Things are looking up!

[LeazesMag 0]

What aims do you think Newcastle United should have, as the 3rd biggest supported club in the country ?

 

Our 'aim' should always be europe as it's the only way to attract top players.

 

please tell us how it is possible to do this without paying the going rate ie top dollar, and how many clubs are doing it without being in debt

 

There's a massive difference in paying the rate and paying massively over the odd. Doing the latter you end up with one of the largest wage bills in the league and fighting relegation.

 

Freddy was a big fan of buy a teams best player and in doing so we ended up paying massively over the odd. Until we hit europe we should be looking for teams that need/want to sell or players that can't make the first team as they have better ahead of them. There are plenty of players out their that fit this bill.

 

apart from that actually being a good policy there is no justification for making such a comment, unless you can prove it and also give examples. I can give you lots that were without question players of the managers choice and also proved to be very good buys, most of whom were young and had their best years in front of them which kills stone dead another myth that has done the rounds about our transfer policy during those years.

[Andrew 4224]

Its all well and good criticising for going into debt because you want to push for success but the simple fact is that unless unless you have a sugar daddy then its the only way to do it.

 

People who are saying that we have swept the boards and can "rebuild" don't get it, when the time comes to go for success again, IF it comes, they are just going to have to go into debt again and just like last time no guarantee whatsoever that it will succeed. Relatively speaking, we actually did very well ie we had regular european football, 2 FA Cup Finals, lots of top quality players, but didn't even win the League Cup.

 

Personally, I blame the players for not performing in certain games, and the manager for picking wrong teams and tactics in certain games, but in no way whatsoever can I blame the board who fulfilled their part completeley by backing all their managers to the hilt and having teams good enough to have won something.

 

I think you're spot on tbh leazes

[Phil 6]

What aims do you think Newcastle United should have, as the 3rd biggest supported club in the country ?

 

Our 'aim' should always be europe as it's the only way to attract top players.

 

please tell us how it is possible to do this without paying the going rate ie top dollar, and how many clubs are doing it without being in debt

 

There's a massive difference in paying the rate and paying massively over the odd. Doing the latter you end up with one of the largest wage bills in the league and fighting relegation.

 

Freddy was a big fan of buy a teams best player and in doing so we ended up paying massively over the odd. Until we hit europe we should be looking for teams that need/want to sell or players that can't make the first team as they have better ahead of them. There are plenty of players out their that fit this bill.

 

apart from that actually being a good policy there is no justification for making such a comment, unless you can prove it and also give examples. I can give you lots that were without question players of the managers choice and also proved to be very good buys, most of whom were young and had their best years in front of them which kills stone dead another myth that has done the rounds about our transfer policy during those years.

 

The high wage bills and our league positions are well documented, so it aint a myth.

[Guest Insider]

Its all well and good criticising for going into debt because you want to push for success but the simple fact is that unless unless you have a sugar daddy then its the only way to do it.

 

People who are saying that we have swept the boards and can "rebuild" don't get it, when the time comes to go for success again, IF it comes, they are just going to have to go into debt again and just like last time no guarantee whatsoever that it will succeed. Relatively speaking, we actually did very well ie we had regular european football, 2 FA Cup Finals, lots of top quality players, but didn't even win the League Cup.

 

Personally, I blame the players for not performing in certain games, and the manager for picking wrong teams and tactics in certain games, but in no way whatsoever can I blame the board who fulfilled their part completeley by backing all their managers to the hilt and having teams good enough to have won something.

 

I think you're spot on tbh leazes

 

 

I don't. I remember that summer. We felt like we were closing in on something special. A couple of big players and we're challengers.

 

We signed Lee Bowyer.

 

From there... downhill.

[JawD 31]

What aims do you think Newcastle United should have, as the 3rd biggest supported club in the country ?

 

Our 'aim' should always be europe as it's the only way to attract top players.

 

please tell us how it is possible to do this without paying the going rate ie top dollar, and how many clubs are doing it without being in debt

 

There's a massive difference in paying the rate and paying massively over the odd. Doing the latter you end up with one of the largest wage bills in the league and fighting relegation.

 

Freddy was a big fan of buy a teams best player and in doing so we ended up paying massively over the odd. Until we hit europe we should be looking for teams that need/want to sell or players that can't make the first team as they have better ahead of them. There are plenty of players out their that fit this bill.

 

apart from that actually being a good policy there is no justification for making such a comment, unless you can prove it and also give examples. I can give you lots that were without question players of the managers choice and also proved to be very good buys, most of whom were young and had their best years in front of them which kills stone dead another myth that has done the rounds about our transfer policy during those years.

 

The high wage bills and our league positions are well documented, so it aint a myth.

 

For me, the master plan was working fine. The high wages were all fine. We were regularly in Europe, we were alot of people second team and we were getting so damn close. Then we played Partizan.

 

Downhill from there really.

 

No one was complaining of the high earners then. But we dropped like a pebble. For that, you have to look at the managers. So many decisions were wrong. Not just the managers either. Who picked the manager? Who kept their powder dry? I dont think its as simple as saying it was one persons fault. I think the whole decline has been a combination of board, managers and players. We needed someone to come and say "STOP, turn this shit around". But it never. Sam tried to be different but I think it was too late. Then Ashley happened and the ground just opened under us. He was meant to be the one to turn it around, instead he was the one to give us the final push. For the record, I dont think it was ALL his fault. I think someone had his ear and was advising him really really fucking badly. Now I think he's doing it his way, running it like one of his 2bob shops. Not 100% a bad thing at this moment. But not something you could continue with if you ever aspired to get the club back up.

[Dr Gloom 19837]

We've been going downhill since fat fred sacked sbr. Obviously shepherd looks like a god compared to Ashley, but the majority wanted him gone when he was in charge and were happy to see him go, me included. Just because Ashley is the devil doesn't make shepherd a good chairman. He got it wrong time and time again. Sacking sbr after finishing 5th, a handful of games into a season after the window shut then hiring souness then roeder and fat Sam .... You can't defend those actions leazesmag though I'm sure you'll try

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Just wondering CT but could you explain how the same chain of events that demonstrate KK was the wrong man, also back up your claim Ashley is the owner the club needed? Seems a bit contradictory to me like.

 

not on an iPhone inbetween fares!!!

 

But how do you think fred would have coped. We were already declining and fred would have just kept throwing good money after bad without any personal wealth to inject working capital.

 

If we'd managed to stay up the wage bill would be even higher. Truly fucked IMO

Are you just going to keep changing the subject now you've tucked yourself in? I haven't even mentioned Shepherd. All you seem to be saying though is Ashley is good because there's an alternative scenario whereby Shepherd and the Halls could have gotten us into a worse state. I don't know how they'd have coped but they wouldn't have made a profit last January had we been we in a similar position with the old board in charge. Also, the noises coming out the club when they appointed Allardyce seemed to suggest they'd realised we were going to have to hold off on the spending a bit in any case. Most people were reasonably pleased with Allardyce only because it seemed he was an appropriate choice to work with a smaller budget (in the short to medium term anyway).

 

 

Accurate.

 

These blind anti-Halls and Shepherd comments will never cease.....shame because sometimes people make good posts until they start this sort of thing.

 

You confuse some realism on their era with being anti.....

 

They have given be by best times supporting Newcastle however the rot / slide had already started well before Ashley arrived. All too often when a business goes bust, there is a recent history of the owner throwing money down the drain trying to re-capture the good times. This is what I think Freddy would have done ON TOP of the 130 million or so black hole that was there when Ashley arrived.

 

More depressingly is where football is at the moment. Its like an out of control train that no one can get off. I would love to be able to imagine a swift return to challenging for Europe but there are just so many obstacles and so much money needed these days.

 

Look at Sunderland. A good chairman, a wealthy owner, a manager who should have been a vast improvement for them and better players than they have had for years. Yet its still turned to shit.

 

Sad days in Football.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

I have to say that I love the argument of "we'd be financially worse off under Shepherd", since when did Shepherd have to find £25m just to keep us alive for another few months?

 

He didnt have to because he knew that out of everything that happens at the club, competing at the top level had to come first otherwise your balance sheets would be fooked.

 

Shepherd never had to beg corporate box owners to renew,

Shepherd never had to worry about getting the next sponsorship deal,

More importantly Shepherd never ever had to find something to make up for Sky's payments.

 

no, shepherd just kept on borrowing and spending and getting us further into debt.

 

The halls probably saw were all this was heading hence their sharpe exit.

 

I would also love to think there is a third type of owner

out their who had the full package and is just waiting to buy us.

 

Events that are unfolding be it at Pompey, qpr or anfield will only deter future investment.

 

The best we can hope for is that Ashley can see the sense in getting a good football man in to replace llambias and slowly rebuild from the ashes

The Halls between them owned more of the club than Shepherd so it seems a bit wrong to blame Shepherd when everything the club did would have required the tacit agreement of the Halls.

 

bingo.

 

Another point I've made on countless occasions.

 

Even coming from me, it would be nice if this sort of thing could now be put behind us, and people accepted that they were in fact good owners.

 

I'm pissed off with football just now to be honest, generally, and because of the demise of NUFC

 

The years you refer to are clearly the best we’ve ever had, but good owners full stop? You have to admit that they spent/blew/invested all the future earnings they possibly could and took a huge chunks of it out of the club and in the process into their own pockets. There was no more money that could be ticked, no more money to bled out of the club, no way of servicing the debt they’d accrued — so they cut and run.

 

I reckon that when Ashley took over, all earnings that could of been made over his first 5 years had already been ticked and spent, or as ever, siphoned out of the club. As it turns out it’s difficult to sympathise with Ashley — but worship the Shepherds and Halls, hmmmm, it’s not as clear cut as you are stating.

 

 

In a nutshell. Good post

[LeazesMag 0]

Its all well and good criticising for going into debt because you want to push for success but the simple fact is that unless unless you have a sugar daddy then its the only way to do it.

 

People who are saying that we have swept the boards and can "rebuild" don't get it, when the time comes to go for success again, IF it comes, they are just going to have to go into debt again and just like last time no guarantee whatsoever that it will succeed. Relatively speaking, we actually did very well ie we had regular european football, 2 FA Cup Finals, lots of top quality players, but didn't even win the League Cup.

 

Personally, I blame the players for not performing in certain games, and the manager for picking wrong teams and tactics in certain games, but in no way whatsoever can I blame the board who fulfilled their part completeley by backing all their managers to the hilt and having teams good enough to have won something.

 

I think you're spot on tbh leazes

 

 

I don't. I remember that summer. We felt like we were closing in on something special. A couple of big players and we're challengers.

 

We signed Lee Bowyer.

 

From there... downhill.

 

 

We signed Woodgate in the January 2003 for 9m quid, instead of the summer when we may have had serious competition and the price would have gone up accordingly. Out of the budget, or forward planning, or whatever you want to call it.

 

I hope you aren't going to criticise them for not spending money they didn't have during that summer, instead of trying to continue to build while exercising sensible financial constraints ?

[LeazesMag 0]

What aims do you think Newcastle United should have, as the 3rd biggest supported club in the country ?

 

Our 'aim' should always be europe as it's the only way to attract top players.

 

please tell us how it is possible to do this without paying the going rate ie top dollar, and how many clubs are doing it without being in debt

 

There's a massive difference in paying the rate and paying massively over the odd. Doing the latter you end up with one of the largest wage bills in the league and fighting relegation.

 

Freddy was a big fan of buy a teams best player and in doing so we ended up paying massively over the odd. Until we hit europe we should be looking for teams that need/want to sell or players that can't make the first team as they have better ahead of them. There are plenty of players out their that fit this bill.

 

apart from that actually being a good policy there is no justification for making such a comment, unless you can prove it and also give examples. I can give you lots that were without question players of the managers choice and also proved to be very good buys, most of whom were young and had their best years in front of them which kills stone dead another myth that has done the rounds about our transfer policy during those years.

 

The high wage bills and our league positions are well documented, so it aint a myth.

 

the high wage bills and high league position come together as part of the package. If you want high league positions you have to pay high wages.

 

The myth I am talking about is that the club signed over the hill players, didn't sign young players of potential at the time with their best years ahead of them, and don't dispute it or I will supply a big list to prove my point.

[LeazesMag 0]

Just wondering CT but could you explain how the same chain of events that demonstrate KK was the wrong man, also back up your claim Ashley is the owner the club needed? Seems a bit contradictory to me like.

 

not on an iPhone inbetween fares!!!

 

But how do you think fred would have coped. We were already declining and fred would have just kept throwing good money after bad without any personal wealth to inject working capital.

 

If we'd managed to stay up the wage bill would be even higher. Truly fucked IMO

Are you just going to keep changing the subject now you've tucked yourself in? I haven't even mentioned Shepherd. All you seem to be saying though is Ashley is good because there's an alternative scenario whereby Shepherd and the Halls could have gotten us into a worse state. I don't know how they'd have coped but they wouldn't have made a profit last January had we been we in a similar position with the old board in charge. Also, the noises coming out the club when they appointed Allardyce seemed to suggest they'd realised we were going to have to hold off on the spending a bit in any case. Most people were reasonably pleased with Allardyce only because it seemed he was an appropriate choice to work with a smaller budget (in the short to medium term anyway).

 

 

Accurate.

 

These blind anti-Halls and Shepherd comments will never cease.....shame because sometimes people make good posts until they start this sort of thing.

 

You confuse some realism on their era with being anti.....

 

They have given be by best times supporting Newcastle however the rot / slide had already started well before Ashley arrived. All too often when a business goes bust, there is a recent history of the owner throwing money down the drain trying to re-capture the good times. This is what I think Freddy would have done ON TOP of the 130 million or so black hole that was there when Ashley arrived.

 

More depressingly is where football is at the moment. Its like an out of control train that no one can get off. I would love to be able to imagine a swift return to challenging for Europe but there are just so many obstacles and so much money needed these days.

 

Look at Sunderland. A good chairman, a wealthy owner, a manager who should have been a vast improvement for them and better players than they have had for years. Yet its still turned to shit.

 

Sad days in Football.

 

I agree with your general view of football and the way it is going. I wrote an article for The Mag many years ago, with my usual foresight, and forecast exactly what the premiership, when it was first invented, would bring to football in this country.

[Guest Insider]

Its all well and good criticising for going into debt because you want to push for success but the simple fact is that unless unless you have a sugar daddy then its the only way to do it.

 

People who are saying that we have swept the boards and can "rebuild" don't get it, when the time comes to go for success again, IF it comes, they are just going to have to go into debt again and just like last time no guarantee whatsoever that it will succeed. Relatively speaking, we actually did very well ie we had regular european football, 2 FA Cup Finals, lots of top quality players, but didn't even win the League Cup.

 

Personally, I blame the players for not performing in certain games, and the manager for picking wrong teams and tactics in certain games, but in no way whatsoever can I blame the board who fulfilled their part completeley by backing all their managers to the hilt and having teams good enough to have won something.

 

I think you're spot on tbh leazes

 

 

I don't. I remember that summer. We felt like we were closing in on something special. A couple of big players and we're challengers.

 

We signed Lee Bowyer.

 

From there... downhill.

 

 

We signed Woodgate in the January 2003 for 9m quid, instead of the summer when we may have had serious competition and the price would have gone up accordingly. Out of the budget, or forward planning, or whatever you want to call it.

 

I hope you aren't going to criticise them for not spending money they didn't have during that summer, instead of trying to continue to build while exercising sensible financial constraints ?

 

So you're saying it's sensible to not spend money we don't have after a season when we've just qualified for the Champions League, but acceptable to do so when not in the Champions League and Souness is our manager?

[Phil 6]

The high wage bills and our league positions are well documented, so it aint a myth.

 

the high wage bills and high league position come together as part of the package. If you want high league positions you have to pay high wages.

 

The myth I am talking about is that the club signed over the hill players, didn't sign young players of potential at the time with their best years ahead of them, and don't dispute it or I will supply a big list to prove my point.

 

Yes when you are in Europe the high wage bill is offset by earnings. We were not in Europe.

 

There are two clear sides to Freddies time at the club, 2004 - 2007 is when the nay sayers widely believe the rot started, note 2005 - 2007 we started to make a loss, which with our debts made spending our way out imposible.

 

 

Here are most of the big signings in that time and you believe this sh*te justified the wage bill we had??

 

Mark Viduka

Joey Barton

Geremi

Alan Smith

Damien Duff

Obafemi Martins

Antoine Sibierski

Celestine Babayaro

Jean Alain Boumsong

Amdy Faye

Scott Parker

Emre Belozoglu

Albert Luque

Michael Owen

 

 

We had £70m debt a spiriling wage bill and had run out of credit lines, so we had to hire Fat Sam. Who regardless of your thoughts on Freddie - was a bad appointment and there no way freddie would have kept him playing that brand of football.

 

With a shoestring budget which was largley servicing debt, so there was only one way we were going. If not down last season it would be 2010 or 2011. Either way i think we'll be in a better poisition next year under Ashley than we would under Fred.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

What an awful list of shite when you see it like that.

[Barney 0]

Not to mention Freddy buying players himself, Butt instead of Carrick, Luque instead of Boa Morte and Owen instead of Anelka. I think you can add Kluivert and Carr to that list too.

[Guest alex]

Irrespective of how bad things might have gotten under Shepherd and the Halls (it's all speculation anyway, but I think some of the worst-case scenarios are a bit far-fetched tbh) it doesn't excuse in any way where Ashley has taken us with his crazy decision-making.

Edited February 23, 2010 by alex

[Renton 17821]

Irrespective of how bad things might have gotten under Shepherd and the Halls (it's all speculation anyway, but I think some of the worst-case scenarios are a bit far-fetched tbh) it doesn't excuse in any way where Ashley has taken us with his crazy decision-making.

 

Of course not but similarly nothing Ashley has done exonerates what the previous board did either.

 

I think it's pretty indisputable that the Halls and Shepherds left the club as wealthy men and left the club up financial shit creek though. But since then, Ashley's behaviour has been unprecedented in its awfulness - it's difficult to imagine how he could have made a worse job of it and he clearly doesn't give a shit about the club (a criticism which perhaps couldn't be made against Shepherd or Hall senior - or could it?).

 

As has been alluded to though the whole of football is pretty fucked up at the moment. We need a real high-profile casuality (perhaps ManU or Liverpool) to crash and burn before things will get better imo.

[Phil 6]

Irrespective of how bad things might have gotten under Shepherd and the Halls (it's all speculation anyway, but I think some of the worst-case scenarios are a bit far-fetched tbh) it doesn't excuse in any way where Ashley has taken us with his crazy decision-making.

 

Very true, but is anyone making excuses for Ashley?

 

Its no more far fetched to claim Freddie was financially inept as it is to assume Ashley wants to ruin the club.

[Guest alex]

Irrespective of how bad things might have gotten under Shepherd and the Halls (it's all speculation anyway, but I think some of the worst-case scenarios are a bit far-fetched tbh) it doesn't excuse in any way where Ashley has taken us with his crazy decision-making.

 

Of course not but similarly nothing Ashley has done exonerates what the previous board did either.

 

I think it's pretty indisputable that the Halls and Shepherds left the club as wealthy men and left the club up financial shit creek though. But since then, Ashley's behaviour has been unprecedented in its awfulness - it's difficult to imagine how he could have made a worse job of it and he clearly doesn't give a shit about the club (a criticism which perhaps couldn't be made against Shepherd or Hall senior - or could it?).

 

As has been alluded to though the whole of football is pretty fucked up at the moment. We need a real high-profile casuality (perhaps ManU or Liverpool) to crash and burn before things will get better imo.

I totally agree. It's the rather bizarre optimism about Ashley and the notion we're somehow better off with him that I have an issue with. I expect the summer to change that though because there's no way in the world we'll sign the players we need imo.

[Guest alex]

Irrespective of how bad things might have gotten under Shepherd and the Halls (it's all speculation anyway, but I think some of the worst-case scenarios are a bit far-fetched tbh) it doesn't excuse in any way where Ashley has taken us with his crazy decision-making.

 

Very true, but is anyone making excuses for Ashley?

 

Its no more far fetched to claim Freddie was financially inept as it is to assume Ashley wants to ruin the club.

I'm not claiming he's deliberately ruining the club. That would be giving him too much credit.

[ewerk 26440]

What Leazes says about going into debt isn't that far from reality, however, you need a plan to repay that debt at some point. It could be that Shepherd realised this in the summer where we signed Bowyer but following our failure to qualify for the CL he decided to get further into debt in chasing that 'holy grail'. Ultimately his gamble backfired, partly because of bad luck and partly because of some shocking decisions made by himself and the Halls.

Edited February 23, 2010 by ewerk

[peasepud 59]

There is no disputing the fact that Shepherd put us into debt, its also though imho no dispute that he did so for the right reasons, he chased the "holy grail" as Ewerk said but frankly I commend him for that. If we'd been told that we werent going to push for Europe in order to consolidate and save money then there would have been hell on.

 

Theres no disupting however that Shepherd (and even more so) the Halls made a vast amount of money out of our club. Personally however Id still rather see us in the CL and our chairman pay himself £20m dividends per season that the position we're in now.

 

The whole concept of football being a business is based on success, no football club can be a money maker if its continually losing games and not competing. Success on the pitch means additional gate receipts, more shirt sales, more exposure on SKY/MoTD etc which in itself means even more merchandise sales on top. Back then we were everyones 2nd team, many a kid got two shirts for Christmas, their own clubs and ours.

 

The only way to get that success is to invest in the team, yes some teams hit lucky and manage that through careful, good quality buys while others go out and buy up the best there is. We tried that and it was merely those world class players not performing fully that didnt win us something major. Yes, Shepherd made some terrible decisions at times and made his gob go at others but at the end of the day (Roeder aside) he never put in a manager because they were cheap or a Yes man. He did it because he (wrongly) thought they were good for the job.

 

If the roles had been reversed and we'd sat and watched Sunderland buy the players we were at the time we'd have had Shepherds head on a stick.

[trophyshy 6434]

Given Ashley's reputation and a gambling man, I think it is unfortunate that the recession struck when it did. As well as shocking mismanagement I think the downturn in the economy genuinely impacted upon player purchasing and wages policy. If we were still in boomtime Ashley would probably be a bit more exciting as an owner.

[ewerk 26440]

PP, would you judge Peter Ridsdale in the same way?

[Guest alex]

Given Ashley's reputation and a gambling man, I think it is unfortunate that the recession struck when it did. As well as shocking mismanagement I think the downturn in the economy genuinely impacted upon player purchasing and wages policy. If we were still in boomtime Ashley would probably be a bit more exciting as an owner.

That and his own stock market gambles meaning he was a good 6 months ahead of the game when it came to a recession. I know he told KK he had plenty money when Keegan first came back here. Whether economic circumstances changed that or whether it was more bullshit though, I'm not too sure. Maybe a bit of both.