The Board etc. etc.

[macbeth]

macbeth

 

I made a point in my reply to your post to me earlier about the value of the manager. If I've missed your reply in among the odd way you quote people I'm sorry, but I haven't seen one.

 

I'd appreciate a reply if you feel able to drag yourself away from your current diatribe.

 

Cheers

 

I've been away, was it this one ...

 

 

 

 

 

I understand everything you're saying although you may want to claim otherwise. I've gone on record in the past as saying the people who slate the Board for not buying anyone in summer 2003 are full of shit, because they don't understand the big picture of the previous 32 months during which the transfer deficit was over £45m, and the wage bill went up due to the increase in squad size. I've said a lot of times I don't want the club to become another Leeds, yet you think you have some kind of monopoly on that thought. Fact is, the choice was keep disruptive players at a risk or rebuild at a risk. They went for the rebuild. What would you have done? Would you have got rid of the disruptive players and left us in a relegation battle? It would have happened and very nearly did, the consequences of relegation can't be overestimated.

 

As I have said I was sure we'd go down before we signed Owen, couldn't see any way for us to stay up.

My issue with that summer fo 2003 and no signings is not necessarily the lack of signings but the club still spending £8.5m for no benefit to the club. If there was no money for players, for the reason you suggest (which is a fair argument) then there should not have been money available to spend on anything.

 

I think you don't want to listen to reason. You may believe you don't have an agenda, but it comes across that way and it's definitely affecting your thought process.

 

I am more than happy to debate with you. You have clearly thought about it, and come up with good points.

I have tried to shy away from the "but Shepherd appointed Souness" comment, because that isn't what I'm worried about. (I also shy away from it as I am deeply uncomfortable with the Roeder appointment and I'd love Shepherd to have some luck this time). (But Shpeherd did appoint them both, and that is his key decision in his job spec)

 

My upset comes from the deterioration of the club's finances over the last three years. I really want to try and understand, and your scenario helps although I have said I have reservations about the actual timing matching your suggestions. I couldn't currently go on to the RTG board and say how great Shepherd is, I could three years ago.

 

Please keep arguing with me, I like a good discussion !

 

Cheers

 

 

[macbeth]

Easy to say with hindsight. Not forgetting your agenda of course. I don't remember you saying that in The Mag at the time, so does this mean you also lacked vision ?

Think you need to go and do some re-reading  :winking:

 

A successful Newcastle would fill a 70,000 ground, the Keegan era proved that. Filling a 52,000 ground with a team that hasn't won a trophy also proves it. Yes probably not for a home game in the League Cup against a 4th division team or whatever. But for the majority of the time it would.

 

Not convinced on your definition of "proof". "Proof" usually means incontrovertible evidence. So "proof" would be like "England are not in the World Cup final". Anyone suggesting that we would have got 70,000 under Keegan is expressing an opinion as I don't recall 70,000 actually being in the ground for any game under him. Similarly getting 52,000 now and suggesting we'd get 55,000 or 70,000 or 100,000 is just guess work and not "proof". Me suggesting we may not need any more than 52,000 is similarly guess work. I liked your leap from my example of this season's upcoming Premiership games to 4th division League Cup games, nice one.

 

 

You have a point about there being smaller crowds if season tickets were not "compulsory" and people attended on a match to match basis. This is also something I've often though about, through knowing through experience of when we had a shit board that nobody wanted to go to games and support the club anymore. However, I see it in a positive light, and think that at the end of the day, it is up to club to make sure they tap their potential and set standards high enough to keep it filled.

 

I have to admit you are older than me

 

You wrote in the Mag that the club should move the pitch and rebuild the stadium 50 yards away, going to all that expense to build a stadium of less than 52,000 - as you say you don't think we would fill it ? If that is the case, what is the point of doing that rather than be happy with what we have now ?

 

Which Mag was that in ?

 

What is your opinion on the directors managing to achieve what our old directors failed to do in 80 years ?

 

You tell me, its far easier if you just tell me what I'm going to say rather than me having to wait for your reply twisting what I'd just said.

 

How do you call the board lacking in vision and ambition when you have said you think the club wouldn't fill a bigger stadium often enough to make it equally viable ?

 

Beautifully constructed question

 

Why do you not want the club to buy quality players when it means them going over budget sometimes ie speculating ?

 

I'm happy we should spend all the money we have available on players, but not any more than that. Why do you actively support the club spending money on buying shares from Sir John Hall rather than spending it on players, or saving to spend on players ?

 

Bit rich of you to say the current board have no ambition, where ? because from what I can see there is only one person here who lacks ambition, and its you.

 

 

I bet the loved the old board, who sat in no mans land, looking at the books, taking no risks, and simply selling a player when they needed to pay off a debt or do something to the ground. Further shown by your failure to believe the club could fill a 70,000 stadium if they were even fairly successful. You have no idea of the potential of the club do you ?

 

BIG jump there, even for you, and at your age. Just cos I saw us getting only 37,000 for a Uefa quarter-final 14 months ago you seem to think I show no ambition. 37,000 for a European quarter final would make a 70,000 stadium look like Stadium of Light. I think we all know the potential, or believe we do. Sometimes reality has to be looked at too

 

Yes, I am a bit older than you. And ? Does this mean you are going to take my word as being more aware and experienced than yours ?

You would do yourself a favour if you did .......

Maybe more experienced, but demonstrably not more aware

 

 

You implied you wrote that, if you didn't I'll revert to my original statement.

 

No you said I'd written it, not me. It is often like that:

 

Reality >>>>> reported facts >>>>> journalistic guesswork >>>>> Sun made-up stories >>>>> complete and utter rubbish >>>>> NE5 proof

 

The rest is your usual negative, unambitious rubbish mate. You would have loved the old board.

 

I think you know, eerr, not very much about Newcastle United.

 

Cheers, for the informed replies.

 

Ditto. I always know where to get a good made up story. You could be the new old Mr Grace, seen it all, know it all, and everyone smiles at you.

 

 

I can't be arsed with you mate. You have made your position quite clear, You think we should run the club with prohibitive transfer limits like Everton, Villa etc etc...then oddly complain the club lacks ambition.

 

No I want us to spend the money we earn. You wish to put us in to debt that may take us down the Ridsdale route.

 

Then decline to answer my question as to your opinion on the current board succeeding in developing the ground, which their predecessors going back 80 years had failed to achieve.

 

What they have done they have done the best of their ability. As did the board in 1972, and in 1988.

Capacity wise 52,000 is about right.

They should have had the ability to have moved the ground to Castle Leazes.

 

You indeed would have loved the old board,

 

you putting my opinion, strangeto see that

 

having implied (you giving my opinion again, strange )  you would be happy buying players for 2 or 3m quid, just so long as the club doesn't have the courage to attempt to tap its considerable fanbase, and take dividends. You should support the mackems, they fit your criteria perfectly, they only buy 2nd rate players for half a milliion quid or the equivalent, as we did ourselves for over 30 years before the Halls and Shepherd.

 

You then say you doubt that a bigger stadium of 52,000 than necessary for NUFC to fulfill their potential. Priceless.

 

Not to mention the lie you said previously, that you were happy with the way the club was run until the summer of 2003 - until I turned up the article you wrote in the Mag in 1998 complaining about money paid in dividends. Boring, boring twisting of facts, strange, and further highlights you complete and utter lack of knwoledge of financing

 

I think you should stick to the outside knowledge of the club that you have from living in Dunfermline, because you certainly have absolutely no idea of the potential of Newcastle United.

 

Have to be old and living in Newcastle to have an opinion. Snob

 

 

What do you think of Englands performance under Eriksson, having been appointed by Crozier, the man you said was "perfect for Newcastle " - until you realised he wouldn't do the job for free.... never said that, you twisting comments again, go and get the quote if you want, strange

 

And what do you think of Polygon taking over the club, what has happened to them, as you clearly think anyone but the Halls and Shepherd would do a better job ?

 

Never said that. That was you twisting your opinion into being mine. Dreame, nothing but a dreamer ...

 

 

As grass doesn't answer...and he seems to agree with you effect or something.....I'm curious to know your opinion, as you seem to consider yourself to be a financial expert or something....although not a footballing one....

 

 

[Rob W]

Give it up lads - or stop quoting each other - this is getting bor........................ z.......................................

[NE5]

Easy to say with hindsight. Not forgetting your agenda of course. I don't remember you saying that in The Mag at the time, so does this mean you also lacked vision ?

Think you need to go and do some re-reading  :winking:

 

A successful Newcastle would fill a 70,000 ground, the Keegan era proved that. Filling a 52,000 ground with a team that hasn't won a trophy also proves it. Yes probably not for a home game in the League Cup against a 4th division team or whatever. But for the majority of the time it would.

 

Not convinced on your definition of "proof". "Proof" usually means incontrovertible evidence. So "proof" would be like "England are not in the World Cup final". Anyone suggesting that we would have got 70,000 under Keegan is expressing an opinion as I don't recall 70,000 actually being in the ground for any game under him. Similarly getting 52,000 now and suggesting we'd get 55,000 or 70,000 or 100,000 is just guess work and not "proof". Me suggesting we may not need any more than 52,000 is similarly guess work. I liked your leap from my example of this season's upcoming Premiership games to 4th division League Cup games, nice one.

 

 

You have a point about there being smaller crowds if season tickets were not "compulsory" and people attended on a match to match basis. This is also something I've often though about, through knowing through experience of when we had a shit board that nobody wanted to go to games and support the club anymore. However, I see it in a positive light, and think that at the end of the day, it is up to club to make sure they tap their potential and set standards high enough to keep it filled.

 

I have to admit you are older than me

 

You wrote in the Mag that the club should move the pitch and rebuild the stadium 50 yards away, going to all that expense to build a stadium of less than 52,000 - as you say you don't think we would fill it ? If that is the case, what is the point of doing that rather than be happy with what we have now ?

 

Which Mag was that in ?

 

What is your opinion on the directors managing to achieve what our old directors failed to do in 80 years ?

 

You tell me, its far easier if you just tell me what I'm going to say rather than me having to wait for your reply twisting what I'd just said.

 

How do you call the board lacking in vision and ambition when you have said you think the club wouldn't fill a bigger stadium often enough to make it equally viable ?

 

Beautifully constructed question

 

Why do you not want the club to buy quality players when it means them going over budget sometimes ie speculating ?

 

I'm happy we should spend all the money we have available on players, but not any more than that. Why do you actively support the club spending money on buying shares from Sir John Hall rather than spending it on players, or saving to spend on players ?

 

Bit rich of you to say the current board have no ambition, where ? because from what I can see there is only one person here who lacks ambition, and its you.

 

 

I bet the loved the old board, who sat in no mans land, looking at the books, taking no risks, and simply selling a player when they needed to pay off a debt or do something to the ground. Further shown by your failure to believe the club could fill a 70,000 stadium if they were even fairly successful. You have no idea of the potential of the club do you ?

 

BIG jump there, even for you, and at your age. Just cos I saw us getting only 37,000 for a Uefa quarter-final 14 months ago you seem to think I show no ambition. 37,000 for a European quarter final would make a 70,000 stadium look like Stadium of Light. I think we all know the potential, or believe we do. Sometimes reality has to be looked at too

 

Yes, I am a bit older than you. And ? Does this mean you are going to take my word as being more aware and experienced than yours ?

You would do yourself a favour if you did .......

Maybe more experienced, but demonstrably not more aware

 

 

You implied you wrote that, if you didn't I'll revert to my original statement.

 

No you said I'd written it, not me. It is often like that:

 

Reality >>>>> reported facts >>>>> journalistic guesswork >>>>> Sun made-up stories >>>>> complete and utter rubbish >>>>> NE5 proof

 

The rest is your usual negative, unambitious rubbish mate. You would have loved the old board.

 

I think you know, eerr, not very much about Newcastle United.

 

Cheers, for the informed replies.

 

Ditto. I always know where to get a good made up story. You could be the new old Mr Grace, seen it all, know it all, and everyone smiles at you.

 

 

I can't be arsed with you mate. You have made your position quite clear, You think we should run the club with prohibitive transfer limits like Everton, Villa etc etc...then oddly complain the club lacks ambition.

 

No I want us to spend the money we earn. You wish to put us in to debt that may take us down the Ridsdale route.

 

Then decline to answer my question as to your opinion on the current board succeeding in developing the ground, which their predecessors going back 80 years had failed to achieve.

 

What they have done they have done the best of their ability. As did the board in 1972, and in 1988.

Capacity wise 52,000 is about right.

They should have had the ability to have moved the ground to Castle Leazes.

 

You indeed would have loved the old board,

 

you putting my opinion, strangeto see that

 

having implied (you giving my opinion again, strange )   you would be happy buying players for 2 or 3m quid, just so long as the club doesn't have the courage to attempt to tap its considerable fanbase, and take dividends. You should support the mackems, they fit your criteria perfectly, they only buy 2nd rate players for half a milliion quid or the equivalent, as we did ourselves for over 30 years before the Halls and Shepherd.

 

You then say you doubt that a bigger stadium of 52,000 than necessary for NUFC to fulfill their potential. Priceless.

 

Not to mention the lie you said previously, that you were happy with the way the club was run until the summer of 2003 - until I turned up the article you wrote in the Mag in 1998 complaining about money paid in dividends. Boring, boring twisting of facts, strange, and further highlights you complete and utter lack of knwoledge of financing

 

I think you should stick to the outside knowledge of the club that you have from living in Dunfermline, because you certainly have absolutely no idea of the potential of Newcastle United.

 

Have to be old and living in Newcastle to have an opinion. Snob

 

 

What do you think of Englands performance under Eriksson, having been appointed by Crozier, the man you said was "perfect for Newcastle " - until you realised he wouldn't do the job for free.... never said that, you twisting comments again, go and get the quote if you want, strange

 

And what do you think of Polygon taking over the club, what has happened to them, as you clearly think anyone but the Halls and Shepherd would do a better job ?

 

Never said that. That was you twisting your opinion into being mine. Dreame, nothing but a dreamer ...

 

 

As grass doesn't answer...and he seems to agree with you effect or something.....I'm curious to know your opinion, as you seem to consider yourself to be a financial expert or something....although not a footballing one....

 

 

I want the club to buy quality players, to speculate and stay near the top of the league, and keep the stadium full, you want us to compete at the levels of Villa, Everton, Man city, mackems,  etc....or worse like the old board did for over 30 years, just so long as they don't take dividends - your agenda - and preferably run by anyone but Shepherd - your agenda - just because he wouldn't let your daft organisation have a say in the running of the club despite making no committment that entitled you to doing such a thing.

 

I take it you think we should never have bought Shearer - because we didn't "earn" 15m quid that summer? Or Robert and Bellamy ? Nice to see you would rather we had stayed in mid table. Bringing smaller crowds, less income, bringing smaller crowds, less income. Never mind so long as the books are alright.

 

Your scaremongering ie the Ridsdale statements might scare some of the younger element on here, but not everybody, or is a deliberate lie or a skirting of the truth like your comment that you were happy with the way the club was run until 2003 when you had whined on about dividends in 1998, not to mention buying Robert and Bellamy in 2001 as I've just said above.

 

I am quite happy for the club to buy these players, and accept that if it doesn't work out a short period of adjustment is necessary, like now. I have said this to you on many occasions. I would far rather the club had a go at aiming for the top spots than sitting in permanent mediocrity buying players for 2 or 3m quid. YOu should address such statements to those who constanty telll Fred to splash the cash, but you don't do that because it would look as if you were backing him, and you don't want to do that because of your agenda. The directors haven't taken dividends this year - your agenda - so we will see how much difference it makes on an annual basis. A lot less than a move to a bigger stadium would make I bet - yet you are against that. Zero ambition, no idea of the football club, you would have just loved the old directors, loved them 

 

To recap, I said this - in response to you agreeing with someone that the pitch should have been moved a few hundred yards, saying it was because the clubs directors lacked vision and ambiton.

 

Easy to say with hindsight. Not forgetting your agenda of course. I don't remember you saying that in The Mag at the time, so does this mean you also lacked vision ?

 

you responded with this, which indicates you actually did said that at the time

Think you need to go and do some re-reading

 

 

I think you should drop your obsession with dividends mate, it's making you look silly, because you just don't know enough about the football club to back up your views, not to mention I've already proven you a liar once, and using poor judgement too ie Crozier, such is your desperation to get rid of Shepherd for anyone.

 

PS - BTW - it may be a bit complicated for you, but when I put a question mark after a sentence, it means I'm asking you a question, not quoting you.

 

 

[macbeth]

 

 

I want the club to buy quality players, to speculate and stay near the top of the league, and keep the stadium full, you want us to compete at the levels of Villa, Everton, Man city, mackems,  etc....

 

 

I have never said that, that is you trying to put words into my mouth. Show me where I have said that. Not your opinion/view twisting of what I said, but where I said it.

 

or worse like the old board did for over 30 years, just so long as they don't take dividends - your agenda - and preferably run by anyone but Shepherd - your agenda - just because he wouldn't let your daft organisation have a say in the running of the club despite making no committment that entitled you to doing such a thing.

 

You keep going on about my "agenda". You are making it all up. You are jumping to your own conclusions about things I've never said, then are criticising me for what you have imagined I have said. Strange. Shepherd instigated the FLC.

 

I have never ever said "anyone but Shepherd". That is nearly as daft as saying no one else could do the job he does.

 

 

 

I take it you think

 

"I take it you think" translates to "I'm going to make something up that I think you may have said then I'm ging to criticise you for it". Magic

 

 

we should never have bought Shearer - because we didn't "earn" 15m quid that summer? Or Robert and Bellamy ? Nice to see you would rather we had stayed in mid table. Bringing smaller crowds, less income, bringing smaller crowds, less income. Never mind so long as the books are alright.

 

Again !!! I have never mentioned Shearer, Bellamy or Robert's transfers, either in or out. You are accusing me of thinking things that have never crossed my mind. You are again making up things and then criticising what you've made up. Very strange.

 

Your scaremongering ie the Ridsdale statements might scare some of the younger element on here, but not everybody, or is a deliberate lie or a skirting of the truth like your comment that you were happy with the way the club was run until 2003 when you had whined on about dividends in 1998, not to mention buying Robert and Bellamy in 2001 as I've just said above.

 

Robert and Bellamy now blossoming towards becoming something I definitely said. Strange. You'll be believing it next, and then will say you saw it in the Mag with your own eyes.

 

I am quite happy for the club to buy these players, and accept that if it doesn't work out a short period of adjustment is necessary, like now. I have said this to you on many occasions. I would far rather the club had a go at aiming for the top spots than sitting in permanent mediocrity buying players for 2 or 3m quid. YOu should address such statements to those who constantly tell Fred to splash the cash,  I do    but you don't do that because it would look as if you were backing him, and you don't want to do that because of your agenda.

 

He cannot spend any more of the club's money as it is all gone, either spent on players or just given away. It isn't a case of why he does or doesn't do it this summer, it's just a case of the club not having any to spend.

 

 

The directors haven't taken dividends this year - your agenda - so we will see how much difference it makes on an annual basis.

 

We've tried this before. Why divide into an annual amount ? Why not just say that the club have given away £35m to shareholders ? I'd have preferred it still be able to the team manager, you prefer it to be in Hall & Shepherd bank accounts. We will just have to differ on the things that matter most to us.

 

They have taken A lot less than a move to a bigger stadium would make I bet - yet you are against that. Zero ambition, no idea of the football club, you would have just loved the old directors, loved them 

 

Making up my opinion on the old directors too, and then criticising me on that made up view ? Very, very strange.

Did you approve of the East Stand in 1972, or the main stand in ~1988 ?

To recap, I said this - in response to you agreeing with someone that the pitch should have been moved a few hundred yards, saying it was because the clubs directors lacked vision and ambiton.

 

Easy to say with hindsight. Not forgetting your agenda of course. I don't remember you saying that in The Mag at the time, so does this mean you also lacked vision ?

 

you responded with this, which indicates you actually did said that at the time

Think you need to go and do some re-reading

 

no it suggests you need to go and do some re-reading to be sure of your facts. You were guessing at my views again. Why ?

 

 

 

I think you should drop your obsession with dividends mate, it's making you look silly, because you just don't know enough about the football club to back up your views, not to mention I've already proven you a liar once, and using poor judgement too ie Crozier, such is your desperation to get rid of Shepherd for anyone.

 

I never bring up dividends these days. Don't need to, as you do. This was about grounds, and I posted about grounds, YOU then brought up dividends, although I'm not really sure why? Are YOU obsessed with them, guilt maybe ?

As for Crozier, do you think he wouddl have done better or worse if he had appointed Souness ?

 

PS - BTW - it may be a bit complicated for you, but when I put a question mark after a sentence, it means I'm asking you a question, not quoting you.

 

Excellent, you should be on the stage !! Remember those 13 questions that were asked of you and you couldn't/wouldn’t answer ? But best of all is that in this little attempt at humour you forgot to put question marks in !! Apart from when you accused me of not approving of some transfers when I have never expressed an opinion on them, and demanding I replied to your made-up comments.

Old age is a terrible thing

 

 

 

[macbeth]

Give it up lads - or stop quoting each other - this is getting bor........................ z.......................................

 

Some pro-plus, sir ?

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

I thought this thread was about stadiums

[macbeth]

I thought this thread was about stadiums

 

somebody moved the goalposts 

[Guest Morph]

fuck me.

 

NE5 4tw like.

[NE5]

 

 

I want the club to buy quality players, to speculate and stay near the top of the league, and keep the stadium full, you want us to compete at the levels of Villa, Everton, Man city, mackems,  etc....

 

 

I have never said that, that is you trying to put words into my mouth. Show me where I have said that. Not your opinion/view twisting of what I said, but where I said it.

 

or worse like the old board did for over 30 years, just so long as they don't take dividends - your agenda - and preferably run by anyone but Shepherd - your agenda - just because he wouldn't let your daft organisation have a say in the running of the club despite making no committment that entitled you to doing such a thing.

 

You keep going on about my "agenda". You are making it all up. You are jumping to your own conclusions about things I've never said, then are criticising me for what you have imagined I have said. Strange. Shepherd instigated the FLC.

 

I have never ever said "anyone but Shepherd". That is nearly as daft as saying no one else could do the job he does.

 

 

 

I take it you think

 

"I take it you think" translates to "I'm going to make something up that I think you may have said then I'm ging to criticise you for it". Magic

 

 

we should never have bought Shearer - because we didn't "earn" 15m quid that summer? Or Robert and Bellamy ? Nice to see you would rather we had stayed in mid table. Bringing smaller crowds, less income, bringing smaller crowds, less income. Never mind so long as the books are alright.

 

Again !!! I have never mentioned Shearer, Bellamy or Robert's transfers, either in or out. You are accusing me of thinking things that have never crossed my mind. You are again making up things and then criticising what you've made up. Very strange.

 

Your scaremongering ie the Ridsdale statements might scare some of the younger element on here, but not everybody, or is a deliberate lie or a skirting of the truth like your comment that you were happy with the way the club was run until 2003 when you had whined on about dividends in 1998, not to mention buying Robert and Bellamy in 2001 as I've just said above.

 

Robert and Bellamy now blossoming towards becoming something I definitely said. Strange. You'll be believing it next, and then will say you saw it in the Mag with your own eyes.

 

I am quite happy for the club to buy these players, and accept that if it doesn't work out a short period of adjustment is necessary, like now. I have said this to you on many occasions. I would far rather the club had a go at aiming for the top spots than sitting in permanent mediocrity buying players for 2 or 3m quid. YOu should address such statements to those who constantly tell Fred to splash the cash,    I do     but you don't do that because it would look as if you were backing him, and you don't want to do that because of your agenda.

 

He cannot spend any more of the club's money as it is all gone, either spent on players or just given away. It isn't a case of why he does or doesn't do it this summer, it's just a case of the club not having any to spend.

 

 

The directors haven't taken dividends this year - your agenda - so we will see how much difference it makes on an annual basis.

 

We've tried this before. Why divide into an annual amount ? Why not just say that the club have given away £35m to shareholders ? I'd have preferred it still be able to the team manager, you prefer it to be in Hall & Shepherd bank accounts. We will just have to differ on the things that matter most to us.

 

They have taken A lot less than a move to a bigger stadium would make I bet - yet you are against that. Zero ambition, no idea of the football club, you would have just loved the old directors, loved them 

 

Making up my opinion on the old directors too, and then criticising me on that made up view ? Very, very strange.

Did you approve of the East Stand in 1972, or the main stand in ~1988 ?

To recap, I said this - in response to you agreeing with someone that the pitch should have been moved a few hundred yards, saying it was because the clubs directors lacked vision and ambiton.

 

Easy to say with hindsight. Not forgetting your agenda of course. I don't remember you saying that in The Mag at the time, so does this mean you also lacked vision ?

 

you responded with this, which indicates you actually did said that at the time

Think you need to go and do some re-reading

 

no it suggests you need to go and do some re-reading to be sure of your facts. You were guessing at my views again. Why ?

 

 

 

I think you should drop your obsession with dividends mate, it's making you look silly, because you just don't know enough about the football club to back up your views, not to mention I've already proven you a liar once, and using poor judgement too ie Crozier, such is your desperation to get rid of Shepherd for anyone.

 

I never bring up dividends these days. Don't need to, as you do. This was about grounds, and I posted about grounds, YOU then brought up dividends, although I'm not really sure why? Are YOU obsessed with them, guilt maybe ?

As for Crozier, do you think he wouddl have done better or worse if he had appointed Souness ?

 

PS - BTW - it may be a bit complicated for you, but when I put a question mark after a sentence, it means I'm asking you a question, not quoting you.

 

Excellent, you should be on the stage !! Remember those 13 questions that were asked of you and you couldn't/wouldn’t answer ? But best of all is that in this little attempt at humour you forgot to put question marks in !! Apart from when you accused me of not approving of some transfers when I have never expressed an opinion on them, and demanding I replied to your made-up comments.

Old age is a terrible thing

 

 

 

 

I don't think it takes much intelligence to work out that as you say we should only spend the profit we make, we didnt' make the amount of profit needed to have bought Shearer, and Robert/Bellamy.

 

What are you on exactly ?

 

You know you have an agenda. And you lack ambition.

 

Your last sentence is just childish and stupid. I'm the same age as Glenn Roeder, whats the problem with that.

 

 

 

 

[Exiled in Texas]

I thought this thread was about stadiums

 

somebody moved the goalposts 

 

Yes, but was it to Castle Leazes, Gateshead or the Town Moor  tongue.gif

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

about 5 pages back was a link to take the bollocks about the board to another thread, why don't you go and use it FFS

[macbeth]

 

I don't think it takes much intelligence to work out that as you say we should only spend the profit we make, we didnt' make the amount of profit needed to have bought Shearer, and Robert/Bellamy.

 

Never said we should only spend our profits. We have had profits in 2 of the last 9 years, and each of those was under £300,000 !!!! Maybe you should twist it to say I think we should have only spent about £500,000 inthe last 9 years. Go on, it woudl be a new made up story for you, you seem to need some new ones.

 

What are you on exactly ?

 

You know you have an agenda. And you lack ambition.

 

No, I don't know that. You seem to know, but I don't. The only time I know what I really think is when I read what you've made up on here. Strange.

 

Your last sentence is just childish and stupid. I'm the same age as Glenn Roeder, whats the problem with that.

 

Nothing. But old age can be a terrible thing, if you feel you're old then it must be terrible for you. Roeder seems young and alert, just shows how differently it effects different people.

 

Oh and you should have put a question mark at the end of your sentence, then I would have known it was a question. Getting forgetful too ?

 

[NE5]

 

I don't think it takes much intelligence to work out that as you say we should only spend the profit we make, we didnt' make the amount of profit needed to have bought Shearer, and Robert/Bellamy.

 

Never said we should only spend our profits. We have had profits in 2 of the last 9 years, and each of those was under £300,000 !!!! Maybe you should twist it to say I think we should have only spent about £500,000 inthe last 9 years. Go on, it woudl be a new made up story for you, you seem to need some new ones.

 

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,24529.msg455829.html#msg455829

 

"No I want us to spend the money we earn. "

 

You are in a state of denial mate, the same as you denied the lie you told that you were happy with the way the club was run until 2003, until I turned up an article where you were whinging about the club paying dividends in 1998.

 

You lied when you denied saying Crozier was a "perfect appointment". I supplied the quote by yourself saying that very thing.

 

You lied when you said you didn't imply you wrote in the mag saying you suggested the club move the pitch and stadium 50 yards or so, when you clearly did imply you said this at the time.

 

Real desperation stuff now. The best thing you can do is forget your agenda and just admit that by producing factual info, I've ran rings around you .....  :lol:

 

Can anyone believe what you say anymore.....

 

As you have not met me, you have no idea of me or know anything about me.

 

Are you a Geordie BTW ? Serious question.

 

 

[macbeth]

You are in a state of denial mate, the same as you denied the lie you told that you were happy with the way the club was run until 2003, until I turned up an article where you were whinging about the club paying dividends in 1998.

 

Didn't lie. You twisted me always being against dividends, yet approving of other things as meaning I was anti-everything. It would be like me asking you if you approved of the signing of Tony Green ? If you replied yes I could say that you approved of the board at the time. Sometimes there is more than one part to the whole picture. I see dividends as always bad. Sometimes other policies may be correct. You struggle to separate things. So you did you approve of the old board signign Tony Green ? I won't EVER use your answer against you.

 

You lied when you denied saying Crozier was a "perfect appointment". I supplied the quote by yourself saying that very thing.

 

Still think he'd be pretty perfect. Senior board room skills, turnaround underperforming huge companies. He does a job far more challenging than being chairman of an £80m company. You never answered my question regarding him though. Do you think Crozier would have done better if he had appointed Souness as manager ? I won't EVER use this against you, I am genuinely interested in your reply.

 

You lied when you said you didn't imply you wrote in the mag saying you suggested the club move the pitch and stadium 50 yards or so, when you clearly did imply you said this at the time.

 

No I just asked you to re-read. As ever you leapt to conclusions. In the past you said you read all the Mags, that you were there to read them, you must have known what you had read, and what you were accusing me of on here, or are you getting forgetful again ?

 

Real desperation stuff now. The best thing you can do is forget your agenda (it was only you who ever thought I had an agenda, so it will be easy for me to forget) and just admit that by producing factual info, I've ran rings around you .....  :lol:

 

But you never use facts, you always use opinion dressed up as facts. You are so brilliant at twisting things that you start to beleive the things you say are facts. This thread had you saying something along the lines "Keegan's era proved we needed a capacity of 70,000". As we never got a home crowd above 37,000 the whole time he was manager then where was the proof? Just cos you believe it may be true ( and it may have been possible that we could have filled 70,000 then, but we'll never know) doesn't mean it is a proven fact. I'm pretty sure I can prove that we have never, ever had a home crowd of 70,000, unless you know better of course.

 

Can anyone believe what you say anymore.....

 

the rest of the forum is laughing at us, laughing at you twisting comments people make, making up others opinions; and laughing at me for being this dogged little terrier who just can't seem to give in on trying to raise the awareness of the club's finances.

 

 

As you have not met me, you have no idea of me or know anything about me.

 

But you have put all sorts of words into my mouth. How many times have you started a question along the lines of  "so you must think ..."? If I have descended to your level I apologise, maybe I'm getting old too.

 

Are you a Geordie BTW ? Serious question.

 

Is this you clinging to age and birthright as the "proof" of your worth. I know from experience that the last time you asked a "serious  question" you didn't mean it, so I'll pass on answering that one.

 

 

[NE5]

You are in a state of denial mate, the same as you denied the lie you told that you were happy with the way the club was run until 2003, until I turned up an article where you were whinging about the club paying dividends in 1998.

 

Didn't lie. You twisted me always being against dividends, yet approving of other things as meaning I was anti-everything. It would be like me asking you if you approved of the signing of Tony Green ? If you replied yes I could say that you approved of the board at the time. Sometimes there is more than one part to the whole picture. I see dividends as always bad. Sometimes other policies may be correct. You struggle to separate things. So you did you approve of the old board signign Tony Green ? I won't EVER use your answer against you.

 

You lied when you denied saying Crozier was a "perfect appointment". I supplied the quote by yourself saying that very thing.

 

Still think he'd be pretty perfect. Senior board room skills, turnaround underperforming huge companies. He does a job far more challenging than being chairman of an £80m company. You never answered my question regarding him though. Do you think Crozier would have done better if he had appointed Souness as manager ? I won't EVER use this against you, I am genuinely interested in your reply.

 

You lied when you said you didn't imply you wrote in the mag saying you suggested the club move the pitch and stadium 50 yards or so, when you clearly did imply you said this at the time.

 

No I just asked you to re-read. As ever you leapt to conclusions. In the past you said you read all the Mags, that you were there to read them, you must have known what you had read, and what you were accusing me of on here, or are you getting forgetful again ?

 

Real desperation stuff now. The best thing you can do is forget your agenda (it was only you who ever thought I had an agenda, so it will be easy for me to forget) and just admit that by producing factual info, I've ran rings around you .....  :lol:

 

But you never use facts, you always use opinion dressed up as facts. You are so brilliant at twisting things that you start to beleive the things you say are facts. This thread had you saying something along the lines "Keegan's era proved we needed a capacity of 70,000". As we never got a home crowd above 37,000 the whole time he was manager then where was the proof? Just cos you believe it may be true ( and it may have been possible that we could have filled 70,000 then, but we'll never know) doesn't mean it is a proven fact. I'm pretty sure I can prove that we have never, ever had a home crowd of 70,000, unless you know better of course.

 

Can anyone believe what you say anymore.....

 

the rest of the forum is laughing at us, laughing at you twisting comments people make, making up others opinions; and laughing at me for being this dogged little terrier who just can't seem to give in on trying to raise the awareness of the club's finances.

 

 

As you have not met me, you have no idea of me or know anything about me.

 

But you have put all sorts of words into my mouth. How many times have you started a question along the lines of  "so you must think ..."? If I have descended to your level I apologise, maybe I'm getting old too.

 

Are you a Geordie BTW ? Serious question.

 

Is this you clinging to age and birthright as the "proof" of your worth. I know from experience that the last time you asked a "serious  question" you didn't mean it, so I'll pass on answering that one.

 

 

Everyone makes mistakes. The only thing I have said, is these directors have ambition for the club, under these directors we have attained our most successful positions in the top league since the 1950's at least. Fact. We are also filling the ground every home game, so despite what you and others say on here about the current board being "shit" or whatever, the fact remains they have achieved more for the club than anyone else has done for many decades. People are filling the stadium because they recognise that, that is true, because if they didn't, they would simply stay away just like they did before.

 

Football reality, which reflects itself in the clubs economics.

 

You won't even acknowledge the success of the directors in overcoming the council etc and getting the improvements to SJP that all their predecessor had failed to achieve, never mind the high league positions on the pitch during their time in charge.

 

Of course I approved of the signing of Tony Green. No one who saw him would say otherwise. Significant though is the fact that he and Malcolm MacDonald broke the old 2nd division transfer record, not the first divisions record, or spending money on current, England internationals at their peak or approaching the peak of their careers. For every Tony Green and MacDonald there was at least 5 or 6 duds, because the club operated in that market. This is the point, that I suspect you know, but won't acknowledge, because it means you then look as if you are putting Shepherd and Hall in a good light, your reluctance to do this is puzzling, the only possible explanation for this, considering you ARE aware of where the club was before they came in, must be that you have an agenda against them.

 

You simply can't argue that the club was unambitious, having players of the time [Pop Robson - another local lad followed almost FIFTEEN years later by 3 more] saying so, Gordon Lee moving to Everton because they were more ambitious than us, and then the relegation,  wasted promotion, and subsequent sale of 3 players who were to become big England players.

 

Odd that you now say think Crozier is "perfect", when you earlier denied you said he was perfect in the first instance .....

 

This man appointed Eriksson, and put himself and his little office in Soho before the future of English football for the next 100 years. As a "businessman", you simply can't say that running outside industry means he will be good at running a football club, especially when you have very little proof that he understands how football operates, because it is different. This too, is what I think is the trouble with you. You don't understand this. You talk about us spending "profit", but no successful club spends "profit". Did Manu make 30m quid when they bought Rooney, or similar when they bought Veron, Ferdinand, and Van Nistelrooy ?  In football you have to take financial risks if you want to stay ahead, the success of it depends on how good a manager you have, as he is the person who exercises professional judgment and is responsible for the setup and success on the pitch of the team, which ultimately determines everything. And our old board for decades had the same caution as you do, as do the vast majority of other big city clubs that we have overtaken since we ourselves changed our own approach in the early 1990's. The only thing caution will get you in football is nothing. No europe, consistent low league positions, nothing. And while money doesn't guarantee success, no club has ever been successful on the back of a good league position without spending money.

 

The fact that we are getting 52,000 now, and that the demand for the Keegan years was bigger than now, tells anyone that we could fill a 70,000 stadium if we are successful. I am amazed you question this. This is the reason I asked if you were a Geordie BTW, not attempting to read into your reply, I see your failure to see this as being indicative you don't understand the area in they way I thought you would.

 

Why do you think "the rest of the board is laughing at us" ? As it happens, I don't. One or two might be, one or two are probably bored stiff. Does this bother you ? It doesn't bother me. I laugh at quite a lot of posts, and most threads bore me to death, but thats just the way it goes, each to his own.

 

 

[Sima]

It's close season, there's not that much worthwhile NUFC news going around which doesn't help.

 

True. I think the NUFC forum will always be like this though. God knows all attempts to improve it have been exercised.

 

HTT such a martyr.

[Syrette]

bluesleep.gif

[NE5]

bluesleep.gif

 

One of your longer and more informed posts there ....

 

 

[macbeth]

 

 

Everyone makes mistakes. The only thing I have said, is these directors have ambition for the club, under these directors we have attained our most successful positions in the top league since the 1950's at least. Fact.

 

Yep that is a fact, well done, you seem to be getting the hang of the difference between fact and opinion.

 

We are also filling the ground every home game, so despite what you and others say on here about the current board being "shit" or whatever, the fact remains they have achieved more for the club than anyone else has done for many decades.

 

 

Whoops. Don't think you'll find I've ever used the word "shit". It's not a word I use. Back to you putting words in to the mouths of others. Tut, tut

 

People are filling the stadium because they recognise that, that is true, because if they didn't, they would simply stay away just like they did before.

 

Again, supposition. May well be right but the whole of the Premiership has higher crowds than say 16 years ago. Surely not all those clubs are showing the same ambition as us ? You are also guessing at others opinions, or others reasons for doing things.

 

Football reality, which reflects itself in the clubs economics.

 

You won't even acknowledge the success of the directors in overcoming the council etc and getting the improvements to SJP that all their predecessor had failed to achieve, never mind the high league positions on the pitch during their time in charge.

 

Okay, I applaud McKeag for getting permission to build the main stand ? I am surprised you raised that, as I thought you were very anti-McKeag ? I'm slightly confused on this one, maybe you need to explain more clearly.

 

 

Of course I approved of the signing of Tony Green. No one who saw him would say otherwise. Significant though is the fact that he and Malcolm MacDonald broke the old 2nd division transfer record, not the first divisions record, or spending money on current, England internationals at their peak or approaching the peak of their careers. For every Tony Green and MacDonald there was at least 5 or 6 duds, because the club operated in that market. This is the point, that I suspect you know, but won't acknowledge, because it means you then look as if you are putting Shepherd and Hall in a good light, your reluctance to do this is puzzling, the only possible explanation for this, considering you ARE aware of where the club was before they came in, must be that you have an agenda against them.

 

Why ask a question and then answer it yourself ? I suppose you're assured of getting the answer you first thought of. AND you slipped into bringing "my" agenda in to  your point again. Only you ever raises this as only you seem to know what I think on lots of subjects.

 

You simply can't argue that the club was unambitious, having players of the time [Pop Robson - another local lad followed almost FIFTEEN years later by 3 more] saying so, Gordon Lee moving to Everton because they were more ambitious than us, and then the relegation,  wasted promotion, and subsequent sale of 3 players who were to become big England players.

 

It wasn't anything to do with ambition. It was to do with total incompetence. Being ambitious is not the same as having talent. By son has ambitions to be the next great roick drummer. If he doesn't have the talent it won't happen. No matter how many times mortgage the house to borrow to get him drum lessons.

 

Odd that you now say think Crozier is "perfect", when you earlier denied you said he was perfect in the first instance .....

 

"Twisting the night away ".

 

Would he have been better appointing Souness ?

 

 

This man appointed Eriksson, and put himself and his little office in Soho before the future of English football for the next 100 years. As a "businessman", you simply can't say that running outside industry means he will be good at running a football club, especially when you have very little proof that he understands how football operates, because it is different. This too, is what I think is the trouble with you. You don't understand this. You talk about us spending "profit", but no successful club spends "profit".

 

 

I have NEVER mentioned spending "profit". You made that expression up. It just doesn't make financial sense, it's like someone who doesn't understand football saying twe should play 1-5-5 formation cos it would mean more goals. "Spending profit" is just not a phrase ever used in finance.

 

Did Manu make 30m quid when they bought Rooney, or similar when they bought Veron, Ferdinand, and Van Nistelrooy ?  In football you have to take financial risks if you want to stay ahead, the success of it depends on how good a manager you have, as he is the person who exercises professional judgment and is responsible for the setup and success on the pitch of the team, which ultimately determines everything. And our old board for decades had the same caution as you do, as do the vast majority of other big city clubs that we have overtaken since we ourselves changed our own approach in the early 1990's. The only thing caution will get you in football is nothing. No europe, consistent low league positions, nothing. And while money doesn't guarantee success, no club has ever been successful on the back of a good league position without spending money.

 

Sorry you mean well, and I understand what you're trying to say, but you clearly just don't have a financial background to fall back on.

 

The fact that we are getting 52,000 now, and that the demand for the Keegan years was bigger than now, tells anyone that we could fill a 70,000 stadium if we are successful. I am amazed you question this. This is the reason I asked if you were a Geordie BTW, not attempting to read into your reply, I see your failure to see this as being indicative you don't understand the area in they way I thought you would.

 

Sorry that is your opinion again, not a fact. We all remember Keegan and insatiable demand, but it has to be guesswork at what level t he demand was, be it 53,000 or 70,000 or 100,000 or 150,000. No one knows.

 

I really don't understand why being a Geordie or not is relevent.

 

Why do you think "the rest of the board is laughing at us" ? As it happens, I don't. One or two might be, one or two are probably bored stiff. Does this bother you ? It doesn't bother me. I laugh at quite a lot of posts, and most threads bore me to death, but thats just the way it goes, each to his own.

 

You should stop posting as much then  :winking:

[Howaythelads]

macbeth

 

I made a point in my reply to your post to me earlier about the value of the manager. If I've missed your reply in among the odd way you quote people I'm sorry, but I haven't seen one.

 

I'd appreciate a reply if you feel able to drag yourself away from your current diatribe.

 

Cheers

 

I've been away, was it this one ...

 

 

 

 

 

I understand everything you're saying although you may want to claim otherwise. I've gone on record in the past as saying the people who slate the Board for not buying anyone in summer 2003 are full of shit, because they don't understand the big picture of the previous 32 months during which the transfer deficit was over £45m, and the wage bill went up due to the increase in squad size. I've said a lot of times I don't want the club to become another Leeds, yet you think you have some kind of monopoly on that thought. Fact is, the choice was keep disruptive players at a risk or rebuild at a risk. They went for the rebuild. What would you have done? Would you have got rid of the disruptive players and left us in a relegation battle? It would have happened and very nearly did, the consequences of relegation can't be overestimated.

 

As I have said I was sure we'd go down before we signed Owen, couldn't see any way for us to stay up.

My issue with that summer fo 2003 and no signings is not necessarily the lack of signings but the club still spending £8.5m for no benefit to the club. If there was no money for players, for the reason you suggest (which is a fair argument) then there should not have been money available to spend on anything.

 

I think you don't want to listen to reason. You may believe you don't have an agenda, but it comes across that way and it's definitely affecting your thought process.

 

I am more than happy to debate with you. You have clearly thought about it, and come up with good points.

I have tried to shy away from the "but Shepherd appointed Souness" comment, because that isn't what I'm worried about. (I also shy away from it as I am deeply uncomfortable with the Roeder appointment and I'd love Shepherd to have some luck this time). (But Shpeherd did appoint them both, and that is his key decision in his job spec)

 

My upset comes from the deterioration of the club's finances over the last three years. I really want to try and understand, and your scenario helps although I have said I have reservations about the actual timing matching your suggestions. I couldn't currently go on to the RTG board and say how great Shepherd is, I could three years ago.

 

Please keep arguing with me, I like a good discussion !

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Mate, it wasn't that one but thanks for trying. I can't find the question/point myself after the admin' bloke finished his fannying around with the posts.  Forget it.

[NE5]

 

 

Everyone makes mistakes. The only thing I have said, is these directors have ambition for the club, under these directors we have attained our most successful positions in the top league since the 1950's at least. Fact.

 

Yep that is a fact, well done, you seem to be getting the hang of the difference between fact and opinion.

 

We are also filling the ground every home game, so despite what you and others say on here about the current board being "shit" or whatever, the fact remains they have achieved more for the club than anyone else has done for many decades.

 

 

Whoops. Don't think you'll find I've ever used the word "shit". It's not a word I use. Back to you putting words in to the mouths of others. Tut, tut

 

People are filling the stadium because they recognise that, that is true, because if they didn't, they would simply stay away just like they did before.

 

Again, supposition. May well be right but the whole of the Premiership has higher crowds than say 16 years ago. Surely not all those clubs are showing the same ambition as us ? You are also guessing at others opinions, or others reasons for doing things.

 

Football reality, which reflects itself in the clubs economics.

 

You won't even acknowledge the success of the directors in overcoming the council etc and getting the improvements to SJP that all their predecessor had failed to achieve, never mind the high league positions on the pitch during their time in charge.

 

Okay, I applaud McKeag for getting permission to build the main stand ? I am surprised you raised that, as I thought you were very anti-McKeag ? I'm slightly confused on this one, maybe you need to explain more clearly.

 

 

Of course I approved of the signing of Tony Green. No one who saw him would say otherwise. Significant though is the fact that he and Malcolm MacDonald broke the old 2nd division transfer record, not the first divisions record, or spending money on current, England internationals at their peak or approaching the peak of their careers. For every Tony Green and MacDonald there was at least 5 or 6 duds, because the club operated in that market. This is the point, that I suspect you know, but won't acknowledge, because it means you then look as if you are putting Shepherd and Hall in a good light, your reluctance to do this is puzzling, the only possible explanation for this, considering you ARE aware of where the club was before they came in, must be that you have an agenda against them.

 

Why ask a question and then answer it yourself ? I suppose you're assured of getting the answer you first thought of. AND you slipped into bringing "my" agenda in to  your point again. Only you ever raises this as only you seem to know what I think on lots of subjects.

 

You simply can't argue that the club was unambitious, having players of the time [Pop Robson - another local lad followed almost FIFTEEN years later by 3 more] saying so, Gordon Lee moving to Everton because they were more ambitious than us, and then the relegation,  wasted promotion, and subsequent sale of 3 players who were to become big England players.

 

It wasn't anything to do with ambition. It was to do with total incompetence. Being ambitious is not the same as having talent. By son has ambitions to be the next great roick drummer. If he doesn't have the talent it won't happen. No matter how many times mortgage the house to borrow to get him drum lessons.

 

Odd that you now say think Crozier is "perfect", when you earlier denied you said he was perfect in the first instance .....

 

"Twisting the night away ".

 

Would he have been better appointing Souness ?

 

 

This man appointed Eriksson, and put himself and his little office in Soho before the future of English football for the next 100 years. As a "businessman", you simply can't say that running outside industry means he will be good at running a football club, especially when you have very little proof that he understands how football operates, because it is different. This too, is what I think is the trouble with you. You don't understand this. You talk about us spending "profit", but no successful club spends "profit".

 

 

I have NEVER mentioned spending "profit". You made that expression up. It just doesn't make financial sense, it's like someone who doesn't understand football saying twe should play 1-5-5 formation cos it would mean more goals. "Spending profit" is just not a phrase ever used in finance.

 

Did Manu make 30m quid when they bought Rooney, or similar when they bought Veron, Ferdinand, and Van Nistelrooy ?  In football you have to take financial risks if you want to stay ahead, the success of it depends on how good a manager you have, as he is the person who exercises professional judgment and is responsible for the setup and success on the pitch of the team, which ultimately determines everything. And our old board for decades had the same caution as you do, as do the vast majority of other big city clubs that we have overtaken since we ourselves changed our own approach in the early 1990's. The only thing caution will get you in football is nothing. No europe, consistent low league positions, nothing. And while money doesn't guarantee success, no club has ever been successful on the back of a good league position without spending money.

 

Sorry you mean well, and I understand what you're trying to say, but you clearly just don't have a financial background to fall back on.

 

The fact that we are getting 52,000 now, and that the demand for the Keegan years was bigger than now, tells anyone that we could fill a 70,000 stadium if we are successful. I am amazed you question this. This is the reason I asked if you were a Geordie BTW, not attempting to read into your reply, I see your failure to see this as being indicative you don't understand the area in they way I thought you would.

 

Sorry that is your opinion again, not a fact. We all remember Keegan and insatiable demand, but it has to be guesswork at what level t he demand was, be it 53,000 or 70,000 or 100,000 or 150,000. No one knows.

 

I really don't understand why being a Geordie or not is relevent.

 

Why do you think "the rest of the board is laughing at us" ? As it happens, I don't. One or two might be, one or two are probably bored stiff. Does this bother you ? It doesn't bother me. I laugh at quite a lot of posts, and most threads bore me to death, but thats just the way it goes, each to his own.

 

You should stop posting as much then  :winking:

 

Your daft attempts at avoiding to reply to the facts I post, with nothing but denials and counter denials does you no credit mate.

 

The thing is, if you could post facts to disprove me, you would do it, but can't.

 

Thanks for your time.

 

 

[macbeth]

 

Your daft attempts at avoiding to reply to the facts I post, with nothing but denials and counter denials does you no credit mate.

 

The thing is, if you could post facts to disprove me, you would do it, but can't.

 

Every time I post something you twist it. It is what you do.  Your 'facts' are just oft-repeated opinions. 

 

I only have to give you one sourse of facts. Go and look at the club's version of their financial situation at http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/staticFiles/16/40/0,,10278~16406,00.pdf 

So not my version, not one you think I have an agenda with  , but theirs, with Shepherd's signature on the bottom.

 

Thanks for your time.

 

A pleasure, as ever

 

 

 

[Guest Svenno]

It kind of ticks me off to see these numbers: http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/boardpay.htm

 

Fat Fred has an enormous wage, IMO. In 2003 he was payed more than the whole Liverpool board!!!! blueeek.gif The total look bad as well, £400,000 more than Liverpool. I would guess that Liverpools wages are representative of the PL as a general, exept from maybe scums and Chelsea.. And tbh, those clubs are bigger than us..!

 

The dividends also seem to kill our club's finances, it's provoking to see that amount going out of a club that desperatly need the money to "raise the shipwreck". :wullie:

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/profits.htm

 

How do you feel about this?

 

Anyone know if it's possible to buy stocks btw?

 

Excuse my "norwegian-english" bluewink.gif

 

[Wullie]

Oh no.