Can somebody tell me, am I wrong about this? Does my memory fail me? I have just read in Teamtalk statements allegedly made by Freddy Shepherd who seems to be rewriting history in an attempt to free himself from any responsibility for the progressive decline of the club over the last three to four years.

Unwillingly, over the last few weeks, I seem to have become obsessed with the man's unabashed, yet appalling, insincerity. First he claims that by refusing to give any funds for transfers he was merely being responsible with the fans' money, when he and we all know that the moment we buy a shirt or a ticket it is no longer the fans' money, but the shareholders'.

Now he's arguing that the decline in our fortunes is not his fault, he has always given the funds whenever the manager needed it. Therefore, by implication, it can only be the manager's fault in choosing poor players. The only mistakes he's prepared to own up to is not his, but the manager's. And in this he's not prepared to quote examples from the Club, but simply draw the parallel with the errors made by Manchester Utd., in choosing goalkeepers.

He says, "Managers can't get it right all the time but the responsibility is mine as I sign the cheques." In other words, his insincerity knows no bounds; his disdain for the fans is staggering. He knows that we cannot blame him for footballing judgements like these, so he "owns up" to responsibility that cannot be his in the first place, expecting the gullible fans to accept it. Are Newcastle fans really that gullible? Is he right to treat us with such contempt, because he knows we will be taken in by it, in the same way that he believes we will be taken in by the argument that he is merely being responsible with the fans' money?

He then goes on to argue that there will be no change in policy in terms of giving Bobby Robson support in the transfer market. He insists, "If a manager comes to me and wants to spend £5 million on a player I ask him if he thinks he is worth that sort of money. If the answer is 'yes' then I have to back the manager's judgement."

Am I just deluded here, or has it not been the case over the last three to four years that each manager, from KD, to RG, and now to BR, has been told they must raise their own funds by selling players. As a result, we have only been able to afford poor players, who we have then found it difficult to sell in order to raise funds from sales. And, of course, what has made this more difficult still has been Shepherd's insistence that the manager must get the money back that we paid for the player. Not surprisingly, then, we have found it difficult to unload poor players and quality replacements have been quite beyond our means

To give him credit, Shepherd is right in one respect, nothing has changed. He has been arguing for months that he would not buy any players until the transfer system has been sorted out, even though every other chairman of the Premier League clubs has been improving their sides by buying quality players. So, as they go forward we have been going backwards. BR has been forced to scour Europe and beyond, begging anyone that he might know to lend us players, because we are not able to buy players of our own. Our once proud club has been reduced to this.

So, is he just mistaken? If he is, though still sincere, I would be less troubled. But over the last few weeks a picture has emerged of a man who is prepared to make any insincere claim, to ditch the responsibility on anyone else's shoulders, just as long as he is spared criticism. We now know the pitiful limits to the ambitions these people have for the club. While we, the fans, believe we have a club that is aiming high, doing everything it can to get into Europe, we have a boardroom whose vision and ambitions fall pitifully short of this.

The chief executive, Shepherd's own employee, the man who is ultimately in charge of the club, says we're "doing fine" because we're set to achieve our "ambition to attain mid-table stability in the Premiership." Satisfied with this season's achievements, he says, "We do not have to get into the Champions League, mid-table stability is more important and we will cut our cloth accordingly."

Shepherd now seems to be saying "Our decline is not my fault; it's the manager's. Whenever the manager has asked me for funds I've always been there to supply it." How much disdain does he have for the fans, that he is prepared to offer such insincerities for us to swallow without questioning.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

Answers

I'm sorry if this response may seem a little glib considering your well articulated worries. I just have not forgiven and never will forgive the fat tw*t.
I can't believe how he got away with the truely insulting things he said about us. How dare he.
There are better more able people than him. It doesn't surprise me he passes the buck.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

You could say that if the manager had actually bought the right players and we had gone on to win a couple of trophies then this may not be an issue.

Obvioulsy the board have made mistakes outside of football personnel and they have to be held accountable for those, but as far as the playing side goes I don't think we can really criticise the board or the Chairman as every other Board will do the same if not worse.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

If any of this is true, it's exactly what Mr Robson needs to encourage him to keep plugging away, instead of just chucking his arms in the air and telling the whole lot of them to eff off, he's got better things to do with his time and effort.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

Bryan,

I've been banging on about these issues ad nauseum on here without I suspect materially influencing anyone's opinion.
There is a prevalent view that the Chairman isn't responsible for the failure of his Manager's investments. This is, of course, a pile of bollox.

Just check out his performance record since he took over from SJH, and you find out where and when the decline began, and just who is responsible:
* total revenue is down
* the share price and market value of the Club is massively down and still declining * profit is down, or more accurately non-existent (actually massively negative)
* the quality of the playing squad is down * no tangible progress on training/medical facilities * no tangible progress on the Youth Academy, which is officially "on hold"

The only positive in this period has been the stadium expansion, and I would actually argue even that is only a qualified positive. Firstly, it spawned the SOS hiatus - a public relations disaster of epic proportions. Secondly, it has created a massive debt burden for the Club at a time when a much higher priority should have been given to the playing side of the business, in particular the Training Facilities and Youth Academy.
These criticisms can always be construed as being based purely on hindsight; however, these latter facilities are surely understood to be critical to long- term playing success, without which everything else is academic. They should have been given a much higher priority - these matters have been talked about now for at least 5 years, and the reality is they are still just being talked about.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

These points are taken from a report from the first Q&A session with Freddie. Whilst they offer excuses for the recent past in terms of development. Why these issues were not addressed ove 2 years ago for example are open to question.

The Chairman explained that the delay had been the result of finding a badger set smack bang in the middle of the complex!?! My comment that "at least they were Black & White" raised a chuckle! The badgers have now been relocated at considerable expense with the help of the RSPCA.

The Chairman also confirmed that the new Youth Academy would now proceed at full speed now that they had received the all clear from the environment agency.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

".....the Chairman also confirmed that the new Youth Academy would now proceed at full speed now that they had received the all clear from the environment agency".

If this is true then why is it clearly documented in The Minutes of the recent Annual General Meeting that the PLC Chairman - I think Fender is his name - said that while they had recently received Environment Agency clearance on the site, the Board could not sanction the investment needed until the future of the transfer system was resolved?

This stinks to high heaven!!!!

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

Thanks for that Clarky,

Obviously they are hiding behind this confusion. There had better be some quick decisions once this transfer system is sorted out.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

The record and the price of the stock speak for themselves. The decision to go public was not based on the need to have access to the capital markets, bt in order that the owners -- Hall and Shepherd -- could make a killing on what was a relatively small investment. I have no problem with that. It is the way the system works. I do get diesenchanted with those who continue to present Hall as an philanthropist interested only in the fortunes of the Club. If that were the case, why has he not stepped forward and donated some of the profits he made. A couple of years ago I said that as long as Shepherd and Hall Jun were in charge, the City would have no confidence in the Club. It thinks poorly of our prospects and the ability of a Shepherd dominated board to manage us out of our mediocrity. The Doomsday scenario which I hope does not come to pass is that the faans will begin to vote with their feet, and as a consequence, debt service becomes all but impossible. Nothing convinces me that this Board has the ability to engineer a major turnaround.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

Iā€™m with Freddie for the most part. We can point the finger at the board for appointing the Managerā€™s but no-one at the time of taking on TSM said ā€œthat fool will ruin this clubā€ no, we all could see the logic, a great entertaining side with the killer instinct of Daglish. Friends of mine who knew I hated Liverpool of the 80ā€™s & Kenny would merely get a ā€œI reserve judgementā€ which meant ā€œI think weā€™ll win the leagueā€. The same with Gullit (who I think at least had the right idea) no-one doubted the appointment. Sure they may have been guilty of searching out a ā€˜bigā€™ name but how many of us would have been pleased with Mark Mcgee or Alan Pardew? No-one can accuse the board of not letting the manager manage or not backing the managerā€™s judgement. Obviously his first responsibility is to the owners, the shareholders, thatā€™s his job. I would hope that every manager knows & is aware of the budget, as a fan Iā€™d hate o think the board sanction the purchase of players without considering if we can afford such players. Even in Keeganā€™s time he was made aware that if he wanted to spend Ā£15m on Shearer heā€™d need to raise Ā£6m elsewhere. We know Keegan threw his dummy out of the pram at that point but th eboard were spot on & in hindsight should have dug their heels in a bit more. Sure itā€™s not surprising that we have found it difficult to unload poor players and quality replacements have been quite beyond our means but whilst backing their manager some of the buys have been awful. With Keegan, the board backed KK on a step by step basis, first with 250k for Killer and Sheedy, then as KK proved he could be relied on Ā£1.5m for Vennison, Bracewell, Bez & Lee. Later he got Ā£1.75 for Cole and as he earned the boards backing & balancing the books by selling Cole he got the cash for Sir Les etc. In time, Keegan could buy a player fron the lower ranks ā€˜brandā€™ him with an NUFC badge & like an Adidas badged T-Shirt, an ordinary player would treble their value. With Daglish, he came with a reputation so didnā€™t need to prove himself, I bet we wished he had done. Young Bobby Robson has been forced to scour Europe and beyond and yet none of his buys have given the board (or the fans) enough confidence to go into more debt to finance any more players. Clarky makes the point that: Total revenue is down ā€“ Of course it is, despite a bigger ground, we no longer have any attraction to the TV audience, were not in Europe we donā€™t sell shirts all over the world. This is not down to th eboardā€™s inability to market the club but because the team are playing sh*te. The share price is market value of the Club and is declining of course itā€™s all linked to the above & down to the performance of th eteam. The Youth Academy is officially "on hold", thatā€™s right if the plans to be announced today are concrete, there is very little point in having a youth set up, why train 50 young lads over 6 years when only 2% will make the grade, hardly any will be international class and he can leave at the age of 23 & all the club can recoup is the training costs. Much more cost effective is picking up top class players (paying them high salaries) knowing they are proven quality.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

You obviously were not there when the club was seriously neglected (You probably havent heard of Mckeag, Forbes?)? If you were there, in those times - you wouldn't be this damn fickle and short sighted. 180million has been spent on this club, not 1.8million - 180million. Maybe it hasnt been balanced out correctly(we are human), BUT 180million simply says 'AMBITION.'

Believe me mate you seriously want to be excited about our future.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

Can't be arsed to read anything that questions the honesty of FS. Bit like a vegetarian talking about how nice a bacon sarny is. The man's a git. Allegedly.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

Where did all those ā‚¬signs come from? I meant to say... I'm with Freddie for the most part. We can point the finger at the board for appointing the Manager's but no-one at the time of taking on TSM said "that fool will ruin this club" no, we all could see the logic, a great entertaining side with the killer instinct of Daglish. Friends of mine who knew I hated Liverpool of the 80's & Kenny would merely get a "I reserve judgement" which meant "I think we'll win the league". The same with Gullit (who I think at least had the right idea) no-one doubted the appointment. Sure they may have been guilty of searching out a 'big' name but how many of us would have been pleased with Mark Mcgee or Alan Pardew? No-one can accuse the board of not letting the manager manage or not backing the manager's judgement.

Obviously Freddie's first responsibility is to the owners, the shareholders, that's his job. I would hope that every manager knows & is aware of the budget, as a fan I'd hate o think the board sanction the purchase of players without considering if we can afford such players. Even in Keegan's time he was made aware that if he wanted to spend ƂĀ£15m on Shearer he'd need to raise Ā£6m elsewhere. We know Keegan threw his dummy out of the pram at that point but the board were spot on & in hindsight should have dug their heels in a bit more. Sure it's not surprising that we have found it difficult to unload poor players and quality replacements have been quite beyond our means but whilst backing their manager some of the buys have been awful. With Keegan, the board backed KK on a step by step basis, first with 250k for Killer and Sheedy, then as KK proved he could be relied on Ā£1.5m for Vennison, Bracewell, Bez & Lee. Later he got ƂĀ£1.75 for Cole and as he earned the boards backing & balancing the books by selling Cole he got the cash for Sir Les etc. In time, Keegan could buy a player fron the lower ranks 'brand' him with an NUFC badge & like an Adidas badged T-Shirt, an ordinary player would treble their value. With Daglish, he came with a reputation so didn't need to prove himself, I bet we wished he had done. Young Bobby Robson has been forced to scour Europe and beyond and yet none of his buys have given the board (or the fans) enough confidence to go into more debt to finance any more players.

Clarky makes the point that: Total revenue is down.. Of course it is, despite a bigger ground, we no longer have any attraction to the TV audience, were not in Europe we don't sell shirts all over the world. This is not down to th eboard's inability to market the club but because the team are playing sh*te. The share price is market value of the Club and is declining of course it's all linked to the above & down to the performance of the team.

The Youth Academy is officially "on hold", good, if the transfer system plans to be announced today are concrete, there is very little point in having a youth set up. Why train 50 young lads over 6 years when only 2% will make the grade? Hardly any will be international class and then can leave at the age of 23 when all the club can recoup is the training costs. Much more cost effective willl be picking up top class players (paying them high salaries) knowing they are proven quality.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

I think Windy put it right on the what do we want the board to do? thread. He made some analogy that if you're a surfer you don't see the point of thrashing around using all your energy if you can't see a decent wave building up. You need to bide your time, but be ready for it when it comes. Then start paddling like mad at the right time, throwing everything into it so that you can stand up serenely on the board and ride the wave to glory. We don't have many waves on the horizon at the minute ss lets just hang around, get rid of some dead wood & get ready for wjen the surf's up.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

100% agreement Floridian.

While you're on, you might also ask why the major shareholders extracted around £2million of cash as dividends this year, despite the Club's difficult financial position, and despite returning a loss of £19 million - approved at an AGM held 300 miles away so that the majority of the non-insider shareholders would not attend to express their displeasure and dissatisfaction.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

Bryan Greetham
"Can somebody tell me, am I wrong about this?"

Yes you are wrong.

"we all know that the moment we buy a shirt or a ticket it is no longer the fans' money, but the shareholders'."

Don't be so bliddy daft. The vast bulk of any income made by the club goes to running the club - shareholders receive a tiny fraction (and not enough to compensate for the huge losses all of them have made.)

"it can only be the manager's fault in choosing poor players."

Look at the purchases made by Dalglish, Gullit AND Robson and tell me why you have a problem accepting that.

"his disdain for the fans is staggering."

Not as staggering as your disdain for logic.

"Am I just deluded here"

No I think you're just being thick.

"each manager, from KD, to RG, and now to BR, has been told they must raise their own funds by selling players. "

Dalglish and Gullit spent more than they received. Robson I'm not sure about. Are you suggesting that we should continually purchase players without recouping money from sales regardless of the club's level of debt? Are you really that stupid?

"As a result, we have only been able to afford poor players"

This is utter garbage. Robson has spent amounts of £7m, £4m, £2.5m twice and some bits and pieces besides. Are you seriously suggesting that you can only buy poor players for these amounts? That is the stupidest thing I have heard any fan say. I think Wenger spent a lot less than this on Anelka, Viera and Petit. Were THEY poor players? How much did Matt Elliot cost Leicester? How much did Pahars cost? How much did Rob Lee cost us? These players must be complete crap by your logic.

"Whenever the manager has asked me for funds I've always been there to supply it"

So what else should he do?


----------------------------------------------

heednhands

"I can't believe how he got away with the truely insulting things he said about us."

I can't believe how anybody would take to heart some total nonsense quoted out of context and clearly not his true thoughts about Geordies. "Truly insulting"???? Don't talk rubbish.


----------------------------------------------------------

De Builder

"as far as the playing side goes I don't think we can really criticise the board or the Chairman as every other Board will do the same if not worse."
I think your intelligence may be wasted on this thread young man.

-------------------------------------------------------------

clarky

"I've been banging on about these issues ad nauseum on here " Ad nauseam - you said it Clarky. "There is a prevalent view that the Chairman isn't responsible for the failure of his Manager's investments. This is, of course, a pile of bollox." Absolute rubbish. If the manager's investments fail then it IS the manager who is to blame. If the MANAGER fails it is the chairman who is to blame for his appointment and yet there were few critics of the appointments of Dalglish, Gullit or Robson (tho Gullit attracted some flak) ,br>
"* total revenue is down * the share price and market value of the Club is massively down and still declining * profit is down, or more accurately non-existent (actually massively negative) * the quality of the playing squad is down"

This is a football club - it's not Unilever or IBM. It has essentially one product with some fripperies thrown in. If that product is not good enough then revenue, profit, etc will all be dragged down with it. Shepherd is not and does not claim to be an expert at football. He delegates that responsibility to "experts" like KD,RG,BR, all of whom have failed to deliver so far although Robson deserves more time and a better run of luck.

"* no tangible progress on training/medical facilities * no tangible progress on the Youth Academy,"

Reasonable criticism, although these facilities are the same ones we used to finish second 4 times in the 2 major domestic competitions. I'm sure we can do better here but it's a bit of a red herring when looking for the reasons for the fall from grace.

---------------------------------------------------------

Floridian

"I do get diesenchanted with those who continue to present Hall as an philanthropist interested only in the fortunes of the Club. If that were the case, why has he not stepped forward and donated some of the profits he made."

I've NEVER heard of Hall presented as a philanthropist before! He HAS done well for the club and was lucky enough to profit when football shares were in vogue. Almost as spectacularly as the dotcoms football shares have fallen back substantially. And the main LOSER since the float will be the Halls ... Of course, overall they've still done handsomely, but it is very much in the interests of Hall & Shepherd to succeed. If and when they do they will doubtless be derided once again as bloated capitalists.

------------------------------------------

I hope Shepherd succeeds. I wish him well - same as I wish all our players well. The major mistakes he made in my view were to retain Dalglish long after the man had proven himself to be useless, and he presided over a period when the playing staff grew to ridiculous levels, although now that players are being cleared out he is apparently being criticised for that as well.

COME BACK McKEAG! ALL IS FORGIVEN!

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

Thanks JR - I wanted to say most of that but was too lazy to type it. Especially the NOTW H&S bit - the only thing the NOTW have done well was many years ago when they went tabloid aand saved a few trees.

The surf analogy is the best one. Polish your board keep above water and ride it when the wave comes.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

I think the person who wrote this tripe knows of the clubs ambitions????

Is this person Brian Greetham perhaps a little green with envy??? Whats next mate?? Assasinate Lomor Hunt or any other serious giant who comes in to help run the -naturally nearest biggest club to Man Utd- in the right 'ambitious' way?? Coz thats what the NOTW have done '3 times in 3 years,' Heed 'n' hands.

Why did they in a very sly manner go out of their way to promt with influence to make Mr Hall, and Mr Sheppard brag and show bravado, in a friendly informal enviroment boosted by drink?? Think about it..........

Wow they called lasses dogs, woopie fuckin do. Hey I guess they meant it, because you said it along with the NOTW.

So in essance as you keep constantly bringing it up this seriously old news that they called lasses 'dogs' (hey come to fecking think of it, I bet all the lasses in the North East are queing to jump off the Tyne Bridge as we speak, SOMEONE QUICKLY CALL THE SAMARITINS) on a private night out, it must be true, that they called women a name.

Ya na what it is Heed, I'd let Doug, Freddie or a Lomor hunt, call all my female family members dogs to their fucking faces (even without the influence of drink) as long as they are aiming for the toon to be number1, WHERE THEY KNOW THE CLUB SHOULD BE.

LOL, AS YOUR VERY SAD...............

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

There dogs anon, pedigree though, but k9's none the less. We wouldnt want them as the RSPA wold pass on the story to the NOTW.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

Well put JR, you said exactly what I was trying to say but I kept getting ā‚¬$"Ā£Ā£ in the way.

It's funny how those who log on from overseas (I'm guessing by the time differences) manage to keep a logical perspective that's not tarnished by the local media hanging onto the words of the INUSA who seem to have a lot to say for themselves but never put their money where there mouth is.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

I found his remarks about women offensive
I found his comments about fans being ripped off offensive
I found the Mary Poppins comment two-faced.
I found the - how clever we are selling a crock like Andy Cole for millions offensive.
I can't believe how anybody would take to heart some total nonsense quoted out of context and clearly not his true thoughts about Geordies. "Truly insulting"???? Don't talk rubbish.

Pissed yes pathetic yes insulting yes.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

First of all Hall and Shep are a couple of carpetbaggers with an entirely different agenda to us fans. My opinion, not shared by all but it will obviously taint the rest of what I write. They are effectively the club's owners, the club is doing poorly so they are to blame full stop. There's no point in changing your handle and calling people with a different opinion to your own "thick".

The board lovers are right to point out the money lavished on our last three managers but it ain't got us where we want to be so they've failed in my eyes. I'm sure that they've secured their own futures but look at the teams above us like Leicester, S*****land, Ipswich and Charlton. Big spenders? To succeed we need a good manager backed sensibly over a long period, we need stability. It's not just a matter of employing a 'known' figure, giving them a year to build a team and throwing cash at them. The new SJP is nice but was bought on tick. A debt that is beginning to hang over us like a hole in the ozone layer.

I'm heartily sick of the board maintaining that we had no complaints when they first appointed Dalglish and Gullit. Rubbish! There were a lot of well voiced worries about Dalglish at the time. We knew his teams played cautious direct football, no one admired his Blackburn side, we knew he was tightlipped in front of the TV camera, we feared that players who weren't 100 per centers like Ginola would go, we had heard that he and Beardsley didn't get on. In short the board should have known what they were getting and sat back and let him build another Blackburn or not appointed him at all.

Gullit came with a reputation of aloofness. Chelsea players were queuing up to tell tales of his cold manner and divisive management style. We knew he was no admirer of Shearer. There was hell on on here about his appointment. But we settled and gave him our long abused patience. Yet again the board seemed paralysed when he became just the sort of manager everyone knew him to be. Yet again they panicked and let him buy players then sacked him.

Is the same technique going to apply to Robson? The signs are already there, a rolling contract, the board getting their excuses in early, vague talk of major purchases in the summer. If we don't get off to a flyer next season, the team gets booed and Bobby will go with the board no doubt saying that he's too old and has lost touch. Its the way these charlatans operate I'm afraid.

And don't insult my intelligence by shouting BRING BACK McKEAG. I don't think a lot of Tony Blair but I don't want Thatcher back.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

Totally agree Dread. 'Nuff said.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

Interesting discussion boys and girls. I don't approve of you trying to win your argument by arguing that the opposing view is thick. You must be stupid if you have to resort to that :0)

If the last dozen years is split into 3 phases it may help.

Pre Keegan/Hall we had a totally (no argument) useless, unambitious board, and a very nice friendly manager with no money but a lovely set of kids going no where but down.

Keegan/Hall had 90+% success at what they did. We had wonderful football, the ground was made all seater, we played reguarly in Europe.

Post-Keegan it has all crumbled. What we argue about is who is to blame for that crumbling.

Those who have backed the board seem, to me, to blame everything on the football team manager. The board are said to have backed the managers in the transfer market when ever requested so to do, and that therefore absolves them of any further responsibility. All subsequent reduced revenue, lack of playing in Europe etc is because of the football manager.

Those who blame the board see a bigger picture and ring fence all on- field footballing activity. The team playing crap is the footballing managers responsibility, the building of a youth academy or a training facility or medical facilities or a stadium is not the repsonsibility of the football team manager.

My view is that the board has picked the manager, always has. If the manager succeeds than you can be a John Hall type and take all the praise for your foresight. You can be filmed singing "We are the champions" look a right tit, but be totally loved for getting it right. The flip side to this is if you pick Dalglish and Gullit and they fail then sorry but it was your decision to go for them. (I personally felt physically sick when Dalglish was appointed but that came from living in Scotland and having to put up with the "now you've got a Scottish manager you'll win things" being rammed down my throat.) If you pick a manager then you must stick with him. In 18 months he went from the choice to be worthy of sacking. Similarly with Gullit. The same board picked both of these managers. Someone has to look at the recruitment process within the club heirarchy, since 1996 it has managed to get two badly wrong and the third is unproven as yet.

On the transfer funds side of things I see a lot of hypocrisy all round, and I don't like it. The board apologists say that funds have always been made available whenever requested, up to the last 6 months when there has been all the uncertainty around transfer fees. I need to understand what has changed. Now it is acceptable to question the release of funds because there may be business downsides if values disappear overnight. Where does this lie with the purchase of say Duncan Ferguson ? There was huge potential for that £7m+ transfer fee to be worthless overnight. How do you justify spending money on Georgian or Greek or Paraguayan players who's compatratiots have never shown any aptitude to British football. (I know there has to be a first). As a manager in a company I do not expect my bosses to just say "yep Ian that's fine you go and spend all that money we'll back you". They question me, they make life hard for me, I have to justify the investment. This is because they are the custodians of the company, that is their role.

I'll not be popular for this but .... I believe the worst investment the club made was in Alan Shearer. We spent £15m for the guy, it had great psychological impact but what a gamble ! The board seemed to be sucked into it all, I seem to remember them saying yes to the suggestion overnight, as if they were sucked into the whole razzmattazz of the deal. They should have been standing back and looking at the business benefits, what did the £15m bring to the club? There could not be any increase in league gate revenue, there may be increased European revenue. There would be an increase in sales of the letters S-H-E-A-R-E-R and the number 9 on the back of shirts, there may be an increase in shirts, but we all had one anyway so that's dubious. There are other questions to be asked but you get my point. I have no confidence that the board are anything better than me and Clarky (say) at making key business decisions, they are, just like us, fans of NUFC, as a board they need to be more than that.

If I was manager of the club I'd be going to the board saying "I need x million to buy Keane, another x million to buy Rivaldo, another x million to buy Thuram ......". That is what the manager should want, the best players. If I was chairman of the club I'd be saying "sorry son, you've got this budget for transfers for the next financial year, you have to work within that". The current chairman has been saying that external forces are stopping the release of funds. If this is true then the definition of new transfer system should mean immediate release of funds. If it isn't true then for whatever reason the chairman has been lying to his customers.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

JR,

Whether you happen to like it or not, NUFC is not just a football club any more - it is a business, with shareholders and customers, and a Board who primary responsiblity is to represent the best interests of all its shareholders. Enhancing shareholder value is a over-riding goal for any Board, and a key measure of their performance. In most businesses it is clearly understood that this is best served by giving very careful consideration to it's customers, and always treating them with respect.

Clearly, you have one way of evaluating the recent past performance of NUFC plc and its Officers, and I have mine. It's probably best left at that.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

I found his remarks about women offensive

And you've NEVER made any offensive comments about women? Deny that and I say you're a liar. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"

I found his comments about fans being ripped off offensive

The words "ripped off" or anything like them were never used. All that was illustrated was the profit margin on football shirts - the same margin enjoyed by every Premier club (and almost certainly exaggerated to a potential investor).

I found the Mary Poppins comment two-faced.

The comment was made about a pro footballer's professional attitude to drink and high living. In a sense it was highly complementary.

I found the - how clever we are selling a crock like Andy Cole for millions offensive.

Why? Putting one over on Man Utd can't be anything but a good thing - anyway, he wasn't permanently crocked as all knew and the 2 were not giving a media interview.

Clarky - football - unlike the world of PLC's is a zero-sum game (I think that's the correct term) meaning that there have to be losers as well as winners. Give me 20 (non-football) plcs and 20 proven plc chairmen. I'll randomly assign them to the plc's and I suspect ALL will do reasonably well.

Now give me the 20 premier clubs and the 20 most successful businessmen OF ALL TIME. I guarantee that 19 of them will not win the title, and indeed 3 of these turkeys will take their clubs down to Div 1. The vast majority of them will not qualify for Europe. This is despite their enormous management abilities. Despite these abilities, all of them will live or mostly die on the quality of their manager's skills.

There's no point in ...calling people with a different opinion to your own "thick".

But it's OK to accuse our chairman of "appalling insincerity" is it? If the writer can't take it he shouldn't dish it out. His opinion was not criticised. The poverty of his logic was.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

JR,

Your fundamental disregard for management, and of the skills required for achieving success in business, is something I can't really argue with, only profoundly disagree.

BTW, welcome to the bbs Jon (I know you've posted before, but I don't believe extensively)- stick around; being sparky is good for the quality of debate on the forum.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

To my mind, the biggest mistake this club has made has been treating the revenue from the football boom and the Keegan boom more specifically like pennies from heaven instead of investing it in youth and getting together a proper infrastructure: we seem to be in permanent danger of collapsing under our own weight.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

I have to say that I, too, was surprised by the vitriolic and abusive nature of the remarks made by JR to my message. I am always concerned to choose my words carefully and not to overstate the evidence or offend anyone.

However, I'm sufficiently thick-skinned not to be offended myself. But let me make two points. To call anybody "thick" because you disagree with them is irrelevant to the case that you were addressing. But, second, it is substantially different in nature from calling somebody "insincere" - a comparison that, as a retrospective justification, you vainly attempt to make.

To call someone thick you are making reference to their intelligence, for which you have no, or at least insufficient, evidence. Nobody of any sense would make such a judgement about someone else on the basis of such slender evidence as one short message. By comparison, to call someone insincere, is to make a judgement about the remarks they themselves have made - not about their abilities nor their intelligence, that I can know perilously little about. As such it calls for evidence of these remarks, which I gave in at least five different ways.

Nevertheless, you do attempt to make an, albeit weak, defence of your claim of my "thickness", by saying that my logic was poor. Again, that I may have made a logical error is far from providing you with the evidence you would need to question my intelligence. We all, on occasions, make mistakes. Even so, as you no doubt know, an argument may be weak or fallacious for one of three reasons: that the author have misstated the facts (material fallacies); that they have wrongly used words (verbal fallacies); or that they have drawn the wrong inferences (logical fallacies). So, what sort of fallacy am I guilty of?

I doubt whether it can be a material fallacy, as I have just copied with complete accuracy the remarks made by Shepherd and Stonehouse, which can be easily verified. As for the evidence I bring from my own resources, it is presented, quite deliberately, as a question. I am genuinely asking whether I have got this wrong. And I am quite willing to accept it if I have. Indeed, I would be pleased to learn that I have got it wrong, as it would give me peace of mind about the running of the club I support.

Similarly, I doubt whether they can be verbal fallacies, unless I have unwittingly committed the fallacy of equivocation. So you must be referring to logical fallacies. Have I committed the fallacy of the straw man, or the fallacy of special pleading, both of which I suppose are the most likely candidates?

On those rare occasions that I come on the BBS I always make it plain, as those I have talked to before will know, that I am in search of more information from people who are much better informed than I. Therefore, I value and appreciate the replies to my messages from people, like Clarky, who has more than once given me a well argued, informed and measured response, even though he might disagree with my original premise and the way I have developed it. It's information, not abuse, that I'm after.

The BBS would attract more useful and interesting contributions, if contributors could be sure that they would not be the subject of unconstrained vitriol, and if we could all accept that, though we may disagree with each other, we are expressing anxieties for the club we support, which for most of us are deeply felt and genuine.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

Great thread. It's always good to see all the different viewpoints. I'm definitely in the anti-board camp based on my perception of their attitude towards us, the fans, as well as their incompetence in many areas.

Their attitude towards the fans can be seen in the complete lack of information they give us. It's only in the last few months we've heard anything at all. They should be telling us exactly what their plans are for all areas of the club. Something like Clarky's 6 point plan. In terms of failings of the last two managers, the board has to take some responsibility. Sure, the managers bought shite players, but in both cases the board allowed the managers to continue buying players until the time they were sacked.

My three main concerns with the board, though, concern the academy (or lack of), the training facilities (or lack of), and the medical/fitness support.

The lack of an academy is criminal. DLF said that we could just go around buying all the good young players without developing any ourselves. Firstly, who is going to want to play for us? If you were the next Zidane, and you received offers from Newcastle, Man Utd, Juventus, Barcelona, etc.. Who would you sign for? You'd be mad to sign for the Toon. And if you look at Man Utd as the role model, their squad contains how many home grown players who would die for each other and the team? LR could help me here, but I think with Beckham, Giggs, Scholes, Gary Neville, Phil Neville, Butt, and Brown, and god know how many more coming through, you've got a core of players with real pride in their club. With a core like that, and with players like Keane, Irwin, etc who've been there for years, it's easy to add the occasional big star (Cantona, Barthez, Yorke) to complete the team. We'll get nowhere until we've got a youth academy producing players who have dreamed of playing for the club.

Our training facilities are a joke. How long does it take to find a site and get planning permission? Six months at the most? Six years and counting for our board!

As an exercise physiologist I take great interest in the medical and fitness support team. The way we deal with injuries and fitness training is laughable. A decent board would have realised the importance of this. The amount of money spent on this compared to that spent in other professional sports is pathetic.

All these things are the fault of the board, not the manager.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

In the summer between the FA Cup defeat to Arsenal and the 'sacking' of Dalglish the board sanctioned the expenditure of £13m on new players. This they did because they backed their manager.

After losing at home to 10 man Charlton and getting booed off the pitch the board back their manager by sacking him.

Either they were wrong to sanction the money or wrong to sack the manager. Can't have it both ways.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

Exactly Macbeth! Either they had no confidence in Dalglish yet still gave him 13 million, or they had confidence in him, gave him the cash, then sacked him on the basis of one game!

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

Bryan, My plea to you is don't be put off by the vitriol of one contributor.
That kind of response is very much the norm on most bulletin boards - try The Strawberry, or (and I hesitate even suggesting it) RTG, the mackem board.
The usual standard on here is for a good level of tolerance, and respect for the views of others. In addition to password protection on the site, the other reason for this is that quite a few of us have actually met and socialised with each other. This makes unthinking verbal abuse far less likely.

As for my position, which was vehemently criticised by JR, everyone knows that I lack respect for the Board as business managers, and leaders of the Club I love and have supported for 35 years. I have judiciously avoided discussing the NOTW affair as I don't believe it is relevant, other than in helping us understand the values of our principal shareholders. Another reason for my criticism is that I invested in the Club in the flotation, an investment that under the present Board's supervision has diminished in value by over 75% - that makes me even more sensitive to their actions, and more often than not, inactions.

Neverthless, I have generally tried to be constructive, and indicate why I feel their track record is poor, and where possible how and where they should be doing things differently, or with a higher priority.

One thing I've learned however, is that you very rarely are able to change peoples opinions on issues on a board like this - it is very much a forum for stating opinions, rather than really debating them.

Stick around Bryan, and don't be pt off by one bad experience - we need people like you on here.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

I know what you mean, Clarky, about the board being a medium for stating opinions rather than 'debate', but I suspect that it formulates opinions as well, if not changes them outright. It's just that it's not easy to identify if that happens because eerie silence at the end of the thread indicates nothing and can be read either way, whereas face-to-face there would be more acknowledgement. So don't give up, keep banging away, I'm listening for one and place a lot of reliance on those closer to the 'action' than myself, even if I would always tend to play devil's advocate rather than concede an argument ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

NO peers on here!

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

There have been faoults on both sides - I think we (almost) all recognise the failings of our last two managers and pray that the current one can use his vast experience to steer us towards the success we all crave.

Also, I don't think many would fault the commitment to NUFC that the present board have shown. What to me seems to be under discussion is more there competance. I think MacB hit the nail on the head when he cited the decision to sack accept the manager's resignation having recently sanctioned a huge spend on what we now see as unsuitable players (but did we think that at the time??). That shows a bad example of panic. Many (myself included) were totally disenchanted with the Dalglish era, and I was coming to the end of my tether with Gullit. It was his dodgy transfers, the "Mackem incident" and his handling of his players which finally made me realise he was not the one for us. Again, like many, I was initially pleased at his appointment, tho perhaps in reaction to the dross we'd been served by his predecessor.

As for the NotW incident, that I can live with. They are no different to many in all sorts of business in their personal behaviour. If they cut it in their job, their private lives are exactly that. The fact that they were "outed" by unscrupulous journalists is unfortunate.

Now, I am no regular in the boardrooms of UK companies, and am in no position to discuss business strategy - that has been articulated well from both sides on here. Yes, we need an Accademy, better training facilities and some new players. I'm prepared to wait to the start of next season to see if these materialise. But let me leave you with one question: "Who would you rather have as Chairman of NUFC - FS, or the likes of Sugar Daddy, Master Bates, or Deadly Doug?" To me, rather the devil you know.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

'The devil you know' can lead to all sorts of problems. On the RTG board they have pro and anti Reid camps. I haven't been on for weeks (after terminal banning) but I'd guess the anti lot are in the ascendancy at the moment :0)

One of the arguments ALWAYS put forward is 'who else could do it better'. This winds me up no end. What would happen if our great manager decided he couldn't take the club any further despite winning the most recent Premiership game 7-1 ? Would the club stop existing ? Of course not. The club goes on.

It may be slightly different at board level but the saem thing applies. If one of your key directors dies in a helicopter crash the club carries on.

If Shepherd Offshore went bust and Freddie decided to give up NUFC someone else would take over. They wouldn't be the same, may be better, may be worse, but life would go on. There is ALWAYS another option, ALWAYS. The status quo (whatever you want) should always be questioned.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

Sorry Mac - if I gave the impression that I'd stick with FS for ever I certainly didn't mean that. But when compared to the other 3 I named, I'd rather have Freddy Shep........until Clarky et al raise the funds to buy them out ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

OK people, confusion time , Bryan, On taking a different tack and from your excellent initial post I quote `The progressive steady decline of the club in the last 3 to four years.` This I have never been able to handle , the downward spiral from the Keegan years, as Macbeth states everything goes on, the club goes on , but at times the feeling on here is Keegan was the be all , (in my view the end all) of the club. After 51.52,55 and later did we debate on the club? , its aspirations , where we stand , of course we did , but we did not have access to facts then . When we bought some 3rd div reject who had played well against us in the cup, we would passionetly discuss the finances of the club, limited to one sentence though `Where`s the effin money gannin`, direct our venom to the Patch and McKeag ,we were as frustrated then as now,times later we voted with our feet, letter into the Pink was main form of protest, we did not go to AGM`s, had no forums like this , supporters organisations etc .

Then there was a wee bit o light, Gazza, Waddell, Nattrass all local lads came , this was the dawning of the age of the `Geordies`, the eedjits could not see it, we had as fans watched their progress in the reserves, they were us, we were them , to the club , be it board or manager, they were £ notes. We have to stop thinking that the Sir John Hall and Keegan years were the start of the way things should be , it should have happened a long time before then. this conversation is over 40 years old, nothing changes with Newcastle Utd.

Mac separates the discussion into three ingredients, can I stir it up and add two more, give it a little kick, no-one has looked inward and give a thought to one of the main problems concerning the club, (stand-by for incoming flak Buff) , us Me, Floridean, True , Clarky, Sounder,Pit Bull ,Dr Bill,Jonno, Screach Fifties Fan et al, the ones who are following on, the young guns filling the stadium each undying love for the club , where have we went wrong in putting up with the dross we have been served for years, what could we have done, there had to something , most times we did nothing,>>Further discussion needed to see if anyone agrees.

Now the main problem, prevalent at board and manager level, this bugs me at all levels of the workplace and I wish they would refer to the American way of > best man for the job !!, CRONYISM -OLD BOY`CLUB

Keegan Terry Mac, Arthur Cox , (come back pse Derek Fazackerly) Dagleish Terry Mac, (social convenor) and forgot who else Gullitt Not bad , he only brought Steve Clark Robson Wadsworth,Milne (nice eh , being nice aint on the agenda Over the years this was also a major failing with members of the board who kept it in the family, We need action , I am afraid that our management team in my opinion are not capable of sustained action

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

Buff,

My heart doesn't want to agree with you: my head says you may be right. However, running counter to this, we desperately need a period of stability, and the Club doesn't have the brass to finance yet another revolution on the playing side.

The critical factor for me Buff is organising an orderly transition to a new order within a reasonable time.
What I fear will happen is that they will stick with BR, without giving him the ammunition to do the job, until he fails. They'll then kick him out, blame him for the mess, bring in John Gregory or some other square-peg, and off we'll go again.
As you well know, that is also what history tell us.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

This argument is simple, 180million spent in 9 years at the helm(no other club has done this or has the right to be this ambitious). BELIEVE IT AND NEVER CUT OF YOU'RE NOSE TO SPITE YOUR FACE..............

In essance the board are human and prone to mistakes- like everyone, BUT AMBITIOUS.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Great thread. It's always good to see all the different viewpoints. I'm definitely in the anti-board camp based on my perception of their attitude towards us, the fans, as well as their incompetence in many areas." KIWI TOON IN RESPONSE TO BRIAN GREENTHAM.

"I'm definitely in the anti-board camp based on my ***perception***" Kiwi toon has said. Are you Kiwi? Thought so.

------------------------------------------------------------

Just imagine a court believed the ***perceptions***(PERCEPTIONS ARE AMBIGUOUS and given in retrospect; facts given in the right enviroment are not and prove wrong doing proactively) created and calculated by the media?

Reliable or what??

-----------------------------------------------------------------

(I've only read these posts briefly - cant be arsed at this moment) Imagine Brian Greenham and Heed 'n' hands as judges??

LOL, my little brain, IS IMAGINING KANGAROO COURTS, jesters believing the reliability of evidence off sewing circles, and fish wives.

Perhaps this court could even bring to court a monkey??

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

CORRECTION AFTER TYPO -----------------------

This argument is simple, 180million spent in 9 years at the helm(no other club has done this or has the right to be this ambitious). BELIEVE IT AND NEVER CUT OF YOU'RE NOSE TO SPITE YOUR FACE..............

In essance the board are human and prone to mistakes- like everyone, BUT AMBITIOUS.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Great thread. It's always good to see all the different viewpoints. I'm definitely in the anti-board camp based on my perception of their attitude towards us, the fans, as well as their incompetence in many areas." KIWI TOON IN RESPONSE TO BRIAN GREENTHAM.

"I'm definitely in the anti-board camp based on my ***perception***" Kiwi toon has said. Are you Kiwi? Thought so.

Just imagine a court believed the ***perceptions***(PERCEPTIONS ARE AMBIGUOUS and given in retrospect; facts, which are given in the right enviroment are not retrospective and do prove wrong doing proactively) created and calculated by the media?

Reliable or what??

-----------------------------------------------------------------

(I've only read these posts briefly - cant be arsed at this moment) Imagine Brian Greenham and Heed 'n' hands as judges??

LOL, my little brain, IS IMAGINING KANGAROO COURTS, jesters believing the reliability of evidence off sewing circles, and fish wives.

Perhaps this court could even bring to court a monkey??

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

Buff

I understand your desire to know what WE could have done differently. I would love to know. Collective absence wouldn't have helped during the time of the pirate and McKeag. You rightly say they saw pound notes as their main driver. If we'd not turned up they'd have sold Nattrass, Kennedy, Beardsley etc for less, or more quickly to balance the books (or tip the books in their favour). McKeag was a nice man but hopeless for NUFC. It took bucket loads of Hall's money to get him out. We the fans couldn't have supplied that amount of financial difference.

Apart from Gullit I have fallen out with managers far more quickly than most. I'd had the conversation with a pal in the December before Keegan left that he seemed to have run out of ideas. (Before the Spurs 7-1 our results from mid November had been 1-1, 1-1, 1-2, 0-0, 1-2, 1-1, 0-1). Dalglish I hated from his signing of Barnes and Rush. Ardiles was just a joke. Smith was a disgrace. McFaul was way out of his depth and was carried by a fat boy prodigy. Big Jack was emotionally unstable. Cox I had hopes for ... it goes on.

The fundamental problem we all have is that we try and justify everything that NUFC does because we cannot influence it. We want NUFC to succeed so we put a positive spin on it. The first time I did this was with Gordon Lee. He believed in the team ethos, and got us to Wembley. Therefore he was right, therefore he was right to sell Supermac. Soon you get into the way of it all and you can justify everything to yourself. Dalglish was the biggest leap of faith. He sold Lee Clark, no pace, Robbie Elliot, dodgy knees, Peter Beardsley, too old, Sir Les, got two other better forwards, Ginola, doesn't tackle back while bringing in Des Hamilton, excellent young midfielder, Ketsbaia proven international, JDT exciting Danish prospect, Given, good agile small goalie, Barnes and Rush, proven European experience, Griffin good young fullback, ANderssen Swedish international, Gary Speed ..... my imagination couldn't cope with Gary Speed. But as you say what could I do ? Nothing, I can do nothing. I either justify it all to myslef or do my head in. With Dalglish it did my head in. It is my team, it is my son's team, it is my dad's team it is my 93 year old grandad's team. We can't give up on them, we don't want to. We want to go AND for things to get better.

An opposite model to the Hall/Keegan/Shepherd model is the Murray/Reid way. They won't pat mega bucks for players, they won't go into debt. They prefered (probably not thro choice) to be relegated and reborn than to invest when it would have meant going in debt. They spent £30,000 on 45 year old Chrissie Waddle to keep them up and failed. Their current relative success is born purely on the back of one exceptional signing, and more lately some decent buys. They had the same youth policy as us, with the sam enumber of kids coming thro'. How would we react if Shola was sold to Leeds for £5.5m at the end of this season, they did that with Bridges. So that model is no better.

I couldn't cope with this again. No matter what justification anyone came out with if we start selling Hughes, Griffin, a Caldwell, Shola, Dyer I will be furious, and probably still impotent to do anything :0)

Elsewhere Clarky has asked for a vision, a 6 point mission statement/plan. If we all knew what the big picture was and we could see why we had swapped a Tino for a Speed, or a Ginola for a Ketsbaia then maybe it would be easier. The problem, unchanging for generations is that no one has demonstarted their ability to look beyond next week, or next month, or the next injury. John Hall had it but got old or bored or knighted. The current don't seem to have any vision, it's sad.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

I couldn't agree more Macbeth. In the past I've always tried to justify the actions of managers even when it was blindingly obvious that they were getting things wrong.

And as far as Freddie and the board go, it's their lack of a plan that worries me. Well at least that's my ***perception*** of their failure to tell us, the fans, what their idea of the big picture is. And of course their failure to set up an academy, training facilities, etc.

Note for Aussie Anon: Perception: A way of interpreting something. Of course it's possible that Freddie has a great idea of the big picture, he just hasn't told anyone else what it is!

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001

Buff, you ask "... what could we have done, there had to something , most times we did nothing,>>Further discussion needed to see if anyone agrees".

Well, that's a painful challenge (well worth an Ian Harte triple salkow and an appeal for a red card), but there is no getting away from it is there - the fans of yesteryear have to own up to some responsibility for the present state of the club. Ouch.

Other contributors have illustrated the dilemma better than I could, but it seems to boil down a stark choice. Should we keep on buying tickets, supporting the team with everything we've got and not criticising the running of the club - which is presumably the right way to encourage getting the best in the short term but may be helping paper over longer-term cracks? Or should we stay away, respond to cr@p performances and lack of commitment with silence (or booing) and criticise the management, players and directors publicly - which might precipitate a crisis in the short term (when season ticket sales plummet) but lead to beneficial change in the long run?

My own inclination over the last 40 years or so has always been to support whatever lot are currently managing and playing for the club as hard as I can. Well, with two exceptions actually. I was amongst a mob that were throwing things at Lord (Patch) Westwood once in the sixties - just as a spectator of course yer honour. And I missed almost the whole of the 1980s in disgust. But in the end, what does that achieve, other than to push the club into even more short-termism because they have to balance the books?

Like many others, I was gutted when KK left. I thought that KD was the right replacement, and supported him longer than many others did, including on the old BBS. Ditto RG (and for the record still think that much of what he was trying to do was correct, if badly handled). My instinct now is to back the present regime, albeit with a sense of worry and unease. The question is: how do you tell, except with impeccable 20:20 hindsight, when you have been backing the wrong horse?

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001