fredbob

How much was the original loan? I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million. never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window mackems.gif How long have they been in debt to such an extent that they are now? Typically stupid argument. I've tried to explain the mess the club was in before they completely transformed it but you don't want to listen. Your loss. Was talking about the top 4. The stats that were released earlier show a business which categorically wasnt being run properly. This statement has nothing to do with thier ambition or transfer funds but the fact that they didnt stick to a sustainable business plan which is the norm for other clubs, including the 87 or so who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? They have better "business plans" then You're missing the point though, we havent always operated this way, in fact we were more successful when we operated the normal way. Its apretty silly comparison to be honest. It seems to me that Shephard et al were forced to open up the threshold on wages and transfers after the sacking of Bobby in orde to stir up interest for season ticket sales. To me, the whole plan was akin to a person using one credit card to clear the debts off another credit card.

you're happy with this relegation fight and the possibility of ending up where the Halls and the fat b****** found us as soon as they have left then ? we have a debt and make a loss. the top 4 (abramovic apart) have debts and make profits...can you spot the difference ? please tell us how they make a profit ? they make an operating profit...ie over the finacial year they bring in more than they pay out...if you can do this it's ok to carry debts,create debt to invest with etc. if, on the other hand, you are paying out more than you have coming in,building up more debt can be ruinous. Unless your future revenue was about to spike permananently by 35% of your current revenue, in which case who gives a s***. yes? But nufc had been operating like this way before the TV revenue was to come to fruition. Doesnt the fact that we 72% of our revenue was being used for wages suggest that Shephard had to take massive financial risks and increase the wage threshold in order to attract the "top" players to help drive season ticket sales in order to cover his own back. It turned into a vicious cirlce.

How much was the original loan? I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million. never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window mackems.gif How long have they been in debt to such an extent that they are now? Typically stupid argument. I've tried to explain the mess the club was in before they completely transformed it but you don't want to listen. Your loss. Was talking about the top 4. The stats that were released earlier show a business which categorically wasnt being run properly. This statement has nothing to do with thier ambition or transfer funds but the fact that they didnt stick to a sustainable business plan which is the norm for other clubs, including the ones winning trophies. They made one bad decision after another and ended up having to gamble the future of the club in order to help cover the inept decisions. With the club £100m in debt and having 72% of its revenue supped away by the tropy signings with no European competition to help back the finances up, where do you think this club was going? My opinion is that there came apoint where this club was mismanged to an extent that they had to gamble the entire business and implement an unsustainable plan which could and possilby would of backfired unless things started to improve and quick. All the while the board were attaining lovely dividends at the end of it which were clearly undeserved. Add the the fact that Shephard was the second best paid chairman in the league (if i rememebr correctly) and you see every reason why fans get frustrated with him. Also the bit in bold, how is that relevant to todays situation? Are you saying that as long are we are in a better situation than we are pre92 then we are a success? I dont quite see where the past has any relevance to the present when is comes to running a business. I mean, if we were to transfer that idealogy to another club (obviosly not a direct comparison but a relative one) and Arsenal were to do the unthinkable and sack Wenger and replace him with Allardyce (for example) and the club were to sustain heavy periods or relative mediocrity, then could the board be excused because of there past achievments? Because thats basically what you are saying. Surely you see this point??? Is that not a fair-ish comparison?

How much was the original loan? I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million. never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window mackems.gif How long have they been in debt to such an extent that they are now? Typically stupid argument.

Keegan has made bad teams better throughout his career. Souness has only ever made good teams worse. Pretty broad generalisation, i mean, i suppose the question is do you think that Keegan could recreate what Souness did in the same stuation? Im not sure he could.

Would also have to say that Wenger has been a better manager. Ferguson made a side that became dominant in english football and didnt really have no one to match him on a consistent basis, Wenger came along and not only revolutionesed football, but created a team that not only matched Man U, but also bettered it. His tansfer record is phenomenal and his record at blending squads - i.e removing older players and bringing in new players is much better than Ferguson who could safely rely ona single formula of players throughout the mid 90's. Not only this but his stlye of football is wonderful, with style and more imporantly substance. I suppose Fergusons greatest achievements mark to a period where his team was the only dominant team in England however Wengers greatest achievement would be to break that dominance, which in my opinion is harder to do. Antoher question would be, would i have faith in Ferguson recreating a club like he did at Man U as much as i would trust Wenger to creat a club like he did at Arsenal? The answer for me would be no.

Surely its fair to say that Souness is a better manager overall than Keegan? I know there is discontent towards Souness because of obvious reasons but he has throughtout his career won more things than keegan has and also done it in foreign leagues, there are obvious vairable which cant really be accounted for in greater details such as managing dominant teams but i think it is fair to say that at the end of the day, whenboth retire Sounes would be considered thebtter manager.

Think G Neville is criminally underrated. not entirely sure what people have seen to suggest he's not as good as others make out. The only criticsim i could make for him is that he isnt as dynamic and athletic as the likes of Cafu and Zanetti and therefore isnt as effective and as pentrative when he goes forward but i still think he supports the RW really well. Would put him up there with the best in the world in his pomp. If he was foriegn there would be no question.

It would appear he also took some league points with him too. He should have shared some with his mate Souness. Some league points and some beans and maybe the two of them wouldn't have found it necessary to boot your idol, Bellamy right out of Newcastle. What a can of beans they made out of that one. I see. It escapes your attention that the fat b****** and his mate Bobby also brought my idol, Bellamy, into the club too. Most unlike you to pick out what suits your opinion and discard the rest. Well then, that makes it perfectly justifiable to sell him then. He did buy him after all. What a silly argument. That about sums up all your other arguments. oh dear. Have you decided whether or not you advocate spending money on quality footballers or not yet, ref your dramatic u-turn ? Or do you have any consistent view of anything that you find yourself able to stick to that doesn't involve personalities ? mackems.gif Well said! Really addressed the point there, bravo! Personalities have nothing to do with my judgment, in fact, i say the same things over and over again, ive supported all of Shephards decsions, but at the end of the day wen push came to shove, the last 10 years are irrelavant to the current state of the club, you cant seem to accepth that. I dont know why, i accept that he was part of the great revival of the club, and i understand he brought some good times to this club, but 4 years, thats right, 4 whole years after his best achievement the club is in no better situation than the one he took over. What other business would accept that? your poor grammar and spelling says everything I'm afraid. Not to mention that you - and you aren't the only one - who STILL thinks that Shepherd ran the whole club all on his own despite the Halls being the majority shareholders. Do you also think that Mort runs the whole club and makes all the decisions on his own too mackems.gif What a stupid little comment to make. I cant believe you're that desperate to score points that you would look at someones english, what a pathetic little man you are. You should really take a look at what you've just put, its an embaressing statement to make, what are you, 53 years of age? You should really take a look at yourself if you think that that is an acceptable or appropriate comment to make. And for what its worth, im aware that Shephard doesnt run the club on his own, but it also needs to be said that as the chairman he was the boards representatives to the fans. He has to shoulder the responsibilty of the boards decisions even if they werent his. Also, isnt a charimans role to recommend things to the board, ie the financial backing of the manager, or the sacking, sale or purchase of a player etc? Can the board act without the chaimens recommendation? Not point scoring. Just can't be bothered with your inability to open your mind, fact is I've tried to tell you the bigger picture as someone who's supported the club for over 40 years and you don't want to listen. Also - like it or not, if you want to put up good debate then your presentation of your points is important. Don't take it personally. mackems.gif mackems.gif mackems.gif mackems.gif Point well and truly made, no need to reply to this old man. Your point has well and truly been made.

It would appear he also took some league points with him too. He should have shared some with his mate Souness. Some league points and some beans and maybe the two of them wouldn't have found it necessary to boot your idol, Bellamy right out of Newcastle. What a can of beans they made out of that one. I see. It escapes your attention that the fat b****** and his mate Bobby also brought my idol, Bellamy, into the club too. Most unlike you to pick out what suits your opinion and discard the rest. Well then, that makes it perfectly justifiable to sell him then. He did buy him after all. What a silly argument. That about sums up all your other arguments. oh dear. Have you decided whether or not you advocate spending money on quality footballers or not yet, ref your dramatic u-turn ? Or do you have any consistent view of anything that you find yourself able to stick to that doesn't involve personalities ? mackems.gif Well said! Really addressed the point there, bravo! Personalities have nothing to do with my judgment, in fact, i say the same things over and over again, ive supported all of Shephards decsions, but at the end of the day wen push came to shove, the last 10 years are irrelavant to the current state of the club, you cant seem to accepth that. I dont know why, i accept that he was part of the great revival of the club, and i understand he brought some good times to this club, but 4 years, thats right, 4 whole years after his best achievement the club is in no better situation than the one he took over. What other business would accept that? your poor grammar and spelling says everything I'm afraid. Not to mention that you - and you aren't the only one - who STILL thinks that Shepherd ran the whole club all on his own despite the Halls being the majority shareholders. Do you also think that Mort runs the whole club and makes all the decisions on his own too mackems.gif What a stupid little comment to make. I cant believe you're that desperate to score points that you would look at someones english, what a pathetic little man you are. You should really take a look at what you've just put, its an embaressing statement to make, what are you, 53 years of age? You should really take a look at yourself if you think that that is an acceptable or appropriate comment to make. And for what its worth, im aware that Shephard doesnt run the club on his own, but it also needs to be said that as the chairman he was the boards representatives to the fans. He has to shoulder the responsibilty of the boards decisions even if they werent his. Also, isnt a charimans role to recommend things to the board, ie the financial backing of the manager, or the sacking, sale or purchase of a player etc? Can the board act without the chaimens recommendation?

The "frightening" thing is that this same topic has been covered before and the timelines were all posted yet once again it seems to be dragged up to slate the way the club is being run, we complain about the press having a go at the club yet we're as good as them at spinning, if not better at times. For some people it's more important to back Fat Fred than their football club. For some people its more important to slate someone off for eating all the pies than to be able to see that running a club who qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 actually means they are doing a decent job of running the football club. Still dont listen do you, i cant believe someone can use a stat which doesnt hold much water considering it doesnt paint the true situation of the club. You conitue to use the 7 european qualifications out of 10 years as opposed to the 4 top 10 finishes in the same 10 years stat, even thought the top 10 finishes show the truer picture for the club. If we were to look at who had the most top 10 finishes for the club in those 10 years, do you think we'd still be the 5th best? Nope. Show much for your ambitious chairman crap. No wonder your "opinions" hold no water on this board when you talkabout "facts" which have no relevant context to the situation and are contrived to fit a silly agenda. If you want to talk about relevance, what relevance is the arbitrary choice of 10th? Top half. Wow. No footballing significance whatsoever. Mid table is much of a muchness, pretty much a lottery where you end up. Oh noes Spurs were better than us because in the 8 years they finished mid table they came 9th twice and 10th twice, but in the 6 years we came mid table the best we did was 11th! If you want to talk about relevance you have to talk about relevant achievements. Qualifying for Europe is a relevant achievement. It's a hell of a lot harder to get a team into the top 4 (which we did 5 times under the previous board) than it is to win the also-ran pissing contest in the middle. Never mind, we'll be great now we're under new management, and thank god we didn't waste any money on players in January eh? You must be well chuffed about that. Only if they were complete idiots. You didn't did you? You didnt think that when we were in the running for the title we were in a position to estabillish ourselves as a dominant team in england along the likes of Man U? Ill be honest i did, and when we were having those brilliant fininhse under SBR you didnt see us as a club that was on par with the likes of Liverpool and Chelsea, teams we were competing with for the top 4 finishes at one point? Ill be honest with you here as well, i didm but becuase of one incompetent decision by whomever we arent there. Fair play about the European qualifications bit, not really seen it that way, but i still think that our top 10 is a finishes are moreof a relevant stat because its atruer recoginition of the cboards overall decisions, ie manaer choices and finances. There is something significant about fininshing in the top 50%.

It would appear he also took some league points with him too. He should have shared some with his mate Souness. Some league points and some beans and maybe the two of them wouldn't have found it necessary to boot your idol, Bellamy right out of Newcastle. What a can of beans they made out of that one. I see. It escapes your attention that the fat b****** and his mate Bobby also brought my idol, Bellamy, into the club too. Most unlike you to pick out what suits your opinion and discard the rest. Well then, that makes it perfectly justifiable to sell him then. He did buy him after all. What a silly argument. That about sums up all your other arguments. oh dear. Have you decided whether or not you advocate spending money on quality footballers or not yet, ref your dramatic u-turn ? Or do you have any consistent view of anything that you find yourself able to stick to that doesn't involve personalities ? mackems.gif Well said! Really addressed the point there, bravo! Personalities have nothing to do with my judgment, in fact, i say the same things over and over again, ive supported all of Shephards decsions, but at the end of the day wen push came to shove, the last 10 years are irrelavant to the current state of the club, you cant seem to accepth that. I dont know why, i accept that he was part of the great revival of the club, and i understand he brought some good times to this club, but 4 years, thats right, 4 whole years after his best achievement the club is in no better situation than the one he took over. What other business would accept that?

It would appear he also took some league points with him too. He should have shared some with his mate Souness. Some league points and some beans and maybe the two of them wouldn't have found it necessary to boot your idol, Bellamy right out of Newcastle. What a can of beans they made out of that one. I see. It escapes your attention that the fat b****** and his mate Bobby also brought my idol, Bellamy, into the club too. Most unlike you to pick out what suits your opinion and discard the rest. Well then, that makes it perfectly justifiable to sell him then. He did buy him after all. What a silly argument. That about sums up all your other arguments.

The "frightening" thing is that this same topic has been covered before and the timelines were all posted yet once again it seems to be dragged up to slate the way the club is being run, we complain about the press having a go at the club yet we're as good as them at spinning, if not better at times. For some people it's more important to back Fat Fred than their football club. For some people its more important to slate someone off for eating all the pies than to be able to see that running a club who qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 actually means they are doing a decent job of running the football club. Still dont listen do you, i cant believe someone can use a stat which doesnt hold much water considering it doesnt paint the true situation of the club. You conitue to use the 7 european qualifications out of 10 years as opposed to the 4 top 10 finishes in the same 10 years stat, even thought the top 10 finishes show the truer picture for the club. If we were to look at who had the most top 10 finishes for the club in those 10 years, do you think we'd still be the 5th best? Nope. Show much for your ambitious chairman crap. No wonder your "opinions" hold no water on this board when you talkabout "facts" which have no relevant context to the situation and are contrived to fit a silly agenda. Very important and relevant stat, is what it is. I'll let you look up how many times we qualified for europe in the 30+ years preceding 1992 if you still can't understand how far forward we moved under the old board. Thats not an opinion by the way, you can't argue with league positions and european qualifications, and a full ground every home game either. When we really were s***, only 20000 fans supported the team evermore, blah blah blah, and good players constantly wanted to leave the club including locally born Newcastle supporters to further their ambitions Im not arguing about how far the old board took us though, im saying that the use of that stat does nothing to enhance your argument because it doesnt paint anything close to the true picture of the club. How far could the club of dropped before you stopped using the argument that we were crap 92? I mean, if under Shephard the club went into freefall, and ended up in the same place he found them, then would he be excused because of what he had achieved for the club because he showed ambiion in the first place? I imagine you are a sensible wise man deep down behind that cantankerous exterior and you can see where theres a point where his fallacies wont be excused by his previous record, which point would tat be for you? For most of us, its at the point that he sacked SBR/appointment of Souness which basiclly unravelled all the work that was done by him and the old board. His achievments in hindsights were clouded because of the financial situation and the position in the league where he left us. Can you not see that? This isnt a question of ambition, that magic buzz word you like so much, this was a question of runing abusiness properly and using advantage that we had as a club to further ourselves. You have to realise that most fans see us as being on par with Man U at one point in our history, a bit further down the line we were on par with the likes of Chelsea and Liverpool. Why are we not there now? Who do you attribute that downfall to? For most the fans it was the oldboard andShephard.

The "frightening" thing is that this same topic has been covered before and the timelines were all posted yet once again it seems to be dragged up to slate the way the club is being run, we complain about the press having a go at the club yet we're as good as them at spinning, if not better at times. For some people it's more important to back Fat Fred than their football club. For some people its more important to slate someone off for eating all the pies than to be able to see that running a club who qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 actually means they are doing a decent job of running the football club. Still dont listen do you, i cant believe someone can use a stat which doesnt hold much water considering it doesnt paint the true situation of the club. You conitue to use the 7 european qualifications out of 10 years as opposed to the 4 top 10 finishes in the same 10 years stat, even thought the top 10 finishes show the truer picture for the club. If we were to look at who had the most top 10 finishes for the club in those 10 years, do you think we'd still be the 5th best? Nope. Show much for your ambitious chairman crap. No wonder your "opinions" hold no water on this board when you talkabout "facts" which have no relevant context to the situation and are contrived to fit a silly agenda.

Ferdinand was a good sale at the time. We got decent money for a player at his best who never did anything of note afterwards. Speed did ok with Bolton who were perfectly suited to his talents. Good business on both accounts IMO. I have to disagree with you there completely, the point with Ferdinand was that he was doing something here, bare in mind it was his sale that forced keegans hand. You dont under any circumstance sell players who are scoring for you. That was probably one of the best partenerships this club has ever had, why break it up? Also Speed was insrtrumental for our side, was a very very important player, when we sold him the sides perfomances suffered alot. Was also a very mature head in a relatively young side. The business is alway bad if you sell players who affect your team, irrespective of the cash.

The 2 players that i think signify the downfalls of the club on 2 seperate occasions would be Ferdinand and Speed. Speed probably the most important player to directly effect the team but Ferdinand obviously for the significants of his departure and the fall out from it.

Mort and Ashley, probably.

Theres a 17 page thred on Taylor, and there is a decent spread of fans who say Taylor will come good and has immense potential having seen him make many mistakes over the course of 3-4 seasons, and not show any real signs of improvement over the course of those 3-4 seasons, the same spread says he needs a better partner and and equally even spread who can categorically say that both Cacapa and Roz are s*** having seen thme play in the premiership for 4 months. Wheres the logic that 2 players who have proven themselves througouht there career, one a consistent CL perfomrer and captain, are completely written off as "s***" yet Taylor still gets away with a hell of a lot by a certain section of fans. Seems a pretty inconsistent judgement to me, what do you attribute that bias to?

Im not particularly arsed with Taylor at the moment, very disappointed with the quotes if true, to be honest i thik he's a liabilty of Brambles proprtions at the moment. He's getting a lot less greif then the likes of Roz and Cacapa and Barton,Smith and even Owen, purely because he's a "local" lad. He's had 3 years of first team football to show what he;s capable of and stil hasnt produced consistent perfomances. I dont think he has it in him to be honest, and i think he believes his own hype. To be fair to him, he's been our main defender for the past 3-4 years, partnering the likes of Bramble, Boumsong, Moore, Gooch, Cacapa, Roz, Faye and he's been the one in all those years who has played consisntently. Unformtunately, in his mind he thinks its because he's been head and shoulders above the rest, which is partially true becuase most of those have been exceptionally crap. Would love him to prove us all wrong, but i dont think he will.

Was he ever captain at Man City? Either him or Dunne. I think it was him.

This is gonna get raped as a comment, i know, but id of liked to of seen Barton become captain, id of used it as a challenge forhim, told him its his to lose and he needs to improve his on pitch and off field problems or thats it. I think deep down he likes the club and i have no doubt that on form he is a quality player. It'd be a move similar to Hitzfeld and Effenberg although obviously Effenberg had outrageous talent. Barton could still be a very good player for us.

I think the DM position is gonna be the key decision tommorow, does Faye play there providing decent defensive cover for the likes of Emre to support the attack, i think Emre is exactly the tye of player we need, someone who can help make things happen and keep possession in the final third, which we've been dearly missing. However this leaves us short in CD, and with the likes of Cruz and Mcarthy im not sure id want a weak defense. Both physical and both extremely intelligent, so the likes of Taylor will suffer in my opinon as would Cacapa. Kind of means we have to play Faye in defence. Butt and Barton will therefore play because they will provide a "decent" blend of Attack and defence which is bull, Zog will be on the left, ?Milner on the right with Owenand Smith up front with Martins coming on for Smith later in the match. Thats my prediciton.

Good comments mate. I am not trying to single him out for criticism and I am grateful for the goals he's scored (last season would have been even worse if not for him, Sib and Milner), I just don't think he is what we need over the coming seasons. Especially on improved wages.

Happy enough, to have him on board to be honest, not sure about his wages though. But getting him to sign a new contract will be very good for us just to get that clause out, i happen to like him as a player, its all fair and where breaking down his individual attributes. which we can all do and most of us can see that he isnt the complete player and most of us can see that his intelligences on a pitch will hinder his progress, but his goalscoring record is pretty undeniable. Its been better than fanstastic considering the 2 mangers and systems he's played under, especially Roeder where he was on his own for most the season. He doesnt suffer from too many injuries and lets be honest i think its fair to say that even though he doesnt use his pace very effectively, he still scares defenders. I dont understand how he gets this much criticsm when he's scored so many goals for us, the bottom line is that he's scored goals for us, and had already saved us from relegation once. Dont get me wrong, i dont think he's the messiah, but i still think he's a player 90% of the teams in the premiership would love to have.