Howaythelads

Not saying I agree with your post but it wasn't bad until the last sentence when that toddler jumped in. Roll on the next 10 years and maturity, eh.

Why? It doesn't matter that he did **** all last season, why should it matter if he does **** all between now and January? He should be binned asap. well considering he had an injury like he did I don't think there are many players playing today who would recover and do a lot more, so I don't see your point! He'd recovered by Xmas from that first injury, fancy expecting him to do something in those last 5 months of the season eh? So your saying any player would be full off confidence in that situation coming back from one of the worst hamstring injuries possible and when he did play, being booed by certian sections from the Newcastle fans is really good for his confidence, yeah right! No, I take it you can't read. Feel free to point out where I have said that though. I'd have expected more from a player fit by Xmas though. Which games was he boo'ed at by the way? I can't remember the the teams off hand we played but I remeber at least 2 games he was being booed from certian sections even I could hear it over the internet listening to the games which I think is dispicable if he plays for the Toon no matter who he is you don't boo them. Classic Agreed

Why? It doesn't matter that he did **** all last season, why should it matter if he does **** all between now and January? He should be binned asap. well considering he had an injury like he did I don't think there are many players playing today who would recover and do a lot more, so I don't see your point! He'd recovered by Xmas from that first injury, fancy expecting him to do something in those last 5 months of the season eh? In the few games or so he got? Lets not forget either that all but Shay and Parker were playing absolute shite until Souness left, only then did others pick up their game. Under Roeder however Luque never got a chance, when he has, he's scored twice in what amounts to 4 starts or something. Footballers have to do something during the week between games. Despite everyone else picking up following the departure of souness, Luque didn't pick up and probably wasn't doing whatever Roeder was expecting from him day to day, otherwise he would have featured more than he did. If you don't agree please have a guess why you think Luque wasn't an automatic choice, given that he is WORLD CLASS. Why did Roeder praise him for his training, then? I just think Roeder doesn't fancy him that much in any position, managers do that rightly or wrongly. I think you are reading too much into his non-selection under Roeder likewise those that claim Roeder has a personal problem with him. I don't think he does, I just think he doesn't like what he sees or sees a place for him in the team. SBR didn't really fancy Bowyer in the middle for some reason, Souness didn't fancy Milner for some reason. It happens. You expect him to come out in public and say he's shit in training? Or just shit anyway? Do you always hang off what these people say as though every word that comes out of their mouth is the truth? Bloody hell! :roll:

I think the whole affair was an example of them frantically backpedalling and coming up with convenient excuses for them not dealing with it in a better manner prior, due to them not having felt the need to figure out what direction they were taking. If they'd wanted to replace Robson, they should have dealt with that the summer before, similar to Liverpool's targeting of Benitez, with Houllier dealt with ruthlessly - but justifiably - in line with their longer term plan of action. The complacency, if you like, is in resorting to short-term solutions for short-term reasons where longer-term factors should have been considered. The Robson sacking was an example of this. They were quick to point to a very recent poorness of performance, that was massively overblown at the time by a board looking to justify their actions. Knee-jerk. As was the follow up appointment. I'm not saying there was some grand conspiracy (who's to say) - I just think they should have taken a long hard look at themselves around that time - they thought they were coasting under Robson, spoilt by consistent European football, and that they could replace hm with a muppet and still maintain that momentum. The 'keeping players in line' thing... well, that's a whole issue in itself, to me it was a paper-thin excuse to get rid of Robson and cooked up in order to justify their dodgy actions. Could argue that appointing a successor with a worse record of player relations hardly smacks of intelligent decision making. Compared to ours it's a drop in the bloody ocean. I don't agree with much in there at all, tbh. These references to short term stuff, complacency, spoilt by European football, believing they could replace a manager with a muppet. I don't know where you get any of this from. They made a mistake with Souness, but they must have had a reason to offer him the job and I suspect it was to restore some discipline / control over certain players who had lost respect for Robson and probably everything else. I don't particularly like the reason if that was it, but I think it would have been a consideration in their deliberations. Don't forget that somehow Souness had also won some cups at his previous clubs, similar to the much touted Martin O'Neill, as it happens. They believed he was the right man, they made a big mistake but it's nowt to do with the stuff you mention, in my opinion.

Why? It doesn't matter that he did **** all last season, why should it matter if he does **** all between now and January? He should be binned asap. well considering he had an injury like he did I don't think there are many players playing today who would recover and do a lot more, so I don't see your point! He'd recovered by Xmas from that first injury, fancy expecting him to do something in those last 5 months of the season eh? In the few games or so he got? Lets not forget either that all but Shay and Parker were playing absolute shite until Souness left, only then did others pick up their game. Under Roeder however Luque never got a chance, when he has, he's scored twice in what amounts to 4 starts or something. Footballers have to do something during the week between games. Despite everyone else picking up following the departure of souness, Luque didn't pick up and probably wasn't doing whatever Roeder was expecting from him day to day, otherwise he would have featured more than he did. If you don't agree please have a guess why you think Luque wasn't an automatic choice, given that he is WORLD CLASS.

Why? It doesn't matter that he did fuck all last season, why should it matter if he does fuck all between now and January? He should be binned asap.

I accept Chelsea are a special case, but who's the other you're referring to, out of interest? I don't think Arsenal, Man Utd or Liverpool are special cases - maybe Man Utd slightly. I also accept that Newcastle are that much improved since the early 90s, but I think what a lot of people are worried about is our board might rest on their laurels if they don't get frequent kicks up the arse. I know the idea of that sort of complacency worries me and in recent years, it feels there's been a tendency towards that. The 'powder-dry' summer, the sacking of Bobby Robson, the appointment of Souness - I think were signs of a board that felt that were somehow untouchable and suffering from short-sightedness. They don't seem to truly challenge themselves, to reach beyond their grasp. If so, why bother? I know they might make money, but they could make their money doing other things if they so wanted. The nepotism and lack of objectivity at board level is concerning, they're going to get hammered if they don't bring in those that will challenge them professionally. With the nepotism they have, there's a lack of professionalism that I think the boards of the clubs above us have. We're not challenging now as we were in the mid-90s, and again, that's cause for concern. What are they doing to get us moving upwards? Just because we're better than we were, what are we doing to try to be the best? We're not challenging the top four where it counts - on the field. I understand you consistently offering a counter argument to a lot of the critique (some unjust) that the board does get, but in my view it's hard to justify hammering people as much as you do for having a go at the board. If we don't keep them on their toes, who will? Manure is clearly a special case based on their worldwide popularity, which gives them a huge advantage financially and in general appeal. How you see manure as only 'slightly' a special case is surprising. You also said..." but I think what a lot of people are worried about is our board might rest on their laurels if they don't get frequent kicks up the arse " I think you're totally wrong here mate. The posts of a lot of people aren't made with the motive of giving the Board a kick up the arse, these people really do want the board out because they think the board is crap.

I keep checking the news hoping to hear the gutless bastard has been sent packing. Disappointed again today. Hopefully soon.

Only evidence anybody should need has been the lack of effort and desire to play for the club shown by Luque. Can't believe the support this bloke gets. I suspect Roeder has the bloke sussed out, If the club can get back half what was paid for Luque I think they'd have to take it, so let's hope a club somewhere makes an acceptable offer and he isn't here much longer.

It's an interesting and important subject when done the right way, it can be done without any vitriol, end of the day we all want the same, our name on a bloody trophy, now. It was a good post by Bob, and is obviously what I've been saying for ages and also without vitriol, as I think you'll agree even if some others won't. I think you've highlighted something here ........ I don't want to argue with you on this, but this is fine for people who became old enough to start supporting the club around the time SJH took over, but it doesn't wash with anybody who was supporting the club during those shite times though. That's obviously where we'll differ. You also said......... I don't recall the turnstile price when I first started going to matches in 1968, but I remember my first season ticket cost me £9 for the old stand paddock in 1973. I understand that the club was taking less revenue than they do today, but can you explain to me why that should have placed the club at a disadvantage in comparison to other clubs of that same time period, all of which would have been charging similar admission prices? I have to ask this, but do you think that Newcastle is the only club taking in more money now than it did in those earlier years? No, of course not. All clubs had exactly the same opportunity to generate money. If anything, given our larger potential support, I'd say we had a greater opportunity than some others. The problem is that potential has to be tapped but it wasn't until SJH took over. If other clubs were taking in more money it would have been because they were attracting larger attendances. Why do you think other clubs were attracting larger attendances than Newcastle? I do agree you made some good posts and have said so at times. The way I feel we were at a disadvantage, and I'm going into something that I can't recite chapter and verse here. Is that clubs like Man U, Sheff Wed, Boro, Mackems and others were given grants to develop grounds for the world cup, we didn't get those, I’m sure it was because we didn’t own the ground. If we had of been given grants for the world cup then we wouldn’t have had to spend money on the East Stand, that could have gone on players. I would love to have been able to see the clubs accounts for the 70’s and 80’s to see where our money went. I remember going to Keegans debut and we were supposed to have 36,000 in the ground and people were almost getting crushed, I went to a game a few weeks later and the crowd was given as 34,000’ish and I had plenty of room. A lot of people thought the directors were creaming money from the gate receipts; I have no idea if this was the case, or, that a couple of thousand could make a big difference. Ok, well this idea that other clubs were given grants toward their ground development isn't something I know much about, but I'll take your word that it happened. However, this doesn't get close to explaining the sheer number of clubs that consistently finished higher than us for years. Your notion assumes that the Board would have spent money on players that was otherwise spent on the deveopment of the Popular end. Well I don't think there is any evidence on which you can base that assumption, Mick. Only when SJH and KK arrived did we start to buy players from a position of strength, the idea that you "buy when you're winning" started with Rob Lee signing in October 1992, and has basically been carried on since, despite the up's and down's. Until that time in 1992, for decades before that we signed players either as a reaction to our position in Div 1 being in jeopardy, or we bought inferior players in response to having sold a better one to a more ambitious club. There is simply no justification to suppose any money saved from the cost of development of that stand would have gone on buying players.

We signed John Robertson, John Hendrie, DAve Beasant and Andy Thorn, probably the first time I can remember us buying more than one token player a season that I had actually heard of. Roberston lasted no more than a handful of games then was back off to Hearts. Beasant was a terrible keeper for us, was signed on the back of his FA cup final save. I thought Andy Thorn was class at the time, looked solid, but again he soon was away And John Hendrie, probably pick of the bunch, great skill, but again we got rid. All 4 were gone before the start of the next season, no I didnt complain when they came, but would rather have kept Gazza another season that get those 4 in. You could argue that getting those 4 in contributed directly to us getting relegated and undoing all the hard work Cox KK etc had achieved a few seasons earlier, this time we had no Beardsleys, waddles etc to come through, we had Darren Jackson michael Oneil etc, getting quinn and Mcghee may have paper over a few cracks, but fact is we were a second div team, and thats where we were until the takeover. Looking back those 10 yeras 82-92 absolutely amazing in the history of the club, got to be one of the most exciting and frustrating decades in our recent history. We went from nowt to been one of the most talked about teams in england, back to been nowt, and finally back to been popular again. SKy has helped, and the whole change in people's attitudes to football, whether it was planned by hall, shep etc or not, but we just on onto the prem bandwagon in time, another season or two in the second div and we would be with the sheff weds and nottingham forests. All imo like :winking: Absolutely agree.

It's an interesting and important subject when done the right way, it can be done without any vitriol, end of the day we all want the same, our name on a bloody trophy, now. It was a good post by Bob, and is obviously what I've been saying for ages and also without vitriol, as I think you'll agree even if some others won't. I think you've highlighted something here ........ I don't want to argue with you on this, but this is fine for people who became old enough to start supporting the club around the time SJH took over, but it doesn't wash with anybody who was supporting the club during those shite times though. That's obviously where we'll differ. You also said......... I don't recall the turnstile price when I first started going to matches in 1968, but I remember my first season ticket cost me £9 for the old stand paddock in 1973. I understand that the club was taking less revenue than they do today, but can you explain to me why that should have placed the club at a disadvantage in comparison to other clubs of that same time period, all of which would have been charging similar admission prices? I have to ask this, but do you think that Newcastle is the only club taking in more money now than it did in those earlier years? No, of course not. All clubs had exactly the same opportunity to generate money. If anything, given our larger potential support, I'd say we had a greater opportunity than some others. The problem is that potential has to be tapped but it wasn't until SJH took over. If other clubs were taking in more money it would have been because they were attracting larger attendances. Why do you think other clubs were attracting larger attendances than Newcastle?

Jesus Wept!

Better than what we have, which should be the main criteria. Has pace and movement, so why not at the right price? You didn't rate him much while he was here, did ya? No, and I still don't. However, there is a part of my post that you appear to have failed to understand. You still don't rate him, but you still want him for the right price. How much would you pay for him, then? £2.57 tops? bluebiggrin.gif Aye, that's right. I wouldn't be celebrating down the boozer if we signed LL, but he'd improve the current team/squad, wouldn't you agree? Yes, he would improve it....but that's not that difficult, is it? No. Did I say it was? Could have sworn I predicted relegation under Souness ( and I think it would have been close had he not been booted ) and I've already said I think we're in for a struggle next season. So I agree, it's not difficult.

Better than what we have, which should be the main criteria. Has pace and movement, so why not at the right price? You didn't rate him much while he was here, did ya? No, and I still don't. However, there is a part of my post that you appear to have failed to understand. You still don't rate him, but you still want him for the right price. How much would you pay for him, then? £2.57 tops? bluebiggrin.gif Aye, that's right. I wouldn't be celebrating down the boozer if we signed LL, but he'd improve the current team/squad, wouldn't you agree?

Better than what we have, which should be the main criteria. Has pace and movement, so why not at the right price? You didn't rate him much while he was here, did ya? No, and I still don't. However, there is a part of my post that you appear to have failed to understand.

Better than what we have, which should be the main criteria. Has pace and movement, so why not at the right price?

I've been away, was it this one ... I understand everything you're saying although you may want to claim otherwise. I've gone on record in the past as saying the people who slate the Board for not buying anyone in summer 2003 are full of shit, because they don't understand the big picture of the previous 32 months during which the transfer deficit was over £45m, and the wage bill went up due to the increase in squad size. I've said a lot of times I don't want the club to become another Leeds, yet you think you have some kind of monopoly on that thought. Fact is, the choice was keep disruptive players at a risk or rebuild at a risk. They went for the rebuild. What would you have done? Would you have got rid of the disruptive players and left us in a relegation battle? It would have happened and very nearly did, the consequences of relegation can't be overestimated. As I have said I was sure we'd go down before we signed Owen, couldn't see any way for us to stay up. My issue with that summer fo 2003 and no signings is not necessarily the lack of signings but the club still spending £8.5m for no benefit to the club. If there was no money for players, for the reason you suggest (which is a fair argument) then there should not have been money available to spend on anything. I think you don't want to listen to reason. You may believe you don't have an agenda, but it comes across that way and it's definitely affecting your thought process. I am more than happy to debate with you. You have clearly thought about it, and come up with good points. I have tried to shy away from the "but Shepherd appointed Souness" comment, because that isn't what I'm worried about. (I also shy away from it as I am deeply uncomfortable with the Roeder appointment and I'd love Shepherd to have some luck this time). (But Shpeherd did appoint them both, and that is his key decision in his job spec) My upset comes from the deterioration of the club's finances over the last three years. I really want to try and understand, and your scenario helps although I have said I have reservations about the actual timing matching your suggestions. I couldn't currently go on to the RTG board and say how great Shepherd is, I could three years ago. Please keep arguing with me, I like a good discussion ! Cheers Mate, it wasn't that one but thanks for trying. I can't find the question/point myself after the admin' bloke finished his fannying around with the posts. Forget it.

Nice to see a normally lying journalist writing some sense for a change. bluebiggrin.gif Someone should ask Billy Hill for a price on how long it will be into a match before that tosser Tyldesley mentions manure. Doesn't matter what the match is, the nob always manages to mention them. Motson is just as bad on the other channel, none of them actually commentate on the match. Best part was the Bud adverts on ITV throughout tbh. I watched the final on BBC to select the commentary from the radio, but I switched the ITV just before the breaks to get the adverts.

yes, you are a total tit. well said. To be fair, Shearer always has talked cack, like.

There's a balance to be found here. His achievements aren't shite but neither are they outstanding enough for the way people bang on about him. He is probably a decent enough manager but over the years has definitely been over-hyped by the media. Bottom line is he may not be as good as some think but also not as bad as others think. I don't particularly rate him. Just an opinion. Cheers

macbeth I made a point in my reply to your post to me earlier about the value of the manager. If I've missed your reply in among the odd way you quote people I'm sorry, but I haven't seen one. I'd appreciate a reply if you feel able to drag yourself away from your current diatribe. Cheers

The biggest issue I have with the forum is when threads get hijacked, twisted and decsend into endless diatribe, which is why these posts were removed from another thread. I agree though, the NUFC forum is shite and has been for a long time, I doubt many would disagree either. Gen chat is canny though. One of the main reasons I've personally given this place a wide berth since the end of the season. I don't come on here after a hard day's graft to fucking 'debate'. I come on here to have a laugh and a bit of a giggle. This particular forum reminds me of pub with a group of canny lads who just want to get along with each other........then there's the boring bastards who sit in 2's or 3's staring into their pints all night - moaning like **** about the same things, night after night after night. Life's too short. I'm fucking back off to GC for the forseeable future. Get on with it lads. :| As you put the word debate in quotes I take it you're on about me, like. Well fine, it's horses for courses like. You want to come here to babble on like a kid, I'd prefer to discuss issues about the footballl club I support with other supporters, no matter how boring that may seem to you. :winking:

The biggest issue I have with the forum is when threads get hijacked, twisted and decsend into endless diatribe, which is why these posts were removed from another thread. I agree though, the NUFC forum is shite and has been for a long time, I doubt many would disagree either. Gen chat is canny though. All it needs are people who are prepared to debate properly and without vitriol, who read posts before replying and replying to what is posted rather than what they want someone to post. Remember nufc.nu, do you mate?

What on earth is that all about?