Howaythelads

Thanks. Appreciate your magnanimity. That's ok, don't mention it. I had thought you knew we were discussing levels of ambition of previous Boards versus the current Board, not levels of outright competence, as it's already been agreed that the current has made a number of errors. It appears that like thompers you believe these two things have to go together for some reason. Thanks for clearing that up as it saves me wasting much more of my time trying to explain to you about ambition.

I give up. Both yourself and thompers are too daft to understand. Sorry like.

I'm tempted to just say that your question is far, far too simplistic given the discussion, but I won't, I'll try to explain it instead. Success is different for every club, it is all relative to the resources available to the club, it's not measured by average league position on it's own, this is just one of a number of indicators. Success isn't really what we're talking about here anyway Thompers, we're talking about the ambition of the current Board versus the ambition of the Boards of the 60's, 70's and 80's. If you're going to take just one criteria ( winning a trophy = success = ambition ) then that would indicate the Board of the late 60's early 70's was better than the Board of SJH because we won the Fairs Cup in 1969. It means that the Board of the 80's was just as good as that of today as well, which is a joke. What that criteria wouldn't take into account would be that we qualified through the back door having finished 11th the season before. It also doesn't take into account the fact the Board made no effort to build on winning that trophy by improving the team in an attempt to get into the top 6, which was the dream for many Newcastle supporters back in those days. In reality, we went on to sell our most prolific striker, who moved to West Ham claiming Newcastle was unprofessional and lacking in ambition. This is a fact Thompers. If you don't believe me just ask grassroots for his book. :winking: That's what we're talking about, the 'big picture' of ambition to succeed and whether the current Board has ambition or not. Measuring ambition is not as simple as counting trophies.

I said 'greatness' as I didn't want to use words like 'bestness' or 'betterness'! If that's the general consensus, then all well and good. Might be that no-one's claimed that, but the implication on the part of some one way or the other isn't so clear to me. My general point is that it doesn't do us, or anyone (including the Board itself) any favours to reward them for a mediocre job, esp. on the back of some pretty tenuous 'achievements', as they've been more than adequately compensated for doing whatever they've done since stepping up to the plate with the set-up they've inherited. I find it hard to understand why anyone would defend them as vociferously as some do. I think a lot of boards of a fair few clubs are a lot better than there were then. Some are also seemingly worse. So how valid comparisons are between now and back then, I'm really not sure. In that respect I'm just trying to question the criteria that people use to prove stuff like 'ambition'. I think a lot of our better actions in recent times are more down to a kind of reactionary business sense, rather than breaking any new ground, and for me that will never equate to real success. I accept the current Board is better than it may have been in the 60s, 70s, 80s, but how much of that is down to the general climate of football now and how much of it is down to the talent inherent in our Board.... I do wonder. I do find it hard to be defensive of any set of people in an ivory tower/monopoly position who aren't being kept in check or being transparent in their dealings, who are rewarded as much for their mistakes as they are for their successes. How can that situation work to improve things? Yep, I know, I should have seen the 80s when we were reaaaally shit but I'm a child of '77 so blame the parents. No matter what you didn't want to say, 'greatness' is completely different to what we've achieved. I think that the current Board not having done as well as SJH is a given, can't see any reason at all why this isn't clear to you, I've never read anybody, anywhere claiming otherwise. It seems you need your assumptions refuted before you've even mentioned them. :roll: Your last sentence spoiled your post. I can't be arsed with replying to any of your other points.

I like the derby matches myself. I've said this before, but the best scenario for the mackems in my view would be for them to be in the PL so that we get the tension of the derby games. I'd like them to make a couple of signings every summer to get them excited and to think they're going places, only for reality to kick in during the first month of the season that it's another struggle. I'd like them to survive every season by virtue of a single goal or something, so that they spend the entire season watching shite and in fear of the drop. Fair enough, they'd be relieved at avoiding it in the end, but then for every season to be the same, season after season of struggle but we still get to beat them in the derby games.

Keegan did it at Newcastle, with the backing of an ambitious Board. If Quinn is ambitious for the mackems and appoints the right man they can turn it around. I'll be surprised if it's O'Dreary, I don't think they get on very well, tbh.

elbee909- Apart from yourself, who mentioned greatness? What general point are you trying to make here? Everyone knows that the current Board haven't done as well as the Board of SJH, so if you're trying to refute that kind of thing you'll find nobody has made that claim. Are you trying to show that the current Board is no better than those of the 60's, 70's and 80's? I just want to be clear on this and understand what your position is. Cheers

I know you're not stupid, but if you think his silence is indicative of anything other than an inability to dispute the facts that have been presented then something is stopping you from being objective. ( Can't imagine what that is, like ) I'm not really sure why Mick started the thread he later deleted on discovering that he couldn't dig up facts to support whatever his opinion is/was. However, having started that thread with some motive in mind it shows a distinct lack of integrity by failing to carry it through to the conclusion of the debate. I deleted the thread because it looked like it was becoming a slagging match, no other reason. I'm sure I said that I was looking out of interest and that was the only motive so I have nothing to hide especially when it looks almost certain that we spent more than we brought in through selling. As for carrying it through, I'm not in a position to add anything to the last time I posted figures. Mick - The thread wasn't becoming a slanging match at all, it would have been big of you to just finally admit that the Board of previous decades was shite compared to the Board of today. I believe that had your figures shown that the club spent more than they brought in from transfers you would be using that as an indicator that previous Boards were as ambitious as the current one. What do you think of my earlier comment about the timing of signings being a better measure in any case? What's the point in buying three average players to replace one top class player, for example? Do you really not see it as a lack of ambition that the club didn't build on good situations, that they didn't attempt to build on the occasions when we had a decent side, needing just a couple of players to lift us to a challenge for the top 6? Not being funny Mick, are you really aware of these times?

Hey, your man Freddie also sanctioned the purchase of Luque. (NE5 starts melting, 'DOES NOT COMPUTE') eeerrrr....so you think that the chairman should overrule his managers judgement on footballers ? elbee starts melting, DOES NOT COMPUTE The bigger picture also being of course, that pre-1992, we could only dream of setting transfer records and paying money for players such as we paid for Luque whether he is a flop or not, like the other top clubs, this being the subject of the thread "are we a selling club" and Mick insists that we are still a selling club just like when we sold Gazza, Beardsley and Waddle. Question. What would you do if we bought Beckham [ex or recently discarded England Captain at 31 years old] and sold Zoggy, Duff and Owen ? Selling club or ambitious club ........ I asked Mick a similar question and he chickened out of it. Or he's taking his time. Do you know why he is taking his time ? or two of the last 5 Young Players of the Year ? You've mentioned this before and I wish you would explain your point. It's a bit daft talking about the club selling these 2 players as though it shows the club has no ambition. Explain why you're mentioning this again, mate. We sell players now because we want to sell them, usually for football reasons, for example selling Andy Cole because Keegan had a plan. Players don't leave the club anymore claiming the club has no ambition. This is a major difference that you're being more than a bit daft to deliberately ignore if you want to debate seriously. I don't think you want to do that though.

I know you're not stupid, but if you think his silence is indicative of anything other than an inability to dispute the facts that have been presented then something is stopping you from being objective. ( Can't imagine what that is, like ) I'm not really sure why Mick started the thread he later deleted on discovering that he couldn't dig up facts to support whatever his opinion is/was. However, having started that thread with some motive in mind it shows a distinct lack of integrity by failing to carry it through to the conclusion of the debate.

Wot aboot me, you miserable, fat, pie eating, tight-fisted auld git.....I've changed my mind about you now, I want Doug Ellis or Bob Murray in charge immediately, they're both in a different class to you. And they divvent gan' to brothels either, or call Geordie women dogs, or talk the club up instead of doon.

Mick I'll try again to explain the flaw in what you're saying.... Gordon Lee signing England international players for Everton proved that he knew a good player when he saw one. It also disproved the notion that he didn't want a team of 'stars'. In fact what he didn't want were players in the team who weren't 'team players'. The Board at Everton backed him in the transfer market enabling him to buy these players. The point is that he would have attempted to bring those same players to Newcastle had he received the backing of the Board. He didn't have that backing in the transfer market because the Board was unambitious. <snipped a bit out that I'm not bothered about....ie you getting a transfer fee wrong. I couldn't care less about that, tbh.> If you are trying to prove or disprove the ambition of the Board coming up with a set of figures isn't the way to go about it no matter which way the figures may end up. You need to look at the timing of sales and buys. We may well have spent some money on 3 players, but what was the point if they are average and the deal was financed by the sale of a top player? What the Board needed to do was keep that top player and invest in more players of that quality. They didn't. The bit where you mention the turnover wouldn't be much compared to today isn't relevant on the basis that Sky wasn't around for any club back then. It was a level playing field. However, the Board of the day had a potential fanbase to tap into that could have given us a larger turnover than many other clubs, but they failed to tap into that due to their lack of ambition. Not bothered about that bit either.

Are you his SO then? Sounds like you know some personal details there, like.

First bit in bold is one of the most hilarious things I've read in ages. Wouldn't mind you telling me how you know the lack of signings is down to 'Fat' Fred? really? i don't see many clubs outside the top four that can boast the strength in depth we have in midfield. duff, parker, emre, butt, n'zogbia, solano, dyer and milner is not a bad group to cover four positions (not to mention the youngsters like o'brien and pattison knocking on the door. so i think it's fair to say that we're fairly well covered when it comes to midfield. on your second point....because he's the chairman and he sanctions them. the manager identifies the players he wants. it's up to the chairman to get the deals done before the last week of the transfer window. it would be nice to be approaching a new season for once with our summer signings signed and bedded in with a few weeks of pre-season training behind them. but shepherd doesn't appear to learn from his mistakes. we continue to wait until the last possible minute to complete our deals which inevitably means we're slow out of the blocks in august and september. who else do you blame for our lack of strategy when it comes to the transfer window but the chairman? is there someone else running the club that i don't know about? There can be any number of reasons why a signing isn't made that is nothing to do with the Chairman. On your first point, you're over-rating our players individually and more importantly, collectively. not really. i just don't see any clubs outside the top 4 or 5 with a better collection of midfielders in their squad. if you do maybe you could name them and list the players so we can compare. we have the strength in depth in midfield to compete with the best clubs in the league. it's obvious that defence and attack are the areas that we're weak in. bring in two class defenders and two quality strikers and we don't look a bad side all of a sudden. but even if we weren't to sign anyone else before the window closes (won't happen - i can see us bringing in at least a couple of overpriced panic buys next week), we still have enough quality to avoid relegation. It's not about individuals, it's about having the proper blend of players to make a good unit and team. I don't think you've ever understood that, Dan. Our midfield for most of last season was pretty poor, there's not a great reason to suppose it'll be much better this season. good point. but adding new strikers with better movement and pace for ball players like emre to pass to would help, as would signing a couple of strikers who play the ball through midfield rather than hoofing it 40 yards forward. we should be able to find a cohesive unit from the 8 senior midfielders mentioned above. there's a lot of talent there that i believe we would see more of with better forwards and defenders. But we don't have those strikers. I'm looking at the current options and it's not good. The problem is Parker and Emre, I've thought so for ages. I think we probably could find a proper blend from the players currently on the books, but I'm concerned whether Roeder has the balls to drop either Parker or Emre. Especially since he made the error of making Parker captain. Whilie we don't have strikers he'll probably get away with it by using one up front and 5 across the middle. But once we have 2 strikers and he wants to go 4-4-2 it will be interesting to see who he puts in the centre of midfield.

First bit in bold is one of the most hilarious things I've read in ages. Wouldn't mind you telling me how you know the lack of signings is down to 'Fat' Fred? really? i don't see many clubs outside the top four that can boast the strength in depth we have in midfield. duff, parker, emre, butt, n'zogbia, solano, dyer and milner is not a bad group to cover four positions (not to mention the youngsters like o'brien and pattison knocking on the door. so i think it's fair to say that we're fairly well covered when it comes to midfield. on your second point....because he's the chairman and he sanctions them. the manager identifies the players he wants. it's up to the chairman to get the deals done before the last week of the transfer window. it would be nice to be approaching a new season for once with our summer signings signed and bedded in with a few weeks of pre-season training behind them. but shepherd doesn't appear to learn from his mistakes. we continue to wait until the last possible minute to complete our deals which inevitably means we're slow out of the blocks in august and september. who else do you blame for our lack of strategy when it comes to the transfer window but the chairman? is there someone else running the club that i don't know about? There can be any number of reasons why a signing isn't made that is nothing to do with the Chairman. On your first point, you're over-rating our players individually and more importantly, collectively. not really. i just don't see any clubs outside the top 4 or 5 with a better collection of midfielders in their squad. if you do maybe you could name them and list the players so we can compare. we have the strength in depth in midfield to compete with the best clubs in the league. it's obvious that defence and attack are the areas that we're weak in. bring in two class defenders and two quality strikers and we don't look a bad side all of a sudden. but even if we weren't to sign anyone else before the window closes (won't happen - i can see us bringing in at least a couple of overpriced panic buys next week), we still have enough quality to avoid relegation. It's not about individuals, it's about having the proper blend of players to make a good unit and team. I don't think you've ever understood that, Dan. Our midfield for most of last season was pretty poor, there's not a great reason to suppose it'll be much better this season.

First bit in bold is one of the most hilarious things I've read in ages. Wouldn't mind you telling me how you know the lack of signings is down to 'Fat' Fred? really? i don't see many clubs outside the top four that can boast the strength in depth we have in midfield. duff, parker, emre, butt, n'zogbia, solano, dyer and milner is not a bad group to cover four positions (not to mention the youngsters like o'brien and pattison knocking on the door. so i think it's fair to say that we're fairly well covered when it comes to midfield. on your second point....because he's the chairman and he sanctions them. the manager identifies the players he wants. it's up to the chairman to get the deals done before the last week of the transfer window. it would be nice to be approaching a new season for once with our summer signings signed and bedded in with a few weeks of pre-season training behind them. but shepherd doesn't appear to learn from his mistakes. we continue to wait until the last possible minute to complete our deals which inevitably means we're slow out of the blocks in august and september. who else do you blame for our lack of strategy when it comes to the transfer window but the chairman? is there someone else running the club that i don't know about? There can be any number of reasons why a signing isn't made that is nothing to do with the Chairman. On your first point, you're over-rating our players individually and more importantly, collectively. By the way, you're babbling on about a lack of strategy having just described a strategy. The problem for you is that you don't agree with that strategy. If you are correct it is a stategy nevertheless.

All candidates for goal of the season anarl. You don't see many from the halfway line.

Luque does NOT have a year's premiership experience, not sure why you're counting him, tbh. He can't be relied upon at all.

First bit in bold is one of the most hilarious things I've read in ages. Wouldn't mind you telling me how you know the lack of signings is down to 'Fat' Fred?

i've seen this rationalisation before, and must admit i find it bloody hilarious - so we're to take out shearer and owen and replace them with two players who wont score a single goal between them? in all honesty i think we'll score as many as last term, but that is nowhere near good enough - we need a lot more goals! as for relegation - no bloody chance - about 10th without anymore players, 6th if we bring in three good reinforcements! The point is we don't have two players to replace these two players, we only have one and he's not good enough anyway.

Complacent, tbh. As it stands we don't have any decent strikers bar the injured Owen, so we will generally struggle to score goals. This is made worse by the lack of creativity from Parker and Emre, resulting in very little threat from midfield either. If Butt is generally included we should get to see whether or not Parker and Emre can offer even a small threat around the opponents penalty area. Personally I doubt they can offer much threat at all, I don't see where the goals are going to come from. Relegation is therefore a possiblity and only a complete fool would ignore it. It all changes if we sign a couple of decent strikers and a creative midfielder to play in the centre with Butt. We have lost about 17 goals from last season but have Milner who was very creative last season and Duff now in the team. I think we should be safe although I do share your worries that we wont score enough to be a success, i dont think we will score so few we go down. Let's hope you're right. I see Duff coming in as a creative player in for a creative player out. Zog was excellent at times last season and was definitely more creative than Parker and Emre combined. Milner is just potential, and again, if he plays he's probably taking the place of a fairly creative player in Solano.

Complacent, tbh. As it stands we don't have any decent strikers bar the injured Owen, so we will generally struggle to score goals. This is made worse by the lack of creativity from Parker and Emre, resulting in very little threat from midfield either. If Butt is generally included we should get to see whether or not Parker and Emre can offer even a small threat around the opponents penalty area. Personally I doubt they can offer much threat at all, I don't see where the goals are going to come from. Relegation is therefore a possiblity and only a complete fool would ignore it. It all changes if we sign a couple of decent strikers and a creative midfielder to play in the centre with Butt.

Aye. Football began in 1992.

Macbeth Good of you to finally admit you have an anti Fred agenda, this having already been well spotted above by UV but is worthy of highlighting again, as you've consistently denied this ever since you began your crusade. A few points on this paragraph. All in bold. Mick doesn't remembers any such horrendous frustration though, does he? Some of us weren't fooled by the replacements. To say that nothing has changed on that front is not true. Sorry like. Things are TOTALLY different now.

like a fly to NE5 ? Macbeth