Mike Ashley - Newcastle's best ever chairman/owner.

[NE5]

I certainly think Ashley was the best leader the club has had in that time

 

Best leader?!?! He appointed: Chris Mort (Loan-Chariman) the fucker could not even get him on a full time deal & Steve Hayward (non-executive Director) & they went out & got Dennis Wise (Executive Director (Football)), Tony Jimenez (Vice President (Player Recruitment)), Jeff Vetere (Technical Co-ordinator), David Williamson (Executive Director (Operations)), John Irving  (Financial Controller)  & Derek Llambias (Managing Director & Chairman). That crew ran/led or currently run/lead Newcastle United. Elsewhere mid 2007 the Chairman of Sports Direct left after a boardroom wrangle (I FUCKING KID YOU NOT!!), Mike could not get anyone in (REALLY I AM NOT SHITTING YOU), so he went back to running the SportDirect as Chairman from Dec 2007. He leads SportsDirect, he owns Newcastle United Football.

 

When I get the urge I will look at the rest of your post

 

absolutely spot on, and the amount of u-turns on here must be a world record. Even more staggering is those who refuse to accept and admit that their judgement has been shite, and the board who they slated for everything they could think of, have been made to look like the biggest pillocks ever.

 

Some people have admitted it though, and respect to them for that.

 

But the older people who claim to have supported the club pre-1992, even more so, should have had better judgement, having seen the signs of an amateur bunch of morons running a football club like NUFC - so they say - but have had their heads up their arse due to an obsession and fake outrage borne out of being called a few nasty names  a decade ago. Maybe they are couch potatoes and don't understand that going out with the lads quite often leads to saying macho things. Such condemnation is normally made by old women. Maybe there is a bit of truth in that.

 

The support for Mike Ashley has been cringeworthy from day 1, and has only got worse as it has became more increasingly obvious that they in terms of attempting to run a successful football club, never had a clue what they were doing.

 

 

[Teasy]

The best leader the club has had?  Mike Ashley?   He's the anti leader FFS!  He's invisible 99% of the time..

 

The club's getting sold isn't it? That means he's making way for whichever next best leader who is willing to put his money where his mouth is. That's how it is, that's how it's always been.

 

Not sure what your point is there?

[NE5]

he didn't put money in to the team (ie, the thing us fans follow) though, he put it into paying off debts that he had no choice but to pay off, and others that would prove to be an investment and save him money through avoiding future interest payments.

 

seems like ive had to point this out a million times before, but im sick of that particular canard.

 

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you.

 

I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny.

 

aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us.

 

 

 

You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing shit at that point.

 

This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective.

 

comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not shit] under the McKeags and his cronies.

 

Thats also a perspective.

 

Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past.

 

 

 

If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact.

 

the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate.

 

Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too.

 

I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear.

 

 

[Dave]

You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas.

 

So would you.

[TRon]

The best leader the club has had?  Mike Ashley?   He's the anti leader FFS!  He's invisible 99% of the time..

 

The club's getting sold isn't it? That means he's making way for whichever next best leader who is willing to put his money where his mouth is. That's how it is, that's how it's always been.

 

Not sure what your point is there?

 

It means he's a leader who can't provide what you want. The next best thing is to sell to someone who will hopefully do it better.

[madras]

he didn't put money in to the team (ie, the thing us fans follow) though, he put it into paying off debts that he had no choice but to pay off, and others that would prove to be an investment and save him money through avoiding future interest payments.

 

seems like ive had to point this out a million times before, but im sick of that particular canard.

 

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you.

 

I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny.

 

aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us.

 

 

 

You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing s*** at that point.

 

This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective.

 

comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not s***] under the McKeags and his cronies.

 

Thats also a perspective.

 

Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past.

 

 

 

If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact.

 

the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate.

 

Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too.

 

I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear.

 

 

thats the point. no-one is denying the most succesful period was with keegan as manager and hall/shepherd for the board. this to me proves there is no "personality driven agenda". the vast majority on here will say when fat fred done good he done good,but he stopped doing good.

 

unfortunatly the only person who is guilty of a "personality driven agenda" is yourself as you never gave ashley a chance.

[NE5]

You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas.

 

So would you.

 

I don't have a personality driven agenda. I don't distort facts. Facts are that the old board run by the Shepherds and Hall are light years better than anybody else in 50 years at least, and have the european qualifications, league positions and level of interest among the clubs supporter to prove it.

 

I'm still waiting for your mate mick to answer my questions about the strike in the 1970's [which is part of current debate because the current situation echoes it] where I have completely shown with links that he's a bullshitter. Are you going to hound him and demand he replies, just to be consistent ?

 

 

[Optimistic Nut]

he didn't put money in to the team (ie, the thing us fans follow) though, he put it into paying off debts that he had no choice but to pay off, and others that would prove to be an investment and save him money through avoiding future interest payments.

 

seems like ive had to point this out a million times before, but im sick of that particular canard.

 

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you.

 

I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny.

 

aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us.

 

 

You do realise we finished only 2 points better off than West Ham, who stayed up on the final day, just a couple of months before Shepherd left don't you?

 

So it's hardly as if we've just been sliding that way since Shepherd left.

[Dave]

You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas.

 

So would you.

 

I don't have a personality driven agenda. I don't distort facts. Facts are that the old board run by the Shepherds and Hall are light years better than anybody else in 50 years at least, and have the european qualifications, league positions and level of interest among the clubs supporter to prove it.

 

I'm still waiting for your mate mick to answer my questions about the strike in the 1970's [which is part of current debate because the current situation echoes it] where I have completely shown with links that he's a bullshitter. Are you going to hound him and demand he replies, just to be consistent ?

 

 

 

Nice one.

[Teasy]

The best leader the club has had?  Mike Ashley?   He's the anti leader FFS!  He's invisible 99% of the time..

 

The club's getting sold isn't it? That means he's making way for whichever next best leader who is willing to put his money where his mouth is. That's how it is, that's how it's always been.

 

Not sure what your point is there?

 

It means he's a leader who can't provide what you want. The next best thing is to sell to someone who will hopefully do it better.

 

I just don't think he's a leader at all, he couldn't lead a lemming off a fucking cliff!   No doubt after months of hearing paper rumours that Ashley wanted him to jump, but with no word from Ashley himself, the poor little bastard would end up protesting.  At which point Ashley would sell the cliff for twice its actual worth

[TRon]

he didn't put money in to the team (ie, the thing us fans follow) though, he put it into paying off debts that he had no choice but to pay off, and others that would prove to be an investment and save him money through avoiding future interest payments.

 

seems like ive had to point this out a million times before, but im sick of that particular canard.

 

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you.

 

I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny.

 

aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us.

 

 

 

You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing shit at that point.

 

This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective.

 

comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not shit] under the McKeags and his cronies.

 

Thats also a perspective.

 

Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past.

 

 

 

If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact.

 

the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate.

 

Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too.

 

I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear.

 

 

 

If you read any of my previous posts going back some while now, I have said like you, that I would love an owner who would back Keegan with the funds he requires. Unlike Shepherd I wouldn't even demand a trophy or a CL spot at the end of it.

 

Hopefully we aren't too far from that day right now.

 

It won't be Shepherd though, he's trying to buy some club in Spain for £40m.

[NE5]

he didn't put money in to the team (ie, the thing us fans follow) though, he put it into paying off debts that he had no choice but to pay off, and others that would prove to be an investment and save him money through avoiding future interest payments.

 

seems like ive had to point this out a million times before, but im sick of that particular canard.

 

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you.

 

I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny.

 

aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us.

 

 

 

You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing s*** at that point.

 

This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective.

 

comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not s***] under the McKeags and his cronies.

 

Thats also a perspective.

 

Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past.

 

 

 

If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact.

 

the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate.

 

Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too.

 

I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear.

 

 

thats the point. no-one is denying the most succesful period was with keegan as manager and hall/shepherd for the board. this to me proves there is no "personality driven agenda". the vast majority on here will say when fat fred done good he done good,but he stopped doing good.

 

unfortunatly the only person who is guilty of a "personality driven agenda" is yourself as you never gave ashley a chance.

 

It was in Ashleys own hands to get me and others to "give him a chance". Unfortunately, it was obvious [to me] pretty early on that the setup and the approach was wrong. So don't tell me that I should support someone I think is the wrong person to own the club that is getting it spectacularly wrong. Even though my heart told me I hoped that I would be wrong, I'll admit that much which contributed to my deciding to pay for 3 years season tickets,although it wasn't the overriding factor.

 

 

 

 

[madras]

he didn't put money in to the team (ie, the thing us fans follow) though, he put it into paying off debts that he had no choice but to pay off, and others that would prove to be an investment and save him money through avoiding future interest payments.

 

seems like ive had to point this out a million times before, but im sick of that particular canard.

 

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you.

 

I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny.

 

aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us.

 

 

 

You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing s*** at that point.

 

This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective.

 

comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not s***] under the McKeags and his cronies.

 

Thats also a perspective.

 

Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past.

 

 

 

If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact.

 

the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate.

 

Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too.

 

I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear.

 

 

thats the point. no-one is denying the most succesful period was with keegan as manager and hall/shepherd for the board. this to me proves there is no "personality driven agenda". the vast majority on here will say when fat fred done good he done good,but he stopped doing good.

 

unfortunatly the only person who is guilty of a "personality driven agenda" is yourself as you never gave ashley a chance.

 

It was in Ashleys own hands to get me and others to "give him a chance". Unfortunately, it was obvious [to me] pretty early on that the setup and the approach was wrong. So don't tell me that I should support someone I think is the wrong person to own the club that is getting it spectacularly wrong. Even though my heart told me I hoped that I would be wrong, I'll admit that much which contributed to my deciding to pay for 3 years season tickets,although it wasn't the overriding factor.

 

 

 

 

and thats how i've felt from 2004 onwards

[NE5]

he didn't put money in to the team (ie, the thing us fans follow) though, he put it into paying off debts that he had no choice but to pay off, and others that would prove to be an investment and save him money through avoiding future interest payments.

 

seems like ive had to point this out a million times before, but im sick of that particular canard.

 

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you.

 

I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny.

 

aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us.

 

 

 

You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing shit at that point.

 

This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective.

 

comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not shit] under the McKeags and his cronies.

 

Thats also a perspective.

 

Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past.

 

 

 

If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact.

 

the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate.

 

Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too.

 

I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear.

 

 

 

If you read any of my previous posts going back some while now, I have said like you, that I would love an owner who would back Keegan with the funds he requires. Unlike Shepherd I wouldn't even demand a trophy or a CL spot at the end of it.

 

Hopefully we aren't too far from that day right now.

 

It won't be Shepherd though, he's trying to buy some club in Spain for £40m.

 

Well, it doesn't bother me if the new owner has green hair, tells the world that the mackems are shite, goes to brothels 7 days a week, launders drugs, and hires top lawyers to get him off speeding tickets, so long as he backs his managers and understands that its gaining success on the field that matters, and thats his main requirement which he must do to the best of his ability.

 

We are miles away from a CL spot and matching the shite old board mate.

[madras]

he didn't put money in to the team (ie, the thing us fans follow) though, he put it into paying off debts that he had no choice but to pay off, and others that would prove to be an investment and save him money through avoiding future interest payments.

 

seems like ive had to point this out a million times before, but im sick of that particular canard.

 

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you.

 

I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny.

 

aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us.

 

 

 

You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing s*** at that point.

 

This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective.

 

comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not s***] under the McKeags and his cronies.

 

Thats also a perspective.

 

Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past.

 

 

 

If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact.

 

the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate.

 

Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too.

 

I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear.

 

 

 

If you read any of my previous posts going back some while now, I have said like you, that I would love an owner who would back Keegan with the funds he requires. Unlike Shepherd I wouldn't even demand a trophy or a CL spot at the end of it.

 

Hopefully we aren't too far from that day right now.

 

It won't be Shepherd though, he's trying to buy some club in Spain for £40m.

 

Well, it doesn't bother me if the new owner has green hair, tells the world that the mackems are s****, goes to brothels 7 days a week, launders drugs, and hires top lawyers to get him off speeding tickets, so long as he backs his managers and understands that its gaining success on the field that matters, and thats his main requirement which he must do to the best of his ability.

 

We are miles away from a CL spot and matching the s**** old board mate.

the shite old board of 2004 onwards ?

[NE5]

he didn't put money in to the team (ie, the thing us fans follow) though, he put it into paying off debts that he had no choice but to pay off, and others that would prove to be an investment and save him money through avoiding future interest payments.

 

seems like ive had to point this out a million times before, but im sick of that particular canard.

 

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you.

 

I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny.

 

aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us.

 

 

 

You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing s*** at that point.

 

This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective.

 

comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not s***] under the McKeags and his cronies.

 

Thats also a perspective.

 

Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past.

 

 

 

If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact.

 

the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate.

 

Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too.

 

I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear.

 

 

thats the point. no-one is denying the most succesful period was with keegan as manager and hall/shepherd for the board. this to me proves there is no "personality driven agenda". the vast majority on here will say when fat fred done good he done good,but he stopped doing good.

 

unfortunatly the only person who is guilty of a "personality driven agenda" is yourself as you never gave ashley a chance.

 

It was in Ashleys own hands to get me and others to "give him a chance". Unfortunately, it was obvious [to me] pretty early on that the setup and the approach was wrong. So don't tell me that I should support someone I think is the wrong person to own the club that is getting it spectacularly wrong. Even though my heart told me I hoped that I would be wrong, I'll admit that much which contributed to my deciding to pay for 3 years season tickets,although it wasn't the overriding factor.

 

 

 

 

and thats how i've felt from 2004 onwards

 

3 years, under the old board, and one under the new one, one of which we finished 7th and got into europe. So disappointing isn't it ? Diddums. Simply terrible.

 

 

[Optimistic Nut]

 

We are miles away from a CL spot and matching the s**** old board mate.

 

As I've pointed out, Shepherd left us with a club who'd just finished above West Ham by 2 points.

 

It's not like Ashley took over in 2003 and has turned us to sh*t. Shepherd managed to do that himself. Ashley's only continued the downward spiral.

[madras]

he didn't put money in to the team (ie, the thing us fans follow) though, he put it into paying off debts that he had no choice but to pay off, and others that would prove to be an investment and save him money through avoiding future interest payments.

 

seems like ive had to point this out a million times before, but im sick of that particular canard.

 

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you.

 

I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny.

 

aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us.

 

 

 

You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing s*** at that point.

 

This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective.

 

comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not s***] under the McKeags and his cronies.

 

Thats also a perspective.

 

Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past.

 

 

 

If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact.

 

the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate.

 

Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too.

 

I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear.

 

 

thats the point. no-one is denying the most succesful period was with keegan as manager and hall/shepherd for the board. this to me proves there is no "personality driven agenda". the vast majority on here will say when fat fred done good he done good,but he stopped doing good.

 

unfortunatly the only person who is guilty of a "personality driven agenda" is yourself as you never gave ashley a chance.

 

It was in Ashleys own hands to get me and others to "give him a chance". Unfortunately, it was obvious [to me] pretty early on that the setup and the approach was wrong. So don't tell me that I should support someone I think is the wrong person to own the club that is getting it spectacularly wrong. Even though my heart told me I hoped that I would be wrong, I'll admit that much which contributed to my deciding to pay for 3 years season tickets,although it wasn't the overriding factor.

 

 

 

 

and thats how i've felt from 2004 onwards

 

3 years, under the old board, and one under the new one, one of which we finished 7th and got into europe. So disappointing isn't it ? Diddums. Simply terrible.

 

 

how did you feel that season. reminded me on mcfaul finishing 8th....like we were really going places. oh and what happened the other two years. more inmportantly ..what happened the last season,only as good as your last season and all that ?

[OzzieMandias]

Even though my heart told me I hoped that I would be wrong...

 

 

[NE5]

he didn't put money in to the team (ie, the thing us fans follow) though, he put it into paying off debts that he had no choice but to pay off, and others that would prove to be an investment and save him money through avoiding future interest payments.

 

seems like ive had to point this out a million times before, but im sick of that particular canard.

 

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you.

 

I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny.

 

aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us.

 

 

 

You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing s*** at that point.

 

This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective.

 

comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not s***] under the McKeags and his cronies.

 

Thats also a perspective.

 

Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past.

 

 

 

If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact.

 

the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate.

 

Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too.

 

I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear.

 

 

 

If you read any of my previous posts going back some while now, I have said like you, that I would love an owner who would back Keegan with the funds he requires. Unlike Shepherd I wouldn't even demand a trophy or a CL spot at the end of it.

 

Hopefully we aren't too far from that day right now.

 

It won't be Shepherd though, he's trying to buy some club in Spain for £40m.

 

Well, it doesn't bother me if the new owner has green hair, tells the world that the mackems are s****, goes to brothels 7 days a week, launders drugs, and hires top lawyers to get him off speeding tickets, so long as he backs his managers and understands that its gaining success on the field that matters, and thats his main requirement which he must do to the best of his ability.

 

We are miles away from a CL spot and matching the s**** old board mate.

the shite old board of 2004 onwards ?

 

you mean the board that finished 7th ? LIke the board -pre 1992 who only finished in the top 7 twice in over 40 years ? Good comparions, aye. It should tell you what  a shite board really is

 

 

[madras]

he didn't put money in to the team (ie, the thing us fans follow) though, he put it into paying off debts that he had no choice but to pay off, and others that would prove to be an investment and save him money through avoiding future interest payments.

 

seems like ive had to point this out a million times before, but im sick of that particular canard.

 

You have to keep pointing it out because from a financial perspective it doesnt back up the position you are taking. Debt is fine but no debt is better because debt has a cost, r. I wont go into the models for you.

 

I'm sick of reading the opinions of people on finance and business who are not qualified to open their mouths on the subject. However, we all have a cross to bear Johnny.

 

aye, the same old people still defending it, as we hurtle down towards where the Halls and Shepherd found us.

 

 

 

You have to acknowledge at some point that Shepherd had stopped spending on the team, that's how Roeder had one of the weakest squads since the days of McKeag who you keep coming back to. At the point Ashley took over the well had run dry, the big money signings had put the club into significant debt with no return following Souness reign of terror, and Roeder's bumbling ineptness. There was no Europe, we were doing s*** at that point.

 

This isn't a defence of Ashley, btw, just bringing some perspective.

 

comes back to a point also mentioned before though. You may think that Roeder was "inept" or whatever, but if you want to compare the 2 regimes ie McKeag etc and Shepherd/Hall etc, then where we were under Roeder was deemed success [not s***] under the McKeags and his cronies.

 

Thats also a perspective.

 

Understand ? Its called "higher expectation", which I've mentioned in the Shepherds Legacy thread, as well as other threads in the past.

 

 

 

If you just want to pick selective periods to support your POV, then I would say that the most successful period we had was when SJH was the Chairman. As soon as Shepherd took the reigns, the rot set in. Under Hall we went from being 2nd in the league to struggling against relegation due to Shepherd's tenure. This is also an undeniable fact.

 

the most successful period was when Keegan was manager mate.

 

Nowt to do with the chairman. Its the players and managers who are responsible for winning games. You would come across a lot better if like other people you dropped this infatuation with personality driven agendas. Sir John did nothing without the backing and support of his fellow board members, because on his own he was a minority shareholder and couldn't have done it on his own. This situation is exactly the same as the one that Shepherd presided over too.

 

I would like someone - like yourself - to tell me how much more ambition they think the club could show than to succeed Keegan with a manager who had won league titles with 2 different clubs, and won 3 manager of the year awards and 2 FA Cups. And I'm certainly not talking about Joe Kinnear.

 

 

 

If you read any of my previous posts going back some while now, I have said like you, that I would love an owner who would back Keegan with the funds he requires. Unlike Shepherd I wouldn't even demand a trophy or a CL spot at the end of it.

 

Hopefully we aren't too far from that day right now.

 

It won't be Shepherd though, he's trying to buy some club in Spain for £40m.

 

Well, it doesn't bother me if the new owner has green hair, tells the world that the mackems are s****, goes to brothels 7 days a week, launders drugs, and hires top lawyers to get him off speeding tickets, so long as he backs his managers and understands that its gaining success on the field that matters, and thats his main requirement which he must do to the best of his ability.

 

We are miles away from a CL spot and matching the s**** old board mate.

the s**** old board of 2004 onwards ?

 

you mean the board that finished 7th ? LIke the board -pre 1992 who only finished in the top 7 twice in over 40 years ? Good comparions, aye. It should tell you what  a s**** board really is

 

 

mcfaul 8th in a league with more teams in compares prettty well. must've been a fantastic board

[madras]

tell me ne5 ..how did you feel that season we finished 7th ?.

 

you see i see things this way. remember the season we finished 5th with robson ? we were only 1 place behind the previous season but the gap between us that season and the one before was massive,more than one place. even though that 7th place was there most of the season was looking over our shoulders at relegation. thats why souness got sacked. that 7th place and the football played is nothing to be proud of and even if the finishing position looked decent it was far from it and did you feel optimistic on the back of it ?

[Optimistic Nut]

NE5, do you think Hearts fans should be delighted, and should keep Romanov as Chairman since 3-4 years ago they finished in a CL qualifying position, and won the FA Cup?

[Ronaldo]

the daft thing is we actually finished on 2 more points the season we finished 7th than we did under Bob with the 5th. How we did that I dont know because we were absolute SHITE that season. From March onwards it just seemed that Zog, Titus and even Shola ffs just came into their own.

[TRon]

tell me ne5 ..how did you feel that season we finished 7th ?.

 

you see i see things this way. remember the season we finished 5th with robson ? we were only 1 place behind the previous season but the gap between us that season and the one before was massive,more than one place. even though that 7th place was there most of the season was looking over our shoulders at relegation. thats why souness got sacked. that 7th place and the football played is nothing to be proud of and even if the finishing position looked decent it was far from it and did you feel optimistic on the back of it ?

 

NE5 prefers to spout statistics when it suits him rather than reflect honestly with perspective, so don't hold your breath on that one.