FAO Leazes Mag

[Gemmill 34595]

Aye, people want the sort of long-term planning implemented by Daglish. It's no good if it's combined with the terrible football he was dishing up though. Being successful on the pitch and having the sort of structure in place off it Isegrim talks about aren't two mutually exclusive things. On the contrary (long-term) they will tend to go hand in hand.

 

Which proves what exactly about "long term plans "......at least you respond unlike your accountant mate who still thinks 7 teams have been consistently above us but can't name them .....

 

You silly prick! 7 teams have finished above us on average. They aren't the same 7 every year, that's all. If I could be arsed to go and work it out I could give you a list of teams outside of the top 4 that have on occasion finished above us, all of which have contributed to our average 8th place. Do you even understand this most basic of points?

 

 

Listen - you stupid ginger haired wanker - it means only 4 other clubs have perforrmed consistently better than us.

 

Even an shit brained accountant can understand that

 

Leazes Mag cracks.

 

It still means that on average 7 have finished above us, you stupid illogical old fuckwit.

 

but you can't name more than 4 clubs who have consistently performed better than us, you stupid ginger tosspot.

 

EDIT

 

 

I could name a range of different clubs that have finished above us though. You are really are THIS stupid aren't you? The fact that the clubs that can and do finish above us chop and change doesn't make 8th on average any better than it is.

 

Shame but I didn't think you were stupid enough to think that a club such as say, Southampton, would be better than us or consider themselves more successful because they finish above su for one season

 

Then again, pre-1992, clubs such as that were above us on almost a permanent basis.

 

The obvious conclusion is that you are stupid enough to believe it

 

You're the cretin that thinks that if we finish 13th it doesn't really matter, because there are only 4 clubs that have consistently done better than us. We can discount 8 of the 12 above us because they aren't doing it regularly enough to become the magical 5th most consistent club in the country.

 

Now that is pretty fucking stupid in my book.

[LeazesMag 0]

Aye, people want the sort of long-term planning implemented by Daglish. It's no good if it's combined with the terrible football he was dishing up though. Being successful on the pitch and having the sort of structure in place off it Isegrim talks about aren't two mutually exclusive things. On the contrary (long-term) they will tend to go hand in hand.

 

Which proves what exactly about "long term plans "......at least you respond unlike your accountant mate who still thinks 7 teams have been consistently above us but can't name them .....

 

You silly prick! 7 teams have finished above us on average. They aren't the same 7 every year, that's all. If I could be arsed to go and work it out I could give you a list of teams outside of the top 4 that have on occasion finished above us, all of which have contributed to our average 8th place. Do you even understand this most basic of points?

 

 

Listen - you stupid ginger haired wanker - it means only 4 other clubs have perforrmed consistently better than us.

 

Even an shit brained accountant can understand that

 

Leazes Mag cracks.

 

It still means that on average 7 have finished above us, you stupid illogical old fuckwit.

 

but you can't name more than 4 clubs who have consistently performed better than us, you stupid ginger tosspot.

 

EDIT

 

 

I could name a range of different clubs that have finished above us though. You are really are THIS stupid aren't you? The fact that the clubs that can and do finish above us chop and change doesn't make 8th on average any better than it is.

 

Shame but I didn't think you were stupid enough to think that a club such as say, Southampton, would be better than us or consider themselves more successful because they finish above su for one season

 

Then again, pre-1992, clubs such as that were above us on almost a permanent basis.

 

The obvious conclusion is that you are stupid enough to believe it

 

You're the cretin that thinks that if we finish 13th it doesn't really matter, because there are only 4 clubs that have consistently done better than us. We can discount 8 of the 12 above us because they aren't doing it regularly enough to become the magical 5th most consistent club in the country.

 

Now that is pretty fucking stupid in my book.

 

who said i was happy with 13th ?

 

How many clubs can you think of who have performed more consistently than us over the last decade, but have a better board ?

 

Think about - bird brained gingert cunt

Edited October 13, 2006 by LeazesMag

[Gemmill 34595]

Do you consider swings from 2nd to 13th to 7th etc. to be consistency?

 

You stubborn old piss-smelling prick!

[LeazesMag 0]

Do you consider swings from 2nd to 13th to 7th etc. to be consistency?

 

You stubborn old piss-smelling prick!

 

 

only 4 fuckin teams have been more consistent....ginger minger

 

[Gemmill 34595]

Consistency is measured by variance, or lack of it. It's not measured by averages. Dimwit.

[adios 717]

Measuring consistency by averages? Has Leazes just invented the field of ironic accounting? If the FA are to be believed the NUFC accountants are already practicing it.

[LeazesMag 0]

Consistency is measured by variance, or lack of it. It's not measured by averages. Dimwit.

 

we finished 15th for 3 consecutive seasons in the 1970's. Thats consistent, and it was considered a "golden era"....before we set better standards.....would you prefer that.

 

...have you answered my post about Dalglish setting up a "long term youth strategy" ? If not, why not, as you say the club don't do it.

 

Carrot heeded wanker

Edited October 13, 2006 by LeazesMag

[Gemmill 34595]

Consistency is measured by variance, or lack of it. It's not measured by averages. Dimwit.

 

we finished 15th for 3 consecutive seasons in the 1970's. Thats consistent, and it was considered a "golden era"....before we set better standards.....would you prefer that.

 

...have you answered my post about Dalglish setting up a "long term youth strategy" ? If not, why not, as you say the club don't do it.

 

Carrot heeded wanker

 

Yes, that is consistent. Now that we've established that you know what the word means, can you tell me how bouncing backwards and forwards from the top half to the bottom half of the table is consistent. I'm gonna make this a bit harder for you though......you're not allowed to add all our finishes up and calculate an average.

 

Take your time. I don't need an answer til tomorrow.

[LeazesMag 0]

Consistency is measured by variance, or lack of it. It's not measured by averages. Dimwit.

 

we finished 15th for 3 consecutive seasons in the 1970's. Thats consistent, and it was considered a "golden era"....before we set better standards.....would you prefer that.

 

...have you answered my post about Dalglish setting up a "long term youth strategy" ? If not, why not, as you say the club don't do it.

 

Carrot heeded wanker

 

Yes, that is consistent. Now that we've established that you know what the word means, can you tell me how bouncing backwards and forwards from the top half to the bottom half of the table is consistent. I'm gonna make this a bit harder for you though......you're not allowed to add all our finishes up and calculate an average.

 

Take your time. I don't need an answer til tomorrow.

 

which do you prefer ?

 

Do you consider 4th, 3rd and 5th to be consistent ?

 

Qualifying for europe 7 times in a decade is consistent, yes or no ?

 

If you don't think it is, then you don't know the meaning of consistent, along with the meaning of the point that doing this makes you one of the countries top clubs, and if you are not happy with that you should explain exactly where you think Newcastle United have a divine right to be ?

 

And you still don't answer my point about Dalglish laying down a "plan", why not

[Gemmill 34595]

Take you time. You're getting yourself all in a dither. Bouncing from the top to the bottom of the league, how is it consistent?

[Gemmill 34595]

By the way, re Dalglish, are you hoping to prove a point by establishing that the last time we had a long term plan that you can hang your hat on was about 8 years ago?

[LeazesMag 0]

By the way, re Dalglish, are you hoping to prove a point by establishing that the last time we had a long term plan that you can hang your hat on was about 8 years ago?

 

No, I am backing up my consistent comment that "long term plans" in football usually prove futile because the only thing that matters and what concerns people and fans, is immediate and short term first team results.

 

And also backing up the fact that those who say we "never" have one are talking bollocks, another example being the deliberate policy under Bobby Robson of buying up young players with potential who in his judgement would become top players.

[LeazesMag 0]

Take you time. You're getting yourself all in a dither. Bouncing from the top to the bottom of the league, how is it consistent?

 

Since promotion in 1965 up until 1992, Newcastle United have finished as follows :

 

15th, 20th, 10th, 9th, 7th, 12th, 11th, 9th, 15th, 15th, 15th, 5th, 21st, 2nd division, 2nd division, 2nd division, 2nd division, 2nd division, 2nd division, 14th, 11th, 17th, 8th, 20th, 2nd division, 2nd division, 2nd division.

 

Since 1992-93 :

 

2nd division, 3rd, 6th, 2nd, 2nd, 13th, 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th

 

Some consistent periods in there.

 

Which consistent periods do you like and which ones do you not ?

 

See in particular the shit consistent periods, it might help you realise something, but take your time.

 

See also what happened after finishing 5th - for the ONLY time - in the first list, and what happened after for an example of "going backwards".

Edited October 13, 2006 by LeazesMag

[peasepud 59]

well I have to back Mr Leazes on part of his logic, I've just sat and worked out the standings since the Premiership started and the average over the time:

 

 

1. Manure - Averaging 1.75th over last 12 years

2. Arsenal - 3.08th

3. Liverpool - 3.91th

4. Chelsea - 5th

5. Toon - 7.5th

6. Aston Villa - 9.16th

7. Spurs - 9.91th

8. Everton - 12.5th

 

So, although the logic put forward by LM is flawed, the 5th best since the Premiership started is valid. If however, you were to take into account other factors such as position in European competitions, silverware etc then I reckon we may drop a place or so.

 

It does not however, back up the Shepherd is 5th best chairman logic. Overall in the Prem we are 5th. Thats all.

 

Consistency though, is not something we posess in line with the big guns,

 

ManUre have never been out of the top 3 once in last 12 seasons!

 

8 seasons in a row Arsenal have finished either 1st or 2nd

 

Liverpools worst position is 7th

 

For the last 10 seasons Chelsea have finished top 6.

 

We on the other hand followed 2 succesive seasons in 2nd with 4 seasons in the bottom half of the table (13th, 13th, 11th, 11th).

[Isegrim 8875]

There is some truth in what Leazes suggests, i.e. about the way things working out can lead to plans being thrown out the window. There is no doubt in my mind however that of the clubs have the neccessary financial clout it is the ones that are ran the best and exhibit the best levels of planning etc. that are the most successful. Long-term there is no real luck involved it's a question of getting the right people in, backing them and allowing them to get on with their jobs and when necessary and the time is right having the balls to get rid and start again.

 

It is all about the infrastructure of a club, both at technical and personal level. Robson was complaining about the ridiculous conditions he had to work at before the club finally moved to Longbenton. Building this was some sort of planning (but also necessary because of the obligatory demands of the Premierleague). The other thing is the coaching set-up especially at the youth level. Another thing is an effective scouting set-up that continuosly checks on players who might be interesting. Maybe then we would see less panic buys. Of course football is in the end a day to day business, especially if you are lacking success, but the planning is all about to miminize risks and exterior factors. Real successful clubs do it. Newcastle don't.

 

Am i right in thinking that you and i (well, i know what i think ) agree with the principle that the club doesn't necessarily need a new Board but that it's effort's might be helped greatly by employing someone with extensive experience and standing to oversee all football matters?

To me that seems to be ther crux of the problem. I might also add that if members of the current Board have no wish to lose control over these matters then i would have to join the brigade who want them replaced.

 

Exactly. It's not just about Fat Fred. In fact, I rather have him than some obscure consortium owning the club. I just want more professionalism. I want a board of executives that is actually worth its name and not a single person leading club (ok, with a sidekick spending his time as a monkey on Gibraltar). I want a director of football/chief executive/or whatever you want to name it, who is actually knowing what he is doing. I want a sort of supervisory board as well. NUFC PLC is a multi-million business company. It is run like it is the chippy next door.

 

A lot of what you say is of course correct. But where you fall down is in the lack of acceptance that the club have in fact done well in the last decade. Because they have. Nobody is suggesting they couldn't have done better and nobody is suggesting they don't want them to do better, of course I do, all of us do.

 

Clubs simply don't qualify for europe and buy the major players we have done without making good appointments and doing some things right. Clubs that have no strategy, no foresight, make bad appointments and don't know what they are doing, struggle and get relegated, and buy mediocre players and lose their best ones themselves as a result.

 

There are plenty of these clubs around, and they are all a long way behind us.

 

Interestingly also is the fact that the youth policy is being cited as a cause of the clubs inability to sustain 2nd place in the league or go higher. It could be, and could not, you might have a batch of shite youngsters coming through or a good set of youngsters coming through, but this strategy was put in place by the people who we regard as being the best in recent times ie Keegan and SJH backing his decision, while one of the managers a lot of people deride was responsible for bringing it back, ie Dalglish.

 

Now ask yourself, why was Dalglish sacked - and derided - when he was responsible for implementing a "long term plan"

 

I've never said that the club hasn't done considerably well in the last ten years. But that is not the whole story. Has the club achieved as much as it wanted? Has the board been happy with how things have progressed? Certainly not, because otherwise they had not sacked four managers in the last ten years (since Shepherd controls the club). Have the appoitments been good? Namewise, yes. With hindsight, no. The only one, who was successful, was Bobby Robson, who actually challenged the club and tried to build something long term. Only to get his foundation totally dismantled by the most clueless of all manager appointments.

 

As for Keegan abolishing the reserve team and youth teams. I think this has to be seen in the context of the time. Keegan was very critical about the general setup of the club's infrastructure. Newcastle simply didn't have the sufficent resources back then and under these circumstances it probably was the best to concentrate on the first team. I am pretty sure Keegan would have reverted his decision as soon as possible.

[Renton 17822]

well I have to back Mr Leazes on part of his logic, I've just sat and worked out the standings since the Premiership started and the average over the time:

 

 

1. Manure - Averaging 1.75th over last 12 years

2. Arsenal - 3.08th

3. Liverpool - 3.91th

4. Chelsea - 5th

5. Toon - 7.5th

6. Aston Villa - 9.16th

7. Spurs - 9.91th

8. Everton - 12.5th

 

So, although the logic put forward by LM is flawed, the 5th best since the Premiership started is valid. If however, you were to take into account other factors such as position in European competitions, silverware etc then I reckon we may drop a place or so.

 

It does not however, back up the Shepherd is 5th best chairman logic. Overall in the Prem we are 5th. Thats all.

 

Consistency though, is not something we posess in line with the big guns,

 

ManUre have never been out of the top 3 once in last 12 seasons!

 

8 seasons in a row Arsenal have finished either 1st or 2nd

 

Liverpools worst position is 7th

 

For the last 10 seasons Chelsea have finished top 6.

 

We on the other hand followed 2 succesive seasons in 2nd with 4 seasons in the bottom half of the table (13th, 13th, 11th, 11th).

 

How did you factor in Newcastle not being in the premiership in the first year then?

 

The calcualtion you should have done is how we have fared since Shepherd took over, and I think you'll find we fare considerably worse (as the 3rd, 6th, and 2nd positions will be removed). Not that I can be arsed to do it mind, but should be easy for you if you've already done this.

[Renton 17822]

well I have to back Mr Leazes on part of his logic, I've just sat and worked out the standings since the Premiership started and the average over the time:

 

 

1. Manure - Averaging 1.75th over last 12 years

2. Arsenal - 3.08th

3. Liverpool - 3.91th

4. Chelsea - 5th

5. Toon - 7.5th

6. Aston Villa - 9.16th

7. Spurs - 9.91th

8. Everton - 12.5th

 

So, although the logic put forward by LM is flawed, the 5th best since the Premiership started is valid. If however, you were to take into account other factors such as position in European competitions, silverware etc then I reckon we may drop a place or so.

 

It does not however, back up the Shepherd is 5th best chairman logic. Overall in the Prem we are 5th. Thats all.

 

Consistency though, is not something we posess in line with the big guns,

 

ManUre have never been out of the top 3 once in last 12 seasons!

 

8 seasons in a row Arsenal have finished either 1st or 2nd

 

Liverpools worst position is 7th

 

For the last 10 seasons Chelsea have finished top 6.

 

We on the other hand followed 2 succesive seasons in 2nd with 4 seasons in the bottom half of the table (13th, 13th, 11th, 11th).

 

How did you factor in Newcastle not being in the premiership in the first year then?

 

The calcualtion you should have done is how we have fared since Shepherd took over, and I think you'll find we fare considerably worse (as the 3rd, 6th, and 2nd positions will be removed). Not that I can be arsed to do it mind, but should be easy for you if you've already done this.

 

Oh FUCK!!!!!

 

Sorry I meant since we joined the Premiership (93/94)

 

If you take into account 92/93 then, then I would have to add in 30 for not being in there (not scientific I know but I felt it gave a good enough penalty for not being in the league) which is what I have done for every other team.

 

This would result in the standings being as follows:

 

1. Manure - Averaging 1.69th over last 13 years

2. Arsenal - 3.15th

3. Liverpool - 4.23th

4. Chelsea - 5.69th

5. Toon - 9.23th

6. Aston Villa - 9.23th

7. Spurs - 10.3th

8. Everton - 12.69th

 

So the only difference is that we're now joint 5th with Villa.

 

Leazes himself had already established that Shepherd and Ellis were equivalent, much to the amusement of Gemmill and company, considering how he used Ellis as an example of a bad chairman!

Plus they have also won some silverware in the process, and no doubt we will be overtaken by Villa this year (after they have appointed a manager LM regards as no better than Souness).

[Renton 17822]

OY, PP, has Leazes censored you?

[Shearergol 0]

I suppose at the end of the day, it's all about what you're happy with. Personally, I couldn't give a shit that we come 5th in a table which wins us nothing. We appear above Boro, who have won something, and teams like Spurs, Blackburn etc, who have won something. At the moment, we're clearly in the shit. Freddie can't just turn around and wave this average place table at us to make things better.

[Craig 6307]

I suppose at the end of the day, it's all about what you're happy with. Personally, I couldn't give a shit that we come 5th in a table which wins us nothing. We appear above Boro, who have won something, and teams like Spurs, Blackburn etc, who have won something. At the moment, we're clearly in the shit. Freddie can't just turn around and wave this average place table at us to make things better.

 

 

Kind of hits the nail on the head really. We simply aren't good enough at the moment and certainly over the last 2 years, Shepherd has shown no way of being able to improve things at all.

[peasepud 59]

Even over the last 10 years we are still in 5th, like I say though Im not using these to back up my own argument. I still believe that when you throw all other factors in (such as cup runs and the all important "what have you won?") then we fall behind.

 

1. Manure - Averaging 1.8th over last 10 years

2. Arsenal - 2nd

3. Chelsea - 3.8th

4. Liverpool - 4th

5. Toon - 8.2th

6. Aston Villa - 8.8th

7. Spurs - 10.4th

8. Everton - 12.9th

[Gemmill 34595]

Even over the last 10 years we are still in 5th, like I say though Im not using these to back up my own argument. I still believe that when you throw all other factors in (such as cup runs and the all important "what have you won?") then we fall behind.

 

1. Manure - Averaging 1.8th over last 10 years

2. Arsenal - 2nd

3. Chelsea - 3.8th

4. Liverpool - 4th

5. Toon - 8.2th

6. Aston Villa - 8.8th

7. Spurs - 10.4th

8. Everton - 12.9th

 

It's a stupid way of looking at things though. We've got the 5th average highest placed finish, but that finish is 8th. So on average, 7 teams finish above us, not 4. And using averages masks the inconsistency we've shown bouncing from top to bottom half of the table, which points to a lack of planning at the top level. We DESPERATELY need to get rid of the fucking idiot at the top who is dragging this club down.

[Craig 6307]

I think we need to look at it all, not from the perspective of positions relative to other clubs, but on whether it's good enough full stop.

 

Forget the comparisons, what we're seeing week in, week out is simply not good enough and frankly hasn't been since we were booted out of the Champions League by Partizan Belgrade in 2003.

 

We're on our 3rd manager since then yet a constant over this time has been the chairman. Time he went!

[LeazesMag 0]

Even over the last 10 years we are still in 5th, like I say though Im not using these to back up my own argument. I still believe that when you throw all other factors in (such as cup runs and the all important "what have you won?") then we fall behind.

 

1. Manure - Averaging 1.8th over last 10 years

2. Arsenal - 2nd

3. Chelsea - 3.8th

4. Liverpool - 4th

5. Toon - 8.2th

6. Aston Villa - 8.8th

7. Spurs - 10.4th

8. Everton - 12.9th

 

It's a stupid way of looking at things though. We've got the 5th average highest placed finish, but that finish is 8th. So on average, 7 teams finish above us, not 4. And using averages masks the inconsistency we've shown bouncing from top to bottom half of the table, which points to a lack of planning at the top level. We DESPERATELY need to get rid of the fucking idiot at the top who is dragging this club down.

 

I think that suggesting 7 teams have done consistently better than us, when there are only 4, is stupid in the extreme.

 

The only thing I have EVER said, is that the constant running down of people towards the board is totally unjustified. I have not said that Shepherd is the 5th best chairman, only that during his time we have been the 5th best club so they must be doing something right. In fact, quite a lot right, and there must be a lot of clubs massively guilty of "lack of planning" if this going to be cited as the reason, in short 87 clubs have not planned as welll as us.

 

You can't say a club has qualified for europe in a span of a decade more than all the other clubs bar 4, then infer they have all "planned for the long term" better than us. Its' fooking daft. And as I point out, we HAVE planned for the future, it didn't work out, and we appointed a manager who planned for the future, and he was sacked on the back of the first teams results and performances.

 

As for Ellis, the comparison was that he doesn't back his managers, took over Villa when they were European Champions and was at Villa for 26 years, which is long enough to establish he is limited.

They may have won the League Cup, but in 26 years .... simple fact also is you can't blame our board for losing 2 Cup Finals especially the way players bottled the occasion, nor can you blame the board for the managers fielding weakened teams in a competition there for the taking, nor other cup games and vital games lost or bottled. In short, if the board is enabling the manager to build teams that qualify on a regular basis for europe, especially one that has a good run in the CL, they are more than capable of winning the FA Cup or the League Cup, therefore the board has done its part of the job and the rest is down to the players and the manager.

 

Consequently, in view of this and the fact that our own history has shown, never mind other clubs changing boards and being worse off, getting rid of the current board could easily, very easily backfire.

 

It may well be that the current board has taken the club as far as they can, but it STILL doesn't mean any replacements can do better.

 

EDIT: and now one of the village idiots [wullie] has arrived .........

Edited October 18, 2006 by LeazesMag

[Zathras 234]

I can see both sides here...

 

On average, seven sides finish above us each year.

Four of those are consistent.

I would say that from year to year, that makes us on average the 8th best team per year

BUT

over the course of ten years we've been the fifth best.

 

...If that makes sense....