Hertha Berlin 1 - 0 Newcastle - 01/08/08 - post match reaction from page 17

[OzzieMandias]

Since Shepherd did it, obviously.

[NE5]

You know very well he shouldn't have ever been appointed in the first place and after he single-handedly destroyed the team he should have went after that Chelsea game.

 

I know that, but its lots of people on here - ala Ozzie - who backed him to the bitter end .......

 

Point is, the  Halls and Shepherd thought he was the man they wanted at the time. Not you, or me, them. Nobody appoints people they don't back, or should I say, as much as they intend to back anybody. The likes of Ozzie also agreed with them backing him..........

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

You know very well he shouldn't have ever been appointed in the first place and after he single-handedly destroyed the team he should have went after that Chelsea game.

 

I know that, but its lots of people on here - ala Ozzie - who backed him to the bitter end .......

 

Point is, the  Halls and Shepherd thought he was the man they wanted at the time. Not you, or me, them. Nobody appoints people they don't back, or should I say, as much as they intend to back anybody. The likes of Ozzie also agreed with them backing him..........

 

 

 

Totally fact-free post there.

[NE5]

You know very well he shouldn't have ever been appointed in the first place and after he single-handedly destroyed the team he should have went after that Chelsea game.

 

I know that, but its lots of people on here - ala Ozzie - who backed him to the bitter end .......

 

Point is, the  Halls and Shepherd thought he was the man they wanted at the time. Not you, or me, them. Nobody appoints people they don't back, or should I say, as much as they intend to back anybody. The likes of Ozzie also agreed with them backing him..........

 

 

 

Totally fact-free post there.

 

All facts Ozzie, didn't you back him selling Craigy baby for starters  mackems.gif

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

I was of the opinion that "Craigy baby", as you call him, engineered his own fate.

[OzzieMandias]

Let's face it, NE5, you claims to fact-free impartialiy are one of the things that have made you the forum's laughing-stock.

 

If it's Shepherd, no matter how disastrous the blunder, you're trotting out lame excuses and shameless obfuscations, or scurrying to change the subject.

 

If it's Ashley, even when he's doing something such as buy the most expensive defender in the club's history, you're rooting around for a negative angle like a pig digging for a truffle.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Let's face it, NE5, you claims to fact-free impartialiy are one of the things that have made you the forum's laughing-stock.

 

If it's Shepherd, no matter how disastrous the blunder, you're trotting out lame excuses and shameless obfuscations, or scurrying to change the subject.

 

If it's Ashley, even when he's doing something such as buy the most expensive defender in the club's history, you're rooting around for a negative angle like a pig digging for a truffle.

 

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2440/85727qwyvwfz5.jpg

[NE5]

Let's face it, NE5, you claims to fact-free impartialiy are one of the things that have made you the forum's laughing-stock.

 

If it's Shepherd, no matter how disastrous the blunder, you're trotting out lame excuses and shameless obfuscations, or scurrying to change the subject.

 

If it's Ashley, even when he's doing something such as buy the most expensive defender in the club's history, you're rooting around for a negative angle like a pig digging for a truffle.

 

trying to educate some posters Ozzie lad. As for the boards laughing stock........

 

It's quite amusing that you slate the board of directors who attracted you to the club 

 

BTW, have you dished the dirt on the club you say you support to any cockney journalists lately ?

 

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Let's face it, NE5, you claims to fact-free impartialiy are one of the things that have made you the forum's laughing-stock.

 

If it's Shepherd, no matter how disastrous the blunder, you're trotting out lame excuses and shameless obfuscations, or scurrying to change the subject.

 

If it's Ashley, even when he's doing something such as buy the most expensive defender in the club's history, you're rooting around for a negative angle like a pig digging for a truffle.

 

trying to educate some posters Ozzie lad. As for the boards laughing stock........

 

BTW, have you dished the dirt on the club you say you support to any cockney journalists lately ?

 

 

 

Although no doubt you'll claim it as intentional mackems.gif

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Let's face it, NE5, you claims to fact-free impartialiy are one of the things that have made you the forum's laughing-stock.

 

If it's Shepherd, no matter how disastrous the blunder, you're trotting out lame excuses and shameless obfuscations, or scurrying to change the subject.

 

If it's Ashley, even when he's doing something such as buy the most expensive defender in the club's history, you're rooting around for a negative angle like a pig digging for a truffle.

 

trying to educate some posters Ozzie lad. As for the boards laughing stock........

 

BTW, have you dished the dirt on the club you say you support to any cockney journalists lately ?

 

 

 

Although no doubt you'll claim it as intentional mackems.gif

 

has he said it was an accident  mackems.gif

 

EDIT: quoted to make that bit bigger seeing as you missed it & i got to rescue you missing it before you deleted it 

[NE5]

Let's face it, NE5, you claims to fact-free impartialiy are one of the things that have made you the forum's laughing-stock.

 

If it's Shepherd, no matter how disastrous the blunder, you're trotting out lame excuses and shameless obfuscations, or scurrying to change the subject.

 

If it's Ashley, even when he's doing something such as buy the most expensive defender in the club's history, you're rooting around for a negative angle like a pig digging for a truffle.

 

trying to educate some posters Ozzie lad. As for the boards laughing stock........

 

BTW, have you dished the dirt on the club you say you support to any cockney journalists lately ?

 

 

 

Although no doubt you'll claim it as intentional mackems.gif

 

no it wasn't.

 

But I've explained that I've always valued this type of signing, no matter who does it, unlike numerous others,  he's clearly not reading posts again.

 

It was quite a deliberate question I asked him though, obviously.

 

 

[madras]

Let's face it, NE5, you claims to fact-free impartialiy are one of the things that have made you the forum's laughing-stock.

 

If it's Shepherd, no matter how disastrous the blunder, you're trotting out lame excuses and shameless obfuscations, or scurrying to change the subject.

 

If it's Ashley, even when he's doing something such as buy the most expensive defender in the club's history, you're rooting around for a negative angle like a pig digging for a truffle.

 

trying to educate some posters Ozzie lad. As for the boards laughing stock........

 

BTW, have you dished the dirt on the club you say you support to any cockney journalists lately ?

 

 

 

Although no doubt you'll claim it as intentional mackems.gif

 

no it wasn't.

 

But I've explained that I've always valued this type of signing, no matter who does it, unlike numerous others,  he's clearly not reading posts again.

 

It was quite a deliberate question I asked him though, obviously.

 

 

but as i've previously pointed out there were seasons when the previous board didn't back their manager in the way NE5 describes.

[thedudeabides]

 

 

We need a dominating centre half.  If we want a good one & a few other good players we might have to bulk out the squad in the free transfer or cut price fee market.  If thats what the manager has decided, then that's fair enough for me.

 

The club may have slightly limited funds, or limited funds by the standards and expectations that people have come to expect.  If that is the case people might have to accept it for the time being, at least in the short term.

 

with the 3rd biggest crowd and support in the country, and 14th /15th turnover [something like that] in europe ?

 

We won't mention who created that  but I'm sorry but punching that weight is what you should be expecting.

 

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=36320.msg712421#msg712421

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=36320.msg714507#msg714507

 

Yeah but most of what I posted there about the transfers we are targetting are a cut and paste job on your opinions from 18 months ago. 

 

 

Why the change of heart? mackems.gif

 

Look for posts where I've said that when they have proved real ambition I won't criticise the odd mishap ...... I've said it often. When they have proved real ambition, then fair enough. I'm not getting carried away by one [hopefully good] signing, unlike others.

 

I can't be arsed to look for it though I'll let you do that as you seem so inclined.

 

This is a direct reply by the way, which is more than most people make. I notice nobody is admitting that they called such signings in the past "trophy signings". Why the change of heart ?

 

 

 

You've answered / replied to nothing tbf.  Nice try at wriggling out though

 

I spotted that post the a couple of days ago when you said you've never been this unhappy in recent memory.  I asked you if you were less happy now than 18 months ago, & when you avoided the question I decided to look for your opinions at the time for myself.

 

Just goes to show that when it comes to most of your opinions, it the person making the decision that counts rather than the decision they're making that matters.

 

Exactly what you accuse others of.

 

Like I said, you're wrong. Ashley will win me over when he proves real ambition, one signing doesn't do that, I'm talking real ambition, which must be higher than yours.

 

In the meantime, I've renewed my season ticket for the next 3 years so I'm obviously more unhappy than a lot of other people.

 

 

 

Still no answer though.

 

And seeing as you keep banging on about it, I've renewed for 3 years upfront as well, just I don't see how its relevant to what I've asked you above.

 

Perhaps you should read your posts I've linked to then try and answer why what was acceptable then is less acceptable now.

 

I'll not hold my breath though.

 

because they had proved their ambition. Simple as that. If you don't buy a ticket you won't win the raffle. And attempting to succeed and not quite getting to what you hoped for is a lot more acceptable than not attempting it at all.

 

The situation you talk about 18 months ago still stands, so why shouldn't the reasons you mentioned then still stand?

 

They were no longer showing any ambition 18 months ago, surely any fool can see that? 

 

Its all very well harping on about the Champions League placings they did achieve (and fair play to them for that) but when they left we were miles away from that happening again.  Even you can acknowledge that?

 

 

Basic fundamental number 1 requirement for a board. Back your manager, punch your weight in the transfer market.

 

Will always stand a better chance of succeeding than a board that doesn't back their manager, and doesn't punch their weight in the transfer market.

 

That is the basis of the point I've made since day 1.

 

As long as they back their manager, they stood a chance of getting back among the top clubs.

 

That means buying more than one player.

 

Whatever the quotes say that you've found, and I repeat when Ashley has shown ambition to punch the clubs weight [which is all I'm asking for him] he'll get the same acceptance of the odd mishap that the old lot did, thats my point, and I'm sticking to it.

 

 

 

I would put appointing the right manager a long way above that to be honest.

 

On the second point, would you say trying to sign players like Modric, Woodgate and Colocinni shows ambition?

 

Gordon Lee was a good appointment. So was Arthur Cox. Both pissed off [to Everton and bloody Derby - bigger club ?] because the board was s****, both underachieved at Newcastle. You will know Cox was mate , not so sure about Lee. Both those managers with a board that backed them would have done better, a lot lot better, and wouldn't have left either.

 

 

 

Agreed.........but I don't really see any relevance to this point.

 

Do you think Shepherd did the right thing backing Souness to the tune of £50M.

 

And how about Ridsdale at Leeds, would you say he carried out the basic fundamental number 1 requirement when backing O'Leary?

[greydos]

 

 

We need a dominating centre half.  If we want a good one & a few other good players we might have to bulk out the squad in the free transfer or cut price fee market.  If thats what the manager has decided, then that's fair enough for me.

 

The club may have slightly limited funds, or limited funds by the standards and expectations that people have come to expect.  If that is the case people might have to accept it for the time being, at least in the short term.

 

with the 3rd biggest crowd and support in the country, and 14th /15th turnover [something like that] in europe ?

 

We won't mention who created that  but I'm sorry but punching that weight is what you should be expecting.

 

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=36320.msg712421#msg712421

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=36320.msg714507#msg714507

 

Yeah but most of what I posted there about the transfers we are targetting are a cut and paste job on your opinions from 18 months ago. 

 

 

Why the change of heart? mackems.gif

 

Look for posts where I've said that when they have proved real ambition I won't criticise the odd mishap ...... I've said it often. When they have proved real ambition, then fair enough. I'm not getting carried away by one [hopefully good] signing, unlike others.

 

I can't be arsed to look for it though I'll let you do that as you seem so inclined.

 

This is a direct reply by the way, which is more than most people make. I notice nobody is admitting that they called such signings in the past "trophy signings". Why the change of heart ?

 

 

 

You've answered / replied to nothing tbf.  Nice try at wriggling out though

 

I spotted that post the a couple of days ago when you said you've never been this unhappy in recent memory.  I asked you if you were less happy now than 18 months ago, & when you avoided the question I decided to look for your opinions at the time for myself.

 

Just goes to show that when it comes to most of your opinions, it the person making the decision that counts rather than the decision they're making that matters.

 

Exactly what you accuse others of.

 

Like I said, you're wrong. Ashley will win me over when he proves real ambition, one signing doesn't do that, I'm talking real ambition, which must be higher than yours.

 

In the meantime, I've renewed my season ticket for the next 3 years so I'm obviously more unhappy than a lot of other people.

 

 

 

Still no answer though.

 

And seeing as you keep banging on about it, I've renewed for 3 years upfront as well, just I don't see how its relevant to what I've asked you above.

 

Perhaps you should read your posts I've linked to then try and answer why what was acceptable then is less acceptable now.

 

I'll not hold my breath though.

 

because they had proved their ambition. Simple as that. If you don't buy a ticket you won't win the raffle. And attempting to succeed and not quite getting to what you hoped for is a lot more acceptable than not attempting it at all.

 

The situation you talk about 18 months ago still stands, so why shouldn't the reasons you mentioned then still stand?

 

They were no longer showing any ambition 18 months ago, surely any fool can see that? 

 

Its all very well harping on about the Champions League placings they did achieve (and fair play to them for that) but when they left we were miles away from that happening again.  Even you can acknowledge that?

 

 

Basic fundamental number 1 requirement for a board. Back your manager, punch your weight in the transfer market.

 

Will always stand a better chance of succeeding than a board that doesn't back their manager, and doesn't punch their weight in the transfer market.

 

That is the basis of the point I've made since day 1.

 

As long as they back their manager, they stood a chance of getting back among the top clubs.

 

That means buying more than one player.

 

Whatever the quotes say that you've found, and I repeat when Ashley has shown ambition to punch the clubs weight [which is all I'm asking for him] he'll get the same acceptance of the odd mishap that the old lot did, thats my point, and I'm sticking to it.

 

 

 

I would put appointing the right manager a long way above that to be honest.

 

On the second point, would you say trying to sign players like Modric, Woodgate and Colocinni shows ambition?

 

Gordon Lee was a good appointment. So was Arthur Cox. Both pissed off [to Everton and bloody Derby - bigger club ?] because the board was s****, both underachieved at Newcastle. You will know Cox was mate , not so sure about Lee. Both those managers with a board that backed them would have done better, a lot lot better, and wouldn't have left either.

 

 

 

Agreed.........but I don't really see any relevance to this point.

 

Do you think Shepherd did the right thing backing Souness to the tune of £50M.

 

And how about Ridsdale at Leeds, would you say he carried out the basic fundamental number 1 requirement when backing O'Leary?

 

What's Ridsdale and O'Leary got to do with anything? As far as i'm aware Newcastle didn't get a) relegated, b) bankrupt and c) left for dirt in the third english division.

 

All this talk of financial difficulty for Newcastle is unsubstantiated. Disseminated by a new board who were eager to get people on side, and could offer an opinion on something nobody else could prove.

 

I wonder, if we really were so close to folding like a financial tonne of bricks, why was Shepherd and co so keen to hang around and fight off all the other takeover bids? Any seriously self-interested financially minded person (which the last regime clearly were, the amount they benefitted from the club in various ways) would have been out in the proverbial flash!

[thedudeabides]

 

 

We need a dominating centre half.  If we want a good one & a few other good players we might have to bulk out the squad in the free transfer or cut price fee market.  If thats what the manager has decided, then that's fair enough for me.

 

The club may have slightly limited funds, or limited funds by the standards and expectations that people have come to expect.  If that is the case people might have to accept it for the time being, at least in the short term.

 

with the 3rd biggest crowd and support in the country, and 14th /15th turnover [something like that] in europe ?

 

We won't mention who created that  but I'm sorry but punching that weight is what you should be expecting.

 

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=36320.msg712421#msg712421

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=36320.msg714507#msg714507

 

Yeah but most of what I posted there about the transfers we are targetting are a cut and paste job on your opinions from 18 months ago. 

 

 

Why the change of heart? mackems.gif

 

Look for posts where I've said that when they have proved real ambition I won't criticise the odd mishap ...... I've said it often. When they have proved real ambition, then fair enough. I'm not getting carried away by one [hopefully good] signing, unlike others.

 

I can't be arsed to look for it though I'll let you do that as you seem so inclined.

 

This is a direct reply by the way, which is more than most people make. I notice nobody is admitting that they called such signings in the past "trophy signings". Why the change of heart ?

 

 

 

You've answered / replied to nothing tbf.  Nice try at wriggling out though

 

I spotted that post the a couple of days ago when you said you've never been this unhappy in recent memory.  I asked you if you were less happy now than 18 months ago, & when you avoided the question I decided to look for your opinions at the time for myself.

 

Just goes to show that when it comes to most of your opinions, it the person making the decision that counts rather than the decision they're making that matters.

 

Exactly what you accuse others of.

 

Like I said, you're wrong. Ashley will win me over when he proves real ambition, one signing doesn't do that, I'm talking real ambition, which must be higher than yours.

 

In the meantime, I've renewed my season ticket for the next 3 years so I'm obviously more unhappy than a lot of other people.

 

 

 

Still no answer though.

 

And seeing as you keep banging on about it, I've renewed for 3 years upfront as well, just I don't see how its relevant to what I've asked you above.

 

Perhaps you should read your posts I've linked to then try and answer why what was acceptable then is less acceptable now.

 

I'll not hold my breath though.

 

because they had proved their ambition. Simple as that. If you don't buy a ticket you won't win the raffle. And attempting to succeed and not quite getting to what you hoped for is a lot more acceptable than not attempting it at all.

 

The situation you talk about 18 months ago still stands, so why shouldn't the reasons you mentioned then still stand?

 

They were no longer showing any ambition 18 months ago, surely any fool can see that? 

 

Its all very well harping on about the Champions League placings they did achieve (and fair play to them for that) but when they left we were miles away from that happening again.  Even you can acknowledge that?

 

 

Basic fundamental number 1 requirement for a board. Back your manager, punch your weight in the transfer market.

 

Will always stand a better chance of succeeding than a board that doesn't back their manager, and doesn't punch their weight in the transfer market.

 

That is the basis of the point I've made since day 1.

 

As long as they back their manager, they stood a chance of getting back among the top clubs.

 

That means buying more than one player.

 

Whatever the quotes say that you've found, and I repeat when Ashley has shown ambition to punch the clubs weight [which is all I'm asking for him] he'll get the same acceptance of the odd mishap that the old lot did, thats my point, and I'm sticking to it.

 

 

 

I would put appointing the right manager a long way above that to be honest.

 

On the second point, would you say trying to sign players like Modric, Woodgate and Colocinni shows ambition?

 

Gordon Lee was a good appointment. So was Arthur Cox. Both pissed off [to Everton and bloody Derby - bigger club ?] because the board was s****, both underachieved at Newcastle. You will know Cox was mate , not so sure about Lee. Both those managers with a board that backed them would have done better, a lot lot better, and wouldn't have left either.

 

 

 

Agreed.........but I don't really see any relevance to this point.

 

Do you think Shepherd did the right thing backing Souness to the tune of £50M.

 

And how about Ridsdale at Leeds, would you say he carried out the basic fundamental number 1 requirement when backing O'Leary?

 

What's Ridsdale and O'Leary got to do with anything? As far as i'm aware Newcastle didn't get a) relegated, b) bankrupt and c) left for dirt in the third english division.

 

All this talk of financial difficulty for Newcastle is unsubstantiated. Disseminated by a new board who were eager to get people on side, and could offer an opinion on something nobody else could prove.

 

I wonder, if we really were so close to folding like a financial tonne of bricks, why was Shepherd and co so keen to hang around and fight off all the other takeover bids? Any seriously self-interested financially minded person (which the last regime clearly were, the amount they benefitted from the club in various ways) would have been out in the proverbial flash!

 

I was just pointing out that backing a manager in the transfer market is not the board's number one duty. In fact, it becomes extremely detrimental to the club if the wrong man is backed (ie Souness and O'Leary).

 

As for NUFC's financial situation, the books were there for all to see and it wasn't pretty reading as we were losing money hand over fist. I suggest you take a look at the last set of figures.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Shepherd was never interested in hanging round.

[tmonkey]

I wonder, if we really were so close to folding like a financial tonne of bricks, why was Shepherd and co so keen to hang around and fight off all the other takeover bids? Any seriously self-interested financially minded person (which the last regime clearly were, the amount they benefitted from the club in various ways) would have been out in the proverbial flash!

 

Because he was in the driving seat - the Halls had sold their shares to a billionaire who's intention to purchase the club entire was pretty clear from the start. To do that, he had to purchase Shepherd's shares. Hence, Shepherd got every last drop whilst he could.

 

Alternatively, what explanation is there for John Hall to be so desperate to sell his shares that he offered them to a random foreign hedge fund group based in Jersey and then an unknown English bloke who had made a billion from a sports shop. Is it not because he realised that the debt had become unsustainable and with the s*** squad, s*** manager, and overall bad reputation of the club there was no chance of getting out of that huge debt anytime soon, and indeed things possibly getting alot worse, what with huge investment in many of our mid table competitors?

 

Also, why was Shepherd seeking to form a consortium in order to buy the club? Maybe he wanted to get rid of the Halls, but more likely he needed cash to repay some of that that debt and therefore wanted to "sell" the club to other investors in order to avoid losing out on his cushy, highly paid job?

 

IMO Mort's story fits well with that scenario of the Halls/Shepherds knowing the club was f***ed financially unless there was big investment. And theres no real reason for Mort and Ashley to lie, or to believe that they were lying.

[Mick]

 

the flaws in your argument, are :

 

1. History proves you wrong, see my factually based reply to dudeabides - in Lee's case it is backed up with the highest league position for nearly 20 years and wasn't equalled for another 18 years. Before you sound off about me not having anything to back up my point of view, read this, and try to understand it, if you can. 

 

2. By that criteria, only 2 clubs - 3 if you count the league cup - appoint the "right man" per season. That means 17 or 18 premiership clubs have all appointed the "wrong man".

 

A ludicrous angle to look at it.

 

Quite amazing how many times you have to repeat things on here

 

 

 

I read the first line about your facts which have nothing to do with this thread then read about Gordon Lee getting the highest league position for nearly 20 years, you do know that it was Richard Dinnis who got us to that position, don't you?

[Baggio]

I wonder, if we really were so close to folding like a financial tonne of bricks, why was Shepherd and co so keen to hang around and fight off all the other takeover bids? Any seriously self-interested financially minded person (which the last regime clearly were, the amount they benefitted from the club in various ways) would have been out in the proverbial flash!

 

Because he was in the driving seat - the Halls had sold their shares to a billionaire who's intention to purchase the club entire was pretty clear from the start. To do that, he had to purchase Shepherd's shares. Hence, Shepherd got every last drop whilst he could.

 

Alternatively, what explanation is there for John Hall to be so desperate to sell his shares that he offered them to a random foreign hedge fund group based in Jersey and then an unknown English bloke who had made a billion from a sports shop. Is it not because he realised that the debt had become unsustainable and with the s*** squad, s*** manager, and overall bad reputation of the club there was no chance of getting out of that huge debt anytime soon, and indeed things possibly getting alot worse, what with huge investment in many of our mid table competitors?

 

Also, why was Shepherd seeking to form a consortium in order to buy the club? Maybe he wanted to get rid of the Halls, but more likely he needed cash to repay some of that that debt and therefore wanted to "sell" the club to other investors in order to avoid losing out on his cushy, highly paid job?

 

IMO Mort's story fits well with that scenario of the Halls/Shepherds knowing the club was f***ed financially unless there was big investment. And theres no real reason for Mort and Ashley to lie, or to believe that they were lying.

 

Here's a good video interview with SJH who said he was in constant communication with the Shepherd's when he went to London to sell the club and that they all agreed a price that they would sell it for.

 

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/videos-pictures/videos/2008/01/29/sir-john-hall-interview-72703-20407329/

[Mick]

You know very well he shouldn't have ever been appointed in the first place and after he single-handedly destroyed the team he should have went after that Chelsea game.

 

He does know that, but only with hindsight.

[Robster]

Before my time but isnt Gordon Lee universally hated for selling Supermac ?

[Guest elbee909]

 

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying that the most important principle a board should hold, is to back its appointed manager. And history proves the point. All clubs make mistakes, but they sack them, and continue backing them if they want success.

 

 

So the current lot are looking like they're backing Keegan.  But that's not the most important principle when it comes to judging this board, they've got get into the Champions League and match the previous board.  Apparently.

 

Seriously guys, when are you going to have some sort of way for me to filter out certain posters?  This circular argument stuff, I can't help but reply.  Help!  Help!

 

 

[fredbob]

 

Basic fundamental number 1 requirement for a board. Back your manager, punch your weight in the transfer market.

 

Will always stand a better chance of succeeding than a board that doesn't back their manager, and doesn't punch their weight in the transfer market.

 

That is the basis of the point I've made since day 1.

 

As long as they back their manager, they stood a chance of getting back among the top clubs.

 

That means buying more than one player.

 

Whatever the quotes say that you've found, and I repeat when Ashley has shown ambition to punch the clubs weight [which is all I'm asking for him] he'll get the same acceptance of the odd mishap that the old lot did, thats my point, and I'm sticking to it.

 

 

 

Wrong. And this is the reason why you cannot see people's frustrations with the old board post SBR.

 

The boards BASIC fundamental number 1 requirement is to appoint the RIGHT MAN. This is a good measure of your boards ambitions, the second fundamental requiremnt is to back that man. In that order So far the board has got the right man, and so far they seem  to be willing to put money on the table, this is backed up by the bids for Modric for £16-18m which would of been our 1st/2nd biggest sgining in our history and the £9m for Collocini which would be the most we've ever spent on a defender and possibly one of the highest fees for a defender in the league.

 

You dont seem to be able to back your drivel with any solid evidence aside from media splutterings and hearsay, embarressing really.

 

the flaws in your argument, are :

 

1. History proves you wrong, see my factually based reply to dudeabides - in Lee's case it is backed up with the highest league position for nearly 20 years and wasn't equalled for another 18 years. Before you sound off about me not having anything to back up my point of view, read this, and try to understand it, if you can. 

 

2. By that criteria, only 2 clubs - 3 if you count the league cup - appoint the "right man" per season. That means 17 or 18 premiership clubs have all appointed the "wrong man".

 

A ludicrous angle to look at it.

 

Quite amazing how many times you have to repeat things on here

 

 

 

Ok, so well done, you got it half right, you mention 2 appointments which suggest the old old board did the FIRST bit right , IE the basic fundmental requirement, but they failed miserably on the second. Hence we failed with our ambition.

 

By your logic, if we appointed one Graeme Souness and backed him with £50m that would make qualify you definition of the board excellent ambiton, an equally ludicrous idea, however im sayin that your order and priorites of board requirements is completely wrong, hence why you have such a contradictory point of view (See Liam Liam Liam O post  ) equally im saying that appointing the right man but not backing is equally destructive for the club, which is what you are insinuating with the current board, the current board have definitevely made an extremely ambitious appointment - which you havent acknoledged and they have made some big moves in the market which havent been completely pulled off but extremely close which doesnt suggest a lack of ambition but suggest lack of pulling power due to the club being LEFT in dire straights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

 

 

We need a dominating centre half.  If we want a good one & a few other good players we might have to bulk out the squad in the free transfer or cut price fee market.  If thats what the manager has decided, then that's fair enough for me.

 

The club may have slightly limited funds, or limited funds by the standards and expectations that people have come to expect.  If that is the case people might have to accept it for the time being, at least in the short term.

 

with the 3rd biggest crowd and support in the country, and 14th /15th turnover [something like that] in europe ?

 

We won't mention who created that  but I'm sorry but punching that weight is what you should be expecting.

 

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=36320.msg712421#msg712421

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=36320.msg714507#msg714507

 

Yeah but most of what I posted there about the transfers we are targetting are a cut and paste job on your opinions from 18 months ago. 

 

 

Why the change of heart? mackems.gif

 

Look for posts where I've said that when they have proved real ambition I won't criticise the odd mishap ...... I've said it often. When they have proved real ambition, then fair enough. I'm not getting carried away by one [hopefully good] signing, unlike others.

 

I can't be arsed to look for it though I'll let you do that as you seem so inclined.

 

This is a direct reply by the way, which is more than most people make. I notice nobody is admitting that they called such signings in the past "trophy signings". Why the change of heart ?

 

 

 

You've answered / replied to nothing tbf.  Nice try at wriggling out though

 

I spotted that post the a couple of days ago when you said you've never been this unhappy in recent memory.  I asked you if you were less happy now than 18 months ago, & when you avoided the question I decided to look for your opinions at the time for myself.

 

Just goes to show that when it comes to most of your opinions, it the person making the decision that counts rather than the decision they're making that matters.

 

Exactly what you accuse others of.

 

Like I said, you're wrong. Ashley will win me over when he proves real ambition, one signing doesn't do that, I'm talking real ambition, which must be higher than yours.

 

In the meantime, I've renewed my season ticket for the next 3 years so I'm obviously more unhappy than a lot of other people.

 

 

 

Still no answer though.

 

And seeing as you keep banging on about it, I've renewed for 3 years upfront as well, just I don't see how its relevant to what I've asked you above.

 

Perhaps you should read your posts I've linked to then try and answer why what was acceptable then is less acceptable now.

 

I'll not hold my breath though.

 

because they had proved their ambition. Simple as that. If you don't buy a ticket you won't win the raffle. And attempting to succeed and not quite getting to what you hoped for is a lot more acceptable than not attempting it at all.

 

The situation you talk about 18 months ago still stands, so why shouldn't the reasons you mentioned then still stand?

 

They were no longer showing any ambition 18 months ago, surely any fool can see that? 

 

Its all very well harping on about the Champions League placings they did achieve (and fair play to them for that) but when they left we were miles away from that happening again.  Even you can acknowledge that?

 

 

Basic fundamental number 1 requirement for a board. Back your manager, punch your weight in the transfer market.

 

Will always stand a better chance of succeeding than a board that doesn't back their manager, and doesn't punch their weight in the transfer market.

 

That is the basis of the point I've made since day 1.

 

As long as they back their manager, they stood a chance of getting back among the top clubs.

 

That means buying more than one player.

 

Whatever the quotes say that you've found, and I repeat when Ashley has shown ambition to punch the clubs weight [which is all I'm asking for him] he'll get the same acceptance of the odd mishap that the old lot did, thats my point, and I'm sticking to it.

 

 

 

I would put appointing the right manager a long way above that to be honest.

 

On the second point, would you say trying to sign players like Modric, Woodgate and Colocinni shows ambition?

 

Gordon Lee was a good appointment. So was Arthur Cox. Both pissed off [to Everton and bloody Derby - bigger club ?] because the board was s****, both underachieved at Newcastle. You will know Cox was mate , not so sure about Lee. Both those managers with a board that backed them would have done better, a lot lot better, and wouldn't have left either.

 

 

 

Agreed.........but I don't really see any relevance to this point.

 

Do you think Shepherd did the right thing backing Souness to the tune of £50M.

 

And how about Ridsdale at Leeds, would you say he carried out the basic fundamental number 1 requirement when backing O'Leary?

 

its totally different.

 

You have seen enough of life to understand that people back their own appointments?

 

Totally different altogether to the likes of Ozzie Mandiarse, who is either a Keegan Bandwagon JUmper part 1 who is pissed off that having deserted the likes of ManU, or jumped on the Keegan bandwagon first time round, is understandably agrieved that the glory they signed up for didn't materialise.

 

Don't tell me this is an unrealisitc scenario mate, because you know the same as me that this is precisely as it was [ie 2nd rate rubbish like the mackems have done for instance] , and there are a

few thousand Newcastle supporters who say they supported the club when they really were shit, but they are lying.

 

Some of those people are on this message board, and its quite obvious to me who they are.

 

 

[NE5]

 

Basic fundamental number 1 requirement for a board. Back your manager, punch your weight in the transfer market.

 

Will always stand a better chance of succeeding than a board that doesn't back their manager, and doesn't punch their weight in the transfer market.

 

That is the basis of the point I've made since day 1.

 

As long as they back their manager, they stood a chance of getting back among the top clubs.

 

That means buying more than one player.

 

Whatever the quotes say that you've found, and I repeat when Ashley has shown ambition to punch the clubs weight [which is all I'm asking for him] he'll get the same acceptance of the odd mishap that the old lot did, thats my point, and I'm sticking to it.

 

 

 

Wrong. And this is the reason why you cannot see people's frustrations with the old board post SBR.

 

The boards BASIC fundamental number 1 requirement is to appoint the RIGHT MAN. This is a good measure of your boards ambitions, the second fundamental requiremnt is to back that man. In that order So far the board has got the right man, and so far they seem  to be willing to put money on the table, this is backed up by the bids for Modric for £16-18m which would of been our 1st/2nd biggest sgining in our history and the £9m for Collocini which would be the most we've ever spent on a defender and possibly one of the highest fees for a defender in the league.

 

You dont seem to be able to back your drivel with any solid evidence aside from media splutterings and hearsay, embarressing really.

 

the flaws in your argument, are :

 

1. History proves you wrong, see my factually based reply to dudeabides - in Lee's case it is backed up with the highest league position for nearly 20 years and wasn't equalled for another 18 years. Before you sound off about me not having anything to back up my point of view, read this, and try to understand it, if you can. 

 

2. By that criteria, only 2 clubs - 3 if you count the league cup - appoint the "right man" per season. That means 17 or 18 premiership clubs have all appointed the "wrong man".

 

A ludicrous angle to look at it.

 

Quite amazing how many times you have to repeat things on here

 

 

 

Ok, so well done, you got it half right, you mention 2 appointments which suggest the old old board did the FIRST bit right , IE the basic fundmental requirement, but they failed miserably on the second. Hence we failed with our ambition.

 

By your logic, if we appointed one Graeme Souness and backed him with £50m that would make qualify you definition of the board excellent ambiton, an equally ludicrous idea, however im sayin that your order and priorites of board requirements is completely wrong, hence why you have such a contradictory point of view (See Liam Liam Liam O post  ) equally im saying that appointing the right man but not backing is equally destructive for the club, which is what you are insinuating with the current board, the current board have definitevely made an extremely ambitious appointment - which you havent acknoledged and they have made some big moves in the market which havent been completely pulled off but extremely close which doesnt suggest a lack of ambition but suggest lack of pulling power due to the club being LEFT in dire straights.

 

 

I've explained the situation and if you don't understand it [because you haven't seen it first hand like me] then its just tough shit really. There's nothing else I can do other than try to explain it to you