Who do you blame for the mess ?

[Dave]

Ashely and his ludicrous incompetent system: 40%

The utterly awful squad and idle players: 30%

Kinnear & Hughton's woefullness: 20%

Keegan's cowardice: 8%

Fan hysteria: 2%

 

Wouldn't disagree too much with that assessment.

 

Just remember to hand a few % to good 'ol Fred.

 

Ashley forfeited the right to blame Shepherd when he admitted he'd not even checked the books tbh. We certainly weren't going anywhere good but Ashley's tenure has accelerated our downfall more than any of us could imagine.

 

I'm pretty sure Otter is referring to THIS mess.

[madras]

Ashely and his ludicrous incompetent system: 40%

The utterly awful squad and idle players: 30%

Kinnear & Hughton's woefullness: 20%

Keegan's cowardice: 8%

Fan hysteria: 2%

 

Wouldn't disagree too much with that assessment.

 

Just remember to hand a few % to good 'ol Fred.

 

Ashley forfeited the right to blame Shepherd when he admitted he'd not even checked the books tbh. We certainly weren't going anywhere good but Ashley's tenure has accelerated our downfall more than any of us could imagine.

 

I'm pretty sure Otter is referring to THIS mess.

Hmmmm don't know bout that like. there's a fair few think sam would have took us down and with where fred had us financially.....well, at least as bleak as it is now.

 

ashley may have forfeited the right,doesn't mean we weren't in that position.

 

 

[Dave]

Ashely and his ludicrous incompetent system: 40%

The utterly awful squad and idle players: 30%

Kinnear & Hughton's woefullness: 20%

Keegan's cowardice: 8%

Fan hysteria: 2%

 

Wouldn't disagree too much with that assessment.

 

Just remember to hand a few % to good 'ol Fred.

 

Ashley forfeited the right to blame Shepherd when he admitted he'd not even checked the books tbh. We certainly weren't going anywhere good but Ashley's tenure has accelerated our downfall more than any of us could imagine.

 

I'm pretty sure Otter is referring to THIS mess.

Hmmmm don't know bout that like. there's a fair few think sam would have took us down and with where fred had us financially.....well, at least as bleak as it is now.

 

ashley may have forfeited the right,doesn't mean we weren't in that position.

 

 

 

I'm not saying we weren't shit before Ashley came in, far from it. Unfortunately though we'll never know whether we'd have gone downhill quite this fast. What we do know is that Ashley's tenure has been an utter disaster and only a tiny proportion of it is not of his (or the people he appointed/employed) own doing.

 

Us being in the shit financially beforehand doesn't explain or excuse the vast majority of the catastrophic decisions he and his people have made.

[madras]

Ashely and his ludicrous incompetent system: 40%

The utterly awful squad and idle players: 30%

Kinnear & Hughton's woefullness: 20%

Keegan's cowardice: 8%

Fan hysteria: 2%

 

Wouldn't disagree too much with that assessment.

 

Just remember to hand a few % to good 'ol Fred.

 

Ashley forfeited the right to blame Shepherd when he admitted he'd not even checked the books tbh. We certainly weren't going anywhere good but Ashley's tenure has accelerated our downfall more than any of us could imagine.

 

I'm pretty sure Otter is referring to THIS mess.

Hmmmm don't know bout that like. there's a fair few think sam would have took us down and with where fred had us financially.....well, at least as bleak as it is now.

 

ashley may have forfeited the right,doesn't mean we weren't in that position.

 

 

 

I'm not saying we weren't s*** before Ashley came in, far from it. Unfortunately though we'll never know whether we'd have gone down this fast. What we do know is that Ashley's tenure has been an utter disaster and only a tiny proportion of it is not of his (or the people he appointed/employed) doing.

 

Us being in the s*** financially beforehand doesn't explain or excuse the vast majority of the catastrophic decisions he and his people have made.

no argument on most of that.

[oldtype]

It's the same damn mess. Ashley made it worse yeah, but we all know who kicked it off.

[Ericz]

I'm not saying we weren't s*** before Ashley came in, far from it. Unfortunately though we'll never know whether we'd have gone downhill quite this fast. What we do know is that Ashley's tenure has been an utter disaster and only a tiny proportion of it is not of his (or the people he appointed/employed) own doing.

 

Us being in the s*** financially beforehand doesn't explain or excuse the vast majority of the catastrophic decisions he and his people have made.

 

I can agree with the statement in bold.

 

However, correct me if I am wrong, there isn't any concrete proof of us being financially unsound except for the words of Ashley and his management. Besides, it would be to Ashley's advantage to depict the previous management in a bad light in order to validate his claim that he (Ashley) was a savior to the club and contributing to the rebuilding of the club at that point in time where the statements were first made and/or constantly reiterated.

 

Yes, we may have debts but don't all clubs have debts too? Maybe, ours have been exaggerated by Ashley and his management?

 

Certainly, I do admit that I am prejudiced against Ashley at this point in time, hence for my skepticism. I'm very disappointed with how things have unfold for the club... the hope... the optimism... when Ashley first took over. -Sigh-

[madras]

I'm not saying we weren't s*** before Ashley came in, far from it. Unfortunately though we'll never know whether we'd have gone downhill quite this fast. What we do know is that Ashley's tenure has been an utter disaster and only a tiny proportion of it is not of his (or the people he appointed/employed) own doing.

 

Us being in the s*** financially beforehand doesn't explain or excuse the vast majority of the catastrophic decisions he and his people have made.

 

I can agree with the statement in bold.

 

However, correct me if I am wrong, there isn't any concrete proof of us being financially unsound except for the words of Ashley and his management. Besides, it would be to Ashley's advantage to depict the previous management in a bad light in order to validate his claim that he (Ashley) was a savior to the club and contributing to the rebuilding of the club at that point in time where the statements were first made and/or constantly reiterated.

 

Certainly, I do admit that I am prejudiced against Ashley at this point in time, hence for my skepticism.

the published accounts (off the pitch)

 

the teams performances (on the pitch)

[Ericz]

the published accounts (off the pitch)

 

the teams performances (on the pitch)

 

Depending on the manner the published accounts are audited (if it is even audited), it might not always be an accurate reflection of the business in question.

 

Sadly, in the society we're living in, integrity is not always present when it comes to commercial business.

 

Again, pardon me for my skepticism.

 

Nonetheless, I do agree with Dave when he mentioned that, ''What we do know is that Ashley's tenure has been an utter disaster and only a tiny proportion of it is not of his (or the people he appointed/employed) own doing.''

[cp40]

the published accounts (off the pitch)

 

the teams performances (on the pitch)

 

Depending on the manner the published accounts are audited (if it is even audited), it might not always be an accurate reflection of the business in question.

 

Sadly, in the society we're living in, integrity is not always present when it comes to commercial business.

 

Again, pardon me for my skepticism.

 

 

 

Its True, Its a good job Parliament keeps a close eye on it all,.......oh, shit.

[madras]

the published accounts (off the pitch)

 

the teams performances (on the pitch)

 

Depending on the manner the published accounts are audited (if it is even audited), it might not always be an accurate reflection of the business in question.

 

Sadly, in the society we're living in, integrity is not always present when it comes to commercial business.

 

Again, pardon me for my skepticism.

 

Nonetheless, I do agree with Dave when he mentioned that, ''What we do know is that Ashley's tenure has been an utter disaster and only a tiny proportion of it is not of his (or the people he appointed/employed) own doing.''

not just the accounts as published under the ashley era but those published in the latter days of the fred era aswell.

[Guest kebabstylee]

I blame Souness.

 

(I actually do).

[tmonkey]

Ashely and his ludicrous incompetent system: 40%

The utterly awful squad and idle players: 30%

Kinnear & Hughton's woefullness: 20%

Keegan's cowardice: 8%

Fan hysteria: 2%

 

Wouldn't disagree too much with that assessment.

 

Just remember to hand a few % to good 'ol Fred.

 

Ashley forfeited the right to blame Shepherd when he admitted he'd not even checked the books tbh. We certainly weren't going anywhere good but Ashley's tenure has accelerated our downfall more than any of us could imagine.

 

I'm pretty sure Otter is referring to THIS mess.

Hmmmm don't know bout that like. there's a fair few think sam would have took us down and with where fred had us financially.....well, at least as bleak as it is now.

 

ashley may have forfeited the right,doesn't mean we weren't in that position.

 

 

 

I'm not saying we weren't s*** before Ashley came in, far from it. Unfortunately though we'll never know whether we'd have gone downhill quite this fast. What we do know is that Ashley's tenure has been an utter disaster and only a tiny proportion of it is not of his (or the people he appointed/employed) own doing.

 

Us being in the s*** financially beforehand doesn't explain or excuse the vast majority of the catastrophic decisions he and his people have made.

 

Although Ashley is most at fault for the current mess, having appointed and backed the wrong people to run the club (Llambias, Wise) and failed to see the importance of keeping Keegan on board, I personally think Shepherd's mismanagement of the club post Sir Bobby has had a big hand in undermining Ashley's plans for this club.

 

It's not merely a case of due diligence not being performed by Ashley and the resultant debt he had to personally finance scuppering any plans of a quick revival. The reputation of the club itself was in tatters by the time Ashley took over - not only were we unappealing to prospective players with talent/years on their side, but we were also infamous for being a club that hired and fired managers like no other in the UK, something that would put off any manager worth his salt currently in the game. We were the nation's laughing stock, a joke of a club in the eyes of many other supporters, long before Ashley, Wise and Co came in and made matters worse. We had also managed to assemble the most overrated and highly paid (relative to ability) squad in the league, full of yesteryear's dross and injury prone has-beens on massive contracts, contracts that noone else would offer them in a million years, essentially making these players unsellable assets that the club must use. We can't force players to leave for a lower wage elsewhere, nor can we sign replacements whilst they're still at the club. If there's anything you don't want when trying to rebuild a s*** side, players like these on contracts like these would be near abouts top of the list imo.

 

So essentially, the job that needed to be done was a big one - to overturn the finances where we were making massive losses every year, to reverse the bad reputation that the club had developed along with the highly paid yet useless playing squad, and to put in place a suitable scouting system which would help prevent making the high percentage of mistakes we were making in the transfer market - and in the end the job was clearly far too big for Mike Ashley and his whimsical business sense to handle. Because Ashley has failed miserably doesn't negate what Shepherd did to this club post Robson.

 

I'd also take this further and state that the sheer frustration of Shepherd's incompetence post-Robson has also influenced the fans' reaction when Keegan walked out, something which in turn has played probably the biggest part in our current mess (not absolving Ashley of blame here nor "blaming" the fans, Ashley's reaction was utterly daft and typically ill thought out). To many of us, in Keegan's return we had finally appointed a good manager after year's of sitting through dross and incompetence, someone with an eye for talent and the penchant for attractive football, only to see the board's lack of vision and foresight throw this glimmer of hope out of the window. But that's the key - the 'finally' part. We had gone through so many s*** managerial appointments, and seen such awful tactics/gameplans/man management/signings, that we had lost hope until news of Keegan's appointment suddenly came out of the blue. When last season ended and a few games of the new season had taken place, practically all of us thought that we had finally moved forward, and it looked like we could possibly challenge for a European spot given the performances and results we had seen. To put it simply, after half a decade of rotting in the bottom half of the table, things looked set to change. And of course, we were sick to the stomach when all of this looked to have been flushed down the toilet.

 

So had we not been treated to successive diabolically bad managerial appointments prior to Keegan's appointment, things may not have kicked off like they did, because I'm sure we'd have gotten over it quite quickly, even if it was Keegan who had walked. Had Shepherd gone out and bagged Rafa instead of Souness for example, and in this alternative world Rafa had then moved on to Real Madrid  several years later whilst we saw Keegan return, and only then did the alternative world re-aligned with ours and Keegan walks out in a huff after we sign a few players he didn't want, would there have been such a riot at St James'? Doubtful imo. I think the frustration of not being able to attract a good manager for years boiled over from the Shepherd era, and when the aforementioned glimmer of hope walked away, everyone turned on Ashley, which as stated is probably the biggest factor in us being in this mess today, irrespective of who was at fault (as we all know, Ashley ended up wanting out as a result of the protests/threats, hence noone wanted the job under a board that was about to leave, we were managerless and had only Kinnear willing to take the job, and the rest is painful history).

 

The chief culprit in the current mess is Ashley for his plain ignorance in running the club without any real foresight or planning, and appointing people like Llambias who on the face of it has no place in a people-orientated business such as football, but Shepherd essentially created this environment where fans were already unhappy and impatient, where the club was already considered a joke and a laughing stock, where the finances had already been shot to pieces, all of which has contributed to the mess that Ashley has not only failed to correct but made worse.

[madras]

beautifully put tmonkey. i doubt even given the patience to write such a long post i could have put it so well.

[Dave]

Great post tmonkey.

[Guest gggg]

Shearer leaving (part 1)

[Ronaldo]

Ashley has to take 50% of the blame, the woeful squad takes 30% and Kinnear/Hughton 20%. Devide the other 10% whichever way you want

[Cronky]

The boogie.

[Ericz]

Although Ashley is most at fault for the current mess, having appointed and backed the wrong people to run the club (Llambias, Wise) and failed to see the importance of keeping Keegan on board, I personally think Shepherd's mismanagement of the club post Sir Bobby has had a big hand in undermining Ashley's plans for this club.

 

It's not merely a case of due diligence not being performed by Ashley and the resultant debt he had to personally finance scuppering any plans of a quick revival. The reputation of the club itself was in tatters by the time Ashley took over - not only were we unappealing to prospective players with talent/years on their side, but we were also infamous for being a club that hired and fired managers like no other in the UK, something that would put off any manager worth his salt currently in the game. We were the nation's laughing stock, a joke of a club in the eyes of many other supporters, long before Ashley, Wise and Co came in and made matters worse. We had also managed to assemble the most overrated and highly paid (relative to ability) squad in the league, full of yesteryear's dross and injury prone has-beens on massive contracts, contracts that noone else would offer them in a million years, essentially making these players unsellable assets that the club must use. We can't force players to leave for a lower wage elsewhere, nor can we sign replacements whilst they're still at the club. If there's anything you don't want when trying to rebuild a s*** side, players like these on contracts like these would be near abouts top of the list imo.

 

So essentially, the job that needed to be done was a big one - to overturn the finances where we were making massive losses every year, to reverse the bad reputation that the club had developed along with the highly paid yet useless playing squad, and to put in place a suitable scouting system which would help prevent making the high percentage of mistakes we were making in the transfer market - and in the end the job was clearly far too big for Mike Ashley and his whimsical business sense to handle. Because Ashley has failed miserably doesn't negate what Shepherd did to this club post Robson.

 

I'd also take this further and state that the sheer frustration of Shepherd's incompetence post-Robson has also influenced the fans' reaction when Keegan walked out, something which in turn has played probably the biggest part in our current mess (not absolving Ashley of blame here nor "blaming" the fans, Ashley's reaction was utterly daft and typically ill thought out). To many of us, in Keegan's return we had finally appointed a good manager after year's of sitting through dross and incompetence, someone with an eye for talent and the penchant for attractive football, only to see the board's lack of vision and foresight throw this glimmer of hope out of the window. But that's the key - the 'finally' part. We had gone through so many s*** managerial appointments, and seen such awful tactics/gameplans/man management/signings, that we had lost hope until news of Keegan's appointment suddenly came out of the blue. When last season ended and a few games of the new season had taken place, practically all of us thought that we had finally moved forward, and it looked like we could possibly challenge for a European spot given the performances and results we had seen. To put it simply, after half a decade of rotting in the bottom half of the table, things looked set to change. And of course, we were sick to the stomach when all of this looked to have been flushed down the toilet.

 

So had we not been treated to successive diabolically bad managerial appointments prior to Keegan's appointment, things may not have kicked off like they did, because I'm sure we'd have gotten over it quite quickly, even if it was Keegan who had walked. Had Shepherd gone out and bagged Rafa instead of Souness for example, and in this alternative world Rafa had then moved on to Real Madrid  several years later whilst we saw Keegan return, and only then did the alternative world re-aligned with ours and Keegan walks out in a huff after we sign a few players he didn't want, would there have been such a riot at St James'? Doubtful imo. I think the frustration of not being able to attract a good manager for years boiled over from the Shepherd era, and when the aforementioned glimmer of hope walked away, everyone turned on Ashley, which as stated is probably the biggest factor in us being in this mess today, irrespective of who was at fault (as we all know, Ashley ended up wanting out as a result of the protests/threats, hence noone wanted the job under a board that was about to leave, we were managerless and had only Kinnear willing to take the job, and the rest is painful history).

 

The chief culprit in the current mess is Ashley for his plain ignorance in running the club without any real foresight or planning, and appointing people like Llambias who on the face of it has no place in a people-orientated business such as football, but Shepherd essentially created this environment where fans were already unhappy and impatient, where the club was already considered a joke and a laughing stock, where the finances had already been shot to pieces, all of which has contributed to the mess that Ashley has not only failed to correct but made worse.

 

Great Post! It's certainly a good read where the contents I can easily agree with.

[Guest Dr. Richard Kimble]

Much of the blame lies with Hall. He came out with all sorts of bullshit about the offers he'd received from abroad - but they weren't right he said.

 

Then Ashley comes along and Hall says he was thrilled, because he had impressive ambition for the club - and he was English.

 

If Ashley didn't do due diligence then Hall didn't either. Ashley had an atrocious reputation as a shark and wideboy in London, hated by sportsdirect shareholders who were well ahead of the curve on the credit crunch and depression.

 

But that assumes Hall ever cared about Ashley's character. What Hall really meant was that Ashley offered him more and easy coin.

 

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

Much of the blame lies with Hall. He came out with all sorts of bullshit about the offers he'd received from abroad - but they weren't right he said.

 

Then Ashley comes along and Hall says he was thrilled, because he had impressive ambition for the club - and he was English.

 

If Ashley didn't do due diligence then Hall didn't either. Ashley had an atrocious reputation as a shark and wideboy in London, hated by sportsdirect shareholders who were well ahead of the curve on the credit crunch and depression.

 

But that assumes Hall ever cared about Ashley's character. What Hall really meant was that Ashley offered him more and easy coin.

 

 

good post

[Ronaldo]

Ashley may have had a reputation as a shark and a wideboy, but how does that really pertain to his ability to own a football club? He's not a corporate raider, he isn't trying to liquidize NUFC. His business plan itself wasn't bad, it was just horribly, horribly executed.

 

 

But yes, Hall's bullshit about ambition was just that. He saw the club's debt and waited for the high bidder

[Cronky]

Much of the blame lies with Hall. He came out with all sorts of bullshit about the offers he'd received from abroad - but they weren't right he said.

 

Then Ashley comes along and Hall says he was thrilled, because he had impressive ambition for the club - and he was English.

 

If Ashley didn't do due diligence then Hall didn't either. Ashley had an atrocious reputation as a shark and wideboy in London, hated by sportsdirect shareholders who were well ahead of the curve on the credit crunch and depression.

 

But that assumes Hall ever cared about Ashley's character. What Hall really meant was that Ashley offered him more and easy coin.

 

 

 

 

I don't think that's the complete picture, from what I recall. There was a fair amount of interest from potential buyers that season, but Freddie wasn't interested in selling. The Halls were conscious of the deterioration in the financial position, and were keen to bail out. Freddie was hoping to get their shares on the cheap, by blocking any attempt at an outside takeover.

 

Ashley succeeded where others failed because he could pay cash and so push things through quickly. Shepherd awoke one morning in the middle of a takeover with a bunch of shares which would decline in value if he tried to hang on to them. He had no choice but to sell up.

 

Long term, I think Freddie's answer to the financial situation was to try to enter into some kind of partnership with a hotel / conference centre / housing style project - can't remember the exact details. Similar to Ken Bates at Chelsea - which as we know didn't work. The Halls obviously weren't convinced about it.

 

I can't see how the Halls are to blame, because any new owner would have encountered the same problems, and to my knowledge there weren't any other mega-rich candidates willing to stage that kind of coup.

 

On another point, the fact that Ashley didn't perform due diligence suggests that his primary aim was not financial gain for himself. If that had been his objective, he'd have been more careful about what he was getting into.

[Wallace]

This piece blames the fans but not for the same reasons as others - says we don't protest enough!!

 

But there are just so many things wrong in it.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/newcastle/5356282/Newcastle-fans-part-of-the-reason-for-clubs-plight.html

 

Newcastle fans part of the reason for club's plight

Anyone spending time in Newcastle will attest that its inhabitants are a breed apart; warm, generous and able to laugh at themselves.

 

By Brian Moore

Last Updated: 5:33PM BST 20 May 2009

 

These are laudable characteristics when applied to the business of everyday life; they are not beneficial when applied to sport.

 

Shakespearean tragedy is the inescapable consequence of a flaw in a person's personality; witness Macbeth's demise. Transposed to Tyneside this could be the potentially ruinous relegation of Newcastle United FC to the Coca-Cola Championship this coming weekend.

 

For too many years the Geordie faithful have witnessed the club remain without silverware, save for the Kirin and InterToto Cups. Though laudable, their aspirations of a principally English team, with a Geordie captain and manager, are so far from reality as to be fantasy.

 

Similarly, a tenet that requires attractive or sexy football is so nebulous and subjective that it is unachievable, even if capable of definition.

 

The above aims were out of kilter as far back as the mid-Eighties and are woefully outdated when today's imperatives are considered.

 

The desire for all things Geordie flies in the face of practical things such as demography. In the hyper-competitive world that is now the Premier League, what are the odds on there being sufficient footballing, coaching and managerial talent of the very highest calibre being produced from this small area?

 

You will have difficulty even getting a price and if you do it is likely to be one even longer than one which is placed on Rafael Benitez and Sir Alex Ferguson taking their next vacation together.

 

It may be asserted that the near misses of the club, under Kevin Keegan and Sir Bobby Robson, refute this claim, but that depends entirely on the standpoint from which they are assessed. More objectively viewed, they are occasional departures from a litany of poor results; whatever the supposed attractiveness of the football.

 

Save for Glenn Roeder, since 1992 every manager appointed has been a celebrity name; none adequately addressed the first requirement for a successful team – that it is solid tactically and has a well organised and miserly defence.

 

While Manchester United are synonymous with an attacking brand of football, it is no coincidence that their periods of recent omnipotence have been when their defence has included Schmeichel, Bruce, Stam, or Van der Sar, Ferdinand and Vidic.

 

The acclamation accompanying Alan Shearer's appointment flies in the face of logic, given that he has no previous managerial experience and has not yet obtained all his coaching qualifications. Though the experienced Iain Dowie has been brought in to assist, can any Newcastle fans say with conviction that had Dowie been appointed alone they would have been happy?

 

The Everest of charismatic football has obscured the more important goal of winning; in whatever way it takes. From that foundation it is possible to mould a squad which has a greater focus on one particular facet of its play, with the proviso that the others are not neglected.

 

The numerous Geordie callers to the nation's phone-in programmes that opine that they would rather lose 5-4 than grind out a boring 1-0 win are as much part of the club's problems as aught else. Do they really mean this?

 

If so they are the archetypal example of the English trait of glorying in noble defeat and celebrating losing and losers. Moreover, this preference for style of play over the substance of victory is to the province of the West End theatre-goer, not any true competitive sports fan.

 

With the seminal comforts of Julie's Nightclub and the Tuxedo Princess available, the faithful have continued to turn up at St James' Park whatever the standard of football and however bad the results.

 

To many football followers this is the definitive proof that they are indeed true, not plastic, fans. Assessed strictly on this narrow front this is accurate, but when applied to Newcastle United FC, the effects of this loyalty have not all been positive.

 

Voting with your wallet is the most severe demonstration of disaffection that can be shown by a supporter, but the persistent take-up of season tickets has shielded the Newcastle management and board from the harshest protest that could have been visited on them for their continual failure.

 

This lack of success is actually worsened by the fact that the availability of money has not been as acute at Newcastle as many other Premier League clubs.

 

Although there have been demonstrations at the club gates against Mike Ashley, the chairman, for his perceived lack of investment, and Dennis Wise, for being a Cockney, the level of rage and hostility has been nowhere close to what it would have been at other clubs with a similar following.

 

Until fans demand more, expect less, accept something different and are prepared to boycott in the face of further underachievement, they remain part of the problem as well as the ultimate buffer against the club sliding the same way as Leeds, Southampton and Norwich.

 

[TRon]

This piece blames the fans but not for the same reasons as others - says we don't protest enough!!

 

But there are just so many things wrong in it.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/newcastle/5356282/Newcastle-fans-part-of-the-reason-for-clubs-plight.html

 

Newcastle fans part of the reason for club's plight

Anyone spending time in Newcastle will attest that its inhabitants are a breed apart; warm, generous and able to laugh at themselves.

 

By Brian Moore

Last Updated: 5:33PM BST 20 May 2009

 

These are laudable characteristics when applied to the business of everyday life; they are not beneficial when applied to sport.

 

Shakespearean tragedy is the inescapable consequence of a flaw in a person's personality; witness Macbeth's demise. Transposed to Tyneside this could be the potentially ruinous relegation of Newcastle United FC to the Coca-Cola Championship this coming weekend.

 

For too many years the Geordie faithful have witnessed the club remain without silverware, save for the Kirin and InterToto Cups. Though laudable, their aspirations of a principally English team, with a Geordie captain and manager, are so far from reality as to be fantasy.

 

Similarly, a tenet that requires attractive or sexy football is so nebulous and subjective that it is unachievable, even if capable of definition.

 

The above aims were out of kilter as far back as the mid-Eighties and are woefully outdated when today's imperatives are considered.

 

The desire for all things Geordie flies in the face of practical things such as demography. In the hyper-competitive world that is now the Premier League, what are the odds on there being sufficient footballing, coaching and managerial talent of the very highest calibre being produced from this small area?

 

You will have difficulty even getting a price and if you do it is likely to be one even longer than one which is placed on Rafael Benitez and Sir Alex Ferguson taking their next vacation together.

 

It may be asserted that the near misses of the club, under Kevin Keegan and Sir Bobby Robson, refute this claim, but that depends entirely on the standpoint from which they are assessed. More objectively viewed, they are occasional departures from a litany of poor results; whatever the supposed attractiveness of the football.

 

Save for Glenn Roeder, since 1992 every manager appointed has been a celebrity name; none adequately addressed the first requirement for a successful team that it is solid tactically and has a well organised and miserly defence.

 

While Manchester United are synonymous with an attacking brand of football, it is no coincidence that their periods of recent omnipotence have been when their defence has included Schmeichel, Bruce, Stam, or Van der Sar, Ferdinand and Vidic.

 

The acclamation accompanying Alan Shearer's appointment flies in the face of logic, given that he has no previous managerial experience and has not yet obtained all his coaching qualifications. Though the experienced Iain Dowie has been brought in to assist, can any Newcastle fans say with conviction that had Dowie been appointed alone they would have been happy?

 

The Everest of charismatic football has obscured the more important goal of winning; in whatever way it takes. From that foundation it is possible to mould a squad which has a greater focus on one particular facet of its play, with the proviso that the others are not neglected.

 

The numerous Geordie callers to the nation's phone-in programmes that opine that they would rather lose 5-4 than grind out a boring 1-0 win are as much part of the club's problems as aught else. Do they really mean this?

 

If so they are the archetypal example of the English trait of glorying in noble defeat and celebrating losing and losers. Moreover, this preference for style of play over the substance of victory is to the province of the West End theatre-goer, not any true competitive sports fan.

 

With the seminal comforts of Julie's Nightclub and the Tuxedo Princess available, the faithful have continued to turn up at St James' Park whatever the standard of football and however bad the results.

 

To many football followers this is the definitive proof that they are indeed true, not plastic, fans. Assessed strictly on this narrow front this is accurate, but when applied to Newcastle United FC, the effects of this loyalty have not all been positive.

 

Voting with your wallet is the most severe demonstration of disaffection that can be shown by a supporter, but the persistent take-up of season tickets has shielded the Newcastle management and board from the harshest protest that could have been visited on them for their continual failure.

 

This lack of success is actually worsened by the fact that the availability of money has not been as acute at Newcastle as many other Premier League clubs.

 

Although there have been demonstrations at the club gates against Mike Ashley, the chairman, for his perceived lack of investment, and Dennis Wise, for being a Cockney, the level of rage and hostility has been nowhere close to what it would have been at other clubs with a similar following.

 

Until fans demand more, expect less, accept something different and are prepared to boycott in the face of further underachievement, they remain part of the problem as well as the ultimate buffer against the club sliding the same way as Leeds, Southampton and Norwich.

 

 

I tried really hard to find a valid point in that article but couldn't come up with one. It's so bad it should probably be up for some sort of an award.

[quayside]

This piece blames the fans but not for the same reasons as others - says we don't protest enough!!

 

But there are just so many things wrong in it.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/newcastle/5356282/Newcastle-fans-part-of-the-reason-for-clubs-plight.html

 

Newcastle fans part of the reason for club's plight

Anyone spending time in Newcastle will attest that its inhabitants are a breed apart; warm, generous and able to laugh at themselves.

 

By Brian Moore

Last Updated: 5:33PM BST 20 May 2009

 

These are laudable characteristics when applied to the business of everyday life; they are not beneficial when applied to sport.

 

Shakespearean tragedy is the inescapable consequence of a flaw in a person's personality; witness Macbeth's demise. Transposed to Tyneside this could be the potentially ruinous relegation of Newcastle United FC to the Coca-Cola Championship this coming weekend.

 

For too many years the Geordie faithful have witnessed the club remain without silverware, save for the Kirin and InterToto Cups. Though laudable, their aspirations of a principally English team, with a Geordie captain and manager, are so far from reality as to be fantasy.

 

Similarly, a tenet that requires attractive or sexy football is so nebulous and subjective that it is unachievable, even if capable of definition.

 

The above aims were out of kilter as far back as the mid-Eighties and are woefully outdated when today's imperatives are considered.

 

The desire for all things Geordie flies in the face of practical things such as demography. In the hyper-competitive world that is now the Premier League, what are the odds on there being sufficient footballing, coaching and managerial talent of the very highest calibre being produced from this small area?

 

You will have difficulty even getting a price and if you do it is likely to be one even longer than one which is placed on Rafael Benitez and Sir Alex Ferguson taking their next vacation together.

 

It may be asserted that the near misses of the club, under Kevin Keegan and Sir Bobby Robson, refute this claim, but that depends entirely on the standpoint from which they are assessed. More objectively viewed, they are occasional departures from a litany of poor results; whatever the supposed attractiveness of the football.

 

Save for Glenn Roeder, since 1992 every manager appointed has been a celebrity name; none adequately addressed the first requirement for a successful team that it is solid tactically and has a well organised and miserly defence.

 

While Manchester United are synonymous with an attacking brand of football, it is no coincidence that their periods of recent omnipotence have been when their defence has included Schmeichel, Bruce, Stam, or Van der Sar, Ferdinand and Vidic.

 

The acclamation accompanying Alan Shearer's appointment flies in the face of logic, given that he has no previous managerial experience and has not yet obtained all his coaching qualifications. Though the experienced Iain Dowie has been brought in to assist, can any Newcastle fans say with conviction that had Dowie been appointed alone they would have been happy?

 

The Everest of charismatic football has obscured the more important goal of winning; in whatever way it takes. From that foundation it is possible to mould a squad which has a greater focus on one particular facet of its play, with the proviso that the others are not neglected.

 

The numerous Geordie callers to the nation's phone-in programmes that opine that they would rather lose 5-4 than grind out a boring 1-0 win are as much part of the club's problems as aught else. Do they really mean this?

 

If so they are the archetypal example of the English trait of glorying in noble defeat and celebrating losing and losers. Moreover, this preference for style of play over the substance of victory is to the province of the West End theatre-goer, not any true competitive sports fan.

 

With the seminal comforts of Julie's Nightclub and the Tuxedo Princess available, the faithful have continued to turn up at St James' Park whatever the standard of football and however bad the results.

 

To many football followers this is the definitive proof that they are indeed true, not plastic, fans. Assessed strictly on this narrow front this is accurate, but when applied to Newcastle United FC, the effects of this loyalty have not all been positive.

 

Voting with your wallet is the most severe demonstration of disaffection that can be shown by a supporter, but the persistent take-up of season tickets has shielded the Newcastle management and board from the harshest protest that could have been visited on them for their continual failure.

 

This lack of success is actually worsened by the fact that the availability of money has not been as acute at Newcastle as many other Premier League clubs.

 

Although there have been demonstrations at the club gates against Mike Ashley, the chairman, for his perceived lack of investment, and Dennis Wise, for being a Cockney, the level of rage and hostility has been nowhere close to what it would have been at other clubs with a similar following.

 

Until fans demand more, expect less, accept something different and are prepared to boycott in the face of further underachievement, they remain part of the problem as well as the ultimate buffer against the club sliding the same way as Leeds, Southampton and Norwich.

 

 

I tried really hard to find a valid point in that article but couldn't come up with one. It's so bad it should probably be up for some sort of an award.

 

Agree - it's cliche ridden tripe.