RE NE5 in Arshavin thread (Warning contains discussion on old and new boards)

[Decky]

Someone put OzzieMandias' post in NE5's sig so ever time HE posts he gets a reminder that he has to answer it

[OzzieMandias]

[polpolpol]

The reason this conversation will endlessly re-occur is the difference in expectations between fans. If it really was a simple as wanting to support a team in the highest possible league position, we'd just read the league table every Monday and support whoever was at the top. Instead the enjoyment comes from a team doing as well as it can in the given situation which it finds itself in.

 

If possible, I would rather have a team full of likeable players which played varied, attacking football even if this cost a bit of winning efficiency – an Arsenal if you like rather than a Man Utd; a Holland rather than a Germany. Others would seem to favour a 'fantasy football' approach and some big money signings. From my periodic visits to St James' park I know there are occasional fans who's vocalised ambition seems to go no further than a team which will “get stuck in” and “get rid of it man” as they deem appropriate (sadly not abated since Allardyce's failed regime took this as a general policy). Some regulars to hospitality boxes would probably just like the catering to improve. These things are by no means incompossible – there are thousands of different things you might want from the club, and you might want them all at the same time. You might just want one thing, it's just different for everybody.

 

The problem at the moment is that no-one here really knows what to expect from the new NUFC aside from Keegan's tendency to play in his 'style'. Everything off the pitch is a total mystery to us, with no transfer activity beyond the few youngsters brought in, obscurantism over the clubs internal structure and no explication of a strategic plan. 

 

In this information gap we have people wildly projecting whatever fantastic, idealised situation they wish for the club onto current events for, sadly, there are no signs coming from the club. Its an empty stage which we set our own dramas into action on. Given the lack of information about the future, one can easily fall into the temptation of revisiting - perhaps a little over-indulgently – the 'certainty' of the past.

 

Hence the end of the Shepherd regime, a time when fans of the club had varied opinions as to how the club was being run, and to what extent it matched with their desires. I think you'd be hard pressed to say that after the years of his control there were no 'trends' which you could point to (it's certainly much easier than it would be to point to any in the short rule of the new regime). Some were happy with the board because they wanted to see a 'local' owner, because there was always a profusion of monies made available, because they believed we were in a periodic downturn and we would work our way back to the form of the better finishes in his reign. Others would point at managerial choices, questionable transfers, or even the underlying fiscal state (and there are certainly fans who enjoy seeing a club as a well run off the pitch almost as much as they do on it) as the one thing they wanted to see in their club (and lacked). Because these will never be the same for us all, the argument will never end. All we are doing is projecting our desire onto the truth.

 

BUT:

 

To toss the cat back towards the pigeons, I think you can apply this analysis to to our old chairman and to our new owner. What do they want from the club, and have they achieved it? I appreciate that there is a distinction between the two roles, but if you looked for the person who had the final decision on 'policy' in the broad sense it would be these two. Caveat: this is, obviously, all opinion (it seems stupid to presage information on a (discussion) board in such terms) and may err toward the outrageous at moments.

 

Shepherd wanted three things from the club: cachet, power, money. I think the former is the most undeniable. Put simply, he was the fat kid at school who wanted to be popular. Newcastle United was the vehicle he used to do this, specifically by tying himself to Shearer, the coolest kid in the playground. His interest in the club has certainly waned now that he is no longer the one associated with its success. The trophy signings, the vanity pieces in the local press (penned by a certain Mr Oliver), he was very much a public face of the club not as a form of PR for the club (in which he was a disaster) but as PR for himself, Barron Freddie of St James', local legend in waiting (if only we could win something). As mentioned in a previous post, he treated the club like a private company who's charter was to boost its leaders stature rather than a public business. In some respect the loyalty of the Newcastle fans and the sheer intensity of our support may be our undoing in this respect. There are a lot of people who would pay serious money to have thousands of people treat them like a king - but I shall get around Mr Ashley later.

 

A smaller corollary to enjoying the goodwill of the citizenry (or wanting to) would be the power afforded by being head of one of Newcastle's most visible corporations. Being Chairman made Freddy important, and that was something he very much wanted.

 

Thirdly we have money. Not being a man of great means in the modern mega-oligarch / franchisee possibly criminal ex-PM mode I wouldn't expect him to have made us Chelsea Mk2, but there are plenty of chairmen who love their clubs enough to give away a significant proportion of their wealth (our 'neighbours' at the more pungent end of the A19 for example). Not so our Mr F. S., whose handsome salary was complemented by that he arranged for his brother and a slew of perks.

 

I could forgive Shepherd the first two if they stood alone, but what I cannot abide is the fact they were coupled with the third. If he was generous to the club, his lack of competence in some areas and his personal desire for aggrandisement would be ameliorated somewhat. Instead we had a situation where he made errors using our money because he was running the club like his own fiefdom. The money of the fans, people who bought tickets, bought merchandise, people who paid sky subscriptions, they were the final backers of the Shepherd regime and they – hell, WE - were the ones he shafted whenever he mismanaged something. I do not say he mismanaged everything, but errors were made. 

 

Looking at Ashley we have three things he seems to want from NUFC. The first, just like Shepherd is Cachet. To that I would add enjoyment and respect.

 

Ashley's attempts at being 'the man' are as cringeworthy as Shepherd's: standing with the away fans, wearing a shirt in the boxes, buying rounds of drinks in Blu-Bamboo. You hardly have to page Dr Freud to come to the conclusion that he is desperate to be liked. Why else would he buy Newcastle, a club miles from his home which he had never proclaimed an interest in? Why to have 'the best fans in the would' elevate him to the plane that our living legends stand on: Keegan, Robson, Shearer, Gazza. They say all it takes is one little cup win...

 

When I say he wants enjoyment, I think of it as that of the gambler. The man likes a bet, and his toy up here is probably the ultimate gamble: every match has huge consequences riding on it. He must be dizzy from the sheer adrenaline – or at least he must be since he got Keegan in: who enjoys bets on a 0-0?

 

I would also say that he wants to be respected as a serious businessman. Ashley's whole career is based on taking an undervalued asset and adding to its value. I think this is in conflict with the two above desires: while he wants success and fun, it looks like he isn't willing to throw cash at the problem in the short term. That would destroy his self-image as a shrewd businessman, a wheeler and dealer. Instead he wants to build success gradually. This is also against some of our desires: who wants a billionaire owner who only spends his money on clearing debt? If he can show some ability as a chairman and whatever policy he takes towards making us a 'top x' club, I could forget the ego trip aspect to his chairmanship. If not, I won't see how he's any less of a fat kid than Shepherd. There'd only be one way he could get out of that.

 

I'd love to be won over. But if that doesn't work out Mike, I can be bought if you throw some serious money at it.

[thomas]

two out of two admit that Ashley isn't going to match the last owners with the same manager .

 

Any more ?

  I'll gladly hop on board the bandwagon of people with a functioning brain who realize that things have changed in the footballing world so drastically that comparing the first reign of Keegan to the second as some kind of means of comparison of the owners/boards at the respective times would be the trite, nonsensical act of an utter buffoon. 

[NE5]

Someone put OzzieMandias' post in NE5's sig so ever time HE posts he gets a reminder that he has to answer it

 

I have answered it. I've told you. Shepherd wasn't the owner while Ashley was. So there is no comparison to be made, other than one with the Halls and Shepherd together as a board. This is not rocket science.

 

The manager is also the same, unless you think the manager is irrelevant  mackems.gif

 

UV has also put forward the best era of the time when Shepherd was chairman, if you really feel the need to split them up and make such a comparison, so what do you think of that as Ashleys minimum target. Could you say you weren't impressed by Morts season in charge whereby we flirted with relegation and lost our 2 major transfer targets.

 

You should also be worried if you agree with the mackem WUM about anything.

 

 

[NE5]

two out of two admit that Ashley isn't going to match the last owners with the same manager .

 

Any more ?

  I'll gladly hop on board the bandwagon of people with a functioning brain who realize that things have changed in the footballing world so drastically that comparing the first reign of Keegan to the second as some kind of means of comparison of the owners/boards at the respective times would be the trite, nonsensical act of an utter buffoon. 

 

nothing but a cliche. Its just the same, you have to beat the same competition. You don't have a functioning brain, you're just moving the goalposts.

 

 

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Someone put OzzieMandias' post in NE5's sig so ever time HE posts he gets a reminder that he has to answer it

 

I have answered it.

 

Liar.

 

Here's the question again, just in case you missed it. I've taken care to make sure it contains as few long words as possible:

 

Do you honestly believe that Shepherd was going to get us back into the Champions League?

 

There are two possible answers:

 

a) Yes

 

b) No

 

So try again, chum. There's nothing in between save transparent evasion.

[OzzieMandias]

the trite, nonsensical act of an utter buffoon.

 

Well put.

[Lotus]

The reason this conversation will endlessly re-occur is the difference in expectations between fans. If it really was a simple as wanting to support a team in the highest possible league position, we'd just read the league table every Monday and support whoever was at the top. Instead the enjoyment comes from a team doing as well as it can in the given situation which it finds itself in.

 

If possible, I would rather have a team full of likeable players which played varied, attacking football even if this cost a bit of winning efficiency – an Arsenal if you like rather than a Man Utd; a Holland rather than a Germany. Others would seem to favour a 'fantasy football' approach and some big money signings. From my periodic visits to St James' park I know there are occasional fans who's vocalised ambition seems to go no further than a team which will “get stuck in” and “get rid of it man” as they deem appropriate (sadly not abated since Allardyce's failed regime took this as a general policy). Some regulars to hospitality boxes would probably just like the catering to improve. These things are by no means incompossible – there are thousands of different things you might want from the club, and you might want them all at the same time. You might just want one thing, it's just different for everybody.

 

The problem at the moment is that no-one here really knows what to expect from the new NUFC aside from Keegan's tendency to play in his 'style'. Everything off the pitch is a total mystery to us, with no transfer activity beyond the few youngsters brought in, obscurantism over the clubs internal structure and no explication of a strategic plan. 

 

In this information gap we have people wildly projecting whatever fantastic, idealised situation they wish for the club onto current events for, sadly, there are no signs coming from the club. Its an empty stage which we set our own dramas into action on. Given the lack of information about the future, one can easily fall into the temptation of revisiting - perhaps a little over-indulgently – the 'certainty' of the past.

 

Hence the end of the Shepherd regime, a time when fans of the club had varied opinions as to how the club was being run, and to what extent it matched with their desires. I think you'd be hard pressed to say that after the years of his control there were no 'trends' which you could point to (it's certainly much easier than it would be to point to any in the short rule of the new regime). Some were happy with the board because they wanted to see a 'local' owner, because there was always a profusion of monies made available, because they believed we were in a periodic downturn and we would work our way back to the form of the better finishes in his reign. Others would point at managerial choices, questionable transfers, or even the underlying fiscal state (and there are certainly fans who enjoy seeing a club as a well run off the pitch almost as much as they do on it) as the one thing they wanted to see in their club (and lacked). Because these will never be the same for us all, the argument will never end. All we are doing is projecting our desire onto the truth.

 

BUT:

 

To toss the cat back towards the pigeons, I think you can apply this analysis to to our old chairman and to our new owner. What do they want from the club, and have they achieved it? I appreciate that there is a distinction between the two roles, but if you looked for the person who had the final decision on 'policy' in the broad sense it would be these two. Caveat: this is, obviously, all opinion (it seems stupid to presage information on a (discussion) board in such terms) and may err toward the outrageous at moments.

 

Shepherd wanted three things from the club: cachet, power, money. I think the former is the most undeniable. Put simply, he was the fat kid at school who wanted to be popular. Newcastle United was the vehicle he used to do this, specifically by tying himself to Shearer, the coolest kid in the playground. His interest in the club has certainly waned now that he is no longer the one associated with its success. The trophy signings, the vanity pieces in the local press (penned by a certain Mr Oliver), he was very much a public face of the club not as a form of PR for the club (in which he was a disaster) but as PR for himself, Barron Freddie of St James', local legend in waiting (if only we could win something). As mentioned in a previous post, he treated the club like a private company who's charter was to boost its leaders stature rather than a public business. In some respect the loyalty of the Newcastle fans and the sheer intensity of our support may be our undoing in this respect. There are a lot of people who would pay serious money to have thousands of people treat them like a king - but I shall get around Mr Ashley later.

 

A smaller corollary to enjoying the goodwill of the citizenry (or wanting to) would be the power afforded by being head of one of Newcastle's most visible corporations. Being Chairman made Freddy important, and that was something he very much wanted.

 

Thirdly we have money. Not being a man of great means in the modern mega-oligarch / franchisee possibly criminal ex-PM mode I wouldn't expect him to have made us Chelsea Mk2, but there are plenty of chairmen who love their clubs enough to give away a significant proportion of their wealth (our 'neighbours' at the more pungent end of the A19 for example). Not so our Mr F. S., whose handsome salary was complemented by that he arranged for his brother and a slew of perks.

 

I could forgive Shepherd the first two if they stood alone, but what I cannot abide is the fact they were coupled with the third. If he was generous to the club, his lack of competence in some areas and his personal desire for aggrandisement would be ameliorated somewhat. Instead we had a situation where he made errors using our money because he was running the club like his own fiefdom. The money of the fans, people who bought tickets, bought merchandise, people who paid sky subscriptions, they were the final backers of the Shepherd regime and they – hell, WE - were the ones he shafted whenever he mismanaged something. I do not say he mismanaged everything, but errors were made. 

 

Looking at Ashley we have three things he seems to want from NUFC. The first, just like Shepherd is Cachet. To that I would add enjoyment and respect.

 

Ashley's attempts at being 'the man' are as cringeworthy as Shepherd's: standing with the away fans, wearing a shirt in the boxes, buying rounds of drinks in Blu-Bamboo. You hardly have to page Dr Freud to come to the conclusion that he is desperate to be liked. Why else would he buy Newcastle, a club miles from his home which he had never proclaimed an interest in? Why to have 'the best fans in the would' elevate him to the plane that our living legends stand on: Keegan, Robson, Shearer, Gazza. They say all it takes is one little cup win...

 

When I say he wants enjoyment, I think of it as that of the gambler. The man likes a bet, and his toy up here is probably the ultimate gamble: every match has huge consequences riding on it. He must be dizzy from the sheer adrenaline – or at least he must be since he got Keegan in: who enjoys bets on a 0-0?

 

I would also say that he wants to be respected as a serious businessman. Ashley's whole career is based on taking an undervalued asset and adding to its value. I think this is in conflict with the two above desires: while he wants success and fun, it looks like he isn't willing to throw cash at the problem in the short term. That would destroy his self-image as a shrewd businessman, a wheeler and dealer. Instead he wants to build success gradually. This is also against some of our desires: who wants a billionaire owner who only spends his money on clearing debt? If he can show some ability as a chairman and whatever policy he takes towards making us a 'top x' club, I could forget the ego trip aspect to his chairmanship. If not, I won't see how he's any less of a fat kid than Shepherd. There'd only be one way he could get out of that.

 

I'd love to be won over. But if that doesn't work out Mike, I can be bought if you throw some serious money at it.

 

Well, here's a post that's genuinely worth the read. How increasingly rare!

[Dave]

Agreed. A corking read that.

[Shearergol]

Newcastle's league position during the last season of the previous board: 13

Newcastle's league position during the first season if the new board: 12

 

That's an improvement, despite having to put up with Allardyce for half a season.

 

Like most realistic Newcastle supporters, I realise that we're unlikely to challenge for the top 4/5 for a long long time. This is nothing to do with the board, or who is managing the team. It's to do with the fact that football has changed considerably since Keegan last managed us. Even he has admitted that. His point about not breaking the top 4 had nothing to do with who owned the club.

 

NE5 - you're a big fan of Keegan, yet you seem to disagree with him about this "little" point. Do you think that secretly Keegan would rather be managing the club under the old board? I seem to remember the reason for him leaving in the first place was something to do with a certain decision they made.....

[madras]

 

Simple question. Do you think the achievements I posted were not good enough?

Do you expect Ashley to better them in the next 5 years (I'm letting him off with last year as a transitional year myself), and in fact to compete with Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool? If so, that's why I posted "Good luck Mike."

If you do have that expectation, then good on you, however most other posters seem to have a greatly reduced expectation of Newcastle under Ashley than they did of Newcastle under Shepherd.

 

You talk about expectations of others then mention Ashley beating the best finishes under Shepherd.

 

Do they not have to beat the first four years before going onto the best years?  You know, the ones when we finished 13th twice followed by 11th twice.

 

 

 

Shepherd was never the major shareholder or owner.

 

Ashley has never been the chairman.

 

 

 

bump.

 

Ashley wasn't the chairman, and Shepherd was never the major shareholder or owner

 

 

 

I realise it has to be put in fairly simplistic terms for you, even after all this time.

 

Shepherd never owned the club, he was never able to make decisions on his own. Ashley can.

 

Understand ? [somehow I doubt it very much that you will or admit you do]

 

So for those left with half a brain...........

 

If you think that Shepherd was clueless and s****, then what does that make the major shareholders for putting him in charge of their multi million pound business without having any input ?

 

For those who are still left with more than half a brain........consider this........who is going to say the new owner of the club will match their first 5 years against the first 5 years of the old owners/major shareholder  , with the same manager ?

 

Any takers ?

 

 

 

Your first question: That is why refer to the "old board" rather than singling out Shepherd.

 

Second question: Different environment in the footballing world this time around, so you can't expect the same results.

 

Now answer Ozzie's sodding question!

 

At least you have had the bottle to reply, unlike some others I suspect. Its not an answer though. My reply is that, as I said, you have to put the owners against the owners. Do YOU think the new owner will match the old owners first 5 years, with the same manager

 

Answer the question.

 

 

 

I answered the question.

 

Last time, there was less money in the game, and the league remained very domestic. It was easy for Newcastle to sign Ginola. If a Ginola became available today, we would find ourselves behind many other clubs just due to the changes in the ways transfers are conducted these days. Furthermore, if a club looked like breaking the top four monopoly, that club could spend £40m on three players to keep themselves there, and we couldn't compete.

 

So the answer is no, but you can't blame the owners for the changing football environment.

 

two out of two admit that Ashley isn't going to match the last owners with the same manager .

 

Any more ?

 

 

are you going to carry it on to its logical conclusion........ do you think NUFC under ashley will do better than NUFC the previous 2 years and do you think he'll appoint managers like souness,roeder and allardyce ?

 

 

fwiw the same manager bit is a bit disingenuous as both you and i know the difference between the keegan of then and now.

[OzzieMandias]

"No man may step into the same river twice, for it is no longer the same river, and he is no longer the same man." (Herodotus)

[madras]

"No man may step into the same river twice, for it is no longer the same river, and he is no longer the same man." (Herodotus)

was it not grasshopper ?

[polpolpol]

"No man may step into the same river twice, for it is no longer the same river, and he is no longer the same man." (Herodotus)

 

 

Close: Heraclitus the Obscure

[OzzieMandias]

Doh.

 

As long as it wasn't Stephen Spence. 

[ChezGiven]

obscurantism over the clubs internal structure and no explication of a strategic plan.

 

Thats fucking genius 

 

[Kitman]

obscurantism over the clubs internal structure and no explication of a strategic plan.

 

Thats f***ing genius 

 

 

I suspect this poster is really Jonathan Miller.......

[ChezGiven]

obscurantism over the clubs internal structure and no explication of a strategic plan.

 

Thats f***ing genius 

 

 

I suspect this poster is really Jonathan Miller.......

 

Sounds like fucking Sienna Miller, the fancy twat.

[Kitman]

obscurantism over the clubs internal structure and no explication of a strategic plan.

 

Thats f***ing genius 

 

 

I suspect this poster is really Jonathan Miller.......

 

Sounds like f***ing Sienna Miller, the fancy t***.

 

Now there's an interesting thought 

[ChezGiven]

obscurantism over the clubs internal structure and no explication of a strategic plan.

 

Thats f***ing genius 

 

 

I suspect this poster is really Jonathan Miller.......

 

Sounds like f***ing Sienna Miller, the fancy t***.

 

Now there's an interesting thought 

 

Indeed. How's life on t'other side of world?

[Kitman]

obscurantism over the clubs internal structure and no explication of a strategic plan.

 

Thats f***ing genius 

 

 

I suspect this poster is really Jonathan Miller.......

 

Sounds like f***ing Sienna Miller, the fancy t***.

 

Now there's an interesting thought 

 

Indeed. How's life on t'other side of world?

 

Ee not bad thanks mate.  Working my arse off so not much spare time (looking at this on my lunch break believe it or not)......winter weather here so not missing much.  How're you going - did you move jobs in the end?