timnufc22

I'm not always their biggest fans but I think they're absolutely right here. But, ironically for them, this is a symptom of the over-analysis culture that has been brought on by the likes of skysports/sport social media channels and also by VAR. Absolutely everything is analysed the the nth degree and there is this ridiculous search for football utopia, where grey areas and objectivity doesn't exist. As a consequence the dog is chasing it's tail and the search will never be fruitful. The way Arteta went on after our game at SJP was everything wrong with the culture of managers and clubs that is seeping in, as Neville refers to. Just like our goal vs them, every decision was subjectively and frankly spot on imo - 'of course you'd say that' - I know, but I genuinely think that. If others disagree - fair enough. But to be pretending there's been some cut and dry robbery is ridiculous. I look at the nottingham forest penalty claims - my instincts for all of them are they're correct decisions! Contact does not mean foul; a player has to be impeded. I can see why others may disagree, again - grey area, objectivity etc. But to be claiming this sort of outrage is pathetic. But this is VAR itself driving such thought processes, watching replays over and over, thinking things over and over, looking for concrete answers to subjective incidents. I absolutely hate it and it feeds the likes of Arteta and their disingenuous behaviour which will undermine the game if enough follow suit.

I think clear daylight between players may be a little too much, but there must be some leeway brought in and should have been when VAR was first introduced, as it effectively has changed the offside law which was was never enforced the way it is now. Not one person would have ever said that freeze-frame displayed an advance to the attacker and ruling that goal out completely flies in the face of the concept of offside.

SJP has an aura and history. Even if that aura is not justified at times re atmosphere, it's still in the mind of players when the fixture comes up. The same applies to Anfield and Old Trafford, no matter what we think of them, they're iconic. The tradition of shooting towards the Gallowgate end second half which has a literal pitch slope going that way - opposition players talk about feeling like they can't get out when the pressure is on and the atmosphere is up. The gradual upscaling on the ground over the years, an evolution and journey which represents different era's is something to be cherished. An extended Gallowgate End would be fantastic and would look not only majestic but bloody intimidating. It would bring the capacity up to the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs especially if we can tweak the East Stand too. The atmosphere is a separate issue in that seating arrangements need to be modified. Yes it would be 'easier' to do this with a new stadium, but I don't fancy bulldozing our home because we fear moving some fans around. If we had a second standing/singing section, particularly if something was arranged near the away fans, I think this would create a more sustained atmosphere over the season. Perhaps moving the away fans is an option to help trigger this. But whatever the acoustics of the ground are, there a clearly examples when that hasn't stopped great atmospheres in some games. The seating arrangements are the key. I would have zero trust a new stadium wouldn't be a soulless shell of what he have. I know that's quite cynical perhaps too cynical. But looking at the big changes to the Bearnabu, it looks like a bloody shopping mall now imo - used to look like an epic coliseum and it's not even a new ground. And yes I know Spurs & Real Madrid have the retractable pitch to make it easier to host concerts, but realistically how much would that really going to increase concert opportunities etc? We can surely upgrade the facilities inside the ground to help with more commercial activities outside of football. We can develop the strawberry land to bring in more revenue with the fanzone and include something more innovative afterwards. I'd like to know how Spurs have transformed since they moved into their new ground. Has it allowed them to 'bridge the gap'? Have they won the league? Have they won a cup? Have they remained in the top 4 ever since? The answer to all of those is no. Has their atmosphere improved? I did not go to WHL nor have I been to the new stadium, but I would safety bet the answer is a no. And that is a damning indictment after the claims their stadium architecture will supposedly ensure 'great atmosphere' when it was built. Their fans are kicking off! They have not seen any progress made, literally. So all of this additional revenue is not the game changer people think it is imo and the grass is not necessarily greener. I really hope the plan is to extend the Gallowgate End (a big f off sign "The Gallowgate End" would look epic as you drive/walk towards a new beast of a stand) and to increase slightly the East Stand if possible and build upon the fanzone area for additional commercial stuff along with hosting more events, sure.

I say that with a view to selling one of Wilock or Longstaff and with Anderson & Miley very much in the frame to start games in midfield. I've do really like Wilock and hope he can get over his injuries - if we keep him and sign players we need without FFP hindrance then great. I just feel he is better further forward as a no10 but I know he was great last season carrying the ball from deep. I'm more thinking going the other way.

I'd be considering Ross Barkley. While its taken some time, he seems to have matured. His touch and passing is great, he looks to be a lot stronger now and can tackle. I think he could slot into the no6 (we need that alternative for Bruno) or no8 role's easily and would add that extra control in midfield we probably need at times. Wouldn't be against also buying an experienced defensive midfielder who's happy to be cover and be a tactical option off the bench or for particular games here and there. Then I'd be looking to sell Wilock unfortunately who I've rated but the injuries are too much and I think he can be too hit and miss. Joelinton__Bruno__Tonali Anderson__Barkley__Miley/Longstaff

I like red numbers on a white patch/square if the kit is quite minimalistic, which it what it was at times in 70s/80s. But with other bright colours on the sleeves through noon, the PL logo and a third colour to the strip, the bright colour of red also thrown into the mix can then feel too much imo. I think if there's no third colour to the kit then fine, otherwise I think black or white numbers are best, which are nostalgia for me tbf. White numbers on stripes would be absolutely readable and fine but if adidas go for the money making scheme of a patch to encourage us to get names and numbers then that's a shame, but not the end of the world if done with a bit of subtly. Personally I'd have no issue if they did the 98' shield every time, think its a good compromise. I hope the adidas shoulder stripes are white (or black) - the adidas logo and those stripes combined with our black and white stripes are just the perfect combo. If the adidas shoulder stripes are grey it may look ok but it'd be a missed opportunity. Don't mind grey, blue or gold as a third colour for trims etc.

Man City will not win everything forever, it might be a long cycle but their cycle will come to a close at some point, likely when Guardiola leaves. Having this confidence, as repetitive as it might be, I probably prefer them to win the league to prevent Klopp & Arteta from lifting the trophy. I don't want their pathetic behaviour to be rewarded and obviously Klopp's leaving after this season anyway.

And how did Spurs gain that income? I stand to be corrected, but I don't believe it was through a sugar daddy injecting huge amounts of money from nowhere. They made a great managerial appointed (Pochettino) and recruited very well. Their academy produced one of the worlds best strikers. They clearly obtained great commercial deals. Granted they're a London club so I appreciate that is a caveat to this conversion. They hadn't moved into their new stadium so were not generating income through NFL events etc. They were playing at Wembley, where again I stand corrected if they somehow had an event tie-in situation. Their average attendance there was 68k, which is a big boost to what they were used to at WHL, but not a massive amount more than some people are turning their nose up at for a SJP extension (61-62k). I'm not naïve to the task again for us or any other similar sized football club nor to the clear vested interests from certain clubs to stop others progressing. But if we can strike together the right elements, it is possible to break into the top 6 and even top 4. The size of such a task means it would only be that much more rewarding. No pride in the Man City route and it would get boring fast too imo (the Etihad atmosphere attests to this). Howe is clearly a manager players love to play for, he has a special connection with the players and I'm sure word travels in the football world how great he is, especially on a personal level. If he learns the lessons of this season and proves to be our long-term man, I think it can help to attract players, who will know they're in safe hands. If we extended SJP to 61-62k, sorted out the seating arrangements, the place would look and ideally sound stunning and one of the most special & unique venues to play at and would be a great selling point. Swap that with a new stadium if that's your preference. The more we maintain a European place EL/ECL - the more we can increase sponsorship and the more chance we have of cracking top 4 again. If we persist not only can we do it, but we can maintain it for a period I think too.

The idea of the club spending in cheat mode like Man City and Chelsea did is completely soulless and unexciting to me. There should be some middle ground to the rules, but Tottenham got regular top 4 finishes and within a whisker of winning the CL without sugar daddy spending, and this was before the new stadium. It can be done and the idea of anyone shrugging their shoulders muttering its impossible because we can't do a Man City is depressing.

Let’s be real, we play 451 and the striker has no support. Get Anderson further up with Isak, get Murphy off for Barnes and put Gordon RW.

Granted the roof isn't sloped, but if the gallowgate end matched the leazes end, would that not create more of a bowl effect and keep more noise in? Or would the east stand put pay to that?

As I alluded to in another thread, football was faster paced then and frankly a better watch imo. First time passes & crosses, balls in behind, defenders being properly tested but also slick passing too. I take this back to early 2000's. I hate that it's now seen as a cardinal sin to play a ball down the line as oppose to keep passing along the 6 yard box. It leads to so many touches and the game slowing down. The same applies to getting into the final third; unless there's a absolutely clear pass on, players (likely instructed) pass the ball back and switch play in an endeavour to get into the exact same position they were already in on the other flank! And maybe then they'll shoot/cross but then perhaps not and very rarely first time. Defenders see it all in front of them, granted teams push up with a higher line more these days. I do agree with Owen though when he said you had to have more technique in his day; because players looked forward far more, strikers subsequently had a lot of quick balls fired at them and they needed a good touch to hold it or flick it on. I don't feel you got as much space in midfield back then as you do now. When I watch the odd lower league game I see teams trying to play out like Man City and find it infuriating and quite sad. More often than not they're giving the ball away and silly goals as a result. I hope someone breaks this spell soon and we see more variation in style and tactics. Everyone has - used to have - their favoured way of playing but there's no right way and a clash of styles is one of the things which made the game interesting.

You mean keep a sloped roof, but higher obviously?

Gordon was just as effective on the right when I saw him for Everton. I don't like both wingers being inverted, Murphy has shown the benefits of having a natural footer on one side, hitting in-swinging crosses. It's too predicable when players are cutting in on both flanks, but Gordon can still mix it up and drift across at times. Despite how great he's been this season, I can't help but feel that ultimately Barnes will always be more effective cutting in to score from that side. I do think teams are getting too obsessed with over-playing and coming inside all the time. A first-time cross in the final third is still as dangerous now as it was twenty years ago if you have a good striker in the middle. Defenders have it easier these days because it's all in front of them and they can get organised because players take so many touches.

I never liked that they ditched the boxes in the east stand in the first place, so we literally have a template of what you've described, at that time the regular seats were nearer to the pitch (not sure if they went too far to host international games etc). I don't know which version of the stand had the highest capacity. Like you say, could have more room to play with if the previous 'Newcastle breweries' advert 'wall' was smaller and maybe the boxes at the top, with the regular seats going down from there. Think Villareal's stand but other way round.