OzzieMandias

Point of information: The paper at which I arranged the opportunity for a spokesman from the Hitzfeld Campaign to have a right of reply after we had been publicly dissed by Shepherd was not, in fact, The People. Interesting, however, that you continue to confuse Shepherd and "the club". Perhaps your inability to tell the difference helps explain your irrational love of our former chairman.

Largely true. The most committed England fans seem to be people from one-horse towns with a shit club. You can see it at England games -- all those Union Jack banners with "Carlisle" and "Northhampton" written on them. Last time I was at an England game I met a load of people from Hartlepool. For me there's no competition. They're different things. Newcastle is my club and England is my national team. I care whether either win or lose. Like someone upthread said, the current England is like Newcastle under Roeder. They're not very good, but that doesn't mean they stop being my team. It's got fuck all to do with nationalism, either. I've spent half my adult life living abroad, and these days I'm not in England because I prefer being where I am. In a way, though, that makes me want England to win even more than I might do otherwise. Being abroad means my friends are from all over the place, so international football is one of the ways in which we bicker and compete. Nor do I see England as a "southern thing". Some of England's best ever players (Gazza, Waddle, Beardsley, Shearer) came from our way, as did one of the best national managers (Bobby). We currently have the national striker. We're as close to the national team as any other club. Sure, most qualifiers are boring, and friendlies are pretty much always boring. But what can compete with an England-Argentina game? Or England-Germany? I was at the 5-1 in Munich and it was one of the best games I ever went to in my life. On the other hand, England vs Hungary isn't a patch on Newcastle vs the mackems. In the end, there's no reason to choose one over the other.

Good for him! I always liked The Loon, even though he wasn't really good enough.

Managers blow hot and cold, but chairman are always great, even when they've lost the plot and are taking cllubs backwards. Right?

Yes martin was a big success , and a good singing by Shepard , but in the big picture is that really an achievement to substantiate the claim he was a good chairman? This was the same chairmen would paid £11m for Luque (nufc.com) £8m for Boum-shlong etc? it can all be flipped around, in fact i dont know why i'm even arguing that point, you've made it for me, why the hell under his chairmenship were we fighting relegation in the first place?? LEt me ask you this then, from when FS took charge, do you think we are where we could/should of been? Do you think that we have progressed as a club in the 10 years he has been in charge? Do you think that from when he took us over when we were title challengers (2nd) to where we are now (Uefa Cup hopefuls) shows a significant level of improvement? If yes then you're a fool, if the answers to theses questions are no, then you are forced to agree therefore that overall he wasn't a succes. Note i have generalised his tenure as Chairmanship and not picked out specific events to make my arguments. he was a signing by Roeder, not Shepherd, and from this point on your argument is pointless, as you clearly don't understand the management structure of a football club. Sorry like . errrr would you like to answer this part please, we'll start slow so a simple yes or no will do for the time being. Good luck.

Yeah, right. The biggest name who came to Newcastle under Gullit was probably Duncan Ferguson. You think he was irresistably drawn by Gullit's reputation?

Personally I would have preferred Shepherd not to have mismanaged the club to the point that there could be talk of "near certain relegation".

He had one season as manager of Feyenoord. They didn't win anything, finished fourth, Gullit quit.

I've only just noticed that one – Sibierski must be full of shit because he's French? Talk about scraping the barrel. That's almost as feeble as the "you can't criticise Shepherd because it means criticising Shepherd" argument.

Your Gullit-Robson comparison is of course meaningless unless you calculate it by season. As Robson was here for about five times as long as Gullit, that means Robson's average net spend per season was lower than Gullit's. In Robson's first two seasons, meanwhile, he had a minus net spend – raising about £3 million more from sales than he spent on new players. Thus, so far, the current manager has been backed by much more cash than Robson in the same situation. Nice try, though.

Gullit did good for a short time in one managerial appointment at a very different club. This did not stop him being a bad appointment.

It's not one or the other, though, is it? It's possible to be ambitious without getting tens of millions into debt. I'd say the problem was not "ambition", but poor decision-making – such as appointing crap managers and then giving them too much money to spend. This is as true of what happened when we had Gullit as it was when we had Shepherd. Look at how long Bobby had to spend rejigging the squad and selling in order to buy before Shepherd could once again muster up some transfer funds.

Quite the reverse, really.

Must say that this one always makes me laugh. As an attempt to refute criticism of Shepherd on the grounds that it is criticism of Shepherd, it must rank among the most pathetic arguments ever.

Well, I'm heartbroken but I guess I'll just have to deal with it.

Ask yourself how we came to be in such a mess that we could only afford necessary players by going even deeper into debt. We obviously gave your idol, Graeme, the money to buy proper players like that Stephen Spence mackems.gif Glad you agree that it was Shepherd's fault. I'm sure, therefore, you can also agree that citing circumstances which Shepherd himself created as a reason not to hold him responsible for the consequences is an argument that could only be advanced by a dribbling moron. dribbling moron, as in those who backed Souness' changes to the club don't you ? Are you going to tell us when you first saw this Stephen Spence play for the toon mackems.gif Still as pointless as ever. A rare moment of self-knowledge. Congrats.

Ask yourself how we came to be in such a mess that we could only afford necessary players by going even deeper into debt. We obviously gave your idol, Graeme, the money to buy proper players like that Stephen Spence mackems.gif Glad you agree that it was Shepherd's fault. I'm sure, therefore, you can also agree that citing circumstances which Shepherd himself created as a reason not to hold him responsible for the consequences is an argument that could only be advanced by a dribbling moron.

Ask yourself how we came to be in such a mess that we could only afford necessary players by going even deeper into debt.

I haven't yet read the whole thread, but here's a few random thoughts... The free cup tickets with a season ticket deal: The bad news is perhaps that this makes it even more difficult for fans who are only occasionally back home to get to see a game. London season ticket and other "away" deals: When I lived in London it was always really annoying that I couldn't get tickets in the away end for our games against London teams – except occasionally the worst seats in the park at somewhere like Charlton, or at some mid-week cup game against lower-league opposition (like Leyton Orient a few years back). All the more ridiculous in that the club often didn't take up its full away allocation at places like Stamford Bridge. There was talk occasionally of a "London season ticket" for our away games in the capital. I thought that made great sense. There are a LOT of Geordies in London, and there are a lot of games there too. Five fixtures this season is fewer than usual. The idea would probably also be good for the north-west. Transparency and backstage improvements: Investment in the academy and training facilities will rightly be welcomed by most fans. But this is one area where we'd really like to hear more from the club about what's going on. It's otherwise part of the club's work that remains pretty much invisible – a fact which let the previous regime get away with doing more or less nothing (though the fact that it wouldn't sell copies of the Chonicle can also be blamed). Some positive PR, please, about your intentions and plans in this crucial area. We'd also like to hear more about appointments. Newcastle World/Premium TV: Get another internet deal as soon as contractually possible. The official site is laughably bad on just about every level. I'd hope this was obvious to anyone seriously considering future revenue streams via "new media". Less generally, I'm sure I'm not the only one who's really pissed off that you can't get pictures or commentary via the official site if you use a Mac, nor the only Mac user who got suckered because the sales page doesn't mention the fact, and certainly not the only one who had to email customer services three times before getting any kind of sensible response. I can't get this service even though I'm happy to pay for it. This doesn't benefit either me or the club.

Don't worry. You'll soon be relegated again and not have to worry about exciting Premier League football any more.

The Glazers are Jewish.

No. Uninspiring bollocks tune by one of the most boring musicians ever to come out of Newcastle.

Do you really want me to quote you again? You mentioned OUR OWN transfer record SEPARATELY to the point I'm picking up on. Read what you posted again if you're missing my point. Were you or were you not referring to the world record transfer we set when we signed Alan Shearer? No, I don't think that Newcastle United can beat the World Transfer record, unless ashley spends his own money like Abramovic. what I DO mean, is that to compete with the other trophy winners, we have to have a few trophy players in the team, just like they do themselves. Do you agree, yes or no ? I answered that here: http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=44803.msg999284#msg999284 Why mention 'breaking transfer records' so specifically then, if you just mean 'we have to spend good money on good players'? Seems clear to me that you were using something the previous board achieved as a barometer against the new board, despite the fact it's obviously not a fair thing to judge upon any longer. Why is it not fair, and why shouldn't it be a barometer ? The new board, if it is to be more successful than the old one, will have to achieve more success and higher league positions, right ? So, there is your barometer. So you are going to use it against them. As I thought. Unless Ashley spends £30m+ on one player he's not matched the old board, as he's not broken any records on a transfer. Success and league positions are fine mate, I never questioned those elements. But breaking a transfer record means fuck all in isolation. It means that NE5 thinks trophy signings = "success".

Don't confuse poor NE5 with facts.

one season, for a manager who didn't want him, in fairness. Still doesn't add up to proof that "record-breaking transfers" are any key to success, however much trophy signings may excite some sections of our support. you won't find many successful clubs nowadaya that don't spend big. You won't find many clubs that don't spend big. Full stop.