Jump to content

Montey

Member
  • Posts

    712
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Montey

    Dogawful Officiating

    I think a simple answer (to the question of stopping player simulation/faking) is to have the PL conduct a post game review (with all footage) and to issue yellow & red cards to players who bring the game into disrepute (e.g. simulation, diving, dissent, spitting, reckless play, etc.). I think the Australian Football League (AFL) has a model that would work (I don't know if other football leagues have a model too), whereby the league reviews every game and can charge players & clubs for on-field actions that contravene rules and can then impose sanctions. The AFL will review every game, will then "charge" players and/or clubs with offenses, will bring the player & club in to face those charges (in a pseudo court-room environment), and will decide if and what punishment is to be applied. This process is conducted every week of the season (at the beginning of the week, immediately following each weekend's games) and, I think, is massively responsible for keeping a lot of this rubbish (the rubbish seen in football) out of the game.
  2. Montey

    7th-ometer

    I generally agree and was heading towards choosing '9th' too. The thing that had me select '8th' is because we have two transfer windows to consider. If NUFC can get 2 more attacking players in the current transfer window then we could be in with a shot at 7th. But, if we have to wait until the next transfer window to get some additional attacking options (leading to a stronger 2nd half of the season) then we could/would achieve 8th.
  3. I agree. From a purely aesthetic perspective, I really like the look.
  4. Montey

    St James' Park

    I can think of one reason to not do it (which many won't understand): Meat Loaf!
  5. ... using mostly the same team as Steve Bruce!
  6. Montey

    St James' Park

    Just keep in mind that any prospective new stadium (if they had decided they had to go that route to increase capacity, at a different location) could cost around £500+ million (London Stadium cost £486 million, in 2011 money - or £689 million, in 2022 money - according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Stadium). If a new stadium would cost ~£500 million, then a sizable budget would likely be available to move some historic buildings to enable the ground to be expanded without the expense of a whole new stadium. For example, £50 million to move the buildings and £200 million to expand and renovate St. James' Park saves then 50% of the cost of a new stadium.
  7. Montey

    St James' Park

    I'm going to ask this again, because I think it's a worthwhile question that has been overlooked... Why not MOVE the Leazes Terrace buildings? Around the world it is a relatively common thing to move (either as a whole building, or by carefully pulling down and reconstructing) historical & listed buildings to a new location, to preserve their historical significance. Leazes Terrace could be moved closer to Richardson Rd (replacing the Tennis Courts, which could be rebuilt somewhere within a new St James' Park sporting facility), or to another location altogether.
  8. Montey

    St James' Park

    Could they move the listed buildings? What I mean is, could they be pulled down ("brick by brick") and then be re-built ("brick-by-brick") somewhere else. Whilst I am not familiar with the specific laws, as they relate to those specific buildings, but I know elsewhere (around the world) it is not uncommon to move historically significant buildings. This allows the historically significant building to be retained, as it's the building that's significant and not the location. A really extreme example of this is that Cooks' cottage, as built by the father of Captain James Cook in Yorkshire, was torn down in 1934 and moved all the way to Melbourne, Australia (each brick individually numbered) where it still stands today. https://whatson.melbourne.vic.gov.au/things-to-do/cooks-cottage Could this not be done to create space for St James' Park?
  9. There's an established Newcastle United Jets FC in Australia (city of Newcastle, New South Wales), too.
  10. Does the NUFC Trust actually have any of the money? I thought it was a pledge to give money, but money would only be transacted if the target(s) were achieved. If I am correct, then the NUFC Trust isn't actually in possession of any money to give away - hence winding up the pledge program should be as simple as telling people that their pledges no longer have to be honoured, that no more pledges will be taken, and that the campaign is being wound up. If I am incorrect (that the Trust has received the money) then all of the money should be returned to those who pledged it, as it was pledge for a specific purpose and not for some plan-B option. If those who pledged money wish to give it to a charity then they can and should do so, separate from any action by NUFC Trust once they have received their refund. I will say, I always thought that, whilst the Pledge campaign was well intentioned, it was never going to succeed. To achieve even a 1% ownership stake in a £300M company was going to require £3M, plus transaction costs (broker's fees, etc). Even if NUFC Trust achieved pledges to the value of £3M (plus transaction costs), a 1% ownership stake was going to give them no influence within the board room - at best the ownership would have provided some fiduciary transparency, through annual reports (and £3M+ is a lot to pay to get an annual report). Fan ownership/influence may be an achievable dream in lower leagues (for clubs worth less than £10M. e.g. 10% stake in a £10M valued club), but it was never within the realms of reality for a club worth more than £100M. The only way "fan ownership" would ever be achieved for higher value clubs is if a small number of very wealthy "fans" were to participate, but then those few individuals would seek to hold the dominant voices (as they put up the majority of the money) in which case most fans would have no say anyway.
  11. It's important to keep in mind that most transfer rumours will be player agents trying to stoke interest in their players or player agents trying to convince clubs their players may leave if they don't get a better contract. Most of these rumours will have no actual connection with the club or reality.
  12. If some on this forum got to decide who NUFC's managers and executives were to be, Kevin Keegan would never have been employed as a manager.
  13. There's some good one-touch football with movement - lets hope we start to see it in our games. We haven't seen it for years. My biggest concern is: there were a lot of "good shots" off stationary balls which, won't happen in game - the opposition won't allow the ball to just sit in front of a NUFC player for 5 seconds waiting for the NUFC player to catch up to the ball.
  14. Montey

    St James' Park

    I didn't like it when Ashley attempted to rename St. James' Park - but the thing that really made my piss boil was that the club didn't benefit from it. If the club receives revenues, at a fair market rate (i.e. what should be reasonably paid to rename such a culturally significant landmark) then I still won't like it but I could live with it - if it still made reference to St. James' Park (e.g. "Saudia St. James' Park").
  15. Surely it would be £50m + any outgoings, so the gross spend could be closer to £60m+. I also suspect that the new owners would be more flexible if an interesting opportunity emerged.
×
×
  • Create New...