Falling apart - latest from True Faith

[NE5]

What are the merits of answering a poster who asks the same off-topic question 432 times on 87 different threads?

 

thats a lot of opportunities to answer ?

 

Surely you're not chickenshit 

[OzzieMandias]

[fredbob]

NE5 just talks shit all the time. Lets face facts, both Shepherd AND Ashley have been pretty shite. The reasons have been discussed over and over.

 

The most important thing a chairman/owner has to do is appoint a decent manager. Shepherd blundered on that account time and time again. Robson was a good one, but his other 3-5 were shite.  Fucka, even I could get it right one in five. We can slaver on about finances and shit forever more, but success on the field usually follows with success off the field. A decent appointment after Robson might have kept us up there, a decent appointment after Souness might have returned us to an Everton, Villa type position. However we continued to make shocking appointments.

 

Look at Villa. They made a brilliant appointment in Martin O'Neill and he is basically building a club back up. Weve just made a mess of everything for years. Its bad management, and its from both Shepherd AND Ashley.

 

We made a brilliant appointment too in Bobby Robson, and any opinion you have other than that, is also a heap of shite. And expecting the club to make such brilliant appointments every time, is also unrealistic shit. For people like you who spout such garbage, we will see who Villa appoint when he goes, and who Arsenal appoint when Wenger goes, and who ManU appoint when Ferguson goes.

 

 

 

 

 

I think you're losing it here, its perfectly relasitic to expect the board to make good appointments, its unrealisitc to expect them to work out everytime. Prime example being Dlaglish (where only the moinority will criticise his appointment), his record stood up, he was a good appointment.

 

Are you saying that its unrealsiitc to pick a good manager from the entire world? How come Liverpool managed it?

 

The way you see it, is that when people say its easy to make a good appointment (which it is), you think we mean its easy to make an appointment who will do great for the club, its not what we mean.

 

Look at Spurs - Ramos was a fanstastic appointment, but i imaigine you see it as a shit appointment becasue it didnt work out, which isnt how you should judge a persons decison making process. It can only be done on the merit of the appoimtnet.

 

your last paragraph shows you are actually starting to grasp something, now adopt that principle to the fortunes of NUFC, not that I would say qualifying for europe more than any club bar 4 over a period of a decade is a disaster or anything .........

 

 

 

Absolutley, pretty much everything up to 2004 was great, aside from the intefereing and undermining of SBR (and not backing him at THE most crucuial time) the sacking was a terrible mistake in my opinion (but a canvas of opinion at the time would firmly put me in the miority), the appointment of Souness was possibly one of the worst decisions Ive ever seen made at a club of this stature at the time, the decision to back him with so much money was the second worst decision.

 

This is what a lot of people are trying to tell you, they had the foresight at the time to say this was a shit appointment , there can be no argument here, it wasnt a good appointment by any stretch of the imagination. And it happens to be a decision we're still paying for now. The scope to make a good appointment was definitely there, unlike Liverpool we were unwilling to see what the foreign shores had to offer, what happened to ambition then? It was possilby the best time in NUFC history to make a world class appointment and we failed miserably.

 

Shepherd et al were pretty much untouchable up to that point.

 

Its a sad state of affiars but once a mistake is made the past is largely forgotten, what good is a past if you have a grim future?

 

I'll always be immensely grateful for some of the best times ive ever seen at nufc, but i wont excuse any bad decision which has cost the club so much. It just doesnt work like that.

 

 

canny post, but the bold is totally wrong. Most people backed him all the way, his buys, his sales, and encouraged the fat bastard to give him even more money insisting that doing it like Alex Ferguson in kicking out the "cancers" was going to yield the same results. They will now be mostly the same people who are complaining the club spent too much money, applying mandiarse type expert hindsight. 

 

 

 

Fair enough! 

 

I admit it myself, i supported the appointment even though i disagreed with it monumentally. That still doesnt mean to say that the decision to appoint him was justifiable, it was still a poor decision, what compunded that decision was the next 2 appointments.

 

As a fan i can only support whats put in front of me like any fan should.

 

As for the money spent, maybe people are beng harsh with it, maybe with the benefit of hindsight with the current predicamanet they can finally see the full implications of the decision to back Graeme Souness with such a huge amount of money. Theres also the infamous Anelka/Owen, Luque/Boa Morte contraversies which are still clear as mud.

 

 

 

[Mick]

 

there's little point in him doing that because you still won't believe it if it doesn't suit your opinion

 

 

You're confusing me with somebody else.

[NE5]

 

there's little point in him doing that because you still won't believe it if it doesn't suit your opinion

 

 

You're confusing me with somebody else.

 

no. I'm not

 

 

[Guest BooBoo]

http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis/p20-pe10.html

 

[Baggio]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

 

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley.

 

Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite.

 

You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ?

 

You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat b****** for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two.

 

 

i'll show you plenty who said it when we bought luque etc.

 

as i've already posted the position we were in then is vastly different to the position fred left us in......i'll spell it out for you.

 

borrowing money when you have small debts and a sustaining business plan is ok, in some circumstances it is even preferable to raising cash in other ways.

 

borrowing year on year whan you have very high debt to turnover and have no business plan excepet to hope you become succesful is mindless.

 

why do you constantly cherry pick the highpoints and ignore the position we were left in ?

 

I'm not talking about Luque, you are cherry picking a bad signing as being indicative of the clubs whole philisophy. In actual fact, most people said that Luque was a good player/should have a chance. Not too many people agreed with me when I said that he was s**** the first time I saw him.

 

You have to accept that some players don;t work , or are poor buys, but you can't accept this in the same way as you also completely unrealistically can't accept that we don't appoint the right manager every time. In fact, in the last 4 years ie since Bobby Robson, only 5 clubs have had trophy winning managers. Do you still think everybody apart from us has appointed good managers in the last 4 years ? Why do you ignore the previous 12 years before that ? Fact is, as I've told you, they have been held accountable, they have gone, are you happy with the outcome or not ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys.

 

As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ?

answer my question please.

 

I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't

 

 

can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick.  (no pun intended)

 

Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that.

 

Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out.

 

I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed.

 

 

so you didn't really answer my question did you ?.

 

i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?"

 

 

 

i'll make it simpler..i'd hate to ask the same question over and over if you dont inderstand its context........where should the money come from year after year when the club is making a loss to finance this buying ?

 

I don't think he wants to answer your question for some reason, Madras.

 

 

[Mick]

 

no. I'm not

 

 

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,57178.msg1578185.html#msg1578185

[madras]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

 

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley.

 

Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite.

 

You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ?

 

You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat b****** for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two.

 

 

i'll show you plenty who said it when we bought luque etc.

 

as i've already posted the position we were in then is vastly different to the position fred left us in......i'll spell it out for you.

 

borrowing money when you have small debts and a sustaining business plan is ok, in some circumstances it is even preferable to raising cash in other ways.

 

borrowing year on year whan you have very high debt to turnover and have no business plan excepet to hope you become succesful is mindless.

 

why do you constantly cherry pick the highpoints and ignore the position we were left in ?

 

I'm not talking about Luque, you are cherry picking a bad signing as being indicative of the clubs whole philisophy. In actual fact, most people said that Luque was a good player/should have a chance. Not too many people agreed with me when I said that he was s**** the first time I saw him.

 

You have to accept that some players don;t work , or are poor buys, but you can't accept this in the same way as you also completely unrealistically can't accept that we don't appoint the right manager every time. In fact, in the last 4 years ie since Bobby Robson, only 5 clubs have had trophy winning managers. Do you still think everybody apart from us has appointed good managers in the last 4 years ? Why do you ignore the previous 12 years before that ? Fact is, as I've told you, they have been held accountable, they have gone, are you happy with the outcome or not ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys.

 

As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ?

answer my question please.

 

I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't

 

 

can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick.  (no pun intended)

 

Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that.

 

Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out.

 

I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed.

 

 

so you didn't really answer my question did you ?.

 

i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?"

 

I've told you. You're completely unrealistic.

 

NE5, i'm with you on a few things you say but you've lost it here big time...

 

Long standing debate, this one. We have stopped spending money now, and look where its taking us. See my previous post. How much of the banks money are Liverpool etc using ? Would you prefer a mid table, bottom half club, taking no risks and staying solvent to competing at the top end and filling the stadium and marketing the club like a top club ? My answer, is give me a board who show ambition and are prepared to have a crack at it anyday to one that settles for safe obscurity.

 

 

liverpools debt may be guaranteed by their owners as ours are by ashley...i don't think fred could have guaranteed that ammount.

 

 

you haven't directly answered the question........do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

all you say is you'll not get anywhere without spending which doesn't in any way answer my question about nhow long you keep on borrowing for. i have done you the service of answering you directly in the past,please accord me the same.

[NE5]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

 

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley.

 

Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite.

 

You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ?

 

You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat b****** for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two.

 

 

i'll show you plenty who said it when we bought luque etc.

 

as i've already posted the position we were in then is vastly different to the position fred left us in......i'll spell it out for you.

 

borrowing money when you have small debts and a sustaining business plan is ok, in some circumstances it is even preferable to raising cash in other ways.

 

borrowing year on year whan you have very high debt to turnover and have no business plan excepet to hope you become succesful is mindless.

 

why do you constantly cherry pick the highpoints and ignore the position we were left in ?

 

I'm not talking about Luque, you are cherry picking a bad signing as being indicative of the clubs whole philisophy. In actual fact, most people said that Luque was a good player/should have a chance. Not too many people agreed with me when I said that he was s**** the first time I saw him.

 

You have to accept that some players don;t work , or are poor buys, but you can't accept this in the same way as you also completely unrealistically can't accept that we don't appoint the right manager every time. In fact, in the last 4 years ie since Bobby Robson, only 5 clubs have had trophy winning managers. Do you still think everybody apart from us has appointed good managers in the last 4 years ? Why do you ignore the previous 12 years before that ? Fact is, as I've told you, they have been held accountable, they have gone, are you happy with the outcome or not ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys.

 

As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ?

answer my question please.

 

I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't

 

 

can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick.  (no pun intended)

 

Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that.

 

Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out.

 

I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed.

 

 

so you didn't really answer my question did you ?.

 

i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?"

 

I've told you. You're completely unrealistic.

 

NE5, i'm with you on a few things you say but you've lost it here big time...

 

Long standing debate, this one. We have stopped spending money now, and look where its taking us. See my previous post. How much of the banks money are Liverpool etc using ? Would you prefer a mid table, bottom half club, taking no risks and staying solvent to competing at the top end and filling the stadium and marketing the club like a top club ? My answer, is give me a board who show ambition and are prepared to have a crack at it anyday to one that settles for safe obscurity.

 

 

liverpools debt may be guaranteed by their owners as ours are by ashley...i don't think fred could have guaranteed that ammount.

 

 

you haven't directly answered the question........do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

all you say is you'll not get anywhere without spending which doesn't in any way answer my question about nhow long you keep on borrowing for. i have done you the service of answering you directly in the past,please accord me the same.

 

its a completely hypothetical question. You don't think you are going to go bankrupt do you ? You don't deliberately appoint a manager you think will make bad judgements ? So, as I said, give me a board who will have a crack at aiming for the top places, which we should be doing, rather than one that is afraid of it and opts for bottom of the table safety and solvency. As Ashley has taken that route, the results are there for you to see.

 

 

[madras]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

 

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley.

 

Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite.

 

You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ?

 

You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat b****** for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two.

 

 

i'll show you plenty who said it when we bought luque etc.

 

as i've already posted the position we were in then is vastly different to the position fred left us in......i'll spell it out for you.

 

borrowing money when you have small debts and a sustaining business plan is ok, in some circumstances it is even preferable to raising cash in other ways.

 

borrowing year on year whan you have very high debt to turnover and have no business plan excepet to hope you become succesful is mindless.

 

why do you constantly cherry pick the highpoints and ignore the position we were left in ?

 

I'm not talking about Luque, you are cherry picking a bad signing as being indicative of the clubs whole philisophy. In actual fact, most people said that Luque was a good player/should have a chance. Not too many people agreed with me when I said that he was s**** the first time I saw him.

 

You have to accept that some players don;t work , or are poor buys, but you can't accept this in the same way as you also completely unrealistically can't accept that we don't appoint the right manager every time. In fact, in the last 4 years ie since Bobby Robson, only 5 clubs have had trophy winning managers. Do you still think everybody apart from us has appointed good managers in the last 4 years ? Why do you ignore the previous 12 years before that ? Fact is, as I've told you, they have been held accountable, they have gone, are you happy with the outcome or not ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys.

 

As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ?

answer my question please.

 

I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't

 

 

can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick.  (no pun intended)

 

Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that.

 

Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out.

 

I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed.

 

 

so you didn't really answer my question did you ?.

 

i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?"

 

I've told you. You're completely unrealistic.

 

NE5, i'm with you on a few things you say but you've lost it here big time...

 

Long standing debate, this one. We have stopped spending money now, and look where its taking us. See my previous post. How much of the banks money are Liverpool etc using ? Would you prefer a mid table, bottom half club, taking no risks and staying solvent to competing at the top end and filling the stadium and marketing the club like a top club ? My answer, is give me a board who show ambition and are prepared to have a crack at it anyday to one that settles for safe obscurity.

 

 

liverpools debt may be guaranteed by their owners as ours are by ashley...i don't think fred could have guaranteed that ammount.

 

 

you haven't directly answered the question........do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

all you say is you'll not get anywhere without spending which doesn't in any way answer my question about nhow long you keep on borrowing for. i have done you the service of answering you directly in the past,please accord me the same.

 

its a completely hypothetical question. You don't think you are going to go bankrupt do you ? You don't deliberately appoint a manager you think will make bad judgements ? So, as I said, give me a board who will have a crack at aiming for the top places, which we should be doing, rather than one that is afraid of it and opts for bottom of the table safety and solvency. As Ashley has taken that route, the results are there for you to see.

 

 

so do you keep on borrowing no matter how long it takes to bring success ?

[Thespence]

People make this debt to be fucking nightmare, we only got  it because we built the ground up & brought some fucking brilliant players to Newcastle, helped keep players like Shearer at Newcastle. Of course some of it was spent badly but I would rather of seen good players, great teams than a tidy balance sheet.

 

 

 

[fredbob]

People make this debt to be fucking nightmare, we only got  it because we built the ground up & brought some fucking brilliant players to Newcastle, helped keep players like Shearer at Newcastle. Of course some of it was spent badly but I would rather of seen good players, great teams than a tidy balance sheet.

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile back in reality...

[Thespence]

People make this debt to be f***ing nightmare, we only got  it because we built the ground up & brought some f***ing brilliant players to Newcastle, helped keep players like Shearer at Newcastle. Of course some of it was spent badly but I would rather of seen good players, great teams than a tidy balance sheet.

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile back in reality...

 

That was reality.

[NE5]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

 

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley.

 

Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite.

 

You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ?

 

You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat b****** for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two.

 

 

i'll show you plenty who said it when we bought luque etc.

 

as i've already posted the position we were in then is vastly different to the position fred left us in......i'll spell it out for you.

 

borrowing money when you have small debts and a sustaining business plan is ok, in some circumstances it is even preferable to raising cash in other ways.

 

borrowing year on year whan you have very high debt to turnover and have no business plan excepet to hope you become succesful is mindless.

 

why do you constantly cherry pick the highpoints and ignore the position we were left in ?

 

I'm not talking about Luque, you are cherry picking a bad signing as being indicative of the clubs whole philisophy. In actual fact, most people said that Luque was a good player/should have a chance. Not too many people agreed with me when I said that he was s**** the first time I saw him.

 

You have to accept that some players don;t work , or are poor buys, but you can't accept this in the same way as you also completely unrealistically can't accept that we don't appoint the right manager every time. In fact, in the last 4 years ie since Bobby Robson, only 5 clubs have had trophy winning managers. Do you still think everybody apart from us has appointed good managers in the last 4 years ? Why do you ignore the previous 12 years before that ? Fact is, as I've told you, they have been held accountable, they have gone, are you happy with the outcome or not ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys.

 

As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ?

answer my question please.

 

I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't

 

 

can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick.  (no pun intended)

 

Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that.

 

Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out.

 

I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed.

 

 

so you didn't really answer my question did you ?.

 

i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?"

 

I've told you. You're completely unrealistic.

 

NE5, i'm with you on a few things you say but you've lost it here big time...

 

Long standing debate, this one. We have stopped spending money now, and look where its taking us. See my previous post. How much of the banks money are Liverpool etc using ? Would you prefer a mid table, bottom half club, taking no risks and staying solvent to competing at the top end and filling the stadium and marketing the club like a top club ? My answer, is give me a board who show ambition and are prepared to have a crack at it anyday to one that settles for safe obscurity.

 

 

liverpools debt may be guaranteed by their owners as ours are by ashley...i don't think fred could have guaranteed that ammount.

 

 

you haven't directly answered the question........do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

all you say is you'll not get anywhere without spending which doesn't in any way answer my question about nhow long you keep on borrowing for. i have done you the service of answering you directly in the past,please accord me the same.

 

its a completely hypothetical question. You don't think you are going to go bankrupt do you ? You don't deliberately appoint a manager you think will make bad judgements ? So, as I said, give me a board who will have a crack at aiming for the top places, which we should be doing, rather than one that is afraid of it and opts for bottom of the table safety and solvency. As Ashley has taken that route, the results are there for you to see.

 

 

so do you keep on borrowing no matter how long it takes to bring success ?

 

you have to aim for success, if you doubt that, wait and see where Ashleys penny pinching and lack of ambition gets us.

 

Season ticket sales next year will be your first indication, especially if we are relegated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

People make this debt to be fucking nightmare, we only got  it because we built the ground up & brought some fucking brilliant players to Newcastle, helped keep players like Shearer at Newcastle. Of course some of it was spent badly but I would rather of seen good players, great teams than a tidy balance sheet.

 

 

 

 

far too complicated for some, that. It also means not slating the fat bastard for anything they can think of, and we can't have that can we

 

 

[fredbob]

People make this debt to be f***ing nightmare, we only got  it because we built the ground up & brought some f***ing brilliant players to Newcastle, helped keep players like Shearer at Newcastle. Of course some of it was spent badly but I would rather of seen good players, great teams than a tidy balance sheet.

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile back in reality...

 

That was reality.

 

"Was" being the operative word.

[Thespence]

People make this debt to be f***ing nightmare, we only got  it because we built the ground up & brought some f***ing brilliant players to Newcastle, helped keep players like Shearer at Newcastle. Of course some of it was spent badly but I would rather of seen good players, great teams than a tidy balance sheet.

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile back in reality...

 

That was reality.

 

"Was" being the operative word.

 

Do you regret  having the good times, the players, teams & a manager like SBR that helped build the debt pile?

 

It is a shame large sums were wasted but I would rather of had them good years & suffer now than to never of had them at all & been yo-yoing like the mackems in a out town cheap as chips stadium.

[fredbob]

People make this debt to be f***ing nightmare, we only got  it because we built the ground up & brought some f***ing brilliant players to Newcastle, helped keep players like Shearer at Newcastle. Of course some of it was spent badly but I would rather of seen good players, great teams than a tidy balance sheet.

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile back in reality...

 

That was reality.

 

"Was" being the operative word.

 

Do you regret  having the good times, the players, teams & a manager like SBR that helped build the debt pile?

 

It is a shame large sums were wasted but I would rather of had them good years & suffer now than to never of had them at all & been yo-yoing like the mackems in a out town cheap as chips stadium.

 

Well this is the key bit, how much are we going to suffer? And if it costs us our prem status will those poor decisions in the past which have given us our past been worth it for the future?

 

Your original post was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. Its a very real issue which is well worth a discussion.

 

 

[Mick]

 

Do you regret  having the good times, the players, teams & a manager like SBR that helped build the debt pile?

 

It is a shame large sums were wasted but I would rather of had them good years & suffer now than to never of had them at all & been yo-yoing like the mackems in a out town cheap as chips stadium.

 

The thing is, Sir Bobby probably cost us nothing or very little considering how much he spent and the improvement he made and the cash which that brought to the club.

[Thespence]

People make this debt to be f***ing nightmare, we only got  it because we built the ground up & brought some f***ing brilliant players to Newcastle, helped keep players like Shearer at Newcastle. Of course some of it was spent badly but I would rather of seen good players, great teams than a tidy balance sheet.

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile back in reality...

 

That was reality.

 

"Was" being the operative word.

 

Do you regret  having the good times, the players, teams & a manager like SBR that helped build the debt pile?

 

It is a shame large sums were wasted but I would rather of had them good years & suffer now than to never of had them at all & been yo-yoing like the mackems in a out town cheap as chips stadium.

 

Well this is the key bit, how much are we going to suffer? And if it costs us our prem status will those poor decisions in the past which have given us our past been worth it for the future?

 

Your original post was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. Its a very real issue which is well worth a discussion.

 

If we go down I would of still wanted to seen Shearer, Ginola, Sir Les, SBR & host of others & of course the ground being expaned  the good memories will live ever.

 

Sticking my fingers in my ears?!?  A lot of people get into SJP because some of that debt was used to rebuild the ground which worked out very expensive, of course we could of built a cheap stadia in Gateshead with few grants but I am glad we paid extra & stayed in the city centre as seeing SJP at the top the city is still a brilliant thing to see.

[Thespence]

 

Do you regret  having the good times, the players, teams & a manager like SBR that helped build the debt pile?

 

It is a shame large sums were wasted but I would rather of had them good years & suffer now than to never of had them at all & been yo-yoing like the mackems in a out town cheap as chips stadium.

 

The thing is, Sir Bobby probably cost us nothing or very little considering how much he spent and the improvement he made and the cash which that brought to the club.

 

He still spent big & the money had to be found & at the time we had to pay shareholders, so there were no nest eggs of CL money being stashed.

[Guest fading star]

People make this debt to be f***ing nightmare, we only got  it because we built the ground up & brought some f***ing brilliant players to Newcastle, helped keep players like Shearer at Newcastle. Of course some of it was spent badly but I would rather of seen good players, great teams than a tidy balance sheet.

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile back in reality...

 

That was reality.

 

"Was" being the operative word.

 

Do you regret  having the good times, the players, teams & a manager like SBR that helped build the debt pile?

 

It is a shame large sums were wasted but I would rather of had them good years & suffer now than to never of had them at all & been yo-yoing like the mackems in a out town cheap as chips stadium.

It was the post Robson spending that did the damage, before that the speculate to accumulate business model was both sustainable and working.

[Mick]

 

He still spent big & the money had to be found & at the time we had to pay shareholders, so there were no nest eggs of CL money being stashed.

 

He spent less than £6 million per year net.

[fredbob]

People make this debt to be f***ing nightmare, we only got  it because we built the ground up & brought some f***ing brilliant players to Newcastle, helped keep players like Shearer at Newcastle. Of course some of it was spent badly but I would rather of seen good players, great teams than a tidy balance sheet.

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile back in reality...

 

That was reality.

 

"Was" being the operative word.

 

Do you regret  having the good times, the players, teams & a manager like SBR that helped build the debt pile?

 

It is a shame large sums were wasted but I would rather of had them good years & suffer now than to never of had them at all & been yo-yoing like the mackems in a out town cheap as chips stadium.

 

Well this is the key bit, how much are we going to suffer? And if it costs us our prem status will those poor decisions in the past which have given us our past been worth it for the future?

 

Your original post was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. Its a very real issue which is well worth a discussion.

 

If we go down I would of still wanted to seen Shearer, Ginola, Sir Les, SBR & host of others & of course the ground being expaned  the good memories will live ever.

 

Sticking my fingers in my ears?!?  A lot of people get into SJP because some of that debt was used to rebuild the ground which worked out very expensive, of course we could of built a cheap stadia in Gateshead with few grants but I am glad we paid extra & stayed in the city centre as seeing SJP at the top the city is still a brilliant thing to see.

 

I think you're generalising the debt a bit too much.

 

As Mick#s pointing out, i think the damage was done with the Souness splurges, the big wages the decreased parachute payments and the lack of CL money. Its all added up, i dont htink the stadium debt was as big an issue as it had been secured against season ticket sales (which explains some PR stunts pre season ticket renewals) which are very consistent.

 

Once we got ourselves into a position where we had high wages, low performers and no CL there was no way to go, we couldnt even recoup much money of player sales. With SBR we did have high wages but we also had higher parachute payemtns and the CL campaign money. We'd also borrowed against our assets and the money was goona be difficult to raise.