madras

He did just before the impact, still Gomes got the ball before brining down Carrick. It was the wrong decision to give a penalty but in my opinion nowhere near the scandal people make it out to be. If I'd made that decision in my game today I'd probably have been beaten up. under 9's ?

but can't expensive football just borrow more money from, err....ah aaaaaaaaaand we're off! THAT'S MY LINE !

oh dear. wonder what the likes of mick, mandiarse, baggio [predictably disappered and frantically searching for some club, anywhere,that has won 2 or 3 games think of this. And Dave too, not forgetting Dave, as whatever I post, he';ll dress it up, compain I dont reply to him [because IIm trying to be diplomactic] i very much doubt they'll be too bothered.

and van der sar nominated for player of the year.

but he did.

most of the correct points are relevant, but have been said before by me and a small handful of others Dave. Its just that fewer people are disagreeing with them now. it's true you know. few people disagree that fred and co done well for a while. it's also true that few disagree that he left us in a mess. no, a mess is where Mr Ashley will leave us, not where the Halls and Shepherd left us - which was a european qualification only 12 months before left and an established top premiership club. But I suppose its all about perspective isn't it. The only thing they did was be victims of their own higher ambitions and expectations. euro qualification 12 month earlier...so what ? a year is a long time, ipswich went down a year after qualifying for europe,obviously they must have been good as they were a year before. the clubs finances were in a mess. thats why belgravia and polygon legged it. rising debts built on the back of contracts the club couldn't get out of without making losses on the transfer fees. did someone mention that we were paying our sponsors ?. how clever is that ? never mind. we can't get by day to day. we agree on something though. they were victims of their own ambition. (so was george reynolds) George Reynolds didn't achieve anything. true but he was a victim of his ambition. and i've said in the past that if fred had lead NUFC to 5 consecutive league titles then 3 years later had us going backwards and looking like he couldn't change it , i'd say "sorry fred, time to go" Well, lets hope Ashley can at least match the puny achievement of qualifying for europe more than anybody else but 4 teams. if he does i hope he doesn't fuck it up afterwards.

not surprised at what ? That 37% of season ticket holders won't renew ? I'm not in the slightest. Still, the plan to restore the finances of the club, is on course it would appear. what about all those other clubs with a supposed 30 odd % not gonna renew ? that survey you are using as vindication has man utd (champs league semi fina;lists...likely league winners) on 36%. engage brain before thumping on keyboard eh ? what about all those clubs with debts who aren't going to end up like Leeds ? Including the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal ....... engage brain for thumping on keyboard, and you've had years to work this one out. what has any of that to do with the 36% of man utd supporters in a dodgy survey who are gonna give up their tickets. oh can you think of a reason or two why arseal and liverpool have differing finances to us ? i can you are digging a deeper hole every time you post. I'm not. For some strange reason you appear to think everybody but us does things correctly all the time. wrong. i do think that when clubs make mistakes they end up paying for them. as you keep saying. Well they paid for it, and you have what you want which is a new owner. no. the company made the mistakes and the company is still paying for them.

most of the correct points are relevant, but have been said before by me and a small handful of others Dave. Its just that fewer people are disagreeing with them now. it's true you know. few people disagree that fred and co done well for a while. it's also true that few disagree that he left us in a mess. no, a mess is where Mr Ashley will leave us, not where the Halls and Shepherd left us - which was a european qualification only 12 months before left and an established top premiership club. But I suppose its all about perspective isn't it. The only thing they did was be victims of their own higher ambitions and expectations. euro qualification 12 month earlier...so what ? a year is a long time, ipswich went down a year after qualifying for europe,obviously they must have been good as they were a year before. the clubs finances were in a mess. thats why belgravia and polygon legged it. rising debts built on the back of contracts the club couldn't get out of without making losses on the transfer fees. did someone mention that we were paying our sponsors ?. how clever is that ? never mind. we can't get by day to day. we agree on something though. they were victims of their own ambition. (so was george reynolds) George Reynolds didn't achieve anything. true but he was a victim of his ambition. and i've said in the past that if fred had lead NUFC to 5 consecutive league titles then 3 years later had us going backwards and looking like he couldn't change it , i'd say "sorry fred, time to go"

most of the correct points are relevant, but have been said before by me and a small handful of others Dave. Its just that fewer people are disagreeing with them now. it's true you know. few people disagree that fred and co done well for a while. it's also true that few disagree that he left us in a mess. no, a mess is where Mr Ashley will leave us, not where the Halls and Shepherd left us - which was a european qualification only 12 months before left and an established top premiership club. But I suppose its all about perspective isn't it. The only thing they did was be victims of their own higher ambitions and expectations. euro qualification 12 month earlier...so what ? a year is a long time, ipswich went down a year after qualifying for europe,obviously they must have been good as they were a year before. the clubs finances were in a mess. thats why belgravia and polygon legged it. rising debts built on the back of contracts the club couldn't get out of without making losses on the transfer fees. did someone mention that we were paying our sponsors ?. how clever is that ? never mind. we can't get by day to day. we agree on something though. they were victims of their own ambition. (so was george reynolds)

not surprised at what ? That 37% of season ticket holders won't renew ? I'm not in the slightest. Still, the plan to restore the finances of the club, is on course it would appear. what about all those other clubs with a supposed 30 odd % not gonna renew ? that survey you are using as vindication has man utd (champs league semi fina;lists...likely league winners) on 36%. engage brain before thumping on keyboard eh ? what about all those clubs with debts who aren't going to end up like Leeds ? Including the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal ....... engage brain for thumping on keyboard, and you've had years to work this one out. what has any of that to do with the 36% of man utd supporters in a dodgy survey who are gonna give up their tickets. oh can you think of a reason or two why arseal and liverpool have differing finances to us ? i can you are digging a deeper hole every time you post. I'm not. For some strange reason you appear to think everybody but us does things correctly all the time. wrong. i do think that when clubs make mistakes they end up paying for them.

most of the correct points are relevant, but have been said before by me and a small handful of others Dave. Its just that fewer people are disagreeing with them now. it's true you know. few people disagree that fred and co done well for a while. it's also true that few disagree that he left us in a mess.

not surprised at what ? That 37% of season ticket holders won't renew ? I'm not in the slightest. Still, the plan to restore the finances of the club, is on course it would appear. what about all those other clubs with a supposed 30 odd % not gonna renew ? that survey you are using as vindication has man utd (champs league semi fina;lists...likely league winners) on 36%. engage brain before thumping on keyboard eh ? what about all those clubs with debts who aren't going to end up like Leeds ? Including the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal ....... engage brain for thumping on keyboard, and you've had years to work this one out. what has any of that to do with the 36% of man utd supporters in a dodgy survey who are gonna give up their tickets. oh can you think of a reason or two why arseal and liverpool have differing finances to us ? i can you are digging a deeper hole every time you post. i'll answer it for you, just i'm off to bed soon.

not surprised at what ? That 37% of season ticket holders won't renew ? I'm not in the slightest. Still, the plan to restore the finances of the club, is on course it would appear. what about all those other clubs with a supposed 30 odd % not gonna renew ? that survey you are using as vindication has man utd (champs league semi fina;lists...likely league winners) on 36%. engage brain before thumping on keyboard eh ? what about all those clubs with debts who aren't going to end up like Leeds ? Including the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal ....... engage brain for thumping on keyboard, and you've had years to work this one out. what has any of that to do with the 36% of man utd supporters in a dodgy survey who are gonna give up their tickets. oh can you think of a reason or two why arseal and liverpool have differing finances to us ? i can you are digging a deeper hole every time you post.

na...he's the forum scratching post. long may he continue. (i know fans from other clubs watch in on this. they are increduthingy)

not surprised at what ? That 37% of season ticket holders won't renew ? I'm not in the slightest. Still, the plan to restore the finances of the club, is on course it would appear. what about all those other clubs with a supposed 30 odd % not gonna renew ? that survey you are using as vindication has man utd (champs league semi fina;lists...likely league winners) on 36%. engage brain before thumping on keyboard eh ?

aye. crazy eight bonkers ain't he. even better with spanish commentary even though i dont understand a word.

the feeling is........"BROADER STRIPES"

Agreed. I Still love this one. http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll71/ludwigfalkman/magpiesmaglia.jpg http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,52238.msg1374448.html#msg1374448 thats the fella. i'd even go for the white stripe on the sleeve being under arm. making the black arm bolder but still striped.

Turn right out of Kings X and there is a Scream (yellow card) pub 3/4 mins walk toward Euston that will have it on. Not the best but will def have it on. It has some trains related name. "the brown tunnel" maybe ?

I really wish I could get pissed up beforehand. why can't you ? Driving up. TV move = drive up early, get pissed,tell mrs and/or employer someone nicked the cushions off the drivers seat so you couldn't seee and had to stop over

I really wish I could get pissed up beforehand. I don't drink but might have to force it down me for the first time in my life on Monday! you've been watching us sober the last few years ? i don't know wether to offer you my sympathy or cut you off as a complete loon.

I really wish I could get pissed up beforehand. why can't you ?

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ? and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option. i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ? i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas. I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years. The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over. a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely. barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions) Right not, but it was different two years ago. We’ll never know what position we’d be in now if Hall and Shepherd still owned the club, there’s just no way of knowing. However we do know the club wouldn’t have had to find £45m to pay off the redevelopment loan in one go if they’d stayed, which would surely have eased the financial pressure. IMO Hall & Shepherd did a lot more good than bad. Establishing NUFC in the PL and building a stadium worthy of the support for a debt of £70m is pretty good going. They understood the club. They knew if they provided a decent team 50,000 would fill the ground. Ashley was banking on 50,000 turning up to watch total crap. Criticism of the previous owners may be valid but trying to pin the current disaster on them is way off the mark. 2 years ago was after the wages ratio started getting taking off. ask yourself, mounting debts,dodgy business plan (re outgoings in particular wages),poor on the field performance. in my opinion the banks would help keep the club going (day to day financing) but wouldn't stump up for major investment. can't actually think of a decent reason why they would.How about, if NUFC got relegated the banks would probably never get any of their money back? Didn’t Ashley extend the club’s overdraft by £10m recently? that goes for every club in relegation trouble. should the banks pay for all of them to buy more players to help them avoid relegation ? what about all those clubs who have gone under ? why didn't the banks bail them out to avoid losing their money ? more of a question is why ashley didn't spend some of his money to protect his investment as he stands to lose more than the banks would have ? if ashley did extend the overdraft it was as likely to be as a way of paying the day to day costs. How many of those clubs can guarantee 50,000 every week if the home team is half decent? This debate is one that will never be resolved, as both sides are right. There can be no doubt Shepherd faced difficulties on the money front, but no evidence that can prove the club was up s*** creek without a paddle. There’s also no doubt the club made significant progress under the Hall/Shepherd. When SJH took over he made his objectives clear. NUFC should be one of the foremost clubs in the first division, playing in one of the best stadia in the country, and should make a successful return to European football. He delivered all three, and when we left we were only three decent players away from getting back into Europe. SJH had vision. Ashley doesn’t. how many can........50,000 etc ? but how many of those clubs are so far from making a profit or being best in a position not to risk it's cash and that has to be a one with it's finances in order. think of all the times we've been in the rich list based purely on turnover ? no-one denies what SJH and even fred done for the club but unfortunatly fred couldn't keep it going and ended like a gambler in a casino chasing his losses, we all know how that ends. SJH had vision (many would say it actually doug and fred) and his gambles (mainly keegan, who didn't need much bankrolling to really get us moving) paid off, freds didn't (souness,roeder and big spending leading to poorer returns on the pitch). now we are reaping those failed gambles.

if results over the weekend go our way the atmosphere should, hopefully, be electric at the start of this. i'm out early afternoon, not going into this thing sober.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ? and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option. i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ? i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas. I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years. The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over. a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely. barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions) Right not, but it was different two years ago. We’ll never know what position we’d be in now if Hall and Shepherd still owned the club, there’s just no way of knowing. However we do know the club wouldn’t have had to find £45m to pay off the redevelopment loan in one go if they’d stayed, which would surely have eased the financial pressure. IMO Hall & Shepherd did a lot more good than bad. Establishing NUFC in the PL and building a stadium worthy of the support for a debt of £70m is pretty good going. They understood the club. They knew if they provided a decent team 50,000 would fill the ground. Ashley was banking on 50,000 turning up to watch total crap. Criticism of the previous owners may be valid but trying to pin the current disaster on them is way off the mark. 2 years ago was after the wages ratio started getting taking off. ask yourself, mounting debts,dodgy business plan (re outgoings in particular wages),poor on the field performance. in my opinion the banks would help keep the club going (day to day financing) but wouldn't stump up for major investment. can't actually think of a decent reason why they would.How about, if NUFC got relegated the banks would probably never get any of their money back? Didn’t Ashley extend the club’s overdraft by £10m recently? that goes for every club in relegation trouble. should the banks pay for all of them to buy more players to help them avoid relegation ? what about all those clubs who have gone under ? why didn't the banks bail them out to avoid losing their money ? more of a question is why ashley didn't spend some of his money to protect his investment as he stands to lose more than the banks would have ? if ashley did extend the overdraft it was as likely to be as a way of paying the day to day costs.