madras

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great. i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something. i can see a pattern forming. so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did. mackems.gif The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart. I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at. I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart. Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner. my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over. i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

If your reference was two fold then it's a load of s**** two fold. The post had nothing to do with the thread title because it was in response to a direct question from fading star, which was quoted. As for defending Ashley, I posted facts not opinion, if that is defending him then that's life. you don't say. So sometimes threads drift away from the title? Fancy that. Surprised nobody scolded you for it . Whats your take on the FACT that the Halls and Shepherd have been the best owners of the club for the last 50 miles by miles based on FACTUAL LEAGUE POSITIONS. Thats FACT not OPINION by the way. you know what ne5. that is completely 100% true....................doesn't mean by the end they weren't going backwards on the pitch and losing money hand over fist off it and not looking as if they could turn it round.

even more sobering......http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/feb/02/paul-birch-aston-villa In short, Paul Birch,46, ex of villa and wolves died this week due to cancer.

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great. i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something. i can see a pattern forming.

£20.3 million and before you ask, £54.5 million. Edit That was loss before tax, operating loss for the two years was £50.7 million. 2nd edit Where was that coming from without Ashley? I’ve already suggested some ways Shepherd could have raised some extra cash, but would concede that finding £60m to cover outgoings and strengthen the squad would have been difficult. What has to be concern is that for all Ashley’s cost cutting measures our operating loss was still £20m. the major cost was wages (nigh on 70% of turnover i think) the summer may well see that change.

We have problems with cash, Ashley is lending the club money to pay day to day bills, not just the loans. If Ashley wasn't here and giving us loans then who would have loaned us money for this purpose? I see. When you said debts what you really meant was day to day bills. Which are debts. gonna try that one with my bank.......they aren't really debts they are day to day bills.

the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, not Shepherd, and my reply is quite clear. You can ask mandiarse to respond now. Ok, well lets say Shepherd had bought the club, and not Ashley. Would he have led the club back to Champions League? I answered your question about the Magpie group so its your turn to answer mine. but he hasn't bought the club, and he never owned it. The Halls AND Shepherd, on the other hand, DID. And have been the best owners in the last 50 years by far. So had Ashley not bought the club where do you think we would be now. I reckon more or less in the same league position. no I don't think so. I don't doubt for a moment that the old regime would have taken far more positive steps to even avoid relegation than Ashley has done, never mind try to stave of this so called "mediocrity" [for those who haven't seen it yet]. Where do you think the money would have come for to pay for these "positive steps"? We were mortgaged up to the hilt as it was. The extra TV money. Advance season ticket deals. Third party investment. A share flotation. Increasing season ticket prices. Selling the naming rights for the Gallowgate would have raised few million. Not sacking Big Sam another £6m. Not appointing a director of football a million a year. Not sacking Keegan £8m. Then there’s extra incoming money for finishing higher up the table, and the better ticket sales that came with better results. You have to remember that we’ve spent nothing on new players since Ashley took over. Finding £25-30m for squad strengthening over a couple of season shouldn’t be that difficult for a well established business with a large and loyal ’customer base’. some good thinking there. imo though only third party investment or a share floatation are go-ers to any considerable ammount. (ie imo allardyce could well have took us down,the jury is out over keegans "sacking"nnaming rights would add some but not a great deal ,i wouldn't be averse to flogging the name of the ground as we'd still call it SJP,season tickets are pricey enough and we shouldn't be budgeting on future league positions a la leeds) finding 25-30 mill isn't the point, it's when you've done that and not improved....how many more seasons can you do it ? on a side note has anyone worked out how much extra the tv deal is per year over the old deal and when does it come into effect ?

See my sig' for the only comment on a major decision that I could find. Well, thats not very observant of you, as I've posted a comment by his son a couple of times, one in response to you, which suggests something slightly different. Still, you don't have much of a track record regrarding seeing things that don't suit your opinion. oh the irony

For the last time. If you back your managers and have a big fanbase like we do, then you can qualify for the Champions League, they had proved they knew how to do it. So. In accordance with your prediction which is in my sig, do you think Ashley will do better or even match them, and do you think that an unbacked Joe Kinnear is more qualified to do it than a backed manager who has won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards. A 4 year old could answer this. it's a lottery though isn't it so appointing a manager with those credentials is pointless...no ? Well, Chelsea thought they had a sure fire winner when they appointed Phil Scolari, unfortunately its only us who appoint managers that don't succeed isn't it ? Maybe we should have stuck with Ardiles, and not built up the support that led to the bigger spending and the debts ....... no. you appoint the best manager you can (do souness or roeder,allardyce or kinnear fall into this bracket ?), it will not always work out ,just like with players but i'll bet you don't look on players that way. a certainty it aint but it aint a lottery either. honest and straight forward answer,fancy giving it a go (both of you) ? well, if isn't a bit of a lottery, on that basis, what would YOU call it ? bit of a lottery ? what does that mean ? when did you sneak the "bit" in ? a lottery would mean you may aswell choose anyone at random as opposed to using your judgemnt to get what you consider to be the best available. alex ferguson has bought some duffers in his time, does that mean buying players is a lottery ? no it means his judgement isn't infallable however the better managers get things right more than the poor managers. so you admit that you can apply certain criteria which might work but equally might not work, making it very difficult even bordering on the impossible to get the 2 or 3 winning managers every time that all the other pesky clubs are also trying to find before we do ? So what would you call it, exactly ? i'd call it judgement. and it's not "equally" at all. if it were you shouldn't complain about the players this regime have brought in for exactly the same reason. it's not even a question of the 2 or 3 winning managers as the poor quality of what they appointed. think of your reaction when sunderland appointed wilkinson. did you think hey that might work out or did you chuckle to yourself ? now then, care to answer if you should keep on borrowing indefinitly while already making losses till either you achieve success or go bankrupt ? shall i help your reply.just type A.B or C. A) you'll never compete without spending bigger than we are (this doesn't answer my question) B) the succesful clubs have debt (we've covered this and it doesn't answer my question) C) we have a fan base big enough to be spending more (doesn't answer my question as we are making a loss)

For the last time. If you back your managers and have a big fanbase like we do, then you can qualify for the Champions League, they had proved they knew how to do it. So. In accordance with your prediction which is in my sig, do you think Ashley will do better or even match them, and do you think that an unbacked Joe Kinnear is more qualified to do it than a backed manager who has won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards. A 4 year old could answer this. it's a lottery though isn't it so appointing a manager with those credentials is pointless...no ? Well, Chelsea thought they had a sure fire winner when they appointed Phil Scolari, unfortunately its only us who appoint managers that don't succeed isn't it ? Maybe we should have stuck with Ardiles, and not built up the support that led to the bigger spending and the debts ....... no. you appoint the best manager you can (do souness or roeder,allardyce or kinnear fall into this bracket ?), it will not always work out ,just like with players but i'll bet you don't look on players that way. a certainty it aint but it aint a lottery either. honest and straight forward answer,fancy giving it a go (both of you) ? well, if isn't a bit of a lottery, on that basis, what would YOU call it ? bit of a lottery ? what does that mean ? when did you sneak the "bit" in ? a lottery would mean you may aswell choose anyone at random as opposed to using your judgemnt to get what you consider to be the best available. alex ferguson has bought some duffers in his time, does that mean buying players is a lottery ? no it means his judgement isn't infallable however the better managers get things right more than the poor managers.

For the last time. If you back your managers and have a big fanbase like we do, then you can qualify for the Champions League, they had proved they knew how to do it. So. In accordance with your prediction which is in my sig, do you think Ashley will do better or even match them, and do you think that an unbacked Joe Kinnear is more qualified to do it than a backed manager who has won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards. A 4 year old could answer this. it's a lottery though isn't it so appointing a manager with those credentials is pointless...no ? Well, Chelsea thought they had a sure fire winner when they appointed Phil Scolari, unfortunately its only us who appoint managers that don't succeed isn't it ? Maybe we should have stuck with Ardiles, and not built up the support that led to the bigger spending and the debts ....... no. you appoint the best manager you can (do souness or roeder,allardyce or kinnear fall into this bracket ?), it will not always work out ,just like with players but i'll bet you don't look on players that way. a certainty it aint but it aint a lottery either. honest and straight forward answer,fancy giving it a go (both of you) ?

For the last time. If you back your managers and have a big fanbase like we do, then you can qualify for the Champions League, they had proved they knew how to do it. So. In accordance with your prediction which is in my sig, do you think Ashley will do better or even match them, and do you think that an unbacked Joe Kinnear is more qualified to do it than a backed manager who has won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards. A 4 year old could answer this. it's a lottery though isn't it so appointing a manager with those credentials is pointless...no ?

..and yet you do the same and not answer his question - pure hypocrisy. doesn't make any difference. I've answered all NE5's questions to me honestly and straightforwardly but he wont do me the curtesy of replying to my question in a similar manner.

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight ? You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ? Are we still on this question? he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies. it's not the only question on here that goes unanswered though is it ? do you keep on borrowing while making a loss and debts mounting until you are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? he's a bit shy with the answer. the truth being he knows you can't borrow indefinitly but to say so would break his argument. so instead he'll reply (not answer) that you won't compete without spending (whilst neglecting to say where the money will come from,maybe throwing in a reference to other clubs in debt of which none are actually in our position) I've answered you. You don't know if the next player will be the one that gives you great value, you don't deliberately buy a player that doesn't give good value, and re the question that mandiarse refuses to answer because he KNOWS he has agreed with at least 4 of those 6 appointments, is that you don't deliberately appoint managers who you think will fail either. The worst scenario is the one that Ashley is taking which is not to take the risks to compete, so stand by for a dose of REAL mediocrity, far worse than what you previously thought it was. i wonder if anyone else on here thinks that is an answer to the question i asked ?

i dont think the global recession has had that much effect on our position.....except ashley couldn't find a buyer And that HASN'T affected our position ? What if a new owner had installed a really good manager and bought some decent players in Jan ? Also, wait until you see the take-up of season tickets next season before you claim that the Recession hasn't had an effect on NUFC...you may get a nasty surprise . i did say "except ashley couldn't find a buyer" and in my next post i did put a time marker on it by saying "so far"

i dont think the global recession has had that much effect on our position.....except ashley couldn't find a buyer It's also had a big effect on Ashley's personal fortune and his other businesses. it has but ashley said he would put 20mil a year in before the crunch hit and it seems thats what he's doing. Since he put £100M in after buying the club, is that supposed to cover the first five years of his ownership? no. it means he's put in more than he said so more evidence that the credit crunch hasn't really affected his running of nufc so far.

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight ? You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ? Are we still on this question? he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies. it's not the only question on here that goes unanswered though is it ? do you keep on borrowing while making a loss and debts mounting until you are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? he's a bit shy with the answer. the truth being he knows you can't borrow indefinitly but to say so would break his argument. so instead he'll reply (not answer) that you won't compete without spending (whilst neglecting to say where the money will come from,maybe throwing in a reference to other clubs in debt of which none are actually in our position)

i dont think the global recession has had that much effect on our position.....except ashley couldn't find a buyer It's also had a big effect on Ashley's personal fortune and his other businesses. it has but ashley said he would put 20mil a year in before the crunch hit and it seems thats what he's doing.

i dont think the global recession has had that much effect on our position.....except ashley couldn't find a buyer

They have got to be taking the piss. Can't believe I'm saying this but, after reading that pukey drivvel I think I preferred it when they just hurled insults and sang "sack the board" Are we going to have a "join hands for Keegan" moment ? That would certainly enhance the protest experience. Damned if they do.... How will you contribute to raising the desire to speak in a unified voice? By coming on here and arguing with the naysaying divvies. I'm afraid you've drifted a bit "off message" here. Please internalise the core message "unity is strength" and adjust your hemline accordingly. So there's nothing whatsoever they can do that you'll approve of? Why not do what the Magpie Group did to oust McKeag? Find an investor who will challenge Ashley like the Magpie Group championed John Hall? That way the NUSC would not just be carping hopelessly but actually providing an alternative solkution. the 2 major points with this one, is that nobody else is on the horizon yet to do what Sir John did, and Malcolm Dix, and also that the situation is nowhere near as dire as the one under McKeag, Westwood - yet - whatever anyone who wasn't there may say to the contrary. This is why I have posted a few times that the NUSC need to get a profile figure on board to get them publicity, is GOOD publicity, because there is no doubt that their motives are spot on. and ironically their aims are "anyone but ashley". very much in the "anyone but fred" vein. I think if you have followed my posts as seems to be the case, you will know that I have said - incredibly - that we actually could do worse than Ashley. The odds are about the same as those of finding someone who would do better than the Halls and Shepherd. wrong......the whole point is in someone to take us forward from where we are NOW. if ashley had won us the league 5 years a go and we were now in this position your logic (?) says to keep him there and support him. but he didn't. If however he had shown that he knew how to be successful, then I would have a belief that he could do it again, yes. I think this is your point, is it not ? no. it's always taken more than "they've done it before" to convince me " they can do it again".....no matter who it is. Have it your way. The Halls and Shepherd paid the price, I hope you are pleased with the result i don't think the result would have been much different (except i think allardyce could well have took us down)

They have got to be taking the piss. Can't believe I'm saying this but, after reading that pukey drivvel I think I preferred it when they just hurled insults and sang "sack the board" Are we going to have a "join hands for Keegan" moment ? That would certainly enhance the protest experience. Damned if they do.... How will you contribute to raising the desire to speak in a unified voice? By coming on here and arguing with the naysaying divvies. I'm afraid you've drifted a bit "off message" here. Please internalise the core message "unity is strength" and adjust your hemline accordingly. So there's nothing whatsoever they can do that you'll approve of? Why not do what the Magpie Group did to oust McKeag? Find an investor who will challenge Ashley like the Magpie Group championed John Hall? That way the NUSC would not just be carping hopelessly but actually providing an alternative solkution. the 2 major points with this one, is that nobody else is on the horizon yet to do what Sir John did, and Malcolm Dix, and also that the situation is nowhere near as dire as the one under McKeag, Westwood - yet - whatever anyone who wasn't there may say to the contrary. This is why I have posted a few times that the NUSC need to get a profile figure on board to get them publicity, is GOOD publicity, because there is no doubt that their motives are spot on. and ironically their aims are "anyone but ashley". very much in the "anyone but fred" vein. I think if you have followed my posts as seems to be the case, you will know that I have said - incredibly - that we actually could do worse than Ashley. The odds are about the same as those of finding someone who would do better than the Halls and Shepherd. wrong......the whole point is in someone to take us forward from where we are NOW. if ashley had won us the league 5 years a go and we were now in this position your logic (?) says to keep him there and support him. but he didn't. If however he had shown that he knew how to be successful, then I would have a belief that he could do it again, yes. I think this is your point, is it not ? no. it's always taken more than "they've done it before" to convince me " they can do it again".....no matter who it is.

They have got to be taking the piss. Can't believe I'm saying this but, after reading that pukey drivvel I think I preferred it when they just hurled insults and sang "sack the board" Are we going to have a "join hands for Keegan" moment ? That would certainly enhance the protest experience. Damned if they do.... How will you contribute to raising the desire to speak in a unified voice? By coming on here and arguing with the naysaying divvies. I'm afraid you've drifted a bit "off message" here. Please internalise the core message "unity is strength" and adjust your hemline accordingly. So there's nothing whatsoever they can do that you'll approve of? Why not do what the Magpie Group did to oust McKeag? Find an investor who will challenge Ashley like the Magpie Group championed John Hall? That way the NUSC would not just be carping hopelessly but actually providing an alternative solkution. the 2 major points with this one, is that nobody else is on the horizon yet to do what Sir John did, and Malcolm Dix, and also that the situation is nowhere near as dire as the one under McKeag, Westwood - yet - whatever anyone who wasn't there may say to the contrary. This is why I have posted a few times that the NUSC need to get a profile figure on board to get them publicity, is GOOD publicity, because there is no doubt that their motives are spot on. and ironically their aims are "anyone but ashley". very much in the "anyone but fred" vein. I think if you have followed my posts as seems to be the case, you will know that I have said - incredibly - that we actually could do worse than Ashley. The odds are about the same as those of finding someone who would do better than the Halls and Shepherd. wrong......the whole point is in someone to take us forward from where we are NOW. if ashley had won us the league 5 years a go and we were now in this position your logic (?) says to keep him there and support him.

They have got to be taking the piss. Can't believe I'm saying this but, after reading that pukey drivvel I think I preferred it when they just hurled insults and sang "sack the board" Are we going to have a "join hands for Keegan" moment ? That would certainly enhance the protest experience. Damned if they do.... How will you contribute to raising the desire to speak in a unified voice? By coming on here and arguing with the naysaying divvies. I'm afraid you've drifted a bit "off message" here. Please internalise the core message "unity is strength" and adjust your hemline accordingly. So there's nothing whatsoever they can do that you'll approve of? Why not do what the Magpie Group did to oust McKeag? Find an investor who will challenge Ashley like the Magpie Group championed John Hall? That way the NUSC would not just be carping hopelessly but actually providing an alternative solkution. the 2 major points with this one, is that nobody else is on the horizon yet to do what Sir John did, and Malcolm Dix, and also that the situation is nowhere near as dire as the one under McKeag, Westwood - yet - whatever anyone who wasn't there may say to the contrary. This is why I have posted a few times that the NUSC need to get a profile figure on board to get them publicity, is GOOD publicity, because there is no doubt that their motives are spot on. and ironically their aims are "anyone but ashley". very much in the "anyone but fred" vein.

Join the club. how much ?

he wants to be debt free for the savings not paying the interest will make. paying up front just means you are more likely to live within your means. He wants to be debt free cause HE STILL WANTS TO SELL THE CLUB. NO OTHER REASON. well there's a newsflash. and in the meantime being debt free lowers the running costs. Being debt free means being unable to compete. as does failing on your gamble to get success by borrowing. you're not very good at this WUMming are you ? You'd need to ask the top 6-8 clubs about that. most operate at a profit which makes it easier to finance debt,those that aren't backed by a sugar daddy that is. (f*** it if we are having to go through where i was with NE5 3 month a go) Actually only 8 clubs in the PL make an operating profit. If you want to compete you have to borrow or stagger payment (the norm). If you want to be debt free get involved in chess club. which of those other clubs had as much debt as we did ? and how are they treating those finances now ? I thought you knew what you were talking about? still not very good at this WUMmery are you ? no WUM about it when what he says is right. so tell me about these other clubs who have debts similar to our own,making losses and still chasing the dream ? (not too long a go you were using pompey as an example of ambition) I've never said pompey were an ambitious/big club. i never said they were big either, but you did say which to me seems to support the idea of running up their type debt for fleeting success,no sustainability or longer term plan . if only those pompey fans knew what the tragedy of winning the FA Cup was doing to the club. They must yearn for the old days when they were solvent in the 4th division instead. i love the way you do that....only look at the peaks and troughs and nothing in between. maybe if you'd said that they could have looked at a plan of sustainability and building a couple of years a go they wouldn't be looking to sell to survive now (does that ring a bell "live beyond your means then face the consequences" ?) you can't keep on borrowing in the hope of it bringing success without a plan for IF/WHEN the success doesn't happen.