NUSC - Good or Bad?

[NE5]

The NUSC is an anti-Ashley organization before it is a pro-Newcastle United organization.

 

well, if you aren't dumb enough to recognise Ashley is the wrong man for the club and taking it downwards like Sheffield Wednesday, then there is nowt wrong with that.

 

 

[Rich]

 

I agree with most of it too, but as the thread is about the NUSC, I don't get why people don't see that the NUSC is showing its discontent and providing a vehicle for people to show they aren't happy. While not being a black and white situation, anyone who was unhappy with the old regime must surely be unhappy now. Excuses for, and avoidance of admitting that they are, just isn't really good enough. In fact its damn pathetic.

 

They have a personal agenda, and they know it.

 

I stand by my view that Ashley has little ambition for the club, and has already created a club where good players see it as a stepping stone with no future for them, just like we had for years before 1992. Older people ought to be able to see this, if they supported the club back then, and at least now admit it is the case.

 

 

 

Shepherd was given time to put right his mistakes, some people are going to give Ashley time to get it right.  If we'd all kicked off after either, or both of Dalglish and Gullit we wouldn't have had Sir Bobby and what he gave us.

 

if we had kept our best players, who didn't want to go ala Owen, Given and zoggy for starters, backed our managers and therefore kept them, and reached 2 FA Cup Finals, then I daresay Ashley would have been given more time by people like me too.

 

A decent point, but too simplistic really man. Doesn't take into account anything else bar performance on the park and as such is a pretty weak position to argue from. Obviously performances are the end result of a lot of what goes on behind the scenes and around the place, but they alone cannot simply be used as a measure of success. Not to compare us to them, but the best example I can come up with at the drop of the hat: I'd bet Leeds fans, if you ask them now, would swap their CL campaigns and league finishes in a heartbeat with staying solvent and out of administration. They've had their heart ripped out for being overly-ambitious and not doing things properly and they could have been left without a club altogether, which is the very worst thing that could ever happen to a football fan.

 

I appreciate your stance on ambition and admire the fact that you still live and breathe for us to be the best we can be after so many disappointements and so long supporting the club, but like anything else it has to be done in a measured fashion and it has to be financially viable, more so than ever before these days. The fact is that they've had 18 months and people have never given them a chance since day one. The way you're talking, you'd think we were already in the Championship with no return in sight.

[OzzieMandias]

In no way is it certain that money was a problem though, especially to the extent that some claim. Obviously Ashley has a bigger personal fortune than the previous incumbents but who's to say Freddy didn't have a trick or two up his sleeve to get some more funds in? He himself said recently that money "wasn't a problem", although you obviously can take that with as big a pinch of salt as you like. He's hardly going to admit he could have been buggered.

 

When people deal in definitives when there are no solid facts to support their evidence is when problems happen. You may well be right, but there's no guarantee that we're better of now than we would have been had Fred remained in control.

 

 

 

A solid fact that we had no money is the club accounts, not just the balance but also the fact that we'd spent £millions trying to and failing to re-finance the debt.

 

The huge problem with the wages/turnover ratio was/is a solid fact, too, and identified as such by many on here at the time, even though some of our more naive posters attempted to laugh the problem away.

[Rich]

In no way is it certain that money was a problem though, especially to the extent that some claim. Obviously Ashley has a bigger personal fortune than the previous incumbents but who's to say Freddy didn't have a trick or two up his sleeve to get some more funds in? He himself said recently that money "wasn't a problem", although you obviously can take that with as big a pinch of salt as you like. He's hardly going to admit he could have been buggered.

 

When people deal in definitives when there are no solid facts to support their evidence is when problems happen. You may well be right, but there's no guarantee that we're better of now than we would have been had Fred remained in control.

 

 

 

A solid fact that we had no money is the club accounts, not just the balance but also the fact that we'd spent £millions trying to and failing to re-finance the debt.

 

The huge problem with the wages/turnover ratio was/is a solid fact, too, and identified as such by many on here at the time, even though some of our more naive posters attempted to laugh the problem away.

 

That's a problem which has worringly increased since the takeover too, which would have probably been the same under Shepherd and perhaps even to a greater degree based on assumptions due to previous practice. It's a problem that is only solved by increasing revenue through European football (and even not so much UEFA Cup, based on our earnings through our last run) or reducing the wage-bill by selling your high-earners and replacing them with lower-paid players. Obviously another way is to simply fund things through outside investment or from the owner's pockets, as well.

[Pilko]

The NUSC is an anti-Ashley organization before it is a pro-Newcastle United organization.

 

well, if you aren't dumb enough to recognise Ashley is the wrong man for the club and taking it downwards like Sheffield Wednesday, then there is nowt wrong with that.

 

 

There is wrong with it... there should be an alternative offered, to people like me who just want the best for the club, be it under Ashley or under someone else.

 

And also, how can you say there is nowt wrong with the "Newcastle United Supporters Club" being against Mike Ashley as primary objective and looking out for the interests of the Club as secondary? It baffles belief.

[OzzieMandias]

In no way is it certain that money was a problem though, especially to the extent that some claim. Obviously Ashley has a bigger personal fortune than the previous incumbents but who's to say Freddy didn't have a trick or two up his sleeve to get some more funds in? He himself said recently that money "wasn't a problem", although you obviously can take that with as big a pinch of salt as you like. He's hardly going to admit he could have been buggered.

 

When people deal in definitives when there are no solid facts to support their evidence is when problems happen. You may well be right, but there's no guarantee that we're better of now than we would have been had Fred remained in control.

 

 

 

A solid fact that we had no money is the club accounts, not just the balance but also the fact that we'd spent £millions trying to and failing to re-finance the debt.

 

The huge problem with the wages/turnover ratio was/is a solid fact, too, and identified as such by many on here at the time, even though some of our more naive posters attempted to laugh the problem away.

 

That's a problem which has worringly increased since the takeover too, which would have probably been the same under Shepherd and perhaps even to a greater degree based on assumptions due to previous practice. It's a problem that is only solved by increasing revenue through European football (and even not so much UEFA Cup, based on our earnings through our last run) or reducing the wage-bill by selling your high-earners and replacing them with lower-paid players. Obviously another way is to simply fund things through outside investment or from the owner's pockets, as well.

 

Increase in the problem under the current regime mostly stems from the first transfer window when they'd hardly got their feet under the desk and had to buy players for Allardyce while they were still getting their other people in place. They now seem to be trying to deal with the problem. Ashley obviously doesn't have enough cash to do much more than he's already done -- and he's sunk, on top of the purchase price, almost as much into the club as the Halls and Shepherds took out.

 

In the evident absence of anyone else willing to put £20-£30 million per annum into the club just to keep us out of insolvency -- the last few people in the world cash-rich enough to buy a Premiership club as a plaything during the worst economic crisis in living memory have so far proved not to be interested -- all that protests can achieve is to add "fractious, unrealistic fan base" to the list of downsides any potential buyer will see when looking at the mess that is Newcastle United.

[Happy Face]

The NUSC is an anti-Ashley organization before it is a pro-Newcastle United organization.

 

well, if you aren't dumb enough to recognise Ashley is the wrong man for the club and taking it downwards like Sheffield Wednesday, then there is nowt wrong with that.

 

 

There is wrong with it... there should be an alternative offered, to people like me who just want the best for the club, be it under Ashley or under someone else.

 

And also, how can you say there is nowt wrong with the "Newcastle United Supporters Club" being against Mike Ashley as primary objective and looking out for the interests of the Club as secondary? It baffles belief.

 

 

Way to put words in their mouth.

 

My dad's got the cancer.

 

I'm as against his cancer as much as I'm for my dad. 

 

In fact, in the full awareness that if the cancer stays, my dad probably won't...I'm probably more anti-cancer than pro-dad.

 

 

Not that I actually think that's the case with NUSC.  They don't want Ashley out at all costs, so much as they want him to make decisions for the benefit of the club, rather than his bank balance.

 

 

[Pilko]

That meeting I heard on the radio was almost entirely anti-Ashley, it was all about getting him out etc. No-one wanted him to stay, or even no-one said they weren't bothered and just wanted the best for the club.

[NE5]

In no way is it certain that money was a problem though, especially to the extent that some claim. Obviously Ashley has a bigger personal fortune than the previous incumbents but who's to say Freddy didn't have a trick or two up his sleeve to get some more funds in? He himself said recently that money "wasn't a problem", although you obviously can take that with as big a pinch of salt as you like. He's hardly going to admit he could have been buggered.

 

When people deal in definitives when there are no solid facts to support their evidence is when problems happen. You may well be right, but there's no guarantee that we're better of now than we would have been had Fred remained in control.

 

 

 

A solid fact that we had no money is the club accounts, not just the balance but also the fact that we'd spent £millions trying to and failing to re-finance the debt.

 

The huge problem with the wages/turnover ratio was/is a solid fact, too, and identified as such by many on here at the time, even though some of our more naive posters attempted to laugh the problem away.

 

you aren't talking about when you totally backed Souness all the way right until the end, giving away Bellamy and Robert for peanuts, and replacing them and spending massively in the process are you ?

 

 

 

[Mick]

 

if we had kept our best players, who didn't want to go ala Owen, Given and zoggy for starters, backed our managers and therefore kept them, and reached 2 FA Cup Finals, then I daresay Ashley would have been given more time by people like me too.

 

 

 

Owen is still here and I have never thought from the day that he signed that he'd be here any longer than he had to, I don't think he'd be here if anybody else had been in for him and had made an acceptable bid for him.  He didn't even want to sign for us initially, he wanted to come on loan and only signed because he wanted to increase his chance of playing for his beloved England.  I'm not bothered about him going as he's simply not value for money, the worst thing about him going is that it could send a signal to others we're looking to bring in.

 

Given going doesn't bother me and it never has as I've always thought that Harper was good enough and has always had a raw deal and been dropped far too early.  N'Zogbia, I'm a bit pissed off about him but once the dummy went then he had to go.  N'Zogbia has been pissed about for years and Kinnear was just one manager he perceived to be pissing him about too many.

 

The two cup finals in no way made up from dropping from 2nd to 13th, I would probably settled for a win out of one of those but the league position drop was shocking by any standards, more than the actual league position if that makes any sense.  As for the finals themselves, I think next to relegation getting back to central London after a cup defeat is as bad as it gets.

 

[Mick]

 

you aren't talking about when you totally backed Souness all the way right until the end, giving away Bellamy and Robert for peanuts, and replacing them and spending massively in the process are you ?

 

 

 

 

Why do you give Ozzie so much grief for supporting Souness while giving the bloke who appointed him so much slack?  I was totally against Souness from day 1 but I don't blame anybody who supported him for that because Souness being here had nothing to do with them.

[Parky]

But has it ever come out in the wash why we didn't though? It may just be my memory but I certainly don't remember Robson appearing too upset with just the addition of Bowyer and of course we had just spent £9M on Woodgate. It may have simply been that there was no money there to re-invest, or that Robson didn't feel he needed much else... if it was the former then this is what I understand about people being frustrated with Freddy. If the pot was empty or money couldn't be found after we'd just finished 3rd and had the potential to secure more big income by qualifying for the CL again then there must have been some bad management going on. However, it's one of those straw-man arguments at the minute because it can't be certain that it was the case.

 

I must add that the more I'm thinking on this, the more negatives are appearing in my mind about Shepherd after the highs of 2001/02 and 2002/03 - particularly the Woodgate/Rooney summer, the circumstances regarding Gary Speed, Michael Carrick and Nicky Butt and the appointment of Souness and later slagging of Robson through the press. ADD: The fallout of the Bellamy situation, the dodgy dealings re: Boumsong and Faye, etc...

 

Time does make you look back more fondly, generally, doesn't it?

 

It does that.

 

We can only speculate, but that was the time to add one or two more bits of quality to the outfield and as you say we were in a positon to start to dominate the top 3/4 of the table followed by CL money. The club effectively would have had a chance to be where Liv are now.

 

On Souness I will say his dealing on Luque and Boumsong were complete blunders underpinned by his close relationship to Rangers and Mike in Spain ( I think with Luque the money was spent on the strength of one phonecall). Spanish wingers in the PL...Pull the other one. Even Benny has got mixed up with a lot of Spanish dross bar Torres who is absolute world class.

[OzzieMandias]

 

you aren't talking about when you totally backed Souness all the way right until the end, giving away Bellamy and Robert for peanuts, and replacing them and spending massively in the process are you ?

 

 

 

 

Why do you give Ozzie so much grief for supporting Souness while giving the bloke who appointed him so much slack?  I was totally against Souness from day 1 but I don't blame anybody who supported him for that because Souness being here had nothing to do with them.

 

Well, I mean, fair's fair.

 

Shepherd only decided he was a great choice for the job, paid millions to get him from Blackburn, blew £60 million on players for him, and then paid millions more to get rid of him.

 

Whereas I committed the cardinal sin of going on a message board and expressing the honest hope that he would win matches.

 

It's obvious that I'm completely to blame for Souness and Shepherd deserves nothing but applause.

[NE5]

 

you aren't talking about when you totally backed Souness all the way right until the end, giving away Bellamy and Robert for peanuts, and replacing them and spending massively in the process are you ?

 

 

 

 

Why do you give Ozzie so much grief for supporting Souness while giving the bloke who appointed him so much slack?  I was totally against Souness from day 1 but I don't blame anybody who supported him for that because Souness being here had nothing to do with them.

 

Firstly, nobody ran the club single handed. If you think Shepherd was allowed to run the club and make such appointments on his own, then you're as daft as the bloke who you appear to think allowed it to happen 

 

Do you think Sir John Hall is a fool for leaving his multi million pound business completely to someone else ?

 

Don't bother answering, you have swallowed this because it suits your agenda.

 

Secondly, just because someone is appointed or signed by the club, it doesn't mean you have to proclaim everything they do as being good, right, a sure fire winner. Such attitudes are that of a 10 year old. Do you think Shola Ameobi is a world beater just because he plays for Newcastle ? You can disagree with something and say so without withdrawing support and the hope that they might succeed.

 

This is like teaching someone to suck eggs. 

 

 

[NE5]

 

you aren't talking about when you totally backed Souness all the way right until the end, giving away Bellamy and Robert for peanuts, and replacing them and spending massively in the process are you ?

 

 

 

 

Why do you give Ozzie so much grief for supporting Souness while giving the bloke who appointed him so much slack?  I was totally against Souness from day 1 but I don't blame anybody who supported him for that because Souness being here had nothing to do with them.

 

Well, I mean, fair's fair.

 

Shepherd only decided he was a great choice for the job, paid millions to get him from Blackburn, blew £60 million on players for him, and then paid millions more to get rid of him.

 

Whereas I committed the cardinal sin of going on a message board and expressing the honest hope that he would win matches.

 

It's obvious that I'm completely to blame for Souness and Shepherd deserves nothing but applause.

 

you backed Souness and thought he would be a success [just like you now do of Ashley in fact], and backed his sales of Bellamy, Robert, his buys etc. If this is wrong, nows your chance with your usual remarkable gift of hindsight to say otherwise and you think the sales of Bellamy and Robert were mistakes, as was your belief that Souness would be successful hence your complete backing of everything he did.

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Your idol Shepherd also gave every sign of wholeheartedly approving the sale of Bellamy, but that was my fault too, right?

[madras]

Your idol Shepherd also gave every sign of wholeheartedly approving the sale of Bellamy, but that was my fault too, right?

it wasn't shepherd....he doesn't make the decisions for the major shareholders.

[Mick]

 

Firstly, nobody ran the club single handed. If you think Shepherd was allowed to run the club and make such appointments on his own, then you're as daft as the bloke who you appear to think allowed it to happen 

 

Do you think Sir John Hall is a fool for leaving his multi million pound business completely to someone else ?

 

Don't bother answering, you have swallowed this because it suits your agenda.

 

Secondly, just because someone is appointed or signed by the club, it doesn't mean you have to proclaim everything they do as being good, right, a sure fire winner. Such attitudes are that of a 10 year old. Do you think Shola Ameobi is a world beater just because he plays for Newcastle ? You can disagree with something and say so without withdrawing support and the hope that they might succeed.

 

This is like teaching someone to suck eggs. 

 

 

 

Sir John did walk away from the running of the club and the only quotes from anybody in a position to know have said so, not a single quote goes against this.

[OzzieMandias]

Your idol Shepherd also gave every sign of wholeheartedly approving the sale of Bellamy, but that was my fault too, right?

it wasn't shepherd....he doesn't make the decisions for the major shareholders.

 

That's funny, neither do I.

[OzzieMandias]

And here we are in yet another thread going over the same tediously ancient ground as all the other threads where NE5 starts posting.

[Kitman]

And here we are in yet another thread going over the same tediously ancient ground as all the other threads where NE5 starts posting.

 

And you, to be fair.

[NE5]

 

if we had kept our best players, who didn't want to go ala Owen, Given and zoggy for starters, backed our managers and therefore kept them, and reached 2 FA Cup Finals, then I daresay Ashley would have been given more time by people like me too.

 

 

 

Owen is still here and I have never thought from the day that he signed that he'd be here any longer than he had to, I don't think he'd be here if anybody else had been in for him and had made an acceptable bid for him.  He didn't even want to sign for us initially, he wanted to come on loan and only signed because he wanted to increase his chance of playing for his beloved England.  I'm not bothered about him going as he's simply not value for money, the worst thing about him going is that it could send a signal to others we're looking to bring in.

 

Given going doesn't bother me and it never has as I've always thought that Harper was good enough and has always had a raw deal and been dropped far too early.  N'Zogbia, I'm a bit pissed off about him but once the dummy went then he had to go.  N'Zogbia has been pissed about for years and Kinnear was just one manager he perceived to be pissing him about too many.

 

The two cup finals in no way made up from dropping from 2nd to 13th, I would probably settled for a win out of one of those but the league position drop was shocking by any standards, more than the actual league position if that makes any sense.  As for the finals themselves, I think next to relegation getting back to central London after a cup defeat is as bad as it gets.

 

 

utter bollocks.

 

You asked me why don't I/we give Ashley more time. I've told you why.

 

Before the Halls and Shepherd, knackers like you would have loved to reach an FA Cup Final or finish halfway in the top league. If your man Ashley does this you'll be turning cartwheels.

 

We had a board who didn't accept and weren't happy with what was termed as "mediocrity" but now similar performance under your man will be deemed as success, such is the change in expectation.

 

Its quite astonishing how dumb a perspective you have.

 

Fat Fred must have laced your pies with arsenic, such is your personality complex about him. Poor boy.

 

You remind me of a cousin of mine who says he's "always been a supporter" when he never went to watch the team for about 15 years until the Halls and Shepherd attracted him back, and now acts the "long term supporter who's always supported the toon", with no idea of the hole the club were in when they took over, nor the years of utter humiliation on the pitch and rubbish that we put up with.

 

There are 30,000 the same and my guess is you are one of them. Everything you say points to it.

 

 

[NE5]

And here we are in yet another thread going over the same tediously ancient ground as all the other threads where NE5 starts posting.

 

is that a hindsight view ?

 

Have you decided if you support protesting or not  :laughterisnotargumentation:

 

Are you happy with Ashley. You can't get a more simple question than that 

[NE5]

 

Firstly, nobody ran the club single handed. If you think Shepherd was allowed to run the club and make such appointments on his own, then you're as daft as the bloke who you appear to think allowed it to happen 

 

Do you think Sir John Hall is a fool for leaving his multi million pound business completely to someone else ?

 

Don't bother answering, you have swallowed this because it suits your agenda.

 

Secondly, just because someone is appointed or signed by the club, it doesn't mean you have to proclaim everything they do as being good, right, a sure fire winner. Such attitudes are that of a 10 year old. Do you think Shola Ameobi is a world beater just because he plays for Newcastle ? You can disagree with something and say so without withdrawing support and the hope that they might succeed.

 

This is like teaching someone to suck eggs. 

 

 

 

Sir John did walk away from the running of the club and the only quotes from anybody in a position to know have said so, not a single quote goes against this.

 

So you think he was foolish to leave his entire fortune and business in the hands of someone else with no consultation ?

 

Seriously. You need to have a good long look at the tripe you are posting here lad. I know you have a personality complex, having been called nasty names by fat fred, but if you go through life being mortally wounded by people calling you nasty names, you won't get very far.

 

 

[merlin]

 

Firstly, nobody ran the club single handed. If you think Shepherd was allowed to run the club and make such appointments on his own, then you're as daft as the bloke who you appear to think allowed it to happen 

 

Do you think Sir John Hall is a fool for leaving his multi million pound business completely to someone else ?

 

Don't bother answering, you have swallowed this because it suits your agenda.

 

Secondly, just because someone is appointed or signed by the club, it doesn't mean you have to proclaim everything they do as being good, right, a sure fire winner. Such attitudes are that of a 10 year old. Do you think Shola Ameobi is a world beater just because he plays for Newcastle ? You can disagree with something and say so without withdrawing support and the hope that they might succeed.

 

This is like teaching someone to suck eggs. 

 

 

 

Sir John did walk away from the running of the club and the only quotes from anybody in a position to know have said so, not a single quote goes against this.

 

So you think he was foolish to leave his entire fortune and business in the hands of someone else with no consultation ?

 

Seriously. You need to have a good long look at the tripe you are posting here lad. I know you have a personality complex, having been called nasty names by fat fred, but if you go through life being mortally wounded by people calling you nasty names, you won't get very far.

 

 

 

Sir John did not have to worry about his shareholding - because he owned 25% of the total in a Trust, and most of the shares were in the hands of a few, there was little chance of him losing money unless the club was relegated and that never happened...

At his age, it was always on the cards that he would sell but it was noticeable that he didn't give Shepherd the chance to buy his stake before selling to Ashley, so that must tell you something...!!