Shepherd Has His Say (Again)

[NE5]

Why are people wasting their time when they know that either NE5 knows that the club needs to get it's finances together but won't admit it because it will mean fat Fred fucked up (likely to be the reason he's avoided the accounts thread) or he genuinely thinks it's a good idea to keep on spending without worrying that the club is making losses every season and risks going to the wall.

 

Either way it makes him retarded.

 

still your time of the month then 

[WhatTheFunk]

Aye, everything will be fine if we just ignore reality.

 

1. have you found your village yet

2. have you told us what you think of a manager with 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards yet ?

3. What do you think of Craigy baby signign for man city for 14m quid, given that you supported his sale and the manager who made it ?

 

 

 

Anything but admit that Shepherd left the club in a right old state and today we are paying the bill.

 

just think, if we still had Craigy baby - who's sale you supported along with the manager who sold him - we would have had a 14m quid asset at the club.

 

Did you ask me for a reminder of that question about a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards ? That would make it at least 4 out of 6 that you backed to succeed, wouldn't it ?

 

 

 

How much did Liverpool pay for him? In turn, how much West Ham pay for him? 6.5m took him from Rovers to Liverpool, and 7.5m took him to the Hammers. The only reason City paid 14m is because they bloody can, and West Ham took them to the cleaners with it.

 

I'm being pedantic because your argument about the 14m asset is ridiculous.

[NE5]

Aye, everything will be fine if we just ignore reality.

 

1. have you found your village yet

2. have you told us what you think of a manager with 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards yet ?

3. What do you think of Craigy baby signign for man city for 14m quid, given that you supported his sale and the manager who made it ?

 

 

 

Anything but admit that Shepherd left the club in a right old state and today we are paying the bill.

 

just think, if we still had Craigy baby - who's sale you supported along with the manager who sold him - we would have had a 14m quid asset at the club.

 

Did you ask me for a reminder of that question about a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards ? That would make it at least 4 out of 6 that you backed to succeed, wouldn't it ?

 

 

 

How much did Liverpool pay for him? In turn, how much West Ham pay for him? 6.5m took him from Rovers to Liverpool, and 7.5m took him to the Hammers. The only reason City paid 14m is because they bloody can, and West Ham took them to the cleaners with it.

 

I'm being pedantic because your argument about the 14m asset is ridiculous.

 

as ridiculous as mandiarse ?

 

 

[WhatTheFunk]

Aye, everything will be fine if we just ignore reality.

 

1. have you found your village yet

2. have you told us what you think of a manager with 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards yet ?

3. What do you think of Craigy baby signign for man city for 14m quid, given that you supported his sale and the manager who made it ?

 

 

 

Anything but admit that Shepherd left the club in a right old state and today we are paying the bill.

 

just think, if we still had Craigy baby - who's sale you supported along with the manager who sold him - we would have had a 14m quid asset at the club.

 

Did you ask me for a reminder of that question about a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards ? That would make it at least 4 out of 6 that you backed to succeed, wouldn't it ?

 

 

 

How much did Liverpool pay for him? In turn, how much West Ham pay for him? 6.5m took him from Rovers to Liverpool, and 7.5m took him to the Hammers. The only reason City paid 14m is because they bloody can, and West Ham took them to the cleaners with it.

 

I'm being pedantic because your argument about the 14m asset is ridiculous.

 

as ridiculous as mandiarse ?

 

 

 

what if I don't answer that? are you going to say "thought so"? or are you going to "tar me with the same brush"?

 

This isn't about Ozzie, but about you using nonsense to jab at someone, and I decided to be pedantic about it since you seem to care little for logical debate since the finances/Shepherd interview were released.

[OzzieMandias]

Aye, everything will be fine if we just ignore reality.

 

1. have you found your village yet

2. have you told us what you think of a manager with 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards yet ?

3. What do you think of Craigy baby signign for man city for 14m quid, given that you supported his sale and the manager who made it ?

 

 

 

Anything but admit that Shepherd left the club in a right old state and today we are paying the bill.

 

just think, if we still had Craigy baby - who's sale you supported along with the manager who sold him - we would have had a 14m quid asset at the club.

 

Did you ask me for a reminder of that question about a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards ? That would make it at least 4 out of 6 that you backed to succeed, wouldn't it ?

 

 

 

How much did Liverpool pay for him? In turn, how much West Ham pay for him? 6.5m took him from Rovers to Liverpool, and 7.5m took him to the Hammers. The only reason City paid 14m is because they bloody can, and West Ham took them to the cleaners with it.

 

I'm being pedantic because your argument about the 14m asset is ridiculous.

 

as ridiculous as mandiarse ?

 

 

 

what if I don't answer that? are you going to say "thought so"? or are you going to "tar me with the same brush"?

 

This isn't about Ozzie, but about you using nonsense to jab at someone and I decided to be pedantic about it since you seem to care little for logical debate since the finances/Shepherd interview were released.

 

Standard tactic when he wants to ignore an argument -- ie every other post.

[Guest toonlass]

Oooooh NE5, is your nose getting bigger? Are your pants on fire? If you haven't looked at the finances thread why was your name in the users currently looking at it several times?

 

I haven't looked at it. By the way, I've responded to some of your previous posts directed at me, and predictably you have joined the list of those who are unable to reply and prove me wrong, when you would love to if you could.

 

Are you someone else that insisted we would be better off without the fat bastard [for anybody] ?

 

 

 

Which questions have you asked me, sorry if I missed them but your perpetual arse kissing of Freddy Shepherd sends me to sleep.

 

Which fat bastard are you on about, Shepherd or Ashley?

 

well, we are certainly not better off since the last ownership change are we, but I thought that soopa Mike was going to be the saviour to end all those embarrassing days of qualifying regularly for europe ?

 

 

 

We are financially more stable than we were under Freddy "Lets hoy some more cash at the problem and hope we get somewhere" Shepherd. You should know that from your sneaky peaking at the financial report thread. We will have to see where we are come May to decide how bad Ashley has been. If we finish 13th or so you could say we are on a par with Fat Fred couldn't you? Well you wouldn't cos obviously you are blinkered.

 

While Mike Ashley is not the man to take the club forward, Freddy Shepherd certainly wasn't either. But at least Ashley isn't taking money out of the club to line his own pocket, unlike Fat Freddy.

 

I haven't looked at the thread, because I know it will be full of people like you slating the old board for anything you can think of, such is your cluelessness.

 

You and people like you were told for ages by myself and one or two others that getting rid of the old board wouldn't necessarily lead to more success and a better club, you were wrong. You are being told again that Ashley is taking the club downwards and downwards, his policy is wrong, you are disputing it, but you are wrong again.

 

 

 

I think you have mistaken me for someone else. I have said time and again that Mike Ashley is not the man to take this club forward. But deluding yourself that Freddy Shepherd was is just stupid. Freddy Shepherd was running this club into the ground financially, and getting a nice wage packet out of it too. Its all well and good for Shepherd to come out now and say that Ashley is doing things wrong, but we would have been crippled had Shepherd still been at the helm. He needs to give himself a shake, and you too, and you both need to realise that the reason we are in this mess is because of Fat Fred's policy of throwing money into a bottomless pit to try and put things right, instead of sorting out the fundamental problems with the club. I don't think Ashley is the right man for Newcastle, and never have, but no-one else would have taken the club on and put the money in he has to stop us going to the wall. Others looked at the books and ran!

 

nobody wanted the club in 1991 for less than we were paid by Spurs for Gazza, had one foot in the 3rd division and were 16 games from relegation to the 3rd division and folding. Since then we have been one of the biggest and best clubs in the country. We are now setting up a club that is being run on similar lines to pre-1991 again, and this setup began when Ashley bought the club and not before.

 

I wonder how many people said anybody but the fat bastard would be better for the club but are now doing u-turns and saying Ashley isn't the right man.

 

What are you basing this on? Is it the league table? Because we were mid table mediocrity before Ashley came. Is it the fans? Because they were just as pedantic before Ashley came as they are now. Is it the spending that made us big? Just because Freddy Shepherd would throw millions away on no-hopes does not make us big?

 

As I already said, and you ignored completely, I do not and never have believed Ashley to be the right man for our club, but if you believe that Freddy Shepherd was not instrumental in putting us in the position we are in today then you are just mad.

[NE5]

Aye, everything will be fine if we just ignore reality.

 

1. have you found your village yet

2. have you told us what you think of a manager with 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards yet ?

3. What do you think of Craigy baby signign for man city for 14m quid, given that you supported his sale and the manager who made it ?

 

 

 

Anything but admit that Shepherd left the club in a right old state and today we are paying the bill.

 

just think, if we still had Craigy baby - who's sale you supported along with the manager who sold him - we would have had a 14m quid asset at the club.

 

Did you ask me for a reminder of that question about a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards ? That would make it at least 4 out of 6 that you backed to succeed, wouldn't it ?

 

 

 

How much did Liverpool pay for him? In turn, how much West Ham pay for him? 6.5m took him from Rovers to Liverpool, and 7.5m took him to the Hammers. The only reason City paid 14m is because they bloody can, and West Ham took them to the cleaners with it.

 

I'm being pedantic because your argument about the 14m asset is ridiculous.

 

as ridiculous as mandiarse ?

 

 

 

what if I don't answer that? are you going to say "thought so"? or are you going to "tar me with the same brush"?

 

This isn't about Ozzie, but about you using nonsense to jab at someone and I decided to be pedantic about it since you seem to care little for logical debate since the finances/Shepherd interview were released.

 

Standard tactic when he wants to ignore an argument

 

so, what DO you think of the merits of appointing a manager who wins 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards. If you don't consider this to have been part of a few previous debates, as yet unanswered, just pretend it is and grunt once for a good appointment and twice for a poor one.

 

 

[NE5]

Oooooh NE5, is your nose getting bigger? Are your pants on fire? If you haven't looked at the finances thread why was your name in the users currently looking at it several times?

 

I haven't looked at it. By the way, I've responded to some of your previous posts directed at me, and predictably you have joined the list of those who are unable to reply and prove me wrong, when you would love to if you could.

 

Are you someone else that insisted we would be better off without the fat bastard [for anybody] ?

 

 

 

Which questions have you asked me, sorry if I missed them but your perpetual arse kissing of Freddy Shepherd sends me to sleep.

 

Which fat bastard are you on about, Shepherd or Ashley?

 

well, we are certainly not better off since the last ownership change are we, but I thought that soopa Mike was going to be the saviour to end all those embarrassing days of qualifying regularly for europe ?

 

 

 

We are financially more stable than we were under Freddy "Lets hoy some more cash at the problem and hope we get somewhere" Shepherd. You should know that from your sneaky peaking at the financial report thread. We will have to see where we are come May to decide how bad Ashley has been. If we finish 13th or so you could say we are on a par with Fat Fred couldn't you? Well you wouldn't cos obviously you are blinkered.

 

While Mike Ashley is not the man to take the club forward, Freddy Shepherd certainly wasn't either. But at least Ashley isn't taking money out of the club to line his own pocket, unlike Fat Freddy.

 

I haven't looked at the thread, because I know it will be full of people like you slating the old board for anything you can think of, such is your cluelessness.

 

You and people like you were told for ages by myself and one or two others that getting rid of the old board wouldn't necessarily lead to more success and a better club, you were wrong. You are being told again that Ashley is taking the club downwards and downwards, his policy is wrong, you are disputing it, but you are wrong again.

 

 

 

I think you have mistaken me for someone else. I have said time and again that Mike Ashley is not the man to take this club forward. But deluding yourself that Freddy Shepherd was is just stupid. Freddy Shepherd was running this club into the ground financially, and getting a nice wage packet out of it too. Its all well and good for Shepherd to come out now and say that Ashley is doing things wrong, but we would have been crippled had Shepherd still been at the helm. He needs to give himself a shake, and you too, and you both need to realise that the reason we are in this mess is because of Fat Fred's policy of throwing money into a bottomless pit to try and put things right, instead of sorting out the fundamental problems with the club. I don't think Ashley is the right man for Newcastle, and never have, but no-one else would have taken the club on and put the money in he has to stop us going to the wall. Others looked at the books and ran!

 

nobody wanted the club in 1991 for less than we were paid by Spurs for Gazza, had one foot in the 3rd division and were 16 games from relegation to the 3rd division and folding. Since then we have been one of the biggest and best clubs in the country. We are now setting up a club that is being run on similar lines to pre-1991 again, and this setup began when Ashley bought the club and not before.

 

I wonder how many people said anybody but the fat bastard would be better for the club but are now doing u-turns and saying Ashley isn't the right man.

 

What are you basing this on? Is it the league table? Because we were mid table mediocrity before Ashley came. Is it the fans? Because they were just as pedantic before Ashley came as they are now. Is it the spending that made us big? Just because Freddy Shepherd would throw millions away on no-hopes does not make us big?

 

As I already said, and you ignored completely, I do not and never have believed Ashley to be the right man for our club, but if you believe that Freddy Shepherd was not instrumental in putting us in the position we are in today then you are just mad.

 

The first 10 years after we got promoted in 1965 finished like this

 

15th, 20th, 10th, 9th, 7th, 12th, 11th, 9th, 15th, 15th

 

the next 10 read

 

15th, 5th, 21st, Div2, Div2, Div2, Div2, Div2,Div2, 14th

 

The next years, up to 1992

 

11th, 17th, 8th, 20th, Div2, Div2, Div2,

 

Between 1993 and 2007, in the top league only

 

3rd, 6th, 2nd, 2nd, 13th, 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, 13th

 

Qualifications for europe between 1965 and 1992 = 4

Qualifications for europe between 1992 and 2007 = 9

 

Between 1992 and 2007, only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than us.

Between 1992 and 2007, we have the 5th highest average position in the country.

 

England internationals or other high quality current internationals bought during the first 3 periods = Nil.

England Internationals or other high quality current internationals bought during the 4th = you tell me, a canny few.

 

Work it out.

 

Ashley is setting up the club to be run like it was run before 1992 by the way.

 

If you dispute this, then take my word for it, you are wrong.

 

 

 

[Zero]

NE5 I can't understand how can you argue for Fred.  It's obvious that we almost did a Leeds.  In a sense we could be even worse as we didn't have a good youth setup to sustain recoverability.

 

No matter how bad Ashley's doing, he couldn't be worse than Fred in the sense that we didn't go into administration.  As an accountant I could assure you that we were really close to the point of no return.

[oldtype]

You lot are just encouraging him by biting really.

[NE5]

NE5 I can't understand how can you argue for Fred.  It's obvious that we almost did a Leeds.  In a sense we could be even worse as we didn't have a good youth setup to sustain recoverability.

 

No matter how bad Ashley's doing, he couldn't be worse than Fred in the sense that we didn't go into administration.  As an accountant I could assure you that we were really close to the point of no return.

 

we haven't gone into administration yet. As an accountant, what do you think the effect will be on the club if we are relegated, or if/when the gates and revenue take a huge dive due to lack of investment and poor results ?

 

 

 

 

[Dave]

You lot are just encouraging him by biting really.

 

[NE5]

You lot are just encouraging him by biting really.

 

you can dispute those league positions, if you like.

 

 

[Mick]

 

The first 10 years after we got promoted in 1965 finished like this

 

15th, 20th, 10th, 9th, 7th, 12th, 11th, 9th, 15th, 15th

 

the next 10 read

 

15th, 5th, 21st, Div2, Div2, Div2, Div2, Div2,Div2, 14th

 

The next years, up to 1992

 

11th, 17th, 8th, 20th, Div2, Div2, Div2,

 

Between 1993 and 2007

 

3rd, 6th, 2nd, 2nd, 13th, 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, 13th

 

Qualifications for europe between 1965 and 1992 = 4

Qualifications for europe between 1992 and 2007 = 9

 

Between 1992 and 2007, only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than us.

Between 1992 and 2007, we have the 5th highest average position in the country.

 

England internationals or other high quality current internationals bought during the first 3 periods = Nil.

England Internationals or other high quality current internationals bought during the 4th = you tell me, a canny few.

 

Work it out.

 

Ashley is setting up the club to be run like it was run before 1992 by the way.

 

If you dispute this, then take my word for it, you are wrong.

 

 

 

 

Could you be so kind as to highlight all of the teams which won a meaningful trophy?

[NE5]

 

The first 10 years after we got promoted in 1965 finished like this

 

15th, 20th, 10th, 9th, 7th, 12th, 11th, 9th, 15th, 15th

 

the next 10 read

 

15th, 5th, 21st, Div2, Div2, Div2, Div2, Div2,Div2, 14th

 

The next years, up to 1992

 

11th, 17th, 8th, 20th, Div2, Div2, Div2,

 

Between 1993 and 2007

 

3rd, 6th, 2nd, 2nd, 13th, 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, 13th

 

Qualifications for europe between 1965 and 1992 = 4

Qualifications for europe between 1992 and 2007 = 9

 

Between 1992 and 2007, only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than us.

Between 1992 and 2007, we have the 5th highest average position in the country.

 

England internationals or other high quality current internationals bought during the first 3 periods = Nil.

England Internationals or other high quality current internationals bought during the 4th = you tell me, a canny few.

 

Work it out.

 

Ashley is setting up the club to be run like it was run before 1992 by the way.

 

If you dispute this, then take my word for it, you are wrong.

 

 

 

 

Could you be so kind as to highlight all of the teams which won a meaningful trophy?

 

are you dismissing those positions on the basis that we didn't win a trophy under Keegan so you think previous to that was the good old days ?

 

On that basis, do you think people like Joe Royle, Maurice Evans, Bobby Gould and John Sillet were better managers than Keegan because they won the FA or the League Cup  mackems.gif

 

[Zero]

 

we haven't gone into administration yet. As an accountant, what do you think the effect will be on the club if we are relegated, or if/when the gates and revenue take a huge dive due to lack of investment and poor results ?

 

 

We nearly did.  The debt ratio is horrible, the wage/revenue ratio is ridiculous, the Owen deal shouldn't be done because we simply couldn't afford him --- Fred has been making very, very risky decisions it was already not a "gamble" but "suicide".  Yea you could say if they turn out to be success then no problem at all but that's the reason why Leeds was finished.

 

Well, that's very arguable, my point is

1.  We are already showing signs of facing relegation battle under Fred.  This is the same as you're assuming Ashely=relegation.  To me both owners=possible relegation.

2.  I would rather relegate with a better financial status so that we can come back again like Blackburn, Birmingham and Sunderland.

 

Could you imagine if we relegate under Fred and those debts are still outstanding?

[Guest toonlass]

Oooooh NE5, is your nose getting bigger? Are your pants on fire? If you haven't looked at the finances thread why was your name in the users currently looking at it several times?

 

I haven't looked at it. By the way, I've responded to some of your previous posts directed at me, and predictably you have joined the list of those who are unable to reply and prove me wrong, when you would love to if you could.

 

Are you someone else that insisted we would be better off without the fat bastard [for anybody] ?

 

 

 

Which questions have you asked me, sorry if I missed them but your perpetual arse kissing of Freddy Shepherd sends me to sleep.

 

Which fat bastard are you on about, Shepherd or Ashley?

 

well, we are certainly not better off since the last ownership change are we, but I thought that soopa Mike was going to be the saviour to end all those embarrassing days of qualifying regularly for europe ?

 

 

 

We are financially more stable than we were under Freddy "Lets hoy some more cash at the problem and hope we get somewhere" Shepherd. You should know that from your sneaky peaking at the financial report thread. We will have to see where we are come May to decide how bad Ashley has been. If we finish 13th or so you could say we are on a par with Fat Fred couldn't you? Well you wouldn't cos obviously you are blinkered.

 

While Mike Ashley is not the man to take the club forward, Freddy Shepherd certainly wasn't either. But at least Ashley isn't taking money out of the club to line his own pocket, unlike Fat Freddy.

 

I haven't looked at the thread, because I know it will be full of people like you slating the old board for anything you can think of, such is your cluelessness.

 

You and people like you were told for ages by myself and one or two others that getting rid of the old board wouldn't necessarily lead to more success and a better club, you were wrong. You are being told again that Ashley is taking the club downwards and downwards, his policy is wrong, you are disputing it, but you are wrong again.

 

 

 

I think you have mistaken me for someone else. I have said time and again that Mike Ashley is not the man to take this club forward. But deluding yourself that Freddy Shepherd was is just stupid. Freddy Shepherd was running this club into the ground financially, and getting a nice wage packet out of it too. Its all well and good for Shepherd to come out now and say that Ashley is doing things wrong, but we would have been crippled had Shepherd still been at the helm. He needs to give himself a shake, and you too, and you both need to realise that the reason we are in this mess is because of Fat Fred's policy of throwing money into a bottomless pit to try and put things right, instead of sorting out the fundamental problems with the club. I don't think Ashley is the right man for Newcastle, and never have, but no-one else would have taken the club on and put the money in he has to stop us going to the wall. Others looked at the books and ran!

 

nobody wanted the club in 1991 for less than we were paid by Spurs for Gazza, had one foot in the 3rd division and were 16 games from relegation to the 3rd division and folding. Since then we have been one of the biggest and best clubs in the country. We are now setting up a club that is being run on similar lines to pre-1991 again, and this setup began when Ashley bought the club and not before.

 

I wonder how many people said anybody but the fat bastard would be better for the club but are now doing u-turns and saying Ashley isn't the right man.

 

What are you basing this on? Is it the league table? Because we were mid table mediocrity before Ashley came. Is it the fans? Because they were just as pedantic before Ashley came as they are now. Is it the spending that made us big? Just because Freddy Shepherd would throw millions away on no-hopes does not make us big?

 

As I already said, and you ignored completely, I do not and never have believed Ashley to be the right man for our club, but if you believe that Freddy Shepherd was not instrumental in putting us in the position we are in today then you are just mad.

 

The first 10 years after we got promoted in 1965 finished like this

 

15th, 20th, 10th, 9th, 7th, 12th, 11th, 9th, 15th, 15th

 

the next 10 read

 

15th, 5th, 21st, Div2, Div2, Div2, Div2, Div2,Div2, 14th

 

The next years, up to 1992

 

11th, 17th, 8th, 20th, Div2, Div2, Div2,

 

Between 1993 and 2007, in the top league only

 

3rd, 6th, 2nd, 2nd, 13th, 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, 13th

 

Qualifications for europe between 1965 and 1992 = 4 But we actually won something in this period!

Qualifications for europe between 1992 and 2007 = 9

 

Between 1992 and 2007, only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than us.

Between 1992 and 2007, we have the 5th highest average position in the country.

 

England internationals or other high quality current internationals bought during the first 3 periods = Nil.

England Internationals or other high quality current internationals bought during the 4th = you tell me, a canny few.

 

Work it out.

 

Ashley is setting up the club to be run like it was run before 1992 by the way.

 

If you dispute this, then take my word for it, you are wrong.

 

 

 

 

Smacks of midtable to me.

[Baggio]

We nearly did.  The debt ratio is horrible, the wage/revenue ratio is ridiculous, the Owen deal shouldn't be done because we simply couldn't afford him --- Fred has been making very, very risky decisions it was already not a "gamble" but "suicide".  Yea you could say if they turn out to be success then no problem at all but that's the reason why Leeds was finished.

 

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/site_furniture/2007/08/17/noisepollution460.jpg

[NE5]

 

we haven't gone into administration yet. As an accountant, what do you think the effect will be on the club if we are relegated, or if/when the gates and revenue take a huge dive due to lack of investment and poor results ?

 

 

We nearly did.  The debt ratio is horrible, the wage/revenue ratio is ridiculous, the Owen deal shouldn't be done because we simply couldn't afford him --- Fred has been making very, very risky decisions it was already not a "gamble" but "suicide".  Yea you could say if they turn out to be success then no problem at all but that's the reason why Leeds was finished.

 

Well, that's very arguable, my point is

1.  We are already showing signs of facing relegation battle under Fred.  This is the same as you're assuming Ashely=relegation.  To me both owners=possible relegation.

2.  I would rather relegate with a better financial status so that we can come back again like Blackburn, Birmingham and Sunderland.

 

Could you imagine if we relegate under Fred and those debts are still outstanding?

 

A club like Newcastle should never contemplate relegation or see any a positive from it in any shape or form. It is indicative of the fall in expectations under Ashley that you say such a thing and compare us to the likes of Birmingham and Blackburn, which is the standard we competed at, again, pre-1992.

 

By the way, look again at the absolutely true league positions I've posted, and see how long it took us to get back the last times.

 

 

[fredbob]

Oooooh NE5, is your nose getting bigger? Are your pants on fire? If you haven't looked at the finances thread why was your name in the users currently looking at it several times?

 

I haven't looked at it. By the way, I've responded to some of your previous posts directed at me, and predictably you have joined the list of those who are unable to reply and prove me wrong, when you would love to if you could.

 

Are you someone else that insisted we would be better off without the fat bastard [for anybody] ?

 

 

 

Which questions have you asked me, sorry if I missed them but your perpetual arse kissing of Freddy Shepherd sends me to sleep.

 

Which fat bastard are you on about, Shepherd or Ashley?

 

well, we are certainly not better off since the last ownership change are we, but I thought that soopa Mike was going to be the saviour to end all those embarrassing days of qualifying regularly for europe ?

 

 

 

We are financially more stable than we were under Freddy "Lets hoy some more cash at the problem and hope we get somewhere" Shepherd. You should know that from your sneaky peaking at the financial report thread. We will have to see where we are come May to decide how bad Ashley has been. If we finish 13th or so you could say we are on a par with Fat Fred couldn't you? Well you wouldn't cos obviously you are blinkered.

 

While Mike Ashley is not the man to take the club forward, Freddy Shepherd certainly wasn't either. But at least Ashley isn't taking money out of the club to line his own pocket, unlike Fat Freddy.

 

I haven't looked at the thread, because I know it will be full of people like you slating the old board for anything you can think of, such is your cluelessness.

 

You and people like you were told for ages by myself and one or two others that getting rid of the old board wouldn't necessarily lead to more success and a better club, you were wrong. You are being told again that Ashley is taking the club downwards and downwards, his policy is wrong, you are disputing it, but you are wrong again.

 

 

 

I think you have mistaken me for someone else. I have said time and again that Mike Ashley is not the man to take this club forward. But deluding yourself that Freddy Shepherd was is just stupid. Freddy Shepherd was running this club into the ground financially, and getting a nice wage packet out of it too. Its all well and good for Shepherd to come out now and say that Ashley is doing things wrong, but we would have been crippled had Shepherd still been at the helm. He needs to give himself a shake, and you too, and you both need to realise that the reason we are in this mess is because of Fat Fred's policy of throwing money into a bottomless pit to try and put things right, instead of sorting out the fundamental problems with the club. I don't think Ashley is the right man for Newcastle, and never have, but no-one else would have taken the club on and put the money in he has to stop us going to the wall. Others looked at the books and ran!

 

nobody wanted the club in 1991 for less than we were paid by Spurs for Gazza, had one foot in the 3rd division and were 16 games from relegation to the 3rd division and folding. Since then we have been one of the biggest and best clubs in the country. We are now setting up a club that is being run on similar lines to pre-1991 again, and this setup began when Ashley bought the club and not before.

 

I wonder how many people said anybody but the fat bastard would be better for the club but are now doing u-turns and saying Ashley isn't the right man.

 

What are you basing this on? Is it the league table? Because we were mid table mediocrity before Ashley came. Is it the fans? Because they were just as pedantic before Ashley came as they are now. Is it the spending that made us big? Just because Freddy Shepherd would throw millions away on no-hopes does not make us big?

 

As I already said, and you ignored completely, I do not and never have believed Ashley to be the right man for our club, but if you believe that Freddy Shepherd was not instrumental in putting us in the position we are in today then you are just mad.

 

The first 10 years after we got promoted in 1965 finished like this

 

15th, 20th, 10th, 9th, 7th, 12th, 11th, 9th, 15th, 15th

 

the next 10 read

 

15th, 5th, 21st, Div2, Div2, Div2, Div2, Div2,Div2, 14th

 

The next years, up to 1992

 

11th, 17th, 8th, 20th, Div2, Div2, Div2,

 

Between 1993 and 2007, in the top league only

 

3rd, 6th, 2nd, 2nd, 13th, 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, 13th

 

Qualifications for europe between 1965 and 1992 = 4

Qualifications for europe between 1992 and 2007 = 9

 

Between 1992 and 2007, only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than us.

Between 1992 and 2007, we have the 5th highest average position in the country.

 

England internationals or other high quality current internationals bought during the first 3 periods = Nil.

England Internationals or other high quality current internationals bought during the 4th = you tell me, a canny few.

 

Work it out.

 

Ashley is setting up the club to be run like it was run before 1992 by the way.

 

If you dispute this, then take my word for it, you are wrong.

 

 

 

 

What do those stats prove to you?

[NE5]

Oooooh NE5, is your nose getting bigger? Are your pants on fire? If you haven't looked at the finances thread why was your name in the users currently looking at it several times?

 

I haven't looked at it. By the way, I've responded to some of your previous posts directed at me, and predictably you have joined the list of those who are unable to reply and prove me wrong, when you would love to if you could.

 

Are you someone else that insisted we would be better off without the fat bastard [for anybody] ?

 

 

 

Which questions have you asked me, sorry if I missed them but your perpetual arse kissing of Freddy Shepherd sends me to sleep.

 

Which fat bastard are you on about, Shepherd or Ashley?

 

well, we are certainly not better off since the last ownership change are we, but I thought that soopa Mike was going to be the saviour to end all those embarrassing days of qualifying regularly for europe ?

 

 

 

We are financially more stable than we were under Freddy "Lets hoy some more cash at the problem and hope we get somewhere" Shepherd. You should know that from your sneaky peaking at the financial report thread. We will have to see where we are come May to decide how bad Ashley has been. If we finish 13th or so you could say we are on a par with Fat Fred couldn't you? Well you wouldn't cos obviously you are blinkered.

 

While Mike Ashley is not the man to take the club forward, Freddy Shepherd certainly wasn't either. But at least Ashley isn't taking money out of the club to line his own pocket, unlike Fat Freddy.

 

I haven't looked at the thread, because I know it will be full of people like you slating the old board for anything you can think of, such is your cluelessness.

 

You and people like you were told for ages by myself and one or two others that getting rid of the old board wouldn't necessarily lead to more success and a better club, you were wrong. You are being told again that Ashley is taking the club downwards and downwards, his policy is wrong, you are disputing it, but you are wrong again.

 

 

 

I think you have mistaken me for someone else. I have said time and again that Mike Ashley is not the man to take this club forward. But deluding yourself that Freddy Shepherd was is just stupid. Freddy Shepherd was running this club into the ground financially, and getting a nice wage packet out of it too. Its all well and good for Shepherd to come out now and say that Ashley is doing things wrong, but we would have been crippled had Shepherd still been at the helm. He needs to give himself a shake, and you too, and you both need to realise that the reason we are in this mess is because of Fat Fred's policy of throwing money into a bottomless pit to try and put things right, instead of sorting out the fundamental problems with the club. I don't think Ashley is the right man for Newcastle, and never have, but no-one else would have taken the club on and put the money in he has to stop us going to the wall. Others looked at the books and ran!

 

nobody wanted the club in 1991 for less than we were paid by Spurs for Gazza, had one foot in the 3rd division and were 16 games from relegation to the 3rd division and folding. Since then we have been one of the biggest and best clubs in the country. We are now setting up a club that is being run on similar lines to pre-1991 again, and this setup began when Ashley bought the club and not before.

 

I wonder how many people said anybody but the fat bastard would be better for the club but are now doing u-turns and saying Ashley isn't the right man.

 

What are you basing this on? Is it the league table? Because we were mid table mediocrity before Ashley came. Is it the fans? Because they were just as pedantic before Ashley came as they are now. Is it the spending that made us big? Just because Freddy Shepherd would throw millions away on no-hopes does not make us big?

 

As I already said, and you ignored completely, I do not and never have believed Ashley to be the right man for our club, but if you believe that Freddy Shepherd was not instrumental in putting us in the position we are in today then you are just mad.

 

The first 10 years after we got promoted in 1965 finished like this

 

15th, 20th, 10th, 9th, 7th, 12th, 11th, 9th, 15th, 15th

 

the next 10 read

 

15th, 5th, 21st, Div2, Div2, Div2, Div2, Div2,Div2, 14th

 

The next years, up to 1992

 

11th, 17th, 8th, 20th, Div2, Div2, Div2,

 

Between 1993 and 2007, in the top league only

 

3rd, 6th, 2nd, 2nd, 13th, 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, 13th

 

Qualifications for europe between 1965 and 1992 = 4 But we actually won something in this period!

Qualifications for europe between 1992 and 2007 = 9

 

Between 1992 and 2007, only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than us.

Between 1992 and 2007, we have the 5th highest average position in the country.

 

England internationals or other high quality current internationals bought during the first 3 periods = Nil.

England Internationals or other high quality current internationals bought during the 4th = you tell me, a canny few.

 

Work it out.

 

Ashley is setting up the club to be run like it was run before 1992 by the way.

 

If you dispute this, then take my word for it, you are wrong.

 

 

 

 

Smacks of midtable to me.

 

Well if you think we stand a better chance of winning something by becoming a yoyo selling club again, then its your prerogative, but  such a thought process is complete utter rubbish too.

 

 

[Zero]

NE5, remember a club called Fiorentina?

[Mick]

 

are you dismissing those positions on the basis that we didn't win a trophy under Keegan so you think previous to that was the good old days ?

 

On that basis, do you think people like Joe Royle, Maurice Evans, Bobby Gould and John Sillet were better managers than Keegan because they won the FA or the League Cup  mackems.gif

 

 

I'm not sure how that answers the question although I'm not surprised about that.

[Guest toonlass]

When have I ever said relegation would be a good thing? You make things up as you go along NE5! Relegation would be a terrible thing for Newcastle United, but there is no guarantee that under Shepherd we would be in any better of a situation and all evidence points to us being bankrupt, not just relegated. You seem to see things in a polarised view, you cannot comprehend that both Shepherd AND Ashley are not the men to run this club. You need to get out of Shepherd's rectum and smell the coffee. We would have been non-existant, never mind relegated had Shepherd still been here, spending money we didn't have to be no better than we are now.

[NE5]

 

are you dismissing those positions on the basis that we didn't win a trophy under Keegan so you think previous to that was the good old days ?

 

On that basis, do you think people like Joe Royle, Maurice Evans, Bobby Gould and John Sillet were better managers than Keegan because they won the FA or the League Cup  mackems.gif

 

 

I'm not sure how that answers the question although I'm not surprised about that.

 

just bask in the knowledge that your man soopa mike is bringing your good old days back. No more embarrassment. Just like you wanted, you must be lapping up the current position and results