LeazesMag

nah, its not football genius, in fact most substitutions aren't, they are just a change of tac, another throw of the dice, try something different and hope it works. The starting line up is the first choice strategy and selection, if something goes wrong it is absolutely right to try something different. Yesterday it worked. Good for him, and England. The last game is a different game, England need a draw or they will be going home, it will be a surprise if the French lose, although you never know.

so, as our revenues are bigger than Spurs - or were - when are we going to match them by continuing to do things like they do ? Are we going to equal or better their league positions over a 5 year period, or is it only going to be for one year [almost] or are you going to continue to proclaim one year is proof of a progressive attitude and ambitions inside the club ? You didn't answer what I asked you about Rangers by the way.

I bet you're a big softie MF !!

Andy Carroll showed what he can offer to both his club and country last night, he will come good, and England are indeed playing like an English club team as I thought they would. Nothing wrong with that if it gets results, they only need a draw in the last game and they are through. Even if they don't get it, its not the first time they haven't got out of the group and Hodgsons approach has been fully justified now. Of course, they need to qualify for the next World Cup after this, as he's in the job longer term. It's nice to dream about playing possession football like the best foreign teams, but the simple fact is England just don't have the players to do this and we rarely have. Play to your strengths is the name of the game. Spain [obviously] and the Germans are the teams to beat. I think Shweinsteiger [sorry if the spelling is wrong] is a great player, and Gomez is like a re-incarnation of Gerd Muller in the way he comes alive in the box.

I don't know what you mean, I'm telling you how long I've been watching NUFC because you told me I know nowt, and how I see football and the club as a result. Do you think that one season is proof of any good direction or the result of any decisions that you think are good decisions ? And I'm asking you what you think needs to be done next. what consequences will Rangers suffer ? I don't give a toss either way what happens to them or Scottish football to be honest, but you tell me what consequences they will suffer ? I'm not going to reply to any of this, if you don't reply to me constructively in return by the way, as I've done to you, including my comments about Spurs as I consider this to be a constructive response, which both myself, you and others can get involved in like adults.

Cool ? Bring back the sunshine is what I say.

Wee Huns

I've been to games for well over 40 years TP, and seen quite a lot of seasons a lot better than last season. So I understand what it takes to go higher, and I know limited ambition when I see it, it doesn't need to stare me in the face and remain blind to it. Anyway, the point of competing in football is to play and compete at the highest levels possible and try to win these top competitions, rather than make profits for the owner to pocket and advertise his more important product. This is where you confuse football with the high street business. Well done. I expect you will NEVER actually realise this, and success to you will continue to be survival in the premiership and a profit by selling our best players to the highest bidders and not backing the managers with the money. This should not really need to be explained again. This last season will not be repeated unless he keeps his best players and adds to them with more quality. Do you think this will be done or not ie like Spurs have done, and we will match their league positions over a 5 year period accordingly, as you like to quote us as doing the same as Spurs ?

I understand your point about the support of the clubs. Nobody makes a decision by sitting down and deciding in that way, of course not. But kids will support the teams their family supports, or the local team, generally. They don't decide, they are brainwashed in a way, it is how they are brought up, or follow other kids at school. I used to live in Scarborough, and because they don't have a good league team, that wasn't even a league team for most of their lives, the vast majority of people support ManU, Liverpool, Arsenal or another major club, even though they are true Scarborians. It's the same thing, its the mentality of the town, they think they are genuine supporters and don't see anything wrong with it and see themselves as being true supporters of the clubs they "choose" just as much as someone who actually comes from the town or city in question. When I moved there, I expected to find supporters of Scarborough and Leeds, but even though I have lived all over the UK I was surprised to find so many lads who "supported" ManU, Liverpool and Arsenal. I said to a bloke once, when he said to me he "chose" Arsenal [for example], "why didn't you choose to support Torquay, or Bournemouth, or Bristol City" ? Point made I think. Funny thing a number of years ago, was when a lad was in my local telling everybody how he had a ticket to go and see Newcastle because he was a Newcastle supporter. My mate said to him, pointing at me, "see him there, he sees them play 20 times a season, he's what you call a Newcastle supporter".

I was 33

sorry like, but "single" means never married, whether you have a girlfriend or not. I realise that these days, saying you are "single" means you are "not in a relationship", but to me and my generation, being in a relationship with someone and not being married means you have a girlfriend/boyfriend/partner [delete as appropriate]. This is classed as "single" because you are in fact, single and not married. If you have not married and have not been married, then you are single. If you have never married, then you either have a girlfriend or not, but either way you are single. I realise you may know this and are just being daft like, or perhaps not. Just a play on words maybe, but there you go.

I've got to say here, that there are several people on here - and other forums - who know nothing about the game and NUFC. You may think you know about the game, but I've yet to see you post much about football. Everything you post is finance orientated, beginning with your current signature and utter self delusion that it portrays, which you have always typified. Whereas Stevie is one of the people who, even if I now and again don't agree with him, certainly posts about football and shows he has genuine knowledge of football and Newcastle United.

but it isn't supporting your local team is it ?

I was there http://www.ovguide.com/1969-inter-cities-fairs-cup-semi-final-riots-9202a8c04000641f800000001776ada9#

of course, but that is not my point. However, people from all over Scotland don't necessarily support their hometown team, they support either Rangers or Celtic. That's not supporting your hometown team. The town [or city because it has a cathedral and is therefore in fact a city however small it is] that I referred to earlier is Brechin. The majority in the town support Rangers, Celtic or Aberdeen.

and what about 1969 ? The "seperate the idiotic minority from the decent majority" is the same old excuse. What is important is the size of the "idiotic minority" which can and does cause a lot of damage. Down here in England, a lot of people, in fact the "decent majority" see the whole footballing situation in Glasgow as being completely driven by bigotry, and a huge amount of drunken idiots who come down here whenever their teams play down here.

nothing new there, nothing learned. Next.

you're defending it for not being a 2 man league then admitting in the very same post on numerous occasions that this is exactly what it is. Comparing it to the Premiership is the normal Jock fallback point, how many clubs have won the title in Jockland in say, the past 30-40 years and how many have won the English title in that time ? The fact is, its a 2 man league, always has been and always will be, despite this Rangers administration and the "out of business" claims, which simply will not happen. Just as it doesn't happen in England either.

consider number 3 then !

unmarried or not ?

2 quid ? Wow. Maybe when Morrisons buy the supermarket on the land they can pay me back. I can think of a few other things I object to that cost a lot more than 2 quid from the countries revenues. Actually, did those OF [ie Rangers] worry about all of this when they were having good runs in europe and beating Celtic to the titles they won, in this 2 man league ?

when I lived up in Jockland in the 80's, I made a few friends who would have taken me to see both Celtic and Rangers, but I didn't. I regret not going, just so I could say that I had been. I went to Aberdeen once though, soon after Alex Ferguson had left and they were a force at that time. The lads I knew were good lads, but I feel sorry for them that they are so deluded about the merits of their shite league though.

what really makes me smile, is the posters on there who write for True Faith because they also give the impression they are the dogs bollocks, when in fact all that magazine does is print the "alternative view" [ie like a student rag] and so much of it is purely and simply shite. Apart from Paully, who is good.

so who on here is 1. Happily married 2. Happily not married ie a. Single b. No girlfriend/partner etc c. with a girlfriend/boyfriend/partner etc 3. Divorced 4. Happily re-married Much macho type comments abound, so tell the truth people.

skunkers is just an older version of Newcastle Online anyway Stevie. Full of NUFC know-nowts.