McFaul

Like what? Everyone of them is a Pub or WMC team He's got a point thought. Looks like a 5 a side league by the for and against column. My last full season of Sunday league our record was something like W19 D2 L5 F35 A19 - which shows what a good standard it was. 125 goals conceded ffs. Which is? If you play for the Salutation or Postboy pub then what are you going to name the team? Same goes for if you play for the Dubmire WMC or Quarry Hill WMC? I'm still struggling to see these daft team names? As for the standard of the league, I already bit at this once before, the DIV1 champions have won the FA Sunday Cup more than any other team in the country http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/FACompetitio...tonMagnetReport Sounds to me like your team had pony strikers Stevie if you only managed 35 goals in 26 games. That's like a team in the Conference North saying "standard of the league!?!?!??!! aye but a team in top tier (Man Utd) are in the Champions League final". Fuck all to do with shit strikers, good defences, tactical Sunday league battles not, balls bouncing of peoples shins, and unchecked foul throws, like certain leagues I can imagine....

Defences must be shite in that leaguem looking at the F & A. Pretty standard swing from top to bottom. Looking at the Northern Conference there's only a couple of goals difference in the GD. Every league is going to have good teams who win most games and bad teams who lose most games http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/e...ble/default.stm Says it all that we came second in our league scoring 11 less goals than the team who came BOTTOM of your league conceding 125. I'd refuse to play if we were winning 10-0 every game.

How do you work that one out ?? We were considerably wealthier than them from 95-2005 if you'd care to do some research in terms of turnover. We were even wealthier than Liverpool in some seasons who were a global force once upon a time. Do you not understand what the term "continued on the same trajectory" means? Surely you do, unless you're just a dense cunt with nothing to say. Revenue is all well and good, but if it's all (and more) going out the other end of the pipe, it means nowt. We matched Liverpools turnover early doors when we had Champs League cash and they didn't, since then it's not even close. They also made profits we lost money. Spurs brought in less than us but correspondingly paid less out. You think our "trajectory" was ascending do you. Was almost identical till 2005, look again chump regardless of CL money's. You're confusing yourself with your post here, and made your original reply to me thinking I want to say something, but I don't really know what to say. It shines through you in your reply. Just agree with me or pipe down.

Like what? Everyone of them is a Pub or WMC team He's got a point thought. Looks like a 5 a side league by the for and against column. My last full season of Sunday league our record was something like W19 D2 L5 F35 A19 - which shows what a good standard it was. 125 goals conceded ffs.

Time is it and where? Need to be away by 12s at the latest and I'll be hungowa, but I ref in Sunday league now and then. If its for those N-O mugs forget it.

Lot of new cunts on here I've noticed.

Possibly, out early doors like so expect the brown bottle, there's a lot of me mates out, some of the once a season mob, so aye mebeez but they'll be there. Tilley's like? I've taken Monday off work to toast what a magnificent job Alan has done for this club.

How do you work that one out ?? We were considerably wealthier than them from 95-2005 if you'd care to do some research in terms of turnover. We were even wealthier than Liverpool in some seasons who were a global force once upon a time. Do you not understand what the term "continued on the same trajectory" means? Surely you do, unless you're just a dense cunt with nothing to say.

Absolutely but Spurs made a profit of £30m not too long ago, they're self sufficient, and my point was IF we'd continued on our trajectory even from 2003 onward we'd be a wealthier club than them. When you take in to account massively increased Sky revenues, not to mention inflation, we must be the only club in European football who's annual revenues are generally £10m-£20m less than they were over an 8 year period. You can't compete with Chelsea and Man City in terms of artificial finance, but you can on it as the yids have proved imo. They'd have been close without the distraction of the CL. Oh aye, I agree. It was just following on from what you said really. They might have been close this year but it's been a funny league and they still wouldn't have won it (without the CL distraction) and I doubt they'll have a better chance in the coming years with Man City looking to kick on etc. Just made me think, that's all. Aye, they may not have but they'll still be able to hover around that fourth place, Arsenal are declining every year imo, even Chelsea aren't invincible anymore and City STILL don't convince me fully. It's not impossible for Tottenham. I think it borders on impossible for Newcastle though. There's two points of view in LM's debates on here, his and the pov that we'd be 6,7,8 even under Hall/FFS. Well you can't definitively say either way, but what you can say was we could achieve ANYTHING then, (even if it was now) because of the momentum and appeal of the club. We could've literally done anything, that's not being deluded, when you think Dortmund won the CL in 1997, seriously and I'm saying this and being very grounded, our team were as good as Dortmund who were a fucking good side, but we were fantastic. We were definitely as good as Man Utd, who hit the woodwork 8 times in that Semi Final. The point is the club is deflated, if ever a club needs momentum to achieve this it's Newcastle, if we get it again in the future who knows, but I couldn't even imagine someone like Everton or Villa being that kind of force we were from 93 to 97 and 2001 to 2004.

Absolutely but Spurs made a profit of £30m not too long ago, they're self sufficient, and my point was IF we'd continued on our trajectory even from 2003 onward we'd be a wealthier club than them. When you take in to account massively increased Sky revenues, not to mention inflation, we must be the only club in European football who's annual revenues are generally £10m-£20m less than they were 8 years ago. You can't compete with Chelsea and Man City off the pitch in terms of artificial finance, but you can on it as the yids have proved imo. They'd have been close without the distraction of the CL.

I'm probably putting the curse on this like but I have a bet on right now £30 Anderson to beat Barney 8/13 won 8-6 BMG to beat Bochum 7/10 won 1-0 Peterborough to beat MK Dons 5/6 won 2-0 waiting of Accrington to beat Stevenage 6/5 the neet Celtic to beat Motherwell 2/5 the morra for £465.20 - come on. William Hills must hate me £1350 up with them this year, but £1200 down with Sky Bet.

I'm taking it as a given that Birmingham Blackpool and obviously West Ham are doon. From them, I honest to god wouldn't want Parker by the way, I'd want Demba Ba, he's got real promise, has a cracking shot, Charlie Adam, DJ Campbell for a fox in the box type coming off the bench he'd dee, Sebs Larsson and that Villa reject good player though, scored against West Ham in the League Cup.

The only people who said anyone but Fred were the voices in your head. Why don't you address the point that all of the premier league clubs only survive through underwritten debt rather than by revenues? When will you get it through your head that nobody actually supports Ashley? When will you realise that everyone wants us to compete but realise it is impossible as it stands. When will you realise that football has changed and the Halls COULD NOT RUN THE CLUB NOW AS THEY DID THEN. When hell freezes over it would seem. Very vague and muddled up, speculative point of view. If we'd continued on the 90's early 00's trajectory, we'd be a wealthier club than Tottenham, who are two or three players from a genuine title bid imo.

Must be from the generation before me those sayings. Fukushima has nothing compared to the meltdowns people have had this week on toontastic like reading these threads. Threats, accusations of bullying, net fights, tears, drunken bile, it's like being in 6th form again.

Nar he didn't I needed something to rhyme with bent, I'll change the lyrics.

Once had a house in Margate

Good effort I've had a gann. We've got a scout called Graham Carr from Kent, from Kent He's got a famous funny son, he's bent, he's bent He found Tiote and Ben Ar He's the first cunt at the bar Newcastle's chief scout, Super Graham Carr nanananannananannanaaaaa

I go away for a few days and it's like 1985 Beirut on here.

Fucking bomb hidden somewhere in London. Can the cunts not just accept that they done well out the good friday agreement. As bad as Al Quaida in my view, and so are their supporters looking in no direction in particular.

Well you can't say that, and not provide examples. Best policy is to pipe down rather than make false accusations. Like I need to show specifics when it comes to you. In other words you have nothing specific to say, because there's no evidence to back up your point of view. See in my view, of all the Irish people on here, you are the nearest to a bigot we have, shines through to me whenever Ireland is discussed. The likes of Barney and Ant are totally liberal in comparison. Alright then, what about your comments about Matthew Syed, I reckon they're just as offensive as what Lennon said, yet we don't brand you as a racist. And I'll put the same question to you, show me one thing I have ever said on here that is even close to being bigoted. Some of my best friends are protestant. The only comment you'd ever find on here, and it's been used more than Bainesgate. I don't even think it was offensive, it's not slagging muslims off, just basically saying Syed is a prick, which he is. LM agrees with my statement. Re: your bigoted ways, it's more of a collective undertone I've noticed tbh, than one specific comment.

Well you can't say that, and not provide examples. Best policy is to pipe down rather than make false accusations. Like I need to show specifics when it comes to you. In other words you have nothing specific to say, because there's no evidence to back up your point of view. See in my view, of all the Irish people on here, you are the nearest to a bigot we have, shines through to me whenever Ireland is discussed. The likes of Barney and Ant are totally liberal in comparison.

Happy, deluded, hungover, chirpy

Meenzer you would've been proud of me. On Friday night I backed Azerbaijan at 13/2 just a 10a cos they were tipped in a betting paper them and France but France were a shit price, and I forgot about it. Got in on Sunday morning, and they'd won!! Hehe.

Well you can't say that, and not provide examples. Best policy is to pipe down rather than make false accusations.

Chez? If you anything today watch this clip fuckin creased me. pmsl. http://www.twitvid.com/2FYER Sums West Ham up everything about it.