F.A.O Leazesmag

[LeazesMag 0]

I stopped buying True Faith years ago because it was getting more and more like a student rag mag and the above simply confirms it.

 

I am pleased for the "growing number" of supporters who are starting to accept we have no chance of challenging clubs like Spurs and Liverpool anymore, and we are doing it right while they are getting it all wrong in attempting to challenge for the top spots and play in the Champions League.

 

In other words, brainwashed.

 

"Mad Jock", are you going to respond to my replies ?

 

[Knew you wouldn't]

 

 

But we are now doing what they've been doing for years

 

The question is for "Mad Jock", I know your views, but they will change in September, unless you extend your "wait and see" period further.

 

We are not running the club like Spurs and Liverpool, we are selling our best players to them and replacing them with inferior cheapos. We were superior to Spurs when the Halls and Shepherd owned NUFC, and Alan Sugar ran Spurs "like a business"....Spurs have never looked back since Sugar sold the club. Fact.

 

Anyway, like I said, I bet "Mad Jock" doesn't respond to my replies to him.

 

No extension, the summer is it, definitively.

 

Although I do NOT expect to spend the full £35Mill (as that would be stupid), I would be happy with north of £20Mill net, say around £25Mill'd be splendid.

 

Dunno about Mad Jock, but I've re-read the thread and can't see those answers very clearly BTW.

 

why would it be stupid not to spend the full 35m quid ? I think it is stupid if they don't show their serious ambition, in view of what has gone on, assuming you, CT, TN and 99% of the dickheads on skunkers appear to think they have ?

[Toonpack 9973]

I stopped buying True Faith years ago because it was getting more and more like a student rag mag and the above simply confirms it.

 

I am pleased for the "growing number" of supporters who are starting to accept we have no chance of challenging clubs like Spurs and Liverpool anymore, and we are doing it right while they are getting it all wrong in attempting to challenge for the top spots and play in the Champions League.

 

In other words, brainwashed.

 

"Mad Jock", are you going to respond to my replies ?

 

[Knew you wouldn't]

 

 

But we are now doing what they've been doing for years

 

The question is for "Mad Jock", I know your views, but they will change in September, unless you extend your "wait and see" period further.

 

We are not running the club like Spurs and Liverpool, we are selling our best players to them and replacing them with inferior cheapos. We were superior to Spurs when the Halls and Shepherd owned NUFC, and Alan Sugar ran Spurs "like a business"....Spurs have never looked back since Sugar sold the club. Fact.

 

Anyway, like I said, I bet "Mad Jock" doesn't respond to my replies to him.

 

No extension, the summer is it, definitively.

 

Although I do NOT expect to spend the full £35Mill (as that would be stupid), I would be happy with north of £20Mill net, say around £25Mill'd be splendid.

 

Dunno about Mad Jock, but I've re-read the thread and can't see those answers very clearly BTW.

 

why would it be stupid not to spend the full 35m quid ? I think it is stupid if they don't show their serious ambition, in view of what has gone on, assuming you, CT, TN and 99% of the dickheads on skunkers appear to think they have ?

 

It would be stupid (it would also be nice) because some should be retained for future. Only way that £35Mill net gets spent is if Ashley is going to continue bankrolling (which I seriously doubt) otherwise it's live within the means time.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Toonpack

[LeazesMag 0]

 

 

But we are now doing what they've been doing for years

 

The question is for "Mad Jock", I know your views, but they will change in September, unless you extend your "wait and see" period further.

 

We are not running the club like Spurs and Liverpool, we are selling our best players to them and replacing them with inferior cheapos. We were superior to Spurs when the Halls and Shepherd owned NUFC, and Alan Sugar ran Spurs "like a business"....Spurs have never looked back since Sugar sold the club. Fact.

 

Anyway, like I said, I bet "Mad Jock" doesn't respond to my replies to him.

 

No extension, the summer is it, definitively.

 

Although I do NOT expect to spend the full £35Mill (as that would be stupid), I would be happy with north of £20Mill net, say around £25Mill'd be splendid.

 

Dunno about Mad Jock, but I've re-read the thread and can't see those answers very clearly BTW.

 

why would it be stupid not to spend the full 35m quid ? I think it is stupid if they don't show their serious ambition, in view of what has gone on, assuming you, CT, TN and 99% of the dickheads on skunkers appear to think they have ?

 

It would be stupid (it would also be nice) because some should be retained for future. Only way that £35Mill net gets spent is if Ashley is going to continue bankrolling (which I seriously doubt) otherwise it's live within the means time.

 

while clubs we used to be compete with pull further away from us [and going into debt] ? Why don't you start a new business venture, start making scarves with "NUFC - the best business in the land" or something similar on them. Should make a bomb, advertise them on skunkers.

 

You're going to have a shock.

[LeazesMag 0]

Anyway. Still no sign of "Mad Jock".

[Guest alex]

It's been a canny season in relation to expectations and that's despite January. With that in mind, to me at least, it doesn't really matter whether we finish just in the top or just in the bottom half as the season has been so tight from mid-table down to the bottom, with even Man Utd dropping loads of points away from home that I don't think you can read a lot into where we do finish now. We've achieved our objective of safety reasonably easily, which is the main thing. For now.

Edited May 17, 2011 by alex

[Toonpack 9973]

while clubs we used to be compete with pull further away from us [and going into debt] ?

 

But they're not going into debt though. Not to fund tranfers anyway.

[LeazesMag 0]

while clubs we used to be compete with pull further away from us [and going into debt] ?

 

But they're not going into debt though. Not to fund tranfers anyway.

 

you don't think we can compete with them ? Fine, you have your "opinion", but the facts are that we can, and have done in the past, and competed higher than them too, with higher revenues. In the first post, Mad Jock refers to the mortgage repayments. I've replied.

 

I would rather not make more posts, and deflect from "Mad Jock" if he ever comes back and replies to my responses, as he said he would.

 

Bet he doesn't.

[Toonpack 9973]

while clubs we used to be compete with pull further away from us [and going into debt] ?

 

But they're not going into debt though. Not to fund tranfers anyway.

 

you don't think we can compete with them ? Fine, you have your "opinion", but the facts are that we can, and have done in the past, and competed higher than them too, with higher revenues. In the first post, Mad Jock refers to the mortgage repayments. I've replied.

 

I would rather not make more posts, and deflect from "Mad Jock" if he ever comes back and replies to my responses, as he said he would.

 

Bet he doesn't.

 

I just pointed out a factual inaccuracy in your post is all.

[LeazesMag 0]

while clubs we used to be compete with pull further away from us [and going into debt] ?

 

But they're not going into debt though. Not to fund tranfers anyway.

 

you don't think we can compete with them ? Fine, you have your "opinion", but the facts are that we can, and have done in the past, and competed higher than them too, with higher revenues. In the first post, Mad Jock refers to the mortgage repayments. I've replied.

 

I would rather not make more posts, and deflect from "Mad Jock" if he ever comes back and replies to my responses, as he said he would.

 

Bet he doesn't.

 

I just pointed out a factual inaccuracy in your post is all.

 

I'm pleased to hear that you concede superiority to the likes of Spurs and Liverpool, and accept we cannot match their revenues and turnover, in spite of doing so in the past. If only Spurs were still owned by someone who ran the club "like a business" while we were ahead of them as we were under our former owners, while thousands of NUFC supporters were openly warning of future financial doom and not attending the Champions League games because we were out of our depth.

 

I want to leave this thread for Mad Jock to reply, like he said he would.

 

Bet he doesn't, or at best, will post a load of tripe to cover his embarrassment.

Edited May 17, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Toonpack 9973]

I'm pleased to hear that you concede superiority to the likes of Spurs and Liverpool, and accept we cannot match their revenues and turnover, in spite of doing so in the past. If only Spurs were still owned by someone who ran the club "like a business" while we were ahead of them as we were under our former owners, while thousands of NUFC supporters were openly warning of future financial doom and not attending the Champions League games because we were out of our depth.

 

Just for the record:

 

In the 4 years covering season's 04/05 through to 07/08

 

Liverpool recorded revenues in excess of (as in more than) ours by £226 Million in total, in the same period they achieved profits of £29.53Million (in total)

 

Spurs recorded revenues in excess of (as in more than) ours by only £1.4 Million but in the same period they achieved profits of £49.9 Million (in total)

 

In the same period we accumulated losses of £69.6 Million.

 

So no, I don't think we can compete with the head starts they've had for a while yet, do you ??, really ?? Does anyone ?

 

Previous to 04/05 it was more even in total revenues (I gave up trying to find profit's as it was a pain finding those years I've posted), but on commercial revenue Liverpool have always dwarfed us, champions league or not and from 04/05 they've absolutely raced away.

 

All the above is fact, revenue figures calculated from Deloitte's list (that you like so much) profit figures from general trawling of the net.

[LeazesMag 0]

is Mad Jock pidge ?

 

Do you think we should not have expanded the stadium ?

Edited May 17, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Toonpack 9973]

is Mad Jock pidge ?

 

Do you think we should not have expanded the stadium ?

 

Of course we should, if we hadn't the drop off to Liverpool/Spuds above would have been humungously worse.

 

Based on the questions asked, I thought it might be Windaz.

[LeazesMag 0]

is Mad Jock pidge ?

 

Do you think we should not have expanded the stadium ?

 

Of course we should, if we hadn't the drop off to Liverpool/Spuds above would have been humungously worse.

 

Based on the questions asked, I thought it might be Windaz.

 

good. I'm pleased you realise the long term benefit of having an expanded stadium, even if in the short term it has to be paid for, while Liverpool and Spurs have not undertaken such a move yet.

 

Congratulations should be given to the last owners for that, don't you agree ? And if Mike Ashley finds revenues have now fallen so repayments can't be met as when the mortgage was taken out, there is only one person to blame. Correct ?

 

If Mad Jock is windaz, why can't the idiot just use his name or tell us who he is ? What a knacker. I'm not surprised he hasn't been back, and I won't be surprised if he doesn't reply.

 

Bet he doesn't.

[Toonpack 9973]

good. I'm pleased you realise the long term benefit of having an expanded stadium, even if in the short term it has to be paid for, while Liverpool and Spurs have not undertaken such a move yet.

 

Congratulations should be given to the last owners for that, don't you agree ? And if Mike Ashley finds revenues have now fallen so repayments can't be met as when the mortgage was taken out, there is only one person to blame. Correct ?

 

If Mad Jock is windaz, why can't the idiot just use his name or tell us who he is ? What a knacker. I'm not surprised he hasn't been back, and I won't be surprised if he doesn't reply.

 

Bet he doesn't.

 

It's an very old login 2005, so could be anyone, just basing the Windaz theory on the questions asked.

 

The stadium was never in question and congrats to the last owners, it was one of the good things they did. It's "good" debt, as in, one that is self financing. Sadly that good debt accounted for just over half of our total exposure.

 

As for the second part, not sure how you can blame someone who's taken over the debt from the lenders (stadium and all others), thus making repayments not being met a non issue. AND in the process saved the club £28 Million in interest payments, surely someone who did that should be similarly congratulated. Correct ?

[LeazesMag 0]

good. I'm pleased you realise the long term benefit of having an expanded stadium, even if in the short term it has to be paid for, while Liverpool and Spurs have not undertaken such a move yet.

 

Congratulations should be given to the last owners for that, don't you agree ? And if Mike Ashley finds revenues have now fallen so repayments can't be met as when the mortgage was taken out, there is only one person to blame. Correct ?

 

If Mad Jock is windaz, why can't the idiot just use his name or tell us who he is ? What a knacker. I'm not surprised he hasn't been back, and I won't be surprised if he doesn't reply.

 

Bet he doesn't.

 

It's an very old login 2005, so could be anyone, just basing the Windaz theory on the questions asked.

 

The stadium was never in question and congrats to the last owners, it was one of the good things they did. It's "good" debt, as in, one that is self financing. Sadly that good debt accounted for just over half of our total exposure.

 

As for the second part, not sure how you can blame someone who's taken over the debt from the lenders (stadium and all others), thus making repayments not being met a non issue. AND in the process saved the club £28 Million in interest payments, surely someone who did that should be similarly congratulated. Correct ?

 

our "debt" has simply shifted to Mike Ashley, and he is getting it back in player sales *. He is only saving himself from his own payouts. Anybody with the money and half a brain would do exactly the same, and lets face it, he does appear to only have half a brain at best, he doesn't understand football, and he didn't know a good manager when he had one. Anyway, it is Mad Jock who says our repayments can't now be met, where did he get his information from ? Didn't Dekka say soopa Mike had cleared the debts ? Those repayments were based on ticket sales and revenues, and everybody said it was a good deal and done at the right time etc, so if the repayments can't be met then it must mean revenues have dropped ? Who is responsible for revenues falling ?

 

* And this is BEFORE he sells, when he sells, and tags it onto the asking price.

 

Wonder what windaz says about my replies, if he answers.

Edited May 17, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Toonpack 9973]

our "debt" has simply shifted to Mike Ashley, and he is getting it back in player sales. He is only saving himself from his own payouts. Anybody with the money and half a brain would do exactly the same, and lets face it, he does appear to only have half a brain at best, he doesn't understand football, and he didn't know a good manager when he had one.

 

And this is BEFORE he sells, when he sells, and tags it onto the asking price.

 

Wonder what windaz says about my replies, if he answers.

 

When was that ???

 

Knew you'd not answer my "ability to compete" question above, skillfull manouver of the thread away from the point of my post BTW.

 

It might not be Windaz.

[LeazesMag 0]

our "debt" has simply shifted to Mike Ashley, and he is getting it back in player sales. He is only saving himself from his own payouts. Anybody with the money and half a brain would do exactly the same, and lets face it, he does appear to only have half a brain at best, he doesn't understand football, and he didn't know a good manager when he had one.

 

And this is BEFORE he sells, when he sells, and tags it onto the asking price.

 

Wonder what windaz says about my replies, if he answers.

 

When was that ???

 

Knew you'd not answer my "ability to compete" question above, skillfull manouver of the thread away from the point of my post BTW.

 

It might not be Windaz.

 

Now. Dekka says he has paid the debts, you don't think he's done it out of the goodness of his heart do you ? So has he paid them, or is Dekka telling porkie pies.

 

If we do not attempt to compete with the likes of Liverpool and Spurs then we are doing NUFC a disservice, as the Halls and Shepherd proved by finishing above Liverpool sometimes, by competing with them, and finishing above Spurs pretty much every season or the vast majority if my memory serves me correctly, this was while they were being run by Alan Sugar "like a business" though.

 

Thought you didn't want to do this again

 

Leave it for Mad Jock.

[Toonpack 9973]

our "debt" has simply shifted to Mike Ashley, and he is getting it back in player sales. He is only saving himself from his own payouts. Anybody with the money and half a brain would do exactly the same, and lets face it, he does appear to only have half a brain at best, he doesn't understand football, and he didn't know a good manager when he had one.

 

And this is BEFORE he sells, when he sells, and tags it onto the asking price.

 

Wonder what windaz says about my replies, if he answers.

 

When was that ???

 

Knew you'd not answer my "ability to compete" question above, skillfull manouver of the thread away from the point of my post BTW.

 

It might not be Windaz.

 

Now. Dekka says he has paid the debts, you don't think he's done it out of the goodness of his heart do you ? So has he paid them, or is Dekka telling porkie pies.

 

If we do not attempt to compete with the likes of Liverpool and Spurs then we are doing NUFC a disservice, as the Halls and Shepherd proved by finishing above Liverpool sometimes, by competing with them, and finishing above Spurs pretty much every season or the vast majority if my memory serves me correctly, this was while they were being run by Alan Sugar "like a business" though.

 

Thought you didn't want to do this again

 

Leave it for Mad Jock.

 

I don't, but just thought the comparison figures were interesting, when I dug them out. Always differed with you on the Liverpool v us thing, usually on the stature in the game fluff and nonsense, but those figures are "wow" even you must see that.

 

Hopefully a few years out of the CL and continued trophyless seasons will see the rotten stack of cards tumble. Alrady the makings of a groundswell against Carroll on their forums, which is nice.

 

I can assure you, as well, that I despise/hate Liverpool above all other clubs.

[LeazesMag 0]

our "debt" has simply shifted to Mike Ashley, and he is getting it back in player sales. He is only saving himself from his own payouts. Anybody with the money and half a brain would do exactly the same, and lets face it, he does appear to only have half a brain at best, he doesn't understand football, and he didn't know a good manager when he had one.

 

And this is BEFORE he sells, when he sells, and tags it onto the asking price.

 

Wonder what windaz says about my replies, if he answers.

 

When was that ???

 

Knew you'd not answer my "ability to compete" question above, skillfull manouver of the thread away from the point of my post BTW.

 

It might not be Windaz.

 

Now. Dekka says he has paid the debts, you don't think he's done it out of the goodness of his heart do you ? So has he paid them, or is Dekka telling porkie pies.

 

If we do not attempt to compete with the likes of Liverpool and Spurs then we are doing NUFC a disservice, as the Halls and Shepherd proved by finishing above Liverpool sometimes, by competing with them, and finishing above Spurs pretty much every season or the vast majority if my memory serves me correctly, this was while they were being run by Alan Sugar "like a business" though.

 

Thought you didn't want to do this again

 

Leave it for Mad Jock.

 

I don't, but just thought the comparison figures were interesting, when I dug them out. Always differed with you on the Liverpool v us thing, usually on the stature in the game fluff and nonsense, but those figures are "wow" even you must see that.

 

Hopefully a few years out of the CL and continued trophyless seasons will see the rotten stack of cards tumble. Alrady the makings of a groundswell against Carroll on their forums, which is nice.

 

I can assure you, as well, that I despise/hate Liverpool above all other clubs.

 

They made themselves into a great club for all that time, that should be our aim. They were nothing before Shankly, a successful NUFC would match and overhaul Liverpool, we should be doing things like they do, not selling our best players and not backing our managers.

 

I don't hate Liverpool, I wish we had had even 10% of their success, and if we did, my point above would not be in any dispute at all, the Keegan years proved that.

[Pacinofan 0]

LM, how many times did you finish above Liverpool during the Shepherd years? Or even over the whole history of both clubs? Liverpool haven't finished lower than 8th in 5 decades, as far as I know Newcastle, during that time, haven't done that more than 4 or 5 times. Not sure on that one, I stand to be corrected.

 

We'd won 5 league titles before Shankly, although I fail to see what relevance Shanks makes to being nothing beforehand. Does that apply to every club before they appoint someone who wins something? And does it make every club who hasn't won a trophy nothing? Liverpool have a great history and even back in the day were able to pay a record transfer fee for one of your players, Albert Stubbins, so where you get this nothing from I don't know.

 

Clubs appoint someone who they think will take them forward, if that man fails then the board has failed. Shanks wasn't just a spur of the moment appointment, the chairman at the time knew who he wanted and was prepared to back him, believe in him, and saw Shanks as the saviour of his beloved club.

[LeazesMag 0]

LM, how many times did you finish above Liverpool during the Shepherd years? Or even over the whole history of both clubs? Liverpool haven't finished lower than 8th in 5 decades, as far as I know Newcastle, during that time, haven't done that more than 4 or 5 times. Not sure on that one, I stand to be corrected.

 

We'd won 5 league titles before Shankly, although I fail to see what relevance Shanks makes to being nothing beforehand. Does that apply to every club before they appoint someone who wins something? And does it make every club who hasn't won a trophy nothing? Liverpool have a great history and even back in the day were able to pay a record transfer fee for one of your players, Albert Stubbins, so where you get this nothing from I don't know.

 

Clubs appoint someone who they think will take them forward, if that man fails then the board has failed. Shanks wasn't just a spur of the moment appointment, the chairman at the time knew who he wanted and was prepared to back him, believe in him, and saw Shanks as the saviour of his beloved club.

 

I'm not knocking either Shankly or the success you have had since he built the club into what they became.

 

Liverpool were a great club during the days of Shankly and Paisley and Shankly was a fantastic manager. You were, however, stagnating in the old 2nd division when Shankly became your manager, like we were when Keegan came in, having been taken over by the Halls and Shepherd, in fact we had one foot in the 3rd division when they appointed Keegan.

 

I'm just stating the facts, and using the example of Liverpool to say what NUFC should be striving for, I don't see any reason why NUFC should not think they are capable of having great success too. Liverpool made their success, we should also be aiming to make our own success, but some people are determined to think it is impossible. It isn't impossible at all.

 

We finished above you a few times, about 3 or 4 without looking through the record books, [we did finish 2nd twice, 3rd twice, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th during those years], while owned by the Halls and Shepherd, my point being that this is the ONLY time in my lifetime we have achieved such consistenly high league positions, and other things. Before that, we finished 10th, 9th and 7th between 1969 and 1971 and 5th in 1976-77 [relegated next season], and 8th in 1987, the remainder of the 1960's, 70's and 80's were all spent either in the 2nd division or struggling to stay in the 1st. I am quoting Liverpool and Spurs because I think most of us realise the likes of Man City, Chelsea and Man U are pretty much out on their own, at least while they are bankrolled and in the case of ManU have the global appeal, but the next clubs down the list are yourselves and Spurs at the moment, and some posters for some reason think I'm advocating catching the top 3 clubs so I'm just emphasising this is not the case. I'm sure you will be looking at Arsenal and thinking their place in the current top 4 could be up for grabs when Arsene Wenger calls it a day, so why should we not too ? First things first though, we have to stop selling our best players and aim for it again.

 

You follow this message board so you should have seen by now how many people slate the Halls and Shepherd, I point out they are the best owners we have had in half a century and giving the facts to show why, its just a shame some people are too wrapped up in their hatred to see that this is the truth.

 

I know the club was run badly during the 70's and 80's, but it wasn't run badly by the Halls and Shepherd, hence those league positions. Unfortunately it is now being run like a selling club again, which must change. If it does, then we could be up challenging again, hopefully, depending on the ambitions etc of the owners.

Edited May 18, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Guest alex]

As an aside, Albert Stubbins lived round the corner from my mate and went to my uncle's wedding and he's also on the cover of Sgt. Peppers.

[Pacinofan 0]

LM, how many times did you finish above Liverpool during the Shepherd years? Or even over the whole history of both clubs? Liverpool haven't finished lower than 8th in 5 decades, as far as I know Newcastle, during that time, haven't done that more than 4 or 5 times. Not sure on that one, I stand to be corrected.

 

We'd won 5 league titles before Shankly, although I fail to see what relevance Shanks makes to being nothing beforehand. Does that apply to every club before they appoint someone who wins something? And does it make every club who hasn't won a trophy nothing? Liverpool have a great history and even back in the day were able to pay a record transfer fee for one of your players, Albert Stubbins, so where you get this nothing from I don't know.

 

Clubs appoint someone who they think will take them forward, if that man fails then the board has failed. Shanks wasn't just a spur of the moment appointment, the chairman at the time knew who he wanted and was prepared to back him, believe in him, and saw Shanks as the saviour of his beloved club.

 

I'm not knocking either Shankly or the success you have had since he built the club into what they became.

 

Liverpool were a great club during the days of Shankly and Paisley and Shankly was a fantastic manager. You were, however, stagnating in the old 2nd division when Shankly became your manager, like we were when Keegan came in, having been taken over by the Halls and Shepherd, in fact we had one foot in the 3rd division when they appointed Keegan.

 

I'm just stating the facts, and using the example of Liverpool to say what NUFC should be striving for, I don't see any reason why NUFC should not think they are capable of having great success too. Liverpool made their success, we should also be aiming to make our own success, but some people are determined to think it is impossible. It isn't impossible at all.

 

We finished above you a few times, about 3 or 4 without looking through the record books, [we did finish 2nd twice, 3rd twice, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th during those years], while owned by the Halls and Shepherd, my point being that this is the ONLY time in my lifetime we have achieved such consistenly high league positions, and other things. Before that, we finished 10th, 9th and 7th between 1969 and 1971 and 5th in 1976-77 [relegated next season], and 8th in 1987, the remainder of the 1960's, 70's and 80's were all spent either in the 2nd division or struggling to stay in the 1st. I am quoting Liverpool and Spurs because I think most of us realise the likes of Man City, Chelsea and Man U are pretty much out on their own, at least while they are bankrolled and in the case of ManU have the global appeal, but the next clubs down the list are yourselves and Spurs at the moment, and some posters for some reason think I'm advocating catching the top 3 clubs so I'm just emphasising this is not the case. I'm sure you will be looking at Arsenal and thinking their place in the current top 4 could be up for grabs when Arsene Wenger calls it a day, so why should we not too ? First things first though, we have to stop selling our best players and aim for it again.

 

You follow this message board so you should have seen by now how many people slate the Halls and Shepherd, I point out they are the best owners we have had in half a century and giving the facts to show why, its just a shame some people are too wrapped up in their hatred to see that this is the truth.

 

I know the club was run badly during the 70's and 80's, but it wasn't run badly by the Halls and Shepherd, hence those league positions. Unfortunately it is now being run like a selling club again, which must change. If it does, then we could be up challenging again, hopefully, depending on the ambitions etc of the owners.

 

 

 

I believe LFC are a global club as well as ManU, but other than that, fair post LM.

 

I can't comment on the Halls and Shepherd because no outsider knows the club like their own fans, but speaking as an outsider it's the only time in my lifetime I've looked at Newcastle as challengers for a few seasons. I, like everyone else, thought you'd win the title in '96 and deservedly so, but Ferguson, unlike all title winning managers before him, had to get an edge, always trying to make the level playing field unlevel to his advantage. Keegan, up to that point, had let his team do the talking on the pitch, which is how I believe all team managers should act. I know it's no consolation, but though you lost the title, you had all the respect. No manager should make the accusations Ferguson made. Unfortunately the record books don't record the details.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Pacinofan

[LeazesMag 0]

LM, how many times did you finish above Liverpool during the Shepherd years? Or even over the whole history of both clubs? Liverpool haven't finished lower than 8th in 5 decades, as far as I know Newcastle, during that time, haven't done that more than 4 or 5 times. Not sure on that one, I stand to be corrected.

 

We'd won 5 league titles before Shankly, although I fail to see what relevance Shanks makes to being nothing beforehand. Does that apply to every club before they appoint someone who wins something? And does it make every club who hasn't won a trophy nothing? Liverpool have a great history and even back in the day were able to pay a record transfer fee for one of your players, Albert Stubbins, so where you get this nothing from I don't know.

 

Clubs appoint someone who they think will take them forward, if that man fails then the board has failed. Shanks wasn't just a spur of the moment appointment, the chairman at the time knew who he wanted and was prepared to back him, believe in him, and saw Shanks as the saviour of his beloved club.

 

I'm not knocking either Shankly or the success you have had since he built the club into what they became.

 

Liverpool were a great club during the days of Shankly and Paisley and Shankly was a fantastic manager. You were, however, stagnating in the old 2nd division when Shankly became your manager, like we were when Keegan came in, having been taken over by the Halls and Shepherd, in fact we had one foot in the 3rd division when they appointed Keegan.

 

I'm just stating the facts, and using the example of Liverpool to say what NUFC should be striving for, I don't see any reason why NUFC should not think they are capable of having great success too. Liverpool made their success, we should also be aiming to make our own success, but some people are determined to think it is impossible. It isn't impossible at all.

 

We finished above you a few times, about 3 or 4 without looking through the record books, [we did finish 2nd twice, 3rd twice, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th during those years], while owned by the Halls and Shepherd, my point being that this is the ONLY time in my lifetime we have achieved such consistenly high league positions, and other things. Before that, we finished 10th, 9th and 7th between 1969 and 1971 and 5th in 1976-77 [relegated next season], and 8th in 1987, the remainder of the 1960's, 70's and 80's were all spent either in the 2nd division or struggling to stay in the 1st. I am quoting Liverpool and Spurs because I think most of us realise the likes of Man City, Chelsea and Man U are pretty much out on their own, at least while they are bankrolled and in the case of ManU have the global appeal, but the next clubs down the list are yourselves and Spurs at the moment, and some posters for some reason think I'm advocating catching the top 3 clubs so I'm just emphasising this is not the case. I'm sure you will be looking at Arsenal and thinking their place in the current top 4 could be up for grabs when Arsene Wenger calls it a day, so why should we not too ? First things first though, we have to stop selling our best players and aim for it again.

 

You follow this message board so you should have seen by now how many people slate the Halls and Shepherd, I point out they are the best owners we have had in half a century and giving the facts to show why, its just a shame some people are too wrapped up in their hatred to see that this is the truth.

 

I know the club was run badly during the 70's and 80's, but it wasn't run badly by the Halls and Shepherd, hence those league positions. Unfortunately it is now being run like a selling club again, which must change. If it does, then we could be up challenging again, hopefully, depending on the ambitions etc of the owners.

 

 

 

I believe LFC are a global club as well as ManU, but other than that, fair post LM.

 

I can't comment on the Halls and Shepherd because no outsider knows the club like their own fans, but speaking as an outsider it's the only time in my lifetime I've looked at Newcastle as challengers for a few seasons . I, like everyone else, thought you'd win the title in '96 and deservedly so, but Ferguson, unlike all title winning managers before him, had to get an edge, always trying to make the level playing field unlevel to his advantage. Keegan, up to that point, had let his team do the talking on the pitch, which is how I believe all team managers should act. I know it's no consolation, but though you lost the title, you had all the respect. No manager should make the accusations Ferguson made. Unfortunately the record books don't record the details.

 

exactly.

 

There is only 1 way to mount such a challenge, which I'm sure you will also agree with, and that is to have players at the club which the other top clubs want and to pay the going rate when necessary, you don't do it by exclusively scouting around lower leagues to replace your best players that you sell. Which is what we did ourselves during this period, foolish people call them "trophy players" though, did you ever call Torres a "trophy player"? I think not.

 

Anyway. While I agree you have became a global club to a degree, I don't think you have the same appeal as ManU, and now that your days of Shankly and Paisley and the dynasty they put into place has gone, its difficult to see where you can be such a force again. Thats my point really, taking away the 3 previous clubs mentioned, the door is always open for one of the next handful of clubs to get themselves close or into that group as it stands at the moment. See above paragraph for the only way to do it.

 

I don't blame Alex Ferguson for those mind games in 1996, if it had been a NUFC manager, I'd have wanted him to do exactly the same thing. From our point of view, if Keegan and some of our players had had more experience of being in that position, we would probably have dealt with it better. That lack of experience and maybe one or two decisions are what cost us that title. If Keegan had stayed, I think we would have won it in time, but we will never know for sure.

[Rob W 0]

where will the money come from Leazes?