Foooooook me

[luckyluke 1]

Liverpool no bigger than us? :D :icon_lol: :lol:

 

Seriously, some people are really, really deluded.

135961[/snapback]

 

Read PL's post to explain what I meant. Liverpool is a similar sized city to Newcastle (I'm including North Tyneside and Gateshead in that), and the people are no more fanatical about football than us - probably less so in fact. They have to "share" their support with another big and relatively successful club, Everton (not to mention about another 10 clubs within 50 miles). True, they have a sizable international and ex-pat support, but so do we. We get bigger crowds, despite not being successful.

So please tell me, without talking about trophies recently won (again, see PL's post), how are they a bigger club than us?

135972[/snapback]

 

You can't really talk about being a big club without talking about trophies won. And it's not just recently, they've won the league 18 times and the European cup five times!

 

In other regards we are equal, but not in the one that matters - sucess.

[LeazesMag 0]

Liverpool no bigger than us? :D :icon_lol: :lol:

 

Seriously, some people are really, really deluded.

135961[/snapback]

 

Read PL's post to explain what I meant. Liverpool is a similar sized city to Newcastle (I'm including North Tyneside and Gateshead in that), and the people are no more fanatical about football than us - probably less so in fact. They have to "share" their support with another big and relatively successful club, Everton (not to mention about another 10 clubs within 50 miles). True, they have a sizable international and ex-pat support, but so do we. We get bigger crowds, despite not being successful.

So please tell me, without talking about trophies recently won (again, see PL's post), how are they a bigger club than us?

135972[/snapback]

 

You can't really talk about being a big club without talking about trophies won. And it's not just recently, they've won the league 18 times and the European cup five times!

 

In other regards we are equal, but not in the one that matters - sucess.

135978[/snapback]

 

big clubs = clubs with big support

 

successful clubs = clubs that have won [many] trophies

[Renton 17767]

Liverpool no bigger than us? :D :icon_lol: :lol:

 

Seriously, some people are really, really deluded.

135961[/snapback]

 

Read PL's post to explain what I meant. Liverpool is a similar sized city to Newcastle (I'm including North Tyneside and Gateshead in that), and the people are no more fanatical about football than us - probably less so in fact. They have to "share" their support with another big and relatively successful club, Everton (not to mention about another 10 clubs within 50 miles). True, they have a sizable international and ex-pat support, but so do we. We get bigger crowds, despite not being successful.

So please tell me, without talking about trophies recently won (again, see PL's post), how are they a bigger club than us?

135972[/snapback]

 

You can't really talk about being a big club without talking about trophies won. And it's not just recently, they've won the league 18 times and the European cup five times!

 

In other regards we are equal, but not in the one that matters - sucess.

135978[/snapback]

 

big clubs = clubs with big support

 

successful clubs = clubs that have won [many] trophies

135981[/snapback]

 

Exactly. Quite a simple idea really.

[Guest Sima]

So you're going by attendance figures?

 

In that case Borussia Dortmund are the biggest club in the world.

[Lazarus 0]

So you're going by attendance figures?

 

In that case Borussia Dortmund are the biggest club in the world.

135987[/snapback]

 

isnt there a mexican stadium that holds just under 120000 ?

[Jimbo 133]

So you're going by attendance figures?

 

In that case Borussia Dortmund are the biggest club in the world.

135987[/snapback]

 

isnt there a mexican stadium that holds just under 120000 ?

135988[/snapback]

 

 

I thought the Maracanã in Rio was the biggest ?

[Guest Sima]

So you're going by attendance figures?

 

In that case Borussia Dortmund are the biggest club in the world.

135987[/snapback]

 

isnt there a mexican stadium that holds just under 120000 ?

135988[/snapback]

 

The Azteca does, not sure if their local team fills it though.

 

Dortmund had the highest average attendance in Europe last season, therefore, going by people's wafer thin argument about support being the be all and end all of club size they are bigger than any other side in Europe, possibly the world.

[Isegrim 8870]

So you're going by attendance figures?

 

In that case Borussia Dortmund are the biggest club in the world.

135987[/snapback]

 

isnt there a mexican stadium that holds just under 120000 ?

135988[/snapback]

 

The Azteca does, not sure if their local team fills it though.

 

Dortmund had the highest average attendance in Europe last season, therefore, going by people's wafer thin argument about support being the be all and end all of club size they are bigger than any other side in Europe, possibly the world.

135990[/snapback]

 

It just demonstrates that they are a big club with loyal supporters. Something they were always considered down here even when they remained trophyless for a couple of decades.

[Guest Sima]

Well going on some people's idiot logic it makes them the biggest club in Europe.

 

Seriously if you were to go onto any other team's message board and say Newcastle are just as big as Liverpool you'd be laughed out of the place. I really don't see how it can even be an argument. They have won 5 European Cups, 18 League Titles, had home to some of the greatest players this country has ever seen. They're far bigger than we will ever be.

[LeazesMag 0]

Well going on some people's idiot logic it makes them the biggest club in Europe.

 

Seriously if you were to go onto any other team's message board and say Newcastle are just as big as Liverpool you'd be laughed out of the place.  I really don't see how it can even be an argument.  They have won 5 European Cups, 18 League Titles, had home to some of the greatest players this country has ever seen.  They're far bigger than we will ever be.

136012[/snapback]

 

Of course thats a fair point, as a lot of people do confuse "big" with "successful".

 

Liverpool however, were not bigger than us before Shankly went to Liverpool. They hadn't even won the FA Cup until 1965. We also would have outstripped their crowds if we had had the stadium we have now during the Keegan era. Unfortunately, Shankly went to Liverpool and not Newcastle.

 

With a Keegan type era again, half the city would want to watch Newcastle, just like last time. We would easily outstrip almost everybody in the support stakes if we had genuine success, we wouldn't need half of North Wales to fill the stadium.

[Guest Sima]

 

Of course thats a fair point, as a lot of people do confuse "big" with "successful".

 

Liverpool however, were not bigger than us before Shankly went to Liverpool. They hadn't even won the FA Cup until 1965. We also would have outstripped their crowds if we had had the stadium we have now during the Keegan era. Unfortunately, Shankly went to Liverpool and not Newcastle.

 

With a Keegan type era again, half the city would want to watch Newcastle, just like last time. We would easily outstrip almost everybody in the support stakes if we had genuine success, we wouldn't need half of North Wales to fill the stadium.

136015[/snapback]

 

That's just a load of "ifs" though. Fact is, Shankly did go to Liverpool building a massive dynasty that would last for years to come.

 

If anything, it's even more of a testament to how much bigger they are that they have won all of those domestic and european honours in the time we have won one solitary trophy.

[Papa Lazaru 0]

I see people (well mainly one person) are still struggling with the english language. Its two different words, one is BIG (apertaining to size irrespective of success) the other is succesful (apertaining to success irrespective of size).

 

I fail to see how this is so hard to understand for people of any level of intelligence. No toon fan is (or ever would) claim to be on the same planet as Liverpool in terms of sucess, however those of us who can decipher the difference between big and succesful have pointed out that there are several clubs in this country who are big (or potentially big) clubs.

 

And it wasn't just based on attendance if posts were read correctly (which clearly they weren't), it was based on crowds, turnover, value of club, money spent and other factors.

Edited May 14, 2006 by Papa Lazaru

[Jimbo 133]

I see people (well mainly one person) are still struggling with the english language. Its two different words, one is BIG (apertaining to size irrespective of success) the other is succesful (apertaining to success irrespective of size).

 

I fail to see how this is so hard to understand for people of any level of intelligence. No toon fan is (or ever would) claim to be on the same planet as Liverpool in terms of sucess, however those of us who can decipher the difference between big and succesful have pointed out that there are several clubs in this country who are big (or potentially big) clubs.

 

And it wasn't just based on attendance if posts were read correctly (which clearly they weren't), it was based on crowds, turnover, value of club, money spent and other factors.

136019[/snapback]

 

 

Well put !

[Guest Sima]

I see people (well mainly one person) are still struggling with the english language. Its two different words, one is BIG (apertaining to size irrespective of success) the other is succesful (apertaining to success irrespective of size).

 

I fail to see how this is so hard to understand for people of any level of intelligence. No toon fan is (or ever would) claim to be on the same planet as Liverpool in terms of sucess, however those of us who can decipher the difference between big and succesful have pointed out that there are several clubs in this country who are big (or potentially big) clubs.

 

And it wasn't just based on attendance if posts were read correctly (which clearly they weren't), it was based on crowds, turnover, value of club, money spent and other factors.

136019[/snapback]

 

You can't truly be a big club without having success. Anyone who uses the term "sleeping giant" is a patronising oaf.

[Papa Lazaru 0]

I see people (well mainly one person) are still struggling with the english language. Its two different words, one is BIG (apertaining to size irrespective of success) the other is succesful (apertaining to success irrespective of size).

 

I fail to see how this is so hard to understand for people of any level of intelligence. No toon fan is (or ever would) claim to be on the same planet as Liverpool in terms of sucess, however those of us who can decipher the difference between big and succesful have pointed out that there are several clubs in this country who are big (or potentially big) clubs.

 

And it wasn't just based on attendance if posts were read correctly (which clearly they weren't), it was based on crowds, turnover, value of club, money spent and other factors.

136019[/snapback]

 

You can't truly be a big club without having success. Anyone who uses the term "sleeping giant" is a patronising oaf.

136028[/snapback]

 

I agree with you about that, the "sleeping giant" along with comments about how great fans are and feeling sorry for them etc. is often patronising, though i think the odd commentator/media type does actually maen it!

 

But with me its not because i'm a toon fan that i think we're a big club, i apply it to others as well, but i think its separate from success.

 

To be a truly massive global club then yes i think you'd need a few trophies in recent times, including a european 1 as well to get your name and rep around the world and increase your fanbase round the world.

 

But to be a big club for me can be attributed if on matters of size and finace without success. And to be honest success could be said to include CL qualification and regularly qualifying for and playing in europe which actually requires more of you than say a flukey run in the league cup against weakened sides and lower division teams.

[Renton 17767]

Agreed PL.

 

Neither are we a "sleeping giant", we are just a very unsuccessful giant.

Edited May 15, 2006 by Renton

[LeazesMag 0]

Hmmmm. Having witnessed 50,000 fans show such fanatical devotion to Shearer and our club on Thursday night, I wonder why a club that is certainly no bigger than us [Liverpool] can constantly achieve so much.

 

What's the difference? Maybe LM can tell us.

 

Mind, for us, it was a no win situation. Had West Ham won, it would have added more ridicule on our under-achieving. Instead we watch Liverpool getting ever further away, as the hopes of another Tyneside generation perish.

 

A bit melodramatic, I know, but true. 

135782[/snapback]

I wanted West Ham to win, I would have prefered to see the joy on faces not used to winning silverware rather than yet another trophy for the reds.

 

Lets face it, winning the Champions League from 3 goals down against Milan is going to take the gloss off coming from 'only' 2 down against 'mere' West Ham. Or any other cup win come to that, it simply won't get any better than that night in Istanbul.

 

However, I do find it fascinating that some clubs (particularly Liverpool) can keep that winning mentality (they know how to win trophies if you like, don't let pressure effect them) no matter how many changes of players/ managers/ back-room staff thery have. Other clubs (ourselves, Inter Milan maybe?) can throw money around until the cows come home and never win anything because we lack that mental edge.

135915[/snapback]

 

totally agree. Keegan said the 1st trophy will overcome a huge psychological barrier and he's exactly right.

135922[/snapback]

 

Its true, never mind the title we should have had, if we had just fluked a run through to and won a cup final it would have broken a massive barrier and lead surely to more trophies.

135924[/snapback]

 

I've edited the last post mate.

 

It breaks your fuckin heart seeing all these close shaves when you are sure all we need is a bit of luck. I was on about this in the pub the other night. The 1998 Cup Final and Keown stands on the ball, Shearer hits it with his left foot against the post...why doesn't it fall to his right foot ? The 1999 Cup Final, Keane goes off and his replacement scores with his first touch ? The 2000 Semi Final, we outplay Chelsea and lose to a goal that could have been disallowed.

 

The overriding factor in the 2 Cup Finals was the non-event. I put that down totally to the fact they just didn't believe they could win. The same as 1974. However the 1976 League Cup was a different kettle of fish, we played brilliantly despite having half the team carrying flu, but then again I think Gordon Lee was ahead of his time and nobody appreciated him. If we had had the club we have now, our history would have been totally different. The fact that he [correctly] sold MacDonald blinds too many people to how good he could have been for Newcastle.

135928[/snapback]

 

The 2000 Cup Final was the real killer for me. For once in a number of years, we would have stood a chance in the final facing Villa.

136022[/snapback]

 

Agonizing but right Bridget. That was THE one for us that really got away.

[Renton 17767]

Hmmmm. Having witnessed 50,000 fans show such fanatical devotion to Shearer and our club on Thursday night, I wonder why a club that is certainly no bigger than us [Liverpool] can constantly achieve so much.

 

What's the difference? Maybe LM can tell us.

 

Mind, for us, it was a no win situation. Had West Ham won, it would have added more ridicule on our under-achieving. Instead we watch Liverpool getting ever further away, as the hopes of another Tyneside generation perish.

 

A bit melodramatic, I know, but true. 

135782[/snapback]

I wanted West Ham to win, I would have prefered to see the joy on faces not used to winning silverware rather than yet another trophy for the reds.

 

Lets face it, winning the Champions League from 3 goals down against Milan is going to take the gloss off coming from 'only' 2 down against 'mere' West Ham. Or any other cup win come to that, it simply won't get any better than that night in Istanbul.

 

However, I do find it fascinating that some clubs (particularly Liverpool) can keep that winning mentality (they know how to win trophies if you like, don't let pressure effect them) no matter how many changes of players/ managers/ back-room staff thery have. Other clubs (ourselves, Inter Milan maybe?) can throw money around until the cows come home and never win anything because we lack that mental edge.

135915[/snapback]

 

totally agree. Keegan said the 1st trophy will overcome a huge psychological barrier and he's exactly right.

135922[/snapback]

 

Its true, never mind the title we should have had, if we had just fluked a run through to and won a cup final it would have broken a massive barrier and lead surely to more trophies.

135924[/snapback]

 

I've edited the last post mate.

 

It breaks your fuckin heart seeing all these close shaves when you are sure all we need is a bit of luck. I was on about this in the pub the other night. The 1998 Cup Final and Keown stands on the ball, Shearer hits it with his left foot against the post...why doesn't it fall to his right foot ? The 1999 Cup Final, Keane goes off and his replacement scores with his first touch ? The 2000 Semi Final, we outplay Chelsea and lose to a goal that could have been disallowed.

 

The overriding factor in the 2 Cup Finals was the non-event. I put that down totally to the fact they just didn't believe they could win. The same as 1974. However the 1976 League Cup was a different kettle of fish, we played brilliantly despite having half the team carrying flu, but then again I think Gordon Lee was ahead of his time and nobody appreciated him. If we had had the club we have now, our history would have been totally different. The fact that he [correctly] sold MacDonald blinds too many people to how good he could have been for Newcastle.

135928[/snapback]

 

The 2000 Cup Final was the real killer for me. For once in a number of years, we would have stood a chance in the final facing Villa.

136022[/snapback]

 

Agonizing but right Bridget. That was THE one for us that really got away.

136038[/snapback]

 

Agreed - BUT.

 

At that time although I was upset, I still felt that Bobby Robson of all people would [still] deliver for us (that was the end of his first year). It never happened, obviously.

 

Sometimes I think if he couldn't do it, who could?

Edited May 14, 2006 by Renton

[LeazesMag 0]

Hmmmm. Having witnessed 50,000 fans show such fanatical devotion to Shearer and our club on Thursday night, I wonder why a club that is certainly no bigger than us [Liverpool] can constantly achieve so much.

 

What's the difference? Maybe LM can tell us.

 

Mind, for us, it was a no win situation. Had West Ham won, it would have added more ridicule on our under-achieving. Instead we watch Liverpool getting ever further away, as the hopes of another Tyneside generation perish.

 

A bit melodramatic, I know, but true. 

135782[/snapback]

I wanted West Ham to win, I would have prefered to see the joy on faces not used to winning silverware rather than yet another trophy for the reds.

 

Lets face it, winning the Champions League from 3 goals down against Milan is going to take the gloss off coming from 'only' 2 down against 'mere' West Ham. Or any other cup win come to that, it simply won't get any better than that night in Istanbul.

 

However, I do find it fascinating that some clubs (particularly Liverpool) can keep that winning mentality (they know how to win trophies if you like, don't let pressure effect them) no matter how many changes of players/ managers/ back-room staff thery have. Other clubs (ourselves, Inter Milan maybe?) can throw money around until the cows come home and never win anything because we lack that mental edge.

135915[/snapback]

 

totally agree. Keegan said the 1st trophy will overcome a huge psychological barrier and he's exactly right.

135922[/snapback]

 

Its true, never mind the title we should have had, if we had just fluked a run through to and won a cup final it would have broken a massive barrier and lead surely to more trophies.

135924[/snapback]

 

I've edited the last post mate.

 

It breaks your fuckin heart seeing all these close shaves when you are sure all we need is a bit of luck. I was on about this in the pub the other night. The 1998 Cup Final and Keown stands on the ball, Shearer hits it with his left foot against the post...why doesn't it fall to his right foot ? The 1999 Cup Final, Keane goes off and his replacement scores with his first touch ? The 2000 Semi Final, we outplay Chelsea and lose to a goal that could have been disallowed.

 

The overriding factor in the 2 Cup Finals was the non-event. I put that down totally to the fact they just didn't believe they could win. The same as 1974. However the 1976 League Cup was a different kettle of fish, we played brilliantly despite having half the team carrying flu, but then again I think Gordon Lee was ahead of his time and nobody appreciated him. If we had had the club we have now, our history would have been totally different. The fact that he [correctly] sold MacDonald blinds too many people to how good he could have been for Newcastle.

135928[/snapback]

 

The 2000 Cup Final was the real killer for me. For once in a number of years, we would have stood a chance in the final facing Villa.

136022[/snapback]

 

Agonizing but right Bridget. That was THE one for us that really got away.

136038[/snapback]

 

Agreed - BUT.

 

At that time although I was upset, I still felt that Bobby Robson of all people would [still] deliver for us (that was the end of his first year). It never happened, obviously.

 

Sometimes I think if he couldn't do it, who could?

136040[/snapback]

 

Life would be far simpler if we just admitted that such a person doesn't exist

[Guest Scally Bob]

Morning lads, my first post on here but an interesting thread.

 

It's funny that this ongoing thing about "big" clubs keeps cropping up. I always find that it's unsuccessful clubs who hide behind the epithet. Like when O'Dreary went to Villa he'd go on about them being a massive club because it covers up the fact that they are poorly-run with no strategy and that despite being one of only two clubs in the city regularly play to two-thirds capacity.

 

Fans then get sucked into it. Sure the Toon get big crowds now but it wasn't always that way. And the way Fat Freddie carries on doesn't stabilise the club. So he will tell anyone who will listen about how big the club is and what potential there is. Wo betide anyone, like your local paper, who challenges him.

 

You have a very large area to draw your support from with few clubs competing for that attention. I live in Wigan and can drive to any one of six Premier League grounds in 45 minutes. The Mackems can't fill the ground despite giving tickets away and the ten-year waiting list at Boro (not really local I know) has dwindled to 12,000 season ticket holders in a few years. Your support, for league games anyway, has stayed up but pre-Sky it wasn't always the way. There are lots of fans attracted by the bright lights of the telly but when times get hard they are the first to drop off.

 

Funny thing is, as a Liverpool fan, I've never described us as a big club because it doesn't matter. If you use a term that's based on opinion rather than fact it can always be challenged

[wacko 0]

Well going on some people's idiot logic it makes them the biggest club in Europe.

 

Seriously if you were to go onto any other team's message board and say Newcastle are just as big as Liverpool you'd be laughed out of the place.  I really don't see how it can even be an argument.  They have won 5 European Cups, 18 League Titles, had home to some of the greatest players this country has ever seen.  They're far bigger than we will ever be.

136012[/snapback]

 

Of course thats a fair point, as a lot of people do confuse "big" with "successful".

 

Liverpool however, were not bigger than us before Shankly went to Liverpool. They hadn't even won the FA Cup until 1965. We also would have outstripped their crowds if we had had the stadium we have now during the Keegan era. Unfortunately, Shankly went to Liverpool and not Newcastle.

 

With a Keegan type era again, half the city would want to watch Newcastle, just like last time. We would easily outstrip almost everybody in the support stakes if we had genuine success, we wouldn't need half of North Wales to fill the stadium.

136015[/snapback]

Hi people. First post to an interesting discussion. Regarding "big" vs "successful", I think most people regard them as synonymous when talking about football clubs. Perhaps "rich" is a better word than "big" in terms of this discussion.

 

NUFC is certainly a rich club, as rich as LFC, but it's not as big nor as famous, certainly not outside England. Liverpool is practically a legendary club, and that has allowed us to attract people like Benitez. Benitez, in turn, can attract players like Alonso--who was wanted by Madrid--and together they can bring success to the club.

 

I don't like the term "sleeping giant", either, but NUFC has enormous potential. The problem, as I see it, is your board. They can't seem to tell a decent manager from a bad one, and when they found a good one in Uncle Bobby, he was hamstrung by the fact that the board felt Shearer to be more important than him. Compare Fergie jettisonning Keane, Beckham and now RVN. Or Houllier selling Fowler. Not a peep out of the boards. But at NUFC, leaving Shearer on the bench was enough to spell the end for a manager.

 

If you hired a promising manager like Jewell or Pardew and the board gave him proper support and let him get on with his job, you'd definitely see some trophies.

 

I'd agree that LFC have a more winning mentality than NUFC, but I don't think it comes so much from the history of the club, but more from the management. I don't have the exact stats to hand, but by the time Houllier left, it had been something like 2 years since we had come from behind to win a game. Benitez has made us famous for it, because he has instilled that belief in the players that wasn't there before.

 

Success starts with the board. We have been successful because our board has always tried to hire top managers and has given them time (often too much) and supported them well. Even Abramovich's money doesn't guarantee success--what has brought that is that he was smart enough to hire the very best people he could (Kenyon, Mourinho, Arnesen) and let them get on with the job. Until you get someone decent in at board level, I can't see things improving much for Newcastle.

[Renton 17767]

Well going on some people's idiot logic it makes them the biggest club in Europe.

 

Seriously if you were to go onto any other team's message board and say Newcastle are just as big as Liverpool you'd be laughed out of the place.  I really don't see how it can even be an argument.  They have won 5 European Cups, 18 League Titles, had home to some of the greatest players this country has ever seen.  They're far bigger than we will ever be.

136012[/snapback]

 

Of course thats a fair point, as a lot of people do confuse "big" with "successful".

 

Liverpool however, were not bigger than us before Shankly went to Liverpool. They hadn't even won the FA Cup until 1965. We also would have outstripped their crowds if we had had the stadium we have now during the Keegan era. Unfortunately, Shankly went to Liverpool and not Newcastle.

 

With a Keegan type era again, half the city would want to watch Newcastle, just like last time. We would easily outstrip almost everybody in the support stakes if we had genuine success, we wouldn't need half of North Wales to fill the stadium.

136015[/snapback]

Hi people. First post to an interesting discussion. Regarding "big" vs "successful", I think most people regard them as synonymous when talking about football clubs. Perhaps "rich" is a better word than "big" in terms of this discussion.

 

NUFC is certainly a rich club, as rich as LFC, but it's not as big nor as famous, certainly not outside England. Liverpool is practically a legendary club, and that has allowed us to attract people like Benitez. Benitez, in turn, can attract players like Alonso--who was wanted by Madrid--and together they can bring success to the club.

 

I don't like the term "sleeping giant", either, but NUFC has enormous potential. The problem, as I see it, is your board. They can't seem to tell a decent manager from a bad one, and when they found a good one in Uncle Bobby, he was hamstrung by the fact that the board felt Shearer to be more important than him. Compare Fergie jettisonning Keane, Beckham and now RVN. Or Houllier selling Fowler. Not a peep out of the boards. But at NUFC, leaving Shearer on the bench was enough to spell the end for a manager.

 

If you hired a promising manager like Jewell or Pardew and the board gave him proper support and let him get on with his job, you'd definitely see some trophies.

 

I'd agree that LFC have a more winning mentality than NUFC, but I don't think it comes so much from the history of the club, but more from the management. I don't have the exact stats to hand, but by the time Houllier left, it had been something like 2 years since we had come from behind to win a game. Benitez has made us famous for it, because he has instilled that belief in the players that wasn't there before.

 

Success starts with the board. We have been successful because our board has always tried to hire top managers and has given them time (often too much) and supported them well. Even Abramovich's money doesn't guarantee success--what has brought that is that he was smart enough to hire the very best people he could (Kenyon, Mourinho, Arnesen) and let them get on with the job. Until you get someone decent in at board level, I can't see things improving much for Newcastle.

137462[/snapback]

 

Sadly a fair analysis, with the exception of the sacking of Robson, which you oversimplified at least. I have said for some time we should appoint a chief executive who can run the football side of the club, but it looks unlikely to happen any time soon. Shepherd is only part of the problem - the rest of our board is rife with nepotism and incompetence and people who couldn't give a shit about the club.

[wacko 0]

Sadly a fair analysis, with the exception of the sacking of Robson, which you oversimplified at least. I have said for some time we should appoint a chief executive who can run the football side of the club, but it looks unlikely to happen any time soon. Shepherd is only part of the problem - the rest of our board is rife with nepotism and incompetence and people who couldn't give a shit about the club.

137473[/snapback]

Sorry. I naturally don't know anywhere near as much about the Robson business as you NUFC fans do.