Dr Gloom

can't believe this was four years ago it still makes me lol - how do you even go about book a press conference at a garden centre? imagine working at four seasons total landscaping and taking that call - you must be thinking it was a prank call

i'd be amazed if he's as underwhelming for us as hugo viana was. but on that subject, is tonali a defensive midfielder?

is series link a big deal still? i remember being wowed by it in the pre-streaming days when linear tv was still relevant. i have all the apps i need on my firestick. it's surely just the sports propping sky up? this is the iptv/on-demand age cab - can sky continue to remain relevant when its consumers are denied choice available elsewhere? i don't know anyone with a sky sub anymore. 10-15 years ago, everyone had one.

The answer to the other question is more ad revenue. The streaming market is so saturated now that providers are having to offer entry level budget packages, with ads. The result is streaming services wind up looking more like traditional linear TV and those with deeper pockets get the ad-free content. For the traditional satellite/cable providers, the future is less certain. They’re surviving thanks to the older demographic, which is diminishing. I don’t know what the future holds for them in a world of on-demand content unless they get much, much more creative with their offering or if there is a race to the bottom on prices. The on-demand premier league football rights idea that I floated could be one solution, given sports is one areas propping them up. I would happily pay a big subscription fee for a package that offered every Newcastle game on demand.

I wasn’t just talking about illegal streaming tbh, though that’s part of the picture. Sky just seems such poor value compared to other streaming services such as Netflix or Disney. It must be the sports packages keeping them afloat but then that stuff is so easily accessed illegally for so many people, I don’t know how much longer that will remain the case. The other thing I couldn’t stand about sky when I subscribed was how they hike up your fee every six months, so even if you renegotiate a better price, it gradually goes up to what they want you to pay for it without consultation. We were talking about it in another thread recently but the only time I start paying for a Sky sub again is when they start to offer Newcastle games on demand instead of having to watch whatever match involving one of red cartel they decide we should be watching on “super Sunday”

Why still pay for a sky sub in this day and age? Genuine question. I presumed it was older tech-illiterate people keeping them afloat

we don’t need to imagine. We’ve seen his posts on here

I question the signing of Barnes too given how well-stocked we are down the left wing compared to the right. But he was signed before Gordon had that break-out season down the left where he was our best player. I don’t think anyone expected him to be as good as he has been. But Barnes became available so we went for him, a bit like Hall and Tino. Howe hasn’t got much wrong in tne transfer market so far. I’ve seen enough from a Tonali to think we’ve got a proper player if deployed correctly. He’ll be a massive asset this season.

harsh. Their reserves were still littered with £60m+ internationals, including a World Cup winner and a European champion

Forest will have a go at us at home, I expect, with the form they’re in so Sean might be the right selection. My only criticism of Howe has been his loyalty to certain players and his reluctance to tweak the system. If we accept he isn’t switching from 4-3-3, I hope this past week where he picked the right team for the right opposition is the future. Not being scared to rotate/rest big players depending on the game plan for the individual game, in other words.

you don’t think he looked good against Chelsea in the cup? He was motm in that deeper role

that's what i thought too, but he looked great in that role against chelsea

If he's wedded to 4-3-3, and it looks like he is, he could use Tonali as the DM, freeing Bruno up to get further forwards. Tonali's best game for us by far was the league cup game against Chelsea where he occupied the deeper, more central role in front of the back four. Bruno is great in that position too but he also showed he can play the more advanced role to great effect when he first signed in a way that Tonali hasn't really done yet. That's what I'd do against forest: Bruno----Tonali---Willock Gordon---Isak---Joelinton I can see there are also games where Sean is a good option in the right sided number 8 role - he was great against Arsenal on Saturday - but he isn't the answer in those games where we're dominating possession and the opposition park the bus.

the king is dead. Long live the king