acrossthepond

I can see us beating them 3-1 again. If we look anything like the side that played Man U last week we'll run rampant over them. Let's hope we go out with the same commitment.

I had hoped this was us also. Notice the transfer front has gone mysteriously quiet for us.

Thats what I was thinking, hows the seats filling up on the online box office I cant get on. Still a fair few available. If you were to put a percentage of NO and TT going to the game, I'd say 25/55 get buying the tickets you mongs, skint isnt good enough. Massive club. Prem's best fans, etc.... Why so miserable? Lost to Boro at the weekend. New signings doing fuck all. As an aside, the beer at the ground is shite so I'll give this a miss I reckon. No, we drew with Man U at the weekend and our new signings were class. What are you on about?

I guess next you'll be wanting birth certificates at the gate to make sure no dirty "foreigners" get in. There's no real and fake supporters. There's supporters and gloryhunters and there's no Toon fans I know in the second category. I don't care if you're from Timbuktu, if there's a concrete reason why you support Newcastle (family/friend influence, first game you saw, heard about them as a kid, something) then you're a real supporter.

Here's some transfer gossip from your favorite site, ESPNsoccernet. I haven't seen any of it on this site yet so I figured I'd post. bolded #1: Another lazy journo having a go. What a surprise. bolded #2/3: Anyone seen us linked to these players before?

Very rarely seeing as I'm in Ireland, still buy merchandising and last time i checked going to matches or not doesn't mean i can't have an opinion piss poor argument that "you don't goto matches every week so why do you care" im just saying the season ticket holders and the people that go to the away gamesnare the people that pay the most money and imo if you dont go to matches very often you shouldnt be too bothered about the money side of things What utter bollocks. Forgetting the fact that being a supporter means you actually care about the club, how it is run and the consequences of stupid spending. As of the end of the 2006/07 season the break down of income to the club is; gate takings £30.9m, TV £26.5m & commercial £25.7m, so how is the "if you dont go to matches very often you shouldnt be too bothered about the money side of things" argument justified? http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/ as your post shows the majority of money comes from gate takings. the reason i believe people like ant shouldnt be as bothered is because the club isnt wasting his money. people like me that spend £1000+ newcastle every season are the people that should be complaining about the money side of things, e.g. them raising the prices of season tickets after a rubbish season and then spending next to no money on transfers and people like ant that spends his £30 for the new strip every season shouldnt complain too much. I may be wrong but by looking at your sissy fit id say your like ant and dont go to matches very often Is your argument actually that non-local fans shouldn't care about the financial aspect of the club because they don't pay for tickets, so they shouldn't be invested in what happens? I guess if NUFC folded tomorrow due to financial mismanagement all the other exiled fans and I should just shrug and think que sera sera? Part of football is money management these days (and for many years.) You need only look at Leeds, Sheff Wed, etc. to see how easily a club can lose its way especially when poor financial planning is involved. Finances are at the core of the club and to say non-locals "shouldn't be too bothered about the money side of things" is just a roundabout way of degrading fans who can't go to games. What a tosser. And this isn't the first time.

Great result, never expected it but we proved the doubters wrong today. Sour note for me was Duff looking truly lost. Butt was also risky, put in some great tackles but also gave the ball (nearly the game also) away.

Still think we should be in here, he's a mercenary if there ever was one and he wouldn't score all that high on the magness ratings ( ) but quality player. We shouldn't just spend silly money but I think we should make an approach and see what kind of price Zenit will negotiate down to now that another suitor has apparently been priced out. Just my thoughts.

Great performance, Martins scoring was true class and Jonas has been like lightning all across the pitch. Naturally they scored while Taylor was off - can't shake the feeling another body in the box would've prevented that goal but we take what we can get. Let's hope for more of the same next half, Colo has looked shaky and the Zog is nowhere to be seen at all but Beye is immense as always and Guthrie has looked lively too.

FM legend. Feel for Tevez but not sorry he's not playing of course.

Pretty much the lineup most predicted on here, except the Zog over Enrique which is surely a mistake imo. Enrique may have looked a fool against Man U last time but N'Zogbia is clearly not a left back and is just a defensive liability. Getting that sinking feeling... nevertheless

What was the source on this? It sounds a little, I don't know, made up? Nice to see quotes about the Mallorca striker but the Ruud bit seems entirely invented to me.

I'll agree he has been more prominent but his contributions have been virtually nil. He's something of a "public face" of the EU at the moment but if you notice they sent him to Georgia to talk about a cease-fire, and the Russians had already declared one before he even got off the plane. Just further proving how little influence the EU has in Russian affairs. As regards the missile defence base, surely an aggressive act if not one of outright aggression, if Russia decided to sign a "missile defence treaty" with Dominican Republic or Honduras or some such, I doubt it would be received with such placidity from the West. About little Fopinho, as soon as I saw this "circumcised" crap from him I knew I'd never see any sense out of the moron again so I just put him on ignore. It's hard being found out I suppose but there's no need to rave.

Bit like Anal with the 'I understand' bit. We missed this little nugget the first time around. "Carr can play anywhere along the back line"

That was a canny game too, real excitement. Warnock played well too.

I agree with this. We look a side transformed when Viduka plays. If he could keep fit, his influence on the side would be massive. Big if, though.

Alreet lad I've got you figured. Any argument you can't answer is "rhetoric." Any fact you can't answer is outright ignored. Instead you fill up your posts with bold, italics, smilies, caps, backtracking, and all kinds of other abject bollocks designed to disguise how you have nothing to say except inflammatory nonsense. Carry on then.

You are so dumb it beggars belief. I used to think you were playing a persona and trying to be the devil's advocate or whatever you like to call it, but it has become clear that you really believe what you say. You're every bit as fanatical as any Bible-thumper. You need the real world and you need it badly. I left you alone after your little stunt about "ohhh religious is all about us vs. them, symbols just reinforce it" because I thought your last post was dumb enough to speak as its own refutation. Symbols are about "us vs. them?" No kidding! When you look at the UK flag flying above the courthouse on your way to work, do you think about how it's a symbol of "us vs. them" too? What about the black and white stripes on your Toon top? Those aren't symbols of us vs. them too? Or does this abhorrence of symbols only apply to religion? But you wouldn't let the facts get in the way of your agenda, would you Fop? In addition, my point had nothing to do with religion. It had to do with personal freedom, including the right of people to wear religious symbols, and how they in no way contributed to so-called "brainwashing" in education. Straw man attack #1. Your own argument is that China is only using Africa to further its own aims, which are the acquisition of raw materials. Did you notice that this in no way answers anything I said about China's relationship with Africa? In fact, I made that exact point myself: What my point was - you appear to have missed it - is that China's involvement will in fact have a net beneficial effect in Africa, notwithstanding such obvious rhetorical appeals to fear as you made by mentioning Mugabe and Darfur. This is your composition fallacy problem again. You and others would argue that propping up the Mugabe and Khartoum regimes is a bad thing, although as I brought up in my post and you summarily ignored, the alternative might well be worse as we have seen in other cases. I never said that China was going to be all roses for Africa. There's straw man #2. But some negative action taken by China does not dull the benefits of their DFI, bringing sorely needed capital into countries that are literally dying for investment. Your tendency to see only black and white sets you up for the fall here again as it did with Iran. You were also unable to respond to how I pointed out how China's involvement in Africa is totally and completely not comparable to the Iraq or Georgia wars. So I guess the Flying Spaghetti Monster did help me to prove you wrong after all. Religion proves the victor over scepticism. Praise God. As regards the bit in bold: well, it's not like you at all to set up straw men, is it? Two in your last post alone.

Probably, you can't really compared Saddam's regiem (or the 3-4 way civil war that was suppressed by it) to Georgia's government. Iraq is vastly publicised though, unlike say China's advances all over Africa. Two wars vs. China investing in Africa? How do you even bring them up in the same post and keep a straight face? I never said China was fighting direct wars in Africa. I said their advances weren't publicised, unlike Iraq which still gets massive headlines whenever a chicken farts. But indirect wars and other imperialist advance? Yup, all over the place there. Not that it is well publicised so the clueless of the world tend to be 'd by it. Or (probably not surprisingly) do you not know about China's involvement all over Africa (from Sudan/Darfur to Zimbabwe), fuelling conflict, propping up tyrants/corrupt regimes, giving "aid" (military and otherwise) to secure crippling resources deals (for the populations if not their rulers anyway). And if you're into direct death-tolls just look at Tibet and Xinjiang and for threat of conflict Taiwan. Just because China aren't attacking a currently separate state at the moment doesn't mean they aren't directly or indirect killing a lot of people for their own ends as we speak. You are to the political discussions of this board as LM is to the football side. I can hardly hear you over the noise of that axe you're grinding. Your arguments follow no rules of logic. Actually, they do follow one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_(logical_fallacy) You reckon that because some of the following - choose your own topping, selected from recent memory - (religious people/Chinese inter-state actions/Iranian inter-state actions) are bad, that all are bad. Few religious fanatics out there with bombs and Bibles? Fop's here to paint all religious people and beliefs with the same brush! Some Chinese influences are clearly not kosher, point conceded. So, therefore, the Chinese involvement in Africa must also be of the same nature! Q-E-not at all-D. China is a positive force in Africa. They've got plenty of money going into poor states that desperately need foreign investment. So what if they're supporting corrupt rulers? Perhaps they should stop supporting them, allow the country to plunge into civil war, and then see what will come out of that. It worked really well in Iraq, after all. As for "crippling resource deals," I have news for you: this is nothing new either. The West has been exploiting the periphery of the world for raw materials since time immemorial. But as soon as an Eastern power starts doing it, it's neo-imperialism, an "indirect war" as serious as () Iraq or Georgia. Trying to lump those three in the same category as you did is not only fallacious but downright offensive. I doubt the Africans are saying no to Chinese direct foreign investment, no matter what strings are attached. Not so with Iraqi/Georgian reactions to USA/Russian involvement. Get off those nihilistic pseudo-political blogs you're reading and go learn about the real world. Not everything is so black and white. I'm afraid the days of WEST = GOOD and EAST = BAD are long over.

He desperately wants to have a word. FFS even the subtitles were far more eloquent than he was. What a nob

Probably, you can't really compared Saddam's regiem (or the 3-4 way civil war that was suppressed by it) to Georgia's government. Iraq is vastly publicised though, unlike say China's advances all over Africa. Two wars vs. China investing in Africa? How do you even bring them up in the same post and keep a straight face?

I can't bear that name any longer. You have no idea what kind of media wankfest is going on over him over here. American commentary is always cringeworthy, not to mention that they don't even bother showing events Americans aren't in, but this Phelps furore has almost sent me over the edge, I was seriously considering hoying a marble coaster at the TV yesterday.

I'd have him surely. Enrique has yet to really impress me but he's still young and has a bright future (we hope.) So, getting Warnock in might well do the trick although I hope we don't end up paying through the nose for him. Me ektisimi, ATP

I'm not sure he'd be able to cope with the modern game. I'll have another 10 years of Shearer though if the Doctor's doing requests. ^^ I'll have some of that too while you're at it, Doctor.