Timing: Our past, the present, our future? by NE5

[Guest The Fox]

Well firstly HTL I dont lie, secondly I am not and never have been a school teacher.

To answer your question, there are no guarantes but the likelihood of a future board returning to the pre 92 days is IMO out of the question. There is more money around now and any new investor would I feel at least at first make positive noises, make money available and attempt to bring in a quality Manager and coaching staff. Success breeds success and to get a return on their investment success is what is needed.

[OzzieMandias]

Success breeds success and to get a return on their investment success is what is needed.

 

I think we can take it for granted that a big investment company is going to understand this. We haven't got any assets to strip, but we do have a stable fan base and potential as a footballing brand... which is what it's all about these days.

[Dinho lad]

Well firstly HTL I dont lie, secondly I am not and never have been a school teacher.

 

He's still going on about that!

[Syrette]

Well firstly HTL I dont lie, secondly I am not and never have been a school teacher.

 

He's still going on about that!

 

[macbeth]

Success breeds success and to get a return on their investment success is what is needed.

 

I think we can take it for granted that a big investment company is going to understand this. We haven't got any assets to strip, but we do have a stable fan base and potential as a footballing brand... which is what it's all about these days.

 

only cos Hall & Shepherd have taken them already.

[macbeth]

 

I would think that somebody who was heavily involved with the magpie group and played an active part in getting rid of the old board has a lot of valid points to make on the subject of the board.  I would say his opinion is more valid than both of ours although it doesn't stop either of us having an opinion.

 

If you're talking about macbeth, (I doubt he is) I wouldn't agree. He is like the previous Boards, he's not interested in what happens on the field of play, he'd have seen us relegated rather than borrow the money to sign Owen, for example.

He's admitted it too.

 

 

Where do you get that from. All I am interested in is what I see on the pitch. If an incomepetent, thieving board take money out of the club to compromise the long term future of the club then I will moan like mad, as it affects what I have to put up with on the pitch. If Hall & Shepherd had not taken their £30m out of the club we could have afforded Owen and still have money left over to buy a defender or two or three. You seemed to think that that money would have just evaporated somewhere along the way. A board that coudl manage money woudl have had that money now.

I want my the money I pay to go to games to go to the strengthening of my club. I believe 99.999% of fanss believe the same. You and NE5 seem happy to see £4m per year to go the Hall & SHpeherd p[ension funds. That is what none of us can get our heads around. You (and the Halls and Shepherds) put the Halls and Shepherd wealth ahead of that of the club.

 

[NE5]

 

which are totally unrelated of course 

 

Why did Gordon Lee not move his family up to Newcastle and why did he not buy the players for Newcastle that he bought for Everton?

 

Why did Pop Robson [another mackem] call Newcastle "unprofessional" then move to WEST HAM?

 

How many local lads on this message board would want to leave Newcastle United these days if you played for them?

 

You're an absolute scream. You don't really know about these era's do you?

 

Corrected above misuse of the term "local lad"

 

 

Why did Gordon Lee not move his family up to Newcastle?  I'm not his spokesman so wasn't given that information, were you?

 

Pop Robson that local mackem, hardly stayed anywhere for very long, after leaving Newcastle he was moving clubs every couple of seasons, he couldn't stay in one place for very long so whatever excuse he uses is invalidated by his actions to a certain degree.  If he'd made his reasons known then stayed at one or two clubs for any length of time then I'd find what he said a bit easier to agree with.

 

Could he not make his mind up if West Ham or the Mackems were the club for him?  What does that say about a mackem who left the team he claimed to support?  How does the mackem who had little or no loyalty to the team he supported help in your campaign to defend Shepherd?

 

"How many local lads on this message board would want to leave Newcastle United these days if you played for them" has no relevance to anything, it's hypothetical for a start.  12 months ago I would have said that I didn't want to work outside of the North East, today I do.

 

I see you've got into asking questions again to try and deflect attention away from your obsession with defending the un-defendable chairman.

 

You don't even know about this era  so don't try to pick up on my knowledge of past era's or I'll remind people how you think that Ellis is a shit chairman while he has a better record of finishing above us while we've had Shepherd, sorry I just did.

 

As I've supported the club for 42 years,  and am sitting  fairly close to a position I stood in since 1993, for years when I was a kid, how can my knowledge of any era be different to that of anothe one - and thanks for admitting I know past eras, unlike yourself who only started in 1992. As is obvious. Priceless........

 

As for the Pop Robson comments, you are obviously coming across as one of those small minded people who have a problem with a mackem born footballer playing for Newcastle. Such a mentality is normally reserved for SMB's who have the small time mentality towards anything Newcastle, but I must say that is the type of supporter I'd judged you as being already and I'm usually right.

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

 

and I'm usually right.

 

 

[NE5]

No he wasn't given that information but he thinks like HTL that  he knows it all. He cant justify half the stuff he posts.

Mick,

Lets not wind them up anymore mate, its gone on too long.

 

The majority of long term posters on here and some short term have the club at heart, there will always be differing views. Nobody knows any more than anyone else unless they are related to the hierarchy.

Some get abusive and insulting when their views are questioned, some use humour and some do lie. We all know that but personally I never leave the board without having a chuckle at the banter, insults etc.

I have respect for all Newcastle fans for putting up with mediocrity for so long and remaining loyal, although I sometimes wish they had a bit more fore in their belly.

I have supported them through thin and thin since the days of Eastham, White and Allchurch if not before. Have not had the opportunity to seemany home games but have travelled extensively to watch them away, when some of the dides they put out would have struggled in the Conference.

I have fond memories of Len White era, the Stan Anderson/Jim Iley era/ the KK era.

It would just be great to actually win something and then maintain the challenge.

l

 

Good post, Fox - I reckon this is dragging on for too long.

For what its worth, Hamman(the only one worth commenting on , since he departed in the last 10 years)

said, after he left , that ; 'The Board was average, so the Club was average' , but confirmed that he had actually enjoyed living in the NE and travelling round the area.

He didn't get on with Gullit, either.

 

The others departed over 10 years ago - Gazza was the last local lad of any significance to leave, and that was in 1988. Personally, I think we should only be considering events that happened since the Hall/Shepherd takeover in 1992.

 

Every supporter wants the club to WIN THINGS - at least, that should be the object of the exercise, as it is only by doing that that the club will develop as it should.

 

Not being funny, but if you are so sure it is right not to consider Boards of pre-1992  do you believe it is impossible that a replacement for the current Board could be like those of pre-1992 going back decades?

 

That's a serious question.

 

It IS a serious question, and one deserving of an honest answer.

Firstly, the reason not to get involved with stuff that happened prior to 1992 is that there are quite a few who read the board that weren't very old when the Pop Robson or Waddle/Beardsley stuff happened(its nearly 20 years since even Beardsley left for Liverpool).

Those of us who are well into middle-age know all about it , and can remember the facts.

 

Secondly - I DON'T know if any person/Group replacing the current Board will be like the pre-1992 outfit ;

how can I, I'm not a Crystal-ball reader - however, the Boards of pre-92 vintage were, in the main, family Dynasties. Even though we are, on the face of it, a PLC, in reality we are now once again a Family dynastic Club ; all very well IF the top man at the time is capable & ambitious FOR THE CLUB , but its a lottery in that respect.

My judgement that a change of ownership/Direction is necessary is based on events of past 3 years(in the main), and if a TRULY ambitious Group takes over, we can do much better than this.

In addition, a business-minded organisation would want to make the club more successful in order to maximise its potential - without Football success, the club is not really doing that.

 

Hope that answers your question.

 

No mate, that's quite an interesting post, but the reason for mentioning the pre-1992 board is to point out the huge strides forward the club have taken since and give them credit for it, and also to point out the key difference in outlook which is that THEY HAVE PROVED THEIR AMBITION BY PROVIDING ALL THE MANAGERS WITH BUCKETFULLS OF CASH.

 

Whether it has been spent wisely is up for debate. Obviously a lot has, but also a lot hasn't.

 

It is easy for younger people to think the club are prepared to spend cash and back their managers, but they don't have to do this at all . Why don't other big city clubs back their managers ? I have asked this , and nobody replies ?

 

Why is it impossible for NUFC to be taken over by people without the courage and desire for real success to do this ?

 

It isn't automatic, and by showing that our old boards didn't do it shows it can actually happen here.

 

And - as people like Mick etc, say they have seen this situation, I am sorry to say everything they post suggests the complete opposite.

 

At least, if you have a board supporting and backing managers you have a chance - as was shown with Robson and previously Keegan - but believe me if you have a board who don't do that, you have none.

 

But Mick and John remember the "golden era" of Joe Harvey when we finished in the bottom half of the league on a regular basis and reached the FA Cup Final yet at the same time were 2 points above a relegation place .......

[NE5]

No he wasn't given that information but he thinks like HTL that  he knows it all. He cant justify half the stuff he posts.

Mick,

Lets not wind them up anymore mate, its gone on too long.

 

The majority of long term posters on here and some short term have the club at heart, there will always be differing views. Nobody knows any more than anyone else unless they are related to the hierarchy.

Some get abusive and insulting when their views are questioned, some use humour and some do lie. We all know that but personally I never leave the board without having a chuckle at the banter, insults etc.

I have respect for all Newcastle fans for putting up with mediocrity for so long and remaining loyal

 

 

spoken like a true patronising outsider

 

 

[NE5]

 

Not being funny, but if you are so sure it is right not to consider Boards of pre-1992  do you believe it is impossible that a replacement for the current Board could be like those of pre-1992 going back decades?

 

That's a serious question.

 

I would think that somebody who was heavily involved with the magpie group and played an active part in getting rid of the old board has a lot of valid points to make on the subject of the board.  I would say his opinion is more valid than both of ours although it doesn't stop either of us having an opinion.

 

I would also think most people realise we could get worse than we've got as chairman, we just don't automatically think it will happen and hope this isn’t the case.

 

A lot of people can also see how we’ve gone backwards under Shepherd although we have no divine right to do better than we are.

 

You can knock the old board as much as you want, it’s easy.  But, I don’t see anything in Shepherd to make me think he’s doing any better than they did or would have done better than them if he was in the same position.

 

The old board didn’t become shit over night, it was a combination of a lot of mistakes by a lot of people and it just snowballed.  McKeag seems to get most of the blame, I hated him more than any other chairman at the time because I was looking at the current situation, at that time, and blamed him for everything.  In reality it was something that happened and part of the reason was the state of football in this country, you can ignore this is you want but I would just say look at attendance figures for football in general, they were crap at most grounds.  That didn’t really pick up until Sky came on the scene and pumped more money into football than ever before.

 

I’m not trying to defend the board of old, they were crap and made mistakes.  The only chairman of old that Shepherd might have been better than is Westwood because Freddy might have splashed more cash after the Fairs Cup win, then again he might not have, we’ll never know.

 

What I do know is that Shepherd couldn’t have spent money at that time if the club didn’t have it, the banks would not have allowed it.  He’s got no record of appointing managers who have been a success so I have no reason to think he would have done any better on that score than the old boards.

 

What has he done that suggests he would have done better back then?

 

It’s also a serious question because I don’t see anything on his CV that gives me any confidence that things would have been better back then, under him.

 

Yes, they were crap, so is he.  I have no personal reason to dislike Shepherd other than what he's done to our club.  Where we were the day he took over and where we have been for far too much of his chairmanship and that's down to him for appointing the wrong people and backing failures, he did that, not us.  We now appear to be strapped for cash, the reason is his two mistakes, appointing shit then backing it with far too much money, it was doomed the day Souness was appointed, Shepherd got one of his top two priorities wrong when he appointed Souness then got the second priority, the clubs finances wrong by backing Souness with mega sums of money.

 

Sorry about the rant, I'm not sure where that came from.

 

 

As you defend all our old boards appointments, some of whom finished 15th in the league as a "golden era" and no european qualification for nearly 20 years, then please explain why you are slagging off a regime who's lowest position in the last 14 years, is 14th - once - with regular european football qualification to a degree unsurpassed in the clubs history 

[NE5]

Ambition?

 

This was David Stonehouse in 2001:

 

"I'm not sitting here worried about getting fresh capital. My concern is the transfer system, players' wages and performance. We do not have to get into the Champions League, mid-table stability is more important and we will cut our cloth accordingly."

 

http://www.nufc.com/html/telegraph_stonehouse.html

 

 

sounds like macbeth 

 

[merlin]

I've had my say on all this stuff - my opinion about it all is clear, and if the results continue to go as they did yesterday, there will be unremitting pressure on the Board & manager, and quite deservedly.

The buck stops with them, but they gat paid for it - the fans are the ones suffering.

 

Others have their view - that is their right - but it sure as hell won't change mine. Talking about the past is irrelevant to our current status, and unless there are big changes soon , Shepherd & Co will join the elite ranks of Directors who have succeeded in relegating a great Club.

No more comments from me on this thread.

[Mick]

A business that is runnign with a turnover of £80m needs more professional leadership.

There should be a Finance Director who understands football financial requirements. Who can spot when spending is not acceptable, who creates a budget for the business and ensures we that it is stuck to.

There should be a Marketing Director who leads us into new areas, projects us well within England and on to the European stage.

There should be a Director of Football who can lead the direction of the footballing part of the busines, who works with the team manager, but is more responsible for making sure that all the football parts of the business fit together. (We all have different views on the what omes uneder the label of "Director of Football" but it has to be accepted that without one the de facto one is Shepherd or Wilie Mackay).

The role of the chairman should be to co-ordinate all these board members to move the whole thing foward.

 

How would  we pay for all these directors ? Well back in 2001 was the last time we had a non Hall/Sheperd as a paid director int he shape of David Stonehouse. He was CEO of the company, and he was paid £150,000 per year, lets say £200,000 is required by that sort of person now. So five directors at that rate would cost £1m per year would cost us £1m, which is exactly the amount we are paying the board at the moment. So no extra cost, but far more talent on board.

 

Of course the only flaw in my argument is that the recruitment of these key appointments would normally be done through the chairman. 

 

Thing is though Macbeth that the title of Finance Director is just that, a title. I could pretty much guarantee that Shep has employed someone who performs the role of finance director and someone who performs the role of marketing direct. But they won't have director after their name to keep salary costs down. I would seriously doubt that Shep gets his hands dirty on financial or marketing activities apart from rubber stamping accounts or finalising details.

 

 

pretty much agree. It's quite amazing the amount of people who are obsessed by fancy titles, and other such dressings in this world we live in of "objectives", "investors for people" and other such shite - Adam Crozier - a man who macbeth admires - did a shit job for the FA but no doubt the job title of Chief Executive, or whatever it was, leads him to believe otherwise .....

 

Don't expect macbeth to give any credit to the board or chairman for keeping costs down - the simple fact is that in football the most effective financial input of all is gained through winning games on the pitch, and playing regularly in europe has put a lot of money through Newcastle United. Of course - everyone else does, so it doesn't make us one of the countries leading clubs in any shape of form  

 

 

 

         

 

Care to comment on this NE5?

 

It was posted just over two weeks ago.

[Rehhagel]

In terms of the Premiership there can be several levels of success:

 

1. Winning the league

2. Gaining a Champions League place

3. Gaining a european place

4. Finishing above the place from the previous season

5. Avoiding relegation

 

The ultimate success for every club is number 1, the realistic aim for most clubs varies  but is mainly between 3 and 4. Which is not much success and doesn't fill the heart with joy.

 

For Newcastle success would be 3 and 4, which is not much and less important than entertainment.

[Mick]

 

pretty much agree. It's quite amazing the amount of people who are obsessed by fancy titles, and other such dressings in this world we live in of "objectives", "investors for people" and other such shite - Adam Crozier - a man who macbeth admires - did a shit job for the FA but no doubt the job title of Chief Executive, or whatever it was, leads him to believe otherwise .....

 

Don't expect macbeth to give any credit to the board or chairman for keeping costs down - the simple fact is that in football the most effective financial input of all is gained through winning games on the pitch, and playing regularly in europe has put a lot of money through Newcastle United. Of course - everyone else does, so it doesn't make us one of the countries leading clubs in any shape of form  

 

 

 

         

 

Care to comment on this NE5?

 

It was posted just over two weeks ago.

 

Bump

[NE5]

 

pretty much agree. It's quite amazing the amount of people who are obsessed by fancy titles, and other such dressings in this world we live in of "objectives", "investors for people" and other such shite - Adam Crozier - a man who macbeth admires - did a shit job for the FA but no doubt the job title of Chief Executive, or whatever it was, leads him to believe otherwise .....

 

Don't expect macbeth to give any credit to the board or chairman for keeping costs down - the simple fact is that in football the most effective financial input of all is gained through winning games on the pitch, and playing regularly in europe has put a lot of money through Newcastle United. Of course - everyone else does, so it doesn't make us one of the countries leading clubs in any shape of form  

 

 

 

         

 

Care to comment on this NE5?

 

It was posted just over two weeks ago.

 

Bump

 

its pretty obvious if you read the context of the thread, the figures would be worse if the club appointed an army of business people who have no bearing on the results on the pitch. Now maybe you will answer why Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox left Newcastle, why our 3 locally bred England players left the club and why you consider our current position and regular european football to be the same as that period and all the years we spent playing in the 2nd division, where finishing 15th in the league [one place lower than under Souness] as a "golden era".

 

You weren't really there were you  bluesleep.gif

[Guest The Fox]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :lol: tongue.gif tongue.gif tongue.gif

[Mick]

 

pretty much agree. It's quite amazing the amount of people who are obsessed by fancy titles, and other such dressings in this world we live in of "objectives", "investors for people" and other such shite - Adam Crozier - a man who macbeth admires - did a shit job for the FA but no doubt the job title of Chief Executive, or whatever it was, leads him to believe otherwise .....

 

Don't expect macbeth to give any credit to the board or chairman for keeping costs down - the simple fact is that in football the most effective financial input of all is gained through winning games on the pitch, and playing regularly in europe has put a lot of money through Newcastle United. Of course - everyone else does, so it doesn't make us one of the countries leading clubs in any shape of form  

 

 

 

         

 

Care to comment on this NE5?

 

It was posted just over two weeks ago.

 

Bump

 

its pretty obvious if you read the context of the thread, the figures would be worse if the club appointed an army of business people who have no bearing on the results on the pitch. Now maybe you will answer why Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox left Newcastle, why our 3 locally bred England players left the club and why you consider our current position and regular european football to be the same as that period and all the years we spent playing in the 2nd division, where finishing 15th in the league [one place lower than under Souness] as a "golden era".

 

You weren't really there were you  bluesleep.gif

 

What a shit reply, not for the first time.

 

You really are as thick as anybody I've ever met when it comes to defending yourself and Shepherd, we're 16th at this time, one place lower than you've mentioned above.  The season isn't over but it's not looking very good and because of our financial state it could easily take a turn for the worse.  At least you'll be happy that we once had Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox and can bang on about our "Golden era."

 

Funilly enough, if Shepherd carries on the way he is going then we could all be looking back at those times as the "Golden era."

 

Explain your use of "Don't expect macbeth to give any credit to the board or chairman for keeping costs down - the simple fact is that in football the most effective financial input of all is gained through winning games on the pitch, and playing regularly in europe has put a lot of money through Newcastle United. Of course - everyone else does, so it doesn't make us one of the countries leading clubs in any shape of form."

 

I can't see where this fits in when referring to our club today, sorry, I forgot, "the figures would be worse if the club appointed an army of business people who have no bearing on the results on the pitch."

 

Do you cringe when you look back at that or is it just a reaction that I get when reading it?

[OzzieMandias]

the figures would be worse if the club appointed an army of business people who have no bearing on the results on the pitch.

 

It scarcely seems possible, but NE5's arguments get dumber and dumber.