Howaythelads

gay.gif Backs to wall 'bloke', as we all know already.

Andy I know you aren't a dimwit like Mick, Boo boo and the rest of the wankers. Owen is quality player. To have a chance of winning anything a club needs to sign quality player AND have a qualilty manager. Chelsea flattered to deceive for years until Abramovich finally pumped in the millions. They also needed the right manager. Macbeth will talk about finances above all else, he'll use a debt to further his agenda and he'll want to highlight that as much as he can, so if the club is in debt for £17m and we signed Owen for £17m he'll use that because it looks good. The fact is, Owen is quality. We needed a replacement for Shearer and we signed a player who can fill his boots. That's a great signing imo. The £17m that WAS wasted was without any shadow of doubt on Boumsong and Luque, what was also wasted was the money on Parker and Emre, players we didn't need. What would have been the reaction had it been mooted we were after these players but the Board blocked it on the basis they considered ( as I do ) that we didn't need them? Wouldn't have been good, would it? Selecting players to be signed is the remit of the manager and the manager alone. Souness selected these players for the club and the Board backed him, which is all fans can ask from a Board. Had those players and other Souness signings done the business not many would be slagging the club off. Think about it and don't blindly follow the idiots is all I ask. The bottom line is that problem is and was the waste of millions by Souness, an appointment made by the Board and an appointment that is a massive error. That is all there is to it. It's not about consistent mismanagement by the Board and/or about the Board being shite. It's about one crap appointment.

Mick As I've said before, I couldn't give a toss what you think or what you believe, the opinion of people such as yourself is worthless to people who have supported the club through thick and thin. If I wasn't a genuine supporter of Newcastle United I would find myself hoping you get what you wish for, but that would mean real supporters potentially suffering as the club goes through decades of a lack of ambition. Others who wish for the same as you don't come into the same category, they weren't around at the time of shit Boards, so they know no better through no fault of their own. They don't lie by claiming they were there. Your posting of events taken from websites and books is absolutely hilarious in your quest to come across as a real supporter. That's my last post to you as well. Not much point in continuing but as I'll be on the forum I'll continue to laugh at the shite and lies you post.

If you didn't think I would then why ask? The 30+ years are not made up, they weren't under one chairman either so are not relevant to the thread which they were in. If the league position had mentioned who was chairman then it would have been more relevant, it's like me listing all of the trophies we've won and saying that is proves Shepherd is shit, I wouldn't do that because it's a distortion of the facts, just like the 30+ years is a distortion of the facts when trying to prove Shepherd is good. Give your head a shake. I wasn't trying to prove Fred is good when I posted those facts. That you think I was only shows once again how stupid you are.

Macbeth Keep your sarcasm and stick it up your arse. I realise it's a forum, so you see a chance to act the twát by coming across in a way you'd never do in a personal discussion. I shouldn't be surprised, but for some reason in your case I am. I didn't have you down as an idiotic kid. We don't have to agree about this and I don't think we ever will. I see football as different to other business's and you see it as the same as any other business. You also do have a huge chip on your shoulder about dividends and I don't. Despite what you may claim I think it's obvious you envy anyone better off than yourself. That's very sad for you. BTW You're right, I've never been to your website nor do I intend to go to it. You post enough misrepresentation on this forum without me readiing it elsewhere. You should post your stuff on Skunkers rather than this forum, which is visited largely by juveniles with no knowledge of what a shite Board really is. Not their fault they're young, but they have been consumed by the raised expectations and are spitting the dummy out because those expectations haven't been met. As I said earlier, older people don't like Fred much either, but people with even half a brain understand changing the Board doesn't automatically = a better Board. In your case, as you appear to measure the quality of someone by the size of company they run (rather than their performance at the FA for example) I guess it's understandable you'd think a new set of people would be better. In football it isn't that simple and you won't understand that either. This is my last post to you. I don't care if you respond or not but if you do it will be the last word. I have no intention of replying to anything else you post. No respect.

Agreed, although i think sbr sacking was just! The timing wasn't! :roll: But the sacking of Gullit was timed ok?

Parker has scored 2 goals in the Premiership to Emre's zero. That for me shows that Parker is superior to Emre. Simplistic way of looking at it, tbh.

Never been accused of pessimism before, so there's a first. Good of you to dodge my last reply to you, it's becoming a habit, just like you dodged the last question I asked you a couple of days ago. This was how much money has been given to successive managers during the same period you moan about dividends. Wouldn't mind a comment on the post just a few up from this one, plus the question I've just restated here. Thanks

I don't believe you're as stupid as your monkey, perhaps I'm wrong. You tell me. There is no relevance per se, except that it highlights for anyone with a brain that because there is no guarantee a new Board will be better than the current one the club could end up with a shite one just like those of the past. It is naive in the extreme to not believe that either outcome is possible. That is the only reason for bringing it up. I hadn't thought I'd have to spell that out as it's so obvious.

He arrived in December 97, opened his mouth in a brothel and resigned durning March 98 and legged it for a few months then returned in December 1998. http://www.nufcmismanagement.info/shepherd-facts.html You're worse than a reformed smoker. Y You support the club during a couple of cup runs in the 70's, deserting the club during every other season. Then you jump on the bandwagon at the "promise of trophies" you imagined would appear when KK took over. and because it hasn't happened you moan like spoilt kid. Get over yourself, ffs.

I've said Shepherd is no better than the chairman of the past, fact. If you want to make a case for Shepherd then go through and add who was the chairman at the time to we can compare like for like, we can then look to see who has taken us further backwards while in office. The others will not have the financial clout that Freddy was handed on a plate but we'll put that to one side as nobody can say how much they actually did have for sure. We do know that the game has never had as much money so it can be taken for granted that Freddy isn't at a disadvantage on that score. Spin? Idiot.

Mick thinks the current Board is no better than Boards of the past. Well here are the facts just in case anybody is interested. We had a team in the early 1950's that won the FA Cup 3 times in 5 years, so something for the Board of the day to build on you'd think. Season Div Position 50-51 1 4 51-52 1 8 52-53 1 16 53-54 1 15 54-55 1 8 Well what happened after those cup winning years was 6 seasons of league mediocrity ... Season Div Position 55-56 1 11 56-57 1 17 57-58 1 19 58-59 1 11 59-60 1 8 60-61 1 21 ... leading to eventual relegation to the 2nd division in 1961. Then followed 4 seasons in division 2... Season Div Position 61-62 2 11 62-63 2 7 63-64 2 8 64-65 2 1 ...before promotion in 1965. Great stuff, something to build on... ... and didn't we take division 1 by storm ... Season Div Position 65-66 1 15 66-67 1 20 67-68 1 10 68-69 1 9 69-70 1 7 70-71 1 12 71-72 1 11 72-73 1 8 73-74 1 15 74-75 1 15 75-76 1 15 76-77 1 5 77-78 1 21 ... taking a mere 12 seasons to reach the position of 5th, our highest position since that 4th placed finish in 1950/51. We won the Fairs Cup (now Uefa Cup) in 68/69. The confidence from winning something was obvious to see and the next season we finished 7th, our highest position in the top flight since 1951. The Board had a chance to build on something but they let it slip. We then got to Wembley twice, 1974 and 1976, losing both times but again the Board had something to build on and yet again they missed the chance. Eventually they changed the manager for a relative unknown from Blackburn, this being a man who had a reputation for not liking superstars so perhaps he could build a team on the cheap. Well Lee dispelled that myth when he left and signed big name players for Everton. In reality, the Board got lucky with the appointment of Lee but they were too stupid to realise it, or perhaps he made transfer demands they wouldn't meet, which is more likely given the players he signed at Everton. The Board allowed Lee to leave and we were relegated the season after finishing 5th, with talk of the players going on strike such was the state of the Board ... We then saw a period of mediocrity in division 2 ... Season Div Position 78-79 2 8 79-80 2 9 80-81 2 11 81-82 2 9 82-83 2 5 83-84 2 3 ... before being promoted with a 3rd place finish. So, promoted back to the top flight and something to build on yet again. We had some decent players such as Beardsley and Waddle, players destined for great things at international level, but sadly for us that happened for them at other clubs that were more ambitious than Newcastle... Season Div Position 84-85 1 14 85-86 1 11 86-87 1 17 87-88 1 8 88-89 1 20 We saw 5 seasons of mediocrity in the top flight, leading to relegation once again after a decent enough season where it looked like we had something to build on. Significantly this was a period that saw Gazza arrive and then leave for the dizzy heights of Spurs, Gazza in fact being sold when we had that 8th placed finish, which was another chance for the Board to build on something but once again they failed to take it. We were relegated again in 88/89. Now we enter the era of nearly going bust... Season Div Position 89-90 2 3 90-91 2 11 91-92 2 20 ... but just avoided relegation to division 3 on the last day of the season with that 20th placed finish and with a new manager installed. Nobody complains about the timing of sacking Ardiles. So KK and the core of the current Board had arrived, the top man at that time being SJH, who is undoubtedly a better Chairman than Fred, but whose ambition for success has been continued, blighted by poor performance by managers with top track records, and then by the terrible appointment of Souness, who was backed to the tune of £50m and turned a 5th placed team into a 14th placed team. Season Div Position 92-93 1 1 93-94 P 3 94-95 P 6 95-96 P 2 96-97 P 2 97-98 P 13 98-99 P 13 99-00 P 11 00-01 P 11 01-02 P 4 02-03 P 3 03-04 P 5 04-05 P 14 05-06 P 7 Macbeth will probably like most of this, because there was no speculative spending going on in an effort to improve things on the pitch. No effort to challenge the teams at the top. Probably a great balance sheet though, selling our best players time after time and stashing the cash. 'Our' cash.

Goals is our biggest problem, strikers was and is the biggest area of concern. However, Emre is over-rated and Parker just isn't good enough, so central midfield isn't that great while Roeder selects these two. He could of course select Butt and Dyer...... As long as Dyer stays fit bluesigh.gif Aye, there's that like.

Goals is our biggest problem, strikers was and is the biggest area of concern. However, Emre is over-rated and Parker just isn't good enough, so central midfield isn't that great while Roeder selects these two. He could of course select Butt and Dyer......

If you've read the book then from what you've said on here I get the impression that you only looked at the pictures, you clearly have as many problems reading books as you do reading posts on here. You go on about Man U losing money on Beardsley, they didn't lose a penny as far as I'm aware, and it wasn't mentioned in the book. The money was a returnable deposit and I'm sure they got it all back. You've quoted me ad saying that Beardsley was "well known," that's just you cherry picking again, I said he was well known enough for Man U to be interested in him, not the unknown that he was made out to be earlier in this thread. If he was unknown then Man U would not have gone after him in the first place , try thinking for a change. I've read the "interesting post by kiwi" and I am truly indebted that he's pointed out that macbeth's a T*** (my words not his) for not highlighting that our catering is so good, bad macbeth. The next time I sit in a freezing cold stand watching crap, I'll think back to the time I found out that our catering (something Freddy knows a lot about) was held with such high regard. I think somebody should come up with a match day song so that we can tell everybody how well our catering side of the business is going. so what you are saying is that manure buy nothing other than well known players --- another gem. And let them go for less than they paid, and you didn;t reply why he went to Canada, and why no one other than us were interested in buying him ..... if you know anything about the link, you will know that the only reason we had heard of him was because of a tip from Bob Moncur. But keep making things up....fantastically funny ... Why did he piss off to Liverpool ? In fact why didn't he sign for them in the first place, if he was so well known and Liverpool being less than an hour from Manchester......... :lol: Where did I say Man U only buy well known players? Another lie developed between the lugs of NE5. bluebiggrin.gif I've highlighted it to make it easier to remember what you said yourself. but if he was so well known, why didn't he go to a top club, like Liverpool at the time ? Why not try answering or engaging your brain ? I'm sure everyone else on here can work out the answer to that ..... Keep making things up. He did go to Liverpool, when he realised Newcastle was a club going nowhere and he had become a known, top quality player on the way to England caps.

Feeling picked on, mate... ? bluebiggrin.gif

I'm intrigued to know how you worked that one out. Emre had a good game, as did Butt. Nothing suggested to me that we missed Parker. Also, although he only did it twice I was starting to get annoyed with Martins for straying offside. He soo quick, why does he need to be on the line all the time? I felt really sorry for Sibi tonight. Constant shit service to him apart from Martins cross where he was really unlucky made it look like he had a poor game, whereas in reality I thought he battled really well up there on his own for the most part. Bramble nearly had a good game tonight, but spoiled it with one poor pass and one poor 'clean the man and ball' tackle on the edge of the box where he was extremely lucky to get away without a booking. Lot of decent performers tonight and a good result to go with it. Aye, I thought the same when I read that daft comment about the team missing Parker. Don't think I've laughed as much in ages, tbh. Butt had a great game, his speed of moving the ball on was excellent throughout, many times not even taking a touch to control the ball but instead playing a quality *first time and forward* pass to a teammate. Parker should have been watching because that's exactly what he is incapable of doing and why he will never be good enough for that role. With players up front with pace, such as Martins and Owen, this type of passing is even more important. One touch before passing is often enough for the target recipient of the pass to be caught offside even if they don't have bags of pace, if they do have pace that one touch is a killer. And with Martins, Owen, Zog and Dyer in the team there will be lots of pace there, the passing has to be slicker. 3 twirls and a quick tab before passing and there's no chance......

So where is our divine right to be, then? Also, tell me why there is more chance of replacing the Board with a better one than a worse one? Tell me why another Board will automatically be better than the current one, why they will automatically make available as much or even more cash to the manager and will automatically appoint the right manager? Thanks Well, we've no divine right to be anywhere, and there's no automatic guarantees that another Board would perform better, but seeing I didn't say either of those things, I think your questions are wide of the mark. I mean, if someone is doing their job badly, you don't have any guarantees that their replacement would automatically do better, but you might still be correct in reaching the judgement that the bloke should be fired. You have to reach some kind of decision. Your reason for thinking that Shepherd should remain is that we're doing better than pre-1992, but in that era we weren't a big club whose turnover took them into the European top 20. We were a middle-sized club on the lines of West Ham or Sheffield Wednesday. Now we seem to be slipping back. Shepherd took over a very different club from the one that Sir John Hall took over in 1992. I mean, if you think Shepherd is doing an okay job, then fine, but it seems to me that our club has become one man's personal fiefdom. There's no checks on his powers because the Halls stay in the background, the local press is cowardly, and he doesn't give proper respect for the judgement of his managers. He's now built up a reputation as a Dictator that will make it difficult to attract any top-class manager, and maybe even top class players are going to think twice. Sigh "Where we ought to be if the club is run properly" ........ Note the second bit I put in bold, which is something true only in your head, as the muppets like to say. Well let me put it another way. If you don't think another Board could do better, why is that? If you do think it's possible that another Board could do better, why are you so reluctant to consider a change? You guarantee another board will be better, will bring success (we win the league or we're good enough to consistently and seriously challenge) and I'll take it. Tell me how you guarantee that a new Board is THAT type of Board and NOT a Board typical of everything I've seen at Newcastle from the late 60's right through to the 90's. You and some others may think it's impossible for a Board like we had in the past to exist again, maybe you don't even believe the stuff that is posted on here about those years by myself and NE5, but honestly, Mick is spouting shite as always. The Boards of the past were crap, go to Skunkers and ask some long-standing supporters about the Boards of previous decades. They may not like Fred either nowadays (I don't like him as it happens, I can just see that not everything he does is bad), but I doubt any will claim the Board hasn't tried, hasn't backed the managers, hasn't shown ambition to succeed. The Board has given successive managers the resources and so opportunity to bring success, there is no gurantee a replacement Board will not be happy with less. Previous Boards of Newcastle didn't even try, mate, I don't want to go back to that. We never signed top quality players and we always sold any who came through the youth team or were bought as youngsters and turned into top players (McDermott, for example). Many clubs are run by Boards without ambition to challenge the top teams, many are happy with just PL status, accepting they can't seriously challenge, we could more easily end up with a Board like that.

Shepherd has failed, he took over the club that was 2nd in the league and has taken us to where we are now, are you calling that success or even stagnation? If he hasn't failed then give a link to a league table which doesn't show us currently lying 17th or one which doesn't show us making massive losses while our gates reduce for probably the first time since Sir John and Keegan took over other than when the ground was being redeveloped, if you can't then he's failed, FACT. What comments about Beardsley and McDermott do you find funny? Is it that Beardsley was well known enough for Man U to pay money up front to his club and agreed a fee of £500,000 to take him to Manchester United while nobody had heard of him? Is it the bit where I said that the club didn't have to buy these players along with Roeder and Davie Mac if Keegan was a token "trophy signing" for the club? As for jumping ship, I've never jumped ship in the 70's and 80's at all and went to more games back then than I do now because I didn't have a family who thought that they should have some of my time when I'm at home. I remember going to Chelsea and seeing 6 goals put into our net, the away support (us) were singing "we want 5 after the 4th goal and we want 6 after the 5th. I remember going to see Newcastle v Colchester in the FA Cup and it taking 7 or 8 hours to travel 100 miles because of the fog that developed during the game. I remember going to Cardiff along with about 300 others and spending the full 90 minutes dodging bricks that were coming over the back of our end then getting bricked again while walking to the train station. I remember travelling to Bristol City twice within a few weeks because the Rovers ground had burned down. I remember watching Gazza make his full debut away to Southampton and also being at Wimbledon when the fans went mad because Vinny Jones had him by the balls, do you remember those games? Going to places like Oldham, Carlisle, Shrewsbury, Cambridge, Exeter and Watford only to have the game called off because of the weather and some idiot in the pub claiming that we were lucky because we got the 3 points because the pools panel put the game down as an away win. How many away games do you remember from these times? I think Shepherd has no more ambition than the old boards, he's in it for the money. You and your "mate" can stick your head in the sand as much as you want when it comes to Shepherd, others can see him for what he is, a failure. Please confirm for me that you "thought" the Board was a total failure during the seasons we finished 4th, 3rd and 5th, and would have liked them removed at that time for being shite. As for the rest of your diatribe, care to explain why you find it necessary to write a potted history of your so-called attendance habits? Looks more than a little like insecurity from where I'm sitting and I don't understand it. You clearly have nowt to worry about, being a supafan and all that. Shame that you slip up so many times, like believng Beardsley was well known when we signed him when he was almost totally unknown. How come you haven't mentioned those other ambitious signings of top international players, such as Kenny Sansom and Mick Channon, who as England internationals obviously compare favourably with Owen, for example. :roll:

So where is our divine right to be, then? Also, tell me why there is more chance of replacing the Board with a better one than a worse one? Tell me why another Board will automatically be better than the current one, why they will automatically make available as much or even more cash to the manager and will automatically appoint the right manager? Thanks Well, we've no divine right to be anywhere, and there's no automatic guarantees that another Board would perform better, but seeing I didn't say either of those things, I think your questions are wide of the mark. I mean, if someone is doing their job badly, you don't have any guarantees that their replacement would automatically do better, but you might still be correct in reaching the judgement that the bloke should be fired. You have to reach some kind of decision. Your reason for thinking that Shepherd should remain is that we're doing better than pre-1992, but in that era we weren't a big club whose turnover took them into the European top 20. We were a middle-sized club on the lines of West Ham or Sheffield Wednesday. Now we seem to be slipping back. Shepherd took over a very different club from the one that Sir John Hall took over in 1992. I mean, if you think Shepherd is doing an okay job, then fine, but it seems to me that our club has become one man's personal fiefdom. There's no checks on his powers because the Halls stay in the background, the local press is cowardly, and he doesn't give proper respect for the judgement of his managers. He's now built up a reputation as a Dictator that will make it difficult to attract any top-class manager, and maybe even top class players are going to think twice. Sigh "Where we ought to be if the club is run properly" ........ Note the second bit I put in bold, which is something true only in your head, as the muppets like to say.

Inappropriate? Childish? That's rich, given what I'm replying to. I'd say it sounds like you're one of those who takes the view something they don't agree with is "inappropriate". A common trait on this forum, it must be said. What do you want me to say in response to the kids question that is totally unrelated to football? I couldn't give a toss about any warehouse, I couldn't give a toss about what Fred has said in a brothel. I don't care that Geordie women are dogs and whatever it is he said about Shearer. I couldn't give a toss about dividends as long as money is made available to the manager to strengthen the team, which is what this Board has consistently done and which may not happen under another Board. You can believe the opposite if you like. That's my answer to the question. Perhaps you and your chum can now answer some of mine? Like why do you think it's guaranteed another Board will appoint the right manager, will provide as much funding for players, etc etc. They're all there in the thread but have been *childishly* ignored so far. How can you not care about a chairman giving our own money to his other family business when we are paying for it to be spent on the team? In response to your question - those that have taken over at other clubs haven't done badly have they? Fact is, only good businessmen can afford to take control of a Premiership club, and that can only be a good thing for the football club. Therefore, any replacement coming in is bound to be better. Going to have disagree vehemently with the last part of your paragraph. Any replacement that comes in is NOT bound to be better. If they know nothing about football (like Shepherd), then they'd be no better than him and probably worse because at least Shepherd tried to please the fans (seen by some of his reactionary moves) while the new bloke wouldn't have a clue what to do. And as of a year ago, many people (on this board as well) were saying that Shepherd was a good businessman and at least runs the financial side of the club well and that's why some of them were willing to stick it out with him in the hope that we get lucky with a manager. How times have changed eh? A surprisingly good post. clapping.gif

Maybe this load of shite came from Shepherd himself? "I can only do my best here with the tools I've got, which in my opinion are more than enough to get this football club into Europe every season and something we now expect. Yes, there are always going to be setbacks. But if there is somebody out there who can do better than me and who would be willing to invest millions into the club, then fine. Every penny I have had from this club I have reinvested back into the club. I have never sold a single share since I came to the club and the money I have had has been reinvested in the way of buying shares. When people say that I have taken money out of the club, all I have done is to put the money back in by buying shares. Nobody can accuse me of taking money out of this football club and not reinvesting it." Source: Dead long link Err, aye? Aye aye bluewink.gif HTL in the familiar position of being owned. You're obviously too intelligent for me, mate. I haven't a clue what you're babbling about. As usual, I'll abuse you and offer nothing to the debate bluebigrazz.gif An internet tough guy, you appear in the thread posting personal abuse. Well done. Your contribution is as always, a joy and informative to read. Thanks. My pleasure mate. Don't mention it. Striikes me you must be grateful for the internet, like. Allows you to say stuff that you would otherwise never dream of.

Maybe this load of shite came from Shepherd himself? "I can only do my best here with the tools I've got, which in my opinion are more than enough to get this football club into Europe every season and something we now expect. Yes, there are always going to be setbacks. But if there is somebody out there who can do better than me and who would be willing to invest millions into the club, then fine. Every penny I have had from this club I have reinvested back into the club. I have never sold a single share since I came to the club and the money I have had has been reinvested in the way of buying shares. When people say that I have taken money out of the club, all I have done is to put the money back in by buying shares. Nobody can accuse me of taking money out of this football club and not reinvesting it." Source: Dead long link Err, aye? Aye aye bluewink.gif HTL in the familiar position of being owned. You're obviously too intelligent for me, mate. I haven't a clue what you're babbling about. As usual, I'll abuse you and offer nothing to the debate bluebigrazz.gif An internet tough guy, you appear in the thread posting personal abuse. Well done. Your contribution is as always, a joy and informative to read.

Inappropriate? Childish? That's rich, given what I'm replying to. I'd say it sounds like you're one of those who takes the view something they don't agree with is "inappropriate". A common trait on this forum, it must be said. What do you want me to say in response to the kids question that is totally unrelated to football? I couldn't give a toss about any warehouse, I couldn't give a toss about what Fred has said in a brothel. I don't care that Geordie women are dogs and whatever it is he said about Shearer. I couldn't give a toss about dividends as long as money is made available to the manager to strengthen the team, which is what this Board has consistently done and which may not happen under another Board. You can believe the opposite if you like. That's my answer to the question. Perhaps you and your chum can now answer some of mine? Like why do you think it's guaranteed another Board will appoint the right manager, will provide as much funding for players, etc etc. They're all there in the thread but have been *childishly* ignored so far. How can you not care about a chairman giving our own money to his other family business when we are paying for it to be spent on the team? In response to your question - those that have taken over at other clubs haven't done badly have they? Fact is, only good businessmen can afford to take control of a Premiership club, and that can only be a good thing for the football club. Therefore, any replacement coming in is bound to be better. We aren't paying for money to later be spent on the team, we're paying to watch the team that is put out on a match day, whatever that team may be. The Board does not HAVE to spend huge sums of money on players. I've nothing to say in response to your second paragraph, it's one of the most naive things I've ever read, tbh.

Inappropriate? Childish? That's rich, given what I'm replying to. I'd say it sounds like you're one of those who takes the view something they don't agree with is "inappropriate". A common trait on this forum, it must be said. What do you want me to say in response to the kids question that is totally unrelated to football? I couldn't give a toss about any warehouse, I couldn't give a toss about what Fred has said in a brothel. I don't care that Geordie women are dogs and whatever it is he said about Shearer. I couldn't give a toss about dividends as long as money is made available to the manager to strengthen the team, which is what this Board has consistently done and which may not happen under another Board. You can believe the opposite if you like. That's my answer to the question. Perhaps you and your chum can now answer some of mine? Like why do you think it's guaranteed another Board will appoint the right manager, will provide as much funding for players, etc etc. They're all there in the thread but have been *childishly* ignored so far.