Kevin Carr's Gloves

Your mate isn't called Ewan is he? Colin. Don't tell me you know of another Hugo situation? What's that all about? Who in their right mind....... I know

Your mate isn't called Ewan is he?

Thank you I basically think the only difference between now and 1996 is we have not had a better manager than Keegan. You can say the chairman/board etc are the ones who choose the manager, and that is of course correct, but it wasn't Sir John who chose Keegan was it ..... good management or lucky as fuck ????? The only thing I can add, is again - the fact that we are still a top club - on merit - with basically the same board and major shareholders. I am NOT defending anyone, just posting the truth. I LIKED Sir John better than Shepherd - even though he still spouted the same sort of "geordie nation" bollocks, but because the team was doing better, nobody was bothered, which again is a point I have mentioned before. Just because the team hasn't done as well under the previous chairman as the current one, doesn't make the current one crap. And - do you believe anything that SJH said at the time about "a price for the pocket", "giving the club to the people",.....that was just as much bollocks as some things Shepherd has said...did you honestly believe that crap ? As with most boards, they will only get away with so many disappointing managerial appointments, but that in itself will make them a victim of the initial success. So who chose Keegan then? Didn't call us all thick though did he? Not at the moment we are'nt. Ask Sky and the BBC et al. We were but due to our last few mediocre campaigns they have us tranked the same as Bolton, Fulham, and the likes. And currently behind Aston Villa and EVerton. Freddie Fletcher chose Keegan. I thought everybody knew that. Because he had been in a similar role at Rangers, and he chose the fuckpig Souness who revived interest before a ball was kicked, he indentified at Newcastle the same need to generate massive interest as quickly as possible. So he suggested Keegan, for that reason. I suppose people who jumped onto the Keegan bandwagon may not have done .... Keegan says on page 205 in his book "Neither George Forbes nor Peter Mallinger knew that on Monday 3 February 1992 I was being asked to take over as Newcastle Manager on the Wednesday. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglas Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles". Remember also how SJH went back on his word to fund money to Keegan and help him save the club from relegation, whick Keegan describes in detail ? Good managment ? And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ? Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd . Keegan says this on page 220 of his book. I thought everyone knew that too..... As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment They are in the league but not how the clubs are perceived. We used to be percieved as a huge club. But not any more. So you didn't kill it off at all FFS is still a fuck pig and you are his lickspittle. As we have qualified for europe - again - and are still in it - the facts tend to prove you wrong. But carry on ignoring them if you wish to live in your make believe world rather than look at the facts and have a mind of your own. YOu say you are - what, 37 ? - did you support the club pre-1992 ? And if you did, do you really think playing regularly in europe is shit, as only 7 clubs qualify for europe..... Basically, it seems to me that you didn't. And what is your opinion on Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher choosing Keegan, rather than SJH making a "good business decision" ? Does it now mean that Fletcher, Hall Jnur and Shepherd made the "Good business decision". Bit that fucks up your arguement eh Like I said, pre-1992 supporters probably knew that, but you didn't. Was it the shit board that persuaded you to come back ? Thing is though, we've only qualified for Europe so many times because of the change in CL format which allows many more teams from each country to qualify; a point you always seem to ignore when I challenge you on it. Once again, its easy meat proving you are talking shite and are wrong. A simple bit of research would have told you that when we qualified in 1969, we finished 10th courtesy of the one city one club rule, and the following season we also finished 9th and qualifed. The following year we were 7th. The ONLY time Newcastle United qualified for europe by virtue of a genuine high league position was in 1976, when they were 5th. So what have you got to say to this ? What have you also got to say about my FACT that Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher were the people instrumental in gettign Keegan and not SJH ? I see you [and the others ] ignore it. It's easy proving you wrong, I just quote facts, and I don't even have to look them up....this is why I am right, my "opinions" are actually opinions at all, they are fact...... I forgot all about Fletcher. LM you would know I was a supporter pre 1992 if you read posts as diligently as you read into statistics what you want to. I actually preferred supporting the club pre 1986. Thats when i joined up and only came back to England very rarely and the North East even less. The reason being was the lack of tossers in the team and although we knew they were well paid they didn't act like the new lot (or maybe they did and I just didn't know) I felt more connected to the club and although McKeag et al were crap comparitively to now. They didnt seek the limelight like shepherd does. And Just because he maybe better than them doesn't make him a good chairmen which is the basis of your argument. I hate liver I can't stand it and wont eat it. I dislike Tattie scones but will eat them if really hungry. But just because tattie Scones are better than Liver doesn't make them an acceptable evening meal. Fair comment....I asked you once about your username and don't think you replied...so I can only draw my own conclusions, a genuine question about it. Whatever, it doesn't matter. I didn't enjoy 1986 very much, I knew the club was going to lose its players and would go back down because the board was shit. That is a serious comment. I preferred 1976 because I thought - or rather hoped - that Gordon Lee was changing the mentality of the club successfully, incorrectly in the end because he went to Everton because they were a real football club, tapping their fanbase and competing for trophies, unlike Newcastle. Newcastle United NEVER adopoted that mentality until Keegan walked through the door, and was strong enough to do it - and got the support from the Board and fans. I realise some people may not comprehend this, and I am not patronising at all, but it is the truth. Shepherd is sometimes a wanker, but so far as running the club goes, not actually appointing a manager as good as Keegan doesn't make him shit, he would be shit if he wasn't trying to continue running the club so it competed. That is a huge difference, and the reason we have at least still remained in europe and are buying top players is down to that and that alone. My point is - longer term fans like you, ought to be aware of this thats all. kevin Carr's Gloves is my username because I liked him as a player as before that we had the atrocious STeve Hardwick and although KC wasn't brilliant he was a step up from Hardwick.

For going to a babyshambles gig you deserve everything you get.

Thank you I basically think the only difference between now and 1996 is we have not had a better manager than Keegan. You can say the chairman/board etc are the ones who choose the manager, and that is of course correct, but it wasn't Sir John who chose Keegan was it ..... good management or lucky as fuck ????? The only thing I can add, is again - the fact that we are still a top club - on merit - with basically the same board and major shareholders. I am NOT defending anyone, just posting the truth. I LIKED Sir John better than Shepherd - even though he still spouted the same sort of "geordie nation" bollocks, but because the team was doing better, nobody was bothered, which again is a point I have mentioned before. Just because the team hasn't done as well under the previous chairman as the current one, doesn't make the current one crap. And - do you believe anything that SJH said at the time about "a price for the pocket", "giving the club to the people",.....that was just as much bollocks as some things Shepherd has said...did you honestly believe that crap ? As with most boards, they will only get away with so many disappointing managerial appointments, but that in itself will make them a victim of the initial success. So who chose Keegan then? Didn't call us all thick though did he? Not at the moment we are'nt. Ask Sky and the BBC et al. We were but due to our last few mediocre campaigns they have us tranked the same as Bolton, Fulham, and the likes. And currently behind Aston Villa and EVerton. Freddie Fletcher chose Keegan. I thought everybody knew that. Because he had been in a similar role at Rangers, and he chose the fuckpig Souness who revived interest before a ball was kicked, he indentified at Newcastle the same need to generate massive interest as quickly as possible. So he suggested Keegan, for that reason. I suppose people who jumped onto the Keegan bandwagon may not have done .... Keegan says on page 205 in his book "Neither George Forbes nor Peter Mallinger knew that on Monday 3 February 1992 I was being asked to take over as Newcastle Manager on the Wednesday. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglas Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles". Remember also how SJH went back on his word to fund money to Keegan and help him save the club from relegation, whick Keegan describes in detail ? Good managment ? And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ? Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd . Keegan says this on page 220 of his book. I thought everyone knew that too..... As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment They are in the league but not how the clubs are perceived. We used to be percieved as a huge club. But not any more. So you didn't kill it off at all FFS is still a fuck pig and you are his lickspittle. As we have qualified for europe - again - and are still in it - the facts tend to prove you wrong. But carry on ignoring them if you wish to live in your make believe world rather than look at the facts and have a mind of your own. YOu say you are - what, 37 ? - did you support the club pre-1992 ? And if you did, do you really think playing regularly in europe is shit, as only 7 clubs qualify for europe..... Basically, it seems to me that you didn't. And what is your opinion on Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher choosing Keegan, rather than SJH making a "good business decision" ? Does it now mean that Fletcher, Hall Jnur and Shepherd made the "Good business decision". Bit that fucks up your arguement eh Like I said, pre-1992 supporters probably knew that, but you didn't. Was it the shit board that persuaded you to come back ? Thing is though, we've only qualified for Europe so many times because of the change in CL format which allows many more teams from each country to qualify; a point you always seem to ignore when I challenge you on it. Once again, its easy meat proving you are talking shite and are wrong. A simple bit of research would have told you that when we qualified in 1969, we finished 10th courtesy of the one city one club rule, and the following season we also finished 9th and qualifed. The following year we were 7th. The ONLY time Newcastle United qualified for europe by virtue of a genuine high league position was in 1976, when they were 5th. So what have you got to say to this ? What have you also got to say about my FACT that Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher were the people instrumental in gettign Keegan and not SJH ? I see you [and the others ] ignore it. It's easy proving you wrong, I just quote facts, and I don't even have to look them up....this is why I am right, my "opinions" are actually opinions at all, they are fact...... I forgot all about Fletcher. LM you would know I was a supporter pre 1992 if you read posts as diligently as you read into statistics what you want to. I actually preferred supporting the club pre 1986. Thats when i joined up and only came back to England very rarely and the North East even less. The reason being was the lack of tossers in the team and although we knew they were well paid they didn't act like the new lot (or maybe they did and I just didn't know) I felt more connected to the club and although McKeag et al were crap comparitively to now. They didnt seek the limelight like shepherd does. And Just because he maybe better than them doesn't make him a good chairmen which is the basis of your argument. I hate liver I can't stand it and wont eat it. I dislike Tattie scones but will eat them if really hungry. But just because tattie Scones are better than Liver doesn't make them an acceptable evening meal.

Lins, something tells me you're going to regret this in the morning. On the other hand, I'm giggling so much I've got tears running down my face. We definitely need a night out soon your so right we do, I shall call ya xx Oh Toplass where would we be without your Barney Gumble esque drunken ramblings. I think we should now change your name to Garnetta though. I am disappointed there is no Snogging and playing cards going on I wish i could see your face when you read this thread next.

Thank you I basically think the only difference between now and 1996 is we have not had a better manager than Keegan. You can say the chairman/board etc are the ones who choose the manager, and that is of course correct, but it wasn't Sir John who chose Keegan was it ..... good management or lucky as fuck ????? The only thing I can add, is again - the fact that we are still a top club - on merit - with basically the same board and major shareholders. I am NOT defending anyone, just posting the truth. I LIKED Sir John better than Shepherd - even though he still spouted the same sort of "geordie nation" bollocks, but because the team was doing better, nobody was bothered, which again is a point I have mentioned before. Just because the team hasn't done as well under the previous chairman as the current one, doesn't make the current one crap. And - do you believe anything that SJH said at the time about "a price for the pocket", "giving the club to the people",.....that was just as much bollocks as some things Shepherd has said...did you honestly believe that crap ? As with most boards, they will only get away with so many disappointing managerial appointments, but that in itself will make them a victim of the initial success. So who chose Keegan then? Didn't call us all thick though did he? Not at the moment we are'nt. Ask Sky and the BBC et al. We were but due to our last few mediocre campaigns they have us tranked the same as Bolton, Fulham, and the likes. And currently behind Aston Villa and EVerton. Freddie Fletcher chose Keegan. I thought everybody knew that. Because he had been in a similar role at Rangers, and he chose the fuckpig Souness who revived interest before a ball was kicked, he indentified at Newcastle the same need to generate massive interest as quickly as possible. So he suggested Keegan, for that reason. I suppose people who jumped onto the Keegan bandwagon may not have done .... Keegan says on page 205 in his book "Neither George Forbes nor Peter Mallinger knew that on Monday 3 February 1992 I was being asked to take over as Newcastle Manager on the Wednesday. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglas Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles". Remember also how SJH went back on his word to fund money to Keegan and help him save the club from relegation, whick Keegan describes in detail ? Good managment ? And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ? Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd . Keegan says this on page 220 of his book. I thought everyone knew that too..... As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment They are in the league but not how the clubs are perceived. We used to be percieved as a huge club. But not any more. So you didn't kill it off at all FFS is still a fuck pig and you are his lickspittle.

What about home schooling? I am torn on home schooling. On one hand the child is getting some good personal time. But what about the quality of the lessons taught? What about the lessons on social interaction (I don't mean actual lessons I mean we learn this by interacting with our peers in lessons and during breaks)? Why have the parents chose home schooling? Do they have an agenda? Home schooling is a toughy. I may be inclined to home school my child if I thought it would benefit them. But I would be worried they would become solitary and unable to form lasting relationships outside the family unit.

Surely we cant have beaten them. Liverpool are Chelsea's closest rivals and must have a phenomenal reserve side.

Thank you I basically think the only difference between now and 1996 is we have not had a better manager than Keegan. You can say the chairman/board etc are the ones who choose the manager, and that is of course correct, but it wasn't Sir John who chose Keegan was it ..... good management or lucky as fuck ????? The only thing I can add, is again - the fact that we are still a top club - on merit - with basically the same board and major shareholders. I am NOT defending anyone, just posting the truth. I LIKED Sir John better than Shepherd - even though he still spouted the same sort of "geordie nation" bollocks, but because the team was doing better, nobody was bothered, which again is a point I have mentioned before. Just because the team hasn't done as well under the previous chairman as the current one, doesn't make the current one crap. And - do you believe anything that SJH said at the time about "a price for the pocket", "giving the club to the people",.....that was just as much bollocks as some things Shepherd has said...did you honestly believe that crap ? As with most boards, they will only get away with so many disappointing managerial appointments, but that in itself will make them a victim of the initial success. So who chose Keegan then? Didn't call us all thick though did he? Not at the moment we are'nt. Ask Sky and the BBC et al. We were but due to our last few mediocre campaigns they have us tranked the same as Bolton, Fulham, and the likes. And currently behind Aston Villa and EVerton.

I am working part time start at 7:30 mon - fri. I dont even get that luxury

I'm with you and am fundamentally opposed to them, especially the ones peddling more fundamental faiths, like Emmanuel college in Gateshead. They teach lies, discourage free thought, have luddite attitudes and are anti-science, and are devisive. Of all the things the current government have done this supporting these ridiculous, outdated schools is the thing I object to most, even more than Iraq. I would advocate an entirely secular education for all children. I may be wrong but I believe one of the people responsible for the push is a member of Opus Dei. And Cherie blair's reaction to the death of the pope was very OTT.

yes.

Anybody on here believe they do good. A friend of mine does. We have endless dicussions on the fact. I personally believe they are devisive and segregation on religious grounds is contrary to what we are trying to do as a society. Of course just because I believe that doesn't mean I expect everyone to.

I had an accident a long time ago ripped ligaments in both knees broke bothe femurs with one of them being pushed up through my pelvis. Over the years I have put extra strain on my back due to legs being weak. This year I had sciatica and it is kind of hanging around.

From some of the seats in the leazes I wouldn't recognize Robbie Coltrane if he played for us.

So I have just attended my first seminar and performed quite well. I had done some previous reading on Sociology which is more than the rest of my group. I decide to get a sandwich and sit in the courtyard and have lunch before my next lecture which was in an hour. The appointed time arrives for me to leave to go to lecture.....And I can't pissing well stand up. My back has completely gone. I have to get first aid out and they call a blooming ambulance. Talk about being embarrassed. I seriously wanted to die. On top of that they give me painkillers and muscle relaxants. Feel good enough to come to work today and halfway here on the bus my stomach muscles feel way to relaxed. Had to jump off bus and go to a hotel then get taxi in. I hate my body

So what was the bin dippers score again? Closest rivals chelsea have my arse.

Spice Girls with guitars tbh. Woah there boys, I am not saying it was the best concert I had been to, I was merely correcting the manc mag. Oasis first album was a classic, sadly they quickly disappeared into pub rock boringness very quickly Wasn't having a go Spongey. And I loved Oasis first album. But after that they have turned into Status Quo.

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. Oh, and I thougt the principle "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" was quite old, but you are right it wasn't known among the Neanderthals... Just cos it's in Latin doesn't make it old. You can translate anything into latin. Yep, especially those nice do-gooders and civil right activists in the middle ages could. That's why it is found in loads of medieval legal text books. The right to own slaves was quite old too but we thought that was wrong. Just because anything is old doesn't mean it is good and proper. So let me get this right. It is ok for a person to stay silent about a murder or any criminal act they have witnessed or taken part in because to say something may embarass (sp) them. Or an innocent man can knowingly withhold evidence which would clear him quickly and save the tax payer money for the same reason? That wasn't your point, though, was it? "The right to silence is relatively new actually." Now when that's proved wrong you've moved it to, well old doesn't mean good. You've also ignored two people who raised issues with what you were saying yesterday. Stop talking shite! Oh and by the way the right to avoid self incrimination was firstcodified in England and Wales in 1912. Basium Meus Solum

Oasis at Maine Road. I imagine you'll want to delete your post now tbh. Coldplay were alreet when I saw them too. I wish I'd gone to the one at the COM Stadium last year to be honest, that would have been ace. Nah. Maine Road tbh. At their peak! Surely you mean "well past their peak" 1996 man woman man!!!! Whats the story just released. Home town. Their club. Lots of anti-red jibes. Cant top it. Cant top it - I bet I can. 1994 I think, Definitely Maybe had just come out last gig in uk tour at London Astoria. And went to the end of tour party at the Leisure Lounge afterwards, where I spent half an hour deep in conversation with Noel Gallagher, apparently. Sadly I dont remember that happening as I overindulged somewhat Ah Oasis the David Beckham of popular music.

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. Oh, and I thougt the principle "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" was quite old, but you are right it wasn't known among the Neanderthals... Just cos it's in Latin doesn't make it old. You can translate anything into latin. Yep, especially those nice do-gooders and civil right activists in the middle ages could. That's why it is found in loads of medieval legal text books. The right to own slaves was quite old too but we thought that was wrong. Just because anything is old doesn't mean it is good and proper. So let me get this right. It is ok for a person to stay silent about a murder or any criminal act they have witnessed or taken part in because to say something may embarass (sp) them. Or an innocent man can knowingly withhold evidence which would clear him quickly and save the tax payer money for the same reason? Well, it was you who raised the point that it is a shit modern law and a form of political correctness going mad, probably just like the abolishment of slavery... So what would you like to introduce to make those suspects speak? Torture? What is about those who remain silent because they haven't done anything, would you like to torture them as well? I'll probably find an old SS cloak for you somewhere down here... I never said it was political correctness going mad. And no one has proved it is an old law with facts yet either. What i am saying is the right to silence isn't something I completely agree with. And nothing anyone has said has yet to convince me that i am wrong in this. But then again this is an internet forum and people prefer to take everything people say out of context to use in their own arguments. And if I am wrong about anything then fair enough. I am not enough of a wanker to go in a sulk because something I have said is wrong and been proved to be so. that is the difference between reasonable people and thought nazi's.

Not the best Gig or most memorable at the time but Nirvana at the riverside before they had released Nevermind. It is the one I impress the young uns with the most though.

Pop Will Eat Itself at the mayfair. Julian Cope at the riverside / shindig/ foundation whatever. Happy Mondays at the Hacienda.

Now about to be sued by the unknown comic too.