The Board etc. etc.

[NE5]

 

 

you're neglecting your crusade in favour of football

 

 

[Howaythelads]

 

aye, according to Mick, the 70's expert, you''re running a selling club, just like McKeag etc did, but at least they didn't spend all the clubs money on pies and whores you fat bassa

 

Disgraceful going to brothels like, who would ever do such a thing...you should be sat at home eating your tea every night with your suit on, telling wifey how much you love her and wondering where the next loaf of bread is coming from on account of you working for the club for nothing

 

 

Hey, your man Freddie also sanctioned the purchase of Luque.  (NE5 starts melting, 'DOES NOT COMPUTE')

 

eeerrrr....so you think that the chairman should overrule his managers judgement on footballers ?

 

elbee starts melting, DOES NOT COMPUTE

 

The bigger picture also being of course, that pre-1992, we could only dream of setting transfer records and paying money for players such as we paid for Luque whether he is a flop or not, like the other top clubs, this being the subject of the thread "are we a selling club" and Mick insists that we are still a selling club just like when we sold Gazza, Beardsley and Waddle.

 

Question. What would you do if we bought Beckham [ex or recently discarded England Captain at 31 years old] and sold Zoggy, Duff and Owen ? Selling club or ambitious club ........ I asked Mick a similar question and he chickened out of it. Or he's taking his time. Do you know why he is taking his time ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or two of the last 5 Young Players of the Year ?

 

You've mentioned this before and I wish you would explain your point. It's a bit daft talking about the club selling these 2 players as though it shows the club has no ambition. Explain why you're mentioning this again, mate.

 

We sell players now because we want to sell them, usually for football reasons, for example selling Andy Cole because Keegan had a plan.

 

Players don't leave the club anymore claiming the club has no ambition. This is a major difference that you're being more than a bit daft to deliberately ignore if you want to debate seriously. I don't think you want to do that though.

[Howaythelads]

Because he can't be bothered?

 

I know you're not stupid, but if you think his silence is indicative of anything other than an inability to dispute the facts that have been presented then something is stopping you from being objective. ( Can't imagine what that is, like )

 

I'm not really sure why Mick started the thread he later deleted on discovering that he couldn't dig up facts to support whatever his opinion is/was. However, having started that thread with some motive in mind it shows a distinct lack of integrity by failing to carry it through to the conclusion of the debate.

 

I deleted the thread because it looked like it was becoming a slagging match, no other reason.

 

I'm sure I said that I was looking out of interest and that was the only motive so I have nothing to hide especially when it looks almost certain that we spent more than we brought in through selling.

 

As for carrying it through, I'm not in a position to add anything to the last time I posted figures.

 

Mick -

 

The thread wasn't becoming a slanging match at all, it would have been big of you to just finally admit that the Board of previous decades was shite compared to the Board of today.

 

I believe that had your figures shown that the club spent more than they brought in from transfers you would be using that as an indicator that previous Boards were as ambitious as the current one. What do you think of my earlier comment about the timing of signings being a better measure in any case? What's the point in buying three average players to replace one top class player, for example?

 

Do you really not see it as a lack of ambition that the club didn't build on good situations, that they didn't attempt to build on the occasions when we had a decent side, needing just a couple of players to lift us to a challenge for the top 6? Not being funny Mick, are you really aware of these times?

[NE5]

 

aye, according to Mick, the 70's expert, you''re running a selling club, just like McKeag etc did, but at least they didn't spend all the clubs money on pies and whores you fat bassa

 

Disgraceful going to brothels like, who would ever do such a thing...you should be sat at home eating your tea every night with your suit on, telling wifey how much you love her and wondering where the next loaf of bread is coming from on account of you working for the club for nothing

 

 

Hey, your man Freddie also sanctioned the purchase of Luque.  (NE5 starts melting, 'DOES NOT COMPUTE')

 

eeerrrr....so you think that the chairman should overrule his managers judgement on footballers ?

 

elbee starts melting, DOES NOT COMPUTE

 

The bigger picture also being of course, that pre-1992, we could only dream of setting transfer records and paying money for players such as we paid for Luque whether he is a flop or not, like the other top clubs, this being the subject of the thread "are we a selling club" and Mick insists that we are still a selling club just like when we sold Gazza, Beardsley and Waddle.

 

Question. What would you do if we bought Beckham [ex or recently discarded England Captain at 31 years old] and sold Zoggy, Duff and Owen ? Selling club or ambitious club ........ I asked Mick a similar question and he chickened out of it. Or he's taking his time. Do you know why he is taking his time ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or two of the last 5 Young Players of the Year ?

 

You've mentioned this before and I wish you would explain your point. It's a bit daft talking about the club selling these 2 players as though it shows the club has no ambition. Explain why you're mentioning this again, mate.

 

We sell players now because we want to sell them, usually for football reasons, for example selling Andy Cole because Keegan had a plan.

 

Players don't leave the club anymore claiming the club has no ambition. This is a major difference that you're being more than a bit daft to deliberately ignore if you want to debate seriously. I don't think you want to do that though.

 

which is of course, getting back to Micks initial question, that he can't and so won't answer. The club becomes a selling club because they have no ambition.  I suspect Mick won't contradict this, nor will macbeth because it does what you say, it forces them to admit the strides forward we have taken under this board since 1992.

 

It is perfectly correct that the club decided to sell Jeanarse and Viana for playing reasons, and Bellamy did not want to leave, as we all know. I wonder why macbeth actually pretends he doesn't realise this ....  an answer would indeed be interesting.

 

Most people who actually did support the club pre-1992, consider this point to be a no brainer though, its only questioned by those who cannot comprehend it through not being there.

 

 

[NE5]

Because he can't be bothered?

 

I know you're not stupid, but if you think his silence is indicative of anything other than an inability to dispute the facts that have been presented then something is stopping you from being objective. ( Can't imagine what that is, like )

 

I'm not really sure why Mick started the thread he later deleted on discovering that he couldn't dig up facts to support whatever his opinion is/was. However, having started that thread with some motive in mind it shows a distinct lack of integrity by failing to carry it through to the conclusion of the debate.

 

I deleted the thread because it looked like it was becoming a slagging match, no other reason.

 

I'm sure I said that I was looking out of interest and that was the only motive so I have nothing to hide especially when it looks almost certain that we spent more than we brought in through selling.

 

As for carrying it through, I'm not in a position to add anything to the last time I posted figures.

 

Mick -

 

The thread wasn't becoming a slanging match at all, it would have been big of you to just finally admit that the Board of previous decades was shite compared to the Board of today.

 

I believe that had your figures shown that the club spent more than they brought in from transfers you would be using that as an indicator that previous Boards were as ambitious as the current one. What do you think of my earlier comment about the timing of signings being a better measure in any case? What's the point in buying three average players to replace one top class player, for example?

 

Do you really not see it as a lack of ambition that the club didn't build on good situations, that they didn't attempt to build on the occasions when we had a decent side, needing just a couple of players to lift us to a challenge for the top 6? Not being funny Mick, are you really aware of these times?

 

No he isn't. He thinks selling Beardsley, Gazza and Waddle is OK because we had earlier bought Keegan [past his best, and never played again for England] - but won't answer the similar question I raised asking how he - and others - would feel if we sold Owen, Duff and Zoggy and bought Beckham. Nor does he respond properly to the occasions you refer to, which I have also asked and are namely: the 5th place under Lee, winning the Fairs Cup, and promotion under Cox with the 3 local lads coming through the ranks to form the base of what should indeed have been a top team.

 

He likes finishing 15th in the league though, and slags people off who get us into the top 5  :lol:

 

 

[Guest elbee909]

 

It is a stonewall, cast iron FACT, that over the last decade, only 4 clubs have achieved a higher average league position, appeared in europe more than us, appeared in more FA Cup Finals than us. Indisputable.

 

That's fair enough.  However I'd like to argue how important some of those facts are in determining how well we may have done.  For example...

 

Appearances in Europe?  I put that mostly down to Sir Bobby of Robson, and a CL format designed to get teams playing more games and making more money.  Extenuating circumstances, but there you go.  All I know is you don't win anything for appearances in Europe.

 

The FA Cup fact may be indisputable.  But you're talking, what, two finals in the last ten years.  And we can't forget that cup runs do rely on good fortune, more so than the league, so it's a slightly tenuous leap to equate that with greatness.  So we've got to the final twice, compared with once in many other cases.  So what, then?  This is more of a statistical aberration than any stand out proof of anything in particular.

 

I don't need to remind you how bloody abject we were when we got to those two finals, I'm sure.  West Ham gave Liverpool far more of a game than we gave Man Utd or Arsenal - they scored infinitely more in one final than we managed to in two, so therefore, are a better club.  Stats eh, they're great.

 

This higher average league position thing, I'm still reminded of Bill Hicks:

 

“People say "Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world". Yeah, maybe, but you know what, after the first 3 largest armies, there's a REAL big fucking drop-off. The Hare Krishnas are the 5th largest army in the world, and they've already got all our airports.”

 

It is also a FACT, that for decades prior to the 1992 takeoever, there were anything between 12 and 20 clubs who consistently achieved these things more than we did, that is a lot of clubs we have overtaken since that time, and stayed above them. Fact.

 

Ok.  Why keep lumping in Shepherd's tenure as Chair with the Halls'?

 

Are we on a continuous onward and upward path since SJH went?  Would you go for an upgrade or a downgrade if someone offered you a choice?

[Howaythelads]

elbee909-

 

Apart from yourself, who mentioned greatness?

 

What general point are you trying to make here? Everyone knows that the current Board haven't done as well as the Board of SJH, so if you're trying to refute that kind of thing you'll find nobody has made that claim.

 

Are you trying to show that the current Board is no better than those of the 60's, 70's and 80's? I just want to be clear on this and understand what your position is.

 

Cheers

[Guest elbee909]

elbee909-

 

Apart from yourself, who mentioned greatness?

 

 

5th best in the last decade, only 4 have done better.

 

I said 'greatness' as I didn't want to use words like 'bestness' or 'betterness'!

 

What general point are you trying to make here? Everyone knows that the current Board haven't done as well as the Board of SJH, so if you're trying to refute that kind of thing you'll find nobody has made that claim.

 

If that's the general consensus, then all well and good.  Might be that no-one's claimed that, but the implication on the part of some one way or the other isn't so clear to me.

 

My general point is that it doesn't do us, or anyone (including the Board itself) any favours to reward them for a mediocre job, esp. on the back of some pretty tenuous 'achievements', as they've been more than adequately compensated for doing whatever they've done since stepping up to the plate with the set-up they've inherited.  I find it hard to understand why anyone would defend them as vociferously as some do.

 

Are you trying to show that the current Board is no better than those of the 60's, 70's and 80's? I just want to be clear on this and understand what your position is.

 

Cheers

 

I think a lot of boards of a fair few clubs are a lot better than there were then.  Some are also seemingly worse.  So how valid comparisons are between now and back then, I'm really not sure.  In that respect I'm just trying to question the criteria that people use to prove stuff like 'ambition'.  I think a lot of our better actions in recent times are more down to a kind of reactionary business sense, rather than breaking any new ground, and for me that will never equate to real success.

 

I accept the current Board is better than it may have been in the 60s, 70s, 80s, but how much of that is down to the general climate of football now and how much of it is down to the talent inherent in our Board.... I do wonder.  I do find it hard to be defensive of any set of people in an ivory tower/monopoly position who aren't being kept in check or being transparent in their dealings, who are rewarded as much for their mistakes as they are for their successes.  How can that situation work to improve things?

 

Yep, I know, I should have seen the 80s when we were reaaaally shit but I'm a child of '77 so blame the parents. 

[Howaythelads]

elbee909-

 

Apart from yourself, who mentioned greatness?

 

 

5th best in the last decade, only 4 have done better.

 

I said 'greatness' as I didn't want to use words like 'bestness' or 'betterness'!

 

What general point are you trying to make here? Everyone knows that the current Board haven't done as well as the Board of SJH, so if you're trying to refute that kind of thing you'll find nobody has made that claim.

 

If that's the general consensus, then all well and good.  Might be that no-one's claimed that, but the implication on the part of some one way or the other isn't so clear to me.

 

My general point is that it doesn't do us, or anyone (including the Board itself) any favours to reward them for a mediocre job, esp. on the back of some pretty tenuous 'achievements', as they've been more than adequately compensated for doing whatever they've done since stepping up to the plate with the set-up they've inherited.  I find it hard to understand why anyone would defend them as vociferously as some do.

 

Are you trying to show that the current Board is no better than those of the 60's, 70's and 80's? I just want to be clear on this and understand what your position is.

 

Cheers

 

I think a lot of boards of a fair few clubs are a lot better than there were then.  Some are also seemingly worse.  So how valid comparisons are between now and back then, I'm really not sure.  In that respect I'm just trying to question the criteria that people use to prove stuff like 'ambition'.  I think a lot of our better actions in recent times are more down to a kind of reactionary business sense, rather than breaking any new ground, and for me that will never equate to real success.

 

I accept the current Board is better than it may have been in the 60s, 70s, 80s, but how much of that is down to the general climate of football now and how much of it is down to the talent inherent in our Board.... I do wonder.  I do find it hard to be defensive of any set of people in an ivory tower/monopoly position who aren't being kept in check or being transparent in their dealings, who are rewarded as much for their mistakes as they are for their successes.  How can that situation work to improve things?

 

Yep, I know, I should have seen the 80s when we were reaaaally shit but I'm a child of '77 so blame the parents. 

 

No matter what you didn't want to say, 'greatness' is completely different to what we've achieved. I think that the current Board not having done as well as SJH is a given, can't see any reason at all why this isn't clear to you, I've never read anybody, anywhere claiming otherwise. It seems you need your assumptions refuted before you've even mentioned them.  :roll:

 

Your last sentence spoiled your post. I can't be arsed with replying to any of your other points.

[Guest elbee909]

 

No matter what you didn't want to say, 'greatness' is completely different to what we've achieved. I think that the current Board not having done as well as SJH is a given, can't see any reason at all why this isn't clear to you, I've never read anybody, anywhere claiming otherwise. It seems you need your assumptions refuted before you've even mentioned them.  :roll:

 

Your last sentence spoiled your post. I can't be arsed with replying to any of your other points.

 

Last sentence wasn't meant as a dig, just an indication of my perspective, so disagree with it spoiling anything.

 

There can be varying degree of greatness, that's why I used the word.  I can't be arsed to argue semantics.

 

If it's a given that the post SJH period -> now is a deterioration in quality from what came immediately before then why aggregate the two Board's respective achievements to argue the case for the current one, that was my point there.

 

Apologies for any lack of clarity, I'm just knackered.  Moving house is shite.

[Guest thompers]

So if average league position is what determins a clubs "success" let me ask you this, hypothetically speaking. We'll use Newcastle and Liverpool as random examples.

 

Liverpool finish 2nd every season for 10 seasons. Newcastle finish 4th every season for 10 seasons.

 

Every year, because of their respective positions, both clubs are in the Champions League. Newcastle win the trophy every season over this 10 years.

 

Are Liverpool still a more successful club than us over these 10 years, as their average league position is better than Newcastle's?

[Howaythelads]

So if average league position is what determins a clubs "success" let me ask you this, hypothetically speaking. We'll use Newcastle and Liverpool as random examples.

 

Liverpool finish 2nd every season for 10 seasons. Newcastle finish 4th every season for 10 seasons.

 

Every year, because of their respective positions, both clubs are in the Champions League. Newcastle win the trophy every season over this 10 years.

 

Are Liverpool still a more successful club than us over these 10 years, as their average league position is better than Newcastle's?

 

I'm tempted to just say that your question is far, far too simplistic given the discussion, but I won't, I'll try to explain it instead.

 

Success is different for every club, it is all relative to the resources available to the club, it's not measured by average league position on it's own, this is just one of a number of indicators.

 

Success isn't really what we're talking about here anyway Thompers, we're talking about the ambition of the current Board versus the ambition of the Boards of the 60's, 70's and 80's.

 

If you're going to take just one criteria ( winning a trophy = success = ambition ) then that would indicate the Board of the late 60's early 70's was better than the Board of SJH because we won the Fairs Cup in 1969.    It means that the Board of the 80's was just as good as that of today as well, which is a joke. What that criteria wouldn't take into account would be that we qualified through the back door having finished 11th the season before. It also doesn't take into account the fact the Board made no effort to build on winning that trophy by improving the team in an attempt to get into the top 6, which was the dream for many Newcastle supporters back in those days. In reality, we went on to sell our most prolific striker, who moved to West Ham claiming Newcastle was unprofessional and lacking in ambition. This is a fact Thompers. If you don't believe me just ask grassroots for his book.  :winking:

 

That's what we're talking about, the 'big picture' of ambition to succeed and whether the current Board has ambition or not. Measuring ambition is not as simple as counting trophies.

[Guest The Fox]

It seems to me that it can IMO be summed up as follows:

 

Pre Sir John Hall, the Boards were more concerned with remaining in the top division, lots of infighting, a dickensian outlook and placating supporters by signing eye catching players rather than addressing the weaknesses of the squad and looking to challenge at the top. You therefore had some exciting individuals but an inconsistant team. There were 2 Cup Final appearances FA and League plus winning the Fairs Cup, but to be frank we were lucky with the draw on the home cups and any side on this basis can have a good cup run. The UEFA Cup did not feature the quality that you have in European sides now.

 

Sir John Hall not only saved us from obscurity, he brought calmess and ambition to the club and he made an inspired Managerial appointment and quickly succeeded in providing both quality individuals and an excellent team.

 

Post Sir John Hall the club have been ambitious and provided money however their appointments which in one or two cases may have looked good on paper turned out in general to be failures.

There was a degree of consistancy under Robson, Dalglish had an uninspiring squad and Gullit quickly fell foul of the power struggle within the camp.

The appointment of Souness and the money squandered was the biggest mistake of the current board and no one can deny that.

Roeder was in the Boards eyes a safe appointment, would not rock the boat, would bring some stability and turf out the wasters. He was fortunate in some ways infoillowing a disaster so matters could hardly deteriorate much further. He now has the unenviable task of making progress whilst not having the ammunition that Souness squandered.

Of course in comparing eras Football has changed significantly since the Seymour.Westwood, McKeag times particularly in a commecial sense.

There is no reason whatsoever with ground capacity fanatical support and the right decisions why this club cannot become a major player,in fact its a disgrace that it has not been more so in the past.

The one area that has not been properly addressed throughout all these board's times is defence. They have failed to bring in top quality, even Keegan did not fully address this. They have spent relatively little in this area, ignoring Boumsong, and it is an area that will be a key factor in any future success. The current squad is IMO well short of defensive quality.

[Guest thompers]

So if average league position is what determins a clubs "success" let me ask you this, hypothetically speaking. We'll use Newcastle and Liverpool as random examples.

 

Liverpool finish 2nd every season for 10 seasons. Newcastle finish 4th every season for 10 seasons.

 

Every year, because of their respective positions, both clubs are in the Champions League. Newcastle win the trophy every season over this 10 years.

 

Are Liverpool still a more successful club than us over these 10 years, as their average league position is better than Newcastle's?

 

I'm tempted to just say that your question is far, far too simplistic given the discussion, but I won't, I'll try to explain it instead.

 

Success is different for every club, it is all relative to the resources available to the club, it's not measured by average league position on it's own, this is just one of a number of indicators.

 

Success isn't really what we're talking about here anyway Thompers, we're talking about the ambition of the current Board versus the ambition of the Boards of the 60's, 70's and 80's.

 

If you're going to take just one criteria ( winning a trophy = success = ambition ) then that would indicate the Board of the late 60's early 70's was better than the Board of SJH because we won the Fairs Cup in 1969.    It means that the Board of the 80's was just as good as that of today as well, which is a joke. What that criteria wouldn't take into account would be that we qualified through the back door having finished 11th the season before. It also doesn't take into account the fact the Board made no effort to build on winning that trophy by improving the team in an attempt to get into the top 6, which was the dream for many Newcastle supporters back in those days. In reality, we went on to sell our most prolific striker, who moved to West Ham claiming Newcastle was unprofessional and lacking in ambition. This is a fact Thompers. If you don't believe me just ask grassroots for his book.  :winking:

 

That's what we're talking about, the 'big picture' of ambition to succeed and whether the current Board has ambition or not. Measuring ambition is not as simple as counting trophies.

 

If we're talking about ambition what does 5th best average league position have to do with anything? Surely nothing? So then surely NE5 IS talking about success, and I'd like him to answer my post above.

 

Success is different for every club, it is all relative to the resources available to the club

 

Finally. So "5th best average league position over the last 10 years" and no trophies is SURELY an underachievement for the THIRD biggest spenders with the SECOND biggest stadium and the SECOND biggest profit margins of the last 10 years?!

[Guest elbee909]

Finally. So "5th best average league position over the last 10 years" and no trophies is SURELY an underachievement for the THIRD biggest spenders with the SECOND biggest stadium and the SECOND biggest profit margins of the last 10 years?!

 

[Howaythelads]

Finally. So "5th best average league position over the last 10 years" and no trophies is SURELY an underachievement for the THIRD biggest spenders with the SECOND biggest stadium and the SECOND biggest profit margins of the last 10 years?!

 

 

I give up.

 

Both yourself and thompers are too daft to understand. Sorry like.

[Guest thompers]

How does being ambitious compensate for his incompetent? Surely there's worse, like Ellis etc, but they aren't/weren't running what could have potentially been the biggest club in the country. Shepherd inherited off SJH a potential trophy machine and through incompetence, not lack of ambition, we didn't realise this potential and fell backwards. We can either have someone competent, who knows his place as chairman and leaves footballing decisions to a DOF, or we can keep Freddy and fall even further behind. Which do you choose?

[Guest elbee909]

 

I give up.

 

Both yourself and thompers are too daft to understand. Sorry like.

 

Thanks.  Appreciate your magnanimity.

[Howaythelads]

 

I give up.

 

Both yourself and thompers are too daft to understand. Sorry like.

 

Thanks.  Appreciate your magnanimity.

 

That's ok, don't mention it. I had thought you knew we were discussing levels of ambition of previous Boards versus the current Board, not levels of outright competence, as it's already been agreed that the current has made a number of errors. It appears that like thompers you believe these two things have to go together for some reason.

 

Thanks for clearing that up as it saves me wasting much more of my time trying to explain to you about ambition.

[NE5]

So if average league position is what determins a clubs "success" let me ask you this, hypothetically speaking. We'll use Newcastle and Liverpool as random examples.

 

Liverpool finish 2nd every season for 10 seasons. Newcastle finish 4th every season for 10 seasons.

 

Every year, because of their respective positions, both clubs are in the Champions League. Newcastle win the trophy every season over this 10 years.

 

Are Liverpool still a more successful club than us over these 10 years, as their average league position is better than Newcastle's?

 

I'm tempted to just say that your question is far, far too simplistic given the discussion, but I won't, I'll try to explain it instead.

 

Success is different for every club, it is all relative to the resources available to the club, it's not measured by average league position on it's own, this is just one of a number of indicators.

 

Success isn't really what we're talking about here anyway Thompers, we're talking about the ambition of the current Board versus the ambition of the Boards of the 60's, 70's and 80's.

 

If you're going to take just one criteria ( winning a trophy = success = ambition ) then that would indicate the Board of the late 60's early 70's was better than the Board of SJH because we won the Fairs Cup in 1969.    It means that the Board of the 80's was just as good as that of today as well, which is a joke. What that criteria wouldn't take into account would be that we qualified through the back door having finished 11th the season before. It also doesn't take into account the fact the Board made no effort to build on winning that trophy by improving the team in an attempt to get into the top 6, which was the dream for many Newcastle supporters back in those days. In reality, we went on to sell our most prolific striker, who moved to West Ham claiming Newcastle was unprofessional and lacking in ambition. This is a fact Thompers. If you don't believe me just ask grassroots for his book.  :winking:

 

That's what we're talking about, the 'big picture' of ambition to succeed and whether the current Board has ambition or not. Measuring ambition is not as simple as counting trophies.

 

If we're talking about ambition what does 5th best average league position have to do with anything? Surely nothing? So then surely NE5 IS talking about success, and I'd like him to answer my post above.

 

Success is different for every club, it is all relative to the resources available to the club

 

Finally. So "5th best average league position over the last 10 years" and no trophies is SURELY an underachievement for the THIRD biggest spenders with the SECOND biggest stadium and the SECOND biggest profit margins of the last 10 years?!

 

Oh Dear.

 

For the umpteenth time, all I have EVER said is that since this board took over, the club has made significant progress, and sustained its standing, through a change of policy, attempting to tap the fanbase, and so competing at higher levels of the game. In fact, at a level it should always have competed at. The progress made has put the club to a level whereby there are not many better, and thus finding people who could do better becomes a very difficult proposition, and not a case of "anyone but Fred" as some people appear to think.

 

Maybe if it had not had to make up such a loss of ground, going back decades, they would have won one of the very few trophies that are available to win per season. As for success....as their are only 2 domestic trophies [or 3 if you count the League Cup] does that mean you are saying there are 90 failures per season ..... ?? Much as you can make a case for the "winning is winning and 2nd is nowhere" idea, it detracts from the progress made by the club. As HTL says, does winning the Fairs Cup in 1969 mean that the board in 1969 is the best board we have had ? Take it from me, such an attitude is a complete utter joke.

And I saw it, I saw all those home european ties, and enjoyed it.

 

You have also said in the past "why haven't we even won the League Cup". Well the straight answer to that is maybe that our managers fielded weakened teams or we could have ? Looking at the teams that have won it, and the beaten finalists on some occasions, its highly possible. And that, is not the fault of the board, it is the fault of Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and Souness for not playing more for it. ( I think Keegan actually went for it, but I'm not totally sure). And - I have also asked you this, do you think Blackburn, Leicester and the smoggies have been more successful than us because they have won the League Cup ? Would you throw in their relegations and swap their last decade for our more consistent league positions and european qualificiation ?

 

It is impossible to explain the idea of ambiton to you, because you simply just don't want to listen. It will only make sense to you if the board go and are replaced by someone who has none, or less than we do, like the vast majority of other clubs, some of them big city clubs just like us.

 

 

[NE5]

It seems to me that it can IMO be summed up as follows:

 

Pre Sir John Hall, the Boards were more concerned with remaining in the top division, lots of infighting, a dickensian outlook and placating supporters by signing eye catching players rather than addressing the weaknesses of the squad and looking to challenge at the top. You therefore had some exciting individuals but an inconsistant team. There were 2 Cup Final appearances FA and League plus winning the Fairs Cup, but to be frank we were lucky with the draw on the home cups and any side on this basis can have a good cup run. The UEFA Cup did not feature the quality that you have in European sides now.

 

Sir John Hall not only saved us from obscurity, he brought calmess and ambition to the club and he made an inspired Managerial appointment and quickly succeeded in providing both quality individuals and an excellent team.

 

Post Sir John Hall the club have been ambitious and provided money however their appointments which in one or two cases may have looked good on paper turned out in general to be failures.

There was a degree of consistancy under Robson, Dalglish had an uninspiring squad and Gullit quickly fell foul of the power struggle within the camp.

The appointment of Souness and the money squandered was the biggest mistake of the current board and no one can deny that.

Roeder was in the Boards eyes a safe appointment, would not rock the boat, would bring some stability and turf out the wasters. He was fortunate in some ways infoillowing a disaster so matters could hardly deteriorate much further. He now has the unenviable task of making progress whilst not having the ammunition that Souness squandered.

Of course in comparing eras Football has changed significantly since the Seymour.Westwood, McKeag times particularly in a commecial sense.

There is no reason whatsoever with ground capacity fanatical support and the right decisions why this club cannot become a major player,in fact its a disgrace that it has not been more so in the past.

The one area that has not been properly addressed throughout all these board's times is defence. They have failed to bring in top quality, even Keegan did not fully address this. They have spent relatively little in this area, ignoring Boumsong, and it is an area that will be a key factor in any future success. The current squad is IMO well short of defensive quality.

 

Good post apart from the last bit mate. Keegan had a good defence, but an attacking policy, and the defence of McFaul, Craig, Burton, Moncur and Clark set a club defensive record in the early 70's and was as good as most others I have seen anywhere in their prime.

 

In particular Ollie Burton was a converted defensive midfield player and became one of the best centre halfs I have seen play for Newcastle.

 

 

[Guest thompers]

So if average league position is what determins a clubs "success" let me ask you this, hypothetically speaking. We'll use Newcastle and Liverpool as random examples.

 

Liverpool finish 2nd every season for 10 seasons. Newcastle finish 4th every season for 10 seasons.

 

Every year, because of their respective positions, both clubs are in the Champions League. Newcastle win the trophy every season over this 10 years.

 

Are Liverpool still a more successful club than us over these 10 years, as their average league position is better than Newcastle's?

 

You still havent answered this. In that scenario, would liverpool have had a more successful decade because of their average league position? Would that be a FACT? I like the way you selectively ignore certain things.

[Guest Bellers]

Fuck me, thirty three pages and your still boring everyone to tears on a matter that could be resolved in minutes...

[Guest elbee909]

That's ok, don't mention it. I had thought you knew we were discussing levels of ambition of previous Boards versus the current Board, not levels of outright competence, as it's already been agreed that the current has made a number of errors. It appears that like thompers you believe these two things have to go together for some reason.

 

Thanks for clearing that up as it saves me wasting much more of my time trying to explain to you about ambition.

 

Well, when the arguments tend to go something like "current board not good enough", "but it's better than what we used to have", then I don't see how it's a such a huge mistake in a thread called 'the board etc. etc." to comment on the competence of the current board in some way.  Ambition is pretty moot without some self-realisation on the part of those holding it when it comes to their own competence, and it'll always be questioned as a result of that. 

[Syrette]

This thread still going on?

 

How do you do it, HTL and NE5?

 

Serious stamina and passion I guess. I'm impressed.

 

33 pages of the same boring stuff!