OzzieMandias

You could equally try to explain why one makes sense at the moment. Note that NUSC are not describing The Rally as a protest.

no, you wouldn't, would you. Even with hindsight. mackems.gif Never mind ozzie I'm sure others will see the point perfectly. So you can't explain its relevance. Needless to say. Why don't you go and spew all over some other thread?

I haven't the slightest idea why you find my two-and-a-half-year-old suggestions for successful protesting either amusing or relevant to the current discussion

At last a statement regarding the purpose of The Rally: So it's all about, er... raising the NUSC's desire! Load of waffle, let's face it.

Sorry, then. It's just that when you said you were irritated by people being eager to mock from the anonymous safety of an internet forum, I took it to mean that you were irritated by people being eager to mock from the anonymous safety of an internet forum.

Partizan. That was as pivotal as it gets.

Ban all discussion of it, then. If there IS discussion, then those critical of the NUSC will of course have their say, and you will be irritated. Can you not read? How wonderfully ironic that you of all people are resorting to such rubbish. OK, I'm wrong. There is some way one can have a discussion about NUSC without those who think it's a bunch of wank expressing that opinion and you being irritated by it. You seem very concerned with what irritates me. I'm alright, honestly. You brought it up. I just think this attitude of "it shouldn't be criticised by anonymous posters on a discussion board" is as daft as the idea that everyone should get on board because they are "doing something".

Ban all discussion of it, then. If there IS discussion, then those critical of the NUSC will of course have their say, and you will be irritated. Can you not read? How wonderfully ironic that you of all people are resorting to such rubbish. OK, I'm wrong. There is some way one can have a discussion about NUSC without those who think it's a bunch of wank expressing that opinion and you being irritated by it.

They started out as an Ashley-out protest group because they started out as an anti-Ashley protest group. Now there's a kind of lock-in phenomenon working. Those who want to moan about Ashley gravitate towards it. Those with a less simplistic viewpoint steer well clear.

Ban all discussion of it, then. If there IS discussion, then those critical of the NUSC will of course have their say, and you will be irritated.

i'm not going to argue with you on that score, i agree with you its shocking that there has been nothing said about what this rally is for or what they plan to achieve, they've had nearly 2 weeks to get the heads together and come up with something!! NUSC could become a good supporters' club, I just don't see any evidence of them doing so, or even trying to at present. As for the their anti-Ashley campaign, well the first thing you have to do if you're going to criticise someone's running of their organisation is to make sure that you don't do the exact same thing with yours, they don't seem to see the irony in that, let alone the hypocrisy. Won't deny its had "teething" problems but was always going to considering it was formed on the back of the Keegan dismissal and feelings among fans running high, this forum has been critical of NUSC for its hardline approach whereas i've read things on the chronicle forum and people on there are giving it a hardtime for not been hard enough!! I still believe its got a big future, whatever criticisms people on here have its growing daily, if you believe True Faith it already the largest and fastest growing independent correctly convened club supporters association in the UK(not sure what they mean by correctly convened mind), there's already as far as i'm aware plans for it to become a supporters trust which would be a good move and give it more power and credence. What is the significance of being a supporter's trust? How does that work? http://www.supporters-direct.org/page.asp?p=2074

I love a good story about people knocking on other people's doors. It's the suspense thing. It's a will they let them in or won't they. Great, edge of the seat, British Isles, thriller.

It's a means of pretending that moaning a lot is actually "doing something" constructive. you mean like when you emailed that cockney journalist to dish the dirt on the club you say you support ? You're confusing me with the NUSC.

Very well written story. Compare that to the shite in the local press.

Yeah, a full month after he tried to engineer a move without handing in a transfer request.

Given only handed in his transfer request on jan 31, iirc.

How would our shareholders have aligned income with expenditure to remain solvent without selling our best players? I don't know, how would our shareholders have aligned income with expenditure to remain solvent without selling our best players? To get to the other side. That's the best answer the question is likely to get. at least when I ask someone a question I know the answer Only because you ignore what they say and invent an answer for them.

I think its more that people feel his long term aim is to make a profit on the club. Which makes him different from nearly every club owner, anywhere, ever... how exactly? It doesnt. I would agree in that they are all out to make money for themselves. Its not my point of view to be honest but I was just trying to offer a thought on why people were seeing past the current finances situation and just looking at his general end game. OK, gotcha.

I think its more that people feel his long term aim is to make a profit on the club. Which makes him different from nearly every club owner, anywhere, ever... how exactly?

The key to this whole "Ashley is the Evil Prince of Greed" thing seems to be an ability to moan (endlessly) about the state of the finances while simultaneously ignoring (completely) the state of the finances.

Considering Ashley did exactly what the Halls did when he floated SD (though the Halls weren't damned by the City for ripping them off) how are they "morally" different if that's what you're implying? Also what about the price he allegedly wanted off the Arabs in September which would have made him more that £150m? Shepherd & Hall creamed millions of the trading income out of the club & left it in a disastrous financial state, that's entirely different to money made from selling shares. The vast majority of the £146m was from selling shares. Yes they did take salaries and dividends but that's small beer compared with what Ashley wanted to and would have made but for the credit crunch. I also object to any money Wise and the rest have had from the club far more more than what Shepherd did. You carry on comparing taking profits out of the club which could have been used for player purchases with making money from selling the whole entity though. I believe they (the Halls & Shepherds) made over £24m by taking dividends & using the club's money to buy their own shares off them. That £24 million doesn't include their salaries either. Small beer to you perhaps, but more than a couple of players for the football club. I always knew the Halls and The Shepherds were in it for the money and never subscribed to their "Geordie nation" bollocks but I was always happy that despite being bastards they wanted the team to succeed (even if there was an element of further financial interest in that) and on the whole did their best to do make that happen. That's why I think they come off better when compared to Ashley's lies. You think Ashley wants the team to fail? No but his priority is money - the number one priority of any football club should be the first team imo. That doesn't mean the financial situation should be ignored but I think he has seriously ignored the team. Yet he's put in more than the last lot took out, hasn't taken any money out himself, and isn't charging interest on his loan to the club.

Considering Ashley did exactly what the Halls did when he floated SD (though the Halls weren't damned by the City for ripping them off) how are they "morally" different if that's what you're implying? Also what about the price he allegedly wanted off the Arabs in September which would have made him more that £150m? Shepherd & Hall creamed millions of the trading income out of the club & left it in a disastrous financial state, that's entirely different to money made from selling shares. The vast majority of the £146m was from selling shares. Yes they did take salaries and dividends but that's small beer compared with what Ashley wanted to and would have made but for the credit crunch. I also object to any money Wise and the rest have had from the club far more more than what Shepherd did. You carry on comparing taking profits out of the club which could have been used for player purchases with making money from selling the whole entity though. I believe they (the Halls & Shepherds) made over £24m by taking dividends & using the club's money to buy their own shares off them. That £24 million doesn't include their salaries either. Small beer to you perhaps, but more than a couple of players for the football club. I always knew the Halls and The Shepherds were in it for the money and never subscribed to their "Geordie nation" bollocks but I was always happy that despite being bastards they wanted the team to succeed (even if there was an element of further financial interest in that) and on the whole did their best to do make that happen. That's why I think they come off better when compared to Ashley's lies. You think Ashley wants the team to fail?

I think it was pretty obvious all along that it was likely to be settled out of court. It's probably also best for all concerned if the settlement happens quietly. The last thing we need is for this highly emotional and divisive dispute to get back into the back page headlines.

Sir John took NO active part in the day-to-day running of the club after he left as stand-in Chairman in 1998. He DID tell the board to get their act together over their delay in appointing SBR in 99, but after that it was entirely up to FS & DH. No blame can be attached to him for signing Souness or anyone after him. Uh-oh!