Pardew - two players max to come in during the January window

[ewerk 30170]

A quick glance at the latest NUST spam tells me that fan ownership is still the way to go. It's worked for Shamrock Rovers and Cork City so must be suitable for us.

[LeazesMag 0]

It was easier for everyone exactly because the playing field was more level, the fundamental point.

 

it wasn't.

 

If NUFC had shown the ambition under the Westwoods, McKeags etc that they did under the Halls and Shepherd, they could have done the same thing.

 

If Mike Ashley had the ambiton to succeed on the pitch other than be a feeder club to advertise Sports Direct, sell our best players, and never build on any half decent team that may be put together, then he could do it too.

 

But he won't.

 

You and others will be sitting here in 5 years time ie 5 more years of his "plan", saying "we can build on this platform now".

 

It ISN'T going to happen.

Edited November 23, 2011 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, if SJH and Shepherd had bought the club for the first time in May 2007, do you believe that they would have been able to achieve European football by now?

 

Do you think if Mike Ashley had bought the club in 1992, we would have had the 15 years that we had under the previous regime ?

 

Don't answer a question with a question. What is your answer?

It's a ridiculous hypothetical question though tbf.

 

Not especially, it's a straight, albeit hypothetical, comparison between the old board and the current owner.

 

and the comparision is the current owner, after 4 years of his "plan", has got nowhere near the old owners.

[LeazesMag 0]

However, if it you assume it was in the same position it was when Ashley bought it, they couldn't have afforded it anyway.

 

Which is why I don't believe you can fairly compare what they did in 1991 to what has been 'achieved' under Ashley since 2007. Though Leazes is content to knock Ashley for not finishing 3rd in the league.

I don't agree with Leazes in every respect because he doesn't acknowledge what it would take now to compete at those levels, i.e. someone with loads of money coming in and spending their own cash on seriously challenging for the league. However, when you say he has a pop at Ashley for not finishing 3rd, you make it sound like we've come 4th or something. 12th's the best we've done so far. I think we'll do better this year like. He's also right in his logic that if it was easier then, it was easier for everybody else then too.

 

exactly

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, if SJH and Shepherd had bought the club for the first time in May 2007, do you believe that they would have been able to achieve European football by now?

 

Do you think if Mike Ashley had bought the club in 1992, we would have had the 15 years that we had under the previous regime ?

 

Don't answer a question with a question. What is your answer?

It's a ridiculous hypothetical question though tbf.

 

Not especially, it's a straight, albeit hypothetical, comparison between the old board and the current owner.

 

do we really need to drag that debate on any longer though? it's been done to death and beyond. if we all stop, maybe leazesmag will stop too.

 

please make it stop. it's killing this board. even with leazesmag on ignore there's no escape from it

 

stop your moaning, you're the biggest moaning, hypocritical moron on this board man.

[LeazesMag 0]

It's a good question, for me it's a mix of it being harder and us not trying as hard, if you see what I mean. We are less ambitious but we also realistically have less strength relative to others. What our current expectations ought to be is a fundamental and important point of debate.

 

If it's such a different game now, then a comparison is only really apt in terms of how they performed amongst their peers.

 

Hall/Shepherd came into a game that was run by millionaires using bank loans secured on assetts. They played that game better than 99% of other owners. They also realised when that jig was up and were able to sell the club to an owner more suited to the modern game - billionaires who secure spending on their own wealth.

 

Whatever the argument about the state of the finances at the time, the club was sold for much much more than they paid in '92 and for more than other clubs were selling, outside the very top. The club was in a much better position, and a much more attractive prospect than most.

 

Compared to their peers, the previous owners outperformed the majority.

 

Having got into the billionaires owners game with his eyes wide open, Mike Ashley hasn't....as yet.

 

exactly

[Guest alex]

A quick glance at the latest NUST spam tells me that fan ownership is still the way to go. It's worked for Shamrock Rovers and Cork City so must be suitable for us.

I clocked that too. It's like self parody now.

[toonotl 2941]

'Ambition' as it is used in football speak is completely interchangeable with money/investment spent directly on improving the squad.

 

And if we all agree that 4th is harder to attain now and would require more 'ambition', then the question should be.

 

What final position now is an equal achievement to what 4th was in the past? What final league position would the level of ambition shown by Shepherd earn now?

 

I think the answer to both is somewhere around 6th.

 

So the answer to that is. Well Ashley has come nowhere near achieving that. However, I don't support Ashley. I don't think he has shown the ambition that we should expect as Newcastle supporters. However, I do think he is getting closer and deserves some credit for that.

 

What isn't productive is arguments made from a point of reference which is now unattainable. It does nobody any good and only acts as frustration for everyone.

[Happy Face 29]

He's also right in his logic that if it was easier then, it was easier for everybody else then too.

 

Einstein totally fucked up with tht speed of light limit bollocks, but everyone thouht he was clever. It was just easier then, he'd have to find the money for a large Hadron Collider these days...he'd never be able to compete.

 

[toonotl 2941]

and the comparision is the current owner, after 4 years of his "plan", has got nowhere near the old owners.

 

And unless you expect the new owner to invest money amounting to the wealth of an Arab country you shouldn't expect him to. You don't seem capable of taking new information or valid points of contention into consideration at all with regards to your argument.

 

I must say, your schooling must have been an almighty struggle for all involved. Sorry.

[LeazesMag 0]

tbf, Leazes only made a point on the current situation before Fish had a pop about him being pissed and wittering on over the same old questions.

 

Reading it back i think Fish was pissed IIO.

 

and I was sober as a judge

 

The thing is, people like Fish [and a few others] don't read the posts anymore, they just come on and disagree with me because its me

Edited November 23, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Park Life 71]

It's a good question, for me it's a mix of it being harder and us not trying as hard, if you see what I mean. We are less ambitious but we also realistically have less strength relative to others. What our current expectations ought to be is a fundamental and important point of debate.

 

If it's such a different game now, then a comparison is only really apt in terms of how they performed amongst their peers.

 

Hall/Shepherd came into a game that was run by millionaires using bank loans secured on assetts. They played that game better than 99% of other owners. They also realised when that jig was up and were able to sell the club to an owner more suited to the modern game - billionaires who secure spending on their own wealth.

 

Whatever the argument about the state of the finances at the time, the club was sold for much much more than they paid in '92 and for more than other clubs were selling, outside the very top. The club was in a much better position, and a much more attractive prospect than most.

 

Compared to their peers, the previous owners outperformed the majority.

 

Having got into the billionaires owners game with his eyes wide open, Mike Ashley hasn't....as yet.

 

exactly

 

Not really a proper billionaire tho. More market stall.

[LeazesMag 0]

and the comparision is the current owner, after 4 years of his "plan", has got nowhere near the old owners.

 

And unless you expect the new owner to invest money amounting to the wealth of an Arab country you shouldn't expect him to. You don't seem capable of taking new information or valid points of contention into consideration at all with regards to your argument.

 

I must say, your schooling must have been an almighty struggle for all involved. Sorry.

 

ah. Schooling.

 

I've had a good life lad, I'm quite comfortable thank you. You know nothing, absolutely nothing about me.

 

You also only seem capable of making excuses for the new regime, and you are incapable of being able to see that however the situation was under the previous owners, they had the same opposition and playing field and beat their rivals, unlike Mike Ashley and the McKeags etc - and the reason they did that is quite simple, they tapped the potential of the club and had the desire to be successful

 

is this difficult for you ?

Edited November 23, 2011 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

'Ambition' as it is used in football speak is completely interchangeable with money/investment spent directly on improving the squad.

 

And if we all agree that 4th is harder to attain now and would require more 'ambition', then the question should be.

 

What final position now is an equal achievement to what 4th was in the past? What final league position would the level of ambition shown by Shepherd earn now?

 

I think the answer to both is somewhere around 6th.

 

So the answer to that is. Well Ashley has come nowhere near achieving that. However, I don't support Ashley. I don't think he has shown the ambition that we should expect as Newcastle supporters. However, I do think he is getting closer and deserves some credit for that.

 

What isn't productive is arguments made from a point of reference which is now unattainable. It does nobody any good and only acts as frustration for everyone.

 

it's a flash in the pan, it won't be sustained, you are foolishly getting carried away by a few good results against lesser teams.

 

The setup of the club is only geared to premiership survival, and to be an advertising outlet for Sports Direct.

 

Where is the money from the sale of Carroll ?

[Happy Face 29]

It's a good question, for me it's a mix of it being harder and us not trying as hard, if you see what I mean. We are less ambitious but we also realistically have less strength relative to others. What our current expectations ought to be is a fundamental and important point of debate.

 

If it's such a different game now, then a comparison is only really apt in terms of how they performed amongst their peers.

 

Hall/Shepherd came into a game that was run by millionaires using bank loans secured on assetts. They played that game better than 99% of other owners. They also realised when that jig was up and were able to sell the club to an owner more suited to the modern game - billionaires who secure spending on their own wealth.

 

Whatever the argument about the state of the finances at the time, the club was sold for much much more than they paid in '92 and for more than other clubs were selling, outside the very top. The club was in a much better position, and a much more attractive prospect than most.

 

Compared to their peers, the previous owners outperformed the majority.

 

Having got into the billionaires owners game with his eyes wide open, Mike Ashley hasn't....as yet.

 

exactly

 

Not really a proper billionaire tho. More market stall.

 

Billionaire enough to suit his needs - mid-table finishes and plenty of Sports Direct in the news.

[Park Life 71]

He hasn't got the cash to compte with the top 4 unless he sells his company is what I mean.

[Toonpack 9121]

It's a good question, for me it's a mix of it being harder and us not trying as hard, if you see what I mean. We are less ambitious but we also realistically have less strength relative to others. What our current expectations ought to be is a fundamental and important point of debate.

 

If it's such a different game now, then a comparison is only really apt in terms of how they performed amongst their peers.

 

Hall/Shepherd came into a game that was run by millionaires using bank loans secured on assetts. They played that game better than 99% of other owners. They also realised when that jig was up and were able to sell the club to an owner more suited to the modern game - billionaires who secure spending on their own wealth.

 

Whatever the argument about the state of the finances at the time, the club was sold for much much more than they paid in '92 and for more than other clubs were selling, outside the very top. The club was in a much better position, and a much more attractive prospect than most.

 

Compared to their peers, the previous owners outperformed the majority.

 

Having got into the billionaires owners game with his eyes wide open, Mike Ashley hasn't....as yet.

 

That's virtually all not true.

 

Millionaires and bank loans, nope, the real competitive teams used their own revenue's to sustain them. Liverpool for example, their owners (the Moore's) never took dividend nor salary.

 

The wannabe catcher upperers used bank finance. We shouldn't have needed to, such was our income (Capital projects - like the ground expansion excepted).

 

The only suitor who actually stumped up the cash did not do due dilligence (the idiot). Other suitors did (the club spent £6 Million courting potential buyers in the 12 months prior) and they ran a mile, why? simply because we were anything but an attractive prospect.

 

I accept that they did well and grew the profile of the club initially but it was thoroughly unsustainable, if it was all rosey, why'd they get out ??? We were built on a borrowed penny for the club a penny for the pocket, basis.

 

SJH's tenure was the peak, Freddie's chairmanship was an inexorable decent, both on, and more dangerously, off the pitch.

 

It's not about reduced expectations as a certain poster states, it's about realism and sustainability.

 

The raised profile of the club was bought at a cost the club could not afford long term, if it could have afforded it, why did it never even break even.

 

Coincidently, if we had been run on the Liverpool model, we would have had another £52 Million available to us. A sum of money roughly equal to the size of the debt (over and above the stadium expansion) when we were sold.

 

I probably give the last ownership less credit than they deserve, however, the club was in no better health when sold the last time than it was the time before.

[ChezGiven 0]

It was easier for everyone exactly because the playing field was more level, the fundamental point.

 

it wasn't.

 

If NUFC had shown the ambition under the Westwoods, McKeags etc that they did under the Halls and Shepherd, they could have done the same thing.

 

If Mike Ashley had the ambiton to succeed on the pitch other than be a feeder club to advertise Sports Direct, sell our best players, and never build on any half decent team that may be put together, then he could do it too.

 

But he won't.

 

You and others will be sitting here in 5 years time ie 5 more years of his "plan", saying "we can build on this platform now".

 

It ISN'T going to happen.

You get me wrong, stop lumping me in with the lot who complained about the last board. I agreed with you then and still do.

 

The point am making is that the playing field was more even back then, it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. That means it would be more of an achievement today to sustain multiple CL and EU league campaigns, not doing it once but lots.

 

The reasons are obvious to me: imagine we are a company competing in a domestic market with 20 others. The success of the company depends on using roughly similar levels of resources as everyone else as best as possible. There are differences, due to location some companies have more and more loyal customers, some have invested better than others and have better facilities and one or two have sold a small % of their company to local private investors, helping them compete better for scarce but local / national resources.

 

Now fast forward 20 years and one or two companies have been bought by the state and they are given subsidies that the others dont get. Some of these subsidised companies can then access international labour markets to cream the best talents from abroad. They also can be inefficient and produce costly goods but still compete because of the subsidy. Two or three of the recently successful companies were also granted export licenses that the others didn't get, this allowed them to sell goods to the far east and generate more revenues to invest in better facilities.

 

Now, tell me how this isn't the premier league and how the competition is still the same? If people don't get this point then I highly recommend avoiding a career in the private sector. Or don't expect much from it anyway.

[LeazesMag 0]

It's a good question, for me it's a mix of it being harder and us not trying as hard, if you see what I mean. We are less ambitious but we also realistically have less strength relative to others. What our current expectations ought to be is a fundamental and important point of debate.

 

If it's such a different game now, then a comparison is only really apt in terms of how they performed amongst their peers.

 

Hall/Shepherd came into a game that was run by millionaires using bank loans secured on assetts. They played that game better than 99% of other owners. They also realised when that jig was up and were able to sell the club to an owner more suited to the modern game - billionaires who secure spending on their own wealth.

 

Whatever the argument about the state of the finances at the time, the club was sold for much much more than they paid in '92 and for more than other clubs were selling, outside the very top. The club was in a much better position, and a much more attractive prospect than most.

 

Compared to their peers, the previous owners outperformed the majority.

 

Having got into the billionaires owners game with his eyes wide open, Mike Ashley hasn't....as yet.

 

That's virtually all not true.

 

Millionaires and bank loans, nope, the real competitive teams used their own revenue's to sustain them. Liverpool for example, their owners (the Moore's) never took dividend nor salary.

 

The wannabe catcher upperers used bank finance. We shouldn't have needed to, such was our income (Capital projects - like the ground expansion excepted).

 

The only suitor who actually stumped up the cash did not do due dilligence (the idiot). Other suitors did (the club spent £6 Million courting potential buyers in the 12 months prior) and they ran a mile, why? simply because we were anything but an attractive prospect.

 

I accept that they did well and grew the profile of the club initially but it was thoroughly unsustainable, if it was all rosey, why'd they get out ??? We were built on a borrowed penny for the club a penny for the pocket, basis.

 

SJH's tenure was the peak, Freddie's chairmanship was an inexorable decent, both on, and more dangerously, off the pitch.

 

It's not about reduced expectations as a certain poster states, it's about realism and sustainability.

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...ted/4281369.stm

 

poor old Fred, a minority shareholder, who ran the club all on his own

I won't bother quoting - again - the extract from Keegans book stating that Sir John Hall didn't want to appoint him, that was all done by Douglas, Freddie Shepherd and Freddie Fletcher.

 

Keep making up the facts to suit your personality hatred based agenda and "opinions"

 

The raised profile of the club was bought at a cost the club could not afford long term, if it could have afforded it, why did it never even break even.

 

Coincidently, if we had been run on the Liverpool model, we would have had another £52 Million available to us. A sum of money roughly equal to the size of the debt (over and above the stadium expansion) when we were sold.

 

I probably give the last ownership less credit than they deserve, however, the club was in no better health when sold the last time than it was the time before.

 

laugh of the century

Edited November 23, 2011 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

It was easier for everyone exactly because the playing field was more level, the fundamental point.

 

it wasn't.

 

If NUFC had shown the ambition under the Westwoods, McKeags etc that they did under the Halls and Shepherd, they could have done the same thing.

 

If Mike Ashley had the ambiton to succeed on the pitch other than be a feeder club to advertise Sports Direct, sell our best players, and never build on any half decent team that may be put together, then he could do it too.

 

But he won't.

 

You and others will be sitting here in 5 years time ie 5 more years of his "plan", saying "we can build on this platform now".

 

It ISN'T going to happen.

You get me wrong, stop lumping me in with the lot who complained about the last board. I agreed with you then and still do.

 

The point am making is that the playing field was more even back then, it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. That means it would be more of an achievement today to sustain multiple CL and EU league campaigns, not doing it once but lots.

 

The reasons are obvious to me: imagine we are a company competing in a domestic market with 20 others. The success of the company depends on using roughly similar levels of resources as everyone else as best as possible. There are differences, due to location some companies have more and more loyal customers, some have invested better than others and have better facilities and one or two have sold a small % of their company to local private investors, helping them compete better for scarce but local / national resources.

 

Now fast forward 20 years and one or two companies have been bought by the state and they are given subsidies that the others dont get. Some of these subsidised companies can then access international labour markets to cream the best talents from abroad. They also can be inefficient and produce costly goods but still compete because of the subsidy. Two or three of the recently successful companies were also granted export licenses that the others didn't get, this allowed them to sell goods to the far east and generate more revenues to invest in better facilities.

 

Now, tell me how this isn't the premier league and how the competition is still the same? If people don't get this point then I highly recommend avoiding a career in the private sector. Or don't expect much from it anyway.

 

so because TWO clubs are owned by multi millionaires who have thrown money at the respective clubs, it makes it impossible for NUFC to exist above and compete higher than the levels of all the other clubs ?

 

The last board competed against their rivals, just like Mike Ashley. Mike Ashley will NEVER even attempt to compete at the levels that tap this football club like his predecessors.

 

The entire ownership of Mike Ashley is going to be a never ending circle of people wondering when we will "build on this platform". It ISN't going to happen. He will always sell our best players and shop around for Netto replacements.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

Don't you ever get bored of this?

[jonasjuice 0]

 

 

The only way Newcastle United will go is down, we will have highs and lows as everyone does, but finishing in a top half position of the premiership is the absolute peak that will be achieved under this current policy adopted by the owner.

 

Just to stoke the fire a bit, didn't you say that 12th would be our highest ever finish under Ashley?

 

Are you now admitting that statement might be, heaven forbid, wrong??

 

[Lake Bells tits 1]

It was easier for everyone exactly because the playing field was more level, the fundamental point.

 

it wasn't.

 

If NUFC had shown the ambition under the Westwoods, McKeags etc that they did under the Halls and Shepherd, they could have done the same thing.

 

If Mike Ashley had the ambiton to succeed on the pitch other than be a feeder club to advertise Sports Direct, sell our best players, and never build on any half decent team that may be put together, then he could do it too.

 

But he won't.

 

You and others will be sitting here in 5 years time ie 5 more years of his "plan", saying "we can build on this platform now".

 

It ISN'T going to happen.

You get me wrong, stop lumping me in with the lot who complained about the last board. I agreed with you then and still do.

 

The point am making is that the playing field was more even back then, it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. That means it would be more of an achievement today to sustain multiple CL and EU league campaigns, not doing it once but lots.

 

The reasons are obvious to me: imagine we are a company competing in a domestic market with 20 others. The success of the company depends on using roughly similar levels of resources as everyone else as best as possible. There are differences, due to location some companies have more and more loyal customers, some have invested better than others and have better facilities and one or two have sold a small % of their company to local private investors, helping them compete better for scarce but local / national resources.

 

Now fast forward 20 years and one or two companies have been bought by the state and they are given subsidies that the others dont get. Some of these subsidised companies can then access international labour markets to cream the best talents from abroad. They also can be inefficient and produce costly goods but still compete because of the subsidy. Two or three of the recently successful companies were also granted export licenses that the others didn't get, this allowed them to sell goods to the far east and generate more revenues to invest in better facilities.

 

Now, tell me how this isn't the premier league and how the competition is still the same? If people don't get this point then I highly recommend avoiding a career in the private sector. Or don't expect much from it anyway.

 

so because TWO clubs are owned by multi millionaires who have thrown money at the respective clubs, it makes it impossible for NUFC to exist above and compete higher than the levels of all the other clubs ?

 

The last board competed against their rivals, just like Mike Ashley. Mike Ashley will NEVER even attempt to compete at the levels that tap this football club like his predecessors.

 

The entire ownership of Mike Ashley is going to be a never ending circle of people wondering when we will "build on this platform". It ISN't going to happen. He will always sell our best players and shop around for Netto replacements.

 

We know. Nothing to do about it. Its like complaining about not being 4 inches taller every morning when you wake up. Whats the point.

[LeazesMag 0]

The only way Newcastle United will go is down, we will have highs and lows as everyone does, but finishing in a top half position of the premiership is the absolute peak that will be achieved under this current policy adopted by the owner.

 

Just to stoke the fire a bit, didn't you say that 12th would be our highest ever finish under Ashley?

 

Are you now admitting that statement might be, heaven forbid, wrong??

 

 

"might"

 

Any higher level top league finishes will be short lived. That is a definite. The club is not set up to sustain such levels.

[LeazesMag 0]

It was easier for everyone exactly because the playing field was more level, the fundamental point.

 

it wasn't.

 

If NUFC had shown the ambition under the Westwoods, McKeags etc that they did under the Halls and Shepherd, they could have done the same thing.

 

If Mike Ashley had the ambiton to succeed on the pitch other than be a feeder club to advertise Sports Direct, sell our best players, and never build on any half decent team that may be put together, then he could do it too.

 

But he won't.

 

You and others will be sitting here in 5 years time ie 5 more years of his "plan", saying "we can build on this platform now".

 

It ISN'T going to happen.

You get me wrong, stop lumping me in with the lot who complained about the last board. I agreed with you then and still do.

 

The point am making is that the playing field was more even back then, it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. That means it would be more of an achievement today to sustain multiple CL and EU league campaigns, not doing it once but lots.

 

The reasons are obvious to me: imagine we are a company competing in a domestic market with 20 others. The success of the company depends on using roughly similar levels of resources as everyone else as best as possible. There are differences, due to location some companies have more and more loyal customers, some have invested better than others and have better facilities and one or two have sold a small % of their company to local private investors, helping them compete better for scarce but local / national resources.

 

Now fast forward 20 years and one or two companies have been bought by the state and they are given subsidies that the others dont get. Some of these subsidised companies can then access international labour markets to cream the best talents from abroad. They also can be inefficient and produce costly goods but still compete because of the subsidy. Two or three of the recently successful companies were also granted export licenses that the others didn't get, this allowed them to sell goods to the far east and generate more revenues to invest in better facilities.

 

Now, tell me how this isn't the premier league and how the competition is still the same? If people don't get this point then I highly recommend avoiding a career in the private sector. Or don't expect much from it anyway.

 

so because TWO clubs are owned by multi millionaires who have thrown money at the respective clubs, it makes it impossible for NUFC to exist above and compete higher than the levels of all the other clubs ?

 

The last board competed against their rivals, just like Mike Ashley. Mike Ashley will NEVER even attempt to compete at the levels that tap this football club like his predecessors.

 

The entire ownership of Mike Ashley is going to be a never ending circle of people wondering when we will "build on this platform". It ISN't going to happen. He will always sell our best players and shop around for Netto replacements.

 

We know. Nothing to do about it. Its like complaining about not being 4 inches taller every morning when you wake up. Whats the point.

 

you tell me why people keep disagreeing with me then ?

 

I'm fucked if I know why they do it, and have been doing it for years.