The Board etc. etc.

[Howaythelads]

 

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.

 

 

The games I recall being crammed in were generally cup ties.

 

Just been looking back at the crowd figures, the '74 FA Cup 1/4 final against Nottm Forest was just over 54,000. Interestingly the normal league attendance that season was ~27000. That's a lot of extra people suddenly appearing out of nowhere, who disappeared for league matches.

 

I wonder why?

[Mick]

 

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.

 

 

 

Hysterical, obviously you have no idea how much power a chairman has in any business, he has the casting vote in anything that goes on.  Any decision that is made within the club is done with Freddy having the vote of two people, a board of directors with two members of the Hall family has less power than a board of directors with two Shepherds while one is chairman.

 

The Halls might have the shares, but the Shepherds have the votes and that is the most important thing when decisions are being made.  A majority of votes will only matter at an AGM, not day to day running of the club, surely you knew that.

 

As for being 5th best, it's been done a million times, we're 5th best because we've averaged 9th (8. something) in the league while winning nothing, our highest league finish in that time was 3rd once, Sir John had us 2nd twice, something that Shepherd had been unable to emulate never mind better.

 

You give a series of league positions under the old board yet Shepherd has beaten the best they did 3 times while having riches never before seen within the club, he had those riches handed on a plate, riches that he's squandered.

 

Even without those riches we managed to win a trophy, something that we haven't done since, that doesn't matter because we had a great night in Rotterdam.

 

You mention players and people laughing when we signed them, they probably were laughing when we paid something like £6 million more for Owen than our nearest rival bid for his signature.  I can also tell you that they certainly were laughing when we got rid of Robert for nothing after paying over £9 million for him and almost giving Viana away and they pissed themselves when we got rid of Bellamy, especially due to the manner which his demise came about.  Do you not think people are laughing at us about Boumsong and Dyer?

 

They also had a field day when Shepherd and Hall made the headlines in the NOTW, the fans lost the seats for which they paid a bond, Bowyer fighting with Dyer, Player and manager calling each other liars, the chairman stating Shearer was going to knock 10 bells out of Bellamy then retracting it on the club website.

 

Did you not know this, or do you bury your head in the sand?

 

If we appoint such good managers, how come we fail?

 

Who is to blame for this failure?

 

Of course it's all bad luck, nothing to do with the directors who go from one type of manager to another.  All out attack, boring football, sexy football, relaxed football, antagonist, every managerial change means a total rebuild of the team because the type of football the managers play is poles apart from the person in the job before him and that has been mentioned many times on here and elsewhere.

 

My gripe with the current board is that they've taken the water out of the fans, they claim to be fans while appearing to put self interest before the good of the club.  Freddy Shepherd doesn't seem able to walk past a camera without shoving his face in front of it and the club is being used to prop up a failing business for Hall while Shepherd sees his pension fund rocketing at the expense of the club.

 

If you can't see what has become of the club then you need a white stick.

[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.

 

 

The games I recall being crammed in were generally cup ties.

 

Just been looking back at the crowd figures, the '74 FA Cup 1/4 final against Nottm Forest was just over 54,000. Interestingly the normal league attendance that season was ~27000. That's a lot of extra people suddenly appearing out of nowhere, who disappeared for league matches.

 

I wonder why?

 

Interesting, the figure I've got for that season is 32,467.  I'll bet it's in the top 4 or 5 in the country although I don't know that for certain.

 

Edit,

 

I was probably wrong

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickzoe/seasons/season%20summaries/nufc_history_1973-74.html

[macbeth]

On another point, why do you, Mick, and some of the other go on and on about how its gone since shep was on the board?? Did you know, or any of you, that he had a stake in NUFC before Hall, and before the takeover was even dreamt up??????

 

I didn't.

 

It is strange that if he had some sort of stake that he hadn't appeared as a board member. People like Forbes who owned 4% of the shares had a place on the board. Freddie must have had very few indeed if he didn't merit a place on the board.

 

Clearly you know, and I am genuinely interested as I like to know how much the current board has put in. So when did he take put in his stake, and how much did it cost him ? And do you have any feel for how many shares (%) he had a hold of ?

[Mick]

On another point, why do you, Mick, and some of the other go on and on about how its gone since shep was on the board?? Did you know, or any of you, that he had a stake in NUFC before Hall, and before the takeover was even dreamt up??????

 

I didn't.

 

It is strange that if he had some sort of stake that he hadn't appeared as a board member. People like Forbes who owned 4% of the shares had a place on the board. Freddie must have had very few indeed if he didn't merit a place on the board.

 

Clearly you know, and I am genuinely interested as I like to know how much the current board has put in. So when did he take put in his stake, and how much did it cost him ? And do you have any feel for how many shares (%) he had a hold of ?

 

I've been looking all over to find that out, it's not readily available.

 

A poster called Merlin (I think) helped track down shareholders for the Magpie Group, he might have the answer.

[macbeth]

I've been looking all over to find that out, it's not readily available.

 

A poster called Merlin (I think) helped track down shareholders for the Magpie Group, he might have the answer.

 

I have the shareholding figures for the then board at the time of the failed share issue in 91/92. In it it looks like there are at most 2% of the shares not held by the then board members, although another conclusion that could be drawn it is actually 1 share that i sunaccounted for  :roll:

 

PM me if you want the numbers

[NE5]

 

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.

 

 

 

Hysterical, obviously you have no idea how much power a chairman has in any business, he has the casting vote in anything that goes on.  Any decision that is made within the club is done with Freddy having the vote of two people, a board of directors with two members of the Hall family has less power than a board of directors with two Shepherds while one is chairman.

 

The Halls might have the shares, but the Shepherds have the votes and that is the most important thing when decisions are being made.  A majority of votes will only matter at an AGM, not day to day running of the club, surely you knew that.

 

As for being 5th best, it's been done a million times, we're 5th best because we've averaged 9th (8. something) in the league while winning nothing, our highest league finish in that time was 3rd once, Sir John had us 2nd twice, something that Shepherd had been unable to emulate never mind better.

 

You give a series of league positions under the old board yet Shepherd has beaten the best they did 3 times while having riches never before seen within the club, he had those riches handed on a plate, riches that he's squandered.

 

Even without those riches we managed to win a trophy, something that we haven't done since, that doesn't matter because we had a great night in Rotterdam.

 

You mention players and people laughing when we signed them, they probably were laughing when we paid something like £6 million more for Owen than our nearest rival bid for his signature.  I can also tell you that they certainly were laughing when we got rid of Robert for nothing after paying over £9 million for him and almost giving Viana away and they pissed themselves when we got rid of Bellamy, especially due to the manner which his demise came about.  Do you not think people are laughing at us about Boumsong and Dyer?

 

They also had a field day when Shepherd and Hall made the headlines in the NOTW, the fans lost the seats for which they paid a bond, Bowyer fighting with Dyer, Player and manager calling each other liars, the chairman stating Shearer was going to knock 10 bells out of Bellamy then retracting it on the club website.

 

Did you not know this, or do you bury your head in the sand?

 

If we appoint such good managers, how come we fail?

 

Who is to blame for this failure?

 

Of course it's all bad luck, nothing to do with the directors who go from one type of manager to another.  All out attack, boring football, sexy football, relaxed football, antagonist, every managerial change means a total rebuild of the team because the type of football the managers play is poles apart from the person in the job before him and that has been mentioned many times on here and elsewhere.

 

My gripe with the current board is that they've taken the water out of the fans, they claim to be fans while appearing to put self interest before the good of the club.  Freddy Shepherd doesn't seem able to walk past a camera without shoving his face in front of it and the club is being used to prop up a failing business for Hall while Shepherd sees his pension fund rocketing at the expense of the club.

 

If you can't see what has become of the club then you need a white stick.

 

On the contrary, I think you are just following the sheep who think we have done badly under Shepherd because you don't really know what doing badly is.

 

If we fail on the field, it must be down to the manager, how can it be anyone else if he gets the backing from the board ? And, if you think the 5th best in the country over a decade, 2 FA Cup Finals, regular European qualification including a Champions League run, filling a 52,000 ground and the purchase of major England internationals is "failure", how can you possibly think over 30 years of selling your best

players, half filling the stadium, and spending the vast majority of this time in the lower half of the top league or in the old 2nd division to be "the same", then there is only one person here who needs a white stick.

 

If you cannot appreciate that the club has also built a new state of the art training complex, and massively improved the ground to be part of a good long term strategy to capitalise more on the clubs potential, then you also need a white stick.

 

If you prefer McKeag, Westwood etc or the chairman of the numerous that we have somehow overtaken despite having a shit board in the last decade and a bit, then you also need a white stick.

 

As for burying my head in the sand, I think constantly correcting your statements proves who has the most knowledge of the club.

 

The simple fact is, football supporters all laugh at all clubs when they take a fall. If you think that is not a fact of football life, you can't be very aware of football supporters outside of the Newcastle goldfish bowl. Take a look 12 miles down the road for starters if you want to see a joke club, and I can assure you that we were indeed a joke club in the 60's, 70's and 80's but not nowadays, nothing like it. It's a fairly simple conclusion to make, even if you don't have the larger general perspective and awareness that people have from outside the area.

 

You really think finishing 15th 3 times in the 70's was a "golden era" don't you ? Even Souness, arsehole that he was, beat that. What does that tell you about the current board and the old board. Nothing if you didn't witness it, and a lot if you did, is my opinion.

 

And as you bring up the idea that since Shepherd has "wasted millions/good platform" etc etc....you STILL have not explained how the old directors wasted a similar platform 1. After winning the Fairs Cup* 2. After finishing 5th under Lee, and 3. Winning promotion in 1984 and the following years where 3 England players came through and were sold.

 

* now that the excuse of "building a new stand" and not getting the World Cup in '66 has been put to bed.

 

 

[Guest bobjonson]

I dont know how much say he had in the Mckeag days, but it's been quoted in a few different places that SJH spoke to SHep as he was on the board. There's a whole SJH interview in the archives on nufc.com, I'll see if I can find it.

[Guest bobjonson]

no, sorry, it's a shep interview.

 

http://www.nufc.com/html/century_freddyshepherd.html

 

 

[Mick]

 

 

On the contrary, I think you are just following the sheep who think we have done badly under Shepherd because you don't really know what doing badly is.

 

If we fail on the field, it must be down to the manager, how can it be anyone else if he gets the backing from the board ? And, if you think the 5th best in the country over a decade, 2 FA Cup Finals, regular European qualification including a Champions League run, filling a 52,000 ground and the purchase of major England internationals is "failure", how can you possibly think over 30 years of selling your best

players, half filling the stadium, and spending the vast majority of this time in the lower half of the top league or in the old 2nd division to be "the same", then there is only one person here who needs a white stick.

 

If you cannot appreciate that the club has also built a new state of the art training complex, and massively improved the ground to be part of a good long term strategy to capitalise more on the clubs potential, then you also need a white stick.

 

If you prefer McKeag, Westwood etc or the chairman of the numerous that we have somehow overtaken despite having a shit board in the last decade and a bit, then you also need a white stick.

 

You really think finishing 15th 3 times in the 70's was a "golden era" don't you ? Even Souness, arsehole that he was, beat that. What does that tell you about the current board and the old board. Nothing if you didn't witness it, and a lot if you did, is my opinion.

 

And as you bring up the idea that since Shepherd has "wasted millions/good platform" etc etc....you STILL have not explained how the old directors wasted a similar platform 1. After winning the Fairs Cup* 2. After finishing 5th under Lee, and 3. Winning promotion in 1984 and the following years where 3 England players came through and were sold.

 

* now that the excuse of "building a new stand" and not getting the World Cup in '66 has been put to bed.

 

 

 

Back to the http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1635/recordbp1.jpg Whatever. bluesleep.gif

[NE5]

 

 

On the contrary, I think you are just following the sheep who think we have done badly under Shepherd because you don't really know what doing badly is.

 

If we fail on the field, it must be down to the manager, how can it be anyone else if he gets the backing from the board ? And, if you think the 5th best in the country over a decade, 2 FA Cup Finals, regular European qualification including a Champions League run, filling a 52,000 ground and the purchase of major England internationals is "failure", how can you possibly think over 30 years of selling your best

players, half filling the stadium, and spending the vast majority of this time in the lower half of the top league or in the old 2nd division to be "the same", then there is only one person here who needs a white stick.

 

If you cannot appreciate that the club has also built a new state of the art training complex, and massively improved the ground to be part of a good long term strategy to capitalise more on the clubs potential, then you also need a white stick.

 

If you prefer McKeag, Westwood etc or the chairman of the numerous that we have somehow overtaken despite having a shit board in the last decade and a bit, then you also need a white stick.

 

You really think finishing 15th 3 times in the 70's was a "golden era" don't you ? Even Souness, arsehole that he was, beat that. What does that tell you about the current board and the old board. Nothing if you didn't witness it, and a lot if you did, is my opinion.

 

And as you bring up the idea that since Shepherd has "wasted millions/good platform" etc etc....you STILL have not explained how the old directors wasted a similar platform 1. After winning the Fairs Cup* 2. After finishing 5th under Lee, and 3. Winning promotion in 1984 and the following years where 3 England players came through and were sold.

 

* now that the excuse of "building a new stand" and not getting the World Cup in '66 has been put to bed.

 

 

 

Back to the http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1635/recordbp1.jpg Whatever. bluesleep.gif

 

touche.

 

Answer the questions.

 

 

[NE5]

I've been looking all over to find that out, it's not readily available.

 

A poster called Merlin (I think) helped track down shareholders for the Magpie Group, he might have the answer.

 

I have the shareholding figures for the then board at the time of the failed share issue in 91/92. In it it looks like there are at most 2% of the shares not held by the then board members, although another conclusion that could be drawn it is actually 1 share that i sunaccounted for  :roll:

 

PM me if you want the numbers

 

Are you going to look at when we nearly went bust in 1991 because nobody was interested in the club, as a result of years of selling our best players and buying inferior cheaper replacements to balance the books ? Or is there a point to this   

 

 

[Guest Knightrider]

If we fail on the field, it must be down to the manager

 

Does this apply to the board's before Freddy?

[NE5]

If we fail on the field, it must be down to the manager

 

Does this apply to the board's before Freddy?

 

it would do if they were backed with the same ambition and support. Do you understand this ?

 

 

[Mick]

If we fail on the field, it must be down to the manager

 

Does this apply to the board's before Freddy?

 

As someone once said "you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

[Guest Knightrider]

If we fail on the field, it must be down to the manager

 

Does this apply to the board's before Freddy?

 

it would do if they were backed with the same ambition and support. Do you understand this ?

 

 

 

If I could provide you with factual proof that previous managers were backed just as much as managers today, what would you say to that?

[Guest Knightrider]

Not so quick to reply to this one are you NE5? Let me know when you'd like me to post these facts won't you.

[Mick]

Not so quick to reply to this one are you NE5? Let me know when you'd like me to post these facts won't you.

 

You're up to something.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

Grassroots  ( or should I say parody )

 

While you're digging around in your book(s) for your secondhand information, you might try telling me why the following players were sold:

 

Robson

Kennedy

McDermott

Beardsley

Waddle

Gascoigne

 

Surely you'll come across it, it's common knowledge for Newcastle supporters, but is bound to be in print somewhere for people such as you who do nowt but slag the club.

 

There are others, not as high profile as these but players who were decent players for the club and who moved on for similar reasons.

 

Fit the answer in around nicking a car.

[Howaythelads]

 

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.

 

 

The games I recall being crammed in were generally cup ties.

 

Just been looking back at the crowd figures, the '74 FA Cup 1/4 final against Nottm Forest was just over 54,000. Interestingly the normal league attendance that season was ~27000. That's a lot of extra people suddenly appearing out of nowhere, who disappeared for league matches.

 

I wonder why?

 

Interesting, the figure I've got for that season is 32,467.  I'll bet it's in the top 4 or 5 in the country although I don't know that for certain.

 

Edit,

 

I was probably wrong

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickzoe/seasons/season%20summaries/nufc_history_1973-74.html

 

Is that the best you can do in a serious debate?

 

I'm disappointed. Honest.

 

I know you like to come across with your buddies as a bit smug, but at the end of the day you don't really want to face up to the challenge of a debate with someone who was really there, do you, Mick?

[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.

 

 

The games I recall being crammed in were generally cup ties.

 

Just been looking back at the crowd figures, the '74 FA Cup 1/4 final against Nottm Forest was just over 54,000. Interestingly the normal league attendance that season was ~27000. That's a lot of extra people suddenly appearing out of nowhere, who disappeared for league matches.

 

I wonder why?

 

Interesting, the figure I've got for that season is 32,467.  I'll bet it's in the top 4 or 5 in the country although I don't know that for certain.

 

Edit,

 

I was probably wrong

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickzoe/seasons/season%20summaries/nufc_history_1973-74.html

 

Is that the best you can do in a serious debate?

 

I'm disappointed. Honest.

 

I know you like to come across with your buddies as a bit smug, but at the end of the day you don't really want to face up to the challenge of a debate with someone who was really there, do you, Mick?

 

I mentioned the season Keegan signed as a player then you mentioned '74 and the average crown figure.  I didn't remember too many low crowds around the Forrest game so went and found the figure and pointed out that it was higher than you thought, I can't see anything wrong with that, I'm surprised you find fault with it really.

 

It wasn't as if we were arguing, at least I didn't think we were.

[macbeth]

Is that the best you can do in a serious debate?

 

I'm disappointed. Honest.

 

I know you like to come across with your buddies as a bit smug, but at the end of the day you don't really want to face up to the challenge of a debate with someone who was really there, do you, Mick?

 

But claiming greater knowledge of players reasons for moves just cos you went to the match at the time is a pretty dubious bit of logic too. I was there, I know what you're on about, but all my knowledge comes from reading the Chronicle at the time. I never met any players, never knew any directors and everything I knew apart from what I saw on match day was filtered thro either the Chronicle or Metro or Radio Newcastle.

 

Someone quoting what they have read in a book yesterday is not that dissimilar to me quoting them what I read in the Chronicle 30 years ago, but which I know view as being something I lived through.

 

This is totally different scenario from reading a match report as opposed to being there. Two match reports from two journalists are often very diferent due to their opinions being different. I might have a third view. I would trust my own view.

 

In the case of discussing what was reported in the Chronicle 30 years ago, against what was written in a book, say, a couple of years ago, isn't as valid. As both of those views will be filtered through the head of a journalist.

 

You say you lived through say Pop Robson or Alan Kennedy leaving, and that you know why they left. I lived through it but I never spoke to them, I read lotsre and know the common knowledge but that is the same sort of common knowledge we now get from Alan Oliver. If Alan Oliver's view is that which becomes the future history then we could end up with Laurent Robert being the worst winger we have ever had

[Howaythelads]

 

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.

 

 

The games I recall being crammed in were generally cup ties.

 

Just been looking back at the crowd figures, the '74 FA Cup 1/4 final against Nottm Forest was just over 54,000. Interestingly the normal league attendance that season was ~27000. That's a lot of extra people suddenly appearing out of nowhere, who disappeared for league matches.

 

I wonder why?

 

Interesting, the figure I've got for that season is 32,467.  I'll bet it's in the top 4 or 5 in the country although I don't know that for certain.

 

Edit,

 

I was probably wrong

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickzoe/seasons/season%20summaries/nufc_history_1973-74.html

 

Is that the best you can do in a serious debate?

 

I'm disappointed. Honest.

 

I know you like to come across with your buddies as a bit smug, but at the end of the day you don't really want to face up to the challenge of a debate with someone who was really there, do you, Mick?

 

I mentioned the season Keegan signed as a player then you mentioned '74 and the average crown figure.  I didn't remember too many low crowds around the Forrest game so went and found the figure and pointed out that it was higher than you thought, I can't see anything wrong with that, I'm surprised you find fault with it really.

 

It wasn't as if we were arguing, at least I didn't think we were.

 

At least you got something right, 'cos we aren't arguing.

 

Mick, we don't have to agree, but is there something in particular preventing you from trying to engage in a debate?

 

Fair enough, I didn't look at the average, but then I didn't even think about it because it's not vital to know the exact average in relation to the point I'm making.

 

The question didn't have anything to do with an exact average attendance, the question was to do with why so few people turned up for league matches compared to cup matches. So my initial posted indicated that difference as 27,000 because I quickly scanned over the fixtures and noticed quite a few around that mark, but the average you insist on using cuts that difference to a mere 21,000. Well that's still a significant difference, wouldn't you agree? 

 

Why do you think attendances were so much lower for league matches than for cup matches? Do you think it may be because those extra 'supporters' weren't that interested because they knew we would do nowt in the league?

[Mick]

 

At least you got something right, 'cos we aren't arguing.

 

Mick, we don't have to agree, but is there something in particular preventing you from trying to engage in a debate?

 

Fair enough, I didn't look at the average, but then I didn't even think about it because it's not vital to know the exact average in relation to the point I'm making.

 

The question didn't have anything to do with an exact average attendance, the question was to do with why so few people turned up for league matches compared to cup matches. So my initial posted indicated that difference as 27,000 because I quickly scanned over the fixtures and noticed quite a few around that mark, but the average you insist on using cuts that difference to a mere 21,000. Well that's still a significant difference, wouldn't you agree? 

 

Why do you think attendances were so much lower for league matches than for cup matches? Do you think it may be because those extra 'supporters' weren't that interested because they knew we would do nowt in the league?

 

Of course one of the reasons will have been because they would do nowt in the league, I guess the same thing would happen now if it wasn't for such a high number of season ticket holders.

[Howaythelads]

 

At least you got something right, 'cos we aren't arguing.

 

Mick, we don't have to agree, but is there something in particular preventing you from trying to engage in a debate?

 

Fair enough, I didn't look at the average, but then I didn't even think about it because it's not vital to know the exact average in relation to the point I'm making.

 

The question didn't have anything to do with an exact average attendance, the question was to do with why so few people turned up for league matches compared to cup matches. So my initial posted indicated that difference as 27,000 because I quickly scanned over the fixtures and noticed quite a few around that mark, but the average you insist on using cuts that difference to a mere 21,000. Well that's still a significant difference, wouldn't you agree? 

 

Why do you think attendances were so much lower for league matches than for cup matches? Do you think it may be because those extra 'supporters' weren't that interested because they knew we would do nowt in the league?

 

Of course one of the reasons will have been because they would do nowt in the league, I guess the same thing would happen now if it wasn't for such a high number of season ticket holders.

 

Hmm, that's not saying much for the loyalty of the current support, is it? I mean, you're saying that you think over 20,000 people who currently go to SJP would desert the club right now?