LeazesMag 0 Posted March 7, 2006 Author Share Posted March 7, 2006 nah, Omar with his vast knowledge of NUFC is going to give us an opinion on it, rather than follow me around like a puppy dog 104098[/snapback] Which is, in fairness, all I've ever seen him do. Little yappy terrier tbh. 104100[/snapback] hope he was tested for rabies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wor Al 0 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 LM, so you reckon Jim Smith is a better manager than Mourinho because he managed more games? 104096[/snapback] Poor old Omar, still flitting from board to board searching for some sort of acceptance ... 104099[/snapback] You're going to answer the question? or you're gonna duck it again? Which is, in fairness, all I've ever seen him do. Little yappy terrier tbh. I knew you'd stick your bum in, tbh. I'm sure LM loved that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Oh yeah sorry! forgot about the 900 odd games! 104090[/snapback] you're obsessed with me aren't you 104091[/snapback] No, he's obsessed with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 7, 2006 Author Share Posted March 7, 2006 Oh yeah sorry! forgot about the 900 odd games! 104090[/snapback] you're obsessed with me aren't you 104091[/snapback] No, he's obsessed with me. 104113[/snapback] No he's really obsessed with Fraser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catmag 336 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Oh yeah sorry! forgot about the 900 odd games! 104090[/snapback] you're obsessed with me aren't you 104091[/snapback] No, he's obsessed with me. 104113[/snapback] No he's really obsessed with Fraser 104173[/snapback] Oh for fuck's sake... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 For Alex. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/...c,16535.60.html Once again you have proved to be a stupid bastard who doesn't read threads....I don't give a shit if those players were available at the time or not, the question was to name players.... and I named players, low priced ones too, and also stated quite factually that bearing in mind the chairman had handed over 50m quid [as a result of himself running a club very well and having such an amount of money] that we could have bought all those players I named simply by making an offer that couldn't be turned down [as was the case with Boumsong], again because we are bigger than the clubs in question, which is down to the way the club is run by the chairman and his directors. The questions I had in mind, which I'm sure everyone else knew what I meant, were Name me the clubs who have been more successful than us on and off the pitch than us over the last decade. [Clue = 4. Which is why I named 4 players as you asked] Explain why the other big city clubs have not filled their own grounds and maximed their potential to match us, as they have all done in the past. Thus answering who is responsible for us being bigger and better than Villa, Everton, Birmingham, Wolves, Portsmouth, Leeds, Southampton, Spurs, Man City over th last decade, when all these clubs have been bigger and better than us at times in the past, some of them for long periods. Explain why our old board didn't fill the ground, buy England players, appoint England managers, and qualify regularly for europe, especially when they had the opportunity to build on the unexpected Fairs Cup Win. As you are so quick to call trophy winning managers we appoint as "shit", please explain what exact criteria further to this the club should be doing in future, on top of funding all of them with an enormous amount of money to bring the same success to the club that they achieved elsewhere ? Now, answer these questions, I answered yours, don't bother giving stupid little mincey smarmy 3 word answers like a fucking tart as usual....answer them with factual answers or don't bother fuckin asking me any more, and just accept you are talking a heap of crap and have absolutely no idea how much this football club has advanced ahead of our rivals under this current board of directors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Leazes has gone in to meltdown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 (edited) Name me the clubs who have been more successful than us on and off the pitch than us over the last decade. [Clue = 4. Which is why I named 4 players as you asked] 106542[/snapback] According to you, it's what happens on the pitch that matters, no? So I'll name a few shall I? Villa, Leicester, Spurs, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea. They've all won stuff, we haven't. EDIT: Forgot Liverpool. Edited March 14, 2006 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34158 Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Name me the clubs who have been more successful than us on and off the pitch than us over the last decade. [Clue = 4. Which is why I named 4 players as you asked] 106542[/snapback] According to you, it's what happens on the pitch that matters, no? So I'll name a few shall I? Villa, Leicester, Spurs, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea. They've all won stuff, we haven't. 106547[/snapback] It was Souness that led Blackburn to their latest trophy btw - the man's a GENIUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 (edited) Explain why the other big city clubs have not filled their own grounds and maximed their potential to match us, as they have all done in the past. Thus answering who is responsible for us being bigger and better than Villa, Everton, Birmingham, Wolves, Portsmouth, Leeds, Southampton, Spurs, Man City over th last decade, when all these clubs have been bigger and better than us at times in the past, some of them for long periods. 106542[/snapback] A combination of things. I'd put the Keegan factor down as one thing. I'd also say it is to do with our being the only club in a city unlike most of the ones you mention. It's also down to us having a bigger fan base historically than those clubs, check out the average all-time attendances if you don't believe me. Edited March 14, 2006 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Explain why our old board didn't fill the ground, buy England players, appoint England managers, and qualify regularly for europe, especially when they had the opportunity to build on the unexpected Fairs Cup Win. 106542[/snapback] Our old board had no ambition whatsoever, I'll give Shepherd credit where it's due, he's got plenty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 As you are so quick to call trophy winning managers we appoint as "shit", please explain what exact criteria further to this the club should be doing in future, on top of funding all of them with an enormous amount of money to bring the same success to the club that they achieved elsewhere ? 106542[/snapback] Never said they were shit. Said some appointments were failures though. And I gave a direct answer re: the criteria about two weeks ago in a thread you were active in, you just chose to ignore. If you insist I'll dig it out but I can't be arsed repeating myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I love the way Leazes abused me over here with reference to a thread on N-O so he wouldn't get banned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 I didn't want to reply over there Alex...but if I did I would certainly make reference to the fact that you post on there despite slagging it off all the time...so maybe I've done you a favour by saving you from being hypocritical !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 Explain why the other big city clubs have not filled their own grounds and maximed their potential to match us, as they have all done in the past. Thus answering who is responsible for us being bigger and better than Villa, Everton, Birmingham, Wolves, Portsmouth, Leeds, Southampton, Spurs, Man City over th last decade, when all these clubs have been bigger and better than us at times in the past, some of them for long periods. 106542[/snapback] A combination of things. I'd put the Keegan factor down as one thing. I'd also say it is to do with our being the only club in a city unlike most of the ones you mention. It's also down to us having a bigger fan base historically than those clubs, check out the average all-time attendances if you don't believe me. 106552[/snapback] For over 30 years, we only really got 50,000 gates when we won the Fairs Cup, for long periods got a LOT less than that.......why ? Where were the loyal fans, and why didn't the board do something about it ? And why do the current board ? Some of those clubs slaughtered us on and off the pitch, why ? And who was responsible for that situation, both from their point of view and ours ? So who is now responsible for us being in the position of outspending them and outperforming them ? As the mackems are only 12 miles down the road, that is I would say another big club within the same fanbase area. Which has nothing to do with us not tapping the same fanbase in the past, nor the other teams being better than us. Why ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I didn't want to reply over there Alex...but if I did I would certainly make reference to the fact that you post on there despite slagging it off all the time...so maybe I've done you a favour by saving you from being hypocritical !!! 106568[/snapback] To be honest Leazes I saw you put that yesterday and I let it pass but feel free to post all the links on there where I've been slagging that place off. I may have took the piss out of certain people on there but I haven't slagged the place off that much and certainly not of late. You do like to make things up when you can't answer a question though so it's hardly surprising. Incidentally, doesn't your sig on here make reference to a user/thread on N-O. Pot, kettle, black tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I didn't want to reply over there Alex...but if I did I would certainly make reference to the fact that you post on there despite slagging it off all the time...so maybe I've done you a favour by saving you from being hypocritical !!! 106568[/snapback] Nobody could save Alex from that fate tbh. Leazes though, seriously you are obsessed. Every way you choose to weight an argument as to what determines 'signs of success or progress' (and you've maneouevred considerably) has been addressed with examples of where we've been found wanting. Most recently this has gone from 'how much more money etc etc' has Freddy pumped into the club than previous chairmen- because this has been addressed by compelling remarks that, by and large Freddy hasnt been the generator of the sort of cash that other chairmen havent had the luxury of, to remarks about how much further we've come than other comparable clubs-which has now been answered on several ocasions by compelling examples of how comparable and much 'smaller' clubs have actually won trophies where we've won nowt! It's getting daft. And as for people not answering your points, dare I suggest it's become something to do with fatigue at the fact that you simply abandon an argument once its been defeated and start all over again with a completely new premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 To be honest Leazes I did offer to agree to disagree on this matter recently and you said fair enough. Quite why a debate about Boumsong on N-O needed to be made into yet another argument over here about Shepherd is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 I didn't want to reply over there Alex...but if I did I would certainly make reference to the fact that you post on there despite slagging it off all the time...so maybe I've done you a favour by saving you from being hypocritical !!! 106568[/snapback] Nobody could save Alex from that fate tbh. Leazes though, seriously you are obsessed. Every way you choose to weight an argument as to what determines 'signs of success or progress' (and you've maneouevred considerably) has been addressed with examples of where we've been found wanting. Most recently this has gone from 'how much more money etc etc' has Freddy pumped into the club than previous chairmen- because this has been addressed by compelling remarks that, by and large Freddy hasnt been the generator of the sort of cash that other chairmen havent had the luxury of, to remarks about how much further we've come than other comparable clubs-which has now been answered on several ocasions by compelling examples of how comparable and much 'smaller' clubs have actually won trophies where we've won nowt! It's getting daft. And as for people not answering your points, dare I suggest it's become something to do with fatigue at the fact that you simply abandon an argument once its been defeated and start all over again with a completely new premise. 106575[/snapback] I haven't maneouevred at all. My point is the same as its always been. Shepherd is a good chairman, he is running the club well and enabling the club to compete for international players and is appointing managers with winning pedigrees and giving them the backing to succeed. This is what makes him good, because he is doing better than the vast majority of all the other big city clubs, and tapping the clubs resources better than all of our other chairman bar SJH in the last 50 years at least. You, and NO ONE, can put forward any FACTS to prove anything in the above paragraph is anything but a true factual statement. Anyone with any sense will basically see how he has pushed out the boat financially to strive for success, and no one can come up with any other criteria to guarantee the successful manager to win one of only 2 trophies than what is already being applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 I didn't want to reply over there Alex...but if I did I would certainly make reference to the fact that you post on there despite slagging it off all the time...so maybe I've done you a favour by saving you from being hypocritical !!! 106568[/snapback] To be honest Leazes I saw you put that yesterday and I let it pass but feel free to post all the links on there where I've been slagging that place off. I may have took the piss out of certain people on there but I haven't slagged the place off that much and certainly not of late. You do like to make things up when you can't answer a question though so it's hardly surprising. Incidentally, doesn't your sig on here make reference to a user/thread on N-O. Pot, kettle, black tbh 106570[/snapback] I am not slagging the site off. The signature is a link to a particularly amusing and stupid sequence of posts. Nothing more nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I didn't want to reply over there Alex...but if I did I would certainly make reference to the fact that you post on there despite slagging it off all the time...so maybe I've done you a favour by saving you from being hypocritical !!! 106568[/snapback] To be honest Leazes I saw you put that yesterday and I let it pass but feel free to post all the links on there where I've been slagging that place off. I may have took the piss out of certain people on there but I haven't slagged the place off that much and certainly not of late. You do like to make things up when you can't answer a question though so it's hardly surprising. Incidentally, doesn't your sig on here make reference to a user/thread on N-O. Pot, kettle, black tbh 106570[/snapback] I am not slagging the site off. The signature is a link to a particularly amusing and stupid sequence of posts. Nothing more nothing less. 106621[/snapback] Which is exactly what I've done when I've commented about people on N-O. What's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I didn't want to reply over there Alex...but if I did I would certainly make reference to the fact that you post on there despite slagging it off all the time...so maybe I've done you a favour by saving you from being hypocritical !!! 106568[/snapback] Nobody could save Alex from that fate tbh. Leazes though, seriously you are obsessed. Every way you choose to weight an argument as to what determines 'signs of success or progress' (and you've maneouevred considerably) has been addressed with examples of where we've been found wanting. Most recently this has gone from 'how much more money etc etc' has Freddy pumped into the club than previous chairmen- because this has been addressed by compelling remarks that, by and large Freddy hasnt been the generator of the sort of cash that other chairmen havent had the luxury of, to remarks about how much further we've come than other comparable clubs-which has now been answered on several ocasions by compelling examples of how comparable and much 'smaller' clubs have actually won trophies where we've won nowt! It's getting daft. And as for people not answering your points, dare I suggest it's become something to do with fatigue at the fact that you simply abandon an argument once its been defeated and start all over again with a completely new premise. 106575[/snapback] I haven't maneouevred at all. My point is the same as its always been. Shepherd is a good chairman, he is running the club well and enabling the club to compete for international players and is appointing managers with winning pedigrees and giving them the backing to succeed. This is what makes him good, because he is doing better than the vast majority of all the other big city clubs, and tapping the clubs resources better than all of our other chairman bar SJH in the last 50 years at least. You, and NO ONE, can put forward any FACTS to prove anything in the above paragraph is anything but a true factual statement. Anyone with any sense will basically see how he has pushed out the boat financially to strive for success, and no one can come up with any other criteria to guarantee the successful manager to win one of only 2 trophies than what is already being applied. 106616[/snapback] Your questions have been answered loads of times tbh. You just don't like/agree with those answers. Fair do's, get over it man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34158 Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I didn't want to reply over there Alex...but if I did I would certainly make reference to the fact that you post on there despite slagging it off all the time...so maybe I've done you a favour by saving you from being hypocritical !!! 106568[/snapback] Nobody could save Alex from that fate tbh. Leazes though, seriously you are obsessed. Every way you choose to weight an argument as to what determines 'signs of success or progress' (and you've maneouevred considerably) has been addressed with examples of where we've been found wanting. Most recently this has gone from 'how much more money etc etc' has Freddy pumped into the club than previous chairmen- because this has been addressed by compelling remarks that, by and large Freddy hasnt been the generator of the sort of cash that other chairmen havent had the luxury of, to remarks about how much further we've come than other comparable clubs-which has now been answered on several ocasions by compelling examples of how comparable and much 'smaller' clubs have actually won trophies where we've won nowt! It's getting daft. And as for people not answering your points, dare I suggest it's become something to do with fatigue at the fact that you simply abandon an argument once its been defeated and start all over again with a completely new premise. 106575[/snapback] I haven't maneouevred at all. My point is the same as its always been. Shepherd is a good chairman, he is running the club well and enabling the club to compete for international players and is appointing managers with winning pedigrees and giving them the backing to succeed. This is what makes him good, because he is doing better than the vast majority of all the other big city clubs, and tapping the clubs resources better than all of our other chairman bar SJH in the last 50 years at least. You, and NO ONE, can put forward any FACTS to prove anything in the above paragraph is anything but a true factual statement. Anyone with any sense will basically see how he has pushed out the boat financially to strive for success, and no one can come up with any other criteria to guarantee the successful manager to win one of only 2 trophies than what is already being applied. 106616[/snapback] LM's posts can be categorised in the same way that they name episodes of Friends. This is "The one where Leazes tells us all how good Shepherd is." He's also got "The one where Leazes tells us how good Bellamy is", "The one where Leazes tells us how crap Souness is" and "The one where Leazes makes something up and attributes it to whoever he's arguing with." On General Chat he has "The one where everyone should get the death penalty." I think that pretty much covers all of his posts tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 I didn't want to reply over there Alex...but if I did I would certainly make reference to the fact that you post on there despite slagging it off all the time...so maybe I've done you a favour by saving you from being hypocritical !!! 106568[/snapback] Nobody could save Alex from that fate tbh. Leazes though, seriously you are obsessed. Every way you choose to weight an argument as to what determines 'signs of success or progress' (and you've maneouevred considerably) has been addressed with examples of where we've been found wanting. Most recently this has gone from 'how much more money etc etc' has Freddy pumped into the club than previous chairmen- because this has been addressed by compelling remarks that, by and large Freddy hasnt been the generator of the sort of cash that other chairmen havent had the luxury of, to remarks about how much further we've come than other comparable clubs-which has now been answered on several ocasions by compelling examples of how comparable and much 'smaller' clubs have actually won trophies where we've won nowt! It's getting daft. And as for people not answering your points, dare I suggest it's become something to do with fatigue at the fact that you simply abandon an argument once its been defeated and start all over again with a completely new premise. 106575[/snapback] I haven't maneouevred at all. My point is the same as its always been. Shepherd is a good chairman, he is running the club well and enabling the club to compete for international players and is appointing managers with winning pedigrees and giving them the backing to succeed. This is what makes him good, because he is doing better than the vast majority of all the other big city clubs, and tapping the clubs resources better than all of our other chairman bar SJH in the last 50 years at least. You, and NO ONE, can put forward any FACTS to prove anything in the above paragraph is anything but a true factual statement. Anyone with any sense will basically see how he has pushed out the boat financially to strive for success, and no one can come up with any other criteria to guarantee the successful manager to win one of only 2 trophies than what is already being applied. 106616[/snapback] LM's posts can be categorised in the same way that they name episodes of Friends. This is "The one where Leazes tells us all how good Shepherd is." He's also got "The one where Leazes tells us how good Bellamy is", "The one where Leazes tells us how crap Souness is" and " The one where Leazes makes something up and attributes it to whoever he's arguing with." On General Chat he has "The one where everyone should get the death penalty." I think that pretty much covers all of his posts tbh. 106629[/snapback] well you are making that up ? Or explain and show otherwise ? I certainly didn't make up the fact that you backed Souness until the end, nor the fact you appear not to understand the financial implications of the chairman backing not just him but all of his managers, but particular the position Souness put us in with his reckless attitude towards shipping out and bringing in players. And the good running of the company, in comparison with the club in the past and all the other big city clubs. Are you really an accountant ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I didn't want to reply over there Alex...but if I did I would certainly make reference to the fact that you post on there despite slagging it off all the time...so maybe I've done you a favour by saving you from being hypocritical !!! 106568[/snapback] Nobody could save Alex from that fate tbh. Leazes though, seriously you are obsessed. Every way you choose to weight an argument as to what determines 'signs of success or progress' (and you've maneouevred considerably) has been addressed with examples of where we've been found wanting. Most recently this has gone from 'how much more money etc etc' has Freddy pumped into the club than previous chairmen- because this has been addressed by compelling remarks that, by and large Freddy hasnt been the generator of the sort of cash that other chairmen havent had the luxury of, to remarks about how much further we've come than other comparable clubs-which has now been answered on several ocasions by compelling examples of how comparable and much 'smaller' clubs have actually won trophies where we've won nowt! It's getting daft. And as for people not answering your points, dare I suggest it's become something to do with fatigue at the fact that you simply abandon an argument once its been defeated and start all over again with a completely new premise. 106575[/snapback] I haven't maneouevred at all. My point is the same as its always been. Shepherd is a good chairman, he is running the club well and enabling the club to compete for international players and is appointing managers with winning pedigrees and giving them the backing to succeed. This is what makes him good, because he is doing better than the vast majority of all the other big city clubs, and tapping the clubs resources better than all of our other chairman bar SJH in the last 50 years at least. You, and NO ONE, can put forward any FACTS to prove anything in the above paragraph is anything but a true factual statement. Anyone with any sense will basically see how he has pushed out the boat financially to strive for success, and no one can come up with any other criteria to guarantee the successful manager to win one of only 2 trophies than what is already being applied. 106616[/snapback] This epitomises how you blank everything you dont agree with. I've said on more than one occasion that there are more than 2 trophies on offer per season. If you finish in the top 6 then there are four. Assuming you think top six is a realistic (ie not completely outlandish) aspiration for NUFC then stop saying there are only 2 trophies. I know you can hark back to Westwood etc which is more than most of us on here can and I know you compare us favourably now as to then in terms of expenditure etc. Not many on here can recall those days I grant you-I think this is what gets to you though and what colours your opinions-you think we dont have any appreciation of when we were shiiiiyyyiiiiiiite and so we should all shut up. However 1) thats not true (any of us on here under the age of 40 dont have any actual memory of us winning anything in our lifetimes!) and 2) it's not relevant to the debate about how Freddy is the right man to bring success (apart from the fact that he spends money and this is necessary-but this is agreed upon and therefore is not in issue. It sounds harsh but in all honesty your position is what is wrong with this club. You would never ever hear a Liverpool fan saying Freddy's 'achievements' and behaviour/professionalism are acceptable for LFC. It's all about what you're willing to settle for and to be honest you set your standards for NUFC low. These are the conditions for under achievement. You dont look for where we can improve (in terms of chairmen) instead it's always, how we 'could be a lot worse'-true enough but that is not a reason to simply accept the status quo. If Freddy was singlehandedly responsible for say the upturn in attendances and hence the extra revenues (that he is spending) then obviously you'd say he's doing something over and above what anyone else could do. That of course is absolute rubbish and everyone knows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now