• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

NUFC/Sportwashing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Exile 1968 said:
The aim, as Bruce has stated, is to finish Top 10 and have a pop at the Cups. You're not that daft surely
Click to expand...
He's also said the aim is survival, to 'tick along', etc. You're also confusing what the manager is saying in public with what evidence and history suggests.
 

The Fish said:
He's also said the aim is survival, to 'tick along', etc. You're also confusing what the manager is saying in public with what evidence and history suggests.
Click to expand...
Brighton's aim would be the same at the start of the season yet they find themselves near the top at the moment. Sometimes that's how football works. Some clubs under achieve some clubs over achieve.
Was Ashley ambitious when you finished 5th under pardew or was it simply that you over achieved
 
sproates33 said:
In fairness if your declaring the whole aim of Ashleys reign is to finish 17th to receive the TV money, the same can be said for :-

Brighton, West Ham, Aston Villa, Watford, Wolves, Palace, Southampton, Burnley, Norwich & Leeds - I’m unsure why the expectancy and clamour for Newcastle to be so much different is apparent.
Click to expand...
I think you've conflated bare minimum, with aim. Only Burnley aim for survival, for every one else there, it's the bare minimum (Norwich & Watford aside).

Norwich are a club limited by funds, and geography. They've a totally different approach to it which seems to be get promoted as cheaply as possible, try and stay up, but if they go down they don't care as they'll sell a few players, come back up and try again. They don't spend much so they're not in as much danger after relegation as other clubs are.
 
sofatester said:
Brighton's aim would be the same at the start of the season yet they find themselves near the top at the moment. Sometimes that's how football works. Some clubs under achieve some clubs over achieve.
Was Ashley ambitious when you finished 5th under pardew or was it simply that you over achieved
Click to expand...
In fairness to Brighton they hired a progressive manager on the way up, the mags have hired a bloke who was proven to be shite a decade ago.
 
The Fish said:
I think you've conflated bare minimum, with aim. Only Burnley aim for survival, for every one else there, it's the bare minimum (Norwich & Watford aside).

Norwich are a club limited by funds, and geography. They've a totally different approach to it which seems to be get promoted as cheaply as possible, try and stay up, but if they go down they don't care as they'll sell a few players, come back up and try again. They don't spend much so they're not in as much danger after relegation as other clubs are.
Click to expand...
It's therefore also the 'bare minimum' for Newcastle.

Newcastle have spent more time in the Premiership in Ashleys tenure than Brighton, Villa, Wolves, Palace, Southampton, Burnley & Leeds.

That's before you even get onto the likes of us, Portsmouth, Blackburn, Derby, Wigan, Birmingham, Bolton etc who have all pretty much gone to the wall in that time period.
 
The Fish said:
He's also said the aim is survival, to 'tick along', etc. You're also confusing what the manager is saying in public with what evidence and history suggests.
Click to expand...
History suggests you are there or there abouts where you should be. Yet certain sections of your fanbqse are embarrassing themselves crying Cartel, then want a bunch of murderers to fund them so they can break into it. f***ing mental man.
 
sofatester said:
Brighton's aim would be the same at the start of the season yet they find themselves near the top at the moment. Sometimes that's how football works. Some clubs under achieve some clubs over achieve.
Was Ashley ambitious when you finished 5th under pardew or was it simply that you over achieved
Click to expand...
We over achieved. Look at what was going on for some of the usual big clubs in that season. Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Everton all had, by their standards, poor point returns.

We were incredibly lucky with the form of some of our players, their injury-free seasons and so on. That 5th season could have been something we built on by recruiting shrewdly, capitalising on the value of some of our over-performing players to fatten the coffers. But instead, we bought Vurnon Anita in the summer and Bigirimana.
 
The Fish said:
We over achieved. Look at what was going on for some of the usual big clubs in that season. Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Everton all had, by their standards, poor point returns.

We were incredibly lucky with the form of some of our players, their injury-free seasons and so on. That 5th season could have been something we built on by recruiting shrewdly, capitalising on the value of some of our over-performing players to fatten the coffers. But instead, we bought Vurnon Anita in the summer and Bigirimana.
Click to expand...
Football can be like that though and sometimes things like that contribute to how any team performes over the season. It's not just the manager and owner are shite end of

There's a lot of luck in football a manager can do a good job at one club because all his signings just click then can go to another club and the signings might not work out
 
Last edited:
sofatester said:
Football can be like that though and sometimes things like that contribute to how any team performes over the season. It's not just the manager and owner are shite end of
Click to expand...
If they'd had Wilson (23app+3sub) and ASM (18apps+6subs) for a bit more of last season they'd have no doubt got more points. ASM was missing late November until late January when they went of their shit run and Wilson early Fed to early April when they didn't win a game. Yet hoying Willock in also with both of them mostly playing until the end of the season, they went on a class run.

They've missed ASM and Wilson a few games this season. Unless you're Man City, Chelsea etc then like most teams, losing 2 of your best players for periods of time will mean results are harder to achieve.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sproates33 said:
It's therefore also the 'bare minimum' for Newcastle.

Newcastle have spent more time in the Premiership in Ashleys tenure than Brighton, Villa, Wolves, Palace, Southampton, Burnley & Leeds.

That's before you even get onto the likes of us, Portsmouth, Blackburn, Derby, Wigan, Birmingham, Bolton etc who have all pretty much gone to the wall in that time period.
Click to expand...
It's both the bare minimum and the loftiest aim.

In the 14 years prior to Ashley's purchase we spent 8 years in European competition (9 if you count Cup winners Cup, more if you count the Intertwobob), 8 top half finishes. Our lowest finish was 14th, our average points return was 59. Under Ashley our lowest PL finish is 18th, our average PL points return is 44 and we've been relegated twice. We're willfully standing still or declining while other clubs pass us by.

In Ashley's time, Brighton have climbed from 18th in League 1 to the Premier League, Leicester have gone from League 1 to consistent top half finishes in the top tier, Leeds certainly have similar ambitions.
MackemX said:
If they'd had Wilson (23app+3sub) and ASM (18apps+6subs) for a bit more of last season they'd have no doubt got more points. ASM was missing late November until late January when they went of their shit run and Wilson early Fed to early April when they didn't win a game. Yet hoying Willock in also with both of them mostly playing until the end of the season, they went on a class run.

They've missed ASM and Wilson a few games this season. Unless you're Man City, Chelsea etc then like most teams, losing 2 of your best players for periods of time will mean results are harder to achieve.
Click to expand...
And given both those players' injury record, wouldn't it make sense to bring in some back up? There's plenty of room in the wage budget to accommodate a sub striker/attacking mid, now that we've got rid of Muto, Lejeune, Carroll, Saivet et al. We didn't because Ashley's gambling on us having enough to stay up again.

Oh, by the way, ASM hasn't missed a minute of the Premier League this season.
Exile 1968 said:
History suggests you are there or there abouts where you should be. Yet certain sections of your fanbqse are embarrassing themselves crying Cartel, then want a bunch of murderers to fund them so they can break into it. f***ing mental man.
Click to expand...
History? How far back are we going? 14 years before Ashley? All time football league history?
 
Last edited:
The Fish said:
Him being a successful businessman doesn't take away the truth that he's a wind up merchant on talksport, whose expressed opinions are based on getting people phoning up.

And I addressed GOM's post.

fwiw I'm probably 75% sure the takeover won't go through, I'm 100% sure it won't go through in it's current form. Either PIF need to set up a purchase vehicle to create an acceptable amount of 'distance' between the money and the state, or the Premier League will have to be happy with a club being owned by a foreign state. Neither's likely.

What's telling is that there are other 'credible offers' and if we finally get the full stop at the end of this debacle, I'd expect Ashley to sell to someone else. Which is frankly all I want. Yes there could be jokers and even worse owners, but there could also be someone like Leicester's owner, or Brentford's and I'm willing to take that gamble. Someone who'll want for more than 17th and have some interest in running a sporting institution as such and not just a billboard for his tat.
Click to expand...


The Fish said:
It's both the bare minimum and the loftiest aim.

In the 14 years prior to Ashley's purchase we spent 8 years in European competition (9 if you count Cup winners Cup, more if you count the Intertwobob), 8 top half finishes. Our lowest finish was 14th, our average points return was 59. Under Ashley our lowest PL finish is 18th, our average PL points return is 44 and we've been relegated twice. We're willfully standing still or declining while other clubs pass us by.

In Ashley's time, Brighton have climbed from 18th in League 1 to the Premier League, Leicester have gone from League 1 to consistent top half finishes in the top tier, Leeds certainly have similar ambitions.

And given both those players' injury record, wouldn't it make sense to bring in some back up? There's plenty of room in the wage budget to accommodate a sub striker/attacking mid, now that we've got rid of Muto, Lejeune, Carroll, Saivet et al. We didn't because Ashley's gambling on us having enough to stay up again.

Oh, by the way, ASM hasn't missed a minute of the Premier League this season.

History? How far back are we going? 14 years before Ashley? All time football league history?
Click to expand...


Logon or register to see this image
 
The Fish said:
It's both the bare minimum and the loftiest aim.

In the 14 years prior to Ashley's purchase we spent 8 years in European competition (9 if you count Cup winners Cup, more if you count the Intertwobob), 8 top half finishes. Our lowest finish was 14th, our average points return was 59. Under Ashley our lowest PL finish is 18th, our average PL points return is 44 and we've been relegated twice. We're willfully standing still or declining while other clubs pass us by.
Click to expand...
Logon or register to see this image


I should just ignore this but I just can't help myself so can't resist replying to this! :lol:

You finished bottom half 7 of 15 seasons with 2 separate spells of 4 seasons and 3 seasons at the top and then a single season. Instead of looking at the 'false' position of those years due to big spending in a blossoming Premier League money monster, why not look at the 14 years prior to Hall. You spent most of that in Division 2 but had 5 seasons in a row in Division 1, finishing 14th, 11th, 17th, 8th and 20th so just the 1 top half finish.

The Fish said:
In Ashley's time, Brighton have climbed from 18th in League 1 to the Premier League, Leicester have gone from League 1 to consistent top half finishes in the top tier, Leeds certainly have similar ambitions.
Click to expand...
You mention Leicester but I reckon they will soon revert back in time as they simply won't have the finances to keep up. Look here at Leicester as they look similar to how you did in the late 2000's. They lost last night and if they get booted out of the Europa League then where will the money come from to substain it as they're not looking as good this season on the pitch.

https://www.readytogo.net/smb/threa...r-2021-edition.1557357/page-283#post-34624014

As for Brighton, come back end of season as I don't think they'll maintain that position but they weren't too bad last season. Leeds are having a bit of 2nd season syndrome but should settle. Non big 6 teams have spells anyway as they get players in that click and have a great season so this is why they go up and down the league season after season.

The problem is players move on or get older and the replacement players aren't as good or fit in as well. You had 2 decent spells and it wasn't continous as between it you spent 4 seasons lower half.

Yet some of you wonder why we call the Mags deluded. It's because you 'bought' that brief period of 2 good spells with big transfer fees and wages yet expect 'way' more than what you have now because of those spells. The days of teams spending willy nilly on big transfers/wages in the Premier League have long gone. The revenue wasn't coming in for Hall & Shepherd to maintain the level of spending but they pocketed well over £100m between them so they moved on and left Ashley to pick up the pieces.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Fish said:
It's both the bare minimum and the loftiest aim.

In the 14 years prior to Ashley's purchase we spent 8 years in European competition (9 if you count Cup winners Cup, more if you count the Intertwobob), 8 top half finishes. Our lowest finish was 14th, our average points return was 59. Under Ashley our lowest PL finish is 18th, our average PL points return is 44 and we've been relegated twice. We're willfully standing still or declining while other clubs pass us by.

In Ashley's time, Brighton have climbed from 18th in League 1 to the Premier League, Leicester have gone from League 1 to consistent top half finishes in the top tier, Leeds certainly have similar ambitions.

And given both those players' injury record, wouldn't it make sense to bring in some back up? There's plenty of room in the wage budget to accommodate a sub striker/attacking mid, now that we've got rid of Muto, Lejeune, Carroll, Saivet et al. We didn't because Ashley's gambling on us having enough to stay up again.

Oh, by the way, ASM hasn't missed a minute of the Premier League this season.

History? How far back are we going? 14 years before Ashley? All time football league history?
Click to expand...
Fucksake man you are unbelievable, you are now going back as far as 1993, nearly 30 years ago to try and justify your current position.

You honestly think your club is some sort of unique position in comparison to every other team, You go on like you are the only club to have a primary aim of remaining in the Premiership.

It's pointless even debating it because you come back with the same shit time and time again that only resonates with other Newcastle fans and not with fans of any other club in the footballing pyramid. The delusion around your club is absolutely insane. 30 years ago Blackburn were competing for League Titles, Nottingham Forest, Aston Villa, Ipswich, Bolton, Ipswich and Norwich were in Europe. Look at where you are now in comparison to that lot, you need to get real and accept times change.
 
I wonder how much of the so called ITK info/squabbling on Tw@tter etc is related to trying to get more followers. More followers will mean more revenue along with Youtube etc and a bit more when they link to the websites that sell the tat.

The Mag fanbase is a canny size and getting a chunk of them under 1 roof would mean a decent income.
 
sproates33 said:
Fucksake man you are unbelievable, you are now going back as far as 1993, nearly 30 years ago to try and justify your current position.

You honestly think your club is some sort of unique position in comparison to every other team, You go on like you are the only club to have a primary aim of remaining in the Premiership.

It's pointless even debating it because you come back with the same shit time and time again that only resonates with other Newcastle fans and not with fans of any other club in the footballing pyramid. The delusion around your club is absolutely insane. 30 years ago Blackburn were competing for League Titles, Nottingham Forest, Aston Villa, Ipswich, Bolton, Ipswich and Norwich were in Europe. Look at where you are now in comparison to that lot, you need to get real and accept times change.
Click to expand...
This. It’s the self entitlement that makes me laugh. ‘All we want is a team that tries’ nonsense. This whole takeover was about one thing, they thought they were the new Man City, simple as
Not one of them is bothered about what their prospective new owners are and stand for, forget piracy these people Are murderers, believe women have no rights homophobic the list is endless.
But no it’s the premier league that are the real bad guys
 
92/93 - 06/07: 21, 3, 6, 2, 2, 13, 13, 11, 11, 14, 3, 5, 14, 7, 13. If you know your stats you will see that is volatility. Average is 8.5 and s.d. is 5.6
07/08 - now: 12, 18, 21, 12, 5, 16, 10, 15, 18, 21, 10, 13, 13, 12......average 14.4 but lower s.d. of 4.5.

Average pre-Ashley is 14.4 with a higher s.d. of 9.8.

Effectively you are back where you belong and those golden years of 93/94 - 96/97 a "bubble" in mags history. The prem years without the bubble is 10.5.
 
The Fish said:
It's both the bare minimum and the loftiest aim.

In the 14 years prior to Ashley's purchase we spent 8 years in European competition (9 if you count Cup winners Cup, more if you count the Intertwobob), 8 top half finishes. Our lowest finish was 14th, our average points return was 59. Under Ashley our lowest PL finish is 18th, our average PL points return is 44 and we've been relegated twice. We're willfully standing still or declining while other clubs pass us by.

In Ashley's time, Brighton have climbed from 18th in League 1 to the Premier League, Leicester have gone from League 1 to consistent top half finishes in the top tier, Leeds certainly have similar ambitions.

And given both those players' injury record, wouldn't it make sense to bring in some back up? There's plenty of room in the wage budget to accommodate a sub striker/attacking mid, now that we've got rid of Muto, Lejeune, Carroll, Saivet et al. We didn't because Ashley's gambling on us having enough to stay up again.

Oh, by the way, ASM hasn't missed a minute of the Premier League this season.

History? How far back are we going? 14 years before Ashley? All time football league history?
Click to expand...
I believe you stand 14th since the start of the League. And not 1992 when you think football was invented.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top