Interesting

[Gejon 2]

From my understanding you were banned for basically spamming the forum with the same shit day in, day out despite numerous warnings (and a lot of posters getting really bored with it). You even started a thread saying you would stop doing it and apologised, the "new" you didn't last long and you fell into the old shit again. I am pretty sure you have admitted it on your forum that you only went on N-O to "wind the kids up" or something along those lines. Its obvious you have a lot to add to a forum, a lot more than most so its even more obvious you are just on the wind up when you spent all your time on N-O arguing the same bollocks that never gets resolved and never will (these argument must have been going on 3 years+ now).

 

Why don't you just get over it? You don't like the forum or its posters anywhere and you have plenty of other forums to post on (Here, your forum, skunkers etc..) so there isn't much need to carry on this sort of shit, is there? really? Does anyone really give a shit if Dave isn't replying to your pm's or emails? It may make you feel better making these posts on another forum but I am fairly certain most of us aren't thinking "well thats Dave told, what a bad light this puts him in".

 

A tad harsh.

 

I don't see why, these "Ok he won't respond to me so I will post it on a forum even though no-one really gives a shit" posts are a bit pathetic, especially when they are coming from people banging on about "kids" on other forms. Extreme ironing at its finest!

[LeazesMag 0]

From my understanding you were banned for basically spamming the forum with the same shit day in, day out despite numerous warnings (and a lot of posters getting really bored with it). You even started a thread saying you would stop doing it and apologised, the "new" you didn't last long and you fell into the old shit again. I am pretty sure you have admitted it on your forum that you only went on N-O to "wind the kids up" or something along those lines. Its obvious you have a lot to add to a forum, a lot more than most so its even more obvious you are just on the wind up when you spent all your time on N-O arguing the same bollocks that never gets resolved and never will (these argument must have been going on 3 years+ now).

 

Why don't you just get over it? You don't like the forum or its posters anywhere and you have plenty of other forums to post on (Here, your forum, skunkers etc..) so there isn't much need to carry on this sort of shit, is there? really? Does anyone really give a shit if Dave isn't replying to your pm's or emails? It may make you feel better making these posts on another forum but I am fairly certain most of us aren't thinking "well thats Dave told, what a bad light this puts him in".

 

nothing "spamming" about being right.

 

Basically. Wouldn't you agree ? If not, how not ?

 

Trouble with you and others is, its only a message board. You can't take a joke including being told "I told you so" [in spite of the fact that despite being ludicrously told by the more simple minded that I would rather the club went down and be right than be wrong].

 

Ask yourself this. How many people would have laid into me if Mike Ashley had lashed out on the club, we won a trophy, and qualified for europe more than the Halls and Shepherd ? Do you think I would have childishly complained about it ? Would I fuck.

 

I admit I'm goading Dave because I think he's a prick sitting behind a keyboard banning people with his "staff" because they think they are big lads. ? So what ? Again, if you don't want to read it, don't. Thats what a message board is about, its your choice.

 

For the record, as big Dave hasn't got the balls to listen to what was a fairly reasonable suggestion like an adult. I have said in this very thread that I had developed a persona where not talking about the Halls and Shepherd was impossible. So I was going to suggest registering as a new name and not mention them again, nobody would have known except those who needed to know. As you say, the likes of me and stevie - and others - are long standing supporters and can add a lot to these message boards. Mentioning the Halls and Shepherd in the same light would have told everybody who I was anyway wouldn't it ?

 

I have also posted lately on Newcastle Online under another name, just to prove it, they don't know is me. Hard luck Dave. Doing it my way would at least have been open with Dave and his "staff". I'm not going to go on much though, as has been said, there is something quite sad about banning people the way they do. Most of the posters are too young, thats the trouble with it in the end, but banning good posters, dishing out these "warnings"....they cause their own problems, instead of being an adult, they would have better posters back. What is wrong with stopping people using another name anyway ? I just don't see the point of it, when people end up having disagreements and want to change ? Most other boards do, I've got another name on here, I changed it s few years ago and just told everyone I'd changed.

 

Its their loss. Shame too many people thought they knew better than the likes of me, stevie and his mate who's log in he used. How daft is that eh, to ban someone for a thing like that.

[The Fish 10963]

Leazes, literally nobody other than you, could give a fuck.

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, literally nobody other than you, could give a fuck.

 

nobody gives a fuck about you and your sisters either

[Park Life 71]

Leazes, literally nobody other than you, could give a fuck.

 

nobody gives a fuck about you and your sisters either

 

[The Fish 10963]

Leazes, literally nobody other than you, could give a fuck.

 

nobody gives a fuck about you and your sisters either

 

 

Aye, Fair point. Well and truly owned.

 

I'll fuck off out of this thread now.

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, literally nobody other than you, could give a fuck.

 

nobody gives a fuck about you and your sisters either

 

 

Aye, Fair point. Well and truly owned.

 

I'll fuck off out of this thread now.

 

 

so you have a sense of humour after all

[Gejon 2]

I have said my bit, not going to get into that old argument again as we have already established I wasn't one of the "anyone else will be better than the old board" gang you believe there is so its pointless.

 

As is this "He won't pay attention to me so I will kick and scream somewhere else" thread.

[LeazesMag 0]

I have said my bit, not going to get into that old argument again as we have already established I wasn't one of the "anyone else will be better than the old board" gang you believe there is so its pointless.

 

As is this "He won't pay attention to me so I will kick and scream somewhere else" thread.

 

whatever. I'm sure big Dave glorifies in his position of power of such an important message board

 

[Acid 0]

I have said my bit, not going to get into that old argument again as we have already established I wasn't one of the "anyone else will be better than the old board" gang you believe there is so its pointless.

 

As is this "He won't pay attention to me so I will kick and scream somewhere else" thread.

 

whatever. I'm sure big Dave glorifies in his position of power of such an important message board

 

 

Send him a pm or create a thread about it.

[Guest Stevie]

Leazes, literally nobody other than you, could give a fuck.

 

nobody gives a fuck about you and your sisters either

:icon_lol: Telling people on the net his sister was following through all over the house pmsl.

[shakermaker 0]

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/...ic,63249.0.html

 

to see Dave [nufcforever] the hard man behind his keyboard, banning people for saying exactly what he now quotes........

 

What a wanker.

 

Wonder if he's got the balls to clear his inbox yet

Does that mean you were saying the same as in what is in Steve Harpers interview, that "for five or six years now it's been a gradual slow implosion" ?

 

nothing lasts forever. We had a good 15 years, the best in my time supporting the club by miles. This is all I ever said, it was construed differently by many people who tried to make it say differently to what it did. We will see how many years and how many owners it takes to match the Halls and Shepherd. Simple fact is tosspots such as you implied constantly that "anyone would be better". What a load of shite that was wasn't it ?

 

Tragic thing is, it wasn't rocket science to see it either. Even more tragic, there are still some who can't see it.

Thats not all you ever said. You quite often said was that Fred would have shown more ambition whislt also saying that Allardyce had been brought in to run it a lot tighter financially (where was the ambition then ?).

 

What you never said was where the money was going to come from to be ambitious, all you'd say was "other clubs have debt" without ever once conceding that all clubs debts are different (ie who the debt is owed to or if they are turning over enough operating profit to finance it). You never once admitted that what you wanted was the club to keep on borrowing and being unable to finance it till success or bankruptcy, whichever comes sooner.

 

I never once said "anyone would be better than fred" infact some on here may even remember me defending Fred on the old merged board.

 

I'd guess most on here would agree with most over there and Steve Harper that we've been very poorly ran for about 6 years.

 

 

PS course I'm a tosser. Every red blooded male is.................though maybe you've stopped at your age.

Edited July 14, 2009 by shakermaker

[LeazesMag 0]

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/...ic,63249.0.html

 

to see Dave [nufcforever] the hard man behind his keyboard, banning people for saying exactly what he now quotes........

 

What a wanker.

 

Wonder if he's got the balls to clear his inbox yet

Does that mean you were saying the same as in what is in Steve Harpers interview, that "for five or six years now it's been a gradual slow implosion" ?

 

nothing lasts forever. We had a good 15 years, the best in my time supporting the club by miles. This is all I ever said, it was construed differently by many people who tried to make it say differently to what it did. We will see how many years and how many owners it takes to match the Halls and Shepherd. Simple fact is tosspots such as you implied constantly that "anyone would be better". What a load of shite that was wasn't it ?

 

Tragic thing is, it wasn't rocket science to see it either. Even more tragic, there are still some who can't see it.

Thats not all you ever said. You quite often said was that Fred would have shown more ambition whislt also saying that Allardyce had been brought in to run it a lot tighter financially (where was the ambition then ?).

 

What you never said was where the money was going to come from to be ambitious, all you'd say was "other clubs have debt" without ever once conceding that all clubs debts are different (ie who the debt is owed to or if they are turning over enough operating profit to finance it). You never once admitted that what you wanted was the club to keep on borrowing and being unable to finance it till success or bankruptcy, whichever comes sooner.

 

I never once said "anyone would be better than fred" infact some on here may even remember me defending Fred on the old merged board.

 

I'd guess most on here would agree with most over there and Steve Harper that we've been very poorly ran for about 6 years.

 

 

PS course I'm a tosser. Every red blooded male is.................though maybe you've stopped at your age.

 

it's quite sad having witnessed the shambles the club has became since Ashley - a club diving towards the 3rd division through becoming a 3rd rate selling club again - that you still don't recognise ambition to succeed when we had it, when it smacks you in the face.

 

I don't list those who disagreed with me or disagreed with me about this, and the old owners, what I do know is it seems the vast majority appeared to think that "anyone would be better than this lot who always embarrass us". Who still thinks this now, and who is embarrassed now ?

 

We are back to where we were for years pre-1992. We are a selling club with no ambition, and losing our best players who all want to leave the club because they know they are playing for a dead duck of a football club.

 

We are waiting for someone like the Halls and Shepherd to come in and rescue the club and put them back on a positive setting trying to put this football club where it ought to be. THIS is what I have said, in different forms, all along, and that is a stone cold fact.

 

As for "debts", it is also a fact that every successful club in the world has debts. Every premiership club is in debt. If you want to succeed you will be in debt. You can have a well run business if you like, but that gives you nothing but true mediocrity and under achievement. If you still don't understand this, you never will. It has been well and truly rammed home in the past 2 years, or should have been to most people.

 

Newcastle United have the 3rd biggest crowd in the country, they have always had one of the biggest supports. It is my view that - forget manu and all thier glory hunters, and other clubs too - Newcastle United with even half their success would fill an 80,000 stadium from local support alone. The Keegan years prove that. Nowhere in the world would anybody get 50,000 crowds having gone 50 years and not winning a domestic trophy. Yet people like you think the club should not do what it takes to challenge clubs with lower support ? Get a fucking life and open your eyes.

 

The Halls and Shepherd have nothing to apologise for. They saved the club, gave us the best time in years, and tried to bring the best players possible to the club. This is what they or anyone else ought to be doing, not losing them.

Edited July 14, 2009 by LeazesMag

[shakermaker 0]

Having a big crowd means little if you are having to borrow every year to make ends meet through ridiculous wages (both fred and ashley).....so do you think we should have kept on borrowing and paying over the top wages to compete ?

 

Do you think that eventually it has to stop....quite often not by choice ?

 

As you say all the succesful clubs have debt....which ones get themselves into a position where the banks can't see them breaking even or even being able to finance their debts without borrowing more ?

 

Why didn't leeds just borrow more ?

 

Why do you think almost everyone thinks Fred ran us terribly in his last 3 or 4 years ?

[Park Life 71]

Football debt isn't like other debt. Newcastle is a monopoly it ain't competing by making lightbulbs with 50 other lightbulb makers. You dig? I'm tired of linking to other clubs debts as people don't seem to grasp the concept.

[Park Life 71]

Having a big crowd means little if you are having to borrow every year to make ends meet through ridiculous wages (both fred and ashley).....so do you think we should have kept on borrowing and paying over the top wages to compete ?

 

Do you think that eventually it has to stop....quite often not by choice ?

 

As you say all the succesful clubs have debt....which ones get themselves into a position where the banks can't see them breaking even or even being able to finance their debts without borrowing more ?

 

Why didn't leeds just borrow more ?

 

Why do you think almost everyone thinks Fred ran us terribly in his last 3 or 4 years ?

 

 

Cause for one Leeds didn't even own their own players and for two their wages was actually HIGHER than income.

[shakermaker 0]

Football debt isn't like other debt. Newcastle is a monopoly it ain't competing by making lightbulbs with 50 other lightbulb makers. You dig? I'm tired of linking to other clubs debts as people don't seem to grasp the concept.

Newcastle is a monopoly ? So it's a monopoly that people can walk away from. The debts you have linked to...did they include Leeds, West ham, Pompey, Luton (on a smaller scale..similar thing though, risked on buying players in the hope success would pay for it, the success didn't come and they ended up in the shit)

[shakermaker 0]

Having a big crowd means little if you are having to borrow every year to make ends meet through ridiculous wages (both fred and ashley).....so do you think we should have kept on borrowing and paying over the top wages to compete ?

 

Do you think that eventually it has to stop....quite often not by choice ?

 

As you say all the succesful clubs have debt....which ones get themselves into a position where the banks can't see them breaking even or even being able to finance their debts without borrowing more ?

 

Why didn't leeds just borrow more ?

 

Why do you think almost everyone thinks Fred ran us terribly in his last 3 or 4 years ?

 

 

Cause for one Leeds didn't even own their own players and for two their wages was actually HIGHER than income.

Surely borrowing more would have solved this ? Got them through the rough time.

[LeazesMag 0]

Having a big crowd means little if you are having to borrow every year to make ends meet through ridiculous wages (both fred and ashley).....so do you think we should have kept on borrowing and paying over the top wages to compete ?

 

Do you think that eventually it has to stop....quite often not by choice ?

 

As you say all the succesful clubs have debt....which ones get themselves into a position where the banks can't see them breaking even or even being able to finance their debts without borrowing more ?

 

Why didn't leeds just borrow more ?

 

Why do you think almost everyone thinks Fred ran us terribly in his last 3 or 4 years ?

 

Allardyce was brought in because they realised a change was needed. He also had a good reputation and was generally regarded as being ready for the big job. His current club has just stayed up with half the gates and probaly less than half our revenue.

 

Parky also makes the same point as me - again.

[Park Life 71]

Football debt isn't like other debt. Newcastle is a monopoly it ain't competing by making lightbulbs with 50 other lightbulb makers. You dig? I'm tired of linking to other clubs debts as people don't seem to grasp the concept.

Newcastle is a monopoly ? So it's a monopoly that people can walk away from. The debts you have linked to...did they include Leeds, West ham, Pompey, Luton (on a smaller scale..similar thing though, risked on buying players in the hope success would pay for it, the success didn't come and they ended up in the shit)

 

If success guaranteed clubs against financial ruin 95% of the PL would be bancrupt. The key is tv money.

 

FS was in the process of scaling down is why SA was bought in.

 

Put up a coherent argument and do some research before I wipe your arse for you.

[shakermaker 0]

Football debt isn't like other debt. Newcastle is a monopoly it ain't competing by making lightbulbs with 50 other lightbulb makers. You dig? I'm tired of linking to other clubs debts as people don't seem to grasp the concept.

Newcastle is a monopoly ? So it's a monopoly that people can walk away from. The debts you have linked to...did they include Leeds, West ham, Pompey, Luton (on a smaller scale..similar thing though, risked on buying players in the hope success would pay for it, the success didn't come and they ended up in the shit)

 

If success guaranteed clubs against financial ruin 95% of the PL would be bancrupt. The key is tv money.

 

FS was in the process of scaling down is why SA was bought in.

 

Put up a coherent argument and do some research before I wipe your arse for you.

Success doesn't guarantee it but it does bring in more money..........being able to finance your debts is the key. Remember Ashley made profits in the windows etc so what extra scaling down would Allardyce have done ? Would you and Leazes have been happy with that, if so why wasn't you happy when Ashley started doing it ?

 

Good of you to walk away from the Monopoly idea as even you see it's pointless in this argument.

[Park Life 71]

Having a big crowd means little if you are having to borrow every year to make ends meet through ridiculous wages (both fred and ashley).....so do you think we should have kept on borrowing and paying over the top wages to compete ?

 

Do you think that eventually it has to stop....quite often not by choice ?

 

As you say all the succesful clubs have debt....which ones get themselves into a position where the banks can't see them breaking even or even being able to finance their debts without borrowing more ?

 

Why didn't leeds just borrow more ?

 

Why do you think almost everyone thinks Fred ran us terribly in his last 3 or 4 years ?

 

 

Cause for one Leeds didn't even own their own players and for two their wages was actually HIGHER than income.

Surely borrowing more would have solved this ? Got them through the rough time.

 

Borrowing more what? Do you understand the concept of ADMINISTRATION????

 

Last year there were 8 PL clubs with higher wages to income ratio than us....This is news to you I guess?

[LeazesMag 0]

Football debt isn't like other debt. Newcastle is a monopoly it ain't competing by making lightbulbs with 50 other lightbulb makers. You dig? I'm tired of linking to other clubs debts as people don't seem to grasp the concept.

Newcastle is a monopoly ? So it's a monopoly that people can walk away from. The debts you have linked to...did they include Leeds, West ham, Pompey, Luton (on a smaller scale..similar thing though, risked on buying players in the hope success would pay for it, the success didn't come and they ended up in the shit)

 

If success guaranteed clubs against financial ruin 95% of the PL would be bancrupt. The key is tv money.

 

FS was in the process of scaling down is why SA was bought in.

 

Put up a coherent argument and do some research before I wipe your arse for you.

Success doesn't guarantee it but it does bring in more money..........being able to finance your debts is the key. Remember Ashley made profits in the windows etc so what extra scaling down would Allardyce have done ? Would you and Leazes have been happy with that, if so why wasn't you happy when Ashley started doing it ?

 

Good of you to walk away from the Monopoly idea as even you see it's pointless in this argument.

 

as said. Football is different. Don't re-invest, and you go down. Its been said a thousand times, the result is staring you in the face. Why are you still arguing about it ?

[LeazesMag 0]

and the subject of the thread has arrived, right on cue.

 

[Park Life 71]

Football debt isn't like other debt. Newcastle is a monopoly it ain't competing by making lightbulbs with 50 other lightbulb makers. You dig? I'm tired of linking to other clubs debts as people don't seem to grasp the concept.

Newcastle is a monopoly ? So it's a monopoly that people can walk away from. The debts you have linked to...did they include Leeds, West ham, Pompey, Luton (on a smaller scale..similar thing though, risked on buying players in the hope success would pay for it, the success didn't come and they ended up in the shit)

 

If success guaranteed clubs against financial ruin 95% of the PL would be bancrupt. The key is tv money.

 

FS was in the process of scaling down is why SA was bought in.

 

Put up a coherent argument and do some research before I wipe your arse for you.

Success doesn't guarantee it but it does bring in more money..........being able to finance your debts is the key. Remember Ashley made profits in the windows etc so what extra scaling down would Allardyce have done ? Would you and Leazes have been happy with that, if so why wasn't you happy when Ashley started doing it ?

 

Good of you to walk away from the Monopoly idea as even you see it's pointless in this argument.

 

 

What the cost of financing the said 70m or 100m debt?

 

What is the tv revenue?

 

What is the ticket revenue?

 

If you stay in the Pl and are a monopoly (we don't make toilet paper) debt of our calibre is easily, rather comfortably fiananced, it's how banks make money and it is how clubs grow the business.

 

Show me one club that has grown a sizeable business model without outside finance and I'll walk away from this debate.