Newcastle v Blackburn 5th May 2007

[Barney 0]

it's only been the last couple of games that we've looked convincing tbf. long may that continue though.

 

Rapey has said he wanted us to just 'not lose' the first couple of games until Cabaye and other settled in, then we could start playing.

 

The difference between the QPR game(where we set out for 3 points, but decided 1 would be a good return after half an hour) and the Blackburn game was huge.

 

I'll look for the link.

 

 

 

edit Here it is:

There certainly seems to have been a concerted move towards a more fluid, offensive style – a stark contrast to the defensive displays against Arsenal and at QPR a fortnight ago.

 

“I think its only fair that some of the games we’ve had this year, we haven’t threatened the goal enough,” he said.

 

“Some of that was because we wanted to get a solid start and some of it is because some of our players are finding their feet in this division.

 

“But they’re beginning to blossom and I think there’s real competition in all areas and that has armed me a little bit – one or two players have jumped up a level because of the competition around them. That’s what the big clubs should have.”

Edited September 30, 2011 by Barney

[ChezGiven 0]

Pud, you've predicted relegation the last two seasons and bottom 3 by Christmas this season, being forced to revise this must be a sign of some progress recently? Not saying since 2007 but over those 3 seasons at least? No?

Yeah Id admit that on current results I could be made to eat my words heavily, at the same time though Im nowhere near revising my prediction on relegation just yet. Bottom 3 is looking unlikely though.

 

I would say though that we are definitely looking better than we have done at this stage in previous seasons, theres no problems with the team gelling or other worries like that. The big test will be how the team reacts when things go wrong, hopefully we'll get to Man City with no major problems. I expect nothing from those 3 games after, if they are all heavy defeats then we could have problems. A win against Norwich would confirm we have the necessary attitude and belief in ourselves.

I just hope we dont get a confidence sapping spanking off either of the Manchester teams, who both look capable of punishing decent sides. Spirit looks good for now but the stereotypical french sportsman lets his head go down when things arent going for them. As you say, the real test is how this team reacts to getting spanked because lets face it, we probably will be at some point.

[Toonpack 10001]

Of course we have gone backwards - we are one of the also rans now, and we have lost 25,000 fans in the process - the potential of the club will never be realised under Ashley - a massive lost opportunity from an owner who has no ambition whatsoever.

 

And we were then. Seriously, who other than Man U, City, Chelsea aren't these days (and maybe Arsenal, although there are signs they're heading to also-ran-ville as they are losing their best players to their "rivals", in the "approaching last year of contract" scenario, sounds awfully familiar).

 

As for then 25,000 can you quantify/back that up ???

 

In another thread, I can't recall exactly which one, I believe our realistic "benchmark" appeared widely accepted as being Spurs (notwithstanding their bright-lights London advantage). Given our operating model (that can never work long term, so I keep reading) has been their operating model for years and years, what over and above competing with Spurs is our "realistic" ambition in your opinion?

[ChezGiven 0]

Of course we have gone backwards - we are one of the also rans now, and we have lost 25,000 fans in the process - the potential of the club will never be realised under Ashley - a massive lost opportunity from an owner who has no ambition whatsoever.

 

And we were then. Seriously, who other than Man U, City, Chelsea aren't these days (and maybe Arsenal, although there are signs they're heading to also-ran-ville as they are losing their best players to their "rivals", in the "approaching last year of contract" scenario, sounds awfully familiar).

 

As for then 25,000 can you quantify/back that up ???

 

In another thread, I can't recall exactly which one, I believe our realistic "benchmark" appeared widely accepted as being Spurs (notwithstanding their bright-lights London advantage). Given our operating model (that can never work long term, so I keep reading) has been their operating model for years and years, what over and above competing with Spurs is our "realistic" ambition in your opinion?

Before the 2006/7 season, we had one game at the enlarged SJP with an attendance under 50,000 (Leicester iirc). During the 2006/7 season the attendance fell to 47-48k on a regular basis.

 

Fact.

[Toonpack 10001]

Of course we have gone backwards - we are one of the also rans now, and we have lost 25,000 fans in the process - the potential of the club will never be realised under Ashley - a massive lost opportunity from an owner who has no ambition whatsoever.

 

And we were then. Seriously, who other than Man U, City, Chelsea aren't these days (and maybe Arsenal, although there are signs they're heading to also-ran-ville as they are losing their best players to their "rivals", in the "approaching last year of contract" scenario, sounds awfully familiar).

 

As for then 25,000 can you quantify/back that up ???

 

In another thread, I can't recall exactly which one, I believe our realistic "benchmark" appeared widely accepted as being Spurs (notwithstanding their bright-lights London advantage). Given our operating model (that can never work long term, so I keep reading) has been their operating model for years and years, what over and above competing with Spurs is our "realistic" ambition in your opinion?

Before the 2006/7 season, we had one game at the enlarged SJP with an attendance under 50,000 (Leicester iirc). During the 2006/7 season the attendance fell to 47-48k on a regular basis.

 

Fact.

 

So that's 4 to 5,000-ish below capacity then, and maybe another 2-3,000 since. Still can't add that up to 25,000 sadly.

 

Damn those pesky facts !!

Edited September 30, 2011 by Toonpack

[brummiemag1 0]

Of course we have gone backwards - we are one of the also rans now, and we have lost 25,000 fans in the process - the potential of the club will never be realised under Ashley - a massive lost opportunity from an owner who has no ambition whatsoever.

 

And we were then. Seriously, who other than Man U, City, Chelsea aren't these days (and maybe Arsenal, although there are signs they're heading to also-ran-ville as they are losing their best players to their "rivals", in the "approaching last year of contract" scenario, sounds awfully familiar).

 

As for then 25,000 can you quantify/back that up ???

 

In another thread, I can't recall exactly which one, I believe our realistic "benchmark" appeared widely accepted as being Spurs (notwithstanding their bright-lights London advantage). Given our operating model (that can never work long term, so I keep reading) has been their operating model for years and years, what over and above competing with Spurs is our "realistic" ambition in your opinion?

 

I understand we used to have a waiting list with 15,000 people on it so basically I would say there are more than 20,000 fans who have lost interest in going to games. Also despite the good start to the season we had loads of empty seats at the villa game - ive not known that for many many years, it was very sad to see and its another indication the club is decline.

 

As for spurs, much as dislike them, I would say they have demonstrated far more ambition than us in recent years - they fight to keep hold of their best players for a start

[manc-mag 1]

Of course we have gone backwards - we are one of the also rans now, and we have lost 25,000 fans in the process - the potential of the club will never be realised under Ashley - a massive lost opportunity from an owner who has no ambition whatsoever.

 

And we were then. Seriously, who other than Man U, City, Chelsea aren't these days (and maybe Arsenal, although there are signs they're heading to also-ran-ville as they are losing their best players to their "rivals", in the "approaching last year of contract" scenario, sounds awfully familiar).

 

As for then 25,000 can you quantify/back that up ???

 

In another thread, I can't recall exactly which one, I believe our realistic "benchmark" appeared widely accepted as being Spurs (notwithstanding their bright-lights London advantage). Given our operating model (that can never work long term, so I keep reading) has been their operating model for years and years, what over and above competing with Spurs is our "realistic" ambition in your opinion?

 

I understand we used to have a waiting list with 15,000 people on it so basically I would say there are more than 20,000 fans who have lost interest in going to games. Also despite the good start to the season we had loads of empty seats at the villa game - ive not known that for many many years, it was very sad to see and its another indication the club is decline.

 

As for spurs, much as dislike them, I would say they have demonstrated far more ambition than us in recent years - they fight to keep hold of their best players for a start

 

Guess how much the capacity went up by...

[brummiemag1 0]

Of course we have gone backwards - we are one of the also rans now, and we have lost 25,000 fans in the process - the potential of the club will never be realised under Ashley - a massive lost opportunity from an owner who has no ambition whatsoever.

 

And we were then. Seriously, who other than Man U, City, Chelsea aren't these days (and maybe Arsenal, although there are signs they're heading to also-ran-ville as they are losing their best players to their "rivals", in the "approaching last year of contract" scenario, sounds awfully familiar).

 

As for then 25,000 can you quantify/back that up ???

 

In another thread, I can't recall exactly which one, I believe our realistic "benchmark" appeared widely accepted as being Spurs (notwithstanding their bright-lights London advantage). Given our operating model (that can never work long term, so I keep reading) has been their operating model for years and years, what over and above competing with Spurs is our "realistic" ambition in your opinion?

 

I understand we used to have a waiting list with 15,000 people on it so basically I would say there are more than 20,000 fans who have lost interest in going to games. Also despite the good start to the season we had loads of empty seats at the villa game - ive not known that for many many years, it was very sad to see and its another indication the club is decline.

 

As for spurs, much as dislike them, I would say they have demonstrated far more ambition than us in recent years - they fight to keep hold of their best players for a start

 

Guess how much the capacity went up by...

 

I think this was after the capacity had increased to 52,000

[manc-mag 1]

Of course we have gone backwards - we are one of the also rans now, and we have lost 25,000 fans in the process - the potential of the club will never be realised under Ashley - a massive lost opportunity from an owner who has no ambition whatsoever.

 

And we were then. Seriously, who other than Man U, City, Chelsea aren't these days (and maybe Arsenal, although there are signs they're heading to also-ran-ville as they are losing their best players to their "rivals", in the "approaching last year of contract" scenario, sounds awfully familiar).

 

As for then 25,000 can you quantify/back that up ???

 

In another thread, I can't recall exactly which one, I believe our realistic "benchmark" appeared widely accepted as being Spurs (notwithstanding their bright-lights London advantage). Given our operating model (that can never work long term, so I keep reading) has been their operating model for years and years, what over and above competing with Spurs is our "realistic" ambition in your opinion?

 

I understand we used to have a waiting list with 15,000 people on it so basically I would say there are more than 20,000 fans who have lost interest in going to games. Also despite the good start to the season we had loads of empty seats at the villa game - ive not known that for many many years, it was very sad to see and its another indication the club is decline.

 

As for spurs, much as dislike them, I would say they have demonstrated far more ambition than us in recent years - they fight to keep hold of their best players for a start

 

Guess how much the capacity went up by...

 

I think this was after the capacity had increased to 52,000

 

That figure was always quoted when we were at 36,000 tbh.

[brummiemag1 0]

Of course we have gone backwards - we are one of the also rans now, and we have lost 25,000 fans in the process - the potential of the club will never be realised under Ashley - a massive lost opportunity from an owner who has no ambition whatsoever.

 

And we were then. Seriously, who other than Man U, City, Chelsea aren't these days (and maybe Arsenal, although there are signs they're heading to also-ran-ville as they are losing their best players to their "rivals", in the "approaching last year of contract" scenario, sounds awfully familiar).

 

As for then 25,000 can you quantify/back that up ???

 

In another thread, I can't recall exactly which one, I believe our realistic "benchmark" appeared widely accepted as being Spurs (notwithstanding their bright-lights London advantage). Given our operating model (that can never work long term, so I keep reading) has been their operating model for years and years, what over and above competing with Spurs is our "realistic" ambition in your opinion?

 

I understand we used to have a waiting list with 15,000 people on it so basically I would say there are more than 20,000 fans who have lost interest in going to games. Also despite the good start to the season we had loads of empty seats at the villa game - ive not known that for many many years, it was very sad to see and its another indication the club is decline.

 

As for spurs, much as dislike them, I would say they have demonstrated far more ambition than us in recent years - they fight to keep hold of their best players for a start

 

Guess how much the capacity went up by...

 

I think this was after the capacity had increased to 52,000

 

That figure was always quoted when we were at 36,000 tbh.

 

I'm sure someone will have the right answer with regard to that, but even if I'm wrong our home crowds are showing a year by year reduction and there were hundreds of empty seats in our end at Villa the other week which really surprised me. I can't remember the last time we didnt sell our allocation at Villa! How do you explain that if you don't think the club is in decline under Ashley?

[ChezGiven 0]

Did brummiemag miss the posts on attendance figures from 2006/7?

 

How can we have 4000 below capacity regularly in a season with 15,000 on a waiting list?

 

What does the 4000 reduction in some matches say about the direction the club was heading in at the time?

 

How does that trajectory compare to today?

 

For a forum with lots of predominantly negative posters with a firm 'anti-anything we do' stance, surely this thread is your opportunity to nail the argument.

Edited September 30, 2011 by ChezGiven

[Monroe Transfer 0]

We haven't been "unbelievably lucky" at all.

 

I think both the sunderland and the QPR game were very flattering results, fulham first half as well, and to a certain degree arsenal.

Add to that no injuries at all so far and my view is that we have been sailing with the wind in our backs.

 

"Very flattering"? Seriously? Sunderland were on top in that match for about 25 minutes. After that it was pretty even with us having the best of it on many an occasion. We were probably better than Fulham overall.

 

It wasn't luck that QPR's strikers aren't very good, it's just how it is. They deserved to win. Same I guess goes for the Arsenal match.

 

We have had injuries, no idea what you're on about there. We've also been unlucky against say Villa (hitting the bar).

[manc-mag 1]

Of course we have gone backwards - we are one of the also rans now, and we have lost 25,000 fans in the process - the potential of the club will never be realised under Ashley - a massive lost opportunity from an owner who has no ambition whatsoever.

 

And we were then. Seriously, who other than Man U, City, Chelsea aren't these days (and maybe Arsenal, although there are signs they're heading to also-ran-ville as they are losing their best players to their "rivals", in the "approaching last year of contract" scenario, sounds awfully familiar).

 

As for then 25,000 can you quantify/back that up ???

 

In another thread, I can't recall exactly which one, I believe our realistic "benchmark" appeared widely accepted as being Spurs (notwithstanding their bright-lights London advantage). Given our operating model (that can never work long term, so I keep reading) has been their operating model for years and years, what over and above competing with Spurs is our "realistic" ambition in your opinion?

 

I understand we used to have a waiting list with 15,000 people on it so basically I would say there are more than 20,000 fans who have lost interest in going to games. Also despite the good start to the season we had loads of empty seats at the villa game - ive not known that for many many years, it was very sad to see and its another indication the club is decline.

 

As for spurs, much as dislike them, I would say they have demonstrated far more ambition than us in recent years - they fight to keep hold of their best players for a start

 

Guess how much the capacity went up by...

 

I think this was after the capacity had increased to 52,000

 

That figure was always quoted when we were at 36,000 tbh.

 

I'm sure someone will have the right answer with regard to that, but even if I'm wrong our home crowds are showing a year by year reduction and there were hundreds of empty seats in our end at Villa the other week which really surprised me. I can't remember the last time we didnt sell our allocation at Villa! How do you explain that if you don't think the club is in decline under Ashley?

 

I think he's alienated a lot of people and I wouldn't be so daft to dispute the fact of falling attendances.

 

At the same time I know 'fulfilling our potential' (meaning the natural potential of NUFC given it's fanbase), doesn't get you within competing distance of Chelsea Man U Man C etc these days because they're having money chucked at them due to either their a) bigger natural resources or private funding. 'Chuck more money at us please' is a perfectly valid thing to say, but people should have the honesty to acknowledge that that's just a statement of desire and not try to link it to NUFC's natural potential, because the facts there suggest we fall way behind the aforementioned clubs resources even with a full 52,000 stadium.

 

Say you want more money spent by all means, but don't say it's warranted because we're NUFC and our natural potential because their's an inherent contradiction in that. City are having a whale of a time, but you won't find one fan trying to pass it off as being sustainable on the back of their natural potential. They know they're a rich mans play thing but theyre honest about it. Their stadium is only 4,000 less than ours and they've spent close to £300 million on transfers alone.

[Tom 14013]

It wasn't luck that QPR's strikers aren't very good, it's just how it is. They deserved to win. Same I guess goes for the Arsenal match.

 

You get the same with goalkeepers when one makes a class save, ''we should have had'' yes but the goalkeeper is part of the team he's not some magical luck distributor.

[brummiemag1 0]

Did brummiemag miss the posts on attendance figures from 2006/7?

 

How can we have 4000 below capacity regularly in a season with 15,000 on a waiting list?

 

What does the 4000 reduction in some matches say about the direction the club was heading in at the time?

 

How does that trajectory compare to today?

 

For a forum with lots of predominantly negative posters with a firm 'anti-anything we do' stance, surely this thread is your opportunity to nail the argument.

 

The waiting list I refer to existed some time before 2007 but I think it was after the capacity increased to 52,000.

 

The fact is crowds are reducing and some people are losing interest, including the away support as demonstrated by the hundreds of empty seats at Villa (something I can't remember happening in the last 15 years at Villa Park) and that is a cause for concern and for me it shows the club is in decline under Ashley.

[Phil 6]

Poll results so far show half the fans are stupid.

 

We played Nicky Butt in centre midfield and lost 2-nil, all while the fans chanted "Taxi for Roeder".

 

2011 is a country mile ahead. All the deadwood's contracts are up in the summer. Sure we are missing a striker and fullback. But that's a much better position than having a squad full of overpaid want-away shite.

[ChezGiven 0]

Did brummiemag miss the posts on attendance figures from 2006/7?

 

How can we have 4000 below capacity regularly in a season with 15,000 on a waiting list?

 

What does the 4000 reduction in some matches say about the direction the club was heading in at the time?

 

How does that trajectory compare to today?

 

For a forum with lots of predominantly negative posters with a firm 'anti-anything we do' stance, surely this thread is your opportunity to nail the argument.

 

The waiting list I refer to existed some time before 2007 but I think it was after the capacity increased to 52,000.

 

The fact is crowds are reducing and some people are losing interest, including the away support as demonstrated by the hundreds of empty seats at Villa (something I can't remember happening in the last 15 years at Villa Park) and that is a cause for concern and for me it shows the club is in decline under Ashley.

Thats fine but you will therefore have to admit that the club was under decline under Shepherd for the exact same reasons. Or be accused of incoherent bias.

 

To summarise then: A declining club with some decent players going nowhere in the league with no flair or excitement has become a declining club with some decent players going nowhere in the league with potentially some flair and excitement.

[Park Life 71]

If you build it they will come.

[manc-mag 1]

Did brummiemag miss the posts on attendance figures from 2006/7?

 

How can we have 4000 below capacity regularly in a season with 15,000 on a waiting list?

 

What does the 4000 reduction in some matches say about the direction the club was heading in at the time?

 

How does that trajectory compare to today?

 

For a forum with lots of predominantly negative posters with a firm 'anti-anything we do' stance, surely this thread is your opportunity to nail the argument.

 

The waiting list I refer to existed some time before 2007 but I think it was after the capacity increased to 52,000.

 

The fact is crowds are reducing and some people are losing interest, including the away support as demonstrated by the hundreds of empty seats at Villa (something I can't remember happening in the last 15 years at Villa Park) and that is a cause for concern and for me it shows the club is in decline under Ashley.

 

There may still have been a waiting list of one kind or another after the expansion but the 15,000 figure relates to the pre-expansion era. I can't imagine it mirrored the same figure after expansion as that'd be a bit peculiar.

[Papa Lazaru 0]

We haven't been "unbelievably lucky" at all.

 

I think both the sunderland and the QPR game were very flattering results, fulham first half as well, and to a certain degree arsenal.

Add to that no injuries at all so far and my view is that we have been sailing with the wind in our backs.

 

"Very flattering"? Seriously? Sunderland were on top in that match for about 25 minutes. After that it was pretty even with us having the best of it on many an occasion. We were probably better than Fulham overall.

 

It wasn't luck that QPR's strikers aren't very good, it's just how it is. They deserved to win. Same I guess goes for the Arsenal match.

 

We have had injuries, no idea what you're on about there. We've also been unlucky against say Villa (hitting the bar).

 

Arsenal had more possession but did fuck all with it, draw was a fair result to both teams, Fulham had their spell on top but our keeper did what he's paid to do and we took our chances, nothing lucky about it and the mackems as you say after their early spell did fuck all else and we ended having had the most chances, more possession (i think) and they got away with no penalty and another 2 players who should have been sent off, they were lucky.

 

QPR is the only game people can call lucky if they have such a need to and every team in the prem has games like that where you create nothing and the other team misses their chances, you move on and don't worry about it.

 

Doesn't mean by any stretch i think we're going to be staying top 4 all season and we will have problems when certain players get injured or lose form, but as it stands we've earned most of what we have.

[ChezGiven 0]

Did brummiemag miss the posts on attendance figures from 2006/7?

 

How can we have 4000 below capacity regularly in a season with 15,000 on a waiting list?

 

What does the 4000 reduction in some matches say about the direction the club was heading in at the time?

 

How does that trajectory compare to today?

 

For a forum with lots of predominantly negative posters with a firm 'anti-anything we do' stance, surely this thread is your opportunity to nail the argument.

 

The waiting list I refer to existed some time before 2007 but I think it was after the capacity increased to 52,000.

 

The fact is crowds are reducing and some people are losing interest, including the away support as demonstrated by the hundreds of empty seats at Villa (something I can't remember happening in the last 15 years at Villa Park) and that is a cause for concern and for me it shows the club is in decline under Ashley.

 

There may still have been a waiting list of one kind or another after the expansion but the 15,000 figure relates to the pre-expansion era. I can't imagine it mirrored the same figure after expansion as that'd be a bit peculiar.

Not in 2006/7 there wasnt.

[manc-mag 1]

Did brummiemag miss the posts on attendance figures from 2006/7?

 

How can we have 4000 below capacity regularly in a season with 15,000 on a waiting list?

 

What does the 4000 reduction in some matches say about the direction the club was heading in at the time?

 

How does that trajectory compare to today?

 

For a forum with lots of predominantly negative posters with a firm 'anti-anything we do' stance, surely this thread is your opportunity to nail the argument.

 

The waiting list I refer to existed some time before 2007 but I think it was after the capacity increased to 52,000.

 

The fact is crowds are reducing and some people are losing interest, including the away support as demonstrated by the hundreds of empty seats at Villa (something I can't remember happening in the last 15 years at Villa Park) and that is a cause for concern and for me it shows the club is in decline under Ashley.

 

There may still have been a waiting list of one kind or another after the expansion but the 15,000 figure relates to the pre-expansion era. I can't imagine it mirrored the same figure after expansion as that'd be a bit peculiar.

Not in 2006/7 there wasnt.

 

Well I didn't think there was by 06/07 Possibly small ones have existed for brief intervals after expansion I honestly don't know, but the 15,000 figure is just in error. It relates to the 36,000 capacity and the expansion to 52,000 deliberately took account of that.

[Gemmill 46136]

The waiting list all but disappeared on completion of the expansion. There definitely wasn't one come 2007.

[manc-mag 1]

We haven't been "unbelievably lucky" at all.

 

I think both the sunderland and the QPR game were very flattering results, fulham first half as well, and to a certain degree arsenal.

Add to that no injuries at all so far and my view is that we have been sailing with the wind in our backs.

 

"Very flattering"? Seriously? Sunderland were on top in that match for about 25 minutes. After that it was pretty even with us having the best of it on many an occasion. We were probably better than Fulham overall.

 

It wasn't luck that QPR's strikers aren't very good, it's just how it is. They deserved to win. Same I guess goes for the Arsenal match.

 

We have had injuries, no idea what you're on about there. We've also been unlucky against say Villa (hitting the bar).

 

Arsenal had more possession but did fuck all with it, draw was a fair result to both teams, Fulham had their spell on top but our keeper did what he's paid to do and we took our chances, nothing lucky about it and the mackems as you say after their early spell did fuck all else and we ended having had the most chances, more possession (i think) and they got away with no penalty and another 2 players who should have been sent off, they were lucky.

 

QPR is the only game people can call lucky if they have such a need to and every team in the prem has games like that where you create nothing and the other team misses their chances, you move on and don't worry about it.

Doesn't mean by any stretch i think we're going to be staying top 4 all season and we will have problems when certain players get injured or lose form, but as it stands we've earned most of what we have.

 

QPR I'm happy to call lucky like on account of the fact we were absolutely horrendous for 90 minutes and 9 times out of 10 when you do play that poorly you end up with nish. It'll no doubt balance out though over a season so as you say you don't dwell on it.

 

Thus far the results have been largely what we've deserved.

[ChezGiven 0]

Of course not but this is what i mean about narratives.

 

'The club has gone from 15,000 waiting lists to dwindling home and away support under Ashley'

 

I just wrote it on the internet, doesnt make it true.