NE5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? I'm just pointing out what the old board achieved to people who label them "shit". They backed their managers and in turn we had some quality teams more than capable of winning a trophy. What more can they do ? After that its out of their hands come the day of the big games. Thats not too difficult to understand is it ? Care to show me where I said that? Still no answer to the questions I have asked then? well, stop arguing with me when I correctly point out how well they did then. What are you going on about? You actually quoted something I didn't say because I disagreed with you, and yet you were having a moan because I said that you claimed the football was brilliant under the last years of Fred Shepherd. Talk about hypocritical! The football was good, and I have never said it wasn't. But all the nights in Europe still do not cancel out the fact that we spent a shedload and won sod all. And just because Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall dropped us into the financial shite does not excuse Ashley's horrendous management of the football club. However on the flipside, just because Ashley has been terrible does not excuse Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall's spending in the final years which lead us down the road we are on. your last line is like saying Alan Shearer was shit and in your opinion should have been replaced for missing a penalty against Partizan He was still by far the best for the job, and the same goes for the Halls and Shepherd. I don't think you and others seriously understand this at all. 1. Again you are putting words that people haven't said in their mouths to make you feel like you are correct. 2. Have you worked out your answers for the two questions I asked and remain unanswered yet? 1. No I'm not 2. Yes I have 1. In that case what was the bit that I highlighted about then? Looks like putting words in people's mouths to me. 2. No you haven't. Were Newcastle United ambitious in appointing Roeder and Alladyce? Would you give up the European nights to win a cup? If you could answer the two questions in the same format as you used directly above I would appreciate it. haha, yes appointing a potential England manager is ambitious, of course it is ? Did you prefer the days we appointed Jim Smith as the 8th choice and Geordie managers such as Howard Kendall turned us down ? I've told you I don't know if I would swap regular european football and an ambitious board running a club regularly winning as against one spending year after year struggling with a few relegations thrown in but a one off fluke cup win. What has this got to do with ambition, this isn't ambition, its just luck Do you accept that the Halls and Shepherd achieved the best league positions by far for this club in the last 50 years. Yes or no ? Of course I do and have said that ages ago. Maybe you should start reading more than the first sentence people write and you would have known that. However we had started to slide by the time Sir John Hall sold up. I would have thought that you would be able to remember winning the fairs cup. According to people who were alive and can remember what it was like it was a magnificent achievement . I asked my dad which felt better, just now on the phone, and he reckons winning the fairs cup was certainly better than ever finishing in a champions league place. Well, as I'll be meeting all those players, most of whom I've met already, at a "do" at the end of May....... The thing is, the club never kicked on after this win, because it didn't have the ambition. Some of those players could and would have won more if that had been the case. Frank Clark for example did alright when he left ..... At the end of the day, you set up a club to finish in a higher league position and cup success if it comes is a bonus, a fantastic bonus, but this is the way you have to look at it. You should also know that the time of the Halls and Shepherd is the period where we came consistently closer to winning another trophy, don't you realise that is because they had the right approach to it ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? I'm just pointing out what the old board achieved to people who label them "shit". They backed their managers and in turn we had some quality teams more than capable of winning a trophy. What more can they do ? After that its out of their hands come the day of the big games. Thats not too difficult to understand is it ? Care to show me where I said that? Still no answer to the questions I have asked then? well, stop arguing with me when I correctly point out how well they did then. What are you going on about? You actually quoted something I didn't say because I disagreed with you, and yet you were having a moan because I said that you claimed the football was brilliant under the last years of Fred Shepherd. Talk about hypocritical! The football was good, and I have never said it wasn't. But all the nights in Europe still do not cancel out the fact that we spent a shedload and won sod all. And just because Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall dropped us into the financial shite does not excuse Ashley's horrendous management of the football club. However on the flipside, just because Ashley has been terrible does not excuse Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall's spending in the final years which lead us down the road we are on. your last line is like saying Alan Shearer was shit and in your opinion should have been replaced for missing a penalty against Partizan He was still by far the best for the job, and the same goes for the Halls and Shepherd. I don't think you and others seriously understand this at all. 1. Again you are putting words that people haven't said in their mouths to make you feel like you are correct. 2. Have you worked out your answers for the two questions I asked and remain unanswered yet? 1. No I'm not 2. Yes I have 1. In that case what was the bit that I highlighted about then? Looks like putting words in people's mouths to me. 2. No you haven't. Were Newcastle United ambitious in appointing Roeder and Alladyce? Would you give up the European nights to win a cup? If you could answer the two questions in the same format as you used directly above I would appreciate it. haha, yes appointing a potential England manager is ambitious, of course it is ? Did you prefer the days we appointed Jim Smith as the 8th choice and Geordie managers such as Howard Kendall turned us down ? I've told you I don't know if I would swap regular european football and an ambitious board running a club regularly winning as against one spending year after year struggling with a few relegations thrown in but a one off fluke cup win. What has this got to do with ambition, this isn't ambition, its just luck Do you accept that the Halls and Shepherd achieved the best league positions by far for this club in the last 50 years. Yes or no ? Of course I do and have said that ages ago. Maybe you should start reading more than the first sentence people write and you would have known that. However we had started to slide by the time Sir John Hall sold up. I would have thought that you would be able to remember winning the fairs cup. According to people who were alive and can remember what it was like it was a magnificent achievement . I asked my dad which felt better, just now on the phone, and he reckons winning the fairs cup was certainly better than ever finishing in a champions league place. Well, as I'll be meeting all those players, most of whom I've met already, at a "do" at the end of May....... The thing is, the club never kicked on after this win, because it didn't have the ambition. Some of those players could and would have won more if that had been the case. Frank Clark for example did alright when he left ..... At the end of the day, you set up a club to finish in a higher league position and cup success if it comes is a bonus, a fantastic bonus, but this is the way you have to look at it. You should also know that the time of the Halls and Shepherd is the period where we came consistently closer to winning another trophy, don't you realise that is because they had the right approach to it ? Of course the Halls and Shepherds were ambitious, but because they threw money around like confetti they ran the club into the wall financially. A good chairman knows how to say "no" to a manager as well as just handing out the cash willy nilly. There were a lot of bad purchases made, appointments of managers who were not up to the job, and I include "England's nearly manager" Allardyce in there. No-one is disputing that the ambition was there, or that the football was wonderful to watch up until about 2003, but after that we were buggered because of the wreckless spending with limited success that had gone on for over a decade. Ashley failed to do his homework and see what a state we were in when he bought us, but he cannot be blamed for that state. That was done to the Halls and Shepherds. Ashley is in out of his depth, and is failing to realise that we are going tits up, but he can only be blamed for what has happened since he took over. The dye was already cast before anyone knew of Ashley on Tyneside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 i wonder if ne5 could tell us how some clubs have got into financial trouble ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? I'm just pointing out what the old board achieved to people who label them "shit". They backed their managers and in turn we had some quality teams more than capable of winning a trophy. What more can they do ? After that its out of their hands come the day of the big games. Thats not too difficult to understand is it ? Care to show me where I said that? Still no answer to the questions I have asked then? well, stop arguing with me when I correctly point out how well they did then. What are you going on about? You actually quoted something I didn't say because I disagreed with you, and yet you were having a moan because I said that you claimed the football was brilliant under the last years of Fred Shepherd. Talk about hypocritical! The football was good, and I have never said it wasn't. But all the nights in Europe still do not cancel out the fact that we spent a shedload and won sod all. And just because Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall dropped us into the financial shite does not excuse Ashley's horrendous management of the football club. However on the flipside, just because Ashley has been terrible does not excuse Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall's spending in the final years which lead us down the road we are on. your last line is like saying Alan Shearer was shit and in your opinion should have been replaced for missing a penalty against Partizan He was still by far the best for the job, and the same goes for the Halls and Shepherd. I don't think you and others seriously understand this at all. 1. Again you are putting words that people haven't said in their mouths to make you feel like you are correct. 2. Have you worked out your answers for the two questions I asked and remain unanswered yet? 1. No I'm not 2. Yes I have 1. In that case what was the bit that I highlighted about then? Looks like putting words in people's mouths to me. 2. No you haven't. Were Newcastle United ambitious in appointing Roeder and Alladyce? Would you give up the European nights to win a cup? If you could answer the two questions in the same format as you used directly above I would appreciate it. haha, yes appointing a potential England manager is ambitious, of course it is ? Did you prefer the days we appointed Jim Smith as the 8th choice and Geordie managers such as Howard Kendall turned us down ? I've told you I don't know if I would swap regular european football and an ambitious board running a club regularly winning as against one spending year after year struggling with a few relegations thrown in but a one off fluke cup win. What has this got to do with ambition, this isn't ambition, its just luck Do you accept that the Halls and Shepherd achieved the best league positions by far for this club in the last 50 years. Yes or no ? Of course I do and have said that ages ago. Maybe you should start reading more than the first sentence people write and you would have known that. However we had started to slide by the time Sir John Hall sold up. I would have thought that you would be able to remember winning the fairs cup. According to people who were alive and can remember what it was like it was a magnificent achievement . I asked my dad which felt better, just now on the phone, and he reckons winning the fairs cup was certainly better than ever finishing in a champions league place. Well, as I'll be meeting all those players, most of whom I've met already, at a "do" at the end of May....... The thing is, the club never kicked on after this win, because it didn't have the ambition. Some of those players could and would have won more if that had been the case. Frank Clark for example did alright when he left ..... At the end of the day, you set up a club to finish in a higher league position and cup success if it comes is a bonus, a fantastic bonus, but this is the way you have to look at it. You should also know that the time of the Halls and Shepherd is the period where we came consistently closer to winning another trophy, don't you realise that is because they had the right approach to it ? Of course the Halls and Shepherds were ambitious, but because they threw money around like confetti they ran the club into the wall financially. A good chairman knows how to say "no" to a manager as well as just handing out the cash willy nilly. There were a lot of bad purchases made, appointments of managers who were not up to the job, and I include "England's nearly manager" Allardyce in there. No-one is disputing that the ambition was there , or that the football was wonderful to watch up until about 2003, but after that we were buggered because of the wreckless spending with limited success that had gone on for over a decade. Ashley failed to do his homework and see what a state we were in when he bought us, but he cannot be blamed for that state. That was done to the Halls and Shepherds. Ashley is in out of his depth, and is failing to realise that we are going tits up, but he can only be blamed for what has happened since he took over. The dye was already cast before anyone knew of Ashley on Tyneside. so why do you keep asking me that question about ambition ? I don't disagree with most of what you say BTW, in fact I've never disputed points like that with anybody, apart from the fact that the Halls and Shepherd had shown they knew what was needed to move forward again. I would rather a club has a go by the way, than spend years, decades knowing you have no chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 i wonder if ne5 could tell us how some clubs have got into financial trouble ? most of them are in trouble. Never mind, we will be the only solvent club in the 3rd division in a year or two. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? I'm just pointing out what the old board achieved to people who label them "shit". They backed their managers and in turn we had some quality teams more than capable of winning a trophy. What more can they do ? After that its out of their hands come the day of the big games. Thats not too difficult to understand is it ? Care to show me where I said that? Still no answer to the questions I have asked then? well, stop arguing with me when I correctly point out how well they did then. What are you going on about? You actually quoted something I didn't say because I disagreed with you, and yet you were having a moan because I said that you claimed the football was brilliant under the last years of Fred Shepherd. Talk about hypocritical! The football was good, and I have never said it wasn't. But all the nights in Europe still do not cancel out the fact that we spent a shedload and won sod all. And just because Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall dropped us into the financial shite does not excuse Ashley's horrendous management of the football club. However on the flipside, just because Ashley has been terrible does not excuse Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall's spending in the final years which lead us down the road we are on. your last line is like saying Alan Shearer was shit and in your opinion should have been replaced for missing a penalty against Partizan He was still by far the best for the job, and the same goes for the Halls and Shepherd. I don't think you and others seriously understand this at all. 1. Again you are putting words that people haven't said in their mouths to make you feel like you are correct. 2. Have you worked out your answers for the two questions I asked and remain unanswered yet? 1. No I'm not 2. Yes I have 1. In that case what was the bit that I highlighted about then? Looks like putting words in people's mouths to me. 2. No you haven't. Were Newcastle United ambitious in appointing Roeder and Alladyce? Would you give up the European nights to win a cup? If you could answer the two questions in the same format as you used directly above I would appreciate it. haha, yes appointing a potential England manager is ambitious, of course it is ? Did you prefer the days we appointed Jim Smith as the 8th choice and Geordie managers such as Howard Kendall turned us down ? I've told you I don't know if I would swap regular european football and an ambitious board running a club regularly winning as against one spending year after year struggling with a few relegations thrown in but a one off fluke cup win. What has this got to do with ambition, this isn't ambition, its just luck Do you accept that the Halls and Shepherd achieved the best league positions by far for this club in the last 50 years. Yes or no ? Of course I do and have said that ages ago. Maybe you should start reading more than the first sentence people write and you would have known that. However we had started to slide by the time Sir John Hall sold up. I would have thought that you would be able to remember winning the fairs cup. According to people who were alive and can remember what it was like it was a magnificent achievement . I asked my dad which felt better, just now on the phone, and he reckons winning the fairs cup was certainly better than ever finishing in a champions league place. Well, as I'll be meeting all those players, most of whom I've met already, at a "do" at the end of May....... The thing is, the club never kicked on after this win, because it didn't have the ambition. Some of those players could and would have won more if that had been the case. Frank Clark for example did alright when he left ..... At the end of the day, you set up a club to finish in a higher league position and cup success if it comes is a bonus, a fantastic bonus, but this is the way you have to look at it. You should also know that the time of the Halls and Shepherd is the period where we came consistently closer to winning another trophy, don't you realise that is because they had the right approach to it ? Of course the Halls and Shepherds were ambitious, but because they threw money around like confetti they ran the club into the wall financially. A good chairman knows how to say "no" to a manager as well as just handing out the cash willy nilly. There were a lot of bad purchases made, appointments of managers who were not up to the job, and I include "England's nearly manager" Allardyce in there. No-one is disputing that the ambition was there , or that the football was wonderful to watch up until about 2003, but after that we were buggered because of the wreckless spending with limited success that had gone on for over a decade. Ashley failed to do his homework and see what a state we were in when he bought us, but he cannot be blamed for that state. That was done to the Halls and Shepherds. Ashley is in out of his depth, and is failing to realise that we are going tits up, but he can only be blamed for what has happened since he took over. The dye was already cast before anyone knew of Ashley on Tyneside. so why do you keep asking me that question about ambition ? I don't disagree with most of what you say BTW, in fact I've never disputed points like that with anybody, apart from the fact that the Halls and Shepherd had shown they knew what was needed to move forward again. I would rather a club has a go by the way, than spend years, decades knowing you have no chance. I feel that the appointment of both Roeder and Allardyce was unambitious on the club's part though. I feel that by then the finances were starting to get tight at that point but the board/chairmen/owners would not have it. I also want to see the club move forward again, and have always said that Ashley is not the man to do it, but I feel that had he looked closer at the books before buying he would have walked away, and we would have been relegated last season with Fred at the helm as Chairman and Allardyce as manager. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 i wonder if ne5 could tell us how some clubs have got into financial trouble ? most of them are in trouble. Never mind, we will be the only solvent club in the 3rd division in a year or two. Except we won’t be solvent. You can’t pay off PL size debts with lower league sized income. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 i wonder if ne5 could tell us how some clubs have got into financial trouble ? most of them are in trouble. Never mind, we will be the only solvent club in the 3rd division in a year or two. again that is a reply, not an answer to what i asked. and do you thin k some clubs are in more trouble than others........likie those making the bigger year on year losses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so s****, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? I'm just pointing out what the old board achieved to people who label them "s***". They backed their managers and in turn we had some quality teams more than capable of winning a trophy. What more can they do ? After that its out of their hands come the day of the big games. Thats not too difficult to understand is it ? Care to show me where I said that? Still no answer to the questions I have asked then? well, stop arguing with me when I correctly point out how well they did then. What are you going on about? You actually quoted something I didn't say because I disagreed with you, and yet you were having a moan because I said that you claimed the football was brilliant under the last years of Fred Shepherd. Talk about hypocritical! The football was good, and I have never said it wasn't. But all the nights in Europe still do not cancel out the fact that we spent a shedload and won sod all. And just because Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall dropped us into the financial s**** does not excuse Ashley's horrendous management of the football club. However on the flipside, just because Ashley has been terrible does not excuse Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall's spending in the final years which lead us down the road we are on. your last line is like saying Alan Shearer was s*** and in your opinion should have been replaced for missing a penalty against Partizan He was still by far the best for the job, and the same goes for the Halls and Shepherd. I don't think you and others seriously understand this at all. 1. Again you are putting words that people haven't said in their mouths to make you feel like you are correct. 2. Have you worked out your answers for the two questions I asked and remain unanswered yet? 1. No I'm not 2. Yes I have 1. In that case what was the bit that I highlighted about then? Looks like putting words in people's mouths to me. 2. No you haven't. Were Newcastle United ambitious in appointing Roeder and Alladyce? Would you give up the European nights to win a cup? If you could answer the two questions in the same format as you used directly above I would appreciate it. haha, yes appointing a potential England manager is ambitious, of course it is ? Did you prefer the days we appointed Jim Smith as the 8th choice and Geordie managers such as Howard Kendall turned us down ? I've told you I don't know if I would swap regular european football and an ambitious board running a club regularly winning as against one spending year after year struggling with a few relegations thrown in but a one off fluke cup win. What has this got to do with ambition, this isn't ambition, its just luck Do you accept that the Halls and Shepherd achieved the best league positions by far for this club in the last 50 years. Yes or no ? Of course I do and have said that ages ago. Maybe you should start reading more than the first sentence people write and you would have known that. However we had started to slide by the time Sir John Hall sold up. I would have thought that you would be able to remember winning the fairs cup. According to people who were alive and can remember what it was like it was a magnificent achievement . I asked my dad which felt better, just now on the phone, and he reckons winning the fairs cup was certainly better than ever finishing in a champions league place. Well, as I'll be meeting all those players, most of whom I've met already, at a "do" at the end of May....... The thing is, the club never kicked on after this win, because it didn't have the ambition. Some of those players could and would have won more if that had been the case. Frank Clark for example did alright when he left ..... At the end of the day, you set up a club to finish in a higher league position and cup success if it comes is a bonus, a fantastic bonus, but this is the way you have to look at it. You should also know that the time of the Halls and Shepherd is the period where we came consistently closer to winning another trophy, don't you realise that is because they had the right approach to it ? Of course the Halls and Shepherds were ambitious, but because they threw money around like confetti they ran the club into the wall financially. A good chairman knows how to say "no" to a manager as well as just handing out the cash willy nilly. There were a lot of bad purchases made, appointments of managers who were not up to the job, and I include "England's nearly manager" Allardyce in there. No-one is disputing that the ambition was there , or that the football was wonderful to watch up until about 2003, but after that we were buggered because of the wreckless spending with limited success that had gone on for over a decade. Ashley failed to do his homework and see what a state we were in when he bought us, but he cannot be blamed for that state. That was done to the Halls and Shepherds. Ashley is in out of his depth, and is failing to realise that we are going tits up, but he can only be blamed for what has happened since he took over. The dye was already cast before anyone knew of Ashley on Tyneside. so why do you keep asking me that question about ambition ? I don't disagree with most of what you say BTW, in fact I've never disputed points like that with anybody, apart from the fact that the Halls and Shepherd had shown they knew what was needed to move forward again. I would rather a club has a go by the way, than spend years, decades knowing you have no chance. I feel that the appointment of both Roeder and Allardyce was unambitious on the club's part though. I feel that by then the finances were starting to get tight at that point but the board/chairmen/owners would not have it. I also want to see the club move forward again, and have always said that Ashley is not the man to do it, but I feel that had he looked closer at the books before buying he would have walked away, and we would have been relegated last season with Fred at the helm as Chairman and Allardyce as manager. Roeder’s a tricky one, but Allardyce was appointed to achieve on a smaller budget. Hard to say what this says about the ambition of the club, but it’s safe to say it showed a lot more ambition than appointing JFK. Shepherd had to deal with the clubs worsening financial state, so he went for the best ‘success on a shoestring’ manager about. It was a sort of relatively ambitious move? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 i wonder if ne5 could tell us how some clubs have got into financial trouble ? most of them are in trouble. Never mind, we will be the only solvent club in the 3rd division in a year or two. Except we won’t be solvent. You can’t pay off PL size debts with lower league sized income. yes, I realise that. But its others who appear to think being solvent is the goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so s****, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? I'm just pointing out what the old board achieved to people who label them "s***". They backed their managers and in turn we had some quality teams more than capable of winning a trophy. What more can they do ? After that its out of their hands come the day of the big games. Thats not too difficult to understand is it ? Care to show me where I said that? Still no answer to the questions I have asked then? well, stop arguing with me when I correctly point out how well they did then. What are you going on about? You actually quoted something I didn't say because I disagreed with you, and yet you were having a moan because I said that you claimed the football was brilliant under the last years of Fred Shepherd. Talk about hypocritical! The football was good, and I have never said it wasn't. But all the nights in Europe still do not cancel out the fact that we spent a shedload and won sod all. And just because Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall dropped us into the financial s**** does not excuse Ashley's horrendous management of the football club. However on the flipside, just because Ashley has been terrible does not excuse Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall's spending in the final years which lead us down the road we are on. your last line is like saying Alan Shearer was s*** and in your opinion should have been replaced for missing a penalty against Partizan He was still by far the best for the job, and the same goes for the Halls and Shepherd. I don't think you and others seriously understand this at all. 1. Again you are putting words that people haven't said in their mouths to make you feel like you are correct. 2. Have you worked out your answers for the two questions I asked and remain unanswered yet? 1. No I'm not 2. Yes I have 1. In that case what was the bit that I highlighted about then? Looks like putting words in people's mouths to me. 2. No you haven't. Were Newcastle United ambitious in appointing Roeder and Alladyce? Would you give up the European nights to win a cup? If you could answer the two questions in the same format as you used directly above I would appreciate it. haha, yes appointing a potential England manager is ambitious, of course it is ? Did you prefer the days we appointed Jim Smith as the 8th choice and Geordie managers such as Howard Kendall turned us down ? I've told you I don't know if I would swap regular european football and an ambitious board running a club regularly winning as against one spending year after year struggling with a few relegations thrown in but a one off fluke cup win. What has this got to do with ambition, this isn't ambition, its just luck Do you accept that the Halls and Shepherd achieved the best league positions by far for this club in the last 50 years. Yes or no ? Of course I do and have said that ages ago. Maybe you should start reading more than the first sentence people write and you would have known that. However we had started to slide by the time Sir John Hall sold up. I would have thought that you would be able to remember winning the fairs cup. According to people who were alive and can remember what it was like it was a magnificent achievement . I asked my dad which felt better, just now on the phone, and he reckons winning the fairs cup was certainly better than ever finishing in a champions league place. Well, as I'll be meeting all those players, most of whom I've met already, at a "do" at the end of May....... The thing is, the club never kicked on after this win, because it didn't have the ambition. Some of those players could and would have won more if that had been the case. Frank Clark for example did alright when he left ..... At the end of the day, you set up a club to finish in a higher league position and cup success if it comes is a bonus, a fantastic bonus, but this is the way you have to look at it. You should also know that the time of the Halls and Shepherd is the period where we came consistently closer to winning another trophy, don't you realise that is because they had the right approach to it ? Of course the Halls and Shepherds were ambitious, but because they threw money around like confetti they ran the club into the wall financially. A good chairman knows how to say "no" to a manager as well as just handing out the cash willy nilly. There were a lot of bad purchases made, appointments of managers who were not up to the job, and I include "England's nearly manager" Allardyce in there. No-one is disputing that the ambition was there , or that the football was wonderful to watch up until about 2003, but after that we were buggered because of the wreckless spending with limited success that had gone on for over a decade. Ashley failed to do his homework and see what a state we were in when he bought us, but he cannot be blamed for that state. That was done to the Halls and Shepherds. Ashley is in out of his depth, and is failing to realise that we are going tits up, but he can only be blamed for what has happened since he took over. The dye was already cast before anyone knew of Ashley on Tyneside. so why do you keep asking me that question about ambition ? I don't disagree with most of what you say BTW, in fact I've never disputed points like that with anybody, apart from the fact that the Halls and Shepherd had shown they knew what was needed to move forward again. I would rather a club has a go by the way, than spend years, decades knowing you have no chance. I feel that the appointment of both Roeder and Allardyce was unambitious on the club's part though. I feel that by then the finances were starting to get tight at that point but the board/chairmen/owners would not have it. I also want to see the club move forward again, and have always said that Ashley is not the man to do it, but I feel that had he looked closer at the books before buying he would have walked away, and we would have been relegated last season with Fred at the helm as Chairman and Allardyce as manager. Roeder’s a tricky one, but Allardyce was appointed to achieve on a smaller budget. Hard to say what this says about the ambition of the club, but it’s safe to say it showed a lot more ambition than appointing JFK. Shepherd had to deal with the clubs worsening financial state, so he went for the best ‘success on a shoestring’ manager about. It was a sort of relatively ambitious move? Come on though. Stevie Wonder could see that Allardyce's style was never going to work at Newcastle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Being solvent is better than being insolvent. Same as being in the Premier League is better than being in the Championship. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Being solvent is better than being insolvent. Same as being in the Premier League is better than being in the Championship. being solvent is better than being on solvents.............................you reckon NE5 goes to the pub each night do ya ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 i wonder if ne5 could tell us how some clubs have got into financial trouble ? most of them are in trouble. Never mind, we will be the only solvent club in the 3rd division in a year or two. again that is a reply, not an answer to what i asked. and do you thin k some clubs are in more trouble than others........likie those making the bigger year on year losses. Perhaps that’s because your question implies most clubs make the same mistakes. The most common cause of debt in UK football must be the cost of ground redevelopment. There’s hardly a club in the country that hasn’t had to borrow a huge amount of money to modernise their premise. They had to spend this money, but it was always going to be impossible for them all to be successful enough to cover the cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 i wonder if ne5 could tell us how some clubs have got into financial trouble ? most of them are in trouble. Never mind, we will be the only solvent club in the 3rd division in a year or two. again that is a reply, not an answer to what i asked. and do you thin k some clubs are in more trouble than others........likie those making the bigger year on year losses. Perhaps that’s because your question implies most clubs make the same mistakes. The most common cause of debt in UK football must be the cost of ground redevelopment. There’s hardly a club in the country that hasn’t had to borrow a huge amount of money to modernise their premise. They had to spend this money, but it was always going to be impossible for them all to be successful enough to cover the cost. i think allowing the wage bill balloon to near 70% of turnover is probably the biggest mistake since dropping out the champs league. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest getcarter Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 i wonder if ne5 could tell us how some clubs have got into financial trouble ? most of them are in trouble. Never mind, we will be the only solvent club in the 3rd division in a year or two. again that is a reply, not an answer to what i asked. and do you thin k some clubs are in more trouble than others........likie those making the bigger year on year losses. Perhaps that’s because your question implies most clubs make the same mistakes. The most common cause of debt in UK football must be the cost of ground redevelopment. There’s hardly a club in the country that hasn’t had to borrow a huge amount of money to modernise their premise. They had to spend this money, but it was always going to be impossible for them all to be successful enough to cover the cost. i think allowing the wage bill balloon to near 70% of turnover is probably the biggest mistake since dropping out the champs league. Yeah. Over 55% is considered unsustainable. You have to remember that the 4 clubs who reach the CL usually make between £20-40M per season which is used to supplement the higher wage demands. Once you drop out you should cut your cloth to suit or end up like Leeds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 i wonder if ne5 could tell us how some clubs have got into financial trouble ? most of them are in trouble. Never mind, we will be the only solvent club in the 3rd division in a year or two. again that is a reply, not an answer to what i asked. and do you thin k some clubs are in more trouble than others........likie those making the bigger year on year losses. Perhaps that’s because your question implies most clubs make the same mistakes. The most common cause of debt in UK football must be the cost of ground redevelopment. There’s hardly a club in the country that hasn’t had to borrow a huge amount of money to modernise their premise. They had to spend this money, but it was always going to be impossible for them all to be successful enough to cover the cost. i think allowing the wage bill balloon to near 70% of turnover is probably the biggest mistake since dropping out the champs league. Yeah. Over 55% is considered unsustainable. You have to remember that the 4 clubs who reach the CL usually make between £20-40M per season which is used to supplement the higher wage demands. Once you drop out you should cut your cloth to suit or end up like Leeds. so if those clubs are earning more and are paying a lower ratio to wages it would be possible to finance more debt on a sounder financial footing. Hmmmmm. you may have a point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 If Shepherd can't be blamed for his bad decisions, I don't see how he can be given any credit for his good ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 If Shepherd can't be blamed for his bad decisions, I don't see how he can be given any credit for his good ones. maybe Blefescu could ask you what your idea of an ambitious appointment of manager is ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 If Shepherd can't be blamed for his bad decisions, I don't see how he can be given any credit for his good ones. maybe Blefescu could ask you what your idea of an ambitious appointment of manager is ? I can tell you what I consider it not to be if indeed you are talking about me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck. If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck. If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff Helps if you have a ball and some nets to shoot at though - Me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck. do you think that appointing a manager who wins 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the awards isn't an ambitious appointment then ? And do you think that appointing a manager who won the FA Cup and left a team in the top 3 of the premiership and quarter finals of the Champions League isn't an ambitious appointment ? What criteria would you use, if you don't. Remember, you backed Souness, right up to the day he left, through all his buys and sales. You also backed Allardyce before he was appointed. Both of these on this very message board. You also said "anybody" would have more expertise than the Halls and Shepherd if they had the funds to buy them out [see my sig] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck. If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff absolutely. You are talking to the biggest hindsight queen on the internet now though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now