Howaythelads

Newcastle United 1970-1991, a selling club? thread brought back on request of Mick, and merged into here. Fuck me yous must be bored Actually, it was an interesting idea for a thread and was going ok until you binned it. The motivation was obvious like, and was doomed to failure because facts are facts, but it was still potentially educational for the head in the sand crew, which is why you binned it of course. The history of the club is interesting for some, however we've established it's not of interest for everybody, those who believe football began with Sky TV for example. I thought at one point in time that you were interested in the facts surrounding the history of the club but it seems not. It's a shame that you've become so blinkered by your hatred of Fred that you can't see how far your head is up your arse, but you'll get it one day. To be honest, when that day arrives I do believe you'll be man enough to admit it though. So credit where it's due and all that.

Brief pathetic reply of no substance whatsoever! Pointing out libel and slander to clear up the confusion of many innocent readers. I think it helps when you realise that one party of the debate is constantly making up claims on behalf of the others. how old are you ? How many times have you seen NUFC play ? The relevance to my point post, which is Pointing out libel and slander to clear up the confusion of many innocent readers. I think it helps when you realise that one party of the debate is constantly making up claims on behalf of the others.? How long have you "supported" the club ? The relevance? Have you ever lived in Newcastle, for how long, and where else have you lived in the UK ie what is your broad perception of the comments made on this board, and in this thread, about the clubs past, present and future ? The relevance? Do you have experience of living around the country to broaden your outloook on life from a football perspective so you really understand how others around the country see the club instead of some who say we are a "laughing stock", despite having a record in the past decade that is superior to all but 4 other clubs in the country ? The relevance? If your reply cannot address ALL of these questions in a positive light, and show you to be a knowledgeable supporter from the pre-1992 years, then in my OPINION, you know nothing about these years, so are in no position to comment and disagree with those who did. If you think such comments on such topics are indeed "pathetic", and have no further comment, then that betrays your lack of knowledge of it. Who gets involved in topics they have no experience of ? . If that is the case, then why don't you limit your contribution to things you have observed ie how brilliant Luque was in another country. The relevance? Meanwhile, if you continue to give an OPINION on the pre-1992 years, or how much we have improved as a club since then, I will continue to reply with FACTS. And for your information, quoting facts, or showing where someone said something, then the opposite, is not slander or libel. The relevance? Thank You. You are most welcome. emot-yawn.gif

oh well, if you can't open the one that Mick himself started, that he deleted because he was in a corner and proved completely wrong, he can answer here, I don't mind where he does it. Why did Gordon Lee move to Everton from Newcastle ? Why did he buy England players for Everton and not Newcastle ? Why did Waddle, Gazza and Beardsley all leave Newcastle ? I know you said "because we couldn't afford to keep them", but myself and NE15 have already shown you that is incorrect, especially NE15 by stating that we were the 3rd or 4th biggest supported club in the country at that time, before they were replaced with inferior cheaper players that resulted in relegation however. Footnote for mods/admin. Mick deleted his thread rather than answer these questions in his own thread. Why does the thread starter have the capability to delete his own thread ? Is there any need for this, why would he want to delete his own thread, rather than carry it through until its logical end ? Do you think, to prevent this happening again, this capability should be removed from posters ? I don't think users are able to delete a post that starts a thread.

True. Divvent knaa wot tabs have to do with it though. bluebiggrin.gif

Agreed.

It looks like he could be on his way with him not even coming on the other day. I would only be in favour of selling him if we are bringing 2 strikers in. There's no reason why we need new strikers on the basis of Luque leaving. He's can't be counted as a fully contributing member of the squad.

Have to compare them I'm afraid. When Souness signed him he said, " we now have a proper player for the left ". On the basis of that comment I believe I'm justified in believing he was signed to replace Robert, so the comparison is valid imo.

£10.4M See the Accounts bluebigeek.gif Even worse then. What a shambles bringing in a useless fúcker like Luque for that much money to replace a player who created and scored more goals than the rest of our midfield combined. Robert had his critics for supposed laziness, but he had a desire to play for the club and his workrate puts Luque to shame. I fúcking hate souness.

What period of time is this? Let me get this straight, he started the season with a clean slate yet he's already lost his place and you're saying Villarreal had nothing to do with it? Are you honestly suggesting he lost his place after the Lillestrom game, where he scored our only goal?! They're the only two games he's started. Under Roeder, Chopra got more opportunities than Luque. Fact. How about since we signed him? Ask yourself why Chopra got more opportunities than Luque. Weren't we told all the players got a clean slate at the start of the season? According to you Villarreal had nothing to do with it, so tell me what he has done to lose his place? Because he's a gutless, heartless bastard who doesn't really want to play for the club.

What period of time is this? Let me get this straight, he started the season with a clean slate yet he's already lost his place and you're saying Villarreal had nothing to do with it? Are you honestly suggesting he lost his place after the Lillestrom game, where he scored our only goal?! They're the only two games he's started. Under Roeder, Chopra got more opportunities than Luque. Fact. How about since we signed him? Ask yourself why Chopra got more opportunities than Luque.

Shola was no better against Ventspils than Luque against Villarreal. Considering the level of opposition I expected a lot better from Ameobi. Perhaps he missed having a striker next to him...? You make it sound like it's Ameobi or Luque, yet Ameobi was rubbish without a strike partner against Ventspils. Fact is Luque has been frozen out, look at Roeder's team selections last season. Even Chopra played more minutes than him last season, and he's since been released for nothing. Luque isn't being left out due to anything in the Villarreal match. The suggestion is daft, tbh. If he's out it's because over a period of time he hasn't earned a place.

Our average league gates with Waddle, Beardsley and Gazza were: 1983/84 - 29,811 1984/85 - 26,228, Waddles last season. 1985/86 - 23,434 1986/87 - 24,750, Beardsleys last season. 1987/88 - 21,038 1988/89 - 22,810, Gascoignes last season. 1989/90 - 21,525 The gates were falling before we sold anybody. Yes, and the reason they were falling was because people knew we had no ambition to build on what we had, which is what then led to players leaving the club. Look at the promotion season under KK. We got off to flyer and what did we do, we went out and bought Rob Lee, we signed a player to improve the team from a position of strength. This being the first time in my life that the club had done that. The Chairman was SJH, the one's that came before him were mainly wankers of the highest order. Once it was apparent the club was showing ambition what happened? I'll tell you, the supporters came flocking in, attendance went up and up to what you see today. They could go higher and that's because despite the problems the club shows ambition.

The average attendances were roughtly the same under Gordon Lee, they were 1,000 down during his first season and were roughtly the same during the second season unless you remove the figure for the mackem game which brought a high crowd anyway and would have boosted the earlier figures if they had been in the same division, take away the Arsenal game when the crowd was massively up on what we would get against Arsenal and was only higher because of the bloke wearing the number 9 shirt for Arsenal and it was down another 1,000 which is 2,000 less than before Lee came. To be fair the gates had been falling since 1969/1970. I like the way you try to put those down who stopped going as mindless, maybe they thought we were the mindless ones for still going, I kept going but didn't enjoy the football as much, I like to enjoy the style of play as much as the result. 2 things. Why are you trying to manipulate a season long average attendance figure by removing some matches? I could just as easily go through the fixtures and remove some low ones, but I hadn't even thought of it until you started on about removing some high ones. You either want to go for an average figure or you don't. Which is it to be? Perhaps some of the clubs that were promoted and relegated that season meant that we played some 'small' clubs and our attendances were lower for that reason. Perhaps it's the other way around? Not sure why you want to go on like this, why not just stick with the average and be done with it? Oh I know, it doesn't quite suit what you're trying to portray, does it Mick? I'm not trying to put anyone down for not going. I wasn't even aware I'd said some people had stopped going, could have sworn I said attendances were roughly the same. How does that translate to me saying people stopped going? A game against Sunderland was a one off for that season and it brought in 49,664, it was a one off and the highest gate since we played Leeds in 1973, it was a blip and distorted the average figure, our average would have been higher for those years if we'd played them. I work with figures all of the time and it's normal to take something like that out when looking for a true trend, the same goes for the Arsenal game, Macdonald playing in the game put extra on the gate, are you saying that he didn't? Sorry, I'd misread your mindless comment, you're right, it didn't translate into them not going that was a mistake. My comment wasn't mindless, Mick. I'm interested in your thoughts on what Gordon Lee did after he left Newcastle, Mick.

I'm still stuck looking for most of the transfer fee's mentioned, it looks as if we spent more than we brought in but not by a great deal, it could be close. I'm looking for a tie in with the gates we were getting and an initial impression is that we couldn't afford to keep Beardsley and Gazza because our gates were so low even with them playing in the team. I'm now looking at our gates from the same period to see if spending and selling is tied in, it looks like our downfall was employing Gordon Lee and selling Malcolm Macdonald. For instance, our crowd against Arsenal was 21,895 two seasons before selling Macdonald and 34,698 the season before. Macdonald went to Arsenal and we played them at home our gate was 44,677 which is a huge rise and not in keeping with our gates at that time, no other crowd figure went up anywhere near as much as that. Gates against the teams that normally lifted the crowd figures at Newcastle were reduced when Macdonald left, Boro at home had 7,000 less without Macdonald, the Man U gate was down in the region of 6,000 after selling Macdonald, Liverpool was down almost 7,000. Arsenal was the only gate that went up by any great deal, we also played the mackems that season but not the season before, we had 49,664 against the mackems which was a lot higher than any gate we had the season before, when we didn't play the mackems. The season after the big increase against Arsenal we played them again but this time Macdonald didn't play because of injury, the crowd was down to 23,679. All in all, we should stop employing managers from Blackburn, they are not good for the health of the club. do you always enjoy and support mediocrity more than people who give you top 5 teams ? BTW, the bold bits are hilarious. as for THIS, what, by the same criteria, is your comment on us getting 52k crowds since the capacity was increased, and only half that for years prior to 1992 ? Don't let straightforward logic applied by your own criteria get in the way of an opininon with no basis mind Most football clubs, but not all, were suffering from reducing crowds before Sky took over, ours were no different. Our problems date back to appointing Gordon Lee if attendances are a measure of satisfaction amongst the fans. Straightforward logic is something you don't seem to understand, if crowds are a measure of success then Lee was a failure, that's your logic, it's what you've just used. Average attendances... 31842 70/71 12th (Harvey) 32397 71/72 11th (Harvey) 26308 72/73 8th (Harvey) 32791 73/74 15th (Harvey) 33690 74/75 15th (Harvey) 34269 75/76 15th (Lee took over from Joe Harvey ) 33934 76/77 5th (Lee until Jan, then Dinnis) 25037 77/78 21st (Dinnis, relegation then McGarry) 20926 78/79 (2nd Division) 23711 79/80 (2nd Division) The attendances were roughly similar until yet again the supporters were kicked in the teeth by the Board failing to back Gordon Lee. The attendances dropped during the relegation season under Dinnis/McGarry, and then further after the relegation itself. The problem wasn't the arrival of Gordon Lee, it was the manner of his departure that brought about the feeling that once again we were being let down. Gordon Lee wanted to strengthen the side when he knew we were pushing for Europe in 1977, but he wasn't allowed to by the Board. The price was his resignation, relegation and stagnation. They aren't league attendances, I went off league attendances as we always got higher figures for the cup. bluebiggrin.gif Why? Think about it.

The average attendances were roughtly the same under Gordon Lee, they were 1,000 down during his first season and were roughtly the same during the second season unless you remove the figure for the mackem game which brought a high crowd anyway and would have boosted the earlier figures if they had been in the same division, take away the Arsenal game when the crowd was massively up on what we would get against Arsenal and was only higher because of the bloke wearing the number 9 shirt for Arsenal and it was down another 1,000 which is 2,000 less than before Lee came. To be fair the gates had been falling since 1969/1970. I like the way you try to put those down who stopped going as mindless, maybe they thought we were the mindless ones for still going, I kept going but didn't enjoy the football as much, I like to enjoy the style of play as much as the result. 2 things. Why are you trying to manipulate a season long average attendance figure by removing some matches? I could just as easily go through the fixtures and remove some low ones, but I hadn't even thought of it until you started on about removing some high ones. You either want to go for an average figure or you don't. Which is it to be? Perhaps some of the clubs that were promoted and relegated that season meant that we played some 'small' clubs and our attendances were lower for that reason. Perhaps it's the other way around? Not sure why you want to go on like this, why not just stick with the average and be done with it? Oh I know, it doesn't quite suit what you're trying to portray, does it Mick? I'm not trying to put anyone down for not going. I wasn't even aware I'd said some people had stopped going, could have sworn I said attendances were roughly the same. How does that translate to me saying people stopped going?

I'm still stuck looking for most of the transfer fee's mentioned, it looks as if we spent more than we brought in but not by a great deal, it could be close. I'm looking for a tie in with the gates we were getting and an initial impression is that we couldn't afford to keep Beardsley and Gazza because our gates were so low even with them playing in the team. I'm now looking at our gates from the same period to see if spending and selling is tied in, it looks like our downfall was employing Gordon Lee and selling Malcolm Macdonald. For instance, our crowd against Arsenal was 21,895 two seasons before selling Macdonald and 34,698 the season before. Macdonald went to Arsenal and we played them at home our gate was 44,677 which is a huge rise and not in keeping with our gates at that time, no other crowd figure went up anywhere near as much as that. Gates against the teams that normally lifted the crowd figures at Newcastle were reduced when Macdonald left, Boro at home had 7,000 less without Macdonald, the Man U gate was down in the region of 6,000 after selling Macdonald, Liverpool was down almost 7,000. Arsenal was the only gate that went up by any great deal, we also played the mackems that season but not the season before, we had 49,664 against the mackems which was a lot higher than any gate we had the season before, when we didn't play the mackems. The season after the big increase against Arsenal we played them again but this time Macdonald didn't play because of injury, the crowd was down to 23,679. All in all, we should stop employing managers from Blackburn, they are not good for the health of the club. do you always enjoy and support mediocrity more than people who give you top 5 teams ? BTW, the bold bits are hilarious. as for THIS, what, by the same criteria, is your comment on us getting 52k crowds since the capacity was increased, and only half that for years prior to 1992 ? Don't let straightforward logic applied by your own criteria get in the way of an opininon with no basis mind Most football clubs, but not all, were suffering from reducing crowds before Sky took over, ours were no different. Our problems date back to appointing Gordon Lee if attendances are a measure of satisfaction amongst the fans. Straightforward logic is something you don't seem to understand, if crowds are a measure of success then Lee was a failure, that's your logic, it's what you've just used. Average attendances... 31842 70/71 12th (Harvey) 32397 71/72 11th (Harvey) 26308 72/73 8th (Harvey) 32791 73/74 15th (Harvey) 33690 74/75 15th (Harvey) 34269 75/76 15th (Lee took over from Joe Harvey ) 33934 76/77 5th (Lee until Jan, then Dinnis) 25037 77/78 21st (Dinnis, relegation then McGarry) 20926 78/79 (2nd Division) 23711 79/80 (2nd Division) The attendances were roughly similar until yet again the supporters were kicked in the teeth by the Board failing to back Gordon Lee. The attendances dropped during the relegation season under Dinnis/McGarry, and then further after the relegation itself. The problem wasn't the arrival of Gordon Lee, it was the manner of his departure that brought about the feeling that once again we were being let down. Gordon Lee wanted to strengthen the side when he knew we were pushing for Europe in 1977, but he wasn't allowed to by the Board. The price was his resignation, relegation and stagnation.

Another thing, Mick. You mention Graham Oates. Well all I can say is that Gordon Lee took the club from a solid and mediocre position of 15th, we hadn't slumped and then recovered, we were just mediocre and had been for quite a while. He signed players that he was able to sign for Newcastle and took us to 5th. So he did a bloody sound job with the resources and backing that was available to him. Significantly, when he went to Everton he signed mainly international players. I wonder why.......?

Mick I believe the average attendances were roughly the same during the time Gordon Lee was manager when compared to the previous 4 or 5 seasons at least. This is going by memory, it certainly didn't seem like the crowds were any smaller. BTW A lot of people were happy that we had a team good enough to finish 5th, they weren't pissed off at all, although there were the mindless bunch who DO only want a number 9 to worship and who babbled on like idiots because he'd sold their idol.

If you're correct then those patronising twáts from London who make claims such as, " Geordies just want a number 9 to worship, they aren't bothered about having a good team ", will look to be correct then. Here's the other side of the coin....... We brought in Gordon Lee, who sold Macdonald and improved the team enough to go from 3 seasons of 15th placed finishes to a 5th place finish and European football. We turned to shit when Lee asked the Board for some money to sign Souness and Mills ( I think ) from the nappy rippers but was refused. That was when the rot set in. Decent players, Souness and Mills. Might have helped move us up from 5th. Gordon Lee had ambition and he knew a good footballer when he saw one, which was why he moved to Everton.

We need to actually start playing Football for a start, because at the moment most of our players seem stuck in "Shearer's up front" mode. Luque doesn't need a team built around him, he just needs to be playing in a position he knows and in a team that at least try to play Football. He's not a center forward and never has been, he can play off a good center forward (either as a second striker or as a wing foward in a forward three) or in behind but not in place of one.. His strengths and weaknesses were pretty obvious just from watching the Villareal game (but its been the same in all the games this pre-season). When he was stuck in the box by himself with crosses flying in he looked lost. It was only when he started to drop deep and pick the ball up outside the box that he started to look good. With some clever quick passing, good touches and a couple of good runs. The way I see it no matter what happens we need a top striker here for the new season, I think everyone agrees with that. So the question becomes, do you look for a striker who can work with Ameobi or with Luque? Because IMO depending on the answer you'd be looking for two different players. Hmmm......I don't think his best role is playing off the front man, he looks to me like a wide man. We don't need him.

Well it seems he needs a team to be built around him, there's no way I'd want to see us do that because he just doesn't justify that kind of reaction. He needs to be moved on and we need a replacement who is able to make a contribution within the way Roeder wants the team to play.

Fair enough. By extension though, the blame for bringing a recognisably shit manager to the club rests with the Chairman. I know you won't agree. And you'd be wrong, because I do agree. I've already said this probably a couple of dozen times when the topic comes up.

Oops. Fireworks on the way then.....

He has always been a wide player. Never been a proper striker. He never said he was and had you bothered to research about the guy you'd realise that too. Errr, I think he's a wide player. I think Souness signed him to replace Laurent Robert, he even said so. It's OTHERS on this forum who claim Luque is a striker, not me. I don't need to research that, mate. So why the "What are the excuses for him today?" bit? If you know about Luque like you say above then isn't that quite obvious? Not really, because the majority of people on this forum claim he's a striker. Which means that for many people on this forum that isn't an excuse for him at all.

He has always been a wide player. Never been a proper striker. He never said he was and had you bothered to research about the guy you'd realise that too. Errr, I think he's a wide player. I think Souness signed him to replace Laurent Robert, he even said so. It's OTHERS on this forum who claim Luque is a striker, not me. I don't need to research that, mate.