dcmk

and he did this because 2 vital strikers were passed fit to start for him for the first time, meaning we had 3 very good strikers to attack with. his methods didnt just "click" suddenly. did we attack teams in the same manner with smith, ameobi and owen upfront? no, we didnt. dude, you're starting to annoy me with the repetitiveness of this now...i agree with you in the sense that when we had those three things clicked and he changed the system to accommodate, and it worked very well what was the alternative before they came back? what would a better manager have done with the tools at his disposal? only thing i can see is throw in untested bairns in the hope they'd do better than duff/smith etc... what else could have have done with such s****? which, again, is my entire point. the thread (i think) is bashing somebody because the football we're playing isnt great but with all the players missing what are people expecting? we looked s*** last year before martins and viduka came back so, like you say, how else can we attack teams with any potency without our best 3 strikers? if we get owen, martins and viduka (and possibly barton) all fit and playing we'll look infinitely better, like we did last year. It's not a bashing thread, more of a questioning one of where are we going? Not now, but come next season. Will we look to bring in a highly rated manager who will build a squad over the next couple of years that will play attractive progressive football? Or will we look to hire a cheap coach who will toe the line and buy hard working players who will graft out a result and try and keep us out of relegation trouble? I'm asking because it's undeniable that Kinnear was offered a two year contract extension. How does that sit with the expectations of last summer when Keegan was downplaying Ashley's aims of a top four place, saying we could aim for top eight maybe? Only the board can answer that in May, the decisions they make will tell us a lot. Good post. I would like to think we will bring in a highly rated manager playing attractive football but I cant see such a manager coming here with the current footballing set up (i.e. without full control over transfers and in all likelihood with little funding available) There will be funds available according to Llambias, the money raised from Given and N'Zogbia, plus we should be losing a few highly paid wasters at the end of the season. Someone on TT claims to be ITK that Steve Bruce is coming here in May, read what you want into that. I don't think Bruce is mates with our lot in charge can't see it happening. Gus Poyet if Kinnear can't return imo.

Positive news

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. You also mention Shepherd gambling by not spending any money in a transfer window, well the irony is we are in alot worse position now and Ashley is gambling with a temporary manager, no net spend in January and a management structure that has been abandoned by other teams. Only now are forum members concerned with finances, because that is what we are being fed. As lets be honest not much to look forward to. yes it's hindsight but the position as of spring 2007 when i realised we couldn't keep on borrowing wasn't hindsight. i agree about kinnear,i haven't got a clue about the management structure so won't comment,and if i was ashey i'd have spent a bit more to protect my investment. that has nothing to do with the fact that fred left us in an awful mess and had he been here now the club in my opinion would be in a worse state. only now are forum members concerned with finances ? people have been saying we were in danger of doing a leeds everytime the accounts came out. what we didn't realise was the depth of financial mess. I think Shepherd realised that couldnt keep borrowing, and that brought about the introduction of Allaryce, who typically doesnt spend anything significant and does get results. This would be seen as to stabilise the club, and lets not forget the guy had proven he can get a small club into Europe with very little money. That i believe was his response to our finances, if he was still here. under fred i could only see the club losing more and more money and with allardyce i could see relegation (check my history you'll find i am very patient with managers but he scared the s*** out of me). as i've said ashley has made mistakes,i am no apologist for him. i just think some on here should admit the position we were in when he took over and what led us there. we are in 5 foot of s***,under fred i reckon the s*** would have been over his head height. Maybe, im open minded about everything i think Shepherd just gets some unfair stick on here that is all, he takes all the blame for our finances but his appointments didn't work out and he did back them - like any good chairmen should. The personnel were what we needed at the time too. Another point is the bank wouldnt lend out the money if the finances were already in disarray. The prime reason Ashley said he was shocked at them was when he had to pay off the stadium under change of ownership straight away and i believe Shepherd himself has contradicted some of what Ashley has said since. But anyhoo we branched out onto another path with a safer chairmen (thats not a critism btw) in that respect, but i really hope for a really good manager who is allowed to build his team, plays positive football and some tactical nous asap. Kinnear here, this contract offer - even after his operation doesn't look like going to walk away - and our low points tally, scares shit out of me more then wages to turnover ratio tbh.

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. You also mention Shepherd gambling by not spending any money in a transfer window, well the irony is we are in alot worse position now and Ashley is gambling with a temporary manager, no net spend in January and a management structure that has been abandoned by other teams. Only now are forum members concerned with finances, because that is what we are being fed. As lets be honest not much to look forward to. yes it's hindsight but the position as of spring 2007 when i realised we couldn't keep on borrowing wasn't hindsight. i agree about kinnear,i haven't got a clue about the management structure so won't comment,and if i was ashey i'd have spent a bit more to protect my investment. that has nothing to do with the fact that fred left us in an awful mess and had he been here now the club in my opinion would be in a worse state. only now are forum members concerned with finances ? people have been saying we were in danger of doing a leeds everytime the accounts came out. what we didn't realise was the depth of financial mess. I think Shepherd realised that couldnt keep borrowing, and that brought about the introduction of Allaryce, who typically doesnt spend anything significant and does get results. This would be seen as to stabilise the club, and lets not forget the guy had proven he can get a small club into Europe with very little money. That i believe was his response to our finances, if he was still here.

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. You also mention Shepherd gambling by not spending any money in a transfer window, well the irony is we are in alot worse position now and Ashley is gambling with a temporary manager, no net spend in January and a management structure that has been abandoned by other teams. Only now are forum members concerned with finances, because that is what we are being fed. As lets be honest not much to look forward to.

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.

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.

He had more to deal with defensively at either end if you include having a defender trying to get the ball of you/stop your advances as defending too which I do than either of Bassong or Colo had to contend with which was mostly pressing, clearing and getting tight to the ineffective, seriously weak Jo - Everton's very own Ameobi for the day. In his own defensive area Taylor made several key blocks from crosses and kept Baines at bay throughout by checking his runs and pushing him back with his own forward runs. When Fellaini came on Taylor was also tasked with competing with him in the air which he did to good effect. I also recall Taylor clearing 3 vital balls with his head, once stooping very low and nearly getting a boot to the face, inside the box assuming the role of centre-back. Where Bassong or Colo were I do not know, well I do with the latter, he was at left-back covering Enrique for some absurd reason which he does a lot - goes on these needless walkabouts that threaten our shape and leave holes in the box meaning someone has to fill in which if they do leaves holes elsewhere. Taylor was constantly brought over to the touchline when the ball was out of play for instruction which indicated at least tactically he had a big part to play today at both ends. Which he did and did well. He's not a better right-back than Beye and never will be but going forward he gives us something that Beye doesn't give us and as someone who personally believes that attack is the best form of defence, in that sense I'd rather see Taylor at RB than Beye which I'll get shot down for but there you go. Regarding Beye I'd put him in alongside Bassong and remove the just as likely liability as Taylor at CB that is Colo who for me is proving to be a bit of a flop. squint, and this post looks like a brick wall with graffiti Colo already seems to be one of the those defenders who'll never get the praise he deserves, very sad True, we seem to jump on players who aren't instant world beaters. Other teams seem to have players that after a shaky first season turn out to be good, whereas we never seem to allow the player to get to that stage. Coloccini hasn't been as bad as people seem to make out. Not true at all. Jose Enrique, been here a while now he hasn't had too many people wanting him out of the club, when he has had some ridiculously poor games. Alot of people support the guy and appreciate he is young and could become a great asset. We gave Titus Bramble amples of time, but only ever saw glimpses. Luque, Viana no one really jumped on there backs, always wanted them to get another shot. When in reality, their bad games outweight their good ones.

He is craptastic, not a kneejerk always been against him as he can't run, can't pass, can't tackle - the perfect central midfielder.

Not as good as Darren Bent to alot of people on here, incredible really.

what?!

He's doing a particularly s**** job of it then, isn't he!?! Simple logic suggests that you and your friends are wrong, try and answer this question and you'll hopefully figure it out: Why would Ashley invest a huge amount of his personal fortune in what everyone knows is a highly risky business with spend a few years of his life putting in all the work and effort and getting all the grief associated with running a football club, simply to get his money back. Some things to consider: - He could have left his money in the bank and earned interest with zero risk and zero effort/grief involved. - He could have invested in other industries which would have given him a much higher rate of return for a much lower risk. - He could have invested in a different team, which would have given him potential to make a bigger profit. eg buy a Championship side get them promoted, keep them up a couple of seasons, sell them on. - He could have tried to buy a Premiership club that gave him a better chance of making money. You make a good point. I'm personally unsure of the bloke. Football teams, especially in England have been seeing so many billionaire takeovers that could be an argument he wants to get us into a better position and then sell us off. He tried to sell us off for alot more then we were worth after KK. Everyone including the tea lady told him needs to lower his price. On that point, he didn't try too hard to state his case, gave into supporters pressure almost immediately. Secondly, he may not have known what he was getting himself into. He see's us sell out our stadium week in, week out with on paper top players, underperforming - maybe even thinking he was grabbing a bargain. Too good to refuse so grabs at it, then being stung with true state of our finances and having to begrudgingly support us to protect his investment. Thirdly, how many people in the world had ever heard of Mike Ashley before he took us over? for a reclusive man he was enjoying all the popularity he was receiving at the start.

No we wasn't (sic) We was (sic again) talking about Keane being the sort of bloke who blames everyone but himself, just like he does in the interview he's given. The two articles posted come from the same interview, you do realise that? Again he doesnt blame anyone in that article, not even a single mention of results, injuries, not being backed. Just a 'concerning' and 'undercurrent' snippets from the guy which you have exaggerated beyond belief. We aren't going to agree, let you carry on if you want. If you find anything in the article which actually support your claims gimme a shout.

I would need to see it but live text coverage did say he got the ball first.

Where is his excuses? I read that and didn't see one excuse for the teams performances more of his take on the clubs shifting attitude towards him. He doesn't criticise the chairmen or players, luck or referees. Give over man, he's blaming the hierarchy that allowed him to waste millions & millions on underperforming players, then suggesting the players had been to Quinn to complain about him. The whole thing is classic Keane. Again.. i don't see any parts of that article where he makes any excuses for his failings .. just speculating there might have been a shift in Sunderlands attitude towards him. Hardly blaming anyone. You think the reasons he talks about are the reasons he left? He left because he'd lost the players and when he was challenged about his appalling man management he didn't like it. End of story. How do you think the Clive Clarke comments went down with the rest of the players? You said he was blaming the guys above him, and that he had a excuse for his failings - immediately after that article was posted. When it says anything but dishing out excuses. Just one day he meet the a big shareholder and another day Niall Quinn told him to cheer up the players. Groundbreaking. Have a read of the whole thing & get back to me. Read this twice, i think you need to read more than the first line to be honest. Which part does he try shift the blame.. o its probably another article huh? Where is his excuses? I read that and didn't see one excuse for the teams performances more of his take on the clubs shifting attitude towards him. He doesn't criticise the chairmen or players, luck or referees. Give over man, he's blaming the hierarchy that allowed him to waste millions & millions on underperforming players, then suggesting the players had been to Quinn to complain about him. The whole thing is classic Keane. Again.. i don't see any parts of that article where he makes any excuses for his failings .. just speculating there might have been a shift in Sunderlands attitude towards him. Hardly blaming anyone. You think the reasons he talks about are the reasons he left? He left because he'd lost the players and when he was challenged about his appalling man management he didn't like it. End of story. How do you think the Clive Clarke comments went down with the rest of the players? You said he was blaming the guys above him, and that he had a excuse for his failings - immediately after that article was posted. When it says anything but dishing out excuses. Just one day he meet the a big shareholder and another day Niall Quinn told him to cheer up the players. Groundbreaking. Have a read of the whole thing & get back to me. Read this twice, i think you need to read more than the first line to be honest. Which part does he try shift the blame.. o its probably another article huh? From the 4th paragraph onwards. I'd also read the Irish times article before it was posted here. Yeah that explains why he weren't able to do his job properly doesn't it. Bravo. Ah changing your argument. You now want to argue they didnt allow him to do his job instead Can't be arsed with that, so I'll leave you to it. mackems.gif Oh man thats pathetic, i thought you would pull something like that off. Whole thing was how Roy Keane blames his failing on others, and at NO point have you pointed out how in the article posted above. He blames no one, no one gets in the way of his job, he doesn't blame his players, injuries, chairman, nothing. Just speculates attitudes around him were changing. Speaking s*** as per usual buddy and i called you on it The most controversial bit about the chairman was how he told Keane to cheer up the players, scandalous. So once again your argument was pathetic f*** me, can you just not read? FFS that REALLY blames everyone but himself. To be the manager of Sunderland. "Really concerns him", "Then there were accusations about how often I came in". Is that why he failed? He blames who? The chairmen for asking him tough questions, this stopped them getting results? OO i thought when an ex manager blames a chairmen its because he wasn't backed, they picked the team not asking him 'concerning' questions. Stop it now, your embarrassing yourself unless your going to point out WHERE ROY KEANE BLAMES SOMEONE FOR HIS FAILURE. As Roy says himself, "it's in the undercurrent" He's given an interview on his departure & not once mentioned his failings. So you admit you were wrong about that, about time. He didnt blame anyone, chairmen, no referees, injuries, doesn't say he wasn't backed or supported well enough - just the attitudes were changing around him in that article. Thanks for clearing that up Eh? He's given an interview, said loads about how others made it difficult, criticised players, suggested Quinn wouldn't stand up for him, suggested they queried the job he was doing, suggested he wasn't spending a satisfactory amount of time there. He's not once said "Perhaps I could have.............." That was exactly my point, that's what he does, & it's what he's done here. We was always speaking about that article and you know it. Just accept it you got it wrong. You said it was classic keane blaming everyone but himself. In the article - never mentions results, how he left. Doesn't make any excuses.

Where is his excuses? I read that and didn't see one excuse for the teams performances more of his take on the clubs shifting attitude towards him. He doesn't criticise the chairmen or players, luck or referees. Give over man, he's blaming the hierarchy that allowed him to waste millions & millions on underperforming players, then suggesting the players had been to Quinn to complain about him. The whole thing is classic Keane. Again.. i don't see any parts of that article where he makes any excuses for his failings .. just speculating there might have been a shift in Sunderlands attitude towards him. Hardly blaming anyone. You think the reasons he talks about are the reasons he left? He left because he'd lost the players and when he was challenged about his appalling man management he didn't like it. End of story. How do you think the Clive Clarke comments went down with the rest of the players? You said he was blaming the guys above him, and that he had a excuse for his failings - immediately after that article was posted. When it says anything but dishing out excuses. Just one day he meet the a big shareholder and another day Niall Quinn told him to cheer up the players. Groundbreaking. Have a read of the whole thing & get back to me. Read this twice, i think you need to read more than the first line to be honest. Which part does he try shift the blame.. o its probably another article huh? From the 4th paragraph onwards. I'd also read the Irish times article before it was posted here. Yeah that explains why he weren't able to do his job properly doesn't it. Bravo. Ah changing your argument. You now want to argue they didnt allow him to do his job instead Can't be arsed with that, so I'll leave you to it. mackems.gif Oh man thats pathetic, i thought you would pull something like that off. Whole thing was how Roy Keane blames his failing on others, and at NO point have you pointed out how in the article posted above. He blames no one, no one gets in the way of his job, he doesn't blame his players, injuries, chairman, nothing. Just speculates attitudes around him were changing. Speaking s*** as per usual buddy and i called you on it The most controversial bit about the chairman was how he told Keane to cheer up the players, scandalous. So once again your argument was pathetic f*** me, can you just not read? FFS that REALLY blames everyone but himself. To be the manager of Sunderland. "Really concerns him", "Then there were accusations about how often I came in". Is that why he failed? He blames who? The chairmen for asking him tough questions, this stopped them getting results? OO i thought when an ex manager blames a chairmen its because he wasn't backed, they picked the team not asking him 'concerning' questions. Stop it now, your embarrassing yourself unless your going to point out WHERE ROY KEANE BLAMES SOMEONE FOR HIS FAILURE. As Roy says himself, "it's in the undercurrent" He's given an interview on his departure & not once mentioned his failings. So you admit you were wrong about that, about time. He didnt blame anyone, chairmen, no referees, injuries, doesn't say he wasn't backed or supported well enough - just the attitudes were changing around him in that article. Undercurrent like concealed and not exposed huh? This affected his job so much it made him fail i guess . Putting words into his mouth, to support this ridiculous argument. Thanks for clearing that up

Where is his excuses? I read that and didn't see one excuse for the teams performances more of his take on the clubs shifting attitude towards him. He doesn't criticise the chairmen or players, luck or referees. Give over man, he's blaming the hierarchy that allowed him to waste millions & millions on underperforming players, then suggesting the players had been to Quinn to complain about him. The whole thing is classic Keane. Again.. i don't see any parts of that article where he makes any excuses for his failings .. just speculating there might have been a shift in Sunderlands attitude towards him. Hardly blaming anyone. You think the reasons he talks about are the reasons he left? He left because he'd lost the players and when he was challenged about his appalling man management he didn't like it. End of story. How do you think the Clive Clarke comments went down with the rest of the players? You said he was blaming the guys above him, and that he had a excuse for his failings - immediately after that article was posted. When it says anything but dishing out excuses. Just one day he meet the a big shareholder and another day Niall Quinn told him to cheer up the players. Groundbreaking. Have a read of the whole thing & get back to me. Read this twice, i think you need to read more than the first line to be honest. Which part does he try shift the blame.. o its probably another article huh? From the 4th paragraph onwards. I'd also read the Irish times article before it was posted here. Yeah that explains why he weren't able to do his job properly doesn't it. Bravo. Ah changing your argument. You now want to argue they didnt allow him to do his job instead Can't be arsed with that, so I'll leave you to it. mackems.gif Oh man thats pathetic, i thought you would pull something like that off. Whole thing was how Roy Keane blames his failing on others, and at NO point have you pointed out how in the article posted above. He blames no one, no one gets in the way of his job, he doesn't blame his players, injuries, chairman, nothing. Just speculates attitudes around him were changing. Speaking s*** as per usual buddy and i called you on it The most controversial bit about the chairman was how he told Keane to cheer up the players, scandalous. So once again your argument was pathetic f*** me, can you just not read? FFS that REALLY blames everyone but himself. To be the manager of Sunderland. "Really concerns him", "Then there were accusations about how often I came in". Is that why he failed? He blames who? The chairmen for asking him tough questions, this stopped them getting results? OO i thought when an ex manager blames a chairmen its because he wasn't backed, they picked the team not asking him 'concerning' questions. Stop it now, your embarrassing yourself unless your going to point out WHERE ROY KEANE BLAMES SOMEONE FOR HIS FAILURE.

Where is his excuses? I read that and didn't see one excuse for the teams performances more of his take on the clubs shifting attitude towards him. He doesn't criticise the chairmen or players, luck or referees. Give over man, he's blaming the hierarchy that allowed him to waste millions & millions on underperforming players, then suggesting the players had been to Quinn to complain about him. The whole thing is classic Keane. Again.. i don't see any parts of that article where he makes any excuses for his failings .. just speculating there might have been a shift in Sunderlands attitude towards him. Hardly blaming anyone. You think the reasons he talks about are the reasons he left? He left because he'd lost the players and when he was challenged about his appalling man management he didn't like it. End of story. How do you think the Clive Clarke comments went down with the rest of the players? You said he was blaming the guys above him, and that he had a excuse for his failings - immediately after that article was posted. When it says anything but dishing out excuses. Just one day he meet the a big shareholder and another day Niall Quinn told him to cheer up the players. Groundbreaking. Have a read of the whole thing & get back to me. Read this twice, i think you need to read more than the first line to be honest. Which part does he try shift the blame.. o its probably another article huh? From the 4th paragraph onwards. I'd also read the Irish times article before it was posted here. Yeah that explains why he weren't able to do his job properly doesn't it. Bravo. Ah changing your argument. You now want to argue they didnt allow him to do his job instead Can't be arsed with that, so I'll leave you to it. mackems.gif Oh man thats pathetic, i thought you would pull something like that off. Whole thing was how Roy Keane blames his failing on others, and at NO point have you pointed out how in the article posted above. He blames no one, no one gets in the way of his job, he doesn't blame his players, injuries, chairman, nothing. Just speculates attitudes around him were changing. Speaking shit as per usual buddy and i called you on it The most controversial bit about the chairman was how he told Keane to cheer up the players, scandalous. So once again your argument was pathetic

Where is his excuses? I read that and didn't see one excuse for the teams performances more of his take on the clubs shifting attitude towards him. He doesn't criticise the chairmen or players, luck or referees. Give over man, he's blaming the hierarchy that allowed him to waste millions & millions on underperforming players, then suggesting the players had been to Quinn to complain about him. The whole thing is classic Keane. Again.. i don't see any parts of that article where he makes any excuses for his failings .. just speculating there might have been a shift in Sunderlands attitude towards him. Hardly blaming anyone. You think the reasons he talks about are the reasons he left? He left because he'd lost the players and when he was challenged about his appalling man management he didn't like it. End of story. How do you think the Clive Clarke comments went down with the rest of the players? You said he was blaming the guys above him, and that he had a excuse for his failings - immediately after that article was posted. When it says anything but dishing out excuses. Just one day he meet the a big shareholder and another day Niall Quinn told him to cheer up the players. Groundbreaking. Have a read of the whole thing & get back to me. Read this twice, i think you need to read more than the first line to be honest. Which part does he try shift the blame.. o its probably another article huh? From the 4th paragraph onwards. I'd also read the Irish times article before it was posted here. Yeah that explains why he weren't able to do his job properly doesn't it. Bravo. I suppose he werent allowed to get the players he wanted, didn't select the team, etc. Doesn't blame fuck all, just speculating that there was a shift of attitude. Nothing about why he couldn't do his job.

Where is his excuses? I read that and didn't see one excuse for the teams performances more of his take on the clubs shifting attitude towards him. He doesn't criticise the chairmen or players, luck or referees. Give over man, he's blaming the hierarchy that allowed him to waste millions & millions on underperforming players, then suggesting the players had been to Quinn to complain about him. The whole thing is classic Keane. Again.. i don't see any parts of that article where he makes any excuses for his failings .. just speculating there might have been a shift in Sunderlands attitude towards him. Hardly blaming anyone. You think the reasons he talks about are the reasons he left? He left because he'd lost the players and when he was challenged about his appalling man management he didn't like it. End of story. How do you think the Clive Clarke comments went down with the rest of the players? You said he was blaming the guys above him, and that he had a excuse for his failings - immediately after that article was posted. When it says anything but dishing out excuses. Just one day he meet the a big shareholder and another day Niall Quinn told him to cheer up the players. Groundbreaking. Have a read of the whole thing & get back to me. Read this twice, i think you need to read more than the first line to be honest. Which part does he try shift the blame.. o its probably another article huh?

Where is his excuses? I read that and didn't see one excuse for the teams performances more of his take on the clubs shifting attitude towards him. He doesn't criticise the chairmen or players, luck or referees. Give over man, he's blaming the hierarchy that allowed him to waste millions & millions on underperforming players, then suggesting the players had been to Quinn to complain about him. The whole thing is classic Keane. Again.. i don't see any parts of that article where he makes any excuses for his failings .. just speculating there might have been a shift in Sunderlands attitude towards him. Hardly blaming anyone. You think the reasons he talks about are the reasons he left? He left because he'd lost the players and when he was challenged about his appalling man management he didn't like it. End of story. How do you think the Clive Clarke comments went down with the rest of the players? You said he was blaming the guys above him, and that he had a excuse for his failings - immediately after that article was posted. When it says anything but dishing out excuses. Just one day he meet the a big shareholder and another day Niall Quinn told him to cheer up the players. Groundbreaking.

Where is his excuses? I read that and didn't see one excuse for the teams performances more of his take on the clubs shifting attitude towards him. He doesn't criticise the chairmen or players, luck or referees. He'd lost it at Sunderland, he was taking them nowhere and spending plenty to do it. It's mostly because he's a s**** manager, but the reason he's giving here is that there were some tensions with some new guy that came in. Spot on Liam O, Keane is and will always be a w***** of the highest order. And a desserting c*** as well. FFS that don't mean shit - he was a crap manager in his last season there no doubt. He doesn't try cover that up with anything, just a summary of what it was like behind the scenes, hardly mentions players, performances, injuries or anything. On this board its easy for people to jump on something very marginal to support their agenda. This time the hatred of Roy Keane.

Where is his excuses? I read that and didn't see one excuse for the teams performances more of his take on the clubs shifting attitude towards him. He doesn't criticise the chairmen or players, luck or referees. Give over man, he's blaming the hierarchy that allowed him to waste millions & millions on underperforming players, then suggesting the players had been to Quinn to complain about him. The whole thing is classic Keane. Again.. i don't see any parts of that article where he makes any excuses for his failings .. just speculating there might have been a shift in Sunderlands attitude towards him. Hardly blaming anyone.

Where is his excuses? I read that and didn't see one excuse for the teams performances more of his take on the clubs shifting attitude towards him. He doesn't criticise the chairmen or players, luck or referees.

Have Newcastle United donated anything?