U_V

Dave's one of the few people on there who's open to changing their opinion, and when he does he'll usually admit it and say he was wrong. Most either never change their opinion even when faced with the most overwhelming evidence of being wrong, or just change their argument and then deny ever having any other view. You can't blame Dave specifically for the bannings either, it's the whiny little complainers who rarely contribute any opinion of their own unless they're commenting on Nile Ranger's facebook page, but pop into threads started to discuss particular topics just to say how bored they are of other people discussing those topics, and the mods as a collective who take the easy option and ban a few scapegoats to appease them. I'd ban the people who complain myself, as they'd obviously be happier posting elsewhere.

I didn't have the time then, and I don't now either to fully respond to that post and I hate just picking certain points out of posts as it looks like you have no answer to the points you ignore. Having said that, that's precisely what I'm going to do now: When Ashley took over there was a refinancing package which was about to go through. What this entailed no-one ever revealed to my knowledge, but I can't see how anything like that would have been going ahead if the club was about to go bankrupt. It's a bit rich quayside saying the operating loss figure I quoted just for info was irrelevant (I also quoted the loss after trading & amortisation & interest payments and used that figure in my argument) and then going on to base his arguments on the reduction of the net worth of the company. The majority of the reduction in the net worth of the company in the last years of the old board was due to the reduced book value of the players due to amortisation. This is a consequence of spending a large amount in one season (Owen & Luque, etc) which boosts the assets of the company in that year, but will inevitably reduce year on year if subsequent years do not have the same outlay on players. The value of the playing staff on the accounts is quite often not a true reflection of the actual value of the squad if you were to try and sell them, so to use these numbers in a year on year comparison can be very misleading. It leads to people saying things like "we lost £30m in 05-06" when in fact we spent about £10m more than we brought in which I think gives a much clearer idea of how we actually did in that financial year. As I said at the time, not great, but certainly not spiralling out of control considering we were due to get a £18m boost in turnover the following year from TV revenue alone. In contrast, the man who was sorting out our finances managed to spend £30 to £40m* more than we brought in in his first year, even with that extra TV money, whilst weakening the squad, and people were praising him for it! You've actually got to give the man some credit for being able to pull that one off. * I've not actually seen the 07-08 accounts, but these figures are based on the reported debt levels in 07 and 08.

I hope you are not referring to my post. Nah, the lad you were replying to. A budding journalist isn't he? I've a finely honed sarcasm detector and knew you were taking the piss.

I'm waiting for the massive backlash to this blatant lie by Llambias over on N-O. They seem to be in shock at the moment though, as it's been completely ignored so far apart from one lad implying Bassong is lying and insisting it was Dennis who found him. Strange.

http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastl...61634-23077117/ Different journalist, but is a good example of what I meant about biding one's time to use information without burning your bridges. Do you think Bassong came out with these quotes about who was responsible for signing him without being prompted? Nah. Good journalism.

Why would anyone want a player who only gives you goals and assists when you can have someone who holds the ball up, creates space, goes past people, etc, etc? No brainer. People always use Milner's stats from last year when they say he wasn't effective for us (still better than Gutierrez so far though), and use the poorness of the rest of the team (which confusingly some still claim is picked from the best squad we've had in many years thanks to little Den) as an excuse for Gutierrez. Look at Milner's stats in 06-07 though - 4 goals, 11 assists (3 & 8 in the league) - this is with a forward line for the most part consisting of Martins (new to the league) & Sibierski, and with a team decimated by injuries for the whole of the first half of the season. Milner's scored more goals this season than Gutierrez has in his whole European career (since 2005). What Milner brings to the team pisses all over the contribution Gutierrez gives to our position in the league table. There's no doubt in my mind we'd have more points on the board now if we'd kept Milner & never heard of Gutierrez, and that at the end of the day is what matters.

loss or draw if we're lucky win or draw if we're unlucky draw if we play like yesterday, otherwise a loss comfortable defeat very comfortable defeat comfortable win close defeat draw at best draw at best depends on what they/we need max 13 points, min 4 points, best guess 8 points & saved/relegated by 1 point or goal difference

I'm not worried about the finances when we get relegated btw, Mike's already shown he can turn the club's finances around by: increasing the wages from £62.5m when he took over to £70m last year, and a projected £76m this year already selling off any players with a decent saleable value bar Martins (up or down, that will be fixed in the Summer) paying upto £28m more up front for players than required if we paid in instalments like most clubs do We'll be laughing all the way to the bank when we start to get in the instalments from the £8-9m for Milner and £6m for Given. Only a fool would rather have more goals, assists and saves this season than money in the bank in the future. Some of you are SO short sighted, not only do we still have THE SYSTEM (now with a manager first team coach who fits it like a glove), we've also now got THE GRID. How can we fail! Success is only a short 5 years (rolling) away.

Exactly what I was going to say. The youth team looks very promising, and if we were to go down then I really think players like Ranger and Lua-Lua would be able to help us do exceptionally well. One of the only positives I see from maybe being relegated is that the youth players may get more of a chance. and as soon as they start to show any promise they'll be off to a premiership club. Forget this Roy of the Rovers dream of getting a young, loyal, hungry team playing sexy football under Kinnear which will storm the championship and then take on the premiership to get us back to the top. The reality is they (and their agent) will see any chance to cut corners and get straight into a premiership team and start earning the big money, and will be off . We've already shown we have no desire or ability to keep our best youngsters, and that's while we're in the premiership. If Ranger's any good next season, he'll be off to one of the premiership big boys like Wigan, Fulham or Bolton by the end of January.

Or maybe not. I can understand how the NUSC committee might not have realised how the email would be taken, even if I personally think it was naive, but if you don't now see the negative way in which that email has been perceived even from supporters of NUSC and see that it has done more harm than good, then there's not much hope I'm afraid.

Devil's advocate - He was also indirectly accused of being a puppet of the club. Whether true or not, tell me you wouldn't be upset and respond in kind to an accusation that you lacked any professional integrity sent to over a thousand people and copied on every NUFC forum. The fact that he responded in a similarly petulant way to the email gives me hope that he's more upset by a false accusation than annoyed he's been found out. Of course we have to be realistic in how far the local press are going to push the club in their criticism, but saying they are the club's lapdogs based on this blogpiece is OTT. If he'd come out with a hatchet job on this meeting, he certainly wouldn't have been invited along to future ones, however he now has quotes from the horses mouth which he can hold Llambias to or use in the future if the club subsequently go against or contradict anything said at these meetings. Whether he chooses to do this is another matter of course. NUSC are coming at it from a different angle, and as the voice of the customer can afford to be a bit more up front in their criticism, but they still have to learn how to play the game.

That explains the cocky attitude and the petulant way the email was written then. Also the fact it took a week to write up.

Agreed. I've just read Lee Ryder's blog on the subject, and the way the Journal and Chronicle have separated their actual reporting of the meeting from the comment or editorial piece that is in the blog is something they should take note of. From the email it's hard to argue with what he has to say about the attitude of NUSC at the meeting, even though the comments from Teasdale in the Journal report came across well. Whilst the press shouldn't be above criticism from NUSC, deliberately antagonising them and getting their backs up by implying they are in the club's back pocket when they have previously shown support for NUSC is doing noone any favours. Mind you malicious lies & libelous (sic) material Even so called professionals can't help themselves sometimes. You say that, but the email was a big own goal, I certainly hope it doesn't go up on the website in it's current form.

I am a fairly new card carrying member, and for the most part I agree with the motivation and direction of the NUSC to date, and I certainly appreciate the effort that many of you have put in to get something tangible like this up and running when most of us are content to sit and whinge down the pub or on internet message boards. However I have to agree with a lot of what Christmas Tree has said in this thread and the supporter's panel thread. Whatever the feelings and views of the NUSC committee are, if they want to come over as a credible voice for the supporters of NUFC, they HAVE to learn to be more diplomatic than they currently are being, certainly in the official output they produce if not in private. How the latest email regarding the supporter's meeting has been received is an excellent example of why that is so. It has obviously been posted on most NUFC forums, and there is much in there to discuss regarding the club, however nearly all of the discussion which has occurred is not about how the club is being run, but about how NUSC is being run. By issuing a comment and opinion filled account of the meeting, NUSC has made itself the topic of discussion rather than the club. People do not appreciate being so blatantly told what to think. Most would have reached the same conclusions as the author of the email without any commentary, the only purpose it serves is to give a legitimate argument to those who say that NUSC are being antagonistic towards the club and cannot expect to be shown any respect or achieve any compromises with such an adversarial approach. To gain the support of the more moderate supporter NUSC have to take (and be seen to take) the moral high ground. I know that if the tone is turned down there will be those who are not happy and will argue that NUSC is going soft and letting the club off easy. These people will also probably be the loudest and most vocal, but I am willing to bet they are not the most numerous. I'm pretty disappointed that I'm having to post this here tbh. There seems to be no way for members to put forward their views other than to turn up to the open meetings. The contacts page on the website doesn't even have an email address for comments, let alone a forum where issues could be discussed. As far as I am aware there has been no canvassing of opinion from it's membership or from supporters in general other than trying to gauge the general feeling from the questions and opinions raised at these open meetings. Have there been any votes on any subjects? If so I'm not aware of them. IMO the interaction NUSC has with it's members is just as important for the future of NUSC - if not more so - than any action or interaction it has against/with the club's owner or management. If the initial support NUSC has gained - which is mostly down to the current dire straits at the club - is not quickly harnessed, that will soon fade to apathy, and the opportunity will be lost. You may complain that the SC is in it's infancy, that these things cannot be set up overnight, that the committee are just amateurs giving up their time freely, etc, but while these are legitimate arguments, they are easy sticks to beat NUSC with for it's detractors, and can't be denied. Until these things are sorted out many supporters who would be happy to join a supporters club will be put off doing so.

Well a number of Spurs fans aren't happy with the setup: http://www.gg-chat.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=70196 Personally, I'm not convinced by the Chairman - DoF - Coach setup and would rather have the more traditional Chairman - Manager - Chief Scout heirarchy (while still recognising the importance of the latter). If Spurs want to get rid of Jol (they should) then which top class managers are going to want the job knowing they wont have control over which players the club buys and sells (even more so than just the chairman having a say)? Even if they get someone, with that system there are now 3 big egos to potentialy clash and fall out rather than the normal 2.

Spawny bastards just got a bye in the next round of the UEFA. http://www.uefa.com/competitions/uefacup/n...sid=500488.html

Don't move! There's a wasp on your ear, I'll just get it for you.

The vast majority of managerial hirings and firings are done mid-season, we're no different from most other clubs in that respect (Wenger and Ferguson were both hired mid-season). I'm convinced that the timing of Robson's sacking would have been criticised whenever it was. If he'd been sacked in the Summer (my choice) people would have said how can you sack a manager who has just finished 4th, 3rd and 5th in the table in successive seasons? If he'd remained in place and we'd carried on the way we had been playing, then all through the season people would have been calling for him to be sacked and criticising the board for not doing it earlier. If he'd remained in place and we'd improved, finishing in a European place (noone seriously thinks we'd have finished in CL place do they?) you'd have people complaining that we showed no ambition to push on and try to win the league, plus you'd have all the crying about "being in the papers for the wrong reasons" building up and up as Robson inevitably let things get further out of control in the cancer infested dressing room . This is complete speculation on my part, but I believe that FS knew it was time for Robson to go, but thought he had another season left in him to at least get us into Europe and by not renewing his rolling contract we could let him go gracefully into retirement and wouldn't have to pay out any compo. During this year with people knowing it was Robson's last season he could openly sound out possible replacements to come in for the following season. However the fact that Robson spat his dummy out at not being allowed to carry on forever, and the dismal start to the season forced his hand into sacking him earlier than planned.

Does Souness even go to training? (Honest question, I don't know whether he does or not) I thought the whole reason Bellamy skived training that time was because he wanted to go and see Souness.

The best defence in the world won't keep a clean sheet if the opposition constantly have the ball in your half, which has happened a lot to us this season. ALL players make mistakes, and the more pressure you put on them, the more mistakes they will make in a game. To be honest, with the lack of attacking play or even posession by the midfield this season I'm surprised at how well the defence has done, especially considering the injuries they've had in an area of the game where its much more important to have a consistent line up week in, week out. Some stats: Goals againt: 23, 7th best in the league Goals for: 20, 5th worst in the league It's clear to me where we need to improve. However, far more important than bringing in more playing staff to cover for injuries is to actully start playing with some tactics which make the most of the players we have for a change.