NJS

'Accept' in what way? How can I improve the club other than being a fan? I 'accepted' inferiority under most of Shepherd's tenure as well don't forget. It's quite simple at the end of the day, I go to football to enjoy myself. If I don't, I should stop going. Something quite frankly I should have done when your man appointed Souness. inferior to who ? By the way, Shepherd never owned the club, it was owned by the Halls and Shepherd from 1992 until 2007. 1 club in 97, 12 clubs in 98, 12 clubs in 99, 10 clubs in 00,10 clubs in 01, 3 clubs in 02, 2 clubs in 03, 4 clubs in 04, 13 clubs in 05, 6 clubs in 06 and 12 clubs in 07. 5 years out 11 we surpassed Ashley's unambitious target - in 6 we did not.

Did he not play for us like?

A club who've won more trophies than us, have a more recent period of success, and have an all-time average crowd within a couple of hundred of ours - do you think we should automatically finish above them as well? Of course we should. As a business we should be at least 30% bigger than them as we have been for the best part of 20 years. More trophies what a pathetic statement, four more trophies, so fuckin what? It's staggering our all time average gate is higher than their's given the fact we've spent 20 years of our history in Division Two and they haven't even been down for 60 years. The fact is we are a bigger club in finance and fanbase in 2011 by far I'd say, so just to clarify, your argument is pathetic. More trophies. They've won one trophy in the last 24 years, one more than us, but so fuckin what. Let me ask you a question every season why are Newcastle on TV generally 5-10 games more than them? No wonder Leazes gets annoyed with posts like that. I actually think we are a bigger club than Everton all things considered. What I was trying to say was that from an objective point of view, there's no "good" reason to think we should be automatically finish above them. Their team of the 80s was more successful than our team of the 90s and it's "only" 24 years since they won the league compared with our 67 - you can see why a neutral would think it was "deluded" to think we should finish above them by rights. We feature more on TV for several reasons - Everyone know Everton are shit to watch and Sky know we are a bigger draw audience wise which is part of why I do think we are bigger. Having said that we do feature a lot with the hope that we will provide car crash TV.

A club who've won more trophies than us, have a more recent period of success, and have an all-time average crowd within a couple of hundred of ours - do you think we should automatically finish above them as well?

I get my information from freely available internet sources - I know you never read other people links because you think that somehow makes you some kind of intellectual or something but the internet is full of facts. Again you assume I support Ashley - that isn't what this is about - its about your opinion that the worst thing about selling Carroll was that it was to a club you think are our rivals - my opinion is that they are not. That "fact" is a reflection of the current regime but its also a reflection of football history and their place in world football. Do you honestly think we are as big a club as Liverpool?

I've tried to explain why Liverpool and Spurs are streets ahead of us but then again apart from 7 or 8 years they always have been. rubbish. If you talking about the recent history, are you referring to 12-13 years of the Halls and Shepherd era ? If so, why do you "hate" them ? These people who base their "opinions" on how much they do or don't "like" somebody, are a fucking hoot. We finished above Liverpool once in the 10 years Shepherd was chairman and three times with Hall - 4 times overall in 13 years - they must have been quaking - is that factual enough for you? Your view that because of those 4 years we are somehow rivals to the most successful club in English history who've won about 3 times as many trophies is laughable. we challenged them, are we challenging them now ? When did we last finish above Liverpool before the Halls and Shepherd, have we since, and when will we next ? Is that factual enough for you ? Your view that we are unable to challenge Liverpool having done it under the Halls and Shepherd because we bought the calibre of players that they did, under anyone else, is laughable. What about Spurs ? You under-sell NUFC if you like, not everybody is so negative. We never did previously because obviously they were top dogs - as I said for a couple of years here and there we finished above them and that will probably never happen again in the foreseeable future because at the end of the day they are are a global club that only decades of success could challenge. Funnily enough part of our success in finishing above them was due to their bad managerial appointments rather than spending power. This was my point - to break into the hierarchy of the top English clubs would take more than just a few years but you missed it as usual - you think those few odd years mean something now as if not matching that is somehow abject failure. As I said in the context of football in 2011 just getting to the top of the next level down is all we could hope for and that would be with better owners as well. Owners who never put a penny into the club would be useless today. You've already said we can't challenge Man U, Chelsea and Man City - extending that list to Liverpool and probably Spurs is just common sense but you have to cling on to them because you think we somehow took the piss out of them previously. My point was that that was a blip. If you want to give me an argument that we are as big or bigger than Liverpool because of those 4 years then I don't think saying that's crap is being negative - its just realism.

I've tried to explain why Liverpool and Spurs are streets ahead of us but then again apart from 7 or 8 years they always have been. rubbish. If you talking about the recent history, are you referring to 12-13 years of the Halls and Shepherd era ? If so, why do you "hate" them ? These people who base their "opinions" on how much they do or don't "like" somebody, are a fucking hoot. We finished above Liverpool once in the 10 years Shepherd was chairman and three times with Hall - 4 times overall in 13 years - they must have been quaking - is that factual enough for you? Your view that because of those 4 years we are somehow rivals to the most successful club in English history who've won about 3 times as many trophies is laughable.

Red was harsh like - punching away when bobbling around the six yard box is different to "saving" a shot on the line imo. Good pen from the shit cunt as well.

I've tried to explain why Liverpool and Spurs are streets ahead of us but then again apart from 7 or 8 years they always have been. As I've said before you need more than having a good run over 10 years even to overwrite 130 years of football. I enjoy Stevie's Geordie nationalist rants as much as anyone and agree with the "we could and should rule the world" thrust at the centre of that but to start thinking we are a bigger club than the 5 clubs who've won more trophies than us and have always had bigger gates leads to justifying shite like Matthew Saed's piece that time about how deluded we are. I'm also sick of reading this "2nd biggest crowds" line which people still spout as if the Emirates hadn't opened. The sad fact is that if Liverpool, Spurs and Chelsea had sorted out bigger grounds we'd be sixth on that score as well though you wouldn't think it given some of the "52k every week" hyperbole. It's great that we have the ground as it is but we shouldn't think it makes us a special case. Of course if we had won the league in 96 and continued the momentum till now we'd have been sitting pretty but I think we'd still have found it hard to better Man U, Chelsea and now Man City simply in spending terms. Even if we'd started making £50m profits that wouldn't compete with the latter two.

Sorry Stevie but that's shite - the only way to increase turnover that much would have been by success on the pitch and ground expansion - how likely was that in 2007? give it a rest man, we aren't talking about fucking 2007, we are talking about the bigger picture ie the aims, strategies and direction of the club. Look I enjoyed the good times as much as you but if you can't see it was all going into a decline from 2006 onwards to the extent that the Halls were actively looking for a way out then you're blind. I'm no financial expert but your stock "maximizing revenues" phrase and Stevie's assertion above have to be called out - if you can explain how a business which was going backwards and was seeing its competitors get more investment could somehow double its turnover then fair enough - replies like "Shepherd was a good bloke - he would have done it somehow" are crap.

Sorry Stevie but that's shite - the only way to increase turnover that much would have been by success on the pitch and ground expansion - how likely was that in 2007?

I know that - I was just suggesting that now that that debt is gone (however it was done) it leaves you in a stronger position to invest more in players - either from profits or from credit/investment. If Ashley had really written off his loans to us as his lickspittel has suggested in the past then that would have put us ina similar position. Unfortunately recently he has gone back more to quoting his full investment suggesting he wants that back before he does anything else. As you suggest the simple idea that the best way to get that money back via on the pitch improvement has been lost. did you really believe that ? We are more in debt than when he bought the club man, we just owe him the money, this has been pointed out numerous times by many people. The club is in decline. The price that was mooted last summer suggested there was a point where he had "forgotten" about the 110m at least - I think once he realised we could quite easily go back up he changed his mind and decided to play a longer game at least for now.

I know that - I was just suggesting that now that that debt is gone (however it was done) it leaves you in a stronger position to invest more in players - either from profits or from credit/investment. If Ashley had really written off his loans to us as his lickspittel has suggested in the past then that would have put us ina similar position. Unfortunately recently he has gone back more to quoting his full investment suggesting he wants that back before he does anything else. As you suggest the simple idea that the best way to get that money back via on the pitch improvement has been lost.

You might be right - but I think he was under pressure as he'd only won the spanish cup and Real were dominating- - I think Van Gall was lined up though.

Problem was that until the end of the 70s, the capacity was adequate so there was no reason to expand or even to redevelop apsrt from for prestige. By the time the work needed to be done, the credit was available to do so - something that would have been a problem in the past. Of course the redevelopment of the east stand and planned Leazes was very small-minded but again those men had no wealth.

I dont see it like that at all. He had a contact with Barca and wanted to see it out. I believe he never broke a contract in his life. Thats honourable for me and clearly something the game lacks these days. Possibly - my thought at the time was that Hall should have bribed Barcelona into sacking him which would have suited all parties as they'd already moved him upstairs by then.

Robson turned the job down in 97 post Keegan - I know it goes against the grain to criticise the man but I always felt he deserved some for that - as others have said he was keen only when he had nothing else.

I agree - unfortunately they sold to someone who didn't. We need Ashley's pockets to stop going bust sadly.

The owners took advantage of good timing within football and a good manager. I remember KK saying when we got promoted and he told Hall he was aiming to win the league, Hall didn't believe him as they'd never envisaged that - it was KK who drove the initial ambition. I actually agree with whoever it was who said going PLC and John Hall taking a back seat is what really ended the momentum - after that it was all money we didn't have being spent and increasing desperation which is why its Shepherd I criticise more than John Hall. Their model wouldn't work now as they never injected capital themselves - that's what I keep trying to argue is why its no good holding their ways up as relevant for the situation now - in the current times we unfortunately need Ashley's pockets as is true for almost all the clubs in the country.

Man Utd - no chance Man City - no chance Arsenal - no chance Chelsea - no chance Liverpool - as I've said used generated funds to buy new players and as the Livepool fan said will probably spend a fair bit in the summer. they are a long way ahead of us. Spurs - used transfer profits over the last 4 years to build a squad which is a lot better than us The latter two is a level I'd like to aim for and I accept your argument that there's nothing wrong with that but they are streets ahead of us - that's simple realism without millions being spent which is what I keep saying. So where does that leave us? - you keep mentioning Blackburn but I'd say its more Villa, Everton, the Mackems and "functional" teams like Stoke. That is the next tier and thinking that we can compete above that is unrealistic - again as I keep saying "accepting" that Ashley won't invest. The funny thing is if a new owner did come in and try and do the same turnover expansion as the previous regime using revenue and loans only, you're probably talking a maximum spend of £50m - do you think that would give us a better squad than Spurs or Liverpool? you've just said how Spurs and Liverpool are aiming higher than we are, now. I like how you concede inferiority to Arsenal, where exactly do you think they will go when Wenger goes and if they don't make a similar calibre appointment ? Nothing is permanent, that is a fundamental you and others appear to fail to grasp. We have one of the biggest clubs and fanbases in the country, there is simply no excuse for any owner not attempting to capitalise on it. They are aiming higher because obviously they have better owners - what I'm saying is that they have funded most of their recent squad building by either transfer profits or debt in Liverpools case which has then been written off. At the end of the day they still have lot better squads than us which is why its unrealistic to expect competition in the immediate future. Arsenal will have to be judged when the new owner shows his hand - they may have a lot of money to spend to go with a much better academy than us at the moment. If you want to predict how things will be in 5 or 10 years time then good luck - obviously we agree we should be going all out but I think its going to be difficult given the present situation. As I've said before I've never been able to figure Ashley out and to a large extent I don't think he know what he wants either. We are of course the victims of that but I don't see the point of railing against it until things become clearer.

Man Utd - no chance Man City - no chance Arsenal - no chance Chelsea - no chance Liverpool - as I've said used generated funds to buy new players and as the Livepool fan said will probably spend a fair bit in the summer. they are a long way ahead of us. Spurs - used transfer profits over the last 4 years to build a squad which is a lot better than us The latter two is a level I'd like to aim for and I accept your argument that there's nothing wrong with that but they are streets ahead of us - that's simple realism without millions being spent which is what I keep saying. So where does that leave us? - you keep mentioning Blackburn but I'd say its more Villa, Everton, the Mackems and "functional" teams like Stoke. That is the next tier and thinking that we can compete above that is unrealistic - again as I keep saying "accepting" that Ashley won't invest. The funny thing is if a new owner did come in and try and do the same turnover expansion as the previous regime using revenue and loans only, you're probably talking a maximum spend of £50m - do you think that would give us a better squad than Spurs or Liverpool?

while respecting the views of others, before they get their knickers in a twist [fao Renton, Gloomy, NJS etc or anybody else who is allowing personalities to get between themselves and obvious logic] that is as straightforward, and spot on as you will find. Why fuck about ? Tell it like it is. Keegan, particularly, is a genuine NUFC hero and will stand the test of time, long after Mike Ashley will go down in history as nothing but a bad smell and those who are even attempting to make excuses for him dragging the club downwards like he is doing will also be shown up to be the tossers that they are, although they will probably disappear and come back under different usernames. It's about prespective - given our history since the 50s then both were huge sucesses and will be seen as such by all Newcastle fans but the lad was making the point that from an outside perspective they weren't successful. It may grate when Man Utd or Liverpool fans take the piss out of Keegan/Shearer/NUFC for the lack of trophies but from their pov they are within their rights to do so - as I said the view that we went shit or bust, threatened them for a while then fucked off is perfectly valid for them. Of course if its Mackems or any other fuckers like Villa trying to tke the piss then they should be shot. and what do they think now ? We don't threaten them anymore ? In actual fact, most of the fans of other clubs I have met, all said during the times of Shearer/Keegan etc that NUFC are a club that should always be at that sort of level. Don't suppose you will accept that though, and harp on about Ashley being good for the club again despite taking it into decline. I'd imagine that Man U fans are quite realistic and realise their only realistic rivals are Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City and probably Liverpool. I do agree we did threaten them and a lot of them enjoyed that threat as far as it went as despite the hatred they do have a lot of "decent" football fans who recognise what NUFC are all about and thought we deserved to be at that level. Now they realise what I keep trying to say to you - unless Ashley or someone else decides to spend big then we won't threaten them again - I've never disputed that and I'm sure among your posts youu realise that as well. The best we can hope far is to be at the top of the next "tier" but what you can't accept is that the other clubs at that level are "shit" ones. Your usual accusation about me supporting Ashley is of course wrong but then I expect nothing else.

He was obviously shit during said world cup though.

aye. My mam. Without going all Frank Lampard its just coming up to 5 years since my Mam died and its also 20 years later this year since my Dad died and I've been thinking about them both more than ever lately.

Most recently Alan Smith - thought he was a really good player previously and can't fault his attitude but his all encompassing shitness has been very disappointing.