What would it take to get the spark back?

[NE5]

So do you think it's acceptable that the club is losing £1million every month, LeazesMagNE5?

 

I believe there are quite a lot of people around who are continuing to - hypothetically, in true Championship Manager style -  spend the clubs money that might have an answer to this ?

 

 

 

But you don't want to answer it?

 

What a stupid question. As I said, direct it at those who think we should keep spending 

 

What is your solution, by the way ? Before you reply, don't insinuate that we are the only club with a big "manageable" debt, because we are not, and also tell us how many other clubs are making a profit - and also tell us if you were happy with a club running a tight ship, not taking risks, and sitting in genuine mediocrity as a result.

 

 

 

If you answer my question then I'll answer yours.

 

Someone as clever as you, because you post on toontastic, ought to be able to work out that my reply is there for you to see in that last post.

 

 

[Baggio]

It isn't.

[NE5]

It isn't.

 

it is.

 

You can now direct your question that you asked me to those who think we should still be spending money.

 

You can also answer my question about Berbatov in the other thread, if you haven't already done so.

 

And you can also give us your solution to our debt, as we are the only club in the game with a debt. 

[Baggio]

It isn't.

 

it is.

 

You can now direct your question that you asked me to those who think we should still be spending money.

 

You can also answer my question about Berbatov in the other thread, if you haven't already done so.

 

And you can also give us your solution to our debt, as we are the only club in the game with a debt. 

 

Asking me to ask someone else so you can avoid saying it's unacceptable and putting Shepherd in a bad light tbh.

 

I've said how we should go about reducing our debt on toontastic, you are not interested in that though and seem happy the way the club is going, even if we are losing £1 million a month.

 

I've answered your question in the Berbatov thread, any more questions you want to ask me you can do so in the West Ham thread on toontastic.

[Mick]

 

it is.

 

You can now direct your question that you asked me to those who think we should still be spending money.

 

You can also answer my question about Berbatov in the other thread, if you haven't already done so.

 

And you can also give us your solution to our debt, as we are the only club in the game with a debt. 

 

Agreed, Bagio, it's up to you to solve our debt problem, sort it out and quick.

[Mick]

 

Asking me to ask someone else so you can avoid saying it's unacceptable and putting Shepherd in a bad light tbh.

 

I've said how we should go about reducing our debt on toontastic, you are not interested in that though and seem happy the way the club is going, even if we are losing £1 million a month.

 

I've answered your question in the Berbatov thread, any more questions you want to ask me you can do so in the West Ham thread on toontastic.

 

Look, let's get this straight.  If you don't come up with an answer then the clubs debt problems are down to you the same as the clubs problems are down to those who supported Souness once he was given the managers job, they have nothing to do with anybody else.

 

God, you're a slow learner.

[NE5]

 

it is.

 

You can now direct your question that you asked me to those who think we should still be spending money.

 

You can also answer my question about Berbatov in the other thread, if you haven't already done so.

 

And you can also give us your solution to our debt, as we are the only club in the game with a debt. 

 

Agreed, Bagio, it's up to you to solve our debt problem, sort it out and quick.

 

Did you attempt to buy shares when we - sorry, not you - were watching genuine mediocrity and bankruptcy ?

 

I don't expect you to answer this, as you never do when you can't.

 

Or maybe the answer will be "no", as I suspect is the case.

 

 

[NE5]

 

Asking me to ask someone else so you can avoid saying it's unacceptable and putting Shepherd in a bad light tbh.

 

I've said how we should go about reducing our debt on toontastic, you are not interested in that though and seem happy the way the club is going, even if we are losing £1 million a month.

 

I've answered your question in the Berbatov thread, any more questions you want to ask me you can do so in the West Ham thread on toontastic.

 

Look, let's get this straight.  If you don't come up with an answer then the clubs debt problems are down to you the same as the clubs problems are down to those who supported Souness once he was given the managers job, they have nothing to do with anybody else.

 

God, you're a slow learner.

 

of course, the answer is obvious, which is why you can't see it ............ 

[Mick]

 

Did you attempt to buy shares when we - sorry, not you - were watching genuine mediocrity and bankruptcy ?

 

I don't expect you to answer this, as you never do when you can't.

 

Or maybe the answer will be "no", as I suspect is the case.

 

 

 

Actually you know I've answered this in the past, I did try to but shares in the club when Sir John wanted to the fans to buy in.  The fact that I thought the minimum amount was £500 isn't relevant as it was so long ago.

 

I  can't even remember how I applied but it was probably something which was printed in the Chronicle but I wouldn't hold my breath on that being right.

[Guest Knightrider]

To reduce that alarming debt, we need to qualify for Europe regularly and finish as high as we can in the league while be prudent in the transfer market. However hiring crap to average managers, and spending big to compensate for that, is not the way to go about it and indeed, why we are in a mess financially. Equally, if you don't spend money, you won't get any better, so it is a catch 22. But it all comes back to the manager, a good manager wouldn't waste money and can get results without the aid of an open cheque book. TYhe club are now, due to their incompetence, in a bad position that they have no control over, a position that will dictate them not the otherway around.

 

Because Roeder is an average manager, he will need money to compensate for his shortfall, yet there is no guarantee he can make up for it via the transfer market, in fact history has proven 9 times out of 10, throwing money at crap managers is counterproductive and very dangerous.

 

Also, because we are average at the moment, if fans don't see some progress or ambition to sign good players to help improve the team or to at least get a bit of value for money, they will stop going or lose interest which again, isn't good for the finances.

 

That is what happens when you make poor managerial appointments. Our situation is all down to the board, this whole mess, leads all the way to their doors.

 

We have no money, but they have to release funds, otherwise relegation could become a real posibility.

 

The best thing this board could do, is sack Roeder and spend big not on players, but a genuine top-class manager, who will in time, put us back on track and a back on track team will generate its own funds to sustain success.

 

But this board don't do logic.

 

At the moment we are hoping, hoping Roeder doesn't waste money, hoping he can make up for his short falls via the transfer market, and hoping to ride the debt. As a result any success will be by chance and not by design. That is a wreckless way to run a football club and will never ever bring tangible success, any success will be short lived. A boom and bust cycle has been created at Newcastle and it will be very hard to break that chain, very hard, specially in today's climate.

[Mick]

To reduce that alarming debt, we need to qualify for Europe regularly and finish as high as we can in the league while be prudent in the transfer market. However hiring crap to average managers, and spending big to compensate for that, is not the way to go about it and indeed, why we are in a mess financially. Equally, if you don't spend money, you won't get any better, so it is a catch 22. But it all comes back to the manager, a good manager wouldn't waste money and can get results without the aid of an open cheque book. TYhe club are now, due to their incompetence, in a bad position that they have no control over, a position that will dictate them not the otherway around.

 

Because Roeder is an average manager, he will need money to compensate for his shortfall, yet there is no guarantee he can make up for it via the transfer market, in fact history has proven 9 times out of 10, throwing money at crap managers is counterproductive and very dangerous.

 

Also, because we are average at the moment, if fans don't see some progress or ambition to sign good players to help improve the team or to at least get a bit of value for money, they will stop going or lose interest which again, isn't good for the finances.

 

That is what happens when you make poor managerial appointments. Our situation is all down to the board, this whole mess, leads all the way to their doors.

 

We have no money, but they have to release funds, otherwise relegation could become a real posibility.

 

The best thing this board could do, is sack Roeder and spend big not on players, but a genuine top-class manager, who will in time, put us back on track and a back on track team will generate its own funds to sustain success.

 

But this board don't do logic.

 

At the moment we are hoping, hoping Roeder doesn't waste money, hoping he can make up for his short falls via the transfer market, and hoping to ride the debt. As a result any success will be by chance and not by design. That is a wreckless way to run a football club and will never ever bring tangible success, any success will be short lived. A boom and bust cycle has been created at Newcastle and it will be very hard to break that chain, very hard, specially in today's climate.

 

Spot on. 

[Guest Knightrider]

Has anyone seen Seconds From Disaster on Discovery? They should do a show on NUFC.

[Guest BooBoo]

That was a good post HTT, although i fully expect the Brothers Dimm to pull it apart with their "facts", real fan bull and childish smilies.

 

 

[Mick]

Has anyone seen Seconds From Disaster on Discovery? They should do a show on NUFC.

 

I've not seen it but the title gives enough of a hint as to what it's about.

 

You're right above though, it is catch 22, damned if we do spend and damned if we don't as we're in such a state, at least we've got the extra money coming in soon from Sky, it's just a pity a lot of it will go towards financing our debt instead of strengthening the playing staff.

[Baggio]

That was a good post HTT, although i fully expect the Brothers Dimm to pull it apart with their "facts", real fan bull and childish smilies.

 

 

 

It'll be interesting to see what NE5's opinion of it is.

[macbeth]

That was a good post HTT, although i fully expect the Brothers Dimm to pull it apart with their "facts", real fan bull and childish smilies.

 

 

 

It'll be interesting to see what NE5's opinion of it is.

 

its obvious

[Mick]

 

It'll be interesting to see what NE5's opinion of it is.

 

I have no doubt at all that he'll read it and agree with it as it just about sums up our current situation.

[macbeth]

FYI.....my reference to "lies" is when you said you were happy with the way the club was run, up until about 2003  [although the significanct factor here is the imminent appointment of Souness which I bet you fail to grasp] until I found you whinging on about dividends in 1998 in the Mag.

 

Very good. The reason the finances started to spiral out iof control in 2003 was the imminent arrival of Souness in September 2004 ? So the board had the foresight to start putting poor policy in place knowing they would soon have Souness comingas an excuse ??

 

And, it was pointed out on the old board to you, by a person, that your website produces certain figures in a misleading manner, or an incomplete manner [deliberately ?] to present them in a way to suit your agenda, which as we all know, is a bitter one since the club refused you and your committee a say in running the club ........ 

And how did I respond to those comments ? I know you don't do answers, so I'll tell you. I found the bit that may have presented the board in a bad way and changed it. The site had figures supplied to me by Freddie Shepherd. I have gone out of my way to present them clearly, and to let others draw their own conclusions. There is a single page which is named "2006 Comment" which I was asked by many to do. I have on many times asked you, and any one else, to supply me  with other information that I could add to the site. The information has to be fact, it has to be backed up by detail that would stand up in a court of law. You supply it to me, I'll put it there. I've been surprised that you have repeatedly turned this offer. The site has had over 85,000 hits. The opportunity is there, as always, for you to have the truth presented as you see it. But it MUST be fact, not hearsay or opinion.

The club made one attempt at suggesting I took the site down, I just asked them, as I have asked you, to point out which bits were incorrect.

 

Which is funny, because would YOU allow someone to have an input into running YOUR company ?

Absolutely I would. If my company was losing money at the rate my football team are I would listen to all sorts of help.

 

 

[Baggio]

The club made one attempt at suggesting I took the site down

 

Really?

[NE5]

 

Did you attempt to buy shares when we - sorry, not you - were watching genuine mediocrity and bankruptcy ?

 

I don't expect you to answer this, as you never do when you can't.

 

Or maybe the answer will be "no", as I suspect is the case.

 

 

 

Actually you know I've answered this in the past, I did try to but shares in the club when Sir John wanted to the fans to buy in.  The fact that I thought the minimum amount was £500 isn't relevant as it was so long ago.

 

I  can't even remember how I applied but it was probably something which was printed in the Chronicle but I wouldn't hold my breath on that being right.

 

 

HOHO. Nice try. Despite you saying you know the club, and despite me telling you this previously, the amount of money the club asked when the share issue failed to raise 2.5m quid was in fact £100, not £500 as you said, is relevant. It is relevant because it shows you haven't a clue what you are talking about. 

 

You must be getting old  :lol: or have a poor memory, or both.

 

The club with the "loyal supporters" ended up in such apathy, the actual amount raised was 1.25m, and that included local businesses. But you will carry on telling people that the current board are "just the same".

 

You couldn't make it up, although KK bandwagon jumpers do it all the time.  :lol:

[Guest Knightrider]

Has anyone seen Seconds From Disaster on Discovery? They should do a show on NUFC.

 

I've not seen it but the title gives enough of a hint as to what it's about.

 

You're right above though, it is catch 22, damned if we do spend and damned if we don't as we're in such a state, at least we've got the extra money coming in soon from Sky, it's just a pity a lot of it will go towards financing our debt instead of strengthening the playing staff.

 

It basically looks through a disaster, piecing together the chain of events that lead up to it, who or what was to blame and what could have been done to prevent it, and as with most of these disasters, human error is the cause, and even the smallest chink in the chain can cause a disaster.

 

Whenever I watch it it reminds me of all the errors that have been made over the years, from not spending in 2003, to undermining SBR before a ball had been kicked, from sacking him a few weeks into the season and on the eve of the transfer window closure, to appointing Souness a week later, handing him £50m, then sacking him on the eve of another transfer window, finally appointing Roeder and wondering how to stop debts of £1m a month, while balancing a reverse in fortunes on the pitch to appease a full city not amused at all.

[Mick]

 

 

HOHO. Nice try. Despite you saying you know the club, and despite me telling you this previously, the amount of money the club asked when the share issue failed to raise 2.5m quid was in fact £100, not £500 as you said, is relevant. It is relevant because it shows you haven't a clue what you are talking about. 

 

You must be getting old  :lol: or have a poor memory, or both.

 

The club with the "loyal supporters" ended up in such apathy, the actual amount raised was 1.25m, and that included local businesses. But you will carry on telling people that the current board are "just the same".

 

You couldn't make it up, although KK bandwagon jumpers do it all the time.  :lol:

 

Nice Santa Clause impression above.

 

Getting old, poor memory or just more interesting things to remember.  If it was more important then I would have remembered, if it had happened and the money came out of my bank account then I would have remembered, it didn't happen so it was no more than a pledge and the money was spent elsewhere.

[Mick]

 

It basically looks through a disaster, piecing together the chain of events that lead up to it, who or what was to blame and what could have been done to prevent it, and as with most of these disasters, human error is the cause, and even the smallest chink in the chain can cause a disaster.

 

Whenever I watch it it reminds me of all the errors that have been made over the years, from not spending in 2003, to undermining SBR before a ball had been kicked, from sacking him a few weeks into the season and on the eve of the transfer window closure, to appointing Souness a week later, handing him £50m, then sacking him on the eve of another transfer window, finally appointing Roeder and wondering how to stop debts of £1m a month, while balancing a reverse in fortunes on the pitch to appease a full city not amused at all.

 

I would like to see something like that going back to the old board just so we would know where to point the finger for the state of the club before Sir John turned up.

 

McKeag gets a lot of the blame but I think his hands were probably tied because of what he took over, I'm not saying he would have done better if he'd had a bit more to work with.  Stan Seymour tried to do something while he was at the club but didn't have the bottle to push on and take the club up a level, I have no idea how much of this was down to finances but even what he did achieve wouldn't have happened without the brewery putting cash into the club to pay for Keegan.

 

Where did it all go wrong?

 

I guess that we'll never know.  I do know that a journalist was going to do a book on the mismanagement of the club, somebody who worked for the Journal or Chronicle, I don't think he ever took it any further than thinking about it.

 

I would love to read a well researched book to get an idea of the decisions reached and what information was used to come to these decisions.

[NE5]

To reduce that alarming debt, we need to qualify for Europe regularly and finish as high as we can in the league while be prudent in the transfer market. However hiring crap to average managers, and spending big to compensate for that, is not the way to go about it and indeed, why we are in a mess financially. Equally, if you don't spend money, you won't get any better, so it is a catch 22. But it all comes back to the manager, a good manager wouldn't waste money and can get results without the aid of an open cheque book. TYhe club are now, due to their incompetence, in a bad position that they have no control over, a position that will dictate them not the otherway around.

 

The aim of every club is to qualify for europe as cheaply as possible. Why do you think very few manage it ?

 

Its all well and good saying we backed a poor manager to the hilt, I have always said this, but many people supported it, and there are still people around who back and defend him selling our best player, you do, resulting in the club, to date, spending 37m quid since replacing him and Shearer, and still not having replaced them adequately. Throw in 5m quid for Duff, who was only bought because the Spanish tosser with no heart was failing, and that figure becomes 42m quid.

 

Because Roeder is an average manager, he will need money to compensate for his shortfall, yet there is no guarantee he can make up for it via the transfer market, in fact history has proven 9 times out of 10, throwing money at crap managers is counterproductive and very dangerous.

 

you have defended Roeders appointment elsewhere. What do you call "good" managers ? Ones with winning track records, like Dalglish and Gullitt ? I know you wanted Hitzfeld, but what would you have said if we had appointed him and he had had the same results as Dalglish and Gullit ? Very few managers have the track record of Dalglish.

 

Also, because we are average at the moment, if fans don't see some progress or ambition to sign good players to help improve the team or to at least get a bit of value for money, they will stop going or lose interest which again, isn't good for the finances.

 

That is what happens when you make poor managerial appointments. Our situation is all down to the board, this whole mess, leads all the way to their doors.

 

The seasons in the Champions League is down to them too. Maybe their time is up, lets hope they are replaced by a board who doesn't give us real mediocrity, because the path of spending zero money or little money and taking no risks or showing ambition, is precisely where that road leads mate. And if we get a board with no ambition, then the "trophy signings" that people harp on about, whoever those players are, will be nothing but a fond memory too.

 

We have no money, but they have to release funds, otherwise relegation could become a real posibility.

 

The best thing this board could do, is sack Roeder and spend big not on players, but a genuine top-class manager, who will in time, put us back on track and a back on track team will generate its own funds to sustain success.

 

Well, I've been saying this myself, but people like Baggio and macbeth keep harping on about "plans", "CEO" "media men", "marketing managers" etc etc. .... 

 

 

[Syrette]

Them crazy people and their "plans" eh. What a stupid idea that is.