Were we unstable?

[cp40]

The following is how most outsiders would perceive our recent fortunes:

 

A reputation of instability emerged 2003/04, first with the personalities of some of our players, fans starting to boo them despite relative success and then the chairman completely botching up the way the club dealt with Robson inevitably becoming too old for the job.

 

We then had the new manager falling out with players left right centre, while some of our players started fighting each other and threatening each other via text message.

 

Panicing chairman makes more mistakes with his appointments, and tries throwing money he doesn't have at non cost effective solutions.

 

Ashley and Mort come in, quickly realise that the latest appointment was a mistake and act decisively, but to those on the outside it is getting silly now. To top things off, we appoint  a dinosaur as manager and immediately seek to undermine him. Meanwhile a player has a go at booing fans before proceeding to get himself arrested.

 

 

Bentley recently said that he wouldn't want to be at an unstable club like Newcastle. I'm sure others feel the same (and before NE5 says he wouldn'tsign these players as they don't have ambition, I must point out that they genuinely believe that they can achieve greater things in a stable environment). The reputation will remain for a while while we try to sort things out, and even being decisive can look bad to outsiders right now, and may yet cause us problems.

 

 

Dont agree KK is a dinosaur. We will have a monster season next year tho with his attacking football

[Dave]

That was his thoughts on how outsiders might see him and us, not his own.

[Parky]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/blackburn_rovers/7431155.stm

Hughes' former Wales team-mate Dean Saunders feels he may be better off staying at Ewood Park.

 

Hughes succeeded Graeme Souness and assistant Saunders at Blackburn in September 2004 when the pair moved to Newcastle.

 

Saunders said: "Man City will not be run like Blackburn and Sparky will realise that if he goes there."

 

"I had a shock going to Newcastle. Graeme took a risk going there but you don't realise how well Blackburn is run until you've left.

 

"Mark has done well and taken the club into Europe a couple of times by finishing seventh twice.

 

"But that is because of how it's run and because the chairman and the directors are very stable people.

 

"Mark will have the same problem at Man City that we had at Newcastle and he'll realise it should he get there."

 

That's what he's implying. Are we any more stable now though?

 

We're definitely more stable and Mr Mort has really put the hours in to get there. Things we're not aware of/or discussed much is that we've had teams of analysts from the business world look at our situation and make recommendations. These are being acted on in a determined manner. IMO from this base we will go forward, but at what speed is hard to say.

[NE5]

So many managers in so little time, I would say we were unstable. Our team was/is a mix-match of players from different managerial stints.

 

Financially, we had huge debts and towards the end of Shepherd's reign at the top could have went under. Now, we have virtually no debt, we're lowering the wage bill and have got a canny scouting network set up.

 

We have a way to go to be stable on the field, the past couple of seasons we've battled against relegation to different degrees.

 

 

Wanna expand upon that one mate?

 

I like a good bit debate, but its hard when your just getting people laughing at your points. Have a bit common sense man, if you've got nothing worthwhile to post then don't bother.

 

Tit.

 

EDIT: Had on, of course you'll argue how Shepherd was good for this club in comparison to previous boards. Doesn't stop him from leaching off the Geordie publics undying love for Newcastle, funding his brothers ventures from the clubs money. Then spunking large amounts of money on shit.

 

Of course none of that matters because you've lived to see worse boards.

 

the usual cliches about debt, lowering the wage bill and scouting networks.

 

This has been explained before and not just by myself mate. If the top 4 can carry debts due to stadium expansions and paying top dollar to get the best players, Newcastle won't match them unless we do the same.

 

Note also that having debts hasn't stopped them from winning trophies, or being attractive to top players .......

 

fef spunking money, Shepherd wasn't the manager by the way, he wasn't even the major shareholder

 

Didn't know whether to laugh or groan to be honest.

 

I'll stay out of this one maybe.

 

 

[NE5]

Second reply and we're away.

 

indeed

 

who's going to get the blame for this one

 

now, if it were TRUE I could understand it.

 

Edit:

 

whats the reason for starting this then Dave 

 

 

Try post #14.

 

Was Saunders' comments an excuse then, like the ones his mate spouts ?

 

I don't think we are any more "stable" at all to be honest, how can you think we might be with a manager voicing concerns about the setup of the club, and a departing chairman

 

 

[Guest Stephen927]

So many managers in so little time, I would say we were unstable. Our team was/is a mix-match of players from different managerial stints.

 

Financially, we had huge debts and towards the end of Shepherd's reign at the top could have went under. Now, we have virtually no debt, we're lowering the wage bill and have got a canny scouting network set up.

 

We have a way to go to be stable on the field, the past couple of seasons we've battled against relegation to different degrees.

 

 

Wanna expand upon that one mate?

 

I like a good bit debate, but its hard when your just getting people laughing at your points. Have a bit common sense man, if you've got nothing worthwhile to post then don't bother.

 

Tit.

 

EDIT: Had on, of course you'll argue how Shepherd was good for this club in comparison to previous boards. Doesn't stop him from leaching off the Geordie publics undying love for Newcastle, funding his brothers ventures from the clubs money. Then spunking large amounts of money on s***.

 

Of course none of that matters because you've lived to see worse boards.

 

the usual cliches about debt, lowering the wage bill and scouting networks.

 

This has been explained before and not just by myself mate. If the top 4 can carry debts due to stadium expansions and paying top dollar to get the best players, Newcastle won't match them unless we do the same.

 

Note also that having debts hasn't stopped them from winning trophies, or being attractive to top players .......

 

fef spunking money, Shepherd wasn't the manager by the way, he wasn't even the major shareholder

 

Didn't know whether to laugh or groan to be honest.

 

I'll stay out of this one maybe.

 

 

 

Who paid the extra for Albert Luque when Souness wanted Boa Morte?

 

Who paid the extra for Michael Owen when Souness wanted Nicolas Anelka?

 

Who sold Gary Speed and bought Nicky Butt? It weren't Bobby...

[NE5]

So many managers in so little time, I would say we were unstable. Our team was/is a mix-match of players from different managerial stints.

 

Financially, we had huge debts and towards the end of Shepherd's reign at the top could have went under. Now, we have virtually no debt, we're lowering the wage bill and have got a canny scouting network set up.

 

We have a way to go to be stable on the field, the past couple of seasons we've battled against relegation to different degrees.

 

 

Wanna expand upon that one mate?

 

I like a good bit debate, but its hard when your just getting people laughing at your points. Have a bit common sense man, if you've got nothing worthwhile to post then don't bother.

 

Tit.

 

EDIT: Had on, of course you'll argue how Shepherd was good for this club in comparison to previous boards. Doesn't stop him from leaching off the Geordie publics undying love for Newcastle, funding his brothers ventures from the clubs money. Then spunking large amounts of money on s***.

 

Of course none of that matters because you've lived to see worse boards.

 

the usual cliches about debt, lowering the wage bill and scouting networks.

 

This has been explained before and not just by myself mate. If the top 4 can carry debts due to stadium expansions and paying top dollar to get the best players, Newcastle won't match them unless we do the same.

 

Note also that having debts hasn't stopped them from winning trophies, or being attractive to top players .......

 

fef spunking money, Shepherd wasn't the manager by the way, he wasn't even the major shareholder

 

Didn't know whether to laugh or groan to be honest.

 

I'll stay out of this one maybe.

 

 

Who paid the extra for Albert Luque when Souness wanted Boa Morte?

 

Who paid the extra for Michael Owen when Souness wanted Nicolas Anelka?

 

Who sold Gary Speed and bought Nicky Butt? It weren't Bobby...

 

the board backed their manager mate. Like good boards do, and something we have yet to see from the new one to the same degree whereby they attempt to compete in a similar manner with the big trophy winners.

 

Souness said at Owens press conference that Owen was the player he most wanted to buy.

 

No point cherry picking one or two deals that you want to believe gives you a case. Overall, we had a good decade, better than most. Certainly not "joke" material, far from it in fact.

 

I'll stay out of this now, sit back and read everybody else spouting the same cliches and complete rubbish that they usually do, anything that slates the old board in any way they can.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Stephen927]

So many managers in so little time, I would say we were unstable. Our team was/is a mix-match of players from different managerial stints.

 

Financially, we had huge debts and towards the end of Shepherd's reign at the top could have went under. Now, we have virtually no debt, we're lowering the wage bill and have got a canny scouting network set up.

 

We have a way to go to be stable on the field, the past couple of seasons we've battled against relegation to different degrees.

 

 

Wanna expand upon that one mate?

 

I like a good bit debate, but its hard when your just getting people laughing at your points. Have a bit common sense man, if you've got nothing worthwhile to post then don't bother.

 

Tit.

 

EDIT: Had on, of course you'll argue how Shepherd was good for this club in comparison to previous boards. Doesn't stop him from leaching off the Geordie publics undying love for Newcastle, funding his brothers ventures from the clubs money. Then spunking large amounts of money on s***.

 

Of course none of that matters because you've lived to see worse boards.

 

the usual cliches about debt, lowering the wage bill and scouting networks.

 

This has been explained before and not just by myself mate. If the top 4 can carry debts due to stadium expansions and paying top dollar to get the best players, Newcastle won't match them unless we do the same.

 

Note also that having debts hasn't stopped them from winning trophies, or being attractive to top players .......

 

fef spunking money, Shepherd wasn't the manager by the way, he wasn't even the major shareholder

 

Didn't know whether to laugh or groan to be honest.

 

I'll stay out of this one maybe.

 

 

Who paid the extra for Albert Luque when Souness wanted Boa Morte?

 

Who paid the extra for Michael Owen when Souness wanted Nicolas Anelka?

 

Who sold Gary Speed and bought Nicky Butt? It weren't Bobby...

 

the board backed their manager mate. Like good boards do, and something we have yet to see from the new one to the same degree whereby they attempt to compete in a similar manner with the big trophy winners.

 

Souness said at Owens press conference that Owen was the player he most wanted to buy.

 

No point cherry picking one or two deals that you want to believe gives you a case. Overall, we had a good decade, better than most. Certainly not "joke" material, far from it in fact.

 

I'll stay out of this now, sit back and read everybody else spouting the same cliches and complete rubbish that they usually do, anything that slates the old board in any way they can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not gonna bad mouth the old board, they gave me some of the best memories of Newcastle United of my life.

 

Yes, they backed their man. Yes, they were ambitious. But it didn't leave the club in too healthy a state by the end, and it would have broke my heart to see this club relegated or go under.

 

The new board have attempted to provide Keegan with funds in January but he only wanted the right people, ala Woodgate but we know how that one ended. This summer already we club have made bids for Luka Modric, which for me is a huge sign of ambition though we failed again, not necessarily the new boards fault given the position they took over this club.

 

I'm not expecting an answer mate, you've been through this topic before and I know you have very strong views, shit I respect that a hell of a lot.

[NE5]

So many managers in so little time, I would say we were unstable. Our team was/is a mix-match of players from different managerial stints.

 

Financially, we had huge debts and towards the end of Shepherd's reign at the top could have went under. Now, we have virtually no debt, we're lowering the wage bill and have got a canny scouting network set up.

 

We have a way to go to be stable on the field, the past couple of seasons we've battled against relegation to different degrees.

 

 

Wanna expand upon that one mate?

 

I like a good bit debate, but its hard when your just getting people laughing at your points. Have a bit common sense man, if you've got nothing worthwhile to post then don't bother.

 

Tit.

 

EDIT: Had on, of course you'll argue how Shepherd was good for this club in comparison to previous boards. Doesn't stop him from leaching off the Geordie publics undying love for Newcastle, funding his brothers ventures from the clubs money. Then spunking large amounts of money on s***.

 

Of course none of that matters because you've lived to see worse boards.

 

the usual cliches about debt, lowering the wage bill and scouting networks.

 

This has been explained before and not just by myself mate. If the top 4 can carry debts due to stadium expansions and paying top dollar to get the best players, Newcastle won't match them unless we do the same.

 

Note also that having debts hasn't stopped them from winning trophies, or being attractive to top players .......

 

fef spunking money, Shepherd wasn't the manager by the way, he wasn't even the major shareholder

 

Didn't know whether to laugh or groan to be honest.

 

I'll stay out of this one maybe.

 

 

Who paid the extra for Albert Luque when Souness wanted Boa Morte?

 

Who paid the extra for Michael Owen when Souness wanted Nicolas Anelka?

 

Who sold Gary Speed and bought Nicky Butt? It weren't Bobby...

 

the board backed their manager mate. Like good boards do, and something we have yet to see from the new one to the same degree whereby they attempt to compete in a similar manner with the big trophy winners.

 

Souness said at Owens press conference that Owen was the player he most wanted to buy.

 

No point cherry picking one or two deals that you want to believe gives you a case. Overall, we had a good decade, better than most. Certainly not "joke" material, far from it in fact.

 

I'll stay out of this now, sit back and read everybody else spouting the same cliches and complete rubbish that they usually do, anything that slates the old board in any way they can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not gonna bad mouth the old board, they gave me some of the best memories of Newcastle United of my life.

 

Yes, they backed their man. Yes, they were ambitious. But it didn't leave the club in too healthy a state by the end, and it would have broke my heart to see this club relegated or go under.

 

The new board have attempted to provide Keegan with funds in January but he only wanted the right people, ala Woodgate but we know how that one ended. This summer already we club have made bids for Luka Modric, which for me is a huge sign of ambition though we failed again, not necessarily the new boards fault given the position they took over this club.

 

I'm not expecting an answer mate, you've been through this topic before and I know you have very strong views, shit I respect that a hell of a lot.

 

thats a very fair and balanced view mate, and I respect what you say too for that reason.

 

Wasn't going to get into this thread again but it warranted a reply.

 

 

[Mick]

Any instability that we may have had was made a lot worse by the bloke who brought Saunders here.  Souness and Saunders were shite and they have nobody to blame but themselves.  They were given more backing than I would have given them, they did a shite job and they are looking to shift the blame.

[UV]

The following is how most outsiders would perceive our recent fortunes:

 

A reputation of instability emerged 2003/04, first with the personalities of some of our players, fans starting to boo them despite relative success and then the chairman completely botching up the way the club dealt with Robson inevitably becoming too old for the job.

 

We then had the new manager falling out with players left right centre, while some of our players started fighting each other and threatening each other via text message.

 

Panicing chairman makes more mistakes with his appointments, and tries throwing money he doesn't have at non cost effective solutions.

 

Ashley and Mort come in, quickly realise that the latest appointment was a mistake and act decisively, but to those on the outside it is getting silly now. To top things off, we appoint  a dinosaur as manager and immediately seek to undermine him. Meanwhile a player has a go at booing fans before proceeding to get himself arrested.

 

 

Bentley recently said that he wouldn't want to be at an unstable club like Newcastle. I'm sure others feel the same (and before NE5 says he wouldn'tsign these players as they don't have ambition, I must point out that they genuinely believe that they can achieve greater things in a stable environment). The reputation will remain for a while while we try to sort things out, and even being decisive can look bad to outsiders right now, and may yet cause us problems.

 

Don't forget, we're booting out the sensible new chairman after a year (even though we all knew it was a temporary appointment).

 

Yes, I think that's probably a very fair summation of what people who don't know much about the club think.

 

The thing is, you will only get stability when you get a manager who can meet the chairman/owner's expectations. It's up to the chairman/owner to financially support the manager fairly for that level of expectation, but there's not much you can do about that. That goes for any club, at any level.

 

There's no point in having stability by keeping a manager who is evidently crap and keeps getting you relegated, but for some it's enough to have stability with a manager who can keep a team in mid table and simply avoid relegation every year. Is that stability better for a player than the instability of a team who are constantly striving to better themselves? That's a question for the player and different players will have different ideas about it.

 

Also agents will absolutely LOVE less stable clubs, as they get to cash in on transfer fees more often, so us, Chelsea and Man City should get the pick of the crop this season

[NE5]

The following is how most outsiders would perceive our recent fortunes:

 

A reputation of instability emerged 2003/04, first with the personalities of some of our players, fans starting to boo them despite relative success and then the chairman completely botching up the way the club dealt with Robson inevitably becoming too old for the job.

 

We then had the new manager falling out with players left right centre, while some of our players started fighting each other and threatening each other via text message.

 

Panicing chairman makes more mistakes with his appointments, and tries throwing money he doesn't have at non cost effective solutions.

 

Ashley and Mort come in, quickly realise that the latest appointment was a mistake and act decisively, but to those on the outside it is getting silly now. To top things off, we appoint  a dinosaur as manager and immediately seek to undermine him. Meanwhile a player has a go at booing fans before proceeding to get himself arrested.

 

 

Bentley recently said that he wouldn't want to be at an unstable club like Newcastle. I'm sure others feel the same (and before NE5 says he wouldn'tsign these players as they don't have ambition, I must point out that they genuinely believe that they can achieve greater things in a stable environment). The reputation will remain for a while while we try to sort things out, and even being decisive can look bad to outsiders right now, and may yet cause us problems.

 

Don't forget, we're booting out the sensible new chairman after a year (even though we all knew it was a temporary appointment).

 

Yes, I think that's probably a very fair summation of what people who don't know much about the club think.

 

The thing is, you will only get stability when you get a manager who can meet the chairman/owner's expectations. It's up to the chairman/owner to financially support the manager fairly for that level of expectation, but there's not much you can do about that. That goes for any club, at any level.

 

There's no point in having stability by keeping a manager who is evidently crap and keeps getting you relegated, but for some it's enough to have stability with a manager who can keep a team in mid table and simply avoid relegation every year. Is that stability better for a player than the instability of a team who are constantly striving to better themselves? That's a question for the player and different players will have different ideas about it.

 

Also agents will absolutely LOVE less stable clubs, as they get to cash in on transfer fees more often, so us, Chelsea and Man City should get the pick of the crop this season

 

Agreed. No end to the people prepared to make up any old rubbish to discredit the old board it seems

 

We were "stable" enough when we qualified for europe pretty regularly and had the same manager for 5 years, until the same supporters who now wish he was back, booed him for only finishing 5th in the premiership

 

Takes all sorts I suppose

 

 

[Teasy]

Yes we were unstable, because of con artists like Souness and Allardyce and the idiot who hired them...

[garth]

The following is how most outsiders would perceive our recent fortunes:

 

A reputation of instability emerged 2003/04, first with the personalities of some of our players, fans starting to boo them despite relative success and then the chairman completely botching up the way the club dealt with Robson inevitably becoming too old for the job.

 

We then had the new manager falling out with players left right centre, while some of our players started fighting each other and threatening each other via text message.

 

Panicing chairman makes more mistakes with his appointments, and tries throwing money he doesn't have at non cost effective solutions.

 

Ashley and Mort come in, quickly realise that the latest appointment was a mistake and act decisively, but to those on the outside it is getting silly now. To top things off, we appoint  a dinosaur as manager and immediately seek to undermine him. Meanwhile a player has a go at booing fans before proceeding to get himself arrested.

 

 

Bentley recently said that he wouldn't want to be at an unstable club like Newcastle. I'm sure others feel the same (and before NE5 says he wouldn'tsign these players as they don't have ambition, I must point out that they genuinely believe that they can achieve greater things in a stable environment). The reputation will remain for a while while we try to sort things out, and even being decisive can look bad to outsiders right now, and may yet cause us problems.

 

Don't forget, we're booting out the sensible new chairman after a year (even though we all knew it was a temporary appointment).

 

Yes, I think that's probably a very fair summation of what people who don't know much about the club think.

 

The thing is, you will only get stability when you get a manager who can meet the chairman/owner's expectations. It's up to the chairman/owner to financially support the manager fairly for that level of expectation, but there's not much you can do about that. That goes for any club, at any level.

 

There's no point in having stability by keeping a manager who is evidently crap and keeps getting you relegated, but for some it's enough to have stability with a manager who can keep a team in mid table and simply avoid relegation every year. Is that stability better for a player than the instability of a team who are constantly striving to better themselves? That's a question for the player and different players will have different ideas about it.

 

Also agents will absolutely LOVE less stable clubs, as they get to cash in on transfer fees more often, so us, Chelsea and Man City should get the pick of the crop this season

 

Agreed. No end to the people prepared to make up any old rubbish to discredit the old board it seems

 

We were "stable" enough when we qualified for europe pretty regularly and had the same manager for 5 years, until the same supporters who now wish he was back, booed him for only finishing 5th in the premiership

 

Takes all sorts I suppose

 

 

 

This I have to agree with, it was a real shame that these supporters were booing Bobby when all it needed was to shift Sir Bob up to the board room and let him choose his successor it would have been a smooth transition, better for the club all round.

[mrmojorisin75]

The following is how most outsiders would perceive our recent fortunes:

 

A reputation of instability emerged 2003/04, first with the personalities of some of our players, fans starting to boo them despite relative success and then the chairman completely botching up the way the club dealt with Robson inevitably becoming too old for the job.

 

We then had the new manager falling out with players left right centre, while some of our players started fighting each other and threatening each other via text message.

 

Panicing chairman makes more mistakes with his appointments, and tries throwing money he doesn't have at non cost effective solutions.

 

Ashley and Mort come in, quickly realise that the latest appointment was a mistake and act decisively, but to those on the outside it is getting silly now. To top things off, we appoint  a dinosaur as manager and immediately seek to undermine him. Meanwhile a player has a go at booing fans before proceeding to get himself arrested.

 

 

Bentley recently said that he wouldn't want to be at an unstable club like Newcastle. I'm sure others feel the same (and before NE5 says he wouldn'tsign these players as they don't have ambition, I must point out that they genuinely believe that they can achieve greater things in a stable environment). The reputation will remain for a while while we try to sort things out, and even being decisive can look bad to outsiders right now, and may yet cause us problems.

 

Don't forget, we're booting out the sensible new chairman after a year (even though we all knew it was a temporary appointment).

 

Yes, I think that's probably a very fair summation of what people who don't know much about the club think.

 

The thing is, you will only get stability when you get a manager who can meet the chairman/owner's expectations. It's up to the chairman/owner to financially support the manager fairly for that level of expectation, but there's not much you can do about that. That goes for any club, at any level.

 

There's no point in having stability by keeping a manager who is evidently crap and keeps getting you relegated, but for some it's enough to have stability with a manager who can keep a team in mid table and simply avoid relegation every year. Is that stability better for a player than the instability of a team who are constantly striving to better themselves? That's a question for the player and different players will have different ideas about it.

 

Also agents will absolutely LOVE less stable clubs, as they get to cash in on transfer fees more often, so us, Chelsea and Man City should get the pick of the crop this season

 

Agreed. No end to the people prepared to make up any old rubbish to discredit the old board it seems

 

We were "stable" enough when we qualified for europe pretty regularly and had the same manager for 5 years, until the same supporters who now wish he was back, booed him for only finishing 5th in the premiership

 

Takes all sorts I suppose

 

 

 

NE5 just a quick one that's occured to me to ask, not sure if you'll comment though as it's not about NUFC, anyway;

 

how would you categorise chelsea under ken bates up to the point of the club being bought out?

 

hoddle, gullit, vialli then ranieri were all backed by the manager, they made europe, won cups, played in the CL and won the CWC

 

they were, however, by common consensus about one week from being unable to run as a business before he sold up to abramovic 

 

so is backing the manager the be all and end all is my question really?  we obviously weren't in as bad a financial state as chelsea but with a little more time we might well have been

[UV]

how would you categorise chelsea under ken bates up to the point of the club being bought out?

 

hoddle, gullit, vialli then ranieri were all backed by the manager, they made europe, won cups, played in the CL and won the CWC

 

they were, however, by common consensus about one week from being unable to run as a business before he sold up to abramovic 

 

so is backing the manager the be all and end all is my question really?  we obviously weren't in as bad a financial state as chelsea but with a little more time we might well have been

 

I don't know the full facts about Chelsea's finances, but if they were as close to bankruptcy as we were before Ashley, then I don't think they really had much to worry about. Yes they may have had to reign in spending for a bit (as would we), but at least they'd given it a shot (and they were lucky enough to get something to show for it). You also have to ask yourself would Chelsea have been in the position they are in now without Bates? He made them an attractive proposition for Abramovic to buy before it was fashionable.

 

He might be an odious little individual, but you can't deny what he did for Chelsea.

 

As a separate point, I don't think people should underestimate the massive spanner in the works the arrival of Abramovic at Chelsea was to us. We were funding our spending in a much more sustainable way than Chelsea, and they were about to run out of gas and would probably have slipped back into the mid table pack. Without Abramovic, we would probably have gotten 4th in 03-04 and in all likelihood  have been in the CL the following season. With the money that generated, and the better quality of manager we could have attracted after Robson (maybe Mourinho?), who knows where we'd be now. There's a very good chance we would have been part of the "big 4" even with the shitty old board and it's lack of planning.

[NE5]

The following is how most outsiders would perceive our recent fortunes:

 

A reputation of instability emerged 2003/04, first with the personalities of some of our players, fans starting to boo them despite relative success and then the chairman completely botching up the way the club dealt with Robson inevitably becoming too old for the job.

 

We then had the new manager falling out with players left right centre, while some of our players started fighting each other and threatening each other via text message.

 

Panicing chairman makes more mistakes with his appointments, and tries throwing money he doesn't have at non cost effective solutions.

 

Ashley and Mort come in, quickly realise that the latest appointment was a mistake and act decisively, but to those on the outside it is getting silly now. To top things off, we appoint  a dinosaur as manager and immediately seek to undermine him. Meanwhile a player has a go at booing fans before proceeding to get himself arrested.

 

 

Bentley recently said that he wouldn't want to be at an unstable club like Newcastle. I'm sure others feel the same (and before NE5 says he wouldn'tsign these players as they don't have ambition, I must point out that they genuinely believe that they can achieve greater things in a stable environment). The reputation will remain for a while while we try to sort things out, and even being decisive can look bad to outsiders right now, and may yet cause us problems.

 

Don't forget, we're booting out the sensible new chairman after a year (even though we all knew it was a temporary appointment).

 

Yes, I think that's probably a very fair summation of what people who don't know much about the club think.

 

The thing is, you will only get stability when you get a manager who can meet the chairman/owner's expectations. It's up to the chairman/owner to financially support the manager fairly for that level of expectation, but there's not much you can do about that. That goes for any club, at any level.

 

There's no point in having stability by keeping a manager who is evidently crap and keeps getting you relegated, but for some it's enough to have stability with a manager who can keep a team in mid table and simply avoid relegation every year. Is that stability better for a player than the instability of a team who are constantly striving to better themselves? That's a question for the player and different players will have different ideas about it.

 

Also agents will absolutely LOVE less stable clubs, as they get to cash in on transfer fees more often, so us, Chelsea and Man City should get the pick of the crop this season

 

Agreed. No end to the people prepared to make up any old rubbish to discredit the old board it seems

 

We were "stable" enough when we qualified for europe pretty regularly and had the same manager for 5 years, until the same supporters who now wish he was back, booed him for only finishing 5th in the premiership

 

Takes all sorts I suppose

 

 

 

NE5 just a quick one that's occured to me to ask, not sure if you'll comment though as it's not about NUFC, anyway;

 

how would you categorise chelsea under ken bates up to the point of the club being bought out?

 

hoddle, gullit, vialli then ranieri were all backed by the manager, they made europe, won cups, played in the CL and won the CWC

 

they were, however, by common consensus about one week from being unable to run as a business before he sold up to abramovic 

 

so is backing the manager the be all and end all is my question really?  we obviously weren't in as bad a financial state as chelsea but with a little more time we might well have been

 

I don't like Ken Bates, in fact he's an odious arsehole, I remember him putting up electric fences for one thing.

 

However, you wouldn't find too many Chelsea fans complaining when they won those cups, bankruptcy would have been far from their minds and even if you told them they wouldn't have gave a stuff. FWIW, we could also have won a couple of cups too, but didn't meet the same calibre of opposition in Cup Finals as they did. In other words, they were perhaps a bit luckier than us, such is football.

 

Better to have a crack and get close than not have a crack and sit nowhere doing absolutely nothing. Do you think rather than have the last 10-15 years we had, we would have been better off not trying, and had a 10-15 years like the mackems ? When we didn't bother, we were pretty much the same as them. Sorry for mentioning that mate but you did ask !!!!!!

 

Ken Bates had a pretty rough ride for a lot of years before Chelsea started doing anything though, some Chelsea fans say it was the influence of Matthew Harding that helped him to get them going.

 

Chelsea may have been close to going bust, but we have more supporters than Chelsea [and Leeds]. I don't think Newcastle would  ever go bust, if that was EVER going to happen, it would have done in the early 90's.

 

Bates and the Halls/Shepherd both left their respective clubs much better off which is why they both attracted big buyers who would both not have been interested at all otherwise. In fact, both clubs weren't attractive to anybody, that is why NUFC's share issue failed to raise half of 2.5m quid, and bates bought Chelsea for next to nothing, it may have even been a quid or something, but maybe I'm thinking of another club here.

 

At the end of the day, we had a stab at it, and it didn't quite work out, in terms of winning a trophy, but we certainly had teams who were good enough to do it, which is why I lay the blame for that on poor performances from the players, bad selections by the manager, bad luck or just superior opposition on the day.  We would just have regrouped and came back again, and hopefully have another crack at it.

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

pretty much the response i expected NE5...but your response would have been a little different i'd guess if abramovic HADN'T come along i'd guess but we'll never know

 

suppose i could ask the question of leeds eh?  they backed their manager to the detriment of the club, do you think you'd hear leeds fans complaining about that period?  they'd more than likely tell you it was great at the time but seeing as it totally fucked the club they'd maybe rather not have had that champions league semi final to show for it

 

one thing i find amusing is your ridiculing someone in another thread about "hindsight signings" yet you're saying in this post that chelsea fans wouldn't be complaining 'cause they had some good times and won some cups in the past when their club was on the brink of financial collapse...it's only hindsight that makes that period good for the club, had things gone the other way it might very well have been seen as the creating darkest in their history

 

finally, and this is for UV too, abramovic bought chelski after spurs told him to beat it so they weren't as attractive as all that were they?  he probably knew they were there for the taking due to their financial situation and they were in london with decent facilities...if it was an attractive, successful side he wanted why not buy arsenal or man utd?  same goes for ashley really...our share price was low due to the recent poor results and perceived (put that in for you) bad financial state of the club and he saw an opportunity to buy a great club for a reasonable amount of money, ostensibly; he was then bitten in the arse by the debt

 

anyway seems like i'm trying to turn this into an old board argument, and i'm not, honestly

 

another question though; are everton giving it a go at the moment?  'cause i agree it's better to try than not to try but what do you consider "having a stab"?  seems to me they're trying to break into the top four by buying and developing players, and you can't say they're not paying big fees either really can you?  so would you be happy with an everton-esque approach?  or for us to have a stab do we have to spend beyond our means?  or ask yourself the same question about aston villa maybe?

 

i'm guessing i already know the answer to that one too

[NE5]

pretty much the response i expected NE5...but your response would have been a little different i'd guess if abramovic HADN'T come along i'd guess but we'll never know

 

suppose i could ask the question of leeds eh?  they backed their manager to the detriment of the club, do you think you'd hear leeds fans complaining about that period?  they'd more than likely tell you it was great at the time but seeing as it totally fucked the club they'd maybe rather not have had that champions league semi final to show for it

 

one thing i find amusing is your ridiculing someone in another thread about "hindsight signings" yet you're saying in this post that chelsea fans wouldn't be complaining 'cause they had some good times and won some cups in the past when their club was on the brink of financial collapse...it's only hindsight that makes that period good for the club, had things gone the other way it might very well have been seen as the creating darkest in their history

 

finally, and this is for UV too, abramovic bought chelski after spurs told him to beat it so they weren't as attractive as all that were they?  he probably knew they were there for the taking due to their financial situation and they were in london with decent facilities...if it was an attractive, successful side he wanted why not buy arsenal or man utd?  same goes for ashley really...our share price was low due to the recent poor results and perceived (put that in for you) bad financial state of the club and he saw an opportunity to buy a great club for a reasonable amount of money, ostensibly; he was then bitten in the arse by the debt

 

anyway seems like i'm trying to turn this into an old board argument, and i'm not, honestly

 

another question though; are everton giving it a go at the moment?  'cause i agree it's better to try than not to try but what do you consider "having a stab"?  seems to me they're trying to break into the top four by buying and developing players, and you can't say they're not paying big fees either really can you?  so would you be happy with an everton-esque approach?  or for us to have a stab do we have to spend beyond our means?  or ask yourself the same question about aston villa maybe?

 

i'm guessing i already know the answer to that one too

 

quick reply, but if we had won just one Cup Final, by virtue of playing the smoggies instead of the premiership champions, would your perspective of the Halls and Shepherd be different ?

 

And yet, the Champions League is supposed to be the be all and end all these days ?

 

Leeds fans were in their element during those European Cup semi final days etc, they would hardly have been anything else. The ones I know were anyway. They also condemn Ridsdale for BORROWING money to buy too many players. They know they aren't big enough for that, they certainly know they don't have the support of Newcastle.

 

As for Everton, its taken them 6 years (SIX) to get to 5th in the league, at least 4 of those were watching Allardyce type stuff, and we already know the answer to the question would we really want to watch that for 4 years.

 

And they aren't challenging their neighbours, nothing like it, and when they upgrade their wooden delapitated stadium, they will be in debt   Maybe it won't stop them from winning a cup or two though, just like the current top 4 clubs though

 

Anyway mate, your're cherry picking, the vast majority of clubs aren't successful because they don't spend money, not vice versa, I held up the mackems as an example. They are a big club too you know ?

 

 

[Mr Logic]

With the benefit of hindsight to add to the weight of personal opinion we were a slipshod affair as a football club. The new regime have yet to get time on their side to confirm appearances, but it looks as though they're going to be running Newcastle United as a business first and a football club second. (Not saying running a football club isn't a business, but there's more than one business model and the EPL is a special case scenario.)

 

Will that improve outsiders views of the overall club stability? Undoubtedly. How long might that take though, a couple of seasons is my guess. And that partly depends on how much Keegan gets his way if there are people rowing in ever so slightly different directions. We'll know more come August, or at least have a better idea.

[UV]

I don't think we were ever in a position where we couldn't have survived a relegation. We would have had to have shed a lot of the high earners of course, but most would leave of their own accord anyway, and this would be true of any long standing premiership team who got relegated. I think it's fair to rely on the fact that the gates would not have dropped significantly for a good few seasons; we would still get an average of 40k at least I'm sure and that would have given us time to stablilise the club at a different revenue level in the Championship.

 

Man United, Liverpool, Chelsea, and Arsenal however are in a FAR more precarious position should they get relegated. They are in so much debt they would never be able to stablilise their clubs in the Championship, and would therefore have to either go bankrupt or go even further and further into debt until they got back into the Premiership. Even then Liverpool, Chelsea, and Arsenal would struggle until they were back in the CL (Man U's revenues are not so dependent on it, so they would probably be okay). If anyone is at risk of "doing a Leeds" it's those clubs. Of course, they're the "big 4" and that could never ever happen.

 

On Chelsea under Bates - I stand to be corrected with facts and figures, but as I alluded to above, I'm as dubious of the doomongering about Chelsea's imminent bankruptcy as I am about ours.

 

On Abramovich - I guess he must have wanted a bit of a challenge as we know he could easily have bought Man U or Arsenal with the money he has, and at the end of the day he would have had to spend less on them than he has over the years on Chelsea. He also must have wanted a club in London if he went for Spurs & Chelsea, as I'd have said us, Liverpool or maybe Villa were the best positioned clubs at the time which would still have presented a challenge for him. Who knows what his thinking was, he didn't pick Fulham, Charlton or West Ham though.

 

On takeovers in general - Chelsea, Man U, Portsmouth, Villa, West Ham & Liverpool all got taken over before us. Is that a sign that they were all well run or badly run? I'm not sure what your point is.

 

On Ashley - If he was unaware of the state of the club's finances before he took over, then that's his own lookout, but if an extra £20-30m of debt was going to seriously knock his plans, then he's in the wrong game. Relegation last season would have knocked a hell of a lot more than that off the price of the club, and conversely a European place would have added more than that onto it (to be clear I mean club worth here, not revenue).

 

Everton - cherry picking here - there are plenty of clubs run like Everton who don't get anywhere near Europe let alone the CL. However if Everton do get anywhere near the CL it will be down to the manager far more than the board. I will say fair play to them for not panicking in that season when they went from 4th to hovering around the relegation places for a lot of the season, but it's easier to do that when you've had a few good years out of a manager and know you're unlikely to be able to attract better when you're as tight with your money as they are.

 

[Optimistic Nut]

Not worthy of a new thread so probably could go in here, but just seen the Arsenal chairman on Setanta News there moaning about how players join them on a 4-year contract and then 6 months-2 years later come demanding a payrise...well surely when you scrimp in the bargain basement like they do picking up players from French Leagues, etc. on low wages, once they've cracked the Premiership and realise that they are on a par with other higher paid players that they're playing alongside or against, that's naturally going to happen isn't it?

[UV]

Not worthy of a new thread so probably could go in here, but just seen the Arsenal chairman on Setanta News there moaning about how players join them on a 4-year contract and then 6 months-2 years later come demanding a payrise...well surely when you scrimp in the bargain basement like they do picking up players from French Leagues, etc. on low wages, once they've cracked the Premiership and realise that they are on a par with other higher paid players that they're playing alongside or against, that's naturally going to happen isn't it?

 

I have to say that I was shocked Arsenal's wage bill was just a few million lower than Man U's. Considering win bonuses, I'd guess their basic pay is actually higher than Man U's.

[Guest Stephen927]

Not worthy of a new thread so probably could go in here, but just seen the Arsenal chairman on Setanta News there moaning about how players join them on a 4-year contract and then 6 months-2 years later come demanding a payrise...well surely when you scrimp in the bargain basement like they do picking up players from French Leagues, etc. on low wages, once they've cracked the Premiership and realise that they are on a par with other higher paid players that they're playing alongside or against, that's naturally going to happen isn't it?

 

I have to say that I was shocked Arsenal's wage bill was just a few million lower than Man U's.

 

Arsenals squad is quite big isn't it, full of youngsters like Gilbert, Gibbs, Van der Berg, Nordveit. Wouldn't be surprised if their wage bill was quite high, though they are quite strict with how much they pay in wages for individual players, this will be taken into account with how many youngsters they have on the bill.

[UV]

Not worthy of a new thread so probably could go in here, but just seen the Arsenal chairman on Setanta News there moaning about how players join them on a 4-year contract and then 6 months-2 years later come demanding a payrise...well surely when you scrimp in the bargain basement like they do picking up players from French Leagues, etc. on low wages, once they've cracked the Premiership and realise that they are on a par with other higher paid players that they're playing alongside or against, that's naturally going to happen isn't it?

 

I have to say that I was shocked Arsenal's wage bill was just a few million lower than Man U's.

 

Arsenals squad is quite big isn't it, full of youngsters like Gilbert, Gibbs, Van der Berg, Nordveit. Wouldn't be surprised if their wage bill was quite high, though they are quite strict with how much they pay in wages for individual players, this will be taken into account with how many youngsters they have on the bill.

 

Isn't this the way many are suggesting we should go though? Most are using it as an argument on how we will cut the wage bill.