FAO Leazes Mag

[Sima 0]

 

For starters.......I tbink NUFC should be, and could eclipse manu for support if we were truly successful, the Keegan era showed this. And we wouldn't need day trippers from every poxy little village in Cornwall to fill the stadium, half the city of newcastle would want to be in that ground if we won trophies.

 

 

What utter drivel, from the bollocks about support to the cliched myth about OMG MANURE FANZ ARENT FROM MANCHESTUH LOLZER!!11111

[LeazesMag 0]

 

For starters.......I tbink NUFC should be, and could eclipse manu for support if we were truly successful, the Keegan era showed this. And we wouldn't need day trippers from every poxy little village in Cornwall to fill the stadium, half the city of newcastle would want to be in that ground if we won trophies.

 

 

What utter drivel, from the bollocks about support to the cliched myth about OMG MANURE FANZ ARENT FROM MANCHESTUH LOLZER!!11111

 

I suppose thinking I was going to see a constructive post was asking a bit much

[Sima 0]

But it's complete drivel. Newcastle will never, EVER, have more supporters than Man Utd and contrary to what you believe, most Man Utd ST holders come from Manchester. Saying otherwise makes you sound like a child.

[LeazesMag 0]

But it's complete drivel. Newcastle will never, EVER, have more supporters than Man Utd and contrary to what you believe, most Man Utd ST holders come from Manchester. Saying otherwise makes you sound like a child.

 

Man Utd started their rise to the club they have now, in 1958. Are you seriously saying that Newcastle United...and one or two other clubs....would not match their crowds and appeal if we had the success they have had ?

 

Rubbish.

 

We would match them all the way.

 

It's a fact that success breeds gloryseeker football fans, from all over the country, and now, all over the globe. It's also a fact that many thousands of manu fans travel to Old Trafford despite having no affinity whatsoever to Manu, apart from being attracted by success. I never said that Manu fans don't come from Manchester, but I can tell you with absolute certainty having lived all over the UK, that there are people EVERYWHERE who consider themselves to be manu fans, whether they have been to Old Trafford once, 50 times or not at all.

 

And - during the years they weren't winning the league, they didn't fill Old Trafford. I went to Old Trafford in 1988 when they played Wimbledon when I was in Manchester for a few weeks and the ground was half full at best.

[Sima 0]

If we had the success they had, we'd still struggle to get 75-80K each league game, wheras Man Utd could bump their capacity up to 100K+ and still fill it week in week out in the League

 

Nothing could give us the mass global appeal that Man Utd have. Look how much money is getting thrown at Chelsea, look at the trophies they are winning. I can tell you now, they'll never be as big as Man Utd. What makes us any different?

 

With regards to them only being half full. They have consistently been in the top 2 as far as average attendances go for the last 42 years, so throwing the "half-full" comment at them doesn't really wash as it was indicative of the blanket decline of attendances for that period. Ours weren't too grand then either.

[Dr Gloom 21965]

Mind you, it has to be pointed out Villa did disastrously last year, flirting with relegation. How's the chairman reacted to this again?

 

sadly, i can't see the fat twat following ellis and doing the honourable thing by walking. he loves the limelight too much. belgravia are going to have to offer way over the odds for him even to consider it imo

 

Like I said, if you really want such an organisation to take over the football, it proves your stupidity beyond doubt.

 

oh do shut up. you're becoming rather tiresome

[gram 0]

If we had the success they had, we'd still struggle to get 75-80K each league game, wheras Man Utd could bump their capacity up to 100K+ and still fill it week in week out in the League

 

Nothing could give us the mass global appeal that Man Utd have. Look how much money is getting thrown at Chelsea, look at the trophies they are winning. I can tell you now, they'll never be as big as Man Utd. What makes us any different?

 

With regards to them only being half full. They have consistently been in the top 2 as far as average attendances go for the last 42 years, so throwing the "half-full" comment at them doesn't really wash as it was indicative of the blanket decline of attendances for that period. Ours weren't too grand then either.

Man Utd are millions of fans further down the line - quite literally.

I live in Yorkshire and a lot of my mtes are Salford/Sale lads who recognise the infux of daytrippers but the majority of their fans are still Manc based (and surrounding area which is bigger population wise than the north east by some distance).

We would fill stadiums a lot easier than Chelsea simply because our fan base has always been big but theirs never has been.

Old Trafford has always been the fullest stadium in terms of consistency for years. They didnt actually win much at all from the early seventies to late 80s but still managed to pile the fans in. In those days there wasnt such a 'daytripper' culture either. Still a few mind.

We can outdo most but Man Utd. Liverpools support is less stable. In fact shite at times.

[manc-mag 1]

Man U's home grown support is massive and so is it's day tripper support. Thats the simple fact of the matter.

 

In terms of loyalty (ie sticking to their team through 'harsh' times) it's no better than anyone elses really. Yes they still got bigger gates but then as has been stated, they've got a bigger pool of fans to start with. Comparisons are difficult, but when the numbers decline then they do so in more or less the same ratio as any of the other big north west clubs ie Liverpool/Everton. I dont put City in that equation cos they've not had any success for donkeys years and like us, it's a miracle that theyve got any support left at all. If Man U had similar success to Man City or us (ie in our case not having won anything for 40 years) then I'd be astonished if their gates were anywhere near the same as they have been. Not just now but during their 'lean times' - ie only picking up an FA Cup once every couple of seasons etc. As fans they're just the same as anyone else, basically.

 

Back to the original point though, if all other factors were equal (ie our success levels were comparable) they'd still always have bigger support than us because of the massive worldwide media darlings they became after the Busby babes disaster.

[Renton 21643]

I'm inclined to agree with LM for once. If things had turned out differently in 96, and since then we had had their success and they had ours, who would have the bigger following and income? Us, imo. That's why it's so important for us to win something - success breeds success as they say, but for Schmiechel things could have been very different.

 

However, where I disagree with LM is where we went after 96 and whose fault that ultimately is. With the right man at the top, things could have been so different.

[manc-mag 1]

I'm inclined to agree with LM for once. If things had turned out differently in 96, and since then we had had their success and they had ours, who would have the bigger following and income? Us, imo. That's why it's so important for us to win something - success breeds success as they say, but for Schmiechel things could have been very different.

 

However, where I disagree with LM is where we went after 96 and whose fault that ultimately is. With the right man at the top, things could have been so different.

 

It's impossible to say to be fair because for them to have gone that length of time (a mere ten years) without winning anything at all is (i'm guessing) probably unprecedented post-war. Thats why it hacks me off when they talk about being there through 'lean times'. Yes they've got the biggest gates but thats where the plaudits end iywmho. It's not exactly a chore is it tipping up every other week to see a trophy getting lifted. I'm inclined to agree though, if we'd had their success and theyd had our success in the intervening period then I'd imagine our gates would be higher (assuming stadium capacities werent an issue).

 

As for if we had comparable success though I stand by my earlier point and say that they would have bigger crowds because of the Busby Babes phenomenon and the media bias.

[Renton 21643]

Man U's home grown support is massive and so is it's day tripper support. Thats the simple fact of the matter.

 

In terms of loyalty (ie sticking to their team through 'harsh' times) it's no better than anyone elses really. Yes they still got bigger gates but then as has been stated, they've got a bigger pool of fans to start with. Comparisons are difficult, but when the numbers decline then they do so in more or less the same ratio as any of the other big north west clubs ie Liverpool/Everton. I dont put City in that equation cos they've not had any success for donkeys years and like us, it's a miracle that theyve got any support left at all. If Man U had similar success to Man City or us (ie in our case not having won anything for 40 years) then I'd be astonished if their gates were anywhere near the same as they have been. Not just now but during their 'lean times' - ie only picking up an FA Cup once every couple of seasons etc. As fans they're just the same as anyone else, basically.

 

Back to the original point though, if all other factors were equal (ie our success levels were comparable) they'd still always have bigger support than us because of the massive worldwide media darlings they became after the Busby babes disaster.

 

Fair point, maybe we can arrange a plane crash for some of our present lot.....

 

 

No, no, I apologise, I obviously didn't mean that.

[LeazesMag 0]

Mind you, it has to be pointed out Villa did disastrously last year, flirting with relegation. How's the chairman reacted to this again?

 

sadly, i can't see the fat twat following ellis and doing the honourable thing by walking. he loves the limelight too much. belgravia are going to have to offer way over the odds for him even to consider it imo

 

Like I said, if you really want such an organisation to take over the football, it proves your stupidity beyond doubt.

 

oh do shut up. you're becoming rather tiresome

 

 

As is your stupidity

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm inclined to agree with LM for once. If things had turned out differently in 96, and since then we had had their success and they had ours, who would have the bigger following and income? Us, imo. That's why it's so important for us to win something - success breeds success as they say, but for Schmiechel things could have been very different.

 

However, where I disagree with LM is where we went after 96 and whose fault that ultimately is. With the right man at the top, things could have been so different.

 

Thank you

 

I basically think the only difference between now and 1996 is we have not had a better manager than Keegan. You can say the chairman/board etc are the ones who choose the manager, and that is of course correct, but it wasn't Sir John who chose Keegan was it ..... good management or lucky as fuck ?????

 

The only thing I can add, is again - the fact that we are still a top club - on merit - with basically the same board and major shareholders. I am NOT defending anyone, just posting the truth.

 

I LIKED Sir John better than Shepherd - even though he still spouted the same sort of "geordie nation" bollocks, but because the team was doing better, nobody was bothered, which again is a point I have mentioned before. Just because the team hasn't done as well under the previous chairman as the current one, doesn't make the current one crap. And - do you believe anything that SJH said at the time about "a price for the pocket", "giving the club to the people",.....that was just as much bollocks as some things Shepherd has said...did you honestly believe that crap ?

 

As with most boards, they will only get away with so many disappointing managerial appointments, but that in itself will make them a victim of the initial success.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3905]

I'm inclined to agree with LM for once. If things had turned out differently in 96, and since then we had had their success and they had ours, who would have the bigger following and income? Us, imo. That's why it's so important for us to win something - success breeds success as they say, but for Schmiechel things could have been very different.

 

However, where I disagree with LM is where we went after 96 and whose fault that ultimately is. With the right man at the top, things could have been so different.

 

Thank you

 

I basically think the only difference between now and 1996 is we have not had a better manager than Keegan. You can say the chairman/board etc are the ones who choose the manager, and that is of course correct, but it wasn't Sir John who chose Keegan was it ..... good management or lucky as fuck ?????

 

The only thing I can add, is again - the fact that we are still a top club - on merit - with basically the same board and major shareholders. I am NOT defending anyone, just posting the truth.

 

I LIKED Sir John better than Shepherd - even though he still spouted the same sort of "geordie nation" bollocks, but because the team was doing better, nobody was bothered, which again is a point I have mentioned before. Just because the team hasn't done as well under the previous chairman as the current one, doesn't make the current one crap. And - do you believe anything that SJH said at the time about "a price for the pocket", "giving the club to the people",.....that was just as much bollocks as some things Shepherd has said...did you honestly believe that crap ?

As with most boards, they will only get away with so many disappointing managerial appointments, but that in itself will make them a victim of the initial success.

 

 

So who chose Keegan then?

 

Didn't call us all thick though did he?

 

Not at the moment we are'nt. Ask Sky and the BBC et al. We were but due to our last few mediocre campaigns they have us tranked the same as Bolton, Fulham, and the likes. And currently behind Aston Villa and EVerton.

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm inclined to agree with LM for once. If things had turned out differently in 96, and since then we had had their success and they had ours, who would have the bigger following and income? Us, imo. That's why it's so important for us to win something - success breeds success as they say, but for Schmiechel things could have been very different.

 

However, where I disagree with LM is where we went after 96 and whose fault that ultimately is. With the right man at the top, things could have been so different.

 

Thank you

 

I basically think the only difference between now and 1996 is we have not had a better manager than Keegan. You can say the chairman/board etc are the ones who choose the manager, and that is of course correct, but it wasn't Sir John who chose Keegan was it ..... good management or lucky as fuck ?????

 

The only thing I can add, is again - the fact that we are still a top club - on merit - with basically the same board and major shareholders. I am NOT defending anyone, just posting the truth.

 

I LIKED Sir John better than Shepherd - even though he still spouted the same sort of "geordie nation" bollocks, but because the team was doing better, nobody was bothered, which again is a point I have mentioned before. Just because the team hasn't done as well under the previous chairman as the current one, doesn't make the current one crap. And - do you believe anything that SJH said at the time about "a price for the pocket", "giving the club to the people",.....that was just as much bollocks as some things Shepherd has said...did you honestly believe that crap ?

As with most boards, they will only get away with so many disappointing managerial appointments, but that in itself will make them a victim of the initial success.

 

 

So who chose Keegan then?

 

Didn't call us all thick though did he?

 

Not at the moment we are'nt. Ask Sky and the BBC et al. We were but due to our last few mediocre campaigns they have us tranked the same as Bolton, Fulham, and the likes. And currently behind Aston Villa and EVerton.

 

Freddie Fletcher chose Keegan.

 

I thought everybody knew that.

 

Because he had been in a similar role at Rangers, and he chose the fuckpig Souness who revived interest before a ball was kicked, he indentified at Newcastle the same need to generate massive interest as quickly as possible. So he suggested Keegan, for that reason.

 

I suppose people who jumped onto the Keegan bandwagon may not have done ....

 

Keegan says on page 205 in his book "Neither George Forbes nor Peter Mallinger knew that on Monday 3 February 1992 I was being asked to take over as Newcastle Manager on the Wednesday. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglas Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles".

 

Remember also how SJH went back on his word to fund money to Keegan and help him save the club from relegation, whick Keegan describes in detail ? Good managment ?

 

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd . Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

Edited October 4, 2006 by LeazesMag

[peasepud 59]

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd. Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

 

Oh well I knew Douggie was a saint.

[LeazesMag 0]

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd. Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

 

Oh well I knew Douggie was a saint.

 

odd how a bit of factual info has killed off this thread .....

[Ted Maul 0]

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd. Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

 

Oh well I knew Douggie was a saint.

 

odd how a bit of factual info has killed off this thread .....

 

Here's a factual bit of info for ya....

 

The club is in a worse state now than it was when Fat Fred first became Chairman.

[Dr Gloom 21965]

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd. Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

 

Oh well I knew Douggie was a saint.

 

odd how a bit of factual info has killed off this thread .....

 

Here's a factual bit of info for ya....

 

The club is in a worse state now than it was when Fat Fred first became Chairman.

 

no shit

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3905]

I'm inclined to agree with LM for once. If things had turned out differently in 96, and since then we had had their success and they had ours, who would have the bigger following and income? Us, imo. That's why it's so important for us to win something - success breeds success as they say, but for Schmiechel things could have been very different.

 

However, where I disagree with LM is where we went after 96 and whose fault that ultimately is. With the right man at the top, things could have been so different.

 

Thank you

 

I basically think the only difference between now and 1996 is we have not had a better manager than Keegan. You can say the chairman/board etc are the ones who choose the manager, and that is of course correct, but it wasn't Sir John who chose Keegan was it ..... good management or lucky as fuck ?????

 

The only thing I can add, is again - the fact that we are still a top club - on merit - with basically the same board and major shareholders. I am NOT defending anyone, just posting the truth.

 

I LIKED Sir John better than Shepherd - even though he still spouted the same sort of "geordie nation" bollocks, but because the team was doing better, nobody was bothered, which again is a point I have mentioned before. Just because the team hasn't done as well under the previous chairman as the current one, doesn't make the current one crap. And - do you believe anything that SJH said at the time about "a price for the pocket", "giving the club to the people",.....that was just as much bollocks as some things Shepherd has said...did you honestly believe that crap ?

As with most boards, they will only get away with so many disappointing managerial appointments, but that in itself will make them a victim of the initial success.

 

 

So who chose Keegan then?

 

Didn't call us all thick though did he?

 

Not at the moment we are'nt. Ask Sky and the BBC et al. We were but due to our last few mediocre campaigns they have us tranked the same as Bolton, Fulham, and the likes. And currently behind Aston Villa and EVerton.

 

Freddie Fletcher chose Keegan.

 

I thought everybody knew that.

 

Because he had been in a similar role at Rangers, and he chose the fuckpig Souness who revived interest before a ball was kicked, he indentified at Newcastle the same need to generate massive interest as quickly as possible. So he suggested Keegan, for that reason.

 

I suppose people who jumped onto the Keegan bandwagon may not have done ....

 

Keegan says on page 205 in his book "Neither George Forbes nor Peter Mallinger knew that on Monday 3 February 1992 I was being asked to take over as Newcastle Manager on the Wednesday. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglas Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles".

 

Remember also how SJH went back on his word to fund money to Keegan and help him save the club from relegation, whick Keegan describes in detail ? Good managment ?

 

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd . Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

 

 

They are in the league but not how the clubs are perceived. We used to be percieved as a huge club. But not any more.

 

So you didn't kill it off at all FFS is still a fuck pig and you are his lickspittle.

[curry stained pilchard 0]

Lickspittle

[LeazesMag 0]

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd. Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

 

Oh well I knew Douggie was a saint.

 

odd how a bit of factual info has killed off this thread .....

 

Here's a factual bit of info for ya....

 

The club is in a worse state now than it was when Fat Fred first became Chairman.

 

but in a better state than every other chairman we have had for over 50 years other than Sir JOhn....which has been my point from day 1 ....

 

Plus...see my points about SJH being lucky ref Keegan.

 

When you say "better off" do you mean on the field - meaning that nobody has been as good as Keegan which I agree with, or do you mean as a business - which is the job of the board but are ignoring the fact that they have increased the capacity of the stadium and built a new state of the art training complex ?

 

Which are both improvements - huge improvements - in that side of running the club ?

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm inclined to agree with LM for once. If things had turned out differently in 96, and since then we had had their success and they had ours, who would have the bigger following and income? Us, imo. That's why it's so important for us to win something - success breeds success as they say, but for Schmiechel things could have been very different.

 

However, where I disagree with LM is where we went after 96 and whose fault that ultimately is. With the right man at the top, things could have been so different.

 

Thank you

 

I basically think the only difference between now and 1996 is we have not had a better manager than Keegan. You can say the chairman/board etc are the ones who choose the manager, and that is of course correct, but it wasn't Sir John who chose Keegan was it ..... good management or lucky as fuck ?????

 

The only thing I can add, is again - the fact that we are still a top club - on merit - with basically the same board and major shareholders. I am NOT defending anyone, just posting the truth.

 

I LIKED Sir John better than Shepherd - even though he still spouted the same sort of "geordie nation" bollocks, but because the team was doing better, nobody was bothered, which again is a point I have mentioned before. Just because the team hasn't done as well under the previous chairman as the current one, doesn't make the current one crap. And - do you believe anything that SJH said at the time about "a price for the pocket", "giving the club to the people",.....that was just as much bollocks as some things Shepherd has said...did you honestly believe that crap ?

As with most boards, they will only get away with so many disappointing managerial appointments, but that in itself will make them a victim of the initial success.

 

 

So who chose Keegan then?

 

Didn't call us all thick though did he?

 

Not at the moment we are'nt. Ask Sky and the BBC et al. We were but due to our last few mediocre campaigns they have us tranked the same as Bolton, Fulham, and the likes. And currently behind Aston Villa and EVerton.

 

Freddie Fletcher chose Keegan.

 

I thought everybody knew that.

 

Because he had been in a similar role at Rangers, and he chose the fuckpig Souness who revived interest before a ball was kicked, he indentified at Newcastle the same need to generate massive interest as quickly as possible. So he suggested Keegan, for that reason.

 

I suppose people who jumped onto the Keegan bandwagon may not have done ....

 

Keegan says on page 205 in his book "Neither George Forbes nor Peter Mallinger knew that on Monday 3 February 1992 I was being asked to take over as Newcastle Manager on the Wednesday. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglas Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles".

 

Remember also how SJH went back on his word to fund money to Keegan and help him save the club from relegation, whick Keegan describes in detail ? Good managment ?

 

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd . Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

 

 

They are in the league but not how the clubs are perceived. We used to be percieved as a huge club. But not any more.

 

So you didn't kill it off at all FFS is still a fuck pig and you are his lickspittle.

 

As we have qualified for europe - again - and are still in it - the facts tend to prove you wrong. But carry on ignoring them if you wish to live in your make believe world rather than look at the facts and have a mind of your own.

 

YOu say you are - what, 37 ? - did you support the club pre-1992 ? And if you did, do you really think playing regularly in europe is shit, as only 7 clubs qualify for europe.....

 

Basically, it seems to me that you didn't.

 

And what is your opinion on Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher choosing Keegan, rather than SJH making a "good business decision" ? Does it now mean that Fletcher, Hall Jnur and Shepherd made the "Good business decision". Bit that fucks up your arguement eh

 

Like I said, pre-1992 supporters probably knew that, but you didn't. Was it the shit board that persuaded you to come back ?

 

Edited October 6, 2006 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd. Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

 

Oh well I knew Douggie was a saint.

 

odd how a bit of factual info has killed off this thread .....

 

Here's a factual bit of info for ya....

 

The club is in a worse state now than it was when Fat Fred first became Chairman.

 

no shit

 

a bit late for you laddie...you can answer the post I've made to KCG if you can. This is your chance to prove that you are utterly clueless with zero knowledge of the club.

[manc-mag 1]

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd. Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

 

Oh well I knew Douggie was a saint.

 

odd how a bit of factual info has killed off this thread .....

 

Here's a factual bit of info for ya....

 

The club is in a worse state now than it was when Fat Fred first became Chairman.

 

but in a better state than every other chairman we have had for over 50 years other than Sir JOhn....which has been my point from day 1 ....

 

Plus...see my points about SJH being lucky ref Keegan.

 

When you say "better off" do you mean on the field - meaning that nobody has been as good as Keegan which I agree with, or do you mean as a business - which is the job of the board but are ignoring the fact that they have increased the capacity of the stadium and built a new state of the art training complex ?

 

Which are both improvements - huge improvements - in that side of running the club ?

 

yes yes yes.....but.....compared to his immediate predecessor....(ie the state he inherited the club in, which has nowt to do with how the club was 50 years ago) he's taken the club backwards.

 

Do you think he sits in his office checking the league tables from 1956 and grinning because we drew with Everton but in the same week in 1956 we got turned over away at Bradford Park Avenue?