We always back our managers at Newcastle....

[Leazes1986]

YOU LOT ARE ALL IDIOTS. SHEPHERD IS A GREAT MAN. HE ALWAYS BACKS HIS MANAGERS WITH GOOD HARD CASH. LOOK AT ALL OF THE MONEY THAT CAME OUT OF HIS POCKET FOR OWEN. OH HE CALLED ALL OF OUR MAMS DOGS. SURELY THIS CAN BE FORGIVEN CONSIDERING HOW MUCH OUT OF HIS LIFE SAVINGS HE HAS DONATED FOR OUR CAUSE.  BEST CHAIRMAN IN EUROPE. WHAT A GREAT MAN, FREDDY SHEPHERD 4 LIFE x x x

[NE5]

The proper comparison to make isn't between the current situation and how things were pre-1992. It's between the current situation and where we ought to be if the club was run properly.

 

So where is our divine right to be, then?

 

Also, tell me why there is more chance of replacing the Board with a better one than a worse one? Tell me why another Board will automatically be better than the current one, why they will automatically make available as much or even more cash to the manager and will automatically appoint the right manager?

 

Thanks

 

Well, we've no divine right to be anywhere, and there's no automatic guarantees that another Board would perform better, but seeing I didn't say either of those things, I think your questions are wide of the mark.

 

I mean, if someone is doing their job badly, you don't have any guarantees that their replacement would automatically do better, but you might still be correct in reaching the judgement that the bloke should be fired. You have to reach some kind of decision.

 

Your reason for thinking that Shepherd should remain is that we're doing better than pre-1992, but in that era we weren't a big club whose turnover took them into the European top 20. We were a middle-sized club on the lines of West Ham or Sheffield Wednesday. Now we seem to be slipping back. Shepherd took over a very different club from the one that Sir John Hall took over in 1992.

 

I mean, if you think Shepherd is doing an okay job, then fine, but it seems to me that our club has become one man's personal fiefdom. There's no checks on his powers because the Halls stay in the background, the local press is cowardly, and he doesn't give proper respect for the judgement of his managers. He's now built up a reputation as a Dictator that will make it difficult to attract any top-class manager, and maybe even top class players are going to think twice.

 

Sigh

 

"Where we ought to be if the club is run properly" ........

 

Note the second bit I put in bold, which is something true only in your head, as the muppets like to say.

 

Well let me put it another way. If you don't think another Board could do better, why is that?

 

If you do think it's possible that another Board could do better, why are you so reluctant to consider a change?

 

 

the point is pretty straightforward. As only 4 teams have qualifed for europe more than us in the last decade - and since 1992 if you like - how do you think that we can automatically improve on that, bearing in mind there are numerous other big city clubs that wish to do the same - pretty much ALL of who were above us before 1992. So - who is responsible for us tapping the potential of the clubs support and becoming more successful than these clubs ?

 

And perhaps, if you are one of those who are financially motivated rather than football, or a long term supporter, you could tell us what you thought of the club before they started to buy "trophy players"........

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

NE5 reminds me of George Bush trying to convince everyone that it's all going swimmingly in Iraq.

[macbeth]

NE5 reminds me of George Bush trying to convince everyone that it's all going swimmingly in Iraq.

 

before 1991 the US had never had a president who got them into Arab lands.

 

Since then they have been there more often than any other country. Which other country had given its troops the opportunity to compete abroad the way them Bush's have ?

 

Where were you when those other presidents presided over the embarrassments of previous decades. Were you there ? Did you live through incompetent presidents. I did, I know how it was, you have no idea unless you were there. Well listen to me, this president is far better than any that have gone before. The Bush's have always backed their troops. Okay the last appointment of Rumsfeld didn't work out, but who at the time argues against it ? Did you. Don't remember you saying anything ?

 

So Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

 

You might want a new president but how do you know the next one would be any better ? How do you know that a new guy, or even woman, would be able to do any better than Bush ? I would rather stick with Bush who clearly knows how to back his troops into body bags than gamble on some unknown.

 

 

[Tachikoma]

:own:

[James]

NE5 reminds me of George Bush trying to convince everyone that it's all going swimmingly in Iraq.

 

before 1991 the US had never had a president who got them into Arab lands.

 

Since then they have been there more often than any other country. Which other country had given its troops the opportunity to compete abroad the way them Bush's have ?

 

Where were you when those other presidents presided over the embarrassments of previous decades. Were you there ? Did you live through incompetent presidents. I did, I know how it was, you have no idea unless you we,re there. Well listen to me, this president is far better than any that have gone before. The Bush's have always backed their troops. Okay the last appointment of Rumsfeld didn't work out, but who at the time argues against it ? Did you. Don't remember you saying anything ?

 

So Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

 

You might want a new president but how do you know the next one would be any better ? How do you know that a new guy, or even woman, would be able to do any better than Bush ? I would rather stick with Bush who clearly knows how to back his troops into body bags than gamble on some unknown.

 

 

 

Fucking hell that is one of the greatest posts in all eternity. :lol: :lol:

[OzzieMandias]

NE5 reminds me of George Bush trying to convince everyone that it's all going swimmingly in Iraq.

 

before 1991 the US had never had a president who got them into Arab lands.

 

Since then they have been there more often than any other country. Which other country had given its troops the opportunity to compete abroad the way them Bush's have ?

 

Where were you when those other presidents presided over the embarrassments of previous decades. Were you there ? Did you live through incompetent presidents. I did, I know how it was, you have no idea unless you we,re there. Well listen to me, this president is far better than any that have gone before. The Bush's have always backed their troops. Okay the last appointment of Rumsfeld didn't work out, but who at the time argues against it ? Did you. Don't remember you saying anything ?

 

So Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

 

You might want a new president but how do you know the next one would be any better ? How do you know that a new guy, or even woman, would be able to do any better than Bush ? I would rather stick with Bush who clearly knows how to back his troops into body bags than gamble on some unknown.

 

 

 

[Kitman]

NE5 reminds me of George Bush trying to convince everyone that it's all going swimmingly in Iraq.

 

before 1991 the US had never had a president who got them into Arab lands.

 

Since then they have been there more often than any other country. Which other country had given its troops the opportunity to compete abroad the way them Bush's have ?

 

Where were you when those other presidents presided over the embarrassments of previous decades. Were you there ? Did you live through incompetent presidents. I did, I know how it was, you have no idea unless you we,re there. Well listen to me, this president is far better than any that have gone before. The Bush's have always backed their troops. Okay the last appointment of Rumsfeld didn't work out, but who at the time argues against it ? Did you. Don't remember you saying anything ?

 

So Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

 

You might want a new president but how do you know the next one would be any better ? How do you know that a new guy, or even woman, would be able to do any better than Bush ? I would rather stick with Bush who clearly knows how to back his troops into body bags than gamble on some unknown.

 

 

  Ownage

[UV]

NE5 reminds me of George Bush trying to convince everyone that it's all going swimmingly in Iraq.

 

before 1991 the US had never had a president who got them into Arab lands.

 

Since then they have been there more often than any other country. Which other country had given its troops the opportunity to compete abroad the way them Bush's have ?

 

Where were you when those other presidents presided over the embarrassments of previous decades. Were you there ? Did you live through incompetent presidents. I did, I know how it was, you have no idea unless you were there. Well listen to me, this president is far better than any that have gone before. The Bush's have always backed their troops. Okay the last appointment of Rumsfeld didn't work out, but who at the time argues against it ? Did you. Don't remember you saying anything ?

 

So Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

 

You might want a new president but how do you know the next one would be any better ? How do you know that a new guy, or even woman, would be able to do any better than Bush ? I would rather stick with Bush who clearly knows how to back his troops into body bags than gamble on some unknown.

 

 

I’m not sure I get the point of this analogy. Let me try.

 

The analogy is Bush = Shepherd & troops in Arab Lands = NUFC in Europe.

You are parodying someone arguing that Bush is good because he gets troops in Arab Lands (ie Shepherd is good because he gets NUFC in Europe). The person you are parodying suggests that a different president would not be better because he would not necessarily get troops into wars as much.

 

Your stance IRL is that you think a new chairman would be better for the club, ie get into Europe more. Translating this into your analogy you want a more warmongering president for the USA, someone like Hitler say?

 

Is that it? Did I get it? You're a warmongering fascist?

[macbeth]

I’m not sure I get the point of this analogy. Let me try.

 

The analogy is Bush = Shepherd & troops in Arab Lands = NUFC in Europe.

You are parodying someone arguing that Bush is good because he gets troops in Arab Lands (ie Shepherd is good because he gets NUFC in Europe). The person you are parodying suggests that a different president would not be better because he would not necessarily get troops into wars as much.

 

Your stance IRL is that you think a new chairman would be better for the club, ie get into Europe more. Translating this into your analogy you want a more warmongering president for the USA, someone like Hitler say?

 

Is that it? Did I get it? You're a warmongering fascist?

 

 

Indeed, but a warmongering fascist with a light touch

[NE5]

I’m not sure I get the point of this analogy. Let me try.

 

The analogy is Bush = Shepherd & troops in Arab Lands = NUFC in Europe.

You are parodying someone arguing that Bush is good because he gets troops in Arab Lands (ie Shepherd is good because he gets NUFC in Europe). The person you are parodying suggests that a different president would not be better because he would not necessarily get troops into wars as much.

 

Your stance IRL is that you think a new chairman would be better for the club, ie get into Europe more. Translating this into your analogy you want a more warmongering president for the USA, someone like Hitler say?

 

Is that it? Did I get it? You're a warmongering fascist?

 

 

Indeed, but a warmongering fascist with a light touch

 

I believe you have been asked some serious questions in this thread, you're not avoiding them again are you  :roll:

[macbeth]

I’m not sure I get the point of this analogy. Let me try.

 

The analogy is Bush = Shepherd & troops in Arab Lands = NUFC in Europe.

You are parodying someone arguing that Bush is good because he gets troops in Arab Lands (ie Shepherd is good because he gets NUFC in Europe). The person you are parodying suggests that a different president would not be better because he would not necessarily get troops into wars as much.

 

Your stance IRL is that you think a new chairman would be better for the club, ie get into Europe more. Translating this into your analogy you want a more warmongering president for the USA, someone like Hitler say?

 

Is that it? Did I get it? You're a warmongering fascist?

 

 

Indeed, but a warmongering fascist with a light touch

 

I believe you have been asked some serious questions in this thread, you're not avoiding them again are you  :roll:

 

absolutely not, I think if you read my reply I do admit to being a "warmongering fascist", can you not even see that ?

[Taylor Swift]

 

Love this side of macbeth

[Mick]

 

as with your thread that you deleted, when you failed to try to show the club in the 1980's was a club who bought big players, like nowadays, you continue to make up these figures.

 

http://www.uit.no/mancity/players/old/beardsley.html

 

Peter Beardsley was an unknown player, at Manu and when he left, if he had not been, then someone else would have snapped him up before Carlisle and Newcastle, especially at 150,000 quid. This is the figure you claimed was "splashing the cash", along with buying back McDermott, another player whose career was almost over.

 

Keep it up lad, your getting funnier.

 

 

 

Peter Beardsley wasn't at Carlisle after Man U, he was playing in Canada when invited to go to Man U on trial, he went to Canada from Carlisle and was due to go to Newcastle on trial the week after Bob Moncur offered him a contract at Carlisle.  You must have known this because John Gibson went on about Beardsley a lot before he joined us from Vancouver.

 

Man U were prepared to pay Vancouver £500,000 when he joined them on trial, Man U actually paid part of that up front.  We got Beardsley on the cheap because of the problems that all of the teams in North America were having financially.  The league was thought to be in melt-down and ready to go bust so Vancouver decided that anything was better than nothing.

[UV]

Indeed, but a warmongering fascist with a light touch

Fair enough. I guess I should have guessed before by the fact that you want the club to be taken over by someone (anyone) who will take the club off the stock market and make the club’s finances totally opaque that you were a supporter of self-serving and unaccountable governments.

 

What will you do with your spare time though, and what will happen to:

the excellent www.nufc-finance.org.uk site

when you have no financial information to misrepresent simplify for others?

[Mick]

 

how many times have you said the board that have ran the club since 1992 are the same as the ones who ran it for the previous 30 years. Hilarious. Have we all dreamt the regular european nights, the signing of England players and Champions League run 

 

 

I'll take that as an admission.

[Mick]

 

Please confirm for me that you "thought" the Board was a total failure during the seasons we finished 4th, 3rd and 5th, and would have liked them removed at that time for being shite.

 

As for the rest of your diatribe, care to explain why you find it necessary to write a potted history of your so-called attendance habits? Looks more than a little like insecurity from where I'm sitting and I don't understand it. You clearly have nowt to worry about, being a supafan and all that. Shame that you slip up so many times, like believng Beardsley was well known when we signed him when he was almost totally unknown.

 

How come you haven't mentioned those other ambitious signings of top international players, such as Kenny Sansom and Mick Channon, who as England internationals obviously compare favourably with Owen, for example. :roll:

 

I think Shepherd has failed based on 9 years, not 3.

 

They didn't fail during those seasons you mention but they are not the norm, they're an exception, they have a success rate of 33%, a failute rate of 67%.

 

As the spin about Beardsley, I said Is it that "Beardsley was well known enough for Man U to pay money up front to his club and agreed a fee of £500,000 to take him to Manchester United while nobody had heard of him?"  Is the bold quote true or not?

 

As for the players whto compare with Owen, why not compare them with Ronny Johnsen, Boumsong, Faye, Fumaca, Lionel Perez, I'll not bother mentioning any more. bluebiggrin.gif

 

[Mick]

 

Kenny Sanson and Mick Channon were 2 other players whose best days were behind them. Of course thickmick will try to tell people - as usual - that signing them is the same as signing Owen and Woodgate .......... not to mention selling Waddle, Beardsley and Gazza. In fact he STILL hasn't told us why they wanted to leave the club - unlike Alan Shearer  - despite his insistence that the board pre-1992 is "no worse than" the board post - 1992 

 

Brilliant. You couldn't make it up if you tried

 

 

 

We've never bought crap players while Shepherd has been chairman, NE5 fact.

 

We only buy Woodgates Shearers and Owens, NE5 never cherry picks. bluebiggrin.gif

 

[Delima]

[Mick]

 

the point is pretty straightforward. As only 4 teams have qualifed for europe more than us in the last decade - and since 1992 if you like - how do you think that we can automatically improve on that, bearing in mind there are numerous other big city clubs that wish to do the same - pretty much ALL of who were above us before 1992. So - who is responsible for us tapping the potential of the clubs support and becoming more successful than these clubs ?

 

And perhaps, if you are one of those who are financially motivated rather than football, or a long term supporter, you could tell us what you thought of the club before they started to buy "trophy players"........

 

 

 

  bluesleep.gif  bluesleep.gif  bluesleep.gif  bluesleep.gif  bluesleep.gif  bluesleep.gif

[Mick]

NE5 reminds me of George Bush trying to convince everyone that it's all going swimmingly in Iraq.

 

before 1991 the US had never had a president who got them into Arab lands.

 

Since then they have been there more often than any other country. Which other country had given its troops the opportunity to compete abroad the way them Bush's have ?

 

Where were you when those other presidents presided over the embarrassments of previous decades. Were you there ? Did you live through incompetent presidents. I did, I know how it was, you have no idea unless you were there. Well listen to me, this president is far better than any that have gone before. The Bush's have always backed their troops. Okay the last appointment of Rumsfeld didn't work out, but who at the time argues against it ? Did you. Don't remember you saying anything ?

 

So Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

 

You might want a new president but how do you know the next one would be any better ? How do you know that a new guy, or even woman, would be able to do any better than Bush ? I would rather stick with Bush who clearly knows how to back his troops into body bags than gamble on some unknown.

 

 

 

Macbeth, get him out of your pocket. bluebiggrin.gif

[Mick]

Indeed, but a warmongering fascist with a light touch

Fair enough. I guess I should have guessed before by the fact that you want the club to be taken over by someone (anyone) who will take the club off the stock market and make the club’s finances totally opaque that you were a supporter of self-serving and unaccountable governments.

 

What will you do with your spare time though, and what will happen to:

the excellent www.nufc-finance.org.uk site

when you have no financial information to misrepresent simplify for others?

 

What relation are you to NE5?

 

He's never mentioned you before.

[CaliMag]

NE5 reminds me of George Bush trying to convince everyone that it's all going swimmingly in Iraq.

 

before 1991 the US had never had a president who got them into Arab lands.

 

Since then they have been there more often than any other country. Which other country had given its troops the opportunity to compete abroad the way them Bush's have ?

 

Where were you when those other presidents presided over the embarrassments of previous decades. Were you there ? Did you live through incompetent presidents. I did, I know how it was, you have no idea unless you were there. Well listen to me, this president is far better than any that have gone before. The Bush's have always backed their troops. Okay the last appointment of Rumsfeld didn't work out, but who at the time argues against it ? Did you. Don't remember you saying anything ?

 

So Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

 

You might want a new president but how do you know the next one would be any better ? How do you know that a new guy, or even woman, would be able to do any better than Bush ? I would rather stick with Bush who clearly knows how to back his troops into body bags than gamble on some unknown.

 

 

 

That is a work of genius MacBeth!

 

http://static.flickr.com/110/289959679_f579908b2e.jpg?v=0

 

 

 

[macbeth]

Indeed, but a warmongering fascist with a light touch

Fair enough. I guess I should have guessed before by the fact that you want the club to be taken over by someone (anyone) who will take the club off the stock market and make the club’s finances totally opaque that you were a supporter of self-serving and unaccountable governments.

 

What will you do with your spare time though, and what will happen to:

the excellent www.nufc-finance.org.uk site

when you have no financial information to misrepresent simplify for others?

 

I love misrepresenting, so much so that I will change any item on my web site if you can prove it inaccurate. Last time I  made this request on here I changed no numbers, but did change a word that may have given the wrong impression. Offer still open, show some misrepresentation and I will change it.

 

Of course you could also make changes that helped simplify those bits a postcode is still struggling with

[NE5]

 

Please confirm for me that you "thought" the Board was a total failure during the seasons we finished 4th, 3rd and 5th, and would have liked them removed at that time for being shite.

 

As for the rest of your diatribe, care to explain why you find it necessary to write a potted history of your so-called attendance habits? Looks more than a little like insecurity from where I'm sitting and I don't understand it. You clearly have nowt to worry about, being a supafan and all that. Shame that you slip up so many times, like believng Beardsley was well known when we signed him when he was almost totally unknown.

 

How come you haven't mentioned those other ambitious signings of top international players, such as Kenny Sansom and Mick Channon, who as England internationals obviously compare favourably with Owen, for example. :roll:

 

I think Shepherd has failed based on 9 years, not 3.

 

They didn't fail during those seasons you mention but they are not the norm, they're an exception, they have a success rate of 33%, a failute rate of 67%.

 

As the spin about Beardsley, I said Is it that "Beardsley was well known enough for Man U to pay money up front to his club and agreed a fee of £500,000 to take him to Manchester United while nobody had heard of him?"  Is the bold quote true or not?

 

As for the players whto compare with Owen, why not compare them with Ronny Johnsen, Boumsong, Faye, Fumaca, Lionel Perez, I'll not bother mentioning any more. bluebiggrin.gif

 

 

So between the late 1950's and 1992, we bought England players in the prime of their career such as Owen and Woodgate did we ?

 

What I remember, and is factual, is we sold 3 England players instead.

 

As usual, you are a joke.

 

Peter Beardsley, if he had been "well known" as you claim would have been bought by someone for more than 150,000 and ManU would not have taken such a loss on him when they let him go.

 

Yet another pathetic claim made by you.

 

Clueless, and obviously not really a proper supporter from those days despite you claiming to be.

 

One thing I will give you credit for is picking the right moment to spout such shite, on the night when we have won in europe again....

although you think we were regular european participants during the 30 years pre-1992 don't you .....  :lol:

 

You couldn't make it up.