Howaythelads Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 This thread still going on? How do you do it, HTL and NE5? Serious stamina and passion I guess. I'm impressed. 33 pages of the same boring stuff! bluesleep.gif gay.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 So if average league position is what determins a clubs "success" let me ask you this, hypothetically speaking. We'll use Newcastle and Liverpool as random examples. Liverpool finish 2nd every season for 10 seasons. Newcastle finish 4th every season for 10 seasons. Every year, because of their respective positions, both clubs are in the Champions League. Newcastle win the trophy every season over this 10 years. Are Liverpool still a more successful club than us over these 10 years, as their average league position is better than Newcastle's? You still havent answered this. In that scenario, would liverpool have had a more successful decade because of their average league position? Would that be a FACT? I like the way you selectively ignore certain things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 This thread still going on? How do you do it, HTL and NE5? Serious stamina and passion I guess. I'm impressed. 33 pages of the same boring stuff! bluesleep.gif gay.gif Why do you keep accusing me of being homosexual? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 At a guess, it could be the hair discussions including the use of straighteners and various styles in General Chat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 So if average league position is what determins a clubs "success" let me ask you this, hypothetically speaking. We'll use Newcastle and Liverpool as random examples. Liverpool finish 2nd every season for 10 seasons. Newcastle finish 4th every season for 10 seasons. Every year, because of their respective positions, both clubs are in the Champions League. Newcastle win the trophy every season over this 10 years. Are Liverpool still a more successful club than us over these 10 years, as their average league position is better than Newcastle's? You still havent answered this. In that scenario, would liverpool have had a more successful decade because of their average league position? Would that be a FACT? I like the way you selectively ignore certain things. who are you asking ? Me ? wtf are you harping on about How can it be a FACT, when it hasn't happened bluebigeek.gif Refer to the numerous times I have stated "only 4 clubs have done better than us in the last decade, in terms of average league position, qualifying for europe including the CL, and reaching FA Cup Finals.". If you don't consider this to be an answer, I can't help you. Meanwhile, do you or do you not accept that under this board the club have made big strides, or are you going to ignore this FACT because it suits you. If you are, then again I can't help you and it's pointless trying to explain further. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Fuck me, thirty three pages and your still boring everyone to tears on a matter that could be resolved in minutes... a lot less than that for Mick to admit he was talking out his backside, instead of just disappearing and not finishing the thread he himself started. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 So if average league position is what determins a clubs "success" let me ask you this, hypothetically speaking. We'll use Newcastle and Liverpool as random examples. Liverpool finish 2nd every season for 10 seasons. Newcastle finish 4th every season for 10 seasons. Every year, because of their respective positions, both clubs are in the Champions League. Newcastle win the trophy every season over this 10 years. Are Liverpool still a more successful club than us over these 10 years, as their average league position is better than Newcastle's? You still havent answered this. In that scenario, would liverpool have had a more successful decade because of their average league position? Would that be a FACT? I like the way you selectively ignore certain things. who are you asking ? Me ? wtf are you harping on about How can it be a FACT, when it hasn't happened bluebigeek.gif Refer to the numerous times I have stated "only 4 clubs have done better than us in the last decade, in terms of average league position, qualifying for europe including the CL, and reaching FA Cup Finals.". If you don't consider this to be an answer, I can't help you. Meanwhile, do you or do you not accept that under this board the club have made big strides, or are you going to ignore this FACT because it suits you. If you are, then again I can't help you and it's pointless trying to explain further. You actually don't say this though, you actually say "5th best team of the last decade, FACT." You seem unable to serperate being one of the successful teams and having one of the best average league positions. The two are worlds apart. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 So if average league position is what determins a clubs "success" let me ask you this, hypothetically speaking. We'll use Newcastle and Liverpool as random examples. Liverpool finish 2nd every season for 10 seasons. Newcastle finish 4th every season for 10 seasons. Every year, because of their respective positions, both clubs are in the Champions League. Newcastle win the trophy every season over this 10 years. Are Liverpool still a more successful club than us over these 10 years, as their average league position is better than Newcastle's? You still havent answered this. In that scenario, would liverpool have had a more successful decade because of their average league position? Would that be a FACT? I like the way you selectively ignore certain things. who are you asking ? Me ? wtf are you harping on about How can it be a FACT, when it hasn't happened bluebigeek.gif Refer to the numerous times I have stated "only 4 clubs have done better than us in the last decade, in terms of average league position, qualifying for europe including the CL, and reaching FA Cup Finals.". If you don't consider this to be an answer, I can't help you. Meanwhile, do you or do you not accept that under this board the club have made big strides, or are you going to ignore this FACT because it suits you. If you are, then again I can't help you and it's pointless trying to explain further. You actually don't say this though, you actually say "5th best team of the last decade, FACT." You seem unable to serperate being one of the successful teams and having one of the best average league positions. The two are worlds apart. I have said it on many occasions, FACT. And the reason I keep repeating it, is because some people seem unable to understand it. You seem unable to see the fact that moving from being like the mackems are now, for over 30 years, to being where we are, is a significant jump in profile, status and proof of the fact that they have done very well. And why don't you answer my questions as I have answered yours ? What book are you reading, that tells you that pre-1992 we played in europe every year, won trophies galore, filled the stadium every week, kept all our best players and were held up as one of the top clubs, until Shepherd and Hall came along and ruined everything ? Grassroots, Micks or macbeths guide to finance ? Significantly, Mick has STILL not appeared to give us his conclusions, based on the facts posted, to his question "are Newcastle a selling club " Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 So basically, you're crediting Shepherd for what Hall did for us, and then failing to acknowledge that since Hall left we've actually gone backwards? We're obviously not going to be where Sunderland are now, because Hall built the foundations so that we couldn't decline to that extent so fast, but we've actually gone BACKWARDS since Shepherd took the reigns. "Shepherds a good chairman because when he took over we were challenging for the title but look we're still ahead of Darlo so he must be good" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 So basically, you're crediting Shepherd for what Hall did for us, and then failing to acknowledge that since Hall left we've actually gone backwards? We're obviously not going to be where Sunderland are now, because Hall built the foundations so that we couldn't decline to that extent so fast, but we've actually gone BACKWARDS since Shepherd took the reigns. "Shepherds a good chairman because when he took over we were challenging for the title but look we're still ahead of Darlo so he must be good" lots of other clubs have been at greater heights than we were under Hall, and found themselves relegated etc in no time. as I keep pointing out. Why wouldn't we be where the mackems are now if Shepherd was shite ? Plenty of others have fell away very quickly ie Sheff Wed for one, as were Leeds and Forest. Before you were born, or sky TV was invented, we spent decades competing with the mackems, while teams like Everton, Man City, Leeds, Villa, Forest, West Ham, West Brom --- blah blah.....were above us for years.....read my previous posts I can't be arsed with you. Answer my questions. You are either thick, clueless, or a very poor wind up. Doh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Fox Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1857929,00.html Todays Guardian article on Agents Fees. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 So basically, you're crediting Shepherd for what Hall did for us, and then failing to acknowledge that since Hall left we've actually gone backwards? We're obviously not going to be where Sunderland are now, because Hall built the foundations so that we couldn't decline to that extent so fast, but we've actually gone BACKWARDS since Shepherd took the reigns. "Shepherds a good chairman because when he took over we were challenging for the title but look we're still ahead of Darlo so he must be good" Thinking of making that my signature. Clearly shows the level of ignorance of some people when it comes to football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 So basically, you're crediting Shepherd for what Hall did for us, and then failing to acknowledge that since Hall left we've actually gone backwards? We're obviously not going to be where Sunderland are now, because Hall built the foundations so that we couldn't decline to that extent so fast, but we've actually gone BACKWARDS since Shepherd took the reigns. "Shepherds a good chairman because when he took over we were challenging for the title but look we're still ahead of Darlo so he must be good" lots of other clubs have been at greater heights than we were under Hall, and found themselves relegated etc in no time. as I keep pointing out. Why wouldn't we be where the mackems are now if Shepherd was shite ? Plenty of others have fell away very quickly ie Sheff Wed for one, as were Leeds and Forest. Before you were born, or sky TV was invented, we spent decades competing with the mackems, while teams like Everton, Man City, Leeds, Villa, Forest, West Ham, West Brom --- blah blah.....were above us for years.....read my previous posts I can't be arsed with you. Answer my questions. You are either thick, clueless, or a very poor wind up. Doh. Your questions? What questions? "Who told you we won lots of trophies before 1992?" etc? I'm clearly not answering pure bullshit that you've made up on the spot. So the club have gone backwards since Hall, but because we haven't fallen as far backwards as some other clubs have in the past, that makes Shepherd a good chairman? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 So basically, you're crediting Shepherd for what Hall did for us, and then failing to acknowledge that since Hall left we've actually gone backwards? We're obviously not going to be where Sunderland are now, because Hall built the foundations so that we couldn't decline to that extent so fast, but we've actually gone BACKWARDS since Shepherd took the reigns. "Shepherds a good chairman because when he took over we were challenging for the title but look we're still ahead of Darlo so he must be good" lots of other clubs have been at greater heights than we were under Hall, and found themselves relegated etc in no time. as I keep pointing out. Why wouldn't we be where the mackems are now if Shepherd was shite ? Plenty of others have fell away very quickly ie Sheff Wed for one, as were Leeds and Forest. Before you were born, or sky TV was invented, we spent decades competing with the mackems, while teams like Everton, Man City, Leeds, Villa, Forest, West Ham, West Brom --- blah blah.....were above us for years.....read my previous posts I can't be arsed with you. Answer my questions. You are either thick, clueless, or a very poor wind up. Doh. Your questions? What questions? "Who told you we won lots of trophies before 1992?" etc? I'm clearly not answering pure bullshit that you've made up on the spot. So the club have gone backwards since Hall, but because we haven't fallen as far backwards as some other clubs have in the past, that makes Shepherd a good chairman? so stupid you can't even tell when I'm being [deservedly] sarcastic. Only 4 clubs have done better than us on the field in the last decade. This is on merit. Deal with it, if you think this is failure, and replacing with better is so easy, stop going and force out the board, like people did at the end of 30 years pre-1992 through total apathy. If you also think it is so shit, then stopping going should be a fairly easy decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 So basically, you're crediting Shepherd for what Hall did for us, and then failing to acknowledge that since Hall left we've actually gone backwards? We're obviously not going to be where Sunderland are now, because Hall built the foundations so that we couldn't decline to that extent so fast, but we've actually gone BACKWARDS since Shepherd took the reigns. "Shepherds a good chairman because when he took over we were challenging for the title but look we're still ahead of Darlo so he must be good" lots of other clubs have been at greater heights than we were under Hall, and found themselves relegated etc in no time. as I keep pointing out. Why wouldn't we be where the mackems are now if Shepherd was shite ? Plenty of others have fell away very quickly ie Sheff Wed for one, as were Leeds and Forest. Before you were born, or sky TV was invented, we spent decades competing with the mackems, while teams like Everton, Man City, Leeds, Villa, Forest, West Ham, West Brom --- blah blah.....were above us for years.....read my previous posts I can't be arsed with you. Answer my questions. You are either thick, clueless, or a very poor wind up. Doh. Your questions? What questions? "Who told you we won lots of trophies before 1992?" etc? I'm clearly not answering pure bullshit that you've made up on the spot. So the club have gone backwards since Hall, but because we haven't fallen as far backwards as some other clubs have in the past, that makes Shepherd a good chairman? so stupid you can't even tell when I'm being [deservedly] sarcastic. Only 4 clubs have done better than us on the field in the last decade. This is on merit. Deal with it, if you think this is failure, and replacing with better is so easy, stop going and force out the board, like people did at the end of 30 years pre-1992 through total apathy. If you also think it is so shit, then stopping going should be a fairly easy decision. No, so 4 clubs have done better than us yet only 2 have spent more, those two having massive success in way of trophies, whilst clubs directly below us in the spending tables have had trophy success too. Can you not see a problem with NUFC being the only trophyless club that have spent so much, and can you not establish a link between this and the board? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 So basically, you're crediting Shepherd for what Hall did for us, and then failing to acknowledge that since Hall left we've actually gone backwards? We're obviously not going to be where Sunderland are now, because Hall built the foundations so that we couldn't decline to that extent so fast, but we've actually gone BACKWARDS since Shepherd took the reigns. "Shepherds a good chairman because when he took over we were challenging for the title but look we're still ahead of Darlo so he must be good" lots of other clubs have been at greater heights than we were under Hall, and found themselves relegated etc in no time. as I keep pointing out. Why wouldn't we be where the mackems are now if Shepherd was shite ? Plenty of others have fell away very quickly ie Sheff Wed for one, as were Leeds and Forest. Before you were born, or sky TV was invented, we spent decades competing with the mackems, while teams like Everton, Man City, Leeds, Villa, Forest, West Ham, West Brom --- blah blah.....were above us for years.....read my previous posts I can't be arsed with you. Answer my questions. You are either thick, clueless, or a very poor wind up. Doh. Your questions? What questions? "Who told you we won lots of trophies before 1992?" etc? I'm clearly not answering pure bullshit that you've made up on the spot. So the club have gone backwards since Hall, but because we haven't fallen as far backwards as some other clubs have in the past, that makes Shepherd a good chairman? so stupid you can't even tell when I'm being [deservedly] sarcastic. Only 4 clubs have done better than us on the field in the last decade. This is on merit. Deal with it, if you think this is failure, and replacing with better is so easy, stop going and force out the board, like people did at the end of 30 years pre-1992 through total apathy. If you also think it is so shit, then stopping going should be a fairly easy decision. No, so 4 clubs have done better than us yet only 2 have spent more, those two having massive success in way of trophies, whilst clubs directly below us in the spending tables have had trophy success too. Can you not see a problem with NUFC being the only trophyless club that have spent so much, and can you not establish a link between this and the board? sorry, but you're too stupid to see it. Think about how many clubs fill their grounds and give their managers so much cash. Quite why you equate the team not quite winning a trophy down to the chairman, when choosing players, selecting them and preparing them is the managers job, is beyond me, as is why you think we have a divine right to one or two trophies. Before this board came in, we were like the mackems, and inferior to many clubs we have overtaken and consolidated. It's like jumping from about 15th-20th position, in front of a half full ground, looking at an apathetic fanbase not bothered about the club anymore, to 5th. If you can't see this, I am not going to explain it again. Also, go away and think about who you think will do better, and is prepared to do better. Thanks for the laugh. As I said, if you are so unhappy, boycott the club, persuade 30,000 others to do the same for a few years, get near to the state that they found us in, like the mackems, oxford, Cardiff, Preston etc etc and you might get rid of them. For who ? Fook knows, but I'm sure they will be better than Fred, and be more ambitious, matching Chelsea's and manure's spending power, but I'm sure you and your ilk would still whinge on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 But who appoints the fucking manager? Jesus Christ on a fucking bicycle! Think about how many clubs fill their grounds and give their managers so much cash In my generation, I can't think of any clubs that have gave their managers the amount of cash that NUFC has without winning a trophy. Nobody has a "divine" right to winning a trophy, but surely you can see the link between big spending clubs and winning trophies? Chelsea, big spenders, big winners, Man Utd, big spenders, big winners etc etc. Can you establish the link between money and trophies NE5, CAN YOU? If all the other clubs with money can turn it into trophy success, WHY CAN'T WE? If Liverpool can spend LESS than us, yet their board is capable of appointing two successful managers in a row, the first completing a treble and the second winning that Champion's League, then why can't our chairman have this success in appointing managers? Surely Liverpool appointing 2 immense managers in a row wasn't down to luck? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 if you aren't happy, stop going. Or support the mackems, or one of the 86 clubs below us, if you think they have a better board ....that don't make the money we do. :roll: Sorry, like, but you haven't got a clue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Thompers man, stop replying. You can't "win" with this guy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 if you aren't happy, stop going. Or support the mackems, or one of the 86 clubs below us, if you think they have a better board ....that don't make the money we do. :roll: Sorry, like, but you haven't got a clue. This post may as all admit that I'm right as it has no reasonable response. They make money because they cash in on the sheep, of which you're clearly one of the flock. They then, unlike other clubs with resources this big, waste it by giving it to an incapable manager, because they are too fucking stupid to appoint a good one in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 This thread is awesome And I actually mean it, good debating here! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 sorry, but you're too stupid to see it. Think about how many clubs fill their grounds and give their managers so much cash. Quite why you equate the team not quite winning a trophy down to the chairman, when choosing players, selecting them and preparing them is the managers job, is beyond me, as is why you think we have a divine right to one or two trophies. Before this board came in, we were like the mackems, and inferior to many clubs we have overtaken and consolidated. It's like jumping from about 15th-20th position, in front of a half full ground, looking at an apathetic fanbase not bothered about the club anymore, to 5th. If you can't see this, I am not going to explain it again. Also, go away and think about who you think will do better, and is prepared to do better. Thanks for the laugh. As I said, if you are so unhappy, boycott the club, persuade 30,000 others to do the same for a few years, get near to the state that they found us in, like the mackems, oxford, Cardiff, Preston etc etc and you might get rid of them. For who ? Fook knows, but I'm sure they will be better than Fred, and be more ambitious, matching Chelsea's and manure's spending power, but I'm sure you and your ilk would still whinge on. You've got a cheek to claim somebody is too stupid to see something, you've been told before and I'll tell you again. Crowds at most grounds at that time were down, remember trying to tell me that we had one of the best gates each week when somebody else pointed it out? Most, if not all crowds are up now so does that mean all of these clubs are better run now compared to then? Or, is it possible that interest in the game has grown throughout football in this country? As for spending, yes Shepherd has spent, but he's appointed the wrong managers and backed the wrong ones when they were in the job. He gave Sir Bobby Robson on average less that £6 million per year yet backed Souness with almost £31 million of new money. He backs managers more when they are failing than he does when they are doing well, the man is a fool and spends in panic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 if you aren't happy, stop going. Or support the mackems, or one of the 86 clubs below us, if you think they have a better board ....that don't make the money we do. :roll: Sorry, like, but you haven't got a clue. How many times have we had 86 clubs under us while Shepherd has been chairman? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 http://www.abitofhome.ca/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/60310-01.jpg Breaking news, 86 clubs found under NUFC, thought to be stacked as emergency supplies in case anything should happen to Greggs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now