Mick

What a terrible error on my behalf, good thing I read posts before replying, at least I would know what I've typed and what somebody else has added. Am I correct in assuming that you post before you read or that you assume that people always quote correctly?

Nothing changes where you're concerned. We play shit, you make a critical post. We play well, you post it's a one off, that the opponents were crap. Whatever you can think of to put the performance down. From your posts at the time it was obvious you found it galling when Robson had us finishing 4th, 3rd and 5th, although you'll deny it now and you'll rely on people who weren't around at that time to think I'm making it up. Some of us know who is telling the truth here though. If you can read then you will know that my views on the 2 questions you've asked have already been answered many times before. The first question is stupid, tbh. By your own admission over the last few years of reading your posts, you believe Keegan was a shite manager and the team he produced was shite, so the real question is do YOU think the performances have been maintained since Keegan? They're pretty shite now so you probably think they have. Don't do that. You are falling into the NE5 trap of making up another person's view and then criticising them for it. It would be good if some had the guts to admit they got it wrong by supporting Souness long after such support should have disappeared. Who knows, had there been no support for him sooner the Board may have sacked him before he'd wasted £50m, as I predicted and was slated for as usual. I did say I didn't want him given any money during that very first transfer window and the responses were along the lines of the responses I'll no doubt get to this post. This is the most disingenious part of either your's or NE5's argument. Trying to demolish someone else's argument by saying that they supported the team manager appointed, and backed, by Shepherd. Now you are even sugegsting that if more people had had a go at Souness earlier the chairman may have done something about it earlier !! Is that really the leadership you expect from our chairman ? The key part of the chairman's job is to ensure that he has the correct person as team manager. You seem to suggest that these decisions are only taken when the crow do tell the chairman what to do and when. This matches up with Shepherd saying 'the fans' wanted Roeder. My mother could do that. If it really is down to listening to phone-ins, reading chat-sites to decide whether to sack a manager, and who to replace him with then seriously even NE5 could do that. Yes even him. Although only if my mother turned it down. I would guess he would be able to do it for mebbe half of the £500,000 the club pay Shepherd. Why do you keep quoting people's posts and writing nowt of your own? Is the blue text yours?

Expand on the bit in bold, are you referring to me? Are you saying that the supporters are to blame for Shepherd allowing Souness to spend £50 million? My guess is that Shepherd allowed him to spend that much as an attempt to save face, Shepherds face. He appointed rubbish and didn't want to admit to it. As far as Roeder goes, what qualifies him to become Newcastle manager? Do you believe that the support ( or lack of ) of the fans of a manager goes unnoticed by the Board? Doh! What I don't understand is how you claim that I supported Souness, pathetic and going to get you nowhere.

You must be having a laugh if you thought the performances were "generally good up until the huge error of Souness." Did you go to either FA Cup final? Did you go to many games under either Gullit or Dalglish? (<-------- edited to point out to someone how to use a ?) We had some good games under both managers but we had more dross than "generally good."

He's a pink rabbit? That sounds about right.

You're me? I have one or two issues with that but I'll not get into that in this thread. The bit in bold, because we're all wrong and him and his comfort blanket are the only two who are right, it's obvious, at least it is to some of us.

What difference does it make?

You get better and better with old age, the person who hated Souness also hates Souness supporters but not the man who appointed him, explain that one.

Where do Liverpool and Rangers fit into this topic?

Tough talk from the southern soft shite primary school teacher...... You can't intimidate me like you do a young kiddie. Seen southampton more than Newcastle........ You shouldn't laugh, he'll PM you.

Expand on the bit in bold, are you referring to me? Are you saying that the supporters are to blame for Shepherd allowing Souness to spend £50 million? My guess is that Shepherd allowed him to spend that much as an attempt to save face, Shepherds face. He appointed rubbish and didn't want to admit to it. As far as Roeder goes, what qualifies him to become Newcastle manager?

The comfort blanket gets wheeled out once again, very predictable.

Coming from someone who thinks that somebody who supports Souness is worse than the man who appoints him. Also coming from someone who thinks that Ellis is shite and Shepherd isn't although Villa have finished above us more than we have them under Shepherd. @ NE5.

I can't help but laugh when I see the lengths you'll go to in an attempt to avoid answering a question, Mr chairman.

A non-argument. He didn't take over the setup from McKeag. eerrrrr....it wasn't me who approached the hypothetical argument in the first place. Are you still backing your man Souness ? 7th request. Or are you going to behave in a completely immature and stupid fashion like you did before. Who is the worst? The person who appointed Souness or the person who supported him for whatever reason. Millionth request.

Let me make an assurance to you, £50 million of shite does not make a good chairman.

How about asking the bloke that thought Souness was better than Bobby Robson and the right man to squander £50 million.

What would Shepherd have done better than the old board? Better publicity? Appoint more trophy winning managers? Nice try at taking the heat off Shepherd, it doesn't make him any better than he actually is.

I knew that was coming, Ozzie is thick and stupid for supporting Souness, Shepherd, the person who appointed him and gave him in the region of £50 million is blameless, get a grip.

Your opinion doesn't count you're a Souness supporter so it's all your fault, it's got nothing to do with the person who appointed him - Fact.

I thought it was proven that Sir Bobby did make a profit on Carl Cort, do you have the memory span of a Goldfish? It's amazing the lengths you'll go to in trying to defend Shepherd, you'll run down Sir Bobby in an attempt to defend the un-defendable.

With the resources at hand, we should be doing better. We should be, consistently, at the top end of the table. How is this hard to grasp? Divine right, no. Expectiations, yes. 5th best over a decade? Nice way of smoothing over the cracks. If only we could say we were 5th best now. Even though I'm lacking in your years, I remember when finishing 2nd wasn't an impossibility for us, like it now seems to be. Qualifying for Europe is the least I'd expect of a club with our resources. Buying players is an achievement of the board? Filling the stadium? That'll be the supporters that a) fund the bloody club so they can buy players and offer the wages we do by b) filling the stadium. Those higher standards have escaped them, I know that much. If they have such high standards why haven't they stepped aside to let people more capable do the job? Ah well, it's those fans that tolerate mediocrity at board level while paying top dollar for it that seem pretty idiotic to me. Your opinion is based on a rather small and select group of facts and *interpretations of facts* that you hold on to for dear life. You think we have a divine right to be mediocre. I know. You couldn't make it up. I didn't say our board had any consistency in how it comes to these decisions, did I? I doubt logic could have played any sort of part in appointing Souness. Dalglish, you know, they went for the best option (in their eyes) in terms of cost and what they thought he'd bring to the setup. Fair enough. Souness was a sign of how low they had to stoop to scrape the bottom of the barrel after ditching Robson. If this isn't a sign of decline in terms of ambition and standing in English football then I'm not really sure what is. You seem to have a problem with raising your expectations in line with the foundations laid down post-92. To paraphrase your paramour, we pay the board Rolls Royce wages and we're not getting Rolls Royce performance. Not now. But you'll turn a blind eye to that, which seems a hell of a lot more naive to me. If filling the stadium, and running the club to a level that it can buy major England players and international players at their peak or approaching their peak, isn't an achievement of the board by raising expectations and showing ambition, please explain why 30,000 supporters pissed off - for years on average - when the club was shite. Best fans going ..... same as everyone else actually. What brought them back ? We have always had the same potential, with the same potential fanbase. Other big clubs also have big potential, with a big potential fanbase, that we have overtaken since the current board took over the club, there are a few we haven't because they are very well run themselves, and have had sustained success for the thick end of 30-40 years experience to draw on while we have had our best years under Keegan. What is so hard to grasp about this ? Contrary to what you think we do not have a divine right to finish above all these clubs and contrary to what you say, you DO think we have this, because it is exactly what you are saying. You remember when when we were 2nd ..... well I remember when we would have killed to qualify for europe even once. Nobody is settling for "mediocrity", because for one thing, qualifying for europe more than any other club in a decade except 4, is certainly not "mediocrity". does this quote mean you would withdraw your support if the club was "mediocre"...... which pretty much says everything. Meaning that as you haven't withdrawn your support then it is far from "mediocre" - as it was ( and worse ) for decades prior to the current board. The league positions are available in case you think I am making this up. There is absolutely no way in the world that bringing a manager to the club who had won 4 league titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is anything other than a direct and deliberate attempt to win the premiership and the big trophies. You can dispute that as long as you like - anything but admit otherwise - but if you do deny it, it simply shows your paranoia and blindness, and inability to give credit for anything, like others. Lastly - as some people have made comments saying I should "show my experience" --- when I say these things it is precisely what I am doing. Whether you choose to take it on board or not, or presume you know best despite not experienced these eras is of course your decision, but sensible people would not discard the information. What you wish to think of people who choose to ignore it is of course also up to you. I think it gives me the right to think they must be pretty daft. How many times do you need telling that although our crowds were lower than today, they were still one of the highest in English football, the crowds were a sign of the times? You tried to have a go at me for running our crowds down when somebody read what I was saying the wrong way and you tried to get him on your side, you're an absolute hypocrite. Our crowds have ALWAYS been one of the best in the country since the turn of the last century, it's been that way for something like 90 years.

Did you text Freddy? I wonder how many have his mobile number?