Toonpack

Yes it is, also watch the Williamson header just before the head but icnident, Carragher is pulling Perch back by the shirt as he follows in.

I think it's because the average footballer is a bit dim

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I'd rather they stamped out the "fouled by the slight breeze created by a defender" problems first, over-reacting to highlight a nailed on a red card offence is way down the list for stamping out IMO

The replacement of Carroll was worth the wait, in hindsight.

Given the way the game is nowadays, can't believe anyone thinks he did anything wrong.

It's not like this happens on the rare occasion, either. You aim a headbutt at another player, and you're off. No questions asked. Most players won't stand there and take it, they'll make a meal of it for reasons given. And why not? If one of our players was stupid enough to stick his head into an opponents face and said opponent went down like he'd been shot, the last person I would villify would be the opponent.

Yep, one was making sure a red card offence didn't get missed, one was trying to secure a red card offence out of nothing.

Yes that's what I meant. He is always going to do things his way and why shouldn't he given his achievement? Considering his ego, empire and success it's laughable to suggest he would not want to succeed as a football club owner. I've been saying that for a while, buggers like him don't like be be "average" at anything, ever.

Was the same yesterday too. Genuinely seems to be the biggest crime of the lot going by the likes of 606 etc. Of course he overreacted. But the way I saw it - and I'd rather he hadn't, don't get me wrong - is that players react like that to make sure the ref is aware of the incident. If you just stand there and take it like a man, then perhaps the ref will be a bit lenient towards the attacker. Like Murphy on Tiote last season, Murphy then proceeeded to boss the game. They all do it, if it's a red card offence and you can highlight it, or make sure it gets just punishment, do it because the other fucker will given half a chance. About time we had a cynical edge (like all the rest do). It's the modern game, don't particularly like it, but when in Rome.......................

Aye, plus we 'improved' (league position wise) at the start of the season when we only sold our three top players and didn't replaced them. The 'easy start' if everyone can recall it. It's just an old man shouting slogans at the end of the day. It's easy to say just buy everyone and just keep everyone too. The reality is you can't do that, the reality is certain, select other clubs can offer more, the reality is timing (of incomings and departures) is a huge issue, the reality is availability of strategic target personnel is an issue when you're operating a non-casino transfer budget. The net effect has been a huge progression this season. The money that has been available has been spent very well. The playing squad is stronger once again overall. Not spending more money (or spending more earlier) cost us our chances of FA Cup progression at a time when the squad was depleted. That's the reality. The whole spectrum has to be weighed up in minute detail now we don't have a casino budget anymore (and now that other bankrolled clubs do). Aye, you'd have be a one eyed buffoon to not see we are now in the best shape on and off the pitch we have been for fucking years, whether it brings a trophy is another matter but we didn't win one 'the old way' so it's a moot point. I still expect Ashley to stick it to us, but that's only natural given his bungling adolescence as a football club owner. Maybe he has matured, and maybe some fans have along the way. You utter utter pathetic shambling CHUM. If by "matured" you mean learned, I would agree as I really do think he's learned about "the business of the game", he'll likely continue to piss off the fans here and there as I believe he will undoubtedly do it "his way" and screw everyone else's opinion.

I haven't mentioned Bolton at all. Bolton had a completely different strategy to us, and that was to build a team for a season, made up mainly of players loaned from abroad. We, on the other hand, are buying players who are young or approaching their prime. This has the effect of ensuring that we can either take advantage of the best years of their careers and / or receive decent compensation if the player chooses to leave for a big pay day. I am capable of forming my own opinions through reasoned logic. Whilst I'll read what other people have to say, I am my own man, and will form my own views. There are sound, reasoned views coming from match-goers as well as those who don't go the games, just as there are bizarre views from both camps. In all honesty it generally doesn't make that much difference whether they go to games or not. In order to break into the top 4 quickly, we would need to spend at least £200m and consistently pay out ridiculous wages. In other words, we'd need to mortgage the stadium and Mike Ashley would need to write a quarter of his fortune over the next couple of years. Not going to happen. I want a club which is self-sufficient and able to pass the UEFA Financial Fair Play rules with flying colours. If Ashley pumps in quarter of a billion, we will fail the tests, we won't be allowed to qualify for Europe and the best players will want to go elsewhere. So our options are: a) Ashley pumps in silly money so we can rise up the league, but we can't play in Europe as we're a substantially loss making business Ashley oversees a strategy of going after the future stars, building a team which appreciates in value. We may receive huge offers for players, but use this cash to fund the purchase of more players who fit the buying policy. c) Ashley refuses to sanction the sale of a player who wants to leave, as "we're not a selling club", resulting in unhappy player disrupting the team and negatively affecting team morale. To me, option B is the only option. It's sensible and will ensure long term growth and long term stability. In the medium term, the best up and coming players will want to come to NUFC as we have a reputation for giving players a superb grounding and introduction to the Premiership. Over time, we'll improve our reputation to the point that we're seen as a better option than many of the clubs that we once sold to. We need to continually improve, but sometimes it's about taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture. Throwing money at buying players doesn't mean we're going to suddenly become world beaters. We need to be signing players who WANT to play for us. We shouldn't be signing players who are only coming because we're offering more money than Spurs / Liverpool etc. We should be signing players who buy into our approach and strategy. This makes building the squad a more time consuming activity, but it gives us far less chance of buying duds like Guivarch, Luque, Bassedas, Maric, Owen, Boumsong etc. I'm not totally sure what you want from the club. You bang on about wanting us to be progressive, but by the very defnition of the word we have progressed: - more points - more goals - more clean sheets - more full internationals - bigger attendances - higher league placing - top players secured on long term deals, so they either stay or we received suitable compensation for them - club is no longer loss making - healthy cash balance to fund future developments - no reliance on bank funding whatsoever This makes us progressive. Excellent post and worthy of far more than the claptrap it will doubtless elicit. Agree, excellent post, although he'll probably ignore it (he may now claptrap it just to prove me wrong of course)

Link please Gem

there's no dialling tone...... just the sound of backtracking...... Surely you didn't offer him out, did you ??

Erik Pieters ‏ @_Erik_Pieters_ Close Go Magpies #newliv / 2nd Goal of Pepiss Cisse 25min left..!! #keepitgoing http://pic.twitter.com/idpswleA

Agree, think Pardew has played the HBA situation perfectly, disciplined him to be playing how Pardew want's him to play and has now fashioned the team to accomodate him and maximise his undoubted talents. HBA is now chasing and harrying and being a real threat going forward. I think Pardew has got him doing the things he wanted him to, to be able to be "happy" going 4-3-3

He didn't dive, he just stumbled, according to Kenny

Perchenbauer tbh

I look on the Wolves and Mackems matches as 4 points dropped tbh T'is a fair point, but we murdered Manu U, which we do once in a blue moon, so that 3 points just about cancels those out (from a disappointment pov, for me anyway).

Didn't he get the boot

Would doubt Cisse's in that, year end was June I would guess it refers to the summer window only, the "associated costs" are likely agent fees etc relating to Ba and maybe Marveaux

He's a guy that gets more pleasure out of being right on the internet than seeing the team do well, he's even gone as far as posting smilies after West Brom equalised in the final game of last season meaning we finished in the bottom half. I don't think he's got any pleasure out of this season and won't until Mike Ashley matches all of the finishes the club had under Keegan and Robson. He likes to tell you about it too, preferably as often as possible in as many different threads as possible. He likes to say he's right, he's not been right about anything yet.

Erm.... Murdered,raped,enslaved, exploited minorities etc etc Always find it interesting hove those who are "humanist" deride religion which was the very catalyst for said humanity. All of those things have happened in the name of religion too, what's the common theme? Are you being interested by your belief that civilisation can only occur because of religion? Unprovable without a time machine, and you could argue religion has destroyed plenty along the way. Animals readily organise themselves into civilisations, for the greater good of all. How did these get going? Men and women have self organised into civilised society dozens perhaps even thousands of times all over Earth throughout thousands or indeed tens of thousands of years. There may have been numerous different religious elements to these systems, they may have been there at the beginning or developed as the result of having time to consider such matters by being freed from living hand to mouth, but what was the common theme through time and space? People. They create civilisations, they create religions, they create gods. Even if it were so that our invention of religion provided us with a stepping stone to civilisation it has also built walls between civilisations, literally, and ones that will seemingly never topple. If we could objectively acknowledge this phenomena for what it is we could begin to unpick the damage it does in today's society. But as it is closely associated with peoples' desire for meaning, love for their departed and the fact they have so much invested in it it would require such monumental effort, courage and determination, on an individual and group level, it's likely a lost cause. This makes me wonder if this happens with all intelligent civilisations or if any have broken free of this initial explanation tether. If they have perhaps they'd consider telling us how they did it, if we weren't still interested in blowing eachother, and most likely them, to Kingdom Come. Sorry but saying animals have developed civilisations for the good of all, nature is the most tribal and brutal "thing" on the planet. I'd also question these self developed human civilisations over tens of thousands of years, can't think of any that we're "humane" or all encompasing and without walls. Mankind is by nature a cunt and always will be, civilisations don't last, neither will ours which happens to be the most tolerant in history I would suggest.

Erm.... Murdered,raped,enslaved, exploited minorities etc etc Always find it interesting hove those who are "humanist" deride religion which was the very catalyst for said humanity. What the fuck? The Crusades, Jihad, Sectarianism in Iraq and Ireland, the Spanish Inquisition, enslaving of the Jews, rampant child abuse... Yeah, religion has been a fucking excellent yardstick for morals! Probably put us back at least 1000 years socially! Do you understand what a catalyst is?? Given even with religion mankind has a propensity to commit awfull acts, where'd mankind be without it ?? Put us back 1000 years is laughable, how humane was mankind before Christianity grew up, as an example. Any definition of morals in the western world evolved from the ten commandments, where else did humanity come from?? There was no "humane" society before, damn sure there wouldn't be without it. Look at nature, survival of the fittest in action. Mankind has to a point risen above that, if not religion what was the catalyst??

Erm.... Murdered,raped,enslaved, exploited minorities etc etc Always find it interesting hove those who are "humanist" deride religion which was the very catalyst for said humanity.