80-2

I do wonder how much control Llambias actually has. I know most of us thought/think that he's just Ashley's puppet, but I'm wondering if Ashley just leaves him to it and that Llambias deserves more of the blame that is directed straight at Ashley. Wouldn't be surprised in the slightest, but I think it's gone far too far for that sophisticated an analysis... Ultimately, Ashley put him there, knows him and isn't taking him away.

Anyone know where I can get a decent torrent of the whole first series? Initial checks see them all dead, private or including an incomplete episode. I've wanted to watch the first again before the second since I realised just how much the BBC cut out in order to up the sex proportion - hurrah for high-quality, publicly-funded smut.

Don't normally post on here, but I wanted to share this http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RockyMcBatts Seems the video I originally found him through has been deleted, unfortunately ("There was a young boy from eebrax"). I've since found a few response videos of varying quality, "The Italian Christmas Donkey" appeals to the child in me.

I know I shouldn't, but Perhaps I have tourettes!?! Am I right in thinking the Homosapien remark came in Canterbury? Just occurred to me that would've been in relation to creationism and such

Well, of course, the story goes that he's got a £4.5m release clause...

Sky were blatantly taking the piss, as was Souness. 107757[/snapback] Agree with both posts. He was obviously not a proper player Wish those guys who caught Keegan in the car park with the baseball bat all those years got hold of Souness instead And thats the price on the ticket 107816[/snapback] I heard it was a rent boy that done that to Keegan, probably just a vicous rumour like 107906[/snapback] I've heard worse than that. Think it was from someone on here

More meritocratic. Because it has less class hang-ups! In a nutshell. Jesus wept tbh. 34289[/snapback] For every missing class hang up there's a "he's a fucking WASP/non-denominationalist/wetback/etc.". Case in point - The Fucking Fulfords. Posh as they come but poor. Theres more to being upper class than money. With that in mind, its probably easier for the working classes to become properly assumed members of that club than it is richer middle classes.

^*ahem*^

that is the point of course THROUGH BIRTHRIGHT I don't think the Dook in Alnwick has done much to justify owning all that land and his dinkie castle 34251[/snapback] Perhaps, but I can't help thinking that all people who say property should revert to the state upon death are arch mentalists. So they enjoy the fruits of slavery and exploitation but can't be held responsible for it? 34252[/snapback] You live in the prosperous West because your ancestors sailed off to the Muslim world and sodomised it several times over, helping to wreck the technological/philisophical/etc. lead it had over us at the time. Are you offering reparations? --- Preview page shows breaking news... --- In many ways, I'd actually say Britain is more meritocratic. And in other ways, less meritocratic. For my money, its probably too mixed a bag to try and gauge. It also would probably involve a far longer discussion in another thread to try and pin down Are you laughing? Rule #1 in the reading of the past, present and future - Never use absolutes. "Death Knell" was probably the wrong term to use. For general chat its alright, but if we're gonna be more accurate, "given a good kicking" would be a better way to put it. You can get back up from a good kicking. I think one problem we're all having here (or at least, I am) is just what the definition of the Upper Class is. As a result, we may be arguing at cross points. Some (to a large extent, me included) are thinking of the people and culture that does remain, but has been ground down under assaults of varying magnitude for around 300 years, now. Others seem to be thinking of rich people with public school accents - there is a large difference between these two groups. To go back to the "Upper Classes dying" bit, it would be stupidity itself to say such a thing, simply because whenever an upper class does disappear, it is always replaced - nature abhors a vacuum and all that. Edit: This bloody thread isn't easy to keep up with when you're trying to do other things at the same time... Stop posting and wait for me, you bastards. 2nd Edit: Fucking deleted my post with that previous fucking edit...

Its around, but half of it is bankrupt and they don't hold anything like the sway they once did/would've. By death knell, I meant in the longer term. A revolution took place and ambitious sorts from the lower classes seized power, imposing what they saw as logic and rationale upon their surroundings. The thing about the landed-gentry is that the vast majority of their land remained in our scepted isle, whether it was in Northumberland, Perthshire or Shropshire. The only upper classes that remained, prospered and expanded were the ones who started playing the middle classes' game. Also, I don't really like this term being bandied about in quite the way it is being. Its as though its a Hindu-based cast system, as opposed to the reletively fluid entity it actually is. Is anyone here (or anywhere else) going to dare say that the USA doesn't have a class system, including a fully-fledged upper class?

Don't see what it has to do with class. 34230[/snapback] upper class=greatest beneficiaries from empire/colonialism 34231[/snapback] You're thinking of the middle classes. 34234[/snapback] Excuse me, but I'm not. 34236[/snapback] Well, in that case, I suggest you do some reading up, Sir. It can be well argued that the rise and rise of the middle classes throughout the 18th and 19th centuries rang the death knell for the upper classes.

Don't see what it has to do with class. 34230[/snapback] upper class=greatest beneficiaries from empire/colonialism 34231[/snapback] You could argue completely the opposite mancy. The upper classes in countries that were never colonists still do quite well. You could in fact argue that thwe lower classes really benefit most. Look at the standard of living of the average American for example. What I'm really getting at with NJS's post was that his attitude sounds like an excuse to bitterly generalise. Maybe if we stopped slinging shit at each other we might actually learn something? Would it be ok for 'working class twats' to hold the same party? 34233[/snapback] Basically what I said at greater length

Don't see what it has to do with class. 34230[/snapback] upper class=greatest beneficiaries from empire/colonialism 34231[/snapback] You're thinking of the middle classes.

You're thinking within the realms of your own experiences. To much of that lot, theres a social cachet in sourcing some good looking costume of a specific tribe, there wasn't as much "leaves on bollocks, spears in hands" stuff, therefore. Of course, it also demonstrates what a concientious and decent young man he is for associating The Third Reich with what he no doubt sees as the appalling excesses of imperial England in its pomp, ruthlessly exploiting Mother Africa for sheer greed.

We could set Harry on any slackers. Sounds good, to me.

Gibbering gimp tbh. 34131[/snapback] Great comedic value and top bloke, but couldn't win things at Chelsea with as much money as he wanted and was nothing special, also pisses about too much. 34139[/snapback] As far as I'm concerned, thats a myth. Its something we'll never know now, of course, but I think it would've been very interesting to see how Ranieri did in the second season he never got. Half the money that was spent was on players he had no interest in (see Veron etc.), whilst virtually every good player Chelsea have (including all these "great finds") were his buys - I hearly people wrongly accredit Cech, Robben and others to Mourinho, which is an injustice, frankly.

Naive I think. It's true that they have little political power, but they are still the living embodiment of the class system. A soceity not fundamentally based on freedom or merit, but class and privilege. And then of course they are always there in the media. We are expected to respect Charle's idiotic viewpoints, and genuflect to the Queen. We are expected to mourn when one of these parasites die. Well fuck that. Down with the monarchy! 34174[/snapback] Really? Who says? If he is a stupid man, tell him so, plenty of others do. I usually think that its those who are most concerned about the existence of a percieved class system that are most concerned about their place within it.

James Hewitt is no Einstein...Harry's such an embarressment the Royal Family should just admit he's the dad, and therefore nothing to do with them. 34113[/snapback] You posted whilst I was posting... Nah, they have to take responsibility - he's definitely Charlie's kid - or at least a member of the family - he looks more and more like Edward all the time (and we thought he was a whoopsie...). He sounds just like Charlie, too.

Perhaps, but I believe it was just an excuse to dress up, put on a silly accent and goosestep around for the amusement of his mates - which would rank it alongside Basil Fawlty. The theme of that party was "Colonial and Natives"... Not necessarily dodgy, it just gives scope for interesting costumes. However, I know for a fact that some of those in the circles Harry & co. move in have "interesting" views... I think most can be taken as innocent thanks to naivity through a sheltered upbringing, though. The most stupid thing Harry did that night? He went to a fancy dress party titled "Colonials and Natives" dressed as a member of Rommel's Afrika Corps.

Aye, it was nice to hear, and actually believe, that Shearer had such an impact on some of our recent signings. I'm also unnerved by the prospect of him just being given the club regardless of what his prospects look like - we'll just have to hope for the best on that front - I give him a 15% chance of being a very good/great manager. Clough at Sunderland... Christ, could've been a totally different world... *shudders* Oh aye, McCarthy does talk some rubbish about us, I just get the sense that his heart is near enough in the right place on the subject. Ken Bates, though... Why he was sticking his nose in our affairs, I don't know. That said, Robert is one subject that I basically side with Souness on. I gave up on him quite some time ago - I get annoyed that he's even put in the same bracket as Bellamy I'm quite happy about the current Eriksson situation - I've been saying he was crap for years now. What pisses me right off is that those who seek to defend him always say it's because he's foreign - total bollocks, it's because he is literally useless. I honestly think even Souness would do a better job than him. Thats one thing that I've always intended to concede, but haven't really had the opportunity. Whilst the net problem is very significant, our managers do at least get the opportunity to change much of the team around - with one or two exceptions (Sheerah!). Funnily enough, as I started to say previously, Souness has actually done reletively well on that front. The thing about us selling players, though, is that it is entirely Shepherd's responsibility - with regards to dealing with offers, negotiations, etc. However, obviously, there is more to selling than that and the whole club (Souness, Shepherd, past faces etc.) is guilty of un-necessarily slagging some of our players off, losing us millions in the process. Why none of them have any guile, I dunno. Conversely, I'm convinced we've lost a few million on Jenas because of our ridiculous reaction to Arsenal's interest. All this "we want £20m" bollocks just left us looking more stupid when he went for £7m. If we'd had Arsenal and Spurs (and others?) competing against eachother, I believe it could've been a figure closer to £11m. Now, that all said, we have sold many of our players for "good" reasons, reasons that meant they'd go for less than their natural talents would normally allow, so its reasonable to expect we'd have to pay more for better players (i.e. equivalent/better skills, much better characters meaning they play more matches, etc.). The point is, the better the manager, the more you'll sell your bad players for, and the less you'll spend on better replacements.

In fact, having said that, it appears they've outright fucked a lot of people's Sky+s with this update. How good of them.

Without wanting to get too deep, I think the thing about us being happy with a good striker and the ability to give a "big" team a scrap is a city-wide problem. It's a part of the same thing that has the Newcastle-Gateshead "people" telling the rest of the world that there's a great time to be had here because we work all week, get paid on a Friday and drink it all on the same night. Nevermind whatever else the region has had to offer over the last 1500 years, just bear in mind the fact that you can get pissed in double-quick time. I couldn't really comment on Gordon Lee, he was before my time, though those stories about dumping players by driving the team bus without them seemed... "eccentric". Still, he's thought of in an entirely different way in Liverpool. With regards to the Keegan era, there was a real sense of creating something special, of righting a few wrongs and waking up the giant. The thing is, though, it eventually became too self-concious. We carried it off whilst we were young and successful, but as time went on, wrinkles formed and we started sounding like a desperate, twice-divorsed, childless woman ranting on about "still being in her prime". Time went on, Keegan departed, and those Geordie references became all the more frequent and bizarre. You're probably right about Shepherd being thick, in fact I know you are. Its just that there's this paranoid streak that lays in most of us that cries "he wants you to think that". Still, what Rob W said the other day about trusting in the "Cock Up" theory of life seeing you right more often than not is true. You're also right about an unknown replacement, on balance, being worse than better. Its why I approach the whole subject in such a frustratingly nervy fashion. On one hand, you want to make sure they'd sell to someone with a brain and good intentions, on the other, you worry they'll just shunt us off to some small-time Glazer. For the time being, I'd be happy treat them all as though they're as cumbersome and thick as Cows, and use a cattle-prod accordingly. In my mind, there's no doubt that the unrest that was brewing helped provoke the activity we saw towards the end of the transfer window - its why we were scrabbling around for cash, selling one or two solid, versatile characters like Aaron Hughes (and well done to him, this evening) for piddling amounts before millions and millions were suddenly released. An even better solution would be to employ a chief executive and divide the super-role of chairman that we now have, as most good PLCs do. If they're serious about being fans who want the best for the club, they'd get some bright spark with a taste for football, in and leave him un-obstructed in his work. The paranoid part of me says "but they know they're onto a good thing and wouldn't risk independant eyes viewing the books un-cooked" in response to this. Where do we go wrong? Its a big and good question. I think there are many different factors involved, not least this dance that new arrivals are forced to join. There's the erratic mouth of the board to contend with, the extremely intense and influential local press to deal with (in all seriousness, Newcastle's footballing press is far more pervasive than in other parts of the country. It leads to stagnation and too much mutual interest between certain parties), and all manner of other things. I really don't think Souness has ever had to play the game he's had to play here. In a perfect world, we'd all calm down for a year or two and there'd be a city-wide period of introspection, in which we work out quite why we behave the way we do. Heh, Jimmy Hill is a permanent fixture on my viewing list - especially in the wake of Owen's arrival. It wasn't a suprise to discover they were all raring to talk about why Liverpool didn't get him, and whether it was a good idea or not, instead. I always like to watch programs that involve journalists/opinion formers talk about subjects (not just football, but politics and such) because it's far more revealing about the way they work and gives you a better idea of what's happening. But yes, it was Winter and that arse Custis (who I consider the lowest of the low - that he's from around here makes it all the worse. I half-suspect he's actually a mackem as he seems to delight in fucking us up) on this week. They were generally of the opinion that it's shit or bust time for us, now - that we're either gonna get into the Champion's League or go into oblivion. What I find so annoying about Winter is that just because he has a public school accent and writes for the Telegraph, his opinions are given much greater worth, when in reality, he often talks the amateurish shite you find in the Daily Star or some such - albeit better phrased. BTW, a funny thing I discovered a few months ago - have you ever watched a late-night Channel 4 program called Shariah TV? It turns out his brother is a bloody Muslim scholar. The guy is a pastier version of Henry with a funny blonde goatee. Harry Harris... what a snide bastard he is. Finally, I don't really mind Paul McCarthy that much, in fact I'd be inclined to say he liked us as fans somewhat - why do you think he hates us?

Well, as I say, I don't feel they've been particularly well-backed in recent times. Part of the trouble is the nature of the backing we do get. We behave like some morbidly-obese loner who binges on biscuits in the night and tries to balance it out by starving themselves in the day. We'll splash out on an Owen or two (well, not quite Owen, but you get my drift) and then just let time slide by. One of our Owen's proves to be a dud (no matter how good a manager is, they'll always get a dud or two) whilst the other begins to get stale, along with the rest of the team. Then, just as things look like getting to a seriously dangerous point, we'll gorge ourselves on some new delights ("Luques all round!"), loads of people run around saying "At last! We're on our way back!" and the process begins again. This whole thing has been massively exacerbated by the introduction of transfer windows - in fact theres a direct correlation between its introduction and our recent behaviour (for example, Hall and Shepherd trotting around the globe yelling "Emerton for £9m! Kleberson for £6m!" when later statements proved they had no intention of spending any money in the summer of Bowyer and Belgrade - they just saw things through until the end of the window). I agree with you about the stadium and the training complex, though despite them we could afford to do more, but even that ends up offering more evidence for my (our?) take on the way the club is governed. There seems to be a perception that if we have a Shearer, a big stadium and a fancy treadmill with the club crest stamped on it that everything will be OK and our Geordie hearts will be full of Geordie pride. Whether thats due to stupidity or something more sinister, I'm never sure. No account is taken of who else is playing in the team, how the treadmill is used or why the rest of the country sniggers at the mention of our name. Yep, I won't complain too much about most of the appointments in Shepherd's time. Dalglish, Robson and Gullit were popular with most (though there were already warning signs from Chelsea about the latter...). Like you, I was left in a stunned state for literally days after the Souness appointment (it had been building up for some time, though, which I'll partially come to soon), a creeping feeling of sickness arrived as I tried to think of a way in which everything could work out wonderfully - everyone needs hope, however dim and distant, and after much effort, I decided to hope that Souness would rise to the challenge - that he'd learnt from all his prior mistakes and knew this was his big club, the one where he could achieve all he wants at. What I will complain about, though, is his behaviour after he'd appointed his men. It was beautifully, painfully encapsulated in the time between Nobby's ousting and Souness' appointment. We all knew what was going to happen, including the board, yet we went through a farce of a Summer, Shepherd declaring martial law on our transfer dealings whilst talking about "not shooting Bambi" (Christ, I don't think I've ever heard something so undermining and patronising). Then there was the backing of Shearer over Robson on playing games, the announcement that he was on his way at the end of the season (as if Strachan and Southampton hadn't demonstrated what happens in that situation, only a few months earlier), the piss-poor attempt at hoodwinking us all over Rooney... it was a crecendo of embarrassment and despair. Whilst we've spent a good-sized amount, we've not spent above our means for a long time, now. What bothers me so is the perception of so many, our fans and outsiders, that we're some kind of charity, that we should be ever so grateful to Uncle Freddy for our glitzy players. I was watching Jimmy Hill's Sunday Supplement, the other day, and he actually asked the question "can all this Owen money, alongside the rest of the "£50m" we'd "spent" be met in some way by the club, or is it all a sizeable personal investment by the board?". Whilst one of the journos said it was "basically the club's money", that we'd earned it ourselves, there was no laughter or mockery of such a suggestion, as would've been appropriate. It makes my blood boil reading Alan Oliver's arse-licking endorsement of all that goes on at the club. There've been two articles about Boumsong and France, today, one in the Journal, one in the Chronicle, by Oliver. The former was an honest piece, talking about Boumsong hopefully doing well, but that he might be dropped because of Thuram's "un-retirement", recent reletively poor form for Newcastle and the difficulty he had in dealing with the Faroe Islands' (!) crosses. Alan Oliver, meanwhile, hailed him as France's #1 rock, someone who was going to be a fixture in their team for some time to come. I also ask the question "why does Shepherd keep all financial dealings - fees, wages, etc. - such a closely guarded secret from his managers?". Finally, whilst I agree that managers have to take blame for much of what happens under their charge (for example, Robson simply has to take huge chucks of the blame for our current state, given the way he handled the young guns he wanted to buy), the situation also has to be looked at in this way - we talk about managers needing time to make their team their own (as many say Souness now has) - quite right, but Shepherd has now had nearly a decade and 5 managers (one who lasted for 2/3s of that time). Surely this makes Souness "his man" and the current situation his responsibility. When does he get judged?

I've just discovered something you might all need to know at some point - because of new regulations, Sky now demands you put your pin number in to watch any manually set recordings pre-watershed. To add to this, I found that my pin number had been altered... I can only assume by the software update, so you might find the same thing. Finally, Sky's helpline is the most utterly fucking terrible creation I've ever come across. When I finally got through, after trying about (literally) 12 paths through their maze of options, I got a woman who told me the password I was giving was wrong. After much racking of brains I gave up, rang back, got someone new and discovered the password I was giving was absolutely correct - the woman must either be cretinous or taking the piss, fucking bitch.

Actually, on this topic, will anything on this site be able to solve my .WMVs having inverted colours?