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

[macbeth]

You can of course ignore the view of someone who has been there, and think you know best if you like - and that is not aimed at you specifically.

 

 

 

everybody respects your old age, your wisdom, your grasp of your "facts". The issue is that if you are not viewed as being a good judge of the current board then how can people respect your judgement of boards from 30 or 40 years ago ?

[Dokko]

I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts.

 

Ta ha ee ha oh ha

[Kitman]

I look forward to the day when this thread is rendered completely pointless.  It's pretty close already.

 

It became that, when you decided to argue with factual information. However, the opportunity is still there to prove otherwise, so justifying your "opinion"

 

 

I might as well be arguing with a creationist.  You just sidestep arguments and bring up others that have no direct relevance to the core issue, play the 'facts' card and claim victory.  Personally I think you regard yourself as a better fan for supporting the current shower in charge at NUFC against the masses of those that disagree with you; you're more faithful, longer-serving.  Well done.   

 

Have NUFC declined, consistently, since the days of SJH/Keegan et al?  Apart from a brief reawakening under Bobby Robson, yes, we have.  More and more money spent on less and less return.  Apparently no-one's truly responsible for our decline as we have no divine right to be better, and if you weren't around when football was played between Chinese villages with a pig's bladder on a stick than you don't know how good you have it now.

 

"The masses" don't disagree. This forum is not representative of the match going supporter.

 

Are you sure about that?  I don't know many fans that I talk to that go to the match that have that high an opinion of Shepherd.  Everyone I know that goes to the match thinks the bloke is an incompetent.

 

Ok, perhaps you're right and it is the masses then. Let's face facts here, to make progress the clubs needs revenue and needs to get people through the turnstiles, nowt wrong with that. Post-1992 we see regular crowds of over 50,000, yet for decades before that we often saw crowds of 15,000 to 20,000 hard-core supporters who went to matches through thick and thin. Perhaps it is only those people who understand what a shit Board really looks like?

 

Gemmill,

 

Do you think that someone who believes a successfull attempt to replace the current Board might result in the club ending up with an unambitious Board means they believe,  "Fred is great", "everything is fantastic", "I'm happy with mediocrity?" If you do, I can assure you that it's not true. Nobody is saying those things.

 

It's a good thing that expectations have been lifted by the current Board, but it's dangerous to allow those expectations to cause people to ignore the past.  It seems there are a lot of people on here who believe the past to be irrelevant, they automatically treat with disdain those who mention the past.  Well, the past of the club is very, very relevant and it always will be because that's where the lessons are. Nobody is saying the current Board is the most talented, and it may well be they have taken the club as far as they can, but they should be recognised for how far they have brought this club, and it should be acknowledged that replacing them with better will not be easy.

 

We would all take a group of people replacing the current Board that are better than the current lot, a group of people who would show ambition, who would strive to take the club forward. Yes, we'd all take that, for sure. I imagine NE5 would take that more than most on here, if the truth be known. Let's face it, and the younger people won't want to accept this, but those of us who have witnessed the decades of true mediocrity are more desperate for success than those used to top 4 finishes, those used to top quality footballers wearing the black and white, players who fall short at the last hurdle by not performing to their true level in cup finals. Yes, the disappointment is huge, but let me tell you this, you don't become immune to these things, you don't become immune to the frustration and the disappointment, it just gets worse as the years go on and you become more desperate for success. However, I can also tell you that it is better when the club is trying to be successful than when it is happy with bottom half finishes. That is a Board settling for mediocrity whether they are competent or not.

 

By ignoring the past people have the mistaken idea the club has always been ambitious, that it has always tried to win things, that is has always spent the money that comes into the club on top players to play in the black and white because they have to spend it. Have to spend it!! No, they don't. The reality is they don't have to do any of these things, they do it by choice.

 

Those of us who have really witnessed the club under previous Boards know it is not that simple to improve on the current one. I believe it is far, far easier for the current Board to be replaced by people who would not show ambition and who would take the club back to the days I don't want to see again. Believe me, nobody would want to see those days again. For those of us who really have seen those times of a poor Board, it's a very scary thought.

 

That's an excellent post imo

[Kitman]

Well it seems to me that NE5 and those who support him are doing what they criticise others for. There apperas to be a modern day tendenct and its prevalent on this board that you cannot voice an opinion of disapproval, if you do you are not supporting the club.

Absolute nonsense and even more nonsensical to suggest that you should not be  a ticket holder if you are going to criticise any of the hierarchy or players.

The comparison of pre 92 with today is ridiculous, as I've said before pre 92 the board was dickensian and Sir John Halls involvement put the club back in the limelight with major investment.

However you can compare 92-96 with today and was is indisputal, other than to complete idiots, is since Keegan we have gone backwards both in terms of league position and quality on the pitch.

To argue against that is a joke. NE5 knows it and so do his happy rose tinted band of merry men, which is why he constantly fails to respond to any points made and tries switching the subject.

Hopefully this is the last word, but I doubt it, as the sensible ones among us know the truth and to prolong discussion merely gives NE5 something to do.

 

 

what I am saying - is nobody forces anyone to go and spend money supporting the club. Long term supporters will tell you that when the club was shit, nobody did !!!!! [well not so many as now...] Also fairly obvious is that nobody has forced you to go, not even yourself.

 

So - if you are not happy with spending money on a shit club, keep it in your pocket. Watch NUFC play in europe on the telly.

 

 

 

Its true that nobody forces anyone to buy the shirt from the club shop, or anyone to attend the games there is a distinction between supporting the club and the board.

 

I don't agree with a lot of Freddy's decisions or motives and truth be told would love him to be replaced. However, even if he were to be chairman until I die and we got relegated I would still buy the shirt because I support the club and am proud to show my colours so to speak.

 

There is a clear distinction between supporting the club and the board, you can do one without the other

 

nobody supports the board. Everybody supports the club. The point is, they are supporting the club because the board has gave them a club worth supporting . If they didn't do that, people would stop going. Some people may not understand this or like it, but its true. When the club wasn't worth supporting, people didn't support the club, other than the hard core supporters of 15-20,000.

 

As HTL says, replacing the current board with another unambitious one like pre-1992, would be a disaster, and the odds on that are heavily in favour of that rather than them being better. That doesn't make people "shepherd lovers" as Gem and his ilk laughingly say, only realistic.

 

You can of course ignore the view of someone who has been there, and think you know best if you like - and that is not aimed at you specifically.

 

 

 

So it's better the devil you know?  Is that the crux of it?

[NE5]

You can of course ignore the view of someone who has been there, and think you know best if you like - and that is not aimed at you specifically.

 

 

 

everybody respects your old age, your wisdom, your grasp of your "facts". The issue is that if you are not viewed as being a good judge of the current board then how can people respect your judgement of boards from 30 or 40 years ago ?

 

there are lots of impressionable people around just waiting for the likes of you to convince them of your crusade.

 

So why don't you take the easy pickings, because you won't change my mind, or the fact that only 4 clubs have qualified more for europe than we have done in the last decade.

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts.

 

Ta ha ee ha oh ha

 

the remark made by HTL about lack of maturity, would be aimed at the likes of you.

 

I'm sure you know best 

[Dave]

How do you know he hasn't?

[Dave]

In fact he's just had a bairn, so we know they work.

[NE5]

Well it seems to me that NE5 and those who support him are doing what they criticise others for. There apperas to be a modern day tendenct and its prevalent on this board that you cannot voice an opinion of disapproval, if you do you are not supporting the club.

Absolute nonsense and even more nonsensical to suggest that you should not be  a ticket holder if you are going to criticise any of the hierarchy or players.

The comparison of pre 92 with today is ridiculous, as I've said before pre 92 the board was dickensian and Sir John Halls involvement put the club back in the limelight with major investment.

However you can compare 92-96 with today and was is indisputal, other than to complete idiots, is since Keegan we have gone backwards both in terms of league position and quality on the pitch.

To argue against that is a joke. NE5 knows it and so do his happy rose tinted band of merry men, which is why he constantly fails to respond to any points made and tries switching the subject.

Hopefully this is the last word, but I doubt it, as the sensible ones among us know the truth and to prolong discussion merely gives NE5 something to do.

 

 

what I am saying - is nobody forces anyone to go and spend money supporting the club. Long term supporters will tell you that when the club was shit, nobody did !!!!! [well not so many as now...] Also fairly obvious is that nobody has forced you to go, not even yourself.

 

So - if you are not happy with spending money on a shit club, keep it in your pocket. Watch NUFC play in europe on the telly.

 

 

 

Its true that nobody forces anyone to buy the shirt from the club shop, or anyone to attend the games there is a distinction between supporting the club and the board.

 

I don't agree with a lot of Freddy's decisions or motives and truth be told would love him to be replaced. However, even if he were to be chairman until I die and we got relegated I would still buy the shirt because I support the club and am proud to show my colours so to speak.

 

There is a clear distinction between supporting the club and the board, you can do one without the other

 

nobody supports the board. Everybody supports the club. The point is, they are supporting the club because the board has gave them a club worth supporting . If they didn't do that, people would stop going. Some people may not understand this or like it, but its true. When the club wasn't worth supporting, people didn't support the club, other than the hard core supporters of 15-20,000.

 

As HTL says, replacing the current board with another unambitious one like pre-1992, would be a disaster, and the odds on that are heavily in favour of that rather than them being better. That doesn't make people "shepherd lovers" as Gem and his ilk laughingly say, only realistic.

 

You can of course ignore the view of someone who has been there, and think you know best if you like - and that is not aimed at you specifically.

 

 

 

So it's better the devil you know?  Is that the crux of it?

 

Give me names of people who you guarantee will run the club better than the 5th best in the country over a decade, showing ambition and desire to take the club upwards, and I will go for it.

If you can't, don't expect me to back people who may take the club back to days when they settled for bottom half of the league positions, due to selling our best players, and buying cheap replacements.

 

That is the crux of it, if you don't understand that, then there is really nothing else to say to that will cure your extreme naivety. It's quite amazing the amount of people who simply don't attempt or read or understand factual information. If you think playing regularly in europe, is the "devil", then you really are a sad case, and not living in the real world.

 

Are you sure you aren't a dumb manu supporter, thinking you have a divine right to success  bluesleep.gif

 

 

[NE5]

In fact he's just had a bairn, so we know they work.

 

I've no idea what you are on about

 

[Guest thompers]

So how many clubs have spent what we have and actually don't appear in europe regularly? I'm sure you'll name very few, therefore why shouldn't competing in europe be expected as bare minimum?

[NE5]

So how many clubs have spent what we have and actually don't appear in europe regularly? I'm sure you'll name very few, therefore why shouldn't competing in europe be expected as bare minimum?

 

oh dear.

 

 

[Guest thompers]

So how many clubs have spent what we have and actually don't appear in europe regularly? I'm sure you'll name very few, therefore why shouldn't competing in europe be expected as bare minimum?

 

oh dear.

 

 

 

Indeed.

[midds]

If NE5 didn't exist, we'd have to fucking invent him. Jesus Christ...

[Guest thompers]

Freddy Shepherd inherits a club that has 2nd biggest income in the country and the fans should be happy that he's taken it from title challenges to scraping Uefa Cup places However, NE5 believes that he can a good chairman can take us backwards.

 

Shepherd hasn't made us qualify for europe because he's built a club capable of european qualification FFS! We've qualified for europe because it's all part and parcel of the backwards steps we're taking. If I were to be Chelsea chairman this season, they wouldn't be in league 3 next season, as taking a club backwards cannot happen that quickly.

 

So what has Shepherd done since SJH that has actually been an improvement?

[WhatTheFunk]

NE5, the board (or chairman rather) has shown the desire and intention to take the club forwards and upwards, and make it one of the most successful in Europe. Regardless of the past, he's done a good job of fucking things up when it really mattered (spending owt 2003, manner of sacking of SBR, hiring GS, backing GS, Rooneygate, NOTW, this transfer window, hiring GR, etc...). Now, you can have all the desire and intention in the world, but if you're shit at application, then you will be found out, and you will ultimately fail to reach your goal. IMO, these are the grounds that Shepherd should part with the club on. It has nothing to do with the past, when you look at it this way. He's set out to achieve goals, and failed. Simple as.

 

We should applaud Mr. Shepherd, and say thanks for some wonderful memories, but thats all. It's time to move on, as we have come as far (up or down) as we can go under his tenure.

[Guest The Fox]

Well it seems to me that NE5 and those who support him are doing what they criticise others for. There apperas to be a modern day tendenct and its prevalent on this board that you cannot voice an opinion of disapproval, if you do you are not supporting the club.

Absolute nonsense and even more nonsensical to suggest that you should not be  a ticket holder if you are going to criticise any of the hierarchy or players.

The comparison of pre 92 with today is ridiculous, as I've said before pre 92 the board was dickensian and Sir John Halls involvement put the club back in the limelight with major investment.

However you can compare 92-96 with today and was is indisputal, other than to complete idiots, is since Keegan we have gone backwards both in terms of league position and quality on the pitch.

To argue against that is a joke. NE5 knows it and so do his happy rose tinted band of merry men, which is why he constantly fails to respond to any points made and tries switching the subject.

Hopefully this is the last word, but I doubt it, as the sensible ones among us know the truth and to prolong discussion merely gives NE5 something to do.

 

 

what I am saying - is nobody forces anyone to go and spend money supporting the club. Long term supporters will tell you that when the club was shit, nobody did !!!!! [well not so many as now...] Also fairly obvious is that nobody has forced you to go, not even yourself.

 

So - if you are not happy with spending money on a shit club, keep it in your pocket. Watch NUFC play in europe on the telly.

 

 

 

Its true that nobody forces anyone to buy the shirt from the club shop, or anyone to attend the games there is a distinction between supporting the club and the board.

 

I don't agree with a lot of Freddy's decisions or motives and truth be told would love him to be replaced. However, even if he were to be chairman until I die and we got relegated I would still buy the shirt because I support the club and am proud to show my colours so to speak.

 

There is a clear distinction between supporting the club and the board, you can do one without the other

 

nobody supports the board. Everybody supports the club. The point is, they are supporting the club because the board has gave them a club worth supporting . If they didn't do that, people would stop going. Some people may not understand this or like it, but its true. When the club wasn't worth supporting, people didn't support the club, other than the hard core supporters of 15-20,000.

 

As HTL says, replacing the current board with another unambitious one like pre-1992, would be a disaster, and the odds on that are heavily in favour of that rather than them being better. That doesn't make people "shepherd lovers" as Gem and his ilk laughingly say, only realistic.

 

You can of course ignore the view of someone who has been there, and think you know best if you like - and that is not aimed at you specifically.

 

 

 

So it's better the devil you know?  Is that the crux of it?

 

Give me names of people who you guarantee will run the club better than the 5th best in the country over a decade, showing ambition and desire to take the club upwards, and I will go for it.

If you can't, don't expect me to back people who may take the club back to days when they settled for bottom half of the league positions, due to selling our best players, and buying cheap replacements.

 

That is the crux of it, if you don't understand that, then there is really nothing else to say to that will cure your extreme naivety. It's quite amazing the amount of people who simply don't attempt or read or understand factual information. If you think playing regularly in europe, is the "devil", then you really are a sad case, and not living in the real world.

 

Are you sure you aren't a dumb manu supporter, thinking you have a divine right to success bluesleep.gif

 

You of course fit the bill.

Why dont you just answer one question without bullshitting, if thats possible.

 

"Do you think the club has maintained the quality of performance that we achieved under Sir John Hall and KK?

 

 

[macbeth]

NE5, the board (or chairman rather) has shown the desire and intention to take the club forwards and upwards, and make it one of the most successful in Europe. Regardless of the past, he's done a good job of fucking things up when it really mattered (spending owt 2003, manner of sacking of SBR, hiring GS, backing GS, Rooneygate, NOTW, this transfer window, hiring GR, etc...). Now, you can have all the desire and intention in the world, but if you're shit at application, then you will be found out, and you will ultimately fail to reach your goal. IMO, these are the grounds that Shepherd should part with the club on. It has nothing to do with the past, when you look at it this way. He's set out to achieve goals, and failed. Simple as.

 

We should applaud Mr. Shepherd, and say thanks for some wonderful memories, but thats all. It's time to move on, as we have come as far (up or down) as we can go under his tenure.

 

(Strangely) I agree.

 

People have their moments. Bob Murray can be justifiably proud of getting sunlun out of Roker Park and into the SoL. It was a great thing Sor any chairmna to achieve, he did it in a cost effective way and left a good home for the club. He was demonstrobaly not the person to take the club forward from there. He stayed with a small town manager for too long, he had no vision of where the club could go, he was just wrong.

 

At Newcastle there was a director on the board, Russel Jones whose sole remit was to manage the ground develepment. Clearly he did his job well. The ground grew at a good pace, and ultimately ended up as good as it could be managed in its location. He was a Hall appointee having been key in the whole growth of Cameron Hall. He left in 2002 when the need for his skills was passed.

 

We now have only two paid directors running the club in Freddy Shepherd and Douglas Hall. It is a struggle to see what they bring to their roles. What key skills they possess that moves us forward, Douglas Hall is in a role that means he is responsible for international marketing of the club. I'm happy that someone should be doing this, not convinced he has the skills, and not convinced that he warrants his £500,000 per year pay package for what he does. If you look at his recent CV then all it has on it is Cameron Hall which has all but gone bust under his leadership.

The key role of the chairman is to make appointments to key positions that make the business move forward. He has not done this well. The board is purely Hall and Shepherd family, with only Tim Revill who lives and works in Gibralatar as an independent voice. The only other two senior managers are listed as being Russel Cushing and Ken Slater. Cushing has been with the club for 35 years, and Slater for 34 years. Great servants but not under any stretch of the imagination likely to either stand up to their bosses, not to have some great worldly input to the running of the business. I think the harsh lable would be that they are "yes men".

(I have no personal axe to grind with either Cushing, who seems to be a very good administrator, nor Slater who I have no knowledge of).

 

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. 

[Guest elbee909]

I look forward to the day when this thread is rendered completely pointless.  It's pretty close already.

 

It became that, when you decided to argue with factual information. However, the opportunity is still there to prove otherwise, so justifying your "opinion"

 

 

I might as well be arguing with a creationist.  You just sidestep arguments and bring up others that have no direct relevance to the core issue, play the 'facts' card and claim victory.  Personally I think you regard yourself as a better fan for supporting the current shower in charge at NUFC against the masses of those that disagree with you; you're more faithful, longer-serving.  Well done. 

 

Have NUFC declined, consistently, since the days of SJH/Keegan et al?  Apart from a brief reawakening under Bobby Robson, yes, we have.  More and more money spent on less and less return.  Apparently no-one's truly responsible for our decline as we have no divine right to be better, and if you weren't around when football was played between Chinese villages with a pig's bladder on a stick than you don't know how good you have it now.

 

"The masses" don't disagree. This forum is not representative of the match going supporter.

 

You've just taken two words out of context and made an irrelevant point, surely?  As no one person can say what 'the masses' may or may not think I don't claim to speak for them, it's disingenuous.  While we're on the subject however:

 

"The supporters have identified Glenn as the man they want.  We have listened to them."

 

Doesn't seem to bother him to claim to speak for us all now, does it?

 

The irony will no doubt escape you. Look at the two bits in bold and the bit in italic then check who posted that tripe.

 

 

Argh.  There isn't any irony to be doing any escaping.

 

"The masses of those that disagree".

 

Does not equal

 

"The masses"

 

And I never said it did.

 

'Masses of those that disagree' is a subsection of 'the masses'.  What do you want, a Venn diagram?

[Guest elbee909]

 

Well, I don't agree that "masses" disagree with me, there may be a fair few people on here that do, but everyone is entitled to an "opinon"....however your comment about playing "the facts card and claiming victory" is pretty damning because if you wish to argue against facts then it makes you look pretty daft. You can't argue against facts. As I have said, if you aren't happy with "only" qualifying for europe regularly, you must think we have a divine right to do better, which is - to be honest - the view of one extremely naive individual.

 

The sky is blue; that is a fact.  At least it is if you live anywhere other than the UK...

 

"5th best club over the last decade" - that is an opinion formed from an interpretation of selected facts.

 

Accuse me of being naive if you like, but I'm not naive enough not to know my own language.

 

I'm not going to argue the "divine right" thing again as you're just repeating yourself.  It's been done.

My expectations are obviously higher than yours, that's all.  I'm dying for NUFC to do better and you don't get better by resting on your laurels.  We'll see how it goes through doing so, shall we?

 

We definitely don't have a divine right to go from the calibre of Robson, to Souness, to Roeder. 

 

By your own standards that's an obvious demonstration of decline, and entirely factual.

 

I have said and agreed that on the field, we have not had a manager as good as Keegan. But in other areas, where do you get the notion that continuing to finance the manager to buy the top players, building a new training complex and expanding the stadium is "declining" ? The truth is, and I'm sure you won't admit it and you won't be the only one, is that these moves are in fact the "forward planning" that quite a lot of people accuse the club of not making....despite it being repeatedly pointed out.

 

I appreciate that we have a new training complex - pushed for by Bobby Robson as I recall, lest we forget -  and I appreciate the stadium has been expanded, thus generating more profit, to buy more 'top players', well, on average our squad isn't the most balanced it's ever been and the top, top players aren't at our club.  But relative quality of players is another argument.

 

You tell me why the quality of manager we can now attract is nowhere near what it was in mid-90s and during the afterglow of SJH's chairmanship.  I'm all ears.

[Kitman]

Well it seems to me that NE5 and those who support him are doing what they criticise others for. There apperas to be a modern day tendenct and its prevalent on this board that you cannot voice an opinion of disapproval, if you do you are not supporting the club.

Absolute nonsense and even more nonsensical to suggest that you should not be  a ticket holder if you are going to criticise any of the hierarchy or players.

The comparison of pre 92 with today is ridiculous, as I've said before pre 92 the board was dickensian and Sir John Halls involvement put the club back in the limelight with major investment.

However you can compare 92-96 with today and was is indisputal, other than to complete idiots, is since Keegan we have gone backwards both in terms of league position and quality on the pitch.

To argue against that is a joke. NE5 knows it and so do his happy rose tinted band of merry men, which is why he constantly fails to respond to any points made and tries switching the subject.

Hopefully this is the last word, but I doubt it, as the sensible ones among us know the truth and to prolong discussion merely gives NE5 something to do.

 

 

what I am saying - is nobody forces anyone to go and spend money supporting the club. Long term supporters will tell you that when the club was shit, nobody did !!!!! [well not so many as now...] Also fairly obvious is that nobody has forced you to go, not even yourself.

 

So - if you are not happy with spending money on a shit club, keep it in your pocket. Watch NUFC play in europe on the telly.

 

 

 

Its true that nobody forces anyone to buy the shirt from the club shop, or anyone to attend the games there is a distinction between supporting the club and the board.

 

I don't agree with a lot of Freddy's decisions or motives and truth be told would love him to be replaced. However, even if he were to be chairman until I die and we got relegated I would still buy the shirt because I support the club and am proud to show my colours so to speak.

 

There is a clear distinction between supporting the club and the board, you can do one without the other

 

nobody supports the board. Everybody supports the club. The point is, they are supporting the club because the board has gave them a club worth supporting . If they didn't do that, people would stop going. Some people may not understand this or like it, but its true. When the club wasn't worth supporting, people didn't support the club, other than the hard core supporters of 15-20,000.

 

As HTL says, replacing the current board with another unambitious one like pre-1992, would be a disaster, and the odds on that are heavily in favour of that rather than them being better. That doesn't make people "shepherd lovers" as Gem and his ilk laughingly say, only realistic.

 

You can of course ignore the view of someone who has been there, and think you know best if you like - and that is not aimed at you specifically.

 

 

 

So it's better the devil you know?  Is that the crux of it?

 

Give me names of people who you guarantee will run the club better than the 5th best in the country over a decade, showing ambition and desire to take the club upwards, and I will go for it.

If you can't, don't expect me to back people who may take the club back to days when they settled for bottom half of the league positions, due to selling our best players, and buying cheap replacements.

 

That is the crux of it, if you don't understand that, then there is really nothing else to say to that will cure your extreme naivety. It's quite amazing the amount of people who simply don't attempt or read or understand factual information. If you think playing regularly in europe, is the "devil", then you really are a sad case, and not living in the real world.

 

Are you sure you aren't a dumb manu supporter, thinking you have a divine right to success  bluesleep.gif

 

 

 

:roll:  A straightforward question really, so there was no need to come out swinging at me.  You should follow HTL's lead, who actually makes perfect sense without the aggro, rather than acting like a care in the community nut job  bluebiggrin.gif.

 

Since you're fond of putting words into people's mouths and assuming what they think, I'll do the same for you: 

 

1.  You're happy with the current board

2.  This board is massively better than pre SJH boards

3.  We're better off with this board than with someone else

 

Agree with point 2, I don't think anybody disagrees.  Regarding point 1, they've done well in the past but could do better imo.  Regarding 3 well that's a matter of opinion, not fact and the past is irrelevant to the question.  So no need to post your stock facts about Europe, league position etc thanks  :winking:

 

No, I can't suggest anybody to take over but that's hardly a sensible question is it?  How many people could have come up with the names in the Magpie group?  Doesn't mean there isn't somebody better out there does it or that we should aim to do better?  Of course they could easily be worse, nobody's saying they couldn't be & any regime change involves risk - again, I can't see anybody arguing with you.  You prefer to settle for what you've got;  other people want somebody else to have a go & do better.  That's perfectly reasonable actually.

 

Funnily enough, I respect your opinion on this, even if you respect no-one else's. 

 

 

 

 

[WhatTheFunk]

NE5, the board (or chairman rather) has shown the desire and intention to take the club forwards and upwards, and make it one of the most successful in Europe. Regardless of the past, he's done a good job of fucking things up when it really mattered (spending owt 2003, manner of sacking of SBR, hiring GS, backing GS, Rooneygate, NOTW, this transfer window, hiring GR, etc...). Now, you can have all the desire and intention in the world, but if you're shit at application, then you will be found out, and you will ultimately fail to reach your goal. IMO, these are the grounds that Shepherd should part with the club on. It has nothing to do with the past, when you look at it this way. He's set out to achieve goals, and failed. Simple as.

 

We should applaud Mr. Shepherd, and say thanks for some wonderful memories, but thats all. It's time to move on, as we have come as far (up or down) as we can go under his tenure.

 

(Strangely) I agree.

 

People have their moments. Bob Murray can be justifiably proud of getting sunlun out of Roker Park and into the SoL. It was a great thing Sor any chairmna to achieve, he did it in a cost effective way and left a good home for the club. He was demonstrobaly not the person to take the club forward from there. He stayed with a small town manager for too long, he had no vision of where the club could go, he was just wrong.

 

At Newcastle there was a director on the board, Russel Jones whose sole remit was to manage the ground develepment. Clearly he did his job well. The ground grew at a good pace, and ultimately ended up as good as it could be managed in its location. He was a Hall appointee having been key in the whole growth of Cameron Hall. He left in 2002 when the need for his skills was passed.

 

We now have only two paid directors running the club in Freddy Shepherd and Douglas Hall. It is a struggle to see what they bring to their roles. What key skills they possess that moves us forward, Douglas Hall is in a role that means he is responsible for international marketing of the club. I'm happy that someone should be doing this, not convinced he has the skills, and not convinced that he warrants his £500,000 per year pay package for what he does. If you look at his recent CV then all it has on it is Cameron Hall which has all but gone bust under his leadership.

The key role of the chairman is to make appointments to key positions that make the business move forward. He has not done this well. The board is purely Hall and Shepherd family, with only Tim Revill who lives and works in Gibralatar as an independent voice. The only other two senior managers are listed as being Russel Cushing and Ken Slater. Cushing has been with the club for 35 years, and Slater for 34 years. Great servants but not under any stretch of the imagination likely to either stand up to their bosses, not to have some great worldly input to the running of the business. I think the harsh lable would be that they are "yes men".

(I have no personal axe to grind with either Cushing, who seems to be a very good administrator, nor Slater who I have no knowledge of).

 

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. 

 

Top post.

 

But why is it strange that you agree with me?  :confused:

[Colos Short and Curlies]

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.

 

[Dokko]

I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts.

 

Ta ha ee ha oh ha

 

the remark made by HTL about lack of maturity, would be aimed at the likes of you.

 

I'm sure you know best 

 

I thought it was a very sensible offer to this thread considering some of the utter shite repeatedly posted for 10 pages, not naming names like. 

 

 

[macbeth]

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.

 

 

I would love to believe that, I wust struggle to see any evidence of it.

 

There is no obvious budgetting within the business. To spend the way we did on transfers in the summer of 2005 was ludicrous. On the back of not spending in the summer of 2003, and the negligible spend in 2004, makes it look as though the spend is just made up as they go along.

The 2005 spending could be attributed to getting a Shearer replacement, but the need for that was clear for years, and it seems no plans were in place to finance it.

A serious Finance Director would also not allow the dividend payments, and share buyback deals to hit the business as badly as they have done. The club are now in the state of borrowing money from the banks to pay for the dividends, a ludicrous situation.

The worst example of the financial mess is the wages we pay though. A real Finance Director would never have allowed us to get to the point where our wages are 68% of our income. The reason this is so horrendous is that general expenses of running the business (so putting on games, paying for the ground etc) seem to be about 40-45% of the income. You don't need to be a great Finance Director to see there is a problem there. Our board seem to have not noticed.

 

As for Marketing. Again I see no evidence of a joined up plan. Whether at the international level or the local level. Douglas Hall has the international remit for this  but that cannot be taken seriously at all. The best I can say about him is that he does not seem to making things worse. The most senior person apart from Hall seems to have been Hazel Greener as PR Manager. Her role seems to be little more than a PA role, which would match up with her previous experience in doing that role for Sir John.

 

All very depressing.