The Board etc. etc.

[Mick]

well, as Mick chose to bring grants for the 1966 World Cup and the building of the East Stand into this debate, I am disappointed he hasn't responded further to the points raised on page 7 onwards in this thread.

 

Of course, I'm sure its not an oversight, as nobody in mature forums deliberately ignores questions, as it just isn't in keeping with the spirit of the thing, but as he thought these subjects were relevant, I would like to hear his views on the responses myself and NE15 have posted.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to call you an idiot so I'll not, I've been away all week until Friday evening so had limited time on here when I have managed to get on.  It's a company PC using a company internet connection so I have to take care what I use it for and when I'm on here it's usually with my web browser minimised so that nobody can see what I'm doing.

 

Back to your complaint about the time it's taken to reply to this, see http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,26161.msg476203.html#msg476203

 

Well I haven't spent all week on the board either, and I can't be arsed to look through all the posts, I looked at my own postings, saw you had been logged on and not replied, so forgive me if I didn't conclude from that, that your time online had been limited and so, no,

on that basis I don't give a toss who you call an idiot for jumping to conclusions .......

 

 

Now - Mick is quite clearly stating here he is wondering if he is allowed to call people idiots, then he goes on to link me to a "reply", which was earlier than post numbers 167-170 which I have referred him to, that he hasn't replied to yet.

 

You couldn't make it up.

 

BTW, I've also corrected misleading info you posted in post nr 154 in the "ronaldo for 10m" thread which I am also interested in your further views on, as well as the posts mentioned above.

 

Jesus wept, you're right, you couldn't make it up.

 

You mentioned page 7 of the thread, I linked to page 8 which comes after 7, I'd already replied to posts in page 7.  If you were referring to post number 167-170 then say that.

 

I'll change the colour of the font above as you obviously have trouble reading, give your head a shake.

[NE5]

well, as Mick chose to bring grants for the 1966 World Cup and the building of the East Stand into this debate, I am disappointed he hasn't responded further to the points raised on page 7 onwards in this thread.

 

Of course, I'm sure its not an oversight, as nobody in mature forums deliberately ignores questions, as it just isn't in keeping with the spirit of the thing, but as he thought these subjects were relevant, I would like to hear his views on the responses myself and NE15 have posted.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to call you an idiot so I'll not, I've been away all week until Friday evening so had limited time on here when I have managed to get on.  It's a company PC using a company internet connection so I have to take care what I use it for and when I'm on here it's usually with my web browser minimised so that nobody can see what I'm doing.

 

Back to your complaint about the time it's taken to reply to this, see http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,26161.msg476203.html#msg476203

 

Well I haven't spent all week on the board either, and I can't be arsed to look through all the posts, I looked at my own postings, saw you had been logged on and not replied, so forgive me if I didn't conclude from that, that your time online had been limited and so, no,

on that basis I don't give a toss who you call an idiot for jumping to conclusions .......

 

 

Now - Mick is quite clearly stating here he is wondering if he is allowed to call people idiots, then he goes on to link me to a "reply", which was earlier than post numbers 167-170 which I have referred him to, that he hasn't replied to yet.

 

You couldn't make it up.

 

BTW, I've also corrected misleading info you posted in post nr 154 in the "ronaldo for 10m" thread which I am also interested in your further views on, as well as the posts mentioned above.

 

Jesus wept, you're right, you couldn't make it up.

 

You mentioned page 7 of the thread, I linked to page 8 which comes after 7, I'd already replied to posts in page 7.  If you were referring to post number 167-170 then say that.

 

I'll change the colour of the font above as you obviously have trouble reading, give your head a shake.

 

page 7 onwards = the latest posts in the thread have not been replied to.

 

You are right, you couldn't make it up.

 

Are you going to duck them then, because it looks like it.

 

I wonder if Grass will give you a lecture on not replying to posts and questions like a mature adult ? Or is it different when the answer is something that doesn't suit you [or him]. Anyway, go ahead, it's all yours. As I also posted, the main gist of them are by myself and NE15, posts number 167-170 and it is YOU who brought the subject of the question into the debate.

 

 

 

 

[Mick]

 

 

page 7 onwards = the latest posts in the thread have not been replied to.

 

You are right, you couldn't make it up.

 

Are you going to duck them then, because it looks like it.

 

I wonder if Grass will give you a lecture on not replying to posts and questions like a mature adult ? Or is it different when the answer is something that doesn't suit you [or him]. Anyway, go ahead, it's all yours. As I also posted, the main gist of them are by myself and NE15, posts number 167-170 and it is YOU who brought the subject of the question into the debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

:rolllrg:

 

Will you ever show signs of the age you claim to be?

 

I've answered the post, I couldn't answer it before reading it, that shouldn't need to be explained but in your case I understand that it does. 

 

 

[NE5]

 

 

page 7 onwards = the latest posts in the thread have not been replied to.

 

You are right, you couldn't make it up.

 

Are you going to duck them then, because it looks like it.

 

I wonder if Grass will give you a lecture on not replying to posts and questions like a mature adult ? Or is it different when the answer is something that doesn't suit you [or him]. Anyway, go ahead, it's all yours. As I also posted, the main gist of them are by myself and NE15, posts number 167-170 and it is YOU who brought the subject of the question into the debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

:rolllrg:

 

Will you ever show signs of the age you claim to be?

 

I've answered the post, I couldn't answer it before reading it, that shouldn't need to be explained but in your case I understand that it does. 

 

 

Post number 167 is now repeated for you. Which has NOT been answered, despite your claim that it, and the follow up posts by myself and NE15,  have.

 

"Please explain why Liverpool, Leeds, Man City, Arsenal, West Brom, Spurs, Chelsea, QPR, Swindon,  Derby and Spurs all won domestic titles and trophies between 1966 and 1973 when the East Stand opened, despite all of them not hosting World Cup ties and receving grants ?

 

Nor sky money 

 

Please tell us how much these grants were, as you say they had such a massive impact ? What improvements exactly did these grants have on the smoggies and the mackems grounds other than extra seats, including temporary ones in the Fulwell End at Roker Park, and superior press boxes.. Which I can tell you now, is pretty much all that these grants paid for. Unless one of Grass’ books can prove differently.

 

Please also tell us something which I am sure escapes you completely too. How is it that the mackems and smoggies got allocated World Cup games in the first place ahead of us, only 11 years after we had completed a platform of winning the FA Cup 3 times in 5 years ? Why weren’t we in the top 5 clubs in the country at this time, only a decade later, rather than spending 6 of them in the old 2nd division ?

 

Factual based responses to these factual points would be appreciated."

 

Dear me. What do you think of this Grass, I thought you said people responded to questions ?

 

 

[Mick]

 

 

page 7 onwards = the latest posts in the thread have not been replied to.

 

You are right, you couldn't make it up.

 

Are you going to duck them then, because it looks like it.

 

I wonder if Grass will give you a lecture on not replying to posts and questions like a mature adult ? Or is it different when the answer is something that doesn't suit you [or him]. Anyway, go ahead, it's all yours. As I also posted, the main gist of them are by myself and NE15, posts number 167-170 and it is YOU who brought the subject of the question into the debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

:rolllrg:

 

Will you ever show signs of the age you claim to be?

 

I've answered the post, I couldn't answer it before reading it, that shouldn't need to be explained but in your case I understand that it does. 

 

 

Post number 167 is now repeated for you. Which has NOT been answered, despite your claim that it, and the follow up posts by myself and NE15,  have.

 

"Please explain why Liverpool, Leeds, Man City, Arsenal, West Brom, Spurs, Chelsea, QPR, Swindon,  Derby and Spurs all won domestic titles and trophies between 1966 and 1973 when the East Stand opened, despite all of them not hosting World Cup ties and receving grants ?

 

Nor sky money 

 

Please tell us how much these grants were, as you say they had such a massive impact ? What improvements exactly did these grants have on the smoggies and the mackems grounds other than extra seats, including temporary ones in the Fulwell End at Roker Park, and superior press boxes.. Which I can tell you now, is pretty much all that these grants paid for. Unless one of Grass’ books can prove differently.

 

Please also tell us something which I am sure escapes you completely too. How is it that the mackems and smoggies got allocated World Cup games in the first place ahead of us, only 11 years after we had completed a platform of winning the FA Cup 3 times in 5 years ? Why weren’t we in the top 5 clubs in the country at this time, only a decade later, rather than spending 6 of them in the old 2nd division ?

 

Factual based responses to these factual points would be appreciated."

 

Dear me. What do you think of this Grass, I thought you said people responded to questions ?

 

 

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,26161.msg490460.html#msg490460

[NE5]

 

 

page 7 onwards = the latest posts in the thread have not been replied to.

 

You are right, you couldn't make it up.

 

Are you going to duck them then, because it looks like it.

 

I wonder if Grass will give you a lecture on not replying to posts and questions like a mature adult ? Or is it different when the answer is something that doesn't suit you [or him]. Anyway, go ahead, it's all yours. As I also posted, the main gist of them are by myself and NE15, posts number 167-170 and it is YOU who brought the subject of the question into the debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

:rolllrg:

 

Will you ever show signs of the age you claim to be?

 

I've answered the post, I couldn't answer it before reading it, that shouldn't need to be explained but in your case I understand that it does. 

 

 

Post number 167 is now repeated for you. Which has NOT been answered, despite your claim that it, and the follow up posts by myself and NE15,  have.

 

"Please explain why Liverpool, Leeds, Man City, Arsenal, West Brom, Spurs, Chelsea, QPR, Swindon,  Derby and Spurs all won domestic titles and trophies between 1966 and 1973 when the East Stand opened, despite all of them not hosting World Cup ties and receving grants ?

 

Nor sky money 

 

Please tell us how much these grants were, as you say they had such a massive impact ? What improvements exactly did these grants have on the smoggies and the mackems grounds other than extra seats, including temporary ones in the Fulwell End at Roker Park, and superior press boxes.. Which I can tell you now, is pretty much all that these grants paid for. Unless one of Grass’ books can prove differently.

 

Please also tell us something which I am sure escapes you completely too. How is it that the mackems and smoggies got allocated World Cup games in the first place ahead of us, only 11 years after we had completed a platform of winning the FA Cup 3 times in 5 years ? Why weren’t we in the top 5 clubs in the country at this time, only a decade later, rather than spending 6 of them in the old 2nd division ?

 

Factual based responses to these factual points would be appreciated."

 

Dear me. What do you think of this Grass, I thought you said people responded to questions ?

 

 

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,26161.msg490460.html#msg490460

 

Firstly, YOU are making the suggestion that we didn't win and/or achieve the league positions we could have done because we "sold players to raise the money to improve one part of the ground, and the fact we didn't get the World Cup grant in 1966 was a significant part of these league positions and domestic cups".

 

I have shown that other clubs [some smaller than us] ie Leeds, Derby, Man City, Arsenal all won the league title and Chelsea, Spurs, West Brom, Man City, Arsenal all won the FA Cup during the period 1966-1973. NONE of these clubs hosted World Cup games and got grants. While we, during this period, finished 15th, 20th, 10th, 9th, 7th, 12th, 11th, 9th and failed to get past the 4th round of the FA Cup on any occasion. [This run of positions is actually the highest and most consistent run of league finiishes from 1955 until 1992 when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club. Fact]

 

Furthermore, if you have NO IDEA how much the grant was, which you admit, why say it is so significant ?? 

 

Also, please also tell us something which I am sure escapes you completely too. How is it that the mackems and smoggies got allocated World Cup games in the first place ahead of us, only 11 years after we had completed a platform of winning the FA Cup 3 times in 5 years ? Why weren’t we in the top 5 clubs in the country at this time, only a decade later, rather than spending 6 of them in the old 2nd division ? And if those grants were so significant, how did they not perform better than us during that period ?

 

Only 4 of the teams you mention have achieved higher league positions than us over the last decade and qualified more for europe. Fact. During the golden era you mention, that figure was a lot higher than that. Fact. Which of course should tell anyone how much bigger and better we are these days.

 

Did you ever tell us your version of why Waddle, Beardsley and Gazza wanted to leave the club in the 1980's ? And, as Grass refused to answer, maybe YOU could tell us - and him - what signals you think it would have sent out if Shearer, Given and Rob Lee for instance, had all wanted to leave the club in their prime due to the club lacking ambition ?

 

 

[Guest The Fox]

The Beat Goes On bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif

[NE5]

The Beat Goes On bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif

 

quite amazing what you have to do to get a proper and full adult reply. Now I expect to be accused of "not answering questions, or misinterpreting others remarks" just because the factual information above doesn't suit Grass' ill informed soapbox rants.

 

Still, you never know. In the meantime, see this. Looks like the Halls may still be selling, that should please all those who think they are bad for the club and have done and are doing a shite job.

 

http://www.true-faith.co.uk/html/Features/hallornothing.htm

 

 

[Mick]

 

 

 

Firstly, YOU are making the suggestion that we didn't win and/or achieve the league positions we could have done because we "sold players to raise the money to improve one part of the ground, and the fact we didn't get the World Cup grant in 1966 was a significant part of these league positions and domestic cups".

 

I have shown that other clubs [some smaller than us] ie Leeds, Derby, Man City, Arsenal all won the league title and Chelsea, Spurs, West Brom, Man City, Arsenal all won the FA Cup during the period 1966-1973. NONE of these clubs hosted World Cup games and got grants. While we, during this period, finished 15th, 20th, 10th, 9th, 7th, 12th, 11th, 9th and failed to get past the 4th round of the FA Cup on any occasion. [This run of positions is actually the highest and most consistent run of league finiishes from 1955 until 1992 when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club. Fact]

 

Furthermore, if you have NO IDEA how much the grant was, which you admit, why say it is so significant ??   

 

Also, please also tell us something which I am sure escapes you completely too. How is it that the mackems and smoggies got allocated World Cup games in the first place ahead of us, only 11 years after we had completed a platform of winning the FA Cup 3 times in 5 years ? Why weren’t we in the top 5 clubs in the country at this time, only a decade later, rather than spending 6 of them in the old 2nd division ? And if those grants were so significant, how did they not perform better than us during that period ?

 

Only 4 of the teams you mention have achieved higher league positions than us over the last decade and qualified more for europe. Fact. During the golden era you mention, that figure was a lot higher than that. Fact. Which of course should tell anyone how much bigger and better we are these days.

 

Did you ever tell us your version of why Waddle, Beardsley and Gazza wanted to leave the club in the 1980's ? And, as Grass refused to answer, maybe YOU could tell us - and him - what signals you think it would have sent out if Shearer, Given and Rob Lee for instance, had all wanted to leave the club in their prime due to the club lacking ambition ?

 

 

 

You really are slow, I said it was significant because we didn't get the grants, the grants were enough for Man U to build a stand with government money, the stand cost £350,000.  In the early 70's we had to build a stand with our own money, we couldn't do anything else with that money because we could only spend it once.  If we had of been a World Cup ground then we would have had free money to do that, we could have spent it on players, that's the suggestion I'm making. 

 

As for the other clubs winning things, they probably had a better chairman than we've currently got, is that possible?

 

Shearer, Given and Rob Lee not wanting to leave, thank Sir John Hall for the state in which he left the club.  He built the foundations of a successful club, the fact that the trophy cabinet is still bare isn't because of him, I'm quite sure that we would have done better under him if he had stayed and not handed it over to Shepherd.

 

You keep banging on about poor directors then don't see any significance in what Shepherd was handed to him on a plate.

 

[Mick]

The Beat Goes On bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif

 

quite amazing what you have to do to get a proper and full adult reply. Now I expect to be accused of "not answering questions, or misinterpreting others remarks" just because the factual information above doesn't suit Grass' ill informed soapbox rants.

 

Still, you never know. In the meantime, see this. Looks like the Halls may still be selling, that should please all those who think they are bad for the club and have done and are doing a shite job.

 

http://www.true-faith.co.uk/html/Features/hallornothing.htm

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,25924.msg490727.html#msg490727

 

Why do you keep banging on about Grass everytime you post?  You seem to have an unhealthy fixation about him.

[Guest bobjonson]

 

 

 

Firstly, YOU are making the suggestion that we didn't win and/or achieve the league positions we could have done because we "sold players to raise the money to improve one part of the ground, and the fact we didn't get the World Cup grant in 1966 was a significant part of these league positions and domestic cups".

 

I have shown that other clubs [some smaller than us] ie Leeds, Derby, Man City, Arsenal all won the league title and Chelsea, Spurs, West Brom, Man City, Arsenal all won the FA Cup during the period 1966-1973. NONE of these clubs hosted World Cup games and got grants. While we, during this period, finished 15th, 20th, 10th, 9th, 7th, 12th, 11th, 9th and failed to get past the 4th round of the FA Cup on any occasion. [This run of positions is actually the highest and most consistent run of league finiishes from 1955 until 1992 when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club. Fact]

 

Furthermore, if you have NO IDEA how much the grant was, which you admit, why say it is so significant ??   

 

Also, please also tell us something which I am sure escapes you completely too. How is it that the mackems and smoggies got allocated World Cup games in the first place ahead of us, only 11 years after we had completed a platform of winning the FA Cup 3 times in 5 years ? Why weren’t we in the top 5 clubs in the country at this time, only a decade later, rather than spending 6 of them in the old 2nd division ? And if those grants were so significant, how did they not perform better than us during that period ?

 

Only 4 of the teams you mention have achieved higher league positions than us over the last decade and qualified more for europe. Fact. During the golden era you mention, that figure was a lot higher than that. Fact. Which of course should tell anyone how much bigger and better we are these days.

 

Did you ever tell us your version of why Waddle, Beardsley and Gazza wanted to leave the club in the 1980's ? And, as Grass refused to answer, maybe YOU could tell us - and him - what signals you think it would have sent out if Shearer, Given and Rob Lee for instance, had all wanted to leave the club in their prime due to the club lacking ambition ?

 

 

 

You really are slow, I said it was significant because we didn't get the grants, the grants were enough for Man U to build a stand with government money, the stand cost £350,000.  In the early 70's we had to build a stand with our own money, we couldn't do anything else with that money because we could only spend it once.  If we had of been a World Cup ground then we would have had free money to do that, we could have spent it on players, that's the suggestion I'm making. 

 

As for the other clubs winning things, they probably had a better chairman than we've currently got, is that possible?

 

Shearer, Given and Rob Lee not wanting to leave, thank Sir John Hall for the state in which he left the club.  He built the foundations of a successful club, the fact that the trophy cabinet is still bare isn't because of him, I'm quite sure that we would have done better under him if he had stayed and not handed it over to Shepherd.

 

You keep banging on about poor directors then don't see any significance in what Shepherd was handed to him on a plate.

 

 

But, I mentioned this before, you dont seem to see the significance in the fact that Shep was actually part of the board before hall came along.

 

MAYBE, Shep played a significant part in getting the Hall's onside??? and was Happy for SJH to take the plaudits at the time?

 

:winking:

 

 

[Mick]

 

But, I mentioned this before, you dont seem to see the significance in the fact that Shep was actually part of the board before hall came along.

 

MAYBE, Shep played a significant part in getting the Hall's onside??? and was Happy for SJH to take the plaudits at the time?

 

:winking:

 

 

 

I did understand that he might have played a part but you must also remember that it was Sir John contacting Shepherd and telling him to talk to Douglas, not the other way round.

 

Here's the quote.

 

Sir John Hall was a family friend....he phoned up and said 'I know you've got shares in Newcastle, have a word with Douglas (Hall) something has to be done'...If we hadn't have agreed to the rights issue (the club) were in grave danger of a receiver being appointed.

 

[Guest bobjonson]

 

But, I mentioned this before, you dont seem to see the significance in the fact that Shep was actually part of the board before hall came along.

 

MAYBE, Shep played a significant part in getting the Hall's onside??? and was Happy for SJH to take the plaudits at the time?

 

:winking:

 

 

 

I did understand that he might have played a part but you must also remember that it was Sir John contacting Shepherd and telling him to talk to Douglas, not the other way round.

 

Here's the quote.

 

Sir John Hall was a family friend....he phoned up and said 'I know you've got shares in Newcastle, have a word with Douglas (Hall) something has to be done'...If we hadn't have agreed to the rights issue (the club) were in grave danger of a receiver being appointed.

 

 

I, I know , but it could also be argued that IF Shep wasnt part of the board then SJH might not have come aboard, so to speak, depends on what angle you look at it doesnt it?

[NE5]

 

 

 

Firstly, YOU are making the suggestion that we didn't win and/or achieve the league positions we could have done because we "sold players to raise the money to improve one part of the ground, and the fact we didn't get the World Cup grant in 1966 was a significant part of these league positions and domestic cups".

 

I have shown that other clubs [some smaller than us] ie Leeds, Derby, Man City, Arsenal all won the league title and Chelsea, Spurs, West Brom, Man City, Arsenal all won the FA Cup during the period 1966-1973. NONE of these clubs hosted World Cup games and got grants. While we, during this period, finished 15th, 20th, 10th, 9th, 7th, 12th, 11th, 9th and failed to get past the 4th round of the FA Cup on any occasion. [This run of positions is actually the highest and most consistent run of league finiishes from 1955 until 1992 when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club. Fact]

 

Furthermore, if you have NO IDEA how much the grant was, which you admit, why say it is so significant ??   

 

Also, please also tell us something which I am sure escapes you completely too. How is it that the mackems and smoggies got allocated World Cup games in the first place ahead of us, only 11 years after we had completed a platform of winning the FA Cup 3 times in 5 years ? Why weren’t we in the top 5 clubs in the country at this time, only a decade later, rather than spending 6 of them in the old 2nd division ? And if those grants were so significant, how did they not perform better than us during that period ?

 

Only 4 of the teams you mention have achieved higher league positions than us over the last decade and qualified more for europe. Fact. During the golden era you mention, that figure was a lot higher than that. Fact. Which of course should tell anyone how much bigger and better we are these days.

 

Did you ever tell us your version of why Waddle, Beardsley and Gazza wanted to leave the club in the 1980's ? And, as Grass refused to answer, maybe YOU could tell us - and him - what signals you think it would have sent out if Shearer, Given and Rob Lee for instance, had all wanted to leave the club in their prime due to the club lacking ambition ?

 

 

 

You really are slow, I said it was significant because we didn't get the grants, the grants were enough for Man U to build a stand with government money, the stand cost £350,000.  In the early 70's we had to build a stand with our own money, we couldn't do anything else with that money because we could only spend it once.  If we had of been a World Cup ground then we would have had free money to do that, we could have spent it on players, that's the suggestion I'm making. 

 

As for the other clubs winning things, they probably had a better chairman than we've currently got, is that possible?

 

Shearer, Given and Rob Lee not wanting to leave, thank Sir John Hall for the state in which he left the club.  He built the foundations of a successful club, the fact that the trophy cabinet is still bare isn't because of him, I'm quite sure that we would have done better under him if he had stayed and not handed it over to Shepherd.

 

You keep banging on about poor directors then don't see any significance in what Shepherd was handed to him on a plate.

 

 

You really do have your head in the sand. Please explain why our old chairman threw away 3 opportunites identical to the one that the current board were "handed on a plate" - ignoring the fact that they were major players in the 1992 takeover anyway, as Bob says.

 

Please explain how these other big city clubs I mention had success on the field way in excess of ours, and made improvements to their stadium, despite not hosting World Cup games. YOU are the one who mentioned these grants, follow it through, YOU are suggesting our poor performance in the league and domestic competition was because we allocated cash to the ground at the expense of the team.

You really don't know what you are saying, do you ? You thought you would suggest something and everyone would not know what you meant.

 

You still miss the point but I suspect you don't want to see the point. Please explain why we have been the 5th top team in the last decade - on merit because a shit chairman would have taken us miles down the league over such a period, as has been the case at other clubs - also please explain who is responsible for maintaining our position among the top clubs, yet develop the stadium and maintain the attendances. Why didn't our old boards do this ? Don't say sky money, because if you do, please explain why Villa, Man City, Everton, Leeds, Spurs, Birmingham not to mention clubs like Forest and Derby have all had the same opportunity to get money into the club via sky money. How does the performance of these clubs compare with ours over the past decade ? Why are they not ahead of us as they were during long spells in the past ?

 

The fact is, the club is STILL OWNED BY THE SAME MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS AS IT WAS IN 1992, THEREFORE THE HALLS ARE MAKING THE MAJOR DECISIONS AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE DONE SINCE 1992. The notion that the club has "gone backwards" since they changed chairman is a joke, as the Halls still have the major input, Shepherd is only the figurehead, but playing an important role, the same as he did when he was vice-Chairman. Before 1992, you would have been happy to have been the 5th highest performing club in the country, yes ? And as I have said before, you can't expect to stay 2nd best forever, such a notion is ridiculous. The reason we have slid from 2nd to "only" 5th is because we haven;t had a manager as good for the club as Keegan, ALL the managers have had the same backing from the SAME DIRECTORS. All the managers have been appointed by the whole board, to suggest one single man picks the manager is absolutely stupid, and every time I see someone insinuating that this is what happens, makes me almost piss myself laughing at it's stupidity.

 

The same directors who have taken the club forward massively off the field, yes a "long term business plan". There is nothing wrong with this club that another manager like Keegan will not correct, instantly.

 

Of course, in your eyes, the board in the 70's and 80's were just as good. Keep it up, you're a scream.

 

 

[Mick]

 

 

You really do have your head in the sand. Please explain why our old chairman threw away 3 opportunites identical to the one that the current board were "handed on a plate" - ignoring the fact that they were major players in the 1992 takeover anyway, as Bob says.

 

Please explain how these other big city clubs I mention had success on the field way in excess of ours, and made improvements to their stadium, despite not hosting World Cup games. YOU are the one who mentioned these grants, follow it through, YOU are suggesting our poor performance in the league and domestic competition was because we allocated cash to the ground at the expense of the team.

You really don't know what you are saying, do you ? You thought you would suggest something and everyone would not know what you meant.

 

You still miss the point but I suspect you don't want to see the point. Please explain why we have been the 5th top team in the last decade - on merit because a shit chairman would have taken us miles down the league over such a period, as has been the case at other clubs - also please explain who is responsible for maintaining our position among the top clubs, yet develop the stadium and maintain the attendances. Why didn't our old boards do this ? Don't say sky money, because if you do, please explain why Villa, Man City, Everton, Leeds, Spurs, Birmingham not to mention clubs like Forest and Derby have all had the same opportunity to get money into the club via sky money. How does the performance of these clubs compare with ours over the past decade ? Why are they not ahead of us as they were during long spells in the past ?

 

The fact is, the club is STILL OWNED BY THE SAME MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS AS IT WAS IN 1992, THEREFORE THE HALLS ARE MAKING THE MAJOR DECISIONS AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE DONE SINCE 1992. The notion that the club has "gone backwards" since they changed chairman is a joke, as the Halls still have the major input, Shepherd is only the figurehead, but playing an important role, the same as he did when he was vice-Chairman. Before 1992, you would have been happy to have been the 5th highest performing club in the country, yes ? And as I have said before, you can't expect to stay 2nd best forever, such a notion is ridiculous. The reason we have slid from 2nd to "only" 5th is because we haven;t had a manager as good for the club as Keegan, ALL the managers have had the same backing from the SAME DIRECTORS. All the managers have been appointed by the whole board, to suggest one single man picks the manager is absolutely stupid, and every time I see someone insinuating that this is what happens, makes me almost piss myself laughing at it's stupidity.

 

The same directors who have taken the club forward massively off the field, yes a "long term business plan". There is nothing wrong with this club that another manager like Keegan will not correct, instantly.

 

Of course, in your eyes, the board in the 70's and 80's were just as good. Keep it up, you're a scream.

 

 

 

Nice change of direction by you, you've been telling us all how good Freddy has been as chairman, now it's down to the Halls that we’ve gone backwards.

 

I can't accuse you of being a broken record this time as you've changed totally.

 

I agree that the appointment of a good manager will turn us around again; the problem is that Freddy seems incapable of pulling that off.  Under the chairmanship of Sir John we were the second team of most people, we were the entertainers.

 

Under the chairmanship of Shepherd we're a joke club to most people and the effect on that is plain to see for all.  When Keegan left we appointed Dalglish who was seen as a massive appointment although it didn't turn out that way, he wasn’t my choice but nobody can deny his standing in the game.

 

Who were clamouring for the job when Sir Bobby was sacked?  We had to appoint one of the few who were doing worse than the person he was replacing and you can't pin that one on Sir John, not the fact that the standing of the club was so low.

 

Who were clamouring for the job when Souness was sacked?

 

What was seen as one of the top jobs in football management is now a job very few want, those who want it are usually washed up has-beens or never have or will be's.

 

[Howaythelads]

 

 

 

Firstly, YOU are making the suggestion that we didn't win and/or achieve the league positions we could have done because we "sold players to raise the money to improve one part of the ground, and the fact we didn't get the World Cup grant in 1966 was a significant part of these league positions and domestic cups".

 

I have shown that other clubs [some smaller than us] ie Leeds, Derby, Man City, Arsenal all won the league title and Chelsea, Spurs, West Brom, Man City, Arsenal all won the FA Cup during the period 1966-1973. NONE of these clubs hosted World Cup games and got grants. While we, during this period, finished 15th, 20th, 10th, 9th, 7th, 12th, 11th, 9th and failed to get past the 4th round of the FA Cup on any occasion. [This run of positions is actually the highest and most consistent run of league finiishes from 1955 until 1992 when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club. Fact]

 

Furthermore, if you have NO IDEA how much the grant was, which you admit, why say it is so significant ?? 

 

Also, please also tell us something which I am sure escapes you completely too. How is it that the mackems and smoggies got allocated World Cup games in the first place ahead of us, only 11 years after we had completed a platform of winning the FA Cup 3 times in 5 years ? Why weren’t we in the top 5 clubs in the country at this time, only a decade later, rather than spending 6 of them in the old 2nd division ? And if those grants were so significant, how did they not perform better than us during that period ?

 

Only 4 of the teams you mention have achieved higher league positions than us over the last decade and qualified more for europe. Fact. During the golden era you mention, that figure was a lot higher than that. Fact. Which of course should tell anyone how much bigger and better we are these days.

 

Did you ever tell us your version of why Waddle, Beardsley and Gazza wanted to leave the club in the 1980's ? And, as Grass refused to answer, maybe YOU could tell us - and him - what signals you think it would have sent out if Shearer, Given and Rob Lee for instance, had all wanted to leave the club in their prime due to the club lacking ambition ?

 

 

 

You really are slow, I said it was significant because we didn't get the grants, the grants were enough for Man U to build a stand with government money, the stand cost £350,000.  In the early 70's we had to build a stand with our own money, we couldn't do anything else with that money because we could only spend it once.  If we had of been a World Cup ground then we would have had free money to do that, we could have spent it on players, that's the suggestion I'm making. 

 

As for the other clubs winning things, they probably had a better chairman than we've currently got, is that possible?

 

Shearer, Given and Rob Lee not wanting to leave, thank Sir John Hall for the state in which he left the club.  He built the foundations of a successful club, the fact that the trophy cabinet is still bare isn't because of him, I'm quite sure that we would have done better under him if he had stayed and not handed it over to Shepherd.

 

You keep banging on about poor directors then don't see any significance in what Shepherd was handed to him on a plate.

 

 

I suppose you're correct that the club COULD have spent extra money on players, but all of the evidence of the time period in question indicates that they wouldn't have spent the money on players.

 

I look forward to your comment on that. If you don't agree, please give me some evidence to support the idea players would have been signed from a position of strength, rather than from a position of being relegation candidates.

[Mick]

 

I suppose you're correct that the club COULD have spent extra money on players, but all of the evidence of the time period in question indicates that they wouldn't have spent the money on players.

 

I look forward to your comment on that. If you don't agree, please give me some evidence to support the idea players would have been signed from a position of strength, rather than from a position of being relegation candidates.

 

I do agree that they could have kept it, of course they could.  At least now accounts are openly published, I don't think it was the case back then, if it was then they couldn't be seen as easily as they can today.

 

I've said before and it may have been in this thread, that the old board appeared to be dodgy.

 

I don't know if you remember but I couldn't believe attendance figures during the first season in which we had Keegan, they would publish the crowd figures and they would be low while I was getting crushed in the Gallowgate.

 

I was in the Gallowgate against QPR and seemed to have more room to move then I did in games later on that season when they said we had a smaller crowd.

 

I’m not trying to make the old board look good, I was one of those who stayed behind in the Leazes during our last game of the season before they pulled it down only to return for the first game of the next season to find where I stood had become a porta-loo and that the terrace was about twenty rows deep.

 

[macbeth]

Hamman in his prime and Woodgate when fit were the two best players of their positions we've seen here in the last decade and both were sold so don't give us that shit to be honest!

 

and not withstanding their baggage, in the last 18 months we have sold two of the last 6 PFA Young Player of the Year winners. We are still a seller of our better young players. Zog will be the next test

[Guest thompers]

Hamman in his prime and Woodgate when fit were the two best players of their positions we've seen here in the last decade and both were sold so don't give us that shit to be honest!

 

and not withstanding their baggage, in the last 18 months we have sold two of the last 6 PFA Young Player of the Year winners. We are still a seller of our better young players. Zog will be the next test

 

Not to mention selling a european young player of the year.

[Guest Footsoldier]

Who we should never have bought in the first place and was pretty much rubbish.

[Guest thompers]

Who we should never have bought in the first place and was pretty much rubbish.

 

Or at least shouldn't have brought in a player on the basis of his potential without giving him chance to realise it. Very very stupid!

[Guest Footsoldier]

Either way, it was 8.5 mill down the toilet on yet another.......

[Howaythelads]

Hamman in his prime and Woodgate when fit were the two best players of their positions we've seen here in the last decade and both were sold so don't give us that shit to be honest!

 

and not withstanding their baggage, in the last 18 months we have sold two of the last 6 PFA Young Player of the Year winners. We are still a seller of our better young players. Zog will be the next test

 

And the connection between that and selling players who would have stayed, but departed while accusing the club of a lack of ambition is......?

[NE5]

 

 

You really do have your head in the sand. Please explain why our old chairman threw away 3 opportunites identical to the one that the current board were "handed on a plate" - ignoring the fact that they were major players in the 1992 takeover anyway, as Bob says.

 

Please explain how these other big city clubs I mention had success on the field way in excess of ours, and made improvements to their stadium, despite not hosting World Cup games. YOU are the one who mentioned these grants, follow it through, YOU are suggesting our poor performance in the league and domestic competition was because we allocated cash to the ground at the expense of the team.

You really don't know what you are saying, do you ? You thought you would suggest something and everyone would not know what you meant.

 

You still miss the point but I suspect you don't want to see the point. Please explain why we have been the 5th top team in the last decade - on merit because a shit chairman would have taken us miles down the league over such a period, as has been the case at other clubs - also please explain who is responsible for maintaining our position among the top clubs, yet develop the stadium and maintain the attendances. Why didn't our old boards do this ? Don't say sky money, because if you do, please explain why Villa, Man City, Everton, Leeds, Spurs, Birmingham not to mention clubs like Forest and Derby have all had the same opportunity to get money into the club via sky money. How does the performance of these clubs compare with ours over the past decade ? Why are they not ahead of us as they were during long spells in the past ?

 

The fact is, the club is STILL OWNED BY THE SAME MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS AS IT WAS IN 1992, THEREFORE THE HALLS ARE MAKING THE MAJOR DECISIONS AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE DONE SINCE 1992. The notion that the club has "gone backwards" since they changed chairman is a joke, as the Halls still have the major input, Shepherd is only the figurehead, but playing an important role, the same as he did when he was vice-Chairman. Before 1992, you would have been happy to have been the 5th highest performing club in the country, yes ? And as I have said before, you can't expect to stay 2nd best forever, such a notion is ridiculous. The reason we have slid from 2nd to "only" 5th is because we haven;t had a manager as good for the club as Keegan, ALL the managers have had the same backing from the SAME DIRECTORS. All the managers have been appointed by the whole board, to suggest one single man picks the manager is absolutely stupid, and every time I see someone insinuating that this is what happens, makes me almost piss myself laughing at it's stupidity.

 

The same directors who have taken the club forward massively off the field, yes a "long term business plan". There is nothing wrong with this club that another manager like Keegan will not correct, instantly.

 

Of course, in your eyes, the board in the 70's and 80's were just as good. Keep it up, you're a scream.

 

 

 

Nice change of direction by you, you've been telling us all how good Freddy has been as chairman, now it's down to the Halls that we’ve gone backwards.

 

I can't accuse you of being a broken record this time as you've changed totally.

 

I agree that the appointment of a good manager will turn us around again; the problem is that Freddy seems incapable of pulling that off.  Under the chairmanship of Sir John we were the second team of most people, we were the entertainers.

 

Under the chairmanship of Shepherd we're a joke club to most people and the effect on that is plain to see for all.  When Keegan left we appointed Dalglish who was seen as a massive appointment although it didn't turn out that way, he wasn’t my choice but nobody can deny his standing in the game.

 

Who were clamouring for the job when Sir Bobby was sacked?  We had to appoint one of the few who were doing worse than the person he was replacing and you can't pin that one on Sir John, not the fact that the standing of the club was so low.

 

Who were clamouring for the job when Souness was sacked?

 

What was seen as one of the top jobs in football management is now a job very few want, those who want it are usually washed up has-beens or never have or will be's.

 

 

On the contrary, I have said on numerous occasions that Shepherd is not the majority shareholder, and the chairman is only the person who is the front man for the entire board. Replying to other people who use "Shepherd" - it is fairly natural to reply in the same vein. I have not changed anything.

 

The record of the club while Shepherd has been chairman, is the 5th best in the country, over a time span of a decade. This is a long time, so it is on merit. Keegan and Sir John has long gone, we have had 4 managers since then, whatever change [better or worse, good signings and bad] that has occurred on the field is down to managers, not the board, as they have ALL been given the same backing Keegan had.

 

As for your constant harping on about quality of managers, it has been said on here a million times and not just by myself, that Dalglish, Gullit and Robson were all managers of proven winning pedigree, Dalglish especially was unequalled. His record at the time, was similar to someone of the calibre of Wenger has now, and you can't get much better than that. Fact. Yet you ignore a fact, again. Bobby Robson too was a worldwide respected manager. Souness apart, as we all know he was a twat [well not all of us there are plenty who said he should be backed with money to build his team and are now complaining he wasted the money] I am very pleased that you find time to criticise such choices of managers with the backround they have, yet at the same time cling to your belief that the club is no bigger or ambitous than when they stuck with Joe Harvey for too long, appointed Dinnis, McGarry, Cox, Charlton, McFaul, Smith, Ardiles, and even Gordon Lee who was unknown and cheap but turned out to be a surprise package and better than they thought, which is why we lost him. If you think Dalglish wasn't a top appointment, based on his track record, what exactly would YOU base YOUR choice on ?

 

under the chairmanship of Shepherd we are a joke club

 

yeah, right. We are a joke club and the whole country was laughing when we signed Owen, Duff, Parker, Emre, Solano, Woodgate, Robert, Bellamy, Viana, Bramble, Boumsong, Luque, Carr, Jenas, Dyer...to name most of the big money buys, not to mention qualifying for the CL, winning in Rotterdam, playing in the San Siro, appearing in 2 FA Cup Finals, and qualifying for the UEFA Cup on many occasions reaching the quarter final and semi final. Oh yes, mackems and other fans everywhere all over the place were laughing their heads off ....

to be honest I think if anyone is laughing, they willl be laughing at that utterly stupid statement you have made and your constant assertion that despite all of this, the club is no better than when we finished 20th, 10th, 9th, 7th, 12th, 11th, 9th, 15th, 15th, 15th, 5th, 21st, then spent 6 seasons in the 2nd division, then 14th, 11th, 17th, 8th, 20th, then 3 more seasons in the second division under a board you think is no worse than the current one. While selling all our best players, including future international players, and local lads to boot. An absolute hoot.

 

I have no idea who would have taken the job before Souness, and neither do you, but I know that only 3 seasons before Keegan came, appointed by the Halls, Shepherd and Fletcher, Jim Smith was the EIGHTH choice, 7 others and a Geordie manager by the name of Howard Kendall all turned the job down. I also know one manager who turned the job down before Souness was offered it, and he turned it down because he thought it was too big and pressurised for him and backed out for that reason, and that reason alone.

 

I’m not trying to make the old board look good, I was one of those who stayed behind in the Leazes during our last game of the season before they pulled it down only to return for the first game of the next season to find where I stood had become a porta-loo and that the terrace was about twenty rows deep.

 

And this comment defies belief, I know what you say is true, but in view of this I fail to understand what your gripe is with where we are now in comparison, because that comment apart, more and more of your posts suggest you don't seem to really know.

 

 

[NE5]

Hamman in his prime and Woodgate when fit were the two best players of their positions we've seen here in the last decade and both were sold so don't give us that shit to be honest!

 

and not withstanding their baggage, in the last 18 months we have sold two of the last 6 PFA Young Player of the Year winners. We are still a seller of our better young players. Zog will be the next test

 

And the connection between that and selling players who would have stayed, but departed while accusing the club of a lack of ambition is......?

 

don't hold your breath and expect him to understand that one !