Mick Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 you mean having an alternative [but possibly correct] opinion to the numerous who blindly agree with each other ? Like it or not, its a relevant comment that may indeed be true, that he does not intend to spend his own money on the club. Why do you think otherwise ? Apart from that, the WUM deserves ridicule in spades. Wake up and smell the coffee, it just might be correct. You might turn out to be correct with some of the above but the comment about Ashley not spending money is no more than a crock of shit, he's spent £133 million to buy the club and he's taken on £80 million in debt. For the first time in the history of Newcastle United we've got a sole owner, one who has dragged more cash out of his pocket than we've ever seen before. He has employed a top businessman who is now looking at the club to see how it stands. We might not be taking massive leaps but we do seem to be laying the foundations to move forward by make good decisions for the club. If things work out well for us I think you will be privately gutted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 allright NE5 lets just cut to the chase,would you rather fred was still here or would you rather we take the chance with ashley ? I couldn't give a toss about personalities, we don't know if Ashley will back his managers. If he doesn't back them as much as Fred and the Halls, who would you rather have ? Backing as much as Fred or the Hall's is meaningless, it's what we get for the money. If Ashley doesn't back Allardyce as much as Shepherd might have but we win something then it's better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 No reply I see. There is no reply to "why do you think blah blah bullshit?" when you didn't say "blah blah bullshit" and don't think "blah blah bullshit". The only one who can talk to the voices in your head is you. I asked you a perfectly relevant question in response to your post. I didn't expect much of a reply, apart from blah blah blah blah Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 allright NE5 lets just cut to the chase,would you rather fred was still here or would you rather we take the chance with ashley ? I couldn't give a toss about personalities, we don't know if Ashley will back his managers. If he doesn't back them as much as Fred and the Halls, who would you rather have ? Backing as much as Fred or the Hall's is meaningless, it's what we get for the money. If Ashley doesn't back Allardyce as much as Shepherd might have but we win something then it's better. Money = success Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 allright NE5 lets just cut to the chase,would you rather fred was still here or would you rather we take the chance with ashley ? I couldn't give a toss about personalities, we don't know if Ashley will back his managers. If he doesn't back them as much as Fred and the Halls, who would you rather have ? Backing as much as Fred or the Hall's is meaningless, it's what we get for the money. If Ashley doesn't back Allardyce as much as Shepherd might have but we win something then it's better. Wouldn't that be down to the manager then? The manager appointed by Shepherd? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 you mean having an alternative [but possibly correct] opinion to the numerous who blindly agree with each other ? Like it or not, its a relevant comment that may indeed be true, that he does not intend to spend his own money on the club. Why do you think otherwise ? Apart from that, the WUM deserves ridicule in spades. Wake up and smell the coffee, it just might be correct. You might turn out to be correct with some of the above but the comment about Ashley not spending money is no more than a crock of shit, he's spent £133 million to buy the club and he's taken on £80 million in debt. For the first time in the history of Newcastle United we've got a sole owner, one who has dragged more cash out of his pocket than we've ever seen before. He has employed a top businessman who is now looking at the club to see how it stands. We might not be taking massive leaps but we do seem to be laying the foundations to move forward by make good decisions for the club. If things work out well for us I think you will be privately gutted. Unlike yourself, I was not attracted to the club by the potential success that the Halls and Shepherd brought to the club, I supported them a long time before that, hoping for success. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 our defence is still weak as piss, thats for sure. It's no worse than last year and it's got a better manager telling it what to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 allright NE5 lets just cut to the chase,would you rather fred was still here or would you rather we take the chance with ashley ? I couldn't give a toss about personalities, we don't know if Ashley will back his managers. If he doesn't back them as much as Fred and the Halls, who would you rather have ? Backing as much as Fred or the Hall's is meaningless, it's what we get for the money. If Ashley doesn't back Allardyce as much as Shepherd might have but we win something then it's better. Wouldn't that be down to the manager then? The manager appointed by Shepherd? Don't expect him to reply honestly to that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Money = success In the wrong hands money means nothing, money + Souness = debt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 If there is an issue about transfers, I get the impression it's as much about the speed at which the new lot have (or haven't) operated as it is about financial caution. Not that I'm entirely opposed to a bit of financial caution. You shudder to think what quantity of shambles and shite the "review" might be turning up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Wouldn't that be down to the manager then? The manager appointed by Shepherd? Of course it would, the managers appointed by Shepherd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 you mean having an alternative [but possibly correct] opinion to the numerous who blindly agree with each other ? Like it or not, its a relevant comment that may indeed be true, that he does not intend to spend his own money on the club. Why do you think otherwise ? Apart from that, the WUM deserves ridicule in spades. Wake up and smell the coffee, it just might be correct. You might turn out to be correct with some of the above but the comment about Ashley not spending money is no more than a crock of s***, he's spent £133 million to buy the club and he's taken on £80 million in debt. For the first time in the history of Newcastle United we've got a sole owner, one who has dragged more cash out of his pocket than we've ever seen before. He has employed a top businessman who is now looking at the club to see how it stands. We might not be taking massive leaps but we do seem to be laying the foundations to move forward by make good decisions for the club. If things work out well for us I think you will be privately gutted. Unlike yourself, I was not attracted to the club by the potential success that the Halls and Shepherd brought to the club, I supported them a long time before that, hoping for success. will you answer my question please....would you rather fred was still here or take the chance with ashley ? please try not to dodge the question with more about a future neither of us know as fact,i'm asking about about "now",we cannot know what the future holds but we have to make decisions...what's yours ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Unlike yourself, I was not attracted to the club by the potential success that the Halls and Shepherd brought to the club, I supported them a long time before that, hoping for success. Do you think that if you say it often enough it might become true? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 i give sole responsibility of allerdyce's success to ashley. Allardyce, while in my opinion one of the best possible choices, was still the obvious choice, like roeder and souness before him, and therefore i don't see it as a great coup be freddy. he was attracted by our size and money. if it had been an unkown foreign manager who then wen't on to big things with us, then i would praise shepheard, as he uncovered the hidden gem, even if he did it under ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Money = success In the wrong hands money means nothing, money + Souness = debt. OK then, lets rephrase it No money = no success Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Don't expect him to reply honestly to that Pot and kettle come to mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Souness failure = not Shepherd's fault. Roeder failure = not Shepherd's fault. Allardyce success = Shepherd be praised! Allardyce failure = See – nyah! – I told you the new owners would be crap! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 OK then, lets rephrase it No money = no success Do you always rephrase things when you're proven wrong? Also, what do you call success? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 you mean having an alternative [but possibly correct] opinion to the numerous who blindly agree with each other ? Like it or not, its a relevant comment that may indeed be true, that he does not intend to spend his own money on the club. Why do you think otherwise ? Apart from that, the WUM deserves ridicule in spades. Wake up and smell the coffee, it just might be correct. You might turn out to be correct with some of the above but the comment about Ashley not spending money is no more than a crock of s***, he's spent £133 million to buy the club and he's taken on £80 million in debt. For the first time in the history of Newcastle United we've got a sole owner, one who has dragged more cash out of his pocket than we've ever seen before. He has employed a top businessman who is now looking at the club to see how it stands. We might not be taking massive leaps but we do seem to be laying the foundations to move forward by make good decisions for the club. If things work out well for us I think you will be privately gutted. Unlike yourself, I was not attracted to the club by the potential success that the Halls and Shepherd brought to the club, I supported them a long time before that, hoping for success. will you answer my question please....would you rather fred was still here or take the chance with ashley ? please try not to dodge the question with more about a future neither of us no as fact,i'm asking about about "now",we cannot know what the future holds but we have to make decisions...what's yours ? My answer is dependent on how they back their managers. We don't know yet if Ashley will back his managers more than the Halls and Shepherd. YOu are asking me to say who I prefer, based on what exactly ? Their personality ? I don't give a toss about Fred saying daft things in a brothel, likewise I don't give a toss if Ashley never makes a single quote to the press about anything. Neither scenario matter at all. My instinct is that the club is in safe hands with a man who will cover the debt undertaken in expanding the stadium, and a single owner who has delisted the club. But we can't be sure at all until we see the extent of his ambition and football nous. He may be perfectly happy just existing in the premiership and making small annual profits. We can't expect him to spend his own money on the club. There are also lots of clubs now in the hands of rich men. They are all looking to be in the CL and get their money back, and they can't all do it. Fact of life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 you mean having an alternative [but possibly correct] opinion to the numerous who blindly agree with each other ? Like it or not, its a relevant comment that may indeed be true, that he does not intend to spend his own money on the club. Why do you think otherwise ? Apart from that, the WUM deserves ridicule in spades. Wake up and smell the coffee, it just might be correct. You might turn out to be correct with some of the above but the comment about Ashley not spending money is no more than a crock of s***, he's spent £133 million to buy the club and he's taken on £80 million in debt. For the first time in the history of Newcastle United we've got a sole owner, one who has dragged more cash out of his pocket than we've ever seen before. He has employed a top businessman who is now looking at the club to see how it stands. We might not be taking massive leaps but we do seem to be laying the foundations to move forward by make good decisions for the club. If things work out well for us I think you will be privately gutted. Unlike yourself, I was not attracted to the club by the potential success that the Halls and Shepherd brought to the club, I supported them a long time before that, hoping for success. will you answer my question please....would you rather fred was still here or take the chance with ashley ? please try not to dodge the question with more about a future neither of us no as fact,i'm asking about about "now",we cannot know what the future holds but we have to make decisions...what's yours ? My answer is dependent on how they back their managers. We don't know yet if Ashley will back his managers more than the Halls and Shepherd. YOu are asking me to say who I prefer, based on what exactly ? Their personality ? I don't give a toss about Fred saying daft things in a brothel, likewise I don't give a toss if Ashley never makes a single quote to the press about anything. Neither scenario matter at all. My instinct is that the club is in safe hands with a man who will cover the debt undertaken in expanding the stadium, and a single owner who has delisted the club. But we can't be sure at all until we see the extent of his ambition and football nous. He may be perfectly happy just existing in the premiership and making small annual profits. We can't expect him to spend his own money on the club. There are also lots of clubs now in the hands of rich men. They are all looking to be in the CL and get their money back, and they can't all do it. Fact of life. He owns the damn club. Any money the club spends is his money. He's already spent more of his own money on players than Shepherd ever did. Fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 you mean having an alternative [but possibly correct] opinion to the numerous who blindly agree with each other ? Like it or not, its a relevant comment that may indeed be true, that he does not intend to spend his own money on the club. Why do you think otherwise ? Apart from that, the WUM deserves ridicule in spades. Wake up and smell the coffee, it just might be correct. You might turn out to be correct with some of the above but the comment about Ashley not spending money is no more than a crock of s***, he's spent £133 million to buy the club and he's taken on £80 million in debt. For the first time in the history of Newcastle United we've got a sole owner, one who has dragged more cash out of his pocket than we've ever seen before. He has employed a top businessman who is now looking at the club to see how it stands. We might not be taking massive leaps but we do seem to be laying the foundations to move forward by make good decisions for the club. If things work out well for us I think you will be privately gutted. Unlike yourself, I was not attracted to the club by the potential success that the Halls and Shepherd brought to the club, I supported them a long time before that, hoping for success. will you answer my question please....would you rather fred was still here or take the chance with ashley ? please try not to dodge the question with more about a future neither of us no as fact,i'm asking about about "now",we cannot know what the future holds but we have to make decisions...what's yours ? My answer is dependent on how they back their managers. We don't know yet if Ashley will back his managers more than the Halls and Shepherd. YOu are asking me to say who I prefer, based on what exactly ? Their personality ? I don't give a toss about Fred saying daft things in a brothel, likewise I don't give a toss if Ashley never makes a single quote to the press about anything. Neither scenario matter at all. My instinct is that the club is in safe hands with a man who will cover the debt undertaken in expanding the stadium, and a single owner who has delisted the club. But we can't be sure at all until we see the extent of his ambition and football nous. He may be perfectly happy just existing in the premiership and making small annual profits. We can't expect him to spend his own money on the club. There are also lots of clubs now in the hands of rich men. They are all looking to be in the CL and get their money back, and they can't all do it. Fact of life. no,you cannot make a decision "now" based on what will happen in the future,thats why it's a risk. i'll give you another go "would you rather fred was still here or take the risk with ashley ?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 My answer is dependent on how they back their managers. We don't know yet if Ashley will back his managers more than the Halls and Shepherd. YOu are asking me to say who I prefer, based on what exactly ? Their personality ? I don't give a toss about Fred saying daft things in a brothel, likewise I don't give a toss if Ashley never makes a single quote to the press about anything. Neither scenario matter at all. My instinct is that the club is in safe hands with a man who will cover the debt undertaken in expanding the stadium, and a single owner who has delisted the club. But we can't be sure at all until we see the extent of his ambition and football nous. He may be perfectly happy just existing in the premiership and making small annual profits. We can't expect him to spend his own money on the club. There are also lots of clubs now in the hands of rich men. They are all looking to be in the CL and get their money back, and they can't all do it. Fact of life. Stop trying to change history, the debt is in the region of £80 million and the last set of accounts showed the debt against expending the stadium was less than £40 million, I think it was £37. The amount of money spent is not a sign of one being better than the other, you've got a warped set of values, and it’s what you get for the money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 My answer to madras's question would be: "I'm glad we've taken the risk with Ashley, rather than be stuck with Fred." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 OK then, lets rephrase it No money = no success Do you always rephrase things when you're proven wrong? Also, what do you call success? Well, quite clearly fighting for promotion from the old division 2 is enough for you, as you think it is no different to qualifying for europe more than everyone bar 4 clubs over the span of a decade. No money = no success. This is absolute fact. It is your failure to grasp such things which make it obvious you didn't really support the club when we had shit directors, otherwise you wouldn't even dispute it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I think "success" for NE5 means something like "qualifying for the Intertoto reasonably often". 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