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

[Dave]

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 I hope the board have been replaced by better people than SBR was.

 

Fair analogy.

[Guest 22bnw]

The old board always backed the manager - they just chose sh** managers

 

Apart from Bobby.

[madras]

i don't believe bankruptcy was imminent but i couldn't see the club improving on or off the pitch with shepherd in charge.

 

Well that's your opinion, but I'll refer you back to the period 98-02 which was similar (worse) than what we were going through and which we recovered from to get into the Champions League.

I'm curious, but at that at that time did you recommend that we not spend on players such as Robert, Bellamy, Jenas, Viana, Woodgate?

 

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.

 

Exactly. And as he wasn't the worst chairman ever, he must have done everything right! It's only monstrous ill-luck that saw us win nowt and, over the last ten years, end up in the bottom half of the table more often as not.

 

Great contributions to the discussion, thanks. Why not just post a picture of a scarecrow next time to save typing.

at that time we had  bobby robson as manager,a decent wage to turnover ratio and didn't have 80mill worth of debt so spending on those players wasn't so bad.

 

could you tell me how long we could let managers like souness,roeder and allardyce go on and how much debt you'd let them chalk up while going backwards on the pitch ?

[madras]

What were the levels of debt v income in 1991 and what was the level of debt v income 12 months ago?

 

See above, companies with big turnovers never go bust or get into financial difficulty apparently.

 

and Newcastle in 1991 had a big turnover did they  mackems.gif

 

They couldn't even sell shares to the value of 1.25m quid, a fact which thickmick knows only too well.    :idiot2

 

 

 

I was quoting you mate, talking about us never going bust now mackems.gif

 

no, you were quoting Mort when he said we were going bust, but I;m saying he was talking bollocks and was just point scoring with supporters

 

However, we were most definitely going bust in 1991.

 

 

mort said we were on the way to going bust 2007

 

hall said we were on the way to going bust 1991

 

probably both playing the same scare game

 

did YOU put in to buy shares in 1991 ?

 

 

no i didn't. i thought the line being peddled by hall was a ruse and if it didn;t work the club would still go on(and guess what ?). i think i wasn't that impressed about the ammount of shares they were planning on keeping for themselves ie you put the money in but have no say.

 

i did put money in to the buy a player fund of a few years earlier

 

So you thought that sub 20,000 crowds, a failed share issue, and one foot in the 3rd divison, was a ruse ?

 

yes it was a bad position but like mort's assertion i don't think the club would have gone to the wall back then either.

[madras]

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 ?

 

 

 

 

all people are saying is about the way the club were headed.

[madras]

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.

 

 

 

can you tell me who is saying the shepherd regime "NEVER DID ANYTHING RIGHT" ?

[madras]

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 s**** 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]

 

 

if you remember back in the days when HTL was about i was of the same opinion and didn't want shepherd forced out without any plan or replacement. they did well for a time,but you don't mention which way the club was headed when he left.

[Decky]

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 Deep456]

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?

 

Well he did, didn't he?

[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?

 

Well he did, didn't he?

 

That doesn't answer the question, does it?

[Mick]

 

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.

 

 

[NE5]

 

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.

 

 

[Mick]

 

Shepherd was never the major shareholder or owner.

 

Ashley has never been the chairman.

 

 

 

And?

[Liam Liam Liam O]

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?

[junkhead]

answer the question! NOW!

[NE5]

 

Shepherd was never the major shareholder or owner.

 

Ashley has never been the chairman.

 

 

 

And?

 

and so you're talking bollocks, but thats nowt new

 

 

[Syrette]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/bst/lowres/bstn233l.jpg

[junkhead]

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!

[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?

[Syrette]

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!

 

Easy now.

[Parky]

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!

 

Easy now.

 

  YOu'd make a lovely pub landlord.

[geordieglory]

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?

[Mick]

 

and so you're talking bollocks, but thats nowt new

 

 

 

I wasn't talking anything, I was just trying to work out what UV was getting at.  Was he talking bollocks when he tied them in together?

[NE5]

 

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

 

 

[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?