OzzieMandias

Very good post, and judging by the over the top rection by some posters it seems you have hit a nerve. Yeah, the bored with utter morons nerve.

I agree. I don't get the logic either.

Flop? Flop? History.

Wot no Scolari?

You ever go Ozzie? I can't remember if you're in Berlin... You ever go Ozzie? I can't remember if you're in Berlin... Yeah, I'm in Berlin. When I first lived here, late '80s, me and a bunch of mates used to go to watch Blau-Weiss 90, who had come out of nowhere, got up to the 1. Bundesliga, and at that point were in the 2. Bundesliga and on their way back to oblivion. Once they'd disappeared, some of my friends started travelling to see St Pauli every weekend, and though I never went with them, it always sounded like a really good club. In recent years I've been to quite a few Hertha games, but I find I simply don't like the club at all, although I like the bunch of people I sit with. Didn't go to a single game this season or last. I've also tried Tennis Borussia, but I couldn't get into that either, and Turkiyemspor, the Turkish team, who are probably the most interesting of the bunch, but have outgrown their original small stadium, which is near where I live, and now play their matches way across town. Too far to bother with given that I don't know anyone else who is interested. FC Union are kind of off my radar altogether. Football in Berlin is basically crap. Was planning to come to Hamburg some time in the not-too-distant future to see an old Newcastle friend who now lives in Altona, and we've been talking about going to see St Pauli then. Let me know when you're around. Will do!

You ever go Ozzie? I can't remember if you're in Berlin... You ever go Ozzie? I can't remember if you're in Berlin... Yeah, I'm in Berlin. When I first lived here, late '80s, me and a bunch of mates used to go to watch Blau-Weiss 90, who had come out of nowhere, got up to the 1. Bundesliga, and at that point were in the 2. Bundesliga and on their way back to oblivion. Once they'd disappeared, some of my friends started travelling to see St Pauli every weekend, and though I never went with them, it always sounded like a really good club. In recent years I've been to quite a few Hertha games, but I find I simply don't like the club at all, although I like the bunch of people I sit with. Didn't go to a single game this season or last. I've also tried Tennis Borussia, but I couldn't get into that either, and Turkiyemspor, the Turkish team, who are probably the most interesting of the bunch, but have outgrown their original small stadium, which is near where I live, and now play their matches way across town. Too far to bother with given that I don't know anyone else who is interested. FC Union are kind of off my radar altogether. Football in Berlin is basically crap. Was planning to come to Hamburg some time in the not-too-distant future to see an old Newcastle friend who now lives in Altona, and we've been talking about going to see St Pauli then.

And how the f*** would they know? Im not saying they do know but there all intelligent lads and there all proper football supporters and they all think Ashley is a joke . Maybe there wrong and maybe im wrong (I hope so) but they all think Ashley doesnt want to be there and he's doing all he can to recoup every penny he's invested. I f***ing hope there wrong but it seems like that to me as well Please explain exactly what's wrong with the man wanting to recoup his investment? If he wants to recoup his investment then it shows he hasnt got the best interest of the club at heart, surely even you can see that? these guys will defend Ashley all the way to the 3rd division mate, just so long as he doesn't "embarrass" them. Unbelievable isn't it. So I take it your suggestion for an NUSC banner would be something like "INVESTORS! GIVE US LOADS OF MONEY, BUT DON'T EXPECT ANYTHING BACK!"

And how the f*** would they know? Im not saying they do know but there all intelligent lads and there all proper football supporters and they all think Ashley is a joke . Maybe there wrong and maybe im wrong (I hope so) but they all think Ashley doesnt want to be there and he's doing all he can to recoup every penny he's invested. I f***ing hope there wrong but it seems like that to me as well Please explain exactly what's wrong with the man wanting to recoup his investment? If he wants to recoup his investment then it shows he hasnt got the best interest of the club at heart, surely even you can see that? No, I'm sorry, you'll have to explain a little better than that. The last lot recouped their investment many times over. Was that a problem too?

And how the f*** would they know? Im not saying they do know but there all intelligent lads and there all proper football supporters and they all think Ashley is a joke . Maybe there wrong and maybe im wrong (I hope so) but they all think Ashley doesnt want to be there and he's doing all he can to recoup every penny he's invested. I fucking hope there wrong but it seems like that to me as well Please explain exactly what's wrong with the man wanting to recoup his investment?

It's a means of pretending that moaning a lot is actually "doing something" constructive.

The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I guess the "grown-up" view is that a potential sugar daddy will look at all the protests and boycotts and unfocussed hatred directed towards someone who has so far put about £130 million into the club on top of the purchase price, and think "Yeah, I'll have some of that." How do you think Ashley views the £248M he's spent on the club so far? a) An investment b) An altruistic act of charity c) A black hole for what's left of his spare cash When it comes to selling the club, What will Ashley get? a) More than he put in b) Less than he put in c) Lucky to get his money back Is the primary concern of a businessmen: a) popularity b) profit c) do something interesting and fun with what initially seems like a manageable portion of a recent windfall How naive are you? Bless You're the one who believes in the Fairy Godmother. I can see you goose stepping along the Kurfuerstendamm berating the resistence with "what's the alternative?". Dearie me. So because I disagree with you about the sense in having a protest right now, I'm a childish, naive, deluded Nazi? Dare I point out that you're the one who's having a rally? But thanks for demonstrating so persistently that the main content of your argument is emotional rather than rational.

It's a protest rally. Commonest kind of rally.

The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I guess the "grown-up" view is that a potential sugar daddy will look at all the protests and boycotts and unfocussed hatred directed towards someone who has so far put about £130 million into the club on top of the purchase price, and think "Yeah, I'll have some of that." How do you think Ashley views the £248M he's spent on the club so far? a) An investment b) An altruistic act of charity c) A black hole for what's left of his spare cash When it comes to selling the club, What will Ashley get? a) More than he put in b) Less than he put in c) Lucky to get his money back Is the primary concern of a businessmen: a) popularity b) profit c) do something interesting and fun with what initially seems like a manageable portion of a recent windfall How naive are you? Bless You're the one who believes in the Fairy Godmother.

Two words. Thaskin Shinawatra. Paid £100M Spent £30M Sold for £200M £70M profit in one mid-table season. Two other words: Global recession.

Would that vindicate everyone who is anti-Ashley though? So the end result is always the only thing to be judged, regardless of the intentions and what was tried? Then we may as well just shut down this forum and post up the league table instead. In football the end result is down to a load of factors, only one of which is what your owner does. It could equally vindicate the view that unfocussed protests right now are as likely to do harm as good.

The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I guess the "grown-up" view is that a potential sugar daddy will look at all the protests and boycotts and unfocussed hatred directed towards someone who has so far put about £130 million into the club on top of the purchase price, and think "Yeah, I'll have some of that." alternatively you could employ basic comprehension skills - "I dont think it has any real effect either way", "we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership." it is actually you who thinks that a small protest at the monument will have this big effect on any potential change in ownership - "An air of discontent among the fans also alerts such investors to the fact that a sizeable and vocal minority of their core market is not easily satisfied even by substantial investment in the club." as i said, rather childish. Well done for ignoring my point, which was a response to something Happy Face said about investors.

Fair point Although obviously it's only an opportunity for an investor if they can get the current owner to sell at a knock-down price, and they never plan to make any difficult decisions that the fans might disagree with. Which limits potential investors to those cash-rich enough to develop the club without first having to get expenditure under control.

The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I guess the "grown-up" view is that a potential sugar daddy will look at all the protests and boycotts and unfocussed hatred directed towards someone who has so far put about £130 million into the club on top of the purchase price, and think "Yeah, I'll have some of that." How do you think Ashley views the £248M he's spent on the club so far? a) An investment b) An altruistic act of charity c) A black hole for what's left of his spare cash When it comes to selling the club, What will Ashley get? a) More than he put in b) Less than he put in c) Lucky to get his money back Is the primary concern of a businessmen: a) popularity b) profit c) do something interesting and fun with what initially seems like a manageable portion of a recent windfall

Bollocks. The NUSC is undeniably perceived as being "anti-Ashley" and little else.

The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I guess the "grown-up" view is that a potential sugar daddy will look at all the protests and boycotts and unfocussed hatred directed towards someone who has so far put about £130 million into the club on top of the purchase price, and think "Yeah, I'll have some of that."

It's not a boycott. It's a rally. A rally for what ? NUSC So if there are people there chanting for Ashley to leave they are not there for NUSC is that what your saying ? Serious question. I'm not saying anything like that. Many people want Ashley to go and many don't. Many are NUSC members and many aren't. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, so I'm sure you will get some of those chants. But then you get those chants away from NUSC organised rallys too. I've chanted it myself in the stadium without a committee telling me it was ok. But in an organised rally stuff surely has to be organised therefore the leaflets should be all join NUSC, banners saying the same and people in charge of what happens. Thats the whole point of an organised committee and an organised rally. What I predict will happen is you will have an overruling over people chanting for Ashley to go and for cockneys this and that and that is my whole problem with the current set up of NUSC. It appears from the outside to be a solely anti Ashley protest group. I'm sorry but that is how it looks and how it sounds from their meetings. The NUSC can't prohibit members of the public from voicing their own opinions in a public place though. They've taken the precaution of organising their rally away from the stadium so in the event that it does turn into an anti-Ashley gathering it doesn't affect those who disagree, or the players on the pitch. I think 90% of fans are anti-ashley, so on the whole I'd think the NUSC are. But i think they are (for the most part) taking level headed action that doesn't have a negative impact on the team. Even though I do think a couple of their statements have been heavy handed. Poll on this forum shows only 20 percent think the NUSC represent their views. Do you reckon 70 percent of people on here are even more "anti-Ashley" than they are?

So how come it didn't blind you?

There was mate. I was in it and it had thousands of members, I've still got the lapel badge. You may remember the Magpie pub/club if you've been going to the match for a few years ? I'd join another one if it had credibility and actually did what it said on the tin (key words Newcastle United - Support ?) and didn't advocate boycotts which has to be the opposite of "support". No this is not a supporters club, this is a parochial political movement who want Ashley out and hi-jacked the term "supporters club" for their own purposes. It would raise their credibility if they actually said who or what they actually want to replace the men they so despise, but typically they are full of protest but never come up with any realistic alternatives. Remember the late 80's early 90's when chants of "sack the board" were popular, along with sit down protests? They ushered in a new era of success under John Hall. I understand the key difference you refer to, in that Sir John Hall had publicised his interest in taking full control at that time. But what comes first, the chicken or the egg? I think constant pressure should be put on an underperforming owner whether there's a saviour in the wings or not, or you're inviting them to continue ruining the club. An air of discontent among the fans also alerts such investors of an opportunity to come into a club as the good guys, unlike the Glazers and Hicks of the world who come in as bad guys. An air of discontent among the fans also alerts such investors to the fact that a sizeable and vocal minority of their core market is not easily satisfied even by substantial investment in the club. It's the same with any set of fans. Investors in Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal have had no end of flak from fans even when they're winning shit, because fans are only happy if their manager is given money to spend on players. The idea that an investor is put off the money making opportunities of buying...and then selling a top flight club by noisy fans...who still show up and pump in £2M per home game is preposterous. You can't have it one way without the other, chum. An investor, alerted to rallies and boycotts, is just as likely to think "Fuck it, this lot are too difficult" as "Hey, this guy must want to sell the club." In fact, given that everyone already knows the owner would be happy to sell the club, I'd say it's much more likely to have the latter effect. But never mind, if everyone at the rally just believes hard enough, maybe a Fairy Godmother will appear on top of the Monnie, wave her magic wand, and transform the Toon into Real Madrid.

There was mate. I was in it and it had thousands of members, I've still got the lapel badge. You may remember the Magpie pub/club if you've been going to the match for a few years ? I'd join another one if it had credibility and actually did what it said on the tin (key words Newcastle United - Support ?) and didn't advocate boycotts which has to be the opposite of "support". No this is not a supporters club, this is a parochial political movement who want Ashley out and hi-jacked the term "supporters club" for their own purposes. It would raise their credibility if they actually said who or what they actually want to replace the men they so despise, but typically they are full of protest but never come up with any realistic alternatives. Remember the late 80's early 90's when chants of "sack the board" were popular, along with sit down protests? They ushered in a new era of success under John Hall. I understand the key difference you refer to, in that Sir John Hall had publicised his interest in taking full control at that time. But what comes first, the chicken or the egg? I think constant pressure should be put on an underperforming owner whether there's a saviour in the wings or not, or you're inviting them to continue ruining the club. An air of discontent among the fans also alerts such investors of an opportunity to come into a club as the good guys, unlike the Glazers and Hicks of the world who come in as bad guys. An air of discontent among the fans also alerts such investors to the fact that a sizeable and vocal minority of their core market is not easily satisfied even by substantial investment in the club.