Freddy defending himself. Again. Yawn.

[NE5]

 

Absolutely. This has been pointed out before but is ignored every time. The club could have waited and signed Woodgate in the summer, but signing him in January showed the ambition of the club to buy when we were winning. We later added Bowyer and Ambrose, further increasing the depth of the squad and the wage bill. That kind of ambition doesn't suddenly disappear a few months later, to suggest it does is laughable.

 

 

I'm not really sure if the Woodgate purchase was entirely for the reason you mentioned - seemed a lot more like 'taking advantage of Leeds' precarious financial position' - in fact each one of those signings were us taking advantage of the financial position of the players' respective clubs.  We thought there were bargains to be had with re-sell value; that seems to have been the defining reason to purchase those players - and the fact that we no longer have any of them would bear that out.

 

And we've never replaced Woodgate, of course.

 

a quite staggering load of rubbish.

 

 

 

[NE5]

 

I'm sure that macbeth and his monkey, or his brother, ie thickmick, will come along and lecture you as to how not spending the money the club doesn't have is preferable to showing ambition or aiming for success.

 

 

 

I only know of two brothers who post on here and you're one of them, they've both denied it for many months while backing each other up. 

 

are you and macbeth sisters then ?

 

Unbelievable the way you avoid questions then invent a load of tripe to try and deflect the topic. Why did Beardsley sign for Newcastle when he was already a well known player who all the top clubs had their eye on for a fee of only 150,000, instead of waiting for his fee to rocket to a British Transfer record a few years later ?

 

Why did he leave Newcastle a few years later ? Why did he come back ? Why did Waddle leave Newcastle ? Why did Gazza leave Newcastle ? Your lack of acceptance that Beardsley was not well known nationally when he signed for us simply shows what a cucooned view of the world and football that you have.

 

 

[Syrette]

 

I'm sure that macbeth and his monkey, or his brother, ie thickmick, will come along and lecture you as to how not spending the money the club doesn't have is preferable to showing ambition or aiming for success.

 

 

 

I only know of two brothers who post on here and you're one of them, they've both denied it for many months while backing each other up. 

 

are you and macbeth sisters then ?

 

Unbelievable the way you avoid questions then invent a load of tripe to try and deflect the topic.

 

 

No offence, but that's rather hypocritical.

[NE5]

 

I'm sure that macbeth and his monkey, or his brother, ie thickmick, will come along and lecture you as to how not spending the money the club doesn't have is preferable to showing ambition or aiming for success.

 

 

 

I only know of two brothers who post on here and you're one of them, they've both denied it for many months while backing each other up. 

 

are you and macbeth sisters then ?

 

Unbelievable the way you avoid questions then invent a load of tripe to try and deflect the topic.

 

 

No offence, but that's rather hypocritical.

 

no offence, but why don't you post something worthwhile for a change

 

 

[Mick]

 

No offence, but that's rather hypocritical.

 

Hypocritical is something he's good at, that and lying, denying the obvious, inventing things, putting words into peoples mouths, burying his head in the sand and defending somebody who is beyond a reasonable defence.

[Mick]

 

no offence, but why don't you post something worthwhile for a change

 

 

 

It's not possible, he's replying to you.

[Mick]

 

are you and macbeth sisters then ?

 

Unbelievable the way you avoid questions then invent a load of tripe to try and deflect the topic. Why did Beardsley sign for Newcastle when he was already a well known player who all the top clubs had their eye on for a fee of only 150,000, instead of waiting for his fee to rocket to a British Transfer record a few years later ?

 

Why did he leave Newcastle a few years later ? Why did he come back ? Why did Waddle leave Newcastle ? Why did Gazza leave Newcastle ? Your lack of acceptance that Beardsley was not well known nationally when he signed for us simply shows what a cucooned view of the world and football that you have.

 

 

 

Who said Beardsley was "well known nationally"?

 

I mean apart from inside your head, those voices don't count.

[Guest elbee909]

 

Absolutely. This has been pointed out before but is ignored every time. The club could have waited and signed Woodgate in the summer, but signing him in January showed the ambition of the club to buy when we were winning. We later added Bowyer and Ambrose, further increasing the depth of the squad and the wage bill. That kind of ambition doesn't suddenly disappear a few months later, to suggest it does is laughable.

 

 

I'm not really sure if the Woodgate purchase was entirely for the reason you mentioned - seemed a lot more like 'taking advantage of Leeds' precarious financial position' - in fact each one of those signings were us taking advantage of the financial position of the players' respective clubs.  We thought there were bargains to be had with re-sell value; that seems to have been the defining reason to purchase those players - and the fact that we no longer have any of them would bear that out.

 

And we've never replaced Woodgate, of course.

 

a quite staggering load of rubbish.

 

 

So Woodgate and Bowyer weren't at a club that was financially suspect at the time?  You don't think NUFC were taking advantage of that situation?

 

And Ambrose wasn't signed from a club that was financially suspect at the time?  NUFC approached Deloitte and Touche, who were handling Ipswich's accounts, with bids for both Ambrose and Darren Bent.

 

But Ipswich are understood to be furious at Newcastle's attempts to sign the players on the cheap and take advantage of their financial crisis.

 

Newcastle chairman Freddy Shepherd was, however, in defiant mood.

 

He said: "I made a bid to the administrators, who thought we were being cheeky.

 

"Far from being cheeky, I would have thought that any interest for the sort of money we are talking about would be interesting to a club in Ipswich's position."

 

Have we replaced Woodgate?  You know, did we replace him?  Woodgate?  Well, we replaced him with 14 million quid and the promise that we'd be "pleasantly surprised" by whomever was lined up to replace him.

 

I'm amazed you can't find _anything_ there that's within the realms of possibility but hell no, it's only everyone else that only has an agenda.  Fan-fucking-tastic. 

[NE5]

 

are you and macbeth sisters then ?

 

Unbelievable the way you avoid questions then invent a load of tripe to try and deflect the topic. Why did Beardsley sign for Newcastle when he was already a well known player who all the top clubs had their eye on for a fee of only 150,000, instead of waiting for his fee to rocket to a British Transfer record a few years later ?

 

Why did he leave Newcastle a few years later ? Why did he come back ? Why did Waddle leave Newcastle ? Why did Gazza leave Newcastle ? Your lack of acceptance that Beardsley was not well known nationally when he signed for us simply shows what a cucooned view of the world and football that you have.

 

 

 

Who said Beardsley was "well known nationally"?

 

I mean apart from inside your head, those voices don't count.

 

as you say he was "well known", tell us where he was well known ....

 

backtrack alert ...

 

you must be stupider than I thought if you can't see the crap you are spouting here

 

 

[NE5]

 

Absolutely. This has been pointed out before but is ignored every time. The club could have waited and signed Woodgate in the summer, but signing him in January showed the ambition of the club to buy when we were winning. We later added Bowyer and Ambrose, further increasing the depth of the squad and the wage bill. That kind of ambition doesn't suddenly disappear a few months later, to suggest it does is laughable.

 

 

I'm not really sure if the Woodgate purchase was entirely for the reason you mentioned - seemed a lot more like 'taking advantage of Leeds' precarious financial position' - in fact each one of those signings were us taking advantage of the financial position of the players' respective clubs.  We thought there were bargains to be had with re-sell value; that seems to have been the defining reason to purchase those players - and the fact that we no longer have any of them would bear that out.

 

And we've never replaced Woodgate, of course.

 

a quite staggering load of rubbish.

 

 

So Woodgate and Bowyer weren't at a club that was financially suspect at the time?  You don't think NUFC were taking advantage of that situation?

 

And Ambrose wasn't signed from a club that was financially suspect at the time?  NUFC approached Deloitte and Touche, who were handling Ipswich's accounts, with bids for both Ambrose and Darren Bent.

 

But Ipswich are understood to be furious at Newcastle's attempts to sign the players on the cheap and take advantage of their financial crisis.

 

Newcastle chairman Freddy Shepherd was, however, in defiant mood.

 

He said: "I made a bid to the administrators, who thought we were being cheeky.

 

"Far from being cheeky, I would have thought that any interest for the sort of money we are talking about would be interesting to a club in Ipswich's position."

 

Have we replaced Woodgate?  You know, did we replace him?  Woodgate?   Well, we replaced him with 14 million quid and the promise that we'd be "pleasantly surprised" by whomever was lined up to replace him.

 

I'm amazed you can't find _anything_ there that's within the realms of possibility but hell no, it's only everyone else that only has an agenda.  Fan-fucking-tastic. 

 

Well, please tell us who Boumsong was meant to replace ? If you think the club has a bottomless pit of money to replace Boumsong now that he flopped - when plenty of people obsessed with expensive foreigners said he was "class" when we bought him too - expect macbeth and thickmick to tell you that they haven't and the dangers of shelling out more big money the club don't have.

 

However I don't expect them to pick up on this, as it doesn't suit the lies they spout, and macbeths agenda.

 

Newcastle United signed Woodgate and Bowyer because they were good players. You know, good players, who don't sign for shit clubs ........    People like you will never understand, until we have a board like lots of the other big clubs running the way macbeth and his monkey advocate ie spending about 3 or 4m quid a year on players.

 

I suppose now to keep to the usual "damned if they do damned if they don't" that others like you spout, you will follow up criticising them for getting Woodgate at a good price and now criticising them for buying Owen for 16m quid.

 

you couldn't make it up

 

 

[Mick]

 

are you and macbeth sisters then ?

 

Unbelievable the way you avoid questions then invent a load of tripe to try and deflect the topic. Why did Beardsley sign for Newcastle when he was already a well known player who all the top clubs had their eye on for a fee of only 150,000, instead of waiting for his fee to rocket to a British Transfer record a few years later ?

 

Why did he leave Newcastle a few years later ? Why did he come back ? Why did Waddle leave Newcastle ? Why did Gazza leave Newcastle ? Your lack of acceptance that Beardsley was not well known nationally when he signed for us simply shows what a cucooned view of the world and football that you have.

 

 

 

Who said Beardsley was "well known nationally"?

 

I mean apart from inside your head, those voices don't count.

 

as you say he was "well known", tell us where he was well known ....

 

backtrack alert ...

 

you must be stupider than I thought if you can't see the crap you are spouting here

 

 

 

Actually, for you it's lie alert, anybody who has been unfortunate enough to follow this will know.

 

Show me where I said "well known" without you having to cut bits out.

[NE5]

 

are you and macbeth sisters then ?

 

Unbelievable the way you avoid questions then invent a load of tripe to try and deflect the topic. Why did Beardsley sign for Newcastle when he was already a well known player who all the top clubs had their eye on for a fee of only 150,000, instead of waiting for his fee to rocket to a British Transfer record a few years later ?

 

Why did he leave Newcastle a few years later ? Why did he come back ? Why did Waddle leave Newcastle ? Why did Gazza leave Newcastle ? Your lack of acceptance that Beardsley was not well known nationally when he signed for us simply shows what a cucooned view of the world and football that you have.

 

 

 

Who said Beardsley was "well known nationally"?

 

I mean apart from inside your head, those voices don't count.

 

as you say he was "well known", tell us where he was well known ....

 

backtrack alert ...

 

you must be stupider than I thought if you can't see the crap you are spouting here

 

 

 

Actually, for you it's lie alert, anybody who has been unfortunate enough to follow this will know.

 

Show me where I said "well known" without you having to cut bits out.

 

Like i said, you are even stupider than I thought.

 

 

[Mick]

 

Well, please tell us who Boumsong was meant to replace ? If you think the club has a bottomless pit of money to replace Boumsong now that he flopped - when plenty of people obsessed with expensive foreigners said he was "class" when we bought him too - expect macbeth and thickmick to tell you that they haven't and the dangers of shelling out more big money the club don't have.

 

However I don't expect them to pick up on this, as it doesn't suit the lies they spout, and macbeths agenda.

 

Newcastle United bought Woodgate and Bowyer because they were good players. You know, good players, who don't sign for shit clubs ........    People like you will never understand, until we have a board like lots of the other big clubs running the way macbeth and his monkey advocate ie spending about 3 or 4m quid a year on players.

 

 

Steve,

 

You should expect me to say that I haven't said Boumsong was class because I've never said it, the lengths you'll go to try and prove a point that doesn't exist is amazing. 

 

This isn't a pm, you're making yourself look like an idiot on an open forum. bluebiggrin.gif

[Howaythelads]

 

Absolutely. This has been pointed out before but is ignored every time. The club could have waited and signed Woodgate in the summer, but signing him in January showed the ambition of the club to buy when we were winning. We later added Bowyer and Ambrose, further increasing the depth of the squad and the wage bill. That kind of ambition doesn't suddenly disappear a few months later, to suggest it does is laughable.

 

 

I'm not really sure if the Woodgate purchase was entirely for the reason you mentioned - seemed a lot more like 'taking advantage of Leeds' precarious financial position' - in fact each one of those signings were us taking advantage of the financial position of the players' respective clubs.  We thought there were bargains to be had with re-sell value; that seems to have been the defining reason to purchase those players - and the fact that we no longer have any of them would bear that out.

 

And we've never replaced Woodgate, of course.

 

a quite staggering load of rubbish.

 

 

So Woodgate and Bowyer weren't at a club that was financially suspect at the time?  You don't think NUFC were taking advantage of that situation?

 

And Ambrose wasn't signed from a club that was financially suspect at the time?  NUFC approached Deloitte and Touche, who were handling Ipswich's accounts, with bids for both Ambrose and Darren Bent.

 

But Ipswich are understood to be furious at Newcastle's attempts to sign the players on the cheap and take advantage of their financial crisis.

 

Newcastle chairman Freddy Shepherd was, however, in defiant mood.

 

He said: "I made a bid to the administrators, who thought we were being cheeky.

 

"Far from being cheeky, I would have thought that any interest for the sort of money we are talking about would be interesting to a club in Ipswich's position."

 

Have we replaced Woodgate?  You know, did we replace him?  Woodgate?  Well, we replaced him with 14 million quid and the promise that we'd be "pleasantly surprised" by whomever was lined up to replace him.

 

I'm amazed you can't find _anything_ there that's within the realms of possibility but hell no, it's only everyone else that only has an agenda.  Fan-f***ing-tastic. 

 

The bit that is a total load of crap is the suggestion players were signed based on the idea there may be a profit made by selling them on. Signing players thought to be good under circumstances that allowed the club to get them at a good price is actually great business, you should be praising the Board for this but instead you spin even that to make out the Board is crap.  :roll:

 

To save you denying you said this, here is what you said....

 

"We thought there were bargains to be had with re-sell value; that seems to have been the defining reason to purchase those players - and the fact that we no longer have any of them would bear that out."

 

I was going to cut out the bit after the dash, as it's not relevant, but you would use that omission to deflect from the issue in your usual style so I'll answer it. The reason those players aren't here now is nothing to do with cashing in to make a profit. They were signed because it was thought they would improve the team, some of them didn't so they moved on, or moved on for other reasons, in the case of Woodgate his injury situation. Your suggestion those players were sold was for any other reason is one of the most incredible things I've read on this forum and is a real pointer to how blinkered you are by hatred of the Board.

[Guest Johan]

Man you are obsessed by the pre 92 board. Does the fact that the pre 92 board sucked big time give this present board the right to just regular suck?

 

briefly, I thought you were intelligent Johan, but now I think that having confirmed you are totally unable to accept the fact that the current board have improved the club massively during its time in charge, to be the view of what I call a skyboy.

 

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Shame.

 

 

 

Well, what is good for me is that what one guy on an internet forum thinks defines intelligence dont really mean much:)

 

I admit to not knowing much about prior to 92, I was 11 at the time. Also being a bully when people dont agree with you dont really make me think of you as that much smarter either..

 

I dont think I have ever said that newcastle since 92 has not moved forward, big time. I dont think anyone thinks that it hasnt. That doesnt mean that there might not be a better solution in the present however. All things must come to and end, change is inevitable and things like that.

 

Also I dont think I have ever seen you answer what I see as my main question, is it fair in any way to see it as 2 boards? One from 92 - 98 led by Sir John Hall and one from 98 - now led by Freddy. If you have answered this somewhere I am sorry, otherwise please do.

[Howaythelads]

Man you are obsessed by the pre 92 board. Does the fact that the pre 92 board sucked big time give this present board the right to just regular suck?

 

briefly, I thought you were intelligent Johan, but now I think that having confirmed you are totally unable to accept the fact that the current board have improved the club massively during its time in charge, to be the view of what I call a skyboy.

 

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Shame.

 

 

 

Well, what is good for me is that what one guy on an internet forum thinks defines intelligence dont really mean much:)

 

I admit to not knowing much about prior to 92, I was 11 at the time. Also being a bully when people dont agree with you dont really make me think of you as that much smarter either..

 

I dont think I have ever said that newcastle since 92 has not moved forward, big time. I dont think anyone thinks that it hasnt. That doesnt mean that there might not be a better solution in the present however. All things must come to and end, change is inevitable and things like that.

 

Also I dont think I have ever seen you answer what I see as my main question, is it fair in any way to see it as 2 boards? One from 92 - 98 led by Sir John Hall and one from 98 - now led by Freddy. If you have answered this somewhere I am sorry, otherwise please do.

 

:roll:

 

Those who have supported the club for a long time know what it is like when the club is run by a shit Board and so would prefer to not take the gamble on change. It can't be assumed a new Board will be better or more ambitious, a new Board could just as easily be worse.

 

Some have the mistaken belief based on ignorance that the current Board is shit, assuming any change would be for the better.

 

BTW I note the initial personal type post in your exchanges in this thread came from you. That really shows you to be the bully but don't let the facts get in the way, eh.

[Guest Johan]

Man you are obsessed by the pre 92 board. Does the fact that the pre 92 board sucked big time give this present board the right to just regular suck?

 

 

briefly, I thought you were intelligent Johan, but now I think that having confirmed you are totally unable to accept the fact that the current board have improved the club massively during its time in charge, to be the view of what I call a skyboy.

 

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Shame.

 

 

 

Well, what is good for me is that what one guy on an internet forum thinks defines intelligence dont really mean much:)

 

I admit to not knowing much about prior to 92, I was 11 at the time. Also being a bully when people dont agree with you dont really make me think of you as that much smarter either..

 

I dont think I have ever said that newcastle since 92 has not moved forward, big time. I dont think anyone thinks that it hasnt. That doesnt mean that there might not be a better solution in the present however. All things must come to and end, change is inevitable and things like that.

 

Also I dont think I have ever seen you answer what I see as my main question, is it fair in any way to see it as 2 boards? One from 92 - 98 led by Sir John Hall and one from 98 - now led by Freddy. If you have answered this somewhere I am sorry, otherwise please do.

 

:roll:

 

Those who have supported the club for a long time know what it is like when the club is run by a shit Board and so would prefer to not take the gamble on change. It can't be assumed a new Board will be better or more ambitious, a new Board could just as easily be worse.

 

Some have the mistaken belief based on ignorance that the current Board is shit, assuming any change would be for the better.

 

BTW I note the initial personal type post in your exchanges in this thread came from you. That really shows you to be the bully but don't let the facts get in the way, eh.

 

Well, I hear what you are saying and I have appologiced for my suggestion that NE5 was in fact hired by the club spread its word here. I dont really think there has been much verbal attacks or whatever you would say coming from me. I have tried to write in what I feel has been an ok way about other posters. Also I said that I accepted the first "revenge" from NE5 if you will.

To call me unintelligent though was uncalled for!

 

As I have said, changing board is a gamble and it is one I am willing to take. Sure it can go either way, and you might have different ideas of how it will go. I dont however accept that the fact the the board newcastle had prior to 92 and how bad it was (which I really have no clue about to be honest) totally frees this one from responsability.

 

( Sorry for any bad language, I am to tired to check it all out in a dictionary right now)

[Howaythelads]

Man you are obsessed by the pre 92 board. Does the fact that the pre 92 board sucked big time give this present board the right to just regular suck?

 

 

briefly, I thought you were intelligent Johan, but now I think that having confirmed you are totally unable to accept the fact that the current board have improved the club massively during its time in charge, to be the view of what I call a skyboy.

 

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Shame.

 

 

 

Well, what is good for me is that what one guy on an internet forum thinks defines intelligence dont really mean much:)

 

I admit to not knowing much about prior to 92, I was 11 at the time. Also being a bully when people dont agree with you dont really make me think of you as that much smarter either..

 

I dont think I have ever said that newcastle since 92 has not moved forward, big time. I dont think anyone thinks that it hasnt. That doesnt mean that there might not be a better solution in the present however. All things must come to and end, change is inevitable and things like that.

 

Also I dont think I have ever seen you answer what I see as my main question, is it fair in any way to see it as 2 boards? One from 92 - 98 led by Sir John Hall and one from 98 - now led by Freddy. If you have answered this somewhere I am sorry, otherwise please do.

 

:roll:

 

Those who have supported the club for a long time know what it is like when the club is run by a shit Board and so would prefer to not take the gamble on change. It can't be assumed a new Board will be better or more ambitious, a new Board could just as easily be worse.

 

Some have the mistaken belief based on ignorance that the current Board is shit, assuming any change would be for the better.

 

BTW I note the initial personal type post in your exchanges in this thread came from you. That really shows you to be the bully but don't let the facts get in the way, eh.

 

Well, I hear what you are saying and I have appologiced for my suggestion that NE5 was in fact hired by the club spread its word here. I dont really think there has been much verbal attacks or whatever you would say coming from me. I have tried to write in what I feel has been an ok way about other posters. Also I said that I accepted the first "revenge" from NE5 if you will.

To call me unintelligent though was uncalled for!

 

As I have said, changing board is a gamble and it is one I am willing to take. Sure it can go either way, and you might have different ideas of how it will go. I dont however accept that the fact the the board newcastle had prior to 92 and how bad it was (which I really have no clue about to be honest) totally frees this one from responsability.

 

( Sorry for any bad language, I am to tired to check it all out in a dictionary right now)

 

I don't know which way a change of Board will go, I don't have a clue, unlike others who can predict the future and know it can only be better.

 

Nobody has ever said that the fact Boards pre-1992 were crap absolves the current Board from any responsibility.  Please post a link to where anybody has said that.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Guest Johan]

Man you are obsessed by the pre 92 board. Does the fact that the pre 92 board sucked big time give this present board the right to just regular suck?

 

 

briefly, I thought you were intelligent Johan, but now I think that having confirmed you are totally unable to accept the fact that the current board have improved the club massively during its time in charge, to be the view of what I call a skyboy.

 

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Shame.

 

 

 

Well, what is good for me is that what one guy on an internet forum thinks defines intelligence dont really mean much:)

 

I admit to not knowing much about prior to 92, I was 11 at the time. Also being a bully when people dont agree with you dont really make me think of you as that much smarter either..

 

I dont think I have ever said that newcastle since 92 has not moved forward, big time. I dont think anyone thinks that it hasnt. That doesnt mean that there might not be a better solution in the present however. All things must come to and end, change is inevitable and things like that.

 

Also I dont think I have ever seen you answer what I see as my main question, is it fair in any way to see it as 2 boards? One from 92 - 98 led by Sir John Hall and one from 98 - now led by Freddy. If you have answered this somewhere I am sorry, otherwise please do.

 

:roll:

 

Those who have supported the club for a long time know what it is like when the club is run by a shit Board and so would prefer to not take the gamble on change. It can't be assumed a new Board will be better or more ambitious, a new Board could just as easily be worse.

 

Some have the mistaken belief based on ignorance that the current Board is shit, assuming any change would be for the better.

 

BTW I note the initial personal type post in your exchanges in this thread came from you. That really shows you to be the bully but don't let the facts get in the way, eh.

 

Well, I hear what you are saying and I have appologiced for my suggestion that NE5 was in fact hired by the club spread its word here. I dont really think there has been much verbal attacks or whatever you would say coming from me. I have tried to write in what I feel has been an ok way about other posters. Also I said that I accepted the first "revenge" from NE5 if you will.

To call me unintelligent though was uncalled for!

 

As I have said, changing board is a gamble and it is one I am willing to take. Sure it can go either way, and you might have different ideas of how it will go. I dont however accept that the fact the the board newcastle had prior to 92 and how bad it was (which I really have no clue about to be honest) totally frees this one from responsability.

 

( Sorry for any bad language, I am to tired to check it all out in a dictionary right now)

 

I don't know which way a change of Board will go, I don't have a clue, unlike others who can predict the future and know it can only be better.

 

Nobody has ever said that the fact Boards pre-1992 were crap absolves the current Board from any responsibility. Please post a link to where anybody has said that.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Well, it has not been said by straight out by either you or NE5 but that is the interpretation that I have made of his comments. If you really want I can try and find a post that I feel represents this but that will have to wait until tomorrow. Right now I will go and get free beer and food all night from the company I work for!

[Howaythelads]

Man you are obsessed by the pre 92 board. Does the fact that the pre 92 board sucked big time give this present board the right to just regular suck?

 

 

briefly, I thought you were intelligent Johan, but now I think that having confirmed you are totally unable to accept the fact that the current board have improved the club massively during its time in charge, to be the view of what I call a skyboy.

 

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Shame.

 

 

 

Well, what is good for me is that what one guy on an internet forum thinks defines intelligence dont really mean much:)

 

I admit to not knowing much about prior to 92, I was 11 at the time. Also being a bully when people dont agree with you dont really make me think of you as that much smarter either..

 

I dont think I have ever said that newcastle since 92 has not moved forward, big time. I dont think anyone thinks that it hasnt. That doesnt mean that there might not be a better solution in the present however. All things must come to and end, change is inevitable and things like that.

 

Also I dont think I have ever seen you answer what I see as my main question, is it fair in any way to see it as 2 boards? One from 92 - 98 led by Sir John Hall and one from 98 - now led by Freddy. If you have answered this somewhere I am sorry, otherwise please do.

 

:roll:

 

Those who have supported the club for a long time know what it is like when the club is run by a shit Board and so would prefer to not take the gamble on change. It can't be assumed a new Board will be better or more ambitious, a new Board could just as easily be worse.

 

Some have the mistaken belief based on ignorance that the current Board is shit, assuming any change would be for the better.

 

BTW I note the initial personal type post in your exchanges in this thread came from you. That really shows you to be the bully but don't let the facts get in the way, eh.

 

Well, I hear what you are saying and I have appologiced for my suggestion that NE5 was in fact hired by the club spread its word here. I dont really think there has been much verbal attacks or whatever you would say coming from me. I have tried to write in what I feel has been an ok way about other posters. Also I said that I accepted the first "revenge" from NE5 if you will.

To call me unintelligent though was uncalled for!

 

As I have said, changing board is a gamble and it is one I am willing to take. Sure it can go either way, and you might have different ideas of how it will go. I dont however accept that the fact the the board newcastle had prior to 92 and how bad it was (which I really have no clue about to be honest) totally frees this one from responsability.

 

( Sorry for any bad language, I am to tired to check it all out in a dictionary right now)

 

I don't know which way a change of Board will go, I don't have a clue, unlike others who can predict the future and know it can only be better.

 

Nobody has ever said that the fact Boards pre-1992 were crap absolves the current Board from any responsibility. Please post a link to where anybody has said that.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Well, it has not been said by straight out by either you or NE5 but that is the interpretation that I have made of his comments. If you really want I can try and find a post that I feel represents this but that will have to wait until tomorrow. Right now I will go and get free beer and food all night from the company I work for!

 

Well I think your interpretation needs a bit of work, mate.

 

I doubt such a post exists, I've made my point so don't bother looking unless you feel you have to.

[Baggio]

So where have I criticised this board then Leazes or were you telling porky pies?

 

You not going to answer this?

 

NE5 can you please answer me?

[Cajun]

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/5452/aphrozt1.jpg

[NE5]

 

Well, please tell us who Boumsong was meant to replace ? If you think the club has a bottomless pit of money to replace Boumsong now that he flopped - when plenty of people obsessed with expensive foreigners said he was "class" when we bought him too - expect macbeth and thickmick to tell you that they haven't and the dangers of shelling out more big money the club don't have.

 

However I don't expect them to pick up on this, as it doesn't suit the lies they spout, and macbeths agenda.

 

Newcastle United bought Woodgate and Bowyer because they were good players. You know, good players, who don't sign for shit clubs ........    People like you will never understand, until we have a board like lots of the other big clubs running the way macbeth and his monkey advocate ie spending about 3 or 4m quid a year on players.

 

 

Steve,

 

You should expect me to say that I haven't said Boumsong was class because I've never said it, the lengths you'll go to try and prove a point that doesn't exist is amazing. 

 

This isn't a pm, you're making yourself look like an idiot on an open forum. bluebiggrin.gif

 

thickmick, is elbee your sister or your brother ? I was replying to him. Most people with any sense will know that Boumsong was signed as a replacement for Woodgate.

 

This isn't a pm, you are continuing to make yourself look a bigger idiot than ever on an open forum.

 

 

[NE5]

Man you are obsessed by the pre 92 board. Does the fact that the pre 92 board sucked big time give this present board the right to just regular suck?

 

briefly, I thought you were intelligent Johan, but now I think that having confirmed you are totally unable to accept the fact that the current board have improved the club massively during its time in charge, to be the view of what I call a skyboy.

 

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Shame.

 

 

 

Well, what is good for me is that what one guy on an internet forum thinks defines intelligence dont really mean much:)

 

I admit to not knowing much about prior to 92, I was 11 at the time. Also being a bully when people dont agree with you dont really make me think of you as that much smarter either..

 

I dont think I have ever said that newcastle since 92 has not moved forward, big time. I dont think anyone thinks that it hasnt.

 

thank you. That is my point. Although thickmick doesn't think so.

 

That doesnt mean that there might not be a better solution in the present however. All things must come to and end, change is inevitable and things like that.

 

Also I dont think I have ever seen you answer what I see as my main question, is it fair in any way to see it as 2 boards? One from 92 - 98 led by Sir John Hall and one from 98 - now led by Freddy. If you have answered this somewhere I am sorry, otherwise please do.

 

You are going by the presumption that one man is responsible for all the decisions made during the 2 different periods. I have pointed out, that this is not the case, it isn't the case at any football club or any business anywhere where they have directors and major shareholders. Basically, the same board has run the club since 1992. The best manager we had was appointed during Sir Johns time as chairman but it wasn't his idea or choice, it was other members of the board ie Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher. Sir John didn't want Keegan. Fact, from Keegans book. Likewise all the other managers is a board and major shareholders decision. Shepherd is not the major shareholder, and never has been, it is the Halls who are.

 

And - if you are 5th best in your field over a period of a decade, I don't think you are doing so badly as some people have told you that you appear to believe. More to the point is the improvements we have made under the board, and who exactly is capable of doing better that wants to do better ? Nobody answers this question.

 

And - as HTL says - the initial insulting comment came from you, remember.

 

 

[NE5]

Man you are obsessed by the pre 92 board. Does the fact that the pre 92 board sucked big time give this present board the right to just regular suck?

 

 

briefly, I thought you were intelligent Johan, but now I think that having confirmed you are totally unable to accept the fact that the current board have improved the club massively during its time in charge, to be the view of what I call a skyboy.

 

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Shame.

 

 

 

Well, what is good for me is that what one guy on an internet forum thinks defines intelligence dont really mean much:)

 

I admit to not knowing much about prior to 92, I was 11 at the time. Also being a bully when people dont agree with you dont really make me think of you as that much smarter either..

 

I dont think I have ever said that newcastle since 92 has not moved forward, big time. I dont think anyone thinks that it hasnt. That doesnt mean that there might not be a better solution in the present however. All things must come to and end, change is inevitable and things like that.

 

Also I dont think I have ever seen you answer what I see as my main question, is it fair in any way to see it as 2 boards? One from 92 - 98 led by Sir John Hall and one from 98 - now led by Freddy. If you have answered this somewhere I am sorry, otherwise please do.

 

:roll:

 

Those who have supported the club for a long time know what it is like when the club is run by a shit Board and so would prefer to not take the gamble on change. It can't be assumed a new Board will be better or more ambitious, a new Board could just as easily be worse.

 

Some have the mistaken belief based on ignorance that the current Board is shit, assuming any change would be for the better.

 

BTW I note the initial personal type post in your exchanges in this thread came from you. That really shows you to be the bully but don't let the facts get in the way, eh.

 

Well, I hear what you are saying and I have appologiced for my suggestion that NE5 was in fact hired by the club spread its word here. I dont really think there has been much verbal attacks or whatever you would say coming from me. I have tried to write in what I feel has been an ok way about other posters. Also I said that I accepted the first "revenge" from NE5 if you will.

To call me unintelligent though was uncalled for!

 

As I have said, changing board is a gamble and it is one I am willing to take. Sure it can go either way, and you might have different ideas of how it will go. I dont however accept that the fact the the board newcastle had prior to 92 and how bad it was (which I really have no clue about to be honest) totally frees this one from responsability.

 

( Sorry for any bad language, I am to tired to check it all out in a dictionary right now)

 

Johan, you will have to take the word from those of us who were there when we tell you how bad it was. You can look at the facts that we tell you ie a failed share issue, selling locally born England players, spending years in the old 2nd divison, qualifying for europe 4 times in 30 years, crowds of under 20,000 for long periods, ending up with one foot in the old 3rd division before the Halls came in and saved the club and the board appointed the manager and backed the manager who propelled the club forward massively.

 

These are facts.