The Board etc. etc.

[NE5]

NE5, are we losing today because we have inferior players? Or are we losing because Doug Ellis appointed a far superior manager than Roeder, and we're getting dicked because O Neill is tactically outclassing us? If the latter, who do we look to and trust to find a tatically astute manager to get the best out of the quality players that we undoubtedly have? And who do we look to to appoint a manager that doesn't lose against what is clearly inferior opposition?

 

As has been asked on the previous page by HTL I think, if you are not happy with the appointments of Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and Souness, please explain what your criteria would be when appointing managers.

 

As for the game today, I don't know, its one game. Do you think Chelsea should sack Mourhinho for losing to the smogs, or Arsenal sakc Wenger for losing to Man City. You get dafter.

 

As i said, if you are not happy with the progress of the club under this board since 1992, regular european football, filling the ground and signing quality players, stop going and force them out, and I am still interested as to who you think is waiting in the backround and certain to do better.

 

What quality players do you mean ?  It still escapes you that only a well run club can generate such money for their managers, what would you say if they only generated and gave their managers a few million quid a year to spend on players ? And if you think Doug Ellis is a better chairman than Fred, you need help.

 

 

I don't think you have much idea about this.

 

 

[Guest thompers]

Tim Nice But Dim could run NUFC and it'd still make money ffs, SJH made it into a money making machine, all Fred has done is maintained that, and wasted the money that has been made. When are you going to realise that underachievement on the pitch is to be blamed on everyone all the way up the heirachy, and that an average league position isn't success, as football is about winning things. The scousers and other trophy winning clubs will piss themself laughing at you if they read this thread and your classing average league position as success

[NE5]

Tim Nice But Dim could run NUFC and it'd still make money ffs, SJH made it into a money making machine, all Fred has done is maintained that, and wasted the money that has been made. When are you going to realise that underachievement on the pitch is to be blamed on everyone all the way up the heirachy, and that an average league position isn't success, as football is about winning things. The scousers and other trophy winning clubs will piss themself laughing at you if they read this thread and your classing average league position as success

 

when are you going to realise that we have been the 5th top team on merit, and if someone was shite we would indeed, after such a time, be shite. If it is so easy to sustain a high league position/trophy winners/title winners/European Cup winners, why have Forest, Villa, Sheff Wed, Everton, Wolves, Man City, Spurs, to name some, fell away so badly ? You didn't answer how Arsenal and manu have fell away in the last few years ? Why ? Is it because their boards are incompetent ?

 

So are you admitting that you would swap Blackburn, smogs and Leicester's past decade for ours, because they have won the League Cup, relegations and all.

 

I think the vast majority of people will be pissing themselves laughing at you actually, for your complete drivel and obvious lack of intelligence and command of English, and the fact that you appear to think we have a divine right to finish 2nd in the league forever. In fact, it is this very attitude that the southern press take the piss out of when they quote things like "deluded thick geordies"

 

And you still don't say who you guarantee will be better at running the club than the Halls and Shepherd, and wanting to show it. My opinion is that it will be a difficult task, yours is the opposite, so who is it ?

 

 

[Guest thompers]

There's a difference between winning something and falling away than being an also ran and then just getting shitter and shitter gradually. Most will agree that Man Utd will become a dominant force again after their so called transitional period, whereas most would agree that we will struggle to become a force again. Why is that?

[Guest thompers]

 

And you still don't say who you guarantee will be better at running the club than the Halls and Shepherd, and wanting to show it. My opinion is that it will be a difficult task, yours is the opposite, so who is it ?

 

 

Anybody without an ego would run the footballing side of the club 100x better than Shepherd. I've already stated that I have no problems with the financial job he's doing, even though the club practically runs itself financially.

[Mick]

 

I believe you said "Lee thought Newcastle were just a cup team". Please explain why, as the manager, he thought he was not the person with the power to change that, if that were the case. Please explain why he didn't sign England players for Newcastle, when he did for Everton. Please explain how - also - that if he did indeed think "Newcastle were indeed just a cup team", that you are in fact admitting that Newcastle's ambition was limited and he had bigger ambitions than that and the board who appointed him didn't share the same ambition and become better than being "just a cup team" ......

 

 

 

I've never ever said that "Lee thought Newcastle were just a cup team".  You make these accusations time and time again and try to get me to explain something I've never said. 

 

Run off now and come back with a link to where I said that.

[Mick]

 

What isn't factual ? You said you prefer the performance under MacDonald - ie finishing 15th for 3 consecutive seasons -  to after he left and finishing 5th the following season didn't you ?

 

You also slag off the current board for giving you regular european football, and insist they are no better than the one who got nowhere near it for almost 20 years ?

 

 

 

I said you argue with people who say we've gone backwards since Shepherd took over and you do, you argue when people give facts.

 

Also, I've said I enjoyed the foorball more while Macdonald was in the team than I did when he was gone, I've never said that I preferred finishing 15th to finishing 5th, can you not see a difference?

 

I prefer finishing 5th to 15th, that doesn't mean I prefer the football.

 

I preferred the football we played in our first season back in the premiership to the football Blackburn played when they won it, that doesn't mean I prefer finishing 3rd to winning the league, you really are narrow minded.

[NE5]

 

And you still don't say who you guarantee will be better at running the club than the Halls and Shepherd, and wanting to show it. My opinion is that it will be a difficult task, yours is the opposite, so who is it ?

 

 

Anybody without an ego would run the footballing side of the club 100x better than Shepherd . I've already stated that I have no problems with the financial job he's doing, even though the club practically runs itself financially.

 

complete rubbish.

 

Our past directors didn't, for starters. So you think we should appoint Bob Murray to the board 

[NE5]

 

What isn't factual ? You said you prefer the performance under MacDonald - ie finishing 15th for 3 consecutive seasons -  to after he left and finishing 5th the following season didn't you ?

 

You also slag off the current board for giving you regular european football, and insist they are no better than the one who got nowhere near it for almost 20 years ?

 

 

 

I said you argue with people who say we've gone backwards since Shepherd took over and you do, you argue when people give facts.

 

Also, I've said I enjoyed the foorball more while Macdonald was in the team than I did when he was gone, I've never said that I preferred finishing 15th to finishing 5th, can you not see a difference?

 

I prefer finishing 5th to 15th, that doesn't mean I prefer the football.

 

I preferred the football we played in our first season back in the premiership to the football Blackburn played when they won it, that doesn't mean I prefer finishing 3rd to winning the league, you really are narrow minded.

 

I have ALWAYS said Fred is the 2nd best chairman we have had in my time supporting Newcastle.

 

I am not narrow minded, I finish what I start. Why don't you finish your thread, what is your opinion ? Are we or are we not a selling club like we were in the 70's and 80's, or do you think we weren't ?

 

So you are happier with the league positions, and european qualifications, that we have achieved under Fred, than we did with all our boards pre-1992 ?

 

 

[Syrette]

:lazy:

 

You'll never get bored of this will you?

[Mick]

 

I have ALWAYS said Fred is the 2nd best chairman we have had in my time supporting Newcastle.

 

I'll accept that, no need to big him up then when people say we've gone backwards, we can all now agree on that.

 

I am not narrow minded, I finish what I start. Why don't you finish your thread, what is your opinion ? Are we or are we not a selling club like we were in the 70's and 80's, or do you think we weren't ?

 

I've answered it in the best way that I can at present, we seem to have spent more than we brought in.  I have no problem admitting that we have sold players at times for reasons that appear to be against the idea that we were trying to move forwards as a club, I've tried to find out reasons for this rather than just saying that we had no ambition although I've also said this may be the case.

 

If we were so skint then did they have any option?  Even Sir John refused to throw money at the club above a certain level until he controlled the club, it might have been better all along for one person to own the club.  Our chairman were usually not that rich and had inherited shares that had been passed through families since the club was formed.  I don't know how much Stan Seymour left behind when he died but he was the owner of a sports shop or two so he was unlikely to be rolling in it.  McKeag didn't leave behind a lot of money when he died from what I can see.  I'm not trying to make excuses up for them, I'm just trying to see where they went wrong.

 

Why do you think we failed?

 

I don't expect an answer of being unambitious, that's too easy.  Why do you think we were unambitious?

 

I'm not trying to trap you or anything, I'm just interested in your opinion, maybe I'm missing something.

 

Do you think they just didn't have bottle to take chances? 

 

So you are happier with the league positions, and european qualifications, that we have achieved under Fred, than we did with all our boards pre-1992 ?

 

Without doubt.

 

[Guest thompers]

 

And you still don't say who you guarantee will be better at running the club than the Halls and Shepherd, and wanting to show it. My opinion is that it will be a difficult task, yours is the opposite, so who is it ?

 

 

Anybody without an ego would run the footballing side of the club 100x better than Shepherd . I've already stated that I have no problems with the financial job he's doing, even though the club practically runs itself financially.

 

complete rubbish.

 

Our past directors didn't, for starters. So you think we should appoint Bob Murray to the board 

 

The past directors didn't inherit the club after SJH made it megarich though did they? Fuck me it's like you understand parts of the puzzle, but you just can't piece it all together!

[NE5]

 

I have ALWAYS said Fred is the 2nd best chairman we have had in my time supporting Newcastle.

 

I'll accept that, no need to big him up then when people say we've gone backwards, we can all now agree on that.

 

I am not narrow minded, I finish what I start. Why don't you finish your thread, what is your opinion ? Are we or are we not a selling club like we were in the 70's and 80's, or do you think we weren't ?

 

I've answered it in the best way that I can at present, we seem to have spent more than we brought in.  I have no problem admitting that we have sold players at times for reasons that appear to be against the idea that we were trying to move forwards as a club, I've tried to find out reasons for this rather than just saying that we had no ambition although I've also said this may be the case.

 

If we were so skint then did they have any option?  Even Sir John refused to throw money at the club above a certain level until he controlled the club, it might have been better all along for one person to own the club.  Our chairman were usually not that rich and had inherited shares that had been passed through families since the club was formed.  I don't know how much Stan Seymour left behind when he died but he was the owner of a sports shop or two so he was unlikely to be rolling in it.  McKeag didn't leave behind a lot of money when he died from what I can see.  I'm not trying to make excuses up for them, I'm just trying to see where they went wrong.

 

Why do you think we failed?

 

I don't expect an answer of being unambitious, that's too easy.  Why do you think we were unambitious?

 

I'm not trying to trap you or anything, I'm just interested in your opinion, maybe I'm missing something.

 

Do you think they just didn't have bottle to take chances? 

 

So you are happier with the league positions, and european qualifications, that we have achieved under Fred, than we did with all our boards pre-1992 ?

 

Without doubt.

 

 

 

They didn't want to take chances, of course they didn't. They lived in the past, the only thing they wanted was to glory in having a "number 9" and dream of winning the FA Cup. They were stuck in the 1950's. That is why they didn't build on winning the Fairs Cup with a progressive league team. Pop Robson said the club was "unprofessional" in 1971, and wanted to leave. I don't doubt that they wanted to be successful, but they wanted to do it on the cheap, and were more interested in winning the FA Cup than the league, we spent years in the bottom half of the 1st division and the 2nd division because they had no ambition to finish in good league positions.

 

Why, when people such as Robson, Gazza, Beardsley and Waddle wanted to leave the club, did the club not put England players or good internationals alongside them and show them they wanted to be ambitious and so persuade them to stay ? Players who want to win things will stay with you if they think they can win things with you, and if they don't feel like that then they will go. This is how it should be at Newcastle. Why would any player want to leave Newcastle, other than personal reasons, or if the manager doesn't want them?

Don’t you think such actions would have paid off at the gate and raised the profile of the club, gaining better league positions and potential qualification for europe, and winning one of the domestic trophies into the bargain, rather than selling them and replacing with cheaper versions, causing unrest, dissatisfaction and lower gates, and a further slide ? Of course it would, because it does now, the stadium is full, because people are attracted to the club and we have a realistic hope of winning a cup, despite Chelsea’s money and Manure’s mass appeal. We certainly expect the club to qualify for europe. 

 

The successful clubs back in those days - Leeds, Liverpool, Everton, Spurs, Chelsea, Manu, Man City, Wolves, Villa, Derby, Forest, Spurs, West Ham, Ipswich and clubs who got their act together for short periods with a little success on the base of good league performance such as Southampton, Coventry, Wimbledon, Norwich, West Brom, Stoke, Sheff Wed, QPR were miles ahead of us during these times. Our potential has always been the same whatever the period, a winning team in a good league position would fill the ground and we would dwarf most of those clubs who should never be in a position better than us.

 

Even players like Micky Burns and Irving Nattrass moved to the smoggies, since when have our best players thought they were better off playing for the smoggies !!!!!!!

 

Do you remember McKeag saying how the Milburn stand would look like the one at Watford ? Since when have we upheld Watford as a role model ?

 

[NE5]

 

And you still don't say who you guarantee will be better at running the club than the Halls and Shepherd, and wanting to show it. My opinion is that it will be a difficult task, yours is the opposite, so who is it ?

 

 

Anybody without an ego would run the footballing side of the club 100x better than Shepherd . I've already stated that I have no problems with the financial job he's doing, even though the club practically runs itself financially.

 

complete rubbish.

 

Our past directors didn't, for starters. So you think we should appoint Bob Murray to the board 

 

The past directors didn't inherit the club after SJH made it megarich though did they? Fuck me it's like you understand parts of the puzzle, but you just can't piece it all together!

 

They inherited 3 local lads who were main players for England. Honest 

 

They also won the Fairs Cup despite finishing 9th in the league....I did suspect you couldn't read.

 

They also finished 5th in 1976, then lost the manager who put the team together who went to Everton. Where he bought England players and odd things like that, but not at Newcastle. Now why would he do that ....

 

Sorry thompers but you are a waste of time.

 

 

[Guest thompers]

Is it not pub time yet NE5?

[NE5]

Is it not pub time yet NE5?

 

And your point is ?

 

Other than it showing you are obviously very young.

 

 

[Syrette]

Thompers why are you still wasting your time in here?

[Guest thompers]

Is it not pub time yet NE5?

 

And your point is ?

 

Other than it showing you are obviously very young.

 

 

 

Off out myself actually, thought I'd read your posts to get myself in the laughing good-time mood. Just a social piss up like for the bank holiday, none of your hardcore midweek drinking

[Guest thompers]

Thompers why are you still wasting your time in here?

 

Shits and giggles man, shits and giggles.

[Mick]

 

 

They didn't want to take chances, of course they didn't. They lived in the past, the only thing they wanted was to glory in having a "number 9" and dream of winning the FA Cup. They were stuck in the 1950's. That is why they didn't build on winning the Fairs Cup with a progressive league team. Pop Robson said the club was "unprofessional" in 1971, and wanted to leave. I don't doubt that they wanted to be successful, but they wanted to do it on the cheap, and were more interested in winning the FA Cup than the league, we spent years in the bottom half of the 1st division and the 2nd division because they had no ambition to finish in good league positions.

 

Why, when people such as Robson, Gazza, Beardsley and Waddle wanted to leave the club, did the club not put England players or good internationals alongside them and show them they wanted to be ambitious and so persuade them to stay ? Players who want to win things will stay with you if they think they can win things with you, and if they don't feel like that then they will go. This is how it should be at Newcastle. Why would any player want to leave Newcastle, other than personal reasons, or if the manager doesn't want them?

Don’t you think such actions would have paid off at the gate and raised the profile of the club, gaining better league positions and potential qualification for europe, and winning one of the domestic trophies into the bargain, rather than selling them and replacing with cheaper versions, causing unrest, dissatisfaction and lower gates, and a further slide ? Of course it would, because it does now, the stadium is full, because people are attracted to the club and we have a realistic hope of winning a cup, despite Chelsea’s money and Manure’s mass appeal. We certainly expect the club to qualify for europe. 

 

The successful clubs back in those days - Leeds, Liverpool, Everton, Spurs, Chelsea, Manu, Man City, Wolves, Villa, Derby, Forest, Spurs, West Ham, Ipswich and clubs who got their act together for short periods with a little success on the base of good league performance such as Southampton, Coventry, Wimbledon, Norwich, West Brom, Stoke, Sheff Wed, QPR were miles ahead of us during these times. Our potential has always been the same whatever the period, a winning team in a good league position would fill the ground and we would dwarf most of those clubs who should never be in a position better than us.

 

Even players like Micky Burns and Irving Nattrass moved to the smoggies, since when have our best players thought they were better off playing for the smoggies !!!!!!!

 

Do you remember McKeag saying how the Milburn stand would look like the one at Watford ? Since when have we upheld Watford as a role model ?

 

 

Surprisingly good post.

 

I still don't think the problems we had were down to one or two people, I think they had as much to do with the way the club was setup from the beginning, I think that over time we made poor decisions and couldn't get out of it until Sir John pumped money into the club, money that he wouldn't put in until he controlled the club.  Why give your own money for somebody else to get the benefit?

 

Yes, I remember the Milburn being compared to Watford’s stand, it was in the Chronicle or Journal.  Like it or not but they had a stand that was better then the wooden shed we had, I only sat in that stand for reserve games, I wouldn't pay to sit in it for league games.

 

[Howaythelads]

Thompers why are you still wasting your time in here?

 

bluesleep.gif

 

 

[NE5]

Thompers why are you still wasting your time in here?

 

Shits and giggles man, shits and giggles.

 

so you still giggle ?

 

 

[Syrette]

Thompers why are you still wasting your time in here?

 

bluesleep.gif

 

 

 

Aw, would you like us to read you a bedtime story sleepyhead?

[macbeth]

I've been very good and not got involved for ages, but .....

 

NE5 seems to want to justify everything by comparing it with the worst he can find, and accusing anyone who disagrees of prefering one of these other worse periods to now. So prefergin a McKeag, or wanting players to leavr, or wantinrg to have a Murray or an Ellis as chairman. Everyone gets accused of these desires despite never ever expressing them.

 

Those who see issues with the present board don't really care about 20 or 20 or 40 years ago, any more than I cared about the 40s or 30s when I was young. It was a different era. The concern is how the team, and the club finances are slowly descending, that we are slipping back from where John Hall rescued us.

 

Using dodgy statistics which show that if you take an average finishing position for all sides, then only 4 finish above us just winds people up. The idea is to make them feel they should be grateful at being 5th best. In the same period our average finishing positoin has 8 teams very season who finish above us. Five times in the bottom half of the division. I want be proud of the team's finishing position, and its cup runs. To have had 5 European campaigns from league finishes is great, but it should be better than that, it shouldn't have 5 seasons where we were closer to relegation than the CL.

 

30 years ago it was hard to try and highlight what the board were doing wrong. We could only guess where the gate money went. Luckily we can now know for sure.

 

There have been 8 financial years reported since the club became a PLC. In 5 of those individual years more money was given away to shareholders than was spent on investing in players. The overall amount spent on transfers was bigger by £15m, but in the majority of the years shareholders were viewed as more important than the team on the pitch. In one year £8.5m was spent on shareholders than the team.

 

(Last season which has not been reported by the club yet will show big transfer investment, as the figures are not released we will have to wait to see the numbers)

[Howaythelads]

I've been very good and not got involved for ages, but .....

 

NE5 seems to want to justify everything by comparing it with the worst he can find, and accusing anyone who disagrees of prefering one of these other worse periods to now. So prefergin a McKeag, or wanting players to leavr, or wantinrg to have a Murray or an Ellis as chairman. Everyone gets accused of these desires despite never ever expressing them.

 

Those who see issues with the present board don't really care about 20 or 20 or 40 years ago, any more than I cared about the 40s or 30s when I was young. It was a different era. The concern is how the team, and the club finances are slowly descending, that we are slipping back from where John Hall rescued us.

 

Using dodgy statistics which show that if you take an average finishing position for all sides, then only 4 finish above us just winds people up. The idea is to make them feel they should be grateful at being 5th best. In the same period our average finishing positoin has 8 teams very season who finish above us. Five times in the bottom half of the division. I want be proud of the team's finishing position, and its cup runs. To have had 5 European campaigns from league finishes is great, but it should be better than that, it shouldn't have 5 seasons where we were closer to relegation than the CL.

 

30 years ago it was hard to try and highlight what the board were doing wrong. We could only guess where the gate money went. Luckily we can now know for sure.

 

There have been 8 financial years reported since the club became a PLC. In 5 of those individual years more money was given away to shareholders than was spent on investing in players. The overall amount spent on transfers was bigger by £15m, but in the majority of the years shareholders were viewed as more important than the team on the pitch. In one year £8.5m was spent on shareholders than the team.

 

(Last season which has not been reported by the club yet will show big transfer investment, as the figures are not released we will have to wait to see the numbers)

 

bluesleep.gif