The Board etc. etc.

[UV]

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.

 

Fair enough.

 

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.

 

Harsh. It was a very high risk investment. With hindsight there were very healthy rewards, but they could just as easily have lost the lot. If it was so obviously a money for nothing get rich quick scheme, why didn't everyone buy shares? Personally I don't begrudge them it considering the state the club is at now compared to then. The massive expectations of a lot of supporters these days compared to just hoping we didn't get relegated back then shows how far we have come.

 

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.

 

So what? I don't see anything wrong, or anything that harms the club in any of that personally.

 

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.

 

That seems like quite a simplistic view of things, and comparing us to Microsoft is a bit of a stretch  All I'll say is, even with my limited experience of the stock market, I can say with complete confidence that share prices have fuck all to do with anything other than what a bunch of blood sucking overpaid smarmy twats in the city decide they're going to make pots of cash off of this week.  :wullie: bluecry.gif  :wullie:

 

If you're going to make statements about the share price such as "However the slide downward of the share price can only be seen as an indicator of the perceived poor performance of the Board in the stewardship of the PLC and of late, the team on the field of play." based on graphs like this:

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/sharep7.gif

 

Perhaps you should give it some context by comparing it with other football plcs:

 

http://data.moneycentral.msn.com/scripts/chrtsrv.dll?Symbol=GB%3Ancu%2CGB%3Aasv%2CGB%3Attnm&C1=1&C2=&C3=10&C4=3&C9=2&CE=0&D3=0&D4=1&D5=0&EFR=236&EFG=246&EFB=254&E1=1

 

blueeek.gif Bloody hell, Spurs must be doing really shit now according to your view of things.

 

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

 

So are you saying the losses on this page http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/dividends.htm are actually losses + dividends. That's a bit misleading isn't it?

 

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 ?

 

I don't know much about Man Utds finances, but they are probably "worth" 10 times what we are, so to pay out an equivalent percentage they'd have to pay out 10 times as much, and to to that they'd have to make 10 times the profit. Which they don't; nowhere near.

 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

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.

 

Fair enough.

 

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.

 

Harsh. It was a very high risk investment. With hindsight there were very healthy rewards, but they could just as easily have lost the lot. If it was so obviously a money for nothing get rich quick scheme, why didn't everyone buy shares? Personally I don't begrudge them it considering the state the club is at now compared to then. The massive expectations of a lot of supporters these days compared to just hoping we didn't get relegated back then shows how far we have come.

 

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.

 

So what? I don't see anything wrong, or anything that harms the club in any of that personally.

 

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.

 

That seems like quite a simplistic view of things, and comparing us to Microsoft is a bit of a stretch  All I'll say is, even with my limited experience of the stock market, I can say with complete confidence that share prices have **** all to do with anything other than what a bunch of blood sucking overpaid smarmy twats in the city decide they're going to make pots of cash off of this week.  :wullie: bluecry.gif  :wullie:

 

If you're going to make statements about the share price such as "However the slide downward of the share price can only be seen as an indicator of the perceived poor performance of the Board in the stewardship of the PLC and of late, the team on the field of play." based on graphs like this:

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/sharep7.gif

 

Perhaps you should give it some context by comparing it with other football plcs:

 

http://data.moneycentral.msn.com/scripts/chrtsrv.dll?Symbol=GB%3Ancu%2CGB%3Aasv%2CGB%3Attnm&C1=1&C2=&C3=10&C4=3&C9=2&CE=0&D3=0&D4=1&D5=0&EFR=236&EFG=246&EFB=254&E1=1

 

blueeek.gif Bloody hell, Spurs must be doing really shit now according to your view of things.

 

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

 

So are you saying the losses on this page http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/dividends.htm are actually losses + dividends. That's a bit misleading isn't it?

 

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 ?

 

I don't know much about Man Utds finances, but they are probably "worth" 10 times what we are, so to pay out an equivalent percentage they'd have to pay out 10 times as much, and to to that they'd have to make 10 times the profit. Which they don't; nowhere near.

 

 

One point UV, the share price has a lot to do with the dividends paid out.

 

Yes supply and demand play a big part but generally speaking high dividends = lower share price

[NE5]

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." 

 

Correct, as I've always said too. Not to mention the phrase "Start with an opnion and try and prove from the figures"....what a load of shit, the facts dictate your opinions, nice to see he is also admitting his opinions aren't factually based.

 

Utter tripe. Caught out by his own words, again. Although he'll say we are twisting his words.

 

Shame he doesn't do football, he might have more of a clue

 

 

 

 

 

[macbeth]

 

Correct, as I've always said too. Not to mention the phrase "Start with an opnion and try and prove from the figures"....what a load of shit, the facts dictate your opinions, nice to see he is also admitting his opinions aren't factually based.

 

My opinions are fact based. As a club we have given away £30m that I'd arther was invested in the club. You prefer it in clHall and Shepherd pension funds, I prefer it in the club. Say it aint so

 

Utter tripe. Caught out by his own words, again. Although he'll say we are twisting his words.

 

You ALWAYS do, so no point me trying to say otherwise.

 

Shame he doesn't do football, he might have more of a clue

 

I don't do it the way you do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

 

Correct, as I've always said too. Not to mention the phrase "Start with an opnion and try and prove from the figures"....what a load of shit, the facts dictate your opinions, nice to see he is also admitting his opinions aren't factually based.

 

My opinions are fact based. As a club we have given away £30m that I'd arther was invested in the club. You prefer it in clHall and Shepherd pension funds, I prefer it in the club. Say it aint so

 

Utter tripe. Caught out by his own words, again. Although he'll say we are twisting his words.

 

You ALWAYS do, so no point me trying to say otherwise.

 

Shame he doesn't do football, he might have more of a clue

 

I don't do it the way you do.

 

 

 

 

There are a few others waiting for a response from you too.

 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we are waiting for Micks verdict from his research into the thread he started himself, including the reasons why Gazza, Beardsley and Waddle left Newcastle. Why Gordon Lee bought England players for Everton and not Newcastle. Why Pop Robson left Newcastle to sign for West Ham ? Why does he get the transfer fees of players such as Paul Goddard and Neil Simpson incorrect. Why did clubs such as West Brom and West Ham [to name 2] have higher record transfer fees than we did during this period ?

 

His question was: Were Newcastle a selling club in the 1970/80's - and are they still a sellling club.

 

I/We await his conclusion with bated breath.

 

Or has he disappeared.

 

 

[NE5]

As I suspected.....

 

Mick hasn't got the bottle to finish the thread he started. Whats the verdict then 

[Guest elbee909]

Not making excuses on his behalf or owt, but he's had a fair bit to deal with outside of this wonderful world we call the internet.  What's the bloody hurry anyway, you're obviously not going anywhere  tongue.gif

[Mick]

Not making excuses on his behalf or owt, but he's had a fair bit to deal with outside of this wonderful world we call the internet.  What's the bloody hurry anyway, you're obviously not going anywhere  tongue.gif

 

I've answered most of his questions anyway, if he can't read then tough on him.  I'm not going to try to explain why Everton signed England Internationals because I have no idea and couldn't care less about Everton.  I've said that I am quite sure that Beardsley wanted to win things, I can't say the same for Waddle and Gazza, Gazza is supposed to have turned down Man U for Spurs.

 

I'm not going to explain why I got two transfer fee's wrong because I didn't, again he's wrong, I didn't think Goddard cost 800k and didn't say that he did http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,27484.msg499814.html#msg499814 , it's just NE5 losing his marbles, just ignore him, it'll be the old age.  I posted a link to a site which said Simpson cost 500k because I didn't think he cost that much and again, I didn't say that he did.

 

I have no idea yet if we spent more than we brought in for sales, it looks as if we did spend more as I'm still short of a few players although they are not the players who went for a lot of money so they'll not make a massive difference, at worst we'll just about break even.  What I have is that we spent £15.8 million and brought in just under £14.2 million, I have no idea what the turnover was at that time, it'll not be much when compaired to today.

 

Lastly, I don't have to justify slagging our crowds off because I haven't ever slagged them off, I've spent more time trying to tell NE5 that we've always had good levels of support, it's just that attendances have been up and down in general, we're no different except that our crowds were good when compaired with others at that time instead of the 52,000 we get now, he uses the 52,000 we get now as a sign of failure in the past.

[macbeth]

Mick, beware of trying to be reasonable  :winking:

[Howaythelads]

Not making excuses on his behalf or owt, but he's had a fair bit to deal with outside of this wonderful world we call the internet.  What's the bloody hurry anyway, you're obviously not going anywhere  tongue.gif

 

Are you his SO then? Sounds like you know some personal details there, like.

[Howaythelads]

Mick

 

I'll try again to explain the flaw in what you're saying....

 

 

I've answered most of his questions anyway, if he can't read then tough on him.  I'm not going to try to explain why Everton signed England Internationals because I have no idea and couldn't care less about Everton.  I've said that I am quite sure that Beardsley wanted to win things, I can't say the same for Waddle and Gazza, Gazza is supposed to have turned down Man U for Spurs.

 

Gordon Lee signing England international players for Everton proved that he knew a good player when he saw one. It also disproved the notion that he didn't want a team of 'stars'. In fact what he didn't want were players in the team who weren't 'team players'. The Board at Everton backed him in the transfer market enabling him to buy these players. The point is that he would have attempted to bring those same players to Newcastle had he received the backing of the Board. He didn't have that backing in the transfer market because the Board was unambitious.

 

<snipped a bit out that I'm not bothered about....ie you getting a transfer fee wrong. I couldn't care less about that, tbh.>

 

I have no idea yet if we spent more than we brought in for sales, it looks as if we did spend more as I'm still short of a few players although they are not the players who went for a lot of money so they'll not make a massive difference, at worst we'll just about break even.  What I have is that we spent £15.8 million and brought in just under £14.2 million, I have no idea what the turnover was at that time, it'll not be much when compaired to today.

 

If you are trying to prove or disprove the ambition of the Board coming up with a set of figures isn't the way to go about it no matter which way the figures may end up. You need to look at the timing of sales and buys. We may well have spent some money on 3 players, but what was the point if they are average and the deal was financed by the sale of a top player? What the Board needed to do was keep that top player and invest in more players of that quality. They didn't. The bit where you mention the turnover wouldn't be much compared to today isn't relevant on the basis that Sky wasn't around for any club back then. It was a level playing field. However, the Board of the day had a potential fanbase to tap into that could have given us a larger turnover than many other clubs, but they failed to tap into that due to their lack of ambition.

 

Lastly, I don't have to justify slagging our crowds off because I haven't ever slagged them off, I've spent more time trying to tell NE5 that we've always had good levels of support, it's just that attendances have been up and down in general, we're no different except that our crowds were good when compaired with others at that time instead of the 52,000 we get now, he uses the 52,000 we get now as a sign of failure in the past.

 

Not bothered about that bit either.

[Guest BooBoo]

bluesleep.gif

[NE5]

Not making excuses on his behalf or owt, but he's had a fair bit to deal with outside of this wonderful world we call the internet.  What's the bloody hurry anyway, you're obviously not going anywhere  tongue.gif

 

I've answered most of his questions anyway, if he can't read then tough on him.  I'm not going to try to explain why Everton signed England Internationals because I have no idea and couldn't care less about Everton.  I've said that I am quite sure that Beardsley wanted to win things, I can't say the same for Waddle and Gazza, Gazza is supposed to have turned down Man U for Spurs.

 

I'm not going to explain why I got two transfer fee's wrong because I didn't, again he's wrong, I didn't think Goddard cost 800k and didn't say that he did http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,27484.msg499814.html#msg499814 , it's just NE5 losing his marbles, just ignore him, it'll be the old age.  I posted a link to a site which said Simpson cost 500k because I didn't think he cost that much and again, I didn't say that he did.

 

I have no idea yet if we spent more than we brought in for sales, it looks as if we did spend more as I'm still short of a few players although they are not the players who went for a lot of money so they'll not make a massive difference, at worst we'll just about break even.  What I have is that we spent £15.8 million and brought in just under £14.2 million, I have no idea what the turnover was at that time, it'll not be much when compaired to today.

 

Lastly, I don't have to justify slagging our crowds off because I haven't ever slagged them off, I've spent more time trying to tell NE5 that we've always had good levels of support, it's just that attendances have been up and down in general, we're no different except that our crowds were good when compaired with others at that time instead of the 52,000 we get now, he uses the 52,000 we get now as a sign of failure in the past.

 

Pathetic.

 

YOU started the thread, I am asking for your verdict based on the facts that have been presented, namely clubs such as West Ham and West Brom to name 2 had larger transfer records than we did, Gordon Lee bought England players for Everton but not for Newcastle, in the 1980's we sold 3 local geordie lads who all wanted to leave the club because they wanted to play for clubs who could hopefully fulfill their ambitions. So we asked you about these things, and a few direct questions such as why did Gordon Lee leave Newcastle for Everton, and why did the players go on strike when he left, and why did you appear to prefer people who gave you 15th place finishes rather than a top 5 position, and this is also relevant to the last decade as you seem to think this is failure, despite being hugely inferior for almost 40 years until 1992.

 

So, YOU asked the question, study the facts, and give us YOUR response and answers.

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

Not making excuses on his behalf or owt, but he's had a fair bit to deal with outside of this wonderful world we call the internet.  What's the bloody hurry anyway, you're obviously not going anywhere  tongue.gif

 

I haven't got a clue what you are on about, but if you don't know this era we are talking about why do you get involved in discussing it ?

 

 

[macbeth]

 

 

I haven't got a clue what you are on about, but if you don't know this era we are talking about why do you get involved in discussing it ?

 

 

 

probably cos as soon as he makes a comment you'll jump down his throat for not being old-enough to know how bad it was "when a were a lad"

[macbeth]

 

Gordon Lee bought England players for Everton but not for Newcastle

 

 

I don't doubt this, I'm just struggling to remember the England players he bought for Everton ? I think there was a one-cap wonder, who is often mentioned in those "name the one cap England players", just can't rememebr the others. Who were the England players he took to Everton ?

[NE5]

 

Gordon Lee bought England players for Everton but not for Newcastle

 

 

I don't doubt this, I'm just struggling to remember the England players he bought for Everton ? I think there was a one-cap wonder, who is often mentioned in those "name the one cap England players", just can't rememebr the others. Who were the England players he took to Everton ?

 

Colin Todd, Mike Pejic and Dave Thomas [ a local lad who actually turned down Newcastle for Lee and Everton ]. He also bought Asa Hartford who was a Scottish international, and you will know that Scotland at that time were a vastly different side to nowadays.

 

All these players being vastly superior to those Newcastle allowed him to go for.

 

 

[NE5]

 

 

I haven't got a clue what you are on about, but if you don't know this era we are talking about why do you get involved in discussing it ?

 

 

 

probably cos as soon as he makes a comment you'll jump down his throat for not being old-enough to know how bad it was "when a were a lad"

 

not particularly, I have swapped pm's with elbee on another matter entirely and he seems a canny bloke, I'm just surprised at what he says, as I said.

 

 

[Guest elbee909]

Not making excuses on his behalf or owt, but he's had a fair bit to deal with outside of this wonderful world we call the internet.  What's the bloody hurry anyway, you're obviously not going anywhere  tongue.gif

 

I haven't got a clue what you are on about, but if you don't know this era we are talking about why do you get involved in discussing it ?

 

 

I do find it interesting.  I don't know the era, sure, but it's still interesting to see different perspectives people have on club history.

 

I'm also just saying it's not always premeditated avoidance when someone doesn't get right back to answering the questions you've posed.

[NE5]

Not making excuses on his behalf or owt, but he's had a fair bit to deal with outside of this wonderful world we call the internet.  What's the bloody hurry anyway, you're obviously not going anywhere  tongue.gif

 

I haven't got a clue what you are on about, but if you don't know this era we are talking about why do you get involved in discussing it ?

 

 

I do find it interesting.  I don't know the era, sure, but it's still interesting to see different perspectives people have on club history.

 

I'm also just saying it's not always premeditated avoidance when someone doesn't get right back to answering the questions you've posed.

 

no probs mate, I'm pleased that you are interested, if you want to know anything in particular I will try to help you if I can.

 

Have you got a turntable yet ..... 

[Guest elbee909]

 

no probs mate, I'm pleased that you are interested, if you want to know anything in particular I will try to help you if I can.

 

Have you got a turntable yet ..... 

 

I get a lot of perspectives from my uncle (who was probably even more fanatical back then than now) as well as his peers.  Mostly 70s/80s standpoints from them.  The overall feeling is one of loving the club almost to the point of hating it

 

Still no turntable, I'm moving house at the moment and hope to pick one up when I'm settled in the new place.  Won't make a broken record joke here, you have had enough of those

[NE5]

 

no probs mate, I'm pleased that you are interested, if you want to know anything in particular I will try to help you if I can.

 

Have you got a turntable yet .....   

 

I get a lot of perspectives from my uncle (who was probably even more fanatical back then than now) as well as his peers.  Mostly 70s/80s standpoints from them.  The overall feeling is one of loving the club almost to the point of hating it

 

Still no turntable, I'm moving house at the moment and hope to pick one up when I'm settled in the new place.  Won't make a broken record joke here, you have had enough of those

 

I am obviously quite aware that Lee wasn't popular because he sold MacDonald, my mate who I went to games with at that time - and still do today we have seats together - was one but over the years he has realised that Lee had a point however he felt at the time. At the time I was worried when we sold MacDonald, but listened to some of the things he said - and yes some of the things he said, could have been said better, but basically he was strong and just spoke his mind bluntly, and so that didn't help his case. People were realising he was getting it right near the end though, they had no choice because results were good, home and away. In the last years of Joe Harveys time we were basically a flair team, very inconsistent, and this is why were finishing so low in the table all the time, on their day the team turned in some brilliant home performances but they weren't too often, and were pretty much consistently shite when we played away games. Lee wanted to build a consistent side and used league performances and results as a gauge. This is what he said, but he said it in the wrong way. So after we sold MacDonald, we changed the way we played, and personally, I loved it, I was won over straight away. It was team football, everyone played their part, they played push and run, short ball long ball, thought about their game, the team was geared to 4 or 5 players getting chances to score goals instead of the 2 front players. They were a unit, it was great and was never boring at all, it wasn't as "exciting" because it wasn't so individual, but it was more professional. Some of the players we were rumoured to be wanting during this time, were actually Dave Thomas, Graeme Souness, David Mills and a young Alan Hansen. Nagging away in the backround though was the thought that the board weren't prepared to back their manager and move forward, we knew the MacDonald money was still there to be spent along with anything else, if they allowed him to have it.

 

Ironically, in the November, we were riding high and played Everton at home and won 4-1. Billy Bingham was about to get sacked because Everton were struggling, and that performance was one of the best I have ever seen us play - up to the time of Keegan anyway because there was a lot of highlights during his time - and the performance that night was complete proof that we were a good side, and were going to finish in a good position and were on the right lines, highlighted by a absolutely brilliant overhead volley by Tommy Craig for what was I think the first goal. It was probably that game where Everton decided that Lee was the man they wanted. It is the first time in my life I ever supported a Newcastle side that I really felt were building up to a team that could go on and challenge for the title.

 

There was a lad I worked with at the time, who used to say that Newcastle got lucky with Lee, but the only reason he got the job was because he told the directors he could give us a good team on the cheap. I used to think this was crap, because I just didn't want to believe it, but I realised later he may well have been right. And he turned out better than they thought, and he was too ambitious and too good for them. I was devastated when he left, and with the events that followed ie the players threatening to strike etc which tells you everything.

 

 

 

[NE5]

Well, whatever Mick has been doing, he's been back and ignored this. The obvious concusion is that - although the reason he started this thread is fairly obvious, now that he's been found wanting he isn't going to finish it by admitting that he is wrong.

 

Mind, the fact he even tried to instigate the idea behind it in the first place, proves to me that he didn't have much idea of how the board was in the decades pre-1992, whatever he claims.

 

 

[Guest alex]

Well, whatever Mick has been doing, he's been back and ignored this. The obvious concusion is that - although the reason he started this thread is fairly obvious, now that he's been found wanting he isn't going to finish it by admitting that he is wrong.

 

Mind, the fact he even tried to instigate the idea behind it in the first place, proves to me that he didn't have much idea of how the board was in the decades pre-1992, whatever he claims.

 

 

I think the overwhelming feeling is that, apart from you and about 3 other posters, no one gives a shit.

[Guest TheDoctor]

NE5, may I take the time to thank you for your support of the board.