Llambias Q&A with Chronicle: OP updated with Thursday's articles

[dcmk]

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were despera

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were desperate to get out which isn't very ambitious.

te to get out which isn't very ambitious.

 

Shepherd brought in a manager who worked on a shoestring budget at Bolton and got them into Europe.  That was his thinking, cut back on expenditure like transfer fees and stabilise whilst pushing up the table.  Lets not forget when Shepherd had to balance the books, summer of Bowyer also Woodgate sale.

 

He was critised for not backing us... well Ashley... point made i feel.

we'd just qualified for the champs league,as hall often said the best time to invest is when you are on the way up. we could have invested from a position of strength as opposed to playing catch up,spendin big for a couple of years till you can't afford to do it any more.

 

Lets not forget we had a very young squad who were supposedly improving year upon year.  Shepherd gambled that season, he put our finances first - like Ashley is doing - and we still got into Europe and weren't far away from CL.  Is 5th a poor league position?  We did have a strong enough team for 4th, but the campaign started badly and the players never recovered.

a squad that included hughes,dabizas,griffin,bramble and o'brien as regular first teamers. it needed stregthening and the best time to do it is from a position of strength when you are up there. his gamble not to stregthen didn't pay off,then his gambles to try and strengthen from mid table failed.

 

if you can afford it you take the gamble,i'm not sure by 2007 we were in a position to gamble any more.

 

You can criticise in hindsight it is an easy thing to do, but when it comes down to it there was alot of sense in what Shepherd did.  Successor after Keegan, Gullit, Souness, Roeder and Allardyce where all appointed with at the time exactly what we needed.  Discipline, tighter budgets, a resurgance unseen before, etc.

 

You also mention Shepherd gambling by not spending any money in a transfer window, well the irony is we are in alot worse position now and Ashley is gambling with a temporary manager, no net spend in January and a management structure that has been abandoned by other teams.

 

Only now are forum members concerned with finances, because that is what we are being fed.  As lets be honest not much to look forward to.

 

 

[madras]

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were despera

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were desperate to get out which isn't very ambitious.

te to get out which isn't very ambitious.

 

Shepherd brought in a manager who worked on a shoestring budget at Bolton and got them into Europe.  That was his thinking, cut back on expenditure like transfer fees and stabilise whilst pushing up the table.  Lets not forget when Shepherd had to balance the books, summer of Bowyer also Woodgate sale.

 

He was critised for not backing us... well Ashley... point made i feel.

we'd just qualified for the champs league,as hall often said the best time to invest is when you are on the way up. we could have invested from a position of strength as opposed to playing catch up,spendin big for a couple of years till you can't afford to do it any more.

 

Lets not forget we had a very young squad who were supposedly improving year upon year.  Shepherd gambled that season, he put our finances first - like Ashley is doing - and we still got into Europe and weren't far away from CL.  Is 5th a poor league position?  We did have a strong enough team for 4th, but the campaign started badly and the players never recovered.

a squad that included hughes,dabizas,griffin,bramble and o'brien as regular first teamers. it needed stregthening and the best time to do it is from a position of strength when you are up there. his gamble not to stregthen didn't pay off,then his gambles to try and strengthen from mid table failed.

 

if you can afford it you take the gamble,i'm not sure by 2007 we were in a position to gamble any more.

 

You can criticise in hindsight it is an easy thing to do, but when it comes down to it there was alot of sense in what Shepherd did.  Successor after Keegan, Gullit, Souness, Roeder and Allardyce where all appointed with at the time exactly what we needed.  Discipline, tighter budgets, a resurgance unseen before, etc.

 

You also mention Shepherd gambling by not spending any money in a transfer window, well the irony is we are in alot worse position now and Ashley is gambling with a temporary manager, no net spend in January and a management structure that has been abandoned by other teams.

 

Only now are forum members concerned with finances, because that is what we are being fed.  As lets be honest not much to look forward to.

 

 

yes it's hindsight but the position as of spring 2007 when i realised we couldn't keep on borrowing wasn't hindsight.

 

i agree about kinnear,i haven't got a clue about the management structure so won't comment,and if i was ashey i'd have spent a bit more to protect my investment. that has nothing to do with the fact that fred left us in an awful mess and had he been here now the club in my opinion would be in a worse state.

 

only now are forum members concerned with finances ? people have been saying we were in danger of doing a leeds everytime the accounts came out. what we didn't realise was the depth of financial mess.

[dcmk]

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were despera

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were desperate to get out which isn't very ambitious.

te to get out which isn't very ambitious.

 

Shepherd brought in a manager who worked on a shoestring budget at Bolton and got them into Europe.  That was his thinking, cut back on expenditure like transfer fees and stabilise whilst pushing up the table.  Lets not forget when Shepherd had to balance the books, summer of Bowyer also Woodgate sale.

 

He was critised for not backing us... well Ashley... point made i feel.

we'd just qualified for the champs league,as hall often said the best time to invest is when you are on the way up. we could have invested from a position of strength as opposed to playing catch up,spendin big for a couple of years till you can't afford to do it any more.

 

Lets not forget we had a very young squad who were supposedly improving year upon year.  Shepherd gambled that season, he put our finances first - like Ashley is doing - and we still got into Europe and weren't far away from CL.  Is 5th a poor league position?  We did have a strong enough team for 4th, but the campaign started badly and the players never recovered.

a squad that included hughes,dabizas,griffin,bramble and o'brien as regular first teamers. it needed stregthening and the best time to do it is from a position of strength when you are up there. his gamble not to stregthen didn't pay off,then his gambles to try and strengthen from mid table failed.

 

if you can afford it you take the gamble,i'm not sure by 2007 we were in a position to gamble any more.

 

You can criticise in hindsight it is an easy thing to do, but when it comes down to it there was alot of sense in what Shepherd did.  Successor after Keegan, Gullit, Souness, Roeder and Allardyce where all appointed with at the time exactly what we needed.  Discipline, tighter budgets, a resurgance unseen before, etc.

 

You also mention Shepherd gambling by not spending any money in a transfer window, well the irony is we are in alot worse position now and Ashley is gambling with a temporary manager, no net spend in January and a management structure that has been abandoned by other teams.

 

Only now are forum members concerned with finances, because that is what we are being fed.  As lets be honest not much to look forward to.

 

 

yes it's hindsight but the position as of spring 2007 when i realised we couldn't keep on borrowing wasn't hindsight.

 

i agree about kinnear,i haven't got a clue about the management structure so won't comment,and if i was ashey i'd have spent a bit more to protect my investment. that has nothing to do with the fact that fred left us in an awful mess and had he been here now the club in my opinion would be in a worse state.

 

only now are forum members concerned with finances ? people have been saying we were in danger of doing a leeds everytime the accounts came out. what we didn't realise was the depth of financial mess.

 

I think Shepherd realised that couldnt keep borrowing, and that brought about the introduction of Allaryce, who typically doesnt spend anything significant and does get results.  This would be seen as to stabilise the club, and lets not forget the guy had proven he can get a small club into Europe with very little money.

 

That i believe was his response to our finances, if he was still here. 

[Parky]

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were despera

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were desperate to get out which isn't very ambitious.

te to get out which isn't very ambitious.

 

Shepherd brought in a manager who worked on a shoestring budget at Bolton and got them into Europe.  That was his thinking, cut back on expenditure like transfer fees and stabilise whilst pushing up the table.  Lets not forget when Shepherd had to balance the books, summer of Bowyer also Woodgate sale.

 

He was critised for not backing us... well Ashley... point made i feel.

we'd just qualified for the champs league,as hall often said the best time to invest is when you are on the way up. we could have invested from a position of strength as opposed to playing catch up,spendin big for a couple of years till you can't afford to do it any more.

 

Lets not forget we had a very young squad who were supposedly improving year upon year.  Shepherd gambled that season, he put our finances first - like Ashley is doing - and we still got into Europe and weren't far away from CL.  Is 5th a poor league position?  We did have a strong enough team for 4th, but the campaign started badly and the players never recovered.

a squad that included hughes,dabizas,griffin,bramble and o'brien as regular first teamers. it needed stregthening and the best time to do it is from a position of strength when you are up there. his gamble not to stregthen didn't pay off,then his gambles to try and strengthen from mid table failed.

 

if you can afford it you take the gamble,i'm not sure by 2007 we were in a position to gamble any more.

 

You can criticise in hindsight it is an easy thing to do, but when it comes down to it there was alot of sense in what Shepherd did.  Successor after Keegan, Gullit, Souness, Roeder and Allardyce where all appointed with at the time exactly what we needed.  Discipline, tighter budgets, a resurgance unseen before, etc.

 

You also mention Shepherd gambling by not spending any money in a transfer window, well the irony is we are in alot worse position now and Ashley is gambling with a temporary manager, no net spend in January and a management structure that has been abandoned by other teams.

 

Only now are forum members concerned with finances, because that is what we are being fed.  As lets be honest not much to look forward to.

 

 

yes it's hindsight but the position as of spring 2007 when i realised we couldn't keep on borrowing wasn't hindsight.

 

i agree about kinnear,i haven't got a clue about the management structure so won't comment,and if i was ashey i'd have spent a bit more to protect my investment. that has nothing to do with the fact that fred left us in an awful mess and had he been here now the club in my opinion would be in a worse state.

 

only now are forum members concerned with finances ? people have been saying we were in danger of doing a leeds everytime the accounts came out. what we didn't realise was the depth of financial mess.

 

The financial scenario still shouldn't limit prudent and visionary investment in the first team, even if it only to guarantee short term PL survival. This my main bone of contention. The squad is perilously weak and has exposed us to the unthinkable. But I agree with the general sentiment the financial side needs fixing.

[madras]

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were despera

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were desperate to get out which isn't very ambitious.

te to get out which isn't very ambitious.

 

Shepherd brought in a manager who worked on a shoestring budget at Bolton and got them into Europe.  That was his thinking, cut back on expenditure like transfer fees and stabilise whilst pushing up the table.  Lets not forget when Shepherd had to balance the books, summer of Bowyer also Woodgate sale.

 

He was critised for not backing us... well Ashley... point made i feel.

we'd just qualified for the champs league,as hall often said the best time to invest is when you are on the way up. we could have invested from a position of strength as opposed to playing catch up,spendin big for a couple of years till you can't afford to do it any more.

 

Lets not forget we had a very young squad who were supposedly improving year upon year.  Shepherd gambled that season, he put our finances first - like Ashley is doing - and we still got into Europe and weren't far away from CL.  Is 5th a poor league position?  We did have a strong enough team for 4th, but the campaign started badly and the players never recovered.

a squad that included hughes,dabizas,griffin,bramble and o'brien as regular first teamers. it needed stregthening and the best time to do it is from a position of strength when you are up there. his gamble not to stregthen didn't pay off,then his gambles to try and strengthen from mid table failed.

 

if you can afford it you take the gamble,i'm not sure by 2007 we were in a position to gamble any more.

 

You can criticise in hindsight it is an easy thing to do, but when it comes down to it there was alot of sense in what Shepherd did.  Successor after Keegan, Gullit, Souness, Roeder and Allardyce where all appointed with at the time exactly what we needed.  Discipline, tighter budgets, a resurgance unseen before, etc.

 

You also mention Shepherd gambling by not spending any money in a transfer window, well the irony is we are in alot worse position now and Ashley is gambling with a temporary manager, no net spend in January and a management structure that has been abandoned by other teams.

 

Only now are forum members concerned with finances, because that is what we are being fed.  As lets be honest not much to look forward to.

 

 

yes it's hindsight but the position as of spring 2007 when i realised we couldn't keep on borrowing wasn't hindsight.

 

i agree about kinnear,i haven't got a clue about the management structure so won't comment,and if i was ashey i'd have spent a bit more to protect my investment. that has nothing to do with the fact that fred left us in an awful mess and had he been here now the club in my opinion would be in a worse state.

 

only now are forum members concerned with finances ? people have been saying we were in danger of doing a leeds everytime the accounts came out. what we didn't realise was the depth of financial mess.

 

I think Shepherd realised that couldnt keep borrowing, and that brought about the introduction of Allaryce, who typically doesnt spend anything significant and does get results.  This would be seen as to stabilise the club, and lets not forget the guy had proven he can get a small club into Europe with very little money.

 

That i believe was his response to our finances, if he was still here. 

under fred i could only see the club losing more and more money and with allardyce i could see relegation (check my history you'll find i am very patient with managers but he scared the shit out of me). as i've said ashley has made mistakes,i am no apologist for him. i just think some on here should admit the position we were in when he took over and what led us there.

 

we are in 5 foot of shit,under fred i reckon  the shit would have been over his head height.

[Offshore]

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were despera

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were desperate to get out which isn't very ambitious.

te to get out which isn't very ambitious.

 

Shepherd brought in a manager who worked on a shoestring budget at Bolton and got them into Europe.  That was his thinking, cut back on expenditure like transfer fees and stabilise whilst pushing up the table.  Lets not forget when Shepherd had to balance the books, summer of Bowyer also Woodgate sale.

 

He was critised for not backing us... well Ashley... point made i feel.

we'd just qualified for the champs league,as hall often said the best time to invest is when you are on the way up. we could have invested from a position of strength as opposed to playing catch up,spendin big for a couple of years till you can't afford to do it any more.

 

Lets not forget we had a very young squad who were supposedly improving year upon year.  Shepherd gambled that season, he put our finances first - like Ashley is doing - and we still got into Europe and weren't far away from CL.  Is 5th a poor league position?  We did have a strong enough team for 4th, but the campaign started badly and the players never recovered.

a squad that included hughes,dabizas,griffin,bramble and o'brien as regular first teamers. it needed stregthening and the best time to do it is from a position of strength when you are up there. his gamble not to stregthen didn't pay off,then his gambles to try and strengthen from mid table failed.

 

if you can afford it you take the gamble,i'm not sure by 2007 we were in a position to gamble any more.

 

You can criticise in hindsight it is an easy thing to do, but when it comes down to it there was alot of sense in what Shepherd did.  Successor after Keegan, Gullit, Souness, Roeder and Allardyce where all appointed with at the time exactly what we needed.  Discipline, tighter budgets, a resurgance unseen before, etc.

 

 

 

 

Give ower man,  Dalglish was the only manager out of those appointments that was an obvious and sensible choice.

 

Gullit was brought in to bring back the 'sexy' football after KD's reign, a complete knob, and it didn't work.

 

Souness was brought in because SBR has apparantly let the kids run amock, jesus man we actually paid Blackburn to take him off their hands , everyman and his dog knew that this was a crap appointment, oh and it didn't work either.

 

Allardyce was all science, percentages, pressurising the opposition and long-ball. Crap, playing for a point at the worst team ever in the league, just crap.

 

Roeder's appointment was different, he had to pick up the crap that Souness had left and did a decent job as caretaker, I thought he deserved a shot at the job, many others didn't. They were right.

[dcmk]

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were despera

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were desperate to get out which isn't very ambitious.

te to get out which isn't very ambitious.

 

Shepherd brought in a manager who worked on a shoestring budget at Bolton and got them into Europe.  That was his thinking, cut back on expenditure like transfer fees and stabilise whilst pushing up the table.  Lets not forget when Shepherd had to balance the books, summer of Bowyer also Woodgate sale.

 

He was critised for not backing us... well Ashley... point made i feel.

we'd just qualified for the champs league,as hall often said the best time to invest is when you are on the way up. we could have invested from a position of strength as opposed to playing catch up,spendin big for a couple of years till you can't afford to do it any more.

 

Lets not forget we had a very young squad who were supposedly improving year upon year.  Shepherd gambled that season, he put our finances first - like Ashley is doing - and we still got into Europe and weren't far away from CL.  Is 5th a poor league position?  We did have a strong enough team for 4th, but the campaign started badly and the players never recovered.

a squad that included hughes,dabizas,griffin,bramble and o'brien as regular first teamers. it needed stregthening and the best time to do it is from a position of strength when you are up there. his gamble not to stregthen didn't pay off,then his gambles to try and strengthen from mid table failed.

 

if you can afford it you take the gamble,i'm not sure by 2007 we were in a position to gamble any more.

 

You can criticise in hindsight it is an easy thing to do, but when it comes down to it there was alot of sense in what Shepherd did.  Successor after Keegan, Gullit, Souness, Roeder and Allardyce where all appointed with at the time exactly what we needed.  Discipline, tighter budgets, a resurgance unseen before, etc.

 

You also mention Shepherd gambling by not spending any money in a transfer window, well the irony is we are in alot worse position now and Ashley is gambling with a temporary manager, no net spend in January and a management structure that has been abandoned by other teams.

 

Only now are forum members concerned with finances, because that is what we are being fed.  As lets be honest not much to look forward to.

 

 

yes it's hindsight but the position as of spring 2007 when i realised we couldn't keep on borrowing wasn't hindsight.

 

i agree about kinnear,i haven't got a clue about the management structure so won't comment,and if i was ashey i'd have spent a bit more to protect my investment. that has nothing to do with the fact that fred left us in an awful mess and had he been here now the club in my opinion would be in a worse state.

 

only now are forum members concerned with finances ? people have been saying we were in danger of doing a leeds everytime the accounts came out. what we didn't realise was the depth of financial mess.

 

I think Shepherd realised that couldnt keep borrowing, and that brought about the introduction of Allaryce, who typically doesnt spend anything significant and does get results.  This would be seen as to stabilise the club, and lets not forget the guy had proven he can get a small club into Europe with very little money.

 

That i believe was his response to our finances, if he was still here. 

under fred i could only see the club losing more and more money and with allardyce i could see relegation (check my history you'll find i am very patient with managers but he scared the s*** out of me). as i've said ashley has made mistakes,i am no apologist for him. i just think some on here should admit the position we were in when he took over and what led us there.

 

we are in 5 foot of s***,under fred i reckon  the s*** would have been over his head height.

 

Maybe, im open minded about everything i think Shepherd just gets some unfair stick on here that is all, he takes all the blame for our finances but his appointments didn't work out and he did back them - like any good chairmen should.  The personnel were what we needed at the time too.

 

Another point is the bank wouldnt lend out the money if the finances were already in disarray.  The prime reason Ashley said he was shocked at them was when he had to pay off the stadium under change of ownership straight away and i believe Shepherd himself has contradicted some of what Ashley has said since.

 

But anyhoo we branched out onto another path with a safer chairmen (thats not a critism btw) in that respect, but i really hope for a really good manager who is allowed to build his team, plays positive football and some tactical nous asap.  Kinnear here, this contract offer - even after his operation doesn't look like going to walk away - and our low points tally, scares shit out of me more then wages to turnover ratio tbh.

[madras]

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were despera

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were desperate to get out which isn't very ambitious.

te to get out which isn't very ambitious.

 

Shepherd brought in a manager who worked on a shoestring budget at Bolton and got them into Europe.  That was his thinking, cut back on expenditure like transfer fees and stabilise whilst pushing up the table.  Lets not forget when Shepherd had to balance the books, summer of Bowyer also Woodgate sale.

 

He was critised for not backing us... well Ashley... point made i feel.

we'd just qualified for the champs league,as hall often said the best time to invest is when you are on the way up. we could have invested from a position of strength as opposed to playing catch up,spendin big for a couple of years till you can't afford to do it any more.

 

Lets not forget we had a very young squad who were supposedly improving year upon year.  Shepherd gambled that season, he put our finances first - like Ashley is doing - and we still got into Europe and weren't far away from CL.  Is 5th a poor league position?  We did have a strong enough team for 4th, but the campaign started badly and the players never recovered.

a squad that included hughes,dabizas,griffin,bramble and o'brien as regular first teamers. it needed stregthening and the best time to do it is from a position of strength when you are up there. his gamble not to stregthen didn't pay off,then his gambles to try and strengthen from mid table failed.

 

if you can afford it you take the gamble,i'm not sure by 2007 we were in a position to gamble any more.

 

You can criticise in hindsight it is an easy thing to do, but when it comes down to it there was alot of sense in what Shepherd did.  Successor after Keegan, Gullit, Souness, Roeder and Allardyce where all appointed with at the time exactly what we needed.  Discipline, tighter budgets, a resurgance unseen before, etc.

 

You also mention Shepherd gambling by not spending any money in a transfer window, well the irony is we are in alot worse position now and Ashley is gambling with a temporary manager, no net spend in January and a management structure that has been abandoned by other teams.

 

Only now are forum members concerned with finances, because that is what we are being fed.  As lets be honest not much to look forward to.

 

 

yes it's hindsight but the position as of spring 2007 when i realised we couldn't keep on borrowing wasn't hindsight.

 

i agree about kinnear,i haven't got a clue about the management structure so won't comment,and if i was ashey i'd have spent a bit more to protect my investment. that has nothing to do with the fact that fred left us in an awful mess and had he been here now the club in my opinion would be in a worse state.

 

only now are forum members concerned with finances ? people have been saying we were in danger of doing a leeds everytime the accounts came out. what we didn't realise was the depth of financial mess.

 

I think Shepherd realised that couldnt keep borrowing, and that brought about the introduction of Allaryce, who typically doesnt spend anything significant and does get results.  This would be seen as to stabilise the club, and lets not forget the guy had proven he can get a small club into Europe with very little money.

 

That i believe was his response to our finances, if he was still here. 

under fred i could only see the club losing more and more money and with allardyce i could see relegation (check my history you'll find i am very patient with managers but he scared the s*** out of me). as i've said ashley has made mistakes,i am no apologist for him. i just think some on here should admit the position we were in when he took over and what led us there.

 

we are in 5 foot of s***,under fred i reckon  the s*** would have been over his head height.

 

Maybe, im open minded about everything i think Shepherd just gets some unfair stick on here that is all, he takes all the blame for our finances but his appointments didn't work out and he did back them - like any good chairmen should.  The personnel were what we needed at the time too.

 

Another point is the bank wouldnt lend out the money if the finances were already in disarray.  The prime reason Ashley said he was shocked at them was when he had to pay off the stadium under change of ownership straight away and i believe Shepherd himself has contradicted some of what Ashley has said since.

 

But anyhoo we branched out onto another path with a safer chairmen (thats not a critism btw) in that respect, but i really hope for a really good manager who is allowed to build his team, plays positive football and some tactical nous asap.  Kinnear here, this contract offer - even after his operation doesn't look like going to walk away - and our low points tally, scares s*** out of me more then wages to turnover ratio tbh.

i backed fred until i realised the depth of the mess we were in and couldn't see him pulling it round.

 

agree totally re kinnear and even about the points tally. like i've said if i was ashley i'd have spent some of my own money to shore up my investment.

 

 

the banks.......yes they would but i honestly think we were reaching the point at which they'd say no more.

[OzzieMandias]

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

You're forgetting the question, "Do you honestly think that Shepherd was going to get us back into the Champions League?", which has been knocking around unanswered for longer than any of these other johnny-come-lately questions.

[NE5]

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were despera

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were desperate to get out which isn't very ambitious.

te to get out which isn't very ambitious.

 

Shepherd brought in a manager who worked on a shoestring budget at Bolton and got them into Europe.  That was his thinking, cut back on expenditure like transfer fees and stabilise whilst pushing up the table.  Lets not forget when Shepherd had to balance the books, summer of Bowyer also Woodgate sale.

 

He was critised for not backing us... well Ashley... point made i feel.

we'd just qualified for the champs league,as hall often said the best time to invest is when you are on the way up. we could have invested from a position of strength as opposed to playing catch up,spendin big for a couple of years till you can't afford to do it any more.

 

Lets not forget we had a very young squad who were supposedly improving year upon year.  Shepherd gambled that season, he put our finances first - like Ashley is doing - and we still got into Europe and weren't far away from CL.  Is 5th a poor league position?  We did have a strong enough team for 4th, but the campaign started badly and the players never recovered.

a squad that included hughes,dabizas,griffin,bramble and o'brien as regular first teamers. it needed stregthening and the best time to do it is from a position of strength when you are up there. his gamble not to stregthen didn't pay off,then his gambles to try and strengthen from mid table failed.

 

if you can afford it you take the gamble,i'm not sure by 2007 we were in a position to gamble any more.

 

You can criticise in hindsight it is an easy thing to do, but when it comes down to it there was alot of sense in what Shepherd did.  Successor after Keegan, Gullit, Souness, Roeder and Allardyce where all appointed with at the time exactly what we needed.  Discipline, tighter budgets, a resurgance unseen before, etc.

 

You also mention Shepherd gambling by not spending any money in a transfer window, well the irony is we are in alot worse position now and Ashley is gambling with a temporary manager, no net spend in January and a management structure that has been abandoned by other teams.

 

Only now are forum members concerned with finances, because that is what we are being fed.  As lets be honest not much to look forward to.

 

 

yes it's hindsight but the position as of spring 2007 when i realised we couldn't keep on borrowing wasn't hindsight.

 

i agree about kinnear,i haven't got a clue about the management structure so won't comment,and if i was ashey i'd have spent a bit more to protect my investment. that has nothing to do with the fact that fred left us in an awful mess and had he been here now the club in my opinion would be in a worse state.

 

only now are forum members concerned with finances ? people have been saying we were in danger of doing a leeds everytime the accounts came out. what we didn't realise was the depth of financial mess.

 

I think Shepherd realised that couldnt keep borrowing, and that brought about the introduction of Allaryce, who typically doesnt spend anything significant and does get results.  This would be seen as to stabilise the club, and lets not forget the guy had proven he can get a small club into Europe with very little money.

 

That i believe was his response to our finances, if he was still here. 

 

totally agree, but he's still getting flak. One other thing is - I've read further down before posting this and so its a response to the post by madras - I think the shit Ashley will leave us in will be far worse than the Halls and Shepherd would ever have done.

 

 

[NE5]

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

You're forgetting the question, "Do you honestly think that Shepherd was going to get us back into the Champions League?", which has been knocking around unanswered for longer than any of these other johnny-come-lately questions.

 

and you backed Souness and Allardyce to do it didn't you ?

 

 

[madras]

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were despera

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

they are all absolutely correct, but you can bet that a few particular people on here would tell you whatever Mike Ashley does is wonderful, even if we get relegated and end up like Sheff Wed they will still think he's doing all the right things for the club and so long as he doesn't "embarrass them" [whatever that means, poor dears] he will be just, er, great.

 

 

i tell you that non newcastle supporting friends of mine laughed at NUFC for appointing souness and roeder and it is dismissed. someone else tells you that some non nufc fans think along your lines and it is taken on board and is supposed to mean something.

 

 

i can see a pattern forming.

 

so can I. Its quite amazing that you can't see mandiarse is the one harping on saying Ashley isn't embarrassing him and causing us to be laughed and the Halls and Shepherd did.

 

mackems.gif

 

The difference is, I know that nobody laughed at us/me when we were qualifying for europe more than everybone but 4 teams. I also don't take the presumption that they are, to heart.

 

I'm so pleased you think all the 87 clubs that haven't qualified for europe as often as us, found something to laugh at.

 

I think you and some others should get out more and stop taking these WUM's on phone ins to heart.

 

Whats your take on Chelsea sacking Phil Scolari ? How can that be, a world cup winner, and I thought it was only us who appointed managers who failed and didn't give them time  Have you read the reports that Zola may take over in the summer ? Amazing, someone who has only been a manager for a few months, surely its only us who do things like that too ? 

 

 

 

 

erm i'm not actually bothered about what he thought. i'd have disagreed with him about dalglish and also with those who were carrying on about fred the way many are now about ashley ("just want them out and anyone will be better, despite no-one looking like they are willing to step into the breech or carrying the financial clout needed). you shouldn't try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same boat and lets face it ,it would need to be a cruise liner.

 

my whole disagreement with you has been about the position the club was in when ashley took over.

 

i'm sure i've answered the scolari one before, but hey ho. it's a one that didn't pay off and was always more of a risk than it seemed due to him never having managed in european league football. even the fact he won a world cup can be lessoned when you think of the players at his disposal. i take it you weren't that miffed when we appointed kinnear in "the lottery" ?

 

I think if we stay up, it will be almost entirely down to Kinnear for getting their heads up and restoring some spirit among the players.

 

Next season will be just the same as this though, until the inevitable happens. And the club will be nearer to where it was when the Halls and Shepherd found it. But I'm sure Ashley continuing his prudency on crowds of 20,000 will be the right policy to get us back into europe again.

 

Why don't you tell us what you would describe the appointments of football managers to be, when such a sure fire certainty as a World Cup Winner is sacked after a few months, and the long term replacement is being touted as someone who has been a manager for only a few months ? Or do you still think we are the only club who ever do this, and all the 87 clubs who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did were getting it right while we were getting it all wrong ??

 

 

if we stop up we'll disagree as to why then. i think the squad has enough quality but not enough depth and kinnear hasn't done anything for me to think he's changed things. they don't seem to be playing with extra spirit or extra tactical nouse.

 

you speak of next season but i think had fred and sam stayed this season would have seen championship football and real panic on the financial front (.thats why after backing fred, as things turned, so did I).

 

as for your question about appointments i'll give you an honest and straight forward answer......you'll see that i said scolari,due to his lack of euro league experience wasn't a sure fire bet. personally i'd have went for a manger with euro league experience (preferably english,spanish or german leagues) for the other 87 clubs it should have been easier for us to attract a better quality of manager (instead of souness) as we were a team who had finished 5th and managers tend to want to go to the better performing clubs as we were than.

 

 

haven't you yet realised the irony that you are defending apointing poor managers on the grounds that they aren't certain to be a success yet are complaining that we aren't trying to buy the best players who are just as uncertain . i'll save you answering to this bit as you'll say  that i am saying that we should get a top manager but not top players,my answer is that we should get the best of both that we can afford,even using debt as necessary but not the level of debt fred built up and not with the totally unsustainble wages.

 

 

 

At the end of the day.

 

1. Mike Ashley doesn't have ambition for the club like his predecessors did.

 

2. 87 other clubs have appointed managers and run clubs inferior to us, yet you say we have "failed"

 

3. I think relegation is inevitable under the current Mike Ashley "plan"

 

 

at the start of the day

 

1. fred was in a position to do that (ie assets to gaurantee lending against,less debt to finance etc) then his gamble failed.

 

2. lesser clubs will have more problem attracting a better manager. you'd expect a club who finished 5th should attract better than souness, or any prem club should attract better than roeder, it works exactly the same with players, which you don't see as a lottery.

 

3. i think releagtaion and bankruptcy was a certainty under freds direction.

 

by the way...do you think nufc should have kept borrowing despite making yearly losses till success or bankruptcy ?

 

well, as I have said. The Halls and Shepherd have paid the price you wanted them to pay for their "failure". I hope you are pleased the club is in better hands, but a few years of real mediocrity the likes of which you have never imagined will change your mind I suspect.

 

As has been pointed out by UV, what a shame we didn't take the Ashley direction 9 years ago and we would have avoided all that champions league stuff, getting in the way of the business etc etc.

 

 

 

i've already told you about where i saw the club going under fred, and i'd take a few years mediocrity (which i do remember from the 70's and 80's) over that.

 

also i've already stated about when it is wise,if not best practise, to take on debt,however there are also times when it is unwise to take on more debt, ie when your performance on and off the pitch is going backwards,when you are making regular losses and when wages count for over 70% iof your turnover.

 

in this instance do you think it a good thing to build up more debt ? what happens if you take this gamble a two or three times and it fails to pay off, do you keep on doing it ?

 

why are you so s*** scared of answering this question honestly and straightforwardly ?

 

 

 

ffs....I've said that I agreed with the appointment of Allardyce as a measure of steadying the ship and appointing a manager who had shown he could put together a decent team without spending money. Ditto the first year or two of Bobby Robson. The difference being that they pushed forward again, and the best players at the club knew this and so didn't want to leave. Unlike Mike Ashley, who is not going to do this.

 

I really think if you are going to continue to harp on and make comments like being "s*** scared" [when its you who is unable to read and understand] then you ought to direct such comments at Ozzie Mandiarse and MICK although I'm sure you know the reason you don't do that is because you agree with them. Which means you are as incorrect, blind and naive as they are too.

 

I hope to see you encouraging them to answer questions, in the same manner you show me. Respect for you disappearing fast mate.

 

 

i wish ozzie would answer the question if only to make mine the only unanswered question on here.

 

 

as i've alrerady said ,i think allardyce could well have taken us down,as for pushing foward again afterwards,wecould only do it after stabalising. my view is that the stabalisation we are currently undergoing has had to be harsher because of the mess fred left.

 

 

time and again you've went on about "competing" with those higher up without once explaining how we are meant to do it whilst still paying for the recently past attempts that have failed and seemingly thinking we can keep on doing it year on year.

 

i really think you underestimate the position we were in or are in denial.

 

I don't underestimate anything. I'm just totally bored with people like you harping on about the accounts, because the club keep harping on about it, and you are feeding into it which is exactly what they want you to do instead of focussing on their lack of ambition which stands out a mile. 

 

Naive.

 

Like the bloke said today at the NUSC meeting, why don't they talk about the Champions League qualifications, the stadium expansion, the high quality signings, the Cup Finals, the capacity crowds. This is what football is all about.

 

 

one reason they might not talk about those things is that,apart from the capacity crowds that wasn't what they inherited.

 

the position the club was in that they inherited was that the major shareholder was desperate to get out ,maybe he knew something and those that done due dilligence ran a mile,maybe they saw something. yes it is ashleys fault he didn't carry this out but that is not to deny the position the club was in.

 

did you want the club,given the financial position it was in, to keep borrowing to try and chase where we had fallen from ? (it's a simple,honest,straight forward yes/no answer)

 

the position the club reads to me that perversly ashley was more ambitious as he was prepared to take it on where as the halls were desperate to get out which isn't very ambitious.

te to get out which isn't very ambitious.

 

Shepherd brought in a manager who worked on a shoestring budget at Bolton and got them into Europe.  That was his thinking, cut back on expenditure like transfer fees and stabilise whilst pushing up the table.  Lets not forget when Shepherd had to balance the books, summer of Bowyer also Woodgate sale.

 

He was critised for not backing us... well Ashley... point made i feel.

we'd just qualified for the champs league,as hall often said the best time to invest is when you are on the way up. we could have invested from a position of strength as opposed to playing catch up,spendin big for a couple of years till you can't afford to do it any more.

 

Lets not forget we had a very young squad who were supposedly improving year upon year.  Shepherd gambled that season, he put our finances first - like Ashley is doing - and we still got into Europe and weren't far away from CL.  Is 5th a poor league position?  We did have a strong enough team for 4th, but the campaign started badly and the players never recovered.

a squad that included hughes,dabizas,griffin,bramble and o'brien as regular first teamers. it needed stregthening and the best time to do it is from a position of strength when you are up there. his gamble not to stregthen didn't pay off,then his gambles to try and strengthen from mid table failed.

 

if you can afford it you take the gamble,i'm not sure by 2007 we were in a position to gamble any more.

 

You can criticise in hindsight it is an easy thing to do, but when it comes down to it there was alot of sense in what Shepherd did.  Successor after Keegan, Gullit, Souness, Roeder and Allardyce where all appointed with at the time exactly what we needed.  Discipline, tighter budgets, a resurgance unseen before, etc.

 

You also mention Shepherd gambling by not spending any money in a transfer window, well the irony is we are in alot worse position now and Ashley is gambling with a temporary manager, no net spend in January and a management structure that has been abandoned by other teams.

 

Only now are forum members concerned with finances, because that is what we are being fed.  As lets be honest not much to look forward to.

 

 

yes it's hindsight but the position as of spring 2007 when i realised we couldn't keep on borrowing wasn't hindsight.

 

i agree about kinnear,i haven't got a clue about the management structure so won't comment,and if i was ashey i'd have spent a bit more to protect my investment. that has nothing to do with the fact that fred left us in an awful mess and had he been here now the club in my opinion would be in a worse state.

 

only now are forum members concerned with finances ? people have been saying we were in danger of doing a leeds everytime the accounts came out. what we didn't realise was the depth of financial mess.

 

I think Shepherd realised that couldnt keep borrowing, and that brought about the introduction of Allaryce, who typically doesnt spend anything significant and does get results.  This would be seen as to stabilise the club, and lets not forget the guy had proven he can get a small club into Europe with very little money.

 

That i believe was his response to our finances, if he was still here. 

 

totally agree, but he's still getting flak. One other thing is - I've read further down before posting this and so its a response to the post by madras - I think the s*** Ashley will leave us in will be far worse than the Halls and Shepherd would ever have done.

 

that'd be going some as i'd see fred in the championship with £100mill worth of debt. and having to sell like leeds to get players wages off the books.

[NE5]

Can some people still not see that Mike Ashley is determined to recoup his investment?

 

I've been out tonight with a Man U season ticket holder (who knows his futty and respects newcastle fans) 2 blue noses, 3 villa fans, a wolves fan. and 3 newcastle fans and they all think Ashley is the worst owner in the Premier league. They all without exception think the only reason he's still there is because he cant sell up at a price which will recoup his outlay.

Not one person thinks he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Please convince me they are all wrong?

 

 

He's doing a particularly s**** job of it then, isn't he!?!

 

Simple logic suggests that you and your friends are wrong, try and answer this question and you'll hopefully figure it out:

 

Why would Ashley invest a huge amount of his personal fortune in what everyone knows is a highly risky business with spend a few years of his life putting in all the work and effort and getting all the grief associated with running a football club, simply to get his money back.

 

Some things to consider:

 

- He could have left his money in the bank and earned interest with zero risk and zero effort/grief involved.

- He could have invested in other industries which would have given him a much higher rate of return for a much lower risk.

- He could have invested in a different team, which would have given him potential to make a bigger profit. eg buy a Championship side get them promoted, keep them up a couple of seasons, sell them on.

- He could have tried to buy a Premiership club that gave him a better chance of making money.

 

You make a good point.  I'm personally unsure of the bloke.

 

Football teams, especially in England have been seeing so many billionaire takeovers that could be an argument he wants to get us into a better position and then sell us off.  He tried to sell us off for alot more then we were worth after KK.  Everyone including the tea lady told him needs to lower his price.  On that point, he didn't try too hard to state his case, gave into supporters pressure almost immediately.

 

Secondly, he may not have known what he was getting himself into.  He see's us sell out our stadium week in, week out with on paper top players, underperforming - maybe even thinking he was grabbing a bargain.  Too good to refuse so grabs at it, then being stung with true state of our finances and having to begrudgingly support us to protect his investment.

 

Thirdly, how many people in the world had ever heard of Mike Ashley before he took us over? for a reclusive man he was enjoying all the popularity he was receiving at the start.

 

As Mick says the people behind Man City tried for us before them and Ashley told them where to go, these are some of the very richest people on Earth, who have since demonstrated the kind of money they're happy to spend, do you really think he was simply holding out for someone richer? I'm not sure that I've ever seen anything other than speculation over what his price was, but even if he did start out with a high price, I'm sure that would have been open to negotiation as everything is in business. Also, everything he's done has been about planning for the long-term; buying loads of kids, getting the wages and finances under control, bringing in the much derided system and so-on. These are hardly things that are going to secure him a short-term profit, particularly through selling to some mega-rich money-is-no-object type, I mean how many youth team players are in Chelsea's side each week and how many do you reckon will be in Citeh's side after a couple of seasons? The only things those kind of people are interested in are success on the pitch and the kudos of owning a big-name club, that's why City's owners tried for us first and why DIC are only interested in Liverpool. Therefore a much better way of trying to attract those kind of people would have been to make a few big-name signings get a world-renowned manager, play good football, win games and fuck the debt, fuck the youth team, fuck the expense, fuck the club's future, as he wouldn't have intended being around to see it anyway.

 

Also, as you say there's the lack of proper due-diligence thing, that's not the actions of someone looking for a profit, is it? If all you're interested in is making money then surely you go over the finances with a fine-tooth comb beforehand don't you? Especially if you know that others have already done due-diligence and subsequently not proceeded with the purchase.

 

Whilst it's obvious he's not prepared to walk away having got totally burnt financially, there's simply no logic in the argument that he only ever intended to make a quick buck.

 

You're second point is more valid and you're right that he did seem to give in quite easily after KK walked out, but I think that was more to do with just how shocked he was at the reaction and the way everyone seemed to just decide that the club was entirely in the wrong and that Keegan entirely in the right, despite not knowing any of the facts. That's continued since despite Keegan not actually having said anything about it directly, whilst everything the club has said has been dismissed out-of-hand as lies by the vast majority. I think it makes much more logical sense that he had gotten into this for a bit of fun and thought: "fuck that!" when it all kicked off. You're third point could therefore well be true, but I don't really see what the problem is with that, if it is? Again, whist I think that there is truth in what you say about him not having realised the true state of the club's finances I don't think that would be the reason that he would now simply be begrudgingly protecting his investment - if indeed that is what he's doing, rather than genuinely trying to give it another go. Like I've said above, if he was only interested in the money he'd have done the financial checks more thoroughly before he bought the club. I think it's much more likely that he would be begrudgingly trying to protect his investment due to becoming disillusioned with owning the club due to the fans reaction after KK's departure turning something enjoyable into something that was anything but enjoyable. If that's what's happened then I think it's much more likely that he fell out of love with the club - so to speak - rather than for purely financial reasons.

 

This is why I was so against the protests and is one of the reasons that I'm so opposed to NUSC. People say that they only have the club's best interests at heart and I'm sure that's what they think they're doing, but personally I think that they are totally mistaken and their actions are absolutely diametrically opposed to what's best for the club in reality. I think that the biggest single danger facing the club is the threat of it's owner seeing it as something that's not worth the bother and deciding to simply keep it ticking over until the recession is over and he can get rid of it without totally screwing himself financially. Perhaps that's already happened and it's too late, but we as fans better hope and pray that him deciding to take the club off the market and get more involved is due to a genuine desire to give it another go, I think that there are signs there that it could be, I hope so. Some people need to face up to a couple of facts, namely; Mike Ashley is our owner and he will remain our owner for the foreseeable future, as there simply isn't anyone else out there. Given that, the best thing the fans can do, for the good of the club, is to try and get him to enjoy owning it, so that he wants it to be successful and is willing to spend his money on it. Whatever your views on the Keegan thing - and let's face it; that's what's caused everyone to kick-off, as most were happy previously - it's in the past, it's time to get over it - if not, forget it - and look at what's best for the club, our club, the thing we're supposed to support. However much people love him, Keegan is one man, and one man can never be allowed to be bigger than the club.

 

I'm not saying that people need to love Mike Ashley, or even like him, but that they need to put their feelings towards him for what he did or didn't do to Kevin Keegan aside and realise that we need him more than he needs us at present and it is in our (the club's) best interests to encourage him, rather than force him away. Otherwise we will run the risk of cutting our nose off to spite our face and the only thing that will suffer is us and NUFC. People need to understand and accept that before it's too late, I hope they do, as being able to say I told you so will not provide me with any pleasure whatsoever. If things change and a shining knight comes along and NUSC can finally answer the question "what happens next?" then great, but until then NUSC and those who think like they do need to think about the consequences of their words and actions or in other words they need to shut the fuck up.

 

Very long post.

 

I'm not sure that Ashley was planning for the long term good of the club at all. I think getting rid of our better players/higher earners [the 2 come cap in hand] does nothing other than show his naivety/lack of genuine ambition.

 

I started to get the feeling a long time ago that he saw what he thought were guaranteed 50,000 crowds, and thought he would have that with minimum outlay and safety with an accompanied profitable company.

 

Unfortunately, he was wrong. We won't get 50,000 crowds regardless. I've posted this elsewhere and mentioned the context of the old board so won't do it again in this reply. Maybe he now realises, maybe he doesn't and the real shock will come when the season ticket renewals come through, especially if we go down.

 

On the basis that I think he has been naive/lacking ambition, I think a lot of what he has done has been reactive, and borne out of each event as they happened, and looking for a solution but is really out of his depth being a "businessman" first before a football club owner.

 

I don't know if he rejected the offer from Abu Dhabi, its not good reading if its true, and he may well now regret not taking it. Why he turned it down ? I don't know. Maybe he still thought he could run a profitable club, maybe he DID ask for more money.

 

I think if you listen to the views of the NUSC, particularly the rally on saturday, the only thing they want is the best for the club. They are supporters. They want success. One thing was said which I thought was spot on, was that nobody is interested in how much money anybody is earning or taking from the club, we just want someone who will look after the club and give us a team to be proud of again, which represents the city and all of us, and giving it the best shot at being successful. They also said that all we hear from the club is talk about debts and what they inherited, but they never tell us about the Champions League qualifications, the expanded stadium, the top players, the capacity crowds, the Cup Finals, Semi Finals, the affection people had for us under Keegan and Robson ie 2nd favourite team. Etc etc. Absolutely nailed on, and as this is what I've been saying myself for ages, I am hardly going to disagree.

 

The fact that it took the Keegan departure to open some eyes is really just irrelevant now. He's gone, we know he's gone and we have to get on with it. This event which triggered the birth of the NUSC isn't something to scorn it for, in time to come when all this is over, we will have a Newcastle United Supporters Club. When I was a kid, I was a member of something called the Newcastle United Supporters Club. They had a shop, sort of the equivalent of "the Back Page", they organised away travel and sold lots of merchandise and lot of people joined it. Whats wrong with that ?  Why don't you give them a listen and see that they want the club to be successful, as supporters ? 

 

Do you remember the Magpie Group ? Well , without the Magpie group we would never have got rid of the McKeags etc. Malcolm Dix was a fairly prominent businessman who held up the group and got a bit of publicity, but it needed John Hall to get into it to give them some added prominence and publicity. Don't underestimate the part Dix played though, for me, he stuck at it and in the end we have to say we owe him a lot for what he did. Personally, I think now that the NUSC need someone of prominence to propel their message just like the Magpie Group got in the end.

 

We know that Ashley is far richer than the Halls, Shepherd etc were, and so he can stick it out longer, but he also doesn't have the ties or attachment to the city, so is in that respect unlikely to stay where he isn't wanted when he gets a good offer.

 

I would like to say, now I'm posting this, that I would have loved him to have succeeded as much as anyone did. I sold my shares to him - although I would have preferred to keep them - especially when Keegan came back. Actually when Keegan came back I wondered for a short while if I had been wrong and he would back him but it became fairly obvious soon that he wasn't going to do it and I thought for ages before Keegan left that he wasn't going to last the distance.

 

I don't care if I "like" someone or not either by the way. If they do well for the club I will "like" them and if they don't then I won't.

 

Ashley has had opportunities to admit he got it wrong mate. Nobody wants him to make a public apology if he doesn't want to, he only needs to make the right actions and decisions, and I for one, would have gave him every chance if I saw that he had seen all of this. At 54, I've more reason than most people to hope he was successful, or sells as soon as possible to someone who is.

 

 

[madras]

NE5........how much of a profit do you think he'd make on 50,000 gates? just i don't think it'd be enough to justify his outlay and pretty naive to expect him not to envisage a drop in attendances if they club were ran as you see it.

 

have i got it right that you are thinking that fred was going to tighten the purse strings as ashley has had to do but it would have been ok for fred to do it but not anyone else ?

 

 

[NE5]

NE5........how much of a profit do you think he'd make on 50,000 gates? just i don't think it'd be enough to justify his outlay and pretty naive to expect him not to envisage a drop in attendances if they club were ran as you see it.

 

have i got it right that you are thinking that fred was going to tighten the purse strings as ashley has had to do but it would have been ok for fred to do it but not anyone else ?

 

 

 

I don't know how many times you want me to repeat this, I'm bored with it now. The Halls and Shepherd saw that they needed to keep things tight for a short while like they did in Bobby Robsons first few years, then they would have showed ambition again. Ashley will not show the ambition, he will continue to try and run the club on minimum expenditure.

 

Last time I'm saying this mate.

 

 

[madras]

NE5........how much of a profit do you think he'd make on 50,000 gates? just i don't think it'd be enough to justify his outlay and pretty naive to expect him not to envisage a drop in attendances if they club were ran as you see it.

 

have i got it right that you are thinking that fred was going to tighten the purse strings as ashley has had to do but it would have been ok for fred to do it but not anyone else ?

 

 

 

I don't know how many times you want me to repeat this, I'm bored with it now. The Halls and Shepherd saw that they needed to keep things tight for a short while like they did in Bobby Robsons first few years, then they would have showed ambition again. Ashley will not show the ambition, he will continue to try and run the club on minimum expenditure.

 

Last time I'm saying this mate.

 

 

we'll agree to disagree then as i think he'll spend what the financial conditions of the club allow and his record so far is more a reflection of the mess we were in.

 

we'll not have the season on season big borrowings of the hall/fred era (like most clubs). what has he done so far to make you think he'd not spend a bit more if the clubs condition were better ?

[NE5]

NE5........how much of a profit do you think he'd make on 50,000 gates? just i don't think it'd be enough to justify his outlay and pretty naive to expect him not to envisage a drop in attendances if they club were ran as you see it.

 

have i got it right that you are thinking that fred was going to tighten the purse strings as ashley has had to do but it would have been ok for fred to do it but not anyone else ?

 

 

 

I don't know how many times you want me to repeat this, I'm bored with it now. The Halls and Shepherd saw that they needed to keep things tight for a short while like they did in Bobby Robsons first few years, then they would have showed ambition again. Ashley will not show the ambition, he will continue to try and run the club on minimum expenditure.

 

Last time I'm saying this mate.

 

 

we'll agree to disagree then as i think he'll spend what the financial conditions of the club allow and his record so far is more a reflection of the mess we were in.

 

we'll not have the season on season big borrowings of the hall/fred era (like most clubs). what has he done so far to make you think he'd not spend a bit more if the clubs condition were better ?

 

nothing. And that is the point totally.

 

I've been right about him so far ..........

 

 

[Dave]

I find it very ironic that you criticise Ashley as being reactive.

[OzzieMandias]

They also said that all we hear from the club is talk about debts and what they inherited, but they never tell us about the Champions League qualifications, the expanded stadium, the top players, the capacity crowds, the Cup Finals, Semi Finals, the affection people had for us under Keegan and Robson ie 2nd favourite team. Etc etc.

 

Why on earth would the club talk about things that happened 7–15 years ago?

 

The debts are what remain.

[NE5]

They also said that all we hear from the club is talk about debts and what they inherited, but they never tell us about the Champions League qualifications, the expanded stadium, the top players, the capacity crowds, the Cup Finals, Semi Finals, the affection people had for us under Keegan and Robson ie 2nd favourite team. Etc etc.

 

Why on earth would the club talk about things that happened 7–15 years ago?

 

The debts are what remain.

 

so you agree with UV's comment that you would have preferred us not to have qualified for the champions league and europe and chased financial solvency instead ?

 

As you have already completely supported Souness's buys and sales then we already know the answer don't we 

[OzzieMandias]

So yet another question goes laughably  unanswered.

[NE5]

So yet another question goes laughably  unanswered.

 

 

indeed.

 

Still, your man is doing just great. You should protest about it, or send an email to a cockney journo dishing the dirt on the club you say you support again, just like the last time.

 

What is your criteria for appointing managers again ?

 

 

[Dave]

Why can't you have a serious debate with anyone?

 

Edit - that's a question isn't it, never mind.

[Baggio]

Still a lie, and a very odd one at that.   

 

So is Ashley’s plan to reduce the wage bill by £30m* a season, or does he have another strategy for balancing the books?

 

*£50m if you factor in recouping his £100m loan over the duration of the 5 year plan.

 

The wage bill is 70.4% of our operating expenses so that's got to be the most obvious area to go looking to make savings.  Targeting anything else as a starting point wouldn't make sense as the savings would me minimal in comparison.

 

In business you always go for savings in whatever area offers the greatest gains, 10% of a 100 is better than 50% of 5.

 

 

what a load of shite

 

mackems.gif

 

How is that a load of shite? Mick is spot on there, both in his analagy at the bottom with regards to the %'s and he's also right about the wage bill. If it is indeed 70.4% of expenditure (and I have no reason to doubt it) then that has to be the first place he looks at trimming. Obviously if someone was on £100,000 a week but got 35 goals a season or whatever then that would justify the wages, but when you look at the likes of Geremi, Owen, Smith, Viduka, Duff, Cacapa etc, these players offer nothing to the squad because they are either shite, made of glass, or both. In some cases (Smith, Cacapa, Viduka) we're basically paying them for nothing, as well as covering the cost of their rehab and physio.

 

I'd like to see you explain how that post is shite. My guess is just because it was Mick who posted it, maybe you should actually read it? It makes sense.

 

Yet the point is most of those were signed under Ashley, yet they don't seem to want to take responsibility for this. They are far too quick to lay the blame under the previous regime (who were far from perfect btw) without acknowledging their own mistakes for the extraordinary high wage bill that we have.

 

Apart from Cacapa the rest were signed when Shepherd was chairman and his boy was still negotiating deals.

 

I've read somewhere that our wage bill is 55% higher than Everton's, that's shocking.

[NE5]

Why can't you have a serious debate with anyone?

 

Edit - that's a question isn't it, never mind.

 

I take it you mean mandiarse ? If not, then you should be.