F.A.O Leazesmag

[LeazesMag 0]

TBF from the perspective of NUFC fans, those years were fantastic. However if you want to be considered a top club and count Man U as our rivals as you've suggested then you have to admit by their standards and 3 or 4 other clubs, they can be dismissed as a failure in absolute terms. Obviously relative to the previous decades they weren't.

 

When Man U sing about Shearer turning them down and winning fuck all they are being cunts but at the same time they're right.

 

you're applying different standards and expectations to the Halls and Shepherd than Ashley then ?

 

Precisely my point. Would Shearer leave for ManU now ? Probably.

 

I'm not really surprised, as you actually asked what they had done for the long term future of the club.....astonishing.

 

Nothing to do with Ashley whatsoever and I wish you'd realise we can discuss the previous period in isolation.

 

My point is that if we did join the elite in that period which is a view I'm inclined to support, by their standards winning no trophies makes us failures.

 

By the standards of plucky outsiders we succeeded.

 

Both views are valid imo.

 

I DO discuss previous periods and the current one in isolation. I criticise Ashley, deservedly and justly as he has taken the club into decline, and I don't have to mention the last owners, but somebody else does.

 

People are entitled to their views, but I don't understand how anybody can say Keegan "failed", they sound like Ken fuckin Bates when they come out with tripe like that.

 

 

If you asked a Man Utd or Chelsea fan in 2007 whether Newcastle had been successful since promotion what would their pefectly valid answer from their viewpoint been?

 

Again no comaprison to Ashley asked for or required.

 

deleted the last as I misread this.

 

They know we were a top club, not so successful as them, but they know we were a top club. Whats your point ? What do you think a fan of a clubs who had never played in europe or got anywhere near it would have said about the years from promotion until 2007 ? I can tell you from personal experience that the vast majority of people I came across would have loved to have swapped places with us.

[NJS 4386]

they are quite happy for us having someone like Mike Ashley owning the club, because they KNOW they will have no challenge from us.

 

They would patronise you and say its been a decent season, judging us alongside the likes of Bolton and Blackburn. Then laugh at you for accepting such comments and standards.

 

They do not understand the politics and capability of the club though, and THAT is a valid comment, whether you like it or not.

 

See, the only way you can avoid the question is by bringing Ashley into it.

 

My point is if you call yourself a big boy and want to be counted among them then you can be judged by their standards.

 

As it happens the judgment from their point of view is exactly the same under either owner - failure - and the teams you mention would be how they've always seen us and always will -except for Blackburn of course - they did win it.

 

Why should they care that we think we should be up there with them or who our owner is and how much he cares? - all that matters to them is proven success - as I said same under anyone.

[NJS 4386]

deleted the last as I misread this.

 

They know we were a top club, not so successful as them, but they know we were a top club. Whats your point ? What do you think a fan of a clubs who had never played in europe or got anywhere near it would have said about the years from promotion until 2007 ? I can tell you from personal experience that the vast majority of people I came across would have loved to have swapped places with us.

 

They may respect us as fans and think the club is big but the bottom line is still silverware.

 

As I said by ours and all other clubs standards we were great, by the clubs who we both want to be counted as part of we weren't.

[LeazesMag 0]

they are quite happy for us having someone like Mike Ashley owning the club, because they KNOW they will have no challenge from us.

 

They would patronise you and say its been a decent season, judging us alongside the likes of Bolton and Blackburn. Then laugh at you for accepting such comments and standards.

 

They do not understand the politics and capability of the club though, and THAT is a valid comment, whether you like it or not.

 

See, the only way you can avoid the question is by bringing Ashley into it.

 

My point is if you call yourself a big boy and want to be counted among them then you can be judged by their standards.

 

As it happens the judgment from their point of view is exactly the same under either owner - failure - and the teams you mention would be how they've always seen us and always will -except for Blackburn of course - they did win it.

 

Why should they care that we think we should be up there with them or who our owner is and how much he cares? - all that matters to them is proven success - as I said same under anyone.

 

because the change in ownership is a dividing line, don't you get this ?

 

I changed my answer, as I misread it.

 

Are you saying we may as well finish 5th bottom as 5th top then, or 4th bottom as 4th top, or 3rd bottom as 3rd top ? Astonishing, if you are.

[Toonpack 9409]

Leazes I am sure that this has been said before but I will have another go.

 

You are missing the point.

 

We are all agreed that Hall/Fletcher/Keegan up to 1997 was great. No problems.

 

When Shephrd took over it all went to shit. In 7 years it went from challenging ManU for top spot to appointing Graeme Souness and struggling to compete in the bottom half of the table. This was 7 years of bleeding the club dry, appointing new managers every other September when the previous idiot had already blown the transfer pot and buying useless trophy players rather than developing a squad.

 

So please don't talk about the John Hall and Keegan when supporting Shepherd. Or trips to the San Siroand the Nou Camp. The European nights were a heritage left to Shepherd and in a few short years he pissed it all up the wall.

 

Is that clear?

Was generally great up to 2004. To be fair, even when it was shite we had Cup Finals.

 

And no money

[LeazesMag 0]

deleted the last as I misread this.

 

They know we were a top club, not so successful as them, but they know we were a top club. Whats your point ? What do you think a fan of a clubs who had never played in europe or got anywhere near it would have said about the years from promotion until 2007 ? I can tell you from personal experience that the vast majority of people I came across would have loved to have swapped places with us.

 

They may respect us as fans and think the club is big but the bottom line is still silverware.

 

As I said by ours and all other clubs standards we were great, by the clubs who we both want to be counted as part of we weren't.

 

see my next post. I think you are clutching at straws to attempt to say that finishing 3rd top is just as much a failure as 3rd bottom. Ridiculous.

 

The irony being, if we finish 10th under this current owner, people like you [or like the person who started this thread attempted until he was made to look a dickhead by his own comments] will be doing cartwheels and saying "I told you so" etc. Told us what ?

Edited May 13, 2011 by LeazesMag

[NJS 4386]

they are quite happy for us having someone like Mike Ashley owning the club, because they KNOW they will have no challenge from us.

 

They would patronise you and say its been a decent season, judging us alongside the likes of Bolton and Blackburn. Then laugh at you for accepting such comments and standards.

 

They do not understand the politics and capability of the club though, and THAT is a valid comment, whether you like it or not.

 

See, the only way you can avoid the question is by bringing Ashley into it.

 

My point is if you call yourself a big boy and want to be counted among them then you can be judged by their standards.

 

As it happens the judgment from their point of view is exactly the same under either owner - failure - and the teams you mention would be how they've always seen us and always will -except for Blackburn of course - they did win it.

 

Why should they care that we think we should be up there with them or who our owner is and how much he cares? - all that matters to them is proven success - as I said same under anyone.

 

because the change in ownership is a dividing line, don't you get this ?

 

I changed my answer, as I misread it.

 

Are you saying we may as well finish 5th bottom as 5th top then, or 4th bottom as 4th top, or 3rd bottom as 3rd top ? Astonishing, if you are.

 

 

My view is that they don't care who the owner is - only whether we've won anything.

 

I want to finish as high as possible and give all the cups our best - even if Europe wasn't available that would still be my view - but you have to realise that if by some miracle we did get back up there to compete with the top teams then we would have to start seeing 3rd as failure like Arsenal this year - with higher ambitions comes higher targets - and higher standards of failure.

 

Maybe that's why there was such a reaction to finishing 5th that time - we'd started to think like Manc/scousers.

 

I overheard a Spurs fan on the train this morning bemoaning a shit season as finishing 6th was "mid-table" as far as he's concerned - maybe that's the attitude you need to be winners.

[NJS 4386]

deleted the last as I misread this.

 

They know we were a top club, not so successful as them, but they know we were a top club. Whats your point ? What do you think a fan of a clubs who had never played in europe or got anywhere near it would have said about the years from promotion until 2007 ? I can tell you from personal experience that the vast majority of people I came across would have loved to have swapped places with us.

 

They may respect us as fans and think the club is big but the bottom line is still silverware.

 

As I said by ours and all other clubs standards we were great, by the clubs who we both want to be counted as part of we weren't.

 

see my next post. I think you are clutching at straws to attempt to say that finishing 3rd top is just as much a failure as 3rd bottom. Ridiculous.

 

The irony being, if we finish 10th under this current owner, people like you will be doing cartwheels and saying "I told you so" etc. Told us what ?

 

 

"Second is nowhere" - Bill Shankly - harsh and I don't particularly agree but that's the attitude that people like him and Ferguson had/have.

Edited May 13, 2011 by NJS

[LeazesMag 0]

they are quite happy for us having someone like Mike Ashley owning the club, because they KNOW they will have no challenge from us.

 

They would patronise you and say its been a decent season, judging us alongside the likes of Bolton and Blackburn. Then laugh at you for accepting such comments and standards.

 

They do not understand the politics and capability of the club though, and THAT is a valid comment, whether you like it or not.

 

See, the only way you can avoid the question is by bringing Ashley into it.

 

My point is if you call yourself a big boy and want to be counted among them then you can be judged by their standards.

 

As it happens the judgment from their point of view is exactly the same under either owner - failure - and the teams you mention would be how they've always seen us and always will -except for Blackburn of course - they did win it.

 

Why should they care that we think we should be up there with them or who our owner is and how much he cares? - all that matters to them is proven success - as I said same under anyone.

 

because the change in ownership is a dividing line, don't you get this ?

 

I changed my answer, as I misread it.

 

Are you saying we may as well finish 5th bottom as 5th top then, or 4th bottom as 4th top, or 3rd bottom as 3rd top ? Astonishing, if you are.

 

 

My view is that they don't care who the owner is - only whether we've won anything.

 

I want to finish as high as possible and give all the cups our best - even if Europe wasn't available that would still be my view - but you have to realise that if by some miracle we did get back up there to compete with the top teams then we would have to start seeing 3rd as failure like Arsenal this year - with higher ambitions comes higher targets - and higher standards of failure.

 

Maybe that's why there was such a reaction to finishing 5th that time - we'd started to think like Manc/scousers.

 

I overheard a Spurs fan on the train this morning bemoaning a shit season as finishing 6th was "mid-table" as far as he's concerned - maybe that's the attitude you need to be winners.

 

you're getting warmer, you're starting to understand the concept of actually attempting to be successful and raising expectations that come with it.

 

You now only have to understand that this is only done by keeping your best players and maybe buying the odd top player/"trophy player" to attempt to continue the upward trend, both in terms of ability of the team and profile within the game and outside the game commercially.

[LeazesMag 0]

deleted the last as I misread this.

 

They know we were a top club, not so successful as them, but they know we were a top club. Whats your point ? What do you think a fan of a clubs who had never played in europe or got anywhere near it would have said about the years from promotion until 2007 ? I can tell you from personal experience that the vast majority of people I came across would have loved to have swapped places with us.

 

They may respect us as fans and think the club is big but the bottom line is still silverware.

 

As I said by ours and all other clubs standards we were great, by the clubs who we both want to be counted as part of we weren't.

 

see my next post. I think you are clutching at straws to attempt to say that finishing 3rd top is just as much a failure as 3rd bottom. Ridiculous.

 

The irony being, if we finish 10th under this current owner, people like you will be doing cartwheels and saying "I told you so" etc. Told us what ?

 

 

"Second is nowhere" - Bill Shankly - harsh and I don't particularly agree but that's the attitude that people like him and Ferguson had/have.

 

and relegated is ?

 

And selling your best player is ?

 

what do you think of the quote in my sig ?

Edited May 13, 2011 by LeazesMag

[NJS 4386]

you're getting warmer, you're starting to understand the concept of actually attempting to be successful and raising expectations that come with it.

 

You now only have to understand that this is only done by keeping your best players and maybe buying the odd top player/"trophy player" to attempt to continue the upward trend, both in terms of ability of the team and profile within the game and outside the game commercially.

 

Of course - but in the absence of any money, realism bites.

 

That's the future - what we're discussing here is a "judgement" on the past - as I said I think "failure" is correct from the standards we all actually aspire to.

[NJS 4386]

and relegated is ?

 

And selling your best player is ?

 

what do you think of the quote in my sig ?

 

No different from their viewpoint - that's the point.

 

As for your quote, finishing in the top 10 given that no money will be spent is realistic from their point of view. You've written off 4 teams, I'd extend that to 6 so a margin of 7th to 10th isn't that huge.

 

Of course we all want to aim higher and achieve it but as in everything in life there is a cost for that - Ashley won't pay the cost so I don't see the point in the bravado of saying we want higher.

Edited May 13, 2011 by NJS

[LeazesMag 0]

you're getting warmer, you're starting to understand the concept of actually attempting to be successful and raising expectations that come with it.

 

You now only have to understand that this is only done by keeping your best players and maybe buying the odd top player/"trophy player" to attempt to continue the upward trend, both in terms of ability of the team and profile within the game and outside the game commercially.

 

Of course - but in the absence of any money, realism bites.

 

That's the future - what we're discussing here is a "judgement" on the past - as I said I think "failure" is correct from the "standards" we all actually aspire to.

 

standards.

 

Have fallen, under the new regime. That's the WHOLE point. Don't you see it ?

[NJS 4386]

you're getting warmer, you're starting to understand the concept of actually attempting to be successful and raising expectations that come with it.

 

You now only have to understand that this is only done by keeping your best players and maybe buying the odd top player/"trophy player" to attempt to continue the upward trend, both in terms of ability of the team and profile within the game and outside the game commercially.

 

Of course - but in the absence of any money, realism bites.

 

That's the future - what we're discussing here is a "judgement" on the past - as I said I think "failure" is correct from the "standards" we all actually aspire to.

 

standards.

 

Have fallen, under the new regime. That's the WHOLE point. Don't you see it ?

 

Of course - but by Man Utd's standards we never reached the top so what does it matter? (from their pov)

[LeazesMag 0]

and relegated is ?

 

And selling your best player is ?

 

what do you think of the quote in my sig ?

 

No different from their viewpoint - that's the point.

 

As for your quote, finishing in the top 10 given that no money will be spent is realistic from their point of view. You've written off 4 teams, I'd extend that to 6 so a margin of 7th to 10th isn't that huge.

 

Of course we all want to aim higher and achieve it but as in everything in life there is a cost for that - Ashley won't pay the cost so I don't see the point in the bravado of saying we want higher.

 

so selling your best player is no different to keeping him ?

 

3rd bottom is no different to 3rd top ? They are both "failures" ?

 

Aiming for 10th minimum is no different than aiming for top 4/5 minimum ?

 

I'm trying to be patient here mate, but you're way off any logical common sense here.

 

Anyway, I've got to go.

[McFaul 35]

[Toonpack 9409]

The FACTS are that from 1992 until 2007 the club was owned by THE HALLS AND SHEPHERD . Nobody during all of that time, had sole control of the club. Keegan was approached by Hall Jnr, Fletcher and Shepherd without Hall Snr knowing about it, they forced him to sack Ardiles and appoint Keegan. This has been said dozens of times, quite why people like you insist Halls Snr gets all the credit when he knew nothing about it, is quite astonishing.

 

You just really couldn't believe such shite. It's mind boggling.

 

 

How can this be ..................

 

Kevin Keegan is sitting in a TV studio before they go live with a Saturday match and he’s off and talking as if the cameras are already rolling.

 

I remember Sir John Hall phoning me when I came back from Spain to live in Hampshire in a farmhouse I had from my Southampton days. I was going to breed horses.

 

‘It was a Thursday night when he rang. I’d only been back for two days. He said, “Only two people can save Newcastle United. They are talking to each other now. You’ve got the passion; I’ve got the finance”.’

[manc-mag 1]

they are quite happy for us having someone like Mike Ashley owning the club, because they KNOW they will have no challenge from us.

 

They would patronise you and say its been a decent season, judging us alongside the likes of Bolton and Blackburn. Then laugh at you for accepting such comments and standards.

 

They do not understand the politics and capability of the club though, and THAT is a valid comment, whether you like it or not.

 

See, the only way you can avoid the question is by bringing Ashley into it.

 

My point is if you call yourself a big boy and want to be counted among them then you can be judged by their standards.

 

As it happens the judgment from their point of view is exactly the same under either owner - failure - and the teams you mention would be how they've always seen us and always will -except for Blackburn of course - they did win it.

 

Why should they care that we think we should be up there with them or who our owner is and how much he cares? - all that matters to them is proven success - as I said same under anyone.

 

because the change in ownership is a dividing line, don't you get this ?

 

I changed my answer, as I misread it.

 

Are you saying we may as well finish 5th bottom as 5th top then, or 4th bottom as 4th top, or 3rd bottom as 3rd top ? Astonishing, if you are.

 

 

My view is that they don't care who the owner is - only whether we've won anything.

 

I want to finish as high as possible and give all the cups our best - even if Europe wasn't available that would still be my view - but you have to realise that if by some miracle we did get back up there to compete with the top teams then we would have to start seeing 3rd as failure like Arsenal this year - with higher ambitions comes higher targets - and higher standards of failure.

 

Maybe that's why there was such a reaction to finishing 5th that time - we'd started to think like Manc/scousers.

 

I overheard a Spurs fan on the train this morning bemoaning a shit season as finishing 6th was "mid-table" as far as he's concerned - maybe that's the attitude you need to be winners.

 

you're getting warmer, you're starting to understand the concept of actually attempting to be successful and raising expectations that come with it.

 

You now only have to understand that this is only done by keeping your best players and maybe buying the odd top player/"trophy player" to attempt to continue the upward trend, both in terms of ability of the team and profile within the game and outside the game commercially.

 

I think buying top bracket players who genuinely don't want/care whether they win anything once they get here is very much a job half done and it's ultimately that that meant we wont nowt. And I'll always have trouble with that aspect of it. I think it was true of all but a couple of seasons (and possibly only one when we really had the tilt at the title). The two cup finals were no shows and we were there solely to make up the numbers if we're brutally honest about it.

 

That's not a childish reaction to not winning something but a genuine appraisal of why we didnt - for instance the Champs League was a different kettle of fish as winning that isn't really that realistic unless and until you become a mainstay of the competition as the learning curve is so immense. But for me I have to subscribe to what NJS touches on there as I've said in the past. It's the 'second is nowhere' mentality (whether you finish first or not) that makes the difference. Equally I accept that the first trophy is always the hardest (a totally valid point), it's just I don't think the club demanded enough of it's servants once it'd got them on the payroll to ever meet that threshold. And by and large they responded like most employees do when their wages are paid irrespective.

 

The frustrating thing is that that element of the equation-demanding a winning mentality-costs nowt. It's just something that has to run through the club from top to bottom day after day, relentlessly. Starting at the top.

[manc-mag 1]

Oh and by the way, thats not a defence of Ashley by implication. I would say the club has probably never done that in my lifetime at all. Ashley leads by horrific example with his contempt for any number of things that are important to the progress of the club, I simply think he's getting more out of this particular body of players (relatively speaking) by employing margin squeezing tactics that leave less room for the decadence that was prevalent in the past. Not that that's a long term/sophisticated enough strategy for success by itself.

[NJS 4386]

and relegated is ?

 

And selling your best player is ?

 

what do you think of the quote in my sig ?

 

No different from their viewpoint - that's the point.

 

As for your quote, finishing in the top 10 given that no money will be spent is realistic from their point of view. You've written off 4 teams, I'd extend that to 6 so a margin of 7th to 10th isn't that huge.

 

Of course we all want to aim higher and achieve it but as in everything in life there is a cost for that - Ashley won't pay the cost so I don't see the point in the bravado of saying we want higher.

 

so selling your best player is no different to keeping him ?

 

3rd bottom is no different to 3rd top ? They are both "failures" ?

 

Aiming for 10th minimum is no different than aiming for top 4/5 minimum ?

 

I'm trying to be patient here mate, but you're way off any logical common sense here.

 

Anyway, I've got to go.

 

 

FROM MAN UNITED'S POINT OF VIEW.

 

It doesn't matter to them where we finish as long as it's not top - their standards not ours - tha's what matters to them.

 

 

Chelsea are probably going to sack their manager for failing to win the league - with high expectations comes high price of failure. Of course we would all love to finish 2nd but because they now expect to win it, 2nd is failure.

[NJS 4386]

Equally I accept that the first trophy is always the hardest (a totally valid point), it's just I don't think the club demanded enough of it's servants once it'd got them on the payroll to ever meet that threshold. And by and large they responded like most employees do when their wages are paid irrespective.

 

Personally I think that summed up the differnce between Keegan and Robson - Keegan had the Scouse winning mentality - I don't honestly think Bobby did.

[Renton 21626]

Equally I accept that the first trophy is always the hardest (a totally valid point), it's just I don't think the club demanded enough of it's servants once it'd got them on the payroll to ever meet that threshold. And by and large they responded like most employees do when their wages are paid irrespective.

 

Personally I think that summed up the differnce between Keegan and Robson - Keegan had the Scouse winning mentality - I don't honestly think Bobby did.

 

That's probably right, which was why failure weighed so heavily on Keegan (and on a personal note why I wasn't convinced he would ever be the right man for NUFC under Ashley regardless of the shit that went on).

 

Robson was a nearly man when it came to the major leagues. Which was ultimately the reason I thought we had to try someone else to achieve the ultimate goal, despite his relative sucesses and him being a genuine lovely bloke.

[McFaul 35]

Equally I accept that the first trophy is always the hardest (a totally valid point), it's just I don't think the club demanded enough of it's servants once it'd got them on the payroll to ever meet that threshold. And by and large they responded like most employees do when their wages are paid irrespective.

 

Personally I think that summed up the differnce between Keegan and Robson - Keegan had the Scouse winning mentality - I don't honestly think Bobby did.

One of your worst posts. Keegan as I've said many times is number one in Newcastle always will be. To say Robson didn't have a winning mentality is ridiculous. Robson was more tactically astute than Keegan, and we were a lot tighter as a unit even with donkeys like O'Brien in defence. Tell me though who won more as a manager? Who was the width of a goalpost from winning the World Cup? If we'd have won the WC you wouldn't have even question SBR's winning mentality. He won 5 league titles in his career, came close with Ipswich ffs, numerous cups and European honours. Terrible conclusion you've reach there imo.

[NJS 4386]

Equally I accept that the first trophy is always the hardest (a totally valid point), it's just I don't think the club demanded enough of it's servants once it'd got them on the payroll to ever meet that threshold. And by and large they responded like most employees do when their wages are paid irrespective.

 

Personally I think that summed up the differnce between Keegan and Robson - Keegan had the Scouse winning mentality - I don't honestly think Bobby did.

 

That's probably right, which was why failure weighed so heavily on Keegan (and on a personal note why I wasn't convinced he would ever be the right man for NUFC under Ashley regardless of the shit that went on).

 

Robson was a nearly man when it came to the major leagues. Which was ultimately the reason I thought we had to try someone else to achieve the ultimate goal, despite his relative sucesses and him being a genuine lovely bloke.

 

Stupidly enough, the main reason I thought Souness might work was that I thought he was another "winner".

 

I think Bobby tried to sell that the idea that he could be ruthless despite being so nice - I never really bought it.

[Renton 21626]

Equally I accept that the first trophy is always the hardest (a totally valid point), it's just I don't think the club demanded enough of it's servants once it'd got them on the payroll to ever meet that threshold. And by and large they responded like most employees do when their wages are paid irrespective.

 

Personally I think that summed up the differnce between Keegan and Robson - Keegan had the Scouse winning mentality - I don't honestly think Bobby did.

One of your worst posts. Keegan as I've said many times is number one in Newcastle always will be. To say Robson didn't have a winning mentality is ridiculous. Robson was more tactically astute than Keegan, and we were a lot tighter as a unit even with donkeys like O'Brien in defence. Tell me though who won more as a manager? Who was the width of a goalpost from winning the World Cup? If we'd have won the WC you wouldn't have even question SBR's winning mentality. He won 5 league titles in his career, came close with Ipswich ffs, numerous cups and European honours. Terrible conclusion you've reach there imo.

 

He always came up just short for the major honours though Stevie, the WC being a good example. After that he never seemed 'gutted' enough for me, he almost took it too philisophically, too well. Losing the premiership in 1996 hurt Keegan much more than it would have Robson imo.