The Board etc. etc.

[Syrette]

[Mick]

That's what we'll all look like BTW by the time we're through with supporting Newcastle.

 

 

Then God help the mackems.

 

After the shit NE5's put up with since the 1880s, he probably looks like frowning champion man's grandad.

 

[Guest elbee909]

 

Still fancy that bloke who runs the Post Office to run our football club 

 

Nah, scrap metal dealers are far more worthy.

[NE5]

Hey guys, I've just found out that if I frown a thousand times in succession, wrinkles appear on my forehead. That probably explains why old people have loads of them. Fuck me, you learn something new every day.

 

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/Buffalo/images/pf005308.jpg

 

I've heard about that guy, he's a professional tbh and has won loads of frowning competitions. Looks like he's branched off into other facial expression competitions though, they probably retired his frowning belt and disbanded the games which would explain his move into other areas of the sport.

 

Has he got a nose?

 

STILL no reply. You weren't there were you. You do realise that your chum Grassroots insists this is an adult site that conducts debates in a mature fashion.. 

 

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f319/katiehoser/chickenshit.jpg

[NE5]

 

Still fancy that bloke who runs the Post Office to run our football club 

 

Nah, scrap metal dealers are far more worthy.

 

macbeth doesn't do football,  he thinks Adam Crozier would be a perfect chairman of NUFC.

[NE5]

That's what we'll all look like BTW by the time we're through with supporting Newcastle.

 

 

Then God help the mackems.

 

After the shit NE5's put up with since the 1880s, he probably looks like frowning champion man's grandad.

 

 

So according to Mick, selling our England players and getting relegated was funny ... confirms you weren't there, did you enjoy your shopping in Eldon Square Mick ? You weren't there were you ?

 

How's your "research" getting on, I hope Grassroots isn't reading your results, although it looks like he is 

[NE5]

That's what we'll all look like BTW by the time we're through with supporting Newcastle.

 

 

Then God help the mackems.

 

After the shit NE5's put up with since the 1880s, he probably looks like frowning champion man's grandad.

 

Oh thats right, your board has delivered your ultimate trophy stadium since then, aren't you a lucky boy ?

 

Anyway, do you think we should go after Doug Ellis, you have said he was doing a good job at Villa taking over the European Champions and ending up a mediocre team that barely qualifies for europe. Good job that like, better than Fred ... 

 

You are reading Micks research aren't you  :roll:

[Guest Knightrider]

That's what we'll all look like BTW by the time we're through with supporting Newcastle.

 

 

Then God help the mackems.

 

After the shit NE5's put up with since the 1880s, he probably looks like frowning champion man's grandad.

 

Oh thats right, your board has delivered your ultimate trophy stadium since then, aren't you a lucky boy ?

 

Anyway, do you think we should go after Doug Ellis, you have said he was doing a good job at Villa taking over the European Champions and ending up a mediocre team that barely qualifies for europe. Good job that like, better than Fred ... 

 

You are reading Micks research aren't you  :roll:

 

Aye

[NE5]

Well, is Mick going to conclude his question "are/were newcastle a selling club" or not.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Knightrider]

Well, is Mick going to conclude his question "are/were newcastle a selling club" or not.

 

 

 

 

 

Newcastle United 1970-1991, a selling club? thread brought back on request of Mick, and merged into here.

 

Fuck me yous must be bored

[NE5]

 

I have backed and fought Keegans corner to the hilt when people have knocked him. You find a post where I have ever criticised him, other than buying Arsprilla.

 

I am happy to judge players quickly sometimes, if you can't thats your problem. Given is the 2nd best keeper I have seen play for Newcastle, Jones was the best and if he had not suffered the injury that killed his career, he would have proved it.

 

Toonarama praises Tony Green, therefore it doesn't go against my opinion, its the stuff about Lee and MacDonald that is a bag of shite.

 

As NE15 rightly points out, if we were getting the 3rd or 4th biggest gates in the country, that means not many clubs can afford our players.......I am sure you don't get this.  :lol:

 

Why did Lee leave Newcastle ? Why did the players strike ? Why do you like people who are in charge of a club that is bottom half of the league, relegated and sell our best players and slate those who give you a team that qualifies for europe.

 

Your opinion about Lee leaving and the position is as pedantic as the idiotic one you posted about Keegan being the England captain when he never played again.

 

For 3 years before Gordon Lee sold MacDonald, we finished 15th, in what is your "golden era". After he left, the football was different and brought about the following results.

 

In November 1976 Newcastle played Ipswich in an abandoned game. Bobby Robson said "I think there will be 6 sides in with a chance at the end of the season, and we will be one of them. There is no team that we really fear, but you can't write off  Liverpool, and Newcastle will be there as well. Arsenal, Manchester City and Aston Villa should also be involved". On December 27th, after beating the mackems 2-0, we were 5th in the league, 5 points behind leaders Liverpool, with 2 games in hand of them.

When Lee left the club at the end of January, we were 9th in the league and 10 points behind leaders Liverpool and had FIVE games in hand of them. We were well on the way to finishing 5th, and if you don't want to hand the credit to Lee for that, then you must hand the credit to Dinnis for steadying the ship and pacifying the players from striking.

 

These are all FACTS.

 

 

This is fast becoming pointless, this is the last time I'll repeat this here, you knocked the style of football played under Keegan, you did it by having a go at the "crash bang wallop" style before Lee arrived.  I know you've stuck up for Keegan but he played "crash bang wallop" football as you call it, his approach was if they score three, we'll score four and you can't deny it, he was all out attack and we all loved it, the thing is, you're now using that against Joe Harvey in an attempt to make Lee look good.

 

I will make one thing clear here. I have not knocked anything about Keegans time as a manager other than buying Arsprilla. YOU find it, or you are a liar.

 

I have also NEVER mentioned Joe Harvey, at any time, anywhere.

 

And you are right about one other thing, it is pointless debating with someone who won't answer questions.

 

I have no problem with your opinion on Roger Jones, I don't share it but that's life, my memory of him was a good first game then the next time I saw him was a game against Man U when he picked the ball out of the net 4 times.

 

If Toonarama got Tony Green right, maybe you've got Gordon Lee wrong, maybe they are also right about Macdonald and Gordon Lee.

 

If the fans didn't like Macdonald, why did so many turn up against Arsenal when he played against us?  Why did 10,000 turn up for that one game and not turn up the season before or the next season when we played Arsenal but he was injured so didn't play?  Why is this game against Arsenal the only game that season with a 10,000 gate increase?

 

I've answered why Lee left, try reading the answer, you can repeat the question, I'll only answer it once.

 

As for players striking, they wanted Dinnis as manager you know that so why are you asking, did you actually go to matches at that time or do you only read it in books?

 

Gordon Lee had one end of season at Newcastle, we were 15th in the league, fact.  How is it pedantic?  As you say we were 9th when Lee left, anything could have happened if he had stayed, including another 15th finish.

 

I actually don't give a flying fcuk if "the fans" didn't like Gordon Lee for selling MacDonald, because events proved him to be right, the team did better, he was finished with football 3 years later, and only a complete plank would still deny these FACTS.

 

You didn't answer why Lee left. You said he left because we were just a cup team or something. What sort of reply is that ? In actual fact, one phrase the toonarama do get right is where they quote Lee as saying "they talk big but don't act big" [that YOU pointed us at  :lol:]. Too much for you to understand.

 

Why did he buy England players at Everton and not at Newcastle ? Why did we jump 10 places higher in the league after selling your 2 golden boys ? Answer the question.

 

Why don't you answer the questions asked you by NE15 ?

 

You are giving Richard Dinnis the credit for finishing 5th, as we were 9th with FIVE games in hand when Lee left. Fine. I hope you don't criticise Dinnis in future  :lol:

 

The players were going to go on strike because they were pissed off at the club losing Lee. I went to games. I had a season ticket.  How many did you go to that season ? Answer the question. Be careful, I will ask you some questions based on this. And now I expect not to get a reply.

 

You're a joke.

 

 

 

You really are slow tonight, I said you mentioned Keegan when you were complaining about a certain type of football, the type we played under Keegan.  I didn’t say that you actually typed his name, does that clear things up?  Do I need to go in to more detail or will this, the third attempt clear it up?

 

What were you referring to when you typed this?

 

 

 

The right lines being, in fact "controlled possession" football, rather than "crash bang wallop". Anyone who knows anything about football will tell you that controlled possession football is the way to play, becomes more important the higher you go, yet you cling to the absurd idiotic notion that having a number 9 to hang your hat on is preferable to having a good, successful team.

 

Was Souness right to sell Bellamy and Robert because we finished higher last season without them than we did the season before, when they played?  I know Bellamy left in the January window before you try to deflect away from answering, just answer the question.

 

Of course Newcastle were right to sell Macdonald, the team did better for 1 season then it was 2nd division football while Macdonald was probably devastated at being stuck in the shitty first and top division.

 

As you say “only a complete plank would still deny these FACTS”.

 

I did answer why Lee left, please pay more attention, people don’t take your questions seriously because when they answer questions you either don’t see the answer or chose to ignore it, it makes you look a bit daft.  Point out where I said Lee left because we were a cup team?  I’m sure somebody who brands people liars can prove that statement.

 

I’m not giving Lee or Dinnis the credit for the 5th finish, history says Dinnis was the manager of the club when we finished 5th, who am I to argue?  Who do you give credit for finishing 5th and why?

 

The players were not going on strike because they were pissed off at losing Lee, they were threatening it because they wanted Dinnis as manager.  What would be the point in going on strike after a manager had decided that he wanted to go to another club?  Stop trying to change history again, you just look daft

 

How often did you stand in the Leazes during Lee’s last season at the club?  I just wonder as you are the expert on what the Leazes sang.

 

As for how many games I attended 30 years ago, no idea.

 

Keegan played possession football, with the team ethic . That is his style, it was at Liverpool. He also didn't rate MacDonald when he was a player because he said his style was too individual and not conducive to team success. He said it in a book he wrote back in the 1970's/early 1980's that I have.

 

The reason Newcastle were relegated was because of the crisis sparked by losing Lee, and what followed. Not MacDonald, they did better without him. What did he do at Arsenal ? Lee did better at Everton, fact. MacDonald also says in his book that Lee was right to sell him.

 

You DID answer why Lee left.

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,27484.456.html

 

But its nonsense. And even if it did have an element of truth, surely as Lee was the manager, he was the one with the power to convert the club into a successful LEAGUE team, or do you think this is maybe what he wanted, and the club didn't have that ambition ?

 

I give both Lee and Dinnis the credit for finishing 5th, both for different reasons, any good position like that was achieved in spite of the directors we had. It was Lee's team, and Dinnis steadied the ship until he was found out to be out of his depth, eventually the trouble within the club simply tore it apart.

 

I had a season ticket from 1973 season, but was in the Leazes End for the Man City match because it was a Cup game and chose to go into the Leazes rather than the paddock, as I did for all the Cup Games.  How many games did you see that year and during that period. You must have an idea. 5 ? 10 ?

 

 

[Guest Knightrider]

Like a fly to shit

[NE5]

[macbeth]

Like a fly to shit

 

like a fly to NE5 ?

[Howaythelads]

Well, is Mick going to conclude his question "are/were newcastle a selling club" or not.

 

 

 

 

 

Newcastle United 1970-1991, a selling club? thread brought back on request of Mick, and merged into here.

 

Fuck me yous must be bored

 

Actually, it was an interesting idea for a thread and was going ok until you binned it. The motivation was obvious like, and was doomed to failure because facts are facts, but it was still potentially educational for the head in the sand crew, which is why you binned it of course.

 

The history of the club is interesting for some, however we've established it's not of interest for everybody, those who believe football began  with Sky TV for example. I thought at one point in time that you were interested in the facts surrounding the history of the club but it seems not. It's a shame that you've become so blinkered by your hatred of Fred that you can't see how far your head is up your arse, but you'll get it one day. To be honest, when that day arrives I do believe you'll be man enough to admit it though. So credit where it's due and all that.

[Howaythelads]

Like a fly to shit

 

like a fly to NE5 ?

 

Macbeth

[macbeth]

Well, is Mick going to conclude his question "are/were newcastle a selling club" or not.

 

 

 

 

 

Newcastle United 1970-1991, a selling club? thread brought back on request of Mick, and merged into here.

 

Fuck me yous must be bored

 

Actually, it was an interesting idea for a thread and was going ok until you binned it. The motivation was obvious like, and was doomed to failure because facts are facts, but it was still potentially educational for the head in the sand crew, which is why you binned it of course.

 

The history of the club is interesting for some, however we've established it's not of interest for everybody, those who believe football began in with Sky TV. I thought at one point in time that you were interested in the facts surrounding the history of the club but it seems not. It's a shame that you've become so blinkered by your hatred of Fred that you can't see how far your head is up your arse, but you'll get it one day. To be honest, when that day arrives I do believe you'll be man enough to admit it though. So credit where it's due and all that.

 

I think he went searching trying to 'prove' a point by getting the facts to justify it. It's always better the other way around and starting with facts and making opinions ofmr them.

 

It's not dissimilar to havign a gut feel that Emre and Parker are a good partnership and going to get facts (results) to prove it. When they don't actually match the opinion (which nonetheless may well be a correct one) it is always frustrating.

 

I have tried to do this with the club accounts, many times. Start with an opnion and try and prove from the figures that a gut feel is right. When I started out with the web site I knew for a FACT that the wage bill was under control, other things weren't but I just knew that was. I barely looked at that area I was so sure of my "facts", and as it was a big plus for Shepherd I avoided it for ages. When, for completeness purposes I did go to the figures I found my gut feell was wrong. Things had moved on from when I'd last looked.

 

The transfer sales figures are so difficult to find, so difficult to compare with today that it was always going to be difficult to get a meaningful answer. All of us who lived thro it remember the horrendous frustration of selling players. We were always fooled by the replacements coming in though. (I still remember Big Jack describing Pat Heard as the new John Wark!) Sadly nothing changes on that front  :confused:

[Syrette]

Like a fly to shit

 

like a fly to NE5 ?

 

Macbeth

 

 

This thread is GOLD.

[UV]

I have tried to do this with the club accounts, many times. Start with an opnion and try and prove from the figures that a gut feel is right. When I started out with the web site I knew for a FACT that the wage bill was under control, other things weren't but I just knew that was. I barely looked at that area I was so sure of my "facts", and as it was a big plus for Shepherd I avoided it for ages. When, for completeness purposes I did go to the figures I found my gut feell was wrong. Things had moved on from when I'd last looked.

 

At least now you're admitting your site is anti-Shepherd propaganda, and its purpose isn't in fact "not to try and influence your opinion on the way the club has been run, just to give you the facts, and let you draw your own conclusions." 

[macbeth]

 

At least now you're admitting your site is anti-Shepherd propaganda, and its purpose isn't in fact "not to try and influence your opinion on the way the club has been run, just to give you the facts, and let you draw your own conclusions." 

 

No. I may have started with anger in my heart, but that doesn't mean that is where I ended up. The site has no rant about "fat cat salaries", not any comment on anyone bleeding the club of money.

 

Take the dividends page http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/dividends.htm    I will happily comment on here that I hate, with a vengeance the clubs dividend policy. The site doesn't give that opinion, just states the facts and lets you decide.

 

The site has been thro many filters to try and ensure that it is fact based. This message board is opinion based, with the occasional fact backign it up. I fell the figures are so pwoerful themselves I have no need to guide anyone to make a conclusion.

[Howaythelads]

Macbeth

 

I barely looked at that area I was so sure of my "facts", and as it was a big plus for Shepherd I avoided it for ages. When, for completeness purposes I did go to the figures I found my gut feell was wrong. Things had moved on from when I'd last looked.

 

Good of you to finally admit you have an anti Fred agenda, this having already been well spotted above by UV but is worthy of highlighting again, as you've consistently denied this ever since you began your crusade.

 

The transfer sales figures are so difficult to find, so difficult to compare with today that it was always going to be difficult to get a meaningful answer. All of us who lived thro it remember the horrendous frustration of selling players. We were always fooled by the replacements coming in though. (I still remember Big Jack describing Pat Heard as the new John Wark!) Sadly nothing changes on that front

 

A few points on this paragraph.  All in bold.

 

Mick doesn't remembers any such horrendous frustration though, does he?

 

Some of us weren't fooled by the replacements.

 

To say that nothing has changed on that front is not true. Sorry like. Things are TOTALLY different now.

[UV]

 

At least now you're admitting your site is anti-Shepherd propaganda, and its purpose isn't in fact "not to try and influence your opinion on the way the club has been run, just to give you the facts, and let you draw your own conclusions." 

 

No. I may have started with anger in my heart, but that doesn't mean that is where I ended up. The site has no rant about "fat cat salaries", not any comment on anyone bleeding the club of money.

 

Take the dividends page http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/dividends.htm    I will happily comment on here that I hate, with a vengeance the clubs dividend policy. The site doesn't give that opinion, just states the facts and lets you decide.

 

The site has been thro many filters to try and ensure that it is fact based. This message board is opinion based, with the occasional fact backign it up. I fell the figures are so pwoerful themselves I have no need to guide anyone to make a conclusion.

 

Propaganda isn't all about misleading information and opinions, it's also about the selective use of only certain information which agrees with the message you want to put over.

 

For example on the dividends page you state "This includes nearly £1m during a time when the club did not spend any money on players. ". There is not however a balancing statement that no dividends at all were paid during a time when the club spent £20-30m (not sure what the exact net spend was last year).

 

As for the dividends, you say that "The chairman of any company is duty bound to protect shareholder interests.", so surely the minimum a shareholder should expect is a return on their investment of more than they could get by sticking their money in a savings account. Doing some quick caclulations I believe the club is currently worth around £80m (128m*0.62). I get over 5% on my savings account, so using that as a minimum you could get for such large sums, 5% of £80m is £4m. Is an average of around £2.4m/yr dividend - about what you could get in a current bank account - therefore not a reasonable amount? If anything it's way too small - the chairman better watch out or the shareholders might replace him with someone who'll give them more return for their investment.

[macbeth]

 

 

Propaganda isn't all about misleading information and opinions, it's also about the selective use of only certain information which agrees with the message you want to put over.

 

For example on the dividends page you state "This includes nearly £1m during a time when the club did not spend any money on players. ". There is not however a balancing statement that no dividends at all were paid during a time when the club spent £20-30m (not sure what the exact net spend was last year).

 

Cash dividends weren't given, but share dividends instead of cash were. It still cost the club to do that. You are correct though that this January there was neither cash nor share dividends given. This happened to be in a period when the club lost £1m per month, and it there was nothing available give away in dividends. When I have time though (not today) I will go and add your comment regarding the spend and the lack of cash dividends.

 

As for the dividends, you say that "The chairman of any company is duty bound to protect shareholder interests.", so surely the minimum a shareholder should expect is a return on their investment of more than they could get by sticking their money in a savings account. Doing some quick caclulations I believe the club is currently worth around £80m (128m*0.62). I get over 5% on my savings account, so using that as a minimum you could get for such large sums, 5% of £80m is £4m. Is an average of around £2.4m/yr dividend - about what you could get in a current bank account - therefore not a reasonable amount? If anything it's way too small - the chairman better watch out or the shareholders might replace him with someone who'll give them more return for their investment.

 

The shareholders have taken the short-term, get rich quick view. The Hall and Shepherd families put in around £10m to get all their shares. They have subsequently taken out over £20m. So over a 100% return so far. They still own their shares with a face value of ~£54m. If someone came and bought them out they would get around that. An initial investment of £10m will turn into a return of 74m, a 750% return, roughly 80% per annum. Looks okay to me. That's a lie, it looks obscene to me.

 

This was exactly wher I started from. What prompted me to create the site was Shepherd coming out and saying in April 2005 that he had never taken a  penny out of the business, and that he had reinvested everything taken from dividends back in. For many this read as if his money was going in to the club for the betterment of the club. This is absolutely not the case. His share ownership gives him a dividend from the club, lets say £400k. He then uses that to buy more shares, roughly a million of them, in NUFC ("invest in the club" as he puts it). The £400k he spends doesn't go to NUFC it goes to the previous owners. Much as me buying a second hand Toyota the money goes to the previous owner not to Toyota.

Shepherd now owns a million more shares. He keeps doing this with all his dividend money each 6 months or so. The details of his purchases are at http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/shepherds.htm

Shepherd currently owns his 37m shares. The vast majority of these have come form him reinvesting the dividend money the club has given him. So back in the mid 90s he put some money in, since then he has been able to give the clubs money away to allow him to buy more shares. It looks like (I can't prove) he has only used NUFC money to buy NUFC shares for himself.

 

I have no problem at all with investors requiring a return on their investment. I would prefer the club to give no dividends and keep the money internally. So how would the investors get a return ? Well the busines would be worth more, it must be. If it is worth more then more people will be interested in investing. The share price would rise. Any individual investing could decide to either keep their shares or sell their shares for a profit. In the US this is the norm. So acompany like Dell have never given a dividend, and for many years neither did Microsoft. This was despite making huge profit.

 

 

Under Hall and Shepherd the club has made losses of roughly £20m in 8 years, not too bad in itself. They have then though given out over £30m to shareholders as reward. http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/profits.htm

 

Man Utd never gave % return that NUFC have, despite trophies and profits. They did give dividends just not as high as ours. As I show on the dividends page NUFC give a bigger return than Lloyds TSB, and BT, companies that made profits of over £2bn. If they can't justify paying out any more, how on earth can NUFC ?

[Kitman]

Like a fly to shit

 

like a fly to NE5 ?

 

Macbeth

 

 

This thread is GOLD.

 

Worst thread ever imo

[Howaythelads]

Aye. Football began in 1992.