Finances web-site

[NE5]

 

Why did Cox, Lee, Beardsley, Waddle, Gazza and Pop Robson all leave the club, and why did Shearer not ? Unless you think you know the club better than Shearer..... 

 

Defend that. Your ally the WUM can tell us why he still defends Souness too.

 

 

 

What has that got to do with Shepherd and us being 2nd bottom of the league, we look like getting relegated while running up the biggest losses in the history of our club?

 

That is one for your ally, the WUM to answer, who wanted it

 

 

 

You're a hypocritical bottler who can't admit to being wrong about Shepherd, you've no credibility at all.

 

You're a hyporcritical bottler who can't admit to having zero knowledge of the club pre-1992 and jumped on the KK bandwagon  :lol:

[tmonkey]

 

Why did Cox, Lee, Beardsley, Waddle, Gazza and Pop Robson all leave the club, and why did Shearer not ? Unless you think you know the club better than Shearer..... 

 

Defend that. Your ally the WUM can tell us why he still defends Souness too.

 

What has that got to do with Shepherd and us being 2nd bottom of the league, we look like getting relegated while running up the biggest losses in the history of our club?

 

Its got nothing to do with Shephard's performance as chairman, its just a red herring.

 

In case he doesnt know what red herrings are:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

 

Examples

 

* Baseball player Mark McGwire just retired. Clearly, he will end up in the Hall of Fame. After all, he's such a nice guy, and he gives a lot of money to all sorts of charities. (Friendliness and charity are not qualifications for induction into the Hall of Fame, therefore they do not support the conclusion.)

 

* The premier's tax policies may be popular, but I suspect he had an affair and is paying the woman to keep quiet. The media should investigate that! (This is an example of a red herring, as the speaker attempts to distract from tax policy with the unrelated matter of the alleged affair. Note, however, that if the topic is the public integrity of the premier, instead of only his policy, this argument may be perfectly valid.)

 

Likewise, the position of the club in the 70s or 80s bears no relevance to the performance of Shephard as chairman, because Shephard took over a club in a completely different situation to what it was in those times.

 

NE5 of course refuse to acknowledge this because he chooses to, but thats his problem, hes just a laughing stock because of it (probably doesnt see that either).

[NE5]

I think we should thank NE5 for demonstrating so consistently that the pro-Shepherd case is subscribed to only by morons.

 

I think we shouldn't thank Ozzie the WUM for supporting Souness, he clearly has an input to the club and persuaded them to throw millions of quid at him and sell our best forward for peanuts.

 

 

[Mick]

 

You're a hyporcritical bottler who can't admit to having zero knowledge of the club pre-1992 and jumped on the KK bandwagon  :lol:

 

Try this:

 

-18 leauge places, - £millions to prop up Cameron Hall and the Shepherd pension fund, heading for the second division, defend that. bluesleep.gif

[Mick]

I think we should thank NE5 for demonstrating so consistently that the pro-Shepherd case is subscribed to only by morons.

 

I think we shouldn't thank Ozzie the WUM for supporting Souness, he clearly has an input to the club and persuaded them to throw millions of quid at him and sell our best forward for peanuts.

 

 

 

That's it, you've seriously lost the plot. bluebiggrin.gif

[NE5]

 

Why did Cox, Lee, Beardsley, Waddle, Gazza and Pop Robson all leave the club, and why did Shearer not ? Unless you think you know the club better than Shearer..... 

 

Defend that. Your ally the WUM can tell us why he still defends Souness too.

 

What has that got to do with Shepherd and us being 2nd bottom of the league, we look like getting relegated while running up the biggest losses in the history of our club?

 

Its got nothing to do with Shephard's performance as chairman, its just a red herring.

 

In case he doesnt know what red herrings are:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

 

Examples

 

* Baseball player Mark McGwire just retired. Clearly, he will end up in the Hall of Fame. After all, he's such a nice guy, and he gives a lot of money to all sorts of charities. (Friendliness and charity are not qualifications for induction into the Hall of Fame, therefore they do not support the conclusion.)

 

* The premier's tax policies may be popular, but I suspect he had an affair and is paying the woman to keep quiet. The media should investigate that! (This is an example of a red herring, as the speaker attempts to distract from tax policy with the unrelated matter of the alleged affair. Note, however, that if the topic is the public integrity of the premier, instead of only his policy, this argument may be perfectly valid.)

 

Likewise, the position of the club in the 70s or 80s bears no relevance to the performance of Shephard as chairman, because Shephard took over a club in a completely different situation to what it was in those times.

 

NE5 of course refuse to acknowledge this because he chooses to, but thats his problem, hes just a laughing stock because of it (probably doesnt see that either).

 

On the contrary, I think people like you are a joke for not looking around at other clubs, and our own history, so are deluded enough to think that simply replacing the current board will lead to an automatic improvement. The relevance of the past is to show how far the club have came. If they can't go any further, so be it, we enjoyed the rise up the league and the Champions League run and reaching 2 Cup Finals. If you can't accept this and realise that it doesn;t come easily or cheaply then you are a moron. Unfortunately, only if we do appoint chairman who are currently at lots of other big city clubs who have had nothing like this, will the penny drop.

 

As I have pointed out also  -  this club has had opportunities in the past just like the one when we were competing for the title, and didn't show the ambition to build on it. Having this ambition that has been shown in the past decade is vastly preferable to not having it, and if you don't understand that, which is simple enough if you look around at other big city clubs for instance one 12 miles down the road staring you in the face, then you are a complete idiot.

 

 

[Mick]

 

On the contrary, I think people like you are a joke for not looking around at other clubs, and our own history, so are deluded enough to think that simply replacing the current board will lead to an automatic improvement. The relevance of the past is to show how far the club have came. If they can't go any further, so be it, we enjoyed the rise up the league and the Champions League run and reaching 2 Cup Finals. If you can't accept this and realise that it doesn;t come easily or cheaply then you are a moron. Unfortunately, only if we do appoint chairman who are currently at lots of other big city clubs who have had nothing like this, will the penny drop.

 

As I have pointed out also  -  this club has had opportunities in the past just like the one when we were competing for the title, and didn't show the ambition to build on it. Having this ambition that has been shown in the past decade is vastly preferable to not having it, and if you don't understand that, which is simple enough if you look around at other big city clubs for instance one 12 miles down the road staring you in the face, then you are a complete idiot.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if this is legal but as it contains only one name it should be OK.

 

1

2 Newcastle United - under Sir John Hall

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

------------------------------------------------------------

18

19 Newcastle United - under Shepherd

20

[Dave]

NE5, what did you think to the thousands of people chanting for Shepherd's head yesterday after the game?

[tmonkey]

On the contrary, I think people like you are a joke for not looking around at other clubs, and our own history, so are deluded enough to think that simply replacing the current board will lead to an automatic improvement.

 

:rolllrg:

 

Where have I said replacing the board will lead to automatic improvement?  Ive said plenty of times we could possibly end up with a worse chairman than Shephard, because they do exist no doubt - which in no way negates the notion that Shephard is a shit chairman.

 

So, after a red herring, you now resort to straw man fallacies. If you dont know what a straw man is:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy

 

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

[Guest The Fox]

"Shame you think we have a divine right to win trophies, classic mentality of a KK bandwagon jumper" by NE5

 

What a nonsense response. I dont think anyone thinks that after 80 years of no major league title and 50 years of no FA Cup win. I do believe however that its not expecting a lot to improve on that record.

Mick, you dont expect him to actually respond to the questions you ask him, he never does, he goes on the pre 92 trail and when you respond to his he doesn't understand, the poor fellow.

 

But be kind, remember NE5 and HTL are both very saddened that their hero has the club in such a mess and will blame everyone down to the hot dog man than point any blame in the Fat idols direction.

 

Your best bet mate is to ignore them in the hope that they go away, HTL does sometimes drift off.

[jimmymag]

It ****ing amazes me that some people, the usual suspects, still try to defend FFS!!!

 

The club is rapidly going down the pan and, like in all business, the buck stops at the top.

 

I think you should learn to read. I also think its ****ing amazing that people like you appear when the club is having a tough time then disappear when they are winning. And also continues to avoid giving alternatives to the current board and name the replacements that will guarantee to put the club into the top 4 permanently which is what you appear to think is automatic.

 

 

 

There are no guarantees in life, but I think it's worth a punt that a new chairman would do a better job than Shepherd. In fact I'm almost certain that we would be better off without FFS.

 

And for your information, I look at the forum on a regular basis but feel it's pointless getting into petty arguments again with you, and others, when it's obvious that I'm not going to change your opinion on the crucial issue facing the club, who should be running NUFC.

 

Hopefully the one good thing to come out of our current predicament is that the majority of Newcastle fans now agree with my long held belief that Shepherd has taken the club as far as his limited abilities allow, and that he should now sell up for the good of the club he claims to love.

[Mick]

It ****ing amazes me that some people, the usual suspects, still try to defend FFS!!!

 

The club is rapidly going down the pan and, like in all business, the buck stops at the top.

 

I think you should learn to read. I also think its ****ing amazing that people like you appear when the club is having a tough time then disappear when they are winning. And also continues to avoid giving alternatives to the current board and name the replacements that will guarantee to put the club into the top 4 permanently which is what you appear to think is automatic.

 

 

 

There are no guarnatees in life, but I think it's worth a punt that a new chairman would do a better job the Shepherd. In fact I'm almost certain that we would be better off without FFS.

 

And for your information, I look at the forum on a regular basis but feel it's pointless getting into petty arguments again with you, and others, when it's obvious that I'm not going to change your opinion on the crucial issue facing the club, who should be running NUFC.

 

Hopefully the one good thing to come out of our current predicament is that the majority of Newcastle fans now agree with my long held belief that Shepherd has taken the club as far as his limited abilities allow, and that he should now sell up for the good of the club he claims to love.

 

You can change his mind, look, he's already changed it while coming on here and appearing not to have, he's done a U turn.

 

 

We are in the shit, and its hard to know the answer. Sacking the board may well bring about change - if they give it up but don't hold your breath - but it won't bring about immediate changes on the pitch and get some points on the board.

Only 2 or 3 of the right sort of players for the right areas is going to do that.

 

Sheff Utd deserved their win. We are toothless up front, Rossi was easily held, not his fault he tried his best but the team lacks someone to make things happen, to force openings, who said we would be better off without Shearer ....

 

Zoggy's Cross was the nearest we came to a goal, did he mean to go for goal when he hit the bar ?

 

Moore made me smile when he barged into Hulse, he can't complain when he was booked for doing it again and neither can Hulse for taking his own revenge when he elbowed him.

 

If it is true that we agreed to play this game after playing on Thursday in Sicily for the TV fee, then whoever agreed to this wants shooting. These points could cost us badly, far more than a TV fee unless things pick up and fast. They should know this by now. It is amazing how Keegan came in and showed this club these thing, how to be professional, how a winning team is the best finance of all, and it has all been forgotten.

 

As for the money and financial situation, this club has spent 37m quid in the last 2 years on forwards, since Souness came in. Think about it. THIRTY SEVEN MILLION QUID. 2 years ago we had Shearer and Bellamy up front. We have spent this money replacing them, and allowing for the fact that Owen is just about one of the best replacements for Shearer we could have got anywhere, that leaves 20m quid spent attempting to replace Bellamy. Is it beyond the realms of comprehension, that in view of the account published last week, that we could have still had Bellamy at the club, a top quality player, and not spent that 20m quid trying to replace him.

 

The person, or people responsible for THAT decision, must be taken to account and blamed for the downturn since, because since we appointed Souness, and chose to back him, this club has done nothing other than go downwards.

[OzzieMandias]

On the contrary, I think people like you are a joke for not looking around at other clubs, and our own history, so are deluded enough to think that simply replacing the current board will lead to an automatic improvement.

 

:rolllrg:

 

Where have I said replacing the board will lead to automatic improvement?  Ive said plenty of times we could possibly end up with a worse chairman than Shephard, because they do exist no doubt - which in no way negates the notion that Shephard is a shit chairman.

 

So, after a red herring, you now resort to straw man fallacies. If you dont know what a straw man is:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy

 

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

 

Spot on, tmonkey. NE5 has more straw men than a scarecrow factory.

[tmonkey]

If they can't go any further, so be it, we enjoyed the rise up the league and the Champions League run and reaching 2 Cup Finals. If you can't accept this and realise that it doesn;t come easily or cheaply then you are a moron. Unfortunately, only if we do appoint chairman who are currently at lots of other big city clubs who have had nothing like this, will the penny drop.

 

BTW, totally forgot to post a reply to this part:

 

:rolllrg:

 

After all this time, posting hundreds of replies about how Shephard has not taken us backwards, you are now telling us that we should expect it, understand it, and that were are morons if we dont?

 

Utterly pathetic. Why dont you stick to your guns and continue posting crap about how Shephard has NOT taken us backwards, like you have been over the past few years? Because its simply not possible to make that arguement anymore because youd be laughed at in the same way people who believe the world is flat are mocked?

 

Just shows how wrong you are, doesnt it, that youve changed your stance entirely after all that defiance and self-assured rubbish you constantly kept putting forward in your continued Shephard-worshipping e-forum-crusade.

[James]

In my opinion, Shepherd hasn't failed with regards to the finances. It seems that our financial results are determined by how good our past two seasons have been in terms of results. The failure to earn results, and subsequent financial loss has been the result of Shepherd's inepitude at managerial appointments.

[Cajun]

In my opinion, Shepherd hasn't failed with regards to the finances. It seems that our financial results are determined by how good our past two seasons have been in terms of results. The failure to earn results, and subsequent financial loss has been the result of Shepherd's inepitude at managerial appointments.

 

So he has failed?  bluebiggrin.gif

[James]

In my opinion, Shepherd hasn't failed with regards to the finances. It seems that our financial results are determined by how good our past two seasons have been in terms of results. The failure to earn results, and subsequent financial loss has been the result of Shepherd's inepitude at managerial appointments.

 

So he has failed?  bluebiggrin.gif

 

Yes, but his failure is due to bad decisions rather than bad bookkeeping.

[Cajun]

In my opinion, Shepherd hasn't failed with regards to the finances. It seems that our financial results are determined by how good our past two seasons have been in terms of results. The failure to earn results, and subsequent financial loss has been the result of Shepherd's inepitude at managerial appointments.

 

So he has failed?  bluebiggrin.gif

 

Yes, but his failure is due to bad decisions rather than bad bookkeeping.

 

All leads to the same answer  tongue.gif

[Wullie]

In my opinion, Shepherd hasn't failed with regards to the finances. It seems that our financial results are determined by how good our past two seasons have been in terms of results. The failure to earn results, and subsequent financial loss has been the result of Shepherd's inepitude at managerial appointments.

 

So he has failed? bluebiggrin.gif

 

Yes, but his failure is due to bad decisions rather than bad bookkeeping.

 

6 = 2x3

 

That's like saying Ridsdale was a good keeper of finances because it was only lack of Champions League qualification that sent them down the tubes.

[James]

In my opinion, Shepherd hasn't failed with regards to the finances. It seems that our financial results are determined by how good our past two seasons have been in terms of results. The failure to earn results, and subsequent financial loss has been the result of Shepherd's inepitude at managerial appointments.

 

So he has failed? bluebiggrin.gif

 

Yes, but his failure is due to bad decisions rather than bad bookkeeping.

 

6 = 2x3

 

That's like saying Ridsdale was a good keeper of finances because it was only lack of Champions League qualification that sent them down the tubes.

 

Good point Blofeld. I'll accept defeat in this argument.

 

In conclusion, just shut up NE5 and HTL.

[Cajun]

In my opinion, Shepherd hasn't failed with regards to the finances. It seems that our financial results are determined by how good our past two seasons have been in terms of results. The failure to earn results, and subsequent financial loss has been the result of Shepherd's inepitude at managerial appointments.

 

So he has failed? bluebiggrin.gif

 

Yes, but his failure is due to bad decisions rather than bad bookkeeping.

 

6 = 2x3

 

That's like saying Ridsdale was a good keeper of finances because it was only lack of Champions League qualification that sent them down the tubes.

 

Good point Blofeld. I'll accept defeat in this argument.

 

In conclusion, just shut up NE5 and HTL.

 

[Kitman]

In my opinion, Shepherd hasn't failed with regards to the finances. It seems that our financial results are determined by how good our past two seasons have been in terms of results. The failure to earn results, and subsequent financial loss has been the result of Shepherd's inepitude at managerial appointments.

 

So he has failed?  bluebiggrin.gif

 

Yes, but his failure is due to bad decisions rather than bad bookkeeping.

 

All leads to the same answer  tongue.gif

 

I can't stand all this negativity.  Lest we forget, in running conferencing and catering facilities Freddy is second to none.  Plus the club's chef won second place in the North East Chef of the Year, a remarkable achievement which somehow has been missed.  Come on people, it's not all bad!

[NE5]

On the contrary, I think people like you are a joke for not looking around at other clubs, and our own history, so are deluded enough to think that simply replacing the current board will lead to an automatic improvement.

 

:rolllrg:

 

Where have I said replacing the board will lead to automatic improvement?  Ive said plenty of times we could possibly end up with a worse chairman than Shephard, because they do exist no doubt - which in no way negates the notion that Shephard is a shit chairman.

 

So, after a red herring, you now resort to straw man fallacies. If you dont know what a straw man is:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy

 

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

 

Spot on, tmonkey. NE5 has more straw men than a scarecrow factory.

 

rich.

 

do you still have your Souness wallpaper, or don't you have the balls to admit that you got it wrong. Not to mention the disappearing act you did after dishing the dirt on the club you say you support to a scumbag London journo ?? Now despite the faults of anyone, I doubt too many people on here or anywhere would do a thing like that.

 

 

[NE5]

If they can't go any further, so be it, we enjoyed the rise up the league and the Champions League run and reaching 2 Cup Finals. If you can't accept this and realise that it doesn;t come easily or cheaply then you are a moron. Unfortunately, only if we do appoint chairman who are currently at lots of other big city clubs who have had nothing like this, will the penny drop.

 

BTW, totally forgot to post a reply to this part:

 

:rolllrg:

 

After all this time, posting hundreds of replies about how Shephard has not taken us backwards, you are now telling us that we should expect it, understand it, and that were are morons if we dont?

 

Utterly pathetic. Why dont you stick to your guns and continue posting crap about how Shephard has NOT taken us backwards, like you have been over the past few years? Because its simply not possible to make that arguement anymore because youd be laughed at in the same way people who believe the world is flat are mocked?

 

Just shows how wrong you are, doesnt it, that youve changed your stance entirely after all that defiance and self-assured rubbish you constantly kept putting forward in your continued Shephard-worshipping e-forum-crusade.

 

I am not saying anything that I haven't said already. And - nothing has been proved either way yet. If someone comes in and doesn't back their managers for starters - and Mick being a long term supporter will have experienced this - , or make a quick killing then sell players and move on, it will make me right, not that I want that to happen, because I don't. Learn to read is my advice.

 

You have a bit of a neck mate, accusing me of not sticking to my guns, when the WUM doesn't have the bottle to admit his backing of Souness was ill founded, and macbeth's lies about saying the club was well run until 2003 until it was discovered he had been whinging in the mag about dividends 5 years earlier, and Mick saying he's a long term fan when he doesn't have a clue about the 1970's and 1980's. Or is it different, when they agree with you....  :roll:

 

 

 

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

 

I am not saying anything that I haven't said already.

 

 

why do you always take 14 pages to say it?