OzzieMandias

I agree too, except who's "like" Joe Harvey? Lifted trophies as both captain and manager -- and no one has done either since.

If all you have to argue is my use of wording then well done. Im not saying we do feel we're in a position to make demands yet you make out we do. You cant argue that the boycotts are hurting the club and prospective owners and then in the next breath say they are ineffective. They are either working or they arent. You asked me what we would do if he couldnt sell, I gave you an answer telling you what we are already doing about that. You then call us for doing something. No win situation again. As long as you treat it as a confrontation, no-win is what it will be -- at least for us.

Im more than happy to discuss it because I see it as a real possibility. Our current view (after listening to the members at the meeting) is that we're offering a chance for him to meet us and discuss. Not for us to tell him what to do, that would be egotistical but for us to state what we see as problems, him to give his view of things and both sides to see how they can help the other. That may result in us agreeing to stop boycotts and other action in return for him agreeing to invest enough in the team come January to ensure we stay up. I honestly dont know how that meeting would pan out, the sceptic in me says it wont happen because he will refuse to meet with anyone on this. If it does then I will be pleasantly surprised. As you've already agreed above though the NUSC is not responsible for the current Ashley stance, you may be able to argue that he may have changed his current stance before now if we hadnt been there that would be fair enough (but hypothetical as we will never know) but if we do meet and an agreement is reached that changes his position then the credit would have to go to NUSC. You put things as though NUSC is negotiating from a position of strength -- "offering him a chance" to meet with you, maybe agreeing to stop boycotts if he does this or that. Unless boycotting is a hell of a lot more effective than I imagine it is -- any information about its results? -- then this is an illusion. And the NUSC isn't yet either big or "representative" enough to have any real credibility at a meeting. One of the fundamental problems is that you are saying "fuck off as quickly as possible" at the same time as saying "OK, we'll graciously allow you to talk to us". I'll also be surprised if such a meeting ever happens, but something like it will need to, if he's going to carry on owning the club. The sad thing is that all goodwill was removed from the situation the minute it was communicated to him that he was "no longer welcome" among the supporters. If it ever was anything else for Ashley -- and I think being part of it all was important to him -- it can't be anything but business for him now.

Then you need to get your facts straight mate, two simple dates blow the first part of that out of the water. September 14th Ashley announces he is selling the club, September 16th meeting takes place which results in the foundation of the NUSC. So we were not responsible in any way for the decision to sell. Maybe in seriousness, if we already had a supporters club established then it may never have got to that stage. The second part of that is you harking back to two weeks ago and not keeping up with the current position (or maybe choosing to ignore it to back your argument). Half the stuff in your post I agree with but the problem is Ive already acknowledged those facts and we're already doing stuff to reverse them. If people would just acknowledge that themselves and give it time then I would be more than happy. I dont expect everyone to suddenly say "well thats ok then, where do I sign?" but I would have thought people would be able to admit that it could work. Adjustments to timeline noted. I stand by my principal worry -- that the founding position is too inflexible to deal with a situation where Ashley can't sell. I started asking "what if?" a couple of weeks ago, but no one has seemed interested in discussing it.

The defining characteristic of NUSC is that it was formed not only at a very emotional time but also out of a perceived need to force a change in the ownership of the club. It then came out with all guns blazing. These circumstances have led to several problems, and here are several thoughts about them. 1) There may have been a vocal majority that favoured the boycott and so forth, but there's also a sizeable minority that has problems with this action; they're just less vocal. In fact, on this forum the latter group seems to be the majority. If the NUSC is ever going to become representative of the views of Newcastle supporters in general, then it will have to find some way of reconciling the views of those two different groups. If a lot of people on here are negative about the NUSC, then it's because they don't see that reconciliation as likely or possible the way things are currently being organized. 2) Patronising, self-righteous guff about it being better to "do something" than "not do something" does not help to bridge the gap, as obviously a person would only agree if they thought the "something" was a helpful action in the circumstances. If it isn't, then clearly it is better not to do it. This kind of tripe, which we hear over and over again, just further inflames the disagreement. 3) The NUSC needs to deal with the fact that it has been wrong-footed by Ashley. It came out with all guns blazing -- silly banners, pie boycotts and all -- and Ashley said, "OK, you win." The NUSC doesn't seem able to regain its balance and deal with the new reality. "Ashley Out" is simply too inflexible a position. There's a real likelihood that Ashley simply can't sell the club at the moment. This means that for the good of the club supporters should be coming up with ways of working with him, even if it's only by shutting up and letting him get on with it. Organising boycotts and protests to maintain the current position, where supporters and owners are totally alienated from each other, will only make things worse. OK, that's just an argument about strategy and tactics, but the founding statements of the NUSC are getting in the way. 4) No account seems to be taken of the effect supporters' actions may have on the intentions of potential buyers. The fact that it got personal -- "Cockneys", an owner who'd put himself among the fans being told in tones which could be read as threatening that he was no longer welcome -- must already have put off anyone who thought they could buy goodwill and respect with investment and involvement. Waving around the "look how much damage we can cause" card is even worse -- it amounts to the club's main asset devaluing itself. You had better believe that any potential owner is looking at the mood of the fans, and no one will want to step into an ongoing conflict. The irony here is that trying to force or hurry a sale may well be making that sale more difficult. Oh but never mind, at least they're "doing something".

I wonder if Ashley has looked at what Spurs have done and thought that maybe a total change is the way to go I've been wondering that too, today, given that he seems to have been following a Spurs model from the beginning.

I think it's a combination of there being nowt much to report and/or not much he is allowed to say in the middle of negotiations shrouded in confidentiality agreements, plus a dose of him thinking, well, if I'm not welcome anymore, fuck this lot.

No, he wasn't technically British. He was technically a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But Rep of ireland northern ireland and Great Britain are all in the British Isles. Yep. But that's geography, not politics/citizenship. Like being in Europe isn't the same as being in the European Union. God, can't believe I'm getting involved in this... If we ('Brits') are all simply citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, presumably the people of Great Britain aren't any more 'British' than the Northern Irish - if we're talking in the political/citizenship sense. We're all Ukish or something. Any reference to the mainlanders being 'British' would be made on the basis of geography, therefore. No, the people of Britain are British. Britain is part of the United Kingdom. So is Northern Ireland. There's a difference between nationality and citizenship.

I hardly think the "last word" on whether someone from Northern Ireland is "British" or not rests with the Malaysian immigration authorities. As friends of mine from Northern Ireland used to say: Wise up!

I think the results of the above poll and the fact that only 50 people bothered to turn up to their big meeting means they are anything but representative of Newcastle fans. It's arrogance beyond belief. God forbid that they would ever be given any real power. I don't think its looks too good on you either to criticise a group of people who are trying to do something for the greater good that they believe in, when you can't be arsed yourself to do anything, whether going with them or opposing them. By that dumb logic you'd have to applaud the Nazi Party.

That's alright, mate Nee problem, pal!

Well spotted, yes, sorry, Sevilla.

Can't find the link right now, but in one of the broadsheets earlier this week was a story suggesting that no one in Spain was surprised that Ramos had failed, as it was clear to everyone that his success at Valencia was largely due to their being a very good DOF.

Roughly translated as "Please let us talk to you so we can find out when your fucking off" Or "we think we're dead important so please pay us some attention."

I found this interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/oct/30/tottenhamhotspur-premierleague Success leads to continuity far more than continuity leads to success. But we can surely agree that sacking the manager and the entire management structure a few games into every season is going to be bad for business? Better to sack a manager who is clearly failing and showing no sign of knowing how to turn the situation around than to stick with him for the sake of continuity. Even the best looking appointments on the face of it can fail for reasons we can't really fathom. I don't think there were many who thought Ramos was a bad appointment for Spurs (the reason most of our alleged targets ended up at Spurs was because of Ramos and how well they were going to do according to some). So should Spurs have stuck with him? We can't say for sure what would have happened had he stayed, but it didn't look like anything was going to change anytime soon with him in charge, and Spurs could easily have found themselves in a position from which they couldn't recover. Of course those who use hindsight to judge decisions made in the past would probably say Ramos was a bad appointment from the start. He wasn't a successful appointment, that much can obviously be said.

They need to look up the word "representative".

Well summarised.

I found this interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/oct/30/tottenhamhotspur-premierleague Success leads to continuity far more than continuity leads to success. But we can surely agree that sacking the manager and the entire management structure a few games into every season is going to be bad for business? No it isn't Ozzie! It's professional The very hallmark of a well-run club?

I found this interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/oct/30/tottenhamhotspur-premierleague Success leads to continuity far more than continuity leads to success. But we can surely agree that sacking the manager and the entire management structure a few games into every season is going to be bad for business?

I found this interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/oct/30/tottenhamhotspur-premierleague

This is created by people who chuck litter on the ground not the people dishing out flyers. Bit like Wrigleys are not to blame for City Centre pavements having black circles all over them. Yes. The people who produce the flyers truly believe they will be read diligently and then carefully placed in a litter bin. No wonder you fell for the NUSC propoganda. You and 49 others it seems. Anyway the point was not taking a leaflet equals not being a Newcastle supporter in the eyes of those handing them out. How pompous is that ? It's pathetic, but not entirely unfamiliar -- like people on here bellowing "mackem" at someone who doesn't agree with them.

It's more talk about who's "foreign", really.

As well as the emoticon for yawning and the emoticon for shaking your head sadly, we need an emoticon for biting your lip.

Yep, they are one country called the United Kingdom, not all of whose citizens are British.