madras

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 ?

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'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 ?

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.

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. and what did the supporters think of their boards when they appointed bad'un after bad'un after bad'un ?

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 ?

Werent they the mortal enemies of Byker grove? Yeah who were based at the mitre

thats what happens when dannt baker is in charge....or we can talk for ever about a foul or offside decision. dan mate, you may well be a cockney wanker, but you are probably the 2nd best thing in football after NUFC.

most threads tend to drift into other areas Dave, but continue thinking its only when I'm here by all means. here we go again apart from the fact that you just love it its strange how people disagree with me then say the same things themselves or agree with others when they say it. Whatever. Time for some shut eye. Don't you go to work in the morning ? na....spent the last 6 days getting up at 4am. now my body is used to staying awake.....spending all tomorrow in bed though. and you know well the points on which i agree with you and those on which i disagree with you.

most threads tend to drift into other areas Dave, but continue thinking its only when I'm here by all means. here we go again

i do, i think fred and allardyce would have took us down. at least we have a stay of execution. Bollocks not at all

i do, i think fred and allardyce would have took us down. at least we have a stay of execution.

i'm sensing kat adie announcing sunderland was so nice she fled to beirut.

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

It's certainly not all NE5's fault, but it does seem rather strange that he only ever seems to turn up in these kind of bullshit 'arguments'. If he's nothing new or worthwhile to say, he should say nothing at all. Oh I know, certainly not all his fault, one or two others are just as bad really. He's the one with the 'catchphrases' though. to be honest my argument with NE5 has just hit the point where we are just saying the same things over and over again to each other. at least me and the ignorant git haven't reached the petty insult stage yet.

What a shame big stupid Mike didn't consult you first before offering him a handsome contract. I would have told him that if he followed England so closely then why appoint someone who he would have seen was a failure first hand, not only that but someone who resigned while sat on the floor crying in Wembley toilets. We'll see if Ramos and this DOF bollocks ever gets to 90 minutes from the premiership title And while Ramos was managing a team to it's second Uefa cup Keegan was sat in his shed cutting clowns out of MDF with his black and decker jigsaw. by that criteria, McLaren [the beaten finalist] also won the League Cup. Joe Royle won the FA Cup. So did Bobby Gould. We will see if Ramos and this DOF bollocks ever gets to 90 minutes from the premiership title. If not for Keegan reviving Newcastle, you would possibly be supporting Bristol Rovers. you can't do that man. you brag about 2 fa cup final appearances as proof of how great we were. No, just that we had a board that tried to compete. And had those cup finals [ie 2 not one] and more european qualifications over the period of time to back it up. no...those cup finals mean about as much as cradiffs final or millwalls. tell me where we competed in the league in those seasons ? the proof is in the long term league positions. You tell me when we last qualified for europe more than anyone bar 4 teams in a 15 year time span ? we haven't no-one denies that,you know that. the point that you know i always make and you never quite answer is that i saw us goiung backwards from then and not looking like turning it round. in which fields are your successes over the period 3yrs ago to 15 yrs ago allowed to cover the mistakes they made since then ?

What a shame big stupid Mike didn't consult you first before offering him a handsome contract. I would have told him that if he followed England so closely then why appoint someone who he would have seen was a failure first hand, not only that but someone who resigned while sat on the floor crying in Wembley toilets. We'll see if Ramos and this DOF bollocks ever gets to 90 minutes from the premiership title And while Ramos was managing a team to it's second Uefa cup Keegan was sat in his shed cutting clowns out of MDF with his black and decker jigsaw. by that criteria, McLaren [the beaten finalist] also won the League Cup. Joe Royle won the FA Cup. So did Bobby Gould. We will see if Ramos and this DOF bollocks ever gets to 90 minutes from the premiership title. If not for Keegan reviving Newcastle, you would possibly be supporting Bristol Rovers. you can't do that man. you brag about 2 fa cup final appearances as proof of how great we were. No, just that we had a board that tried to compete. And had those cup finals [ie 2 not one] and more european qualifications over the period of time to back it up. no...those cup finals mean about as much as cradiffs final or millwalls. tell me where we competed in the league in those seasons ?

What a shame big stupid Mike didn't consult you first before offering him a handsome contract. I would have told him that if he followed England so closely then why appoint someone who he would have seen was a failure first hand, not only that but someone who resigned while sat on the floor crying in Wembley toilets. We'll see if Ramos and this DOF bollocks ever gets to 90 minutes from the premiership title And while Ramos was managing a team to it's second Uefa cup Keegan was sat in his shed cutting clowns out of MDF with his black and decker jigsaw. by that criteria, McLaren [the beaten finalist] also won the League Cup. Joe Royle won the FA Cup. So did Bobby Gould. We will see if Ramos and this DOF bollocks ever gets to 90 minutes from the premiership title. If not for Keegan reviving Newcastle, you would possibly be supporting Bristol Rovers. you can't do that man. you brag about 2 fa cup final appearances as proof of how great we were.

What a shame big stupid Mike didn't consult you first before offering him a handsome contract. I would have told him that if he followed England so closely then why appoint someone who he would have seen was a failure first hand, not only that but someone who resigned while sat on the floor crying in Wembley toilets. We'll see if Ramos and this DOF bollocks ever gets to 90 minutes from the premiership title we'll see if souness ,roeder or allardyce ever get there aswell ?

looks like the thread about the deleted thread has been deleted because the deleted one has been undeleted now that is a great post Comfortably his best ever in fact. undisputable fact too we all agree how boring is that ?

looks like the thread about the deleted thread has been deleted because the deleted one has been undeleted now that is a great post

dave deleted it

a few of todays rags reporting that any deal wouldn't get done till the end of the season as the imposed deadline set by ashley has passed. aye righto,that'd be the reason.

Unlike you with Ashley I gave Shepherd years to get things right, I didn't make my mind up the day he took over. The stadium debt was nowhere near £100 million but you seem to gloss over that in attempt to whitewash the issue, laughable. Nobody claims that Ashley paid off debt out of the goodness of his heart, he paid off some of the debt because he had to and the rest was paid off to reduce the effect it was having on the club. Instead of the banks taking £millions it remained within the club. You also think you were right about Ashley all along just because Keegan has walked, not for the first time. What did you say when he first walked out and didn't come back under Hall & Shepherd? The ex board were rightly slated for the direction they were taking the club, something Sir John recognised when selling his shares, he said they had run out of ideas. It's just a pity he didn't understand that before appointing Souness, if he had we might not be having this argument now as the new owner wouldn't have been starting out from such a low position in a very competitive league. I'm not whitewashing anything. The majority of people on here, including you, have made out that Ashley paid off these debts as if it was an act goodwill, ambition, or whatever. Look at your quote in my sig for your response to how you viewed his actions would be in this area. You gave Shepherd time. Aye, you went to 2 FA Cup Finals and regular european football while you gave him time. If Ashley provided a club that was even aiming for half of that, then he would still have the goodwill of the supporters and wouldn't have lost his manager. Speaking of who, you aren't taking the piss out of Keegan now are you, in your desperation to defend the man who hasn't "embarrassed" you ? For info, he "walked out" after 5 years [shame he didn't last even 1 year under Ashley] and when he walked out the first time, the chairman was in fact Sir John Hall, the man who was forced into appointing Keegan in the first place by his fellow directors, yet you still give him the credit. Speaking of debts, it has been said often that all the major clubs have debts, and well documented by certain people that it is not such a big deal with the income coming into the club and revenue streams. Do you think that manu are in deep s*** because they have a debt of something in excess of over half a billion ? Do you think they are worried about it or thier supporters are worried about it ? You and people like you only focussed on this for one reason. You wanted something to beat Shepherd with. Well, now Ashley has took it on, and as you all harped on about running the club "like a business", well now you have it. We didn't waste any money in the summer, or last January. It didn't take much to see that this was what was going to happen, having seen and heard the utter bollocks that started coming out of the club this time a year ago. Anyone who had been there before would have done. i thought he had paid off the debt. if he has underwritten it it's till better than the debt that wasn't underwritten previously. obviously not happy that he said he'd paid it off when he may not have. re other clubs having debt...those that make a profit can usually handle the debt. i wouldnt be too worried about NUFC having a billion pounds worth of debt if we made operating profit enough to finance it. if you have debt and are making continual losses then you have to turn it round or you are f***ed. yet again with the previous regime i saw no sign that things were going to turn round.

NE5 capital of fredland