McFaul

You're absolutely shite at debating, regardless what the subject is.

None of it explains entirely why an area with 70% of the worlds population has literally produced no one.

So. He was shite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baichung_Bhutia

In his book he said he used to kick a stone about for years, and never kicked a ball till he was 12 years of age.

The national sport of Thailand is thai boxing. In Japan, baseball is more popular than football and sumo is the national sport. Sure football is popular in China but so are many other sports like martial arts, table tennis, basketball etc. So I think it's a cultural thing, football is not as dominant in Asia as it is in Europe or South America. India is an enigma when it comes to sports, 1,2 billion inhabitants, at the last summer olympics they won three medals... The fact is whether you dress stats up or not there are more people playing and watching football in Asia than there are in Europe. That's an indisputable fact. How is it a fact? Do you reckon China or India have anywhere near the footballing facilities or setup that European countries have? Whatever your ability at football in this country there are tons of places to play: 5 aside, 7 aside, loads of Sunday Leagues, Northern Alliance, Northern League etc. In India you get a cricket bat and a dusty strip of land to play on if you are lucky. Stanley Matthews didn't have facilities. If you ever read John Edward Thompson Milburn's book the only facility he ever ever had was a stone, that's how he learned to play football. In the last thirty years this area of 1m produced at least four players who would be the greatest ever in an area of 4,700m. That is a fact, and mentioning solely facilities, and the fact in some countries football isn't number one, is basically saying you haven't got an answer as to why this is. They aren't facts, they are your opinions man. It's not hard to fathom out Stevie. Every kid in this country practically grows up playing football, it's on telly almost every night. In Asia they don't. India and China account for 2.5billion people and football is way way down on the list of their top sports. Cricket, Basketball and Baseball are billion dollar industries over there. It's like saying, why don't we produce shit loads of good baseball players? Its on ESPN every night. Plenty of people watch it. Football is the number one sport in China you flid. Some Premier League games are watched by 400m people, that's twenty times more than than what watched the 1990 WC Semi Final between England and West Germany. Why the fuck do you think the likes of Man Utd go to Asia every year, and Real Madrid. Arsenal and Chelsea went in the summer 90,000 crowds at both, and they could've filled them 10 times over. There are more football fans in Asia than there are in Western Europe that is an indisputable fact of life. It's not like saying why do we produce shit baseball players at all you idiot. No one likes baseball here and our population is 52m not 4.7 billion.

The national sport of Thailand is thai boxing. In Japan, baseball is more popular than football and sumo is the national sport. Sure football is popular in China but so are many other sports like martial arts, table tennis, basketball etc. So I think it's a cultural thing, football is not as dominant in Asia as it is in Europe or South America. India is an enigma when it comes to sports, 1,2 billion inhabitants, at the last summer olympics they won three medals... The fact is whether you dress stats up or not there are more people playing and watching football in Asia than there are in Europe. That's an indisputable fact. How is it a fact? Do you reckon China or India have anywhere near the footballing facilities or setup that European countries have? Whatever your ability at football in this country there are tons of places to play: 5 aside, 7 aside, loads of Sunday Leagues, Northern Alliance, Northern League etc. In India you get a cricket bat and a dusty strip of land to play on if you are lucky. Stanley Matthews didn't have facilities. If you ever read John Edward Thompson Milburn's book the only facility he ever ever had was a stone, that's how he learned to play football. In the last thirty years this area of 1m produced at least four players who would be the greatest ever in an area of 4,700m. That is a fact, and mentioning solely facilities, and the fact in some countries football isn't number one, is basically saying you haven't got an answer as to why this is.

The national sport of Thailand is thai boxing. In Japan, baseball is more popular than football and sumo is the national sport. Sure football is popular in China but so are many other sports like martial arts, table tennis, basketball etc. So I think it's a cultural thing, football is not as dominant in Asia as it is in Europe or South America. India is an enigma when it comes to sports, 1,2 billion inhabitants, at the last summer olympics they won three medals... The fact is whether you dress stats up or not there are more people playing and watching football in Asia than there are in Europe. That's an indisputable fact.

Never stopped Paul Power.

They do though, 100% they do. When I was in Thailand (durin the wawwa) there was more kids playing football than you see over here. Nakamura was a good free kick taker and that was it, Nakata was a vastly overrated gimmick, and Park is tactically decent, very athletic but that's it. That's the sum total of Asian football excellence. You can go on about the Desert Rat or whatever he was called for Saudi Arabia with his 200 goals in 200 internationals, but as soon as they leave their countries they can't do it.

Shouting slogans that made me laugh

I'm not just on about in this country, but worldwide. There are 7 billion people alive, 4.2 billion live in Asia, probably with another 500m Asians living outside of Asia. So you're looking at maybe 70% of the worlds population are Asian. England has never produced a good Asian player ever really, Chopra is probably as good as it gets and his make up is half English anyway. If you look at Asia as well, football is generally the number sport in the vast majority of countries. China it is, places like Iran, Indonesia, Thailand it is, Korea and Japan worship the sport, even in India in terms of TV interest it is number 2 after cricket. So why is it, possibly the greatest Asian player in history is Park Ji Sung? He's not even that good neither, he just runs about and that's it. You can say it's because many Asians compared to Europeans are smaller, but look at Spain, they're hardly like Stoke. You can say the training isn't as good, possibly, but people like Gazza and Maradona didn't get their talent off coaches at 15 and 16. What do you think the reason is?

We should beat Sweden every time, but we don't, that's our biggest handicap tonight. 1-1 draw..again.

The bit that sticks out at the bottom of your knee above your shin is often in pain after running, I stick to the cross trainer in the gym, only time I run now is playing football. There's nee way I could dee the GNR or the LM with the way me knees are.

Sweden could play with 4 in wheelchairs, 5 amputees, DEADMAN and Paul Wyn up front, and we still wouldn't beat them. I think the word bogey team was specifically made for Sweden from an England point of view. 006 WORLD CUP Tu 20Jun 2006 Sweden 2 - 2 England 2003/2004 INTERNATIONAL We 31Mar 2004 Sweden 1 - 0 England 2001/2002 WORLD CUP Su 02Jun 2002 England 1 - 1 Sweden INTERNATIONAL Sa 10Nov 2001 England 1 - 1 Sweden 1998/1999 EURO CHAMPIONSHIPS Sa 05Jun 1999 England 0 - 0 Sweden EURO CHAMPIONSHIPS Sa 05Sep 1998 Sweden 2 - 1 England 1994/1995 INTERNATIONAL Th 08Jun 1995 England 3 - 3 Sweden 1991/1992 EURO CHAMPIONSHIPS We 17Jun 1992 Sweden 2 - 1 England 1989/1990 WORLD CUP We 06Sep 1989 Sweden 0 - 0 England WORLD CUP We 19Oct 1988 England 0 - 0 Sweden 1986/1987 INTERNATIONAL We 10Sep 1986 Sweden 1 - 0 England 1978/1979 INTERNATIONAL Su 10Jun 1979 Sweden 0 - 0 England 1967/1968 INTERNATIONAL We 22May 1968 England 3 - 1 Sweden

I apologise Leazes but I was on a plane (nowhere exotic sadly and work not play). Regarding your question, I believe I do understand, here goes: Taking money out whilst in charge is bad but making money on a profit from sale is fine, yes ?? Well that's how I see it. How do you see it ?? most supporters would be happy to see the club win on the pitch, at the time. Your chums on skunkers, and the massively expanded fanbase tapped by the previous regime, were quite happy to make their trips to the San Siro, Nou Camp etc. Of course, they only said so at the time, but may have been telling porkies I believe I asked you a few weeks ago, if you sell your house [or a business] would you sell it for the same price you paid for it ? Sammynb has also asked you a question which you have ignored [ I think] You also said you would "review Mike Ashley after the 1st September deadline", and now say he is "recouping" . So, what exactly did you think he was doing before 1st September ? All it needed was a yes or no On the house/business you try and make a profit, and as I said, that's absolutely fine, in my opinion. all I asked for was your opinion before September 1st. I don't disagree that when you sell a house you aim to make a profit, so why do you think a business is any different ? Before you reply, with your words of wisdom laced with irrational hatred, consider what price they would have got for a 3rd division club that had spent years in the doldrums, which is where they found it, and a recent history similar to that of Sheff Wed rather than an expanded stadium being one of the best in europe, years of regular european football, a tapped fanbase and one of the biggest turnovers in world football ? Somehow, I think all this will continue to pass you by... We didn't quite sink that low, but years of neglect by the Westwoods, the Seymours, and the McKeags would've seen us as a third tier club but for intervention.

Can you quantify that? How much money did he actually grab out of NUFC? BTW I find it remarkable at times that it's often written that it was McKeag's board that sold Waddle & Beardsley. McKeag was on the board when they left, yes but it was under Stan Seymour that they left. I don't think he was even vice chairman at the time. McKeag took over in June 1988 by which point Gazza had already told us to go forth and multiply with our contract offer and was on his way to WHL. And he was the last of the so-called 'crown jewels' to go. That summer we gave Wimbledon £1.5m for Beasant & Thorn, paid £700K for Robertson from Hearts and £500K to Bradford for Hendrie so our total outlay was £2.7m - more than we'd received for Gazza from Spurs so how McKeag can be considered 'money grabbing' in that instance or that Gascoigne was sold to fund the stand is beyond me. The following summer we again spent a good deal on the likes of Quinn, McGhee, Gallacher, Dillon, Fereday & Stimson. Yes some turned out to be utter shite (the latter three) but never-the-less it was funds that had been made available by McKeag's board. We got £850,000 in from the sales of McDonald and Goddard too.

A rare good point. Hendrie played in the middle sometimes, rather than wide, 5ft7, Robertson probably even smaller, and Mirandinha was an umpa lumpa too. Nar in fact, I agree with all your post even though you're a Yorkshire nobhead, apart from the "we've always been a selling club line", from 1993 to 2006 we were not a selling club by any means.

You can't say Beardsley wasn't sold to fund the stand, it's just an impossibility to say that. I know it needed doing me dad used to take me and me sister in the West Stand as it was in my first few years at the match, and it was basically all wooden, all over it. When we used to get a corner everyone used to stamp their feet and it sounded like a roaring train. Was a potential Bradford waiting to happen, would've been even worse in there than Bradford as it was a 15 foot drop to the Paddock, so I'm aware it needed doing, but Forest managed to fund their stand and retain their best players. There was a lot of missing money from NUFC imo, and it wasn't just McKeag there was a whole host of hangers on, and drab old ambitionless men in control which was as it had been since the 1950's when we were the best supported club in the country.

I knew you'd say that the second paragraph, it was the whole club ethic, obviously Clough was a figurehead, but you can't blame McFaul. The stand cost £4.5m if you remember rightly, the Beardsley money didn't pay it all off. But as I've said earlier, we re-invested the money for Gascoigne (and some) that very same summer. I stand to be corrected on this but I also believe there was a degree of funding provided for clubs that had to replace wooden structures in English football grounds too. Gascoigne's sale certainly didn't fund the Milburn stand. No you're right but it was coppers £100k or something. If it wasn't for them worrying about the stand costs, we could've kept Gazza, and invested in new players. It's all they used to go on about. Gazza saw Waddle leave in 85, Beardsley in 87, and so did the fans. We're not talking about ordinary players here. It's the equivalent and in no way am I overstating this, of Man Utd selling Ronaldo, Rooney and Vidic in three years with inadequate replacements. I appreciate your family might have links to W.G.McKeag as it used to say on match tickets, but he was a cunt and a draconian cancer within our club.

I knew you'd say that the second paragraph, it was the whole club ethic, obviously Clough was a figurehead, but you can't blame McFaul. The stand cost £4.5m if you remember rightly, the Beardsley money didn't pay it all off.

The offer was removed he never had a chance to sign. They were more interested in the fuckin stand. Like I say if the club had the same ambition as much smaller clubs than us like Nottingham Forest, Beardsley and Gascoigne wouldn't have went anywhere. No one ever left Forest in the 80's who was top notch other than Gary Birtles and that was cos Cloughie knew he was fleecing Man Utd. The likes of Stuart Pearce and Des Walker would've walked in any team in the world at the time but no Forest wanted to build the club around the likes of them and Nigel Clough, which is why they were always top 4.

Our fans 20-25 years ago were far more radical, animated, more passionate, and more opinonated than they are now and I'd go as far to say the depth of feeling against McKeag, was at least the anti Ashley levels now, perhaps even more. You used to see KILL MCKEAG written on pavements everywhere. He was a catastrophic chairman of Newcastle United, easily in the 10 worst people in our history, I'd put him number 2 actually.

You say that but he fought tooth and nail to keep the club, till he realised he was in an untenable position. Newcastle averaged 30,000 in 1984 in Division Two third highest in the country, our average attendances were amongst the best in the country, often better than Everton and Tottenham, yet they'd go out and spend £5m on players in one summer, and we'd fucking flog our best players to them. Seymour was chairman in 84, but even so McKeag was his right hand man and they couldn't even give Arthur Cox a new contract after 4 years of steady improvement, after promises were made, so he left as a matter of principle. When the FA Cup draw was ever on there wasn't various football figures on doing it, it was always McKeag and that fat cunt Bert Millichip, and I used to snarl at the telly. We were a disgrace of a club and he was the main one to blame. He was a clueless disgrace of a chairman, him and the likes of Stan Seymour are the reason we stagnated from the 50's to the 90's, and saw the likes of NOTTINGHAM FUCKING FOREST leave us in their trail with a fanbase not even a quarter the size. None of them had a clue how to run a football club. I'm not defending what he did, but I think it was out of ignorance rather than anything malicious. You're right, they were wrong to promise something to Cox and then renage on it. But to have carried on and offered what they'd have promised would have been doubly wrong. The summer you're referring to when we spend £5m on players and flogged our best players to Spurs and Everton is 1988 I presume and you're referring to Gascoigne & McDonald specifically? It's easy to say with hindsight that it was a fuck-up but at the time there was a hell of a lot of belief that summer IIRC. Gazza was going and there was nothing we were going to be able to do to stop that. Watching the Piers Morgan thing the other night should cement that fact in your mind - whatever he asked for, Spurs would give him but then Scholar had more money than sense and just kept emptying his pockets time and time again. Wasn't long before he was having to sell the club to Sugar and Venables (kind of)... But back to the summer of '88 and with us, we bought Beasant (at the time considered one of the best keepers in England who'd just captained Wimbledon to FA Cup victory), Robertson who was McFaul's long admired vision as a replacement for Pedro, Andy Thorn & John Hendrie. Neutrals were tipping us to push higher than the 8th we'd achieved the previous year and maybe even chance a cup. But it didn't work - Beasant was a disaster, Thorn average & Robertson only a shadow of the player he was in Scotland. The only bright spark was Hendrie who showed glimpses here and there but in a team in disarray, was often suppressed. McKeag may have backed those purchases, but I can't blame him for them - they were footballing decisions that McFaul got wrong. And that summer the club re-invested the money from the sales of Gascoigne, McDonald &Goddard (who was the biggest loss of all) and some.... Did they have a clue how to run a club? Nope, not really but I believe that his heart was in the right place and as a fan, he wanted the best for the club. A stubborn man would have looked at what SJH achieved and suggested that it was easy now that Sky money was at the table - McKeag never did though, he was simply delighted that his club were where they ought to be. We could've done everything to stop Gazza leaving, he and Beardsley both said they'd have stayed had an ounce of ambition been shown, all of Beasant, Thorn and Robertson were disasters, and Hendrie fucked off after 5 months to Leeds. The 8th place finish should've been enough to entice them to keep the best players and build on what we already had. Not lose our best three players and have a punt at replacing them with four from lesser clubs. At the end of the day, that season would've seen us average 31 or 32,000 had we had a reasonable season. It would as well, the average gate when we were bottom with three games to go was an astonishing 26,000 four wins all season, the last three games had 14,000 there each time cos we were as good as down which effected it, but that level of support shows you what it would've been had they had a tiny bit ambition in holding our best players and building on it, but it was the same old story. As for his attitude to what SJH did, what else could he say, "well we came 8th but finished below Wimbledon?". He couldn't say anything other. Harsh on Hendrie that like... he stayed until the following summer. Talk of Gazza staying was cloud-cuckoo land man. There's no way in god's green earth we could compete with what Spurs were willing to pay him. Ferguson has said that, while he was pissed off Gazza signed for Spurs whilst he was on holiday, there was no way he'd have paid the salary that Spurs were willing to pay. As for his attitude to SJH, he could have easily taken the view that Hall only succeeded because he took over at the right time (i.e. when Sky came on the scene)... but he never did. For all his dreadful decisions (and there were plenty as I've already conceded), he was a dignified bloke who was first and foremost an NUFC fan. I remember there was a story in the Chronicle that we were prepared to pay him £3000 a week to stay but McKeag vetoed it at the last minute. He was only on 2 and a half at Spurs, of course we could've kept him. John Barnes was the first £10000 a week man at the same time. You can be as dignified as you like, but to me dignity isn't keeping hold of something you have absolutely no idea how to make a success of.

I don't agree with that like. He was 10 years old, it was a younger sibling of one of his mates and he was, at the time, supposed to be 'keeping an eye on him'. Without a doubt that guilt will have have stuck with him for years and will have played some part in his mental state. My feeling is that the impact it had on his later life is overstated.

I think the difference there with McGrath was he was a 30 year old man who was set in his ways, whereas Gazza was a 20 year old boy. Lets not forget Paul Ince was a little cunt when he signed him so was Keane, often in trouble off the pitch. He's always liked em young when he can make a difference. You're not going to change seasoned internationals like Strachan, McGrath and Bryan Robson from the drinking culture they'd been in to all their adult lives. I'm no Gazza expert but it seems to me like his problems go a lot deeper than alcoholism and Fergie giving him a kick up the arse wouldn't have sorted him out. Fergie would've been perfect for Gazza. His problem was nothing to do with seeing his pal killed, he had a securish childhood at home, he had plenty siblings, my feeling is lack of discipline is and was his main problem in life. From 1986 to 1991, he never had any problems at all. Not one, because he was happy and he was playing absolutely brilliant football. Surely if his problems were that deep they would've surfaced then. Fergie would've had him from 1988, and without doubt in my mind would've moulded him as a man and a player. The guy clearly isn't right in the head now and hasn't been for quite a while. It's a lot easier to hide the problems when things are going well and you're the nation's sweetheart. He's had OCD, gambling problems and drinking problems for most of his life. I reckon Fergie would've gotten fed up with him after a while and shipped up out like he did with the others he couldn't control - McGrath, Whiteside, Sharpe etc. He's always had OCD, lots of people have it. I'd suggest he has a degree of tourettes actually rather than OCD. Nar without doubt OCD. He used to drive back home 100 miles to put a towel in the right place, then fuck off out again, I don't think there's any doubt he has had OCD.