Alexander Isak - International C*nt

[oldtype]

5 minutes ago, gdm said:

I’m so thankfully I saw Newcastle win a cup in my lifetime because if it’s going the way it is I’ll likely walk away completely within the next 5 years. It’s a 20 team league in standings but a 6 team league in reality and it’s killing the English game  

To be fair it’s never really been a twenty team league within any of our adult lifetimes (apologies to the 55+ crowd). And transfer frustrations notwithstanding, we are much much closer to the “big six” now than we ever were in the Sheppard or Ashley eras.

[gazza ladra]

11 minutes ago, oldtype said:

To be fair it’s never really been a twenty team league within any of our adult lifetimes (apologies to the 55+ crowd). And transfer frustrations notwithstanding, we are much much closer to the “big six” now than we ever were in the Sheppard or Ashley eras.

Don't buy this.

 

The way I remember it, we were streets ahead of Spurs in the Sheppard era.

 

Spurs can complain about Levy all they want, but has done well. (It helped that NUFC, Everton, and Villa handicapped by incompetent or indifferent owners)

 

Edit: And obviously City and Chelsea were different animals at the time. We were ahead or even with at the time IMO.

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2025 by gazza ladra
city were shit

[sushimonster85]

49 minutes ago, oldtype said:

To be fair it’s never really been a twenty team league within any of our adult lifetimes (apologies to the 55+ crowd). And transfer frustrations notwithstanding, we are much much closer to the “big six” now than we ever were in the Sheppard or Ashley eras.

 

We were literally in the top 4/6 at various points during the Shepherd years. Ambition wasn't the issue during Shepherd, it's was general incompetence by decision makers above the manager.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2025 by sushimonster85

[Gawalls]

22 minutes ago, gdm said:

I’m so thankfully I saw Newcastle win a cup in my lifetime because if it’s going the way it is I’ll likely walk away completely within the next 5 years. It’s a 20 team league in standings but a 6 team league in reality and it’s killing the English game  

I’m on the verge now - I come on here for the crack and to talk about it but I find it predictable and boring how they’ve changed it to what it is. Thing is I don’t think it’s sustainable long term as outside the north east less and less are supporting their local teams and most kids these days watch the highlights after the game on their phones. Funny thing is I read an Article a while ago with Amanda Staveley where she said this is where it will go and clubs could do worse to try and tap into that market somehow.

[oldtype]

17 minutes ago, gazza ladra said:

Don't buy this.

 

The way I remember it, we were streets ahead of Spurs in the Sheppard era.

 

Spurs can complain about Levy all they want, but has done well. (It helped that NUFC, Everton, and Villa handicapped by incompetent or indifferent owners)

 

Edit: And obviously City and Chelsea were different animals at the time. We were ahead or even with at the time IMO.

 

 

 

 

The cartel was smaller yes, but that doesn’t mean we were part of it.

[gazza ladra]

We were closer to the cartel then, than now. A cartel of six is a bigger deal than a cartel of four when there are four CL spots.

 

A perusal of the Deliotte list of the richest clubs in world football demonstrates we were there closer then. 

 

Sure, the club owners have more money than anyone, but they are prevented from investing in the club. We are now further away than ever. There are rulesput into place that see to that.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2025 by gazza ladra

[Kanj]

We had the muscle to be in mix then during the KK period, fucking cocked it up with KD, further cocked it up with Ruud, and finally got it right with SBR. However the issue was the off the pitch shit then was miles off Liverpool, Man United and Arsenal. And then when we had another window post SBR era, we cocked it up with Souness and that was a wrap until Killer Mike Ashley came through. 

 

But yeah, this is fucking bonkers to me. The way PSR/FFP etc has limited everything to the cartel clubs in England, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc would never happen in the US. There would be a full scale revolt from every other owner who wasn't get a fair shot of the pie. Shit owners can still be shit owners over here and their teams can be permanent bottom dwellers but if you get the momentum of a proper owner who puts the proper team in place to run the team and recruit correctly, sky is the limit. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Problem is here the shit owners vote for the cartel to win so they can continue to stay in the PL as cheaply as possible. They don’t want to progress. 

[Kanj]

5 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Problem is here the shit owners vote for the cartel to win so they can continue to stay in the PL as cheaply as possible. They don’t want to progress. 

 

Yep, I know. It's the worst thing going. Again, would never happen here. 

[toontownman]

We were potentially leading the cartel in the 90s. Leading spending and ambition. We just fucked it at the boardroom level as @sushimonster85 says. 

 

Sliding doors, imo we could have been a key member of the current cartel had we been bought by someone other than Ashley or even if he had not hired the London mafia and backed Keegan. Two relegation later and an embittered Ashley stripping down the club its been an almost impossible task to even get where we are now.

 

We catch up slowly but its still going to take 5-10 years. We seem to talk about this and accept the situation and then a couple of months/weeks/days/minutes later fans are on here/twitter(more so) hitting the panic button and asking why haven't we caught up? Repeat cycle.

[oldtype]

5 minutes ago, Kanj said:

We had the muscle to be in mix then during the KK period, fucking cocked it up with KD, further cocked it up with Ruud, and finally got it right with SBR. However the issue was the off the pitch shit then was miles off Liverpool, Man United and Arsenal. And then when we had another window post SBR era, we cocked it up with Souness and that was a wrap until Killer Mike Ashley came through. 

 

But yeah, this is fucking bonkers to me. The way PSR/FFP etc has limited everything to the cartel clubs in England, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc would never happen in the US. There would be a full scale revolt from every other owner who wasn't get a fair shot of the pie. Shit owners can still be shit owners over here and their teams can be permanent bottom dwellers but if you get the momentum of a proper owner who puts the proper team in place to run the team and recruit correctly, sky is the limit. 

Main problem I think is that owners of the Yankees or Lakers know that they need the small teams. They wouldn’t have as good of a product without a competitive league where every team has a genuine chance, and long-term history and rivalries accumulate over the years.
 

I don’t think the owner of European teams realize this, as is evidenced by their never ending desire for a Super League. I’d be willing to bet that overall interest in the sport would actually drop if that happened. Liverpool isn’t Liverpool if they’re not playing Everton in the league.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

You couldn’t really have a cartel when there were no spending restrictions, surely. Any rich owner could come in and buy success. Blackburn for example. 

[Bondedcrown]

4 minutes ago, toontownman said:

We were potentially leading the cartel in the 90s. Leading spending and ambition. We just fucked it at the boardroom level as @sushimonster85 says. 

 

Sliding doors, imo we could have been a key member of the current cartel had we been bought by someone other than Ashley or even if he had not hired the London mafia and backed Keegan. Two relegation later and an embittered Ashley stripping down the club its been an almost impossible task to even get where we are now.

 

We catch up slowly but its still going to take 5-10 years. We seem to talk about this and accept the situation and then a couple of months/weeks/days/minutes later fans are on here/twitter(more so) hitting the panic button and asking why haven't we caught up? Repeat cycle.

Which is what Stavely said

[sushimonster85]

Just now, AyeDubbleYoo said:

You couldn’t really have a cartel when there were no spending restrictions, surely. Any rich owner could come in and buy success. Blackburn for example. 

 

Also.. us. We came up from the then division 1, spent big money and finished third in our first season. Dropped off slightly in the second, then spent big again and were title challengers within a couple years of being promoted.

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, oldtype said:

To be fair it’s never really been a twenty team league within any of our adult lifetimes (apologies to the 55+ crowd). And transfer frustrations notwithstanding, we are much much closer to the “big six” now than we ever were in the Sheppard or Ashley eras.

Eh?

 

We were ahead of Chelsea, Man City and Spurs for much of the Hall / Shepherd era.  We were richer than Arsenal and Liverpool for some of it.

 

1 hour ago, oldtype said:

The cartel was smaller yes, but that doesn’t mean we were part of it.

We absolutely were - John Hall was advocating joining a European Super League and all sorts.  This is a bizarre rewriting of history

[Ronaldo]

1 hour ago, sushimonster85 said:

 

We were literally in the top 4/6 at various points during the Shepherd years. Ambition wasn't the issue during Shepherd, it's was general incompetence by decision makers above the manager.

 

 

 

Not just that. We spent a lot of money under various managers on players whose stock went downhill and / or underperformed for us on the pitch. 
 

We finished 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th with FS as chairman in a decade. Ambition was never the issue. 

[Kooiman]

23 minutes ago, Ronaldo said:

Not just that. We spent a lot of money under various managers on players whose stock went downhill and / or underperformed for us on the pitch. 
 

We finished 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th with FS as chairman in a decade. Ambition was never the issue. 

I would also say the erosion of continuity on the sporting side and a distinct lack of succession planning hampered us.

 

Man Utd and Arsenal had Sir Alex and Arsene Wenger that presented a clear road map for the club on the pitch during that decade. Chelsea came and bought any old sod, but they could afford to do that. It's no surprise that once both men left their clubs they had struggles, while Chelsea continued with a boom and bust cycle that felt comfortable to them. 

[Kanj]

Just see my post again. We had two perfectly good managers under Shep/Hall but we continued to cock it up and never had Hall’s vision after he stepped away to grow the sporting club and make us a global thing. He had the vision for it tbh. 

[Kooiman]

4 hours ago, oldtype said:

To be fair it’s never really been a twenty team league within any of our adult lifetimes (apologies to the 55+ crowd). And transfer frustrations notwithstanding, we are much much closer to the “big six” now than we ever were in the Sheppard or Ashley eras.

I don't fundamentally disagree with your point about it never really being a 20 team league. In the first 10-12 years of the Premier League you had four winners, and in the last 10-12 years we've had four winners. In both cases there was a one-time winner among the pack in Blackburn and Leicester. 

 

People aren't opposed to legitimate footballing dynasties, but they are opposed to reserved seating at the dance. What that list of winners in the first ten years won't show you is how close we came to winning the big prize (on more than one occasion no less) as did Aston Villa in the first year of the league. There was an aspirational element to things whereby if you did get ambitious, and bought the right kinds of players, you could have a run at it. That was Blackburn Rovers. 

 

Under Fredy Sheppard the closest we came was third, I'll grant you that, but the landscape is far different now. If Fredy had found oil in his back garden or diamonds under the sofa he could have invested that money into the club and (with the right advice) got us across the line.

 

I'm not entirely sure how to chart that same path to a league title these days. We've spent the last week concerned that Liverpool are going to take Alexander Isak. While £120-150m will do wonders for the balance sheet, we'll need to find a suitable replacement to keep pace and players like that aren't in large supply. Equally, we took a sizable risk signing him from Real Sociedad. Our reward is a load of goals, a League Cup trophy, and maybe a large fee, but wouldn't it be better if we could build alongside him instead of hope to catch him up in a few years time?

 

Those mega deals provide financial headroom to the club, but they require us selling to the same teams we're looking to compete against. You might cite Andy Cole, but not long after that we signed Alan Shearer. You simply can't do that now. The rules dictate that you can't grow at a rate faster than the tank you inhabit and that's never really how football has worked. If that approach was staving off clubs going into financial bother I could understand, but I'm sure we can all list several in the EFL right now that are fighting a crap owner or the consequences of crap decisions. 

 

I would hate for us football fans to console ourselves with the idea that because the league was never the personification of parity that we should be content with a pack of teams that only changes at the bottom of the table. I understand why people felt so much of our gripe with PSR was because of the success we wanted, and I understand why so many refused to do anything that helped a PIF lead project, but in reality, we were only seeking the kind of opportunity that every football fan would want - to be the best team in England for a moment. 

[oldtype]

Extremely nostalgic to be having another “old board” debate. Feels like 2009 again. Somebody find NE5.

[elbee909]

14 minutes ago, oldtype said:

Extremely nostalgic to be having another “old board” debate. Feels like 2009 again. Somebody find NE5.

 

"Freddie Shepherd is great, I remember it being worse before etc."

[Kanj]

28 minutes ago, Kooiman said:

I don't fundamentally disagree with your point about it never really being a 20 team league. In the first 10-12 years of the Premier League you had four winners, and in the last 10-12 years we've had four winners. In both cases there was a one-time winner among the pack in Blackburn and Leicester. 

 

People aren't opposed to legitimate footballing dynasties, but they are opposed to reserved seating at the dance. What that list of winners in the first ten years won't show you is how close we came to winning the big prize (on more than one occasion no less) as did Aston Villa in the first year of the league. There was an aspirational element to things whereby if you did get ambitious, and bought the right kinds of players, you could have a run at it. That was Blackburn Rovers. 

 

Under Fredy Sheppard the closest we came was third, I'll grant you that, but the landscape is far different now. If Fredy had found oil in his back garden or diamonds under the sofa he could have invested that money into the club and (with the right advice) got us across the line.

 

I'm not entirely sure how to chart that same path to a league title these days. We've spent the last week concerned that Liverpool are going to take Alexander Isak. While £120-150m will do wonders for the balance sheet, we'll need to find a suitable replacement to keep pace and players like that aren't in large supply. Equally, we took a sizable risk signing him from Real Sociedad. Our reward is a load of goals, a League Cup trophy, and maybe a large fee, but wouldn't it be better if we could build alongside him instead of hope to catch him up in a few years time?

 

Those mega deals provide financial headroom to the club, but they require us selling to the same teams we're looking to compete against. You might cite Andy Cole, but not long after that we signed Alan Shearer. You simply can't do that now. The rules dictate that you can't grow at a rate faster than the tank you inhabit and that's never really how football has worked. If that approach was staving off clubs going into financial bother I could understand, but I'm sure we can all list several in the EFL right now that are fighting a crap owner or the consequences of crap decisions. 

 

I would hate for us football fans to console ourselves with the idea that because the league was never the personification of parity that we should be content with a pack of teams that only changes at the bottom of the table. I understand why people felt so much of our gripe with PSR was because of the success we wanted, and I understand why so many refused to do anything that helped a PIF lead project, but in reality, we were only seeking the kind of opportunity that every football fan would want - to be the best team in England for a moment. 

class post 

[GWN]

Ive a feeling he is going, to who ive no idea, somethings gone wrong here. 

[Sima]

Him not going to Asia will confirm his departure for me. I don’t buy this “new setback” story at all.

[RUHRLYASLEEVESUP]

5 hours ago, Kooiman said:

I don't fundamentally disagree with your point about it never really being a 20 team league. In the first 10-12 years of the Premier League you had four winners, and in the last 10-12 years we've had four winners. In both cases there was a one-time winner among the pack in Blackburn and Leicester. 

 

People aren't opposed to legitimate footballing dynasties, but they are opposed to reserved seating at the dance. What that list of winners in the first ten years won't show you is how close we came to winning the big prize (on more than one occasion no less) as did Aston Villa in the first year of the league. There was an aspirational element to things whereby if you did get ambitious, and bought the right kinds of players, you could have a run at it. That was Blackburn Rovers. 

 

Under Fredy Sheppard the closest we came was third, I'll grant you that, but the landscape is far different now. If Fredy had found oil in his back garden or diamonds under the sofa he could have invested that money into the club and (with the right advice) got us across the line.

 

I'm not entirely sure how to chart that same path to a league title these days. We've spent the last week concerned that Liverpool are going to take Alexander Isak. While £120-150m will do wonders for the balance sheet, we'll need to find a suitable replacement to keep pace and players like that aren't in large supply. Equally, we took a sizable risk signing him from Real Sociedad. Our reward is a load of goals, a League Cup trophy, and maybe a large fee, but wouldn't it be better if we could build alongside him instead of hope to catch him up in a few years time?

 

Those mega deals provide financial headroom to the club, but they require us selling to the same teams we're looking to compete against. You might cite Andy Cole, but not long after that we signed Alan Shearer. You simply can't do that now. The rules dictate that you can't grow at a rate faster than the tank you inhabit and that's never really how football has worked. If that approach was staving off clubs going into financial bother I could understand, but I'm sure we can all list several in the EFL right now that are fighting a crap owner or the consequences of crap decisions. 

 

I would hate for us football fans to console ourselves with the idea that because the league was never the personification of parity that we should be content with a pack of teams that only changes at the bottom of the table. I understand why people felt so much of our gripe with PSR was because of the success we wanted, and I understand why so many refused to do anything that helped a PIF lead project, but in reality, we were only seeking the kind of opportunity that every football fan would want - to be the best team in England for a moment. 

No room for common sense on here lad