Howaythelads Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 shame that after all this time, you STILL don't see the point I make, and forgot the dozens of people on here - at least - who are, unlike me, urging the club to continue spending money like it is going out of existence - which is what the club almost did before the current board who saved it, but of course are no better than their predecessors in your opinion, who really did underperform and bankrupt the club But you can continue thinking having one foot in the 3rd division is the same a playing in europe regularly if you like. It wasn't the current board who saved the club, you're wrong. It was Sir John who covered loans and put some of his own money in. Sir John has since taken his money back, and lots more. He's no longer on the board and as far as I'm aware the only person who put anything into the club other than through investing in shares. well, I say that without Keegan he wouldn't have done it. And Keegan was not chosen as manager by Sir John, he was chosen by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. I am sure you are also aware that he also spouted on about the Geordie Nation rubbish that Shepherd is condemned for. So please explain the difference ? Also, the current board has continued in the same vein, ie backing their managers, with him as the major shareholder ever since. So nothing has changed in that respect, other than we - including the major shareholder - has been unable to find a manager as good as Keegan. Exactly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 well, I say that without Keegan he wouldn't have done it. And Keegan was not chosen as manager by Sir John, he was chosen by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. I am sure you are also aware that he also spouted on about the Geordie Nation rubbish that Shepherd is condemned for. So please explain the difference ? Also, the current board has continued in the same vein, ie backing their managers, with him as the major shareholder ever since. So nothing has changed in that respect, other than we - including the major shareholder - has been unable to find a manager as good as Keegan. It's the job of the chairman to appoint the right person, even you admitted that, Sir John didn't appoint a Souness or a Roeder as manager, do you not see any difference? Did you not say before we appointed Roeder that you thought Shepherd should go if he got it wrong again? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 just how many current England players have we signed in the last 5 years? how many international players have preferred to sign for anyone else but NUFC in the last 5 years? how many times have we qualified automatically in the last 5 years? how many times have we had to play extra games in a nonense competition just to get to the stage of automatic qualification in the past 5 years? *NE5 ignoring questions shocker* Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 just how many current England players have we signed in the last 5 years? how many international players have preferred to sign for anyone else but NUFC in the last 5 years? how many times have we qualified automatically in the last 5 years? how many times have we had to play extra games in a nonense competition just to get to the stage of automatic qualification in the past 5 years? *NE5 ignoring questions shocker* 1. Two - how many other club have signed England internationals. 2. Three 3. I've no idea, but nobody of note has wanted to leave the club, unlike other clubs and our own club in the past 4. Errr.......you miss the point. How many teams finished in a high enough position to qualify, is what you mean Next. Someone can answer the questions I put up regularly, including Mick who has been avoiding them for months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 well, I say that without Keegan he wouldn't have done it. And Keegan was not chosen as manager by Sir John, he was chosen by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. I am sure you are also aware that he also spouted on about the Geordie Nation rubbish that Shepherd is condemned for. So please explain the difference ? Also, the current board has continued in the same vein, ie backing their managers, with him as the major shareholder ever since. So nothing has changed in that respect, other than we - including the major shareholder - has been unable to find a manager as good as Keegan. It's the job of the chairman to appoint the right person, even you admitted that, Sir John didn't appoint a Souness or a Roeder as manager, do you not see any difference? Did you not say before we appointed Roeder that you thought Shepherd should go if he got it wrong again? How do you know the major shareholder didn't have the idea to appoint Souness ? The major shareholder has certainly pissed off after selling us his Geordie nation bollocks. I think it is premature to say Shepherd has got it "wrong" regarding Roeder yet, we are in europe. The old board that you think is the same as the current one qualified for europe 4 times in 30 years, and I bet you thought that was success. Therefore, if you are consistent - when you clearly are not - Roeder has been a success already, by your criteria. Please answer the question I asked you. Why is it OK for Sir John to spout the Geordie Nation bollocks, but it isn't when Shepherd does it ? Please give a response to the comment, that if as you say it is the job of the chairman to appoint the right man for the job, where you think we should find another Keegan or how all the other chairman in the game have not succeeded either in finding a manager as good as Keegan ? In fact, send your findings to the club after telling us all on here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Sorry, been down the pub. Have I missed the post where NE5 addresses the actual topic? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 well, I say that without Keegan he wouldn't have done it. And Keegan was not chosen as manager by Sir John, he was chosen by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. I am sure you are also aware that he also spouted on about the Geordie Nation rubbish that Shepherd is condemned for. So please explain the difference ? Why should we take Keegan's word as the truth? If you've read his book you'll know how bitter he is towards Sir John Hall over not speaking to him when he left the club, there's a good possibility that Keegan is saying that Sir John never wanted him as his way of getting back at him. Similar to how you believe all the things Sir Bobby says about Fat Fred in his book are bollocks because he's bitter about being sacked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alijmitchell Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 well, I say that without Keegan he wouldn't have done it. And Keegan was not chosen as manager by Sir John, he was chosen by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. I am sure you are also aware that he also spouted on about the Geordie Nation rubbish that Shepherd is condemned for. So please explain the difference ? Also, the current board has continued in the same vein, ie backing their managers, with him as the major shareholder ever since. So nothing has changed in that respect, other than we - including the major shareholder - has been unable to find a manager as good as Keegan. It's the job of the chairman to appoint the right person, even you admitted that, Sir John didn't appoint a Souness or a Roeder as manager, do you not see any difference? Did you not say before we appointed Roeder that you thought Shepherd should go if he got it wrong again? How do you know the major shareholder didn't have the idea to appoint Souness ? The major shareholder has certainly pissed off after selling us his Geordie nation bollocks. I think it is premature to say Shepherd has got it "wrong" regarding Roeder yet, we are in europe. The old board that you think is the same as the current one qualified for europe 4 times in 30 years, and I bet you thought that was success. Therefore, if you are consistent - when you clearly are not - Roeder has been a success already, by your criteria. Please answer the question I asked you. Why is it OK for Sir John to spout the Geordie Nation bollocks, but it isn't when Shepherd does it ? Please give a response to the comment, that if as you say it is the job of the chairman to appoint the right man for the job, where you think we should find another Keegan or how all the other chairman in the game have not succeeded either in finding a manager as good as Keegan ? In fact, send your findings to the club after telling us all on here. Is the reason that sjh got away with spouting shite about a geordie nation and sheperd doesn't simply just that under sjh we were on the crest of a wave, and it felt like we might even achieve success? In that respect, sjh was stoking the fire and getting the fans on board. When you're a succesful side, people don't really mind what you do as a chairman. Now, we are going nowhere on the back of terrible appointments and umpteen false dawns. The reason shepherd doesn't get away with it is because we don't ever look like doing anything and he can be blamed for it. Thus, the geordie nation shite is seen as patronising, as no-one likes shepherd and greater attention is paid to his failings Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Lowering our expectations. It's the only way to be happy in the end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 "not just our old boards were worse, but unless you haven't bothered to wake up in the real world, the vast majority of present day ones in the country are too. Unless we haven't actually qualified for europe more than everyone else bar 4 clubs. Oh, I must have made that up. Wait a moment, I haven't. Who exactly do you see that has came forward and shown the desire and ability to do better ? As for England. If you do not see the worth of a club buying current big England players, and think a club that buys such players is s****, then - as I said - you would not understand REAL apathy and mediocrity, if it hit you on the head with a rusty hammer. " woah, seems like we're getting somewhere, so: i take your point about ALL boards actually and it's an interesting one - i'd counter it, however, like i did the last time and say that football has never been so money oriented and a shift in the type of board you'll get in that case is inevitable...i'm not necessarily convinced that current boards are better, just that the amount of finances within the game mask their deficiencies much better than in the past you're right about no-one appearing to come along that's looks a strong candidate in the terms we want - but we're currently run by an ex-scrap merchant or whatever it was he did (whether or not he's a geordie is irrelevant) and for me if an outside company with a proven history of finacial success wanted to come in and take the club over then i'd argue things would likely get better more than they'd get worse....they'd realise that success on the field and stability in the club is the main driver to them making money in a correct fashion rather than increasing the clubs debt through a series of poor decisions and appointments i take it by current big england players you mean scott parker and kieron dyer - neither is a regular england starter and kieron dyer, frankly, is an utter travesty of a man and a footballer; a cancer that needs to be cut from the club....and by the way i'd never say NUFC was sh!t, thanks do me a favour and answer the original question 'cause it wasn't about the board as such - do you accept that watching NUFC currently is beyond boring? the football is terrible and through a variety of other factors (primarily the top four being so far in advance of everyone else, ill feeling toward the current board RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY) all we have to look forward to each season is a possible 6th place finish for the forseeable future....all of these things combined, some might suggest, could create feelings of apathy and despondancy for the supporters regardless of how apathetic and despondant they were 20 years ago? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 blah blah blah <snip> Good thing the way you quote makes your posts unreadable. By the way, while I'm killing (wasting) time having a coffee before heading off to work, how many logins do you have for your "copy and paste" stuff? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 unreadable huh? move along son.... what's this login and copy and paste bullsh!t? i'm the same person, always have been always will be Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Lowering our expectations. It's the only way to be happy in the end. That's depressing but probably true. It hurts to aim so high! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Is the reason that sjh got away with spouting s**** about a geordie nation and sheperd doesn't simply just that under sjh we were on the crest of a wave, and it felt like we might even achieve success? In that respect, sjh was stoking the fire and getting the fans on board. When you're a succesful side, people don't really mind what you do as a chairman. Now, we are going nowhere on the back of terrible appointments and umpteen false dawns. The reason shepherd doesn't get away with it is because we don't ever look like doing anything and he can be blamed for it. Thus, the geordie nation s**** is seen as patronising, as no-one likes shepherd and greater attention is paid to his failings Exactly, one was taking the club forwards the other is hiding behind it, he's also a Cumbrian who talks about being a Geordie. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 How do you know the major shareholder didn't have the idea to appoint Souness ? The major shareholder has certainly pissed off after selling us his Geordie nation bollocks. I think it is premature to say Shepherd has got it "wrong" regarding Roeder yet, we are in europe. The old board that you think is the same as the current one qualified for europe 4 times in 30 years, and I bet you thought that was success. Therefore, if you are consistent - when you clearly are not - Roeder has been a success already, by your criteria. Please answer the question I asked you. Why is it OK for Sir John to spout the Geordie Nation bollocks, but it isn't when Shepherd does it ? Please give a response to the comment, that if as you say it is the job of the chairman to appoint the right man for the job, where you think we should find another Keegan or how all the other chairman in the game have not succeeded either in finding a manager as good as Keegan ? In fact, send your findings to the club after telling us all on here. The major shareholder was recently being slagged off in the press for having nothing to do with the running of the club, Shepherd was having a go at him. I don't see how he can be blamed if he has nothing to do with the club. It's premature to write off Roeder but it was OK to slag off Souness from almost day 1, double standards and hypocrisy considering the record of Roeder at previous clubs is worse, how long should we wait? Shepherd isn't a Geordie and is taking the club backwards. As for another Keegan, how about Bobby Robson, he's not called Keegan but he did a good job, Keegan isn't a 1 off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 well, I say that without Keegan he wouldn't have done it. And Keegan was not chosen as manager by Sir John, he was chosen by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. I am sure you are also aware that he also spouted on about the Geordie Nation rubbish that Shepherd is condemned for. So please explain the difference ? Why should we take Keegan's word as the truth? If you've read his book you'll know how bitter he is towards Sir John Hall over not speaking to him when he left the club, there's a good possibility that Keegan is saying that Sir John never wanted him as his way of getting back at him. Similar to how you believe all the things Sir Bobby says about Fat Fred in his book are bollocks because he's bitter about being sacked. why do you only reply to half the post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 How do you know the major shareholder didn't have the idea to appoint Souness ? The major shareholder has certainly pissed off after selling us his Geordie nation bollocks. I think it is premature to say Shepherd has got it "wrong" regarding Roeder yet, we are in europe. The old board that you think is the same as the current one qualified for europe 4 times in 30 years, and I bet you thought that was success. Therefore, if you are consistent - when you clearly are not - Roeder has been a success already, by your criteria. Please answer the question I asked you. Why is it OK for Sir John to spout the Geordie Nation bollocks, but it isn't when Shepherd does it ? Please give a response to the comment, that if as you say it is the job of the chairman to appoint the right man for the job, where you think we should find another Keegan or how all the other chairman in the game have not succeeded either in finding a manager as good as Keegan ? In fact, send your findings to the club after telling us all on here. The major shareholder was recently being slagged off in the press for having nothing to do with the running of the club, Shepherd was having a go at him. I don't see how he can be blamed if he has nothing to do with the club. It's premature to write off Roeder but it was OK to slag off Souness from almost day 1, double standards and hypocrisy considering the record of Roeder at previous clubs is worse, how long should we wait? Shepherd isn't a Geordie and is taking the club backwards. As for another Keegan, how about Bobby Robson, he's not called Keegan but he did a good job, Keegan isn't a 1 off. How did he not do better then ? Shame we couldn't attract managers like Bobby Robson in their prime, when we had a board capable of attracting trophy winning managers - in your opinion - being no different to the current board. I doubt very much that the major shareholder, with shares worth millions, would not have more than a significant input into an appointment as important as the most important person in the club. But you carry on thinking otherwise if you like or if it suits you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 well, I say that without Keegan he wouldn't have done it. And Keegan was not chosen as manager by Sir John, he was chosen by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. I am sure you are also aware that he also spouted on about the Geordie Nation rubbish that Shepherd is condemned for. So please explain the difference ? Also, the current board has continued in the same vein, ie backing their managers, with him as the major shareholder ever since. So nothing has changed in that respect, other than we - including the major shareholder - has been unable to find a manager as good as Keegan. It's the job of the chairman to appoint the right person, even you admitted that, Sir John didn't appoint a Souness or a Roeder as manager, do you not see any difference? Did you not say before we appointed Roeder that you thought Shepherd should go if he got it wrong again? How do you know the major shareholder didn't have the idea to appoint Souness ? The major shareholder has certainly pissed off after selling us his Geordie nation bollocks. I think it is premature to say Shepherd has got it "wrong" regarding Roeder yet, we are in europe. The old board that you think is the same as the current one qualified for europe 4 times in 30 years, and I bet you thought that was success. Therefore, if you are consistent - when you clearly are not - Roeder has been a success already, by your criteria. Please answer the question I asked you. Why is it OK for Sir John to spout the Geordie Nation bollocks, but it isn't when Shepherd does it ? Please give a response to the comment, that if as you say it is the job of the chairman to appoint the right man for the job, where you think we should find another Keegan or how all the other chairman in the game have not succeeded either in finding a manager as good as Keegan ? In fact, send your findings to the club after telling us all on here. Is the reason that sjh got away with spouting shite about a geordie nation and sheperd doesn't simply just that under sjh we were on the crest of a wave, and it felt like we might even achieve success? aahhhh........the same attitude shown towards Craig Bellamy ? ie it doesn't matter if you are a gobshite so long as you are doing OK, or until you go somewhere else ? Glad to see you think regular qualification for europe is ours by right and taken for granted, mind you. Let us know when you find the next Kevin Keegan to manage Newcastle, but be careful not to tell anyone else, as many other clubs are looking for this man too. In that respect, sjh was stoking the fire and getting the fans on board. When you're a succesful side, people don't really mind what you do as a chairman. Exactly, but you should be consistent in your view. They both spout the same bollocks, so there is basically no difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 "not just our old boards were worse, but unless you haven't bothered to wake up in the real world, the vast majority of present day ones in the country are too. Unless we haven't actually qualified for europe more than everyone else bar 4 clubs. Oh, I must have made that up. Wait a moment, I haven't. Who exactly do you see that has came forward and shown the desire and ability to do better ? As for England. If you do not see the worth of a club buying current big England players, and think a club that buys such players is s****, then - as I said - you would not understand REAL apathy and mediocrity, if it hit you on the head with a rusty hammer. " woah, seems like we're getting somewhere, so: i take your point about ALL boards actually and it's an interesting one - i'd counter it, however, like i did the last time and say that football has never been so money oriented and a shift in the type of board you'll get in that case is inevitable...i'm not necessarily convinced that current boards are better, just that the amount of finances within the game mask their deficiencies much better than in the past you're right about no-one appearing to come along that's looks a strong candidate in the terms we want - but we're currently run by an ex-scrap merchant or whatever it was he did (whether or not he's a geordie is irrelevant) and for me if an outside company with a proven history of finacial success wanted to come in and take the club over then i'd argue things would likely get better more than they'd get worse....they'd realise that success on the field and stability in the club is the main driver to them making money in a correct fashion rather than increasing the clubs debt through a series of poor decisions and appointments i take it by current big england players you mean scott parker and kieron dyer - neither is a regular england starter and kieron dyer, frankly, is an utter travesty of a man and a footballer; a cancer that needs to be cut from the club....and by the way i'd never say NUFC was sh!t, thanks do me a favour and answer the original question 'cause it wasn't about the board as such - do you accept that watching NUFC currently is beyond boring? the football is terrible and through a variety of other factors (primarily the top four being so far in advance of everyone else, ill feeling toward the current board RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY) all we have to look forward to each season is a possible 6th place finish for the forseeable future....all of these things combined, some might suggest, could create feelings of apathy and despondancy for the supporters regardless of how apathetic and despondant they were 20 years ago? I can't be bothered to sort your quotes out, but : Newcastle United has ALWAYS had the potential to generate more money than the vast majority of clubs, so perhaps you could tell us why we have only attempted to do this since 1992 ? If you fail to grasp the significance of buying quality, England players, as against not, which most clubs don't and we ourselves used to sell them instead, then there is nothing else to say I'm afraid. Football is littered with successful businessmen who have failed in football through thinking they can run it like a high street store. This club is one of the top "businesses" in its field, I presume this escapes you, in fact it is obvious that it does. If you want to compare it to the high street, then do so, but you can't take the bits that suit you and ignore the rest, because the simple fact is if you ran one of the biggest "businesses" in your field in the country, you would not be harping on about "failure" and all this other indecipherable and unrealistic nonsense. We all want to be number 1. What is your criteria for finding and appointing the new Alex Ferguson, which is the only way we can do it ? Finally, if you think the football is "boring", then I think you need to accept that very few teams play "entertaining football" week in week out, and it doesn't guarantee success either. Believe me, losing every week, seeing your team get nowhere near qualifying for europe, selling your best players and knowing you will not replace them with anything other than rubbish from the lower leagues, and knowing you have no chance of winning anything, is far more boring. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 What would it take to get the spark back? Another trophy signing tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 What would it take to get the spark back? Another trophy signing tbh. Fans who support the club through thick and thin, who don't moan about us being s*** when we're going through a "rough time". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 What would it take to get the spark back? Another trophy signing tbh. Fans who support the club through thick and thin, who don't moan about us being s*** when we're going through a "rough time". Change the record, granddad! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloydie Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 What would it take to get the spark back? This season? A few good wins - starting with AZ, and Emre back and playing well. We've lacked creativity the last few games and it's starting to become clear that after a left back the player we need is a creative central midfielder to cover for him. Next season? Well the left back and creative midfielder would help, a good start to the season should see us putting pressure on for a champions league spot rather than avoiding a relegation scrap and trying to 'push for Europe'. We've got the front players to do well, and if the defence gets settled I think we'd be surprised at how well those players could do. But that's all temporary. If you read the accounts, look at the structure of the board and some of the decision making that goes on it's clear that the board aren't up to their job. I don't mean in the 'did they get the right manager' kind of way, but in the 'are they cut out to run a business this size' kind of way. We're not well run, we're insulated from our mismanagement by high season ticket prices and loyal fans. We don't want a spark, we want a fire; and that means a new board. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 What would it take to get the spark back? Another trophy signing tbh. Fans who support the club through thick and thin, who don't moan about us being s*** when we're going through a "rough time". Change the record, granddad! I have. Last week it was "omg" to the "copy & paste" crowd. Now I'm making an intelligent and valuable contribution to the forum, attempting to educate the less knowledgeable among us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Truthfully? A hero. We have none. Whether that be a hero in the shape of a manager (SBR), a team (KK's) or a player (Shearer), or even a Chairman (SJH). Just someone we trust, believe in and can rely on, someone we can be proud of, someone to champion dare I say it. Someone who we can put our faith into to do the business on behalf of us the supporters and our club. Again, we have none. Nowt to pin our shirt on, going to the match has become almost like a routine of duty, and nothing more. There is no real hope in the air, no real faith and no real belief in anything, from the Chairman to Roeder, down to Martins and even a spot-kick. The mood in Toon under Souness was ugly, often on the edge ready to explode, today though there is just a great feeling of apathy and everything seems very routine, from turning up to booing if we draw or lose, to cheering if we win a fucking penalty. Sadly, I can't see any on the horizon, not Owen, not Roeder and certainly nothing to be sprung on us by the board. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now