peasepud

Dear Sir The Trust feels it has a duty to respond on behalf of its members and supporters in general to your notes in the matchday programme against Swansea on Saturday. Your comments have certainly re-ignited issues which we would have thought you would best want forgotten. Whether it be the forlorn hope you have of re-naming St James’ Park or questioning the fans passion by urging them ‘to get behind the team’, you have re-opened your running sore. You have asked the fans to trust you, but we are afraid that commodity is in very short supply and to have trust you should also have credibility. If the Kevin Keegan Tribunal taught us anything, it was to treat what comes out of our club with scepticism given the damning indictment on the club’s position and key individuals within the club who still remain. But let’s take you at face value – you try once again to make the case for a ‘commercial deal’ on naming rights of St James’ Park. We are afraid your condescending lesson on the realities of commercialism of football are lost when you fail to fulfil the two main attributes of a ‘marketable product’. One – you have damaged the brand – two – you have failed to listen to your customers once again. 23,000 signed a petition to say ‘you had gone too far’. That is not marketable, it is what’s called a ‘toxic product’. Your ideas on sponsorship have been openly ridiculed by marketing specialists because you are selling a product which you have damaged. Speculation has said you could possibly make three times the figure floated at the start of the season in sponsorship rights if the club was ‘detoxified’. I’m sure you know what that means. Your comments about backing the team are truly amazing. Have you been at the games this season when fans have rose above some pretty petty tactics employed by the club under your guidance as Chief Executive and backed the team to the hilt? They have a right to voice their anger at the way the club has been run but that has been directed at the hierarchy not the team. In fact, the team has consistently praised the fans support this season. You seem to be the only one questioning that commitment and once again resorting to petty tactics to get your rather garbled message across. That has been the problem throughout the ‘troubles’, you have failed to communicate effectively, chosen to follow an ill-advised path and have reaped the whirlwind. Now you want to rub supporters noses in it further by insisting ‘we don’t understand commercial realities’ and that tradition is not a marketing tool in itself. Maybe if you concentrated on getting things right at the club now instead of planning further disasters then we would take your notes seriously. Maybe if you mentioned how you have ran corporate section into the ground, how it is consistently only a third full, how many sponsors now seem to be simply Sports Direct and not ‘proper sponsors’, then we may take your commercial sermons from the mount more seriously. You have a lot to learn about football, Derek but we’re not sure you have the capacity to take lessons on board. We don’t mean this disrespectfully as you probably ran your casino properly. One thing we glean from this episode and your notes in the programme is you don’t want to learn about this city and this club and that you will continue to make mistakes. It’s a shame because sensible fans (the majority) don’t think Mr Ashley went into this to make such series of blunders. They probably think on balance he has been very badly advised by the people around him. If that means you too we are afraid that old saying sums it up perfectly – if the cap fits.

Coolio, I just assumed it was 20 consecutive payments. Couple of free months over Christmas tine won't go amiss.

Anyone remember how they're meant to work? I've just checked my online banking and the DD is shown as Expired, the last one came out earlier this month. That means I've made 10 DD payments so have now paid for this years ticket. was the agreement two seperate sets of DDs? One for each season rather than just paying it until it's cleared? Can I now assume there won't be an attempt to take 10/11s until February again?

I saw some lads trying to unfurl a banner in the Gallowgate. One steward came up and asked who's the banner was and if the banner was fireproofed. The lads unfurling the banner promptly disowned it and ran away and the steward picked it up and walked off with it. Ours made its way from Milburn to East Stand only to be conifscated at the end of the run.

The NUST "Yes we can" flag was nicked by a steward as it made its way round the Gallowgate.

And you would seriously choose that over getting back into the top flight? I don't see why its a case of choosing one or the other. But yes without doubt I would take winning the FA Cup over promotion this season. I want to see us win a trophy At the end of the day, we cannot survive as a proper football club unless we get back into the Premiership this season, to choose 90minutes of glory over the future of the club as we know it is madness. Thats why everything must be thrown at getting up there and nothing must get in the way of that aim. Distracctions such as the cups are just that, distractions which arent needed. Until we're sorted out with new owners and a proper structure then cups must go the journey, last year my worry was that it would get in the way of us stopping up, this year it gets in the way of us going back up.

And you would seriously choose that over getting back into the top flight?

Why the hell not? Its a great competition and Newcastle have a great history in it I'd take the FA Cup over promotion any time whey aye! lets win a cup and resign ourselves to Championship football for another god knows how many years, thats a great idea. added to the fact that we've got as much chance of winning it as Harold Shipman has of getting an article in the Lancet. But yeah lets live the dream and watch as we progress through the rounds, losing a defender here and a striker there to injury. Then lets watch as the Toon hit Manchester for the Quarter final of the century, a giant killing attempt by little Newcastle as they go to Man U. 9-1 of Spurs Wigan would look like a closely fought match in which the home side just shaded it. Lets drop out gracefully in this round, promotion is the only concern.

I reckon it'll be Dekka doing the deals DL:"Come in come in, sit down, Marvin isnt it?" MH:"Marlon boss, Marlon Harewood" DL:"Ahh yes thats very correct yes, now then Marilyn, how do you think its gone?" MH:"Well to be honest, I reckon I could do a lot better, Ive not been on top form and to be honest I reckon you'd be mental to keep hold of me, at least for anything more than serving coffee pre match, me hearts not in and and Ive finally realised Im well, how do I put it, Im pure shite boss. Got away with it for years to be honest". DL:"Nonsense Margaret, Ive been watching you, me and Mike, well we have an eye for a player you see and we like what we see. In fact Mikes away now to get Haywood 10 on the back of his shirt, now how much do you want?" MH:"Jeezus, errr Id be over the fucking moon with £1k a week" DL:"ahhhh you'll not catch me out like that, you footballers and your agents, you'll be the death of me, now Im going to offer you £30k a week but be aware I'll go upto £50k if you push me" MH:"Fuck it yeah, I'll take 30k" DL:"bloody hell, 35 then" MH:"no no you're fine, 30 would be amazing". DL:"You'll be the death of me Gloria, £45k plus a ride on Mikes chopper, not a penny more, well maybe 5k more" MH:"Listen I'll take it" DL:"Fuck it, you've got me over a barrel, £60k a week and a three year contract, now get out you sheister" Picks up phone, "Chris, we've got him now sell Taylor, Harper, Enrique, Shola and the bloke that waters the pitch"

1. She would kick the shit out of me (as I would imagine most on here's other half) Trust me your lass wont.

Fuck that, it sounds like far too much work. You're both cunts now shut the fuck up

Its definitely £1500, not sure why they've released the posters (which I believe are Chronicle produced) when they're clearly wrong.

replace 4 years with 2 and add the words "paid out from club income" on the end and you'd be near the mark.

happy belated ones guvnah!

There should be snippets of things being released over the next few days. The full financial package info is having the last few tweaks applied and will be released once the solicitors have rubber stamped it, few days at least though before that appears.

wahey, welcome aboard now get out there and sell a kidney to buy a full stake Easy up Pud, just by his username, you know he must be in a bit of a Jam Thats fair enough but if he comes out to play then theres a price to pay.

wahey, welcome aboard now get out there and sell a kidney to buy a full stake

go on then. just can't recall him on Tyne tees or look north when it all kicked off originlly. Maybe he did and I just missed it. (yes it's a damn slow night in taxi land) Hes just buggered his chances of being manager if Moat should miraculously find the money based on Moats contradictory statement

Turns out our old friend Mr Moat is now keen to buy the club again Remarkable, as soon as theres interest from someone, Ashley finds other buyers.

Ahhhh good old SSN, didnt bother asking him what the fuck he was doing while he was supposedly buying the club but now they'll go talk to him about stadium naming rights. Fuck me I hate them bastards.

Mark Jensen and Lisa Bullivant from the Trust are in a phone in on Radio Newcastle now. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/playlive/bbc_radio_newcastle/

Its a fair point. I understand the idea of one member one vote, no matter the value of their investment. But, whats to stop someone buying two "votes" in different names etc? Take me, I might take up my own share, but also be in a TT one, that doesnt mean I get two votes, because I could vote differently to TT, but I could influence a TT vote. Then what if I want to get one with a business partner? Is that classed as another, or if its in the name of the business then does that not count? See my post above, I'll find out exactly whats what (and of course it will all be fully documented when the finance stuff comes out). As I said, I cant see how its possible to stop people buying shares for other people and then influencing their vote, no matter what, thats possible. What it does do though is stop any one individual saying "I have x% of the shares therefore I want .......". They can try and influence the decision however unlike a share options where there are say 10m individual shares and you know you own 6m of them therefore 60% of the vote, in this case you wouldnt have a clue how many others were out there, you could technically buy yourself 10,000 shares thinking it would give you the Presidency however there could be another 20k people voting for your rival, he himself may have bought 10,001 shares! If you owned your share plus one with work and a bit in here then you're only guaranteed to get one vote going the way you want. The other two could go the opposite way. I think those big names that put in millions for their vote already have an advantage come election time (should they want to go for it), pointing out that they love the club enough to invest £10m has to be a canny vote winner.

I see no reason why I cant own my investment and be part of one here, one at work, one down the pub etc. What you were getting at would be people starting their own for the purposes of gaining votes, thats never stoppable though, if we said you couldnt be part of others then they would just buy the share in son, wife, auntie Vera, fathers names etc they wouldnt need to be down as a syndicate with them. Buy them in those names and get them to vote how he wants. I dont believe that when an organisation such as this buys a share the finance people will ask for the names of all involved. I'll check it out to be sure though. I would imagine however that we'll need some written agreement in the same way that syndicates for the lottery are supposed to have.

Id also be shagging Angelina Jolie if I looked like Brad Pitt, talked like Brad Pitt and was called Brad fucking Pitt.

This is the problem, as you say its one vote per person/ entity therefore if we have multiple shares then they would need to be in the name of a different person (and by that logic, a person who knows they never want to own a share of their own and without sounding dodgy, isnt going to bugger off one day and cash it in). A toontastic share in its own name will need to be a single share. Maybe we do look to implement just one with differing levels of investment?