Andy Carroll....Local Hero! O̶r̶ ̶J̶u̶d̶a̶s̶?

[Monkeys Fist 38955]

Mugs and arseholes, the whole damned lefty lot of em. Don't worry, with me at your side we can only go one way old buddy.

[StoneColdStephenIreland 74]

Mugs and arseholes, the whole namby pamby lefty lot of em. Don't worry, with me at your side we can only go one way old buddy.

 

[toonotl 2457]

We need a Halls and Shepherd type to come along again...

 

And there it is. After attempting to not-so-subtly allude to his god's for the last 5 posts it became too much, the threat that people wouldn't understand what he was alluding to, oh what to do? I must tell them.

 

except that was deliberate, to shut the likes of Renton and Gloomy up, and put into perspective what absolute shit they are spouting, because they put an end to us being a selling club, like we are again now. I tried to avoid it but it they and one or two others needed it spelt out for them, again.

 

As has been said, some people don't like the truth ie personality issues etc

 

Oh it was deliberate was it? Because I always find myself typing whole sentences by accident. In fact I think this whole discussion with you has been one big accident. Please forget we ever spoke. What am I saying you probably already have. I'll just forget we spoke.

 

By the by, I very much doubt people need to have things spelt out to them by your good self. Unless of course they struggle with some sort of mental deficientcy, then, and only then, you would be within your right's to assume you had the wood on them. Otherwise, nah.

[LeazesMag 0]

We need a Halls and Shepherd type to come along again...

 

And there it is. After attempting to not-so-subtly allude to his god's for the last 5 posts it became too much, the threat that people wouldn't understand what he was alluding to, oh what to do? I must tell them.

 

except that was deliberate, to shut the likes of Renton and Gloomy up, and put into perspective what absolute shit they are spouting, because they put an end to us being a selling club, like we are again now. I tried to avoid it but it they and one or two others needed it spelt out for them, again.

 

As has been said, some people don't like the truth ie personality issues etc

 

Oh it was deliberate was it? Because I always find myself typing whole sentences by accident. In fact I think this whole discussion with you has been one big accident. Please forget we ever spoke. What am I saying you probably already have. I'll just forget we spoke.

 

By the by, I very much doubt people need to have things spelt out to them by your good self. Unless of course they struggle with some sort of mental deficientcy, then, and only then, you would be within your right's to assume you had the wood on them. Otherwise, nah.

 

Well, yes, I was trying to avoid it, as I was with Krulscurtains, but sadly it becomes inevitable sometimes when people can't see sheer common sense.

 

Like this thread, now. People DO need to have things spelled out to them.

 

Can't help but find it ironic that people such as Gloomy say my posts are "all the same", when all they did a few years ago was tell everybody all the time how shit the club was when it was playing in europe and had ambitions to play there as often as possible, by backing their managers and bringing top players to the club.

Sadly, I found this boring, and completely naive that they thought it was so easy and would be so much better with someone else.

 

It needs to be pointed out, they didn't find such repetitive comments "boring".

 

As it happens, the club now IS in decline, it WASN'T better off with someone else, our top players ARE leaving for career reasons and not simply for money, just like they did in the 80's especially under the likes of McKeag, Seymour etc. No "opinions" can change this, because it's fact.

 

We need owners again, who will see the club for what it was and show the ambition it ought to be showing. Do you agree or not ?

 

Next time we have it, I only hope fuckwits appreciate it.

 

As has been said, the simple fact is that people don't like the truth, but this is the truth.

[KrulsCurtains 0]

Hopefully the decline was short term and is being reversed. I get the feeling that we're actually building solid foundations at the club now. It's all well and good paying club record fee's for players but what use will you get out of them if they can't even train when the ground freezes. I guess that's why we never sustained any of the success we did get, because a lot of money was spent to achieve short-term goals and not enough consideration for the long term. Obviously the stadium expansion was a long term vision by the last board, but full value from the money generated from it wasn't extracted by them. In terms of value for money, the club has spent a fortune over the last 20 years and has nothing more than a couple of Champions League qualifications to show for it. You can of course add the Uefa Cup to this and then generalise as "europe", and claim that qualifying for "europe" regularly is a great achievement, but for the money we spent in that era the just qualifying for "europe" was unacceptable if it wasn't the Champions League. The current owners won't match the number of "europe" qualifications because the club can't financially compete with billionaires sugar-daddys. The last board wouldn't have qualified for Europe if other clubs were as financially strong as they are today too.

[LeazesMag 0]

Hopefully the decline was short term and is being reversed. I get the feeling that we're actually building solid foundations at the club now. It's all well and good paying club record fee's for players but what use will you get out of them if they can't even train when the ground freezes. I guess that's why we never sustained any of the success we did get, because a lot of money was spent to achieve short-term goals and not enough consideration for the long term. Obviously the stadium expansion was a long term vision by the last board, but full value from the money generated from it wasn't extracted by them. In terms of value for money, the club has spent a fortune over the last 20 years and has nothing more than a couple of Champions League qualifications to show for it. You can of course add the Uefa Cup to this and then generalise as "europe", and claim that qualifying for "europe" regularly is a great achievement, but for the money we spent in that era the just qualifying for "europe" was unacceptable if it wasn't the Champions League. The current owners won't match the number of "europe" qualifications because the club can't financially compete with billionaires sugar-daddys. The last board wouldn't have qualified for Europe if other clubs were as financially strong as they are today too.

 

that is like saying Jackie Milburn wouldn't be such a great player now as he was in the 50's because all the current players would be more athletically toned and fitter.

 

You can only do what you achieve in your era alongside your competitors at the time.

 

In any case, nobody knows how they would have fared, only Chelsea and Man City have sugar daddies. Against that, we have the 3rd biggest stadium and arguably untapped fanbase in the country.

[KrulsCurtains 0]

Hopefully the decline was short term and is being reversed. I get the feeling that we're actually building solid foundations at the club now. It's all well and good paying club record fee's for players but what use will you get out of them if they can't even train when the ground freezes. I guess that's why we never sustained any of the success we did get, because a lot of money was spent to achieve short-term goals and not enough consideration for the long term. Obviously the stadium expansion was a long term vision by the last board, but full value from the money generated from it wasn't extracted by them. In terms of value for money, the club has spent a fortune over the last 20 years and has nothing more than a couple of Champions League qualifications to show for it. You can of course add the Uefa Cup to this and then generalise as "europe", and claim that qualifying for "europe" regularly is a great achievement, but for the money we spent in that era the just qualifying for "europe" was unacceptable if it wasn't the Champions League. The current owners won't match the number of "europe" qualifications because the club can't financially compete with billionaires sugar-daddys. The last board wouldn't have qualified for Europe if other clubs were as financially strong as they are today too.

 

that is like saying Jackie Milburn wouldn't be such a great player now as he was in the 50's because all the current players would be more athletically toned and fitter.

 

You can only do what you achieve in your era alongside your competitors at the time.

 

In any case, nobody knows how they would have fared, only Chelsea and Man City have sugar daddies. Against that, we have the 3rd biggest stadium and arguably untapped fanbase in the country.

 

 

Is correct, and the last board have the legacy of being the biggest spending club to have won nothing during their era. This is a fact, and citing qualifying for "europe" doesn't mask over that. As has been said, the simple fact is that people don't like the truth, but this is the truth.

[toonotl 2457]

We need owners again, who will see the club for what it was and show the ambition it ought to be showing. Do you agree or not ?

 

Definitely. I don't think anyone would disagree. Ashley is a prime cunt. I hope like anyone else that he sells the club in the summer.

[LeazesMag 0]

Hopefully the decline was short term and is being reversed. I get the feeling that we're actually building solid foundations at the club now. It's all well and good paying club record fee's for players but what use will you get out of them if they can't even train when the ground freezes. I guess that's why we never sustained any of the success we did get, because a lot of money was spent to achieve short-term goals and not enough consideration for the long term. Obviously the stadium expansion was a long term vision by the last board, but full value from the money generated from it wasn't extracted by them. In terms of value for money, the club has spent a fortune over the last 20 years and has nothing more than a couple of Champions League qualifications to show for it. You can of course add the Uefa Cup to this and then generalise as "europe", and claim that qualifying for "europe" regularly is a great achievement, but for the money we spent in that era the just qualifying for "europe" was unacceptable if it wasn't the Champions League. The current owners won't match the number of "europe" qualifications because the club can't financially compete with billionaires sugar-daddys. The last board wouldn't have qualified for Europe if other clubs were as financially strong as they are today too.

 

that is like saying Jackie Milburn wouldn't be such a great player now as he was in the 50's because all the current players would be more athletically toned and fitter.

 

You can only do what you achieve in your era alongside your competitors at the time.

 

In any case, nobody knows how they would have fared, only Chelsea and Man City have sugar daddies. Against that, we have the 3rd biggest stadium and arguably untapped fanbase in the country.

 

 

Is correct, and the last board have the legacy of being the biggest spending club to have won nothing during their era. This is a fact, and citing qualifying for "europe" doesn't mask over that. As has been said, the simple fact is that people don't like the truth, but this is the truth.

 

is it ? If so, they still totally transformed the club in a short space of time, they weren't an established top team or anything when they took over, unlike Ashley. Anyway, you can't blame the board for players not performing in Cup Finals or not holding to a lead at the top of the premiership. Can you ?

 

Lots of clubs will spend a lot less, proportionally, and get nowhere near even 2nd place in the premiership .... I accept your point, but that's my point, it's not really that simple, and financially, the Champions League has became the place to be ever since they started letting in runners-up [of which we were the first to ever qualify from that route].

[KrulsCurtains 0]

Hopefully the decline was short term and is being reversed. I get the feeling that we're actually building solid foundations at the club now. It's all well and good paying club record fee's for players but what use will you get out of them if they can't even train when the ground freezes. I guess that's why we never sustained any of the success we did get, because a lot of money was spent to achieve short-term goals and not enough consideration for the long term. Obviously the stadium expansion was a long term vision by the last board, but full value from the money generated from it wasn't extracted by them. In terms of value for money, the club has spent a fortune over the last 20 years and has nothing more than a couple of Champions League qualifications to show for it. You can of course add the Uefa Cup to this and then generalise as "europe", and claim that qualifying for "europe" regularly is a great achievement, but for the money we spent in that era the just qualifying for "europe" was unacceptable if it wasn't the Champions League. The current owners won't match the number of "europe" qualifications because the club can't financially compete with billionaires sugar-daddys. The last board wouldn't have qualified for Europe if other clubs were as financially strong as they are today too.

 

that is like saying Jackie Milburn wouldn't be such a great player now as he was in the 50's because all the current players would be more athletically toned and fitter.

 

You can only do what you achieve in your era alongside your competitors at the time.

 

In any case, nobody knows how they would have fared, only Chelsea and Man City have sugar daddies. Against that, we have the 3rd biggest stadium and arguably untapped fanbase in the country.

 

 

Is correct, and the last board have the legacy of being the biggest spending club to have won nothing during their era. This is a fact, and citing qualifying for "europe" doesn't mask over that. As has been said, the simple fact is that people don't like the truth, but this is the truth.

 

is it ? If so, they still totally transformed the club in a short space of time, they weren't an established top team or anything when they took over, unlike Ashley. Anyway, you can't blame the board for players not performing in Cup Finals or not holding to a lead at the top of the premiership. Can you ?

Lots of clubs will spend a lot less, proportionally, and get nowhere near even 2nd place in the premiership .... I accept your point, but that's my point, it's not really that simple, and financially, the Champions League has became the place to be ever since they started letting in runners-up [of which we were the first to ever qualify from that route].

 

 

I bet you blame them for the team being relegated? Obviously they sold Milner, Given and Insomnia, but is it acceptable that even without those players that a team full of 60k+ p/w players can be relegated? That isn't an Ashley defense the point I'm making is that the man at the top ultimately takes responsibility, whether that be for not quite having enough to get past the finishing post or whether that be the club failing the avoid relegation.

[Monkeys Fist 38955]

Slippery character this Curtains fellow mind Leazes- I'm here if you need me. Brothers in Arms and that

[LeazesMag 0]

Hopefully the decline was short term and is being reversed. I get the feeling that we're actually building solid foundations at the club now. It's all well and good paying club record fee's for players but what use will you get out of them if they can't even train when the ground freezes. I guess that's why we never sustained any of the success we did get, because a lot of money was spent to achieve short-term goals and not enough consideration for the long term. Obviously the stadium expansion was a long term vision by the last board, but full value from the money generated from it wasn't extracted by them. In terms of value for money, the club has spent a fortune over the last 20 years and has nothing more than a couple of Champions League qualifications to show for it. You can of course add the Uefa Cup to this and then generalise as "europe", and claim that qualifying for "europe" regularly is a great achievement, but for the money we spent in that era the just qualifying for "europe" was unacceptable if it wasn't the Champions League. The current owners won't match the number of "europe" qualifications because the club can't financially compete with billionaires sugar-daddys. The last board wouldn't have qualified for Europe if other clubs were as financially strong as they are today too.

 

that is like saying Jackie Milburn wouldn't be such a great player now as he was in the 50's because all the current players would be more athletically toned and fitter.

 

You can only do what you achieve in your era alongside your competitors at the time.

 

In any case, nobody knows how they would have fared, only Chelsea and Man City have sugar daddies. Against that, we have the 3rd biggest stadium and arguably untapped fanbase in the country.

 

 

Is correct, and the last board have the legacy of being the biggest spending club to have won nothing during their era. This is a fact, and citing qualifying for "europe" doesn't mask over that. As has been said, the simple fact is that people don't like the truth, but this is the truth.

 

is it ? If so, they still totally transformed the club in a short space of time, they weren't an established top team or anything when they took over, unlike Ashley. Anyway, you can't blame the board for players not performing in Cup Finals or not holding to a lead at the top of the premiership. Can you ?

Lots of clubs will spend a lot less, proportionally, and get nowhere near even 2nd place in the premiership .... I accept your point, but that's my point, it's not really that simple, and financially, the Champions League has became the place to be ever since they started letting in runners-up [of which we were the first to ever qualify from that route].

 

 

I bet you blame them for the team being relegated? Obviously they sold Milner, Given and Insomnia, but is it acceptable that even without those players that a team full of 60k+ p/w players can be relegated? That isn't an Ashley defense the point I'm making is that the man at the top ultimately takes responsibility, whether that be for not quite having enough to get past the finishing post or whether that be the club failing the avoid relegation.

 

of course, given that they sold quality players and/or created the situation whereby quality players wanted to leave the club ? Who would you blame ?

 

By virtue of getting to 2nd place in the league, leading the table, reaching 2 Cup Finals, playing in the Champions League, you have quality footballers in your club, certainly good enough to have won one of the Cup Finals, and against anybody but the premiership champions on both occasions, may well have done despite playng poorly.

 

The job of a football owner/board of directors is to give their managers the backing to do the job to the best of their ability. After that it becomes the responsibility of the manager, his staff and the players to deliver, wouldn't you think so ? However if the manager's hands are tied, then they are quite restricted and limited, yes ?

 

I suppose you have to say, do you think those group of players at the club during the times of Keegan and Bobby Robson, particularly, including the majority of the players under Dalglish and Gullit which were still part of Keegans team, were good enough to have won a trophy ? You would have to say that they were.

Edited May 5, 2011 by LeazesMag

[KrulsCurtains 0]

of course, given that they sold quality players and/or created the situation whereby quality players wanted to leave the club ? Who would you blame ?

 

By virtue of getting to 2nd place in the league, leading the table, reaching 2 Cup Finals, playing in the Champions League, you have quality footballers in your club, certainly good enough to have won one of the Cup Finals, and against anybody but the premiership champions on both occasions, may well have done despite playng poorly.

 

The job of a football owner/board of directors is to give their managers the backing to do the job to the best of their ability. After that it becomes the responsibility of the manager, his staff and the players to deliver, wouldn't you think so ? However if the manager's hands are tied, then they are quite restricted and limited, yes ?

 

I suppose you have to say, do you think those group of players at the club during the times of Keegan and Bobby Robson, particularly, including the majority of the players under Dalglish and Gullit which were still part of Keegans team, were good enough to have won a trophy ? You would have to say that they were.

 

 

Do you believe that you have over-simplified that in an attempt to make your point may valid? What about appointing the right manager? Is that not just as important as 'backing' him? The sheer number of managers they appointing during their tenure suggests that they struggled with this, despite all of the other big spending clubs (and other smaller spending clubs) being able to appoint at least one that was able to build a side to win something. I'm certainly not going to lay into Keegan or Sir Bobby, for sentimental reasons more than anything. But the fact is that they both had significant backing and won nothing. You claim that posters on here are accepting lowered expectations now. If that's the case, then is accepting winning nothing when we were one of the biggest spending clubs in the country also accepting standards below what they should have been given the circumstances? Look at Chelsea, as one of the biggest spenders, if they go a season without winning something they aren't happy. When we were one of the biggest spenders and went a season without winning something, you were content with the european qualification. You have to align your expectations with your resources available at the time, something I think you struggle with. You were content with not winning anything when we had the resources to do be able to realistically do so and when others with lesser means were able to do so, yet point the finger at others for accepting mid-table mediocrity for accepting lower standards even though that's all that's probably realistic given our (and other club's) finances now. A tad hypocritical I think mate.

[LeazesMag 0]

of course, given that they sold quality players and/or created the situation whereby quality players wanted to leave the club ? Who would you blame ?

 

By virtue of getting to 2nd place in the league, leading the table, reaching 2 Cup Finals, playing in the Champions League, you have quality footballers in your club, certainly good enough to have won one of the Cup Finals, and against anybody but the premiership champions on both occasions, may well have done despite playng poorly.

 

The job of a football owner/board of directors is to give their managers the backing to do the job to the best of their ability. After that it becomes the responsibility of the manager, his staff and the players to deliver, wouldn't you think so ? However if the manager's hands are tied, then they are quite restricted and limited, yes ?

 

I suppose you have to say, do you think those group of players at the club during the times of Keegan and Bobby Robson, particularly, including the majority of the players under Dalglish and Gullit which were still part of Keegans team, were good enough to have won a trophy ? You would have to say that they were.

 

 

Do you believe that you have over-simplified that in an attempt to make your point may valid? What about appointing the right manager? Is that not just as important as 'backing' him? The sheer number of managers they appointing during their tenure suggests that they struggled with this, despite all of the other big spending clubs (and other smaller spending clubs) being able to appoint at least one that was able to build a side to win something. I'm certainly not going to lay into Keegan or Sir Bobby, for sentimental reasons more than anything. But the fact is that they both had significant backing and won nothing. You claim that posters on here are accepting lowered expectations now. If that's the case, then is accepting winning nothing when we were one of the biggest spending clubs in the country also accepting standards below what they should have been given the circumstances? Look at Chelsea, as one of the biggest spenders, if they go a season without winning something they aren't happy. When we were one of the biggest spenders and went a season without winning something, you were content with the european qualification. You have to align your expectations with your resources available at the time, something I think you struggle with. You were content with not winning anything when we had the resources to do be able to realistically do so and when others with lesser means were able to do so, yet point the finger at others for accepting mid-table mediocrity for accepting lower standards even though that's all that's probably realistic given our (and other club's) finances now. A tad hypocritical I think mate.

 

10 years out of the 15 under their ownership were managed by Keegan and Robson. Dalglish had a managerial record only bettered by Alex Ferguson, arguably, as he is one of only a few managers who had won the title with 2 different clubs, and Gullit won the FA Cup and left his team in the Champions league and 3rd in the league. So it is difficult to see where you think they can appoint a succession of managers better qualified than this. That altogether makes 12 out of 15 years, and one of the years under Roeder we finished 7th and qualified for europe.

 

You think that is appointing the "wrong" managers ?

 

As well as that, the crucial element [and you touch on it] is that if we didn't qualify for europe we looked at what was wrong with a view to correcting it. Of course Chelsea have higher ambitions, once you have won a trophy it raises your expectation. Ditto the last board, expectations were raised to a point where qualifying for europe was expected. We now have an owner who is happy with survival and a small profit for himself [as it appears] and a lot of supporters have fell into this same view and expectation.

 

You can't blame a board of directors if a group of players fail to perform in a Cup Final, when they are clearly good enough to have performed well and won those matches. The buck has to stop with the players, their preparation, team selections, motivation or whatever.

 

Edit. I'm not content at all with losing those Cup Finals and losing out in the title race, but when do you think it will happen again ? When will we have a group of players good enough to perform consistently at these levels ? This is the perspective.

Edited May 5, 2011 by LeazesMag

[KrulsCurtains 0]

of course, given that they sold quality players and/or created the situation whereby quality players wanted to leave the club ? Who would you blame ?

 

By virtue of getting to 2nd place in the league, leading the table, reaching 2 Cup Finals, playing in the Champions League, you have quality footballers in your club, certainly good enough to have won one of the Cup Finals, and against anybody but the premiership champions on both occasions, may well have done despite playng poorly.

 

The job of a football owner/board of directors is to give their managers the backing to do the job to the best of their ability. After that it becomes the responsibility of the manager, his staff and the players to deliver, wouldn't you think so ? However if the manager's hands are tied, then they are quite restricted and limited, yes ?

 

I suppose you have to say, do you think those group of players at the club during the times of Keegan and Bobby Robson, particularly, including the majority of the players under Dalglish and Gullit which were still part of Keegans team, were good enough to have won a trophy ? You would have to say that they were.

 

 

Do you believe that you have over-simplified that in an attempt to make your point may valid? What about appointing the right manager? Is that not just as important as 'backing' him? The sheer number of managers they appointing during their tenure suggests that they struggled with this, despite all of the other big spending clubs (and other smaller spending clubs) being able to appoint at least one that was able to build a side to win something. I'm certainly not going to lay into Keegan or Sir Bobby, for sentimental reasons more than anything. But the fact is that they both had significant backing and won nothing. You claim that posters on here are accepting lowered expectations now. If that's the case, then is accepting winning nothing when we were one of the biggest spending clubs in the country also accepting standards below what they should have been given the circumstances? Look at Chelsea, as one of the biggest spenders, if they go a season without winning something they aren't happy. When we were one of the biggest spenders and went a season without winning something, you were content with the european qualification. You have to align your expectations with your resources available at the time, something I think you struggle with. You were content with not winning anything when we had the resources to do be able to realistically do so and when others with lesser means were able to do so, yet point the finger at others for accepting mid-table mediocrity for accepting lower standards even though that's all that's probably realistic given our (and other club's) finances now. A tad hypocritical I think mate.

 

10 years out of the 15 under their ownership were managed by Keegan and Robson. Dalglish had a managerial record only bettered by Alex Ferguson, arguably, as he is one of only a few managers who had won the title with 2 different clubs, and Gullit won the FA Cup and left his team in the Champions league and 3rd in the league. So it is difficult to see where you think they can appoint a succession of managers better qualified than this. That altogether makes 12 out of 15 years, and one of the years under Roeder we finished 7th and qualified for europe.

 

You think that is appointing the "wrong" managers ?

 

As well as that, the crucial element [and you touch on it] is that if we didn't qualify for europe we looked at what was wrong with a view to correcting it. Of course Chelsea have higher ambitions, once you have won a trophy it raises your expectation. Ditto the last board, expectations were raised to a point where qualifying for europe was expected. We now have an owner who is happy with survival and a small profit for himself [as it appears] and a lot of supporters have fell into this same view and expectation.

 

You can't blame a board of directors if a group of players fail to perform in a Cup Final, when they are clearly good enough to have performed well and won those matches. The buck has to stop with the players, their preparation, team selections, motivation or whatever.

 

Edit. I'm not content at all with losing those Cup Finals and losing out in the title race, but when do you think it will happen again ? When will we have a group of players good enough to perform consistently at these levels ? This is the perspective.

 

 

Sometimes you have to look past a managers 'qualifications' when appointing them and be more astute. Look at Arsenal with Wenger or ManU with Fergie. Having the ability to gauge the man and not the C.V is imperative. You can't just reel off stats about the appointments without looking at the circumstances either. Modestly backing Robson/Heavily backing Souness for example. "The buck has to stop with the players, their preparation, team selections, motivation or whatever." - surely the board appoint a man who prepares, selects and motivates the team. If the man they appoint fails at the last hurdle then he hasn't been a success.

 

The comment re: the owner taking a small profit for himself has no substance either, especially when you consider that the men you ferociously defend are the ones proven to have taken a profit, not Mike Ashley. That's the truth, you might not like the truth, but that is the truth

[LeazesMag 0]

of course, given that they sold quality players and/or created the situation whereby quality players wanted to leave the club ? Who would you blame ?

 

By virtue of getting to 2nd place in the league, leading the table, reaching 2 Cup Finals, playing in the Champions League, you have quality footballers in your club, certainly good enough to have won one of the Cup Finals, and against anybody but the premiership champions on both occasions, may well have done despite playng poorly.

 

The job of a football owner/board of directors is to give their managers the backing to do the job to the best of their ability. After that it becomes the responsibility of the manager, his staff and the players to deliver, wouldn't you think so ? However if the manager's hands are tied, then they are quite restricted and limited, yes ?

 

I suppose you have to say, do you think those group of players at the club during the times of Keegan and Bobby Robson, particularly, including the majority of the players under Dalglish and Gullit which were still part of Keegans team, were good enough to have won a trophy ? You would have to say that they were.

 

 

Do you believe that you have over-simplified that in an attempt to make your point may valid? What about appointing the right manager? Is that not just as important as 'backing' him? The sheer number of managers they appointing during their tenure suggests that they struggled with this, despite all of the other big spending clubs (and other smaller spending clubs) being able to appoint at least one that was able to build a side to win something. I'm certainly not going to lay into Keegan or Sir Bobby, for sentimental reasons more than anything. But the fact is that they both had significant backing and won nothing. You claim that posters on here are accepting lowered expectations now. If that's the case, then is accepting winning nothing when we were one of the biggest spending clubs in the country also accepting standards below what they should have been given the circumstances? Look at Chelsea, as one of the biggest spenders, if they go a season without winning something they aren't happy. When we were one of the biggest spenders and went a season without winning something, you were content with the european qualification. You have to align your expectations with your resources available at the time, something I think you struggle with. You were content with not winning anything when we had the resources to do be able to realistically do so and when others with lesser means were able to do so, yet point the finger at others for accepting mid-table mediocrity for accepting lower standards even though that's all that's probably realistic given our (and other club's) finances now. A tad hypocritical I think mate.

 

10 years out of the 15 under their ownership were managed by Keegan and Robson. Dalglish had a managerial record only bettered by Alex Ferguson, arguably, as he is one of only a few managers who had won the title with 2 different clubs, and Gullit won the FA Cup and left his team in the Champions league and 3rd in the league. So it is difficult to see where you think they can appoint a succession of managers better qualified than this. That altogether makes 12 out of 15 years, and one of the years under Roeder we finished 7th and qualified for europe.

 

You think that is appointing the "wrong" managers ?

 

As well as that, the crucial element [and you touch on it] is that if we didn't qualify for europe we looked at what was wrong with a view to correcting it. Of course Chelsea have higher ambitions, once you have won a trophy it raises your expectation. Ditto the last board, expectations were raised to a point where qualifying for europe was expected. We now have an owner who is happy with survival and a small profit for himself [as it appears] and a lot of supporters have fell into this same view and expectation.

 

You can't blame a board of directors if a group of players fail to perform in a Cup Final, when they are clearly good enough to have performed well and won those matches. The buck has to stop with the players, their preparation, team selections, motivation or whatever.

 

Edit. I'm not content at all with losing those Cup Finals and losing out in the title race, but when do you think it will happen again ? When will we have a group of players good enough to perform consistently at these levels ? This is the perspective.

 

 

Sometimes you have to look past a managers 'qualifications' when appointing them and be more astute. Look at Arsenal with Wenger or ManU with Fergie. Having the ability to gauge the man and not the C.V is imperative. You can't just reel off stats about the appointments without looking at the circumstances either. Modestly backing Robson/Heavily backing Souness for example. "The buck has to stop with the players, their preparation, team selections, motivation or whatever." - surely the board appoint a man who prepares, selects and motivates the team. If the man they appoint fails at the last hurdle then he hasn't been a success.

 

The comment re: the owner taking a small profit for himself has no substance either, especially when you consider that the men you ferociously defend are the ones proven to have taken a profit, not Mike Ashley. That's the truth, you might not like the truth, but that is the truth

 

maybe, but one of the points I've made for a long time now, in perspective, is that over the 15 years, how many teams were "successful" then, if winning trophies is your one and only guideline ? Are you saying every team that doesn't win a trophy is "unsuccessful" and have therefore "failed". Do you consider Keegan and Robson, especially Keegan to be a "failure" ?

 

At the end of the day, if you think we were failures [and I hate to say this, people say its a wind up when I do and I've said it hundreds of times, but it isn't a wind up, its perspective] only 4 teams did better than we did during their time, the same 4 teams are the only teams with a higher average league position, the same 4 teams are the only ones who qualified more for europe. So if we "failed", then what do you consider the other 87 league teams in the country ? The fact is, all those clubs supporters, the vast majority of football supporters in this country, would have swapped positions with us, faster than you can say "we are a selling club again". That's perspective, and is also the truth too.

 

Mike Ashley will NEVER match it, we won't finish 5th or get anywhere near challenging the top 4 even once, for as long as he has a hole in his arse. It could be a long time until we do it again. Thats also the truth, and its also putting it into perspective.

 

Far better to go close and give it your best shot than not to attempt it at all. Yes ?

[KrulsCurtains 0]

of course, given that they sold quality players and/or created the situation whereby quality players wanted to leave the club ? Who would you blame ?

 

By virtue of getting to 2nd place in the league, leading the table, reaching 2 Cup Finals, playing in the Champions League, you have quality footballers in your club, certainly good enough to have won one of the Cup Finals, and against anybody but the premiership champions on both occasions, may well have done despite playng poorly.

 

The job of a football owner/board of directors is to give their managers the backing to do the job to the best of their ability. After that it becomes the responsibility of the manager, his staff and the players to deliver, wouldn't you think so ? However if the manager's hands are tied, then they are quite restricted and limited, yes ?

 

I suppose you have to say, do you think those group of players at the club during the times of Keegan and Bobby Robson, particularly, including the majority of the players under Dalglish and Gullit which were still part of Keegans team, were good enough to have won a trophy ? You would have to say that they were.

 

 

Do you believe that you have over-simplified that in an attempt to make your point may valid? What about appointing the right manager? Is that not just as important as 'backing' him? The sheer number of managers they appointing during their tenure suggests that they struggled with this, despite all of the other big spending clubs (and other smaller spending clubs) being able to appoint at least one that was able to build a side to win something. I'm certainly not going to lay into Keegan or Sir Bobby, for sentimental reasons more than anything. But the fact is that they both had significant backing and won nothing. You claim that posters on here are accepting lowered expectations now. If that's the case, then is accepting winning nothing when we were one of the biggest spending clubs in the country also accepting standards below what they should have been given the circumstances? Look at Chelsea, as one of the biggest spenders, if they go a season without winning something they aren't happy. When we were one of the biggest spenders and went a season without winning something, you were content with the european qualification. You have to align your expectations with your resources available at the time, something I think you struggle with. You were content with not winning anything when we had the resources to do be able to realistically do so and when others with lesser means were able to do so, yet point the finger at others for accepting mid-table mediocrity for accepting lower standards even though that's all that's probably realistic given our (and other club's) finances now. A tad hypocritical I think mate.

 

10 years out of the 15 under their ownership were managed by Keegan and Robson. Dalglish had a managerial record only bettered by Alex Ferguson, arguably, as he is one of only a few managers who had won the title with 2 different clubs, and Gullit won the FA Cup and left his team in the Champions league and 3rd in the league. So it is difficult to see where you think they can appoint a succession of managers better qualified than this. That altogether makes 12 out of 15 years, and one of the years under Roeder we finished 7th and qualified for europe.

 

You think that is appointing the "wrong" managers ?

 

As well as that, the crucial element [and you touch on it] is that if we didn't qualify for europe we looked at what was wrong with a view to correcting it. Of course Chelsea have higher ambitions, once you have won a trophy it raises your expectation. Ditto the last board, expectations were raised to a point where qualifying for europe was expected. We now have an owner who is happy with survival and a small profit for himself [as it appears] and a lot of supporters have fell into this same view and expectation.

 

You can't blame a board of directors if a group of players fail to perform in a Cup Final, when they are clearly good enough to have performed well and won those matches. The buck has to stop with the players, their preparation, team selections, motivation or whatever.

 

Edit. I'm not content at all with losing those Cup Finals and losing out in the title race, but when do you think it will happen again ? When will we have a group of players good enough to perform consistently at these levels ? This is the perspective.

 

 

Sometimes you have to look past a managers 'qualifications' when appointing them and be more astute. Look at Arsenal with Wenger or ManU with Fergie. Having the ability to gauge the man and not the C.V is imperative. You can't just reel off stats about the appointments without looking at the circumstances either. Modestly backing Robson/Heavily backing Souness for example. "The buck has to stop with the players, their preparation, team selections, motivation or whatever." - surely the board appoint a man who prepares, selects and motivates the team. If the man they appoint fails at the last hurdle then he hasn't been a success.

 

The comment re: the owner taking a small profit for himself has no substance either, especially when you consider that the men you ferociously defend are the ones proven to have taken a profit, not Mike Ashley. That's the truth, you might not like the truth, but that is the truth

 

maybe, but one of the points I've made for a long time now, in perspective, is that over the 15 years, how many teams were "successful" then, if winning trophies is your one and only guideline ? Are you saying every team that doesn't win a trophy is "unsuccessful" and have therefore "failed". Do you consider Keegan and Robson, especially Keegan to be a "failure" ?

 

At the end of the day, if you think we were failures [and I hate to say this, people say its a wind up when I do and I've said it hundreds of times, but it isn't a wind up, its perspective] only 4 teams did better than we did during their time, the same 4 teams are the only teams with a higher average league position, the same 4 teams are the only ones who qualified more for europe. So if we "failed", then what do you consider the other 87 league teams in the country ? The fact is, all those clubs supporters, the vast majority of football supporters in this country, would have swapped positions with us, faster than you can say "we are a selling club again". That's perspective, and is also the truth too.

 

Mike Ashley will NEVER match it, we won't finish 5th or get anywhere near challenging the top 4 even once, for as long as he has a hole in his arse. It could be a long time until we do it again. Thats also the truth, and its also putting it into perspective.

 

Far better to go close and give it your best shot than not to attempt it at all. Yes ?

 

As a supporter with genuine emotion towards Keegan and Bobby it's difficult to use the word failure to describe them. But looking at it logically, we were one of the biggest spending clubs around and they still won nothing. Nowadays, when a big spending club fails to win anything, the axe falls on the manager. Perhaps the low expectations of only qualifying for europe being acceptable despite being a top spending club is what makes us look at those 2 managers as being better than the reality, or perhaps it's merely those managers being remembered more fondly than they would at another club because of the dross like Kenny D/Souness etc that we had for comparison.

It comes down to your targets as to whether you 'failed'. We spent the most money so that we could win things and didn't. As I said in a previous post, you have to align expectations with the resources available to ourselves and other clubs. You say 4 teams bettered us, but how many of them spent more than us? Less than half of them. Bringing the other 87 clubs league teams up is a bit of a daft point to make, by that logic Mike Ashley is doing a sterling job because the vast majority of those league clubs are still below us.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

 

Do you believe that you have over-simplified that in an attempt to make your point may valid? What about appointing the right manager? Is that not just as important as 'backing' him? The sheer number of managers they appointing during their tenure suggests that they struggled with this, despite all of the other big spending clubs (and other smaller spending clubs) being able to appoint at least one that was able to build a side to win something. I'm certainly not going to lay into Keegan or Sir Bobby, for sentimental reasons more than anything. But the fact is that they both had significant backing and won nothing. You claim that posters on here are accepting lowered expectations now. If that's the case, then is accepting winning nothing when we were one of the biggest spending clubs in the country also accepting standards below what they should have been given the circumstances? Look at Chelsea, as one of the biggest spenders, if they go a season without winning something they aren't happy. When we were one of the biggest spenders and went a season without winning something, you were content with the european qualification. You have to align your expectations with your resources available at the time, something I think you struggle with. You were content with not winning anything when we had the resources to do be able to realistically do so and when others with lesser means were able to do so, yet point the finger at others for accepting mid-table mediocrity for accepting lower standards even though that's all that's probably realistic given our (and other club's) finances now. A tad hypocritical I think mate.

 

10 years out of the 15 under their ownership were managed by Keegan and Robson. Dalglish had a managerial record only bettered by Alex Ferguson, arguably, as he is one of only a few managers who had won the title with 2 different clubs, and Gullit won the FA Cup and left his team in the Champions league and 3rd in the league. So it is difficult to see where you think they can appoint a succession of managers better qualified than this. That altogether makes 12 out of 15 years, and one of the years under Roeder we finished 7th and qualified for europe.

 

You think that is appointing the "wrong" managers ?

 

As well as that, the crucial element [and you touch on it] is that if we didn't qualify for europe we looked at what was wrong with a view to correcting it. Of course Chelsea have higher ambitions, once you have won a trophy it raises your expectation. Ditto the last board, expectations were raised to a point where qualifying for europe was expected. We now have an owner who is happy with survival and a small profit for himself [as it appears] and a lot of supporters have fell into this same view and expectation.

 

You can't blame a board of directors if a group of players fail to perform in a Cup Final, when they are clearly good enough to have performed well and won those matches. The buck has to stop with the players, their preparation, team selections, motivation or whatever.

 

Edit. I'm not content at all with losing those Cup Finals and losing out in the title race, but when do you think it will happen again ? When will we have a group of players good enough to perform consistently at these levels ? This is the perspective.

 

 

Sometimes you have to look past a managers 'qualifications' when appointing them and be more astute. Look at Arsenal with Wenger or ManU with Fergie. Having the ability to gauge the man and not the C.V is imperative. You can't just reel off stats about the appointments without looking at the circumstances either. Modestly backing Robson/Heavily backing Souness for example. "The buck has to stop with the players, their preparation, team selections, motivation or whatever." - surely the board appoint a man who prepares, selects and motivates the team. If the man they appoint fails at the last hurdle then he hasn't been a success.

 

The comment re: the owner taking a small profit for himself has no substance either, especially when you consider that the men you ferociously defend are the ones proven to have taken a profit, not Mike Ashley. That's the truth, you might not like the truth, but that is the truth

 

maybe, but one of the points I've made for a long time now, in perspective, is that over the 15 years, how many teams were "successful" then, if winning trophies is your one and only guideline ? Are you saying every team that doesn't win a trophy is "unsuccessful" and have therefore "failed". Do you consider Keegan and Robson, especially Keegan to be a "failure" ?

 

At the end of the day, if you think we were failures [and I hate to say this, people say its a wind up when I do and I've said it hundreds of times, but it isn't a wind up, its perspective] only 4 teams did better than we did during their time, the same 4 teams are the only teams with a higher average league position, the same 4 teams are the only ones who qualified more for europe. So if we "failed", then what do you consider the other 87 league teams in the country ? The fact is, all those clubs supporters, the vast majority of football supporters in this country, would have swapped positions with us, faster than you can say "we are a selling club again". That's perspective, and is also the truth too.

 

Mike Ashley will NEVER match it, we won't finish 5th or get anywhere near challenging the top 4 even once, for as long as he has a hole in his arse. It could be a long time until we do it again. Thats also the truth, and its also putting it into perspective.

 

Far better to go close and give it your best shot than not to attempt it at all. Yes ?

 

As a supporter with genuine emotion towards Keegan and Bobby it's difficult to use the word failure to describe them. But looking at it logically, we were one of the biggest spending clubs around and they still won nothing. Nowadays, when a big spending club fails to win anything, the axe falls on the manager. Perhaps the low expectations of only qualifying for europe being acceptable despite being a top spending club is what makes us look at those 2 managers as being better than the reality, or perhaps it's merely those managers being remembered more fondly than they would at another club because of the dross like Kenny D/Souness etc that we had for comparison.

It comes down to your targets as to whether you 'failed'. We spent the most money so that we could win things and didn't. As I said in a previous post, you have to align expectations with the resources available to ourselves and other clubs. You say 4 teams bettered us, but how many of them spent more than us? Less than half of them. Bringing the other 87 clubs league teams up is a bit of a daft point to make, by that logic Mike Ashley is doing a sterling job because the vast majority of those league clubs are still below us.

 

He's not aiming for what he should be aiming for though.

 

Selling our best players/forcing them out/creating a situation where they see better careers elsewhere, other than to the obvious clubs like Barcelona, Real, perhaps Manu, is unnaceptable for a club like Newcastle.

 

I can't in any way consider Keegan to have "failed". Nor can I consider Dalglish or Gullit to be anything other than appointments made with ambition in mind [even though I would not have appointed Gullit myself personally, but he did have the track record]. If KK had stayed, if we had won the title in 1996, if we had beat chelsea in the FA Cup Semi Final, if we had won either of those 2 FA Cup Finals, we would have had an altogether different club now, especially the title in 96. But we didn't, so if you look at it ruthlessly then we failed but if you look at all the circumstances it was far from it.

 

Would you not like us to be in those sort of positions now ?

 

If you've been looking at this board for a while as you say, you will be aware that there is a divide between pro-Ashley and anti-Ashley, this board has the most anti-Ashley than the other message boards, obviously that is my stance which has been the case almost since he walked through the door. I've had a lot of flak, but more people are starting to realise we are going nowhere under this man and I don't subscribe to the theory we should be grateful to him for saving us from going under for even a minute, or any other bollocks that Llambias spouts.

 

Edit. You could also arguably say we have been the best team that never won the premiership, and most people would agree we ought to have won something during all those years, even Bobby Robson played a weakened team and lost opportunities to even with the League Cup.

Edited May 5, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Christmas Tree 3997]

an interesting debate tonight fellas with some interesting points. Particularly Mr Curtains points about failure under KK and Sir Bobby bearing in mind the money spent.

 

While "true", it will never been seen that way by most who had had to endure the previous 40 years of dross.

 

As you say though a club in that position today, with that sort of spend and with no success.......

 

(I'd still take it all back in a heart beat)

[LeazesMag 0]

an interesting debate tonight fellas with some interesting points. Particularly Mr Curtains points about failure under KK and Sir Bobby bearing in mind the money spent.

 

While "true", it will never been seen that way by most who had had to endure the previous 40 years of dross.

 

As you say though a club in that position today, with that sort of spend and with no success.......

 

(I'd still take it all back in a heart beat)

 

Aye, but I've heard it before, not just from one or two of my old mates in Scarborough [Leeds supporters mostly] but this idea that Keegan failed because he won nowt........they think he took over the club that was already in the top 6, is the impression I got.

 

They would give their fucking teeth to have had Keegan as their boss, even when they had the Irish clown [now THERE'S somebody who wasted a lot of money, and still didn't match Keegan ].

[KrulsCurtains 0]

Selling our best players/forcing them out/creating a situation where they see better careers elsewhere, other than to the obvious clubs like Barcelona, Real, perhaps Manu, is unnaceptable for a club like Newcastle.

 

I can't in any way consider Keegan to have "failed". Nor can I consider Dalglish or Gullit to be anything other than appointments made with ambition in mind [even though I would not have appointed Gullit myself personally, but he did have the track record]. If KK had stayed, if we had won the title in 1996, if we had beat chelsea in the FA Cup Semi Final, if we had won either of those 2 FA Cup Finals, we would have had an altogether different club now, especially the title in 96. But we didn't, so if you look at it ruthlessly then we failed but if you look at all the circumstances it was far from it.

 

Would you not like us to be in those sort of positions now ?

 

If you've been looking at this board for a while as you say, you will be aware that there is a divide between pro-Ashley and anti-Ashley, this board has the most anti-Ashley than the other message boards, obviously that is my stance which has been the case almost since he walked through the door. I've had a lot of flak, but more people are starting to realise we are going nowhere under this man and I don't subscribe to the theory we should be grateful to him for saving us from going under for even a minute, or any other bollocks that Llambias spouts.

 

Edit. You could also arguably say we have been the best team that never won the premiership, and most people would agree we ought to have won something during all those years, even Bobby Robson played a weakened team and lost opportunities to even with the League Cup.

 

 

Again you have to align your expectations to the resources available. We can't compete financially with Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd or Arsenal. That means Champions League football is a long shot. Whilst Champions League football is a long shot, we can't gamble the money to try and get there because the chance of a return (i.e Champions League revenue) is too small. The last board spent that money knowing that they could recoup it through Champions League revenue, because at the time other clubs didn't have the resources and a top 4 finish was more attainable. The only way we can do it now is to try and extract value for money in the transfer market and build that way. That's how Spurs did it. They sold their best players, Carrick and Berbatov respectively, for huge amounts and were astute and it paid off. Whether we're as successful in this approach I don't know, but to completely ignore the fact that the Champions League spots are held by richer clubs and think that we should be up there just because the last board were is naive, because the dynamics of football have changed.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Selling our best players/forcing them out/creating a situation where they see better careers elsewhere, other than to the obvious clubs like Barcelona, Real, perhaps Manu, is unnaceptable for a club like Newcastle.

 

I can't in any way consider Keegan to have "failed". Nor can I consider Dalglish or Gullit to be anything other than appointments made with ambition in mind [even though I would not have appointed Gullit myself personally, but he did have the track record]. If KK had stayed, if we had won the title in 1996, if we had beat chelsea in the FA Cup Semi Final, if we had won either of those 2 FA Cup Finals, we would have had an altogether different club now, especially the title in 96. But we didn't, so if you look at it ruthlessly then we failed but if you look at all the circumstances it was far from it.

 

Would you not like us to be in those sort of positions now ?

 

If you've been looking at this board for a while as you say, you will be aware that there is a divide between pro-Ashley and anti-Ashley, this board has the most anti-Ashley than the other message boards, obviously that is my stance which has been the case almost since he walked through the door. I've had a lot of flak, but more people are starting to realise we are going nowhere under this man and I don't subscribe to the theory we should be grateful to him for saving us from going under for even a minute, or any other bollocks that Llambias spouts.

 

Edit. You could also arguably say we have been the best team that never won the premiership, and most people would agree we ought to have won something during all those years, even Bobby Robson played a weakened team and lost opportunities to even with the League Cup.

 

 

Again you have to align your expectations to the resources available. We can't compete financially with Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd or Arsenal. That means Champions League football is a long shot. Whilst Champions League football is a long shot, we can't gamble the money to try and get there because the chance of a return (i.e Champions League revenue) is too small. The last board spent that money knowing that they could recoup it through Champions League revenue, because at the time other clubs didn't have the resources and a top 4 finish was more attainable. The only way we can do it now is to try and extract value for money in the transfer market and build that way. That's how Spurs did it. They sold their best players, Carrick and Berbatov respectively, for huge amounts and were astute and it paid off. Whether we're as successful in this approach I don't know, but to completely ignore the fact that the Champions League spots are held by richer clubs and think that we should be up there just because the last board were is naive, because the dynamics of football have changed.

 

spot on

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

complete TWAT.

[LeazesMag 0]

Selling our best players/forcing them out/creating a situation where they see better careers elsewhere, other than to the obvious clubs like Barcelona, Real, perhaps Manu, is unnaceptable for a club like Newcastle.

 

I can't in any way consider Keegan to have "failed". Nor can I consider Dalglish or Gullit to be anything other than appointments made with ambition in mind [even though I would not have appointed Gullit myself personally, but he did have the track record]. If KK had stayed, if we had won the title in 1996, if we had beat chelsea in the FA Cup Semi Final, if we had won either of those 2 FA Cup Finals, we would have had an altogether different club now, especially the title in 96. But we didn't, so if you look at it ruthlessly then we failed but if you look at all the circumstances it was far from it.

 

Would you not like us to be in those sort of positions now ?

 

If you've been looking at this board for a while as you say, you will be aware that there is a divide between pro-Ashley and anti-Ashley, this board has the most anti-Ashley than the other message boards, obviously that is my stance which has been the case almost since he walked through the door. I've had a lot of flak, but more people are starting to realise we are going nowhere under this man and I don't subscribe to the theory we should be grateful to him for saving us from going under for even a minute, or any other bollocks that Llambias spouts.

 

Edit. You could also arguably say we have been the best team that never won the premiership, and most people would agree we ought to have won something during all those years, even Bobby Robson played a weakened team and lost opportunities to even with the League Cup.

 

 

Again you have to align your expectations to the resources available. We can't compete financially with Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd or Arsenal. That means Champions League football is a long shot. Whilst Champions League football is a long shot, we can't gamble the money to try and get there because the chance of a return (i.e Champions League revenue) is too small. The last board spent that money knowing that they could recoup it through Champions League revenue, because at the time other clubs didn't have the resources and a top 4 finish was more attainable. The only way we can do it now is to try and extract value for money in the transfer market and build that way. That's how Spurs did it. They sold their best players, Carrick and Berbatov respectively, for huge amounts and were astute and it paid off. Whether we're as successful in this approach I don't know, but to completely ignore the fact that the Champions League spots are held by richer clubs and think that we should be up there just because the last board were is naive, because the dynamics of football have changed.

 

spot on

 

No it isn't. The Ashley defenders like you will trot out this sort of stuff, but we are one of the biggest club in the country, it is no excuse whatsoever for accepting the selling of our best players to clubs like Liverpool and Spurs and competing with the likes of Bolton, Blackburn, Wolves, Norwich etc

 

We are 5 times the club that clubs like these are, and always will be.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Selling our best players/forcing them out/creating a situation where they see better careers elsewhere, other than to the obvious clubs like Barcelona, Real, perhaps Manu, is unnaceptable for a club like Newcastle.

 

I can't in any way consider Keegan to have "failed". Nor can I consider Dalglish or Gullit to be anything other than appointments made with ambition in mind [even though I would not have appointed Gullit myself personally, but he did have the track record]. If KK had stayed, if we had won the title in 1996, if we had beat chelsea in the FA Cup Semi Final, if we had won either of those 2 FA Cup Finals, we would have had an altogether different club now, especially the title in 96. But we didn't, so if you look at it ruthlessly then we failed but if you look at all the circumstances it was far from it.

 

Would you not like us to be in those sort of positions now ?

 

If you've been looking at this board for a while as you say, you will be aware that there is a divide between pro-Ashley and anti-Ashley, this board has the most anti-Ashley than the other message boards, obviously that is my stance which has been the case almost since he walked through the door. I've had a lot of flak, but more people are starting to realise we are going nowhere under this man and I don't subscribe to the theory we should be grateful to him for saving us from going under for even a minute, or any other bollocks that Llambias spouts.

 

Edit. You could also arguably say we have been the best team that never won the premiership, and most people would agree we ought to have won something during all those years, even Bobby Robson played a weakened team and lost opportunities to even with the League Cup.

 

 

Again you have to align your expectations to the resources available. We can't compete financially with Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd or Arsenal. That means Champions League football is a long shot. Whilst Champions League football is a long shot, we can't gamble the money to try and get there because the chance of a return (i.e Champions League revenue) is too small. The last board spent that money knowing that they could recoup it through Champions League revenue, because at the time other clubs didn't have the resources and a top 4 finish was more attainable. The only way we can do it now is to try and extract value for money in the transfer market and build that way. That's how Spurs did it. They sold their best players, Carrick and Berbatov respectively, for huge amounts and were astute and it paid off. Whether we're as successful in this approach I don't know, but to completely ignore the fact that the Champions League spots are held by richer clubs and think that we should be up there just because the last board were is naive, because the dynamics of football have changed.

 

spot on

 

No it isn't. The Ashley defenders like you will trot out this sort of stuff, but we are one of the biggest club in the country, it is no excuse whatsoever for accepting the selling of our best players to clubs like Liverpool and Spurs and competing with the likes of Bolton, Blackburn, Wolves, Norwich etc

 

We are 5 times the club that clubs like these are, and always will be.

 

 

No point arguing with you. Kruls curtains statement is still spot on.