Howaythelads

Can't believe that like. Not so much the Shearer thing, I disagree but I can see what you're getting at, rather that you think those were the only significant mistakes he made. How the managers turned out is hindsight, mate. All any Board can be expected to do is : 1. Appoint a manager based on their track record. 2. Take a gamble on an unknown they believe (for reasons that may be know "in the game") will be a good 'un. 3. Back them. The Board went with option 1 with the exception of Roeder. For example, if Ashley appointed Wenger, backed him to the hilt and Wenger messed it up I'd be blaming Wenger, not Ashley.

Yup. These were the only significant mistakes made by Fred. He wasn't prepared to tackle the positions of Robson and Shearer at the right moment.

There's no settling in period. He knows how it all runs, he's been there before and I doubt much has changed, he'll know the majority of the staff around the club, he knows who he wants to put in charge and such. As soon as the takeover goes through, we can pretty much get started straight away. That's quite a plus considering how far down the line the Summer already is. Very good point. The importance of this can't be underestimated.

Despite scoring 22 in the league the next season, with only Henry scoring more? aye, he should have left after we finished 5th imo. He started the season brilliantly but then went seriously downhill and didn't manage an away goal in the whole of 2004 with the exception of a penalty at Boro. Certainly after seeing his performances at the end of 03-04 and start of 04-05 a lot of us knew it was the end and we had to replace him Which is exactly why I'd have got rid after we finished 3rd, not 5th. We'd have got decent money for him.

Despite scoring 22 in the league the next season, with only Henry scoring more? Yes. That argument has been put forward before and my answer is the same. It's a team game and imo we needed a change of direction to move forward. Sometimes big decisions have to be taken, it's why these people are paid good money and at that time the club could have got a decent fee for him. Robson should have been shuffled "upstairs" or something at the same time. Great player of course, not saying otherwise, but there's no room for sentiment at the top level in football.

Part of the problem is this thing people have about making an idol of someone, it makes them almost bigger than the club and is counter-productive imo. As well as the manager, Shearer should have gone after we finished 3rd imo. Right or wrong, I said this at the time. The team needed a nudge into another direction at that time in order to push on and seriously challenge for the title. I'm not sure of Shearer as a manager and tbh I can't see why anyone is. If he stays I hope he proves to be fantastic, but it's a chance.

What is it he has to learn, Dave? That's a serious question and don't forget nobody can predict the future. What would you prefer? A Board that backs the manager or one that doesn't? Well I'm not going to list out all the things I think were mistakes, but generally I mean finding a more reasonable balance regarding the finances and the way he dealt with managerial appointments. I believe your question regarding backing a manager is far too simplistic - even if Ashley had spent more money his 'system' and the way he dealt with Keegan/Kinnear/Hughton etc was catastrophic. It's not just about money spent. Do you believe Shepherd made any mistakes? I remember you saying if Roeder was a failure then it was someone else's turn. I think his major mistake was not being prepared to change manager after we finished 3rd. I don't consider it a mistake to appoint a previously successful manager who is backed to the hilt but doesn't do the business at Newcastle. That's down to the manager.

What is it he has to learn, Dave? That's a serious question and don't forget nobody can predict the future. What would you prefer? A Board that backs the manager or one that doesn't?

I understood what you meant, and you were right. The rags plucking a figure out of the air. Although HTL is beginning to sound a bit like NE5, I am with him on the Shepherd thing. I think that it is virtually guaranteed that Shepherd will find money to buy some decent players, something that could be seriously in doubt with other owners. Fwiw, I can't stand Shepherd. Which is exactly my point. Not that I know the bloke but I don't think I'd like Fred much if I did, that's just an impression 'cos he does talk some rubbish. This doesn't stop me from thinking his ambition for the club is genuine, he wants the club to do well despite the mistakes that have been made. Someone who will have a go is miles better than Ashley and his crew of amateur market traders. So, it seems obvious to me that the safest bet right now is Fred. If the money is there it'll be made available for the manager and we really do need to get back at the first time of asking. I can't repeat that enough. It will only become more difficult if we don't do it the first time around. This is far more important than anyone's negative prejudices against Fred because he reckons Geordie women are dogs, something which even a mackem shirt-lifter knows isn't true anyway. That is the least of a whole host of reasons why most fans would not want FFS back running the club and you know it. Ah right. It must be that regular European football thing was getting people like you all depressed...

I understood what you meant, and you were right. The rags plucking a figure out of the air. Although HTL is beginning to sound a bit like NE5, I am with him on the Shepherd thing. I think that it is virtually guaranteed that Shepherd will find money to buy some decent players, something that could be seriously in doubt with other owners. Fwiw, I can't stand Shepherd. Which is exactly my point. Not that I know the bloke but I don't think I'd like Fred much if I did, that's just an impression 'cos he does talk some rubbish. This doesn't stop me from thinking his ambition for the club is genuine, he wants the club to do well despite the mistakes that have been made. Someone who will have a go is miles better than Ashley and his crew of amateur market traders. So, it seems obvious to me that the safest bet right now is Fred. If the money is there it'll be made available for the manager and we really do need to get back at the first time of asking. I can't repeat that enough. It will only become more difficult if we don't do it the first time around. This is far more important than anyone's negative prejudices against Fred because he reckons Geordie women are dogs, something which even a mackem shirt-lifter knows isn't true anyway.

Fair enough. Sorry 'bout that. I hadn't read the article, mainly because I rarely believe anything written in the rags. They'll print anything to make a sale.

Arsenal £300m debt Man Utd £700m debt Obviously for some people Championship football with no debt is better than challenging at the top with debt. Obviously some people haven't noticed that we're no longer even in the same league as Man U and Arsenal, never mind the same level :mackems: at your daft post.

Arsenal £300m debt Man Utd £700m debt Obviously for some people Championship football with no debt is better than challenging at the top with debt. What on earth has that got to do with my post?, or even the situation mentioned in that article? The point of my post was that we don't have loans of anywhere near £248m, its yet another outragous claim from the rags. I was talking about investing in players and you followed it up with a comment about debt and an idiot thingy. It seemed you were whinging about the concept of a football club being in debt.

Arsenal £300m debt Man Utd £700m debt Obviously for some people Championship football with no debt is better than challenging at the top with debt.

Surely he wasn't to know that a struggling billionaire who had no knowledge of running football clubs or this area was going to fail?....oh wait... It amazes me that people are having a go at SJH for selling up, do you have such short memories? At the time of the takeover, Mike Ashley was one of Britain's wealthiest persons with an estimated net worth of 2bn, and there was no sign of the credit crunch whatsoever. Iirc, the vast majority of fans, including the ones on this board, supported the takeover and thought MA would turn the club around, why would've SJH thought otherwise? Most of us were fed up with FFS and welcomed the prospect of a new owner with resources to strenghten the declining club. As it turns out, we were wrong, but I fail to understand why should SJH take any kind of blame, when at the time everything indicated that it would be a good move for the club (and for him as well). I guess he and FFS would've been f***ing lynched had they refused to sell. As for selling the club to someone with no football knowledge, it's not like Roman Abramovic had any kind of knowledge of running a footbal club when he took over Chlsea, nor did SJH when he took over NUFC back then, yet both of them were successful. Good post. I wish more would accept and admit they were wrong. Suppose the problem is the naive belief that : a) Ambition is a given b) Challenging for so long but not actually winning owt is total and abject failure and no different to relegation c) nobody can be worse than the current lot. Most fans fell into this trap with Ashley, and I'm afraid we may be doing it again with Fred.. Not really. What's needed right now is to get back into the PL as soon as possible. That means making funds available for rebuilding the team. The risk of not doing that is failure to win promotion next season and the task becoming increasingly difficult year on year after that. It will not be easy to win promotion as it is. The previous Board with Fred as Chairman was far from perfect but they had the ambition to make funds available for team building. Any group taking over the club with Fred installed as Chairman is almost certainly going to fund team rebuilding, it is then down to the manager to make something of it. As always. I don't believe Fred would be involved in coming back to the club without that intention of making funds available for players. If that's naive then so be it. Mmm, I would rather we move forward with a new owner willing to move us forward. We just need to leave the past five years behind us and look forward to a better future. Of course, there are worse options than Shepherd, Profitable Group being a prime example by the looks of it, but I would hope there would also be better options.. As always though, we should be careful what we wish for and remain critical of what any new owner actually does with the club. As many learned with Ashley, talk is cheap.. But there are no guarantees any new owner will move the club forward. And I really mean any. That includes any group led by Fred. All I'm looking for is as good a guarantee as possible that someone new will make money available to rebuild the team. I think that kind of guarantee can only come from a group headed by Fred, and as I said earlier, it will then be down to the manager to build that team. Any other new owner may or may not put up the resources to rebuild the team, that's been proven by the inept Ashley.

Surely he wasn't to know that a struggling billionaire who had no knowledge of running football clubs or this area was going to fail?....oh wait... It amazes me that people are having a go at SJH for selling up, do you have such short memories? At the time of the takeover, Mike Ashley was one of Britain's wealthiest persons with an estimated net worth of 2bn, and there was no sign of the credit crunch whatsoever. Iirc, the vast majority of fans, including the ones on this board, supported the takeover and thought MA would turn the club around, why would've SJH thought otherwise? Most of us were fed up with FFS and welcomed the prospect of a new owner with resources to strenghten the declining club. As it turns out, we were wrong, but I fail to understand why should SJH take any kind of blame, when at the time everything indicated that it would be a good move for the club (and for him as well). I guess he and FFS would've been f***ing lynched had they refused to sell. As for selling the club to someone with no football knowledge, it's not like Roman Abramovic had any kind of knowledge of running a footbal club when he took over Chlsea, nor did SJH when he took over NUFC back then, yet both of them were successful. Good post. I wish more would accept and admit they were wrong. Suppose the problem is the naive belief that : a) Ambition is a given b) Challenging for so long but not actually winning owt is total and abject failure and no different to relegation c) nobody can be worse than the current lot. Most fans fell into this trap with Ashley, and I'm afraid we may be doing it again with Fred.. Not really. What's needed right now is to get back into the PL as soon as possible. That means making funds available for rebuilding the team. The risk of not doing that is failure to win promotion next season and the task becoming increasingly difficult year on year after that. It will not be easy to win promotion as it is. The previous Board with Fred as Chairman was far from perfect but they had the ambition to make funds available for team building. Any group taking over the club with Fred installed as Chairman is almost certainly going to fund team rebuilding, it is then down to the manager to make something of it. As always. I don't believe Fred would be involved in coming back to the club without that intention of making funds available for players. If that's naive then so be it.

Surely he wasn't to know that a struggling billionaire who had no knowledge of running football clubs or this area was going to fail?....oh wait... It amazes me that people are having a go at SJH for selling up, do you have such short memories? At the time of the takeover, Mike Ashley was one of Britain's wealthiest persons with an estimated net worth of 2bn, and there was no sign of the credit crunch whatsoever. Iirc, the vast majority of fans, including the ones on this board, supported the takeover and thought MA would turn the club around, why would've SJH thought otherwise? Most of us were fed up with FFS and welcomed the prospect of a new owner with resources to strenghten the declining club. As it turns out, we were wrong, but I fail to understand why should SJH take any kind of blame, when at the time everything indicated that it would be a good move for the club (and for him as well). I guess he and FFS would've been fucking lynched had they refused to sell. As for selling the club to someone with no football knowledge, it's not like Roman Abramovic had any kind of knowledge of running a footbal club when he took over Chlsea, nor did SJH when he took over NUFC back then, yet both of them were successful. Good post. I wish more would accept and admit they were wrong. Suppose the problem is the naive belief that : a) Ambition is a given b) Challenging for so long but not actually winning owt is total and abject failure and no different to relegation

Totally agree.

What's it going to take for some people to get that we're not going to be put into administration? One more time: The point of going into administration is to protect yourself from your creditors. We have only one major creditor, his name is Mike Ashley. Why would Mike Ashley want to protect Mike Ashley from Mike Ashley? As far as I'm concerned the absolute duty of an administrator is to get as much back for the creditors as possible. So what does that mean? It means selling off the whole shebang, the players, facilities, knocking the stadium down for some other development for which money may be paid, the whole lot going into the pocket of Ashley, the bloke people wanted 'cos he was better than Fred. He could hardly just go ahead and do it off his own back with the club a going concern. Erm, did you miss the point when he bought the club outright? He could have done that from the moment he bought the club, why would he bring an administrator in to do that when he could simply have done it himself? The fact that he hasn't done anything like that, kinda suggests that he's not going to, don't you think? Also, I think you have "administrator" and "liquidator" mixed up. The first duty of an administrator is to rescue the company as a going concern, whereas the role of a liquidator is similar to what you describe. However, the question remains as to why Mike Ashley would do that and you've not answered that I notice. I'd have thought that someone who's followed the club for as long as you have would know that it doesn't own the land the stadium is built upon and therefore couldn't sell it off for redevelopment even if it wanted to. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of a good rant, eh? 1. It kinda takes the pressure off him if someone else does it. It's called "passing the buck" in some circles. I'm sure you've heard of it. 2. An administrator only has to justify to the creditors why the company can't be maintained as a going concern before it is liquidated. 2a. "You've not answered that I notice" ..... Hmm, that's a rather dumb remark. Why would I answer something I haven't read? I hadn't answered earlier because I've just seen your post. I'm not joined at the hip with my laptop. Obviously. 3. Yup, fair point. However, don't get complacent about what Ashley may do to the club. People like you got complacent about regular European finishes, thinking it was shite so you wanted Ashley 'cos he could only do better. Well, it seems you're going to try to cling to the bitter end onto the idea he's better than the previous lot. You're wrong, cos he's not. This bloke might do anything to this football club and as he doesn't give a damn about it that's scary to a supporter like me. He no doubt has very clever people advising him on the economic side of things, people far cleverer than you, if there is a way for him to get rid of the club and get enough money back he'll do anything to achieve that imo. Anything. No amount of wriggling on your part is going is to change that fact. 1. Yeah, right. 2. I give up, continue believing that the masochistic fantasy that is NUFC going into administration is likely, if you wish. In the real world it's never going to happen. 2a. It was a question I asked in the post you quoted. Do you usually not read the posts you reply too? 3. That's just a ridiculous thing to say, it would be like me saying people like you got complacent about Fairs Cup winning campaigns when you welcomed SJH's take over of the club. I'd say it was much more complacent for people to whitewash the failings of the latter part of the Shepherd regime, due to fond memories of European finishes in the past. Those European finishes were history and the club was heading in only one direction, Ashley came in and failed to change that direction, ranking each regime in order of who failed more is pointless and irrelevant. I have no special bond with Mike Ashley, I have no interest in him whatsoever outside of him owning NUFC, so when that no longer applies I'll pay him no attention. I certainly won't be banging on and on about how good he was and wasting my time arguing with those who disagree for years afterwards, I certainly won't hate the next owners due to some kind of love of him. As for wiggling, well that's somewhat ironic coming from someone who has in one breath accused Ashley of being an incompetent and in the next portrayed him as some kind of evil mastermind who's going to take the club for all it's got. In the end I think it's pretty much certain that it'll be the club that's taken Ashley for a hefty chink of what he's got, rather than the other way round. Your analogy in para 3 is ridiculous. Were you one of those saying it was impossible for the club to have a worse Board than the previous one? If so, I suggest you think carefully before you dismiss the possibility of the club going to the wall. You appear to believe it's impossible....it isn't. Carry on supporting Ashley all you like mate. I don't know what it's going to take for people like you to see reality. I'm not in the mood to get involved in some bullshit back and forth with you where I say something then you either ignore it completely or wilfully misrepresent it at the moment, so this will probably be my last response in this particular conversation as I have much better things to do. I did not say that it was impossible for the club to have a board worse than the previous one, I said that I was prepared to take the risk in order to rid the club of the failed leadership of Freddy Shepherd. As far as I'm concerned failure is failure, arguing over who failed more is pointless bullshit, but you carry on if you wish. You should perhaps consider whether your seeming belief that it is impossible for the club to have a better board than the previous one makes you a hypocrite or not. Just for the record my belief is that the club could always have a better or worse board than the previous one, or any other for that matter. I'll never be happy with the least worst option - like you seem to be - to the extent that I couldn't even give a shit who that is and therefore I'm not going to engage in a debate about it with you. Freddy = failure. Ashley = failure. Now either of those two things could change given time, but at present that's how it is. If either were to change, then I'm not stubborn enough to refuse to acknowledge that - unlike some - but at present that history of failure means that I'd prefer to see someone new have a chance and see if they can lead us out of the situation we now find ourselves in, for which both of the previous regimes are responsible. I didn't say that there was no danger of the club going to the wall, I simply said that administration was highly unlikely due to fact that it makes no sense for Ashley do use that particular tool. The only reason you are arguing with me is because you don't know what administration is - you seem to think it's the same thing as liquidation, it isn't - and you've just heard of it happening to other clubs and assumed that must be what always happens when a club gets into trouble, it isn't. You've read about it in the media and have assumed that they actually know what they're on about any more than you do. Sorry, but they're sports journalists, they know jack shit about business. The only thing I support is NUFC and what I think is best for it. As I have already said, I have no emotional attachment to Ashley, why would I? When he leaves the club I will no longer have any interest in him whatsoever. The only person who has an emotional attachment to any individual is you, you have maintained that attachment even when that individual ceased to have anything at all to do with the club and now you are actively supporting his return without even considering if he is the best option for the club at this time. You are a Freddy Shepherd supporter. I'm not going to stoop to the level of questioning whether you're also an NUFC supporter, that goes without saying, but I am going to put a question to you: Of the two things you support which is most important, and if there are conflicts between them which side are you going to come down on? Sometimes it seems to me that your support of Shepherd is absolute and unquestioning, regardless of the effect on NUFC, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of people would agree that that's the way you come across, so if that isn't how it is you might want to put people straight. I hope you respond to this in an accurate way, but if you try and twist what I say again I'm just going to let you get on with it and rely on people having enough brain capacity to read what I've written and make up their own minds about what I meant, rather than be sucked in by your deliberately inaccurate depiction of it. If you're prepared to drop the bullshit and talk about things in a mature way then fine, but if not, have a nice day wasting your time with the same old shite on here I'm off out to do stuff in the real world. I wasn't aware we were having a "conversation" tbh. I made a couple of posts indicating the obvious that Ashley is worse than the previous Board and you've decided to start on an epic to rival War And Peace about it because you disagree. I don't give a shite who is in charge of the club and never have done, all I want to see is some ambition and an attempt to take the club/team forward. You seemingly aren't interested in that and neither is Ashley, so it's no wonder you think the knacker is better than the previous Board. A significant number of people on this forum don't recognise ambition when they see it and you're one of them. There are no guarantees of success, there simply are not enough trophies. All the Board/owner can do is show the required ambition to make an attempt to challenge for those trophies and that's it. They can do no more. There are loads of other factors that make the difference between going on to win something and not winning something, but challenging for trophies is not a sign of failure of a board or owner. What Ashley has managed since he came here is total and abject failure. To compare him favourably or even equally with the previous Board is an absolute joke. Cheers Thanks for answering at least one of my questions; the one about whether or not you were going to discuss things maturely. Oh well, never mind. Eh? Questions! What questions? I see one question (it's in bold now to help you spot it, spose you may count it as two) and I answered it (also in bold.) Perhaps if your posts weren't 5 times as long as they need to be due to you "debating" stuff I haven't said you may have noticed it yourself.

What's it going to take for some people to get that we're not going to be put into administration? One more time: The point of going into administration is to protect yourself from your creditors. We have only one major creditor, his name is Mike Ashley. Why would Mike Ashley want to protect Mike Ashley from Mike Ashley? As far as I'm concerned the absolute duty of an administrator is to get as much back for the creditors as possible. So what does that mean? It means selling off the whole shebang, the players, facilities, knocking the stadium down for some other development for which money may be paid, the whole lot going into the pocket of Ashley, the bloke people wanted 'cos he was better than Fred. He could hardly just go ahead and do it off his own back with the club a going concern. Erm, did you miss the point when he bought the club outright? He could have done that from the moment he bought the club, why would he bring an administrator in to do that when he could simply have done it himself? The fact that he hasn't done anything like that, kinda suggests that he's not going to, don't you think? Also, I think you have "administrator" and "liquidator" mixed up. The first duty of an administrator is to rescue the company as a going concern, whereas the role of a liquidator is similar to what you describe. However, the question remains as to why Mike Ashley would do that and you've not answered that I notice. I'd have thought that someone who's followed the club for as long as you have would know that it doesn't own the land the stadium is built upon and therefore couldn't sell it off for redevelopment even if it wanted to. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of a good rant, eh? 1. It kinda takes the pressure off him if someone else does it. It's called "passing the buck" in some circles. I'm sure you've heard of it. 2. An administrator only has to justify to the creditors why the company can't be maintained as a going concern before it is liquidated. 2a. "You've not answered that I notice" ..... Hmm, that's a rather dumb remark. Why would I answer something I haven't read? I hadn't answered earlier because I've just seen your post. I'm not joined at the hip with my laptop. Obviously. 3. Yup, fair point. However, don't get complacent about what Ashley may do to the club. People like you got complacent about regular European finishes, thinking it was shite so you wanted Ashley 'cos he could only do better. Well, it seems you're going to try to cling to the bitter end onto the idea he's better than the previous lot. You're wrong, cos he's not. This bloke might do anything to this football club and as he doesn't give a damn about it that's scary to a supporter like me. He no doubt has very clever people advising him on the economic side of things, people far cleverer than you, if there is a way for him to get rid of the club and get enough money back he'll do anything to achieve that imo. Anything. No amount of wriggling on your part is going is to change that fact. 1. Yeah, right. 2. I give up, continue believing that the masochistic fantasy that is NUFC going into administration is likely, if you wish. In the real world it's never going to happen. 2a. It was a question I asked in the post you quoted. Do you usually not read the posts you reply too? 3. That's just a ridiculous thing to say, it would be like me saying people like you got complacent about Fairs Cup winning campaigns when you welcomed SJH's take over of the club. I'd say it was much more complacent for people to whitewash the failings of the latter part of the Shepherd regime, due to fond memories of European finishes in the past. Those European finishes were history and the club was heading in only one direction, Ashley came in and failed to change that direction, ranking each regime in order of who failed more is pointless and irrelevant. I have no special bond with Mike Ashley, I have no interest in him whatsoever outside of him owning NUFC, so when that no longer applies I'll pay him no attention. I certainly won't be banging on and on about how good he was and wasting my time arguing with those who disagree for years afterwards, I certainly won't hate the next owners due to some kind of love of him. As for wiggling, well that's somewhat ironic coming from someone who has in one breath accused Ashley of being an incompetent and in the next portrayed him as some kind of evil mastermind who's going to take the club for all it's got. In the end I think it's pretty much certain that it'll be the club that's taken Ashley for a hefty chink of what he's got, rather than the other way round. Your analogy in para 3 is ridiculous. Were you one of those saying it was impossible for the club to have a worse Board than the previous one? If so, I suggest you think carefully before you dismiss the possibility of the club going to the wall. You appear to believe it's impossible....it isn't. Carry on supporting Ashley all you like mate. I don't know what it's going to take for people like you to see reality. I'm not in the mood to get involved in some bullshit back and forth with you where I say something then you either ignore it completely or wilfully misrepresent it at the moment, so this will probably be my last response in this particular conversation as I have much better things to do. I did not say that it was impossible for the club to have a board worse than the previous one, I said that I was prepared to take the risk in order to rid the club of the failed leadership of Freddy Shepherd. As far as I'm concerned failure is failure, arguing over who failed more is pointless bullshit, but you carry on if you wish. You should perhaps consider whether your seeming belief that it is impossible for the club to have a better board than the previous one makes you a hypocrite or not. Just for the record my belief is that the club could always have a better or worse board than the previous one, or any other for that matter. I'll never be happy with the least worst option - like you seem to be - to the extent that I couldn't even give a shit who that is and therefore I'm not going to engage in a debate about it with you. Freddy = failure. Ashley = failure. Now either of those two things could change given time, but at present that's how it is. If either were to change, then I'm not stubborn enough to refuse to acknowledge that - unlike some - but at present that history of failure means that I'd prefer to see someone new have a chance and see if they can lead us out of the situation we now find ourselves in, for which both of the previous regimes are responsible. I didn't say that there was no danger of the club going to the wall, I simply said that administration was highly unlikely due to fact that it makes no sense for Ashley do use that particular tool. The only reason you are arguing with me is because you don't know what administration is - you seem to think it's the same thing as liquidation, it isn't - and you've just heard of it happening to other clubs and assumed that must be what always happens when a club gets into trouble, it isn't. You've read about it in the media and have assumed that they actually know what they're on about any more than you do. Sorry, but they're sports journalists, they know jack shit about business. The only thing I support is NUFC and what I think is best for it. As I have already said, I have no emotional attachment to Ashley, why would I? When he leaves the club I will no longer have any interest in him whatsoever. The only person who has an emotional attachment to any individual is you, you have maintained that attachment even when that individual ceased to have anything at all to do with the club and now you are actively supporting his return without even considering if he is the best option for the club at this time. You are a Freddy Shepherd supporter. I'm not going to stoop to the level of questioning whether you're also an NUFC supporter, that goes without saying, but I am going to put a question to you: Of the two things you support which is most important, and if there are conflicts between them which side are you going to come down on? Sometimes it seems to me that your support of Shepherd is absolute and unquestioning, regardless of the effect on NUFC, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of people would agree that that's the way you come across, so if that isn't how it is you might want to put people straight. I hope you respond to this in an accurate way, but if you try and twist what I say again I'm just going to let you get on with it and rely on people having enough brain capacity to read what I've written and make up their own minds about what I meant, rather than be sucked in by your deliberately inaccurate depiction of it. If you're prepared to drop the bullshit and talk about things in a mature way then fine, but if not, have a nice day wasting your time with the same old shite on here I'm off out to do stuff in the real world. I wasn't aware we were having a "conversation" tbh. I made a couple of posts indicating the obvious that Ashley is worse than the previous Board and you've decided to start on an epic to rival War And Peace about it because you disagree. I don't give a shite who is in charge of the club and never have done, all I want to see is some ambition and an attempt to take the club/team forward. You seemingly aren't interested in that and neither is Ashley, so it's no wonder you think the knacker is better than the previous Board. A significant number of people on this forum don't recognise ambition when they see it and you're one of them. There are no guarantees of success, there simply are not enough trophies. All the Board/owner can do is show the required ambition to make an attempt to challenge for those trophies and that's it. They can do no more. There are loads of other factors that make the difference between going on to win something and not winning something, but challenging for trophies is not a sign of failure of a board or owner. What Ashley has managed since he came here is total and abject failure. To compare him favourably or even equally with the previous Board is an absolute joke. Cheers

Daft post, so nowt's changed. I don't support Shepherd, I don't give a shite who is the figurehead 'cos that's all he was. What I'm telling you is the previous Board is the best the club has seen for at least 60 years. You disagree and think they were crap. Now that's pathetic.

What's it going to take for some people to get that we're not going to be put into administration? One more time: The point of going into administration is to protect yourself from your creditors. We have only one major creditor, his name is Mike Ashley. Why would Mike Ashley want to protect Mike Ashley from Mike Ashley? As far as I'm concerned the absolute duty of an administrator is to get as much back for the creditors as possible. So what does that mean? It means selling off the whole shebang, the players, facilities, knocking the stadium down for some other development for which money may be paid, the whole lot going into the pocket of Ashley, the bloke people wanted 'cos he was better than Fred. He could hardly just go ahead and do it off his own back with the club a going concern. Erm, did you miss the point when he bought the club outright? He could have done that from the moment he bought the club, why would he bring an administrator in to do that when he could simply have done it himself? The fact that he hasn't done anything like that, kinda suggests that he's not going to, don't you think? Also, I think you have "administrator" and "liquidator" mixed up. The first duty of an administrator is to rescue the company as a going concern, whereas the role of a liquidator is similar to what you describe. However, the question remains as to why Mike Ashley would do that and you've not answered that I notice. I'd have thought that someone who's followed the club for as long as you have would know that it doesn't own the land the stadium is built upon and therefore couldn't sell it off for redevelopment even if it wanted to. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of a good rant, eh? 1. It kinda takes the pressure off him if someone else does it. It's called "passing the buck" in some circles. I'm sure you've heard of it. 2. An administrator only has to justify to the creditors why the company can't be maintained as a going concern before it is liquidated. 2a. "You've not answered that I notice" ..... Hmm, that's a rather dumb remark. Why would I answer something I haven't read? I hadn't answered earlier because I've just seen your post. I'm not joined at the hip with my laptop. Obviously. 3. Yup, fair point. However, don't get complacent about what Ashley may do to the club. People like you got complacent about regular European finishes, thinking it was shite so you wanted Ashley 'cos he could only do better. Well, it seems you're going to try to cling to the bitter end onto the idea he's better than the previous lot. You're wrong, cos he's not. This bloke might do anything to this football club and as he doesn't give a damn about it that's scary to a supporter like me. He no doubt has very clever people advising him on the economic side of things, people far cleverer than you, if there is a way for him to get rid of the club and get enough money back he'll do anything to achieve that imo. Anything. No amount of wriggling on your part is going is to change that fact. 1. Yeah, right. 2. I give up, continue believing that the masochistic fantasy that is NUFC going into administration is likely, if you wish. In the real world it's never going to happen. 2a. It was a question I asked in the post you quoted. Do you usually not read the posts you reply too? 3. That's just a ridiculous thing to say, it would be like me saying people like you got complacent about Fairs Cup winning campaigns when you welcomed SJH's take over of the club. I'd say it was much more complacent for people to whitewash the failings of the latter part of the Shepherd regime, due to fond memories of European finishes in the past. Those European finishes were history and the club was heading in only one direction, Ashley came in and failed to change that direction, ranking each regime in order of who failed more is pointless and irrelevant. I have no special bond with Mike Ashley, I have no interest in him whatsoever outside of him owning NUFC, so when that no longer applies I'll pay him no attention. I certainly won't be banging on and on about how good he was and wasting my time arguing with those who disagree for years afterwards, I certainly won't hate the next owners due to some kind of love of him. As for wiggling, well that's somewhat ironic coming from someone who has in one breath accused Ashley of being an incompetent and in the next portrayed him as some kind of evil mastermind who's going to take the club for all it's got. In the end I think it's pretty much certain that it'll be the club that's taken Ashley for a hefty chink of what he's got, rather than the other way round. Your analogy in para 3 is ridiculous. Were you one of those saying it was impossible for the club to have a worse Board than the previous one? If so, I suggest you think carefully before you dismiss the possibility of the club going to the wall. You appear to believe it's impossible....it isn't. Carry on supporting Ashley all you like mate. I don't know what it's going to take for people like you to see reality.

Tripe, tbh. Can you say 'dividends'? I know Freddy could. He could also say stuff like... “I didn't want to be known as the man who shot Bambi.” “Newcastle girls are all dogs. England is full of them.” “You should only say good things when somebody leaves. Robert has gone - good!” “When we have got 52,000 fans at each home game, the last thing we are worried about is clubs in the third division." Mate, of far more importance than anything Fred has said is what Ashley has done. I answered posts like yours at the time by saying I don't give a shite what Fred says in the media, I'm only concerned with what happens on the field of play and whether or not the Board is backing the manager to attempt to build a decent team. I'd have thought others might have understood that rather basic point by now but it seems not.

What's it going to take for some people to get that we're not going to be put into administration? One more time: The point of going into administration is to protect yourself from your creditors. We have only one major creditor, his name is Mike Ashley. Why would Mike Ashley want to protect Mike Ashley from Mike Ashley? As far as I'm concerned the absolute duty of an administrator is to get as much back for the creditors as possible. So what does that mean? It means selling off the whole shebang, the players, facilities, knocking the stadium down for some other development for which money may be paid, the whole lot going into the pocket of Ashley, the bloke people wanted 'cos he was better than Fred. He could hardly just go ahead and do it off his own back with the club a going concern. Erm, did you miss the point when he bought the club outright? He could have done that from the moment he bought the club, why would he bring an administrator in to do that when he could simply have done it himself? The fact that he hasn't done anything like that, kinda suggests that he's not going to, don't you think? Also, I think you have "administrator" and "liquidator" mixed up. The first duty of an administrator is to rescue the company as a going concern, whereas the role of a liquidator is similar to what you describe. However, the question remains as to why Mike Ashley would do that and you've not answered that I notice. I'd have thought that someone who's followed the club for as long as you have would know that it doesn't own the land the stadium is built upon and therefore couldn't sell it off for redevelopment even if it wanted to. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of a good rant, eh? 1. It kinda takes the pressure off him if someone else does it. It's called "passing the buck" in some circles. I'm sure you've heard of it. 2. An administrator only has to justify to the creditors why the company can't be maintained as a going concern before it is liquidated. 2a. "You've not answered that I notice" ..... Hmm, that's a rather dumb remark. Why would I answer something I haven't read? I hadn't answered earlier because I've just seen your post. I'm not joined at the hip with my laptop. Obviously. 3. Yup, fair point. However, don't get complacent about what Ashley may do to the club. People like you got complacent about regular European finishes, thinking it was shite so you wanted Ashley 'cos he could only do better. Well, it seems you're going to try to cling to the bitter end onto the idea he's better than the previous lot. You're wrong, cos he's not. This bloke might do anything to this football club and as he doesn't give a damn about it that's scary to a supporter like me. He no doubt has very clever people advising him on the economic side of things, people far cleverer than you, if there is a way for him to get rid of the club and get enough money back he'll do anything to achieve that imo. Anything. No amount of wriggling on your part is going is to change that fact.

Tripe, tbh.