Thomson Mouse Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 There wouldn't have been a club existing now if Shepherd had been given another year or two. Old ground and still rubbish. No, entirely true. What's the point in trying to compare then and now. Both are arseholes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 There wouldn't have been a club existing now if Shepherd had been given another year or two. Old ground and still rubbish. No, entirely true. What's the point in trying to compare then and now. Both are arseholes. Give over man, pure and utter conjecture at best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thenorthumbrian Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Ashley shrinks Newcastle United http://www.themag.co.uk/the-mag-articles/clubs-continue-growth-mike-ashley-shrinks-newcastle/ http://www.themag.co.uk/assets/2011/11/direct-p-r-toss-feature.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 There wouldn't have been a club existing now if Shepherd had been given another year or two. Old ground and still rubbish. No, entirely true. What's the point in trying to compare then and now. Both are arseholes. Give over man, pure and utter conjecture at best. Nope, you only needed to look at the accounts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 There wouldn't have been a club existing now if Shepherd had been given another year or two. Those Arabs were considering us. If we had waited a year, it could well have been us and not Man City who struck the jackport. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 nah mate. nah. ashley is a 10 on the shiteometer and FFS was a 7.5, don't know how you're rating him a 7.6 and here's 20 pages of historical opinion why because it really really matters to me that you don't consider him as bad as you do Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 The thing with Shepherd is that the accounts did look bad but it is all hypothetical now. Who knows what would have happened if Ashley hadn't bought us - maybe a better owner, maybe Shepherd would have found additional investment.... We will never know. Ashley has just found different ways to damage NUFC but we have a much greater debt now which he seems to have no intention of reducing with the free advertising is in lieu of interest charges. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 We spent £16m on two players after finishing 11th with no obvious cash injection. Shephard was an ambitious Chairmen. When we got into the CL/battling it out in Europe. That's where he wanted the club to be and he tried to do what was necessary to get us there in the first place. Souness was the worst move ever. But he genuinely tried to make it work by getting Souness big name signings to try and get us back in that top echelon. He tried. He wanted us to succeed. We had a cash injection, we sold players. Also, I wouldn't call appointing Souness, Roeder or Fat Sam ambitious. Signing players is great if you have somebody who can get the best out of them which wasn't and still isn't always the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 nah mate. nah. ashley is a 10 on the shiteometer and FFS was a 7.5, don't know how you're rating him a 7.6 and here's 20 pages of historical opinion why because it really really matters to me that you don't consider him as bad as you do Yep Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 40% of the debt Ashley owns now was accrued during his time at the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 40% of the debt Ashley owns now was accrued during his time at the club. Ashley the financial saviour Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 nah mate. nah. ashley is a 10 on the shiteometer and FFS was a 7.5, don't know how you're rating him a 7.6 and here's 20 pages of historical opinion why because it really really matters to me that you don't consider him as bad as you do they're both 10 on the shiteometer for me just for different reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanj Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Just compare the stands to then and now, it should really stay it all. Ashley's sucked the life out of the club and his balance sheet wanking ways are absolutely ridiculous. Aren't the only people telling us that "we'd have gone under with Shepherd in charge" Mike Ashley's mouth pieces? The same people who've lied and stretched truths to us for countless years? Yes, I'm aware Shep's accounts were bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Funny looking back at some of the poster on here telling people not to get worked up about Sports Direct being the name of the stadium or Sports Direct and its asscociate brands being plastered all over the stadium....as this is the future and it will bring in revenue. :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 nah mate. nah. ashley is a 10 on the shiteometer and FFS was a 7.5, don't know how you're rating him a 7.6 and here's 20 pages of historical opinion why because it really really matters to me that you don't consider him as bad as you do they're both 10 on the shiteometer for me just for different reasons. Yep, spot on. I just don't like seeing the Shepherd love-in that has been happening over the last few pages. The blokes a moron. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Funny looking back at some of the poster on here telling people not to get worked up about Sports Direct being the name of the stadium or Sports Direct and its asscociate brands being plastered all over the stadium....as this is the future and it will bring in revenue. :lol: This is the one thing I've always hated... the tacky shit is much worse to me than the actual financial stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 You see I'm now going to say that ti despise those signs an Ashley, but to say they're worse than neatly going bankrupt?? C'mon. Now some people with tiny minds will read that as me sticking up for Ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Some absolute drivel been posted in the last 4 or 5 five pages like. One of the men responsible for taking the club from being penniless & on the brink of the 3rd division to being a regular competitor in Europe & one of the richest clubs in the world was disastrous for the club apparently. Don't tell me that "it was all because of Hall" either. Maybe he was a better chairman then Shepherd - I don't know the ins & outs of who did what exactly to compare the two - but he certainly had an easier job to do while the club was riding on the coattails of Keegan's success than Shepherd had to do trying to maintain the momentum of the club without the footballing results to back it up. Even after 7 years of Ashley some people must still think that stadiums expand themselves for free, and advertisers, sponsors & supporters from around the world come begging to throw their money at the club just because its Newcastle United. The owner & chairman just sit back and watch all the cash flow in, only lifting a finger to make bad decisions & throw an occasional spanner in the works for the hell of it. No-one has ever said Shepherd always made good decisions, but in the main they were always made with the intention of being for the good of the club (and thereby good for himself & the Halls of course). Even possibly his worst decision - bringing in Souness - was done in the context of most supporters seeing some of the players taking the piss out of Robson & the club, and wanting a more disciplinarian line to be taken. The pick of the bunch for me though is the idea that appointing a manager who had won the league 4 times in the previous 10 years with 2 different clubs, one of which had been in the Championship when he took over, was a "terrible managerial appointment". It didn't work out, shit happens, but I think you'd have had to search for quite a while to find a supporter who wasn't very happy with the appointment at the time. Hindsight's great though isn't it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Hindsight's great though isn't it. It's really not. Most of the time you just look back and think 'fuck, i wish i'd done / hadn't done that'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Robson, the team & Robert. That's it. Shepherd gets no credit for all that from me. Robson was not only an obvious choice, it was the only choice. It wasn't even a choice. Robson brought experience, respect from the world of football, ideas, tactical knowledge, player knowledge etc etc etc to the role and Shepeherd sat there watching, taking his millions and lapping it up. He hardly had to work. As I said, Robson carried us. Shepherd spent some money we made based on our GREAT manager's recommendations. That's all he did. That's the very least a chairman should be doing. Is he as bad as Ashley? No. Was he any good? No! Apart from the times when he didn't. Like going out and buying Carr because he didn't fancy Robsons choice, Miguel. Or this gem - "I wanted to sign Carrick for Newcastle in the summer of 2004 for £3million but my chairman preferred the cheaper option, Nicky Butt". Ah, the legendary, 'we didn't get Miguel but there's always another Carr in the lot' quote. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Some absolute drivel been posted in the last 4 or 5 five pages like. One of the men responsible for taking the club from being penniless & on the brink of the 3rd division to being a regular competitor in Europe & one of the richest clubs in the world was disastrous for the club apparently. Don't tell me that "it was all because of Hall" either. Maybe he was a better chairman then Shepherd - I don't know the ins & outs of who did what exactly to compare the two - but he certainly had an easier job to do while the club was riding on the coattails of Keegan's success than Shepherd had to do trying to maintain the momentum of the club without the footballing results to back it up. Even after 7 years of Ashley some people must still think that stadiums expand themselves for free, and advertisers, sponsors & supporters from around the world come begging to throw their money at the club just because its Newcastle United. The owner & chairman just sit back and watch all the cash flow in, only lifting a finger to make bad decisions & throw an occasional spanner in the works for the hell of it. No-one has ever said Shepherd always made good decisions, but in the main they were always made with the intention of being for the good of the club (and thereby good for himself & the Halls of course). Even possibly his worst decision - bringing in Souness - was done in the context of most supporters seeing some of the players taking the p*ss out of Robson & the club, and wanting a more disciplinarian line to be taken. The pick of the bunch for me though is the idea that appointing a manager who had won the league 4 times in the previous 10 years with 2 different clubs, one of which had been in the Championship when he took over, was a "terrible managerial appointment". It didn't work out, s*** happens, but I think you'd have had to search for quite a while to find a supporter who wasn't very happy with the appointment at the time. Hindsight's great though isn't it. as per Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 You see I'm now going to say that ti despise those signs an Ashley, but to say they're worse than neatly going bankrupt?? C'mon. Now some people with tiny minds will read that as me sticking up for Ashley. Worse than going bankrupt? You just can't help yourself can you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Some absolute drivel been posted in the last 4 or 5 five pages like. One of the men responsible for taking the club from being penniless & on the brink of the 3rd division to being a regular competitor in Europe & one of the richest clubs in the world was disastrous for the club apparently. Don't tell me that "it was all because of Hall" either. Maybe he was a better chairman then Shepherd - I don't know the ins & outs of who did what exactly to compare the two - but he certainly had an easier job to do while the club was riding on the coattails of Keegan's success than Shepherd had to do trying to maintain the momentum of the club without the footballing results to back it up. Even after 7 years of Ashley some people must still think that stadiums expand themselves for free, and advertisers, sponsors & supporters from around the world come begging to throw their money at the club just because its Newcastle United. The owner & chairman just sit back and watch all the cash flow in, only lifting a finger to make bad decisions & throw an occasional spanner in the works for the hell of it. No-one has ever said Shepherd always made good decisions, but in the main they were always made with the intention of being for the good of the club (and thereby good for himself & the Halls of course). Even possibly his worst decision - bringing in Souness - was done in the context of most supporters seeing some of the players taking the piss out of Robson & the club, and wanting a more disciplinarian line to be taken. The pick of the bunch for me though is the idea that appointing a manager who had won the league 4 times in the previous 10 years with 2 different clubs, one of which had been in the Championship when he took over, was a "terrible managerial appointment". It didn't work out, shit happens, but I think you'd have had to search for quite a while to find a supporter who wasn't very happy with the appointment at the time. Hindsight's great though isn't it. Hindsight's great for supporters, but if you own a football club then you don't want to be relying on hindsight to learn about your mistakes. Hall wanted Robson and Shepherd and Hall Jr. wanted Dalglish. John Hall was also talking up Martinez when he was relatively unknown at Swansea in League One. Shepherd went for Allardyce instead. Shepherd then also went on to hire Graeme Boumsong Souness and Michael £17m Owen during that era. Fuck knows what was going on there but it's difficult to avoid the suspicion that money was getting trousered by someone away from the camera. Other than that though, I will agree that Shepherd was at least answerable to the Newcastle fans and if someone was skimming off the top at least we still were allowed to dream. But like you say, hindsight's a wonderful thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Some absolute drivel been posted in the last 4 or 5 five pages like. One of the men responsible for taking the club from being penniless & on the brink of the 3rd division to being a regular competitor in Europe & one of the richest clubs in the world was disastrous for the club apparently. Don't tell me that "it was all because of Hall" either. Maybe he was a better chairman then Shepherd - I don't know the ins & outs of who did what exactly to compare the two - but he certainly had an easier job to do while the club was riding on the coattails of Keegan's success than Shepherd had to do trying to maintain the momentum of the club without the footballing results to back it up. Even after 7 years of Ashley some people must still think that stadiums expand themselves for free, and advertisers, sponsors & supporters from around the world come begging to throw their money at the club just because its Newcastle United. The owner & chairman just sit back and watch all the cash flow in, only lifting a finger to make bad decisions & throw an occasional spanner in the works for the hell of it. No-one has ever said Shepherd always made good decisions, but in the main they were always made with the intention of being for the good of the club (and thereby good for himself & the Halls of course). Even possibly his worst decision - bringing in Souness - was done in the context of most supporters seeing some of the players taking the piss out of Robson & the club, and wanting a more disciplinarian line to be taken. The pick of the bunch for me though is the idea that appointing a manager who had won the league 4 times in the previous 10 years with 2 different clubs, one of which had been in the Championship when he took over, was a "terrible managerial appointment". It didn't work out, shit happens, but I think you'd have had to search for quite a while to find a supporter who wasn't very happy with the appointment at the time. Hindsight's great though isn't it. Hindsight's great for supporters, but if you own a football club then you don't want to be relying on hindsight to learn about your mistakes. Hall wanted Robson and Shepherd and Hall Jr. wanted Dalglish. John Hall was also talking up Martinez when he was relatively unknown at Swansea in League One. Shepherd went for Allardyce instead. Shepherd then also went on to hire Graeme Boumsong Souness and Michael £17m Owen during that era. Fuck knows what was going on there but it's difficult to avoid the suspicion that money was getting trousered by someone away from the camera. Other than that though, I will agree that Shepherd was at least answerable to the Newcastle fans and if someone was skimming off the top at least we still were allowed to dream. But like you say, hindsight's a wonderful thing. Erm, how on Earth do you know all of that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Some absolute drivel been posted in the last 4 or 5 five pages like. One of the men responsible for taking the club from being penniless & on the brink of the 3rd division to being a regular competitor in Europe & one of the richest clubs in the world was disastrous for the club apparently. Don't tell me that "it was all because of Hall" either. Maybe he was a better chairman then Shepherd - I don't know the ins & outs of who did what exactly to compare the two - but he certainly had an easier job to do while the club was riding on the coattails of Keegan's success than Shepherd had to do trying to maintain the momentum of the club without the footballing results to back it up. Even after 7 years of Ashley some people must still think that stadiums expand themselves for free, and advertisers, sponsors & supporters from around the world come begging to throw their money at the club just because its Newcastle United. The owner & chairman just sit back and watch all the cash flow in, only lifting a finger to make bad decisions & throw an occasional spanner in the works for the hell of it. No-one has ever said Shepherd always made good decisions, but in the main they were always made with the intention of being for the good of the club (and thereby good for himself & the Halls of course). Even possibly his worst decision - bringing in Souness - was done in the context of most supporters seeing some of the players taking the piss out of Robson & the club, and wanting a more disciplinarian line to be taken. The pick of the bunch for me though is the idea that appointing a manager who had won the league 4 times in the previous 10 years with 2 different clubs, one of which had been in the Championship when he took over, was a "terrible managerial appointment". It didn't work out, shit happens, but I think you'd have had to search for quite a while to find a supporter who wasn't very happy with the appointment at the time. Hindsight's great though isn't it. Hindsight's great for supporters, but if you own a football club then you don't want to be relying on hindsight to learn about your mistakes. Hall wanted Robson and Shepherd and Hall Jr. wanted Dalglish. John Hall was also talking up Martinez when he was relatively unknown at Swansea in League One. Shepherd went for Allardyce instead. Shepherd then also went on to hire Graeme Boumsong Souness and Michael £17m Owen during that era. Fuck knows what was going on there but it's difficult to avoid the suspicion that money was getting trousered by someone away from the camera. Other than that though, I will agree that Shepherd was at least answerable to the Newcastle fans and if someone was skimming off the top at least we still were allowed to dream. But like you say, hindsight's a wonderful thing. You say hindsight is a wonderful thing to use for supporters, yet you're just as guilty using it in your own post when using it to prove your own point. I dare say most people thought getting Michael Owen in his supposed prime, snatching him in front of Liverpool, was a great buy. It's only in hindsight you can say Owen was a piece of shit and we wasted so much fucking money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts