madras

examples ? Remember, Toonlass, Blefescu made up something about me the other day ..... hot on the heels of accusing me of doing precisely the same thing when I hadn't. My last post is still correct, and how I see it Dave. None of the quotes in my sig are made up either BTW That is wrong and you know it. You have continually made insinuations about me and how long I have been going to the games. You could also attempt to spell my user name right too. For your information I have enclosed a link which explains what being a troll on the internet is. This makes no insinuation that anyone is one on here, its just to clear up any misunderstandings on what a troll may be. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling As I asked further down, please point out where I said "the last year of the Shepherd and Hall era was brilliant". Or admit that its a lie, or an untruth at best. Precisely the point I'm making. I hope nobody asks us to settle this by pm when you blocked me for attempting to do it already ........ http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,60869.msg1772415.html#msg1772415 err you've made up plenty of stuff about me. in particular that all i want is ashley to balance the books and/or make a profit when i've actually pointed out loads of times that i've no problem with the club having debt .

it could easily have been much much better.

NE5 has stopped dodging the my questions and is now just flat out ignoring them. loads of them on the previous page just met with a stony silence. come on NE5 i know you can come out with some vague riddle to at least look like a reply. where was this backing to come from ? if backing the manager doesn't work is it possible to keep on backing with the monies of others indefinitly ? so it doesn't matter who you get in as manager as long as you keep giving them more and more money to spend regardless of the financial position you are in ?

I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004. they made a terrible appointment in Souness [which again, numerous people backed to succeed, and spend the money that he did], but it doesn't change the fact that their basic idea of how success is gained was correct. The basic idea in my opinion is appointing a good manager to spend that money. Whereas you think managerial success is down to luck. Liverpool ended up with Benitez, Villa with O'Neill, and we got Souness and Roeder. That isnt luck in my opinion. Well, it isn't you or me who chooses the managers. What do you think of Chelsea appointing Grant and Scolari and sacking them both after short periods ? Unlucky ? And what do you think of all the clubs who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? Unlucky ? Get real mate. Get some perspective. I'm not taking the piss, this is perspective. Nobody appoints winning managers all the time, its impossible, and I bet that when Wenger and Ferguson leave their respective clubs, mistakes will be made at those clubs too. so you were ok with appointing kinnear ? not my decision. But he didn't back him, just like Keegan. He can appoint anybody he likes, but if he doesn't give him the tools to do the job properly, then it won't get done properly. It won't get done properly if you appoint a s*** manager either. Who is spending the money is as important giving them money. aye sure. Abramovic must be a right tit appointing someone like Scolari, how did they not get it right every time, just like everybody else does ? Have you thought about sending an email to the owners of all the 87 clubs that didn't qualify for europe as oftern as we did telling them that they shouldn't be appointing the wrong manager so often ? Sorry like, but there isn't any other way to get this message across. so it doesn't matter who you get in as manager and keep giving them more and more money to spend regardless of the financial position you are in ?

the more i look at it the problem got beyond control when the likes of emre,duff and parker came here. we were saying they'd come here because everton and spurs couldn't afford their wages..........turns out we couldn't either.

I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004. they made a terrible appointment in Souness [which again, numerous people backed to succeed, and spend the money that he did], but it doesn't change the fact that their basic idea of how success is gained was correct. The basic idea in my opinion is appointing a good manager to spend that money. Whereas you think managerial success is down to luck. Liverpool ended up with Benitez, Villa with O'Neill, and we got Souness and Roeder. That isnt luck in my opinion. Well, it isn't you or me who chooses the managers. What do you think of Chelsea appointing Grant and Scolari and sacking them both after short periods ? Unlucky ? And what do you think of all the clubs who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? Unlucky ? Get real mate. Get some perspective. I'm not taking the piss, this is perspective. Nobody appoints winning managers all the time, its impossible, and I bet that when Wenger and Ferguson leave their respective clubs, mistakes will be made at those clubs too. so you were ok with appointing kinnear ? not my decision. But he didn't back him, just like Keegan. He can appoint anybody he likes, but if he doesn't give him the tools to do the job properly, then it won't get done properly. where was this backing to come from ? if backing the manager doesn't work is it possible to keep on backing with the monies of others indefinitly ? (do you see what i did there ?)

Most of Burra's team. chris basham at bolton

I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004. they made a terrible appointment in Souness [which again, numerous people backed to succeed, and spend the money that he did], but it doesn't change the fact that their basic idea of how success is gained was correct. The basic idea in my opinion is appointing a good manager to spend that money. Whereas you think managerial success is down to luck. Liverpool ended up with Benitez, Villa with O'Neill, and we got Souness and Roeder. That isnt luck in my opinion. Well, it isn't you or me who chooses the managers. What do you think of Chelsea appointing Grant and Scolari and sacking them both after short periods ? Unlucky ? And what do you think of all the clubs who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? Unlucky ? Get real mate. Get some perspective. I'm not taking the piss, this is perspective. Nobody appoints winning managers all the time, its impossible, and I bet that when Wenger and Ferguson leave their respective clubs, mistakes will be made at those clubs too. so you were ok with appointing kinnear ?

I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004. they made a terrible appointment in Souness [which again, numerous people backed to succeed, and spend the money that he did], but it doesn't change the fact that their basic idea of how success is gained was correct. wrong...so very very wrong unless the basic idea is to lose money years on end, being unable to make ends meet yet still borrowing money. where was the money going to come from ?

I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. but didn't you say allardyce probably wouldn't have got that sort of backing from fred.........takes us back to my question that you accidentally overlooked.

There'd probably be more, but 34 is the maximum return... It's another case od "damned if you do..." I'm afraid, he'll be back in a week. there'll be a light in the window for my wandering boy :'(

rep....bastia. loads of goalkeeping performances from our time in the 2nd division. bob bolder and nigel batch in particular.

I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? where as almost everyone thinks ashley has made a balls of it and fred and co done well then fucked up.

rep....bastia.

only bothered about one north east club.

Like every other question in this thread, don't expect an answer to that. the answers are always there, its just that people aren't bright enough to see them. Are you and others like you still insistent that Ashleys prudency was the way forward ? the answers are always there ? well all the letters are there you just have to pick them out of various threads, re-arrange and hey presto.....an honest straight forward answer. the reply you usually give is that other clubs have debt or you've got to spend to compete.neither of which answers my question.

thats ma boy

york city on a couple of occasions in 1989-90ish southport (6-0) league cup.

see my previous post to jj7. Quite amazing what you lot who are intent on defending Ashley to give ammunition to your desire to demean what the Halls and Shepherd did will stoop to.........still, I can't even pm you can I and discuss it off board, because you've blocked me for disagreeing with you Who is defending Ashley? You know, and ignore my thoughts on Ashley purely because I think that Shepherd and Hall had already started us on this journey before they sold up. Therefore as I do not agree 100% with you I must be an Ashley sympathiser despite what I say. The part in bold is irrelevent tbh. NE5 point is quite simple imo, i dont think it needs that much discussion as it does. He argues good chairmen back the managers which they appoint, this backing in the past has got us to Europe. It is not a fool proof way to get there but it does make him a good chairmen. The appointment of managers is never guaranteed success. NE5 admits himself that Souness, Allardyce didnt work. They were appointed for the right reasons though, and it was never in Shepherds mind that it would be counter constructive. We were in debt but most clubs are, especially the successful ones. No one knows the state of the finances really, he didnt sell up because was running out of options in fact he fought against the sale by Ashley. Thats a brief summary i have no idea, why that generates so much discussion on this board. thats right mate, its all so straightforward, it beggars belief the amount of people who have spent all this time arguing differently. debt......haven't we already done this to death ? briefly. it's ok to carry and create debt if you are in a finacially decent position......being in a position where you've cut everything to the bone and still spending 30mill a year more than you are bringing in is not a good position. NE5....do you think we should keep borrowing and racking up debt year on year until successful or bankrupt ? can you answer the question instead of given some opaque reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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