NE5 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I'm not purposely trying to castigate or give credit to anyone, but its clear you won't give any credit to Shepherd for anything. He was a big player in the takeover of the club, even if he doesn't have the shares he has now, and as Keegan says, instrumental in appointing him, and he should know. Actually, I'm all for giving credit where its due. Examples such as the stadium extension, appointing Robson and backing him with the clubs money to get us some great nights of football in the Champions League, all the credit in the World to Shepherd for that. However (IMO) he doesn't deserve the credit you're giving him for the appointment of Keegan, but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. except it isn't my opinion, its because Keegan himself says so. But I'm sure you know otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes. £45 million since flotation according to some fella on the three legends supposedly. Gospel There you are guys its been confirmed. Surprises me I thought they had laid out a fortune. Just goes to show you never know. Still waiting for your choice as manager with a better track record than Dalglish ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes. £45 million since flotation according to some fella on the three legends supposedly. Gospel There you are guys its been confirmed. Surprises me I thought they had laid out a fortune. Just goes to show you never know. Still waiting for your choice as manager with a better track record than Dalglish ? Still waiting for you to stop fussing over details and see the big picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Probably the hardest hitting article yet: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=413605&in_page_id=1779&in_a_source= Put a pony on Roeder winning sack race Stuart Pearce wants a 'sacking window' in which managers can only be handed their P45 at a prearranged date in the season. It's a nice try, but an idea that has about as much chance of being adopted as his daughter's 'lucky' toy horse has of winning the Grand National. Pearce even complains that speculation about a manager's position is 'easy journalism'. He might have a point, but he is shooting at the wrong target. The real danger stems from a club board looking for an easy fix. Up at Liverpool one director is busily blabbing to the media that Rafa Benitez is in trouble. At West Ham, an insider is keeping everyone briefed on how many games Alan Pardew might have left. While someone within Pearce's camp is counting down the number of matches he will be given to turn things around. They are all equipped to emerge from their current plight, but only if their directors hold their nerve. The one who has real reason to fear is Glenn Roeder. He is employed by Newcastle United, a club with a dismal history of hiring and firing everyone except the men responsible for making these appointments in the first place. Worse still, these same sack-happy directors have just posted annual losses of £12million. The Newcastle Evening Chronicle regarded as the media mouthpiece of Freddy Shepherd, says that the chairman "has no plans to relieve Roeder of his duties at this moment in time", that time presumably being lunchtime. But since Shepherd enjoys lining his pockets with Newcastle's cash, I'd advise the likeable Roeder to wait a while before mapping out his speech for the club Christmas party. That's not easy journalism. That's from the toy horse's mouth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 the board ... have made it quite obvious they are prepared to pay for success. The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes. And it's a laugh to say they've been "prepared to pay for success"? What success? They got ripped off. Or rather, we did. You think they have to spend money bringing in players do you? No, just that it's dumb to imagine (or present) them as philanthropic donors, selflessly turning out their pockets to back the manager. They pay themselves very handsomely for what they do, even though in some cases (Dodgy Doug the prime example) it's difficult to work out exactly what that might be. Meanwhile, they're presiding over steadily diminishing returns. Nobody is saying that or suggesting that. You just like to spin it that way for some reason. Well you can read the quote that started this discussion your way, and I'll ignore the rest of the post. well it isn't your money. And I would rather use the money I choose to spend on the club buying "trophy players" like Owen than the likes of Jonathon Stead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I'm not purposely trying to castigate or give credit to anyone, but its clear you won't give any credit to Shepherd for anything. He was a big player in the takeover of the club, even if he doesn't have the shares he has now, and as Keegan says, instrumental in appointing him, and he should know. Actually, I'm all for giving credit where its due. Examples such as the stadium extension, appointing Robson and backing him with the clubs money to get us some great nights of football in the Champions League, all the credit in the World to Shepherd for that. However (IMO) he doesn't deserve the credit you're giving him for the appointment of Keegan, but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. except it isn't my opinion, its because Keegan himself says so. But I'm sure you know otherwise. As I've said, Shepherd was small fry at the time and was in agreement with Hall and Fletcher, similar to Bruce Shepherd being in agreement with Douglas Hall and his brother over appointing Robson, everybody knew Fletcher was the main drive behind the club at the time. You're coming across as if they head hunted a top manager when in truth his appointment was down to luck and a lack of options. That is my opinion on the matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I'm not purposely trying to castigate or give credit to anyone, but its clear you won't give any credit to Shepherd for anything. He was a big player in the takeover of the club, even if he doesn't have the shares he has now, and as Keegan says, instrumental in appointing him, and he should know. Actually, I'm all for giving credit where its due. Examples such as the stadium extension, appointing Robson and backing him with the clubs money to get us some great nights of football in the Champions League, all the credit in the World to Shepherd for that. However (IMO) he doesn't deserve the credit you're giving him for the appointment of Keegan, but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. except it isn't my opinion, its because Keegan himself says so. But I'm sure you know otherwise. As I've said, Shepherd was small fry at the time and was in agreement with Hall and Fletcher, similar to Bruce Shepherd being in agreement with Douglas Hall and his brother over appointing Robson, everybody knew Fletcher was the main drive behind the club at the time. You're coming across as if they head hunted a top manager when in truth his appointment was down to luck and a lack of options. That is my opinion on the matter. I don't know whether it was luck or not and don't really care, I'm stating the fact that Keegan says Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher chose him, and persuaded him to take the job. And its not an opinion, its what he says. Therefore the credit for that goes to those 3 people. I doubt very much a top manager would have looked at Newcastle at that time, yes, in fact they hadn't done for over 30 years previously, its only the efforts of the board since 1992 that have put the club in the position where top managers ARE interested in the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 the board ... have made it quite obvious they are prepared to pay for success. The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes. And it's a laugh to say they've been "prepared to pay for success"? What success? They got ripped off. Or rather, we did. You think they have to spend money bringing in players do you? No, just that it's dumb to imagine (or present) them as philanthropic donors, selflessly turning out their pockets to back the manager. They pay themselves very handsomely for what they do, even though in some cases (Dodgy Doug the prime example) it's difficult to work out exactly what that might be. Meanwhile, they're presiding over steadily diminishing returns. Nobody is saying that or suggesting that. You just like to spin it that way for some reason. Well you can read the quote that started this discussion your way, and I'll ignore the rest of the post. well it isn't your money. And I would rather use the money I choose to spend on the club buying "trophy players" like Owen than the likes of Jonathon Stead. The honesty of your argument is in no way improved by rewriting other people's posts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 the board ... have made it quite obvious they are prepared to pay for success. The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes. And it's a laugh to say they've been "prepared to pay for success"? What success? They got ripped off. Or rather, we did. You think they have to spend money bringing in players do you? No, just that it's dumb to imagine (or present) them as philanthropic donors, selflessly turning out their pockets to back the manager. They pay themselves very handsomely for what they do, even though in some cases (Dodgy Doug the prime example) it's difficult to work out exactly what that might be. Meanwhile, they're presiding over steadily diminishing returns. Nobody is saying that or suggesting that. You just like to spin it that way for some reason. Well you can read the quote that started this discussion your way, and I'll ignore the rest of the post. well it isn't your money. And I would rather use the money I choose to spend on the club buying "trophy players" like Owen than the likes of Jonathon Stead. The honesty of you well, thank you Ozzie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I'm not purposely trying to castigate or give credit to anyone, but its clear you won't give any credit to Shepherd for anything. He was a big player in the takeover of the club, even if he doesn't have the shares he has now, and as Keegan says, instrumental in appointing him, and he should know. Actually, I'm all for giving credit where its due. Examples such as the stadium extension, appointing Robson and backing him with the clubs money to get us some great nights of football in the Champions League, all the credit in the World to Shepherd for that. However (IMO) he doesn't deserve the credit you're giving him for the appointment of Keegan, but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. except it isn't my opinion, its because Keegan himself says so. But I'm sure you know otherwise. As I've said, Shepherd was small fry at the time and was in agreement with Hall and Fletcher, similar to Bruce Shepherd being in agreement with Douglas Hall and his brother over appointing Robson, everybody knew Fletcher was the main drive behind the club at the time. You're coming across as if they head hunted a top manager when in truth his appointment was down to luck and a lack of options. That is my opinion on the matter. I don't know whether it was luck or not and don't really care, I'm stating the fact that Keegan says Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher chose him, and persuaded him to take the job. And its not an opinion, its what he says. Therefore the credit for that goes to those 3 people. Yes, the entire picture looks different in the light of one possibly inaccurate recollection in KK's ghost-written memoir. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Probably the hardest hitting article yet: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=413605&in_page_id=1779&in_a_source= Put a pony on Roeder winning sack race Stuart Pearce wants a 'sacking window' in which managers can only be handed their P45 at a prearranged date in the season. It's a nice try, but an idea that has about as much chance of being adopted as his daughter's 'lucky' toy horse has of winning the Grand National. Pearce even complains that speculation about a manager's position is 'easy journalism'. He might have a point, but he is shooting at the wrong target. The real danger stems from a club board looking for an easy fix. Up at Liverpool one director is busily blabbing to the media that Rafa Benitez is in trouble. At West Ham, an insider is keeping everyone briefed on how many games Alan Pardew might have left. While someone within Pearce's camp is counting down the number of matches he will be given to turn things around. They are all equipped to emerge from their current plight, but only if their directors hold their nerve. The one who has real reason to fear is Glenn Roeder. He is employed by Newcastle United, a club with a dismal history of hiring and firing everyone except the men responsible for making these appointments in the first place. Worse still, these same sack-happy directors have just posted annual losses of £12million. The Newcastle Evening Chronicle regarded as the media mouthpiece of Freddy Shepherd, says that the chairman "has no plans to relieve Roeder of his duties at this moment in time", that time presumably being lunchtime. But since Shepherd enjoys lining his pockets with Newcastle's cash, I'd advise the likeable Roeder to wait a while before mapping out his speech for the club Christmas party. That's not easy journalism. That's from the toy horse's mouth. Link won't work for me, but I suspect that's written by the journalist with whom I set up the interview you were going to do when Fat Freddy dissed the Hitzfeld campaign as a betting scam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I'm not purposely trying to castigate or give credit to anyone, but its clear you won't give any credit to Shepherd for anything. He was a big player in the takeover of the club, even if he doesn't have the shares he has now, and as Keegan says, instrumental in appointing him, and he should know. Actually, I'm all for giving credit where its due. Examples such as the stadium extension, appointing Robson and backing him with the clubs money to get us some great nights of football in the Champions League, all the credit in the World to Shepherd for that. However (IMO) he doesn't deserve the credit you're giving him for the appointment of Keegan, but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. except it isn't my opinion, its because Keegan himself says so. But I'm sure you know otherwise. As I've said, Shepherd was small fry at the time and was in agreement with Hall and Fletcher, similar to Bruce Shepherd being in agreement with Douglas Hall and his brother over appointing Robson, everybody knew Fletcher was the main drive behind the club at the time. You're coming across as if they head hunted a top manager when in truth his appointment was down to luck and a lack of options. That is my opinion on the matter. I don't know whether it was luck or not and don't really care, I'm stating the fact that Keegan says Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher chose him, and persuaded him to take the job. And its not an opinion, its what he says. Therefore the credit for that goes to those 3 people. I doubt very much a top manager would have looked at Newcastle at that time, yes, in fact they hadn't done for over 30 years previously, its only the efforts of the board since 1992 that have put the club in the position where top managers ARE interested in the club. Keegan seems to think Freddie Fletcher was behind the clubs up turn - "He is a very ambitious, very clever man who played a vital role in the developement of the club. I couldn't have done it without him, without the Halls' money, without Douglas's brilliance with figures, or director Russell Jones's expertise with the stadium, which he built as quickly as we built the team." So they were the reasons the club turned around, can't see him giving Shepherd credit anywhere for the change in fortune of the club. But I'm sure you know otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I'm not purposely trying to castigate or give credit to anyone, but its clear you won't give any credit to Shepherd for anything. He was a big player in the takeover of the club, even if he doesn't have the shares he has now, and as Keegan says, instrumental in appointing him, and he should know. Actually, I'm all for giving credit where its due. Examples such as the stadium extension, appointing Robson and backing him with the clubs money to get us some great nights of football in the Champions League, all the credit in the World to Shepherd for that. However (IMO) he doesn't deserve the credit you're giving him for the appointment of Keegan, but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. except it isn't my opinion, its because Keegan himself says so. But I'm sure you know otherwise. As I've said, Shepherd was small fry at the time and was in agreement with Hall and Fletcher, similar to Bruce Shepherd being in agreement with Douglas Hall and his brother over appointing Robson, everybody knew Fletcher was the main drive behind the club at the time. You're coming across as if they head hunted a top manager when in truth his appointment was down to luck and a lack of options. That is my opinion on the matter. I don't know whether it was luck or not and don't really care, I'm stating the fact that Keegan says Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher chose him, and persuaded him to take the job. And its not an opinion, its what he says. Therefore the credit for that goes to those 3 people. I doubt very much a top manager would have looked at Newcastle at that time, yes, in fact they hadn't done for over 30 years previously, its only the efforts of the board since 1992 that have put the club in the position where top managers ARE interested in the club. Keegan seems to think Freddie Fletcher was behind the clubs up turn - "He is a very ambitious, very clever man who played a vital role in the developement of the club. I couldn't have done it without him, without the Halls' money, without Douglas's brilliance with figures, or director Russell Jones's expertise with the stadium, which he built as quickly as we built the team." So they were the reasons the club turned around, can't see him giving Shepherd credit anywhere for the change in fortune of the club. But I'm sure you know otherwise. I also think Fletcher was a very clever man. But I am just quoting Keegans comments. Not giving credit where it is due to someone is of course your prerogative, but your judgement and prespective would be better if you were able to look at comments more clinically and not exercise such bias towards individuals for whatever reason you choose to use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I'm not purposely trying to castigate or give credit to anyone, but its clear you won't give any credit to Shepherd for anything. He was a big player in the takeover of the club, even if he doesn't have the shares he has now, and as Keegan says, instrumental in appointing him, and he should know. Actually, I'm all for giving credit where its due. Examples such as the stadium extension, appointing Robson and backing him with the clubs money to get us some great nights of football in the Champions League, all the credit in the World to Shepherd for that. However (IMO) he doesn't deserve the credit you're giving him for the appointment of Keegan, but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. except it isn't my opinion, its because Keegan himself says so. But I'm sure you know otherwise. As I've said, Shepherd was small fry at the time and was in agreement with Hall and Fletcher, similar to Bruce Shepherd being in agreement with Douglas Hall and his brother over appointing Robson, everybody knew Fletcher was the main drive behind the club at the time. You're coming across as if they head hunted a top manager when in truth his appointment was down to luck and a lack of options. That is my opinion on the matter. I don't know whether it was luck or not and don't really care, I'm stating the fact that Keegan says Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher chose him, and persuaded him to take the job. And its not an opinion, its what he says. Therefore the credit for that goes to those 3 people. I doubt very much a top manager would have looked at Newcastle at that time, yes, in fact they hadn't done for over 30 years previously, its only the efforts of the board since 1992 that have put the club in the position where top managers ARE interested in the club. Keegan seems to think Freddie Fletcher was behind the clubs up turn - "He is a very ambitious, very clever man who played a vital role in the developement of the club. I couldn't have done it without him, without the Halls' money, without Douglas's brilliance with figures, or director Russell Jones's expertise with the stadium, which he built as quickly as we built the team." So they were the reasons the club turned around, can't see him giving Shepherd credit anywhere for the change in fortune of the club. But I'm sure you know otherwise. I also think Fletcher was a very clever man. But I am just quoting Keegans comments. Not giving credit where it is due to someone is of course your prerogative, but your judgement and prespective would be better if you were able to look at comments more clinically and not exercise such bias towards individuals for whatever reason you choose to use. Aye, that's the problem. The folk who are fed up and appalled that the mis-management of resources over a ten-year period has led us into the current position – entering a relegation battle with a crap manager, a threadbare squad and yet another major injury crisis with apparently no money to reinforce – are just "biased". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I'm not purposely trying to castigate or give credit to anyone, but its clear you won't give any credit to Shepherd for anything. He was a big player in the takeover of the club, even if he doesn't have the shares he has now, and as Keegan says, instrumental in appointing him, and he should know. Actually, I'm all for giving credit where its due. Examples such as the stadium extension, appointing Robson and backing him with the clubs money to get us some great nights of football in the Champions League, all the credit in the World to Shepherd for that. However (IMO) he doesn't deserve the credit you're giving him for the appointment of Keegan, but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. except it isn't my opinion, its because Keegan himself says so. But I'm sure you know otherwise. As I've said, Shepherd was small fry at the time and was in agreement with Hall and Fletcher, similar to Bruce Shepherd being in agreement with Douglas Hall and his brother over appointing Robson, everybody knew Fletcher was the main drive behind the club at the time. You're coming across as if they head hunted a top manager when in truth his appointment was down to luck and a lack of options. That is my opinion on the matter. I don't know whether it was luck or not and don't really care, I'm stating the fact that Keegan says Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher chose him, and persuaded him to take the job. And its not an opinion, its what he says. Therefore the credit for that goes to those 3 people. I doubt very much a top manager would have looked at Newcastle at that time, yes, in fact they hadn't done for over 30 years previously, its only the efforts of the board since 1992 that have put the club in the position where top managers ARE interested in the club. Keegan seems to think Freddie Fletcher was behind the clubs up turn - "He is a very ambitious, very clever man who played a vital role in the developement of the club. I couldn't have done it without him, without the Halls' money, without Douglas's brilliance with figures, or director Russell Jones's expertise with the stadium, which he built as quickly as we built the team." So they were the reasons the club turned around, can't see him giving Shepherd credit anywhere for the change in fortune of the club. But I'm sure you know otherwise. I also think Fletcher was a very clever man. But I am just quoting Keegans comments. Not giving credit where it is due to someone is of course your prerogative, but your judgement and prespective would be better if you were able to look at comments more clinically and not exercise such bias towards individuals for whatever reason you choose to use. Aye, that's the problem. The folk who are fed up and appalled that the mis-management of resources over a ten-year period has led us into the current position – entering a relegation battle with a crap manager, a threadbare squad and yet another major injury crisis with apparently no money to reinforce – are just "biased". so what was your bias when you backed your man Souness Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I also think Fletcher was a very clever man. But I am just quoting Keegans comments. Not giving credit where it is due to someone is of course your prerogative, but your judgement and prespective would be better if you were able to look at comments more clinically and not exercise such bias towards individuals for whatever reason you choose to use. Bias, as in Shepherd is not shite but Ellis is, even though Ellis has a better record of finishing higher than Shepherd. bluebiggrin.gif Shepherd is not to blame for our current situation, the managers he appointed are. bluebiggrin.gif Shepherd does not sell players behind the managers back, Bobby Robson must have lost his marbles. bluebiggrin.gif Shepherd is not responsible for our £12 million loss, that's down to Souness, it's got nothing to do with the bloke who signs the cheques. bluebiggrin.gif That list could go on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 An interesting piece from Sir Bobby's book about the board... I worked away with my one-season deal and gradually imposed my authority on the team. Really, there was no Newcastle 'board' to talk to or consult with. The chairman would often say to me, 'I'll put it to the board,' and I would reply, 'Chairman, there is no board. There's you and there's Douglas Hall' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I also think Fletcher was a very clever man. But I am just quoting Keegans comments. Not giving credit where it is due to someone is of course your prerogative, but your judgement and prespective would be better if you were able to look at comments more clinically and not exercise such bias towards individuals for whatever reason you choose to use. Bias, as in Shepherd is not shite but Ellis is, even though Ellis has a better record of finishing higher than Shepherd. bluebiggrin.gif Shepherd is not to blame for our current situation, the managers he appointed are. bluebiggrin.gif Shepherd does not sell players behind the managers back, Bobby Robson must have lost his marbles. bluebiggrin.gif Shepherd is not responsible for our £12 million loss, that's down to Souness, it's got nothing to do with the bloke who signs the cheques. bluebiggrin.gif That list could go on. Bias, as in loving a board whose ambition was to sell our best "trophy" players and replace them with has beens, and happy just to be in the top league .... or slating a board who has bought "trophy" players and gave you regular european football What are you going to say if Polygon take over the club and sell players if they don't get instant success and the return on their investement ? Back to those days that you loved ? Are you going to tell us why, in your expert knowledge, Gordon Lee left Newcastle and bought England players at Everton, and Cox left Newcastle in 1984 ? And why Bobby Robson wasn't interested in managing Newcastle until the club was run by the Halls and Shepherd. Don't think I'll get an answer like Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 An interesting piece from Sir Bobby's book about the board... I worked away with my one-season deal and gradually imposed my authority on the team. Really, there was no Newcastle 'board' to talk to or consult with. The chairman would often say to me, 'I'll put it to the board,' and I would reply, 'Chairman, there is no board. There's you and there's Douglas Hall' Eerrr....the 2 major shareholders. What is wrong with that, every club has major shareholders. You have obviously also missed the times I have pointed out that the Halls are still the major shareholders too, not Shepherd. Bitter. The same person who said we made a profit on Carl Cort. The same man who SIGNED a 12 month contract then didn't know it was due to expire .... Don't get me wrong, Bobby Robson was great, I used to watch England regularly when he was manager of England. Did you know then he used to walk into a broom cupboard at Wembley thinking it was the dressing room door ? True. well, I read it somewhere years ago anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Eerrr....the 2 major shareholders. What is wrong with that, every club has major shareholders. You have obviously also missed the times I have pointed out that the Halls are still the major shareholders too, not Shepherd. I doubt many other clubs have a board consisting of mainly two individuals, especially when one is hardly in and around the club. Bitter. The same person who said we made a profit on Carl Cort. The same man who SIGNED a 12 month contract then didn't know it was due to expire .... Didn't he explain how the club made a profit on Carl Cort? It was to do with how much his value would have depreciated over the length of his contract. EDIT - http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/amortisation2.htm Can't say I remember about him not knowing when his contract would expire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 What are you going to say if Polygon take over the club and sell players if they don't get instant success and the return on their investement ? Back to those days that you loved ? What are you going to say when Fat Fred gets us relegated? Same old shite? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I doubt very much a top manager would have looked at Newcastle at that time, yes, in fact they hadn't done for over 30 years previously, its only the efforts of the board since 1992 that have put the club in the position where top managers ARE interested in the club. Top managers aren't interested in the club anymore. Or hadn't you noticed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 What are you going to say if Polygon take over the club and sell players if they don't get instant success and the return on their investement ? Back to those days that you loved ? If the Halls and Shepherd sell to a hedge fund such as Polygon who are out to make quick money out of us, it'll show that the money mentmore to them than the future survival and welfare of the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 What are you going to say if Polygon take over the club and sell players if they don't get instant success and the return on their investement ? Back to those days that you loved ? If the Halls and Shepherd sell to a hedge fund such as Polygon who are out to make quick money out of us, it'll show that the money mentmore to them than the future survival and welfare of the club. you couldn't make it up. So you are now going to blame them for selling to someone you want to take over .... Priceless.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 What are you going to say if Polygon take over the club and sell players if they don't get instant success and the return on their investement ? Back to those days that you loved ? What are you going to say when Fat Fred gets us relegated? Same old shite? never mind Ozzie, they may bring back your man Souness, as its his level think about it, but I doubt you'll get it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts