peasepud 59 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 to stand up and be counted. To be fair to them they have opposed the renaming and even Ryder has clearly stated its not in the best interests of the club but now its time they officially came out and backed the fans in this. This whole argument that the club holds the press to ransom by refusing them access becomes irrelevant when we're dealing with this regime. What real access do they have anyway? The Ronnie is owned by the Mirror isnt it? so they just need to share whats gained from any press conferences with them. A newspaper can harm a football club far more than the other way round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19739 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 i doubt they'd be barred from pressers, more that ryder's sources within the club will dry up if they don't toe the party line. totally agree with the sentiment though. it's time for ryder et al to grow a pair and tell it like it is. i did like their front cover the day the stadium name change story broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 to stand up and be counted. To be fair to them they have opposed the renaming and even Ryder has clearly stated its not in the best interests of the club but now its time they officially came out and backed the fans in this. This whole argument that the club holds the press to ransom by refusing them access becomes irrelevant when we're dealing with this regime. What real access do they have anyway? The Ronnie is owned by the Mirror isnt it? so they just need to share whats gained from any press conferences with them. A newspaper can harm a football club far more than the other way round. It's a tough one though, all the players Ryder arselicks won't be able to speak to him anymore. He'd literally have no sources, and what would he do every day? I agree 100% but that's how the Chronicle would look at it. Having said that there's never nee interesting exclusives these days, even compared to what Anal used to unearth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6766 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 to stand up and be counted. To be fair to them they have opposed the renaming and even Ryder has clearly stated its not in the best interests of the club but now its time they officially came out and backed the fans in this. This whole argument that the club holds the press to ransom by refusing them access becomes irrelevant when we're dealing with this regime. What real access do they have anyway? The Ronnie is owned by the Mirror isnt it? so they just need to share whats gained from any press conferences with them. A newspaper can harm a football club far more than the other way round. Is that what you want ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19739 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Toonpack, it's pretty obvious PP is talking about the chronicle taking a long overdue aim at the owners of the club and asking the sorts of questions the fans want answering for once instead of producing endless puff pieces. that should highlight the owner's lack of credibility without hurting the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6766 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Toonpack, it's pretty obvious PP is talking about the chronicle taking a long overdue aim at the owners of the club and asking the sorts of questions the fans want answering for once instead of producing endless puff pieces. that should highlight the owner's lack of credibility without hurting the club. That's not what he said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19739 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Toonpack, it's pretty obvious PP is talking about the chronicle taking a long overdue aim at the owners of the club and asking the sorts of questions the fans want answering for once instead of producing endless puff pieces. that should highlight the owner's lack of credibility without hurting the club. That's not what he said re-read the whole post and not just the bit you bolded up. he's talking about the paper reporting what's in the best interests of the club and the fans. remember, you in a minority of one with your views on here over the renaming. the majority of us want the chronicle to publish pieces that reflect the voice of the true supporters over this issue - fury with the owner's decision-making in other words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6766 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Toonpack, it's pretty obvious PP is talking about the chronicle taking a long overdue aim at the owners of the club and asking the sorts of questions the fans want answering for once instead of producing endless puff pieces. that should highlight the owner's lack of credibility without hurting the club. That's not what he said re-read the whole post and not just the bit you bolded up. he's talking about the paper reporting what's in the best interests of the club and the fans. remember, you in a minority of one with your views on here over the renaming. the majority of us want the chronicle to publish pieces that reflect the voice of the true supporters over this issue - fury with the owner's decision-making in other words. I read the whole post, the conclusion was what I asked for clarification of. As for the minority of one, how come ??? I don't agree with the renaming but it is/was utterly predicatable, what I took issue with was the amount of "damage" it actually would/could do, and its place in the greater scheme of things, in terms of damage/taking the piss out of fans. How many ever called the Exhibition Stand by it's changed name ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMoog 0 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Toonpack, it's pretty obvious PP is talking about the chronicle taking a long overdue aim at the owners of the club and asking the sorts of questions the fans want answering for once instead of producing endless puff pieces. that should highlight the owner's lack of credibility without hurting the club. That's not what he said Contrary twat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney 0 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Looking on icnewcastle, Ryder needs about 5stories on NUFC per day. Be it chats with Carver, Stone etc. I'd say a lot of the Journal/Chronicle readership comes from the NUFC stories. If the interviews dry-up the paper could be fucked. However, if they went all out at Jabba and his rat mate, they might end up boosting readership and interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Contrary twat. That's Christmas trees nickname. I think you mean Tiresome Prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19739 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Toonpack, it's pretty obvious PP is talking about the chronicle taking a long overdue aim at the owners of the club and asking the sorts of questions the fans want answering for once instead of producing endless puff pieces. that should highlight the owner's lack of credibility without hurting the club. That's not what he said re-read the whole post and not just the bit you bolded up. he's talking about the paper reporting what's in the best interests of the club and the fans. remember, you in a minority of one with your views on here over the renaming. the majority of us want the chronicle to publish pieces that reflect the voice of the true supporters over this issue - fury with the owner's decision-making in other words. I read the whole post, the conclusion was what I asked for clarification of. As for the minority of one, how come ??? I don't agree with the renaming but it is/was utterly predicatable, what I took issue with was the amount of "damage" it actually would/could do, and its place in the greater scheme of things, in terms of damage/taking the piss out of fans. How many ever called the Exhibition Stand by it's changed name ? you are the minority of one because you seem to think it isn't a big deal. it is a big deal to everyone else. all real fans are spitting feathers over this move. the damage is permanent. he has shown complete disregard for the supporters by attempting to destroy a piece of our history. that will never be forgiven or forgotten by the real supporters. and pp is right to suggest the chronicle shares that line. renaming a stand is hardly the same as renaming the whole stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted November 13, 2011 Author Share Posted November 13, 2011 How many ever called the Exhibition Stand by it's changed name ? you are the minority of one because you seem to think it isn't a big deal. it is a big deal to everyone else. all real fans are spitting feathers over this move. the damage is permanent. he has shown complete disregard for the supporters by attempting to destroy a piece of our history. that will never be forgiven or forgotten by the real supporters. and pp is right to suggest the chronicle shares that line. renaming a stand is hardly the same as renaming the whole stadium. Exactly, its essentially ripping our history apart. Do you think the website will stay as it is, will they leave all articles, match reports etc from before last week reporting St James' Park or will it have a clean sweep and see stories regaling how Milburn slotted the winner home in front of a packed Sports Direct Arena? My moneys on the latter, regardless though even that is a small tiny part of the problem. Purely and simply that stadium sat on that little hill is St James' Park. Its been the scene of many a bloodied battle and should not be linked to some charveresque shithole of a company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6766 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Toonpack, it's pretty obvious PP is talking about the chronicle taking a long overdue aim at the owners of the club and asking the sorts of questions the fans want answering for once instead of producing endless puff pieces. that should highlight the owner's lack of credibility without hurting the club. That's not what he said re-read the whole post and not just the bit you bolded up. he's talking about the paper reporting what's in the best interests of the club and the fans. remember, you in a minority of one with your views on here over the renaming. the majority of us want the chronicle to publish pieces that reflect the voice of the true supporters over this issue - fury with the owner's decision-making in other words. I read the whole post, the conclusion was what I asked for clarification of. As for the minority of one, how come ??? I don't agree with the renaming but it is/was utterly predicatable, what I took issue with was the amount of "damage" it actually would/could do, and its place in the greater scheme of things, in terms of damage/taking the piss out of fans. How many ever called the Exhibition Stand by it's changed name ? you are the minority of one because you seem to think it isn't a big deal. it is a big deal to everyone else. all real fans are spitting feathers over this move. the damage is permanent. he has shown complete disregard for the supporters by attempting to destroy a piece of our history. that will never be forgiven or forgotten by the real supporters. and pp is right to suggest the chronicle shares that line. renaming a stand is hardly the same as renaming the whole stadium. Both factually incorrect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyshinton 59 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 to stand up and be counted. To be fair to them they have opposed the renaming and even Ryder has clearly stated its not in the best interests of the club but now its time they officially came out and backed the fans in this. This whole argument that the club holds the press to ransom by refusing them access becomes irrelevant when we're dealing with this regime. What real access do they have anyway? The Ronnie is owned by the Mirror isnt it? so they just need to share whats gained from any press conferences with them. A newspaper can harm a football club far more than the other way round. It's a tough one though, all the players Ryder arselicks won't be able to speak to him anymore. He'd literally have no sources, and what would he do every day? I agree 100% but that's how the Chronicle would look at it. Having said that there's never nee interesting exclusives these days, even compared to what Anal used to unearth. For the cause I would be happy if there was no sport on the back page of the Ronnie (it is normally all us anyway) Just a back page with this is St James' Park. Until they change back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6766 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Toonpack, it's pretty obvious PP is talking about the chronicle taking a long overdue aim at the owners of the club and asking the sorts of questions the fans want answering for once instead of producing endless puff pieces. that should highlight the owner's lack of credibility without hurting the club. That's not what he said Contrary twat. Not contrary at all, I asked a simple question based upon a statement made by a fellow poster. Renton said he'd rather see us relegated than win anything under this regime (paraphrased), Pud stated it's easier for a newspaper to harm a club than visa versa. Appears to me there's a groundswell that would rather have the club damaged/fail than have it succesfull because of the personality in charge. Which I find particularly sad. If Vlad the Impaler could turn us into the next Man U, I'd welcome him with open arms. (That's an analogy not an expectation of where we could be taken by anyone btw). We can do fuck all to effect the ownership, hit him in the pocket?, where do you think the shortfall be will made up ?? It would be the club "hit in the pocket" all he'd do is prune so the club remains within its means, however frugal they become. I happen to believe that NUFC living within it's means is a good thing, because of our size it gives us an advantage over most. IF that size diminishes we'll sink like a stone. The BEST we can do or hope for is to ride the punches, hope he makes us succesfull/profitable (whichever comes first) and then (and only then) is there a chance he'll go, but you can rest assured, that even then, he will ONLY go on his terms. It is what it is, no amount of anguish is going to change that. Therefore I don't do "anguish", maybe I am a shit fan (I probably am) but I just hope for the best, I would NEVER wish for the worst even from the depths of my shitfanness, contraryness, or tiresome prickishness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now