More Respect for MA?

[McFaul 35]

TP makes valid points on the financial side of things. Where I disagree with him is in his notion that the wrongs of the previous regime provide an excuse for the appalling mistakes made by the current one. I accept they're doing some things right now and it appears to be working etc. but they still haven't got the balance right for me. I think, despite Chez's flagrant attempts to words into people's mouths, most people would like a happy medium between the more reckless aspects of the Shepherd and Halls years and the austerity under Ashley.

His point about our stature and turnover being higher than it is now, dismissing it as a "fallacy", is completely uneducated and misguided.

 

You don't even comprehend what I said

 

Stature > Liverpool - never

Staure > Spurs - for a time

 

Turnover is ONLY one side of the coin.

Turnover is the most important aspect of a clubs ability to grow, having a rich oligarch will mean fuck all in the near future when financial fair play comes in to force, and I'm sure it'll diversify so eventually there's no loopholes like Man City are currently trying to exploit.

[McFaul 35]

 

Why lie? Our turnover was ALWAYS larger than Tottenham's till 2008, it was generally on parity with Liverpool give or take £10m up to around the time they won the Champions League. They've moved forward we went significantly backwards, I'm not on about just on the pitch but as a money making business. There are facts available that can't even be argued with but you don't have the intelligence to understand the importance of money making for any business, and on those terms from being £25m in front of Tottenham, this season we will be approximately £25m behind them. Do you have the intelligence to comprehend that?

 

Aye, your facts. Which are once again wrong.

 

Spurs over took us in the 2006/7 season in terms of revenue.

 

And we've been nowhere near Liverpool in the past ten years.

2007, so I was one year out. As for Liverpool??? Really? http://edition.cnn.c...d.richest.reut/

 

Aye, talk about cherry picking your figures. How about the following season when we were €50m behind them?

NOthing to do with them winning the Champions League at all, oh no.

[manc-mag 1]

Can aiming for 7th not just be the ambition until it's achieved? I mean, Under the previous regime, I'm guessing when they installed Robson, they didn't expect us to get to the Champions League so quickly. I'm guessing their ambition would have been stability in the Premier League, then pushing on from there into Top half of the table, then Europe, then then then

 

It seems to me that the over-riding aims of all owners are the same; success. Each club has to measure the success possible against the current climate and their individual means. Whelan would love Wigan to get into the CL and he believes the best way for them to progress in this league is to scout for cheap foreign players and have them push them up the league or sell them at a decent profit to swell the coffers. This doesn't mean he's lacking ambition, just that he's managing expectations. Should Newcastle rbe run the same way? Not really, we're more solidly founded and we've a much larger revenue stream.

 

Man U's ambition is to win. Everything. They can do this by scouring the world for the best players at a price they're willing to pay. So Young, Jones, Hernandez were all expensive, but (in Man U's eyes) good value... does this mean that Newcastle should be going for the same players? Of course not. That would be fool hardy. Why spend £20m on 1 centre back, when the risk is too great?

 

I appreciate where LM is coming from, it'd be great to be toe-to-toe with Man U, Chelsea, Citeh, but the cold hard facts are that without a fantastic (in the truest sense of the word) injection of finance we just can't compete like that at the moment. We would need Buffet/Gates to suddenly fancy a go at a Premier League team for us to immediately get to the same level. Even the previous regime, with their much vaunted backing of the managers, wouldn't magically have us dining at the top-table. Their transfer windows were often exciting, but more often than not, they were an eventual disappointment. Not their fault really, if it was the scouting and management team who made the suggestions and they just signed the cheque (I doubt this was the case fwiw).

 

The model that Ashley looks to be employing may not be exciting, but, objectively, it's a reasonable approach. Scout for talent, buy it cheap. This appears to be happening by either by getting them early (Abeid, Vuckic) or taking advantage of contractual clauses (Ba, Cabaye, Gosling). This way the stake is small and the risk reduced. I cannot see a problem with that? The "trophy" signings that we made which were successful are actually not that common imo. Shearer, Woodgate? Whereas the players who've been the biggest success (arguably) have come without much pomp or fanfare; Bellamy, Lee, Kilcline, Solano? So is that not an argument against the spending patterns of the previous regime and evidence in favour of the current manner?

Thats about it isnt, it, not exciting but reasonable. I dont have any qualms admitting its a bit of a come down from the ambition we've seen before. The reasons why are intricate and complicated and cant be boiled down to anything concrete without looking at complex financial and economic trends.

 

I've challenged people on here to say what MA's real strategy is before (if its not what is in the mission statement) and its never been clear to me which is the alternative version. Seems to me we are doing what he says he wants to do. Now, it might be not what we want but at least he has said this is how its going to work.

 

At the end of the day, his mission is to protect a £200 odd million acquisition, S&H's mission was to speculate with a £2 million acquisition. So obviously the exposure doesn't bear comparison, neither does the respective financing options available.

 

I wish to fuck this debate would move on, it's been close to doing so once or twice when you've hit your stride but it always gets dragged back into the mire eventually. We're 4th for fucks sake, nobody thinks we'll be there at the end of the season, but people are entitled to be positive about some of the changes made. At the same time, as Alex says, and I agree, there's a 'happy medium' (ie even a tiny bit more strategic investment) could really push us on again and it is wrong from a footballing point of view when that doesn't happen. Not into CL as that is now essentially a fantasy league for leveraged speculators/liquid billionaire hobbyists, but we're still in a position where it could get us a few places higher.

[Guest alex]

At the end of the day, his mission is to protect a £200 odd million acquisition, S&H's mission was to speculate with a £2 million acquisition. So obviously the exposure doesn't bear comparison, neither does the respective financing options available.

 

I wish to fuck this debate would move on, it's been close to doing so once or twice when you've hit your stride but it always gets dragged back into the mire eventually. We're 4th for fucks sake, nobody thinks we'll be there at the end of the season, but people are entitled to be positive about some of the changes made. At the same time, as Alex says, and I agree, there's a 'happy medium' (ie even a tiny bit more strategic investment) could really push us on again and it is wrong from a footballing point of view when that doesn't happen. Not into CL as that is now essentially a fantasy league for leveraged speculators/liquid billionaire hobbyists, but we're still in a position where it could get us a few places higher.

Aye, that's the crux of it really. They could do a bit more and stay within their 'mission statement' and push the team forward. On the pitch, y'knaa, the bit we actually watch and care about. I realise we're repeating ourselves here but we've got plenty company on that front.

[Happy Face 29]

Thing is, we can all be geet reasonable and agree Ashley's not an evil villain or a saint and he wants success as much as us for different reasons, and it seems to be working at the moment, and hope it continues, and accept he's made mistakes and told some lies, but it'll be forgotten as soon as there's any success...we have done that before I'm sure....but then LM or TP will mention Shepherd being Jesus/Satan and it'll descend into the same old shit.

 

Weren't we banning anyone that mentioned Ashley btw?

Edited October 21, 2011 by Happy Face

[Happy Face 29]

...and yes, I realise I mentioned Shepherd first in this thread. What of it?

[LeazesMag 0]

 

 

to be fair Chez, you responded to a post I made where I said there was an increasing amount of posts similar to the crap posted on NO. The comment you are making here ie implying that people are waiting for the team to lose before "gloating" is exactly the sort of crap comments that became quite prominent on NO before I was banned.

 

To date, unlike some, I haven't given up supporting the team yet, and I'm not even one of the people who think exciting times are just around the corner ie mid table obscurity which is the new target.

 

I don't comment in many match threads whatever the result, I never have as a rule. And I've already started the Wigan thread by saying that win, lose or draw I may not be posting for a few days again even if I feel inclined to.

 

My stance remains. The club is in long term decline, because it is encompassing falling standards and targets [now there is a modern business cliche for you.....]. A small run of good results isn't going to change that mate.

None of you make any attempt whatsoever to be objective and assess things from a balanced perspective. Anger and resentment builds up over time, through a succession of events that are spun negatively at the time. The fact that these events dont end up being negative does not lead to people to say 'we were wrong about that'. They just search for new ways to hold on to their opinion. Happens in all walks of life, its an established and known behaviour.

 

I just try and bring some balance to things, we are going well for now, we have a new strategy, its less exciting than previous strategies but its the one we have. I dont know if it will work but i understand why we have adopted it. The things that MA has done wrong since relegation are 1) Getting rid of the singing section. The SD branding could be worth £40m, we dont know how it is positioned financially inside his head or whether there are no actual payments associated with them. Pure conjecture for now. Carroll? I'm happy. Nolan? I'm happy. Pardew? I'm happy. Enrique? Lets wait and see. Barton? Stil a bit disappointed tbh but thats life.

 

If you can get over what happened 3 seasons ago, then all i can see is a debate about ambition and if we are competing for 7th, then thats an accurate and fair representation of our status in the game financially this year.

 

People need to grow up imo. Sorry, i know that sounds terrible saying it like that buts its how i feel.

That's absolutely fine saying that, but under Shepherd we were SIGNIFICANTLY richer than Tottenham, and more or less on parity with Liverpool for many, many years. The lack of ambition and bastardisation of the club now by clueless owners mean that we really are only the seventh biggest club on those terms presently in stature and finance.

 

We weren't though, that's a falacy, our "richness" was based solely on debt, and the ability to get more debt, they made profits, we didn't, that debt came home to roost.

Why lie? Our turnover was ALWAYS larger than Tottenham's till 2008, it was generally on parity with Liverpool give or take £10m up to around the time they won the Champions League. They've moved forward we went significantly backwards, I'm not on about just on the pitch but as a money making business. There are facts available that can't even be argued with but you don't have the intelligence to understand the importance of money making for any business, and on those terms from being £25m in front of Tottenham, this season we will be approximately £25m behind them. Do you have the intelligence to comprehend that?

 

Do you understand the principle of debits abd credits ???

Completely irrelevant to Chez's point of being 7th in terms of finance and stature. Explain why you ignored that, lack of understanding or ignorance?

 

I wasn't talking to Chez, I was talking to you.

In other words you're uncomfortable about being shown up, so you have to say something.

 

How have I been shown up ??

 

We were better on the pitch (for a period) than Spurs, we have never been as succesfull as Spurs or Liverpool since the 50's.

 

That's totally a different thing to "richer" than, and we have not been "richer" than them, especially Liverpool. Aye we made more money, on the income side (for a while) but the expenditure was disproportionate even to that level of income, so we had less left which = poorer than.

 

Their lesser income has sustained them a lot further than our transient richness did.

 

1993-94 Newcastle 3rd, Spurs 14th

1994-95 Newcastle 6th, Spurs 7th

1995-96 Newcastle 2nd Spurs 8th

1996-97 Newcastle 2nd Spurs 10th

1997-98 Newcastle 13th Spurs 14th

1998-99 Newcastle 13th Spurs 11th

1999-00 Newcastle 11th Spurs 10th

2000-01 Newcastle 11th Spurs 12th

2001-02 Newcastle 4th Spurs 9th

2002-03 Newcastle 3rd Spurs 10th

2003-04 Newcastle 5th Spurs 14th

2004-05 Newcastle 14th Spurs 9th

2005-06 Newcastle 7th Spurs 5th

2006-07 Newcastle 13th Spurs 5th

 

Av position NUFC = 7.6

Av position Spurs = 9.8

 

Newcastle finished above Spurs 8 times in those 14 years, Spurs above NUFC 6 times.

 

So get your facts right.

 

Significant is your comment "we have never been as successful as Spurs since the 50's" - other than the fact that is incorrect, what is relevant about the only time that we WERE ?

 

Also note, the positions of Spurs during the ownership of Alan Sugar, who at the time ran Spurs on "good business lines", the lines that you approve of, rather than speculate to accumulate, meaning attempting to capitalise on a huge fanbase to increase revenues and make money as Stevie has pointed out, and you fail to see his point completely.

[LeazesMag 0]

Can aiming for 7th not just be the ambition until it's achieved? I mean, Under the previous regime, I'm guessing when they installed Robson, they didn't expect us to get to the Champions League so quickly. I'm guessing their ambition would have been stability in the Premier League, then pushing on from there into Top half of the table, then Europe, then then then

 

It seems to me that the over-riding aims of all owners are the same; success. Each club has to measure the success possible against the current climate and their individual means. Whelan would love Wigan to get into the CL and he believes the best way for them to progress in this league is to scout for cheap foreign players and have them push them up the league or sell them at a decent profit to swell the coffers. This doesn't mean he's lacking ambition, just that he's managing expectations. Should Newcastle rbe run the same way? Not really, we're more solidly founded and we've a much larger revenue stream.

 

Man U's ambition is to win. Everything. They can do this by scouring the world for the best players at a price they're willing to pay. So Young, Jones, Hernandez were all expensive, but (in Man U's eyes) good value... does this mean that Newcastle should be going for the same players? Of course not. That would be fool hardy. Why spend £20m on 1 centre back, when the risk is too great?

 

I appreciate where LM is coming from, it'd be great to be toe-to-toe with Man U, Chelsea, Citeh, but the cold hard facts are that without a fantastic (in the truest sense of the word) injection of finance we just can't compete like that at the moment. We would need Buffet/Gates to suddenly fancy a go at a Premier League team for us to immediately get to the same level. Even the previous regime, with their much vaunted backing of the managers, wouldn't magically have us dining at the top-table. Their transfer windows were often exciting, but more often than not, they were an eventual disappointment. Not their fault really, if it was the scouting and management team who made the suggestions and they just signed the cheque (I doubt this was the case fwiw).

 

The model that Ashley looks to be employing may not be exciting, but, objectively, it's a reasonable approach. Scout for talent, buy it cheap. This appears to be happening by either by getting them early (Abeid, Vuckic) or taking advantage of contractual clauses (Ba, Cabaye, Gosling). This way the stake is small and the risk reduced. I cannot see a problem with that? The "trophy" signings that we made which were successful are actually not that common imo. Shearer, Woodgate? Whereas the players who've been the biggest success (arguably) have come without much pomp or fanfare; Bellamy, Lee, Kilcline, Solano? So is that not an argument against the spending patterns of the previous regime and evidence in favour of the current manner?

Thats about it isnt, it, not exciting but reasonable. I dont have any qualms admitting its a bit of a come down from the ambition we've seen before. The reasons why are intricate and complicated and cant be boiled down to anything concrete without looking at complex financial and economic trends.

 

I've challenged people on here to say what MA's real strategy is before (if its not what is in the mission statement) and its never been clear to me which is the alternative version. Seems to me we are doing what he says he wants to do. Now, it might be not what we want but at least he has said this is how its going to work.

 

At the end of the day, his mission is to protect a £200 odd million acquisition, S&H's mission was to speculate with a £2 million acquisition. So obviously the exposure doesn't bear comparison, neither does the respective financing options available.

 

I wish to fuck this debate would move on, it's been close to doing so once or twice when you've hit your stride but it always gets dragged back into the mire eventually. We're 4th for fucks sake, nobody thinks we'll be there at the end of the season, but people are entitled to be positive about some of the changes made. At the same time, as Alex says, and I agree, there's a 'happy medium' (ie even a tiny bit more strategic investment) could really push us on again and it is wrong from a footballing point of view when that doesn't happen. Not into CL as that is now essentially a fantasy league for leveraged speculators/liquid billionaire hobbyists, but we're still in a position where it could get us a few places higher.

 

stop sitting on the fence man, and give us your opinions and judgements. Do you or do you not think Mike Ashley will ever match the previous regime.

 

The ultimate grey man.

[manc-mag 1]

Leazes, the thing is you're genuinely too dense to do the financial debate (I'm sorry but that's just the truth of it) and the rest of your rhetoric can honestly be condensed to one line and only needs to be said once. So stop repeating it by the multi-paragraph.

[ewerk 30616]

NOthing to do with them winning the Champions League at all, oh no.

 

And the £28m difference the season before? Or the £30m difference the season before that?

[The Fish 10857]

I'm always the voice of reason, I just rarely reveal it to you bunch of frothing mentals.

 

Just ask Matt, he'll tell you.

[DEADMAN 0]

fish how come you have a message i posted on ya sign thingy

[The Fish 10857]

Because, DEADMAN, it's wonderful. Just wonderful.

[ChezGiven 0]

One more general point to HF, annoying fucker that he is

 

Team Positive membership currently stands at me, TP, CT, ewerk, J2J, manc-mag, the fish, tekkers, jaysouthernmag, JawD, AH, Cleetoonfan and Cabayeaye. Have i missed anyone?

 

[Toonpack 9423]

 

1993-94 Newcastle 3rd, Spurs 14th

1994-95 Newcastle 6th, Spurs 7th

1995-96 Newcastle 2nd Spurs 8th

1996-97 Newcastle 2nd Spurs 10th

1997-98 Newcastle 13th Spurs 14th

1998-99 Newcastle 13th Spurs 11th

1999-00 Newcastle 11th Spurs 10th

2000-01 Newcastle 11th Spurs 12th

2001-02 Newcastle 4th Spurs 9th

2002-03 Newcastle 3rd Spurs 10th

2003-04 Newcastle 5th Spurs 14th

2004-05 Newcastle 14th Spurs 9th

2005-06 Newcastle 7th Spurs 5th

2006-07 Newcastle 13th Spurs 5th

 

Av position NUFC = 7.6

Av position Spurs = 9.8

 

Newcastle finished above Spurs 8 times in those 14 years, Spurs above NUFC 6 times.

 

So get your facts right.

 

Significant is your comment "we have never been as successful as Spurs since the 50's" - other than the fact that is incorrect, what is relevant about the only time that we WERE ?

 

Also note, the positions of Spurs during the ownership of Alan Sugar, who at the time ran Spurs on "good business lines", the lines that you approve of, rather than speculate to accumulate, meaning attempting to capitalise on a huge fanbase to increase revenues and make money as Stevie has pointed out, and you fail to see his point completely.

 

They won something (you know that thing that real success is made of) in that time and also accumulated "wealth" to haul us in and overtake us, all the while making more profit and thus buying/spending large amounts on players that they could afford.

 

Take a way KK's first tenure, which was a great time which sadly we didn't capitalise on and get ourselves "locked in", and the average league position difference is less than half a place, whoopee fucking do !

 

Shit, I'd take finishing 2.2 places lower, but still in the upper echelons of the also rans, and win something, just once, would be good.

[Toonpack 9423]

One more general point to HF, annoying fucker that he is

 

Team Positive membership currently stands at me, TP, CT, ewerk, J2J, manc-mag, the fish, tekkers, jaysouthernmag, JawD, AH, Cleetoonfan and Cabayeaye. Have i missed anyone?

 

 

Can I be in team cautiously optimistic please ?, I've been bitten by these black and white bastards way to many times to be ever 100% positive. We are cursed tbh.

 

The parallel's with my Green Bay Packers are uncanny (on and off the field) and I am having ill-judged bouts of stupid optimism on occassion, but remaining cautiously optimistic is my aim.

[Guest alex]

Chez sat in his office in a wig, flares and platforms doing the full "I'm the Leader of the Gang (I am)" bit now.

[manc-mag 1]

fish how come you have a message i posted on ya sign thingy

 

Speaking of signatures Deaders, can I be the first to applaud you on your ping? Your line attenuation was impressive enough on it's own.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

1993-94 Newcastle 3rd, Spurs 14th

1994-95 Newcastle 6th, Spurs 7th

1995-96 Newcastle 2nd Spurs 8th

1996-97 Newcastle 2nd Spurs 10th

1997-98 Newcastle 13th Spurs 14th

1998-99 Newcastle 13th Spurs 11th

1999-00 Newcastle 11th Spurs 10th

2000-01 Newcastle 11th Spurs 12th

2001-02 Newcastle 4th Spurs 9th

2002-03 Newcastle 3rd Spurs 10th

2003-04 Newcastle 5th Spurs 14th

2004-05 Newcastle 14th Spurs 9th

2005-06 Newcastle 7th Spurs 5th

2006-07 Newcastle 13th Spurs 5th

 

Av position NUFC = 7.6

Av position Spurs = 9.8

 

Newcastle finished above Spurs 8 times in those 14 years, Spurs above NUFC 6 times.

 

So get your facts right.

 

Significant is your comment "we have never been as successful as Spurs since the 50's" - other than the fact that is incorrect, what is relevant about the only time that we WERE ?

 

Also note, the positions of Spurs during the ownership of Alan Sugar, who at the time ran Spurs on "good business lines", the lines that you approve of, rather than speculate to accumulate, meaning attempting to capitalise on a huge fanbase to increase revenues and make money as Stevie has pointed out, and you fail to see his point completely.

 

They won something

 

oh aye, you've said before the whole 15 years and the Keegan era particularly, in your opinion, was all a waste of time

 

Did they not make a profit either ?

[Toonpack 9423]

 

1993-94 Newcastle 3rd, Spurs 14th

1994-95 Newcastle 6th, Spurs 7th

1995-96 Newcastle 2nd Spurs 8th

1996-97 Newcastle 2nd Spurs 10th

1997-98 Newcastle 13th Spurs 14th

1998-99 Newcastle 13th Spurs 11th

1999-00 Newcastle 11th Spurs 10th

2000-01 Newcastle 11th Spurs 12th

2001-02 Newcastle 4th Spurs 9th

2002-03 Newcastle 3rd Spurs 10th

2003-04 Newcastle 5th Spurs 14th

2004-05 Newcastle 14th Spurs 9th

2005-06 Newcastle 7th Spurs 5th

2006-07 Newcastle 13th Spurs 5th

 

Av position NUFC = 7.6

Av position Spurs = 9.8

 

Newcastle finished above Spurs 8 times in those 14 years, Spurs above NUFC 6 times.

 

So get your facts right.

 

Significant is your comment "we have never been as successful as Spurs since the 50's" - other than the fact that is incorrect, what is relevant about the only time that we WERE ?

 

Also note, the positions of Spurs during the ownership of Alan Sugar, who at the time ran Spurs on "good business lines", the lines that you approve of, rather than speculate to accumulate, meaning attempting to capitalise on a huge fanbase to increase revenues and make money as Stevie has pointed out, and you fail to see his point completely.

 

They won something

 

oh aye, you've said before the whole 15 years and the Keegan era particularly, in your opinion, was all a waste of time

 

Did they not make a profit either ?

 

Selective editing is back in vogue I see

[ChezGiven 0]

One more general point to HF, annoying fucker that he is

 

Team Positive membership currently stands at me, TP, CT, ewerk, J2J, manc-mag, the fish, tekkers, jaysouthernmag, JawD, AH, Cleetoonfan and Cabayeaye. Have i missed anyone?

 

 

Can I be in team cautiously optimistic please ?, I've been bitten by these black and white bastards way to many times to be ever 100% positive. We are cursed tbh.

 

The parallel's with my Green Bay Packers are uncanny (on and off the field) and I am having ill-judged bouts of stupid optimism on occassion, but remaining cautiously optimistic is my aim.

Team not suicidal is more appropriate. I think we've been moving in the right direction since we got relegated, the three events that seemed disastrous (Pardew, Carroll, no new no.9) turned out fine so the underlying direction still holds.

 

I do have to say that travelling in a direction is fine until you get to your destination, the key to this debate is whether we get off at 'mid-table' 'aiming for 7th' or can/will/want to go any higher. This is still up for debate and its far more nuanced than a daft postive/negative axis. I just get the feeling it winds up alex and HF so i keep bringing it up

[LeazesMag 0]

 

1993-94 Newcastle 3rd, Spurs 14th

1994-95 Newcastle 6th, Spurs 7th

1995-96 Newcastle 2nd Spurs 8th

1996-97 Newcastle 2nd Spurs 10th

1997-98 Newcastle 13th Spurs 14th

1998-99 Newcastle 13th Spurs 11th

1999-00 Newcastle 11th Spurs 10th

2000-01 Newcastle 11th Spurs 12th

2001-02 Newcastle 4th Spurs 9th

2002-03 Newcastle 3rd Spurs 10th

2003-04 Newcastle 5th Spurs 14th

2004-05 Newcastle 14th Spurs 9th

2005-06 Newcastle 7th Spurs 5th

2006-07 Newcastle 13th Spurs 5th

 

Av position NUFC = 7.6

Av position Spurs = 9.8

 

Newcastle finished above Spurs 8 times in those 14 years, Spurs above NUFC 6 times.

 

So get your facts right.

 

Significant is your comment "we have never been as successful as Spurs since the 50's" - other than the fact that is incorrect, what is relevant about the only time that we WERE ?

 

Also note, the positions of Spurs during the ownership of Alan Sugar, who at the time ran Spurs on "good business lines", the lines that you approve of, rather than speculate to accumulate, meaning attempting to capitalise on a huge fanbase to increase revenues and make money as Stevie has pointed out, and you fail to see his point completely.

 

They won something (you know that thing that real success is made of) in that time and also accumulated "wealth" to haul us in and overtake us, all the while making more profit and thus buying/spending large amounts on players that they could afford.

 

Take a way KK's first tenure, which was a great time which sadly we didn't capitalise on and get ourselves "locked in", and the average league position difference is less than half a place, whoopee fucking do !

 

Shit, I'd take finishing 2.2 places lower, but still in the upper echelons of the also rans, and win something, just once, would be good.

 

oh aye, you've said before the entire 15 years and whole Keegan era in particular, was all a waste of time

 

You should do your maths again mate, you're so particular about figures, but the average position - that you put such stock in when it suits you - is actually over 2 places and not "half a place whoopee fucking do".....the same average position that your man, while doing "better" has sent tumbling to 17th.

 

Meanwhile, your man continues to not even attempt to capitalise on the clubs potential

[LeazesMag 0]

 

1993-94 Newcastle 3rd, Spurs 14th

1994-95 Newcastle 6th, Spurs 7th

1995-96 Newcastle 2nd Spurs 8th

1996-97 Newcastle 2nd Spurs 10th

1997-98 Newcastle 13th Spurs 14th

1998-99 Newcastle 13th Spurs 11th

1999-00 Newcastle 11th Spurs 10th

2000-01 Newcastle 11th Spurs 12th

2001-02 Newcastle 4th Spurs 9th

2002-03 Newcastle 3rd Spurs 10th

2003-04 Newcastle 5th Spurs 14th

2004-05 Newcastle 14th Spurs 9th

2005-06 Newcastle 7th Spurs 5th

2006-07 Newcastle 13th Spurs 5th

 

Av position NUFC = 7.6

Av position Spurs = 9.8

 

Newcastle finished above Spurs 8 times in those 14 years, Spurs above NUFC 6 times.

 

So get your facts right.

 

Significant is your comment "we have never been as successful as Spurs since the 50's" - other than the fact that is incorrect, what is relevant about the only time that we WERE ?

 

Also note, the positions of Spurs during the ownership of Alan Sugar, who at the time ran Spurs on "good business lines", the lines that you approve of, rather than speculate to accumulate, meaning attempting to capitalise on a huge fanbase to increase revenues and make money as Stevie has pointed out, and you fail to see his point completely.

 

They won something

 

oh aye, you've said before the whole 15 years and the Keegan era particularly, in your opinion, was all a waste of time

 

Did they not make a profit either ?

 

Selective editing is back in vogue I see

 

so when are you going to admit to us that your man didn't do what you thought he would do in the summer, and myself and others called it correctly ?

 

"Selective editing"....

[LeazesMag 0]

Actually, Alex is right. When does Toonpack actually say anything about the football . Anybody looking in, would wonder that the whole point of the business is to actually win on the football field

[Toonpack 9423]

One more general point to HF, annoying fucker that he is

 

Team Positive membership currently stands at me, TP, CT, ewerk, J2J, manc-mag, the fish, tekkers, jaysouthernmag, JawD, AH, Cleetoonfan and Cabayeaye. Have i missed anyone?

 

 

Can I be in team cautiously optimistic please ?, I've been bitten by these black and white bastards way to many times to be ever 100% positive. We are cursed tbh.

 

The parallel's with my Green Bay Packers are uncanny (on and off the field) and I am having ill-judged bouts of stupid optimism on occassion, but remaining cautiously optimistic is my aim.

Team not suicidal is more appropriate. I think we've been moving in the right direction since we got relegated, the three events that seemed disastrous (Pardew, Carroll, no new no.9) turned out fine so the underlying direction still holds.

 

I do have to say that travelling in a direction is fine until you get to your destination, the key to this debate is whether we get off at 'mid-table' 'aiming for 7th' or can/will/want to go any higher. This is still up for debate and its far more nuanced than a daft postive/negative axis. I just get the feeling it winds up alex and HF so i keep bringing it up

 

I would have the temerity to add, that, in retrospect, the relegation in itself was not a bad thing as it allowed an amount of "purge".

 

I similarly would add, that, despite a certain posters denigration of my opinion of it, our size means that even operating within our limits gives us advantage of a not insignificant amount. From little acorns etc etc. Sky's the limit etc etc (as is the basement mind, this is NUFC after all).