madras

what have you got against Tories ? Do Labour, Liberal, BNP, UKIP mp's, or even Mike Ashley, always answer straight questions ? I've told you, the Halls and Shepherd did a great job, they left the club unrecognisable and a million miles superior to how they found it, I wouldn't call that "blame", I would call it a great credit. Sir you are a baboon then. If you believe perilously close to bankruptcy through bad management and mortgaging the club beyond belief with a bank which needed to be bailed out by the government itself was a fantastic thing then you are just mad. I cannot disagree that the football was great, but had Shepherd remained in charge we would have been bankrupted. Your head in the sand attitude and deluded belief that Freddy Shepherd was not a bad apple who was stinking out the barrel at Newcastle is astonishing. Sir John Hall had a vision for this club, which his son and Freddy Shepherd distorted and abused to make their own financial gains. While we are certainly miles away from where we were prior to Sir John Hall's intervention, it is laughable that you continue to stand up for Freddy Shepherd, a man who most others lost any respect they had for him when he was caught out by the NOTW with his contempt for his peers and his customers. rubbish. mackems.gif Did you see many protestors standing up for their principles a few months after that "contempt for his peers and customers" when FA Cup Final tickets were being dished out, for the first time in 24 years, I may add. When do you think the automatically better board will reach another Cup Final or even qualify for the UEFA Cup ? Under Mike Ashley I don't think we will. But you keep on telling yourself that Freddy was a top bloke, and wasn't bothered first and foremost with lining his pockets from the money he could make from Newcastle United. I think Freddy Shepherd has a nerve telling anyone how to run Newcastle United as a successful business. you find a post where I have said he was a "top bloke". Apology accepted. None given. So will you now please answer my question. Is Freddy Shepherd (at least partially) responsible for Newcastle's financial state? Why can you not answer this yes or no? Why can't you stop waffling on about other things? What are you talking about ? The saleable value of the club increased from 1.25m to anywhere between 100m and 200m quid while they ran it ? Maybe you should go back to the financial statement thread and re-read it if you cannot understand what I am asking you about. I think you should look at the league positions I posted and the history of the club if you don't understand exactly how much better off the club became while the Halls and shepherd ran it. Thank you I know exactly what happened with the club when Sir John Hall came in. I can remember what it was like before he came in. And I know what happened when Sir John Hall and Freddy Shepherd were here in regards of football. I also know that Fred Shepherd mortgaged the club to the hilt and he was lucky not to financially ruin the club. I know that Mike Ashley was not the only person to look at the books with a view of taking over the club, but the mess Freddy Shepherd had made with the finances put everyone else off. I don't need a history lesson, but you need a reality check! So, it's a mystery to you that the top 4 have massive debt?? man utd's is dropping dramatically, chelsea are f***ed should abramovic walk away,arsenal have had to redefine their plans and liverpool are trying to sell up. So you admit it takes massive expenditure and debt risk to gain a chance at success? Like shelling peas. man utd's and liverpools debt is from the purchase of the club.....do you think liverpool would spend as they had if they were outside the champs league for a couple of years and making year on year operating losses ? you're better with UFO's oh and liverpool up for sale and scolari told he has to sell to buy at chelsea.

what have you got against Tories ? Do Labour, Liberal, BNP, UKIP mp's, or even Mike Ashley, always answer straight questions ? I've told you, the Halls and Shepherd did a great job, they left the club unrecognisable and a million miles superior to how they found it, I wouldn't call that "blame", I would call it a great credit. Sir you are a baboon then. If you believe perilously close to bankruptcy through bad management and mortgaging the club beyond belief with a bank which needed to be bailed out by the government itself was a fantastic thing then you are just mad. I cannot disagree that the football was great, but had Shepherd remained in charge we would have been bankrupted. Your head in the sand attitude and deluded belief that Freddy Shepherd was not a bad apple who was stinking out the barrel at Newcastle is astonishing. Sir John Hall had a vision for this club, which his son and Freddy Shepherd distorted and abused to make their own financial gains. While we are certainly miles away from where we were prior to Sir John Hall's intervention, it is laughable that you continue to stand up for Freddy Shepherd, a man who most others lost any respect they had for him when he was caught out by the NOTW with his contempt for his peers and his customers. rubbish. mackems.gif Did you see many protestors standing up for their principles a few months after that "contempt for his peers and customers" when FA Cup Final tickets were being dished out, for the first time in 24 years, I may add. When do you think the automatically better board will reach another Cup Final or even qualify for the UEFA Cup ? Under Mike Ashley I don't think we will. But you keep on telling yourself that Freddy was a top bloke, and wasn't bothered first and foremost with lining his pockets from the money he could make from Newcastle United. I think Freddy Shepherd has a nerve telling anyone how to run Newcastle United as a successful business. you find a post where I have said he was a "top bloke". Apology accepted. None given. So will you now please answer my question. Is Freddy Shepherd (at least partially) responsible for Newcastle's financial state? Why can you not answer this yes or no? Why can't you stop waffling on about other things? What are you talking about ? The saleable value of the club increased from 1.25m to anywhere between 100m and 200m quid while they ran it ? Maybe you should go back to the financial statement thread and re-read it if you cannot understand what I am asking you about. I think you should look at the league positions I posted and the history of the club if you don't understand exactly how much better off the club became while the Halls and shepherd ran it. Thank you I know exactly what happened with the club when Sir John Hall came in. I can remember what it was like before he came in. And I know what happened when Sir John Hall and Freddy Shepherd were here in regards of football. I also know that Fred Shepherd mortgaged the club to the hilt and he was lucky not to financially ruin the club. I know that Mike Ashley was not the only person to look at the books with a view of taking over the club, but the mess Freddy Shepherd had made with the finances put everyone else off. I don't need a history lesson, but you need a reality check! So, it's a mystery to you that the top 4 have massive debt?? man utd's is dropping dramatically, chelsea are fucked should abramovic walk away,arsenal have had to redefine their plans and liverpool are trying to sell up.

what have you got against Tories ? Do Labour, Liberal, BNP, UKIP mp's, or even Mike Ashley, always answer straight questions ? I've told you, the Halls and Shepherd did a great job, they left the club unrecognisable and a million miles superior to how they found it, I wouldn't call that "blame", I would call it a great credit. Sir you are a baboon then. If you believe perilously close to bankruptcy through bad management and mortgaging the club beyond belief with a bank which needed to be bailed out by the government itself was a fantastic thing then you are just mad. I cannot disagree that the football was great, but had Shepherd remained in charge we would have been bankrupted. Your head in the sand attitude and deluded belief that Freddy Shepherd was not a bad apple who was stinking out the barrel at Newcastle is astonishing. Sir John Hall had a vision for this club, which his son and Freddy Shepherd distorted and abused to make their own financial gains. While we are certainly miles away from where we were prior to Sir John Hall's intervention, it is laughable that you continue to stand up for Freddy Shepherd, a man who most others lost any respect they had for him when he was caught out by the NOTW with his contempt for his peers and his customers. rubbish. mackems.gif Did you see many protestors standing up for their principles a few months after that "contempt for his peers and customers" when FA Cup Final tickets were being dished out, for the first time in 24 years, I may add. When do you think the automatically better board will reach another Cup Final or even qualify for the UEFA Cup ? Under Mike Ashley I don't think we will. But you keep on telling yourself that Freddy was a top bloke, and wasn't bothered first and foremost with lining his pockets from the money he could make from Newcastle United. I think Freddy Shepherd has a nerve telling anyone how to run Newcastle United as a successful business. you find a post where I have said he was a "top bloke". Apology accepted. None given. So will you now please answer my question. Is Freddy Shepherd (at least partially) responsible for Newcastle's financial state? Why can you not answer this yes or no? Why can't you stop waffling on about other things? What are you talking about ? The saleable value of the club increased from 1.25m to anywhere between 100m and 200m quid while they ran it ? Maybe you should go back to the financial statement thread and re-read it if you cannot understand what I am asking you about. Of course there is some mitigation with regard to FS, but we aren't unique regarding debt and high wages...There is a middle ground in this debate. most people are in the middle ground....did fred leave us in the shite ?....yes has ashley done enough to get us out ?... no.

oh dear, I remember people saying that people like me were talking nonsense when we said Ashley was turning the club into a 2nd rate selling club again, and heading for relegation through selling players and looking for cheap replacements. When exactly do you think we will match the european qualifications that we have seen for the last 15 years, under Ashleys strategy ? stretch the question further and ask if fred would have matched the european qualifications we've seen for the last 15years ? would he have just spent the banks money to try and emulate it ? Lets go back to the appointment of Allardyce, and the point made by HTT, when he said that it was thought to be a good appointment at the time of someone waiting for a big job, coupled with the fact that his track record suggested he could build a pretty good side with little money. Whether he could make the top 4 is arguable, and we won't now know, but it suggested that the Halls and Shepherd were aware of this need, in the short term. I'm pretty sure that their ultimate ambitions would have remained as high as they always were, which are much higher than Ashleys, and I'm also pretty sure that at the current moment in time, they wouldn't be sitting back and watching the team heading for relegation and try to reverse it. Mind, the amount of u-turns by people who urged them to keep spending, and backed Souness in his spending spree, but now say how wrong it was, is quite amazing. i'd reckon ashleys ambition was to do aswell as possible without running up massive debt.........your way sees everton of having a lack of ambition, a lack that sees them regularly finish well clear off ambitious freds outfit. Everton are just the team doing the best for the moment of a whole load of clubs that don't have the big ambition that they should. Thats all, nothing more and nothing less. If you are saying you would swap their last decade for ours, then I wouldn't agree, and if you are saying what they have done in the past decade is good enough for you, then thats up to you. It;s this mistaken idea that you and others have that everybody else has done things better than us, and the grass is always greener. despite results to the contrary which is pretty daft like. You thought the grass was greener when the Halls and Shepherd ran the club and now they have gone, we are sinking like a stone. Has Shay Given gone yet ? All we need is Ashleys mouthpiece to come out again and say its "good business", and I'm sure a lot of gullible people will swallow it whole. i'd swap their last 5 years for ours. as for sinking like a stone i'll claim you are LYING if you think it's only since fred left. I'm not talking about the last 5 years, I'm talking about the entire tenure of the chairman you are slating, not part of it. Do you still think having an owner who runs the club down is no different to having an owner(s) who have ambition and have shown it ? Amazing. and you know i wouldn't slag off the entire tenure in the same way forest fans wouldn't slag off cloughs entire tenure....but everyone i know says he should have gone before he did as he was damaging the club and wasn't going to improve it,same with fred. you know this and we've been here before. the next bit.........where did i say it was no different. but i'll GIVE YOU A STRAIGHT ANSWER ANYWAY.......i don't think ashley is running the club down,he's changing the ethos as the ambitious plan as followed by fred was eventually leading to bankruptcy so then...would you rack up debt year after year chasing the dream with no plan for if it fails ? I don't think he is doing anything other than taking the piss, asset stripping the club, and running it down. Do we need to be relegated to ram this point home ? So to that degree, he needs to find some money from somewhere to avoid the drop, which I'm sure the Halls and Shepherd would have done, and I'm sorry to have to tell you that i wouldn't have "blamed" them for it at all. i'm not sure the halls and shepherd would have got credit,very much in the same way that west ham couldn't.

man city are now bankrolled by multi billionaires,villa are now backed by lerner.....watch the spending patterns of the rest you mention (in fact a grerat article last week about west ham...the pattern runs,at the time,sell McArtney and buy illunga. make a profit on the transfers and bring the player in on lower wages and if they've done their scouting work, and a few of their fans say this, get a better player to boot. seems the same may have been done re bellamy £14mill=£9mill out) as for the first 4 you mention....lets see if they maintain that level without champs league football for a couple of years or do you think they'll cut their cloth accordingly ? didn't man utd have nearly a billion in debt...looks like they are making an effort to clear it. Just saying we ain't unique and debt and high wages is commonplace. Ashley is fuckin wid you. you're right, we aint unique in having to change our way of doing things (you aren't as good a wum on here as the gen chat board)

oh dear, I remember people saying that people like me were talking nonsense when we said Ashley was turning the club into a 2nd rate selling club again, and heading for relegation through selling players and looking for cheap replacements. When exactly do you think we will match the european qualifications that we have seen for the last 15 years, under Ashleys strategy ? stretch the question further and ask if fred would have matched the european qualifications we've seen for the last 15years ? would he have just spent the banks money to try and emulate it ? Lets go back to the appointment of Allardyce, and the point made by HTT, when he said that it was thought to be a good appointment at the time of someone waiting for a big job, coupled with the fact that his track record suggested he could build a pretty good side with little money. Whether he could make the top 4 is arguable, and we won't now know, but it suggested that the Halls and Shepherd were aware of this need, in the short term. I'm pretty sure that their ultimate ambitions would have remained as high as they always were, which are much higher than Ashleys, and I'm also pretty sure that at the current moment in time, they wouldn't be sitting back and watching the team heading for relegation and try to reverse it. Mind, the amount of u-turns by people who urged them to keep spending, and backed Souness in his spending spree, but now say how wrong it was, is quite amazing. i'd reckon ashleys ambition was to do aswell as possible without running up massive debt.........your way sees everton of having a lack of ambition, a lack that sees them regularly finish well clear off ambitious freds outfit. Everton are just the team doing the best for the moment of a whole load of clubs that don't have the big ambition that they should. Thats all, nothing more and nothing less. If you are saying you would swap their last decade for ours, then I wouldn't agree, and if you are saying what they have done in the past decade is good enough for you, then thats up to you. It;s this mistaken idea that you and others have that everybody else has done things better than us, and the grass is always greener. despite results to the contrary which is pretty daft like. You thought the grass was greener when the Halls and Shepherd ran the club and now they have gone, we are sinking like a stone. Has Shay Given gone yet ? All we need is Ashleys mouthpiece to come out again and say its "good business", and I'm sure a lot of gullible people will swallow it whole. i'd swap their last 5 years for ours. as for sinking like a stone i'll claim you are LYING if you think it's only since fred left. I'm not talking about the last 5 years, I'm talking about the entire tenure of the chairman you are slating, not part of it. Do you still think having an owner who runs the club down is no different to having an owner(s) who have ambition and have shown it ? Amazing. and you know i wouldn't slag off the entire tenure in the same way forest fans wouldn't slag off cloughs entire tenure....but everyone i know says he should have gone before he did as he was damaging the club and wasn't going to improve it,same with fred. you know this and we've been here before. the next bit.........where did i say it was no different. but i'll GIVE YOU A STRAIGHT ANSWER ANYWAY.......i don't think ashley is running the club down,he's changing the ethos as the ambitious plan as followed by fred was eventually leading to bankruptcy so then...would you rack up debt year after year chasing the dream with no plan for if it fails ?

no chance

man city are now bankrolled by multi billionaires,villa are now backed by lerner.....watch the spending patterns of the rest you mention (in fact a grerat article last week about west ham...the pattern runs,at the time,sell McArtney and buy illunga. make a profit on the transfers and bring the player in on lower wages and if they've done their scouting work, and a few of their fans say this, get a better player to boot. seems the same may have been done re bellamy £14mill=£9mill out) as for the first 4 you mention....lets see if they maintain that level without champs league football for a couple of years or do you think they'll cut their cloth accordingly ? didn't man utd have nearly a billion in debt...looks like they are making an effort to clear it.

oh dear, I remember people saying that people like me were talking nonsense when we said Ashley was turning the club into a 2nd rate selling club again, and heading for relegation through selling players and looking for cheap replacements. When exactly do you think we will match the european qualifications that we have seen for the last 15 years, under Ashleys strategy ? stretch the question further and ask if fred would have matched the european qualifications we've seen for the last 15years ? would he have just spent the banks money to try and emulate it ? Lets go back to the appointment of Allardyce, and the point made by HTT, when he said that it was thought to be a good appointment at the time of someone waiting for a big job, coupled with the fact that his track record suggested he could build a pretty good side with little money. Whether he could make the top 4 is arguable, and we won't now know, but it suggested that the Halls and Shepherd were aware of this need, in the short term. I'm pretty sure that their ultimate ambitions would have remained as high as they always were, which are much higher than Ashleys, and I'm also pretty sure that at the current moment in time, they wouldn't be sitting back and watching the team heading for relegation and try to reverse it. Mind, the amount of u-turns by people who urged them to keep spending, and backed Souness in his spending spree, but now say how wrong it was, is quite amazing. i'd reckon ashleys ambition was to do aswell as possible without running up massive debt.........your way sees everton of having a lack of ambition, a lack that sees them regularly finish well clear off ambitious freds outfit. Everton are just the team doing the best for the moment of a whole load of clubs that don't have the big ambition that they should. Thats all, nothing more and nothing less. If you are saying you would swap their last decade for ours, then I wouldn't agree, and if you are saying what they have done in the past decade is good enough for you, then thats up to you. It;s this mistaken idea that you and others have that everybody else has done things better than us, and the grass is always greener. despite results to the contrary which is pretty daft like. You thought the grass was greener when the Halls and Shepherd ran the club and now they have gone, we are sinking like a stone. Has Shay Given gone yet ? All we need is Ashleys mouthpiece to come out again and say its "good business", and I'm sure a lot of gullible people will swallow it whole. i'd swap their last 5 years for ours. as for sinking like a stone i'll claim you are LYING if you think it's only since fred left.

forget about football ? haha, it IS football. If anything, it nails the daft theory that any old successful businessman can come into football and be a success, something else numerous people said when they were slating the fat b****** for only running a club that qualified regularly for europe, and not splashing cash whenever we lost a game, ironically. football is a business first now, it has to be with the money involved so i ask where was ur darling freddy going to find his 100 million which needed paying back NE5 will NEVER answer that question because a) he has no idea. b) he knows full well that we would have struggled to pay it back, and could have gone into administration had the creditors come calling. Yes NE5, football is about football first, no doubt about that and I agree. But you also have to have some kind of business sense. You can't simply spend more than you have, as then you would be knee-deep in it. if NE5 ran this football club we would be like leeds now nah, its Mike Ashley, and we will soon be back to where the Halls and Shepherd saved it. FWIW, I was one of the few people on here who said that the fat b****** couldn't carry on splashing cash whenever the team lost a game. Thats quite a lot of u-turns ........ like I said, any old stick will do. Care to tell me yet when or how Mike Ashley will attempt to match the european qualifications of the old board, or are you going to be happy supporting a selling club sitting in the bottom half of the league and making a profit for the next 10 years instead . By the way, I take it you have missed my posts where I pointed out how well Bob Murray ran the mackems, like a business. Ashley could get us back to regular European football by being either lucky or smart enough to employ a manager who's up to it and then let him go about his work with the best budget the club can afford. The old board were lucky with Keegan, unlucky (and premature) with Dalgleish, stupid with Gullit, lucky SBR was available and smart enough to get him, monumentally f**king stupid with Sounes and Roeder. I won't include Allardyce because ownership changed so soon after his appointment. I'm sorry, but I just dont' think it is possible to equal the regular european qualifications of the old board by running the club in the wayeuropean qualifiucation that Ashley has done and looks like continuing ie without major expenditure, just like they did, and that goes for any club. some don't think it's possible to get those euro qualifications the way fred was doing things. more qualifications than everybody else but 4 clubs says they are wrong. westwoods 1 trophy beats them both........doesn't mean fuck all as you know. if you want i'll resurrect the clough example as you know when someone turns crap they need gotten rid of.

The last bit is all news to me. Who is the other £49m owed to and how has Ashley managed to double the debt in a year and a half? Comforting to know that we're not expected to pay off the £100m before July like. the july bit i'd assume is so the auditors will sign it off. basically he is guarnteeing the debts through the financial trading year. (i think)

that

oh dear, I remember people saying that people like me were talking nonsense when we said Ashley was turning the club into a 2nd rate selling club again, and heading for relegation through selling players and looking for cheap replacements. When exactly do you think we will match the european qualifications that we have seen for the last 15 years, under Ashleys strategy ? stretch the question further and ask if fred would have matched the european qualifications we've seen for the last 15years ? would he have just spent the banks money to try and emulate it ? Lets go back to the appointment of Allardyce, and the point made by HTT, when he said that it was thought to be a good appointment at the time of someone waiting for a big job, coupled with the fact that his track record suggested he could build a pretty good side with little money. Whether he could make the top 4 is arguable, and we won't now know, but it suggested that the Halls and Shepherd were aware of this need, in the short term. I'm pretty sure that their ultimate ambitions would have remained as high as they always were, which are much higher than Ashleys, and I'm also pretty sure that at the current moment in time, they wouldn't be sitting back and watching the team heading for relegation and try to reverse it. Mind, the amount of u-turns by people who urged them to keep spending, and backed Souness in his spending spree, but now say how wrong it was, is quite amazing. i'd reckon ashleys ambition was to do aswell as possible without running up massive debt.........your way sees everton of having a lack of ambition, a lack that sees them regularly finish well clear off ambitious freds outfit.

forget about football ? haha, it IS football. If anything, it nails the daft theory that any old successful businessman can come into football and be a success, something else numerous people said when they were slating the fat b****** for only running a club that qualified regularly for europe, and not splashing cash whenever we lost a game, ironically. football is a business first now, it has to be with the money involved so i ask where was ur darling freddy going to find his 100 million which needed paying back NE5 will NEVER answer that question because a) he has no idea. b) he knows full well that we would have struggled to pay it back, and could have gone into administration had the creditors come calling. Yes NE5, football is about football first, no doubt about that and I agree. But you also have to have some kind of business sense. You can't simply spend more than you have, as then you would be knee-deep in it. if NE5 ran this football club we would be like leeds now nah, its Mike Ashley, and we will soon be back to where the Halls and Shepherd saved it. FWIW, I was one of the few people on here who said that the fat b****** couldn't carry on splashing cash whenever the team lost a game. Thats quite a lot of u-turns ........ like I said, any old stick will do. Care to tell me yet when or how Mike Ashley will attempt to match the european qualifications of the old board, or are you going to be happy supporting a selling club sitting in the bottom half of the league and making a profit for the next 10 years instead . By the way, I take it you have missed my posts where I pointed out how well Bob Murray ran the mackems, like a business. Ashley could get us back to regular European football by being either lucky or smart enough to employ a manager who's up to it and then let him go about his work with the best budget the club can afford. The old board were lucky with Keegan, unlucky (and premature) with Dalgleish, stupid with Gullit, lucky SBR was available and smart enough to get him, monumentally f**king stupid with Sounes and Roeder. I won't include Allardyce because ownership changed so soon after his appointment. I'm sorry, but I just dont' think it is possible to equal the regular european qualifications of the old board by running the club in the wayeuropean qualifiucation that Ashley has done and looks like continuing ie without major expenditure, just like they did, and that goes for any club. some don't think it's possible to get those euro qualifications the way fred was doing things.

oh dear, I remember people saying that people like me were talking nonsense when we said Ashley was turning the club into a 2nd rate selling club again, and heading for relegation through selling players and looking for cheap replacements. When exactly do you think we will match the european qualifications that we have seen for the last 15 years, under Ashleys strategy ? stretch the question further and ask if fred would have matched the european qualifications we've seen for the last 15years ? would he have just spent the banks money to try and emulate it ?

The lack of smiley suggests you are not being ironic! Beardsley Pav Bernard Elliott Aye, and Keegan once as a player and twice as a manager springs to mind. clarke! john craggs and mark mcghee

remembering back to colo and gutierrez he may well have signed yesterday but we'll not find out till he runs out on the pitch.

Some photos Nina? are they your by the pool shots ? doubt she'd (if indeed niina is a she) want them. come on then niina......tell us more about Vuckic as all we lnow is he's a 16yr old midfielder ?

the 18yd box is usually a pretty good guide for judgung distances.

vital football.com (not very reliable) has us challenging pompey for saviola.

It's not funny tbh. It hasn't been for quite a long time. True. But it's his very pig-headedness that provides the comedy. The whole I'm-ignoring-the-information-about-the-club's-finances-because-the-people-discussing-it-will-be-insulting-Shepherd routine is particularly funny. http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:zPH5JU0o01eqqM:http://625.uk.com/pifs/learn2swim.jpg learn to quote young man....learn to quote

Let's not forget Mr Andrew Cole either tbh. deal was tied up for ferdinand apparently but they pulled out after a bad run dropped them into relegation bother. it was well known by easter that he'd be signing in the summer.

All very well in theory, but in many ways, the horse has bolted... Our reputation today has declined further, so it will be even more of an uphill task - and take years - to persuade young players that we are a club they should join instead of Arsenal, Man U, Liverpool etc. the problem being trying to get through to kids and parents that they may have more opportunity at the B&W's/ lower league clubs as opposed to those mentioned. The main problem is that the kids themselves would see NUFC as a booby prize if they also had the chance to join the top 4 - plus the fact that, as I said, our reputation with young players will be used to scupper our chances by the scouts of other clubs... Just because IN THEORY youngsters may get more first team opportunities with NUFC/Lower div clubs doesn't mean that the kids will be any keener to go there - it will take YEARS to alter people's views on Newcastle United as a breeding ground for young talent. no it wouldn't take years. it takes a couple of appointments to the academy (maybe money is already one). it may take years in the fans eyes but not for those klids and parents who see what is happening in the academies. just the way the scouting has changed in the last year or so shows how things have changed so far. Time, as ever, will tell - the problem is that NUFC doesn't HAVE much time. the booby prize thing goes for all clubs outside the top 4 but hasn't stopped citeh,boro,west ham bringing through plenty of kids. the fact that we are spending a lot on scouting the world instead of wallsend is a start on showing the way the club is preparing to go. time is one thing you have to have when developing kids,it won't happen overnight but it has started.

All very well in theory, but in many ways, the horse has bolted... Our reputation today has declined further, so it will be even more of an uphill task - and take years - to persuade young players that we are a club they should join instead of Arsenal, Man U, Liverpool etc. the problem being trying to get through to kids and parents that they may have more opportunity at the B&W's/ lower league clubs as opposed to those mentioned. The main problem is that the kids themselves would see NUFC as a booby prize if they also had the chance to join the top 4 - plus the fact that, as I said, our reputation with young players will be used to scupper our chances by the scouts of other clubs... Just because IN THEORY youngsters may get more first team opportunities with NUFC/Lower div clubs doesn't mean that the kids will be any keener to go there - it will take YEARS to alter people's views on Newcastle United as a breeding ground for young talent. no it wouldn't take years. it takes a couple of appointments to the academy (maybe money is already one). it may take years in the fans eyes but not for those klids and parents who see what is happening in the academies. just the way the scouting has changed in the last year or so shows how things have changed so far.

As opposed to a scrap metal merchant running one http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,59575.0.html doesn't quite compare with this. Are you saying you have been envious of the mackems over the past 15 years so you both think fred is a scrap metal merchant ?