Howaythelads

Mick Whether or not other clubs received these grants and we didn't is nothing to do with how much ambition Newcastle's Board had at that time. The actions of our Board, by continually selling our best players whenever a more ambitious club ( West Ham, for example ) came in for them tells the story. I'm not at all sure why you brought up grants in the first place, as it makes no difference to the discussion. We did not HAVE to sell our best players because we didn't get a grant. We had the same opportunity as those other clubs to buy and/or sell players. Our Board took the selling route when they didn't need to. They took that route because their ambition was not high enough. I don't why you're finding it so difficult to understand that.

Why has nobody attempted to respond to the points made my Footsolder? I was asked some questions earlier, I answered them. Perhaps others could do the same.

Why do you ask that all of a sudden? Especially on the open forum, where you're going 'off topic', something frowned upon. Why not send me a PM to ask your juvenile questions, or is it that you revel in the support of other members, who will mostly be happy enough to believe whatever they read from HTT? Howabout we make a deal, I'll stop asking juvenile questions on the open forum when you start giving credit where credit is due. Give me an example of what I'm supposed to be giving credit, then I'll consider it. I need you to praise the following players for recent good performances: Albert Luque Titus Bramble Shola Ameobi Scott Parker You won't like it, but your question betrays your lack of understanding, you clearly make up your mind what a post says before you've fully read it. 1. Albert Luque - I wasn't at the match yesterday, as I've already said to grassroots. Unlike some people on this forum, I won't post a personal opinion of a player's performance in a specific match unless I was at the match. 2. I rate Bramble as a good player. Doubt you'll find much criticism of him from me over the time he's been at the club, so I'm not at all sure why you suddenly want me to praise him. Perhaps you can tell me? 3. Ameobi - Same as Luque. 4. Scott Parker - I'm not that critical of Parker as an individual, I'm critical of his PARTNERSHIP wiith Emre in a 4-4-2 in the main. So again, not sure why you want me to praise Parker in particular. I do think he's over-rated by some on here, but I don't think he's crap. In a creative situation I'd select Emre, in a defensive situation I'd select Parker, but I wouldn't pair them together in a standard 4-4-2. Is that really so difficult for you to grasp? Is your love of Parker so strong that you think I'm slating him by saying that? Finally, 'recent' performances don't mean a great deal anyway, what means something is consistency of performance over a period of time. Over the entire period Ameobi has been playing for Newcastle he's had some decent matches and scored some decent goals, that doesn't mean I think he's good enough for the ambitions I have to the club. Over the entire time of last season Albert Luque was a disgrace. Even if the people who have seen yesterdays match claim he was fantastic, it would make no difference unless he continues this way for a good period of time. If you have any further questions just fire way. Unlike some people, I will generally try to answer, just don't moan if I don't reply in 2 minutes even if I appear to be logged on. I leave my computer logged on even when I'm not sitting in front of it. ( That's for grassroots ).

:roll: Hmm, don't let the truth get in the way, eh. I agree with your last sentence. You're one sad little man HTL You don't stop, do you? But never mind, I know you'll have the support of the forum membership so I don't expect you to stop. You must find it frustrating when there are members around with first hand knowledge to question your opinions that are mostly based on second hand knowledge.

Why do you ask that all of a sudden? Especially on the open forum, where you're going 'off topic', something frowned upon. Why not send me a PM to ask your juvenile questions, or is it that you revel in the support of other members, who will mostly be happy enough to believe whatever they read from HTT? Howabout we make a deal, I'll stop asking juvenile questions on the open forum when you start giving credit where credit is due. Give me an example of what I'm supposed to be giving credit, then I'll consider it.

Why do you ask that all of a sudden? Especially on the open forum, where you're going 'off topic', something frowned upon. Why not send me a PM to ask your juvenile questions, or is it that you revel in the support of other members, who will mostly be happy enough to believe whatever they read from HTT?

Wow.

:roll: Hmm, don't let the truth get in the way, eh. I agree with your last sentence.

No, as it happens I wasn't. However, I heard reports on the radio and SSN, so I know as much about it as you do. Apparently. Ho ho ho, now who's acting like a brat? You're a parody HTL I don't think you know what parody means, tbh.

No, as it happens I wasn't. However, I heard reports on the radio and SSN, so I know as much about it as you do. Apparently.

Eh? What are you on aboot now? Are you deliberately trying to come across like some kind of spoilt brat?

Very good player? For us? I'm a Newcastle supporter, I don't like it when some waster comes in, takes his wages and stands about doing nowt, showing no interest in playing for the club. So I'll smile when he's sent packing because I don't think he has the guts to turn around the shite reputation his own lack of effort has created for him. It's upto him, nobody else. If he does turn it around I'll recognise it and give him credit. My opinion is that his injury is to blame for his poor first season. Whether his attitude has been poor I don't know. Fine. My opinion is that it's little to do with his injury but more to do with his bad attitude. Other than "he doesn't fancy him" from grassroots ( which begs the question... why?), nobody has been able to come up with a single opinion regarding why Luque wasn't selected last season by Roeder, even when he was fit. We even saw Ameobi on the left ahead of Luque. Roeder starts with Luque only when there is no alternative, doesn't that tell you something? If his attitude was good, and he has even half the ability some people on here claim he has, I'd expect him to be in the team every week. A reason I would propose for Luque not being selected by Roeder "even when he was fit" is that it is quite possible Luque was not fit at any point after his injury. Or if he was, it wasn't the right time to risk it. We have heard that Luque's injury was very bad, he had a hugely damaged hamstring. I suspect that this would take a very long time to heal. So there was a long lay off. Possibly this would have meant Luque would lose a lot of his cardio-vascular fitness, because it only takes a short time of inactivity to lose your fitness. So due to such a long injury, Luque may have had to build up his fitness after having lost a lot of his base fitness. This could take a long time, I would be very surprised if it could happen very quickly after physically being able to play football again. It may have required a longer program for him to regain his fitness. With serious injuries there can also be confidence issues. It may take a long time to be able to play without fear of re-injury. Confidence is important in sport. At the elite level you don't want to be second-guessing about what may be putting you at risk. All in all I suspect that injury needed a very long recovery period. His reintergration had to be a patient one as well, perhaps this is one of the reasons for being constantly used from the bench, it was going to take time for him to be fit enough/sharp enough to start. Perhaps by the time this happened every game the club was playing had become a key game. Perhaps Roeder realised these weren't the right games in which to integrate a player recovering from injury and needing time to become match fit/sharp. Perhaps by the end Luque was sharp enough to be ready, but Roeder may not have wanted to take that risk unless necessary (like in the game against Sunderland), prefering to rely on the players that were already getting the job done in the nail-biting end to the season (remember how well Shola was performing under Roeder). We can only speculate to what Roeder really thinks during selection time but I think the ideas of Luque not being fit in time to make a big impact on the season could be accurate, or at least a big influence on his season. Ok, fair enough. If you're right we should see a different player this season.

Very good player? For us? I'm a Newcastle supporter, I don't like it when some waster comes in, takes his wages and stands about doing nowt, showing no interest in playing for the club. So I'll smile when he's sent packing because I don't think he has the guts to turn around the shite reputation his own lack of effort has created for him. It's upto him, nobody else. If he does turn it around I'll recognise it and give him credit. My opinion is that his injury is to blame for his poor first season. Whether his attitude has been poor I don't know. Fine. My opinion is that it's little to do with his injury but more to do with his bad attitude. Other than "he doesn't fancy him" from grassroots ( which begs the question... why?), nobody has been able to come up with a single opinion regarding why Luque wasn't selected last season by Roeder, even when he was fit. We even saw Ameobi on the left ahead of Luque. Roeder starts with Luque only when there is no alternative, doesn't that tell you something? If his attitude was good, and he has even half the ability some people on here claim he has, I'd expect him to be in the team every week.

Very good player? For us? I'm a Newcastle supporter, I don't like it when some waster comes in, takes his wages and stands about doing nowt, showing no interest in playing for the club. So I'll smile when he's sent packing because I don't think he has the guts to turn around the shite reputation his own lack of effort has created for him. It's upto him, nobody else. If he does turn it around I'll recognise it and give him credit.

The current lot are not perfect, but those days of no ambition are long gone, yes.

Freddy fucking fat fucker Shepherd didn't fucking raise us to fucking operate at this level. Sir John Hall fucking raised us to fucking operate at fucking title challenging level then Freddy fat fucker actually TOOK US FUCKING BACKWARDS! Stupid or fucking what?! Chairman - The highest-ranking executive in a corporation. The chairman leads the board of directors in setting broad corporate goals and determining if managers are, in fact, pursuing and achieving those goals. In large corporations the chairman is not ordinarily involved in day-to-day operational activities Manager - 3. Sports. One who is in charge of the training and performance of an athlete or a team. We went backwards during the time Souness was manager. Yes, Fred and the Board made a mistake by appointing Souness, they then did their job by sacking him when they realised he was shit, but we went backwards because of the performance of the manager. It seems that despite weeks of being told this you still don't understand it. Are you thick, or something? Believe me when I say this, IF the Board was really shit you and your type would have stopped supporting the club by now, just like thousands did when the Board was shit, hence the sub 20,000 crowds rather than what we see today. And you still can't make recongise that if the chairman appoints a below par manager, then it is his responsibility when things **** up. Go on, make the connection, do the maths etc etc. Thompers, seriously. I've said loads of times that they made a huge mistake by appointing Souness. I even said it in the post you've quoted. Are you suggesting that Souness should have stayed and Fred left? That perhaps when any club does badly it's not the manager who should get the bullet, but the Chairman?? Nobody is saying that fred should get the bullet for the bad decision, the question was whether Shepherd is a good chairman, and we've established that he's made bad appointments (after undermiming then sacking one of our best ever managers), thrown money at those bad appointments, opens his trap and talks shite way too often and has taken the club backwards from the SJH reign. Despite all of these facts, you seem unable to bring yourself to admit that he's a poor chairman. The only department in which he excells is financially, but even that is down to what SJH built. Without the benefit of hindsight he's made one bad managerial appointment. Nobody can predict the future, the other managers appointed by Fred were based on very, very good track records, even exceptional track records. The reason I don't admit he's a bad Chairman isn't because I can't bring myself to admit it, it's because I don't think he's a bad Chairman. I know you find it patronising to suggest that I don't think he's bad because I've seen far worse, but I'm afraid that is the fact of the situation. The only scenario I can give you is to ask you what you would think had Shearer come through the ranks, reached the brink of the national team and then left us for a club like Spurs ( or even West Ham ) on the basis they are showing more ambition to succeed. Just think about it for a minute before bursting into abuse.

Freddy fucking fat fucker Shepherd didn't fucking raise us to fucking operate at this level. Sir John Hall fucking raised us to fucking operate at fucking title challenging level then Freddy fat fucker actually TOOK US FUCKING BACKWARDS! Stupid or fucking what?! Chairman - The highest-ranking executive in a corporation. The chairman leads the board of directors in setting broad corporate goals and determining if managers are, in fact, pursuing and achieving those goals. In large corporations the chairman is not ordinarily involved in day-to-day operational activities Manager - 3. Sports. One who is in charge of the training and performance of an athlete or a team. We went backwards during the time Souness was manager. Yes, Fred and the Board made a mistake by appointing Souness, they then did their job by sacking him when they realised he was shit, but we went backwards because of the performance of the manager. It seems that despite weeks of being told this you still don't understand it. Are you thick, or something? Believe me when I say this, IF the Board was really shit you and your type would have stopped supporting the club by now, just like thousands did when the Board was shit, hence the sub 20,000 crowds rather than what we see today. And you still can't make recongise that if the chairman appoints a below par manager, then it is his responsibility when things **** up. Go on, make the connection, do the maths etc etc. Thompers, seriously. I've said loads of times that they made a huge mistake by appointing Souness. I even said it in the post you've quoted. Are you suggesting that Souness should have stayed and Fred left? That perhaps when any club does badly it's not the manager who should get the bullet, but the Chairman??

Topical and amusing, well done! :wink: It's not meant to be amusing. I tried to do something amusing earlier on.

Luque is a useless piece of gutless shit and should be flogged immediately. Then sold. How's that for an on-topic comment?

blueconfused.gif

No I'm not. He is. tongue.gif

I don't think people are saying that, they just want the lad to have a clean slate so he can have another crack at the whip. On the contrary...... http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,25350.msg474979.html#msg474979 .....and he wasn't the only one. I've changed my mind and I now agree with you 100%, what a player does the previous season is all that matters, current form is utterly irrelivant in deciding wether someone should play for Newcastle......... Seriously, the most important thing when deciding what players to play is form, how the player is playing NOW, not the previous season. If Shola Ameobi started scoring hattricks then the last several seasons of mediocrity would not make a blind bit of difference, he'd play every week in my team. As it is last season we saw Luque start 8 times and make a few short and late sub apearances. Which makes it even more obsured to think that you believe what he did in those games is more important then what he does this season. You've deleveloped an irrational hatred for a player and you're letting it blind you, which is quite typical of a large section of our fanbase. Wouldn't surprise me if you were one of the idiots at St James who were complaining about Luque's goal against Lillistrome. Interesting post that I was going to reply to seriously until the last two daft sentences. Grow up, ffs. 1/10 poorest effort in a long while at dodging a well thought out and presented argument. must try harder Who are you, like? excuse me? Wot you done, like? sorry, but i dont understand the question. In what context is the question? academically? You do reailse you're moving 'off topic'? Dave will get upset.

I don't think people are saying that, they just want the lad to have a clean slate so he can have another crack at the whip. On the contrary...... http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,25350.msg474979.html#msg474979 .....and he wasn't the only one. I've changed my mind and I now agree with you 100%, what a player does the previous season is all that matters, current form is utterly irrelivant in deciding wether someone should play for Newcastle......... Seriously, the most important thing when deciding what players to play is form, how the player is playing NOW, not the previous season. If Shola Ameobi started scoring hattricks then the last several seasons of mediocrity would not make a blind bit of difference, he'd play every week in my team. As it is last season we saw Luque start 8 times and make a few short and late sub apearances. Which makes it even more obsured to think that you believe what he did in those games is more important then what he does this season. You've deleveloped an irrational hatred for a player and you're letting it blind you, which is quite typical of a large section of our fanbase. Wouldn't surprise me if you were one of the idiots at St James who were complaining about Luque's goal against Lillistrome. Interesting post that I was going to reply to seriously until the last two daft sentences. Grow up, ffs. 1/10 poorest effort in a long while at dodging a well thought out and presented argument. must try harder Who are you, like? excuse me? Wot you done, like?

I wonder what some of you would do if Fred wasn't overweight?

Freddy fucking fat fucker Shepherd didn't fucking raise us to fucking operate at this level. Sir John Hall fucking raised us to fucking operate at fucking title challenging level then Freddy fat fucker actually TOOK US FUCKING BACKWARDS! Stupid or fucking what?! Chairman - The highest-ranking executive in a corporation. The chairman leads the board of directors in setting broad corporate goals and determining if managers are, in fact, pursuing and achieving those goals. In large corporations the chairman is not ordinarily involved in day-to-day operational activities Manager - 3. Sports. One who is in charge of the training and performance of an athlete or a team. We went backwards during the time Souness was manager. Yes, Fred and the Board made a mistake by appointing Souness, they then did their job by sacking him when they realised he was shit, but we went backwards because of the performance of the manager. It seems that despite weeks of being told this you still don't understand it. Are you thick, or something? Believe me when I say this, IF the Board was really shit you and your type would have stopped supporting the club by now, just like thousands did when the Board was shit, hence the sub 20,000 crowds rather than what we see today.