NJS

I know I shouldn't but I just laughed long and hard at that. I'm glad to say I don't know anything about any of the fuckers who were at school with me.

I might not have anything nice to say but I don't hate the bloke either - I enjoyed arguing with him and thought he was/is okay most of the time.

Thorn, Hendrie, Beasant and Robertson. I remember speaking to an older lad the next day and he was telling me the toon fans on the bus going to Merseyside were singing we're gonna win the league. Cottee scored after 34 seconds, and that was that. Of them only Hendrie was any good, and they sold him 6 fuckin month later to Leeds and got Frankie Pingel in as his replacement. Thorn wasn't too bad once he got over a bit of rabbit in the headlights phase - he could have gone on to be decent if we hadn't gone down imo.

Possibly - I was trying to go as low as possible to make the point that there was shit amongst the good. The thing about Liverpool is that when the Moores were in charge and like Man U before the Yank, their ticket prices were extremely low compared with the rest of the league. I remember Hall saying he was looking at other clubs to see how they were ran but unfortunately he took the ST pricing model from the London clubs and not the more appropriate NW teams (in terms of fanbase type etc). I think this may explain a lower turnover - I could be wrong. I think if we'd won the league in 96 we would have become a bigger club than at any time in our history but I think in terms of worldwide size the ship has already sailed - Man Utd and Liverpool "own" vast tracts of the rest of the world and I can't see that changing if the latter didn't win the league for another 10 years - their history since the 60s is too much to overcome. Now on a day to day basis I agree with Leazes that Liverpool fans aren't as great as they think and taking away the Irish and Skandos from their crowds would hit them bad but I think to try and deny that they are still a much bigger club than us - especially in terms of pulling power - is very naive.

Agreed. Mort was nowhere near as punchable as that pointy prick. I know things evidently weren't right behind the scenes when Mort was chairman but it's no coincidence IMO that the wheels fell off massively right about the time he was replaced by Llambias. I got the impression Mort did things like transfers and wages in a "standard" football way which Ashley has now decided was wrong and that he and the club were taken for a ride so he brings in someone who he trusts - though obviously not knowing anything about football - to run the business his way.

the East Stand opened in 1973 mate. It was years too late though, same as the Milburn, owned by small time people, with no vision, no ambition, nothing. They resigned in the end [some of them] because Barclays bank asked them for 16 grand each [something like that] to save the club from going bust or to pay some debtors [ I was young, somebody can find it], after years of milking the club they fucked off. It was THAT bad, that is what the Halls and Shepherd saved us from, eventually. Lord Westwood actually said on Tv that if Brian Clough walked through the door of NUFC as manager he would walk out. Can you imagine such an absolute buffoon saying that on TV, so pathetic were they ? I'm tired of this too. Some people just won't be told anything. What will it take for them to see ? 16k compared with the 100m some people took out of the club when they walked away.

I agree about the good and bad but you can't really draw a line in the sand as it doesn't take into account the outstanding debt and the legacy of a wage bill which wasn't producing on the field success. If Ashley had really written off the debt instead of claiming at various stages that it was a. gone b. unimportant or c. the sole reason for all the troubles then you could judge him completely on his performance since. My view is still the same - I think he's fucked most things he's done up but there is a begrudged underlying view that an interest free loan underpinning the club and a willingness to meet further running costs is a lot better than some of the other possible scenarios. LM goes between stating he doesn't care what the finances were under the previous regime to picking magic words out to try and argue the finances were better. I think our finances have been pretty much screwed for the entirety of my lifetime no matter's who's been in charge. A few good years of football shouldn't really blind anyone to that fact. my view is the same as it has always been. This is one of the biggest clubs in the country and ought to act like it, not like the Stokes and the Wigans etc. When we did, we had the best 15 years all of us on here has experienced so far in our lifetime. But as the above poster points out, far too many people have been brainwashed by the propaganda machine into thinking that we did it all wrong and could and should have done it without the expenditure involved, despite the absolute proof of history which shows if you want to be successful you have to spend the money. I don't know how many times it has been stated that the vast majority of clubs are in debt, yet these morons continue to peddle the line that for some reason we were the only ones facing certain administration and, despite enjoying every single minute of playing in the champions league and buying the players that we did, pouring scorn on the people who owned the club and completely transformed the club, and attempting to say they should have instead aimed for mid table survival at best and been grateful for that. Some of them have actually stopped going to games since the club under the new owner chose to take this path, the one they now advocate, the hypocrisy is staggering. At the end of the day, you go to watch your football team, you want to see it win, and you enjoyed it when it was winning, a damn sight more than now when it isn't. So don't bother spouting the bollocks you spout in your last comment ie "A few good years of football shouldn't blind anyone to that fact". This is precisely the rubbish the previous poster has highlighted. What has happened since Ashley took over is entirely his responsibility and nobody elses. The team is in danger of going down again and perhaps this will be the best season we will ever see under Ashley when he has now made it clear we will sell our best players, the club has gone backwards, the revenues are down, the ambitions and aims have been set at a lower level. This is nothing to do with the previous owners. It is Mike Ashley who has set up the club in this way, it is in decline and it will continue this decline until someone raises the bar again to where this club ought to set it and goes about doing it in the way the other clubs do it. Like Spurs are now doing, and Liverpool are attempting to do again. It's an absolute joke that some people appear to think we are getting it right and these clubs are getting it wrong. Try telling a Spurs supporter he shouldn't be enjoying the current run in europe, what a prize prick you would look if you did. No wonder people laugh at Geordies. Nobody else in my opinion would spout such utter nonsense, but we all get tarred with the same brush. Even Toonpack said once "enjoy today and don't worry about what may or may not happen". Typically, the mug had no idea how that could be taken. I thought we'd got you off mentioning Spurs and Liverpool? The latter have a billionaire owner and are a much bigger club than us despite your arguments on crowds - there's no getting away with it. Spurs have been lucky on transfers - you still don't get that. You mock Villa now because they have "failed" and because they were mentioned as a blueprint but fail to mention they did exactly what you advocate - they heavily backed their manager with 100m, and it failed miserably. You don't mention the Mackems who have spent millions and shown "ambition" for almost no reward and a probable firesale in the summer because the owner is sick of it. Would you rather Ashley say "We're aiming for the top 4" - that would bring a lot more ridicule than you mention as it would take 100s of millions at least - a thing you acknowledge. You should also stop using the magic word of "revenues" - as I said HF proved that's shit. "15 years of the best" is also utter, utter shit - we were good for 6 seasons at the most. As I've said before I did enjoy watching the team when we were "good" but I also enjoyed it when we were halfway decent when nobody expected us to be like in the Gazza years - I always resigned myself to the fact we weren't destined to be a "winner" and I think its you that's deluded to the level that people take the piss. This talk of being as big as you say we are is a load of shit. We have never been one of the top clubs in England (apart from maybe the Edwardian days) for anything like any decent period and to claim otherwise based on crowdsize is exactly the kind of stereotypical shite you criticise. I do think we're bigger than Stoke and Wigan but for the forseeable future there are 5 or 6 teams we won't better and no amount of unrealistic hot air will change that. Unless of course you can tell us all how to achieve that.

I agree about the good and bad but you can't really draw a line in the sand as it doesn't take into account the outstanding debt and the legacy of a wage bill which wasn't producing on the field success. If Ashley had really written off the debt instead of claiming at various stages that it was a. gone b. unimportant or c. the sole reason for all the troubles then you could judge him completely on his performance since. My view is still the same - I think he's fucked most things he's done up but there is a begrudged underlying view that an interest free loan underpinning the club and a willingness to meet further running costs is a lot better than some of the other possible scenarios. LM goes between stating he doesn't care what the finances were under the previous regime to picking magic words out to try and argue the finances were better. I think our finances have been pretty much screwed for the entirety of my lifetime no matter's who's been in charge. A few good years of football shouldn't really blind anyone to that fact.

Didn't he say he thought the Cockney Mafia Flag showed a lot of effort had been put in which was what had made the twat smile?

We do actually have a dyke receptionist who does that.

Poor. The POINT is that Mike Ashley has presided over a club which has cut costs, sold players, players contracts, staff cuts....show me where either myself or UV in this instance has mentioned an INCREASE in revenues, the point is that they have FALLEN. Therefore, all he had to do was retain the old revenues and the "debts" would be decreased, but they have actually increased. How can this be ? As said, how come anybody with half a brain can't do any better than his hopeless predecessor he's replaced, especially when he is paid a lot of money to do it ? Perhaps Mike and Dekka should ring their predecessor for some tips and ask him how he did it HF proved to you the revenues fell under Shepherd and rebounded just as they have under Ashley - you ignored it - see my comment about facts being ignored. The debts mainly have increased because of the absolute cunt's trick of having a clause that insisted on paying off the mortgage on ownership transfer - do you have an opinion on how anyone who gives the slightest fuck about NUFC could put such a clause in knowing full well it would fuck any new owner? How would Shepherd have refinanced loans in the crunch?

Okay you're Shepherd at the end of 2008 speaking to the bank manager BM: Your cash flow is shot - what's you plan? FS/LM: Increase revenues BM: How? FS/LM: I'd take future sponsorship and spend it up front BM: You've done that already, you cant do it again. FS:/LM I'd increase the cost of season tickets BM: You've already squeezed them enough, they won't pay much more FS/LM: I'd finance some new new players to increase revenues. BM: We can't lend you any money - how the fuck are you going to pay for them? FS/LM: I'd increase revenues etc. etc.

I wonder where U V thinks the money could come from, maybe he'll answer the question. I'm too busy with the conundrum of where the money we used to generate with a terrible chairman has gone such that now we're run by such a great businessman we managed to double the club debt in 3 years even though TV revenues shot up when he bought the club and we've made £50m+ profit on selling players. It's completely bizarre and unexplainable how revenues have dropped when everyone can see how well Mike is doing by putting the best possible people in charge, selling players and cutting costs. I wonder if Toonpack, or his chums on skunkers, can shed any light on this mystery ? What's the point when as soon as someone with half a brain actual produces an analysis of the figures they are dismissed with insults and any half-baked opinions like this with no back up are quoted by you here and on Skunkers. Doesn't matter what the subject, actual facts are ridiculed under the guise of "but we were in Europe" as if that's some kind of ultimate joker which trumps anything. For starters this lad can either break down his "50m profit" (which I guess includes Carroll which has no bearing on current financial figures) or we could try some actual facts or questions you can't answer like how would Shepherd have refinanced loans since the credit crunch.

One my mate suggested for himself was "None the fucking wiser". I always fancied my sort of life mission statement but people might think it referred to the manner of my death - "It seemed like a good idea at the time".

That simply isn’t true. £135m was a stupid price to pay for a club that was apparently about to cease to exist, and we all know why he paid way over the odds. It’s ironic a man renowned for bargain buys should get so well and truly ripped off. Ashley gambled and lost. The bottom line is in close to four years the club’s revenues have dropped, attendances have dropped and its status has dropped. The only key business indicator that has gone up is the amount of money it owes, which has near enough doubled and now stands in excess of £150m. It’s a shocking state of affairs and there is only one person to blame. The local media need to grow some balls and scrutinise the data, not just regurgitate the club’s absurd spin. I don't get this - are you saying Ashley thought he was getting a bargain and thought he was shafting the "daft Geordies" only to find the joke was on him when the debts were revealed? Nobody comes out of the mess well apart from maybe Shepherd himself who at least tried to stop the sale. The cunts who sold their shares among shite about "handing over the reigns to the right man" while sniggering behind his back about the mortgage terms and future liabilities (while their mate was seriously ill BTW) on one hand and the stupid cunt who didn't do due diligence on the other. That key indicator you mention has gone from 110m to 150m and relegation is a factor in that as is falling performances all round but the idea that the extra 40m wouldn't have had to be found anyway to finance Shepherd's debt driven cash flow model is naive - especially as I doubt he would have attacked the wage bill. Personally, I think that Mike Ashley wanted to look for an outlet, for want of a better word, to sit alongside his Sports Direct. A big football club, with huge support [we won't go into that I've said my bit] fitted the bill perfectly. He was naive, or stupid, or both, for not doing his diligence etc. There isn't much doubt that he was shocked at the costs involved in football - naive and stupid - which wasn't what he expected at all. He has set about running it as a business as he thinks it should be run. He is well known for being a maverick sort of figure, so may even be aware now that his approach is not what went before, but isn't really bothered so long as he makes some money out of it, although there is a case for him not making money and sacrificing that if he made it up as a vehicle sitting alongside Sports Direct. I'm guessing, none of us know, but I'm absolutely certain that he - now - has no intention at all of doing what is required to make it a success on the pitch and try to get the money from the Champions League because although it is a gamble, its the sort of gamble that just does not appeal to him. His naivety about football, which was obvious from the very start, is unfortunate and it is us who are the ones who have to put up with the frustration of it as supporters of the club. Maybe I haven't worded this perfectly, I'm sure others will have their say and expand in different ways. Now that I agree with - the saddest element for me is the schizo way that one minute he talks about it being "properly run" and 5 year plans and the next (though not so much recently) talking about enjoying the thrills of the actual game as if he'd bought it as a "plaything". Even though it was just another piece of bullshit I think his "20m in per year above and beyond running costs" would be a way forward if he stuck to it (plus allowing sales profits as well) but I don't suppose that's a starter either.

That simply isn’t true. £135m was a stupid price to pay for a club that was apparently about to cease to exist, and we all know why he paid way over the odds. It’s ironic a man renowned for bargain buys should get so well and truly ripped off. Ashley gambled and lost. The bottom line is in close to four years the club’s revenues have dropped, attendances have dropped and its status has dropped. The only key business indicator that has gone up is the amount of money it owes, which has near enough doubled and now stands in excess of £150m. It’s a shocking state of affairs and there is only one person to blame. The local media need to grow some balls and scrutinise the data, not just regurgitate the club’s absurd spin. I don't get this - are you saying Ashley thought he was getting a bargain and thought he was shafting the "daft Geordies" only to find the joke was on him when the debts were revealed? Nobody comes out of the mess well apart from maybe Shepherd himself who at least tried to stop the sale. The cunts who sold their shares among shite about "handing over the reigns to the right man" while sniggering behind his back about the mortgage terms and future liabilities (while their mate was seriously ill BTW) on one hand and the stupid cunt who didn't do due diligence on the other. That key indicator you mention has gone from 110m to 150m and relegation is a factor in that as is falling performances all round but the idea that the extra 40m wouldn't have had to be found anyway to finance Shepherd's debt driven cash flow model is naive - especially as I doubt he would have attacked the wage bill.

What do you think about the argument that this might be a starting point on the way to PR? (and probably the last chance as such for quite a while)

That's the crux that Leazes just won't acknowledge - Shepherd's way of doing things, even if he could pull it off now which is doubtful financially, simply wouldn't work in 2011. Realistically you can have all the ambition in the world but it means nowt now. you won't find a post anywhere by me that says we should be competing with Chelsea and Man City on transfer fees etc. Only skidders and Toonpack makes up that sort of shite. On the contrary, I've made the point a few times, that along with ManU we have to accept they are a special case. Liverpool and Spurs aren't though.....but we have just made Liverpool stronger and us weaker. Great business there from Mike and Dekka. I think we have to see how the new Liverpool owner backs Dalglish in the summer before you can say that - I'd also say that we will never be able to compete with them in terms of pulling power when it comes to players. As I also said above, I think Spurs actually have followed an Ashley type plan by reinvesting sale money - even if it wasn't designed as such. Of course I don't trust Ashley to do that but I do think it would work in a limited fashion.

That's the crux that Leazes just won't acknowledge - Shepherd's way of doing things, even if he could pull it off now which is doubtful financially, simply wouldn't work in 2011. Realistically you can have all the ambition in the world but it means nowt now.

Not so much an age thing but anyone calling me "Sir" still completely freaks me out. My classic age thing is when you get up from a chair or other seat and let out that sort of groan/sigh/Ohh type sound as if its all just too much effort.

I don't think we will spend the Carroll money either - it's just an idea that it MIGHT be a way forward if he flat out refuses to put money directly up for transfers. I have questioned Spurs spending because it seemed to me to be excessive/reckless but as you without knowing the details, I have read articles which suggest the Berbatov, Carrick, Defoe and Keane deals did leave them with a very sizeable excess which would make any remaining spending seem "average". The problem with pining for the good times as both you and I do (despite some of my comments about no trophies) is that unfortunately we are paying for them now and as it stands we need to try and move forward. It does hurt me to say it given my feelings for what Ashley has done, but in the present climate and situation there could be worse owners. If that means you think I'm on his side you're wrong - it's just an acceptance of the situation in the face of no alternative.

the debts have increased ? due to his "prudency" and superior financial "expertise" ? The expectations are lower, the revenues are down, the club has dived down the football rich list. He sells his best striker to a club we have finished above and doesn't give the money to his manager ? How is that progress ? How can you recovered lost ground ? How do you get back to where we were ? How do you restore revenues if this happens ? They are now happy, to be 10th. They will be ecstatic if they finish 10th. Are you ? Is anybody on here telling these Spurs fans how we are doing it better than they are ? Laughable. The debts may have increased but were massive - though I agree the relegation which was down to his stupidity have added further debts. You have to accept that the only we will make limited progress is by Carroll type deals - I'm not happy and have said he should speculate but Man City type stuff is out of the question. Spurs recent spending was fuelled by making massive profits on players - funny that.

The expectations have to be lowered because of the burden of debt left by the previous owners - you might not agree LM but they're just as much to blame for our current predicament as Ashley. Unless you have a realistic suggestion as to how anyone can change that situation of course.

I'd say there isn't much difference between that "wonder team" of 2006 you keep mentioning as if it was a continuation of earlier success which it wasn't and the team now.

a nice tidy balance sheet to cover the blow of relegation ? Toonpack and people like him will be cheering from the Sports Direct rooftops What's your alternative? City have spent 300m+ and aren't even top 4 - would you want Ashley to put 300m in? That would mean he'd have to sell for about 600m to make any money - is that feasible? Unfortunately steady progress (if possible) is the only realistic way forward - though as I've said I think he should spend moderately.