The Board etc. etc.

[Mick]

I said nowt about ENGLAND internationals. I said

 

I didn't say you did mention England internationals, I did.  I mentioned England because of the reference to KK, no other reason.

 

question for anyone interested, name the last player we bought, before the hall shep kk era that was a CURRENT international and continued to get caps when we signed him??????

 

That wasn't what I responed to, I responded to what I had in the quotes.

 

point I made earlier is nowadays we buy palyers of Duffs calibre, previously we couldnt or werent capable.

 

We didn't usually have the resuorces or the media spotlight to buy players of Duffs calibre before Sir John, not on a regular basis, I agree.

 

KK was a one off, paid for mainly by the breweries anyway, which should have kick started NUFC onto better things, however soon as he was gone, the best players were sold off and we made do hasbeens and sunday league players.

 

How many people complained when we signed the bloke who scored a wonder goal for Brazil against England?  How many complained when we bought Thorn, Bessant etc?  I can't remember many but I do remember thousands wearing the replica Brazil top with Mirandinha on the front.

 

On another point, why do you, Mick, and some of the other go on and on about how its gone since shep was on the board?? Did you know, or any of you, that he had a stake in NUFC before Hall, and before the takeover was even dreamt up??????

 

I didn't have a stake in the club, I never have had one other than paying for a season ticket or paying at the turnstile, why?  I did pledge to buy shares the first time Sir John tried to float the club but it went no further than that.

 

 

[Guest bobjonson]

I said nowt about ENGLAND internationals. I said

 

I didn't say you did mention England internationals, I did.  I mentioned England because of the reference to KK, no other reason.

 

question for anyone interested, name the last player we bought, before the hall shep kk era that was a CURRENT international and continued to get caps when we signed him??????

 

That wasn't what I responed to, I responded to what I had in the quotes.

 

point I made earlier is nowadays we buy palyers of Duffs calibre, previously we couldnt or werent capable.

 

We didn't usually have the resuorces or the media spotlight to buy players of Duffs calibre before Sir John, not on a regular basis, I agree.

 

KK was a one off, paid for mainly by the breweries anyway, which should have kick started NUFC onto better things, however soon as he was gone, the best players were sold off and we made do hasbeens and sunday league players.

 

How many people complained when we signed the bloke who scored a wonder goal for Brazil against England?  How many complained when we bought Thorn, Bessant etc?  I can't remember many but I do remember thousands wearing the replica Brazil top with Mirandinha on the front.

 

On another point, why do you, Mick, and some of the other go on and on about how its gone since shep was on the board?? Did you know, or any of you, that he had a stake in NUFC before Hall, and before the takeover was even dreamt up??????

 

I didn't have a stake in the club, I never have had one other than paying for a season ticket or paying at the turnstile, why?  I did pledge to buy shares the first time Sir John tried to float the club but it went no further than that.

 

 

 

 

SO you did or you didnt know that Shepherd had a stke in NUFC, before Hall, and before the whole takeover saga started???

 

 

 

[Mick]

I said nowt about ENGLAND internationals. I said

 

I didn't say you did mention England internationals, I did.  I mentioned England because of the reference to KK, no other reason.

 

question for anyone interested, name the last player we bought, before the hall shep kk era that was a CURRENT international and continued to get caps when we signed him??????

 

That wasn't what I responed to, I responded to what I had in the quotes.

 

point I made earlier is nowadays we buy palyers of Duffs calibre, previously we couldnt or werent capable.

 

We didn't usually have the resuorces or the media spotlight to buy players of Duffs calibre before Sir John, not on a regular basis, I agree.

 

KK was a one off, paid for mainly by the breweries anyway, which should have kick started NUFC onto better things, however soon as he was gone, the best players were sold off and we made do hasbeens and sunday league players.

 

How many people complained when we signed the bloke who scored a wonder goal for Brazil against England?  How many complained when we bought Thorn, Bessant etc?  I can't remember many but I do remember thousands wearing the replica Brazil top with Mirandinha on the front.

 

On another point, why do you, Mick, and some of the other go on and on about how its gone since shep was on the board?? Did you know, or any of you, that he had a stake in NUFC before Hall, and before the takeover was even dreamt up??????

 

I didn't have a stake in the club, I never have had one other than paying for a season ticket or paying at the turnstile, why?  I did pledge to buy shares the first time Sir John tried to float the club but it went no further than that.

 

 

 

 

SO you did or you didnt know that Shepherd had a stke in NUFC, before Hall, and before the whole takeover saga started???

 

 

 

 

I can't remember hearing about Shepherd having a stake before Sir John, I don't see any relevance anyway, one way or the other.

[NE5]

I said nowt about ENGLAND internationals. I said

 

I didn't say you did mention England internationals, I did.  I mentioned England because of the reference to KK, no other reason.

 

question for anyone interested, name the last player we bought, before the hall shep kk era that was a CURRENT international and continued to get caps when we signed him??????

 

That wasn't what I responed to, I responded to what I had in the quotes.

 

point I made earlier is nowadays we buy palyers of Duffs calibre, previously we couldnt or werent capable.

 

We didn't usually have the resuorces or the media spotlight to buy players of Duffs calibre before Sir John, not on a regular basis, I agree.

 

KK was a one off, paid for mainly by the breweries anyway, which should have kick started NUFC onto better things, however soon as he was gone, the best players were sold off and we made do hasbeens and sunday league players.

 

How many people complained when we signed the bloke who scored a wonder goal for Brazil against England?  How many complained when we bought Thorn, Bessant etc?  I can't remember many but I do remember thousands wearing the replica Brazil top with Mirandinha on the front.

 

On another point, why do you, Mick, and some of the other go on and on about how its gone since shep was on the board?? Did you know, or any of you, that he had a stake in NUFC before Hall, and before the takeover was even dreamt up??????

 

I didn't have a stake in the club, I never have had one other than paying for a season ticket or paying at the turnstile, why?  I did pledge to buy shares the first time Sir John tried to float the club but it went no further than that.

 

 

 

Once again, you are completely wrong. Why do you think we didn't have the resources when we won the Fairs Cup, finished 5th under Gordon Lee and won promotion in 1984 with 3 future England players coming through the ranks ?

 

Not holding my breath for an answer, much like before when I asked you this.

 

Why did other big clubs build successful teams before sky money and we didn't ?

 

Because you don't know or don't want to know. Pathetic, son.

 

I complained when we sold Beardsley and bought an inferior replacement from Brazil for a quarter of the price. I complained when we sold Gazza and bought 3 players with the money, quite a few people I know did too. Obviously you had as much idea then as now - why didn't the club buy these players and keep Beardsley and Gazza like they do now ? Obviously despite the fact we were immediately relegated for doing this hasn't changed your view that it is a bad policy to sell your best players and buy cheaper replacements ? 

 

 

 

[NE5]

I said nowt about ENGLAND internationals. I said

 

I didn't say you did mention England internationals, I did.  I mentioned England because of the reference to KK, no other reason.

 

question for anyone interested, name the last player we bought, before the hall shep kk era that was a CURRENT international and continued to get caps when we signed him??????

 

That wasn't what I responed to, I responded to what I had in the quotes.

 

point I made earlier is nowadays we buy palyers of Duffs calibre, previously we couldnt or werent capable.

 

We didn't usually have the resuorces or the media spotlight to buy players of Duffs calibre before Sir John, not on a regular basis, I agree.

 

KK was a one off, paid for mainly by the breweries anyway, which should have kick started NUFC onto better things, however soon as he was gone, the best players were sold off and we made do hasbeens and sunday league players.

 

How many people complained when we signed the bloke who scored a wonder goal for Brazil against England?  How many complained when we bought Thorn, Bessant etc?  I can't remember many but I do remember thousands wearing the replica Brazil top with Mirandinha on the front.

 

On another point, why do you, Mick, and some of the other go on and on about how its gone since shep was on the board?? Did you know, or any of you, that he had a stake in NUFC before Hall, and before the takeover was even dreamt up??????

 

I didn't have a stake in the club, I never have had one other than paying for a season ticket or paying at the turnstile, why?  I did pledge to buy shares the first time Sir John tried to float the club but it went no further than that.

 

 

...but you couldn't remember anything about it when I asked you this the last time right  :roll:

 

 

[Guest bobjonson]

I said nowt about ENGLAND internationals. I said

 

I didn't say you did mention England internationals, I did.  I mentioned England because of the reference to KK, no other reason.

 

question for anyone interested, name the last player we bought, before the hall shep kk era that was a CURRENT international and continued to get caps when we signed him??????

 

That wasn't what I responed to, I responded to what I had in the quotes.

 

point I made earlier is nowadays we buy palyers of Duffs calibre, previously we couldnt or werent capable.

 

We didn't usually have the resuorces or the media spotlight to buy players of Duffs calibre before Sir John, not on a regular basis, I agree.

 

KK was a one off, paid for mainly by the breweries anyway, which should have kick started NUFC onto better things, however soon as he was gone, the best players were sold off and we made do hasbeens and sunday league players.

 

How many people complained when we signed the bloke who scored a wonder goal for Brazil against England?  How many complained when we bought Thorn, Bessant etc?  I can't remember many but I do remember thousands wearing the replica Brazil top with Mirandinha on the front.

 

On another point, why do you, Mick, and some of the other go on and on about how its gone since shep was on the board?? Did you know, or any of you, that he had a stake in NUFC before Hall, and before the takeover was even dreamt up??????

 

I didn't have a stake in the club, I never have had one other than paying for a season ticket or paying at the turnstile, why?  I did pledge to buy shares the first time Sir John tried to float the club but it went no further than that.

 

 

 

 

SO you did or you didnt know that Shepherd had a stke in NUFC, before Hall, and before the whole takeover saga started???

 

 

 

 

I can't remember hearing about Shepherd having a stake before Sir John, I don't see any relevance anyway, one way or the other.

 

but you blindly follow the sheep with the " hall saved the club and now shepherd is ruining it" gang.

 

FACT is shep was there before hall and is still there now!!!! He must be doing something right.

 

Doesnt matter if you cant remember the truth is.

 

http://www.nufc.com/html/century_shepherd.html

 

4. How did you first become involved with Newcastle United ?

 

Sir John Hall was a family friend....he phoned up and said 'I know you've got shares in Newcastle, have a word with Douglas (Hall) something has to be done'...If we hadn't have agreed to the rights issue (the club) were in grave danger of a receiver being appointed.

[Mick]

 

 

but you blindly follow the sheep with the " hall saved the club and now shepherd is ruining it" gang.

 

FACT is shep was there before hall and is still there now!!!! He must be doing something right.

 

Doesnt matter if you cant remember the truth is.

 

http://www.nufc.com/html/century_shepherd.html

 

4. How did you first become involved with Newcastle United ?

 

Sir John Hall was a family friend....he phoned up and said 'I know you've got shares in Newcastle, have a word with Douglas (Hall) something has to be done'...If we hadn't have agreed to the rights issue (the club) were in grave danger of a receiver being appointed.

 

Hall did save the club, yes he was helped by Shepherd and quite a few others, that doesn't make Shepherd immune from criticism now, that doesn't mean that we aren't going backwards,

 

I can't see how anybody can argue that we are not going backwards.

 

Performances on the field have been lower than that while Sir John was at the club and we're the brunt of most other clubs jokes because of poor publicity, something we had under Sir John but not to the extent that we've had under Shepherd.

 

Shepherd took over when we were 2nd in the league, the highest position under him is 3rd and the worst 14th, unfortunate but true.

 

I know he’s not the worst in the world, he’s not the best either, far from it.  I compare him to his predecessor because as far as I’m concerned they are on level playing field as far as cash within the club is concerned.

 

I know we’ve had times when the club could have done more under previous chairman to push on and build on something and they didn’t but as it was a closed shop as far as accounts and such things go then we can’t really say why that was the case back then.

 

I know in the 60’s we had the world cup in England and a lot of clubs were given grants to upgrade stadiums, we weren’t given them and I think the reason was because our club didn’t own the land that the ground was built on, it was something like that at least.

 

The club won the Fairs Cup and some think that they didn't build on that, you need to remember that we built the East Stand at a time when football wasn't cash rich like it is today.

 

I remember paying something like 12 1/2p to watch Newcastle in 1974, I remember it because after the Forrest game we were forced to pay the full adult entrance fee, it went up to 25p to stand in the Leazes if my memory is correct, it could have been 25p to 50p, maybe you remember better than I do.  Gate receipts would have struggled to get to £50,000 even with 40,000 in the ground.  That's a long way from what we take today, that's a hell of a disadvantage for the board of that time.

 

Anyway, I’ve made up my mind on his performance so far, it could change if things change for the better, just like it could change for you if things got worse.

[Guest bobjonson]

I'm sure the price when I first went was 25 p, and the programmes had a scratch off corner with a player underneath that they called out at half time for sowme prize.

 

Anyway, your not going to agree with me, and I'm not going to agree with you.

 

The club has been 100 times worse off that what it is now, we have played top flight football for the past 13 or so years, we have consistently bought high profile players, we have consistently played in europe, some of the best players in the world have been linked with us and have played for us in this time, we have become a household name all over the country, maybe not because of the good things, but at least we get mentioned.

 

In the era that I was on about, admittedly before sky etc, we regulary faced relegation, had mediocre players, good young prospects and of course a few has beens in the team, were constantly classed as wipping boys and a good source of cheap players for the elite clubs, and had very few if any players that were good enouth to earn a cap whilst with us.

 

Shepherd is not ideal, he has fucked up loads of times, he isnt the most TV freindly of people etc etc, however he has been in the position he is for a lot longer than a lot of his rivals, he has a very succesful backround in business, he has taken his cut from our profits, but we are still a major force in the premiership, as well as one of the highest ranked teams in europe. You may not like him, you may even hate him, but credit must be given when it's due. For all his failings he has taken the flack and responded well, if the casino/leazes ext comes off he will be chairman at one of the largest stadiums in europe/ world, with one of the largest turnovers for a foootball club ever.

 

We have a solid footing, and have done for a number of years, or would you rather we were up and down every other season???????

[Mick]

I'm sure the price when I first went was 25 p, and the programmes had a scratch off corner with a player underneath that they called out at half time for sowme prize.

 

Anyway, your not going to agree with me, and I'm not going to agree with you.

 

The club has been 100 times worse off that what it is now, we have played top flight football for the past 13 or so years, we have consistently bought high profile players, we have consistently played in europe, some of the best players in the world have been linked with us and have played for us in this time, we have become a household name all over the country, maybe not because of the good things, but at least we get mentioned.

 

In the era that I was on about, admittedly before sky etc, we regulary faced relegation, had mediocre players, good young prospects and of course a few has beens in the team, were constantly classed as wipping boys and a good source of cheap players for the elite clubs, and had very few if any players that were good enouth to earn a cap whilst with us.

 

Shepherd is not ideal, he has fucked up loads of times, he isnt the most TV freindly of people etc etc, however he has been in the position he is for a lot longer than a lot of his rivals, he has a very succesful backround in business, he has taken his cut from our profits, but we are still a major force in the premiership, as well as one of the highest ranked teams in europe. You may not like him, you may even hate him, but credit must be given when it's due. For all his failings he has taken the flack and responded well, if the casino/leazes ext comes off he will be chairman at one of the largest stadiums in europe/ world, with one of the largest turnovers for a foootball club ever.

 

We have a solid footing, and have done for a number of years, or would you rather we were up and down every other season???????

 

I wouldn't disagree with much of that in reality, it contains a lot of sense, good post.

 

No, I wouldn't rather see us go up and down, I guess like you and every other Newcastle supporter, I'd rather we were at the top and winning everything, I can still dream.

 

I just don't think we've made the most of the situation we found ourselves in, yes we could have done worse, we could also have done better.  Being 5th best over a decade is no consolation when we are 14th or 11th and 13th for two seasons in a row, it's no consolation when we have an idiot like Souness managing our club.

 

Maybe we've been spoiled to a certain extent under Sir John and Keegan and I know that may sound like a crazy statement to make about Newcastle.

 

I guess the difference between love and hate is as close as some people try to make out.

[alpal78]

Can I just say that the last two posts by Bob and Mick are very sensible despite being contrary and its refreshing to read without the usual vitriol and condescending remarks

[Mick]

Can I just say that the last two posts by Bob and Mick are very sensible despite being contrary and its refreshing to read without the usual vitriol and condescending remarks

 

It's an interesting and important subject when done the right way, it can be done without any vitriol, end of the day we all want the same, our name on a bloody trophy, now.

[Howaythelads]

Can I just say that the last two posts by Bob and Mick are very sensible despite being contrary and its refreshing to read without the usual vitriol and condescending remarks

 

It's an interesting and important subject when done the right way, it can be done without any vitriol, end of the day we all want the same, our name on a bloody trophy, now.

 

It was a good post by Bob, and is obviously what I've been saying for ages and also without vitriol, as I think you'll agree even if some others won't.

 

 

I think you've highlighted something here ........

Maybe we've been spoiled to a certain extent under Sir John and Keegan and I know that may sound like a crazy statement to make about Newcastle

 

I don't want to argue with you on this, but this is fine for people who became old enough to start supporting the club around the time SJH took over, but it doesn't wash with anybody who was supporting the club during those shite times though. That's obviously where we'll differ.

 

 

You also said.........

I remember paying something like 12 1/2p to watch Newcastle in 1974, I remember it because after the Forrest game we were forced to pay the full adult entrance fee, it went up to 25p to stand in the Leazes if my memory is correct, it could have been 25p to 50p, maybe you remember better than I do.  Gate receipts would have struggled to get to £50,000 even with 40,000 in the ground.  That's a long way from what we take today, that's a hell of a disadvantage for the board of that time.

 

I don't recall the turnstile price when I first started going to matches in 1968, but I remember my first season ticket cost me £9 for the old stand paddock in 1973.

 

I understand that the club was taking less revenue than they do today, but can you explain to me why that should have placed the club at a disadvantage  in comparison to other clubs of that same time period, all of which would have been charging similar admission prices? I have to ask this, but do you think that Newcastle is the only club taking in more money now than it did in those earlier years?  No, of course not. All clubs had exactly the same opportunity to generate money. If anything, given our larger potential support, I'd say we had a greater opportunity than some others. The problem is that potential has to be tapped but it wasn't until SJH took over.

 

If other clubs were taking in more money it would have been because they were attracting larger attendances. Why do you think other clubs were attracting larger attendances than Newcastle?

[Guest bobjonson]

 

How many people complained when we signed the bloke who scored a wonder goal for Brazil against England?  How many complained when we bought Thorn, Bessant etc?  I can't remember many but I do remember thousands wearing the replica Brazil top with Mirandinha on the front.

 

 

We signed John Robertson, John Hendrie, DAve Beasant and Andy Thorn, probably the first time I can remember us buying more than one token player a season that I had actually heard of.

 

Roberston lasted no more than a handful of games then was back off to Hearts.

 

Beasant was a terrible keeper for us, was signed on the back of his FA cup final save.

 

I thought Andy Thorn was class at the time, looked solid, but again he soon was away

 

And John Hendrie, probably pick of the bunch, great skill, but again we got rid.

 

All 4 were gone before the start of the next season, no I didnt complain when they came, but would rather have kept Gazza another season that get those 4 in. You could argue that getting those 4 in contributed directly to us getting relegated and undoing all the hard work Cox KK etc had achieved a few seasons earlier, this time we had no Beardsleys, waddles etc to come through, we had Darren Jackson michael Oneil etc, getting quinn and Mcghee may have paper over a few cracks, but fact is we were a second div team, and thats where we were until the takeover.

 

Looking back those 10 yeras 82-92 absolutely amazing in the history of the club, got to be one of the most exciting and frustrating decades in our recent history. We went from nowt to been one of the most talked about teams in england, back to been nowt, and finally back to been popular again. SKy has helped, and the whole change in people's attitudes to football, whether it was planned by hall, shep etc or not, but we just on onto the prem bandwagon in time, another season or two in the second div and we would be with the sheff weds and nottingham forests.

 

All imo like  :winking:

[Mick]

Can I just say that the last two posts by Bob and Mick are very sensible despite being contrary and its refreshing to read without the usual vitriol and condescending remarks

 

It's an interesting and important subject when done the right way, it can be done without any vitriol, end of the day we all want the same, our name on a bloody trophy, now.

 

It was a good post by Bob, and is obviously what I've been saying for ages and also without vitriol, as I think you'll agree even if some others won't.

 

 

I think you've highlighted something here ........

Maybe we've been spoiled to a certain extent under Sir John and Keegan and I know that may sound like a crazy statement to make about Newcastle

 

I don't want to argue with you on this, but this is fine for people who became old enough to start supporting the club around the time SJH took over, but it doesn't wash with anybody who was supporting the club during those shite times though. That's obviously where we'll differ.

 

 

You also said.........

I remember paying something like 12 1/2p to watch Newcastle in 1974, I remember it because after the Forrest game we were forced to pay the full adult entrance fee, it went up to 25p to stand in the Leazes if my memory is correct, it could have been 25p to 50p, maybe you remember better than I do.   Gate receipts would have struggled to get to £50,000 even with 40,000 in the ground.  That's a long way from what we take today, that's a hell of a disadvantage for the board of that time.

 

I don't recall the turnstile price when I first started going to matches in 1968, but I remember my first season ticket cost me £9 for the old stand paddock in 1973.

 

I understand that the club was taking less revenue than they do today, but can you explain to me why that should have placed the club at a disadvantage  in comparison to other clubs of that same time period, all of which would have been charging similar admission prices? I have to ask this, but do you think that Newcastle is the only club taking in more money now than it did in those earlier years?  No, of course not. All clubs had exactly the same opportunity to generate money. If anything, given our larger potential support, I'd say we had a greater opportunity than some others. The problem is that potential has to be tapped but it wasn't until SJH took over.

 

If other clubs were taking in more money it would have been because they were attracting larger attendances. Why do you think other clubs were attracting larger attendances than Newcastle?

 

I do agree you made some good posts and have said so at times.

 

The way I feel we were at a disadvantage, and I'm going into something that I can't recite chapter and verse here.  Is that clubs like Man U, Sheff Wed, Boro, Mackems and others were given grants to develop grounds for the world cup, we didn't get those, I’m sure it was because we didn’t own the ground.

 

If we had of been given grants for the world cup then we wouldn’t have had to spend money on the East Stand, that could have gone on players.

 

I would love to have been able to see the clubs accounts for the 70’s and 80’s to see where our money went.  I remember going to Keegans debut and we were supposed to have 36,000 in the ground and people were almost getting crushed, I went to a game a few weeks later and the crowd was given as 34,000’ish and I had plenty of room.  A lot of people thought the directors were creaming money from the gate receipts; I have no idea if this was the case, or, that a couple of thousand could make a big difference.

 

[Mick]

 

How many people complained when we signed the bloke who scored a wonder goal for Brazil against England?  How many complained when we bought Thorn, Bessant etc?  I can't remember many but I do remember thousands wearing the replica Brazil top with Mirandinha on the front.

 

 

We signed John Robertson, John Hendrie, DAve Beasant and Andy Thorn, probably the first time I can remember us buying more than one token player a season that I had actually heard of.

 

Roberston lasted no more than a handful of games then was back off to Hearts.

 

Beasant was a terrible keeper for us, was signed on the back of his FA cup final save.

 

I thought Andy Thorn was class at the time, looked solid, but again he soon was away

 

And John Hendrie, probably pick of the bunch, great skill, but again we got rid.

 

All 4 were gone before the start of the next season, no I didnt complain when they came, but would rather have kept Gazza another season that get those 4 in. You could argue that getting those 4 in contributed directly to us getting relegated and undoing all the hard work Cox KK etc had achieved a few seasons earlier, this time we had no Beardsleys, waddles etc to come through, we had Darren Jackson michael Oneil etc, getting quinn and Mcghee may have paper over a few cracks, but fact is we were a second div team, and thats where we were until the takeover.

 

Looking back those 10 yeras 82-92 absolutely amazing in the history of the club, got to be one of the most exciting and frustrating decades in our recent history. We went from nowt to been one of the most talked about teams in england, back to been nowt, and finally back to been popular again. SKy has helped, and the whole change in people's attitudes to football, whether it was planned by hall, shep etc or not, but we just on onto the prem bandwagon in time, another season or two in the second div and we would be with the sheff weds and nottingham forests.

 

All imo like  :winking:

 

I agree with most of that, I would rather have kept Gazza than those 4, I don't think he would have had his problems if he'd stayed here, a big mistake on his part.

[Howaythelads]

 

How many people complained when we signed the bloke who scored a wonder goal for Brazil against England?  How many complained when we bought Thorn, Bessant etc?  I can't remember many but I do remember thousands wearing the replica Brazil top with Mirandinha on the front.

 

 

We signed John Robertson, John Hendrie, DAve Beasant and Andy Thorn, probably the first time I can remember us buying more than one token player a season that I had actually heard of.

 

Roberston lasted no more than a handful of games then was back off to Hearts.

 

Beasant was a terrible keeper for us, was signed on the back of his FA cup final save.

 

I thought Andy Thorn was class at the time, looked solid, but again he soon was away

 

And John Hendrie, probably pick of the bunch, great skill, but again we got rid.

 

All 4 were gone before the start of the next season, no I didnt complain when they came, but would rather have kept Gazza another season that get those 4 in. You could argue that getting those 4 in contributed directly to us getting relegated and undoing all the hard work Cox KK etc had achieved a few seasons earlier, this time we had no Beardsleys, waddles etc to come through, we had Darren Jackson michael Oneil etc, getting quinn and Mcghee may have paper over a few cracks, but fact is we were a second div team, and thats where we were until the takeover.

 

Looking back those 10 yeras 82-92 absolutely amazing in the history of the club, got to be one of the most exciting and frustrating decades in our recent history. We went from nowt to been one of the most talked about teams in england, back to been nowt, and finally back to been popular again. SKy has helped, and the whole change in people's attitudes to football, whether it was planned by hall, shep etc or not, but we just on onto the prem bandwagon in time, another season or two in the second div and we would be with the sheff weds and nottingham forests.

 

All imo like  :winking:

 

Absolutely agree.

[Howaythelads]

Can I just say that the last two posts by Bob and Mick are very sensible despite being contrary and its refreshing to read without the usual vitriol and condescending remarks

 

It's an interesting and important subject when done the right way, it can be done without any vitriol, end of the day we all want the same, our name on a bloody trophy, now.

 

It was a good post by Bob, and is obviously what I've been saying for ages and also without vitriol, as I think you'll agree even if some others won't.

 

 

I think you've highlighted something here ........

Maybe we've been spoiled to a certain extent under Sir John and Keegan and I know that may sound like a crazy statement to make about Newcastle

 

I don't want to argue with you on this, but this is fine for people who became old enough to start supporting the club around the time SJH took over, but it doesn't wash with anybody who was supporting the club during those shite times though. That's obviously where we'll differ.

 

 

You also said.........

I remember paying something like 12 1/2p to watch Newcastle in 1974, I remember it because after the Forrest game we were forced to pay the full adult entrance fee, it went up to 25p to stand in the Leazes if my memory is correct, it could have been 25p to 50p, maybe you remember better than I do.  Gate receipts would have struggled to get to £50,000 even with 40,000 in the ground.  That's a long way from what we take today, that's a hell of a disadvantage for the board of that time.

 

I don't recall the turnstile price when I first started going to matches in 1968, but I remember my first season ticket cost me £9 for the old stand paddock in 1973.

 

I understand that the club was taking less revenue than they do today, but can you explain to me why that should have placed the club at a disadvantage  in comparison to other clubs of that same time period, all of which would have been charging similar admission prices? I have to ask this, but do you think that Newcastle is the only club taking in more money now than it did in those earlier years?  No, of course not. All clubs had exactly the same opportunity to generate money. If anything, given our larger potential support, I'd say we had a greater opportunity than some others. The problem is that potential has to be tapped but it wasn't until SJH took over.

 

If other clubs were taking in more money it would have been because they were attracting larger attendances. Why do you think other clubs were attracting larger attendances than Newcastle?

 

I do agree you made some good posts and have said so at times.

 

The way I feel we were at a disadvantage, and I'm going into something that I can't recite chapter and verse here.  Is that clubs like Man U, Sheff Wed, Boro, Mackems and others were given grants to develop grounds for the world cup, we didn't get those, I’m sure it was because we didn’t own the ground.

 

If we had of been given grants for the world cup then we wouldn’t have had to spend money on the East Stand, that could have gone on players.

 

I would love to have been able to see the clubs accounts for the 70’s and 80’s to see where our money went.  I remember going to Keegans debut and we were supposed to have 36,000 in the ground and people were almost getting crushed, I went to a game a few weeks later and the crowd was given as 34,000’ish and I had plenty of room.  A lot of people thought the directors were creaming money from the gate receipts; I have no idea if this was the case, or, that a couple of thousand could make a big difference.

 

 

Ok, well this idea that other clubs were given grants toward their ground development isn't something I know much about, but I'll take your word that it happened. However, this doesn't get close to explaining the sheer number of clubs that consistently finished higher than us for years.

 

Your notion assumes that the Board would have spent money on players that was otherwise spent on the deveopment of the Popular end. Well I don't think there is any evidence on which you can base that assumption, Mick.

 

Only when SJH and KK arrived did we start to buy players from a position of strength, the idea that you "buy when you're winning" started with Rob Lee signing in October 1992, and has basically been carried on since, despite the up's and down's. Until that time in 1992, for decades before that we signed players either as a reaction to our position in Div 1 being in jeopardy, or we bought inferior players in response to having sold a better one to a more ambitious club. There is simply no justification to suppose any money saved from the cost of development of that stand would have gone on buying players.

[NE5]

Can I just say that the last two posts by Bob and Mick are very sensible despite being contrary and its refreshing to read without the usual vitriol and condescending remarks

 

It's an interesting and important subject when done the right way, it can be done without any vitriol, end of the day we all want the same, our name on a bloody trophy, now.

 

It was a good post by Bob, and is obviously what I've been saying for ages and also without vitriol, as I think you'll agree even if some others won't.

 

 

I think you've highlighted something here ........

Maybe we've been spoiled to a certain extent under Sir John and Keegan and I know that may sound like a crazy statement to make about Newcastle

 

I don't want to argue with you on this, but this is fine for people who became old enough to start supporting the club around the time SJH took over, but it doesn't wash with anybody who was supporting the club during those shite times though. That's obviously where we'll differ.

 

 

You also said.........

I remember paying something like 12 1/2p to watch Newcastle in 1974, I remember it because after the Forrest game we were forced to pay the full adult entrance fee, it went up to 25p to stand in the Leazes if my memory is correct, it could have been 25p to 50p, maybe you remember better than I do.   Gate receipts would have struggled to get to £50,000 even with 40,000 in the ground.  That's a long way from what we take today, that's a hell of a disadvantage for the board of that time.

 

I don't recall the turnstile price when I first started going to matches in 1968, but I remember my first season ticket cost me £9 for the old stand paddock in 1973.

 

I understand that the club was taking less revenue than they do today, but can you explain to me why that should have placed the club at a disadvantage  in comparison to other clubs of that same time period, all of which would have been charging similar admission prices? I have to ask this, but do you think that Newcastle is the only club taking in more money now than it did in those earlier years?  No, of course not. All clubs had exactly the same opportunity to generate money. If anything, given our larger potential support, I'd say we had a greater opportunity than some others. The problem is that potential has to be tapped but it wasn't until SJH took over.

 

If other clubs were taking in more money it would have been because they were attracting larger attendances. Why do you think other clubs were attracting larger attendances than Newcastle?

 

I do agree you made some good posts and have said so at times.

 

The way I feel we were at a disadvantage, and I'm going into something that I can't recite chapter and verse here.  Is that clubs like Man U, Sheff Wed, Boro, Mackems and others were given grants to develop grounds for the world cup, we didn't get those, I’m sure it was because we didn’t own the ground.

 

If we had of been given grants for the world cup then we wouldn’t have had to spend money on the East Stand, that could have gone on players.

 

I would love to have been able to see the clubs accounts for the 70’s and 80’s to see where our money went.  I remember going to Keegans debut and we were supposed to have 36,000 in the ground and people were almost getting crushed, I went to a game a few weeks later and the crowd was given as 34,000’ish and I had plenty of room.  A lot of people thought the directors were creaming money from the gate receipts; I have no idea if this was the case, or, that a couple of thousand could make a big difference.

 

 

Please explain why Liverpool, Leeds, Man City, Arsenal, West Brom, Spurs, Chelsea, QPR, Swindon,  Derby and Spurs all won domestic titles and trophies between 1966 and 1973 when the East Stand opened, despite all of them not hosting World Cup ties and receving grants ?

 

Nor sky money 

 

Please tell us how much these grants were, as you say they had such a massive impact ? What improvements exactly did these grants have on the smoggies and the mackems grounds other than extra seats, including temporary ones in the Fulwell End at Roker Park, and superior press boxes.. Which I can tell you now, is pretty much all that these grants paid for. Unless one of Grass’ books can prove differently.

 

Please also tell us something which I am sure escapes you completely too. How is it that the mackems and smoggies got allocated World Cup games in the first place ahead of us, only 11 years after we had completed a platform of winning the FA Cup 3 times in 5 years ? Why weren’t we in the top 5 clubs in the country at this time, only a decade later, rather than spending 6 of them in the old 2nd division ?

 

Factual based responses to these factual points would be appreciated.

 

 

[Stevie]

Can I just say that the last two posts by Bob and Mick are very sensible despite being contrary and its refreshing to read without the usual vitriol and condescending remarks

 

It's an interesting and important subject when done the right way, it can be done without any vitriol, end of the day we all want the same, our name on a bloody trophy, now.

 

It was a good post by Bob, and is obviously what I've been saying for ages and also without vitriol, as I think you'll agree even if some others won't.

 

 

I think you've highlighted something here ........

Maybe we've been spoiled to a certain extent under Sir John and Keegan and I know that may sound like a crazy statement to make about Newcastle

 

I don't want to argue with you on this, but this is fine for people who became old enough to start supporting the club around the time SJH took over, but it doesn't wash with anybody who was supporting the club during those shite times though. That's obviously where we'll differ.

 

 

You also said.........

I remember paying something like 12 1/2p to watch Newcastle in 1974, I remember it because after the Forrest game we were forced to pay the full adult entrance fee, it went up to 25p to stand in the Leazes if my memory is correct, it could have been 25p to 50p, maybe you remember better than I do.   Gate receipts would have struggled to get to £50,000 even with 40,000 in the ground.  That's a long way from what we take today, that's a hell of a disadvantage for the board of that time.

 

I don't recall the turnstile price when I first started going to matches in 1968, but I remember my first season ticket cost me £9 for the old stand paddock in 1973.

 

I understand that the club was taking less revenue than they do today, but can you explain to me why that should have placed the club at a disadvantage  in comparison to other clubs of that same time period, all of which would have been charging similar admission prices? I have to ask this, but do you think that Newcastle is the only club taking in more money now than it did in those earlier years?  No, of course not. All clubs had exactly the same opportunity to generate money. If anything, given our larger potential support, I'd say we had a greater opportunity than some others. The problem is that potential has to be tapped but it wasn't until SJH took over.

 

If other clubs were taking in more money it would have been because they were attracting larger attendances. Why do you think other clubs were attracting larger attendances than Newcastle?

 

I do agree you made some good posts and have said so at times.

 

The way I feel we were at a disadvantage, and I'm going into something that I can't recite chapter and verse here.  Is that clubs like Man U, Sheff Wed, Boro, Mackems and others were given grants to develop grounds for the world cup, we didn't get those, I’m sure it was because we didn’t own the ground.

 

If we had of been given grants for the world cup then we wouldn’t have had to spend money on the East Stand, that could have gone on players.

 

I would love to have been able to see the clubs accounts for the 70’s and 80’s to see where our money went.  I remember going to Keegans debut and we were supposed to have 36,000 in the ground and people were almost getting crushed, I went to a game a few weeks later and the crowd was given as 34,000’ish and I had plenty of room.  A lot of people thought the directors were creaming money from the gate receipts; I have no idea if this was the case, or, that a couple of thousand could make a big difference.

 

 

Please explain why Liverpool, Leeds, Man City, Arsenal, West Brom, Spurs, Chelsea, QPR, Swindon,  Derby and Spurs all won domestic titles and trophies between 1966 and 1973 when the East Stand opened, despite all of them not hosting World Cup ties and receving grants ?

 

Nor sky money 

 

Please tell us how much these grants were, as you say they had such a massive impact ? What improvements exactly did these grants have on the smoggies and the mackems grounds other than extra seats, including temporary ones in the Fulwell End at Roker Park, and superior press boxes.. Which I can tell you now, is pretty much all that these grants paid for. Unless one of Grass’ books can prove differently.

 

Please also tell us something which I am sure escapes you completely too. How is it that the mackems and smoggies got allocated World Cup games in the first place ahead of us, only 11 years after we had completed a platform of winning the FA Cup 3 times in 5 years ? Why weren’t we in the top 5 clubs in the country at this time, only a decade later, rather than spending 6 of them in the old 2nd division ?

 

Factual based responses to these factual points would be appreciated.

 

 

As you will know NE5 St James' was initially given the 1966 World Cup, but because of concerns over safety and the standard of the ground, it was decided to take it off us and give it to Ayresome Park, something that astonishes me, having been to AP in the 90's it was like a step back in time by early 90's standards so fuck knows what it would've been like in 1966.

[NE5]

Can I just say that the last two posts by Bob and Mick are very sensible despite being contrary and its refreshing to read without the usual vitriol and condescending remarks

 

It's an interesting and important subject when done the right way, it can be done without any vitriol, end of the day we all want the same, our name on a bloody trophy, now.

 

It was a good post by Bob, and is obviously what I've been saying for ages and also without vitriol, as I think you'll agree even if some others won't.

 

 

I think you've highlighted something here ........

Maybe we've been spoiled to a certain extent under Sir John and Keegan and I know that may sound like a crazy statement to make about Newcastle

 

I don't want to argue with you on this, but this is fine for people who became old enough to start supporting the club around the time SJH took over, but it doesn't wash with anybody who was supporting the club during those shite times though. That's obviously where we'll differ.

 

 

You also said.........

I remember paying something like 12 1/2p to watch Newcastle in 1974, I remember it because after the Forrest game we were forced to pay the full adult entrance fee, it went up to 25p to stand in the Leazes if my memory is correct, it could have been 25p to 50p, maybe you remember better than I do.   Gate receipts would have struggled to get to £50,000 even with 40,000 in the ground.  That's a long way from what we take today, that's a hell of a disadvantage for the board of that time.

 

I don't recall the turnstile price when I first started going to matches in 1968, but I remember my first season ticket cost me £9 for the old stand paddock in 1973.

 

I understand that the club was taking less revenue than they do today, but can you explain to me why that should have placed the club at a disadvantage  in comparison to other clubs of that same time period, all of which would have been charging similar admission prices? I have to ask this, but do you think that Newcastle is the only club taking in more money now than it did in those earlier years?  No, of course not. All clubs had exactly the same opportunity to generate money. If anything, given our larger potential support, I'd say we had a greater opportunity than some others. The problem is that potential has to be tapped but it wasn't until SJH took over.

 

If other clubs were taking in more money it would have been because they were attracting larger attendances. Why do you think other clubs were attracting larger attendances than Newcastle?

 

I do agree you made some good posts and have said so at times.

 

The way I feel we were at a disadvantage, and I'm going into something that I can't recite chapter and verse here.  Is that clubs like Man U, Sheff Wed, Boro, Mackems and others were given grants to develop grounds for the world cup, we didn't get those, I’m sure it was because we didn’t own the ground.

 

If we had of been given grants for the world cup then we wouldn’t have had to spend money on the East Stand, that could have gone on players.

 

I would love to have been able to see the clubs accounts for the 70’s and 80’s to see where our money went.  I remember going to Keegans debut and we were supposed to have 36,000 in the ground and people were almost getting crushed, I went to a game a few weeks later and the crowd was given as 34,000’ish and I had plenty of room.  A lot of people thought the directors were creaming money from the gate receipts; I have no idea if this was the case, or, that a couple of thousand could make a big difference.

 

 

Please explain why Liverpool, Leeds, Man City, Arsenal, West Brom, Spurs, Chelsea, QPR, Swindon,  Derby and Spurs all won domestic titles and trophies between 1966 and 1973 when the East Stand opened, despite all of them not hosting World Cup ties and receving grants ?

 

Nor sky money 

 

Please tell us how much these grants were, as you say they had such a massive impact ? What improvements exactly did these grants have on the smoggies and the mackems grounds other than extra seats, including temporary ones in the Fulwell End at Roker Park, and superior press boxes.. Which I can tell you now, is pretty much all that these grants paid for. Unless one of Grass’ books can prove differently.

 

Please also tell us something which I am sure escapes you completely too. How is it that the mackems and smoggies got allocated World Cup games in the first place ahead of us, only 11 years after we had completed a platform of winning the FA Cup 3 times in 5 years ? Why weren’t we in the top 5 clubs in the country at this time, only a decade later, rather than spending 6 of them in the old 2nd division ?

 

Factual based responses to these factual points would be appreciated.

 

 

As you will know NE5 St James' was initially given the 1966 World Cup, but because of concerns over safety and the standard of the ground, it was decided to take it off us and give it to Ayresome Park, something that astonishes me, having been to AP in the 90's it was like a step back in time by early 90's standards so fuck knows what it would've been like in 1966.

 

Indeed it was selected, on capacity grounds, before the smogs. And taking it away bears testament to the disgraceful way the club was run that we lost it. We will see what Mick says but I'm not holding my breath. To suggest that the impact of a small grant hindered the club from being successful - for the next SEVEN years too .... 

 

Even when the East stand opened, it was a pile of shite in comparison to how the other big city clubs had built bigger and better stands, then we had the Leazes End demolished and half the size with no roof for years afterwards too. Farcial.

 

 

 

 

[Stevie]

Indeed it was selected, on capacity grounds, before the smogs. And taking it away bears testament to the disgraceful way the club was run that we lost it. We will see what Mick says but I'm not holding my breath. To suggest that the impact of a small grant hindered the club from being successful - for the next SEVEN years too .... 

 

Even when the East stand opened, it was a pile of shite in comparison to how the other big city clubs had built bigger and better stands, then we had the Leazes End demolished and half the size with no roof for years afterwards too. Farcial.

 

 

 

 

 

Aye the K stand at Old Trafford was complete at that time and it still looked decent 30 years later, same with the stand opposite the players tunnel at Hillsborough which hasn't changed in 40 years and I can testify having sat in there, it's still better than some stands even now.

 

http://home.skysports.com/images/stadia/19.jpg

[NE5]

Well mate, it would appear Mick has logged on and doesn't want to continue with this debate

 

What a surprise.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

HTL

 

Hmm, now we're good enough for people to think the club could attract a player like Ronaldo.

 

It's worse than that, some think Ronaldo is not good enough for Newcastle!

 

oh aye he's good enough

 

but bollocks if you will see any WC form from him for us, on a december weeknight away to Wigan

 

not worth the aggravation, if you think Dyer is a celebrity playboy, what do you think Ronaldo is like?

 

I agree to the point I believe he'd be a risk.

 

I'm just amazed that the people who call the board and Fred worse than shit, seriously don't realise the irony when they babble on about us siging players of this kind of stature and world wide reputation.

 

We sold our best player to West Ham because they were better than us at that time, and the Board of today is apparently of the same level.  bluelaugh.gif

[Howaythelads]

 

I'm just amazed that the people who call the board and Fred worse than shit, seriously don't realise the irony when they babble on about us siging players of this kind of stature and world wide reputation.

 

We sold our best player to West Ham because they were better than us at that time, and the Board of today is apparently operating at the same level.  bluelaugh.gif

[Guest thompers]

 

I'm just amazed that the people who call the board and Fred worse than shit, seriously don't realise the irony when they babble on about us siging players of this kind of stature and world wide reputation.

 

We sold our best player to West Ham because they were better than us at that time, and the Board of today is apparently operating at the same level.  bluelaugh.gif

 

Freddy fucking fat fucker Shepherd didn't fucking raise us to fucking operate at this level. Sir John Hall fucking raised us to fucking operate at fucking title challenging level then Freddy fat fucker actually TOOK US FUCKING BACKWARDS! Stupid or fucking what?!