they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.
i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.
i can see a pattern forming.
so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.
mackems.gif
The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.
I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.
I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.
Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ?
erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.
my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.
i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?
I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.
Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.
Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??
if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.
you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).
as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.
haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.
At the end of the day.
1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.
2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"
3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"
at the start of the day
1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.
2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.
3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.
by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?
well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.
As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.
i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.
also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.
in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?
why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?
ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.
I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.
I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.
i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.
as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.
time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.
i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.
I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile.
Naive.
Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.
one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.
the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.
did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)
the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were despera
they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.
i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.
i can see a pattern forming.
so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.
mackems.gif
The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.
I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.
I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.
Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ?
erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.
my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.
i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?
I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.
Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.
Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??
if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.
you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).
as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.
haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.
At the end of the day.
1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.
2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"
3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"
at the start of the day
1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.
2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.
3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.
by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?
well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.
As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.
i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.
also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.
in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?
why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?
ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.
I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.
I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.
i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.
as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.
time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.
i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.
I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile.
Naive.
Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.
one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.
the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.
did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)
the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were desperate to get out which isn't very ambitious.
te to get out which isn't very ambitious.
Shepherd brought in a manager who worked on a shoestring budget at Bolton and got them into Europe. That was his thinking, cut back on expenditure like transfer fees and stabilise whilst pushing up the table. Lets not forget when Shepherd had to balance the books, summer of Bowyer also Woodgate sale.
He was critised for not backing us... well Ashley... point made i feel.
we'd just qualified for the champs league,as hall often said the best time to invest is when you are on the way up. we could have invested from a position of strength as opposed to playing catch up,spendin big for a couple of years till you can't afford to do it any more.
Lets not forget we had a very young squad who were supposedly improving year upon year. Shepherd gambled that season, he put our finances first - like Ashley is doing - and we still got into Europe and weren't far away from CL. Is 5th a poor league position? We did have a strong enough team for 4th, but the campaign started badly and the players never recovered.
a squad that included hughes,dabizas,griffin,bramble and o'brien as regular first teamers. it needed stregthening and the best time to do it is from a position of strength when you are up there. his gamble not to stregthen didn't pay off,then his gambles to try and strengthen from mid table failed.
if you can afford it you take the gamble,i'm not sure by 2007 we were in a position to gamble any more.
You can criticise in hindsight it is an easy thing to do, but when it comes down to it there was alot of sense in what Shepherd did. Successor after Keegan, Gullit, Souness, Roeder and Allardyce where all appointed with at the time exactly what we needed. Discipline, tighter budgets, a resurgance unseen before, etc.
Give ower man, Dalglish was the only manager out of those appointments that was an obvious and sensible choice.
Gullit was brought in to bring back the 'sexy' football after KD's reign, a complete knob, and it didn't work.
Souness was brought in because SBR has apparantly let the kids run amock, jesus man we actually paid Blackburn to take him off their hands , everyman and his dog knew that this was a crap appointment, oh and it didn't work either.
Allardyce was all science, percentages, pressurising the opposition and long-ball. Crap, playing for a point at the worst team ever in the league, just crap.
Roeder's appointment was different, he had to pick up the crap that Souness had left and did a decent job as caretaker, I thought he deserved a shot at the job, many others didn't. They were right.
