David Icke - Son of God

PM or on here? Either. As you've probably guessed I haven't got much of a life so if people want to post their responses on here I'm quite happy to trawl this thread hunting for them

Right boys and girls, I'm looking for a small bit of help... I maintain a (rather pathetic) blog that focuses on football and PR, primarily the use of social media. As a result of a few conversations I've had on here about our digital communications I'm looking to put together a post on NUFC's use of social media and I'd like to get some quotes/opinions from my fellow fans. The questions are... - Do you follow any of Newcastle United's social media profiles? - If yes, which ones and why? / If no, why not? - What do you like about NUFC's use of social media? - What do you dislike about NUFC's use of social media? - What do you want to see more of from NUFC's digital comms team? - What do you want to see less of from NUFC's digital comms team? Answers don't need to be lengthy (it would be a help if there was a line or two I could lift though) and I'll credit you within the post unless otherwise stated. Cheers!

Those clubs should just hire their own scouts man. I missed that quote, fucking sickening. Carr could find some random lad playing in the Burundian Third Division and that goiter faced fuck Redknapp will come out, "Oy I've 'ad me eye on this 'un for some toime now." Redknapp's from Birmingham?

Why don't we just bid for half a dozen players in each position, only one of which is any good, to at least maximise the chances that old saggy face and Fat Sam will bid for and buy some fucking dross allowing us to fuck off with the good player.

Bizarre thing is that Mort was as duplicitous as the rest of them when it came to the whole DoF/Wise thing. In fact wasn't it his idea? He was a great PR man mind.

No. We were in contact with him in the summer and he said he'd only move for first team football.

I don't envy whoever will have to sift through the 'questions'. Definitely a job for the intern As long as they're not trying to flog tat from the club shop I'll be happy. It genuinely infuriates me how poorly our social media presence is utilised. I don't even take notice of the club's tweets now because of the spam from the club shop. Would like to know if other clubs do that from their official accounts? I've had a timeline containing every Premier League clubs tweets open for about 12 months now (work related, I'm not just a dull bastard) and we're the only club who spam on that scale. Other clubs link occasionally, but we're relentless. Not just the spam, but the content we post is dross too. Compare our output to that of a club like Liverpool, who are genuinely innovative in what they're doing and probably making cash off the back of it as well, and you'd think we're a bloody conference outfit. Tbh the way our club is run these days isn't much different to the way Ashley runs Sports Direct. It works as a profit model but the lack of risk or venture means we probably miss out on bigger gains in the long run. Just look at our crappy sponsorship deals compared to other clubs of our stature. It's very difficult to tell because I wouldn't really say it's something that would require a great deal of money or effort on top of what we already do, plus the potential to monetise these profiles is the type of thing I'd imagine the management of the club would be all over. We either don't have the personnel, have the personnel but they're borderline illiterate when it comes to using social media or the club have simply decided to neglect digital comms. I find all three unlikely. I've half a mind to email the cunts and offer my services, then I remember that it be a waste of time and I'm probably not their favourite person since I've just this second called them cunts.

It's like those fucking leaflets the Lib Dems used to put through your door telling you how many votes they required to win a seat.

This. First of all we know he talks shite when it comes to transfers and deals are done over his head, secondly it's a bloody press conference. Even if he did know he's not going to show his hand.

I don't envy whoever will have to sift through the 'questions'. Definitely a job for the intern As long as they're not trying to flog tat from the club shop I'll be happy. It genuinely infuriates me how poorly our social media presence is utilised. I don't even take notice of the club's tweets now because of the spam from the club shop. Would like to know if other clubs do that from their official accounts? I've had a timeline containing every Premier League clubs tweets open for about 12 months now (work related, I'm not just a dull bastard) and we're the only club who spam on that scale. Other clubs link occasionally, but we're relentless. Not just the spam, but the content we post is dross too. Compare our output to that of a club like Liverpool, who are genuinely innovative in what they're doing and probably making cash off the back of it as well, and you'd think we're a bloody conference outfit.

I don't envy whoever will have to sift through the 'questions'. Definitely a job for the intern As long as they're not trying to flog tat from the club shop I'll be happy. It genuinely infuriates me how poorly our social media presence is utilised.

My only qualm with SJP is that I'd like to see us use it to flaunt or history a bit more. I remember someone knocking up some fantastic photoshops of banners to hang outside the ground, running down the length of walls on the back of the Milburn and Leazes stands, each with a club legend on. They looked magnificent.

PR guff. You sound cynical. Was it the job title PR and supporter liaison manager that gave it away? After the wall of silence that has been erected since the Keegan fallout it's just nice to see there's a line into the club again. Whether anything positive comes of this we'll only find out with time but it's a start.

That Lammens guy is a bit of a nutter isn't he? The Argie equivalent of Branson or something.

http://www.nufcfansutd.com/1/post/2013/01/minutes-from-140113.html Steve Wraith's group met with Wendy Taylor earlier this week. Makes interesting reading and the appointment of a fan liaison officer chimes with what was announced during the Wonga deal. Some encouraging comments, particularly on safe standing. FYI you can follow the new fan liaison officer on Twitter - @LeeMarshall9

Has the N'Gog rumour just come from a daft fucking ITK account of Twitter? If so some people need shooting with shit for dedicating any time to it.

First Hitler, now Neville Chamberlain. Are there any other political figures from the 20th century who supported us?

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable. when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ? Who's we? I didn't say that, did you? Someone at the club? Of course it's possible to play above yourself and get a bit lucky and finish higher than you'd normally expect to, and of course it's possible to have a rubbish run and finish lower than you'd expect. Teams have surprisingly good seasons and surprisingly bad seasons all the time. What I'm saying is it is a stone cold fact that leagues normally finish roughly in order of wage bill, and that where you come in the wage bill league is generally a very good guide as to where you should expect to end up. Check the stats for any league going and you will tend to find that that principle applies. Afford more good players = probably do better. We deserved to go down because we'd spent a few years putting together an absolute joke of a club and had managed to compile a team of overpaid duds. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, expensive squads do better than cheaper ones because, on the whole, the other factors tend to balance out. I'm talking about averages, rough guides, and as far as working out likely league positions goes, total wages are the most accurate predictor going. LOL the team that went down had one of our highest wage bills. And I could probably pick out a few more exceptional examples to add to that one if you like? It doesn't change the fact that, by and large, league tables finish pretty much in order of wage bill. You know how statistics work, yeah? We're talking about averages, trends etc... Do a graph of final positions vs wage bills in every Premier League season ever and every Serie A season ever and every Liga season ever and every Bundesliga season ever all rolled into one and you'd get a smooth diagonal line showing a direct relationship between wage bill and league position. I don't give a flying f*** if an overpaid team went down once or Muggins Utd won the league. There's some homework for you. Fuck it's been almost 30 years since I've had to do this much homework, can I use a calculator and is this going to affect my final grade ? No and yes. Make sure you hand it in to Dave before the end of the week.

These days? We've been obsessed with them for years. One of the sticks we used to beat Shepherd with was the state of the f***ing finances and how unsustainable it all was. The issue here isn't the finances. It's never the finances. If we're not playing well then our supporters will look for a reason and for some reason it always seems to come down to the money. Nowadays we're not spending enough of it and can't attract quality. A few years ago we were spending too much and had a team full of mercenaries as a result. We win and no one gives a f*** about the cash. There's a sensible middle ground that Shepherd managed to keep us in for quite some time. He went off his tits for the last few years and obviously that was wrong. Ashley has briefly flirted with a sensible middle ground (presumably p*ssed up) but for most of the time it's been stupid Shepherd-esque decisions - bringing Keegan back, backing Wise over w*** like Xisco and offering Owen 'the biggest contract in the club's history' - or pretending we don't have a pot to p*ss in and every wrong decision could put us in administration. However that would work. Basically last season ended we've shown virtually no ambition to build on a fabulous finishing position and people are justifying it by going back to how admirable (or critical, depending on how you want to argue it) our finances are. I just find it a bit sad that the focus has been lost. We're fans of a football team. ashley started off the way shepherd finished and we've found the middle ground since then (basically since relegation). last summer we didn't get in the players many wanted but it's up to you if you think there was no intent or desire to get anyone. I think last summer's investment (or lack of it) was borne out of a desire to keep the current squad together because they thought it was the correct thing to do. I'm sure when the board and Pardew sat down at the end of last season there'll have been a plan A and a plan B - the former is sell one or two of our bigger names for large sums and use that to bring in half a dozen new names, probably topping up the funds for the likes of De Jong, Debuchy etc. and the latter to keep everyone unless a Carrollesque offers came in. Rightly or wrongly we opted for the latter.

Because any player who does well is going to be tempted away by clubs with more ambitious salary scales, and it's only the bargains that turn out not to be bargains that will stay? Until that starts to happen regularly then that's conjecture. Ba is the only person who has shown any real desire to leave and he was apparently offered terms that would've almost gave him parity with our highest earner. I don't quite understand why the board are coping flack for adopting a sensible wage structure. We've been down the road of paying grossly over inflated salaries to players whose performances and/or ability haven't justified them. It got us into trouble and was clearly unsustainable. Why do it again? Our position in that wages table is being obsessed over but whether 1st, 13th or 20th, it's completely moot. The figure that does count for something is wages to turnover. 70% is hypothesised to be the tipping point between a club that can cope and one that is in danger and we're not a million miles off that. The only way we can really begin to pay more is to increase turnover. I think there are some very justified criticisms of the board, for example the extremely ponderous way we approach transfer windows which seems to be borne out of a belief we can come out on top in the sagas that pass for negotiations nowadays when all evidence points to the fact that clubs are getting wise and preferring to play hard ball with us, but our wage structure? Christ, it's one of the things the current owners have got very, very right. It's flexible enough to allow us to reward players who perform well (as we did with Tiote in his first season and Krul last year) but won't see us get taken for mugs. What prize do we win for having the lowest wages to turnover ratio? Well done, you've missed my point. No I haven't. Wage total in absolute numbers is a pretty good predictor for league position as tollemache correctly argues, wages to turnover ratio isn't. Wages to turnover matters because it's the only figure that gives you a real indication of whether the club's policy is conservative, reasonable or reckless. Agreed on that count, I didn't say it doesn't matter at all. I challenged your statement that wages in itself in absolute terms is a moot point, and that wages to turnover is what really matters. In actual effect, a football club should in my mind try to maximize its revenue whilst trying to spend as sensibly as it can (note: not as low as it can) in order to offer its fans (customers) the best experience possible (note: not hang on to the gravy train as long as they can). In the context of the discussion that is being had about our wage structure I think it's the most relevant figure.

I don't think I've ever suggested that, have I? I think our wage structure is good enough to attract good quality players. Spurs adopted a similar model and they've been able to do so, why not us? You literally posted the sentence "We're not spending enough of it and can't attract quality" a few posts ago. We are spending money (again, bit pointless to discuss it halfway through a January window we look like being quite active in) and we can attract it! And we have! And we will! Oh, that! I wasn't speaking for myself, I was trying to paraphrase some of the complaints I've heard from other fans.

I don't think I've ever suggested that, have I? I think our wage structure is good enough to attract good quality players. Spurs adopted a similar model and they've been able to do so, why not us?

Because any player who does well is going to be tempted away by clubs with more ambitious salary scales, and it's only the bargains that turn out not to be bargains that will stay? Until that starts to happen regularly then that's conjecture. Ba is the only person who has shown any real desire to leave and he was apparently offered terms that would've almost gave him parity with our highest earner. I don't quite understand why the board are coping flack for adopting a sensible wage structure. We've been down the road of paying grossly over inflated salaries to players whose performances and/or ability haven't justified them. It got us into trouble and was clearly unsustainable. Why do it again? Our position in that wages table is being obsessed over but whether 1st, 13th or 20th, it's completely moot. The figure that does count for something is wages to turnover. 70% is hypothesised to be the tipping point between a club that can cope and one that is in danger and we're not a million miles off that. The only way we can really begin to pay more is to increase turnover. I think there are some very justified criticisms of the board, for example the extremely ponderous way we approach transfer windows which seems to be borne out of a belief we can come out on top in the sagas that pass for negotiations nowadays when all evidence points to the fact that clubs are getting wise and preferring to play hard ball with us, but our wage structure? Christ, it's one of the things the current owners have got very, very right. It's flexible enough to allow us to reward players who perform well (as we did with Tiote in his first season and Krul last year) but won't see us get taken for mugs. What prize do we win for having the lowest wages to turnover ratio? Well done, you've missed my point. No I haven't. Wage total in absolute numbers is a pretty good predictor for league position as tollemache correctly argues, wages to turnover ratio isn't. Wages to turnover matters because it's the only figure that gives you a real indication of whether the club's policy is conservative, reasonable or reckless.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable. when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ? Who's we? I didn't say that, did you? Someone at the club? Of course it's possible to play above yourself and get a bit lucky and finish higher than you'd normally expect to, and of course it's possible to have a rubbish run and finish lower than you'd expect. Teams have surprisingly good seasons and surprisingly bad seasons all the time. What I'm saying is it is a stone cold fact that leagues normally finish roughly in order of wage bill, and that where you come in the wage bill league is generally a very good guide as to where you should expect to end up. Check the stats for any league going and you will tend to find that that principle applies. Afford more good players = probably do better. We deserved to go down because we'd spent a few years putting together an absolute joke of a club and had managed to compile a team of overpaid duds. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, expensive squads do better than cheaper ones because, on the whole, the other factors tend to balance out. I'm talking about averages, rough guides, and as far as working out likely league positions goes, total wages are the most accurate predictor going. LOL the team that went down had one of our highest wage bills. And I could probably pick out a few more exceptional examples to add to that one if you like? It doesn't change the fact that, by and large, league tables finish pretty much in order of wage bill. You know how statistics work, yeah? We're talking about averages, trends etc... Do a graph of final positions vs wage bills in every Premier League season ever and every Serie A season ever and every Liga season ever and every Bundesliga season ever all rolled into one and you'd get a smooth diagonal line showing a direct relationship between wage bill and league position. I don't give a flying f*** if an overpaid team went down once or Muggins Utd won the league. There's some homework for you. No need. Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper already did it in "Why England Lose" Did they also mention the clubs that pay the biggest wages usually do so because they've got a larger turnover and can afford to do so? Yes. Then I look at the table posted above and see us spending 61% of our turnover on wages Is that an unreasonable amount?

Because any player who does well is going to be tempted away by clubs with more ambitious salary scales, and it's only the bargains that turn out not to be bargains that will stay? Until that starts to happen regularly then that's conjecture. Ba is the only person who has shown any real desire to leave and he was apparently offered terms that would've almost gave him parity with our highest earner. I don't quite understand why the board are coping flack for adopting a sensible wage structure. We've been down the road of paying grossly over inflated salaries to players whose performances and/or ability haven't justified them. It got us into trouble and was clearly unsustainable. Why do it again? Our position in that wages table is being obsessed over but whether 1st, 13th or 20th, it's completely moot. The figure that does count for something is wages to turnover. 70% is hypothesised to be the tipping point between a club that can cope and one that is in danger and we're not a million miles off that. The only way we can really begin to pay more is to increase turnover. I think there are some very justified criticisms of the board, for example the extremely ponderous way we approach transfer windows which seems to be borne out of a belief we can come out on top in the sagas that pass for negotiations nowadays when all evidence points to the fact that clubs are getting wise and preferring to play hard ball with us, but our wage structure? Christ, it's one of the things the current owners have got very, very right. It's flexible enough to allow us to reward players who perform well (as we did with Tiote in his first season and Krul last year) but won't see us get taken for mugs. What prize do we win for having the lowest wages to turnover ratio? Well done, you've missed my point.