We always back our managers at Newcastle....

[NE5]

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

 

 

 

your long range telescope is clearly still not working very well.

 

 

[NE5]

 

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.

 

you could admit it is true, which you know it is.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

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?

 

 

 

You guarantee another board will be better, will bring success (we win the league or we're good enough to consistently and seriously challenge) and I'll take it.

 

Tell me how you guarantee that a new Board is THAT type of Board and NOT a Board typical of everything I've seen at Newcastle from the late 60's right through to the 90's.

 

You and some others may think it's impossible for a Board like we had in the past to exist again, maybe you don't even believe the stuff that is posted on here about those years by myself and NE5, but honestly, Mick is spouting shite as always. The Boards of the past were crap, go to Skunkers and ask some long-standing supporters about the Boards of previous decades. They may not like Fred either nowadays (I don't like him as it happens, I can just see that not everything he does is bad), but I doubt any will claim the Board hasn't tried, hasn't backed the managers, hasn't shown ambition to succeed.

 

The Board has given successive managers the resources  and so opportunity to bring success, there is no gurantee a replacement Board will not be happy with less.

 

Previous Boards of Newcastle didn't even try, mate, I don't want to go back to that. We never signed top quality players and we always sold any who came through the youth team or were bought as youngsters and turned into top players (McDermott, for example).

 

Many clubs are run by Boards without ambition to challenge the top teams, many are happy with just PL status, accepting they can't seriously challenge, we could more easily end up with a Board like that.

[Guest kiwi]

I have just pored over McBeths financial site and must compliment him on his efforts. There are a number of presentations which, at face value, provide  suprising information. Unfortunately the lack of club data and simplified presentation can provide misleading impressions.  However McBeth, while attempting to present information to enlighten us, has allowed his bias to show through, by style and tone if by no other means.

 

What he has achieved is to show the club has not been well run financially. Forget Directors take, there are only a handfull and they can do what they want, but not other items of expenditure and modified reporting.

 

There are numerous cost and profit centres involved in a club of our size but clouding or hiding individual centres achievements or losses paints a very misleading picture. One could claim commercial sensitivity but conversely a profitable catering unit is an advertisement for itself.

 

If there is blame to be levelled here it is due in two places.

1. Shareholder dividends, remuneration and ancilliary payments have not adjusted to reflect reduced profits. A wish level of profit was used for the dividend base.

2.If I were the Stock Exchange I would send in an auditor. None compliance with a standard business practice warrants attention. Missing several code of practice items is unacceptable. The only way this has been avoided is the limited number of shareholders but there is a duty also to prospective shareholders.

3. Misreporting or as we Kiwi's call it "constructive accounting" is always a sign of poor management and while legal is a form of internal money laundering.

 

From what I know of the accounts, having read all but the last, McBeth is guilty of presentation of the facts in a way best suited to his percieved purpose of showing the Directors in a bad light. Select by all means but only to ensure the TRUTH is visible. A very good site. A great service to fans but with the above reservations. If you were my accountant I'd sack you.

 

HTL as always posts common sense.

We have had appalling Boards during our lifetime - since WW11. The Halls and Shepherd, for all of their supposed and likely faults have brought Toon back toward a level demanded by fans. We haven't won anything but we have been close and Europe has been a regular feature for some years. An achievement respected by an average 25000 per game which actually shows less than 50% (I include the season ticket waiting list) actually care. So thats it. Regardless of what has been achieved <50% will watch anything in a Toon shirt. Hardly an advert for passion.

 

I can't prove it but I'll take a leaf out of McBeths philosophy and guess the moaners are evenly spread between the Euro game attendees and non attendees. Which of course puts the other 50% to making up the balance. If you think this is weird or crap consider the first law of football game watching - no two people at the same game see the same game.

 

Yes we all see everything in life differently.

 

If those of you who want Shepherd out get your way then you have achieved your wish but there is no guarantee the replacement will be better. Being prepared to accept the unknown just to be rid of FS is unacceptable and shows a lack of regard for the future of the club. If Belgravia, for example, make a suitable PR statement as to the future of the club that is to our satisfaction I'd be the first to say - come in. But if its a warm fuzzy all will be roses - its f-ck off.

 

What is acceptable is that Belgravia or anyone else is not going to fritter 200million+ on flogging a dead horse - thats a positive.

 

Those who own clubs to benefit clubs are not rare, in fact more often than not the club is their life outside of earning a living. The Halls and Shepherd are guilty of being a little greedy and got the balance between remuneration and greed slightly wrong. They leveraged their dividends up to buy shares - admirable business but not subtle. This IS A BUSINESS.. Not a charity.

 

If they had done this and behaved as past boards have I'd be sitting outside the gate with my knitting leading the revolution. But they haven't.

[UV]

^^ Excellent, well balanced post. Just some comments on your numerated points.

 

1. The profits could be higher simply by allowing less to be spent on transfers. In the context of the football club, is it right to punish the sharehodlers (reduce dividends) because more money is being put back into the business to try to make it successful? If this were done would the shareholders not have a right to demand that the transfer money/wages were reduced, ie lower the club's ambitions?

 

2 & 3. Is there evidence of none compliance & misreporting in the accounts? I've not heard that accusation before and would be interested to know more.

[Raconteur]

^^ Excellent, well balanced post. Just some comments on your numerated points.

 

1. The profits could be higher simply by allowing less to be spent on transfers. In the context of the football club, is it right to punish the sharehodlers (reduce dividends) because more money is being put back into the business to try to make it successful? If this were done would the shareholders not have a right to demand that the transfer money/wages were reduced, ie lower the club's ambitions?

 

2 & 3. Is there evidence of none compliance & misreporting in the accounts? I've not heard that accusation before and would be interested to know more.

 

Non-compliance see this page

 

"Misreporting" is more creative accounting, such as the manner in which player transfers are recorded - see this page and macbeth's comments page

 

As kiwi has said, along with others including myself, yes there is some bias in macbeth's website, but that shouldn't detract from the fact that the bare stats provide a fairly damning indictement on their own...

 

2.If I were the Stock Exchange I would send in an auditor. None compliance with a standard business practice warrants attention. Missing several code of practice items is unacceptable. The only way this has been avoided is the limited number of shareholders but there is a duty also to prospective shareholders

 

With regards to the comment quoted above, wouldn't any shareholder be able to complain to the relevent regulatory body? I have no understanding of British securities laws, but surely a shareholder has the right to complain about the management of a public company they have invested in?

 

[UV]

Ah, okay. Not ideal, but nothing major IMO.

 

Am I right in thinking though that if there were a takeover the club would be almost certainly taken off the stock market and would not be required to publish accounts or be accountable to the same code of practice (ie they could do what they like without critisism).

[plenum]

I think Roeder is doing well considering our cup form, and with all the injuries we have it's not his "fault".

 

Can we beat Chelski in the cup we have a real chance of winning that too in addition to UEFA Cup.

 

 

[Mick]

 

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.

 

 

Once again you try to change history to fit your agenda, pathetic but funny. 

 

I think you should read Beardsley’s book if you doubt the interest Man U had in the unknown Beardsley, of course one of the most knowledgeable players could have lost his marbles when writing the book or may be lying. bluebiggrin.gif

 

[NE5]

 

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.

 

 

Once again you try to change history to fit your agenda, pathetic but funny. 

 

I think you should read Beardsley’s book if you doubt the interest Man U had in the unknown Beardsley, of course one of the most knowledgeable players could have lost his marbles when writing the book or may be lying. bluebiggrin.gif

 

 

I have read Beardsleys book. You say that he was "well known", I say on the basis that he was sold by manu for less than they bought him, and a small fee at that with very little interest from other clubs, and that he went to Canada, that he wasn't well known.

 

As you seem to be glossing over the fact that when he did sign, he made his name, then pissed off, why do you think he did that, and then come back to Newcastle again ? Why do you think he did that ?

 

Fairly straightforward and obvious point, but carry on misleading people with untrue rubbish as usual.

 

There is an interesting post by kiwi, I suggest you read it. It may bring you up to date and refresh your memory, seeing as you don't believer others that supported the club pre-1992.

 

 

[Mick]

 

You guarantee another board will be better, will bring success (we win the league or we're good enough to consistently and seriously challenge) and I'll take it.

 

Tell me how you guarantee that a new Board is THAT type of Board and NOT a Board typical of everything I've seen at Newcastle from the late 60's right through to the 90's.

 

You and some others may think it's impossible for a Board like we had in the past to exist again, maybe you don't even believe the stuff that is posted on here about those years by myself and NE5, but honestly, Mick is spouting shite as always. The Boards of the past were crap, go to Skunkers and ask some long-standing supporters about the Boards of previous decades. They may not like Fred either nowadays (I don't like him as it happens, I can just see that not everything he does is bad), but I doubt any will claim the Board hasn't tried, hasn't backed the managers, hasn't shown ambition to succeed.

 

The Board has given successive managers the resources  and so opportunity to bring success, there is no gurantee a replacement Board will not be happy with less.

 

Previous Boards of Newcastle didn't even try, mate, I don't want to go back to that. We never signed top quality players and we always sold any who came through the youth team or were bought as youngsters and turned into top players (McDermott, for example).

 

Many clubs are run by Boards without ambition to challenge the top teams, many are happy with just PL status, accepting they can't seriously challenge, we could more easily end up with a Board like that.

 

Nobody has ever said that new owners would guarantee success.  What most people in favour have said is that they would expect the club to be run in a professional manner, something which hasn't been the case since within months of Shepherd becoming chairman.  Most people would also expect the club to be run as a business which strives for success.  I think a lot of people expect a company like Belgravia would want to take cash out so would invest, they'd speculate to accumulate.  Not all businesses are run like this but most of the better ones are.  Shepherd does not guarantee success, he almost guarantees the opposite, the man was handed so much on a plate and he’s thrown it away, he’s a total incompetent and the few that supports him, support mediocrity.

 

Shepherd has given the managers money, the surprising thing is that the best one spent the least amount of cash to achieve the best performance and that's without taking into consideration that his success would have earned the club more cash than those who spent more.  Sir Bobby will have been the closest manager to becoming self financing, this in some way proves that you don't need to spend crazy amounts of cash, you need to get the right manager, so far Shepherd has done this once and shit on that manager, if it was only Shepherd paying for that decision then I’d be over the moon but it’s not only the parasite, it’s also all of us.

 

Nobody has said the old board were good, what I've said is that I don't think Shepherd is any better.  Yes, he's spent more cash than them but at a time when the club and game in general have more cash, something that you and your brother

 

What proof have you got that Shepherd is not just happy with retaining our PL status?  His last two appointments don't suggest an attack on the likes of Man U and Chelsea at the top of the league.

 

He's absolutely clueless when it comes to running a football club that is supposedly trying to win something.

 

[Mick]

 

 

I have read Beardsleys book. You say that he was "well known", I say on the basis that he was sold by manu for less than they bought him, and a small fee at that with very little interest from other clubs, and that he went to Canada, that he wasn't well known.

 

As you seem to be glossing over the fact that when he did sign, he made his name, then pissed off, why do you think he did that, and then come back to Newcastle again ? Why do you think he did that ?

 

Fairly straightforward and obvious point, but carry on misleading people with untrue rubbish as usual.

 

There is an interesting post by kiwi, I suggest you read it. It may bring you up to date and refresh your memory, seeing as you don't believer others that supported the club pre-1992.

 

 

 

If you've read the book then from what you've said on here I get the impression that you only looked at the pictures, you clearly have as many problems reading books as you do reading posts on here.

 

You go on about Man U losing money on Beardsley, they didn't lose a penny as far as I'm aware, and it wasn't mentioned in the book.  The money was a returnable deposit and I'm sure they got it all back.

 

You've quoted me ad saying that Beardsley was "well known," that's just you cherry picking again, I said he was well known enough for Man U to be interested in him, not the unknown that he was made out to be earlier in this thread.

 

If he was unknown then Man U would not have gone after him in the first place, try thinking for a change.

 

I've read the "interesting post by kiwi" and I am truly indebted that he's pointed out that macbeth's a twat (my words not his) for not highlighting that our catering is so good, bad macbeth.  The next time I sit in a freezing cold stand watching crap, I'll think back to the time I found out that our catering (something Freddy knows a lot about) was held with such high regard.  I think somebody should come up with a match day song so that we can tell everybody how well our catering side of the business is going.

 

[NE5]

 

 

I have read Beardsleys book. You say that he was "well known", I say on the basis that he was sold by manu for less than they bought him, and a small fee at that with very little interest from other clubs, and that he went to Canada, that he wasn't well known.

 

As you seem to be glossing over the fact that when he did sign, he made his name, then pissed off, why do you think he did that, and then come back to Newcastle again ? Why do you think he did that ?

 

Fairly straightforward and obvious point, but carry on misleading people with untrue rubbish as usual.

 

There is an interesting post by kiwi, I suggest you read it. It may bring you up to date and refresh your memory, seeing as you don't believer others that supported the club pre-1992.

 

 

 

If you've read the book then from what you've said on here I get the impression that you only looked at the pictures, you clearly have as many problems reading books as you do reading posts on here.

 

You go on about Man U losing money on Beardsley, they didn't lose a penny as far as I'm aware, and it wasn't mentioned in the book.  The money was a returnable deposit and I'm sure they got it all back.

 

You've quoted me ad saying that Beardsley was "well known," that's just you cherry picking again, I said he was well known enough for Man U to be interested in him, not the unknown that he was made out to be earlier in this thread.

 

If he was unknown then Man U would not have gone after him in the first place, try thinking for a change.

 

I've read the "interesting post by kiwi" and I am truly indebted that he's pointed out that macbeth's a twat (my words not his) for not highlighting that our catering is so good, bad macbeth.  The next time I sit in a freezing cold stand watching crap, I'll think back to the time I found out that our catering (something Freddy knows a lot about) was held with such high regard.  I think somebody should come up with a match day song so that we can tell everybody how well our catering side of the business is going.

 

 

so what you are saying is that manure buy nothing other than well known players  --- another gem.

 

And let them go for less than they paid, and you didn;t reply why he went to Canada, and why no one other than us were interested in buying him ..... if you know anything about the link, you will know that the only reason we had heard of him was because of a tip from Bob Moncur.

 

But keep making things up....fantastically funny ... 

 

Why did he piss off to Liverpool ? In fact why didn't he sign for them in the first place, if he was so well known and Liverpool being less than an hour from Manchester.........  :lol:

[Mick]

 

 

I have read Beardsleys book. You say that he was "well known", I say on the basis that he was sold by manu for less than they bought him, and a small fee at that with very little interest from other clubs, and that he went to Canada, that he wasn't well known.

 

As you seem to be glossing over the fact that when he did sign, he made his name, then pissed off, why do you think he did that, and then come back to Newcastle again ? Why do you think he did that ?

 

Fairly straightforward and obvious point, but carry on misleading people with untrue rubbish as usual.

 

There is an interesting post by kiwi, I suggest you read it. It may bring you up to date and refresh your memory, seeing as you don't believer others that supported the club pre-1992.

 

 

 

If you've read the book then from what you've said on here I get the impression that you only looked at the pictures, you clearly have as many problems reading books as you do reading posts on here.

 

You go on about Man U losing money on Beardsley, they didn't lose a penny as far as I'm aware, and it wasn't mentioned in the book.  The money was a returnable deposit and I'm sure they got it all back.

 

You've quoted me ad saying that Beardsley was "well known," that's just you cherry picking again, I said he was well known enough for Man U to be interested in him, not the unknown that he was made out to be earlier in this thread.

 

If he was unknown then Man U would not have gone after him in the first place, try thinking for a change.

 

I've read the "interesting post by kiwi" and I am truly indebted that he's pointed out that macbeth's a T*** (my words not his) for not highlighting that our catering is so good, bad macbeth.  The next time I sit in a freezing cold stand watching crap, I'll think back to the time I found out that our catering (something Freddy knows a lot about) was held with such high regard.  I think somebody should come up with a match day song so that we can tell everybody how well our catering side of the business is going.

 

 

so what you are saying is that manure buy nothing other than well known players  --- another gem.

 

And let them go for less than they paid, and you didn;t reply why he went to Canada, and why no one other than us were interested in buying him ..... if you know anything about the link, you will know that the only reason we had heard of him was because of a tip from Bob Moncur.

 

But keep making things up....fantastically funny ...   

 

Why did he piss off to Liverpool ? In fact why didn't he sign for them in the first place, if he was so well known and Liverpool being less than an hour from Manchester.........  :lol:

 

Where did I say Man U only buy well known players?  Another lie developed between the lugs of NE5. bluebiggrin.gif

 

Man U didn't let Beardsley go for less than they paid for him, again the penny doesn't drop even when you claim to have read the book.

 

As for us getting a tip from Moncur, that's not entirely true.  We had planned to give him a trial the week after he originally went to Carlisle and John Gibson used to play with himself over Beardsley.  Newcastle knew about Beardsley before he played for Carlisle, not just during or after.

 

I didn't reply about why he went to Canada because you didn't ask a question, you may have thought about asking one but you didn't ask and I don't read minds which is a bonus when it's you.  You've got the memory of a goldfish; I suggest that you read your posts again in future before demanding answers to questions that you haven't even asked, I'll not bother asking for a link to the question as you don't do links.

[NE5]

 

 

I have read Beardsleys book. You say that he was "well known", I say on the basis that he was sold by manu for less than they bought him, and a small fee at that with very little interest from other clubs, and that he went to Canada, that he wasn't well known.

 

As you seem to be glossing over the fact that when he did sign, he made his name, then pissed off, why do you think he did that, and then come back to Newcastle again ? Why do you think he did that ?

 

Fairly straightforward and obvious point, but carry on misleading people with untrue rubbish as usual.

 

There is an interesting post by kiwi, I suggest you read it. It may bring you up to date and refresh your memory, seeing as you don't believer others that supported the club pre-1992.

 

 

 

If you've read the book then from what you've said on here I get the impression that you only looked at the pictures, you clearly have as many problems reading books as you do reading posts on here.

 

You go on about Man U losing money on Beardsley, they didn't lose a penny as far as I'm aware, and it wasn't mentioned in the book.  The money was a returnable deposit and I'm sure they got it all back.

 

You've quoted me ad saying that Beardsley was "well known," that's just you cherry picking again, I said he was well known enough for Man U to be interested in him, not the unknown that he was made out to be earlier in this thread.

 

If he was unknown then Man U would not have gone after him in the first place  , try thinking for a change.

 

I've read the "interesting post by kiwi" and I am truly indebted that he's pointed out that macbeth's a T*** (my words not his) for not highlighting that our catering is so good, bad macbeth.  The next time I sit in a freezing cold stand watching crap, I'll think back to the time I found out that our catering (something Freddy knows a lot about) was held with such high regard.  I think somebody should come up with a match day song so that we can tell everybody how well our catering side of the business is going.

 

 

so what you are saying is that manure buy nothing other than well known players  --- another gem.

 

And let them go for less than they paid, and you didn;t reply why he went to Canada, and why no one other than us were interested in buying him ..... if you know anything about the link, you will know that the only reason we had heard of him was because of a tip from Bob Moncur.

 

But keep making things up....fantastically funny ...   

 

Why did he piss off to Liverpool ? In fact why didn't he sign for them in the first place, if he was so well known and Liverpool being less than an hour from Manchester.........  :lol:

 

Where did I say Man U only buy well known players?  Another lie developed between the lugs of NE5. bluebiggrin.gif

 

I've highlighted it to make it easier to remember what you said yourself.

 

Man U didn't let Beardsley go for less than they paid for him, again the penny doesn't drop even when you claim to have read the book.

 

As for us getting a tip from Moncur, that's not entirely true.  We had planned to give him a trial the week after he originally went to Carlisle and John Gibson used to play with himself over Beardsley.  Newcastle knew about Beardsley before he played for Carlisle, not just during or after.

 

I didn't reply about why he went to Canada because you didn't ask a question, you may have thought about asking one but you didn't ask and I don't read minds which is a bonus when it's you.  You've got the memory of a goldfish; I suggest that you read your posts again in future before demanding answers to questions that you haven't even asked, I'll not bother asking for a link to the question as you don't do links.

 

but if he was so well known, why didn't he go to a top club, like Liverpool at the time ? Why not try answering or engaging your brain ? I'm sure everyone else on here can work out the answer to that .....

 

Keep making things up.

 

 

[Mick]

 

 

I have read Beardsleys book. You say that he was "well known", I say on the basis that he was sold by manu for less than they bought him, and a small fee at that with very little interest from other clubs, and that he went to Canada, that he wasn't well known.

 

As you seem to be glossing over the fact that when he did sign, he made his name, then pissed off, why do you think he did that, and then come back to Newcastle again ? Why do you think he did that ?

 

Fairly straightforward and obvious point, but carry on misleading people with untrue rubbish as usual.

 

There is an interesting post by kiwi, I suggest you read it. It may bring you up to date and refresh your memory, seeing as you don't believer others that supported the club pre-1992.

 

 

 

If you've read the book then from what you've said on here I get the impression that you only looked at the pictures, you clearly have as many problems reading books as you do reading posts on here.

 

You go on about Man U losing money on Beardsley, they didn't lose a penny as far as I'm aware, and it wasn't mentioned in the book.  The money was a returnable deposit and I'm sure they got it all back.

 

You've quoted me ad saying that Beardsley was "well known," that's just you cherry picking again, I said he was well known enough for Man U to be interested in him, not the unknown that he was made out to be earlier in this thread.

 

If he was unknown then Man U would not have gone after him in the first place  , try thinking for a change.

 

I've read the "interesting post by kiwi" and I am truly indebted that he's pointed out that macbeth's a T*** (my words not his) for not highlighting that our catering is so good, bad macbeth.  The next time I sit in a freezing cold stand watching crap, I'll think back to the time I found out that our catering (something Freddy knows a lot about) was held with such high regard.  I think somebody should come up with a match day song so that we can tell everybody how well our catering side of the business is going.

 

 

so what you are saying is that manure buy nothing other than well known players  --- another gem.

 

And let them go for less than they paid, and you didn;t reply why he went to Canada, and why no one other than us were interested in buying him ..... if you know anything about the link, you will know that the only reason we had heard of him was because of a tip from Bob Moncur.

 

But keep making things up....fantastically funny ...   

 

Why did he piss off to Liverpool ? In fact why didn't he sign for them in the first place, if he was so well known and Liverpool being less than an hour from Manchester.........  :lol:

 

Where did I say Man U only buy well known players?  Another lie developed between the lugs of NE5. bluebiggrin.gif

 

I've highlighted it to make it easier to remember what you said yourself.

 

Man U didn't let Beardsley go for less than they paid for him, again the penny doesn't drop even when you claim to have read the book.

 

As for us getting a tip from Moncur, that's not entirely true.  We had planned to give him a trial the week after he originally went to Carlisle and John Gibson used to play with himself over Beardsley.  Newcastle knew about Beardsley before he played for Carlisle, not just during or after.

 

I didn't reply about why he went to Canada because you didn't ask a question, you may have thought about asking one but you didn't ask and I don't read minds which is a bonus when it's you.  You've got the memory of a goldfish; I suggest that you read your posts again in future before demanding answers to questions that you haven't even asked, I'll not bother asking for a link to the question as you don't do links.

 

but if he was so well known, why didn't he go to a top club, like Liverpool at the time ? Why not try answering or engaging your brain ? I'm sure everyone else on here can work out the answer to that .....

 

Keep making things up.

 

 

 

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

 

I'll let those who can read decide, this has become really boring, even by your standards.

[NE5]

 

 

I have read Beardsleys book. You say that he was "well known", I say on the basis that he was sold by manu for less than they bought him, and a small fee at that with very little interest from other clubs, and that he went to Canada, that he wasn't well known.

 

As you seem to be glossing over the fact that when he did sign, he made his name, then pissed off, why do you think he did that, and then come back to Newcastle again ? Why do you think he did that ?

 

Fairly straightforward and obvious point, but carry on misleading people with untrue rubbish as usual.

 

There is an interesting post by kiwi, I suggest you read it. It may bring you up to date and refresh your memory, seeing as you don't believer others that supported the club pre-1992.

 

 

 

If you've read the book then from what you've said on here I get the impression that you only looked at the pictures, you clearly have as many problems reading books as you do reading posts on here.

 

You go on about Man U losing money on Beardsley, they didn't lose a penny as far as I'm aware, and it wasn't mentioned in the book.  The money was a returnable deposit and I'm sure they got it all back.

 

You've quoted me ad saying that Beardsley was "well known," that's just you cherry picking again, I said he was well known enough for Man U to be interested in him, not the unknown that he was made out to be earlier in this thread.

 

If he was unknown then Man U would not have gone after him in the first place  , try thinking for a change.

 

I've read the "interesting post by kiwi" and I am truly indebted that he's pointed out that macbeth's a T*** (my words not his) for not highlighting that our catering is so good, bad macbeth.  The next time I sit in a freezing cold stand watching crap, I'll think back to the time I found out that our catering (something Freddy knows a lot about) was held with such high regard.  I think somebody should come up with a match day song so that we can tell everybody how well our catering side of the business is going.

 

 

so what you are saying is that manure buy nothing other than well known players  --- another gem.

 

And let them go for less than they paid, and you didn;t reply why he went to Canada, and why no one other than us were interested in buying him ..... if you know anything about the link, you will know that the only reason we had heard of him was because of a tip from Bob Moncur.

 

But keep making things up....fantastically funny ...   

 

Why did he piss off to Liverpool ? In fact why didn't he sign for them in the first place, if he was so well known and Liverpool being less than an hour from Manchester.........  :lol:

 

Where did I say Man U only buy well known players?  Another lie developed between the lugs of NE5. bluebiggrin.gif

 

I've highlighted it to make it easier to remember what you said yourself.

 

Man U didn't let Beardsley go for less than they paid for him, again the penny doesn't drop even when you claim to have read the book.

 

As for us getting a tip from Moncur, that's not entirely true.  We had planned to give him a trial the week after he originally went to Carlisle and John Gibson used to play with himself over Beardsley.  Newcastle knew about Beardsley before he played for Carlisle, not just during or after.

 

I didn't reply about why he went to Canada because you didn't ask a question, you may have thought about asking one but you didn't ask and I don't read minds which is a bonus when it's you.  You've got the memory of a goldfish; I suggest that you read your posts again in future before demanding answers to questions that you haven't even asked, I'll not bother asking for a link to the question as you don't do links.

 

but if he was so well known, why didn't he go to a top club, like Liverpool at the time ? Why not try answering or engaging your brain ? I'm sure everyone else on here can work out the answer to that .....

 

Keep making things up.

 

 

 

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

 

I'll let those who can read decide, this has become really boring, even by your standards.

 

the answer is obvious. I didn't expect you to answer though.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

 

 

I have read Beardsleys book. You say that he was "well known", I say on the basis that he was sold by manu for less than they bought him, and a small fee at that with very little interest from other clubs, and that he went to Canada, that he wasn't well known.

 

As you seem to be glossing over the fact that when he did sign, he made his name, then pissed off, why do you think he did that, and then come back to Newcastle again ? Why do you think he did that ?

 

Fairly straightforward and obvious point, but carry on misleading people with untrue rubbish as usual.

 

There is an interesting post by kiwi, I suggest you read it. It may bring you up to date and refresh your memory, seeing as you don't believer others that supported the club pre-1992.

 

 

 

If you've read the book then from what you've said on here I get the impression that you only looked at the pictures, you clearly have as many problems reading books as you do reading posts on here.

 

You go on about Man U losing money on Beardsley, they didn't lose a penny as far as I'm aware, and it wasn't mentioned in the book.  The money was a returnable deposit and I'm sure they got it all back.

 

You've quoted me ad saying that Beardsley was "well known," that's just you cherry picking again, I said he was well known enough for Man U to be interested in him, not the unknown that he was made out to be earlier in this thread.

 

If he was unknown then Man U would not have gone after him in the first place  , try thinking for a change.

 

I've read the "interesting post by kiwi" and I am truly indebted that he's pointed out that macbeth's a T*** (my words not his) for not highlighting that our catering is so good, bad macbeth.  The next time I sit in a freezing cold stand watching crap, I'll think back to the time I found out that our catering (something Freddy knows a lot about) was held with such high regard.  I think somebody should come up with a match day song so that we can tell everybody how well our catering side of the business is going.

 

 

so what you are saying is that manure buy nothing other than well known players  --- another gem.

 

And let them go for less than they paid, and you didn;t reply why he went to Canada, and why no one other than us were interested in buying him ..... if you know anything about the link, you will know that the only reason we had heard of him was because of a tip from Bob Moncur.

 

But keep making things up....fantastically funny ... 

 

Why did he piss off to Liverpool ? In fact why didn't he sign for them in the first place, if he was so well known and Liverpool being less than an hour from Manchester.........  :lol:

 

Where did I say Man U only buy well known players?  Another lie developed between the lugs of NE5. bluebiggrin.gif

 

I've highlighted it to make it easier to remember what you said yourself.

 

Man U didn't let Beardsley go for less than they paid for him, again the penny doesn't drop even when you claim to have read the book.

 

As for us getting a tip from Moncur, that's not entirely true.  We had planned to give him a trial the week after he originally went to Carlisle and John Gibson used to play with himself over Beardsley.  Newcastle knew about Beardsley before he played for Carlisle, not just during or after.

 

I didn't reply about why he went to Canada because you didn't ask a question, you may have thought about asking one but you didn't ask and I don't read minds which is a bonus when it's you.  You've got the memory of a goldfish; I suggest that you read your posts again in future before demanding answers to questions that you haven't even asked, I'll not bother asking for a link to the question as you don't do links.

 

but if he was so well known, why didn't he go to a top club, like Liverpool at the time ? Why not try answering or engaging your brain ? I'm sure everyone else on here can work out the answer to that .....

 

Keep making things up.

 

 

 

He did go to Liverpool, when he realised Newcastle was a club going nowhere and he had become a known, top quality player on the way to England caps.

[Dinho lad]

 

 

I have read Beardsleys book. You say that he was "well known", I say on the basis that he was sold by manu for less than they bought him, and a small fee at that with very little interest from other clubs, and that he went to Canada, that he wasn't well known.

 

As you seem to be glossing over the fact that when he did sign, he made his name, then pissed off, why do you think he did that, and then come back to Newcastle again ? Why do you think he did that ?

 

Fairly straightforward and obvious point, but carry on misleading people with untrue rubbish as usual.

 

There is an interesting post by kiwi, I suggest you read it. It may bring you up to date and refresh your memory, seeing as you don't believer others that supported the club pre-1992.

 

 

 

If you've read the book then from what you've said on here I get the impression that you only looked at the pictures, you clearly have as many problems reading books as you do reading posts on here.

 

You go on about Man U losing money on Beardsley, they didn't lose a penny as far as I'm aware, and it wasn't mentioned in the book.  The money was a returnable deposit and I'm sure they got it all back.

 

You've quoted me ad saying that Beardsley was "well known," that's just you cherry picking again, I said he was well known enough for Man U to be interested in him, not the unknown that he was made out to be earlier in this thread.

 

If he was unknown then Man U would not have gone after him in the first place  , try thinking for a change.

 

I've read the "interesting post by kiwi" and I am truly indebted that he's pointed out that macbeth's a T*** (my words not his) for not highlighting that our catering is so good, bad macbeth.  The next time I sit in a freezing cold stand watching crap, I'll think back to the time I found out that our catering (something Freddy knows a lot about) was held with such high regard.  I think somebody should come up with a match day song so that we can tell everybody how well our catering side of the business is going.

 

 

so what you are saying is that manure buy nothing other than well known players  --- another gem.

 

And let them go for less than they paid, and you didn;t reply why he went to Canada, and why no one other than us were interested in buying him ..... if you know anything about the link, you will know that the only reason we had heard of him was because of a tip from Bob Moncur.

 

But keep making things up....fantastically funny ... 

 

Why did he piss off to Liverpool ? In fact why didn't he sign for them in the first place, if he was so well known and Liverpool being less than an hour from Manchester.........  :lol:

 

Where did I say Man U only buy well known players?  Another lie developed between the lugs of NE5. bluebiggrin.gif

 

I've highlighted it to make it easier to remember what you said yourself.

 

Man U didn't let Beardsley go for less than they paid for him, again the penny doesn't drop even when you claim to have read the book.

 

As for us getting a tip from Moncur, that's not entirely true.  We had planned to give him a trial the week after he originally went to Carlisle and John Gibson used to play with himself over Beardsley.  Newcastle knew about Beardsley before he played for Carlisle, not just during or after.

 

I didn't reply about why he went to Canada because you didn't ask a question, you may have thought about asking one but you didn't ask and I don't read minds which is a bonus when it's you.  You've got the memory of a goldfish; I suggest that you read your posts again in future before demanding answers to questions that you haven't even asked, I'll not bother asking for a link to the question as you don't do links.

 

but if he was so well known, why didn't he go to a top club, like Liverpool at the time ? Why not try answering or engaging your brain ? I'm sure everyone else on here can work out the answer to that .....

 

Keep making things up.

 

 

 

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

 

I'll let those who can read decide, this has become really boring, even by your standards.

 

Aren’t you fed-up of having "debates" with this moron, yet?

 

Mate, do I what I did, ignore the fucker because he is a serious waste of time.

 

que NE5's "I have been to over 900 games" blah blah blah's.... :roll:

[peasepud]

1. The profits could be higher simply by allowing less to be spent on transfers. In the context of the football club, is it right to punish the sharehodlers (reduce dividends) because more money is being put back into the business to try to make it successful? If this were done would the shareholders not have a right to demand that the transfer money/wages were reduced, ie lower the club's ambitions?

 

Yes, do you think that Tesco shareholders would get the same dividend if the company spent all of its profits on building new stores? Nope, they would get nothing however they would be happy enough with this view as the following year profits would be expected to be even higher and therefore they'd make more money (and the value of their shares would increase).

 

Are you seriously saying that as a shareholder of a football club I should expect to receive a nice fat dividend regardless of how much (if anything) the club has made? If it spent the cash on lots of shiny new players then I would be expecting to see at best a reduced dividend with however, the expectation that these new players would bring us success and with it increased profits the following season.

[macbeth]

1. The profits could be higher simply by allowing less to be spent on transfers. In the context of the football club, is it right to punish the sharehodlers (reduce dividends) because more money is being put back into the business to try to make it successful? If this were done would the shareholders not have a right to demand that the transfer money/wages were reduced, ie lower the club's ambitions?

 

Yes, do you think that Tesco shareholders would get the same dividend if the company spent all of its profits on building new stores? Nope, they would get nothing however they would be happy enough with this view as the following year profits would be expected to be even higher and therefore they'd make more money (and the value of their shares would increase).

 

Are you seriously saying that as a shareholder of a football club I should expect to receive a nice fat dividend regardless of how much (if anything) the club has made? If it spent the cash on lots of shiny new players then I would be expecting to see at best a reduced dividend with however, the expectation that these new players would bring us success and with it increased profits the following season.

 

in 2004 and 2005 the profits were bigger (or the losses lower  :roll:) due to the amount being spent of transfers being negligible. The consequence of this was the need to invest heavily in 2006 and 2007 financial years. There seemed to be an expectation that dividneds HAD to be maintained, but all other expenditure could be reduced. As the club has now run out of cash, even the dividends have had to be curtailed.

[Howaythelads]

Mick thinks the current Board is no better than Boards of the past. Well here are the facts just in case anybody is interested.

 

We had a team in the early 1950's that won the FA Cup 3 times in 5 years, so something for the Board of the day to build on you'd think.

Season Div  Position

50-51 1 4

51-52 1 8

52-53 1 16

53-54 1 15

54-55 1 8

---

Well what happened after those cup winning years was 6 seasons of league mediocrity ...

Season Div  Position

55-56 1 11

56-57 1 17

57-58 1 19

58-59 1 11

59-60 1 8

60-61 1 21

... leading to eventual relegation to the 2nd division in 1961.

---

Then followed 4 seasons in division 2...

Season Div  Position

61-62 2 11

62-63 2 7

63-64 2 8

64-65 2 1

...before promotion in 1965. Great stuff, something to build on...

---

... and didn't we take division 1 by storm ...

Season Div  Position

65-66 1 15

66-67 1 20

67-68 1 10

68-69 1 9

69-70 1 7

70-71 1 12

71-72 1 11

72-73 1 8

73-74 1 15

74-75 1 15

75-76 1 15

76-77 1 5

77-78 1 21

... taking a mere 12 seasons to reach the position of 5th, our highest position since that 4th placed finish in 1950/51.

We won the Fairs Cup (now Uefa Cup) in 68/69. The confidence from winning something was obvious to see and the

next season we finished 7th, our highest position in the top flight since 1951. The Board had a chance to build on something

but  they let it slip. We then got to Wembley twice, 1974 and 1976, losing both times but again the Board had something

to build on and yet again they missed the chance. Eventually they changed the manager for a relative unknown from Blackburn,

this being a man who had a reputation for not liking superstars so perhaps he could build a team on the cheap. Well Lee

dispelled that myth when he left and signed big name players for Everton. In reality, the Board got lucky with the appointment

of Lee but they were too stupid to realise it, or perhaps he made transfer demands they wouldn't meet, which is more likely

given the players he signed at Everton. The Board allowed Lee to leave and we were relegated the season after finishing 5th,

with talk of the players going on strike such was the state of the Board ...

---

We then saw a period of mediocrity in division 2 ...

Season Div  Position

78-79 2 8

79-80 2 9

80-81 2 11

81-82 2 9

82-83 2 5

83-84 2 3

... before being promoted with a 3rd place finish.

---

So, promoted back to the top flight and something to build on yet again. We had some decent players such as Beardsley and Waddle,

players destined for great things at international level, but sadly for us that happened for them at other clubs that were more ambitious

than Newcastle...

Season Div  Position

84-85 1 14

85-86 1 11

86-87 1 17

87-88 1 8

88-89 1 20

We saw 5 seasons of mediocrity in the top flight, leading to relegation once again after a decent enough season where it

looked like we had something to build on. Significantly this was a period that saw Gazza arrive and then leave for the dizzy heights of Spurs,

Gazza in fact being sold when we had that 8th placed finish, which was another chance for the Board to build on something but once again

they failed to take it. We were relegated again in 88/89.

---

Now we enter the era of nearly going bust...

Season Div  Position

89-90 2 3

90-91 2 11

91-92 2 20

... but just avoided relegation to division 3 on the last day of the season with that 20th placed finish and with a new manager installed.

Nobody complains about the timing of sacking Ardiles.

---

So KK and the core of the current Board had arrived, the top man at that time being SJH, who is undoubtedly a better

Chairman than Fred, but whose ambition for success has been continued, blighted by poor performance by managers

with top track records, and then by the terrible appointment of Souness, who was backed to the tune of £50m and turned a

5th placed team into a 14th placed team.

Season Div  Position

92-93 1 1

93-94 P 3

94-95 P 6

95-96 P 2

96-97 P 2

97-98 P 13

98-99 P 13

99-00 P 11

00-01 P 11

01-02 P 4

02-03 P 3

03-04 P 5

04-05 P 14

05-06 P 7

 

---

 

Macbeth will probably like most of this, because there was no speculative spending going on in an effort to improve things on the pitch. No effort to challenge the teams at the top. Probably a great balance sheet though, selling our best players time after time and stashing the cash. 'Our' cash.

[Mick]

Mick thinks the current Board is no better than Boards of the past. Well here are the facts just in case anybody is interested.

 

Removed spin

 

... but just avoided relegation to division 3 on the last day of the season with that 20th placed finish and with a new manager installed.

Nobody complains about the timing of sacking Ardiles.

---

So KK and the core of the current Board had arrived, the top man at that time being SJH, who is undoubtedly a better

Chairman than Fred, but whose ambition for success has been continued, blighted by poor performance by managers

with top track records, and then by the terrible appointment of Souness, who was backed to the tune of £50m and turned a

5th placed team into a 14th placed team.

Season Div  Position

92-93 1 1 Sir John

93-94 P 3 Sir John

94-95 P 6 Sir John

95-96 P 2 Sir John

96-97 P 2  Shepherd became chairman part way through this season

97-98 P 13 Shepherd

98-99 P 13 Shepherd

99-00 P 11 Shepherd

00-01 P 11 Shepherd

01-02 P 4 Shepherd

02-03 P 3 Shepherd

03-04 P 5 Shepherd

04-05 P 14 Shepherd

05-06 P 7 Shepherd

06-07       P             18 Shepherd (current standing)

 

 

 

I've said Shepherd is no better than the chairman of the past, fact.

 

 

If you want to make a case for Shepherd then go through and add who was the chairman at the time to we can compare like for like, we can then look to see who has taken us further backwards while in office.

 

The others will not have the financial clout that Freddy was handed on a plate but we'll put that to one side as nobody can say how much they actually did have for sure.

 

We do know that the game has never had as much money so it can be taken for granted that Freddy isn't at a disadvantage on that score.

[macbeth]

97-98 P 13

98-99 P 13

99-00 P 11

00-01 P 11

01-02 P 4

02-03 P 3

03-04 P 5

04-05 P 14

05-06 P 7

 

 

Shepherd became chairman durign 97-98 season. Four lower half finishes, four upper. This season will have him either averaging either top or bottom.

 

Excellent set of stats though, does that make you as boring as me  :winking:    You'll have to get used to the fact that some people will just not believing them though, and adding your own personal comment is very dangerous  :roll:

[macbeth]

or 96-97  :confused: