madras

Christ I can't believe how bad they are. I actually believe that they could get relagated now, Corluka will be out for a bit, King is a sick note, both Dawson and Bale banned for two games. I keep pointing the above point out to my housemate, there is genuine light at the end of the tunnel for us, but them. Fizzy pop anyone. a lot of people were saying at the start of the season that spurs have their usual trouble. loads of nice flair players but no physical strength. a very poor mans version of arsenal a couple of years back when they could be pushed about.

it's from at least the 70's. contains some slightly surreal lyrics about ............ "go left ,go left go left,right,left go left go right go pick up your stick go left go right go left" aye, I've heard me dad sing it (and sung it meself) multiple times. I don't think they sing that bit, which suggests the fuckers poached it. i think that ending bit with "go left" etc was also tagged onto the end of the "i was walking down regent street,guess which bastard i did meet" ditty

its "slapp your lass with a christmas tree" "whip patsy kensit till she bleeds.....yeehah" was always my fave.(complete with banner)

it's from at least the 70's. contains some slightly surreal lyrics about ............ "go left ,go left go left,right,left go left go right go pick up your stick go left go right go left"

the reserves was NEVER much of an indicator anyway

yeah it s hilarious.

who you calling a mackem ?

how do you mean "at the time" ?

how much are you putting on if the total win comes to 452 great british pounds ?

The system did something ours hasn't done since 1969, it delivered a trophy. Ramos is still a clueless bufoon. You're basing your opinion of his managerial skills entirely on the seven or so games played so far this season then I take it? Where you take it is not my concern. That a yes then? No. I said he'd fail in the Ramos thread as I got wind of the fact that they were going to sell their best 2 strikers from under his nose and replace them with s***. A manager who won't stand upto that or pays lip service to a system that has effectively destroyed Spurs hopes for a good season is a bufoon or has no self respect. That's the difference between him and Keegan I guess. That and winning half a dozen trophies. and to think that I'm told I ruin threads......... You said you were happy with Allardyce, when you could have told us about Ramos BTW What are you on about? He was simply adding to a discussion me and Parky had going on. selective clipping alert not to mention lacking a wider grasp of mandy's usual non contribution. Parky said Ramos is clueless. Ozzie countered that by saying that he's actually won some silverware in his time. That was indeed the point of my thread-ruining post -- two consecutive UEFA cups is not the work of a complete buffoon. And he's already won more at Spurs than any Toon manager since Joe Harvey. bottom of the premiership. The past counts for nothing, according to some, including you when you apply your usual hindsight. Are you saying he was better qualified than Dalglish ? I'm saying he's not a complete buffoon. I'm sorry if this point is too difficult for you. well, are you or are you not saying Ramos is a good candidate for the NUFC job ? If you are, on what basis ? If the basis is his past record, is it or is it not better than that of Dalglish ? If you think that because someone has won a trophy, it makes them a better candidate than Keegan, do you therefore think that the likes of Joe Royle, Maurice Evans, Bobby Gould, Steve McLaren and Brian Little were/are better managers than Keegan ? Take your time with this one. Hmm. I don't know how I can put this more clearly. I am saying that Ramos is not a complete buffoon. Nothing more, nothing less. Would it help if I typed more slowly for you? dont you get it ? ramos's team is below ours at the moment that means he's crap but a board who takes a team from 3rd to lower mid table isn't......got it yet ?

The system did something ours hasn't done since 1969, it delivered a trophy. Ramos is still a clueless bufoon. You're basing your opinion of his managerial skills entirely on the seven or so games played so far this season then I take it? Where you take it is not my concern. That a yes then? No. I said he'd fail in the Ramos thread as I got wind of the fact that they were going to sell their best 2 strikers from under his nose and replace them with s***. A manager who won't stand upto that or pays lip service to a system that has effectively destroyed Spurs hopes for a good season is a bufoon or has no self respect. That's the difference between him and Keegan I guess. That and winning half a dozen trophies. and to think that I'm told I ruin threads......... You said you were happy with Allardyce, when you could have told us about Ramos BTW What are you on about? He was simply adding to a discussion me and Parky had going on. selective clipping alert not to mention lacking a wider grasp of mandy's usual non contribution. Parky said Ramos is clueless. Ozzie countered that by saying that he's actually won some silverware in his time. That was indeed the point of my thread-ruining post -- two consecutive UEFA cups is not the work of a complete buffoon. And he's already won more at Spurs than any Toon manager since Joe Harvey. bottom of the premiership. The past counts for nothing, according to some, including you when you apply your usual hindsight. Are you saying he was better qualified than Dalglish ? I'm saying he's not a complete buffoon. I'm sorry if this point is too difficult for you. well, are you or are you not saying Ramos is a good candidate for the NUFC job ? If you are, on what basis ? If the basis is his past record, is it or is it not better than that of Dalglish ? If you think that because someone has won a trophy, it makes them a better candidate than Keegan, do you therefore think that the likes of Joe Royle, Maurice Evans, Bobby Gould, Steve McLaren and Brian Little were/are better managers than Keegan ? Take your time with this one. just a reminder. wouldn't want you to leave souness out of that list. do you think he should be in it ? this does appear to be the criteria that you are using ? Why don't you let Ozzie reply ? He tends to avoid such things like this, if it doesn't appeal to his hindsight ? Let him do it. that i'm using ? you are the one who uses cup wins as a guide and souness, the one appointment you've acknowledged was a mistake was a cup winner at blackburn and liverpool.

The system did something ours hasn't done since 1969, it delivered a trophy. Ramos is still a clueless bufoon. You're basing your opinion of his managerial skills entirely on the seven or so games played so far this season then I take it? Where you take it is not my concern. That a yes then? No. I said he'd fail in the Ramos thread as I got wind of the fact that they were going to sell their best 2 strikers from under his nose and replace them with s***. A manager who won't stand upto that or pays lip service to a system that has effectively destroyed Spurs hopes for a good season is a bufoon or has no self respect. That's the difference between him and Keegan I guess. That and winning half a dozen trophies. and to think that I'm told I ruin threads......... You said you were happy with Allardyce, when you could have told us about Ramos BTW What are you on about? He was simply adding to a discussion me and Parky had going on. selective clipping alert not to mention lacking a wider grasp of mandy's usual non contribution. Parky said Ramos is clueless. Ozzie countered that by saying that he's actually won some silverware in his time. That was indeed the point of my thread-ruining post -- two consecutive UEFA cups is not the work of a complete buffoon. And he's already won more at Spurs than any Toon manager since Joe Harvey. bottom of the premiership. The past counts for nothing, according to some, including you when you apply your usual hindsight. Are you saying he was better qualified than Dalglish ? I'm saying he's not a complete buffoon. I'm sorry if this point is too difficult for you. well, are you or are you not saying Ramos is a good candidate for the NUFC job ? If you are, on what basis ? If the basis is his past record, is it or is it not better than that of Dalglish ? If you think that because someone has won a trophy, it makes them a better candidate than Keegan, do you therefore think that the likes of Joe Royle, Maurice Evans, Bobby Gould, Steve McLaren and Brian Little were/are better managers than Keegan ? Take your time with this one. just a reminder. wouldn't want you to leave souness out of that list.

Honestly man I don't think you're going to change NE5's mind look. this keeps the saga lout off the streets. we are performing a public sevice if only it could be kept to one thread.

where does not backing crap managers get you ? similar league position but with more cash to give a good manager when you appoint one.

my point is pretty straightforward, madras. The Halls and Shepherd have been the best directors in the last 5 decades - by a mile - and their successors haven't got anywhere near matching them and don't look like they ever will. Despite you thinking it should all be so easy, thats one down. So how long do YOU think it will take ? shepherd/hall had been. you know i've never denied that were they great presiding over our drop from 3rd ? is finishing in the top half,not top 4, four times in their last 10 years the sign of a good board ? i find you very difficuilt to understand. the position we are in is,according to you,totally the fault of the current owners. yet the drop to 13th from 3rd,being one of the most exciting teams in the country to one of tje dullest wasn't the fault of the then owners. my point is more straightforward. they done well,then crap and i couldn't see them turning it round. I don't see why not. So long as you back your managers you can do it, if you don't back them then you have no chance at all. What are you talking about the last few years for ? Even their last few years have been better than Ashleys first [and hopefully last ] no no no. backing crap managers will not get you anywhere. why am i talking about the last few years for ? i've never heard of anyone being sacked or slagged off for being great now but s*** in the past. in every field you are judged on your recent past as to wether you stay or go. blips can be allowed for. i'd have let them off with the appointment of souness if they'd appointed a decent successor but they didn't and then they didn't again. ashleys first full season,allowing for shepherds managerial appointment was positionally better than the season before and football wise better than roeders last season and the souness era NUFC. I'm sure that football clubs don't deliberately think they are appointing crap managers. Where do you think not backing crap managers gets you What a shame you expect everybody to appoint winning managers, which is impossible. Mmmmmm i'm pretty sure most that i know of thought souness was a poor appointment the day he was appointed,same with roeder. the best (and i do try to look at things positivly) i could say the day we appointed allardyce was "at least we might be organised" in truth we knew the day they were appointed they were crap appointments.

my point is pretty straightforward, madras. The Halls and Shepherd have been the best directors in the last 5 decades - by a mile - and their successors haven't got anywhere near matching them and don't look like they ever will. Despite you thinking it should all be so easy, thats one down. So how long do YOU think it will take ? shepherd/hall had been. you know i've never denied that were they great presiding over our drop from 3rd ? is finishing in the top half,not top 4, four times in their last 10 years the sign of a good board ? i find you very difficuilt to understand. the position we are in is,according to you,totally the fault of the current owners. yet the drop to 13th from 3rd,being one of the most exciting teams in the country to one of tje dullest wasn't the fault of the then owners. my point is more straightforward. they done well,then crap and i couldn't see them turning it round. I don't see why not. So long as you back your managers you can do it, if you don't back them then you have no chance at all. What are you talking about the last few years for ? Even their last few years have been better than Ashleys first [and hopefully last ] no no no. backing crap managers will not get you anywhere. why am i talking about the last few years for ? i've never heard of anyone being sacked or slagged off for being great now but shit in the past. in every field you are judged on your recent past as to wether you stay or go. blips can be allowed for. i'd have let them off with the appointment of souness if they'd appointed a decent successor but they didn't and then they didn't again. ashleys first full season,allowing for shepherds managerial appointment was positionally better than the season before and football wise better than roeders last season and the souness era NUFC.

Yea I know! I think the Yorkshire ripper and Hitler were Mackems too!.

my point is pretty straightforward, madras. The Halls and Shepherd have been the best directors in the last 5 decades - by a mile - and their successors haven't got anywhere near matching them and don't look like they ever will. Despite you thinking it should all be so easy, thats one down. So how long do YOU think it will take ? shepherd/hall had been. you know i've never denied that were they great presiding over our drop from 3rd ? is finishing in the top half,not top 4, four times in their last 10 years the sign of a good board ? i find you very difficuilt to understand. the position we are in is,according to you,totally the fault of the current owners. yet the drop to 13th from 3rd,being one of the most exciting teams in the country to one of tje dullest wasn't the fault of the then owners. my point is more straightforward. they done well,then crap and i couldn't see them turning it round.

oh and ne5....who did liverpool and arsenal replace those two with and were they succesful. remember we replaced souness with roeder...........

teed..the cholera outbreak started in sunderland then spread cpountrywide. you infected us all ! the typhoid outbreak was in the late 1800's

You don't buy into that surely do you? It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously. that is the case with a lot of people. Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success. you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC Apology accepted. But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today. Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have. One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is. Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both? and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ? so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ? Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst? you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them. You can also go back decades and find clubs who have appoitned good managers and not backed them - sound familiar? How come ones accpetable yet the other isnt? Also noticed how you phrased is "managers that didnt win things" - how about appointing a competenet manager. Anyway i think we're digressing and i dont want to turn it into one of "those" threads. you can indeed. Joe Harvey, Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox would without a shadow of doubt done better at Newcastle with the Halls and Shepherd running the club than the people who were doing it at the time. Lee and Cox buggered off to clubs that would back him ie Everton, and Cox to Derby....then in the 3rd division but thats where he went, such was the depth of his justified anger and disappointment at his employers. This is the pattern you see through the game. Good managers move to clubs that back them, and leave ones that don't. I can name you examples stretching back decades, but shouldn't really have to mate. all 100% true and theres no denying it. but apppointing a poor manager,you're right lots of clubs have done it,but appointing another bad one as his successor shows poor judgement,to appoint a third off the spin is crap in the extreme and you would say it was the actions of a crap board if anywhere else. there is no doubt that Souness was a disastrous and poor choice, but Roeder had some merit - other clubs have promoted people from within - and Allardyce certainly had merit. The club had appointed - and attracted - trophy winners before, which is something they completely failed to do pre-1992. Whatever the ins and outs of all this - who is going to have a guess at how long it will take for this club to match the league positions and european qualifications achieved under the Halls and Shepherd ? And THAT is the 64 dollar question, and the only one that counts that we are interested in. Its what I've pointed out for ages, which was never acknowledged by other so called long term supporters who only bleated on about how "embarrassed" the poor little dears had been. roeder had some merit. did you want him appointed ? as for matching the league positions under the halls/shepherds.....does that mean finishing in the top half 4 times in 10 years ? just thought i'd bring this up as you try to make it sound like we were constant top 4 and in the champs lge every season. I can give you examples of how the other clubs that always make successful appointments have made similar if that helps ? Or will you reject it because it doesn't suit your opinion ? go on. 3 off the trot as bad as souness,roeder and allardyce given a starting point of 5th top and recently in the champs lge 2nd stage. then i'll ask if it wasn't constant crap management by those boards and i'll also ask if those boards could complain if they got slagged off by their clubs fans ? Bruce Rioch, Roy Evans, Wilf McGuiness, Colin Harvey, Christian Gross.........there's one for each of the old "big 5" ie clubs at the beginning of the premiership, for starters. Without hardly thinking. IIRC Rioch was only at Arsenal for a year and left them in a much better position than he found them. And Roy Evans was hardly a failure. Taking over from the shambles Souness left, he had four top-4 finishes in the years he was there in sole charge when the team hadn't been anywhere near that high for 3 years. why were they both sacked then ? BTW, Roeder was 7th. A position only achieved twice in 30 years before 1992. And not at all since Hall and Shepherd left. err we improved in our last full season on that of shepherd/halls last full season. macfaul achieved 8th in a larger top flight.......we were still a poor team.

You don't buy into that surely do you? It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously. that is the case with a lot of people. Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success. you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC Apology accepted. But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today. Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have. One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is. Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both? and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ? so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ? Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst? you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them. You can also go back decades and find clubs who have appoitned good managers and not backed them - sound familiar? How come ones accpetable yet the other isnt? Also noticed how you phrased is "managers that didnt win things" - how about appointing a competenet manager. Anyway i think we're digressing and i dont want to turn it into one of "those" threads. you can indeed. Joe Harvey, Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox would without a shadow of doubt done better at Newcastle with the Halls and Shepherd running the club than the people who were doing it at the time. Lee and Cox buggered off to clubs that would back him ie Everton, and Cox to Derby....then in the 3rd division but thats where he went, such was the depth of his justified anger and disappointment at his employers. This is the pattern you see through the game. Good managers move to clubs that back them, and leave ones that don't. I can name you examples stretching back decades, but shouldn't really have to mate. all 100% true and theres no denying it. but apppointing a poor manager,you're right lots of clubs have done it,but appointing another bad one as his successor shows poor judgement,to appoint a third off the spin is crap in the extreme and you would say it was the actions of a crap board if anywhere else. there is no doubt that Souness was a disastrous and poor choice, but Roeder had some merit - other clubs have promoted people from within - and Allardyce certainly had merit. The club had appointed - and attracted - trophy winners before, which is something they completely failed to do pre-1992. Whatever the ins and outs of all this - who is going to have a guess at how long it will take for this club to match the league positions and european qualifications achieved under the Halls and Shepherd ? And THAT is the 64 dollar question, and the only one that counts that we are interested in. Its what I've pointed out for ages, which was never acknowledged by other so called long term supporters who only bleated on about how "embarrassed" the poor little dears had been. roeder had some merit. did you want him appointed ? as for matching the league positions under the halls/shepherds.....does that mean finishing in the top half 4 times in 10 years ? just thought i'd bring this up as you try to make it sound like we were constant top 4 and in the champs lge every season. I can give you examples of how the other clubs that always make successful appointments have made similar if that helps ? Or will you reject it because it doesn't suit your opinion ? go on. 3 off the trot as bad as souness,roeder and allardyce given a starting point of 5th top and recently in the champs lge 2nd stage. then i'll ask if it wasn't constant crap management by those boards and i'll also ask if those boards could complain if they got slagged off by their clubs fans ? Bruce Rioch, Roy Evans, Wilf McGuiness, Colin Harvey, Christian Gross.........there's one for each of the old "big 5" ie clubs at the beginning of the premiership, for starters. Without hardly thinking. but they weren't off the trot at the same club were they. as i've already said,probably every club has made a bad appointment,some may have made 2,but whenn it;s 3 is has to be crap management at boardroom level (in fact reply no 399 at the bottom of page 16) well...eer........Everton and Spurs were most definitely above us in 1991 pre Hall and Shepherd ? I don't see them doing too much since, they haven't qualified for europe and played in it anywhere near us. i would certainly say that both those clubs have out performed us since 2004 infact i think spurs have finished above us each season and everton in all bar one. We are talking about the tenure of the Halls and Shepherd running the club, not just the last 3 years. You're just cherry picking. no and you know i'm not. you know i think they done well till about the 2004 mark then they blew it big style with crap appointments and that in my opinion i couldn't see them returning us to the heights they themselves had helped us attain. when i'm at work if i have a s*** year or two i can't defend myself by saying "aye but 10 yrs ago i was fanatstic"

I'll tell you if I'm looking forward to it or not after Monday night! Pressure and expectations do funny things to mackems. so does soap and water While just 13 per cent of those at London Euston were shamed with dirty hands, a whopping 44 per cent at Newcastle were guilty of "go-and-not-wash-and-go". London chaps proved the least water-shy, with a mere six per cent testing positive while a worrying 53 per cent of Geordies tested were caught brown-handed. Now dont put your fingers in your mouth!!... a whopping 44 per cent at newcastle. by implication it's as likely to be people coming into newcastle as locals. have you seen how full the train is coming in from sunderland ? have you heard about sunderlands history with typhoid ? What in 1831. the above article is current!! not 200 years old and it clearly states "GEORDIES"... Ps. I think you`ll find it wasnt Typhoid,but cholera,the same cholera that swept through the rest of country. pps.dont bite your finger nails. yip. i hear they took names and addersses to prove it aswell.

You don't buy into that surely do you? It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously. that is the case with a lot of people. Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success. you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC Apology accepted. But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today. Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have. One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is. Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both? and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ? so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ? Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst? you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them. You can also go back decades and find clubs who have appoitned good managers and not backed them - sound familiar? How come ones accpetable yet the other isnt? Also noticed how you phrased is "managers that didnt win things" - how about appointing a competenet manager. Anyway i think we're digressing and i dont want to turn it into one of "those" threads. you can indeed. Joe Harvey, Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox would without a shadow of doubt done better at Newcastle with the Halls and Shepherd running the club than the people who were doing it at the time. Lee and Cox buggered off to clubs that would back him ie Everton, and Cox to Derby....then in the 3rd division but thats where he went, such was the depth of his justified anger and disappointment at his employers. This is the pattern you see through the game. Good managers move to clubs that back them, and leave ones that don't. I can name you examples stretching back decades, but shouldn't really have to mate. all 100% true and theres no denying it. but apppointing a poor manager,you're right lots of clubs have done it,but appointing another bad one as his successor shows poor judgement,to appoint a third off the spin is crap in the extreme and you would say it was the actions of a crap board if anywhere else. there is no doubt that Souness was a disastrous and poor choice, but Roeder had some merit - other clubs have promoted people from within - and Allardyce certainly had merit. The club had appointed - and attracted - trophy winners before, which is something they completely failed to do pre-1992. Whatever the ins and outs of all this - who is going to have a guess at how long it will take for this club to match the league positions and european qualifications achieved under the Halls and Shepherd ? And THAT is the 64 dollar question, and the only one that counts that we are interested in. Its what I've pointed out for ages, which was never acknowledged by other so called long term supporters who only bleated on about how "embarrassed" the poor little dears had been. roeder had some merit. did you want him appointed ? as for matching the league positions under the halls/shepherds.....does that mean finishing in the top half 4 times in 10 years ? just thought i'd bring this up as you try to make it sound like we were constant top 4 and in the champs lge every season. I can give you examples of how the other clubs that always make successful appointments have made similar if that helps ? Or will you reject it because it doesn't suit your opinion ? go on. 3 off the trot as bad as souness,roeder and allardyce given a starting point of 5th top and recently in the champs lge 2nd stage. then i'll ask if it wasn't constant crap management by those boards and i'll also ask if those boards could complain if they got slagged off by their clubs fans ? Bruce Rioch, Roy Evans, Wilf McGuiness, Colin Harvey, Christian Gross.........there's one for each of the old "big 5" ie clubs at the beginning of the premiership, for starters. Without hardly thinking. but they weren't off the trot at the same club were they. as i've already said,probably every club has made a bad appointment,some may have made 2,but whenn it;s 3 is has to be crap management at boardroom level (in fact reply no 399 at the bottom of page 16) well...eer........Everton and Spurs were most definitely above us in 1991 pre Hall and Shepherd ? I don't see them doing too much since, they haven't qualified for europe and played in it anywhere near us. i would certainly say that both those clubs have out performed us since 2004 infact i think spurs have finished above us each season and everton in all bar one.

You don't buy into that surely do you? It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously. that is the case with a lot of people. Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success. you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC Apology accepted. But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today. Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have. One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is. Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both? and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ? so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ? Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst? you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them. You can also go back decades and find clubs who have appoitned good managers and not backed them - sound familiar? How come ones accpetable yet the other isnt? Also noticed how you phrased is "managers that didnt win things" - how about appointing a competenet manager. Anyway i think we're digressing and i dont want to turn it into one of "those" threads. you can indeed. Joe Harvey, Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox would without a shadow of doubt done better at Newcastle with the Halls and Shepherd running the club than the people who were doing it at the time. Lee and Cox buggered off to clubs that would back him ie Everton, and Cox to Derby....then in the 3rd division but thats where he went, such was the depth of his justified anger and disappointment at his employers. This is the pattern you see through the game. Good managers move to clubs that back them, and leave ones that don't. I can name you examples stretching back decades, but shouldn't really have to mate. all 100% true and theres no denying it. but apppointing a poor manager,you're right lots of clubs have done it,but appointing another bad one as his successor shows poor judgement,to appoint a third off the spin is crap in the extreme and you would say it was the actions of a crap board if anywhere else. there is no doubt that Souness was a disastrous and poor choice, but Roeder had some merit - other clubs have promoted people from within - and Allardyce certainly had merit. The club had appointed - and attracted - trophy winners before, which is something they completely failed to do pre-1992. Whatever the ins and outs of all this - who is going to have a guess at how long it will take for this club to match the league positions and european qualifications achieved under the Halls and Shepherd ? And THAT is the 64 dollar question, and the only one that counts that we are interested in. Its what I've pointed out for ages, which was never acknowledged by other so called long term supporters who only bleated on about how "embarrassed" the poor little dears had been. roeder had some merit. did you want him appointed ? as for matching the league positions under the halls/shepherds.....does that mean finishing in the top half 4 times in 10 years ? just thought i'd bring this up as you try to make it sound like we were constant top 4 and in the champs lge every season. I can give you examples of how the other clubs that always make successful appointments have made similar if that helps ? Or will you reject it because it doesn't suit your opinion ? go on. 3 off the trot as bad as souness,roeder and allardyce given a starting point of 5th top and recently in the champs lge 2nd stage. then i'll ask if it wasn't constant crap management by those boards and i'll also ask if those boards could complain if they got slagged off by their clubs fans ? Bruce Rioch, Roy Evans, Wilf McGuiness, Colin Harvey, Christian Gross.........there's one for each of the old "big 5" ie clubs at the beginning of the premiership, for starters. Without hardly thinking. but they weren't off the trot at the same club were they. as i've already said,probably every club has made a bad appointment,some may have made 2,but whenn it;s 3 is has to be crap management at boardroom level (in fact reply no 399 at the bottom of page 16)