Mick

I see we've got 5 people satisfied.

How many of the other directors have day to day work at the club? I've no idea what they do, if anything.

That's covered by the second option.

Surprisingly good post. I still don't think the problems we had were down to one or two people, I think they had as much to do with the way the club was setup from the beginning, I think that over time we made poor decisions and couldn't get out of it until Sir John pumped money into the club, money that he wouldn't put in until he controlled the club. Why give your own money for somebody else to get the benefit? Yes, I remember the Milburn being compared to Watford’s stand, it was in the Chronicle or Journal. Like it or not but they had a stand that was better then the wooden shed we had, I only sat in that stand for reserve games, I wouldn't pay to sit in it for league games.

I'll accept that, no need to big him up then when people say we've gone backwards, we can all now agree on that. I've answered it in the best way that I can at present, we seem to have spent more than we brought in. I have no problem admitting that we have sold players at times for reasons that appear to be against the idea that we were trying to move forwards as a club, I've tried to find out reasons for this rather than just saying that we had no ambition although I've also said this may be the case. If we were so skint then did they have any option? Even Sir John refused to throw money at the club above a certain level until he controlled the club, it might have been better all along for one person to own the club. Our chairman were usually not that rich and had inherited shares that had been passed through families since the club was formed. I don't know how much Stan Seymour left behind when he died but he was the owner of a sports shop or two so he was unlikely to be rolling in it. McKeag didn't leave behind a lot of money when he died from what I can see. I'm not trying to make excuses up for them, I'm just trying to see where they went wrong. Why do you think we failed? I don't expect an answer of being unambitious, that's too easy. Why do you think we were unambitious? I'm not trying to trap you or anything, I'm just interested in your opinion, maybe I'm missing something. Do you think they just didn't have bottle to take chances? Without doubt.

I said you argue with people who say we've gone backwards since Shepherd took over and you do, you argue when people give facts. Also, I've said I enjoyed the foorball more while Macdonald was in the team than I did when he was gone, I've never said that I preferred finishing 15th to finishing 5th, can you not see a difference? I prefer finishing 5th to 15th, that doesn't mean I prefer the football. I preferred the football we played in our first season back in the premiership to the football Blackburn played when they won it, that doesn't mean I prefer finishing 3rd to winning the league, you really are narrow minded.

I've never ever said that "Lee thought Newcastle were just a cup team". You make these accusations time and time again and try to get me to explain something I've never said. Run off now and come back with a link to where I said that.

I didn't say we needed to sell players to keep the club running, I was just showing that we sell more players than we buy at times and sometimes those who come in are not as good as those who go out, I know that was under Sir John, it even happened while he was here.

You do argue with factual answers to questions, it's a fact that we've gone backwards under Shepherd yet you argue with it. I've answered why Lee left, if you're interested in the answer then go through this thread and find it. When have I ever said that I preferred people who give you a team relegated/struggling than ones who give you a team which qualifies regularly for europe? If you want factual answers then make sure the questions are factual.

Do you not see the hypocrisy? We've bought and sold players throughout our history. At times we've made a loss on buying and at times we've made a profit and we've done that recently as well as in the past.

So are you admitting that Freddy Shepherd holds more power in the boardroom than Douglas Hall? I'll give you a clue. Douglas Hall - 1 vote, his sister - 1 vote = 2. Freddy Shepherd - casting vote = 2, Bruce - 1 vote = 3.

We sacked Sir Bobby as a thank you for giving us this, for giving us our highest average league position over a three year period. Before this chairman we were 2nd in the Premiership, Fact. In 1970 our average admission fee was 70p, today it's roughly £36. Fact. Totally ignorant to the fact that in the past football wasn't as popular as it is today and that wasn't just the case at Newcastle, it was the case throughout English football, as you rightly pointed out, we had one of the highest average crowds. Fact.

In 1997 we sold Ginola, Ferdinand and Beardsley amongst others for almost £17 million, that same year we spent just over £7 million on players, we brought in players like John Barnes, Brian Pinas and Ian Rush, we've always bought and sold players, just like every other club.

The Halls have the shares that can swing an AGM vote, the Shepherds have the casting vote at board meetings. Stop trying to hide behind the halls, Shepherd has the casting vote as chairman and he's had this since 1998. Halls have two votes in a board meeting, shepherds have two but they have the main one as chairman.

You will probably give an opinion and dress it up as fact, I'll not. I could guess why he did it but it doesn't make it true. Do you know the answer to the question? I never said that I knew the answer at the start of the thread and it would apear that you don't either. It would appear that we spent more than we brought in which I didn't expect to find. I'll lose no sleep over that. bluebiggrin.gif I will if and when I get the last few transfer fees.

I'll disagree about the Fulham game, I don't think he's got a future but I still think he was OK before injured, not brilliant but OK.

I went to the Gillingham game, we had thousands in the ground. We had a section of the paddock and at least hundreds in the Roker. The atmosphere was really strange having 3 sets of supporters in the same ground. The mackems went mental when they realised how many Newcastle supporters had turned up. It would never happen if it was the other way round.

When you said Robert could dribble and to say he was only lethargic at points towards the end of his Newcastle career defies belief. He made a living out of cutting inside and losing the ball because of his lack of ability to take his man on. Robert made himself with a set-piece, too, against Man Utd... so to say they came later doesn't register with me, either. As for pace... he was relatively quick, but certainly nothing spectacular, I refuse to accept his game was BUILT around pace... it was built around long-shots, freekicks, corners and moments of individual magic. You go on to say Luque is about strength... are you for real here? Have you seen him play for us? Skill? He's hardly Ronaldinho, to me he looks clunky in possession and doesn't have a natural flair for anything out of the ordinary: Luque made his name scoring powerful shots, as you mentioned, can't disagree there. If Luque was played in Robert's position we'd see a lot more similarities in the way they play, it was proven to some extent in Luque's debut against Man Utd, he was like an identikit version of Larry, but it's never worked out for him since that injury and probably never will. To say he's "NOTHING" like him is a bit of a stretch, and to call other people's opinions "tosh" is arseholic behaviour of the highest proportion. :wink: We've established that Luque hasn't offered anything like what Robert has because he quite simply hasn't done the business/played the games, but this debate rages on - and I appreciate you for bringing it back in such an utterly moronic fashion Let's break it down, though: Luque/Robert's Similarities Powerful shooting. Good crossers of the ball. Both fairly quick, but not spectacularly fast. Good goalscoring records from the left-hand side. Limited dribbling ability. Both fairly workshy by traditional Geordie standards. Set-piece takers. Play the same position. Cost the same amount of money. Both not favoured by their managers (Souness/Roeder) Both destined to have left for far less than we paid for them. Both joined from a foreign county/league of origin in their home country. Outcasts of their national teams while at NUFC. Signed at very similar ages. A few of these are fairly gash, but they're facts You said "we need someone controversial in here and quick". bluebiggrin.gif

He was on the left against Fulham and didn't look shite before he went off, Shearer and Owen should have both scored off balls delivered on a plate by Luque.

I didn't accuse you of anything that you hadn't already said, you mentioned it earlier.

You may need to redefine your take on the word "enlighten". # why? I'm asking him for HIS views?? Sorry if I didnt spell the word proper, but I'm not dyslexic by choice and dont have time to spell check everything I type bluebiggrin.gif It wouldn't have anything to do with the drink would it?

Unbelievable that people still don't think Shepherd has taken us backwards. Firstly, Shepherd was not part of the board before Sir John took over. Secondly, Arsenal and Man U haven’t finished 11th twice, 13th twice and 14th. If they had then I would say yes, the boards of those two clubs had taken them backwards.

You do read books, I'm sure you admitted that in either this thread or another one. It would seem that it's OK for you to read but it's a put-down when others do it, you're a hypocrite.