80

I only expect it not to fail if a pre-fab system is imported from the continent. Arnesen-Jol was an example of this.

Robson would have stayed. Arguably a problem in his own right. Too old school for his/our good.

Hmm... my view on the Graeme Danby innovation has soured with hindsight.

Always had deep suspicions about Comolli, seems like a smoothy bullshitter. Spurs' progress came to an end when Arnesen left and he arrived. One problem with DoFs, particularly when tried in England at least, is they always appear to escape the blame - I think largely as football people (supporters, press and boards) still see the manager as the figurehead ultimately responsible for the team's performance. Whilst there's this philosophy floating around which says you should keep the DoF to retain continuity in the club's overall structure, instead of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' when a change of manager is required, I think those responsible should be much more prepared to scrutinise and replace such backstage figures. Trouble is, they always seem to have the ear of the chairman...

We didn't get one before today, we more likely than not won't get one after. Leaving the window open and not checking the news for 20 mins was responsible for that post... No, I'm sure normal service will now resume.

Well, a fucking explanation would be called for. A proper account of what has taken place. Resignation/sackings, recriminations, briefings, statements, litigation - it cannot be brushed under the carpet.

i also remember the forum voted on how they felt about Shepherd, and the overwhelming vote was for "Ambitious but flawed" not sure you could ever argue that Ashley has shown ambition based on his time here, so that's unambitious and flawed for him. Based on the tangibles, I'd have to agree. Even if this Keegan stuff hadn't taken place to any great extent, there would've been a spike in the disquiet about what was taking place as I think a lot of people, including myself, had given the new regime up until the end of this window before they would start to draw conclusions on how things were going. There have been a fair few words and rumours around about what was to come, and whilst they were often nice to hear and you'd have hoped to believe in them, indisputable actions were what they had to ultimately be judged upon. The three windows, prior to any of this Keegan business, had to be considered disappointing and concerning, in my eyes. Include all the Keegan stuff and... well, we are where we are.

Perhaps another couple of factors in the feeling towards Ashley being so strong so quick, in contrast to Shepherd, are 1) Ashley, unlike Shepherd, has a reputation for being competent - Oliver Hardy references don't stick so well - and 2) there was always hope of Shepherd being taken away by some glorious takeover, if we just weathered the storm... we got it... now people don't feel it was so glorious after all.

Regarding Sky, I have to say I never saw them say anything more than that their sources were telling them things. In contrast, BBC News 24 was repeatedly reporting it as a signed and sealed fact in headlines etc.

They are Indian. Ashley out, Ambani in. Google "sic". Was temporarily like entering bizarro world.

"Chief executive of Hydra Properties, Al-Fahim is reportedly 10 times richer than his counterpart at Chelsea, Roman Abramovich, and he has revealed there are plans to bring in a 'minimum 18' players to the club." http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_4086955,00.html I wish we'd held on to Milner till January.

quite simply the most hypocritical thing I've seen in ages. I don't see him saying anywhere that the views are anybody else's other than his own by the way. Hasn't the club asked you for views on things DAve ? Please tell us the difference. Neither the club or the press have ever asked me for my views on NUFC, either for publication or for any other reason. Do you understand the meaning of the word ASSOCIATION? I can't see why it bothers you. I can only presume you are pissed off because it isn't you ? Frank has never said he is speaking for the supporters, he only gives his own views and does it because he is asked for them. Its more the fact that he claims to represent some sort of supporters club, which no-one I know of has ever been involved with/been associated with/ever heard about. He also happens to spout exactly what the southern media expect a stereotypical "crying on the telly geordie fan" to say. He's very rarely complimentary about the club, why do the press never ask him for comments when there's something positive happening at the club? ["Oh, but that never happens" I hear you cry] It's interesting that you should comment on this thread NE5, particularly that you should be 'defending' the guy, as my original post was going to make some tenuous allegation that YOU are Frank Gilmour...but that would be too far fetched he doesn't "claim" anything, from what I have seen. Its the same as Mark Jensen of the mag, they are telephoned and asked for their views. Now I'm not Frank Gilmour, but I know that Mark Jensen gets asked for his views. And no, I'm not Mark either. Thats all there is to it. These people don't write the lines, they are just asked for their opinions. I assume he claims to be the chairman of INUSA, that the press don't just refer to him as that for a laugh. Do you know if he's aware that heading an organisation with that title lends the idea that he speaks on behalf of a body of people credibility? Do you think he's aware that, in his position, he should distance his own privately held views from those of others supporters? It seems he normally claims to be airing the views of the 'masses', if anything. So far as I can see, he's just asked for them. The INUSA was borne out of the period when people were moved from their seats to make way for those corporate areas, and its just existed in some form ever since. I don't know what Frank does with regard to it, and to be honest, I'm not really bothered either. If someone rang you as a NO person, wouldn't you give your views ? Fair enough if you've got essentially nothing to do with it/him, but I do get bothered by the sense that I and others are being spoken for, especially if I think what is being said is media-friendly, ill-considered tripe. He's given more harmful lines to the cockney press than Ozzie ever could. It contributes to this whole thing of the media thinking we're Geordie idiots, no better than we ought to be and only worth paying attention to when in search of mirth. If the press asked me for my views, I can honestly say I'd take measures to make sure I didn't cross any lines. That would involve something along the lines of me being referred to as an administrator of a fansite and, if asked to speak for the fans, giving more than one side of the story if necessary. I'd seek to highlight any subjective views, I promise you that. possibly - and I'll stress that I've never done it either - but I would imagine these things are more difficult than they seem. Quite probably. We had a problem just recently when some random bloke made hysterical comments on an article on the main site and they got taken up by three papers (makes me suspect it was actually a journalist who wrote them - it was a bit of a coincidence they all quoted this site on the same day...). He was referred as Joe Bloggs 'of Newcastle Online' - he was absolutely nothing to do with us. A fair bit of effort was spent on trying to make the Sun change that on their website. The thing with Gilmore is it's not as though he was misrepresented once or twice and learnt his lesson. As it is, the guy's essentially faceless - he hasn't made that reasonable excuse to anyone I know of. I can't change what he says or stop him saying it, and drowning him out wouldn't be at all easy as he's a media personality, now. That's where the frustration kicks in.

quite simply the most hypocritical thing I've seen in ages. I don't see him saying anywhere that the views are anybody else's other than his own by the way. Hasn't the club asked you for views on things DAve ? Please tell us the difference. Neither the club or the press have ever asked me for my views on NUFC, either for publication or for any other reason. Do you understand the meaning of the word ASSOCIATION? I can't see why it bothers you. I can only presume you are pissed off because it isn't you ? Frank has never said he is speaking for the supporters, he only gives his own views and does it because he is asked for them. Its more the fact that he claims to represent some sort of supporters club, which no-one I know of has ever been involved with/been associated with/ever heard about. He also happens to spout exactly what the southern media expect a stereotypical "crying on the telly geordie fan" to say. He's very rarely complimentary about the club, why do the press never ask him for comments when there's something positive happening at the club? ["Oh, but that never happens" I hear you cry] It's interesting that you should comment on this thread NE5, particularly that you should be 'defending' the guy, as my original post was going to make some tenuous allegation that YOU are Frank Gilmour...but that would be too far fetched he doesn't "claim" anything, from what I have seen. Its the same as Mark Jensen of the mag, they are telephoned and asked for their views. Now I'm not Frank Gilmour, but I know that Mark Jensen gets asked for his views. And no, I'm not Mark either. Thats all there is to it. These people don't write the lines, they are just asked for their opinions. I assume he claims to be the chairman of INUSA, that the press don't just refer to him as that for a laugh. Do you know if he's aware that heading an organisation with that title lends the idea that he speaks on behalf of a body of people credibility? Do you think he's aware that, in his position, he should distance his own privately held views from those of others supporters? It seems he normally claims to be airing the views of the 'masses', if anything. So far as I can see, he's just asked for them. The INUSA was borne out of the period when people were moved from their seats to make way for those corporate areas, and its just existed in some form ever since. I don't know what Frank does with regard to it, and to be honest, I'm not really bothered either. If someone rang you as a NO person, wouldn't you give your views ? Fair enough if you've got essentially nothing to do with it/him, but I do get bothered by the sense that I and others are being spoken for, especially if I think what is being said is media-friendly, ill-considered tripe. He's given more harmful lines to the cockney press than Ozzie ever could. It contributes to this whole thing of the media thinking we're Geordie idiots, no better than we ought to be and only worth paying attention to when in search of mirth. If the press asked me for my views, I can honestly say I'd take measures to make sure I didn't cross any lines. That would involve something along the lines of me being referred to as an administrator of a fansite and, if asked to speak for the fans, giving more than one side of the story if necessary. I'd seek to highlight any subjective views, I promise you that.

wouldn't you represent Newcastle Online ? Whats the difference ? Just admit it DAve, your beef with this is because it isn't you No one from here would speak for the forum members (or allow themselves to be understood as doing so). In all seriousness, do you know how I would go about finding about/involving myself with INUSA? How did he come to speak for the group? How big is the group? thats all I'm saying mate. I have never seen Frank Gilmour ever say anything claiming to be any opinion other than his own ? The same with Mark Jensen. I'll have to try and dig up some quotes at some point, but I'm certain he has. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head was when he was bemoaning the demise of Local Hero. Regarding Mark Jensen, I don't hve any particular problem with him - I remember him once or twice suggesting fans felt one way or another, but the vast vast majority of the time he only says things that could be construed as his own views, even if they are complete bollocks.

quite simply the most hypocritical thing I've seen in ages. I don't see him saying anywhere that the views are anybody else's other than his own by the way. Hasn't the club asked you for views on things DAve ? Please tell us the difference. Neither the club or the press have ever asked me for my views on NUFC, either for publication or for any other reason. Do you understand the meaning of the word ASSOCIATION? I can't see why it bothers you. I can only presume you are pissed off because it isn't you ? Frank has never said he is speaking for the supporters, he only gives his own views and does it because he is asked for them. Its more the fact that he claims to represent some sort of supporters club, which no-one I know of has ever been involved with/been associated with/ever heard about. He also happens to spout exactly what the southern media expect a stereotypical "crying on the telly geordie fan" to say. He's very rarely complimentary about the club, why do the press never ask him for comments when there's something positive happening at the club? ["Oh, but that never happens" I hear you cry] It's interesting that you should comment on this thread NE5, particularly that you should be 'defending' the guy, as my original post was going to make some tenuous allegation that YOU are Frank Gilmour...but that would be too far fetched he doesn't "claim" anything, from what I have seen. Its the same as Mark Jensen of the mag, they are telephoned and asked for their views. Now I'm not Frank Gilmour, but I know that Mark Jensen gets asked for his views. And no, I'm not Mark either. Thats all there is to it. These people don't write the lines, they are just asked for their opinions. I assume he claims to be the chairman of INUSA, that the press don't just refer to him as that for a laugh. Do you know if he's aware that heading an organisation with that title lends the idea that he speaks on behalf of a large and organised body of people credibility? Do you think he's aware that, in his position, he should distance his own privately held views from those of others supporters? Anything less suggests he speaks with the authority of his position. It seems he does claim to be airing the views of the 'masses', if anything.

wouldn't you represent Newcastle Online ? Whats the difference ? Just admit it DAve, your beef with this is because it isn't you No one from here would speak for the forum members (or allow themselves to be understood as doing so). In all seriousness, do you know how I would go about finding about/involving myself with INUSA? How did he come to speak for the group? How big is the group?

It's a secret. I don't actually want to join, as I am actually the elected chair of Friends of Newcastle United (FNU). I do wish to propose a merger between our respective organisations, however. I feel this would strengthen our say in affairs and ensure we can drown out the imbecilic bastards at the Tyneside Council for the Betterment of Newcastle United (TCBNU).

How do I join INUSA?

Its a bugger when you get the bubbles up your nose. I assume you meant that and nothing more libellous...

Can't hurt to venture some qualified thoughts - you weren't over the moon, I take it. I was pretty happy with him, myself. Barely put a foot wrong but I'm feeling a little uneasy about the hype of our new players on very little evidence (other than Coloccini who I think is proven class), simply because when they underperform slightly or make one rick, that then gets pushed to the other extreme and they're shit/not adapting/not developing/whatever. So you're not saying he looks possibly good now so that you can take the moral high ground when someone starts saying he looks bad if/when he makes a mistake? That approach never bloody works, man, it won't be remembered - might as well just go with the flow

As I recall from the live footage, I think he was flat-footed for that goal - he's fairly slight and in the circumstances was no match for their bull run. Not very good, no, if that's the case - such runs need to be matched one way or another. Didn't see much of the Bolton match, either. Hmm... As for tonight, was too busy ranting about foul throws.

Can't hurt to venture some qualified thoughts - you weren't over the moon, I take it. I was pretty happy with him, myself.

He got header after header tonight. I only wonder about what he'd be like against strong competition - I need to see that second goal of theirs more closely.

Reminded me of a sheepdog trial, really liked that.

This topic has been moved to Chat. [iurl]http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=55246.0[/iurl]