NUFC Finance's

[ChocChip 0]

I can't say how much better the current board is than previous one's because i'm far too young to know about them. The more experiences guys on here (Leazes Mag) would be able to make that comparison. But i don't reckon it's a good idea to compare this current board with crap one's from the past, all we should judge is, are this lot doing a good job? By comparing them with chumps who've f**ked it all up before isn't really worth it. Same to be said by going 'Well, just be thankful we haven't got Sunderland/Notts Forest, etc.'

The've made money available most of the time, not when we only signed Bowyer on a free though it seems which i think was critical.

But for the amount they're paid, do they do the rest of their jobs the best they could be done? Keegan/Dalgliesh/Gullit/Robson being sacked after the season had started (i know Keegan's was later), appointing Souness, are these clever decisions? Have they helped the club win cups by their hiring & firing regime? I can think of clubs run better in that dept for sure. It ain't just the £££, it's who you give it to and when.

[Guest alex]

I can't say how much better the current board is than previous one's because i'm far too young to know about them. The more experiences guys on here (Leazes Mag) would be able to make that comparison. But i don't reckon it's a good idea to compare this current board with crap one's from the past, all we should judge is, are this lot doing a good job? By comparing them with chumps who've f**ked it all up before isn't really worth it. Same to be said by going 'Well, just be thankful we haven't got Sunderland/Notts Forest, etc.'

The've made money available most of the time, not when we only signed Bowyer on a free though it seems which i think was critical.

But for the amount they're paid, do they do the rest of their jobs the best they could be done? Keegan/Dalgliesh/Gullit/Robson being sacked after the season had started (i know Keegan's was later), appointing Souness, are these clever decisions? Have they helped the club win cups by their hiring & firing regime? I can think of clubs run better in that dept for sure. It ain't just the £££, it's who you give it to and when.

29557[/snapback]

Aye, if it was just about 'flashing the cash' we would have won shitloads in recent years.

[80-2 0]

Can't seriously be having a go at what they have took out of our club after jut spending £26m in 2 weeks can you?

29078[/snapback]

 

That wasn't their money though was it. It was our money that we've ploughed into the club through ticket and merchendise sales, and via Sky Sports for our subscriptions.

29290[/snapback]

 

It isn't. If you buy a pair of jeans, it's the shops. If you buy a fridge, it's the shops, ultimately the company. If you buy a ticket for the match, it's the clubs !

 

They are supposed to re-invest in top players befitting Newcastle United, and run the football club at a high level and compete for top quality players with the money, which they have done. Although, they don't have to. The old directors didn't and there are plenty of other clubs that don't, or don't take risks. There is one 12 miles down the road who are run by a bunch of utter crap directors for instance.

29320[/snapback]

 

I don't think he was doing anything other than making it clear that the £17m or so that has been spent this Summer (a net figure, based on transfers in recent times, ignoring various other sources of revenue) were not personal funds injected by the Halls and/or Shepherds. Phrases like "getting his wallet out" only further establish a mis-conception/falsehood that money outlayed is something we should be particularly thankful for, when those in charge are merely doing their job of spending the club's money (money which has recently departed our pockets - arguments about whether we're consumers, donors or spiritual owners of the club are for another thread). Whether they spend the money spend, horde or invest the money wisely is left for us individuals to judge.

 

Do people who were singing "Shepherd Out" and "Sack the Board" at Bolton honestly think a new chairman or board, with the same finances, would have gone and spent £28m in a week?

29297[/snapback]

 

Those who guide Bolton plan their strategy around one central fact - they guide Bolton. As Maynard Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do?". Should the people at Bolton come to Newcastle, they would, in all likelihood, approach things in quite a different manner, applying their financial nouse in ways appropriate to their new surroundings. There would be greater income, greater natural momentum and, generally speaking, greater potential.

29433[/snapback]

 

You could equally apply that criteria to the directors of the likes of Villa, Leeds, Everton, mackems, Spurs, for instance, over the years. They all have greater potential than Bolton too. In fact, how many of those have spent the money we have and attempted to compete at the level we have done in the last decade ?

 

Whether or not they spend the money wisely ? Now that is a question that should be aimed at the managers, unless you think it is the chairman who chooses who to buy and sell, which he doesn't.

29555[/snapback]

 

Villa - astonishingly cautious and conservative in style, support depressed for years as a result. Leeds - Well, they did spend far more than us, as we all know - with no means to account for it. Everton - Massive debt, conscientiously dealing with it for several years now. Ze mackems - Even more talk and less walk than us for a long time - didn't have the means to back up much of what they did do, those crowds bringing in deceptively little money. Spurs - Well, nowadays I think things appear to be going quite well for them. They've had a variety of problems under a few administrations - some of which included flailing about, throwing money at problems in a similar way to us. However, now they seem to be in what I'd call a civilised state. I don't know as much about their finances as ours, but I understand there has been a modest injection of cash, allied to wider examination and reform of the way the club works. My point about Bolton's management is, basically speaking, if you know how to run a football club, you know how to run a football club. In a different situation, they'd turn to different solutions. The clubs you mention are, or have been, badly run. That one or two were badly run but aren't now should give us some hope for the future.

 

Also, at this time, I'd like to point out that I don't necessarily think throwing money around in the transfer market is good management. Taking stock of things, improving the infrastructure of the club (including who manages and deals with team issues) and steadily advancing the cause could be fine by me.

 

"Spending the money wisely" - I didn't actually mean transfers, particularly. I'm talking about the wider situation in the club, from our academy set-up, to our managerial appointments, to our bricks and mortar rennovations, to our general conduct (i.e. less of the "Geordie team, Geordie Manager, Geordie Chairman, Geordie money" bollocks, the slagging off of women, our attempts at flattering to decieve the rest of the country that we're, at this time, just as big as Manchester United, Arsenal, etc.), to our marketing, to... just about everything you can think of.

 

To focus on you, briefly, you say that the main area you back Shepherd (not so much necessarily the Hall spawn) on is his backing of managers. Now, obviously I don't quite agree with you on that, but the trouble is that we (as a support) often end up focusing on a small portion of our club's governance. What surrounds it is, frankly, more important. Its no use throwing good money after bad when you're giving it to dodgy managers (though one thing I have been "pleasantly suprised" by is the general quality of what Souness has brought it - I'm sure most of us had images of Corrado Grabbi) and letting them bring in players who are then systematically crippled by our medical staff.

[Optimistic Nut 145]

 

Do people who were singing "Shepherd Out" and "Sack the Board" at Bolton honestly think a new chairman or board, with the same finances, would have gone and spent £28m in a week?

29297[/snapback]

 

Those who guide Bolton plan their strategy around one central fact - they guide Bolton. As Maynard Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do?". Should the people at Bolton come to Newcastle, they would, in all likelihood, approach things in quite a different manner, applying their financial nouse in ways appropriate to their new surroundings. There would be greater income, greater natural momentum and, generally speaking, greater potential.

29433[/snapback]

 

Sorry, I meant the Newcastle fans who went to the Reebok Stadium and were singing those songs.

[80-2 0]

 

Do people who were singing "Shepherd Out" and "Sack the Board" at Bolton honestly think a new chairman or board, with the same finances, would have gone and spent £28m in a week?

29297[/snapback]

 

Those who guide Bolton plan their strategy around one central fact - they guide Bolton. As Maynard Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do?". Should the people at Bolton come to Newcastle, they would, in all likelihood, approach things in quite a different manner, applying their financial nouse in ways appropriate to their new surroundings. There would be greater income, greater natural momentum and, generally speaking, greater potential.

29433[/snapback]

 

Sorry, I meant the Newcastle fans who went to the Reebok Stadium and were singing those songs.

29650[/snapback]

 

Looking back, I realise I mis-read what you said - sorry Still, I stand by what I was saying above about not thinking us spending X amount of money was inherently a good thing.

[LeazesMag 0]

I can't say how much better the current board is than previous one's because i'm far too young to know about them. The more experiences guys on here (Leazes Mag) would be able to make that comparison. But i don't reckon it's a good idea to compare this current board with crap one's from the past, all we should judge is, are this lot doing a good job? By comparing them with chumps who've f**ked it all up before isn't really worth it. Same to be said by going 'Well, just be thankful we haven't got Sunderland/Notts Forest, etc.'

The've made money available most of the time, not when we only signed Bowyer on a free though it seems which i think was critical.

But for the amount they're paid, do they do the rest of their jobs the best they could be done? Keegan/Dalgliesh/Gullit/Robson being sacked after the season had started (i know Keegan's was later), appointing Souness, are these clever decisions? Have they helped the club win cups by their hiring & firing regime? I can think of clubs run better in that dept for sure. It ain't just the £££, it's who you give it to and when.

29557[/snapback]

 

Not only pointing out how inferior the ones in the past were, but also pointing out that they have backed their last 5 managers to the hilt in the transfer market, more than anyone apart from Manu and Chelsea [only since Abramovic] and pretty much neck and neck with Liverpool.

 

Why do some people not consider this anything other than backing their managers to the hilt ? Do you seriously think we should spend the money that manu and Chelsea have. Wise up and get real if you do.

 

Thing is mate, most of us, the vast majority were quite happy with the appointments of Dalglish and Gullit at the time, so you can't call them now, if someone does then they are in no position to call the board for being incompetent if you thought the same as they did at the time. The only thing they can do further to that is allow them the money and backing they ask for and none of our last 5 managers has complained about financial backing or any other backing given to them. Now that is a fact.

 

Even when gullit and Dalglish were sacked, the vast majority of us totally agreed with it.

Edited September 7, 2005 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

Villa - astonishingly cautious and conservative in style, support depressed for years as a result. Leeds - Well, they did spend far more than us, as we all know - with no means to account for it. Everton - Massive debt, conscientiously dealing with it for several years now. Ze mackems - Even more talk and less walk than us for a long time - didn't have the means to back up much of what they did do, those crowds bringing in deceptively little money. Spurs - Well, nowadays I think things appear to be going quite well for them. They've had a variety of problems under a few administrations - some of which included flailing about, throwing money at problems in a similar way to us. However, now they seem to be in what I'd call a civilised state. I don't know as much about their finances as ours, but I understand there has been a modest injection of cash, allied to wider examination and reform of the way the club works. My point about Bolton's management is, basically speaking, if you know how to run a football club, you know how to run a football club. In a different situation, they'd turn to different solutions. The clubs you mention are, or have been, badly run. That one or two were badly run but aren't now should give us some hope for the future.

 

Also, at this time, I'd like to point out that I don't necessarily think throwing money around in the transfer market is good management. Taking stock of things, improving the infrastructure of the club (including who manages and deals with team issues) and steadily advancing the cause could be fine by me.

 

"Spending the money wisely" - I didn't actually mean transfers, particularly. I'm talking about the wider situation in the club, from our academy set-up, to our managerial appointments, to our bricks and mortar rennovations, to our general conduct (i.e. less of the "Geordie team, Geordie Manager, Geordie Chairman, Geordie money" bollocks, the slagging off of women, our attempts at flattering to decieve the rest of the country that we're, at this time, just as big as Manchester United, Arsenal, etc.), to our marketing, to... just about everything you can think of.

 

Don't disagree with most of what you say, and agree particularly with the bold bit. I only point out the money that they have backed their managers to those who say they don't back their managers!!!! Because they do, and the money proves it !!

 

Look not just at transfers, but the stadium and the new training complex. It's all part and parcel of building a bigger club all round. Shepherd bugs me as much as anyone with his "geordie empire" rubbish... I wish he would just shut up and stay shut up too.

 

See my past post concerning the choice of managers. We were all happy with the appointments and sackings at the time. Well, most of us anyway. Personally I agreed with Dalglish [although devastated at keegan leaving] and not happy with Gullit. Happy with Bobby Robson and completely dumbstruck at the appointing of Souness, I thought they were taking the piss or it was April 1st.

 

To focus on you, briefly, you say that the main area you back Shepherd (not so much necessarily the Hall spawn) on is his backing of managers. Now, obviously I don't quite agree with you on that, but the trouble is that we (as a support) often end up focusing on a small portion of our club's governance. What surrounds it is, frankly, more important. Its no use throwing good money after bad when you're giving it to dodgy managers (though one thing I have been "pleasantly suprised" by is the general quality of what Souness has brought it - I'm sure most of us had images of Corrado Grabbi) and letting them bring in players who are then systematically crippled by our medical staff.

29640[/snapback]

 

Oh aye, see above. I just can't get my head around others who think the club has a bottomless pit of money just to go out and buy our way to everything. We have spent a lot of money in the last decade, as much as any of us are entitled to expect, but there comes a point where you have to look at the managers for the reason why it has been wasted, after all it is they who decide who they want to buy and sell, not Shepherd.

[80-2 0]

Don't disagree with most of what you say, and agree particularly with the bold bit. I only point out the money that they have backed their managers to those who say they don't back their managers!!!! Because they do, and the money proves it !!

 

Look not just at transfers, but the stadium and the new training complex. It's all part and parcel of building a bigger club all round. Shepherd bugs me as much as anyone with his "geordie empire" rubbish... I wish he would just shut up and stay shut up too.

 

See my past post concerning the choice of managers. We were all happy with the appointments and sackings at the time. Well, most of us anyway. Personally I agreed with Dalglish [although devastated at keegan leaving] and not happy with Gullit. Happy with Bobby Robson and completely dumbstruck at the appointing of Souness, I thought they were taking the piss or it was April 1st.

 

Well, as I say, I don't feel they've been particularly well-backed in recent times. Part of the trouble is the nature of the backing we do get. We behave like some morbidly-obese loner who binges on biscuits in the night and tries to balance it out by starving themselves in the day. We'll splash out on an Owen or two (well, not quite Owen, but you get my drift) and then just let time slide by. One of our Owen's proves to be a dud (no matter how good a manager is, they'll always get a dud or two) whilst the other begins to get stale, along with the rest of the team. Then, just as things look like getting to a seriously dangerous point, we'll gorge ourselves on some new delights ("Luques all round!"), loads of people run around saying "At last! We're on our way back!" and the process begins again. This whole thing has been massively exacerbated by the introduction of transfer windows - in fact theres a direct correlation between its introduction and our recent behaviour (for example, Hall and Shepherd trotting around the globe yelling "Emerton for £9m! Kleberson for £6m!" when later statements proved they had no intention of spending any money in the summer of Bowyer and Belgrade - they just saw things through until the end of the window).

 

I agree with you about the stadium and the training complex, though despite them we could afford to do more, but even that ends up offering more evidence for my (our?) take on the way the club is governed. There seems to be a perception that if we have a Shearer, a big stadium and a fancy treadmill with the club crest stamped on it that everything will be OK and our Geordie hearts will be full of Geordie pride. Whether thats due to stupidity or something more sinister, I'm never sure. No account is taken of who else is playing in the team, how the treadmill is used or why the rest of the country sniggers at the mention of our name.

 

Yep, I won't complain too much about most of the appointments in Shepherd's time. Dalglish, Robson and Gullit were popular with most (though there were already warning signs from Chelsea about the latter...). Like you, I was left in a stunned state for literally days after the Souness appointment (it had been building up for some time, though, which I'll partially come to soon), a creeping feeling of sickness arrived as I tried to think of a way in which everything could work out wonderfully - everyone needs hope, however dim and distant, and after much effort, I decided to hope that Souness would rise to the challenge - that he'd learnt from all his prior mistakes and knew this was his big club, the one where he could achieve all he wants at. What I will complain about, though, is his behaviour after he'd appointed his men. It was beautifully, painfully encapsulated in the time between Nobby's ousting and Souness' appointment. We all knew what was going to happen, including the board, yet we went through a farce of a Summer, Shepherd declaring martial law on our transfer dealings whilst talking about "not shooting Bambi" (Christ, I don't think I've ever heard something so undermining and patronising). Then there was the backing of Shearer over Robson on playing games, the announcement that he was on his way at the end of the season (as if Strachan and Southampton hadn't demonstrated what happens in that situation, only a few months earlier), the piss-poor attempt at hoodwinking us all over Rooney... it was a crecendo of embarrassment and despair.

 

Oh aye, see above. I just can't get my head around others who think the club has a bottomless pit of money just to go out and buy our way to everything. We have spent a lot of money in the last decade, as much as any of us are entitled to expect, but there comes a point where you have to look at the managers for the reason why it has been wasted, after all it is they who decide who they want to buy and sell, not Shepherd.

29785[/snapback]

 

Whilst we've spent a good-sized amount, we've not spent above our means for a long time, now. What bothers me so is the perception of so many, our fans and outsiders, that we're some kind of charity, that we should be ever so grateful to Uncle Freddy for our glitzy players. I was watching Jimmy Hill's Sunday Supplement, the other day, and he actually asked the question "can all this Owen money, alongside the rest of the "£50m" we'd "spent" be met in some way by the club, or is it all a sizeable personal investment by the board?". Whilst one of the journos said it was "basically the club's money", that we'd earned it ourselves, there was no laughter or mockery of such a suggestion, as would've been appropriate. It makes my blood boil reading Alan Oliver's arse-licking endorsement of all that goes on at the club. There've been two articles about Boumsong and France, today, one in the Journal, one in the Chronicle, by Oliver. The former was an honest piece, talking about Boumsong hopefully doing well, but that he might be dropped because of Thuram's "un-retirement", recent reletively poor form for Newcastle and the difficulty he had in dealing with the Faroe Islands' (!) crosses. Alan Oliver, meanwhile, hailed him as France's #1 rock, someone who was going to be a fixture in their team for some time to come.

 

I also ask the question "why does Shepherd keep all financial dealings - fees, wages, etc. - such a closely guarded secret from his managers?".

 

Finally, whilst I agree that managers have to take blame for much of what happens under their charge (for example, Robson simply has to take huge chucks of the blame for our current state, given the way he handled the young guns he wanted to buy), the situation also has to be looked at in this way - we talk about managers needing time to make their team their own (as many say Souness now has) - quite right, but Shepherd has now had nearly a decade and 5 managers (one who lasted for 2/3s of that time). Surely this makes Souness "his man" and the current situation his responsibility. When does he get judged?

[LeazesMag 0]

Good post mate, some good points. Regarding the mentality of the club [and some fans] I always despaired of the attitude in the past that everything was alright just so long as we had a centre-forward and gave manu, Liverpool etc a decent game. Small time thinking and not good enough. The only ambitious managers with a grasp on this was for me, Gordon Lee, and Arthur Cox could have done better if he had better support inside the club. I thought Keegan changed this attitude though, he had the backing of the board and fans and actually, although he spent a lot of money, almost every penny he spent was well spent, generated by his own success, and he was very much for building a proper team, rather than a one dimensional one.

 

Unfortunately, Shepherds utterances about "Geordie nation" and the way he seems to see things tell me he is the old type of "supporter" who is indeed limited in his views and doesn't have the intelligence of the real demands of the modern game and the way it has changed. In short, I think he is thick. I thought he was thick when I first heard him and seen him on TV, then wondered if I was wrong when he backed Dalglish and Gullit with cash, but now realise my first impression was right. So, no, he isn't an ideal chairman. I know it sounds a poor defence saying we could do a lot worse, but quite simply we could. We could do a lot, lot worse. Thats why I point out the numerous ones who are worse, and the few who are better. There isn't too many.

 

I don't know the answer, I wish I did. I just think that if he is appointing managers with proven reputations, backing them with cash, and we still win nothing and sack them, where does it go wrong. Just what are we doing wrong exactly ??

 

The remarks about Jimmy Hill don't surprise me - I missed that one this week - however much I despise cockney journalists who are too happy to print things undermining us - because they know how great we could be is the reason, they don't want us to threaten and beat their own darlings - I did think people who actually have been in the game like Hill has been would be more aware of how special Newcastle is and would be if we were to start winning serious competitions on a regular basis. And, they would be aware of the financial state of the club, and the fact that Keegan particularly generated his own spending money through winning games. I just find it amazing. I would have liked to have seen the faces of those who listened to the comments about it the club generating money, in fact I am very surprised they didn't argue, or maybe the fact they didn't proves my previous point. They know it's highly likely we did have it.

 

Harry Harris, Paul McCarthy, Henry Winter....are 3 who all hate NUFC. Fact.

Edited September 7, 2005 by LeazesMag

[80-2 0]

Good post mate, some good points. Regarding the mentality of the club [and some fans] I always despaired of the attitude in the past that everything was alright just so long as we had a centre-forward and gave manu, Liverpool etc a decent game. Small time thinking and not good enough. The only ambitious managers with a grasp on this was for me, Gordon Lee, and Arthur Cox could have done better if he had better support inside the club. I thought Keegan changed this attitude though, he had the backing of the board and fans and actually, although he spent a lot of money, almost every penny he spent was well spent, generated by his own success, and he was very much for building a proper team, rather than a one dimensional one. 

 

Unfortunately, Shepherds utterances about "Geordie nation" and the way he seems to see things tell me he is the old type of "supporter" who is indeed limited in his views and doesn't have the intelligence of the real demands of the modern game and the way it has changed. In short, I think he is thick. I thought he was thick when I first heard him and seen him on TV, then wondered if I was wrong when he backed Dalglish and Gullit with cash, but now realise my first impression was right. So, no, he isn't an ideal chairman. I know it sounds a poor defence saying we could do a lot worse, but quite simply we could. We could do a lot, lot worse. Thats why I point out the numerous ones who are worse, and the few who are better. There isn't too many.

 

I don't know the answer, I wish I did. I just think that if he is appointing managers with proven reputations, backing them with cash, and we still win nothing and sack them, where does it go wrong. Just what are we doing wrong exactly ??

 

The remarks about Jimmy Hill don't surprise me - I missed that one this week - however much I despise cockney journalists who are too happy to print things undermining us - because they know how great we could be is the reason, they don't want us to threaten and beat their own darlings - I did think people who actually have been in the game like Hill has been would be more aware of how special Newcastle is and would be if we were to start winning serious competitions on a regular basis. And, they would be aware of the financial state of the club, and the fact that Keegan particularly generated his own spending money through winning games. I just find it amazing. I would have liked to have seen the faces of those who listened to the comments about it the club generating money, in fact I am very surprised they didn't argue, or maybe the fact they didn't proves my previous point. They know it's highly likely we did have it.

 

Harry Harris, Paul McCarthy, Henry Winter....are 3 who all hate NUFC. Fact.

29810[/snapback]

 

Without wanting to get too deep, I think the thing about us being happy with a good striker and the ability to give a "big" team a scrap is a city-wide problem. It's a part of the same thing that has the Newcastle-Gateshead "people" telling the rest of the world that there's a great time to be had here because we work all week, get paid on a Friday and drink it all on the same night. Nevermind whatever else the region has had to offer over the last 1500 years, just bear in mind the fact that you can get pissed in double-quick time.

 

I couldn't really comment on Gordon Lee, he was before my time, though those stories about dumping players by driving the team bus without them seemed... "eccentric". Still, he's thought of in an entirely different way in Liverpool. With regards to the Keegan era, there was a real sense of creating something special, of righting a few wrongs and waking up the giant. The thing is, though, it eventually became too self-concious. We carried it off whilst we were young and successful, but as time went on, wrinkles formed and we started sounding like a desperate, twice-divorsed, childless woman ranting on about "still being in her prime". Time went on, Keegan departed, and those Geordie references became all the more frequent and bizarre.

 

You're probably right about Shepherd being thick, in fact I know you are. Its just that there's this paranoid streak that lays in most of us that cries "he wants you to think that". Still, what Rob W said the other day about trusting in the "Cock Up" theory of life seeing you right more often than not is true.

 

You're also right about an unknown replacement, on balance, being worse than better. Its why I approach the whole subject in such a frustratingly nervy fashion. On one hand, you want to make sure they'd sell to someone with a brain and good intentions, on the other, you worry they'll just shunt us off to some small-time Glazer. For the time being, I'd be happy treat them all as though they're as cumbersome and thick as Cows, and use a cattle-prod accordingly. In my mind, there's no doubt that the unrest that was brewing helped provoke the activity we saw towards the end of the transfer window - its why we were scrabbling around for cash, selling one or two solid, versatile characters like Aaron Hughes (and well done to him, this evening) for piddling amounts before millions and millions were suddenly released. An even better solution would be to employ a chief executive and divide the super-role of chairman that we now have, as most good PLCs do. If they're serious about being fans who want the best for the club, they'd get some bright spark with a taste for football, in and leave him un-obstructed in his work. The paranoid part of me says "but they know they're onto a good thing and wouldn't risk independant eyes viewing the books un-cooked" in response to this.

 

Where do we go wrong? Its a big and good question. I think there are many different factors involved, not least this dance that new arrivals are forced to join. There's the erratic mouth of the board to contend with, the extremely intense and influential local press to deal with (in all seriousness, Newcastle's footballing press is far more pervasive than in other parts of the country. It leads to stagnation and too much mutual interest between certain parties), and all manner of other things. I really don't think Souness has ever had to play the game he's had to play here. In a perfect world, we'd all calm down for a year or two and there'd be a city-wide period of introspection, in which we work out quite why we behave the way we do.

 

Heh, Jimmy Hill is a permanent fixture on my viewing list - especially in the wake of Owen's arrival. It wasn't a suprise to discover they were all raring to talk about why Liverpool didn't get him, and whether it was a good idea or not, instead. I always like to watch programs that involve journalists/opinion formers talk about subjects (not just football, but politics and such) because it's far more revealing about the way they work and gives you a better idea of what's happening. But yes, it was Winter and that arse Custis (who I consider the lowest of the low - that he's from around here makes it all the worse. I half-suspect he's actually a mackem as he seems to delight in fucking us up) on this week. They were generally of the opinion that it's shit or bust time for us, now - that we're either gonna get into the Champion's League or go into oblivion. What I find so annoying about Winter is that just because he has a public school accent and writes for the Telegraph, his opinions are given much greater worth, when in reality, he often talks the amateurish shite you find in the Daily Star or some such - albeit better phrased. BTW, a funny thing I discovered a few months ago - have you ever watched a late-night Channel 4 program called Shariah TV? It turns out his brother is a bloody Muslim scholar. The guy is a pastier version of Henry with a funny blonde goatee.

 

Harry Harris... what a snide bastard he is.

 

Finally, I don't really mind Paul McCarthy that much, in fact I'd be inclined to say he liked us as fans somewhat - why do you think he hates us?

[ChocChip 0]

I reckon Shepherd has probably got good business sense. I don't think our spending this year will cripple us financially, i don't think Shepherd is that stupid. Where i think he's f**ked is that he obvioulsy thinks he's got a good idea of how the football side of things should be run. He thinks he can spot a good manager. I don't think he can and i think the results prove that. He's immovable from his position within the club, the only person who could hurt him was if Alan Shearer publicly said FS was screwing everything up and that ain't gonna happen cause FS has probably promised Shearer anything he wants. Why can't the board stick to the £££ stuff and appoint a Director of Football (i was hoping it would be Robson but that won't happen now) like Keegan, who then appoints the manager. Keegan loves NUFC but doesn't want to manage anymore. He'd have our best interests at heart and he's got more footie knowledge than anyone on the board. I reckon he'd choose a good manager and help him find good coaches.

On saying that, the appointment of Roeder seems a very good decision, at last.......

[LeazesMag 0]

Without wanting to get too deep, I think the thing about us being happy with a good striker and the ability to give a "big" team a scrap is a city-wide problem. It's a part of the same thing that has the Newcastle-Gateshead "people" telling the rest of the world that there's a great time to be had here because we work all week, get paid on a Friday and drink it all on the same night. Nevermind whatever else the region has had to offer over the last 1500 years, just bear in mind the fact that you can get pissed in double-quick time.

 

I know where you are coming from here. It's a great city alright, and we have so much pride we are blind to the bloody footbll clubs faults....never mind we can always just get ratarsed instead !!

 

I couldn't really comment on Gordon Lee, he was before my time, though those stories about dumping players by driving the team bus without them seemed... "eccentric". Still, he's thought of in an entirely different way in Liverpool. With regards to the Keegan era, there was a real sense of creating something special, of righting a few wrongs and waking up the giant. The thing is, though, it eventually became too self-concious. We carried it off whilst we were young and successful, but as time went on, wrinkles formed and we started sounding like a desperate, twice-divorsed, childless woman ranting on about "still being in her prime". Time went on, Keegan departed, and those Geordie references became all the more frequent and bizarre.

 

I loved the Keegan era, savoured it from day one, you could sense the unique atmosphere he created all the time, it chills me to the bone when I think about it.

If we had won the league that year, we would have a totally different club to now, I really think he would have made us into a Shankly type dynasty. He knew what he was doing, and you know when he said something he meant it.

 

You're probably right about Shepherd being thick, in fact I know you are. Its just that there's this paranoid streak that lays in most of us that cries "he wants you to think that". Still, what Rob W said the other day about trusting in the "Cock Up" theory of life seeing you right more often than not is true.

 

You're also right about an unknown replacement, on balance, being worse than better. Its why I approach the whole subject in such a frustratingly nervy fashion. On one hand, you want to make sure they'd sell to someone with a brain and good intentions, on the other, you worry they'll just shunt us off to some small-time Glazer. For the time being, I'd be happy treat them all as though they're as cumbersome and thick as Cows, and use a cattle-prod accordingly. In my mind, there's no doubt that the unrest that was brewing helped provoke the activity we saw towards the end of the transfer window - its why we were scrabbling around for cash, selling one or two solid, versatile characters like Aaron Hughes (and well done to him, this evening) for piddling amounts before millions and millions were suddenly released. An even better solution would be to employ a chief executive and divide the super-role of chairman that we now have, as most good PLCs do. If they're serious about being fans who want the best for the club, they'd get some bright spark with a taste for football, in and leave him un-obstructed in his work. The paranoid part of me says "but they know they're onto a good thing and wouldn't risk independant eyes viewing the books un-cooked" in response to this.

 

You can't help but be cynical, of course thats what we need to do, I just hope he gets lucky when Souness goes, you never know. If Shearer has really played such a pivotal role in the signings of Owen and Parker, my reservations about his managerial potential have been eased a bit. One thing is for sure, if he turns out to be the new Shankly or Clough, he'll do it for Newcastle. Speaking of Shankly or Clough, if we had the club then that we have now, I;m pretty sure we would have been in for both of those. I went to see the mackems with my mate in 1976 a few times [he's a mackem] when they were relegated, and during the period when Bob Stokoe was sacked they were all singing "Brian Clough". Phew !

 

Where do we go wrong? Its a big and good question. I think there are many different factors involved, not least this dance that new arrivals are forced to join. There's the erratic mouth of the board to contend with, the extremely intense and influential local press to deal with (in all seriousness, Newcastle's footballing press is far more pervasive than in other parts of the country. It leads to stagnation and too much mutual interest between certain parties), and all manner of other things. I really don't think Souness has ever had to play the game he's had to play here. In a perfect world, we'd all calm down for a year or two and there'd be a city-wide period of introspection, in which we work out quite why we behave the way we do.

 

Just despair mate .. win the lottery and buy them all out will do for me.... when I do I'll take my rightful place running the club and being the manager you won't see a shambles any more I tell yer. I bet you now that Souness realises we are the biggest club he's managed ............

 

Heh, Jimmy Hill is a permanent fixture on my viewing list - especially in the wake of Owen's arrival. It wasn't a suprise to discover they were all raring to talk about why Liverpool didn't get him, and whether it was a good idea or not, instead. I always like to watch programs that involve journalists/opinion formers talk about subjects (not just football, but politics and such) because it's far more revealing about the way they work and gives you a better idea of what's happening. But yes, it was Winter and that arse Custis (who I consider the lowest of the low - that he's from around here makes it all the worse. I half-suspect he's actually a mackem as he seems to delight in fucking us up) on this week. They were generally of the opinion that it's shit or bust time for us, now - that we're either gonna get into the Champion's League or go into oblivion. What I find so annoying about Winter is that just because he has a public school accent and writes for the Telegraph, his opinions are given much greater worth, when in reality, he often talks the amateurish shite you find in the Daily Star or some such - albeit better phrased. BTW, a funny thing I discovered a few months ago - have you ever watched a late-night Channel 4 program called Shariah TV? It turns out his brother is a bloody Muslim scholar. The guy is a pastier version of Henry with a funny blonde goatee.

 

Harry Harris... what a snide bastard he is.

 

Finally, I don't really mind Paul McCarthy that much, in fact I'd be inclined to say he liked us as fans somewhat - why do you think he hates us?

29909[/snapback]

 

Havent' seen Shariah TV. And I only mentioned those 3 because i thought of them first, there are others. Your view of Winter is exactly the same as mine, he's a top class arse. Paul McCarthy, all he ever does is call Shepherd, Keegan, the club, he thinks Souness is good for Newcastle. I'd read enough by him, but a short while ago he wrote a piece about Souness doing a good job at Newcastle ... red rag to a bull...he's doing a good job alright if you want to keep Newcastle down. Ken f**king Bates is another cockney...whats he doing having a pop at Robert for blasting Souness....didn't stop to think whats he having a go at a club that doesn't concern him...Danny Baker, another cockney twat who says "keegan won nowt"...a bloody MILLWALL fan...how the hell does a Millwall fan know anything about Newcastle, these cretins look at us finishing 2nd in the league under Keegan and think Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and Souness did/are doing better......

 

AAAHHHHHHHHH.... I despise all of them............in fact, most of them slagged off Keegan when he was manager of England, applauded the appointment of Eriksson as a "tactical coach"....by "tactical" what hacks mean is "defensive"....now they are all saying Eriksson is crap. McCarthy certainly did, and so did a lot of others.

 

Rant over. Bollocks to England.

Edited September 8, 2005 by LeazesMag

[shakermaker 0]

i wonder if anyone has the patience to work out net transfers in and out over the past 5 or 10 years as fat fred always waxes about one but not the other.i wonder what the true net outgoing is ?

[LeazesMag 0]

i wonder if anyone has the patience to work out net transfers in  and out over the past 5 or 10 years as fat fred always waxes about one but not the other.i wonder what the true net outgoing is ?

30602[/snapback]

 

1. Why is it that cockney press, and other people who only wish to have a downer on Keegan, say he spend 60m quid and won nothing. The simple fact is, up to the point where we came 90 minutes from the title, he spent 42m That is not taking into account the players he sold, not the revenue his successful created.

 

2. Only stupid cockney arsesholes also pay no regard to the position the club were in, which was facing relegation to the old 3rd division, because they don't know and they don't want to know so f*ck them.

 

3. Over the last 10 years. The figures you seek are on NUFC.com.

 

4. The amount a manager spends, against "net" has its merits, but at the end of the day, the manager is being trusted to sell players he doesn't think are good enough, and then being allowed to spend x amount of money to improve the team. So, it's money he has spent, whatever you want to call it, thats a fact.

 

If a manager sells a player for less than he is worth, then it's his judgement. He wil stand or fall on it. And it affects his spending power. If he can't replace the player for the amount he sold him for, he's a wanker. Full Stop. And obviously wrong to sell him.

 

Going back to your point, I sense you are going to slag off Shepherd for only sanctioning NUFC to be the 3rd top spenders in the premiership over the last decade, only eclipsed by manure, and in the last few years, Chelsea.

 

So I would like to ask you a fairly basic question.

 

How much more money do you think the board at Newcastle need to allow their managers to spend, for you to accept they are backing them fully ?

Edited September 8, 2005 by LeazesMag

[shakermaker 0]

jeez leazes mag you really ought to swithch off from "attack" mode now and again.....it would be interseting to see how much more we have spent than brought in.

 

as reagrding the cockney press and keegan,the best defence was always that he went into the last day of the season in reach of the championship and the 60 mill is a mislead as the net spending was nowhere near that....but your mates in the cockney press would have us think that.

[tommyboy 0]

i wonder if anyone has the patience to work out net transfers in  and out over the past 5 or 10 years as fat fred always waxes about one but not the other.i wonder what the true net outgoing is ?

30602[/snapback]

Since 1990 we've spent £238m on players. We've recouped £122m in sales, for a net spending of £116m. This is based off the figures on www.soccerbase.com. I had a spreadsheet of it somewhere, but take my word for it. Edited September 9, 2005 by tommyboy

[LeazesMag 0]

jeez leazes mag you really ought to swithch off from "attack" mode now and again.....it would be interseting to see how much more we have spent than brought in.

 

as reagrding the cockney press and keegan,the best defence was always that he went into the last day of the season in reach of the championship and the 60 mill is a mislead as the net spending was nowhere near that....but your mates in the cockney press would have us think that.

30618[/snapback]

 

Attack mode...nah, not to you anyway

[Rob W 0]

i wonder if anyone has the patience to work out net transfers in  and out over the past 5 or 10 years as fat fred always waxes about one but not the other.i wonder what the true net outgoing is ?

30602[/snapback]

Since 1990 we've spent £238m on players. We've recouped £122m in sales, for a net spending of £116m. This is based off the figures on www.soccerbase.com. I had a spreadsheet of it somewhere, but take my word for it.

30623[/snapback]

 

 

and nowt to show for it is the REALLY damning stat.......................

 

Two dreadful performances in Cup Finals, a bit of Yuro footie................... very sad

[80-2 0]

You can't help but be cynical, of course thats what we need to do, I just hope he gets lucky when Souness goes, you never know. If Shearer has really played such a pivotal role in the signings of Owen and Parker, my reservations about his managerial potential have been eased a bit. One thing is for sure, if he turns out to be the new Shankly or Clough, he'll do it for Newcastle. Speaking of Shankly or Clough, if we had the club then that we have now, I;m pretty sure we would have been in for both of those. I went to see the mackems with my mate in 1976 a few times [he's a mackem] when they were relegated, and during the period when Bob Stokoe was sacked they were all singing "Brian Clough". Phew !

 

Aye, it was nice to hear, and actually believe, that Shearer had such an impact on some of our recent signings. I'm also unnerved by the prospect of him just being given the club regardless of what his prospects look like - we'll just have to hope for the best on that front - I give him a 15% chance of being a very good/great manager.

 

Clough at Sunderland... Christ, could've been a totally different world... *shudders*

 

Paul McCarthy, all he ever does is call Shepherd, Keegan, the club, he thinks Souness is good for Newcastle. I'd read enough by him, but a short while ago he wrote a piece about Souness doing a good job at Newcastle ... red rag to a bull...he's doing a good job alright if you want to keep Newcastle down. Ken f**king Bates is another cockney...whats he doing having a pop at Robert for blasting Souness....didn't stop to think whats he having a go at a club that doesn't concern him...Danny Baker, another cockney twat who says "keegan won nowt"...a bloody MILLWALL fan...how the hell does a Millwall fan know anything about Newcastle, these cretins look at us finishing 2nd in the league under Keegan and think Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and Souness did/are doing better......

 

AAAHHHHHHHHH.... I despise all of them............in fact, most of them slagged off Keegan when he was manager of England, applauded the appointment of Eriksson as a "tactical coach"....by "tactical" what hacks mean is "defensive"....now they are all saying Eriksson is crap. McCarthy certainly did, and so did a lot of others.

 

Rant over. Bollocks to England.

30574[/snapback]

 

Oh aye, McCarthy does talk some rubbish about us, I just get the sense that his heart is near enough in the right place on the subject. Ken Bates, though... Why he was sticking his nose in our affairs, I don't know. That said, Robert is one subject that I basically side with Souness on. I gave up on him quite some time ago - I get annoyed that he's even put in the same bracket as Bellamy

 

I'm quite happy about the current Eriksson situation - I've been saying he was crap for years now. What pisses me right off is that those who seek to defend him always say it's because he's foreign - total bollocks, it's because he is literally useless. I honestly think even Souness would do a better job than him.

 

4. The amount a manager spends, against "net" has its merits, but at the end of the day, the manager is being trusted to sell players he doesn't think are good enough, and then being allowed to spend x amount of money to improve the team. So, it's money he has spent, whatever you want to call it, thats a fact.

 

If a manager sells a player for less than he is worth, then it's his judgement. He wil stand or fall on it. And it affects his spending power. If he can't replace the player for the amount he sold him for, he's a wanker. Full Stop. And obviously wrong to sell him.

 

Thats one thing that I've always intended to concede, but haven't really had the opportunity. Whilst the net problem is very significant, our managers do at least get the opportunity to change much of the team around - with one or two exceptions (Sheerah!). Funnily enough, as I started to say previously, Souness has actually done reletively well on that front. The thing about us selling players, though, is that it is entirely Shepherd's responsibility - with regards to dealing with offers, negotiations, etc. However, obviously, there is more to selling than that and the whole club (Souness, Shepherd, past faces etc.) is guilty of un-necessarily slagging some of our players off, losing us millions in the process. Why none of them have any guile, I dunno. Conversely, I'm convinced we've lost a few million on Jenas because of our ridiculous reaction to Arsenal's interest. All this "we want £20m" bollocks just left us looking more stupid when he went for £7m. If we'd had Arsenal and Spurs (and others?) competing against eachother, I believe it could've been a figure closer to £11m.

 

Now, that all said, we have sold many of our players for "good" reasons, reasons that meant they'd go for less than their natural talents would normally allow, so its reasonable to expect we'd have to pay more for better players (i.e. equivalent/better skills, much better characters meaning they play more matches, etc.). The point is, the better the manager, the more you'll sell your bad players for, and the less you'll spend on better replacements.

[LeazesMag 0]

You can't help but be cynical, of course thats what we need to do, I just hope he gets lucky when Souness goes, you never know. If Shearer has really played such a pivotal role in the signings of Owen and Parker, my reservations about his managerial potential have been eased a bit. One thing is for sure, if he turns out to be the new Shankly or Clough, he'll do it for Newcastle. Speaking of Shankly or Clough, if we had the club then that we have now, I;m pretty sure we would have been in for both of those. I went to see the mackems with my mate in 1976 a few times [he's a mackem] when they were relegated, and during the period when Bob Stokoe was sacked they were all singing "Brian Clough". Phew !

 

Aye, it was nice to hear, and actually believe, that Shearer had such an impact on some of our recent signings. I'm also unnerved by the prospect of him just being given the club regardless of what his prospects look like - we'll just have to hope for the best on that front - I give him a 15% chance of being a very good/great manager.

 

Clough at Sunderland... Christ, could've been a totally different world... *shudders*

 

Paul McCarthy, all he ever does is call Shepherd, Keegan, the club, he thinks Souness is good for Newcastle. I'd read enough by him, but a short while ago he wrote a piece about Souness doing a good job at Newcastle ... red rag to a bull...he's doing a good job alright if you want to keep Newcastle down. Ken f**king Bates is another cockney...whats he doing having a pop at Robert for blasting Souness....didn't stop to think whats he having a go at a club that doesn't concern him...Danny Baker, another cockney twat who says "keegan won nowt"...a bloody MILLWALL fan...how the hell does a Millwall fan know anything about Newcastle, these cretins look at us finishing 2nd in the league under Keegan and think Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and Souness did/are doing better......

 

AAAHHHHHHHHH.... I despise all of them............in fact, most of them slagged off Keegan when he was manager of England, applauded the appointment of Eriksson as a "tactical coach"....by "tactical" what hacks mean is "defensive"....now they are all saying Eriksson is crap. McCarthy certainly did, and so did a lot of others.

 

Rant over. Bollocks to England.

30574[/snapback]

 

Oh aye, McCarthy does talk some rubbish about us, I just get the sense that his heart is near enough in the right place on the subject. Ken Bates, though... Why he was sticking his nose in our affairs, I don't know. That said, Robert is one subject that I basically side with Souness on. I gave up on him quite some time ago - I get annoyed that he's even put in the same bracket as Bellamy

 

I'm quite happy about the current Eriksson situation - I've been saying he was crap for years now. What pisses me right off is that those who seek to defend him always say it's because he's foreign - total bollocks, it's because he is literally useless. I honestly think even Souness would do a better job than him.

 

4. The amount a manager spends, against "net" has its merits, but at the end of the day, the manager is being trusted to sell players he doesn't think are good enough, and then being allowed to spend x amount of money to improve the team. So, it's money he has spent, whatever you want to call it, thats a fact.

 

If a manager sells a player for less than he is worth, then it's his judgement. He wil stand or fall on it. And it affects his spending power. If he can't replace the player for the amount he sold him for, he's a wanker. Full Stop. And obviously wrong to sell him.

 

Thats one thing that I've always intended to concede, but haven't really had the opportunity. Whilst the net problem is very significant, our managers do at least get the opportunity to change much of the team around - with one or two exceptions (Sheerah!). Funnily enough, as I started to say previously, Souness has actually done reletively well on that front. The thing about us selling players, though, is that it is entirely Shepherd's responsibility - with regards to dealing with offers, negotiations, etc. However, obviously, there is more to selling than that and the whole club (Souness, Shepherd, past faces etc.) is guilty of un-necessarily slagging some of our players off, losing us millions in the process. Why none of them have any guile, I dunno. Conversely, I'm convinced we've lost a few million on Jenas because of our ridiculous reaction to Arsenal's interest. All this "we want £20m" bollocks just left us looking more stupid when he went for £7m. If we'd had Arsenal and Spurs (and others?) competing against eachother, I believe it could've been a figure closer to £11m.

 

Now, that all said, we have sold many of our players for "good" reasons, reasons that meant they'd go for less than their natural talents would normally allow, so its reasonable to expect we'd have to pay more for better players (i.e. equivalent/better skills, much better characters meaning they play more matches, etc.). The point is, the better the manager, the more you'll sell your bad players for, and the less you'll spend on better replacements.

30757[/snapback]

 

We have a very nice ground now, one of the best, and whether we like it or not, it is bound to impact money available to transfers. Personally, I was always in favour of building a new ground - I don't give a toss for tradition and staying at SJP - and now having been to the Millenium last April the thought we could have had a stadium like that for half the price....even my mate who I've always discussed this with and wanted to stay at SJP concedes a stadium like the MIllenium would have been canny !

 

Agree totally with the highlighted bit, it's spot on. Good managers don't just spot talent, they spot them before others