ToonForum - Newcastle United Forum

Bodacious Benny wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 26, 2024 5:53 pm

UlversToon wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 26, 2024 5:47 pm

Very disappointing news but there's still a chance they may be taken away again.

Tbh even with a 10 point deduction I think they’d scrape survival due to how abysmal the bottom of the league is.

Anyway, if you only get a 6 point deduction why not just sign a load of extra players and take the hit as ultimately it’ll gain you more than 6 points over the course of the season…

I imagine in a scenario when you brazenly do that you'd risk getting hit with a bigger penalty than that. I haven't read into their appeal efforts, but I'm sure they pointed to some extenuating circumstances that won't universally apply to any club that tries to spend their way out of relegation. Plus, there's still the looming financial issues that eventually come due irrespective of FFP that hit most clubs who take that approach.

Also, even though avoiding relegation is in actuality a bigger financial windfall than getting to near the top of the table, the average observer is always going to get more mad at the teams that achieve success by cheating, rather than maintain the level of painful mediocrity Everton have been skating by with of late.

I'm no Brendan Rogers fan, but this is absolutely ridiculous. At worst it's mildly patronising from Rogers, and it's for the female presenter to decide if she was offended, not for some feminist group to pipe up demanding an apology.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg6d6552kkzo

People have said "good lad" to me at work, should I be offended?!

Bodacious Benny wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 27, 2024 9:48 am

I'm no Brendan Rogers fan, but this is absolutely ridiculous. At worst it's mildly patronising from Rogers, and it's for the female presenter to decide if she was offended, not for some feminist group to pipe up demanding an apology.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg6d6552kkzo

People have said "good lad" to me at work, should I be offended?!

I mean, I would never say "good boy" to anyone at work as if they're a puppy deserving a treat, but British vernacular tends to lean a bit more patronizing compared to most of the world.

Yeah, I meant to reply to this but it got lost in all the Blackburn, it's incredibly patronising and he's clearly just in a huff because he doesn't want to answer a valid question.

Aside from that, surely it's absolutely the job of feminist groups to challenge obvious sexism, he's not saying anything close to that to a male interviewer? The interviewer herself might not care, or might care but not want to jeopardise her career in a currently male dominated sport, so it's absolutely the place of those groups to raise it. All they've asked for is an apology, and that's the least he can do here.

Colly wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:01 am

Yeah, I meant to reply to this but it got lost in all the Blackburn, it's incredibly patronising and he's clearly just in a huff because he doesn't want to answer a valid question.

Aside from that, surely it's absolutely the job of feminist groups to challenge obvious sexism, he's not saying anything close to that to a male interviewer? The interviewer herself might not care, or might care but not want to jeopardise her career in a currently male dominated sport, so it's absolutely the place of those groups to raise it. All they've asked for is an apology, and that's the least he can do here.

Doesn't that contradict itself tho?

You say the journalist might not want to jeopardise her career so didn't raise it or put herself in the spotlight, but the group raising it on her behalf (unless she instructed them to, which seems unlikely) has put her firmly in the spotlight - possibly against her will.

Yes and no. She might not want to raise it herself because she may quite rightfully think it makes her look a troublemaker etc or fear for her job, but that doesn't mean it doesn't affect her or that she doesn't want it handled properly. Those groups are responsible to more than just her too as well, and any young women and girls who want to get into sports media need to know that it's an environment where dinosaurs like Rodgers can't get away with being d******** without being called out.

Whether you agree with them or not (for full disclosure I do), that's the entire point of those groups existence.

I'm pretty sure anyone, man or woman, going into journalism isn't a push over and can speak up for themselves, they know the nature of the business and the type of characters you are going to have to deal with. She may have been offended and then again she might not have been. The problem these days is there are far too many people getting offended on behalf of other people. Too many people wanting to be the beacon of morality for nothing more than their own benefit and it causes more issues than it fixes. For me s**** like this just perpetuates the stereotype of a poor helpless female victim who cannot fight back so she needs a white knight to come swooping into to save her, like f*** off, if she wants help and support she can seek you out, shes not some little lost puppy FFS.

Paul Pogba has some time off coming up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68436828

Pogba 4 year ban
Forgot all about him in any case

I'd never defend doping, but that feels like a pretty wild penalty for a first offence. Not that I'll throw a pity party for Pogba of all players.

4 point deduction for Forest.

Bodacious Benny wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 18, 2024 3:34 pm

4 point deduction for Forest.

Another illustration of the so called Six Elites flexing their protectionist arm. There’s gonna be plenty more of this to come.
The game is loaded in favour of teams that not so long ago wanted to leave the Premiership structure that they now expect to protect their dominance.

I get that, but at the same time Forest's transfer policy last season was absurd. How is it fair on say Luton if they're allowed to break the rules that are in place?

The fact Man City keep getting away with it is a separate point of course.

It sounds like Forest and Everton both deserved their deductions based on the rules, but the league is an absolute joke when bigger clubs continually win trophies and get lauded whilst allegedly doing 100x worse. Why doesn’t everyone just break the rules so spectacularly that it’ll take the PL years (or decades) to do something about it.

The PL has been a closed shop for years, these days it's just becoming much more apparent, don't dare to dream, don't dare to challenge because you will be punished. We can talk all we like about how forest should have done their business, but end of the day it's becoming more and more necessary for clubs to do this. Teams in the PL are so financially loaded that what chance do these promoted clubs actually have in the long term? Hell Leicester won the league and still hit a financial brick wall that saw them tumble back out of the league.

Botman now needs surgery , ACL ??
Months out the game now ??
WTAF

seaside nipper wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 20, 2024 5:13 pm

Botman now needs surgery , ACL ??
Months out the game now ??
WTAF

6-9 months

Leicester charged for financial breaches.

Meanwhile at Man C….zilch.

Bodacious Benny wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 10:08 pm

Leicester charged for financial breaches.

Meanwhile at Man C….zilch.

City have already been charged. It's just they are using £££ to have expensive lawyers stymy the process. The PL are weak, but they are trying something

Colback's Orange Tufts wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 22, 2024 8:03 am

Bodacious Benny wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 10:08 pm

Leicester charged for financial breaches.

Meanwhile at Man C….zilch.

City have already been charged. It's just they are using £££ to have expensive lawyers stymy the process. The PL are weak, but they are trying something

Exactly...nothing is happening.

The lesson to everyone is to break the rules so many times that it will take years (or decades) to resolve. Don't do it just once as that's easy for them to punish you. Easy. Lets win 10 PLs, a few FA Cups, CLs etc. and worry about the punishment in 2036. I'd take that.