madras

i've seen us win twice and draw once there.................3 defeats.

So why didn't Keegan walk out from day one? He was suckered into believing them like most on here, until the penny dropped? so as player after player came in without his say so he didn't twig. not sure i'd want a manager that thick......................SO DON'T MAKE OUT HE WAS.

physio room hasn't got beye or enrique on it's injured list with a possible return of gutierrez. Kinnear has confirmed on .cock that this weekend will come too early for Beye and Jonas, but Enrique should play. not good enough. i'm not believing it unless louise taylor types it.

physio room hasn't got beye or enrique on it's injured list with a possible return of gutierrez.

Well at least they've had their week's free publicity. they haven't really as no-one knew who they were in the first place.

thats what i think but i'm not stoopid enough to post it. DOH !

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you. I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny. aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us. You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing s*** at that point. This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective. comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not s***] under the McKeags and his cronies. Thats also a perspective. Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past. If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact. the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate. Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too. I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear. If you read any of my previous posts going back some while now, I have said like you, that I would love an owner who would back Keegan with the funds he requires. Unlike Shepherd I wouldn't even demand a trophy or a CL spot at the end of it. Hopefully we aren't too far from that day right now. It won't be Shepherd though, he's trying to buy some club in Spain for £40m. Well, it doesn't bother me if the new owner has green hair, tells the world that the mackems are s****, goes to brothels 7 days a week, launders drugs, and hires top lawyers to get him off speeding tickets, so long as he backs his managers and understands that its gaining success on the field that matters, and thats his main requirement which he must do to the best of his ability. We are miles away from a CL spot and matching the s**** old board mate. the s**** old board of 2004 onwards ? you mean the board that finished 7th ? LIke the board -pre 1992 who only finished in the top 7 twice in over 40 years ? Good comparions, aye. It should tell you what a s**** board really is mcfaul 8th in a league with more teams in compares prettty well. must've been a fantastic board would you also say that Bob Murray was a good chairman because the mackems also finished in good positions twice under Peter Reid ? [ie twice in 20 years or so of Murray] the first time they finished 7th he was doing well,after that he done poorly. kind of ironic isn't it ?

tell me ne5 ..how did you feel that season we finished 7th ?. you see i see things this way. remember the season we finished 5th with robson ? we were only 1 place behind the previous season but the gap between us that season and the one before was massive,more than one place. even though that 7th place was there most of the season was looking over our shoulders at relegation. thats why souness got sacked. that 7th place and the football played is nothing to be proud of and even if the finishing position looked decent it was far from it and did you feel optimistic on the back of it ?

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you. I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny. aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us. You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing s*** at that point. This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective. comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not s***] under the McKeags and his cronies. Thats also a perspective. Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past. If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact. the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate. Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too. I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear. If you read any of my previous posts going back some while now, I have said like you, that I would love an owner who would back Keegan with the funds he requires. Unlike Shepherd I wouldn't even demand a trophy or a CL spot at the end of it. Hopefully we aren't too far from that day right now. It won't be Shepherd though, he's trying to buy some club in Spain for £40m. Well, it doesn't bother me if the new owner has green hair, tells the world that the mackems are s****, goes to brothels 7 days a week, launders drugs, and hires top lawyers to get him off speeding tickets, so long as he backs his managers and understands that its gaining success on the field that matters, and thats his main requirement which he must do to the best of his ability. We are miles away from a CL spot and matching the s**** old board mate. the s**** old board of 2004 onwards ? you mean the board that finished 7th ? LIke the board -pre 1992 who only finished in the top 7 twice in over 40 years ? Good comparions, aye. It should tell you what a s**** board really is mcfaul 8th in a league with more teams in compares prettty well. must've been a fantastic board

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you. I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny. aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us. You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing s*** at that point. This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective. comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not s***] under the McKeags and his cronies. Thats also a perspective. Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past. If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact. the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate. Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too. I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear. thats the point. no-one is denying the most succesful period was with keegan as manager and hall/shepherd for the board. this to me proves there is no "personality driven agenda". the vast majority on here will say when fat fred done good he done good,but he stopped doing good. unfortunatly the only person who is guilty of a "personality driven agenda" is yourself as you never gave ashley a chance. It was in Ashleys own hands to get me and others to "give him a chance". Unfortunately, it was obvious [to me] pretty early on that the setup and the approach was wrong. So don't tell me that I should support someone I think is the wrong person to own the club that is getting it spectacularly wrong. Even though my heart told me I hoped that I would be wrong, I'll admit that much which contributed to my deciding to pay for 3 years season tickets,although it wasn't the overriding factor. and thats how i've felt from 2004 onwards 3 years, under the old board, and one under the new one, one of which we finished 7th and got into europe. So disappointing isn't it ? Diddums. Simply terrible. how did you feel that season. reminded me on mcfaul finishing 8th....like we were really going places. oh and what happened the other two years. more inmportantly ..what happened the last season,only as good as your last season and all that ?

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you. I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny. aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us. You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing s*** at that point. This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective. comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not s***] under the McKeags and his cronies. Thats also a perspective. Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past. If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact. the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate. Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too. I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear. If you read any of my previous posts going back some while now, I have said like you, that I would love an owner who would back Keegan with the funds he requires. Unlike Shepherd I wouldn't even demand a trophy or a CL spot at the end of it. Hopefully we aren't too far from that day right now. It won't be Shepherd though, he's trying to buy some club in Spain for £40m. Well, it doesn't bother me if the new owner has green hair, tells the world that the mackems are s****, goes to brothels 7 days a week, launders drugs, and hires top lawyers to get him off speeding tickets, so long as he backs his managers and understands that its gaining success on the field that matters, and thats his main requirement which he must do to the best of his ability. We are miles away from a CL spot and matching the s**** old board mate. the shite old board of 2004 onwards ?

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you. I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny. aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us. You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing s*** at that point. This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective. comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not s***] under the McKeags and his cronies. Thats also a perspective. Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past. If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact. the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate. Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too. I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear. thats the point. no-one is denying the most succesful period was with keegan as manager and hall/shepherd for the board. this to me proves there is no "personality driven agenda". the vast majority on here will say when fat fred done good he done good,but he stopped doing good. unfortunatly the only person who is guilty of a "personality driven agenda" is yourself as you never gave ashley a chance. It was in Ashleys own hands to get me and others to "give him a chance". Unfortunately, it was obvious [to me] pretty early on that the setup and the approach was wrong. So don't tell me that I should support someone I think is the wrong person to own the club that is getting it spectacularly wrong. Even though my heart told me I hoped that I would be wrong, I'll admit that much which contributed to my deciding to pay for 3 years season tickets,although it wasn't the overriding factor. and thats how i've felt from 2004 onwards

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you. I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny. aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us. You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing s*** at that point. This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective. comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not s***] under the McKeags and his cronies. Thats also a perspective. Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past. If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact. the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate. Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too. I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear. thats the point. no-one is denying the most succesful period was with keegan as manager and hall/shepherd for the board. this to me proves there is no "personality driven agenda". the vast majority on here will say when fat fred done good he done good,but he stopped doing good. unfortunatly the only person who is guilty of a "personality driven agenda" is yourself as you never gave ashley a chance.

ploy.......do you think this was ashleys ploy all along. to buy and sell quickish for a profit ? play.......bought a toy he couldn't quite control and is fortunate to get out without getting burned ?

As it was his mistake to overlook them, I don't agree that they are a valid reason for curtailing his spending plans. That's all I'm saying. No, but they did exist. Shepherd is to blame for them being there, Ashley is to blame for not researching this when he bought the club and then trying to use them as an excuse when he should have known about them from the start and worked a budget out around them. I wouldn't say Shepherd is to blame for them being there as such. Most premiership clubs buy players in installments these days. It's hardly anyone's fault that they are there, but it is someones fault if he doesn't research what he's getting himself in for. I'm not going to get into a big discussion about this because finance and business is certainly not my forte but I've seen several pieces of evidence to suggest we overspent on certain players. As the man at the top, Shepherd is responsible for this in the same way Ashley is ultimately responsible for this debacle. We may have overspent, but that's not the issue here is it. The issue is that we're still paying off installments of certain deals (not that we spent too much in the first place). That is how a lot of deals are structured (i.e. for Owen we would likely have spread the cost out over 4 seasons). If Ashley is to stupid to do his research and find this out, then it's not our problem (or Shepherds). if so does that mean that the debt situation was worse than it appeared ?

the woman is saying "look man,fuck off"

What does that make Spurs? I think Spurs are a tougher win for most clubs, we practically give the points away, the recent cup game showed that both teams were bad but we just edged it for the crappy team challenge. Their problems are much easily solved than ours too IMO, sack Ramos bring in someone who has a clue and they'll be fine. Unfortunately our problems are a lot deeper than just the managerial position. i'm clinging on to beye,enrique,gutierrez,martins coming back. even guthrie,barton and viduka. i honestly think with 3 of those playing we'd have beat hull and blackburn. let me see now........the old board raised standards so people like you harped on and whinged when we didn't qualify for europe........now they have gone you are settling for just staying up with a minute squad of players and you are making excuses ? You couldn't make it up. were your expectations lowered between 2004-2007 ? mine were. i was expecting a champls lge push in 2004,by 2007 i was looking at safety first and hopefully sneak an intertoto place and the expectations were getting lower each year. all was hunky dory to you i expect ?

What does that make Spurs? I think Spurs are a tougher win for most clubs, we practically give the points away, the recent cup game showed that both teams were bad but we just edged it for the crappy team challenge. Their problems are much easily solved than ours too IMO, sack Ramos bring in someone who has a clue and they'll be fine. Unfortunately our problems are a lot deeper than just the managerial position. i'm clinging on to beye,enrique,gutierrez,martins coming back. even guthrie,barton and viduka. i honestly think with 3 of those playing we'd have beat hull and blackburn. let me see now........the old board raised standards so people like you harped on and whinged when we didn't qualify for europe........now they have gone you are settling for just staying up with a minute squad of players and you are making excuses ? You couldn't make it up. the standards they raised were exactly the standards we had no chance of aspiring by the time they eventually left. were you in a coma 2004 to 2007 ? qualified for europe only once in 3 years. Diddums. nillwall qualified for europe so they must've been great back then eh ?

Of course it was about money, stop trying to change history. If anybody doesn't know then have a look here as this is how I remember it, it looks like at least two of us are wrong. http://www.toonarama.co.uk/managers/dinnisfall.html mick also said : see the season before the link you provided. re the strike, and also this http://www.toonarama.co.uk/seasons/1970s/1976-77/1976-77_diary_jan.html http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=56230.msg1515143#msg1515143 No reply I take it ? mackems.gif mackems.gif that board must've been a success though,european success,two cup finals and at the time you're talking about recently finished 5th. clearly, you have no idea, just like mick. You're not having some sort of a relationship with him are you, defending him like this ..... or as he has clearly been shown to be spouting bollocks, does he still have his tail between his legs... You're another person who insisted we would be so much better off without the fat b****** aren't you. wouldn't say insisted but given the choice of where i could see us headed with that board i thought it was worth the risk. what i do and i'll keep doing when you spout "champs lge.....top 5 in europe etc" is balance things up by pointing they appointed souness,roeder and allarcyce and were taking us backwards on the pitch whilst racking up debt off it. well, europe only once in 3 years is pretty catastrophic like, were you in a coma for those 3 years ? We're going backwards now, and fast too, since the fat b****** left. We will soon be in the position we were when the fat b****** found us, 16 years, a revamped stadium, and getting on for 100 games in europe later....... Shame you keep answering when mick is the one being asked. europe once in 3 years. not even automatic entry but the intertoto which you have to apply for. i suppose technically mcfauls 8th place finish was as high as roeders because there were more teams in the top division then. still doesn't mean that either of those teams were any good. remember 2 of those euro outings were on the same basis that millwall had theirs. ie a poor team being fa cup runners up. in short getting into the uefa cup or intertoto does not mean you are a good team. about answering when you were asking mick ,but that comment just confirms what i already thought in that you aren't bothered about any truth but are more concerned about being seen to win an argument. to use an oft used term of yours..."pathetic"

What does that make Spurs? I think Spurs are a tougher win for most clubs, we practically give the points away, the recent cup game showed that both teams were bad but we just edged it for the crappy team challenge. Their problems are much easily solved than ours too IMO, sack Ramos bring in someone who has a clue and they'll be fine. Unfortunately our problems are a lot deeper than just the managerial position. i'm clinging on to beye,enrique,gutierrez,martins coming back. even guthrie,barton and viduka. i honestly think with 3 of those playing we'd have beat hull and blackburn. let me see now........the old board raised standards so people like you harped on and whinged when we didn't qualify for europe........now they have gone you are settling for just staying up with a minute squad of players and you are making excuses ? You couldn't make it up. the standards they raised were exactly the standards we had no chance of aspiring by the time they eventually left. were you in a coma 2004 to 2007 ?

Of course it was about money, stop trying to change history. If anybody doesn't know then have a look here as this is how I remember it, it looks like at least two of us are wrong. http://www.toonarama.co.uk/managers/dinnisfall.html mick also said : see the season before the link you provided. re the strike, and also this http://www.toonarama.co.uk/seasons/1970s/1976-77/1976-77_diary_jan.html http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=56230.msg1515143#msg1515143 No reply I take it ? mackems.gif mackems.gif that board must've been a success though,european success,two cup finals and at the time you're talking about recently finished 5th. clearly, you have no idea, just like mick. You're not having some sort of a relationship with him are you, defending him like this ..... or as he has clearly been shown to be spouting bollocks, does he still have his tail between his legs... You're another person who insisted we would be so much better off without the fat b****** aren't you. wouldn't say insisted but given the choice of where i could see us headed with that board i thought it was worth the risk. what i do and i'll keep doing when you spout "champs lge.....top 5 in europe etc" is balance things up by pointing they appointed souness,roeder and allarcyce and were taking us backwards on the pitch whilst racking up debt off it.

What does that make Spurs? I think Spurs are a tougher win for most clubs, we practically give the points away, the recent cup game showed that both teams were bad but we just edged it for the crappy team challenge. Their problems are much easily solved than ours too IMO, sack Ramos bring in someone who has a clue and they'll be fine. Unfortunately our problems are a lot deeper than just the managerial position. i'm clinging on to beye,enrique,gutierrez,martins coming back. even guthrie,barton and viduka. i honestly think with 3 of those playing we'd have beat hull and blackburn.

Of course it was about money, stop trying to change history. If anybody doesn't know then have a look here as this is how I remember it, it looks like at least two of us are wrong. http://www.toonarama.co.uk/managers/dinnisfall.html mick also said : see the season before the link you provided. re the strike, and also this http://www.toonarama.co.uk/seasons/1970s/1976-77/1976-77_diary_jan.html http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=56230.msg1515143#msg1515143 No reply I take it ? mackems.gif mackems.gif that board must've been a success though,european success,two cup finals and at the time you're talking about recently finished 5th.

No, actually. Tell me more. the only club the mackems ever beat in europe

Celebrated by kissing the badge when scoring for Sunderland against us. then left how many days later ?