NE5 Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 how did you know he would be injured ? Why didn't you tell the club ? How did you know Souness would be shite? Why didn't you tell the club? You're clueless when it comes to sticking up for your mentor, totally clueless. bluebiggrin.gif almost 900 games watching Newcastle United, against your pathetic jumping on the bandwagon in 1992 cameo appearances ........ Do you like being macbeths monkey ???? :lol: I would be worried when the mackem Mandiarse agreed with me You didn't really go when we were shit did you, Mick, you are now pissed off because the trophies you came back for - under this board - haven't materialised, so you think you've wasted your money, don't you ? You're a liar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Dont know if this has been debated before but is there anyone else who thinks that NE5 is payed by the club to defend it on forums? I can assure you I am paid by nobody for posting realistic and factual information. Unlike cretins and liars who are so stupid they think that the current board have done a shit job, having qualified for europe on a regular basis for over a decade, and bought major, and current, England players along the way. It would appear that you, are a skyboy ? Correct me if this is not the case, but any long term supporter will confirm the current board have improved the club massively during their time in charge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 I'm not so sure it was a case of all the eggs in one basket when we bought him, how can it be when we were in europe and expecting to stay near and with the other top teams ? In THAT position, players like Owen are what you want. Except we hadn't qualified for Europe, we were near the bottom of the table and hadn't even scored a goal in the league. A replacement for Bellamy should have been bought as soon as the transfer window opened, not fanny about and end up paying over the odds for two strikers just before the window closed. We were desperate in the end due to poor planning and both Madrid and Deportivo took advantage of that. do you understand the concept of waiting for the player you want ? Or would you then criticise the club for diving in if they did buy the first available player that came along You should save such gormless comments for toontastic. Incidentally, who do you blame for that ? Souness, or the board for backing their managers judgement, or the board again for overruling him, assuming you think this is what happened. Think about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 laugh.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 laugh.gif your usual intelligent, informed input Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 No need to go on the defensive just because you got all muddled up over what season we signed Owen. And you called Bobby senile Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 No need to go on the defensive just because you got all muddled up over what season we signed Owen. And you called Bobby senile On the contrary, you are wrong. We were only in the first month of the season. As much of a panic as sacking Gullit and replacing him with Robson ........ I don't expect you will understand that. Did you criticise the purchase of Owen at the time ? Perhaps you would prefer someone like Heskey, Jon Stead, or Viduka, as they aren't "trophy players" etc etc... Odd that you criticise this board yet you can't keep away from it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 No need to go on the defensive just because you got all muddled up over what season we signed Owen. And you called Bobby senile On the contrary, you are wrong. We were only in the first month of the season. As much of a panic as sacking Gullit and replacing him with Robson ........ I don't expect you will understand that. You're right, I don't understand it, in fact I haven't got a fucking clue what you're on about! Explain to me how I'm wrong about saying we wasn't in Europe when we signed Owen and what it has to do with only being the first month of the season :? Also, where have I criticised this board? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 The only way you go higher is to have players that the teams above you want, not players who are no better than the ones they have themselves. So why have we signed Duff, Babayaro, Parker and Butt. Clearly, the teams above us DIDN'T want them. Surely by your logic, those signings are going to contribute nothing if we have aspirations to go higher? because, unfortunately, we can't compete with Chelsea or ManU. Get it ? By YOUR logic, we should therefore not have bought these players, and gone after "trophy" ones...which I agree with if it were possible to get them. But by your logic, we'll never compete with them by signings their rejects? Why can't we compete with them? We spend as much as a couple of them... I don't understand how we should accept that we're not going to compete with them, and not try and compete with them by signing their rejects, yet still spend the similar amounts of cash? How many other clubs can you name that have spent similar amounts of cash to the top clubs yet can't compete with them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 NE5: Of course I didn't know he would be injured at the time (I never claimed to and made allowances for that in my original post here), but there were fairly good odds on it happening and so it has proved... I didn't realise it was August 2005 again though, we're here with the benefit of hindsight and you've called Owen a "quality" signing despite the fact he's only played 11 games for us so far. Not the most clever thing I've ever read. As for the "daft cliches", didn't see any myself. And as for buying "mediocre" players (is Anelka mediocre?) or "top quality players" (which is fine, apparently, even if they never play) I think you're clutching at straws. You've found another blanket statement to hide behind and I suppose you'll trot it out a hundred times again before people get bored of trying to debate with you. Basically, whatever someone says about our signings we're going to hear the same "mediocre" line from you. Just like we do with Shepherd. To answer your question, though, so you can't hide behind that old line as well ("when you respond to _____") I'd prefer the top quality players if we can afford them and if they want to come here and if they're what we need squad-wise or team-wise at the point in which they arrive. It's not a black and white question you're asking because there are so many factors to consider when we buy someone. As Freddy himself might say, it's pointless buying 11 Rolls Royce cars if they're going to spend most of their time in the garage, occasionally working brilliantly for a day or two - maybe then it makes more sense to buy 11 VW's that work adequately most of the time and do a better job over a longer period. Apologies for the analogy, but you can surely see the sense in it? Andy I know you aren't a dimwit like Mick, Boo boo and the rest of the wankers. Owen is quality player. To have a chance of winning anything a club needs to sign quality player AND have a qualilty manager. Chelsea flattered to deceive for years until Abramovich finally pumped in the millions. They also needed the right manager. Macbeth will talk about finances above all else, he'll use a debt to further his agenda and he'll want to highlight that as much as he can, so if the club is in debt for £17m and we signed Owen for £17m he'll use that because it looks good. The fact is, Owen is quality. We needed a replacement for Shearer and we signed a player who can fill his boots. That's a great signing imo. The £17m that WAS wasted was without any shadow of doubt on Boumsong and Luque, what was also wasted was the money on Parker and Emre, players we didn't need. What would have been the reaction had it been mooted we were after these players but the Board blocked it on the basis they considered ( as I do ) that we didn't need them? Wouldn't have been good, would it? Selecting players to be signed is the remit of the manager and the manager alone. Souness selected these players for the club and the Board backed him, which is all fans can ask from a Board. Had those players and other Souness signings done the business not many would be slagging the club off. Think about it and don't blindly follow the idiots is all I ask. The bottom line is that problem is and was the waste of millions by Souness, an appointment made by the Board and an appointment that is a massive error. That is all there is to it. It's not about consistent mismanagement by the Board and/or about the Board being shite. It's about one crap appointment. I'm certainly not following anyone, and I hope it doesn't come across that way, I'm just trying to find some middle ground between the two camps that seem to develop over every important issue on here. In all honesty a lot of the time I find myself finding things on both sides of the divide that I can agree with and honestly that's the only way I'm ever going to get a true picture of things. I can't accept that you and NE5 are right 100% of the time in everything you say, much like I can't for Mick or Macbeth. For example, you've just claimed that the board's only real error came with the appointment of Souness and the subsequent millions thrown his way (a pretty monumental F***-up, by all accounts), but I have to point to previous errors of the regime that have boiled my piss in equal measure. (Robson's sacking, the Gary Speed issue, the "Bowyer Summer" and the NOTW scandal - to name some.) Everyone makes mistakes, mind. However, by the same token I appreciate the finer points of what Shepherd has done for us as well... like you said, Robson proved to be a quality appointment and took us on one fantastic Champions' League campaign and one great UEFA Cup run, all under the stewardship of Shepherd and we've retained our Premiership status under his rule while spending large sums of money on players and improving the ground/training facilities immeasurably and we've had some fantastic games that I'll never forget. Freddy as a chairmen surely isn't as bad as he's made out to be. NUFC as a club has the makings of something pretty special and admittedly a lot of that is down to Fat Freddy, I do get extremely annoyed with him sometimes, but I also get that way with the players and the manager - it's part and parcel of his job, he takes the flak and I get over it when the good times come along again. Right now I'm in two minds over the takeover business because a part of me can't help but feel that we're not achieving our potential and we've done everything else BUT change the board, if you know what I mean? I would support a complete board/staff overhaul if I knew things would be run the way I think they should be... but, of course, I could never know that. There are so many things that go on at the club that embarrass me and I can't help but point the finger to the big chief because of them, because the buck ultimately stops with him. Maybe it's better the devil you know, though. Belgravia could come in and absolutely rape us, ripping the soul of the club out in the process. At least Shepherd is a Geordie and he probably does give a toss about how we do, he has some personal investment in us because he's from here. He has already taken us to some heights... so who's to say that he can't take us the whole way to a trophy if given some more time? But I can't help but feel that takeovers are the current "trend" and due to what has happened at Chelsea, Spurs, Portsmouth, Villa, Man Utd and West Ham (all have seemingly improved since being bought, to varying degrees) then we think that if it happens to us we'll go the same way. That's why so many people are eager for him to go because of the difference takeovers have made elsewhere. Basically, I don't blame Freddy for everything, but I do tend to think that NUFC, for our size/potential, leave a lot to be desired and that he is at the root of a fair few of our problems, but again he's also there to take credit for the good things as well. Urgh, I suppose I'm trying to say I'm not entirely sure either way! Andy That's a superb post, mate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Moe-Ali Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Gay.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 No need to go on the defensive just because you got all muddled up over what season we signed Owen. And you called Bobby senile On the contrary, you are wrong. We were only in the first month of the season. As much of a panic as sacking Gullit and replacing him with Robson ........ I don't expect you will understand that. Did you criticise the purchase of Owen at the time ? Perhaps you would prefer someone like Heskey, Jon Stead, or Viduka, as they aren't "trophy players" etc etc... Odd that you criticise this board yet you can't keep away from it For the last time, Gullit resigned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elbee909 Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 For the last time, Gullit resigned. FACT bluebiggrin.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 You can't argue with FACTS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2sheds Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Newcastle chairman Freddy Shepherd insists he has no influence over who the club sign. This is the same fat turd who bragged live on Sky that he had bid £20 million in cash for Rooney while Bobby was completely in the dark? What a lying sack of shit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Playing devil's advocate for a moment, and not wanting to waste your time, but can't inconsistency be compared to someone who has a questionable injury record? Who is to say that Anelka wouldn't have came here, played every game and banged in 30 goals last term? I know it's a bit outlandish, but you surely can't criticise me for highlighting/complaining about Owen's injuries when you're using a similar basis of evidence to analyse Anelka's previous form. I understand that these things in football are absolutely impossible to predict at the best of times, even for you and me, but surely there was some inkling we all had about what might happen to Owen after we spent that amount on him? (His previous injury record was fairly appalling as well, was it not?) My point is simply that it's a sure-fire case of "eggs in one basket" at a time when we desperately needed other things on top of a striker. Michael Owen as a footballer and nothing else - just going purely on football ability - is a fantastic asset to any football club, you're perfectly correct here, and is well-worth £17m because he is quite possibly the best in his particular field, he is the complete poacher and has a proven record for goals (as you rightly state.) I'm glad we signed him and I'm glad we got 11 games out of him, but surely I'm allowed to question the quality of his signing because he's been crocked for so long and may not be the same player when he returns? I'm not saying we were 100% wrong to sign him, definitely not, just that it was one hell of a gamble to take with such a huge chunk of money when we could have maybe signed 2 high quality strikers for the same fee. (Granted, they could have both been crocked as well, but there would have obviously been less chance of that.) I do also agree that we paid for goals, and he's upheld his end of the bargain when he's been fit. The "trophy" part of my other post comes from the circumstances more than anything, although I think we may have our definitions of what it means confused. (Personally I'm coming from the angle that a major part of Owen being bought for the money was Shepherd trying to appease the ignorant masses with an England international, rather than improve the team with less "fashionable" signings - I also think he was guilty of this with Luque.) I think that £17m could have been better spent on the first team than to blow it on one player, as good as he is. Surely two/three good players are equal to one great player? (Especially when he's been injured so much.) You might disagree with me here, and fair enough if you do, but I really feel we as a club need to start signing more "unfashionable" players for good money (not bad players, mind), instead of going for the headliner every time (Shearer, Rooney, Owen - mind, I wouldn't have said "no" to Rooney either as I understand where you're coming from in relation to needing star players.) Obviously there needs to be a balance, though, and we probably couldn't get by with 11 unfashionable players. Honestly though, I think I used "trophy signing" in the wrong context, I just feel the cash might have been more sensibly spent. (As with the Luque/Boumsong money!) The Owen signing came at a time when Shepherd was faced with replacing Bellamy, moreso than Shearer, and I suppose this is where it gets bloody complicated. Personally, I'd still rather that Bellamy was here than Owen (as I'm sure I've seen you say as well) - but because of Souness AND Shepherd, Bellamy was forced out of the club and we needed to buy a replacement... and so we ended up with Owen for something like £12m more than we got for the Welshman, this is where my objection comes from more than anywhere. To summarise, because that looks like waffle to me: I agree that Owen is top-quality, but I don't feel he was an essential buy at a time when there was so much else wrong with the squad, his injury problems have only helped to accentuate these feelings mind - I doubt I'd be complaining much if he'd kept fit and scored at the ratio he did in those 11 games! Fair points and it isn't a waste of time at all, unlike responding to people with agendas etc It is true that Owen had had a fair few niggling injuries. Be honest though, and when we signed him, most of us were delighted, whether you considered him as a replacement for Bellamy [expensive] or Shearer [as near as dammit to anyone anywhere]. I don't think he had had any injuries like the ones he has had since he joined us, he has not been out for a season anyway. Shearer also had a career threatening injury at Blackburn, then he proceeded to have 2 more after he joined us ? Would you consider him to be a risk ? The only reservation we should have about Owen is his committment to Newcastle, not his ability that is without question. I suspect though that if he comes back the same as he was and we can put a good team around him he will come to be a real Newcastle player and respond to the adulation he would get if he performs. I'm not so sure it was a case of all the eggs in one basket when we bought him, how can it be when we were in europe and expecting to stay near and with the other top teams ? In THAT position, players like Owen are what you want. My own personal take on him is that he was signed as the long term replacement for Shearer, and the club need a Bellamy type lower profile player to play alongside him, obviously for less money as we can't afford 2 such priced forwards. I think Bellamy and Owen together would have been brilliant, on a par with Cole and Beardsley ie two fast players keeping the ball down as opposed to 2 more physical players ie Shearer and Ferdinand. Bellamy would have been the perfect partner for Owen. Anyway mate, he's been very badly injured and now we just have to hope he comes back the same and gives us something back. In the short term though, the club needs a player in January to step straight into the team, and that player needs to be a player who can lead the line and play outside the box, along with scoring a few goals, because looking ahead to when Owen returns, this is the type of player he needs to be paired up with. Not much to ask is it :winking: Can't disagree with much of that, and especially agree with the final paragraph. I feel dirty :wink: I can't find much fault with yours either, its such a refreshing change to have a proper open minded debate without agendas and cliches all over the place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Playing devil's advocate for a moment, and not wanting to waste your time, but can't inconsistency be compared to someone who has a questionable injury record? Who is to say that Anelka wouldn't have came here, played every game and banged in 30 goals last term? I know it's a bit outlandish, but you surely can't criticise me for highlighting/complaining about Owen's injuries when you're using a similar basis of evidence to analyse Anelka's previous form. I understand that these things in football are absolutely impossible to predict at the best of times, even for you and me, but surely there was some inkling we all had about what might happen to Owen after we spent that amount on him? (His previous injury record was fairly appalling as well, was it not?) My point is simply that it's a sure-fire case of "eggs in one basket" at a time when we desperately needed other things on top of a striker. Michael Owen as a footballer and nothing else - just going purely on football ability - is a fantastic asset to any football club, you're perfectly correct here, and is well-worth £17m because he is quite possibly the best in his particular field, he is the complete poacher and has a proven record for goals (as you rightly state.) I'm glad we signed him and I'm glad we got 11 games out of him, but surely I'm allowed to question the quality of his signing because he's been crocked for so long and may not be the same player when he returns? I'm not saying we were 100% wrong to sign him, definitely not, just that it was one hell of a gamble to take with such a huge chunk of money when we could have maybe signed 2 high quality strikers for the same fee. (Granted, they could have both been crocked as well, but there would have obviously been less chance of that.) I do also agree that we paid for goals, and he's upheld his end of the bargain when he's been fit. The "trophy" part of my other post comes from the circumstances more than anything, although I think we may have our definitions of what it means confused. (Personally I'm coming from the angle that a major part of Owen being bought for the money was Shepherd trying to appease the ignorant masses with an England international, rather than improve the team with less "fashionable" signings - I also think he was guilty of this with Luque.) I think that £17m could have been better spent on the first team than to blow it on one player, as good as he is. Surely two/three good players are equal to one great player? (Especially when he's been injured so much.) You might disagree with me here, and fair enough if you do, but I really feel we as a club need to start signing more "unfashionable" players for good money (not bad players, mind), instead of going for the headliner every time (Shearer, Rooney, Owen - mind, I wouldn't have said "no" to Rooney either as I understand where you're coming from in relation to needing star players.) Obviously there needs to be a balance, though, and we probably couldn't get by with 11 unfashionable players. Honestly though, I think I used "trophy signing" in the wrong context, I just feel the cash might have been more sensibly spent. (As with the Luque/Boumsong money!) The Owen signing came at a time when Shepherd was faced with replacing Bellamy, moreso than Shearer, and I suppose this is where it gets bloody complicated. Personally, I'd still rather that Bellamy was here than Owen (as I'm sure I've seen you say as well) - but because of Souness AND Shepherd, Bellamy was forced out of the club and we needed to buy a replacement... and so we ended up with Owen for something like £12m more than we got for the Welshman, this is where my objection comes from more than anywhere. To summarise, because that looks like waffle to me: I agree that Owen is top-quality, but I don't feel he was an essential buy at a time when there was so much else wrong with the squad, his injury problems have only helped to accentuate these feelings mind - I doubt I'd be complaining much if he'd kept fit and scored at the ratio he did in those 11 games! Fair points and it isn't a waste of time at all, unlike responding to people with agendas etc It is true that Owen had had a fair few niggling injuries. Be honest though, and when we signed him, most of us were delighted, whether you considered him as a replacement for Bellamy [expensive] or Shearer [as near as dammit to anyone anywhere]. I don't think he had had any injuries like the ones he has had since he joined us, he has not been out for a season anyway. Shearer also had a career threatening injury at Blackburn, then he proceeded to have 2 more after he joined us ? Would you consider him to be a risk ? The only reservation we should have about Owen is his committment to Newcastle, not his ability that is without question. I suspect though that if he comes back the same as he was and we can put a good team around him he will come to be a real Newcastle player and respond to the adulation he would get if he performs. I'm not so sure it was a case of all the eggs in one basket when we bought him, how can it be when we were in europe and expecting to stay near and with the other top teams ? In THAT position, players like Owen are what you want. My own personal take on him is that he was signed as the long term replacement for Shearer, and the club need a Bellamy type lower profile player to play alongside him, obviously for less money as we can't afford 2 such priced forwards. I think Bellamy and Owen together would have been brilliant, on a par with Cole and Beardsley ie two fast players keeping the ball down as opposed to 2 more physical players ie Shearer and Ferdinand. Bellamy would have been the perfect partner for Owen. Anyway mate, he's been very badly injured and now we just have to hope he comes back the same and gives us something back. In the short term though, the club needs a player in January to step straight into the team, and that player needs to be a player who can lead the line and play outside the box, along with scoring a few goals, because looking ahead to when Owen returns, this is the type of player he needs to be paired up with. Not much to ask is it :winking: Can't disagree with much of that, and especially agree with the final paragraph. I feel dirty :wink: I can't find much fault with yours either, its such a refreshing change to have a proper open minded debate without agendas and cliches all over the place. Andy Pipkin's been groomed bluebiggrin.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 The only way you go higher is to have players that the teams above you want, not players who are no better than the ones they have themselves. So why have we signed Duff, Babayaro, Parker and Butt. Clearly, the teams above us DIDN'T want them. Surely by your logic, those signings are going to contribute nothing if we have aspirations to go higher? because, unfortunately, we can't compete with Chelsea or ManU. Get it ? By YOUR logic, we should therefore not have bought these players, and gone after "trophy" ones...which I agree with if it were possible to get them. But by your logic, we'll never compete with them by signings their rejects? Why can't we compete with them? We spend as much as a couple of them... I don't understand how we should accept that we're not going to compete with them, and not try and compete with them by signing their rejects, yet still spend the similar amounts of cash? How many other clubs can you name that have spent similar amounts of cash to the top clubs yet can't compete with them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 One thing I should also mention re: Shepherd is that can anyone honestly see the big man as having enough financial clout to compete with Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and now (potentially) Liverpool? West Ham, Aston Villa and Portsmouth might also find themselves on this list with their respective new owners. How on Earth are we going to match these clubs in a financial sense as long as Shepherd is in charge? I know right now the "big" clubs aren't our direct rivals, but we should surely still be aiming to get to that level. Or is Freddy relying on a fanciful UEFA, League or FA Cup win so that he can leave with his head held high? That's what I was use as a basis to support a takeover and it's something I have never really considered until this afternoon. Whether you think Shepherd is a good or bad chairman, is it even relevant? Surely in today's climate we need to start looking at things from a more financial perspective, in regards to where we might find ourselves in five or ten years. Everyone around us seems to be getting richer while we seem to be getting poorer, how long until these financial matters translate themselves onto the pitch/league standings? (i.e. How much longer can we expect to stay ahead of clubs with rich owners who will invest grand sums of money into them? Your Portsmouths, your West Hams, your Aston Villas?) I understand that money does not necessarily translate to success, but I can't help but feel that we're being somewhat left behind in the current climate and that unless some swift action is taken we could find ourselves a hell of a long way off competing with the "big" teams in a situation that could see us waiting for a trophy for perhaps another decade or more - we might even end up getting relegated. Surely a takeover ASAP, while we still have a good reputation and massive potential in relation to other, less-attractive clubs, is a better bet than waiting to fall behind the rest of the league while we cling onto our Geordie roots/chairman? How long will we keep being able to outbid clubs for players like Michael Owen if everyone else keeps getting bought-out and becoming instantly rich? Food for thought? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toon tone rudeboy Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Excellent Point Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 One thing I should also mention re: Shepherd is that can anyone honestly see the big man as having enough financial clout to compete with Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and now (potentially) Liverpool? West Ham, Aston Villa and Portsmouth might also find themselves on this list with their respective new owners. How on Earth are we going to match these clubs in a financial sense as long as Shepherd is in charge? I know right now the "big" clubs aren't our direct rivals, but we should surely still be aiming to get to that level. Or is Freddy relying on a fanciful UEFA, League or FA Cup win so that he can leave with his head held high? That's what I was use as a basis to support a takeover and it's something I have never really considered until this afternoon. Whether you think Shepherd is a good or bad chairman, is it even relevant? Surely in today's climate we need to start looking at things from a more financial perspective, in regards to where we might find ourselves in five or ten years. Everyone around us seems to be getting richer while we seem to be getting poorer, how long until these financial matters translate themselves onto the pitch/league standings? (i.e. How much longer can we expect to stay ahead of clubs with rich owners who will invest grand sums of money into them? Your Portsmouths, your West Hams, your Aston Villas?) I understand that money does not necessarily translate to success, but I can't help but feel that we're being somewhat left behind in the current climate and that unless some swift action is taken we could find ourselves a hell of a long way off competing with the "big" teams in a situation that could see us waiting for a trophy for perhaps another decade or more - we might even end up getting relegated. Surely a takeover ASAP, while we still have a good reputation and massive potential in relation to other, less-attractive clubs, is a better bet than waiting to fall behind the rest of the league while we cling onto our Geordie roots/chairman? How long will we keep being able to outbid clubs for players like Michael Owen if everyone else keeps getting bought-out and becoming instantly rich? Food for thought? some good points, of which I have wondered myself. Of course, if football becomes a race to find the biggest and/or most generous benefactor, then we will have to follow the others, in some way. The more rich benefactors there are though, only serves to even up the playing field again, it still won't guarantee success, and that also depends who has the richest benefactor who wants success the most. The only point I would still say, is that there will still only be 2 major trophies, and the League Cup, and regular qualification for europe - as the barometers for success. At least until there is a european league. Who would want to be part of that ? I wouldn't personally, it leaves me cold. But I am from an era when we used to stand, sing and could do this and pay at the gate for home games and away games, and playing these european teams was the result of having a good side which had achieved that on merit - which wasn't often. The game is changing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Selective in what you choose to reply to? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Selective in what you choose to reply to? I've lifted my ban on your pm's Alternatively, follow my sig if you want to make sure I don't miss owt bluewink.gif Hey thompers, seriously, this is getting to be a good discussion....what do you think of the last few [decent] posts ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Selective in what you choose to reply to? I've lifted my ban on your pm's Alternatively, follow my sig if you want to make sure I don't miss owt bluewink.gif Hey thompers, seriously, this is getting to be a good discussion....what do you think of the last few [decent] posts ? I'm not referring to the "pm ban" I'm actually referring to my questions in this thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Selective in what you choose to reply to? I've lifted my ban on your pm's Alternatively, follow my sig if you want to make sure I don't miss owt bluewink.gif Hey thompers, seriously, this is getting to be a good discussion....what do you think of the last few [decent] posts ? I'm not referring to the "pm ban" I'm actually referring to my questions in this thread. sorry mate, I have been busy replying to the good posts by Andy P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now