F F S................

[LeazesMag 0]

Tbh, the only time we came genuinely close to winning anything for me was the league in 1996, which would have been a fantastic achievement, obviously. It's over 10 years ago though so it doesn't come into the equation We were never in the 2 FA Cup Finals tbh. I suppose we were probably closer to winning it in 2000 than at any other time recently.

 

the most frustrating thing of all is that we played well in that Semi Final, and the Final was massively more winnable against Villa than the previous 2 years against double winners.

[Guest alex]

Agreed, especially re: the League Cup, we should have been going all out since KK arrived to win the fucker. We can start discounting it when we're winning Premiership titles and FA Cups I know it's not easy btw, we've also had some bad luck without a doubt. My Dad and I have long agreed (and I think I've seen others mention it on here) that perhaps the biggest turning point in our achieving success could have been SBR coming here when KK left, given the group of players he would have had to work with. I'm pretty sure we'd have had at least a cup or two, if not the Premier League title itself. What's it like supporting this club though? It drives me round the twist if I think about it too much

[Guest alex]

Tbh, the only time we came genuinely close to winning anything for me was the league in 1996, which would have been a fantastic achievement, obviously. It's over 10 years ago though so it doesn't come into the equation We were never in the 2 FA Cup Finals tbh. I suppose we were probably closer to winning it in 2000 than at any other time recently.

 

the most frustrating thing of all is that we played well in that Semi Final, and the Final was massively more winnable against Villa than the previous 2 years against double winners.

When Rob Lee's goal went in, what a moment. Unbelievable. So lucky to be there in a funny sort of way, despite the result.

[Renton 21627]

At least someone can debate this without resorting to daft insults and mind blowing tedious no nothing comments.

 

Ironic, to say the least.

 

Regarding the FA cup finals, we were no where near the match of the eventual winners, Alex is right in suggesting we came closer in 2000. This belief that we came near silverware is a myth except for 1996, a time which predates Shepherd's tenure as chairman. Leazes knows this and so chooses to move the goalposts to include the board's performance from 1992 to 1996 to suit his argument.

[LeazesMag 0]

At least someone can debate this without resorting to daft insults and mind blowing tedious no nothing comments.

 

Ironic, to say the least.

 

Regarding the FA cup finals, we were no where near the match of the eventual winners, Alex is right in suggesting we came closer in 2000. This belief that we came near silverware is a myth except for 1996, a time which predates Shepherd's tenure as chairman. Leazes knows this and so chooses to move the goalposts to include the board's performance from 1992 to 1996 to suit his argument.

 

But why would I do that ?

 

Basically Renton, its as I have said before, the major shareholders are the same people, the same people have input into choosing the managers. Why is SJH getting the credit for the Keegan era [although he is admittedly a bigger and brighter personality than Fred] when it was actually Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd who attracted Keegan to the club ? In my book, that just means SJH got lucky. If any of the other 3 had been chairman, Keegan would still have been backed and did the same job.

 

I can't see how you can say that 90 minutes from winning the title is closer than 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup - twice. Although there is no disputing the title is of course by far the bigger trophy, whatever Alan Shearer says when he puts his Geordie hat on !!!!! and makes us all look stupid .........

[GeordieMessiah 2]

At least someone can debate this without resorting to daft insults and mind blowing tedious no nothing comments.

 

Ironic, to say the least.

 

Regarding the FA cup finals, we were no where near the match of the eventual winners, Alex is right in suggesting we came closer in 2000. This belief that we came near silverware is a myth except for 1996, a time which predates Shepherd's tenure as chairman. Leazes knows this and so chooses to move the goalposts to include the board's performance from 1992 to 1996 to suit his argument.

 

To be fair to Leazes, it was me who suggested that we came close, but capitulated in '98 and '99.

Edited February 13, 2007 by GeordieMessiah

[LeazesMag 0]

Tbh, the only time we came genuinely close to winning anything for me was the league in 1996, which would have been a fantastic achievement, obviously. It's over 10 years ago though so it doesn't come into the equation We were never in the 2 FA Cup Finals tbh. I suppose we were probably closer to winning it in 2000 than at any other time recently.

 

the most frustrating thing of all is that we played well in that Semi Final, and the Final was massively more winnable against Villa than the previous 2 years against double winners.

When Rob Lee's goal went in, what a moment. Unbelievable. So lucky to be there in a funny sort of way, despite the result.

 

Going back further, I was behind the goal when Gowling scored in 1976, and directly in line with Tuearts winner unfortunately. We played really well in that game too, really really well, just like the Chelsea match.

 

Sickens me to think I have seen the toon play at Wembley 5 times, lost all 5, played shit 3 times, and scored only 2 goals

[Guest alex]

Bit misleading the 90 mins away from the title thing, although we obviously came close. We were still, technically, 2 results away from winning the league. And neither of those results were achieved in the end. That's just me being pedantic though

[Guest alex]

Tbh, the only time we came genuinely close to winning anything for me was the league in 1996, which would have been a fantastic achievement, obviously. It's over 10 years ago though so it doesn't come into the equation We were never in the 2 FA Cup Finals tbh. I suppose we were probably closer to winning it in 2000 than at any other time recently.

 

the most frustrating thing of all is that we played well in that Semi Final, and the Final was massively more winnable against Villa than the previous 2 years against double winners.

When Rob Lee's goal went in, what a moment. Unbelievable. So lucky to be there in a funny sort of way, despite the result.

 

Going back further, I was behind the goal when Gowling scored in 1976, and directly in line with Tuearts winner unfortunately. We played really well in that game too, really really well, just like the Chelsea match.

 

Sickens me to think I have seen the toon play at Wembley 5 times, lost all 5, played shit 3 times, and scored only 2 goals

I was only 1 and 1/2 so I hope you'll excuse my non-attendance It would have been a trophy in my lifetime though.

[LeazesMag 0]

Bit misleading the 90 mins away from the title thing, although we obviously came close. We were still, technically, 2 results away from winning the league. And neither of those results were achieved in the end. That's just me being pedantic though

 

aye, it is

 

Must admit, going into the last game against Spurs, 99% of me knew it was all over.

[LeazesMag 0]

Tbh, the only time we came genuinely close to winning anything for me was the league in 1996, which would have been a fantastic achievement, obviously. It's over 10 years ago though so it doesn't come into the equation We were never in the 2 FA Cup Finals tbh. I suppose we were probably closer to winning it in 2000 than at any other time recently.

 

the most frustrating thing of all is that we played well in that Semi Final, and the Final was massively more winnable against Villa than the previous 2 years against double winners.

When Rob Lee's goal went in, what a moment. Unbelievable. So lucky to be there in a funny sort of way, despite the result.

 

Going back further, I was behind the goal when Gowling scored in 1976, and directly in line with Tuearts winner unfortunately. We played really well in that game too, really really well, just like the Chelsea match.

 

Sickens me to think I have seen the toon play at Wembley 5 times, lost all 5, played shit 3 times, and scored only 2 goals

I was only 1 and 1/2 so I hope you'll excuse my non-attendance It would have been a trophy in my lifetime though.

 

I was 8 months old when we last won the FA Cup mate

 

And I was too young to go to Budapest worse luck, although I saw all 6 home games.

Edited February 13, 2007 by LeazesMag

[Guest alex]

Bit misleading the 90 mins away from the title thing, although we obviously came close. We were still, technically, 2 results away from winning the league. And neither of those results were achieved in the end. That's just me being pedantic though

 

aye, it is

 

Must admit, going into the last game against Spurs, 99% of me knew it was all over.

I was at Forest away too mate. That's when the dream really died tbh

[Guest alex]

Tbh, the only time we came genuinely close to winning anything for me was the league in 1996, which would have been a fantastic achievement, obviously. It's over 10 years ago though so it doesn't come into the equation We were never in the 2 FA Cup Finals tbh. I suppose we were probably closer to winning it in 2000 than at any other time recently.

 

the most frustrating thing of all is that we played well in that Semi Final, and the Final was massively more winnable against Villa than the previous 2 years against double winners.

When Rob Lee's goal went in, what a moment. Unbelievable. So lucky to be there in a funny sort of way, despite the result.

 

Going back further, I was behind the goal when Gowling scored in 1976, and directly in line with Tuearts winner unfortunately. We played really well in that game too, really really well, just like the Chelsea match.

 

Sickens me to think I have seen the toon play at Wembley 5 times, lost all 5, played shit 3 times, and scored only 2 goals

I was only 1 and 1/2 so I hope you'll excuse my non-attendance It would have been a trophy in my lifetime though.

 

I was 8 months old when we last won the FA Cup mate

 

And I was too young to go to Budapest worse luck, although I saw all 6 home games.

Me Dad saw the '55 cup final from under the table of the next door neighbour Tellies were a rare thing in Walker back then like.

[LeazesMag 0]

Bit misleading the 90 mins away from the title thing, although we obviously came close. We were still, technically, 2 results away from winning the league. And neither of those results were achieved in the end. That's just me being pedantic though

 

aye, it is

 

Must admit, going into the last game against Spurs, 99% of me knew it was all over.

I was at Forest away too mate. That's when the dream really died tbh

 

probably. Amazing to think we won 17 out of 18 home league games before that last one, and lost the one which counted the most.

 

We would have beaten Spurs if we had needed to ..

Edited February 13, 2007 by LeazesMag

[Guest alex]

Aye, I think if we'd needed to beat Spurs to win the league it would have been about 4-1 tbh. That home game against Man Utd. though. Discussing this is cheering me up no end btw

[Renton 21627]

At least someone can debate this without resorting to daft insults and mind blowing tedious no nothing comments.

 

Ironic, to say the least.

 

Regarding the FA cup finals, we were no where near the match of the eventual winners, Alex is right in suggesting we came closer in 2000. This belief that we came near silverware is a myth except for 1996, a time which predates Shepherd's tenure as chairman. Leazes knows this and so chooses to move the goalposts to include the board's performance from 1992 to 1996 to suit his argument.

 

But why would I do that ?

 

Basically Renton, its as I have said before, the major shareholders are the same people, the same people have input into choosing the managers. Why is SJH getting the credit for the Keegan era [although he is admittedly a bigger and brighter personality than Fred] when it was actually Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd who attracted Keegan to the club ? In my book, that just means SJH got lucky. If any of the other 3 had been chairman, Keegan would still have been backed and did the same job.

 

I can't see how you can say that 90 minutes from winning the title is closer than 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup - twice. Although there is no disputing the title is of course by far the bigger trophy, whatever Alan Shearer says when he puts his Geordie hat on !!!!! and makes us all look stupid .........

 

 

The make-up of the board is significantly different now Leazes, Shepherd has the role of Chairman and the influence of his son has increased. Nepotism is rife on the board - check out the members. These aren't people qualified to lead the club, merely hangers on.

 

Regarding the FA cups, look at our easy runs to get to the finals, and look how well we did in the league in each of those years. The truth is we were never really at the races and had no chance against the best clubs in the land in those years. The league we threw away was different, we had plenty of chances but blew it - mainly in the defeat against ManU at home when we were desperately unlucky to meet Schmiechal having the game of his life.

 

Why do you and HTL bang on about that Shearer quote btw? After all the crap Shepherd has come up with over the years, you harp on about a quote Shearer made when he was clearly just trying to big us up before a cup game. Odd.

[LeazesMag 0]

the use of the word "decline" suggests the club is in freefall and competing with the likes of Leeds and Sheff Wed...

No, it really doesn't, it means/suggests.intimates/proposes that this club is not moving forward and is in fact moving backwards, it does, at no point, make reference to the speed or dramatic nature of the decline. So I'm not likening us to Leeds, Sheff Wed, Forest or any of that ilk.

 

I don't accept the club is in "decline".

This, I feel is the massive difference between you and the majority of Newcastle Fans (both old and new).

 

We have not matched our 2nd position that we reached under Keegan simply because we haven't been able to find a manager who has done so well, however the club has appointed - and obviously attracted, despite people saying falsely that they haven't - major trophy winning managers to the club, so nobody can say that they haven't attempted to match the position Keegan reached. Appointing these managers of this calibre and backing them to the hilt is in fact a "plan".

 

Most agree that Shepherd has backed every single manager that he has employed, however they would stipulate that a chairman wouldn't need to be so vocal in his support if the manager was a tragically poor appointment. You point to trophies and the like, but fail to recognise that it's horses for courses, Robson and Keegan were the right men for the job. Gullit, Dalglish and Souness were not. It was obvious to most people that Dalglish's footballing style would not marry well with the squad and team ethic that Keegan had built. Dalglish style is not cavalier as Keegan and Robson's were. Souness had left an awful swell of discontent and contempt behind him, how in the name of all that is holy did we think that this poor management approach and shocking football would sit with the Fans and footballers at NUFC?

 

I agree with your comment about the defence under Keegan. However you immediately ruin it with the comment about the "back door". Up until 1992, we had only qualified for europe once in our history through the "front door" by finishing 5th in the league, and 3 times by the "back door" including the occasion we won it. Since 1992, under the current board, we have qualified more through the front door and the back door

than 35-40 years previous to this. What does this mean ? You tell me as you mentioned it. I think it shows conclusively the current board has done massively better than the old board, and made big leaps forward, which is what I keep saying and nobody believes it or acknowledges it to be true and gives credit for it.

In fact, it is indisputable.

What does it mean, it means that until 1992 our only chance of european qualification would be a miraculous cup run. I think it means that since 92 our expectations have (rightfully) risen to meet the standards set by a team very obviously on the up. However these expectations are, season after season, lowering. Now tell me why this board who you vaunt, have allowed a return to low expectations? We as fans have every right to expect better from the club. We've the money, the fanbase, the fame to attract players who can deliver us success. Surely the fault then lies at the feet of the manager, the coaches and the club staff? We've had some outrageously talented footballers at the club and yet we've won nothing for decades! I refuse to eblieve this paucity of silverware is solely Lady Lucks machination. With persistently poor performances in the market for management and players this board have shown what they really are.

 

They're Newcastle United fans who want the best for the club, who will happily throw money at the problem without genuinely understanding what is expected from them as people, officials and spokesmen for a famous old club. I respect you've watched Newcastle United when they were close to anonymity and the leaps we've made in such a relatively short time are to be applauded. The way you have such low expectations is, in my eyes, to ignore and frankly insult the leaps we've made.

 

Every manager at the club has had his "plan". And the clubs "plan" for every manager has been to assist him and support him to gain success.

 

The thing about this board is if they appoint the right manager - which everyone else is also attempting to do - they will give us success because they will back him. A different board may appoint the right manager - and there is no guarantee they will appoint the right manager any more than the current one - but if they are not ambitious then we have no chance, and he would leave for someone else. I have seen this at NUFC, and it is far far worse than the current situation, so it is the absolute last thing I want at the football club.

 

You mention this boards ambition and this does not sit well with me. You barrack the old board, bemoaning the lack of ambition, fair enough... up until Sir John Hall took the helm. He dragged this club, with enthusiasm, financial acumen and busines sense, into the premiership. Under his stewardship we challenged for the title.

 

Ever since this current board took control we have slipped further and further down the league, we have spent an ugly amount of money for absolutely no reward. Sure we've a nice big stadium, we've good facilities to train upon, but what good will this do a team in the championship? What good does having a 52,000 seater stadium if we cannot fill it because (rightly or wrongly) football fans want to see food football and baulk at paying in exces of £20 for two hours of disappointment?

 

You can say that you don't want those kind of fans and you can call them names and wail into your mug of bovril, but in all honesty, those fair weather fans are the way clubs afford the better player, they're the fans that become season ticket holders next year, they're the men women and children who buy the over-priced merchandise.

 

When was the last time you bought something from the club shop that wasn't a shirt?

 

I don't care if these guys turn up and pay for the new Centre half we so desperately need. If they exists for a ouple of seasons then bugger off for warmer climes and longer days, so what? I want Newcastle United to succeed and under this board we're not. They've had a massive budget, they've had a solid foundation, they've been buyoed by the resurgence of football as the national sport, they've had every opportunity to make this great club successful and they have failed.

 

Not one person on here have said that another board will guarantee success, but what everyone seems willing to accept is that this board will not take us forward. Everyone apart from yourself.

 

now please... don't tell me that other clubs have been less succesful, because I don't care about other unsuccesful clubs. I care that this club, my club, has everything that it takes to be a great and powerful force in football. It has history, it has passionate fans, it has the facilities and it has a team with one or two potential stars.

 

 

just seen this <<< pause for breath >>>>

 

Some good points mate. I am only saying that the club is attempting to be successful, I'm sure they want to pull a Keegan out of the hat just like we do, but where do you find such people ? Souness was a twat, we know that, but Dalglish and Gullit were also brought in to be successful, they had both been successful before, and won trophies/a trophy, unlike Keegan.

 

The opinion of the majority at the time Dalglish was appointed was that he was the man to finish the job Keegan started, its easy looking back now and saying what happened in reality ie he changed too much because he was too different. Maybe we could have gave him more time ?

 

I would accept the club was in "decline" if they did not show ambition which would then give me the feeling that we had no chance of ever being successful. However, if we do appoint the "right" manager then they would back him and therefore we would be successful. Why do you not consider qualifying for europe to be fairly successful ? Put to one side the fact that we know under Keegan we nearly won the league, as you accept that you can't realistically expect that forever, so judge the last decade on its merits.

 

Would you feel better if we had won the League Cup during this period, would you still say the club was in "decline". Personally, I think the club has deserved this for the effort they have put in to trying to be successful, why we haven't at least done this is another matter and there are reasons for it which in my opinion are not down to the board, as said elsewhere.

 

I don't buy owt from the shop, or not much. And I accept your point about corporate customers and the like, its part of the game today at these levels we operate at, I don't have any wish to see interest fade in NUFC, any more than you do.

 

Numerous people say "Fred out". For who ? This in my eyes means they just want a change no matter what. There is no point in making a change if it is not going to do better, and so far nobody has indicated they are prepared to do better, and have the belief and best interests of the club at heart to do better.

 

I would like the club to be taken over by someone rich and ambitious enough to capitalise on the clubs support as much as anyone, I've said before the Keegan years proved we can beat anybody in that respect, when half the city wanted to go to games.

 

Thanks for the reply BTW.

[sammynb 3355]

I agree with your comment about the defence under Keegan. However you immediately ruin it with the comment about the "back door". Up until 1992, we had only qualified for europe once in our history through the "front door" by finishing 5th in the league, and 3 times by the "back door" including the occasion we won it. Since 1992, under the current board, we have qualified more through the front door and the back door

than 35-40 years previous to this. What does this mean ? You tell me as you mentioned it. I think it shows conclusively the current board has done massively better than the old board, and made big leaps forward, which is what I keep saying and nobody believes it or acknowledges it to be true and gives credit for it.

In fact, it is indisputable.

To neither support nor refute anyone's argument it needs to be pointed out once and for all that since 1992 qualification for Europe has changed significantly, to the point where qualification now is ridiculously easy compared with pre-1992.

 

Champions league/European Cup

From UEFA.com:

Competition change

The major turning point in the evolution of the competition came in the 1992/93 season when the UEFA Champions League, involving a group phase in addition to the traditional knock-out elements, was officially inaugurated after a pilot group stage during the previous season. The popularity of the group phase has witnessed the competition grow from eight to 32 teams with matches taking place on Tuesdays and Wednesdays across Europe.

 

Fairs cup/UEFA cup/Cup Winners cup

From UEFA.com:

This forerunner to the UEFA Cup, the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, was founded on 18 April 1955, two weeks after the founding of the European Champion Clubs’ Cup. The first Fairs Cup involved teams from Barcelona, Basle, Birmingham, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Lausanne, Leipzig, London, Milan and Zagreb. The original tournament lasted three years, with matches timed to coincide with trade fairs.

 

For the second tournament the organisers reverted to club participation but the teams still had to come from cities staging trade fairs. Sixteen clubs took part in the 1958-60 tournament, after which it was staged on an annual basis. By 1962 the number of entrants had risen to 32; there are now over 100.

 

From 1999/2000, domestic cup winners also qualified for the UEFA Cup after the UEFA Cup Winners’ Cup was disbanded. In addition, clubs eliminated from the third qualifying round of the UEFA Champions League and the eight third-placed finishers at the end of the group stage of the same competition entered the competition. The UEFA Cup also includes three Fair Play representatives, three UEFA Intertoto Cup winners and winners of some selected domestic league cup competitions. A group stage was introduced for the first time in 2004/05.

 

Whereas prior to 1992 there were only approx 40 European places and many of those were "invitation" only or a combination of invitation/qualification, there are now over 140 European places per season not including the intertoto cup.

 

Is that so ? Well, you can tell us when the last team qualified for the UEFA Cup/Fairs Cup that finished 10th then 9th in the table, as we did in 1968 and 1969 ? Please back up your statement with a reply.

 

We would not have qualified in these years if not for the one city one club rule. We also finished 7th in the table in 1970. We finished 12th in 1971, 11th in 1972, 9th in 1973, 15th in 1974, 15th in 1975, 15th in 1976 and qualified again finishing 5th in 1977. Since 1977 we have finished 21st, 8th in div 2, 9th in div 2, 11th in div 2, 9th in div 2, 5th in div 2, 3rd in div 2, 14th in div 1, 11th in div 1, 17th in div 1, 8th in div 1, 20th in div 1, 3rd in div 2, 11th in div 2, 20th in div 2, up to and including 1992.

 

So, however many places were available for European qualification, they were irrelevant to us. Therefore your point is invalid.

Just to clarify, are we talking English FA clubs?

No-one that I know of but I don't doubt I'm wrong.

The closest since would probably be citeh in 03/04 after they finished 9th in 02/03 and got there via the fair play placing but they only did it the one season.

By the way Leaze yes I know the only reason the team qualified in 1968 was due to the fact we were the highest club on the league table with only one team in the city who hadn't qualified for a European competition, whereas Everton, Spuds and Arsenal should have all been eligable before Newcastle on league position.

Also we only qualified in 1969 because Newcastle were the cup holders.

 

As for the rest of your post, yes we all know where we finished in the years from 1969 to present but it doesn't make the point invalid, the point is that prior to 1992 there were only a maximum of 40 European spots, post 1992 there are considerably more thus making qualification easier - as I said it's neither pro nor against anyone's argument.

[LeazesMag 0]

At least someone can debate this without resorting to daft insults and mind blowing tedious no nothing comments.

 

Ironic, to say the least.

 

Regarding the FA cup finals, we were no where near the match of the eventual winners, Alex is right in suggesting we came closer in 2000. This belief that we came near silverware is a myth except for 1996, a time which predates Shepherd's tenure as chairman. Leazes knows this and so chooses to move the goalposts to include the board's performance from 1992 to 1996 to suit his argument.

 

But why would I do that ?

 

Basically Renton, its as I have said before, the major shareholders are the same people, the same people have input into choosing the managers. Why is SJH getting the credit for the Keegan era [although he is admittedly a bigger and brighter personality than Fred] when it was actually Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd who attracted Keegan to the club ? In my book, that just means SJH got lucky. If any of the other 3 had been chairman, Keegan would still have been backed and did the same job.

 

I can't see how you can say that 90 minutes from winning the title is closer than 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup - twice. Although there is no disputing the title is of course by far the bigger trophy, whatever Alan Shearer says when he puts his Geordie hat on !!!!! and makes us all look stupid .........

 

The make-up of the board is significantly different now Leazes, Shepherd has the role of Chairman and the influence of his son has increased. Nepotism is rife on the board - check out the members. These aren't people qualified to lead the club, merely hangers on.

 

Regarding the FA cups, look at our easy runs to get to the finals, and look how well we did in the league in each of those years. The truth is we were never really at the races and had no chance against the best clubs in the land in those years. The league we threw away was different, we had plenty of chances but blew it - mainly in the defeat against ManU at home when we were desperately unlucky to meet Schmiechal having the game of his life.

 

Why do you and HTL bang on about that Shearer quote btw? After all the crap Shepherd has come up with over the years, you harp on about a quote Shearer made when he was clearly just trying to big us up before a cup game. Odd.

 

You have a point ref the composition of the board, apart from the fact that the major shareholders are still the same. However, as pointed out, expectations are higher, and at the end of the day, they will live or die by what they deliver. If they don't, and interest fades, they WILL be replaced, and deservedly so. Remember, I have more reason than most of you others to see this club win a big trophy as soon as possible.

 

It doesn't really matter how easy the path to the final is, is it ? You take it. All we had to do was play well on the day and the cup could have been ours. You could also say that teams such as Leicester only won the League cup because the big guns threw it in the earlier rounds - including us, and that would be quite correct. They will take it though. Its ridiculous that we got to 2 FA Cup Finals and no League Cup Finals in the last decade, that being by far the biggest opportunity to win a domestic trophy. Be honest, we would all have taken Wycombe this season in the semi final if we had beaten Chelsea.

 

Why does Fred get flak for making daft comments about Geordies, when SJH said the same shite about "geordie nation" and Shearer makes daft comments about us preferring to win the FA Cup ? I don't know, maybe someone can tell me, because I can't see the difference !!!!!!! ALL these comments could be said to be bigging up the club ......

[LeazesMag 0]

I agree with your comment about the defence under Keegan. However you immediately ruin it with the comment about the "back door". Up until 1992, we had only qualified for europe once in our history through the "front door" by finishing 5th in the league, and 3 times by the "back door" including the occasion we won it. Since 1992, under the current board, we have qualified more through the front door and the back door

than 35-40 years previous to this. What does this mean ? You tell me as you mentioned it. I think it shows conclusively the current board has done massively better than the old board, and made big leaps forward, which is what I keep saying and nobody believes it or acknowledges it to be true and gives credit for it.

In fact, it is indisputable.

To neither support nor refute anyone's argument it needs to be pointed out once and for all that since 1992 qualification for Europe has changed significantly, to the point where qualification now is ridiculously easy compared with pre-1992.

 

Champions league/European Cup

From UEFA.com:

Competition change

The major turning point in the evolution of the competition came in the 1992/93 season when the UEFA Champions League, involving a group phase in addition to the traditional knock-out elements, was officially inaugurated after a pilot group stage during the previous season. The popularity of the group phase has witnessed the competition grow from eight to 32 teams with matches taking place on Tuesdays and Wednesdays across Europe.

 

Fairs cup/UEFA cup/Cup Winners cup

From UEFA.com:

This forerunner to the UEFA Cup, the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, was founded on 18 April 1955, two weeks after the founding of the European Champion Clubs’ Cup. The first Fairs Cup involved teams from Barcelona, Basle, Birmingham, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Lausanne, Leipzig, London, Milan and Zagreb. The original tournament lasted three years, with matches timed to coincide with trade fairs.

 

For the second tournament the organisers reverted to club participation but the teams still had to come from cities staging trade fairs. Sixteen clubs took part in the 1958-60 tournament, after which it was staged on an annual basis. By 1962 the number of entrants had risen to 32; there are now over 100.

 

From 1999/2000, domestic cup winners also qualified for the UEFA Cup after the UEFA Cup Winners’ Cup was disbanded. In addition, clubs eliminated from the third qualifying round of the UEFA Champions League and the eight third-placed finishers at the end of the group stage of the same competition entered the competition. The UEFA Cup also includes three Fair Play representatives, three UEFA Intertoto Cup winners and winners of some selected domestic league cup competitions. A group stage was introduced for the first time in 2004/05.

 

Whereas prior to 1992 there were only approx 40 European places and many of those were "invitation" only or a combination of invitation/qualification, there are now over 140 European places per season not including the intertoto cup.

 

Is that so ? Well, you can tell us when the last team qualified for the UEFA Cup/Fairs Cup that finished 10th then 9th in the table, as we did in 1968 and 1969 ? Please back up your statement with a reply.

 

We would not have qualified in these years if not for the one city one club rule. We also finished 7th in the table in 1970. We finished 12th in 1971, 11th in 1972, 9th in 1973, 15th in 1974, 15th in 1975, 15th in 1976 and qualified again finishing 5th in 1977. Since 1977 we have finished 21st, 8th in div 2, 9th in div 2, 11th in div 2, 9th in div 2, 5th in div 2, 3rd in div 2, 14th in div 1, 11th in div 1, 17th in div 1, 8th in div 1, 20th in div 1, 3rd in div 2, 11th in div 2, 20th in div 2, up to and including 1992.

 

So, however many places were available for European qualification, they were irrelevant to us. Therefore your point is invalid.

Just to clarify, are we talking English FA clubs?

No-one that I know of but I don't doubt I'm wrong.

The closest since would probably be citeh in 03/04 after they finished 9th in 02/03 and got there via the fair play placing but they only did it the one season.

By the way Leaze yes I know the only reason the team qualified in 1968 was due to the fact we were the highest club on the league table with only one team in the city who hadn't qualified for a European competition, whereas Everton, Spuds and Arsenal should have all been eligable before Newcastle on league position.

Also we only qualified in 1969 because Newcastle were the cup holders.

 

As for the rest of your post, yes we all know where we finished in the years from 1969 to present but it doesn't make the point invalid, the point is that prior to 1992 there were only a maximum of 40 European spots, post 1992 there are considerably more thus making qualification easier - as I said it's neither pro nor against anyone's argument.

 

Yes, I know that there are more teams in europe, but our positions were poor so we were excluded weren't they ? You can't say we have only qualifed more often recently because more teams are being allowed to enter, we have qualifed because we have ourselves achieved better league positions.

 

I am not so sure we qualifed as Holders, I think there was no provision for holders to qualfy, as it was unusual for a club to finish as low as 9th in their league and be holders of the trophy. I'm not totally sure about this, but I think that was the case. The scenario was the same as the bindippers winning the European Cup 2 years ago, but they didn't have to make a decision about it and kick someone out to accomodate us as we qualified under the one city one club rule anyway.

Edited February 13, 2007 by LeazesMag

[Renton 21627]

 

Why does Fred get flak for making daft comments about Geordies, when SJH said the same shite about "geordie nation" and Shearer makes daft comments about us preferring to win the FA Cup ? I don't know, maybe someone can tell me, because I can't see the difference !!!!!!! ALL these comments could be said to be bigging up the club ......

 

I find it odd you bring up a comment be Shearer in order to defend Shepherd, that's all, especially such an innocent one which has to be seen in the context it was said in. It's odd because both you and HTL repeatedly bring it up, and really, it doesn't even compare to a lot of the embarassing stuff Shepherd has spouted, does it?

 

Taking the piss out of smaller clubs and the shirt-buying public does not constitute bigging up the club btw.

[Renton 21627]

I agree with your comment about the defence under Keegan. However you immediately ruin it with the comment about the "back door". Up until 1992, we had only qualified for europe once in our history through the "front door" by finishing 5th in the league, and 3 times by the "back door" including the occasion we won it. Since 1992, under the current board, we have qualified more through the front door and the back door

than 35-40 years previous to this. What does this mean ? You tell me as you mentioned it. I think it shows conclusively the current board has done massively better than the old board, and made big leaps forward, which is what I keep saying and nobody believes it or acknowledges it to be true and gives credit for it.

In fact, it is indisputable.

To neither support nor refute anyone's argument it needs to be pointed out once and for all that since 1992 qualification for Europe has changed significantly, to the point where qualification now is ridiculously easy compared with pre-1992.

 

Champions league/European Cup

From UEFA.com:

Competition change

The major turning point in the evolution of the competition came in the 1992/93 season when the UEFA Champions League, involving a group phase in addition to the traditional knock-out elements, was officially inaugurated after a pilot group stage during the previous season. The popularity of the group phase has witnessed the competition grow from eight to 32 teams with matches taking place on Tuesdays and Wednesdays across Europe.

 

Fairs cup/UEFA cup/Cup Winners cup

From UEFA.com:

This forerunner to the UEFA Cup, the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, was founded on 18 April 1955, two weeks after the founding of the European Champion Clubs’ Cup. The first Fairs Cup involved teams from Barcelona, Basle, Birmingham, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Lausanne, Leipzig, London, Milan and Zagreb. The original tournament lasted three years, with matches timed to coincide with trade fairs.

 

For the second tournament the organisers reverted to club participation but the teams still had to come from cities staging trade fairs. Sixteen clubs took part in the 1958-60 tournament, after which it was staged on an annual basis. By 1962 the number of entrants had risen to 32; there are now over 100.

 

From 1999/2000, domestic cup winners also qualified for the UEFA Cup after the UEFA Cup Winners’ Cup was disbanded. In addition, clubs eliminated from the third qualifying round of the UEFA Champions League and the eight third-placed finishers at the end of the group stage of the same competition entered the competition. The UEFA Cup also includes three Fair Play representatives, three UEFA Intertoto Cup winners and winners of some selected domestic league cup competitions. A group stage was introduced for the first time in 2004/05.

 

Whereas prior to 1992 there were only approx 40 European places and many of those were "invitation" only or a combination of invitation/qualification, there are now over 140 European places per season not including the intertoto cup.

 

Is that so ? Well, you can tell us when the last team qualified for the UEFA Cup/Fairs Cup that finished 10th then 9th in the table, as we did in 1968 and 1969 ? Please back up your statement with a reply.

 

We would not have qualified in these years if not for the one city one club rule. We also finished 7th in the table in 1970. We finished 12th in 1971, 11th in 1972, 9th in 1973, 15th in 1974, 15th in 1975, 15th in 1976 and qualified again finishing 5th in 1977. Since 1977 we have finished 21st, 8th in div 2, 9th in div 2, 11th in div 2, 9th in div 2, 5th in div 2, 3rd in div 2, 14th in div 1, 11th in div 1, 17th in div 1, 8th in div 1, 20th in div 1, 3rd in div 2, 11th in div 2, 20th in div 2, up to and including 1992.

 

So, however many places were available for European qualification, they were irrelevant to us. Therefore your point is invalid.

Just to clarify, are we talking English FA clubs?

No-one that I know of but I don't doubt I'm wrong.

The closest since would probably be citeh in 03/04 after they finished 9th in 02/03 and got there via the fair play placing but they only did it the one season.

By the way Leaze yes I know the only reason the team qualified in 1968 was due to the fact we were the highest club on the league table with only one team in the city who hadn't qualified for a European competition, whereas Everton, Spuds and Arsenal should have all been eligable before Newcastle on league position.

Also we only qualified in 1969 because Newcastle were the cup holders.

 

As for the rest of your post, yes we all know where we finished in the years from 1969 to present but it doesn't make the point invalid, the point is that prior to 1992 there were only a maximum of 40 European spots, post 1992 there are considerably more thus making qualification easier - as I said it's neither pro nor against anyone's argument.

 

Yes, I know that there are more teams in europe, but our positions were poor so we were excluded weren't they ? You can't say we have only qualifed more often recently because more teams are being allowed to enter, we have qualifed because we have ourselves achieved better league positions.

 

I am not so sure we qualifed as Holders, I think there was no provision for holders to qualfy, as it was unusual for a club to finish as low as 9th in their league and be holders of the trophy. I'm not totally sure about this, but I think that was the case. The scenario was the same as the bindippers winning the European Cup 2 years ago, but they didn't have to make a decision about it and kick someone out to accomodate us as we qualified under the one city one club rule anyway.

 

It's relevant because it is you that keeps on making comparisions between us and other teams. Seen in this context, we haven't done as well as you make out in the last 10 years.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Renton

[sammynb 3355]

Yes, I know that there are more teams in europe, but our positions were poor so we were excluded weren't they ? You can't say we have only qualifed more often recently because more teams are being allowed to enter, we have qualifed because we have ourselves achieved better league positions.

 

I am not so sure we qualifed as Holders, I think there was no provision for holders to qualfy, as it was unusual for a club to finish as low as 9th in their league and be holders of the trophy. I'm not totally sure about this, but I think that was the case. The scenario was the same as the bindippers winning the European Cup 2 years ago, but they didn't have to make a decision about it and kick someone out to accomodate us as we qualified under the one city one club rule anyway.

No we definitely qualified in '69 because we were holders.

The fact we got there in the first place in '68 was because Leeds were the cup holders but also finished as a qualifier because of their league position - hence that year the English FA was alotted 4 spots instead of the three allocated for qualification via the league/fair city requirements.

Also Newcastle didn't actually know they we in the competition until after the draw because the decision wasn't made until the draw in Copenhagen to alot the extra spot for an English team.

 

Lastly, for the most part "we have qualifed because we have ourselves achieved better league positions."

Prior to 1992 runners up to cup winners weren't eligable for the UEFA cup and obviously we got there via the intertoto this season. So it is 50-50 as to the club getting there for they achieved better league positions.

[LeazesMag 0]

Yes, I know that there are more teams in europe, but our positions were poor so we were excluded weren't they ? You can't say we have only qualifed more often recently because more teams are being allowed to enter, we have qualifed because we have ourselves achieved better league positions.

 

I am not so sure we qualifed as Holders, I think there was no provision for holders to qualfy, as it was unusual for a club to finish as low as 9th in their league and be holders of the trophy. I'm not totally sure about this, but I think that was the case. The scenario was the same as the bindippers winning the European Cup 2 years ago, but they didn't have to make a decision about it and kick someone out to accomodate us as we qualified under the one city one club rule anyway.

No we definitely qualified in '69 because we were holders.

The fact we got there in the first place in '68 was because Leeds were the cup holders but also finished as a qualifier because of their league position - hence that year the English FA was alotted 4 spots instead of the three allocated for qualification via the league/fair city requirements.

Also Newcastle didn't actually know they we in the competition until after the draw because the decision wasn't made until the draw in Copenhagen to alot the extra spot for an English team.

 

Lastly, for the most part "we have qualifed because we have ourselves achieved better league positions."

Prior to 1992 runners up to cup winners weren't eligable for the UEFA cup and obviously we got there via the intertoto this season. So it is 50-50 as to the club getting there for they achieved better league positions.

 

top 10 teams in 1968-69

----------------------------

1. Leeds [European Cup]

2. Liverpool (Fairs Cup]

3. Everton

4. Arsenal [Fairs Cup]

5. Chelsea

6. Spurs

7. Southampton [Fairs Cup]

8. West Ham

9. Newcastle [Fairs Cup]

10. West Brom

 

The 4 qualifiers were Liverpool, Arsenal, Southampton and Newcastle.

 

Everton, Chelsea, Spurs and West Ham all barred due to the one city one club rule

 

Did West Brom qualify due to us being holders ? If not, then we qualified under the one city one club rule, not as holders. ---- Man City won the FA Cup that year while finishing 13th and so weren't involved in the selections for the Fairs Cup either.

 

Lastly, we have qualified for europe in the last decade through achieving higher league positions than the 10th, 9th and 7th in the 3 years between 1968 and 1970. 10th and 9th would not have qualified in recent years on league position, and as we know 7th is only the intertoto. Only in 1976 have we matched our best qualifying positions in the last decade on league position.

 

I realise that losing 2 FA Cup Finals is a "back door" entry, but that scenario also existed in 1974. If Liverpool had won the double, we would have been in the Cup Winners Cup as losing Finalists, just the same as now.

Edited February 13, 2007 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

genuinely wasn't sure about this question posed by myself and sammy, so here is what appears to be the answer

 

http://boards.rivals.net/default.asp?sid=9...mp;forumId=4363