Newcastle in Turmoil, says Sir Les

[Syrette]

Zoggy can do some wacky things with his hair from time to time. Oba's is cool.

[afar]

Why do UV (HTL reborn?) and NE5 rarely if ever post in threads that don't have anything to do with the new and/or old boards?

 

The hairstyles of players we may or may not be interested in were much better under the old board.

 

LOL, I don't think Role Model is intelligent enough to pick up what you are getting at here. Although he/she/it does have a point I would value both your opinions on other stuff outside the old board/new board debate and as long as you avoid kids like role model's threads you can find them. The problem you guys face though is that because of your previous, even these threads will turn out to be old board/new board debates espiecally when Ozzie and Mick turn on their NE5 post detectors.

[OzzieMandias]

Why do UV (HTL reborn?) and NE5 rarely if ever post in threads that don't have anything to do with the new and/or old boards?

 

The hairstyles of players we may or may not be interested in were much better under the old board.

 

LOL, I don't think Role Model is intelligent enough to pick up what you are getting at here. Although he/she/it does have a point I would value both your opinions on other stuff outside the old board/new board debate and as long as you avoid kids like role model's threads you can find them. The problem you guys face though is that because of your previous, even these threads will turn out to be old board/new board debates espiecally when Ozzie and Mick turn on their NE5 post detectors.

 

Or when you start stirring it.

[madras]

Thanks. That's all I wanted to know. Wasn't that easy?

 

I'll ignore all your diversionary rubbish, thanks.

 

so you don't have an intelligent view on how the current board are operating, apart from blind optimism ?

 

Good reply, or is it diversionary rubbish.

 

 

 

I asked you one simple question about the single biggest decision they have made so far, which was to change the manager.

 

I don't want to talk about all the other stuff you flung in to try and avoid the question, that was the only thing I wanted to get your opinion on.

 

Eventually after asking about five times I got you to admit you agree with me that it was a good move and they got it right. So that's the one major decision they've made and they got it right. Yet 'overall' you say 'Ashley is nowhere near looking like he knows how to succeed'. Strange.

 

it isn't the one major decision. The decision not to compete at the level we ought to and back the manager is another major decision, and ultimately, no matter how good the manager is, if you don't back him you're not going to get the best from him.

 

I find if very strange that Ashley has appointed Keegan, based on what he did first time round presumably, and isn't giving him a chance to repeat it ?

 

Whats your opinion on that ?

 

Dave I've been saying for years if Keegan had stayed at the club we would have gone on to win things IMO. You must have been blind to have missed it, on that basis I found your question slightly pointless.

 

 

i'm not so sure that we would have. after signing shearer which he saw as the final piece of the jigsaw we never looked like winning the league (even beating man utd 5-0 was more of a one off performance rather than something we could get even close to regular enough to win something)and he looked down and lost for the couple of month before he left.

 

 

also...ultimatly ,no matter how bad the manager is, if you just throw money at him you'll only build debt off him.

 

 

we'll see, as i've posted already if we don't get good enough bodies through the door by sept 1st i'll not be happy and will criticise the board,till then i'll wait and see.

[Syrette]

Why do UV (HTL reborn?) and NE5 rarely if ever post in threads that don't have anything to do with the new and/or old boards?

 

The hairstyles of players we may or may not be interested in were much better under the old board.

 

LOL, I don't think Role Model is intelligent enough to pick up what you are getting at here. Although he/she/it does have a point I would value both your opinions on other stuff outside the old board/new board debate and as long as you avoid kids like role model's threads you can find them. The problem you guys face though is that because of your previous, even these threads will turn out to be old board/new board debates espiecally when Ozzie and Mick turn on their NE5 post detectors.

 

[afar]

Why do UV (HTL reborn?) and NE5 rarely if ever post in threads that don't have anything to do with the new and/or old boards?

 

The hairstyles of players we may or may not be interested in were much better under the old board.

 

LOL, I don't think Role Model is intelligent enough to pick up what you are getting at here. Although he/she/it does have a point I would value both your opinions on other stuff outside the old board/new board debate and as long as you avoid kids like role model's threads you can find them. The problem you guys face though is that because of your previous, even these threads will turn out to be old board/new board debates espiecally when Ozzie and Mick turn on their NE5 post detectors.

 

Or when you start stirring it.

 

Who me, never ;P

[Guest elbee909]

Newcastle's not in Turmoil.  It's in Tyne & Wear.  Stupid southern based journos (The Daily Mail!)

[afar]

Newcastle's not in Turmoil.  It's in Tyne & Wear.  Stupid southern based journos (The Daily Mail!)

 

Well Tyne & Wear hasn't been in existence since the 80's I believe. Altough the 5 district councils still work togehter on certain things, the MBC was disolved by thatcher long ago.

[Guest elbee909]

Newcastle's not in Turmoil.  It's in Tyne & Wear.  Stupid southern based journos (The Daily Mail!)

 

Well Tyne & Wear hasn't been in existence since the 80's I believe. Altough the 5 district councils still work togehter on certain things, the MBC was disolved by thatcher long ago.

 

That's just the council though, not the county.

[afar]

Newcastle's not in Turmoil.  It's in Tyne & Wear.  Stupid southern based journos (The Daily Mail!)

 

Well Tyne & Wear hasn't been in existence since the 80's I believe. Altough the 5 district councils still work togehter on certain things, the MBC was disolved by thatcher long ago.

 

That's just the council though, not the county.

 

Newcastle upon Tyne isn't in a county anymore as I said Tyne & Wear doesn't exist.

 

It's not like Blyth Valley council where they are still part of Northumberland County Council. There is no overarching "County" Newcastle council reports to. It's the same with Noth Tyneside, South Tyneside, Gateshaead and Sunderland.

 

Damn I'm boring the pants off even myself here

[Guest elbee909]

Newcastle's not in Turmoil.  It's in Tyne & Wear.  Stupid southern based journos (The Daily Mail!)

 

Well Tyne & Wear hasn't been in existence since the 80's I believe. Altough the 5 district councils still work togehter on certain things, the MBC was disolved by thatcher long ago.

 

That's just the council though, not the county.

 

Newcastle upon Tyne isn't in a county anymore as I said Tyne & Wear doesn't exist.

 

It's not like Blyth Valley council where they are still part of Northumberland County Council. There is no overarching "County" Newcastle council reports to. It's the same with Noth Tyneside, South Tyneside, Gateshaead and Sunderland.

 

Damn I'm boring the pants off even myself here

 

 

Much as I hate to quote WP:

 

Tyne and Wear is a metropolitan county in North East England around the mouths of the Rivers Tyne and Wear. It came into existence as a metropolitan county in 1974 after the passage of the Local Government Act 1972. It consists of the five metropolitan boroughs of South Tyneside, North Tyneside, City of Newcastle upon Tyne, Gateshead and the City of Sunderland.

 

Tyne and Wear is bounded on the east by the North Sea, and as a Ceremonial county, shares borders with Northumberland to the north, and County Durham to the south.

 

Tyne and Wear County Council was abolished in 1986, and so its districts (the metropolitan boroughs) are now effectively unitary authorities. However, the metropolitan county continues to exist in law and as a geographic frame of reference.

 

 

[afar]

Newcastle's not in Turmoil.  It's in Tyne & Wear.  Stupid southern based journos (The Daily Mail!)

 

Well Tyne & Wear hasn't been in existence since the 80's I believe. Altough the 5 district councils still work togehter on certain things, the MBC was disolved by thatcher long ago.

 

That's just the council though, not the county.

 

Newcastle upon Tyne isn't in a county anymore as I said Tyne & Wear doesn't exist.

 

It's not like Blyth Valley council where they are still part of Northumberland County Council. There is no overarching "County" Newcastle council reports to. It's the same with Noth Tyneside, South Tyneside, Gateshaead and Sunderland.

 

Damn I'm boring the pants off even myself here

 

 

Much as I hate to quote WP:

 

Tyne and Wear is a metropolitan county in North East England around the mouths of the Rivers Tyne and Wear. It came into existence as a metropolitan county in 1974 after the passage of the Local Government Act 1972. It consists of the five metropolitan boroughs of South Tyneside, North Tyneside, City of Newcastle upon Tyne, Gateshead and the City of Sunderland.

 

Tyne and Wear is bounded on the east by the North Sea, and as a Ceremonial county, shares borders with Northumberland to the north, and County Durham to the south.

 

Tyne and Wear County Council was abolished in 1986, and so its districts (the metropolitan boroughs) are now effectively unitary authorities. However, the metropolitan county continues to exist in law and as a geographic frame of reference.

 

 

 

You win elbee, wiki saves the day, what did we ever do without it ?

[alpal78]

Thanks. That's all I wanted to know. Wasn't that easy?

 

I'll ignore all your diversionary rubbish, thanks.

 

so you don't have an intelligent view on how the current board are operating, apart from blind optimism ?

 

Good reply, or is it diversionary rubbish.

 

 

 

I asked you one simple question about the single biggest decision they have made so far, which was to change the manager.

 

I don't want to talk about all the other stuff you flung in to try and avoid the question, that was the only thing I wanted to get your opinion on.

 

Eventually after asking about five times I got you to admit you agree with me that it was a good move and they got it right. So that's the one major decision they've made and they got it right. Yet 'overall' you say 'Ashley is nowhere near looking like he knows how to succeed'. Strange.

 

it isn't the one major decision. The decision not to compete at the level we ought to and back the manager is another major decision, and ultimately, no matter how good the manager is, if you don't back him you're not going to get the best from him.

 

I find if very strange that Ashley has appointed Keegan, based on what he did first time round presumably, and isn't giving him a chance to repeat it ?

 

Whats your opinion on that ?

 

Dave I've been saying for years if Keegan had stayed at the club we would have gone on to win things IMO. You must have been blind to have missed it, on that basis I found your question slightly pointless.

 

 

 

The question was designed to get an admission from you that on that one (the only one IMO) major decision so far the board has done well and should be commended for it. For some reason however you refuse to do this.

 

I too find it strange that they would appoint Keegan then not back him to the fullest degree. However, I've seen nothing to suggest this is the case, barring the fantasies of some bored journalists that have nothing better to do than to try and unsettle the club. In my opinion you are falling for it hook, line and sinker despite years of telling us those same journalists don't know what they are talking about. Coincidently when attacking the previous board...

 

I feel the journalists are jumping on every single little thing they can and you are going along with it all because you want to be proved right. You have nothing whatsoever to back up your claim that a decision has been made not to compete at whatever level you feel is our 'right', and as such I find it preposterous that you can say it as though it is fact.

 

Of course I'm not 100% convinced right now (it's impossible to be either way), but I will judge them after a longer period of time than you obviously are doing, because I feel that is fair. Just like I judged the previous board on their 10+ years in charge.

 

In short Dave, the usual trying to fit a rationale into a predetermined conclusion, just that in NE5's case the 'rationale' is just baseless speculation!

[Thespence]

4 top half finishes in 11 years is shit for a club that we like to think is a big club.

[GM]

"Turmoil" is rather an emotive term to be using really...

[NE5]

Thanks. That's all I wanted to know. Wasn't that easy?

 

I'll ignore all your diversionary rubbish, thanks.

 

so you don't have an intelligent view on how the current board are operating, apart from blind optimism ?

 

Good reply, or is it diversionary rubbish.

 

 

 

I asked you one simple question about the single biggest decision they have made so far, which was to change the manager.

 

I don't want to talk about all the other stuff you flung in to try and avoid the question, that was the only thing I wanted to get your opinion on.

 

Eventually after asking about five times I got you to admit you agree with me that it was a good move and they got it right. So that's the one major decision they've made and they got it right. Yet 'overall' you say 'Ashley is nowhere near looking like he knows how to succeed'. Strange.

 

it isn't the one major decision. The decision not to compete at the level we ought to and back the manager is another major decision, and ultimately, no matter how good the manager is, if you don't back him you're not going to get the best from him.

 

I find if very strange that Ashley has appointed Keegan, based on what he did first time round presumably, and isn't giving him a chance to repeat it ?

 

Whats your opinion on that ?

 

Dave I've been saying for years if Keegan had stayed at the club we would have gone on to win things IMO. You must have been blind to have missed it, on that basis I found your question slightly pointless.

 

 

 

The question was designed to get an admission from you that on that one (the only one IMO) major decision so far the board has done well and should be commended for it. For some reason however you refuse to do this.

 

I too find it strange that they would appoint Keegan then not back him to the fullest degree. However, I've seen nothing to suggest this is the case, barring the fantasies of some bored journalists that have nothing better to do than to try and unsettle the club. In my opinion you are falling for it hook, line and sinker despite years of telling us those same journalists don't know what they are talking about. Coincidently when attacking the previous board...

 

I feel the journalists are jumping on every single little thing they can and you are going along with it all because you want to be proved right. You have nothing whatsoever to back up your claim that a decision has been made not to compete at whatever level you feel is our 'right', and as such I find it preposterous that you can say it as though it is fact.

 

Of course I'm not 100% convinced right now (it's impossible to be either way), but I will judge them after a longer period of time than you obviously are doing, because I feel that is fair. Just like I judged the previous board on their 10+ years in charge.

 

I fail to see how the singlest most important policy decision of the board can be deemed by you not to be major.

 

We know that an ambitious board with the wrong manager won't succeed, why don't you accept that a board with a good manager and no ambition to get the best from him won't tap his potential either ?

 

This has been my point all the way down the line, right from day 1. A board has to back their manager as much as possible, if you want to match the other big boys you have to compete with them. It is a direction that you choose , not automatically follow. Just now Ashley - it would appear - has decided to go in a particular direction, which is unlikely to get us into the top clubs again. That opinion is based on 2 things

 

1. The other big clubs have set out and shown the way, it has always been the case

2. I've seen first hand what happens when the club doesn't show ambition.

 

If this board don't back Keegan, what do you think he'lll be saying when he leaves the club ?

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

Keegan will tell us what he thinks and what he wants but he has certain constraints because he;s the manager, I don't have any doubt that the meeting they had in London was an exchange of views and ideas, but one thing out of it is that Keegan has been told he can't go around saying the club can't get into the top 4 teams. No owner of any company would like that, its correct from Ashleys point of view, and Keegan has to accept it.

 

Keegan didnt say he'd not be able to get us into the top 4. He said we could, but it'd take 4-5 years.

 

I.e. thats how long its going to take to undo the damage the previous board did in overseeing us going from CL qualifiers to a dogshit, relegation threatened club with plenty of s*** players on massive wages and unsustainable huge debts.

 

Which is pretty accurate imo. Hopefully it'll take 2-3 years to undo the damage, but certainly there'll be no quick fix due to our current state and unattractiveness.

 

completely spot on

 

the damage the old board did to the club was massive, the souness appointment cos this club 5-10 years

 

4-5 years  5-10 years

Give over man.

 

Look at Robsons first couple of seasons and tell me you can't see similarities with having to get rid of deadwood high earners whilst wheeling and dealing in the market.

 

Once the likes of Duff, Smith, Shola are off the wage bill (like Fegurson, Macelino, Maric before them) we'll see greater flexibility in what we can afford to offer players in terms of wages

 

High earners like Shola 

 

Dyer, Parker, Luque, Emre, and to a lesser extent Babayaro, Carr and Solano have all gone from the top end of the wage bill since Ashley came in. The only high earners left over from the bad old days of European football are Owen, Duff & probably Martins & Given.

 

Has your boss had any more insights on that £100m that's available if Keegan can spend it btw?

 

Shola will be on £25k, thats £1.3m a year. You think that sort of figure couldn't be put to better use?

 

I never quoted that figure as fact, merely passing on what I had been told. FWIW he's said no different since (prefering to bang on about Man U at the mo) but the Modric bid would suggest that serious money is available for what the board/mgt team deem to be the right player.

 

And I'll answer NE5 in this post too. Find a post where I have blindly slagged off FS etc and praised the new board to the hilt.

 

Shepherd did a good job for a time, but cocked up big style towards the end of his regime. Yes he made money available for transfers and his heart was in the right place, but chasing his dream for the club could have bankrupt us (note not saying we were going bust when MA bought us but we could not continue to live of loans and advance sponsorship payments like we were).

 

And yes Ashley has also made some good moves, and made some mistakes. But I agree with the approach of buying younger hungry players over those on their way down. But I agree also that quality is quality and if a Berbatov was available and willing to come to us we should make an exception to the 'policy'.

 

And finally, yes unless Ashley can deliver European football he will have failed. I'm willing to give this new direction 3 years to see where it is taking us, but he didn't become a billionaire by blinding following duff ideas.

 

no, thats fair comment for the most part. But I think ignoring the current needs won't help the long term one iota. With the squad we have we only need a couple of injuries and we are going to struggle again. And no, we don't want any more squad players either. We are getting rid of half the squad players we bought last year because they weren't good enough, and people - not you I don't think - still insist we need squad players, they never learn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

NE5, seeing as you are here, can I ask you if you think Coloccini would be a good signing.

 

Just for the record.........

[NE5]

Why do UV (HTL reborn?) and NE5 rarely if ever post in threads that don't have anything to do with the new and/or old boards?

 

The hairstyles of players we may or may not be interested in were much better under the old board.

 

LOL, I don't think Role Model is intelligent enough to pick up what you are getting at here. Although he/she/it does have a point I would value both your opinions on other stuff outside the old board/new board debate and as long as you avoid kids like role model's threads you can find them. The problem you guys face though is that because of your previous, even these threads will turn out to be old board/new board debates espiecally when Ozzie and Mick turn on their NE5 post detectors.

 

unless of course, we ignore Ozzie and mick as being pointless ?

[NE5]

NE5, seeing as you are here, can I ask you if you think Coloccini would be a good signing.

 

Just for the record.........

 

I've no idea. Do you ?

 

I'll have nothing but pessimism going into the season with the current midfield and forwards we have. Unfortunately, its the forwards that generally cost the most money.

 

 

 

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

NE5, seeing as you are here, can I ask you if you think Coloccini would be a good signing.

 

Just for the record.........

 

I've no idea. Do you ?

 

I'll have nothing but pessimism going into the season with the current midfield and forwards we have. Unfortunately, its the forwards that generally cost the most money.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what your second paragraph has to do with the question.

 

To answer your first one though, yes I think he'd be a good signing.

 

I'll ask it a different way, would you view it as a good signing?

[NE5]

NE5, seeing as you are here, can I ask you if you think Coloccini would be a good signing.

 

Just for the record.........

 

I've no idea. Do you ?

 

I'll have nothing but pessimism going into the season with the current midfield and forwards we have. Unfortunately, its the forwards that generally cost the most money.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what your second paragraph has to do with the question.

 

To answer your first one though, yes I think he'd be a good signing.

 

I'll ask it a different way, would you view it as a good signing?

 

if Keegan thinks its a good signing, and he's not being forced into buying his 2nd choice for monetary reasons.

 

But I won't be very optimistic going into the new season without at least one more forward player, ideally 2. Basically, if they don't get these players to go straight into the team and improve it, it will have been a shite summer in my view. If we want to get the most from Keegan, he's got to back him.

 

 

[Tooj]

NE5, seeing as you are here, can I ask you if you think Coloccini would be a good signing.

 

Just for the record.........

 

I've no idea. Do you ?

 

I'll have nothing but pessimism going into the season with the current midfield and forwards we have. Unfortunately, its the forwards that generally cost the most money.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what your second paragraph has to do with the question.

 

To answer your first one though, yes I think he'd be a good signing.

 

I'll ask it a different way, would you view it as a good signing?

 

if Keegan thinks its a good signing, and he's not being forced into buying his 2nd choice for monetary reasons.

 

But I won't be very optimistic going into the new season without at least one more forward player, ideally 2. Basically, if they don't get these players to go straight into the team and improve it, it will have been a shite summer in my view. If we want to get the most from Keegan, he's got to back him.

 

 

 

We didn't do that bad before when we got Bellamy and Robert instead of our first choices of Jeffers and Zenden.

 

In all seriousness though we don need more forward players of higher quality, I'm a firm believer of defending from the front, like we did with Shearer and Bellamy. Ian Rush in his Liverpool days is a prime example of this, a nightmare if you are a centre half, one thing centre halves don't like is being rushed into making decisions.

[Cajun]

Isn't he being touted at £10m? I would like to know who would have been Keegans first choice.

 

Thankfully we never had to settle for second choice signings under the old board

[Liam Liam Liam O]

NE5, seeing as you are here, can I ask you if you think Coloccini would be a good signing.

 

Just for the record.........

 

I've no idea. Do you ?

 

I'll have nothing but pessimism going into the season with the current midfield and forwards we have. Unfortunately, its the forwards that generally cost the most money.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what your second paragraph has to do with the question.

 

To answer your first one though, yes I think he'd be a good signing.

 

I'll ask it a different way, would you view it as a good signing?

 

if Keegan thinks its a good signing, and he's not being forced into buying his 2nd choice for monetary reasons.

 

But I won't be very optimistic going into the new season without at least one more forward player, ideally 2. Basically, if they don't get these players to go straight into the team and improve it, it will have been a shite summer in my view. If we want to get the most from Keegan, he's got to back him.

 

 

 

Cheers.  I guess we'll never know re the bit in bold.  Nothing suggests its the case, or that it has or hasn't happened in the past.