The Board etc. etc.

[tmonkey]

 

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?!

 

Sorry thompers, but weve finished top 5 3 seasons in a row under Shephard. Even though we were top 2 at the time Fat Fred took over, and even though weve finished in the bottom half more often than not under him, I dont quite see how going from 2nd best in the country to just above mid table, whilst winning nothing in the process and watching clubs that were below us win doubles and trebles, I dont see how that is taking us backwards.

[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

 

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?!

 

Chairman - The highest-ranking executive in a corporation. The chairman leads the board of directors in setting broad corporate goals and determining if managers are, in fact, pursuing and achieving those goals. In large corporations the chairman is not ordinarily involved in day-to-day operational activities

 

Manager -  3. Sports.

        One who is in charge of the training and performance of an athlete or a team.

 

We went backwards during the time Souness was manager. Yes, Fred and the Board made a mistake by appointing Souness, they then did their job by sacking him when they realised he was shit, but we went backwards because of the performance of the manager. It seems that despite weeks of being told this you still don't understand it. Are you thick, or something?  Believe me when I say this, IF the Board was really shit you and your type would have stopped supporting the club by now, just like thousands did when the Board was shit, hence the sub 20,000 crowds rather than what we see today.

[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?!

 

Chairman - The highest-ranking executive in a corporation. The chairman leads the board of directors in setting broad corporate goals and determining if managers are, in fact, pursuing and achieving those goals. In large corporations the chairman is not ordinarily involved in day-to-day operational activities

 

Manager -  3. Sports.

        One who is in charge of the training and performance of an athlete or a team.

 

We went backwards during the time Souness was manager. Yes, Fred and the Board made a mistake by appointing Souness, they then did their job by sacking him when they realised he was shit, but we went backwards because of the performance of the manager. It seems that despite weeks of being told this you still don't understand it. Are you thick, or something?  Believe me when I say this, IF the Board was really shit you and your type would have stopped supporting the club by now, just like thousands did when the Board was shit, hence the sub 20,000 crowds rather than what we see today.

 

And you still can't make recongise that if the chairman appoints a below par manager, then it is his responsibility when things fuck up. Go on, make the connection, do the maths etc etc.

[Guest Bellers]

 

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?!

 

Chairman - The highest-ranking executive in a corporation. The chairman leads the board of directors in setting broad corporate goals and determining if managers are, in fact, pursuing and achieving those goals. In large corporations the chairman is not ordinarily involved in day-to-day operational activities

 

Manager -   3. Sports.

         One who is in charge of the training and performance of an athlete or a team.

 

We went backwards during the time Souness was manager. Yes, Fred and the Board made a mistake by appointing Souness, they then did their job by sacking him when they realised he was shit, but we went backwards because of the performance of the manager. It seems that despite weeks of being told this you still don't understand it. Are you thick, or something?  Believe me when I say this, IF the Board was really shit you and your type would have stopped supporting the club by now, just like thousands did when the Board was shit, hence the sub 20,000 crowds rather than what we see today.

 

And you still can't make recongise that if the chairman appoints a below par manager, then it is his responsibility when things **** up. Go on, make the connection, do the maths etc etc.

 

FFS! Will you two grow up or take you petty arguments somewhere else. Some people actually want to make a relavent comment in a thread, but can't because you two persist on turning it into the same old argument, change the record man!

[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?!

 

Chairman - The highest-ranking executive in a corporation. The chairman leads the board of directors in setting broad corporate goals and determining if managers are, in fact, pursuing and achieving those goals. In large corporations the chairman is not ordinarily involved in day-to-day operational activities

 

Manager -  3. Sports.

        One who is in charge of the training and performance of an athlete or a team.

 

We went backwards during the time Souness was manager. Yes, Fred and the Board made a mistake by appointing Souness, they then did their job by sacking him when they realised he was shit, but we went backwards because of the performance of the manager. It seems that despite weeks of being told this you still don't understand it. Are you thick, or something?  Believe me when I say this, IF the Board was really shit you and your type would have stopped supporting the club by now, just like thousands did when the Board was shit, hence the sub 20,000 crowds rather than what we see today.

 

And you still can't make recongise that if the chairman appoints a below par manager, then it is his responsibility when things **** up. Go on, make the connection, do the maths etc etc.

 

FFS! Will you two grow up or take you petty arguments somewhere else. Some people actually want to make a relavent comment in a thread, but can't because you two persist on turning it into the same old argument, change the record man!

 

Conversation progresses and evolves, deal with it.

[Guest Bellers]

 

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?!

 

Chairman - The highest-ranking executive in a corporation. The chairman leads the board of directors in setting broad corporate goals and determining if managers are, in fact, pursuing and achieving those goals. In large corporations the chairman is not ordinarily involved in day-to-day operational activities

 

Manager -   3. Sports.

         One who is in charge of the training and performance of an athlete or a team.

 

We went backwards during the time Souness was manager. Yes, Fred and the Board made a mistake by appointing Souness, they then did their job by sacking him when they realised he was shit, but we went backwards because of the performance of the manager. It seems that despite weeks of being told this you still don't understand it. Are you thick, or something?  Believe me when I say this, IF the Board was really shit you and your type would have stopped supporting the club by now, just like thousands did when the Board was shit, hence the sub 20,000 crowds rather than what we see today.

 

And you still can't make recongise that if the chairman appoints a below par manager, then it is his responsibility when things **** up. Go on, make the connection, do the maths etc etc.

 

FFS! Will you two grow up or take you petty arguments somewhere else. Some people actually want to make a relavent comment in a thread, but can't because you two persist on turning it into the same old argument, change the record man!

 

Conversation progresses and evolves, deal with it.

 

That must be why all yours end in such similar fashion.

[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

 

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?!

 

Chairman - The highest-ranking executive in a corporation. The chairman leads the board of directors in setting broad corporate goals and determining if managers are, in fact, pursuing and achieving those goals. In large corporations the chairman is not ordinarily involved in day-to-day operational activities

 

Manager -  3. Sports.

        One who is in charge of the training and performance of an athlete or a team.

 

We went backwards during the time Souness was manager. Yes, Fred and the Board made a mistake by appointing Souness, they then did their job by sacking him when they realised he was shit, but we went backwards because of the performance of the manager. It seems that despite weeks of being told this you still don't understand it. Are you thick, or something?  Believe me when I say this, IF the Board was really shit you and your type would have stopped supporting the club by now, just like thousands did when the Board was shit, hence the sub 20,000 crowds rather than what we see today.

 

And you still can't make recongise that if the chairman appoints a below par manager, then it is his responsibility when things **** up. Go on, make the connection, do the maths etc etc.

 

Thompers, seriously. I've said loads of times that they made a huge mistake by appointing Souness. I even said it in the post you've quoted. Are you suggesting that Souness should have stayed and Fred left? That perhaps when any club does badly it's not the manager who should get the bullet, but the Chairman??

[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?!

 

Chairman - The highest-ranking executive in a corporation. The chairman leads the board of directors in setting broad corporate goals and determining if managers are, in fact, pursuing and achieving those goals. In large corporations the chairman is not ordinarily involved in day-to-day operational activities

 

Manager -  3. Sports.

        One who is in charge of the training and performance of an athlete or a team.

 

We went backwards during the time Souness was manager. Yes, Fred and the Board made a mistake by appointing Souness, they then did their job by sacking him when they realised he was shit, but we went backwards because of the performance of the manager. It seems that despite weeks of being told this you still don't understand it. Are you thick, or something?  Believe me when I say this, IF the Board was really shit you and your type would have stopped supporting the club by now, just like thousands did when the Board was shit, hence the sub 20,000 crowds rather than what we see today.

 

And you still can't make recongise that if the chairman appoints a below par manager, then it is his responsibility when things **** up. Go on, make the connection, do the maths etc etc.

 

Thompers, seriously. I've said loads of times that they made a huge mistake by appointing Souness. I even said it in the post you've quoted. Are you suggesting that Souness should have stayed and Fred left? That perhaps when any club does badly it's not the manager who should get the bullet, but the Chairman??

 

Nobody is saying that fred should get the bullet for the bad decision, the question was whether Shepherd is a good chairman, and we've established that he's made bad appointments (after undermiming then sacking one of our best ever managers), thrown money at those bad appointments, opens his trap and talks shite way too often and has taken the club backwards from the SJH reign. Despite all of these facts, you seem unable to bring yourself to admit that he's a poor chairman. The only department in which he excells is financially, but even that is down to what SJH built.

[Guest Canny_Fettle]

 

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?!

 

Chairman - The highest-ranking executive in a corporation. The chairman leads the board of directors in setting broad corporate goals and determining if managers are, in fact, pursuing and achieving those goals. In large corporations the chairman is not ordinarily involved in day-to-day operational activities

 

Manager - 3. Sports.

One who is in charge of the training and performance of an athlete or a team.

 

We went backwards during the time Souness was manager. Yes, Fred and the Board made a mistake by appointing Souness, they then did their job by sacking him when they realised he was shit, but we went backwards because of the performance of the manager. It seems that despite weeks of being told this you still don't understand it. Are you thick, or something? Believe me when I say this, IF the Board was really shit you and your type would have stopped supporting the club by now, just like thousands did when the Board was shit, hence the sub 20,000 crowds rather than what we see today.

 

And you still can't make recongise that if the chairman appoints a below par manager, then it is his responsibility when things **** up. Go on, make the connection, do the maths etc etc.

 

Thompers, seriously. I've said loads of times that they made a huge mistake by appointing Souness. I even said it in the post you've quoted. Are you suggesting that Souness should have stayed and Fred left? That perhaps when any club does badly it's not the manager who should get the bullet, but the Chairman??

 

Nobody is saying that fred should get the bullet for the bad decision, the question was whether Shepherd is a good chairman, and we've established that he's made bad appointments (after undermiming then sacking one of our best ever managers), thrown money at those bad appointments, opens his trap and talks shite way too often and has taken the club backwards from the SJH reign. Despite all of these facts, you seem unable to bring yourself to admit that he's a poor chairman. The only department in which he excells is financially, but even that is down to what SJH built.

Thompers - i don't think he's a poor Chairman but also i don't think he's a good Chairman.  Having said that he has more negatives then positives.

 

Positives:

 

1. He always seems to find cash for transfers - he does back his managers in this department however bad they may be;

2. He is not Doug Ellis;

3. I think he genuinely wants the club to be successful - he sees the potential of NUFC but doesn't  have the right skills to realise that potential;

 

Negatives:

 

1. Too involved in the day to day running of the club;

2. Doesn't really have that much say in the real decisions - those are made by the Halls (majority shareholders) and he is just the mouth piece (bit like Blair and Bush!!!);

3. To wrapped up in the Geordie nation concept - it's all right spouting it but he actually believes it.  The days of 11 geordies playing for NUFC have long gone and he needs to realise that.  Football has moved on a lot;

4. He talks utter shite;

5. Likes the publicity to much - bit of an ego trip for him;

6. Short termist - only thinks upto the next dividend payouts.  A Chairman should have long term plan showing the direction the club should be going in - however will not happen when the deputy chairman and the Chairman are the main shareholders;

7. He was either born a total d**kheed or has perfected being a total d**kheed over his 59 years on this planet.

 

[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

 

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?!

 

Chairman - The highest-ranking executive in a corporation. The chairman leads the board of directors in setting broad corporate goals and determining if managers are, in fact, pursuing and achieving those goals. In large corporations the chairman is not ordinarily involved in day-to-day operational activities

 

Manager -  3. Sports.

        One who is in charge of the training and performance of an athlete or a team.

 

We went backwards during the time Souness was manager. Yes, Fred and the Board made a mistake by appointing Souness, they then did their job by sacking him when they realised he was shit, but we went backwards because of the performance of the manager. It seems that despite weeks of being told this you still don't understand it. Are you thick, or something?  Believe me when I say this, IF the Board was really shit you and your type would have stopped supporting the club by now, just like thousands did when the Board was shit, hence the sub 20,000 crowds rather than what we see today.

 

And you still can't make recongise that if the chairman appoints a below par manager, then it is his responsibility when things **** up. Go on, make the connection, do the maths etc etc.

 

Thompers, seriously. I've said loads of times that they made a huge mistake by appointing Souness. I even said it in the post you've quoted. Are you suggesting that Souness should have stayed and Fred left? That perhaps when any club does badly it's not the manager who should get the bullet, but the Chairman??

 

Nobody is saying that fred should get the bullet for the bad decision, the question was whether Shepherd is a good chairman, and we've established that he's made bad appointments (after undermiming then sacking one of our best ever managers), thrown money at those bad appointments, opens his trap and talks shite way too often and has taken the club backwards from the SJH reign. Despite all of these facts, you seem unable to bring yourself to admit that he's a poor chairman. The only department in which he excells is financially, but even that is down to what SJH built.

 

Without the benefit of hindsight he's made one bad managerial appointment. Nobody can predict the future, the other managers appointed by Fred were based on very, very good track records, even exceptional track records. The reason I don't admit he's a bad Chairman isn't because I can't bring myself to admit it, it's because I don't think he's a bad Chairman.

 

I know you find it patronising to suggest that I don't think he's bad because I've seen far worse, but I'm afraid that is the fact of the situation. The only scenario I can give you is to ask you what you would think had Shearer come through the ranks, reached the brink of the national team and then left us for a club like Spurs ( or even West Ham ) on the basis they are showing more ambition to succeed.

Just think about it for a minute before bursting into abuse.

[Guest Canny_Fettle]

 

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?!

 

Chairman - The highest-ranking executive in a corporation. The chairman leads the board of directors in setting broad corporate goals and determining if managers are, in fact, pursuing and achieving those goals. In large corporations the chairman is not ordinarily involved in day-to-day operational activities

 

Manager - 3. Sports.

One who is in charge of the training and performance of an athlete or a team.

 

We went backwards during the time Souness was manager. Yes, Fred and the Board made a mistake by appointing Souness, they then did their job by sacking him when they realised he was shit, but we went backwards because of the performance of the manager. It seems that despite weeks of being told this you still don't understand it. Are you thick, or something? Believe me when I say this, IF the Board was really shit you and your type would have stopped supporting the club by now, just like thousands did when the Board was shit, hence the sub 20,000 crowds rather than what we see today.

 

And you still can't make recongise that if the chairman appoints a below par manager, then it is his responsibility when things **** up. Go on, make the connection, do the maths etc etc.

 

Thompers, seriously. I've said loads of times that they made a huge mistake by appointing Souness. I even said it in the post you've quoted. Are you suggesting that Souness should have stayed and Fred left? That perhaps when any club does badly it's not the manager who should get the bullet, but the Chairman??

 

Nobody is saying that fred should get the bullet for the bad decision, the question was whether Shepherd is a good chairman, and we've established that he's made bad appointments (after undermiming then sacking one of our best ever managers), thrown money at those bad appointments, opens his trap and talks shite way too often and has taken the club backwards from the SJH reign. Despite all of these facts, you seem unable to bring yourself to admit that he's a poor chairman. The only department in which he excells is financially, but even that is down to what SJH built.

 

Without the benefit of hindsight he's made one bad managerial appointment. Nobody can predict the future, the other managers appointed by Fred were based on very, very good track records, even exceptional track records. The reason I don't admit he's a bad Chairman isn't because I can't bring myself to admit it, it's because I don't think he's a bad Chairman.

 

I know you find it patronising to suggest that I don't think he's bad because I've seen far worse, but I'm afraid that is the fact of the situation. The only scenario I can give you is to ask you what you would think had Shearer come through the ranks, reached the brink of the national team and then left us for a club like Spurs ( or even West Ham ) on the basis they are showing more ambition to succeed.

Just think about it for a minute before bursting into abuse.

Hopefully those days are long gone - they were truly depressing times eh HTL?

[Guest bobjonson]

 

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?!

 

Chairman - The highest-ranking executive in a corporation. The chairman leads the board of directors in setting broad corporate goals and determining if managers are, in fact, pursuing and achieving those goals. In large corporations the chairman is not ordinarily involved in day-to-day operational activities

 

Manager - 3. Sports.

One who is in charge of the training and performance of an athlete or a team.

 

We went backwards during the time Souness was manager. Yes, Fred and the Board made a mistake by appointing Souness, they then did their job by sacking him when they realised he was shit, but we went backwards because of the performance of the manager. It seems that despite weeks of being told this you still don't understand it. Are you thick, or something? Believe me when I say this, IF the Board was really shit you and your type would have stopped supporting the club by now, just like thousands did when the Board was shit, hence the sub 20,000 crowds rather than what we see today.

 

And you still can't make recongise that if the chairman appoints a below par manager, then it is his responsibility when things **** up. Go on, make the connection, do the maths etc etc.

 

Thompers, seriously. I've said loads of times that they made a huge mistake by appointing Souness. I even said it in the post you've quoted. Are you suggesting that Souness should have stayed and Fred left? That perhaps when any club does badly it's not the manager who should get the bullet, but the Chairman??

 

Nobody is saying that fred should get the bullet for the bad decision, the question was whether Shepherd is a good chairman, and we've established that he's made bad appointments (after undermiming then sacking one of our best ever managers), thrown money at those bad appointments, opens his trap and talks shite way too often and has taken the club backwards from the SJH reign. Despite all of these facts, you seem unable to bring yourself to admit that he's a poor chairman. The only department in which he excells is financially, but even that is down to what SJH built.

Thompers - i don't think he's a poor Chairman but also i don't think he's a good Chairman.  Having said that he has more negatives then positives.

 

Positives:

 

1. He always seems to find cash for transfers - he does back his managers in this department however bad they may be;

2. He is not Doug Ellis;

3. I think he genuinely wants the club to be successful - he sees the potential of NUFC but doesn't  have the right skills to realise that potential;

 

Negatives:

 

1. Too involved in the day to day running of the club;

2. Doesn't really have that much say in the real decisions - those are made by the Halls (majority shareholders) and he is just the mouth piece (bit like Blair and Bush!!!);

3. To wrapped up in the Geordie nation concept - it's all right spouting it but he actually believes it.  The days of 11 geordies playing for NUFC have long gone and he needs to realise that.  Football has moved on a lot;

4. He talks utter shite;

5. Likes the publicity to much - bit of an ego trip for him;

6. Short termist - only thinks upto the next dividend payouts.  A Chairman should have long term plan showing the direction the club should be going in - however will not happen when the deputy chairman and the Chairman are the main shareholders;

7. He was either born a total d**kheed or has perfected being a total d**kheed over his 59 years on this planet.

 

 

so what are you trying to say?

[Howaythelads]

The current lot are not perfect, but those days of no ambition are long gone, yes.

 

 

[Guest bobjonson]

The current lot are not perfect, but those days of no ambition are long gone, yes.

 

 

 

been said before mate, and no doubt will have to be said a thousand times more.

 

Freddy is by no means perfect, he's been a wanker and has cocked up plenty of times.

 

However, he has been there in our most impressive and illustrious times in recent memory, has constatly backed his managers with money, etc etc.

 

The club now is almost unrecognisible from the one I first went to in the mid 70's, and he has had a large part to play in this.

 

But, some people will only believe what ssn says bluesigh.gif bluesigh.gif

[NE5]

well, as Mick chose to bring grants for the 1966 World Cup and the building of the East Stand into this debate, I am disappointed he hasn't responded further to the points raised on page 7 onwards in this thread.

 

Of course, I'm sure its not an oversight, as nobody in mature forums deliberately ignores questions, as it just isn't in keeping with the spirit of the thing, but as he thought these subjects were relevant, I would like to hear his views on the responses myself and NE15 have posted.

 

 

[Mowen]

The current lot are not perfect, but those days of no ambition are long gone, yes.

 

Absolutley. I don't want to get involved with this thread, as they all seem to go in circles, but this seems to sum it up perfectly. They are an improvement on the past - obviously. They're not perfect, and some people seem not to want to accept a board that isn't. There is some interesting debate in these threads, but they just seem to get so bogged down in petty argument.

[NE5]

The current lot are not perfect, but those days of no ambition are long gone, yes.

 

Absolutley. I don't want to get involved with this thread, as they all seem to go in circles, but this seems to sum it up perfectly. They are an improvement on the past - obviously. They're not perfect, and some people won't accept that. There is some interesting debate in these threads, but they just seem to get so bogged down in petty argument.

 

Well, I don't think the board are perfect, and have never said so. All I have done is put the last decade into its context, and point out how much better off we are than we were for over 30 years pre-1992, and in doing so point out the reality of the fact that replacing them with better people would be a very difficult task and certainly not an automatic improvement, like some appear to think, although they don't refute the facts that are posted up to back up my own comments.

 

At the moment, I would like Mick to respond, but I'm sure in a mature forum, he will.

 

 

[Mick]

well, as Mick chose to bring grants for the 1966 World Cup and the building of the East Stand into this debate, I am disappointed he hasn't responded further to the points raised on page 7 onwards in this thread.

 

Of course, I'm sure its not an oversight, as nobody in mature forums deliberately ignores questions, as it just isn't in keeping with the spirit of the thing, but as he thought these subjects were relevant, I would like to hear his views on the responses myself and NE15 have posted.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to call you an idiot so I'll not, I've been away all week until Friday evening so had limited time on here when I have managed to get on.  It's a company PC using a company internet connection so I have to take care what I use it for and when I'm on here it's usually with my web browser minimised so that nobody can see what I'm doing.

 

Back to your complaint about the time it's taken to reply to this, see http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,26161.msg476203.html#msg476203

[Mowen]

The current lot are not perfect, but those days of no ambition are long gone, yes.

 

Absolutley. I don't want to get involved with this thread, as they all seem to go in circles, but this seems to sum it up perfectly. They are an improvement on the past - obviously. They're not perfect, and some people won't accept that. There is some interesting debate in these threads, but they just seem to get so bogged down in petty argument.

 

Well, I don't think the board are perfect, and have never said so. All I have done is put the last decade into its context, and point out how much better off we are than we were for over 30 years pre-1992, and in doing so point out the reality of the fact that replacing them with better people would be a very difficult task and certainly not an automatic improvement, like some appear to think, although they don't refute the facts that are posted up to back up my own comments.

 

At the moment, I would like Mick to respond, but I'm sure in a mature forum, he will.

 

 

 

Sorry, just realised I posted in an ambiguous way. What I meant by saying "They're not perfect, and some people won't accept that." is that some people seem unwilling to accept a board that isn't perfect, looking back could have been phrased much better! Will edit.

[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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Regarding the teams who won stuff between 1966 and 1973, maybe you can do the same and tell us why Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea with and without Abramovich, Boro, Blackburn, Leicester and Spurs have won something since Freedy became our chairman and we have not.  Is this some sort of master plan to success that none of us less informed are aware of?

 

Regarding how much the grants were, I've no idea, here's something from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Manchester_United check out the section headed "Rebuilding."

 

That season was significant in other ways too, as England were hosting the 1966 World Cup and had announced that Old Trafford would be among the stadiums to be upgraded at the government's expense.

 

Regarding how they got them, I seem to remember some problems between the football club and the council and also something about not owning our ground, prove I'm wrong if you can.

[Howaythelads]

Mick

 

Whether or not other clubs received these grants and we didn't is nothing to do with how much ambition Newcastle's Board had at that time.

 

The actions of our Board, by continually selling our best players whenever a more ambitious club ( West Ham, for example ) came in for them tells the story. I'm not at all sure why you brought up grants in the first place, as it makes no difference to the discussion.

 

We did not HAVE to sell our best players because we didn't get a grant. We had the same opportunity as those other clubs to buy and/or sell players. Our Board took the selling route when they didn't need to. They took that route because their ambition was not high enough. I don't why you're finding it so difficult to understand that.

[Guest thompers]

Hamman in his prime and Woodgate when fit were the two best players of their positions we've seen here in the last decade and both were sold so don't give us that shit to be honest!

[NE5]

well, as Mick chose to bring grants for the 1966 World Cup and the building of the East Stand into this debate, I am disappointed he hasn't responded further to the points raised on page 7 onwards in this thread.

 

Of course, I'm sure its not an oversight, as nobody in mature forums deliberately ignores questions, as it just isn't in keeping with the spirit of the thing, but as he thought these subjects were relevant, I would like to hear his views on the responses myself and NE15 have posted.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to call you an idiot so I'll not, I've been away all week until Friday evening so had limited time on here when I have managed to get on.  It's a company PC using a company internet connection so I have to take care what I use it for and when I'm on here it's usually with my web browser minimised so that nobody can see what I'm doing.

 

Back to your complaint about the time it's taken to reply to this, see http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,26161.msg476203.html#msg476203

 

Well I haven't spent all week on the board either, and I can't be arsed to look through all the posts, I looked at my own postings, saw you had been logged on and not replied, so forgive me if I didn't conclude from that, that your time online had been limited and so, no,

on that basis I don't give a toss who you call an idiot for jumping to conclusions .......

 

 

[NE5]

well, as Mick chose to bring grants for the 1966 World Cup and the building of the East Stand into this debate, I am disappointed he hasn't responded further to the points raised on page 7 onwards in this thread.

 

Of course, I'm sure its not an oversight, as nobody in mature forums deliberately ignores questions, as it just isn't in keeping with the spirit of the thing, but as he thought these subjects were relevant, I would like to hear his views on the responses myself and NE15 have posted.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to call you an idiot so I'll not, I've been away all week until Friday evening so had limited time on here when I have managed to get on.  It's a company PC using a company internet connection so I have to take care what I use it for and when I'm on here it's usually with my web browser minimised so that nobody can see what I'm doing.

 

Back to your complaint about the time it's taken to reply to this, see http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,26161.msg476203.html#msg476203

 

Well I haven't spent all week on the board either, and I can't be arsed to look through all the posts, I looked at my own postings, saw you had been logged on and not replied, so forgive me if I didn't conclude from that, that your time online had been limited and so, no,

on that basis I don't give a toss who you call an idiot for jumping to conclusions .......

 

 

Now - Mick is quite clearly stating here he is wondering if he is allowed to call people idiots, then he goes on to link me to a "reply", which was earlier than post numbers 167-170 which I have referred him to, that he hasn't replied to yet.

 

You couldn't make it up.

 

BTW, I've also corrected misleading info you posted in post nr 154 in the "ronaldo for 10m" thread which I am also interested in your further views on, as well as the posts mentioned above.

[Howaythelads]

Hamman in his prime and Woodgate when fit were the two best players of their positions we've seen here in the last decade and both were sold so don't give us that shit to be honest!

 

There's only one person being honest in our exchanges, mate. And it's not you, like.