madras

he has the stupid problem of holding on to the ball waiting for movement instead of hoofing it into the box even if theres no-one there.

i prefer to see it as someone thinking they are looking great while actually looking a bit of a narna. (i know that should be nana but i didn't want anything thinking i meant grandmother)

you know what she means. probably one of the liverpool sides, late 70's early 80's.

Just because you disagree Dave ? You do realise, I've been proven right about pretty much everything I've said over the last few years I take it ? god, sorry if this ends the thread but i can't help myself all you've actually said by your own admission is that good boards are hard to come by, you believe the last one was good and given we accept the idea that good boards are hard to come by there's a strong chance anyone taking over would not be as good as the last one ran by FS wup-dee-f***ing doo here's my prediction for the next UK government: good governments are hard to come by and we had a decent one with new labour who are having a bit of a rough patch after a good period, however as i assert that good governments are hard to come by there's a strong chance the tories will be s*** (considering they'll be taking the reigns slap bang in the middle of the biggest economic downturn in anyone's lifetime this probability increases but is not guaranteed) BUT if they do succeed i'm still right as i never stated they'd definately fail, just that it was probable any bells ringing for you NE5? thought not don't forget NE5's pointing out that good boards back their manager while also saying allardyce was brought in to do a job on the cheap,also never quite accepting that everyone's debt is different and clubs running well can afford to carry it better than clubs ran poorly (why didn't leeds just borrow more money ?),also having the bizzarre idea that a manger doing poorly for a long while should be kept in place because of what he done years previously. NE5 hasn't any learning difficuilties and he's not a WUM. however because this has gone on sooo long and the way he has dressed his argument he feels he can not acknowladge the faults of the previous regime without damaging his own personal standing.

to whatever end he wanted.......his decision to sell,no-one had a gun to his head. i asked you a question aswell, are you going to have a go at answering it ? Remind me post 586. just up the page.

to whatever end he wanted.......his decision to sell,no-one had a gun to his head. i asked you a question aswell, are you going to have a go at answering it ?

tell me where I said it was brilliant ? With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point. Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either. You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot. As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not. what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy. BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own. I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do. My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for. You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about. Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom. Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it. I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making. selective cherry picking is what you are doing though. Nobody knows if they could have done it again, but if they back their manager and have ambition they have a chance. If they don't, they have no chance. Thats my point. Im not selective cherry picking though. Im talking about the last few years of his chairmanship, the part where I believe he lost the plot and we needed a change. There were good times before that, I wouldnt dispute it, but that was pretty irrelevant when discussing our position in 2007 after sacking Roeder and the reasons we were in that position. I fully agree that good chairman have to back their managers, but as important, if not more important than that is picking a good manager. It isn't. If you are lucky enough, yes lucky enough, to appoint a good manager and the board is s****, then he will leave. Keegan is your proof of that. We have appointed plenty of proven track record managers, as have other clubs, and they have not been a success, so its not foolproof by any stretch. You have to accept that in an industry where only 3 teams are classified as successful in terms of winning silverware and a few more qualify for europe, most clubs "fail".......its the ambition in the boardroom which makes a football club, and everyone is chasing those 3 trophy winning managers. Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare. so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time. We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens. Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too . This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme. The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes. Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ? As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked. Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success. The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot. Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me. as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ? Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ? when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?) Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster. NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time. It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment. no one's denying that ashleys has made a balls of things. all the majority are pointing out is that we were in the clarts before ashley bought his first share in NUFC. also the debts are quite a large reason for the position we are now in. We were in the clarts, now we're in deep s***. Do you think Shepherd wanted to sell up? this had been coming for a while. if he didn't want to sell he wouldn't have. And then what, try and wrestle control from a multi billionaire with the single biggest shareholding in the club? so he done what he always done, made a bundle out of NUFC. where do you think the money to compete was going to come from when we are losing 30mill a year as it is ? What else could he have done? could have kept them if he'd wanted.

tell me where I said it was brilliant ? With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point. Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either. You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot. As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not. what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy. BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own. I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do. My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for. You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about. Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom. Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it. I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making. selective cherry picking is what you are doing though. Nobody knows if they could have done it again, but if they back their manager and have ambition they have a chance. If they don't, they have no chance. Thats my point. Im not selective cherry picking though. Im talking about the last few years of his chairmanship, the part where I believe he lost the plot and we needed a change. There were good times before that, I wouldnt dispute it, but that was pretty irrelevant when discussing our position in 2007 after sacking Roeder and the reasons we were in that position. I fully agree that good chairman have to back their managers, but as important, if not more important than that is picking a good manager. It isn't. If you are lucky enough, yes lucky enough, to appoint a good manager and the board is s****, then he will leave. Keegan is your proof of that. We have appointed plenty of proven track record managers, as have other clubs, and they have not been a success, so its not foolproof by any stretch. You have to accept that in an industry where only 3 teams are classified as successful in terms of winning silverware and a few more qualify for europe, most clubs "fail".......its the ambition in the boardroom which makes a football club, and everyone is chasing those 3 trophy winning managers. Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare. so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time. We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens. Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too . This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme. The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes. Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ? As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked. Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success. The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot. Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me. as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ? Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ? when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?) Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster. NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time. It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment. no one's denying that ashleys has made a balls of things. all the majority are pointing out is that we were in the clarts before ashley bought his first share in NUFC. also the debts are quite a large reason for the position we are now in. We were in the clarts, now we're in deep s***. Do you think Shepherd wanted to sell up? this had been coming for a while. if he didn't want to sell he wouldn't have. And then what, try and wrestle control from a multi billionaire with the single biggest shareholding in the club? so he done what he always done, made a bundle out of NUFC. where do you think the money to compete was going to come from when we are losing 30mill a year as it is ?

tell me where I said it was brilliant ? With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point. Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either. You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot. As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not. what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy. BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own. I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do. My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for. You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about. Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom. Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it. I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making. selective cherry picking is what you are doing though. Nobody knows if they could have done it again, but if they back their manager and have ambition they have a chance. If they don't, they have no chance. Thats my point. Im not selective cherry picking though. Im talking about the last few years of his chairmanship, the part where I believe he lost the plot and we needed a change. There were good times before that, I wouldnt dispute it, but that was pretty irrelevant when discussing our position in 2007 after sacking Roeder and the reasons we were in that position. I fully agree that good chairman have to back their managers, but as important, if not more important than that is picking a good manager. It isn't. If you are lucky enough, yes lucky enough, to appoint a good manager and the board is s****, then he will leave. Keegan is your proof of that. We have appointed plenty of proven track record managers, as have other clubs, and they have not been a success, so its not foolproof by any stretch. You have to accept that in an industry where only 3 teams are classified as successful in terms of winning silverware and a few more qualify for europe, most clubs "fail".......its the ambition in the boardroom which makes a football club, and everyone is chasing those 3 trophy winning managers. Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare. so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time. We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens. Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too . This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme. The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes. Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ? As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked. Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success. The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot. Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me. as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ? Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ? when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?) Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster. NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time. It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment. no one's denying that ashleys has made a balls of things. all the majority are pointing out is that we were in the clarts before ashley bought his first share in NUFC. also the debts are quite a large reason for the position we are now in. We were in the clarts, now we're in deep s***. Do you think Shepherd wanted to sell up? this had been coming for a while. if he didn't want to sell he wouldn't have.

tell me where I said it was brilliant ? With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point. Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either. You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot. As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not. what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy. BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own. I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do. My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for. You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about. Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom. Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it. I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making. selective cherry picking is what you are doing though. Nobody knows if they could have done it again, but if they back their manager and have ambition they have a chance. If they don't, they have no chance. Thats my point. Im not selective cherry picking though. Im talking about the last few years of his chairmanship, the part where I believe he lost the plot and we needed a change. There were good times before that, I wouldnt dispute it, but that was pretty irrelevant when discussing our position in 2007 after sacking Roeder and the reasons we were in that position. I fully agree that good chairman have to back their managers, but as important, if not more important than that is picking a good manager. It isn't. If you are lucky enough, yes lucky enough, to appoint a good manager and the board is s****, then he will leave. Keegan is your proof of that. We have appointed plenty of proven track record managers, as have other clubs, and they have not been a success, so its not foolproof by any stretch. You have to accept that in an industry where only 3 teams are classified as successful in terms of winning silverware and a few more qualify for europe, most clubs "fail".......its the ambition in the boardroom which makes a football club, and everyone is chasing those 3 trophy winning managers. Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare. so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time. We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens. Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too . This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme. The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes. Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ? As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked. Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success. The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot. Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me. as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ? Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ? when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?) Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster. NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time. It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment. no one's denying that ashleys has made a balls of things. all the majority are pointing out is that we were in the clarts before ashley bought his first share in NUFC. also the debts are quite a large reason for the position we are now in.

tell me where I said it was brilliant ? With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point. Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either. You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot. As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not. what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy. BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own. I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do. My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for. You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about. Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom. Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it. I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making. selective cherry picking is what you are doing though. Nobody knows if they could have done it again, but if they back their manager and have ambition they have a chance. If they don't, they have no chance. Thats my point. Im not selective cherry picking though. Im talking about the last few years of his chairmanship, the part where I believe he lost the plot and we needed a change. There were good times before that, I wouldnt dispute it, but that was pretty irrelevant when discussing our position in 2007 after sacking Roeder and the reasons we were in that position. I fully agree that good chairman have to back their managers, but as important, if not more important than that is picking a good manager. It isn't. If you are lucky enough, yes lucky enough, to appoint a good manager and the board is s****, then he will leave. Keegan is your proof of that. We have appointed plenty of proven track record managers, as have other clubs, and they have not been a success, so its not foolproof by any stretch. You have to accept that in an industry where only 3 teams are classified as successful in terms of winning silverware and a few more qualify for europe, most clubs "fail".......its the ambition in the boardroom which makes a football club, and everyone is chasing those 3 trophy winning managers. Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare. so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time. We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens. Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too . This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme. The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes. Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ? As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked. Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success. The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot. Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me. as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ? Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ? when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?) yep, going by the "clough analogy", in your opinion he must have been a s**** manager because he left them relegated. nope. he done very well. for a while was probably the best there was, then he lost it. should have got out or been removed a while before he left. you know who we should get in. howard wilkinson as he has manged a team to win the league.

tell me where I said it was brilliant ? With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point. Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either. You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot. As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not. what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy. BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own. I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do. My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for. You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about. Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom. Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it. I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making. selective cherry picking is what you are doing though. Nobody knows if they could have done it again, but if they back their manager and have ambition they have a chance. If they don't, they have no chance. Thats my point. Im not selective cherry picking though. Im talking about the last few years of his chairmanship, the part where I believe he lost the plot and we needed a change. There were good times before that, I wouldnt dispute it, but that was pretty irrelevant when discussing our position in 2007 after sacking Roeder and the reasons we were in that position. I fully agree that good chairman have to back their managers, but as important, if not more important than that is picking a good manager. It isn't. If you are lucky enough, yes lucky enough, to appoint a good manager and the board is s****, then he will leave. Keegan is your proof of that. We have appointed plenty of proven track record managers, as have other clubs, and they have not been a success, so its not foolproof by any stretch. You have to accept that in an industry where only 3 teams are classified as successful in terms of winning silverware and a few more qualify for europe, most clubs "fail".......its the ambition in the boardroom which makes a football club, and everyone is chasing those 3 trophy winning managers. Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare. so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time. We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens. Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too . This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme. The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes. Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ? As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked. Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success. The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot. Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me. as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ? Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ? when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?)

it's out of man utd's hands. no matter what they do they can't reach us.

if ever there was a game for the fans to play their paqrt

Profits were made in the transfer windows yet the club lost in the region of £30 million and £20 million in the last two set of accounts and will lose up to £40 million this year. Ashley has paid the difference so far and will do so again. We've made these losses without having to pay out the interest on the loans which we no longer have. How much would these losses have been if we still had to pay the interest on the loans? What would have been the impact on the losses if we kept adding to them with more interest bearing loans? How would these losses have been paid without Ashley? Who would have paid the bills when they were due if we hadn't changed ownership? Who would have loaned us money during the credit crunch? You can't just pretend that everything was OK, it clearly wasn't. has this been a group decision to come back i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day. my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to s*** all over the house. so...how many years and how many owners do you think it willl take to find someone to match the mediocrity of regular eureopean qualification achieved under the Halls and Shepherd Genuine question to anybody,not just you oooooh at a rough guess about as long as it will take for you to give straight forward answers to these questions............. which in one way or another i've been asking for months now. well, after today, do you still think buying those cut price players is "cost effective". We are going down unless we win next monday night i agree about monday night.....yet you still haven't answered my questions. (ever thought of a career in politics ?) never mind madras. You think the books are a priority, so did Mike Ashley. Lets hope our profit in 3 transfer windows doesn't equal relegation. Are you still pleased Ashley has sorted out the books and hasn't resorted to buying any of these trophy players ? no answers to those questions eh ? you think we can keep on spending othet peoples money forever...i think at some point they'll want it back or at least stop giving it to us. send me your home address and i'll send you a cassette so you can play it while you sleep, that way you may answer the questions i ask. so you are happy to sit back and watch us get relegated ? Still, at least the finances are sorted. no i'm not happy, i think he should've spent some of his money to prevent this happening. see, clear and straightforward answers........i'm awaiting yours......been waiting months to be honest ! I answered you ages ago. My point is that you seem to be saying that unless the club could put the money up front they should accept relegation. Clearly bollocks. I've also told you the true situation whereby all the successful clubs in the world are in debt yet you cling to the fairy story that we can possibly be successful while selling our best players for a profit and miraculously find players in the two bob league somewhere of an equal calibre to replace them nah. my point has always been that we tried to do that........spend with the best of 'em but failed to keep up wiv them guv'nor. sooner or later you'll be in a position where you can't keep on trying tp keep up.....true or false ?

Profits were made in the transfer windows yet the club lost in the region of £30 million and £20 million in the last two set of accounts and will lose up to £40 million this year. Ashley has paid the difference so far and will do so again. We've made these losses without having to pay out the interest on the loans which we no longer have. How much would these losses have been if we still had to pay the interest on the loans? What would have been the impact on the losses if we kept adding to them with more interest bearing loans? How would these losses have been paid without Ashley? Who would have paid the bills when they were due if we hadn't changed ownership? Who would have loaned us money during the credit crunch? You can't just pretend that everything was OK, it clearly wasn't. has this been a group decision to come back i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day. my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to s*** all over the house. so...how many years and how many owners do you think it willl take to find someone to match the mediocrity of regular eureopean qualification achieved under the Halls and Shepherd Genuine question to anybody,not just you oooooh at a rough guess about as long as it will take for you to give straight forward answers to these questions............. which in one way or another i've been asking for months now. well, after today, do you still think buying those cut price players is "cost effective". We are going down unless we win next monday night i agree about monday night.....yet you still haven't answered my questions. (ever thought of a career in politics ?) never mind madras. You think the books are a priority, so did Mike Ashley. Lets hope our profit in 3 transfer windows doesn't equal relegation. Are you still pleased Ashley has sorted out the books and hasn't resorted to buying any of these trophy players ? no answers to those questions eh ? you think we can keep on spending othet peoples money forever...i think at some point they'll want it back or at least stop giving it to us. send me your home address and i'll send you a cassette so you can play it while you sleep, that way you may answer the questions i ask. so you are happy to sit back and watch us get relegated ? Still, at least the finances are sorted. no i'm not happy, i think he should've spent some of his money to prevent this happening. see, clear and straightforward answers........i'm awaiting yours......been waiting months to be honest !

Profits were made in the transfer windows yet the club lost in the region of £30 million and £20 million in the last two set of accounts and will lose up to £40 million this year. Ashley has paid the difference so far and will do so again. We've made these losses without having to pay out the interest on the loans which we no longer have. How much would these losses have been if we still had to pay the interest on the loans? What would have been the impact on the losses if we kept adding to them with more interest bearing loans? How would these losses have been paid without Ashley? Who would have paid the bills when they were due if we hadn't changed ownership? Who would have loaned us money during the credit crunch? You can't just pretend that everything was OK, it clearly wasn't. has this been a group decision to come back i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day. my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to s*** all over the house. so...how many years and how many owners do you think it willl take to find someone to match the mediocrity of regular eureopean qualification achieved under the Halls and Shepherd Genuine question to anybody,not just you oooooh at a rough guess about as long as it will take for you to give straight forward answers to these questions............. which in one way or another i've been asking for months now. well, after today, do you still think buying those cut price players is "cost effective". We are going down unless we win next monday night i agree about monday night.....yet you still haven't answered my questions. (ever thought of a career in politics ?) never mind madras. You think the books are a priority, so did Mike Ashley. Lets hope our profit in 3 transfer windows doesn't equal relegation. Are you still pleased Ashley has sorted out the books and hasn't resorted to buying any of these trophy players ? no answers to those questions eh ? you think we can keep on spending othet peoples money forever...i think at some point they'll want it back or at least stop giving it to us. send me your home address and i'll send you a cassette so you can play it while you sleep, that way you may answer the questions i ask.

is it too late to copywright "massive monday" ?

if you are being serious please take this opportunity to sod off now.

isn't that oldtypes point..........what if someone breka away ?

you've been drinking all day. alcohol will often cloud the judgement, it's quite possible you're just over reacting with the drink. but you're right.

Because those broadcasting rights may cost a mere fraction of what they would in the Premiership, and may therefore make an online streaming service economically feasible? No club with the overseas following the size of NUFC's has ever gone down, so there's no precedent for this. IMO it's more than worth investigating whether this would be a worthwhile endeavor. to be fair many would say leeds were as big. The Premiership's popularity overseas was nowhere near where it was right now when Leeds went down though. Plus, Leeds were never a particularly well-supported club outside of the UK. but if a club was to sell their individual rights ther biggest (by far) market would be the local one. The idea is that the club might be able to negotiate a economically feasible deal for broadcasting rights without stepping on the BBC's toes if it was for transmission outside of the UK only. I mean, what country outside of the UK does the Football League even sell rights to? There's probably pretty near 0 demand for any non-Premiership club's matches overseas other than NUFC's. Surely there's an economic niche that we can work with here. i think you over estimate NUFC's TV pulling power when outside the prem.

f***ing hell that was this season ? Feels like a lifetime ago These c***s down here are masturbating furiously at my discontent... People are pricks man. Thankfully I don't mingle amongst too many arseholes like that. The lads I was watching the game with today are Boro (wanted us to lose but wasn't an arsehole about it), Sheff Utd (supported us all the way and has a general soft-spot for the Toon anyway) and Man Utd (who isn't too fussed, but who I think wants us to stay up). The others I knock about with are Leeds, Liverpool, Arsenal, etc. but again never really have anything but sympathy with what we're going through. Saying that, I suppose a lot of that is down to the fact that they're canny lads and when their teams are struggling I don't dish it out to them either. I don't take the piss out of anyone's team..but Coventry fans are that sad and pathetic,any chance they get to kick someone when they are down,and they are in quicker than Gary Glitter into a creche.

Because those broadcasting rights may cost a mere fraction of what they would in the Premiership, and may therefore make an online streaming service economically feasible? No club with the overseas following the size of NUFC's has ever gone down, so there's no precedent for this. IMO it's more than worth investigating whether this would be a worthwhile endeavor. to be fair many would say leeds were as big. The Premiership's popularity overseas was nowhere near where it was right now when Leeds went down though. Plus, Leeds were never a particularly well-supported club outside of the UK. but if a club was to sell their individual rights ther biggest (by far) market would be the local one.

Because those broadcasting rights may cost a mere fraction of what they would in the Premiership, and may therefore make an online streaming service economically feasible? No club with the overseas following the size of NUFC's has ever gone down, so there's no precedent for this. IMO it's more than worth investigating whether this would be a worthwhile endeavor. to be fair many would say leeds were as big and clubs controlling their own TV rights will come eventually.