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

[NE5]

Don't be silly madras, you're not allowed to think that things weren't going well without automatically also thinking that Shepherd was the worst chairman ever etc. There's absolutely no 'in between', you should know this by now.

 

don't be silly Dave, you're only allowed to comment on things if you make out the board were the worst ever that ever ran a football  club. There's absolutely no "in between", you should know this by now.

 

 

 

Do you even understand the point I was making there? Because it appears not.

 

Despite my numerous attempts to put across the bigger picture in terms of the history of the club, it seems that you don't understand, don't want to, as do lots of other people. So long as people agree with you, its alright to comment ?

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

I don't care how you guys want to argue it out but if there is no decent end-result after a certain period of time, say 3 - 5 years, then the previous board is no longer efficient and effective. What the previous board have done/achieved previously is in the past. There is no room for sentimental values. Sentimental values are left in the trophy room and that is all.

 

5 years, 02-07:

 

3 years in the PL top 7.

4 years in Europe.

CL 2n'd group stage

UEFA cup last 8, quarter-final, semi-final

FAC quarter-final & semi-final

Intertoto cup winners

 

Not good enough. Good luck Mike.

 

I bet some people will still argue ........

 

 

[NE5]

 

they have a bigger turnover so can afford to finance more debt.

 

 

They have a bigger turnover mostly because they are regularly in the CL. What happens when (not if btw) that stops?

 

Edit: They currently have a £300m debt which costs over £20m/year to service. Their wage bill is around £15m more than ours (probably more now). On a good year for them, and a poor year for us, they make around £30m more than us. How come they're fine but we were in financial meltdown.

 

it doesn't matter what the reason is for thir larger turnover. and my guess is that if they went a couple of yeras outside the champs league they would stop spending the way they have been.

 

 

please point out where i said we were in "financial meltdown". all i've ever stated is that  we couldn't keep on racking up debt the way we were.

 

so you don't think "financial meltdown" means going bust then ?

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Hey, NE5, here's a simple yes/no question to make you dance around in avoidance:

 

Do you honestly think that Shepherd was about to get us back into CL contention?

[Ericz]

Mr. NE5 is avoiding my questions. Can I seek Mr. NE5 to explain himself since he appears to be the member in question?

 

In my humble opinion, he appears to be selecting those questions which he is able to answer and which put him in a more favourable position than questions which is unfavourable to his stand. Or maybe I could be wrong and he merely overlooked my questions accidentally. In that case, I sincerely apologise and hope that he will be able to provide me with the answers to the respective questions.

 

More importantly,

 

"In any case, the issue is done and dusted. The old board is gone and what remains is the new board. What matters now is the new board. You can choose to reminiscence and live in the past if you want to. Tell me, by you valiantly defending the previous board like that and maligning the new board, are you helping the current Newcastle United situation? Are you trying to dis-harmonise the support for the new board? or are you intentionally creating more controversies for the new board and in turn Newcastle United? What is your motive? Does buying the season ticket necessarily relates to supporting the club? And who knows whether have you genuinely bought them. Everybody can say he/she have renewed their tickets.

 

Explain your motives for valiantly defending the previous board and maligning the current newly takeover board, in turn attempting to dis-harmonise confidence in the current board and at the expense of the club itself."

 

NE5, what successes/progressions has the previous board brought in the past 3 - 5 years?

 

And overall, is the successes/progressions on par value with the other clubs?

 

Tottenham appointed Martin Jol and eventually Juan de Ramos, Liverpool appointed Raffael Benitez, Chelsea appointed Jose Mourinho... who did the previous board appoint? *say their names out loudly*

 

 

I don't care how you guys want to argue it out but if there is no decent end-result after a certain period of time, say 3 - 5 years, then the previous board is no longer efficient and effective. What the previous board have done/achieved previously is in the past. There is no room for sentimental values. Sentimental values are left in the trophy room and that is all.

 

They might have run out of ideas, they might have fail to adapt to today's world, sticking with their old methods of doing things, they might not have go on to upgrade their knowledge and themselves. Either way, it doesn't matter anymore. If something is inefficient and ineffective, it's time for a change. That is how the world goes today and how business goes today. We change and upgrade anything that is inefficient and ineffective. The same applies to players, manager and the board.

 

As for the new board, if there's no successes/progressions over the next 3 - 5 years. I will say the same things too.

 

In any case, the issue is done and dusted. The old board is gone and what remains is the new board. What matters now is the new board. You can choose to reminiscence and live in the past if you want to. Tell me, by you valiantly defending the previous board like that and maligning the new board, are you helping the current Newcastle United situation? Are you trying to dis-harmonise the support for the new board? or are you intentionally creating more controversies for the new board and in turn Newcastle United? What is your motive? Does buying the season ticket necessarily relates to supporting the club? And who knows whether have you genuinely bought them. Everybody can say he/she have renewed their tickets.

 

Explain your motives for valiantly defending the previous board and maligning the current newly takeover board, in turn attempting to dis-harmonise confidence in the current board and at the expense of the club itself.

[NE5]

Mr. NE5 is avoiding my questions. Can I seek Mr. NE5 to explain himself since he appears to be the member in question?

 

In my humble opinion, he appears to be selecting those questions which he is able to answer and which put him in a more favourable position than questions which is unfavourable to his stand. Or maybe I could be wrong and he merely overlooked my questions accidentally. In that case, I sincerely apologise and hope that he will be able to provide me with the answers to the respective questions.

 

More importantly,

 

"In any case, the issue is done and dusted. The old board is gone and what remains is the new board. What matters now is the new board. You can choose to reminiscence and live in the past if you want to. Tell me, by you valiantly defending the previous board like that and maligning the new board, are you helping the current Newcastle United situation? Are you trying to dis-harmonise the support for the new board? or are you intentionally creating more controversies for the new board and in turn Newcastle United? What is your motive? Does buying the season ticket necessarily relates to supporting the club? And who knows whether have you genuinely bought them. Everybody can say he/she have renewed their tickets.

 

Explain your motives for valiantly defending the previous board and maligning the current newly takeover board, in turn attempting to dis-harmonise confidence in the current board and at the expense of the club itself."

 

NE5, what successes/progressions has the previous board brought in the past 3 - 5 years?

 

And overall, is the successes/progressions on par value with the other clubs?

 

Tottenham appointed Martin Jol and eventually Juan de Ramos, Liverpool appointed Raffael Benitez, Chelsea appointed Jose Mourinho... who did the previous board appoint? *say their names out loudly*

 

 

I don't care how you guys want to argue it out but if there is no decent end-result after a certain period of time, say 3 - 5 years, then the previous board is no longer efficient and effective. What the previous board have done/achieved previously is in the past. There is no room for sentimental values. Sentimental values are left in the trophy room and that is all.

 

They might have run out of ideas, they might have fail to adapt to today's world, sticking with their old methods of doing things, they might not have go on to upgrade their knowledge and themselves. Either way, it doesn't matter anymore. If something is inefficient and ineffective, it's time for a change. That is how the world goes today and how business goes today. We change and upgrade anything that is inefficient and ineffective. The same applies to players, manager and the board.

 

As for the new board, if there's no successes/progressions over the next 3 - 5 years. I will say the same things too.

 

In any case, the issue is done and dusted. The old board is gone and what remains is the new board. What matters now is the new board. You can choose to reminiscence and live in the past if you want to. Tell me, by you valiantly defending the previous board like that and maligning the new board, are you helping the current Newcastle United situation? Are you trying to dis-harmonise the support for the new board? or are you intentionally creating more controversies for the new board and in turn Newcastle United? What is your motive? Does buying the season ticket necessarily relates to supporting the club? And who knows whether have you genuinely bought them. Everybody can say he/she have renewed their tickets.

 

Explain your motives for valiantly defending the previous board and maligning the current newly takeover board, in turn attempting to dis-harmonise confidence in the current board and at the expense of the club itself.

 

sigh.

 

what we say on here has absolutely jack shit effect on the club mate.

 

I have never said that the old board didn't make any mistakes by the way, but as UV says, there are plenty of people attempting to say they never did anything right. Your reference to a lack of trophies demonstrates how expectations and standards have been raised during their time in charge by the way.

 

Anyway, it is not my wish to offend some people by the simple and hideous crime of simply disagreeing with them, so I'll leave it there.

 

What a shame some good posters have left this board, we used to have good discussions about things like this.

 

 

 

[James]

Hey, NE5, here's a simple yes/no question to make you dance around in avoidance:

 

Do you honestly think that Shepherd was about to get us back into CL contention?

[Guest johnson293]

Mr. NE5 is avoiding my questions. Can I seek Mr. NE5 to explain himself since he appears to be the member in question?

 

In my humble opinion, he appears to be selecting those questions which he is able to answer and which put him in a more favourable position than questions which is unfavourable to his stand. Or maybe I could be wrong and he merely overlooked my questions accidentally. In that case, I sincerely apologise and hope that he will be able to provide me with the answers to the respective questions.

 

More importantly,

 

"In any case, the issue is done and dusted. The old board is gone and what remains is the new board. What matters now is the new board. You can choose to reminiscence and live in the past if you want to. Tell me, by you valiantly defending the previous board like that and maligning the new board, are you helping the current Newcastle United situation? Are you trying to dis-harmonise the support for the new board? or are you intentionally creating more controversies for the new board and in turn Newcastle United? What is your motive? Does buying the season ticket necessarily relates to supporting the club? And who knows whether have you genuinely bought them. Everybody can say he/she have renewed their tickets.

 

Explain your motives for valiantly defending the previous board and maligning the current newly takeover board, in turn attempting to dis-harmonise confidence in the current board and at the expense of the club itself."

 

NE5, what successes/progressions has the previous board brought in the past 3 - 5 years?

 

And overall, is the successes/progressions on par value with the other clubs?

 

Tottenham appointed Martin Jol and eventually Juan de Ramos, Liverpool appointed Raffael Benitez, Chelsea appointed Jose Mourinho... who did the previous board appoint? *say their names out loudly*

 

 

I don't care how you guys want to argue it out but if there is no decent end-result after a certain period of time, say 3 - 5 years, then the previous board is no longer efficient and effective. What the previous board have done/achieved previously is in the past. There is no room for sentimental values. Sentimental values are left in the trophy room and that is all.

 

They might have run out of ideas, they might have fail to adapt to today's world, sticking with their old methods of doing things, they might not have go on to upgrade their knowledge and themselves. Either way, it doesn't matter anymore. If something is inefficient and ineffective, it's time for a change. That is how the world goes today and how business goes today. We change and upgrade anything that is inefficient and ineffective. The same applies to players, manager and the board.

 

As for the new board, if there's no successes/progressions over the next 3 - 5 years. I will say the same things too.

 

In any case, the issue is done and dusted. The old board is gone and what remains is the new board. What matters now is the new board. You can choose to reminiscence and live in the past if you want to. Tell me, by you valiantly defending the previous board like that and maligning the new board, are you helping the current Newcastle United situation? Are you trying to dis-harmonise the support for the new board? or are you intentionally creating more controversies for the new board and in turn Newcastle United? What is your motive? Does buying the season ticket necessarily relates to supporting the club? And who knows whether have you genuinely bought them. Everybody can say he/she have renewed their tickets.

 

Explain your motives for valiantly defending the previous board and maligning the current newly takeover board, in turn attempting to dis-harmonise confidence in the current board and at the expense of the club itself.

 

sigh.

 

what we say on here has absolutely jack s*** effect on the club mate.

 

I have never said that the old board didn't make any mistakes by the way, but as UV says, there are plenty of people attempting to say they never did anything right. Your reference to a lack of trophies demonstrates how expectations and standards have been raised during their time in charge by the way.

 

Anyway, it is not my wish to offend some people by the simple and hideous crime of simply disagreeing with them, so I'll leave it there.

 

What a shame some good posters have left this board, we used to have good discussions about things like this.

 

 

 

 

Nicely dodged - you still didn't answer any of the questions he (Ericz) asked!

[Shak]

I have never said that the old board didn't make any mistakes by the way, but as UV says, there are plenty of people attempting to say they never did anything right. Your reference to a lack of trophies demonstrates how expectations and standards have been raised during their time in charge by the way.

 

The point Dave was making I believe was that you have a tendency to lump in anyone who criticises the old board in any way at all with the few, and its a very small few from what I've seen, who do fail to give them any credit whatsoever for anything.

 

My opinion of the old board/Shepherd was that their hearts were in the right place, they were genuinely trying to take the club forward, but their decision making at key times in their latter years of power seemed to indicate that they were always likely to struggle to get us there.

 

I reckon quite a few share this opinion, and its very unfair to lump in anyone who does with the very few who fail to give them any credit whatsoever.

 

Given the size of the club, it's reasonable to argue that there's nothing really stopping us from getting up among the top teams in the country again. Except, of course, how the club is run by those in charge.

 

So for that reason I think people were happy to see a change at board level. Is the new board in any way gauranteed to be better? Not at all. But my feeling was that Shepherd's reign had run its course, and while nobody is denying there were some good times in there I do believe we'd gone as far as we were ever going to under him.

 

So people are generally optimistic about having someone new in charge, and are waiting to see what happens. If they do a shite job and in a couple of years we're still stranded in mid-table, then you can bet that they won't be popular on here. But surely the deserve a fair chance first? And surely people don't deserve to be attacked for giving them that chance?

[NE5]

Mr. NE5 is avoiding my questions. Can I seek Mr. NE5 to explain himself since he appears to be the member in question?

 

In my humble opinion, he appears to be selecting those questions which he is able to answer and which put him in a more favourable position than questions which is unfavourable to his stand. Or maybe I could be wrong and he merely overlooked my questions accidentally. In that case, I sincerely apologise and hope that he will be able to provide me with the answers to the respective questions.

 

More importantly,

 

"In any case, the issue is done and dusted. The old board is gone and what remains is the new board. What matters now is the new board. You can choose to reminiscence and live in the past if you want to. Tell me, by you valiantly defending the previous board like that and maligning the new board, are you helping the current Newcastle United situation? Are you trying to dis-harmonise the support for the new board? or are you intentionally creating more controversies for the new board and in turn Newcastle United? What is your motive? Does buying the season ticket necessarily relates to supporting the club? And who knows whether have you genuinely bought them. Everybody can say he/she have renewed their tickets.

 

Explain your motives for valiantly defending the previous board and maligning the current newly takeover board, in turn attempting to dis-harmonise confidence in the current board and at the expense of the club itself."

 

NE5, what successes/progressions has the previous board brought in the past 3 - 5 years?

 

And overall, is the successes/progressions on par value with the other clubs?

 

Tottenham appointed Martin Jol and eventually Juan de Ramos, Liverpool appointed Raffael Benitez, Chelsea appointed Jose Mourinho... who did the previous board appoint? *say their names out loudly*

 

 

I don't care how you guys want to argue it out but if there is no decent end-result after a certain period of time, say 3 - 5 years, then the previous board is no longer efficient and effective. What the previous board have done/achieved previously is in the past. There is no room for sentimental values. Sentimental values are left in the trophy room and that is all.

 

They might have run out of ideas, they might have fail to adapt to today's world, sticking with their old methods of doing things, they might not have go on to upgrade their knowledge and themselves. Either way, it doesn't matter anymore. If something is inefficient and ineffective, it's time for a change. That is how the world goes today and how business goes today. We change and upgrade anything that is inefficient and ineffective. The same applies to players, manager and the board.

 

As for the new board, if there's no successes/progressions over the next 3 - 5 years. I will say the same things too.

 

In any case, the issue is done and dusted. The old board is gone and what remains is the new board. What matters now is the new board. You can choose to reminiscence and live in the past if you want to. Tell me, by you valiantly defending the previous board like that and maligning the new board, are you helping the current Newcastle United situation? Are you trying to dis-harmonise the support for the new board? or are you intentionally creating more controversies for the new board and in turn Newcastle United? What is your motive? Does buying the season ticket necessarily relates to supporting the club? And who knows whether have you genuinely bought them. Everybody can say he/she have renewed their tickets.

 

Explain your motives for valiantly defending the previous board and maligning the current newly takeover board, in turn attempting to dis-harmonise confidence in the current board and at the expense of the club itself.

 

sigh.

 

what we say on here has absolutely jack s*** effect on the club mate.

 

I have never said that the old board didn't make any mistakes by the way, but as UV says, there are plenty of people attempting to say they never did anything right. Your reference to a lack of trophies demonstrates how expectations and standards have been raised during their time in charge by the way.

 

Anyway, it is not my wish to offend some people by the simple and hideous crime of simply disagreeing with them, so I'll leave it there.

 

What a shame some good posters have left this board, we used to have good discussions about things like this.

 

 

 

 

Nicely dodged - you still didn't answer any of the questions he (Ericz) asked!

 

its all been said before. I can't be arsed.

 

 

[NE5]

I have never said that the old board didn't make any mistakes by the way, but as UV says, there are plenty of people attempting to say they never did anything right. Your reference to a lack of trophies demonstrates how expectations and standards have been raised during their time in charge by the way.

 

The point Dave was making I believe was that you have a tendency to lump in anyone who criticises the old board in any way at all with the few, and its a very small few from what I've seen, who do fail to give them any credit whatsoever for anything.

 

My opinion of the old board/Shepherd was that their hearts were in the right place, they were genuinely trying to take the club forward, but their decision making at key times in their latter years of power seemed to indicate that they were always likely to struggle to get us there.

 

I reckon quite a few share this opinion, and its very unfair to lump in anyone who does with the very few who fail to give them any credit whatsoever.

 

Given the size of the club, it's reasonable to argue that there's nothing really stopping us from getting up among the top teams in the country again. Except, of course, how the club is run by those in charge.

 

So for that reason I think people were happy to see a change at board level. Is the new board in any way gauranteed to be better? Not at all. But my feeling was that Shepherd's reign had run its course, and while nobody is denying there were some good times in there I do believe we'd gone as far as we were ever going to under him.

 

So people are generally optimistic about having someone new in charge, and are waiting to see what happens. If they do a shite job and in a couple of years we're still stranded in mid-table, then you can bet that they won't be popular on here. But surely the deserve a fair chance first? And surely people don't deserve to be attacked for giving them that chance?

 

I'm not disagreeing, my take was always with the people who thought anyone would be an automatic improvement. Clearly bollocks.

 

They did well. Replacing with better would be not easy. Maybe now some can see this [but won't admit it]

 

 

[Dave]

I have never said that the old board didn't make any mistakes by the way, but as UV says, there are plenty of people attempting to say they never did anything right. Your reference to a lack of trophies demonstrates how expectations and standards have been raised during their time in charge by the way.

 

The point Dave was making I believe was that you have a tendency to lump in anyone who criticises the old board in any way at all with the few, and its a very small few from what I've seen, who do fail to give them any credit whatsoever for anything.

 

My opinion of the old board/Shepherd was that their hearts were in the right place, they were genuinely trying to take the club forward, but their decision making at key times in their latter years of power seemed to indicate that they were always likely to struggle to get us there.

 

I reckon quite a few share this opinion, and its very unfair to lump in anyone who does with the very few who fail to give them any credit whatsoever.

 

Given the size of the club, it's reasonable to argue that there's nothing really stopping us from getting up among the top teams in the country again. Except, of course, how the club is run by those in charge.

 

So for that reason I think people were happy to see a change at board level. Is the new board in any way gauranteed to be better? Not at all. But my feeling was that Shepherd's reign had run its course, and while nobody is denying there were some good times in there I do believe we'd gone as far as we were ever going to under him.

 

So people are generally optimistic about having someone new in charge, and are waiting to see what happens. If they do a shite job and in a couple of years we're still stranded in mid-table, then you can bet that they won't be popular on here. But surely the deserve a fair chance first? And surely people don't deserve to be attacked for giving them that chance?

 

Good post. The bit in bold is EXACTLY what I meant.

 

The previous board did several things excellently. I don't have a problem with acknowledging what they did well. They quite obviously weren't 'the worst board ever', what a ridiculous thing that would be to say.

 

They did, however, also screw some things up royally and we were due for a change. Will it 'automatically be an improvement'? Of course not. But who has actually said they thought it would be better by default? Nobody that I can remember, it's a strawman argument used time and time again.

 

To wit:

 

Old board - did well most of the time, fucked some key things up.

New board - barely had a chance yet, let's see in a few years how well they're fairing.

[NE5]

I have never said that the old board didn't make any mistakes by the way, but as UV says, there are plenty of people attempting to say they never did anything right. Your reference to a lack of trophies demonstrates how expectations and standards have been raised during their time in charge by the way.

 

The point Dave was making I believe was that you have a tendency to lump in anyone who criticises the old board in any way at all with the few, and its a very small few from what I've seen, who do fail to give them any credit whatsoever for anything.

 

My opinion of the old board/Shepherd was that their hearts were in the right place, they were genuinely trying to take the club forward, but their decision making at key times in their latter years of power seemed to indicate that they were always likely to struggle to get us there.

 

I reckon quite a few share this opinion, and its very unfair to lump in anyone who does with the very few who fail to give them any credit whatsoever.

 

Given the size of the club, it's reasonable to argue that there's nothing really stopping us from getting up among the top teams in the country again. Except, of course, how the club is run by those in charge.

 

So for that reason I think people were happy to see a change at board level. Is the new board in any way gauranteed to be better? Not at all. But my feeling was that Shepherd's reign had run its course, and while nobody is denying there were some good times in there I do believe we'd gone as far as we were ever going to under him.

 

So people are generally optimistic about having someone new in charge, and are waiting to see what happens. If they do a shite job and in a couple of years we're still stranded in mid-table, then you can bet that they won't be popular on here. But surely the deserve a fair chance first? And surely people don't deserve to be attacked for giving them that chance?

 

Good post. The bit in bold is EXACTLY what I meant.

 

The previous board did several things excellently. I don't have a problem with acknowledging what they did well. They quite obviously weren't 'the worst board ever', what a ridiculous thing that would be to say.

 

They did, however, also screw some things up royally and we were due for a change. Will it 'automatically be an improvement'? Of course not. But who has actually said they thought it would be better by default? Nobody that I can remember, it's a strawman argument used time and time again.

 

To wit:

 

Old board - did well most of the time, fucked some key things up.

New board - barely had a chance yet, let's see in a few years how well they're fairing.

 

complete tripe.

 

Lots of people said they just wanted rid of them, and anytime at all any names were mentioned, even that hedge fund, they were all in favour.

 

Lots of people.

 

Selective memory or what.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter. It seems that some people are now coming over to what some of the better posters used to tell you, you know those that have gone from the board, for one reason or another.

 

 

 

 

[Shearergol]

I have never said that the old board didn't make any mistakes by the way, but as UV says, there are plenty of people attempting to say they never did anything right. Your reference to a lack of trophies demonstrates how expectations and standards have been raised during their time in charge by the way.

 

The point Dave was making I believe was that you have a tendency to lump in anyone who criticises the old board in any way at all with the few, and its a very small few from what I've seen, who do fail to give them any credit whatsoever for anything.

 

My opinion of the old board/Shepherd was that their hearts were in the right place, they were genuinely trying to take the club forward, but their decision making at key times in their latter years of power seemed to indicate that they were always likely to struggle to get us there.

 

I reckon quite a few share this opinion, and its very unfair to lump in anyone who does with the very few who fail to give them any credit whatsoever.

 

Given the size of the club, it's reasonable to argue that there's nothing really stopping us from getting up among the top teams in the country again. Except, of course, how the club is run by those in charge.

 

So for that reason I think people were happy to see a change at board level. Is the new board in any way gauranteed to be better? Not at all. But my feeling was that Shepherd's reign had run its course, and while nobody is denying there were some good times in there I do believe we'd gone as far as we were ever going to under him.

 

So people are generally optimistic about having someone new in charge, and are waiting to see what happens. If they do a shite job and in a couple of years we're still stranded in mid-table, then you can bet that they won't be popular on here. But surely the deserve a fair chance first? And surely people don't deserve to be attacked for giving them that chance?

 

Good post. The bit in bold is EXACTLY what I meant.

 

The previous board did several things excellently. I don't have a problem with acknowledging what they did well. They quite obviously weren't 'the worst board ever', what a ridiculous thing that would be to say.

 

They did, however, also screw some things up royally and we were due for a change. Will it 'automatically be an improvement'? Of course not. But who has actually said they thought it would be better by default? Nobody that I can remember, it's a strawman argument used time and time again.

 

To wit:

 

Old board - did well most of the time, fucked some key things up.

New board - barely had a chance yet, let's see in a few years how well they're fairing.

 

complete tripe.

 

Lots of people said they just wanted rid of them, and anytime at all any names were mentioned, even that hedge fund, they were all in favour.

 

Lots of people.

 

Selective memory or what.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter. It seems that some people are now coming over to what some of the better posters used to tell you, you know those that have gone from the board, for one reason or another.

 

 

 

 

 

Gemmill and Alex?

[NE5]

I have never said that the old board didn't make any mistakes by the way, but as UV says, there are plenty of people attempting to say they never did anything right. Your reference to a lack of trophies demonstrates how expectations and standards have been raised during their time in charge by the way.

 

The point Dave was making I believe was that you have a tendency to lump in anyone who criticises the old board in any way at all with the few, and its a very small few from what I've seen, who do fail to give them any credit whatsoever for anything.

 

My opinion of the old board/Shepherd was that their hearts were in the right place, they were genuinely trying to take the club forward, but their decision making at key times in their latter years of power seemed to indicate that they were always likely to struggle to get us there.

 

I reckon quite a few share this opinion, and its very unfair to lump in anyone who does with the very few who fail to give them any credit whatsoever.

 

Given the size of the club, it's reasonable to argue that there's nothing really stopping us from getting up among the top teams in the country again. Except, of course, how the club is run by those in charge.

 

So for that reason I think people were happy to see a change at board level. Is the new board in any way gauranteed to be better? Not at all. But my feeling was that Shepherd's reign had run its course, and while nobody is denying there were some good times in there I do believe we'd gone as far as we were ever going to under him.

 

So people are generally optimistic about having someone new in charge, and are waiting to see what happens. If they do a shite job and in a couple of years we're still stranded in mid-table, then you can bet that they won't be popular on here. But surely the deserve a fair chance first? And surely people don't deserve to be attacked for giving them that chance?

 

Good post. The bit in bold is EXACTLY what I meant.

 

The previous board did several things excellently. I don't have a problem with acknowledging what they did well. They quite obviously weren't 'the worst board ever', what a ridiculous thing that would be to say.

 

They did, however, also screw some things up royally and we were due for a change. Will it 'automatically be an improvement'? Of course not. But who has actually said they thought it would be better by default? Nobody that I can remember, it's a strawman argument used time and time again.

 

To wit:

 

Old board - did well most of the time, fucked some key things up.

New board - barely had a chance yet, let's see in a few years how well they're fairing.

 

complete tripe.

 

Lots of people said they just wanted rid of them, and anytime at all any names were mentioned, even that hedge fund, they were all in favour.

 

Lots of people.

 

Selective memory or what.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter. It seems that some people are now coming over to what some of the better posters used to tell you, you know those that have gone from the board, for one reason or another.

 

 

 

 

 

Gemmill and Alex?

 

i didn't mean you 

[Shearergol]

I have never said that the old board didn't make any mistakes by the way, but as UV says, there are plenty of people attempting to say they never did anything right. Your reference to a lack of trophies demonstrates how expectations and standards have been raised during their time in charge by the way.

 

The point Dave was making I believe was that you have a tendency to lump in anyone who criticises the old board in any way at all with the few, and its a very small few from what I've seen, who do fail to give them any credit whatsoever for anything.

 

My opinion of the old board/Shepherd was that their hearts were in the right place, they were genuinely trying to take the club forward, but their decision making at key times in their latter years of power seemed to indicate that they were always likely to struggle to get us there.

 

I reckon quite a few share this opinion, and its very unfair to lump in anyone who does with the very few who fail to give them any credit whatsoever.

 

Given the size of the club, it's reasonable to argue that there's nothing really stopping us from getting up among the top teams in the country again. Except, of course, how the club is run by those in charge.

 

So for that reason I think people were happy to see a change at board level. Is the new board in any way gauranteed to be better? Not at all. But my feeling was that Shepherd's reign had run its course, and while nobody is denying there were some good times in there I do believe we'd gone as far as we were ever going to under him.

 

So people are generally optimistic about having someone new in charge, and are waiting to see what happens. If they do a shite job and in a couple of years we're still stranded in mid-table, then you can bet that they won't be popular on here. But surely the deserve a fair chance first? And surely people don't deserve to be attacked for giving them that chance?

 

Good post. The bit in bold is EXACTLY what I meant.

 

The previous board did several things excellently. I don't have a problem with acknowledging what they did well. They quite obviously weren't 'the worst board ever', what a ridiculous thing that would be to say.

 

They did, however, also screw some things up royally and we were due for a change. Will it 'automatically be an improvement'? Of course not. But who has actually said they thought it would be better by default? Nobody that I can remember, it's a strawman argument used time and time again.

 

To wit:

 

Old board - did well most of the time, fucked some key things up.

New board - barely had a chance yet, let's see in a few years how well they're fairing.

 

complete tripe.

 

Lots of people said they just wanted rid of them, and anytime at all any names were mentioned, even that hedge fund, they were all in favour.

 

Lots of people.

 

Selective memory or what.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter. It seems that some people are now coming over to what some of the better posters used to tell you, you know those that have gone from the board, for one reason or another.

 

 

 

 

 

Gemmill and Alex?

 

i didn't mean you 

 

Well, clearly. That wouldn't make sense, seeing as I've gone nowhere.

[James]

NE5, you are obsessed with the old board. You have nothing else to say, so I won't ask.

[NE5]

I have never said that the old board didn't make any mistakes by the way, but as UV says, there are plenty of people attempting to say they never did anything right. Your reference to a lack of trophies demonstrates how expectations and standards have been raised during their time in charge by the way.

 

The point Dave was making I believe was that you have a tendency to lump in anyone who criticises the old board in any way at all with the few, and its a very small few from what I've seen, who do fail to give them any credit whatsoever for anything.

 

My opinion of the old board/Shepherd was that their hearts were in the right place, they were genuinely trying to take the club forward, but their decision making at key times in their latter years of power seemed to indicate that they were always likely to struggle to get us there.

 

I reckon quite a few share this opinion, and its very unfair to lump in anyone who does with the very few who fail to give them any credit whatsoever.

 

Given the size of the club, it's reasonable to argue that there's nothing really stopping us from getting up among the top teams in the country again. Except, of course, how the club is run by those in charge.

 

So for that reason I think people were happy to see a change at board level. Is the new board in any way gauranteed to be better? Not at all. But my feeling was that Shepherd's reign had run its course, and while nobody is denying there were some good times in there I do believe we'd gone as far as we were ever going to under him.

 

So people are generally optimistic about having someone new in charge, and are waiting to see what happens. If they do a shite job and in a couple of years we're still stranded in mid-table, then you can bet that they won't be popular on here. But surely the deserve a fair chance first? And surely people don't deserve to be attacked for giving them that chance?

 

Good post. The bit in bold is EXACTLY what I meant.

 

The previous board did several things excellently. I don't have a problem with acknowledging what they did well. They quite obviously weren't 'the worst board ever', what a ridiculous thing that would be to say.

 

They did, however, also screw some things up royally and we were due for a change. Will it 'automatically be an improvement'? Of course not. But who has actually said they thought it would be better by default? Nobody that I can remember, it's a strawman argument used time and time again.

 

To wit:

 

Old board - did well most of the time, fucked some key things up.

New board - barely had a chance yet, let's see in a few years how well they're fairing.

 

complete tripe.

 

Lots of people said they just wanted rid of them, and anytime at all any names were mentioned, even that hedge fund, they were all in favour.

 

Lots of people.

 

Selective memory or what.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter. It seems that some people are now coming over to what some of the better posters used to tell you, you know those that have gone from the board, for one reason or another.

 

 

 

 

 

Gemmill and Alex?

 

i didn't mean you 

 

Well, clearly. That wouldn't make sense, seeing as I've gone nowhere.

 

is the correct answer !!!

 

If you qualified ........ 

 

Wonder how many others will leave

[James]

I have never said that the old board didn't make any mistakes by the way, but as UV says, there are plenty of people attempting to say they never did anything right. Your reference to a lack of trophies demonstrates how expectations and standards have been raised during their time in charge by the way.

 

The point Dave was making I believe was that you have a tendency to lump in anyone who criticises the old board in any way at all with the few, and its a very small few from what I've seen, who do fail to give them any credit whatsoever for anything.

 

My opinion of the old board/Shepherd was that their hearts were in the right place, they were genuinely trying to take the club forward, but their decision making at key times in their latter years of power seemed to indicate that they were always likely to struggle to get us there.

 

I reckon quite a few share this opinion, and its very unfair to lump in anyone who does with the very few who fail to give them any credit whatsoever.

 

Given the size of the club, it's reasonable to argue that there's nothing really stopping us from getting up among the top teams in the country again. Except, of course, how the club is run by those in charge.

 

So for that reason I think people were happy to see a change at board level. Is the new board in any way gauranteed to be better? Not at all. But my feeling was that Shepherd's reign had run its course, and while nobody is denying there were some good times in there I do believe we'd gone as far as we were ever going to under him.

 

So people are generally optimistic about having someone new in charge, and are waiting to see what happens. If they do a shite job and in a couple of years we're still stranded in mid-table, then you can bet that they won't be popular on here. But surely the deserve a fair chance first? And surely people don't deserve to be attacked for giving them that chance?

 

Good post. The bit in bold is EXACTLY what I meant.

 

The previous board did several things excellently. I don't have a problem with acknowledging what they did well. They quite obviously weren't 'the worst board ever', what a ridiculous thing that would be to say.

 

They did, however, also screw some things up royally and we were due for a change. Will it 'automatically be an improvement'? Of course not. But who has actually said they thought it would be better by default? Nobody that I can remember, it's a strawman argument used time and time again.

 

To wit:

 

Old board - did well most of the time, fucked some key things up.

New board - barely had a chance yet, let's see in a few years how well they're fairing.

 

complete tripe.

 

Lots of people said they just wanted rid of them, and anytime at all any names were mentioned, even that hedge fund, they were all in favour.

 

Lots of people.

 

Selective memory or what.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter. It seems that some people are now coming over to what some of the better posters used to tell you, you know those that have gone from the board, for one reason or another.

 

 

 

 

 

Gemmill and Alex?

 

i didn't mean you 

 

Well, clearly. That wouldn't make sense, seeing as I've gone nowhere.

 

is the correct answer !!!

 

If you qualified ........ 

 

Wonder how many others will leave

 

Yes NE5. The departure of members from this forum has everything to do with the change from the old board to the new board. Well let me tell you something. In the last five years, this board has done better than the other boards such as http://z3.invisionfree.com/NUFCforum/index.php?act=idx and www.toontastic.com. What do you say to that eh? eh?

[OzzieMandias]

Hey, NE5, here's a simple yes/no question to make you dance around in avoidance:

 

Do you honestly think that Shepherd was about to get us back into CL contention?

[Mowen]

I would say my hindsight view of that board is loosely similar to that of Bobby. Revitalised the club, made us challenge again with the odd cock-up and error of judgement along the way but by the time they left it seemed sadly clear that they were ultimately starting to take the club in a downwards direction again. I hope the board have been replaced by better people than SBR was.

[Dave]

I have never said that the old board didn't make any mistakes by the way, but as UV says, there are plenty of people attempting to say they never did anything right. Your reference to a lack of trophies demonstrates how expectations and standards have been raised during their time in charge by the way.

 

The point Dave was making I believe was that you have a tendency to lump in anyone who criticises the old board in any way at all with the few, and its a very small few from what I've seen, who do fail to give them any credit whatsoever for anything.

 

My opinion of the old board/Shepherd was that their hearts were in the right place, they were genuinely trying to take the club forward, but their decision making at key times in their latter years of power seemed to indicate that they were always likely to struggle to get us there.

 

I reckon quite a few share this opinion, and its very unfair to lump in anyone who does with the very few who fail to give them any credit whatsoever.

 

Given the size of the club, it's reasonable to argue that there's nothing really stopping us from getting up among the top teams in the country again. Except, of course, how the club is run by those in charge.

 

So for that reason I think people were happy to see a change at board level. Is the new board in any way gauranteed to be better? Not at all. But my feeling was that Shepherd's reign had run its course, and while nobody is denying there were some good times in there I do believe we'd gone as far as we were ever going to under him.

 

So people are generally optimistic about having someone new in charge, and are waiting to see what happens. If they do a shite job and in a couple of years we're still stranded in mid-table, then you can bet that they won't be popular on here. But surely the deserve a fair chance first? And surely people don't deserve to be attacked for giving them that chance?

 

Good post. The bit in bold is EXACTLY what I meant.

 

The previous board did several things excellently. I don't have a problem with acknowledging what they did well. They quite obviously weren't 'the worst board ever', what a ridiculous thing that would be to say.

 

They did, however, also screw some things up royally and we were due for a change. Will it 'automatically be an improvement'? Of course not. But who has actually said they thought it would be better by default? Nobody that I can remember, it's a strawman argument used time and time again.

 

To wit:

 

Old board - did well most of the time, fucked some key things up.

New board - barely had a chance yet, let's see in a few years how well they're fairing.

 

complete tripe.

 

Lots of people said they just wanted rid of them, and anytime at all any names were mentioned, even that hedge fund, they were all in favour.

 

Lots of people.

 

Selective memory or what.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter. It seems that some people are now coming over to what some of the better posters used to tell you, you know those that have gone from the board, for one reason or another.

 

 

 

 

 

What the hell does my post have to do with any of that? Where did I say people didn't want them out? I said I thought we were due for a change.

 

Thanks for proving what I've been saying all along in this thread is right - you cannot accept any criticism of the old board. You instead just cherrypick what you comment on and throw in random shit like posters leaving the forum.

[Shearergol]

Toontastic.com has been shit.

 

Toontastic.net is where it's at though

[James]

Toontastic.com has been shit.

 

Toontastic.net is where it's at though

 

No offence like.

[Shearergol]

I still don't understand why HTL leaving this board has any relevance to the current regime. He quit the forum before Ashley was around tbh.