macbeth

at the end of the season two years ago my choice of best opposing players were Drogba and Kezman. I was gutted when Chelsea bought them both.

But I get what he's saying. If Chelski ever get infront they'll run away with it. mind you if Man U stay ahead of them there is every chance they will win it

Opponents I've had to admire- Shilton ~1988 played us on his own Buffon for Juve Viv Anderson in Forest's 78 side Dave Clement for Everton against us in mid 70s Wayne Bridge was the first player to cope with Bellamy in his first season with us Steve McMahon had a great game against us in the 80s The West Brom midfield of 1978/9 with Bryan Robson, Remi Moses and Laurie Cunningham were fantastic Kanu in ~1999 had a wonderful game against us. Paul Mariner (worryingly) played great against us ~1984. Him doing so well made me realise that just cos you aren't world class as an interntaional doesn't mean you can't be a fantastic club player. Dalglish, as mentioned earlier. Rep was shockingly good. The single best performance though was probably Shilton, the saves just went on and on, it was a "how the fuc* did he do that" experience

that'd be me then :winking:

The Halls owned all the shares at one point. When the club becmae a PLC it was from them releasing shores for other to buy. As they were reudcing to 60.%+ they weren't viewed as trying to buy the company. Subsequently they have done nothing but sell. This has taken them down to ~42% holding. Last year when there were shares given away rather than cash the club had to formally say that the potential increase in shareholding by the Halls was not an attempted takeover. The Hall's 42% is cleverly split. Sir John owns 29% which means he could sell all of those to someone without the new person having to say he wanted to buy them all. Each of the Hall shares cost them roughly 11p. Each of those 11p investments has subsequently been rewarded with dividends of 21p. What ever price is negotiated is pure profit. If the dividends had not been in place the club would have less debt and the new investors would be able to give more money to the team, instead they have to pay off the debt taken to to pay the Halls and Shepherds their dividends.

My apologies. I wasn't around a week ago... :winking: he took a wage cut i the summer so he could stay at Hearts

you're wrong, it was McKeag and your monkey, who he admires, that did that. I don't believe message board existed during the McKeag years, does that mean you weren't a fan of the club then either bluesleep.gif sorry that's too subtle, who was my "monkey", and who admires whom ? As there was no message boards, I wrote to the chairman to complain, I criticised him in fan magazines, I tried to change people's sycophantic views of the board. There were still people around who argued that McKeag was better than Westwood, and that we should be careful what we wished for as it could always be worse. McKeag spent £2m in 1988, backing his manager, no other chairman had backed his manager like that. complete rubbish. You're probably right. When it is plain to see such incompotence who on earth would back the chairman the way I suggest above ?

you're wrong, it was McKeag and your monkey, who he admires, that did that. I don't believe message board existed during the McKeag years, does that mean you weren't a fan of the club then either bluesleep.gif sorry that's too subtle, who was my "monkey", and who admires whom ? As there was no message boards, I wrote to the chairman to complain, I criticised him in fan magazines, I tried to change people's sycophantic views of the board. There were still people around who argued that McKeag was better than Westwood, and that we should be careful what we wished for as it could always be worse. McKeag spent £2m in 1988, backing his manager, no other chairman had backed his manager like that.

business. As you keep saying, its a business. With performance results among the top in the country. The business results are amongst the worst in the country, strangely the shareholders have done spectacularly well though :confused: .... http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/divide10.gif bluesleep.gif is that a sign of you dozing thro it all again. you dozed thro the McKeag days refusing to critcise, now you're doing the same again.

business. As you keep saying, its a business. With performance results among the top in the country. The business results are amongst the worst in the country, strangely the shareholders have done spectacularly well though :confused: .... http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/divide10.gif

OMG, the Board will be slaughtered for that idea by the wankers who call them worse than shite. Ironic, eh. The board will make any decision on future ownership by looking at what is the best deal for the shareholders, not necesarily what is the best deal for the club. This is how they justified giving away the revenue from 10,000 fans every season. It was best for the shareholders

The advantage we should have over 'smaller' clubs just doesn't seem to help us. Maybe you should start to ask where the money goes ? As you would so eloquently put it "How dumb are you "

Doesn't Mourinho do something similar? and I wouldn't be scared with the rip roaring pace of Figo and Pauleta like. it was a couple of years ago :winking:

The next thing you know a team will leave their fastest three players ont he half way line when defending corners. So say for us, with everyone fit :roll: leaving Dyer, Martins and Owen on the halfway line. How many players would the attacking side put in our box ? They would not feel comfortable with only one against one, probably require 4 minimum, or more likely 5. That would leave 5 outfield players to attack, o5ne taking the corner, so 4 for the box. Suddenly rather than a packed box, with allsorts of bodies deflecting shots, you'd have 4 attackers and 7 of our defenders looking after them. Only team I've seen do it consistenelty was Portugal a couple of years ago, left Figo, Ronaldo and Pauletta up, opponents were sh*tting themselves

Not sure which is the last reply to me. if it the one at the end of the stats ..... then it didn't seem to be a question more a statement of 'fact' on what you thought my opinion was. It was one of those put-an-opinion-in-someone-elses-name-and-criticise-them-for-it type comments that usually comes from NE5, rather than from you. If it was some other question then I apologise for not answering point me to it. If it was the one I've mentioned here then make it into a question and I'll see what I can do for you.

Would that be this question ? Glad you finally acknowledge the manager is the key. Thanks for producinig those figures of how much money has been made available to the managers over the years. Great stuff. the appointment of the manager is the chairman's key decision, above all others. He should manage it. If he has to lose a manager eh shoudl do it at the correct time, if he has to appoint a new one he should draw up his job spec, approach all those who fit his criteria, and then appoint the best fit. There is no evidence that the current chairman has the skills to manage the process. He has demonstrably got it wrong too many times. The timing of the Robson dismissal was wrong. It was either too late, or too early depending on points of view, which ever it was not correct. I am not sure what criteria was used to pick Roeder. I see nothign on his CV pre-February 2006 that qualifies him for the job. Gullit was 'lost' at the wrong time, as was Dalglish. All of this points to a chairman not in control of the situation he is paid to be in control of. The amount released to managers is shown at http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/transfers2.htm The link contains the line .... The total net amount spent on transfer fees since 1998 is £86m or roughly an average of just under £10m per season.. The link also has a year by year breakdown in the form of a graph ..... http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/transf6.gif Sorry if it wasn't clear for you, hopefully this answers you question. As you don't seem to have actually been to my site, I'll include the dividend graph too ... http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/divide10.gif

I have an optimistic view on life. We'll always do well 'next week' or 'next season'. his a failing of mine. Others have a pesimistic view. In 1991 I thought things may get better under Hall, proven businessman, a natural leader. It was difficult to imagine that it could actually get any worse. It may not have happened, but I was hopeful. Luckily it did improve dramatically. In 2006, there isa similar feeling. For whatever reason the team is fighting a relegation battle, the thought of challenging for a place in the Intertoto seems miles away, survival is the key. If the board deserves praise for the high finishes of 3 or 4 years ago, they MUST deserve equal criticsim for where we are now. It would be unfair to do only one or the other. If the team were sitting where Portsmoth or Reading or Bolton are then those complaining would be easy targets. We are not. Clubs with gates up to 30,000 fewer than ours are completley out-performing us. yf it was one team it could be viewed as a freak. But somehow despite huge access to more resources we under-perform. Three 'smaller' teams have made that key managerial decision better than we have. The pessimistic view is that the replacement of Hall & Shepherd would weaken the board, weaken our ability to attract the top manager, and weaken that manager's ability to compete. The three named sides, and the likes of Everton, Man City, Fulham, Blackburn, Wigan seem to show that there are others out there who can do it. We shoudl be able to compete with these sides, we don't currently seem able to do so

I think the reason Beardsley left was because Hall and Shepherd weren't on the board. I think the reason Beardsley came was because he wanted to play with Keegan, and learn. I think Liverpool in te 80s bought who ever they wanted. They were multiple European Champions and bought who ever they wanted, like Chlsea, but with soem history and some style. I can't think of any rumoured move to Liverpool at that time ever falling through. I'm also pretty sure that what happened in the 1970s and 80s has as much relevance to how well, or badly, the current board is running the club, as the 1940s and 50s had to me when I started going in the late 60s, early 70s. I didn't compare, I was only interested in the present and the future not what seemed like very old people told me about from years ago. In the 70s I could see how bad things were, I was too young to be able to try and do anything about it. The older generation just accepted the rubbish the board shoved at them. It is good to see that this generation are, generally, at least questioning what goes on. Some don't dare open their eyes though

or 96-97 :confused:

Shepherd became chairman durign 97-98 season. Four lower half finishes, four upper. This season will have him either averaging either top or bottom. Excellent set of stats though, does that make you as boring as me :winking: You'll have to get used to the fact that some people will just not believing them though, and adding your own personal comment is very dangerous :roll:

Yes, do you think that Tesco shareholders would get the same dividend if the company spent all of its profits on building new stores? Nope, they would get nothing however they would be happy enough with this view as the following year profits would be expected to be even higher and therefore they'd make more money (and the value of their shares would increase). Are you seriously saying that as a shareholder of a football club I should expect to receive a nice fat dividend regardless of how much (if anything) the club has made? If it spent the cash on lots of shiny new players then I would be expecting to see at best a reduced dividend with however, the expectation that these new players would bring us success and with it increased profits the following season. in 2004 and 2005 the profits were bigger (or the losses lower :roll:) due to the amount being spent of transfers being negligible. The consequence of this was the need to invest heavily in 2006 and 2007 financial years. There seemed to be an expectation that dividneds HAD to be maintained, but all other expenditure could be reduced. As the club has now run out of cash, even the dividends have had to be curtailed.

Fair enough. I guess I should have guessed before by the fact that you want the club to be taken over by someone (anyone) who will take the club off the stock market and make the club’s finances totally opaque that you were a supporter of self-serving and unaccountable governments. What will you do with your spare time though, and what will happen to: when you have no financial information to misrepresent simplify for others? I love misrepresenting, so much so that I will change any item on my web site if you can prove it inaccurate. Last time I made this request on here I changed no numbers, but did change a word that may have given the wrong impression. Offer still open, show some misrepresentation and I will change it. Of course you could also make changes that helped simplify those bits a postcode is still struggling with

Indeed, but a warmongering fascist with a light touch I believe you have been asked some serious questions in this thread, you're not avoiding them again are you :roll: absolutely not, I think if you read my reply I do admit to being a "warmongering fascist", can you not even see that ?

Indeed, but a warmongering fascist with a light touch