UV

With their name being dragged through the mud all over the press that'll be why West Ham did so poorly last season and couldn't get taken over then. I must have missed the bit where West Ham fans collectively spat out the dummy and started a boycoutt over their infallible god-like hero Curbishley. You really hate Keegan don't you? No, he really hates Newcastle supporters, as going by that it's US to blame for the difference between what happened at NUFC & what happened at WHUFC. BTW how has this supposed "boycoutt" affected the club Ozzie? The boycoutt which saw us have the highest ever attendance for a team relegated in the UK & the 6th highest average attendance in England this season. The turmoil definitely affected our chances of getting a decent interim replacement after KK legged it. It may also have affected the sale, but who can really say whether any buyers were put off by the prospect of a fractious, difficult-to-satisfy fan base? I'm sure it makes us look a less attractive prospect, though. How could it make us more likely to find a buyer? The aftermath of the KK situation clearly affected what you've described above, but not to the extent that we were being run and owned by an incompetant did. The fact a retard was running the club meant it was extremely unlikely we were going to get a decent interim manager in (became an issue again when JFK got ill). He's also done a pretty poor job thus far of getting the club sold again, despite having ages to do it and claiming to be very keen to get out. It really puts prospective owners off knowing we can only get attendances higher than 3/4 of the premiership while in the 2nd division with no manager and an unpopular current owner.

With their name being dragged through the mud all over the press that'll be why West Ham did so poorly last season and couldn't get taken over then. I must have missed the bit where West Ham fans collectively spat out the dummy and started a boycoutt over their infallible god-like hero Curbishley. You really hate Keegan don't you? No, he really hates Newcastle supporters, as going by that it's US to blame for the difference between what happened at NUFC & what happened at WHUFC. BTW how has this supposed "boycoutt" affected the club Ozzie? The boycoutt which saw us have the highest ever attendance for a team relegated in the UK & the 6th highest average attendance in England this season. The turmoil definitely affected our chances of getting a decent interim replacement after KK legged it. It may also have affected the sale, but who can really say whether any buyers were put off by the prospect of a fractious, difficult-to-satisfy fan base? I'm sure it makes us look a less attractive prospect, though. How could it make us more likely to find a buyer? No, the fact Ashley was only offering a 1 month contract affected the managerial appointment. On the second point, see my edited post above.

With their name being dragged through the mud all over the press that'll be why West Ham did so poorly last season and couldn't get taken over then. I must have missed the bit where West Ham fans collectively spat out the dummy and started a boycoutt over their infallible god-like hero Curbishley. You really hate Keegan don't you? No, he really hates Newcastle supporters, as going by that it's US to blame for the difference between what happened at NUFC & what happened at WHUFC. BTW how has this supposed "boycoutt" affected the club Ozzie? The boycoutt which saw us have the highest ever attendance for a team relegated in the UK & the 6th highest average attendance in England this season. Edit: If you're so opposed to boycotts Ozzie, why exactly were you trying to encourage people to protest and stay away from games 3 years ago (when we'd just finished 7th and were playing in Europe) to try and help a takeover take place? http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31195.msg582620.html#msg582620

With their name being dragged through the mud all over the press that'll be why West Ham did so poorly last season and couldn't get taken over then.

Because West Ham didn't try to sue Curbishley? probably because he wasnt stupid enough to agree to a walk out clause then walk out. if his position was made "untenable" then he would have a case apparently. I don't disagree that Keegan was foolish to trust Ashley at his word about the control he would have and agree to a walk out clause.

Because West Ham didn't try to sue Curbishley?

To put another spin on it, my boss has been made redundant but has brought up a number of grievances. Most of these are wrong, a FACT I know as he has quoted me in them and what he is saying is at best a grossly warped view of events and at worst complete lies. He will end up getting a settlement higher than he should - it should be basic redundancy but he'll walk away with about £20k on top. Doen't mean he is right and the company wrong This one? If so you should present this as proof he's a congenital liar.

When the club goes bankrupt Keegan will be able to buy it now! They should just say whoever wins the arbitration wins the club.

...and you think they don't know people in the media who will simply print what they get told from "club sources"! Are you forgetting the Lampard, Beckham & Henry story, or do you just believe it?

Even if Mike Ashley puts the club into administration because of it, as has been suggested in the .com article and we lose 10 points because of it? Good question. Having Mike Ashley as owner is like a 20 point hit every season, so a one-off 10 point hit to ditch all the debt, cancel any overly large player contracts and get rid of Ashley would actually be well worth it. Kev doing what's best for the club yet again!

That's fair enough but on the flip side if Keegan doesn't get everything he's looking for, or if the panel finds in favour of Ashley then those on the other side of the fence will also have to get off their "high horse" and accept that Keegan shares some of the blame in this case. Let's see what happens. Unless further evidence comes to light, a legal verdict on who should get compensation one way or the other isn't going to change my view on matters one bit, and I wouldn't expect any Keegan haters to change their minds either.

The club was happy to continue to pay Robson, honouring his contract, until he got a new job elsewhere. That wasn't enough for him though, he wanted to be able to get another job (possibly for a rival) and carry on leeching supporter's money off us as well as getting paid for managing another club. So he dragged the club through an expensive court case. It was futile in end for him anyway, as noone wanted him after the out of control dressing room he left at SJP which even the best manager in the world would have found difficult to turn around, and ultimately led to our relegation last season. Ok first of all he didn't get a new job until after his contract with Newcastle would have ended despite being offered jobs in that time. Secondly if someone with a contract is sacked he has to be paid in full for the remaining time of that contract. Getting another job has absolutely no baring on that what so ever. Was he? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave

The club was happy to continue to pay Robson, honouring his contract, until he got a new job elsewhere. That wasn't enough for him though, he wanted to be able to get another job (possibly for a rival) and carry on leeching supporter's money off us as well as getting paid for managing another club. So he dragged the club through an expensive court case. It was futile in end for him anyway, as noone wanted him after the out of control dressing room he left at SJP which even the best manager in the world would have found difficult to turn around, and ultimately led to our relegation last season. Not only do you contradict yourself there but the reality doesn't bear you out either. Bobby was sacked in the August and turned down the Hearts job in the following June and only joined Ireland the following January after that - almost 18 months later. I don't think I'm contradicting myself by pointing out that what someone wants/thinks they can get may be completely out of step with what they're likely to be offered (see this thread for details). It took a nutter like Romanov to offer him a job after nearly a year, which was after the length of his contract anyway hence why the court case was futile. The Ireland job was just a consultancy thing.

The club was happy to continue to pay Robson, honouring his contract, until he got a new job elsewhere. That wasn't enough for him though, he wanted to be able to get another job (possibly for a rival) and carry on leeching supporter's money off us as well as getting paid for managing another club. So he dragged the club through an expensive court case. It was futile in end for him anyway, as noone wanted him after the out of control dressing room he left at SJP which even the best manager in the world would have found difficult to turn around, and ultimately led to our relegation last season.

SBR happy clappers man, dont let them get to you. They only remember moments under SBR which were good and forget some of the shyte that was churned out. Robson wrote the book on taking the club he "loved" to court and making a profit out of washing its dirty laundry in public.

I agree.

With the sort of business acumen you only get from billionaires? From £70m when he took over to £100m or 110m (reports vary) debt to Ashley plus up to £40m overdraft. We don't know how much of the overdraft is currently used up, but if you consider that the overdraft should be at it's maximum prior to the money coming in at the start of a new season from STs, TV, new shirt revenue, etc and you compare like for like (ie end of June accounts where the £70m comes from) I'd be very surprised if the overdraft wasn't £30m+ at the end of June 09 = £130/140m = ~2*£70m Not all of it, but certainly a significant amount, and certainly a lot more than the advertising revenue about which Des said this: Ad revenue up front - crazy. Season ticket revenue up front - "sorting out" the finances. Yes they are being silly aren't they.

He HAS to sell, there's no other option. The "Cockney Mafia Out" banner made his position as owner untenable. He and his family will never be safe in the region again let alone at the ground, and all the protests and boycotts will adversely affect the team until he sells. He's desperately trying to sell to dozens of mystery buyers from around the globe and his mate Barry - have you not read the papers or listened to those privileged enough to be "in the know"? We just have to be patient and know that the only reason we've not been sold yet is because even in spite of the disgraceful way he has been treated he still loves the club and in his own words "any potential buyer would have to show they had the best interests of Newcastle United at heart and had both the commitment and finance to be worthy custodians of such a fine football club before I would even consider doing a deal". That's why he's always put a price on the club well in excess of it's value so that any new owner can show they are worthy to run the club as "responsibly at all levels" as Mike himself has. Unfortunately we've driven out the man who saved us from mid-table premiership football, and sorted out the finances so we now have a wage bill a few million lower than when he took over - albeit with a load less players and a lot less quality - and doubling the debt while halving the revenue. He also saved any new owners the bother of bringing in season ticket money by taking 3 years in advance so they wont have the hassle of having to factor that into next season's income. All in just over 2 years, amazing stuff, just think what he could do if only he was given a bit longer by us ungrateful so-called supporters. We all just need to have patience, trust in Mike & Derek, and know that while we're waiting their good work is continuing behind the scenes (in spite of the best efforts of our ex-chairman who even now is almost certainly to blame for anything which may go wrong).

The only reason we haven't appointed Peter Kenyon yet is because of Keegan. How do I know this? Lets just say that I know and leave it at that.

It's just a shame Keegan didn't have the benefit of your tactical genius and have us sit back and defend for over half an hour at Liverpool who scored more goals at home than anyone else that year.

Which is one reason why the difference may have been Venison, had he not be allowed to leave. It was also a lot to do with the amazing last 15 or 16 games from manure that is constantly overlooked. Really, the 12 point lead isn't the main thing here anyway. The media like to sensationalise and it's a better story (even if true) that Keegan bottled it on TV and threw away a 12 point lead when compared to Man Utd winning the league again due in huge part to an absolutely amazing run-in. It's played over 38 games and the bottom line is the best team wins the league. We were second best overall despite being ahead for large parts of it. We didn't win, but to suggest a manager is hopeless who takes a club from where Keegan started to where it was at that point is lunacy. Would agree with all of that, especially Man U's amazing run at the end. You can't really legislate for that, and tbh finishing runners up with a team that had only been promoted a couple of seasons earlier was no small achievement. Absolutely. The pivotal moment was clearly the defeat at home to manure and that was absolutely nowt at all to do with Keegan supposedly bottling it. Even a draw in that game and I think we'd have gone on to win the league but it wasn't to be. I'm as disappointed as anyone else but these things happen. Keegan made mistkes, who doesn't and for that he can be criticised like anybody else, but I'm not going to generally slag the bloke who gave us our best team since 1927 in the manner some do on this forum. To do so is pathetic and sad imo. That ManU game was unreal. Were it not for Peter Schmeichal we'd have won that night and, imo, gone on to win the league. Performances like that where why he was the best keeper in the world mind, probably the best I've ever seen. Man U had Schmeichal in the form of his life while we had Shaka & Pav. Of course we conceded 2 more goals than them that season due to "Newcastle's suspect defence"1 and "Keegan's tactical naivety "2. 1. © A. Hanson 2. © Sky

a couple of seasons after we "threw away our lead" man utd were over 12 points ahead of arsenal at one stage, (for all at the time they didn't have a 12 point lead over the rest of the league),and still lost out to them for the title. http://www.statto.com/football/teams/manchester-united/1997-1998/table/1998-03-01 Ferguson the bottler

Wenger and Ferguson have never lost after being ahead in a match? Amazing stat if so. I couldn't ever see Wenger throwing away, say, a champions league final once his team were in front. It just wouldn't happen, he's not so tactically naive as to ever let his players concede a goal.

Wenger and Ferguson have never lost after being ahead in a match? Amazing stat if so. I'd rather say you haven't a fucking clue and leave it at that.

A few minutes = 33? How disgraceful we couldn't beat Liverpool who only lost once at home that season (and beat Man U 2-0).