The Board etc. etc.

[Guest Knightrider]

They'll all be history soon anyway then we'll really find out just how good they were or not.

[Mick]

unbelievable that there are still idiots saying that shepherd has taken us backwards??

 

First point.  SHEPHERD was part of the board BEFORE hall took over, Shepherd actually had a hand in sjh becoming involved!!!!

 

second point.  So if that argument is valid? then, man u and arsenal didnt win the league the last two years, that means their board must have taken them backward then?

 

third point.  Some of us here have actually watched nufc when we WERE crap, and it would be a good idea for some of the kids on here to remember this

 

Yes I'm pissed otherwise I wouldnt have bothered re-registering, or posting.

 

Unbelievable that people still don't think Shepherd has taken us backwards.

 

Firstly, Shepherd was not part of the board before Sir John took over.

 

Secondly, Arsenal and Man U haven’t finished 11th twice, 13th twice and 14th.  If they had then I would say yes, the boards of those two clubs had taken them backwards.

[Guest Knightrider]

er, shepherd was part of the board when mckeag was in charge, therefore he was there BEFORE john hall got involved. SJH got his young'n to speak to freddie before all the take over stuff started???

 

do you really not know this?

 

He had a few shares

 

That would make my uncle a board member, as he owns some shares.

 

Part of the same myth that Freddy backs managers with his own money...

[Guest Knightrider]

Actually, if he was part of the old boardroom, then surely he was part of the old failure too? Being a board member and all that

[Guest Knightrider]

OK Bob, I believe you.

 

So Fatty was also part of the old board who nearly ruined us. Fuck me, the charge sheet grows

[Mick]

OK Bob, I believe you.

 

So Fatty was also part of the old board who nearly ruined us. Fuck me, the charge sheet grows

 

   

[Guest Knightrider]

OK Bob, I believe you.

 

So Fatty was also part of the old board who nearly ruined us. Fuck me, the charge sheet grows

 

bluelaugh.gif

 

do you two actually know what went on pre sjh, and since??

 

because the way your going on it seems not.

 

Of course we do, we read the book.

[Guest Knightrider]

The irony, contradictions and double standards in this thread is hilarious btw.

 

And even funnier, they can't fucking see it

[Northern Monkey]

and are you likely to enlighten us with your views?

 

You may need to redefine your take on the word "enlighten". 

[Cajun]

Most people werent happy with the employement of Souness but looked to what positives he might have which isnt the same thing and decided to give him time as abusing from the off wouldnt have made a difference anyway.

 

It was a poor appointment, rumours when rife that he was gonna get the boot from Blackburn as he was dragging them down and they probably couldnt believe their luck when we came knocking because first they wouldnt have to fork out compensation but even better they were actually going to get some instead!

 

Aye, ok.

 

Good answer, my post is all true though but you can ignore it as im sure you will.  :roll:

[Guest Knightrider]

and are you likely to enlighten us with your views?

 

You may need to redefine your take on the word "enlighten".

#

why? I'm asking him for HIS views?? Sorry if I didnt spell the word proper, but I'm not dyslexic by choice and dont have time to spell check everything I type

 

[Mick]

and are you likely to enlighten us with your views?

 

You may need to redefine your take on the word "enlighten".

#

why? I'm asking him for HIS views?? Sorry if I didnt spell the word proper, but I'm not dyslexic by choice and dont have time to spell check everything I type

 

bluebiggrin.gif

 

It wouldn't have anything to do with the drink would it?

[Mick]

no, not at all, just wot r u acusin meee offf lyke.....

 

 

I didn't accuse you of anything that you hadn't already said, you mentioned it earlier.

[NE5]

 

How many chairman pre-1992 bought quality players at all at any time to tap the fanbase and put the club in europe ?

 

Shepherd wasn't chairman in 1992, Sir John Hall was.

 

Shepherd backed Sir Bobby Robson with less than £6 million per year while he was manager then sacked him after we made a £10 million profit on buys v sales.  In 2004 we spent £9 million and brought in £19.4 million, in 2005 we sacked the manager.  Maybe we would have been better off as a club if the money had been re-invested by Sir Bobby rather than giving it to Souness.

 

How many times did we qualify for europe in the 3 decades before the current board took over ?

 

Current board or chairman?  You seem to confuse the two.

 

Why do you slag off people who put the club into europe, finishing in good league position, yet hold a torch for people who finish us only a few points above relegation, or being relegated, or selling our best players, and cause such a lack of interest the ground is only half full ?

 

I've never said that I hold a torch for people who finish just above relegation.  What I've said is that I enjoyed some of the football played at that time, I think I might have seen a post from you that said you enjoyed it at the time but changed your mind later, I could be wrong about that.

 

Why did clubs such as West Ham, West Brom - to name 2 smaller clubs than us - have higher transfer records than we did, did they exist in a different economic climate to what we did 

 

I can't remember the other clubs transfer records, did WBA have anything to do with the sale of Brian Robson to Man U?

 

Why did McKeag announce that our new Milburn Stand when complete "would be just like the stand at Watford" ? Do you think the limit of his ambition was to be like Watford  or do you still insist the current board is no better than the old board ?

 

Freddy Shepherd labelled Shearer as Mary Poppins, do you think his ambition was to see a female play up front for Newcastle?

 

How many trophy winning managers did we appoint in the 3 - 4 decades pre-1992 ?

 

Newcastle have appointed 2 managers who has brought a trophy to the club pre-1992, how many have we appointed since 1998?

 

Oh - and why did Gordon Lee leave Newcastle for Everton ?

 

I've answered that one before, if you can't read then tough.

 

Why did he buy England players at Everton and not at Newcastle ?

 

No idea.

 

Please explain, if you understand, seeing as you say you do  because you were there .... so you say .........

 

I've asked you questions in posts above, why not try answering with an answer instead of a question?

 

 

You have no idea why he bought England players at Everton and not at Newcastle ??  :lol:

 

I thought you said you knew this era ? Obviously not. You have not answered it, until now. Which proves you don't know what you are talking about, why did you start a thread called "are/were you Newcastle a selling club" if you don't know the answer to this question ?

 

You're a joke.

 

Why not finish the thread you started ? I have answered your questions, but you don't even answer your own ? Come on, tell us your verdict on your own thread.

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

 

finish what you started.

 

Show me the book you are reading. I don't need one.

 

 

 

You do read books, I'm sure you admitted that in either this thread or another one.  It would seem that it's OK for you to read but it's a put-down when others do it, you're a hypocrite.

 

Yes I read books, but don't need to read them to know the facts which I am posting here, because, unlike you, I was THERE.

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

 

if you aren't happy, stop going. Or support the mackems, or one of the 86 clubs below us, if you think they have a better board ....that don't make the money we do.

 

:roll:

 

Sorry, like, but you haven't got a clue.

 

 

 

This post may as all admit that I'm right as it has no reasonable response.

 

They make money because they cash in on the sheep, of which you're clearly one of the flock. They then, unlike other clubs with resources this big, waste it by giving it to an incapable manager, because they are too fucking stupid to appoint a good one in the first place.

 

How can you be right, you weren't there, you weren't even alive in the 1960's and 70's, and a bairn in the 1980's [or correct me if this is not true], how can you speak from experience, how can you know what those eras are like, shame but I think you are one of the [blind] sheep...and reading the wrong books obviously  must be the ones written by Mick and endorsed by Grassroots .... 

 

brilliant. You couldn't make this up ... thompers the expert on Newcastle United in an era before he was born .... priceless ..

 

 

What the fuck have the 60s and 70s got to do with now? The resources available are different, the club is different, because of Sir John Hall. Fred inheritted a club different to that of the 60s and 70s... SO HOW THE FUCK IS THE 60S AND 70S REMOTELY RELEVENT?

 

Stop swearing man, are you an idiot ?

 

Have manure's new directors gone backwards under Alex Ferguson since they won the European Cup ?

 

Have Arsenals directors gone backwards in the last 2 years ?

 

How did Wimbledon win the FA Cup ?

 

How far backwards have Sheff Wed gone ? How come Wigan, Reading, Watford and Fulham are all in the premiership while the mackems are bottom of the 2nd division [or whatever its called] ?

 

Get a life, shake your head. We are 5th over the last decade on merit. Shepherd was a part of the board who took over the club in 1992, and he wasn't the major shareholder then, and he isn't now either. The major shareholders are still the Halls. If any single person chooses the managers or makes single decisions, it is them, and that has been the case since 1992. If you are so unhappy with the performance of the club under them, then stop going to the game, and force them out, as what happened for over 3 decades pre-1992.

It's simple enough, but I will tell you that you won't get many people joining you, and that should tell you that a full stadium says people are very much interested in the club, and see they are trying to be successful, which wasn't the case pre-1992. If you don't understand this, its your problem.

[NE5]

They'll all be history soon anyway then we'll really find out just how good they were or not.

 

you will.

 

Is your man Doug Ellis coming in ?

 

 

[NE5]

er, shepherd was part of the board when mckeag was in charge, therefore he was there BEFORE john hall got involved. SJH got his young'n to speak to freddie before all the take over stuff started???

 

do you really not know this?

 

I suspect he doesn't. He said that he put in to buy shares during the flotation at this time which failed, but couldn't remember how much he paid ..... he also thinks we weren't a selling club despite selling 3 England internationals ........ and replacing them with cheap duffers.

 

 

[NE5]

The irony, contradictions and double standards in this thread is hilarious btw.

 

And even funnier, they can't fucking see it

 

You mean like "hows your trophy stadium getting on, are you happy the board have delivered your dream ?"

 

 

[Guest thompers]

WUM

[NE5]

OK Bob, I believe you.

 

So Fatty was also part of the old board who nearly ruined us. Fuck me, the charge sheet grows

 

A board member with a small amount of shares, who had bigger ambitions for the club than those who possessed more influence at the time ?

 

Do you really not understand this, or deliberately playing a clown  ... 

[NE5]

WUM

 

Village arrives.

 

Are you going to answer ?

 

You can answer Micks question for him if you like, as he didn't support the club when we were shite either, and is equally clueless 

[Guest thompers]

WUM

 

Village arrives.

 

Are you going to answer ?

 

You can answer Micks question for him if you like, as he didn't support the club when we were shite either, and is equally clueless 

 

We were shite in the 60s because we didn't have millionaire tycoon Sir John Hall to make us a bigger club. Fred hasn't improved us, Sir John has. Why is the 60s even being talked about. You don't assess a chairman by comparing to 40 years ago, you assess a chairman by comparing him to now and the resources available now. Resources available clearly has a big impact on achievements, fact. That's why Chelsea are the best, because they have the most resources. Man Utd have the 2nd most resources, hence that's why they are 2nd best. FACT. Therefore, we SHOULD be 3rd or 4th, but we're not, we are therefore under achievers, FACT.

[NE5]

WUM

 

Village arrives.

 

Are you going to answer ?

 

You can answer Micks question for him if you like, as he didn't support the club when we were shite either, and is equally clueless 

 

We were shite in the 60s because we didn't have millionaire tycoon Sir John Hall to make us a bigger club. Fred hasn't improved us, Sir John has. Why is the 60s even being talked about. You don't assess a chairman by comparing to 40 years ago, you assess a chairman by comparing him to now and the resources available now. Resources available clearly has a big impact on achievements, fact. That's why Chelsea are the best, because they have the most resources. Man Utd have the 2nd most resources, hence that's why they are 2nd best. FACT. Therefore, we SHOULD be 3rd or 4th, but we're not, we are therefore under achievers, FACT.

 

We are 5th. Under Bobby Robson we finished in the top 5 for 3 consecutive seasons for the first time in over 50 years and are 5th overall in the last decade. Fact.

 

Before this board, we were somewhere between 12th and 20th. This is a big improvement. Fact.

 

A good board generates resources. Fact.

 

We didn't generate our resources and build on or consolidate past successes, as detailed previously which Mick ignores although he says he was there. Fact.

 

If you are so unhappy, stop going. But there are people who will take your seat. Which wouldn't be the case if we were doing badly, as you suggest, and was the case in the past. The choice is yours. Stop going, persuade 30,000 more to join you, and they will be gone.

 

Who do you suggest is better, and wants to be better ?

 

 

[Guest thompers]

Hang on, I'll get The Sunday Times Rich List.

 

If Freddy didn't get so involved in footballing matters by interfering in the process of signing players, and appointed a director of football instead of thinking that he had a scrap of footballing knowledge, then people wouldn't blame him when we underachieve on the pitch. But because he has interfered, and because he won't appoint a director, then surely you can see why people hold him responsible for us winning nothing?