What would it take to get the spark back?

[Howaythelads]

I love it when HTL backs up the posts of his brother.

 

I bet he fights on his behalf too down the old farts home!

 

 

 

Well you have made one football related post this year son, so I suppose it's too much to expect another anytime soon.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

how to get the buzz back...i think it is with us,the fans.

there was more of a buzz under previous regimes,but since souness there has been nothing but cynicism to the point of spite.

 

in the past all of the "bigger" clubs have gone through s**** times,the fans have still backed them at the turnstiles and vocally,we have dropped off vocally.

 

being honest when i say "bigger clubs" i mean man utd and liverpool

 

 

(arsenal at the time without wenger ? chelsea without abramovic)

 

Yup, as I said earlier. But NE5 also touched on what's happening. If it was pay at the turnstiles and not season tickets we wouldn't be seeing 50K+ crowds. Lot's of people would have already jumped off the bandwagon but at least the ground would have real supporters in there.

[mrmojorisin75]

Hang on a minute, why are the tables (facts) nonsense, but the finishes (facts) are not nonsense?

 

Is that not rather contradictory?

 

what tables are they mate ?

 

 

 

The tables posted by macbeth (based on official club financial statements) that he commented on, duly dismissed by HTL.

 

Eh?

The facts posted by NE5 tell the story that previous boards were inferior to the current one, these facts ignored by many. Based on these facts an opinion has consequently been formed that it is possible for us to once again have a board like previous boards should the present one go. However, this is deemed to be impossible by the some, who dismiss events of the past as of no consequence.

 

The facts posted by macbeth do not tell the story he portrays, what they tell is the story of his envy of Fred agend and they tell the story of one poor managerial appointment made not by Fred, but by the entire board. He continually ignores this, which I why I dismmissed his charts as nonsense. They do not say what he has in the past claimed they say.

 

Understand?

 

a good argument HTL, particularly the first part about what NE5's statistics prove and i'd tend to agree (in fact you can't disagree) that statistics show positionally club has improved during the current/recent boards in comparison to previous ones

 

however none of what NE5 posted, nor indeed much of the macbeth stuff, takes into account context - comparing the last 10 years to periods from the '60's/'70's and '80's ignores the dramatic shift in the game and it's finances in the whole country, this is fact...

 

it's not enough to simply say our league finishes are higher therefore the board is better, nor is it enough to say the club is losing money here and there whilst ignoring that in the context of our history we are doing pretty well, you'd have to say

 

 

 

[macbeth]

it's not enough to simply say our league finishes are higher therefore the board is better, nor is it enough to say the club is losing money here and there whilst ignoring that in the context of our history we are doing pretty well, you'd have to say

 

 

 

 

The reason I raised the financial mess was that to highlight that spending cash is not an option to get the buzz back.

 

I'm pretty sure that losing £1m per month is something that no other board had ever achieved. (It's okay I understand that circumstances are totally different  ) But it should be recognised that not since the last incompetents were removed in ~1990 have we been in such a precarious financial position.

 

Fortunately the big wedge Sky will give everyone starting from next season will help the position. The sad thing is that this will help most clubs, for us it will just paper over the cracks of being run badly. Hopefully Shepherd has appointed a money man as CEO to try and stop the rot.

 

 

[NE5]

Hang on a minute, why are the tables (facts) nonsense, but the finishes (facts) are not nonsense?

 

Is that not rather contradictory?

 

what tables are they mate ?

 

 

 

The tables posted by macbeth (based on official club financial statements) that he commented on, duly dismissed by HTL.

 

Eh?

The facts posted by NE5 tell the story that previous boards were inferior to the current one, these facts ignored by many. Based on these facts an opinion has consequently been formed that it is possible for us to once again have a board like previous boards should the present one go. However, this is deemed to be impossible by the some, who dismiss events of the past as of no consequence.

 

The facts posted by macbeth do not tell the story he portrays, what they tell is the story of his envy of Fred agend and they tell the story of one poor managerial appointment made not by Fred, but by the entire board. He continually ignores this, which I why I dismmissed his charts as nonsense. They do not say what he has in the past claimed they say.

 

Understand?

 

a good argument HTL, particularly the first part about what NE5's statistics prove and i'd tend to agree (in fact you can't disagree) that statistics show positionally club has improved during the current/recent boards in comparison to previous ones

 

however none of what NE5 posted, nor indeed much of the macbeth stuff, takes into account context - comparing the last 10 years to periods from the '60's/'70's and '80's ignores the dramatic shift in the game and it's finances in the whole country, this is fact...

 

it's not enough to simply say our league finishes are higher therefore the board is better, nor is it enough to say the club is losing money here and there whilst ignoring that in the context of our history we are doing pretty well, you'd have to say

 

 

Please explain how we did not fill the ground and capitalise on being one of the biggest financial players in the country prior to 1992 ?

 

Or do you think that during the 1960's, 1970;s and 1980's, clubs such as Luton, Derby, Oxford, Crystal Palace, smoggies, Stoke, Ipswich, Norwich, Watford, Swindon, Brighton, Notts County, Preston, QPR, Bristol City, Grimsby, Swansea, Rotherham, Southampton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon, Burnley.....and more, all finished above us in the league for prolonged periods in some instances, and sometimes bought our better players, and some of who have won a domestic trophy since we did, because they had bigger crowd potential before the "dramatic shift in the game and its finances"

 

BTW, this post in the context of the clubs I have mentioned, is all factual information.

 

I am pleased you appear to think the dismal 30+ years we experienced is down to the fact that you think we did not have the same potential as we have nowadays, thanks to Sky and the "dramatic shift in the game and its finances".

 

Which, of course, proves one thing and one thing only. You know and understand absolutely nowt about Newcastle United.

 

 

[NE5]

"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.

 

BA HA HA

 

you're a quaint little man aren't you?  sort my quotes out - you mean that ONE quote i made in my last post?  must've been an absolute nightmare for you to sort out eh?

 

as it happens i've actually taken on board some of what you said during this and other posts - you're right when you say that a sense of perspective can give you a different outlook and it obviously does for you; when you compare our history like you do to the present then we should be praising the gods at the situation we find ourselves in, but life just isn't like that is it?  as time has gone by expectations have been raised and now when we fail to meet them we feel it all the more

 

the song used to be "the kids are united" but you're slating people here who maybe weren't old enough to see the sh!te you happened see - well that's great isn't it?  you and your dancing clown HTL can call them ALL bandwagon jumpers and send them off to support other clubs then...what sort of a message that is?  we should have an age limit on the season tickets perhaps? (i'll resist the urge to crack the 'X' rated football gag here, ahem)  if we did that pal we'd see how well the club is being run without all the "bandwagon jumpers" cash week in week out

 

when we were bouncing around divisions and fighting relegations as you say there was no concept of having a keegan-esque team as we know it today (before you tell me about a better football playing NUFC team in the 1930's not all of us are privileged to be old enough to have seen football since time began, so point accepted don't bother) and playing in the champions league...as you say, directly attributed to whoever was in charge of the club

 

also, i never mentioned a high street at all so during the course of your "sorting out" my quotes you must have found a couple of bits and pieces to throw in there for me, thanks for the help there....and yes football IS littered with successful businessman who've failed at football and it's usually for 2 reasons: (1) they make an ar*e of the finances and/or (2) they get involved in football matters

depending on who you believe our chairman is guilty of #1 and if your bandwagon jumpers leave you'll soon see he'll be the new peter ridsdale for #2

THE POINT I WAS MAKING IS THAT IN MY OPINION SHEPHERD IS NOT QUALIFIED TO RUN A BUSINESS THE SIZE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY STATURE THAT NUFC IS - NEITHER WERE THE PEOPLE YOU KEEP REFERRING TO IN OUR PREVIOUS BOARDS SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?  sorry for the capitals but hopefully you'll read it....i refer you to my many previous points about changes in the games finances as a whole for the reason shepherd is getting by without being found out

 

again i take your point about not all teams playing entertaining football (see what i'm doing here?  directly addressing you point by point!!) but then why should it not be something we aspire to?  reading have just been promoted and play far, far, far more attractive football than us for what it probably cost to buy luque....villa are no better than us points wise but whenever i see them they can string two passes together and seem to have a gameplan and a way they want to play....against 'boro last weekend it looked like it was the first time some of our players had even SEEN a football so bad was the quality of play

 

by the way do you play rugby?  'cause the sidestep you made in dodging my direct question about YOUR opinion of how boring or not boring the football is these days was worthy of the six nations (you'd know it as the five nations still obviously)

 

as countless other people have pointed out you are living in the past and fail to accept that football has changed beyond recognition from the days of mckeag etc...  that your expections remain mired down with them tells it's own story my friend

 

 

If you think it is impossible for NUFC to appoint directors who lack ambition and don't have the courage to tap the fanbase and qualify for europe, you are living in a dreamworld.

 

If you do not see that regardless of how football has changed - if it has, because however it has changed, it has changed in the same way for everybody - thus we have qualified for europe regularly on merit and similarly in the past other teams have qualified on merit when we were nowhere - then nothing has changed in that respect. You get what you earn in football, or otherwise. Like anything.

 

I have absolutely zero interest in rugby and have zero idea why you are even mentioning it.

 

If you think our performance against Villa was bad - and I admit it wasn't good - again, you wouldn't know a really bad performance if it hit you on the head with a rusty hammer. You're a bit of an idealist aren't you ie unrealistic ?

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

it's not enough to simply say our league finishes are higher therefore the board is better, nor is it enough to say the club is losing money here and there whilst ignoring that in the context of our history we are doing pretty well, you'd have to say

 

 

 

 

The reason I raised the financial mess was that to highlight that spending cash is not an option to get the buzz back.

 

I'm pretty sure that losing £1m per month is something that no other board had ever achieved. (It's okay I understand that circumstances are totally different  ) But it should be recognised that not since the last incompetents were removed in ~1990 have we been in such a precarious financial position.

 

Fortunately the big wedge Sky will give everyone starting from next season will help the position. The sad thing is that this will help most clubs, for us it will just paper over the cracks of being run badly. Hopefully Shepherd has appointed a money man as CEO to try and stop the rot.

 

you ought to be careful. Booboo wil lecture you on copying and pasting, is he your brother ?

 

 

[NE5]

 

Did you ever reply to your mate macbeth when he harped on about that oddball jock from the Post Office being chairman of the club, the one who has handed English footballer to the corporate supporter for the next 100 years and years of debt ?

If not, he isn't a geordie, what do you think of him, presumably as you are putting macbeths daft website in your sig to support his daft agenda, you do support such an appointment.

 

Fact is, you don't apply consistent standards, you are just jumping on the bandwagon - surprise surprise - again, last time it was the KK one, this time its the anti board one......the same board who attracted you back to the club.

 

 

 

Lovely.

 

I made one mention of Crozier, and it is now in the NE5 list of facts as me having  "harped on". Just can't make it up sometimes !

 

If you concern is the state Crozier left English football in financially, you need to be very careful if you think Shepherd/the NUFC board are better. Losing £1m a month isn't really very good. Crozier picked Sven, Shepherd picked Souness. Difficult to defend either I would have thought.

 

What do you think Shepherd's thinking is behind appointing the new CEO, particulartly one with such a strong financial background when we haven't needed anyone like that for 9 years as a PLC, and as you suggest Sheperd has done such a good job anyway?

 

Mean while back on topic ....

 

As this was originally a question about how to get the buzz back what do you (NE5) see as the answer? Or do you feel we are all just being miserable buggers who should be thankful for what we have? Why do you feel so many people feel down about the football when you have showed so clearly they've never had it so good? Is it just that peopel who have only been going for 15 years or so just don't appreciate? So essentially anyone under 30 is just prone to lack of knowledge?

 

a lot of people are miserable buggers, a lot of people too have had their expectations raised, which they fail to understand or acknowledge, hence my comment that the club would be better off without them and making space for the next generation of supporters quite a lot of who I would think would support the club with more committment and genuine passion.

 

Alex Ferguson would stir up some passion with winning performances on the field.

 

You should be pleased the club has shown a sign of acknowledging some help in stabalising the financial side, but I don't see you giving them any credit. But then again, this is all you are interested in, this and your agenda to kick out the board for who exactly ? Crozier ? HOHO.....don't deny you said he was "perfect", because you did.

 

If you are disputing we have "never had it so good" - your words not mine - please explain when we last had a regular crowd averaging 50,000 over a number of years ? It may not be perfect on that pitch, but it is certainly drawing in more of your "customers", who are obviously there for a reason.

 

Meanwhile, as I have told you previously. There are plenty of people urging the club to spend money these days in spite of the situation, so you should be badgering them to join your "cause" rather than me.

 

 

 

 

[Mowen]

I haven't read the thread, but I dread to think how "What would it take to get the spark back?" got to the board...

[Mick]

 

you ought to be careful. Booboo wil lecture you on copying and pasting, is he your brother ?

 

 

Well done, you've proven once again that boredom has no limits when it comes to your posts.

[macbeth]

You should be pleased the club has shown a sign of acknowledging some help in stabalising the financial side, but I don't see you giving them any credit.

 

I think it is great that after 9 years they have decided to put someone on the board with an understanding of finance. My whole desire has been to have people in at board level who have business skills. The new appointment is a fantastic one for the finance side of the business.

 

Shepherd has appointed the guy and deserves credit for that. That it took him 9 years to see that finance needed someone dedicated to it isn't something to be proud of. I suspect the reason this sort of appointment didn't happen earlier is that having somone on the board who was dedicated to controlling the money wouldn't have sanctioned the giving away of £35m as the current board have done.

 

Next I'd like a Marketing Director please, and maybe even someone to cover PR.

 

Do you fee the appointment is correct ? You have so strongly argued against bringing anyone in, or do you feel it would have been ebtter to have happened a few years ago ?

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

Hang on a minute, why are the tables (facts) nonsense, but the finishes (facts) are not nonsense?

 

Is that not rather contradictory?

 

what tables are they mate ?

 

 

 

The tables posted by macbeth (based on official club financial statements) that he commented on, duly dismissed by HTL.

 

Eh?

The facts posted by NE5 tell the story that previous boards were inferior to the current one, these facts ignored by many. Based on these facts an opinion has consequently been formed that it is possible for us to once again have a board like previous boards should the present one go. However, this is deemed to be impossible by the some, who dismiss events of the past as of no consequence.

 

The facts posted by macbeth do not tell the story he portrays, what they tell is the story of his envy of Fred agend and they tell the story of one poor managerial appointment made not by Fred, but by the entire board. He continually ignores this, which I why I dismmissed his charts as nonsense. They do not say what he has in the past claimed they say.

 

Understand?

 

a good argument HTL, particularly the first part about what NE5's statistics prove and i'd tend to agree (in fact you can't disagree) that statistics show positionally club has improved during the current/recent boards in comparison to previous ones

 

however none of what NE5 posted, nor indeed much of the macbeth stuff, takes into account context - comparing the last 10 years to periods from the '60's/'70's and '80's ignores the dramatic shift in the game and it's finances in the whole country, this is fact...

 

it's not enough to simply say our league finishes are higher therefore the board is better, nor is it enough to say the club is losing money here and there whilst ignoring that in the context of our history we are doing pretty well, you'd have to say

 

 

Please explain how we did not fill the ground and capitalise on being one of the biggest financial players in the country prior to 1992 ?

 

Or do you think that during the 1960's, 1970;s and 1980's, clubs such as Luton, Derby, Oxford, Crystal Palace, smoggies, Stoke, Ipswich, Norwich, Watford, Swindon, Brighton, Notts County, Preston, QPR, Bristol City, Grimsby, Swansea, Rotherham, Southampton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon, Burnley.....and more, all finished above us in the league for prolonged periods in some instances, and sometimes bought our better players, and some of who have won a domestic trophy since we did, because they had bigger crowd potential before the "dramatic shift in the game and its finances"

 

BTW, this post in the context of the clubs I have mentioned, is all factual information.

 

I am pleased you appear to think the dismal 30+ years we experienced is down to the fact that you think we did not have the same potential as we have nowadays, thanks to Sky and the "dramatic shift in the game and its finances".

 

Which, of course, proves one thing and one thing only. You know and understand absolutely nowt about Newcastle United.

 

OK,

 

1, i never mentioned mentioned SJP and 50,000+ plus crowds as being the driver behind the "dramatic shift", you did as it happens, in the above post...that you ASSUME it was what i was referring to shows you're not alwats dealing in fact

 

2, i never made any link to your dismal 30 years and lack of potential at the club pre-1992 (which i also didn't mention as it happens) so please don't link me and my supposed lack of knowledge to stuff you're inventing

 

3, i've never disagreed with you about the clubs you refer to in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's and how we did in comparison to them, i agree with you, i have no idea why you're trying to create an argument about it...

 

4, i'm actually pleased you think i know nothing about NUFC baecause in all the games i've been to over the last 16-17 years (yes, my crime was not being born in 1945 and for that i offer my apologies), all of the away games and friendlies i've been to and european games i've travelled to see i've never ONCE met another fan with such a twisted, bitter & immovable opinion as you...

 

in fact i'll tell you who you remind me of - there were a couple of people used to be behind me in the east stand, a couple of old farts never been south of the tyne but had the same spot in the ground forever and they were the only ones who knew anything, if anyone else around offered an opinion they were shot down 'cause these old knakcers knew more....start talking to them about having been to see the anderlecht friendly in belgium 3 days after the charity shield fiasco and they'll tell you about a home game in 1952 that was better 'cause of this and that...you're the chat room equivalent of them

 

so if you're the font of knowledge, the bastion of truth about NUFC then i'll stay in my state of ignorance with all my mates, they say it's bliss don't you know?

[mrmojorisin75]

"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.

 

BA HA HA

 

you're a quaint little man aren't you?  sort my quotes out - you mean that ONE quote i made in my last post?  must've been an absolute nightmare for you to sort out eh?

 

as it happens i've actually taken on board some of what you said during this and other posts - you're right when you say that a sense of perspective can give you a different outlook and it obviously does for you; when you compare our history like you do to the present then we should be praising the gods at the situation we find ourselves in, but life just isn't like that is it?  as time has gone by expectations have been raised and now when we fail to meet them we feel it all the more

 

the song used to be "the kids are united" but you're slating people here who maybe weren't old enough to see the sh!te you happened see - well that's great isn't it?  you and your dancing clown HTL can call them ALL bandwagon jumpers and send them off to support other clubs then...what sort of a message that is?  we should have an age limit on the season tickets perhaps? (i'll resist the urge to crack the 'X' rated football gag here, ahem)  if we did that pal we'd see how well the club is being run without all the "bandwagon jumpers" cash week in week out

 

when we were bouncing around divisions and fighting relegations as you say there was no concept of having a keegan-esque team as we know it today (before you tell me about a better football playing NUFC team in the 1930's not all of us are privileged to be old enough to have seen football since time began, so point accepted don't bother) and playing in the champions league...as you say, directly attributed to whoever was in charge of the club

 

also, i never mentioned a high street at all so during the course of your "sorting out" my quotes you must have found a couple of bits and pieces to throw in there for me, thanks for the help there....and yes football IS littered with successful businessman who've failed at football and it's usually for 2 reasons: (1) they make an ar*e of the finances and/or (2) they get involved in football matters

depending on who you believe our chairman is guilty of #1 and if your bandwagon jumpers leave you'll soon see he'll be the new peter ridsdale for #2

THE POINT I WAS MAKING IS THAT IN MY OPINION SHEPHERD IS NOT QUALIFIED TO RUN A BUSINESS THE SIZE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY STATURE THAT NUFC IS - NEITHER WERE THE PEOPLE YOU KEEP REFERRING TO IN OUR PREVIOUS BOARDS SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?  sorry for the capitals but hopefully you'll read it....i refer you to my many previous points about changes in the games finances as a whole for the reason shepherd is getting by without being found out

 

again i take your point about not all teams playing entertaining football (see what i'm doing here?  directly addressing you point by point!!) but then why should it not be something we aspire to?  reading have just been promoted and play far, far, far more attractive football than us for what it probably cost to buy luque....villa are no better than us points wise but whenever i see them they can string two passes together and seem to have a gameplan and a way they want to play....against 'boro last weekend it looked like it was the first time some of our players had even SEEN a football so bad was the quality of play

 

by the way do you play rugby?  'cause the sidestep you made in dodging my direct question about YOUR opinion of how boring or not boring the football is these days was worthy of the six nations (you'd know it as the five nations still obviously)

 

as countless other people have pointed out you are living in the past and fail to accept that football has changed beyond recognition from the days of mckeag etc...  that your expections remain mired down with them tells it's own story my friend

 

 

If you think it is impossible for NUFC to appoint directors who lack ambition and don't have the courage to tap the fanbase and qualify for europe, you are living in a dreamworld.

 

If you do not see that regardless of how football has changed - if it has, because however it has changed, it has changed in the same way for everybody - thus we have qualified for europe regularly on merit and similarly in the past other teams have qualified on merit when we were nowhere - then nothing has changed in that respect. You get what you earn in football, or otherwise. Like anything.

 

I have absolutely zero interest in rugby and have zero idea why you are even mentioning it.

 

If you think our performance against Villa was bad - and I admit it wasn't good - again, you wouldn't know a really bad performance if it hit you on the head with a rusty hammer. You're a bit of an idealist aren't you ie unrealistic ?

 

 

wow!

you continue to excel yourself

 

1, i have never once said it was impossible for NUFC to appoint worse directors and staff than what we already have - because it's a possibilty doesn't mean we should keep the ones we have if they're not good enough, which we disagree about so let's move on

 

2, it's a very good point about football changing for everyone and that you get what you earn....using us as a reference we earned our place(s) in europe and status as one of the bigger and richer clubs in the country - can't you see that everyone is concerned  that we're gonna lose it through exactly the same criteria by which we earned it?  that's the point you're missing...no-one wants rid of a chairman or a board for the sake of it (well perhaps some do) they want it 'cause they feel change is necessary

 

for my part on your beloved board i was an adamant hater of FS and wanted him gine without delay...i now, however, believe that he might actually have learned from some of his mistakes over the last decade and thus might not make them again, there are positive signs of that...what concerns me about the man is that assuming we have a period of stability (financial and football) and then need to take "the next step" i just don't feel he has the ability in him to make the correct choice of manager/staff to do it....

 

3, the rugby reference is called having a sense of humour, i wouldn't expect you to understand

 

4, i didn't actually refer to NUFC vs Villa, i said whenever i see them play meaning more than once and not on a single occasion...therefore who are you talking about the performance against villa, 'cause it isn't me is it?  obviously....

[NE5]

You should be pleased the club has shown a sign of acknowledging some help in stabalising the financial side, but I don't see you giving them any credit.

 

I think it is great that after 9 years they have decided to put someone on the board with an understanding of finance. My whole desire has been to have people in at board level who have business skills. The new appointment is a fantastic one for the finance side of the business.

 

Shepherd has appointed the guy and deserves credit for that. That it took him 9 years to see that finance needed someone dedicated to it isn't something to be proud of. I suspect the reason this sort of appointment didn't happen earlier is that having somone on the board who was dedicated to controlling the money wouldn't have sanctioned the giving away of £35m as the current board have done.

 

Next I'd like a Marketing Director please, and maybe even someone to cover PR.

 

Do you fee the appointment is correct ? You have so strongly argued against bringing anyone in, or do you feel it would have been ebtter to have happened a few years ago ?

 

 

We know you are more concerned with the finance side of things than the football side.

 

Alex Ferguson would do for me thanks, and the rewards of success would follow.

 

Fact is, whoever ran the club, you won't be happy, unless they can win things and spend no money doing it. Your daft website says everything.

 

What would happen if every club appointed "marketing directors", or "PR" men ? Would everyone be successful ?

You don't get it and never will.

 

 

[NE5]

Hang on a minute, why are the tables (facts) nonsense, but the finishes (facts) are not nonsense?

 

Is that not rather contradictory?

 

what tables are they mate ?

 

 

 

The tables posted by macbeth (based on official club financial statements) that he commented on, duly dismissed by HTL.

 

Eh?

The facts posted by NE5 tell the story that previous boards were inferior to the current one, these facts ignored by many. Based on these facts an opinion has consequently been formed that it is possible for us to once again have a board like previous boards should the present one go. However, this is deemed to be impossible by the some, who dismiss events of the past as of no consequence.

 

The facts posted by macbeth do not tell the story he portrays, what they tell is the story of his envy of Fred agend and they tell the story of one poor managerial appointment made not by Fred, but by the entire board. He continually ignores this, which I why I dismmissed his charts as nonsense. They do not say what he has in the past claimed they say.

 

Understand?

 

a good argument HTL, particularly the first part about what NE5's statistics prove and i'd tend to agree (in fact you can't disagree) that statistics show positionally club has improved during the current/recent boards in comparison to previous ones

 

however none of what NE5 posted, nor indeed much of the macbeth stuff, takes into account context - comparing the last 10 years to periods from the '60's/'70's and '80's ignores the dramatic shift in the game and it's finances in the whole country, this is fact...

 

it's not enough to simply say our league finishes are higher therefore the board is better, nor is it enough to say the club is losing money here and there whilst ignoring that in the context of our history we are doing pretty well, you'd have to say

 

 

Please explain how we did not fill the ground and capitalise on being one of the biggest financial players in the country prior to 1992 ?

 

Or do you think that during the 1960's, 1970;s and 1980's, clubs such as Luton, Derby, Oxford, Crystal Palace, smoggies, Stoke, Ipswich, Norwich, Watford, Swindon, Brighton, Notts County, Preston, QPR, Bristol City, Grimsby, Swansea, Rotherham, Southampton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon, Burnley.....and more, all finished above us in the league for prolonged periods in some instances, and sometimes bought our better players, and some of who have won a domestic trophy since we did, because they had bigger crowd potential before the "dramatic shift in the game and its finances"

 

BTW, this post in the context of the clubs I have mentioned, is all factual information.

 

I am pleased you appear to think the dismal 30+ years we experienced is down to the fact that you think we did not have the same potential as we have nowadays, thanks to Sky and the "dramatic shift in the game and its finances".

 

Which, of course, proves one thing and one thing only. You know and understand absolutely nowt about Newcastle United.

 

OK,

 

1, i never mentioned mentioned SJP and 50,000+ plus crowds as being the driver behind the "dramatic shift", you did as it happens, in the above post...that you ASSUME it was what i was referring to shows you're not alwats dealing in fact

 

2, i never made any link to your dismal 30 years and lack of potential at the club pre-1992 (which i also didn't mention as it happens) so please don't link me and my supposed lack of knowledge to stuff you're inventing

 

3, i've never disagreed with you about the clubs you refer to in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's and how we did in comparison to them, i agree with you, i have no idea why you're trying to create an argument about it...

 

4, i'm actually pleased you think i know nothing about NUFC baecause in all the games i've been to over the last 16-17 years (yes, my crime was not being born in 1945 and for that i offer my apologies), all of the away games and friendlies i've been to and european games i've travelled to see i've never ONCE met another fan with such a twisted, bitter & immovable opinion as you...

 

in fact i'll tell you who you remind me of - there were a couple of people used to be behind me in the east stand, a couple of old farts never been south of the tyne but had the same spot in the ground forever and they were the only ones who knew anything, if anyone else around offered an opinion they were shot down 'cause these old knakcers knew more....start talking to them about having been to see the anderlecht friendly in belgium 3 days after the charity shield fiasco and they'll tell you about a home game in 1952 that was better 'cause of this and that...you're the chat room equivalent of them

 

so if you're the font of knowledge, the bastion of truth about NUFC then i'll stay in my state of ignorance with all my mates, they say it's bliss don't you know?

 

Please tell us, then, what you mean by "dynamic shift in finance". Do you mean we needed the money from sky tv to exert our superior potential over all those clubs I mentioned previously ?

 

The previous 30 years is relevant because it illustrates how far forward the club has moved, and I am not trying to create an argument, I think you are because otherwise you would accept this point without question or argue about how "shit" the club is.

 

My opinion isn't immovable, if you can prove the facts I have posted are incorrect. But having witnessed the years and the events which led to those facts, I doubt that you can do it. There is nothing like basing opinions on facts, is there ? Unless you can suggest something else to base opinions on ?

 

Shame really, but I think you obviously care about the club, and unlike many others, have a fairly open mind about the clubs fortunes, apart from that like many others who have only really witnessed NUFC as a top club - which is neither your fault nor am I saying it is of course - but too many of the newer NUFC fans are completely removed from the reality of the fact that it is entirely and easily possible for us to do a lot "worse" than we have done in the last 15 years. As those who booed Bobby Robson when we finished 5th should have realised "be careful what you wish for", those wishing the current board out are of exactly the same mindset.

 

 

[NE5]

 

you ought to be careful. Booboo wil lecture you on copying and pasting, is he your brother ?

 

 

Well done, you've proven once again that boredom has no limits when it comes to your posts.

 

Whats up ? Is it your sister and not your brother ?

 

What is your "opinion" on the league positions I posted, as I see you have not commented on factual information, as usual

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

Hang on a minute, why are the tables (facts) nonsense, but the finishes (facts) are not nonsense?

 

Is that not rather contradictory?

 

what tables are they mate ?

 

 

 

The tables posted by macbeth (based on official club financial statements) that he commented on, duly dismissed by HTL.

 

Eh?

The facts posted by NE5 tell the story that previous boards were inferior to the current one, these facts ignored by many. Based on these facts an opinion has consequently been formed that it is possible for us to once again have a board like previous boards should the present one go. However, this is deemed to be impossible by the some, who dismiss events of the past as of no consequence.

 

The facts posted by macbeth do not tell the story he portrays, what they tell is the story of his envy of Fred agend and they tell the story of one poor managerial appointment made not by Fred, but by the entire board. He continually ignores this, which I why I dismmissed his charts as nonsense. They do not say what he has in the past claimed they say.

 

Understand?

 

a good argument HTL, particularly the first part about what NE5's statistics prove and i'd tend to agree (in fact you can't disagree) that statistics show positionally club has improved during the current/recent boards in comparison to previous ones

 

however none of what NE5 posted, nor indeed much of the macbeth stuff, takes into account context - comparing the last 10 years to periods from the '60's/'70's and '80's ignores the dramatic shift in the game and it's finances in the whole country, this is fact...

 

it's not enough to simply say our league finishes are higher therefore the board is better, nor is it enough to say the club is losing money here and there whilst ignoring that in the context of our history we are doing pretty well, you'd have to say

 

 

Please explain how we did not fill the ground and capitalise on being one of the biggest financial players in the country prior to 1992 ?

 

Or do you think that during the 1960's, 1970;s and 1980's, clubs such as Luton, Derby, Oxford, Crystal Palace, smoggies, Stoke, Ipswich, Norwich, Watford, Swindon, Brighton, Notts County, Preston, QPR, Bristol City, Grimsby, Swansea, Rotherham, Southampton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon, Burnley.....and more, all finished above us in the league for prolonged periods in some instances, and sometimes bought our better players, and some of who have won a domestic trophy since we did, because they had bigger crowd potential before the "dramatic shift in the game and its finances"

 

BTW, this post in the context of the clubs I have mentioned, is all factual information.

 

I am pleased you appear to think the dismal 30+ years we experienced is down to the fact that you think we did not have the same potential as we have nowadays, thanks to Sky and the "dramatic shift in the game and its finances".

 

Which, of course, proves one thing and one thing only. You know and understand absolutely nowt about Newcastle United.

 

OK,

 

1, i never mentioned mentioned SJP and 50,000+ plus crowds as being the driver behind the "dramatic shift", you did as it happens, in the above post...that you ASSUME it was what i was referring to shows you're not alwats dealing in fact

 

2, i never made any link to your dismal 30 years and lack of potential at the club pre-1992 (which i also didn't mention as it happens) so please don't link me and my supposed lack of knowledge to stuff you're inventing

 

3, i've never disagreed with you about the clubs you refer to in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's and how we did in comparison to them, i agree with you, i have no idea why you're trying to create an argument about it...

 

4, i'm actually pleased you think i know nothing about NUFC baecause in all the games i've been to over the last 16-17 years (yes, my crime was not being born in 1945 and for that i offer my apologies), all of the away games and friendlies i've been to and european games i've travelled to see i've never ONCE met another fan with such a twisted, bitter & immovable opinion as you...

 

in fact i'll tell you who you remind me of - there were a couple of people used to be behind me in the east stand, a couple of old farts never been south of the tyne but had the same spot in the ground forever and they were the only ones who knew anything, if anyone else around offered an opinion they were shot down 'cause these old knakcers knew more....start talking to them about having been to see the anderlecht friendly in belgium 3 days after the charity shield fiasco and they'll tell you about a home game in 1952 that was better 'cause of this and that...you're the chat room equivalent of them

 

so if you're the font of knowledge, the bastion of truth about NUFC then i'll stay in my state of ignorance with all my mates, they say it's bliss don't you know?

 

Please tell us, then, what you mean by "dynamic shift in finance". Do you mean we needed the money from sky tv to exert our superior potential over all those clubs I mentioned previously ?

 

The previous 30 years is relevant because it illustrates how far forward the club has moved, and I am not trying to create an argument, I think you are because otherwise you would accept this point without question or argue about how "s***" the club is.

 

My opinion isn't immovable, if you can prove the facts I have posted are incorrect. But having witnessed the years and the events which led to those facts, I doubt that you can do it. There is nothing like basing opinions on facts, is there ? Unless you can suggest something else to base opinions on ?

 

Shame really, but I think you obviously care about the club, and unlike many others, have a fairly open mind about the clubs fortunes, apart from that like many others who have only really witnessed NUFC as a top club - which is neither your fault nor am I saying it is of course - but too many of the newer NUFC fans are completely removed from the reality of the fact that it is entirely and easily possible for us to do a lot "worse" than we have done in the last 15 years. As those who booed Bobby Robson when we finished 5th should have realised "be careful what you wish for", those wishing the current board out are of exactly the same mindset.

 

 

as it happens, as you'll see from various posts here to yourself and HTL, some of what you (both) said has rubbed off on me a bit...i was backing your factual argument earlier regarding league positions but i do think they're taken out of context without any sort of financial background to them, the same as the financial argument can't stand alone without looking at league placings/european qualifications

 

as for the "dramatic shift", i'm no accountant but i do know that financially our club has received a sh!tload of money over the last 10-15 years and it all hasn't been because the board were astute enough to generate it themselves....here's that word again but context can't be ignored - riding on the back of a wave that keegan created, the club (through Fletcher largely i seem to remember) managed to increase turnover, improve the stadium, sell more shirts and blah blah blah but it was part of wider trend of football becoming more trendy itself, the outward reduction of the hooligan element and football becoming more family oriented, and of course the birth of the sky generation....

 

if keegan had simply gotten us promoted amidst the game still being mired with a terrible reputation for hooliganism, there being no moves to improve the quality of the stadium and the game not awash with rupert murdochs money and, more importantly, the new profile sky created for the game then i have no doubt of two things: #1, we would not have had the league positions and european football we've seen for 10 years and #2, we'd probably be broke and have been relegated by now

 

as for the people who booed robson well i'm in total agreement with you, 100%...i hope they can sleep at night these days...but i suppose that's what i can't get over and you can - it wasn't the people that booed robson who sacked him, nay humiliated him, it was freddy shepherd and i find it hard to forget or forgive that mistake....

[Mick]

 

you ought to be careful. Booboo wil lecture you on copying and pasting, is he your brother ?

 

 

Well done, you've proven once again that boredom has no limits when it comes to your posts.

 

Whats up ? Is it your sister and not your brother ?

 

What is your "opinion" on the league positions I posted, as I see you have not commented on factual information, as usual

 

 

 

I didn't comment on the league placings because commenting would have been stating the obvious, since Shepherd became chairman we've gone backwards, fact.   As you've correctly pointed out in the past, league placings are what we should be measured on and by that definition, Shepherd is a failure, thanks for reminding me.

 

Happy now?

[NE5]

 

you ought to be careful. Booboo wil lecture you on copying and pasting, is he your brother ?

 

 

Well done, you've proven once again that boredom has no limits when it comes to your posts.

 

Whats up ? Is it your sister and not your brother ?

 

What is your "opinion" on the league positions I posted, as I see you have not commented on factual information, as usual

 

 

 

I didn't comment on the league placings because commenting would have been stating the obvious, since Shepherd became chairman we've gone backwards, fact.   As you've correctly pointed out in the past, league placings are what we should be measured on and by that definition, Shepherd is a failure, thanks for reminding me.

 

Happy now?

 

Did you differentiate between McKeag, Westwood and Seymour, when they were all on the same board ? Did anything change when they rotated as chairmen ?

 

The point is that the board is the same as since 1992. The same people have appointed the managers, and the same people have gave all the manager identical backing ie the utmost possible.

 

Carry on deluding yourself as usual. You won't be happy until they have been replaced, lets hope it isn't for people like McKeag etc as before, but you will be happy as you think they are all the same ie those league positions I posted are the same results as qualifying regularly for europe.

 

At least the younger lads on here actually don't know differently. Whereas in your case, you just close your eyes, or as I have said before, are lying when you say you were there at the time.

 

 

[Mick]

 

as it happens, as you'll see from various posts here to yourself and HTL, some of what you (both) said has rubbed off on me a bit...i was backing your factual argument earlier regarding league positions but i do think they're taken out of context without any sort of financial background to them, the same as the financial argument can't stand alone without looking at league placings/european qualifications

 

as for the "dramatic shift", i'm no accountant but i do know that financially our club has received a sh!tload of money over the last 10-15 years and it all hasn't been because the board were astute enough to generate it themselves....here's that word again but context can't be ignored - riding on the back of a wave that keegan created, the club (through Fletcher largely i seem to remember) managed to increase turnover, improve the stadium, sell more shirts and blah blah blah but it was part of wider trend of football becoming more trendy itself, the outward reduction of the hooligan element and football becoming more family oriented, and of course the birth of the sky generation....

 

if keegan had simply gotten us promoted amidst the game still being mired with a terrible reputation for hooliganism, there being no moves to improve the quality of the stadium and the game not awash with rupert murdochs money and, more importantly, the new profile sky created for the game then i have no doubt of two things: #1, we would not have had the league positions and european football we've seen for 10 years and #2, we'd probably be broke and have been relegated by now

 

as for the people who booed robson well i'm in total agreement with you, 100%...i hope they can sleep at night these days...but i suppose that's what i can't get over and you can - it wasn't the people that booed robson who sacked him, nay humiliated him, it was freddy shepherd and i find it hard to forget or forgive that mistake....

 

Good post, don't expect the same in response, expect something along the lines of 5th best over the last decade, would you be happy with a chairman like Doug Ellis? Etc etc etc zzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzz.

[Mick]

 

Did you differentiate between McKeag, Westwood and Seymour, when they were all on the same board ? Did anything change when they rotated as chairmen ?

 

 

The point is that the board is the same as since 1992. The same people have appointed the managers, and the same people have gave all the manager identical backing ie the utmost possible.

 

The board isn't the same as in 1992, you're wrong.  I think only two of our current board members were on the board in 1992, Douglas and Freddy, the chairman was also different.

 

 

 

Carry on deluding yourself as usual. You won't be happy until they have been replaced, lets hope it isn't for people like McKeag etc as before, but you will be happy as you think they are all the same ie those league positions I posted are the same results as qualifying regularly for europe.

 

I think Shepherd is as bad as those chairmen you mention, I agree with that.  They didn't have his windfall, the Sir John/Keegan legacy to work with.  I don't think for one minute that Shepherd would have done any better if he'd been chairman when they were, he's done as badly as they did but he had a massive advantage over them.

 

Maybe you could try and explain how him taking us backwards is any better than when they did it, try doing it without sending most people to sleep.

 

 

At least the younger lads on here actually don't know differently. Whereas in your case, you just close your eyes, or as I have said before, are lying when you say you were there at the time.

 

 

Same bollocks different day, sad old man.

[Howaythelads]

Getting back to the earlier point about bandwagon jumpers. I wish  they would all fúck off back to their Saturday afternoon shopping and taking the piss out of Newcastle supporters. The club doesn't need them and nobody gives a s*** what they think anyway.

[Rich]

Getting back to the earlier point about bandwagon jumpers. I wish  they would all fúck off back to their Saturday afternoon shopping and taking the piss out of Newcastle supporters. The club doesn't need them and nobody gives a s*** what they think anyway.

 

If that's the case, can we get rid of the sort of people who I was sitting amongst last night, as well?

 

Offer nowt to the club bar their cash.

[Guest Knightrider]

Getting back to the earlier point about bandwagon jumpers. I wish  they would all fúck off back to their Saturday afternoon shopping and taking the piss out of Newcastle supporters. The club doesn't need them and nobody gives a s*** what they think anyway.

 

The club would go bust without them tbh, can't have it both ways.

[Howaythelads]

Getting back to the earlier point about bandwagon jumpers. I wish  they would all fúck off back to their Saturday afternoon shopping and taking the piss out of Newcastle supporters. The club doesn't need them and nobody gives a s*** what they think anyway.

 

If that's the case, can we get rid of the sort of people who I was sitting amongst last night, as well?

 

Offer nowt to the club bar their cash.

 

Aye, absolutely. "Supporters" who do nowt but moan and don't support can all piss off as far as I'm concerned. Grassroots might tell you about some tirade I went into a while ago after we played Wolves about people who boo at the match. Gets on my bloody wick. I may criticise certain individuals here but at the match you support the team and all of the players and that's the end of it.