The Board etc. etc.

[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.

 

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?

 

I doubt 20,000 would dissapear but I'm sure quite a few would go missing against the lesser club during a bad patch.  I would think we would have lost 1,000's during the time Souness was at the club.

[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 ?

 

 

 

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?

 

pre - 1992 ?

 

You can't, because they didn't. If they were, none of our best players would have wanted to go because we would have brought other top players in, like we do now. Neither would it have taken us almost 20 years to qualify for europe again from 1976, neither would we have been relegated twice since, neither would we have almost gone bust in 1991, which for macbeths benefit - if NUFC were ever to go bust and "cease to exist", this would have been it - although I maybe wouldn't find these comments as you have deleted the previous threads between myself and him when I showed he had been telling porkies..... but I am simply amazed  that YOU of all people doesn't get these facts about the board, so much so you even suggest you can dig up some facts.

 

Go ahead. You prove the club backed their managers in the buying of big top quality players and ran the club with the aim of playing in europe all the time as a minimum target. I suggest you speak with Waddle, Gazza and Peter Beardsley before you post a reply.

 

While you are at it, you could answer my comment where you were saying "what sort of message does that put out", well what sort of message do you think selling Shearer, Rob Lee and Gary Speed at their peak, say in 2000 to balance the books and keep the club solvent, or to "build a new stand". Or anything .....

 

You can also ask Damien Duff, as he has turned down Liverpool and Spurs to sign for us, ironically 20 years ago the same 3 players above, local lads, couldn't wait to leave us and go to these 2 clubs. I asked this previously too, and neither yourself or anyone else had anything to say. Now is your chance, to say why you think this is so.

 

[NE5]

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.

 

Quicker than you were to reply to my questions, that I have asked again ....... Grass......BTW, why did you make a comment saying I wasn't coming back, show me where I said that ?

 

 

[Guest BooBoo]

Christ, this shit's dull.

[NE5]

 

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?

 

Exactly. I think he has been shown to have not really been there like he says he was.

 

 

[NE5]

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.

 

 

He could also ask why when Gordon Lee went to Everton, he bought 3 England internationals, and 1 Scottish one, when he was refused the same funds at Newcastle.....

 

 

[NE5]

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

 

biggest load of bollocks ever, and thats saying something

 

 

[NE5]

 

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?

 

I doubt 20,000 would dissapear but I'm sure quite a few would go missing against the lesser club during a bad patch.  I would think we would have lost 1,000's during the time Souness was at the club.

 

but why is there 20,000 more now, if we are so shit ?

 

And you haven't answered my previous questions yet .....

 

Hardly surprising mind.

 

 

[NE5]

Christ, this shit's dull.

 

A few truthful replies mate, and it wouldn't be needed to repeat the questions, and could all go back happily to discussing Luque again.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

Christ, this shit's dull.

 

Not interested in the history of the club you claim to support. I expect you'd be one of the 20,000.

[Syrette]

Christ, this shit's dull.

 

Not interested in the history of the club you claim to support. I expect you'd be one of the 20,000.

 

[NE5]

Christ, this shit's dull.

 

Not interested in the history of the club you claim to support. I expect you'd be one of the 20,000.

 

 

you aren't going to show us your wisdom then ?

 

 

[Howaythelads]

Christ, this shit's dull.

 

Not interested in the history of the club you claim to support. I expect you'd be one of the 20,000.

 

 

I can't understand people having zero interest in the history of the club. I started going in 1968 but that's not when the club began. I find the history fascinating, tbh.

[macbeth]

biggest load of bollocks ever, and thats saying something

 

 

 

you're not one for alternatives are you ?

 

If my comments are bollocks, and I excluded  John Gibson as a soruce, can I ask where you got your info from in the 70s and 80 ?

 

Do you ever question your own view of reality ? I do all the time.I always want to question what I'm told. I'm comfortable with facts, so historically things liek us winning the Cup in 1924, and 1932 are things I accept totally as being fact. Reading that McCracken was the greatest fullback there ever was, or that Hughie was a great, great player, these things make me happy to read about. I don't know whether it is true though. I don't see someone writing a book about the Wembley Wizards and saying Hughie Gallagher was crap.

 

Similarly I don't see juornalists/writers writing about the sale of a player and putting a postiice spin on it. (I am not saying there was a positive spin on the headline sales mentioned above, just that a journo reporting on it has to play to his audience).

 

My son, who has only been going regularly to games for 6 years isn't really old enough to judge whether Robert Lee was a great, or whether Laurent Robert was a great. He's seen them both, but his views will always be tinged with how I reacted to those players when he was in his formative years. If I told him Lee was hopeless by the time he left, he will not have the same warm feeling that from me sayign Robert scored some of the most amazing goals I've ever seen.

 

Local journalists has huge power in the 70s and 80s when there was no live football, no internet to exchange views etc. John Gibson being in a good mood (or needing info) would produce positive stories about the club, him being blocked by the club, or him being in a bad mood would produce bad stories.

 

How did you get to find out more about why, say, Alan Kennedy, left than any other supporter at the time, or anyone reading about the history of the club ? Why is John Gibson writing in 1977 a better source than John Gibson writing a book quoting the same stories in 1997 ? What more do you know than the person who read the book rather than the Chronicle ?

[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 ?

 

 

 

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?

 

pre - 1992 ?

 

You can't, because they didn't. If they were, none of our best players would have wanted to go because we would have brought other top players in, like we do now. Neither would it have taken us almost 20 years to qualify for europe again from 1976, neither would we have been relegated twice since, neither would we have almost gone bust in 1991, which for macbeths benefit - if NUFC were ever to go bust and "cease to exist", this would have been it - although I maybe wouldn't find these comments as you have deleted the previous threads between myself and him when I showed he had been telling porkies..... but I am simply amazed  that YOU of all people doesn't get these facts about the board, so much so you even suggest you can dig up some facts.

 

Go ahead. You prove the club backed their managers in the buying of big top quality players and ran the club with the aim of playing in europe all the time as a minimum target. I suggest you speak with Waddle, Gazza and Peter Beardsley before you post a reply.

 

While you are at it, you could answer my comment where you were saying "what sort of message does that put out", well what sort of message do you think selling Shearer, Rob Lee and Gary Speed at their peak, say in 2000 to balance the books and keep the club solvent, or to "build a new stand". Or anything .....

 

You can also ask Damien Duff, as he has turned down Liverpool and Spurs to sign for us, ironically 20 years ago the same 3 players above, local lads, couldn't wait to leave us and go to these 2 clubs. I asked this previously too, and neither yourself or anyone else had anything to say. Now is your chance, to say why you think this is so.

 

 

Not so quick to reply to this one are you Grassroots ? Let me know when you will post these "facts" that you said you would, won't you.

[NE5]

biggest load of bollocks ever, and thats saying something

 

 

 

you're not one for alternatives are you ?

 

If my comments are bollocks, and I excluded  John Gibson as a soruce, can I ask where you got your info from in the 70s and 80 ?

 

Do you ever question your own view of reality ? I do all the time.I always want to question what I'm told. I'm comfortable with facts, so historically things liek us winning the Cup in 1924, and 1932 are things I accept totally as being fact. Reading that McCracken was the greatest fullback there ever was, or that Hughie was a great, great player, these things make me happy to read about. I don't know whether it is true though. I don't see someone writing a book about the Wembley Wizards and saying Hughie Gallagher was crap.

 

Similarly I don't see juornalists/writers writing about the sale of a player and putting a postiice spin on it. (I am not saying there was a positive spin on the headline sales mentioned above, just that a journo reporting on it has to play to his audience).

 

My son, who has only been going regularly to games for 6 years isn't really old enough to judge whether Robert Lee was a great, or whether Laurent Robert was a great. He's seen them both, but his views will always be tinged with how I reacted to those players when he was in his formative years. If I told him Lee was hopeless by the time he left, he will not have the same warm feeling that from me sayign Robert scored some of the most amazing goals I've ever seen.

 

Local journalists has huge power in the 70s and 80s when there was no live football, no internet to exchange views etc. John Gibson being in a good mood (or needing info) would produce positive stories about the club, him being blocked by the club, or him being in a bad mood would produce bad stories.

 

How did you get to find out more about why, say, Alan Kennedy, left than any other supporter at the time, or anyone reading about the history of the club ? Why is John Gibson writing in 1977 a better source than John Gibson writing a book quoting the same stories in 1997 ? What more do you know than the person who read the book rather than the Chronicle ?

 

yep, they are bollocks. The above post is bollocks too. Those players left Newcastle because the club was shit, and they knew that while they ran the club they were going nowhere, why else would they leave ? When and why did your dad stop supporting NUFC, if he ever did ? Because the board were bollocks ? Now 52,000 people support the club, that is proof they aren't shite like you claim. My view of reality is that of a supporter of the club since 1964, and yes I open my ears to those who supported the club earlier, as I asked you to post your dads views, which you haven't.

 

As I have told you before, you are like the McKeags of this world who run the club from a bean counters angle. You are absolutely clueless regarding the potential of Newcastle United, as shown by your claim that a 70,000 stadium would be too big for us. Utter crap of the highest order. You are small time, like Westwood, McKeag, Seymour and all the previous directors who ran the club with no courage or ambition to tap the fanbase.

 

You are talking the same bollocks as always.

 

And the amount of spelling mistakes you have made, tells me you are pissed too. Thank you and goodnight, close the door behind you on the way out.

 

 

[midds]

How the fuck can you lot get all worked up over ancient history? Arguing like kids in the schoolyard over things that may or may not have happened decades ago. "I started going in 1968", "World Cup grants of 1966" & signing internationals in the 70's for fuck's sake...Have you lot got nothing better to do? Your 'debates' rumble on for weeks.

 

I love this club as much as any of you and my opinion is as valid as anyone else's but life's too short to fall out over things that happened sooooooooooooooo long ago. Would it really be so hard to accept each others point of view and agree to disagree?? Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it's clear that neither side will be able to convince the other to agree with them. Life's too short gentlemen.  :roll: :roll:

[Syrette]

How the fuck can you lot get all worked up over ancient history? Arguing like kids in the schoolyard over things that may or may not have happened decades ago. "I started going in 1968", "World Cup grants of 1966" & signing internationals in the 70's for fuck's sake...Have you lot got nothing better to do? Your 'debates' rumble on for weeks.

 

I love this club as much as any of you and my opinion is as valid as anyone else's but life's too short to fall out over things that happened sooooooooooooooo long ago. Would it really be so hard to accept each others point of view and agree to disagree?? Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it's clear that neither side will be able to convince the other to agree with them. Life's too short gentlemen.  :roll: :roll:

 

Well said.

 

 

[Wullie]

I honestly don't know how they do it. I've been involved in my time on here in certain recurring long running debates which got heated at times - Craig Bellamy and Laurent Robert for two examples (didn't 'Au Revoir Laurent Robert' run to about 70-odd pages?)  - but if a thread came up tomorrow about them, I wouldn't get involved. What's the point, it's all in the past? I even used to enjoy reading these threads about Shepherd but not anymore, I'd rather have teeth pulled. It's been done to death and it's boring as fuck. As JCB says, arguments about the 60s and 70s, who went to what match and when, why so-and-so left, the attendance at matches x, y and z - Jesus wept.

 

I'm just glad we're managing to keep most of this shit in the one thread at the moment, means it's easy to avoid.

[Guest JPFIN]

How the **** can you lot get all worked up over ancient history? Arguing like kids in the schoolyard over things that may or may not have happened decades ago. "I started going in 1968", "World Cup grants of 1966" & signing internationals in the 70's for ****'s sake...Have you lot got nothing better to do? Your 'debates' rumble on for weeks.

 

I love this club as much as any of you and my opinion is as valid as anyone else's but life's too short to fall out over things that happened sooooooooooooooo long ago. Would it really be so hard to accept each others point of view and agree to disagree?? Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it's clear that neither side will be able to convince the other to agree with them. Life's too short gentlemen.  :roll: :roll:

 

Well said.

 

 

 

[Howaythelads]

How the **** can you lot get all worked up over ancient history? Arguing like kids in the schoolyard over things that may or may not have happened decades ago. "I started going in 1968", "World Cup grants of 1966" & signing internationals in the 70's for ****'s sake...Have you lot got nothing better to do? Your 'debates' rumble on for weeks.

 

I love this club as much as any of you and my opinion is as valid as anyone else's but life's too short to fall out over things that happened sooooooooooooooo long ago. Would it really be so hard to accept each others point of view and agree to disagree?? Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it's clear that neither side will be able to convince the other to agree with them. Life's too short gentlemen.  :roll: :roll:

 

Are you another empty headed type with no interest in history? I expect this lack of interest in anything other than 'yourself' and 'today' extends well beyond football matters.

 

Anyway, the bit I put in bold. You make it sound like some kind of put down. I'm merely mentioning that although that's when I started to go to matches myself I have an interest in events relating to the club before that time. It's called context, mate.

 

Here's a bit of help for you...........

 

con·text  Audio pronunciation of "context" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (kntkst)

n.

 

  1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.

[Howaythelads]

I honestly don't know how they do it. I've been involved in my time on here in certain recurring long running debates which got heated at times - Craig Bellamy and Laurent Robert for two examples (didn't 'Au Revoir Laurent Robert' run to about 70-odd pages?)  - but if a thread came up tomorrow about them, I wouldn't get involved. What's the point, it's all in the past? I even used to enjoy reading these threads about Shepherd but not anymore, I'd rather have teeth pulled. It's been done to death and it's boring as ****. As JCB says, arguments about the 60s and 70s, who went to what match and when, why so-and-so left, the attendance at matches x, y and z - Jesus wept.

 

I'm just glad we're managing to keep most of this shit in the one thread at the moment, means it's easy to avoid.

 

I take it somebody held a gun to your head and forced you to read it, like?

 

I'm just glad you don't try to post any opinions on it, although if you did I'm sure it would be hilarious. Parody, tbh.

[Guest elbee909]

 

con·text  Audio pronunciation of "context" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (kntkst)

n.

 

  1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.

 

You aren't referring to that particular definition in your post, you mean the second part

 

2.  The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

[Wullie]

Very dull.

[NE5]

How the fuck can you lot get all worked up over ancient history? Arguing like kids in the schoolyard over things that may or may not have happened decades ago. "I started going in 1968", "World Cup grants of 1966" & signing internationals in the 70's for fuck's sake...Have you lot got nothing better to do? Your 'debates' rumble on for weeks.

 

I love this club as much as any of you and my opinion is as valid as anyone else's but life's too short to fall out over things that happened sooooooooooooooo long ago. Would it really be so hard to accept each others point of view and agree to disagree?? Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it's clear that neither side will be able to convince the other to agree with them. Life's too short gentlemen.  :roll: :roll:

 

the point, is to point out to those who whinge on about wanting to be like Liverpool, we have been striving to match Liverpool since 1958, and it is to show that since the Halls and Shepherd took over the club we are massively nearer to challenging them than we have been since before they took over the club. And also to point out the mistaken view to many people have that we won trophies galore, always played in europe, always bought top quality footballers and always filled the stadium before the Halls and Shepherd took over the club. It is also to point out that many, many clubs in the past have fallen from heights of actually being championship winners, European Cup winners, through chaning boards or simply just getting things wrong, so being careful and wishing the replacement of a board who have presided such a big improvement, may not necessarily be the golden egg that you hope for.

 

Understand ?

 

Thought not.

 

There are plenty of Luque threads if you want to read something easier and less boring ........ or should I say, not testing your knowledge of the club too much.

 

Meanwhile, I see that Grass has not posted these stats he was going to post yet, nor have he and Mick responded to the facts/questions I have posted, which I am assured happens on a mature board.