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

[Mick]

You actually count?

 

 

[Delima]

Have you forgot that I am Mick, NE5? As well as Ozzie, and Toon's Taylor of course.

 

Seriously though, whilst I admire your stubbornness, does it never occur to you that there is rather a large proportion of fans (on this forum and Toontastic, at least) that do not rate the chairman?

 

Why do you think that so many individuals hold this view?

 

Because our club is the 5th best club in the premiership. Fact!

[NE5]

 

So Liverpool - and Rangers - are not ambitious clubs ?

 

Once more, you don't think before you post, or maybe its because your knowledge isn't up to it

 

 

Where do Liverpool and Rangers fit into this topic?

 

 

[Dokko]

Have you forgot that I am Mick, NE5? As well as Ozzie, and Toon's Taylor of course.

 

Seriously though, whilst I admire your stubbornness, does it never occur to you that there is rather a large proportion of fans (on this forum and Toontastic, at least) that do not rate the chairman?

 

Why do you think that so many individuals hold this view?

 

Its actually legendary.

 

Wor lass would even be impressed.

[Mick]

Have you forgot that I am Mick, NE5? As well as Ozzie, and Toon's Taylor of course.

 

Seriously though, whilst I admire your stubbornness, does it never occur to you that there is rather a large proportion of fans (on this forum and Toontastic, at least) that do not rate the chairman?

 

Why do you think that so many individuals hold this view?

 

You're me?

 

I have one or two issues with that but I'll not get into that in this thread.

 

The bit in bold, because we're all wrong and him and his comfort blanket are the only two who are right, it's obvious, at least it is to some of us.

[Dave]

Powered by Duracell tbh.

[Guest elbee909]

 

So Liverpool - and Rangers - are not ambitious clubs ?

 

Once more, you don't think before you post, or maybe its because your knowledge isn't up to it

 

 

Where do Liverpool and Rangers fit into this topic?

 

 

 

We all know they appointed Souness.  He had a 'special feel' for Liverpool and Rangers, you know.

[Mick]

Powered by Duracell tbh.

 

He's a pink rabbit?

 

That sounds about right.

[Howaythelads]

HO Ho as I said the same old rubbish. Nothing changes where you are concerned.

Perhaps you can give straight answers to the following questions that you brither NE5 avoids.

 

1. Do you think the quality of performance under Sir John Hall and KK has been maintained under Shepherd?

2. Do you think an ambitious club and chairman would appoint Souness and Roeder as Managers?

 

I'll give you a clue the answer to the questions is "Yes" or "No"

 

Try not to get too personal, there are people on here who do want sensible debate rather than dismissive contempt.

 

Now I'll repeat:

1. Do you think the quality of performance under Sir John Hall and KK has been maintained under Shepherd?

2. Do you think an ambitious club and chairman would appoint Souness and Roeder as Managers?

 

 

Nothing changes where you're concerned. We play shit, you make a critical post. We play well, you post it's a one off, that the opponents were crap. Whatever you can think of to put the performance down.

 

From your posts at the time it was obvious you found it galling when Robson had us finishing 4th, 3rd and 5th, although you'll deny it now and you'll rely on people who weren't around at that time to think I'm making it up. Some of us know who is telling the truth here though.

 

If you can read then you will know that my views on the 2 questions you've asked have already been answered many times before. The first question is stupid, tbh. By your own admission over the last few years of reading your posts, you believe Keegan was a shite manager and the team he produced was shite, so the real question is do YOU think the performances have been maintained since Keegan? They're pretty shite now so you probably think they have.

 

For the record. I think the performance of the team has been generally good up until the huge error of Souness, which is what has caused where we are today and the type of posts I see on this forum. There were reasons for appointing Souness, reasons that I recall many people being supportive of including you ( ie players going off the rails and having no respect for the manager ) at the time, but like others you have conveniently forgotten now.

 

It would be good if some had the guts to admit they got it wrong by supporting Souness long after such support should have disappeared. Who knows, had there been no support for him sooner the Board may have sacked him before he'd wasted £50m, as I predicted and was slated for as usual. I did say I didn't want him given any money during that very first transfer window and the responses were along the lines of the responses I'll no doubt get to this post.

[macbeth]

 

The board have not taken a dividend this year, evne when they have, an amount of 2 or 3 million quid a year isn't going to transform the club into the new Chelsea of make much if any impact, and I bet you weren;t saying this when we were playing in the CL.

 

 

This board could run the club like other clubs, with a 30000 crowd, selling players instead of attempting to make more money, buying only from money that comes in, and still take dividends, competing at a lower level than they do, but they choose to try to compete higher. You completely fail to grasp this point, it will not dawn on you until or if this happens. It is utterly pointless arguing with you and others like you, because it is quite obvious you do think the club has a divine right to play in the Champions League and win trophies, and you have a divine right to expect a board to show ambition, such is the success of the board in the last decade of raising expectations among the clubs supporters.

Most businesses would pay dividends if they made profits. They make no profits so they borrow money to pay dividends to Hall & Shepherd. They put the club into more debt to pay those dividends. The only divine right I can see in all this is the one that says Halls & Shepherds must get dividends every year. Everything else is negotiable, including the long term finances of the club.

 

Is there any point where you would say it was wrong for us to borrow more money to give to Hall & Shepherd ? If they sold out tomorrow the club would still have to pay off the money already borrowed to give to them.

In 8 years they have managed to make losses of £60m, over half of these losses come from giving money to the Hall & Shepherd family pension funds. Imagine if someone came and said they were going to come and buy NUFC and that they were going to give the manager £30m to spend in January. Everyone would say how great they were. If the club had not given the money to Hall and Shepherd they could do that now. Do you feel the team would benefit from £30m, or do you feel it is better to have it in the Hall & Shepherd pension funds ? Or more simply which is more important to you NUFC or Hall & Shepherd ? I don't expect an answer, cos we know your answer, it is a question for others to think about.

 

The Hall and Shepherds have now taken out more from this club than the 52,000 fans will put in in total across all the league games last season. We give, they take.

 

 

 

[Guest The Fox]

Oh Freddies back.

But now he has resorted to posting absolute lies in desperation, but I expected no less. On this and other boards HTL you have been a complete failure. I forgot that you are the only living supporter who watched matches prior to 92.

Go back to the parade ground old boy and get rid of that anger and pent up energy.

Attention.

[macbeth]

HO Ho as I said the same old rubbish. Nothing changes where you are concerned.

Perhaps you can give straight answers to the following questions that you brither NE5 avoids.

 

1. Do you think the quality of performance under Sir John Hall and KK has been maintained under Shepherd?

2. Do you think an ambitious club and chairman would appoint Souness and Roeder as Managers?

 

I'll give you a clue the answer to the questions is "Yes" or "No"

 

Try not to get too personal, there are people on here who do want sensible debate rather than dismissive contempt.

 

Now I'll repeat:

1. Do you think the quality of performance under Sir John Hall and KK has been maintained under Shepherd?

2. Do you think an ambitious club and chairman would appoint Souness and Roeder as Managers?

 

 

Nothing changes where you're concerned. We play shit, you make a critical post. We play well, you post it's a one off, that the opponents were crap. Whatever you can think of to put the performance down.

 

From your posts at the time it was obvious you found it galling when Robson had us finishing 4th, 3rd and 5th, although you'll deny it now and you'll rely on people who weren't around at that time to think I'm making it up. Some of us know who is telling the truth here though.

 

If you can read then you will know that my views on the 2 questions you've asked have already been answered many times before. The first question is stupid, tbh. By your own admission over the last few years of reading your posts, you believe Keegan was a shite manager and the team he produced was shite, so the real question is do YOU think the performances have been maintained since Keegan? They're pretty shite now so you probably think they have.

Don't do that. You are falling into the NE5 trap of making up another person's view and then criticising them for it.

 

It would be good if some had the guts to admit they got it wrong by supporting Souness long after such support should have disappeared. Who knows, had there been no support for him sooner the Board may have sacked him before he'd wasted £50m, as I predicted and was slated for as usual. I did say I didn't want him given any money during that very first transfer window and the responses were along the lines of the responses I'll no doubt get to this post.

This is the most disingenious part of either your's or NE5's argument. Trying to demolish someone else's argument by saying that they supported the team manager appointed, and backed, by Shepherd.

Now you are even sugegsting that if more people had had a go at Souness earlier the chairman may have done something about it earlier !! Is that really the leadership you expect from our chairman ?

The key part of the chairman's job is to ensure that he has the correct person as team manager. You seem to suggest that these decisions are only taken when the crow do tell the chairman what to do and when. This matches up with Shepherd saying 'the fans' wanted Roeder.

My mother could do that. If it really is down to listening to phone-ins, reading chat-sites to decide whether to sack a manager, and who to replace him with then seriously even NE5 could do that. Yes even him. Although only if my mother turned it down. I would guess he would be able to do it for mebbe half of the £500,000 the club pay Shepherd.   

[OzzieMandias]

It's astonishing, really, that Fat Fred has managed to convince a tiny but vocal minority that the buck doesn't stop with him.

 

It just goes to show that even someone as piss-poor at PR as FFS can still fool some of the people all of the time.

[Howaythelads]

I tried my best but I just couldn't make it to the games back then on account of not existing.

 

Why on earth can't someone stick with the club they love but want them to do better, without being told to 'bugger off and support a good club'?

 

Head up arse again.....talk about tunnel vision.  Pathetic.

[Howaythelads]

 

It's a sign of maturity to admit it when you're wrong, assuming you haven't convinced yourself that you were actually against Souness for ages.

 

We all know that FS and the Board are the people in power, however, the voice of supporters does mean something. By supporting Souness for so long beyond the time he should have lost all support goes some of the way to keeping the wanker in the job for so long.

 

Ironic that Roeder is attracting such a lack of support on here so quickly from those who supported the clubs worst ever manager for so long.....you know who you are although you can deny it all you like.

 

Fools.

 

Expand on the bit in bold, are you referring to me?

 

Are you saying that the supporters are to blame for Shepherd allowing Souness to spend £50 million?  My guess is that Shepherd allowed him to spend that much as an attempt to save face, Shepherds face.

 

He appointed rubbish and didn't want to admit to it.

 

As far as Roeder goes, what qualifies him to become Newcastle manager?

 

Do you believe that the support ( or lack of ) of the fans of a manager goes unnoticed by the Board?

 

Doh!

[Howaythelads]

 

As you think we're so bad why don't you bugger off and support a good club?

 

Serious question, given that I witnessed with my own eyes what happens when a club is really shit.

 

I do support a good club.  Otherwise I wouldn't bother arguing.  I don't support those I think are selling it short.

 

Fair enough. Just be careful what you wish for, as there are degrees of 'selling it short' that your ignorance makes you unaware of and your lack of intelligence prevents you from even trying to appreciate.

[OzzieMandias]

Do you believe that the support ( or lack of ) of the fans of a manager goes unnoticed by the Board?

 

Doh!

 

Yes, it's clearly support from you and NE5 that sustains the wonderful regime that is giving us all the great football, glorious victories and thrilling Intertoto nights that we are so profoundly fortunate to be enduring today.

[Mick]

Nothing changes where you're concerned. We play shit, you make a critical post. We play well, you post it's a one off, that the opponents were crap. Whatever you can think of to put the performance down.

 

From your posts at the time it was obvious you found it galling when Robson had us finishing 4th, 3rd and 5th, although you'll deny it now and you'll rely on people who weren't around at that time to think I'm making it up. Some of us know who is telling the truth here though.

 

If you can read then you will know that my views on the 2 questions you've asked have already been answered many times before. The first question is stupid, tbh. By your own admission over the last few years of reading your posts, you believe Keegan was a shite manager and the team he produced was shite, so the real question is do YOU think the performances have been maintained since Keegan? They're pretty shite now so you probably think they have.

 

For the record. I think the performance of the team has been generally good up until the huge error of Souness, which is what has caused where we are today and the type of posts I see on this forum. There were reasons for appointing Souness, reasons that I recall many people being supportive of including you ( ie players going off the rails and having no respect for the manager ) at the time, but like others you have conveniently forgotten now.

 

It would be good if some had the guts to admit they got it wrong by supporting Souness long after such support should have disappeared. Who knows, had there been no support for him sooner the Board may have sacked him before he'd wasted £50m, as I predicted and was slated for as usual. I did say I didn't want him given any money during that very first transfer window and the responses were along the lines of the responses I'll no doubt get to this post.

 

You must be having a laugh if you thought the performances were "generally good up until the huge error of Souness."

 

Did you go to either FA Cup final?

 

Did you go to many games under either Gullit or Dalglish? (<-------- edited to point out to someone how to use a ?)

 

We had some good games under both managers but we had more dross than "generally good." 

[Mick]

 

It's a sign of maturity to admit it when you're wrong, assuming you haven't convinced yourself that you were actually against Souness for ages.

 

We all know that FS and the Board are the people in power, however, the voice of supporters does mean something. By supporting Souness for so long beyond the time he should have lost all support goes some of the way to keeping the wanker in the job for so long.

 

Ironic that Roeder is attracting such a lack of support on here so quickly from those who supported the clubs worst ever manager for so long.....you know who you are although you can deny it all you like.

 

Fools.

 

Expand on the bit in bold, are you referring to me?

 

Are you saying that the supporters are to blame for Shepherd allowing Souness to spend £50 million?  My guess is that Shepherd allowed him to spend that much as an attempt to save face, Shepherds face.

 

He appointed rubbish and didn't want to admit to it.

 

As far as Roeder goes, what qualifies him to become Newcastle manager?

 

Do you believe that the support ( or lack of ) of the fans of a manager goes unnoticed by the Board?

 

Doh!

 

What I don't understand is how you claim that I supported Souness, pathetic and going to get you nowhere.

[Guest The Fox]

Do you believe that the support ( or lack of ) of the fans of a manager goes unnoticed by the Board?

 

Doh!

 

c

 

Hear Hear. How fortunate we are.

 

As for "For the record. I think the performance of the team has been generally good up until the huge error of Souness"

 

MIck, I think HTL conveniently missed those games, he was watching Wolves at the time.

 

Anyway guys have a great weekend, I'm off for a few beers with George Burley, oops I mean some friends

[Guest elbee909]

 

Fair enough. Just be careful what you wish for, as there are degrees of 'selling it short' that you're ignorance makes you unaware of and your lack of intelligence prevents you from even trying to appreciate.

 

Mmm.  Cutting!  I do recomend running your reply through the grammar check first if you're going to respond with an unfounded implication of higher intelligence on your part, old chap.

[Howaythelads]

HO Ho as I said the same old rubbish. Nothing changes where you are concerned.

Perhaps you can give straight answers to the following questions that you brither NE5 avoids.

 

1. Do you think the quality of performance under Sir John Hall and KK has been maintained under Shepherd?

2. Do you think an ambitious club and chairman would appoint Souness and Roeder as Managers?

 

I'll give you a clue the answer to the questions is "Yes" or "No"

 

Try not to get too personal, there are people on here who do want sensible debate rather than dismissive contempt.

 

Now I'll repeat:

1. Do you think the quality of performance under Sir John Hall and KK has been maintained under Shepherd?

2. Do you think an ambitious club and chairman would appoint Souness and Roeder as Managers?

 

 

Nothing changes where you're concerned. We play shit, you make a critical post. We play well, you post it's a one off, that the opponents were crap. Whatever you can think of to put the performance down.

 

From your posts at the time it was obvious you found it galling when Robson had us finishing 4th, 3rd and 5th, although you'll deny it now and you'll rely on people who weren't around at that time to think I'm making it up. Some of us know who is telling the truth here though.

 

If you can read then you will know that my views on the 2 questions you've asked have already been answered many times before. The first question is stupid, tbh. By your own admission over the last few years of reading your posts, you believe Keegan was a shite manager and the team he produced was shite, so the real question is do YOU think the performances have been maintained since Keegan? They're pretty shite now so you probably think they have.

Don't do that. You are falling into the NE5 trap of making up another person's view and then criticising them for it.

 

It would be good if some had the guts to admit they got it wrong by supporting Souness long after such support should have disappeared. Who knows, had there been no support for him sooner the Board may have sacked him before he'd wasted £50m, as I predicted and was slated for as usual. I did say I didn't want him given any money during that very first transfer window and the responses were along the lines of the responses I'll no doubt get to this post.

This is the most disingenious part of either your's or NE5's argument. Trying to demolish someone else's argument by saying that they supported the team manager appointed, and backed, by Shepherd.

Now you are even sugegsting that if more people had had a go at Souness earlier the chairman may have done something about it earlier !! Is that really the leadership you expect from our chairman ?

The key part of the chairman's job is to ensure that he has the correct person as team manager. You seem to suggest that these decisions are only taken when the crow do tell the chairman what to do and when. This matches up with Shepherd saying 'the fans' wanted Roeder.

My mother could do that. If it really is down to listening to phone-ins, reading chat-sites to decide whether to sack a manager, and who to replace him with then seriously even NE5 could do that. Yes even him. Although only if my mother turned it down. I would guess he would be able to do it for mebbe half of the £500,000 the club pay Shepherd.   

 

Why do you keep quoting people's posts and writing nowt of your own?

[Howaythelads]

Do you believe that the support ( or lack of ) of the fans of a manager goes unnoticed by the Board?

 

Doh!

 

Yes, it's clearly support from you and NE5 that sustains the wonderful regime that is giving us all the great football, glorious victories and thrilling Intertoto nights that we are so profoundly fortunate to be enduring today.

 

Get on with the nob rants, you were funny then.

[Mick]

HO Ho as I said the same old rubbish. Nothing changes where you are concerned.

Perhaps you can give straight answers to the following questions that you brither NE5 avoids.

 

1. Do you think the quality of performance under Sir John Hall and KK has been maintained under Shepherd?

2. Do you think an ambitious club and chairman would appoint Souness and Roeder as Managers?

 

I'll give you a clue the answer to the questions is "Yes" or "No"

 

Try not to get too personal, there are people on here who do want sensible debate rather than dismissive contempt.

 

Now I'll repeat:

1. Do you think the quality of performance under Sir John Hall and KK has been maintained under Shepherd?

2. Do you think an ambitious club and chairman would appoint Souness and Roeder as Managers?

 

 

Nothing changes where you're concerned. We play shit, you make a critical post. We play well, you post it's a one off, that the opponents were crap. Whatever you can think of to put the performance down.

 

From your posts at the time it was obvious you found it galling when Robson had us finishing 4th, 3rd and 5th, although you'll deny it now and you'll rely on people who weren't around at that time to think I'm making it up. Some of us know who is telling the truth here though.

 

If you can read then you will know that my views on the 2 questions you've asked have already been answered many times before. The first question is stupid, tbh. By your own admission over the last few years of reading your posts, you believe Keegan was a shite manager and the team he produced was shite, so the real question is do YOU think the performances have been maintained since Keegan? They're pretty shite now so you probably think they have.

Don't do that. You are falling into the NE5 trap of making up another person's view and then criticising them for it.

 

It would be good if some had the guts to admit they got it wrong by supporting Souness long after such support should have disappeared. Who knows, had there been no support for him sooner the Board may have sacked him before he'd wasted £50m, as I predicted and was slated for as usual. I did say I didn't want him given any money during that very first transfer window and the responses were along the lines of the responses I'll no doubt get to this post.

This is the most disingenious part of either your's or NE5's argument. Trying to demolish someone else's argument by saying that they supported the team manager appointed, and backed, by Shepherd.

Now you are even sugegsting that if more people had had a go at Souness earlier the chairman may have done something about it earlier !! Is that really the leadership you expect from our chairman ?

The key part of the chairman's job is to ensure that he has the correct person as team manager. You seem to suggest that these decisions are only taken when the crow do tell the chairman what to do and when. This matches up with Shepherd saying 'the fans' wanted Roeder.

My mother could do that. If it really is down to listening to phone-ins, reading chat-sites to decide whether to sack a manager, and who to replace him with then seriously even NE5 could do that. Yes even him. Although only if my mother turned it down. I would guess he would be able to do it for mebbe half of the £500,000 the club pay Shepherd.   

 

Why do you keep quoting people's posts and writing nowt of your own?

 

Is the blue text yours?

[Howaythelads]

 

Fair enough. Just be careful what you wish for, as there are degrees of 'selling it short' that you're ignorance makes you unaware of and your lack of intelligence prevents you from even trying to appreciate.

 

Mmm.  Cutting!  I do recomend running your reply through the grammar check first if you're going to respond with an unfounded implication of higher intelligence on your part, old chap.

 

When faced with something you have no answer to you resort to highlighting a spelling error. Sums you up.