Keegan to launch £9m unfair dismissal claim?

[fredbob]

HTT just lifted all that out of the autobiography. You can tell its second hand material as he doesnt understand some of the key concepts like IPO and cant refer to them properly as he doesnt know what it is.

 

"Siding with the IPO" makes f*** all sense. Its a linguistic impossibility.

 

The money generated by the Initial Public Offering, a formal name related to intitial offer price of the stock allowed the club to build on its success and move forward. There was no justification for Keegan walking then either, it was a reality of the times. Managers like Ferguson have overseen far greater financial turmoil and change and just got on with it.

 

Although in hindsight the IPO and becoming a PLC didn't really change our fortunes on the pitch nor many other clubs' fortunes for that matter and you could say KK foresaw all of that and was right to be dismissive about the future prospects of the club operating as a PLC.

is the biggest pile of turd you have written for a while.

 

It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt which is, according to all the financial experts on here, a fearsome burden for any club to carry and should be avoided like the plague. Thats what the IPO was about. Ironic in many ways you're using the IPO to justify behaviour. 

 

 

HTT getting his arse handed to him...

[Guest Howaythetoon]

HTT just lifted all that out of the autobiography. You can tell its second hand material as he doesnt understand some of the key concepts like IPO and cant refer to them properly as he doesnt know what it is.

 

"Siding with the IPO" makes f*** all sense. Its a linguistic impossibility.

 

The money generated by the Initial Public Offering, a formal name related to intitial offer price of the stock allowed the club to build on its success and move forward. There was no justification for Keegan walking then either, it was a reality of the times. Managers like Ferguson have overseen far greater financial turmoil and change and just got on with it.

 

Although in hindsight the IPO and becoming a PLC didn't really change our fortunes on the pitch nor many other clubs' fortunes for that matter and you could say KK foresaw all of that and was right to be dismissive about the future prospects of the club operating as a PLC.

is the biggest pile of turd you have written for a while.

 

It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt which is, according to all the financial experts on here, a fearsome burden for any club to carry and should be avoided like the plague. Thats what the IPO was about. Ironic in many ways you're using the IPO to justify behaviour. 

 

 

HTT getting his arse handed to him...

 

To be fair, I'm just a numptie, Chez is the expert here.

[Baggio]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

 

At least fredbob is trying to put up some kind of argument, misguided though it may be. 

 

But as I guess you want Ashley to sell up to anyone, I'm not sure why you're sticking up for him.

 

How can you read that post as me "sticking up for Ashley"?

 

I assume you'd want new owners as aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

Why don't you stop "assuming" and deal with what people actually write?

 

Oops, my bad. I missed out the quotes. That's not my opinion, it's yours from 2 years ago when a dodgy investment group showed an interest in buying us.

 

no-one has the first clue about what the belgravia groups intentions are toward NUFC, and who, or group of people, will act as the club's executive directors if they do take control

 

 

They'll want to make money. This can only be done by, first and foremost, by pursuing success on the pitch and making Newcastle once again a team that people want to watch – something that now seems to be way beyond Shepherd and his cronies.

 

Aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

I just assumed you'd still think the same now. 

 

I know I take the piss out of NE5 and vice versa on things we remember each other saying in the past but you must of spent time looking through Ozzie's posts to come up with that one, which is up there with some of the saddest things I've seen on here in the past few years.

 

Well done.

[Baggio]

To be fair, I'm just a numptie.

 

Finally something I agree with you on.

[ChezGiven]

HTT just lifted all that out of the autobiography. You can tell its second hand material as he doesnt understand some of the key concepts like IPO and cant refer to them properly as he doesnt know what it is.

 

"Siding with the IPO" makes f*** all sense. Its a linguistic impossibility.

 

Oh I understand it all OK, but this is a message board not a lecture on IPOs, PLCs etc... You knock yourself out desperately demonstrating your knowledge of all this though

 

The money generated by the Initial Public Offering, a formal name related to intitial offer price of the stock allowed the club to build on its success and move forward. There was no justification for Keegan walking then either, it was a reality of the times. Managers like Ferguson have overseen far greater financial turmoil and change and just got on with it.

 

No justification? He was being asked to commit to something he was very uncertain of or apprehensive about at a time when he and the board were slowly drifting a part in terms of their respective visions for the club and he himself was more than likely in need of a break. What he did was put the club first by walking away from something he didn't feel he could help, allowing the club to bring in a much better suited alternative. He had every justification for walking away rather than staying on. Remember we are mere commentators here, we don't know many things like internal relationships and what his real role would have been. Under a PLC would KK have been allowed to negotiate transfers and contracts, a key strength of his and one of the major factors behind our success?

 

Although in hindsight the IPO and becoming a PLC didn't really change our fortunes on the pitch nor many other clubs' fortunes for that matter and you could say KK foresaw all of that and was right to be dismissive about the future prospects of the club operating as a PLC.

is the biggest pile of turd you have written for a while.

 

Well in what ways did it help us? I can only go off our record as a club since then compared to before and it hasn't exactly been great has it?

 

It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt which is, according to all the financial experts on here, a fearsome burden for any club to carry and should be avoided like the plague. Thats what the IPO was about. Ironic in many ways you're using the IPO to justify behaviour. 

 

And yet the club still took on debt. Not that this is my issue with the club operating as a PLC.

 

In what ways did it help us??

 

"It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt". You'll have to ask macbeth what then happened to that money but its better to get people to give it to you for a share in the business than it is to lend if from the bank (on the whole)

 

You're the one trying to sound like the font of all knowledge and insight on Keegan yet dont even understand what actually was going on at the time. As i've had to repeat the ways in which it helped us and (implicitly) why it was better than the alternative, it shows you neither understand what happened or why it happened.

[TRon]

UV is bookmarking posts going back years and waiting for the opportunity to confront the original poster with them. Bizarre and slightly disturbing 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

In what ways did it help us??

 

"It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt". You'll have to ask macbeth what then happened to that money but its better to get people to give it to you for a share in the business than it is to lend if from the bank (on the whole)

 

You're the one trying to sound like the font of all knowledge and insight on Keegan yet dont even understand what actually was going on at the time. As i've had to repeat the ways in which it helped us and (implicitly) why it was better than the alternative, it shows you neither understand what happened or why it happened.

 

You've explained how it could help us, which again you didn't have to explain because I know all that. I simply offered that becoming a PLC didn't really help the club in terms of the end result and it is that in which I was knocking, and not the virtues of being a PLC. You're arguing a point I wasn't making. How about arguing against the point I was and that is becoming a PLC didn't help the club (not that it wouldn't or couldn't). You keep spinning your patronising s**** though, I'm sure it will impress someone. Oh look, Fredbob's impressed

[ChezGiven]

In what ways did it help us??

 

"It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt". You'll have to ask macbeth what then happened to that money but its better to get people to give it to you for a share in the business than it is to lend if from the bank (on the whole)

 

You're the one trying to sound like the font of all knowledge and insight on Keegan yet dont even understand what actually was going on at the time. As i've had to repeat the ways in which it helped us and (implicitly) why it was better than the alternative, it shows you neither understand what happened or why it happened.

 

You've explained how it could help us, which again you didn't have to explain because I know all that. I simply offered that becoming a PLC didn't really help the club in terms of the end result and it is that in which I was knocking, and not the virtues of being a PLC. You're arguing a point I wasn't making. How about arguing against the point I was and that is becoming a PLC didn't help the club (not that it wouldn't or couldn't). You keep spinning your patronising s**** though, I'm sure it will impress someone. Oh look, Fredbob's impressed

 

We are arguing the same point you daft bugger.

 

Becoming a PLC generated extra capital which gave the club more money to spend in the transfer market. The fact it didnt translate into results is irrelevant as to whether the initial decision was beneficial for the finances of the club. Which it was.

 

Fuck me, its like pulling teeth.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

On a side note, is this what N.O is about these days, you make a post offering a scenario and some opinions and some cunt jumps on it because of linguistic impossibilities?

 

[ChezGiven]

On a side note, is this what N.O is about these days, you make a post offering a scenario and some opinions and some cunt jumps on it because of linguistic impossibilities?

 

 

We've always been intolerant of spackas.

[NE5]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

 

Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both?

 

his judgement most definitely in lieu with financially as much as possible to back it up.

 

 

[fredbob]

In what ways did it help us??

 

"It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt". You'll have to ask macbeth what then happened to that money but its better to get people to give it to you for a share in the business than it is to lend if from the bank (on the whole)

 

You're the one trying to sound like the font of all knowledge and insight on Keegan yet dont even understand what actually was going on at the time. As i've had to repeat the ways in which it helped us and (implicitly) why it was better than the alternative, it shows you neither understand what happened or why it happened.

 

You've explained how it could help us, which again you didn't have to explain because I know all that. I simply offered that becoming a PLC didn't really help the club in terms of the end result and it is that in which I was knocking, and not the virtues of being a PLC. You're arguing a point I wasn't making. How about arguing against the point I was and that is becoming a PLC didn't help the club (not that it wouldn't or couldn't). You keep spinning your patronising s**** though, I'm sure it will impress someone. Oh look, Fredbob's impressed

 

 

You couldnt make this up.

 

 

[NE5]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

 

Excuses for what ? What excuses are you making for Ashley ? And what excuses are you making for emailing london based journalists about the club, why don't you do it now, or do you think qualifying regularly for europe was worse than the current predicament ?

 

 

[NE5]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

 

Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both?

and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ?

 

so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ?

[Guest Howaythetoon]

In what ways did it help us??

 

"It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt". You'll have to ask macbeth what then happened to that money but its better to get people to give it to you for a share in the business than it is to lend if from the bank (on the whole)

 

You're the one trying to sound like the font of all knowledge and insight on Keegan yet dont even understand what actually was going on at the time. As i've had to repeat the ways in which it helped us and (implicitly) why it was better than the alternative, it shows you neither understand what happened or why it happened.

 

You've explained how it could help us, which again you didn't have to explain because I know all that. I simply offered that becoming a PLC didn't really help the club in terms of the end result and it is that in which I was knocking, and not the virtues of being a PLC. You're arguing a point I wasn't making. How about arguing against the point I was and that is becoming a PLC didn't help the club (not that it wouldn't or couldn't). You keep spinning your patronising s**** though, I'm sure it will impress someone. Oh look, Fredbob's impressed

 

We are arguing the same point you daft bugger.

 

Becoming a PLC generated extra capital which gave the club more money to spend in the transfer market. The fact it didnt translate into results is irrelevant as to whether the initial decision was beneficial for the finances of the club. Which it was.

 

f*** me, its like pulling teeth.

 

Bull, it was beneficial to the finances of the Halls and Shepherds.

 

We are not arguing the same point either. My point is that becoming a PLC didn't work out too well and therefore I personally side with (is that linguistically possible?) KK's view that a football club ran as a PLC isn't the best way forward. It certainly wasn't for us anyway.

 

Here is my original comment:

 

Although in hindsight the IPO and becoming a PLC didn't really change our fortunes on the pitch nor many other clubs' fortunes for that matter and you could say KK foresaw all of that and was right to be dismissive about the future prospects of the club operating as a PLC.

 

Challenge it. How did it help us? Not how could it have helped us or why becoming a PLC can help you, which is what you're arguing against hence your boring patter about debt and equity which I know and understand.

[fredbob]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

 

Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both?

and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ?

 

so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ?

 

Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst?

[Guest Howaythetoon]

In what ways did it help us??

 

"It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt". You'll have to ask macbeth what then happened to that money but its better to get people to give it to you for a share in the business than it is to lend if from the bank (on the whole)

 

You're the one trying to sound like the font of all knowledge and insight on Keegan yet dont even understand what actually was going on at the time. As i've had to repeat the ways in which it helped us and (implicitly) why it was better than the alternative, it shows you neither understand what happened or why it happened.

 

You've explained how it could help us, which again you didn't have to explain because I know all that. I simply offered that becoming a PLC didn't really help the club in terms of the end result and it is that in which I was knocking, and not the virtues of being a PLC. You're arguing a point I wasn't making. How about arguing against the point I was and that is becoming a PLC didn't help the club (not that it wouldn't or couldn't). You keep spinning your patronising s**** though, I'm sure it will impress someone. Oh look, Fredbob's impressed

 

 

You couldnt make this up.

 

 

 

Chez hands his arse to Fredbob...

[ChezGiven]

In what ways did it help us??

 

"It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt". You'll have to ask macbeth what then happened to that money but its better to get people to give it to you for a share in the business than it is to lend if from the bank (on the whole)

 

You're the one trying to sound like the font of all knowledge and insight on Keegan yet dont even understand what actually was going on at the time. As i've had to repeat the ways in which it helped us and (implicitly) why it was better than the alternative, it shows you neither understand what happened or why it happened.

 

You've explained how it could help us, which again you didn't have to explain because I know all that. I simply offered that becoming a PLC didn't really help the club in terms of the end result and it is that in which I was knocking, and not the virtues of being a PLC. You're arguing a point I wasn't making. How about arguing against the point I was and that is becoming a PLC didn't help the club (not that it wouldn't or couldn't). You keep spinning your patronising s**** though, I'm sure it will impress someone. Oh look, Fredbob's impressed

 

We are arguing the same point you daft bugger.

 

Becoming a PLC generated extra capital which gave the club more money to spend in the transfer market. The fact it didnt translate into results is irrelevant as to whether the initial decision was beneficial for the finances of the club. Which it was.

 

f*** me, its like pulling teeth.

 

Bull, it was beneficial to the finances of the Halls and Shepherds.

 

We are not arguing the same point either. My point is that becoming a PLC didn't work out too well and therefore I personally side with (is that linguistically possible?) KK's view that a football club ran as a PLC isn't the best way forward. It certainly wasn't for us anyway.

 

Here is my original comment:

 

Although in hindsight the IPO and becoming a PLC didn't really change our fortunes on the pitch nor many other clubs' fortunes for that matter and you could say KK foresaw all of that and was right to be dismissive about the future prospects of the club operating as a PLC.

 

Challenge it. How did it help us? Not how could it have helped us or why becoming a PLC can help you, which is what you're arguing against hence your boring patter about debt and equity which I know and understand.

 

It meant we had more money.

 

Does that make sense or can i put it more simply for you?

[NE5]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

Or did Keegan walk that time because he knew that in the short-term he'd have to sell the likes of Ferdinand & Ginola?

 

And Dalglish even said himself that it was the club that accepted the money from Bolton for Robbie Elliott, not him. If he'd stuck out that first year or so, then the money was made available for him by Shepherd. (although to be fair to Dalglish, a fair bit of his early spending was buying in fringe players to help re-set up the reserve side which Keegan got rid of).

 

Who's to say the same thing wouldn't have applied here?

 

I said a few posts ago that you wouldn't find any posts by me agreeing with the club going PLC ?

 

As far as backing the manager goes, I have said that I had reservations about it until the continued backing their managers. This has been said before, its not really my fault that people don't see it [but I'm sure I'll still get the blame] and I'll say it again, who has backed their managers more than the Halls and Shepherd at NUFC.

 

Answer = nobody else has competed at the top levels while running this club for over 50 years.

 

Lastly, why do you persist in thinking that a minority shareholder has been running the club single handed ?

 

 

 

[NE5]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

 

At least fredbob is trying to put up some kind of argument, misguided though it may be. 

 

But as I guess you want Ashley to sell up to anyone, I'm not sure why you're sticking up for him.

 

How can you read that post as me "sticking up for Ashley"?

 

I assume you'd want new owners as aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

Why don't you stop "assuming" and deal with what people actually write?

 

the excuse making machine rolls on 

[ChezGiven]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

Or did Keegan walk that time because he knew that in the short-term he'd have to sell the likes of Ferdinand & Ginola?

 

And Dalglish even said himself that it was the club that accepted the money from Bolton for Robbie Elliott, not him. If he'd stuck out that first year or so, then the money was made available for him by Shepherd. (although to be fair to Dalglish, a fair bit of his early spending was buying in fringe players to help re-set up the reserve side which Keegan got rid of).

 

Who's to say the same thing wouldn't have applied here?

 

I said a few posts ago that you wouldn't find any posts by me agreeing with the club going PLC ?

 

As far as backing the manager goes, I have said that I had reservations about it until the continued backing their managers. This has been said before, its not really my fault that people don't see it [but I'm sure I'll still get the blame] and I'll say it again, who has backed their managers more than the Halls and Shepherd at NUFC.

 

Answer = nobody else has competed at the top levels while running this club for over 50 years.

 

Lastly, why do you persist in thinking that a minority shareholder has been running the club single handed ?

 

 

Agreed and they were able to continue backing their managers because they raised finances through the public offering.

[NE5]

I gave him the benefit of all doubt from day one to be fair.

 

But you seem to have lost complete faith in him now - but so far havent presented anything substantial to back these feelings up. Im not asking for you in particular to do so but its the same with a lot of people everyone has this definitive opinion but no one backs it up or takes in account the situation at the time. In my eyes the only thing that Ashley has done wrong so far that we can definitievly criticise him for is for not doing his research on the club and appointing Keegan.

 

I think Dave is quite right to have lost faith in him, and also quite right to admirably admit it.

 

 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

In what ways did it help us??

 

"It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt". You'll have to ask macbeth what then happened to that money but its better to get people to give it to you for a share in the business than it is to lend if from the bank (on the whole)

 

You're the one trying to sound like the font of all knowledge and insight on Keegan yet dont even understand what actually was going on at the time. As i've had to repeat the ways in which it helped us and (implicitly) why it was better than the alternative, it shows you neither understand what happened or why it happened.

 

You've explained how it could help us, which again you didn't have to explain because I know all that. I simply offered that becoming a PLC didn't really help the club in terms of the end result and it is that in which I was knocking, and not the virtues of being a PLC. You're arguing a point I wasn't making. How about arguing against the point I was and that is becoming a PLC didn't help the club (not that it wouldn't or couldn't). You keep spinning your patronising s**** though, I'm sure it will impress someone. Oh look, Fredbob's impressed

 

We are arguing the same point you daft bugger.

 

Becoming a PLC generated extra capital which gave the club more money to spend in the transfer market. The fact it didnt translate into results is irrelevant as to whether the initial decision was beneficial for the finances of the club. Which it was.

 

f*** me, its like pulling teeth.

 

Bull, it was beneficial to the finances of the Halls and Shepherds.

 

We are not arguing the same point either. My point is that becoming a PLC didn't work out too well and therefore I personally side with (is that linguistically possible?) KK's view that a football club ran as a PLC isn't the best way forward. It certainly wasn't for us anyway.

 

Here is my original comment:

 

Although in hindsight the IPO and becoming a PLC didn't really change our fortunes on the pitch nor many other clubs' fortunes for that matter and you could say KK foresaw all of that and was right to be dismissive about the future prospects of the club operating as a PLC.

 

Challenge it. How did it help us? Not how could it have helped us or why becoming a PLC can help you, which is what you're arguing against hence your boring patter about debt and equity which I know and understand.

 

It meant we had more money.

 

Does that make sense or can i put it more simply for you?

 

So at what point does me thinking that in hindsight becoming a PLC didn't help the club or do much good for it turn into an issue of money?

 

Anyway, this "extra" money for transfers, when did that get spent?

 

[fredbob]

In what ways did it help us??

 

"It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt". You'll have to ask macbeth what then happened to that money but its better to get people to give it to you for a share in the business than it is to lend if from the bank (on the whole)

 

You're the one trying to sound like the font of all knowledge and insight on Keegan yet dont even understand what actually was going on at the time. As i've had to repeat the ways in which it helped us and (implicitly) why it was better than the alternative, it shows you neither understand what happened or why it happened.

 

You've explained how it could help us, which again you didn't have to explain because I know all that. I simply offered that becoming a PLC didn't really help the club in terms of the end result and it is that in which I was knocking, and not the virtues of being a PLC. You're arguing a point I wasn't making. How about arguing against the point I was and that is becoming a PLC didn't help the club (not that it wouldn't or couldn't). You keep spinning your patronising s**** though, I'm sure it will impress someone. Oh look, Fredbob's impressed

 

 

You couldnt make this up.

 

 

 

Chez hands his arse to Fredbob...

 

 

Good one. Maybe after you've finished using yours as a mouthpieces we can get back onto something that makes sense.

[NE5]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

 

At least fredbob is trying to put up some kind of argument, misguided though it may be. 

 

But as I guess you want Ashley to sell up to anyone, I'm not sure why you're sticking up for him.

 

How can you read that post as me "sticking up for Ashley"?

 

I assume you'd want new owners as aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

Why don't you stop "assuming" and deal with what people actually write?

 

Oops, my bad. I missed out the quotes. That's not my opinion, it's yours from 2 years ago when a dodgy investment group showed an interest in buying us.

 

no-one has the first clue about what the belgravia groups intentions are toward NUFC, and who, or group of people, will act as the club's executive directors if they do take control

 

 

They'll want to make money. This can only be done by, first and foremost, by pursuing success on the pitch and making Newcastle once again a team that people want to watch – something that now seems to be way beyond Shepherd and his cronies.

 

Aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

I just assumed you'd still think the same now. 

 

I know I take the piss out of NE5 and vice versa on things we remember each other saying in the past but you must of spent time looking through Ozzie's posts to come up with that one, which is up there with some of the saddest things I've seen on here in the past few years.

 

Well done.

 

mackems.gif

 

big brother is watching, or should be.

 

Suffice to say you don't bother me in the slightest, meanwhile as I've proved you completely incorrect in your view of ashley and this DOF bollocks, I'll leave it there rather than carry on an "argument" and ruin the thread.