'm curious as to why people think that if 75% of the fans didn't turn up one day, this wouldn't have a major impact on the club. Say it happened for three games. Those three games would be sufficient to force Pardew out, if not make Ashley start looking around himself. Think of the revenue he'd be missing out on - it'd be an absolute disaster for the club. It would have an effect, and the fans would be forcing change. How long do you think the club could honestly hold out against action on that scale? No business could. I'm not criticising anyone for going, I think it's a waste of time not to do so, given that there isn't enough widespread support to actually get the numbers up to anything meaningful (and obviously people derive enjoyment from non-footballing sides to it) - but people shouldn't delude themselves into thinking that a proper mass walkout/non attendance wouldn't give the club something to seriously fucking think about. It'd be a major concern.

Alternatively, nuking the place would be a crime against humanity, destabilising for international politics throughout the world, and reasonaly likely to kick off WW3... Although I agree on the ideology bit - we're not going to win this with bombing. We're not going to win this full stop.

Suggests he's taking this seriously at least.

Watch him win it comfortably...

I thought Ashley had negotiated a single year's pay off as part of this insane 8 year contract, thus minimising the damage? Otherwise it really was fucking mental.

The difference mind, is that Ken is in no position to carry out his threats (mercifully). ISIS actually are running riot...

Well that seems like a reasonable way of looking at things. I was reflecting on this while driving this evening, and I think one of the very positive consequences of this vote, regardless of which way it goes, is that it could allow us to revisit regional assemblies; and that we may even vote for them this time. It has highlighted a disconnect between Westminster and Scotland (and I would argue a good number of other places).

Still don't think we should diminish the efforts here as a waste of time... if it was just another protest of the ilk we see regularly then I'd agree, but on paper at least, that's not what this looks like. I think 30k placards calling for Pardew's head will be noticed - likely taken up by national media as well. It is going to intensify scrutiny on Ashley and Pardew, not just from the fans, but from everyone. And if it doesn't, presumably the plan is to continue making life difficult for them until they acquiesce. Ashley is actually in a difficult position now IMO. He's built this reputation around being 'strong' in the face of the fans, but even if he wants to get rid of Pardew, it's now going to look like a response to this protest, as long as they can keep it up. As if he's buckled under fan pressure for once. There's a potential victory in this.

Even if he doesn't, the team are going to see the writing is on the wall. He'll surely lose the dressing room if he hasn't already - and that should be that.

I just can't quite imagine what's going to happen after this - whichever way it goes, one half of the population of Scotland is going to be disappointed...

This would appear to be the most organised fan protest yet. Good job, might even be effective.

Strangely though, this referendum would appear to be one of the few cases where, while it may not make a huge difference to the way people live their lives, a yes vote would be as serious a blow as the establishment have received in some time. I dare say all of the usual influences will get their grubby hands on Scotland in short order, but an independent Scotland is clearly not something they desired.

Ah ok, sorry - I picked up on CT's point with my thinking more along the lines of what people in general do in voting, not specifically Scotland. My bad, it's the wrong thread for it really. I actually think Scottish people are more informed going into this than most would be in a referendum or election, despite all of the unknowns; people are making as informed a judgment as they can - and I don't want them to vote one way or the other, I can see the merits of both sides; stability and continuity for the no, and the chance to tell London to fuck off for the yes (although I haven't seen any convincing arguments for yes beyond this, much as it has my full sympathy).

I live in Newcastle so I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean... EDIT - Unless you meant with respect of Scotland, in which case no.

Didn't say they didn't deserve a vote, just that people are stupid and tribal. I recall when the Obamacare program was being rolled out in the US, people who had serious medical conditions were being brought out to state why they would vote against it - these were people whose lives could have been improved immeasurably by access to cheaper healthcare, coming out against it because they were republican. What is the point in democracy if a) half the population don't vote, and b ) most people don't understand what they're voting for? Perhaps I should have phrased it differently - a lot of people are underinformed and therefore not capable of making decisions that are in their best interests. These people will tend to vote following whatever they read in the papers that reinforces their world view, and don't subject their choices to critical analysis. These people should not vote - they are not fully informed.