Howaythelads

We are the type of club he'd love to get his hands on if he wasn't manager of Man Utd. I have nothing but respect for the man, a great manager and since KK, he's always shown NUFC respect, especially when his big mate Bobby was at the club. Still a c*** though He would never come to us obviously but I think he doesn't respect Shepherd at all; I think he thinks we're run like a joke which is fair enough tbh. I think <make something up>; I think he thinks <make something up>..... Yeah, ok.

Regarding the squad overall, we did bring in some players in the summer. In addition, despite not being great players Carr, Bernard, Babayaro and Bramble are ALL PL players, that's without knowing the facts of whatever the problem is with Bernard. Bramble played in the side that was in the CL and did well. Given the current injury situation all of these players would be useful to have fit. Bramble even played RB for Ipswich and could fill in there if required, which is the purpose of a squad, of course.

Hindsight. Using the only suitable criteria to select a manager he was a qualified and suitable person for the job. If we appointed a manager today with a similar track record you'd be looking at the Wenger level, I doubt many would be complaining although the "damned if they do, damned if they don't" crowd might surprise me.

Fair point re the statistics but they mask the fact that Souness was also largely responsible for destroying the "boot room" culture at Liverpool, and they have now not won the league in 16 years. Also, Souness achieved what he did in Scotland by having a huge amount of money to spend. MON did not, and he turned around the Rangers dominance. Look at who is the dominant force in Scottish football now, despite having Gordon Strachan as manager. Good point, the biggest point though at the end of the day regarding Souness was that he was strongly rumoured to get the sack when we approached Blackburn! You're clutching at straws, Jon. FFS learn how to concede a point. It's not a big deal and you're not conceding the argument. I hate him and would like even the chance to kick his head in, but Souness had a sound track record and a better one than the much praised O'Neill.

2 potential back 4's, 3 midfielders in there :s Your point? We clearly don't have enough defenders. Aye, I agree. That's because they're injured. We don't have enough strikers even if Owen wasn't injured. Get it? If Martins is injured..... er yes we would. If Owen was fit and Martins was injured we could play Dyer or Sibierski and Owen, that would be a lot better than anything we put together at the back! But Owen isn't fit and the scenario that's under 'discussion' is what happens if Martin's is injured....... :roll:

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck? Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault. Or if Abramovich had appointed a clearly shite manager who everyone in football knew was the wrong appointment then it would be his fault also. The track record of Souness upto his appointment with Newcastle is comparable to that of Martin O'Neill. Yes, to the clinically insane. Err no, it's fact actually. And I think O'Neill is over-rated actually, just pointing out that based on a CV Souness was a reasonable appointment, although nowhere near as good as Dalglish for example, who had a track record far better than the likes of Mourinho. For example. How many clubs did O'Neill take backwards/get the sack from? Also, didn't SJH appoint Dalglish? Good point about O'Neill and I won't argue, because even though I think he's over-rated I do think Souness is shit and O'Neill is better. However, the fact is O'Neills actual CV is no better than that of Souness. Another fact is that it's not easy to get the right man. It's also a fact that a man who is the right man at one club may not be the right man at another club, but track record is the usual critieria used despite this. Souness is the worst manager of Newcastle in my lifetime, no doubt about that at all. He was appointed by the current Board and I hate that as much as anybody else, however wankers who pin this "Fred lover" tag on me for refusing to accept the Board is crap are so far wrong it's just unbelievable. I'm more pissed off than most I can assure you. I see it as a terrible decision but I also see it as no reason to suppose that overall the Board has been shite for years and is shite right now on the basis of this mistake. Mate, I'm not sure what your point is by your second statement. I don't know who the actual person was who appoinited Dalglish but as far as I know Boards appoint and sack managers unless the club has an outright owner.

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck? Abramovich wouldn't be to blame whatever happened, Peter Kenyon would. Oh right. He's the one who appointed Maurinho and runs the day to day sie of the football club, Abramovich just own's the club. It would be similar to blaming SJH for the mess we're in now because he's the major shareholder. Abramovich calls the shots, mate. You can pin whatever label you like on Kenyon, on the basis of what I'm reading the buck stops with the top man and the top man is Abramovich. I don't agree, I don't think there is anyway of proving it so we'll have agree to disagree on this one. Ok. That's fine with me, mate.

Hey booboo....another one who has a brain.... http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,34590.msg671905.html#msg671905 Still waiting for something from you, man. Some opinion with a bit of explanation behind it.

2 potential back 4's, 3 midfielders in there :s Your point? We clearly don't have enough defenders. Aye, I agree. That's because they're injured. We don't have enough strikers even if Owen wasn't injured. Get it? If Martins is injured.....

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck? Abramovich wouldn't be to blame whatever happened, Peter Kenyon would. Oh right. He's the one who appointed Maurinho and runs the day to day sie of the football club, Abramovich just own's the club. It would be similar to blaming SJH for the mess we're in now because he's the major shareholder. Abramovich calls the shots, mate. You can pin whatever label you like on Kenyon, on the basis of what I'm reading the buck stops with the top man and the top man is Abramovich.

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck? Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault. Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid. Is that your reply? Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault? On what evidence did he make that appointment? He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence! Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football? What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn? I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck? Abramovich wouldn't be to blame whatever happened, Peter Kenyon would. Oh right.

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck? Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault. Or if Abramovich had appointed a clearly shite manager who everyone in football knew was the wrong appointment then it would be his fault also. The track record of Souness upto his appointment with Newcastle is comparable to that of Martin O'Neill. Yes, to the clinically insane. Err no, it's fact actually. And I think O'Neill is over-rated actually, just pointing out that based on a CV Souness was a reasonable appointment, although nowhere near as good as Dalglish for example, who had a track record far better than the likes of Mourinho. For example.

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck? Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault. Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid. Is that your reply? Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault? On what evidence did he make that appointment?

bluelaugh.gif New year, same old nonsense. Criticism but no supporting comment to make it worth anything. You really do contribute nothing to this forum. I'm not the only one who can think beyond the obvious by the way..... http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,34590.120.html

2 potential back 4's, 3 midfielders in there :s Your point?

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck? Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault. Or if Abramovich had appointed a clearly shite manager who everyone in football knew was the wrong appointment then it would be his fault also. The track record of Souness upto his appointment with Newcastle is comparable to that of Martin O'Neill.

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck? Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault. Boring as fuck, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

Apparently none of them count although Bernard counts as a defender and the young academy lads as full backs blueconfused.gif Dyer, Emre, Sibierski and Luque are not out and out strikers, although Dyer can do a job in support. Would you want to see Dyer as the MAIN striker in the absence of Martins? Would you want to see Emre as the main striker in the absence of Martins? Bernard is a LB by the way, so that means even though he's not fit he counts as a defender because LB is a defensive position. Any academy lad who is a defender is a defender, so they count as defenders. It's upto the manager to decide if they're upto it or not at PL level as backup. It's obvious that we have an injury crisis in defence, (Carr, Babayaro, Bramble, Moore, Ramage, Bernard) which is why we're short at the back. We don't have an injury CRISIS among the strikers, but we're still short up front. Before the injury to Ramage my opinion was that we needed 1 quality striker, 1 LB, 1 backup striker, 1 CB and in that order. We probably now need to swap the order of that backup striker and CB due to the additional injury to Ramage, but all of that is depending on the expected return dates of the injured defenders, which as I'm not a club insider, I have no reliable knowledge of. Do you? Jon, we don't have to agree, but I'm especially interested in why you say defenders who are defenders shouldn't count as such, yet midfielders who aren't strikers at all should count as strikers.

Bottomless pit of money obsession again. He also wanted Carr, and was given the money to buy Milner, Butt and pay the wages to Kluivert. Its called a budget. Macbeth and his monkey will explain the concept when he comes back as he surely will soon now the team has lost a couple of games, to tell you that we didn't even have the money for Carr never mind Miguel. The shite board spent millions before and after that summer. Damned if they spend, damned if they don't, as usual. We couldn't afford another £3 million for Miguel but at the same time we could afford to bid £23 million for Rooney? I was under the impression the Rooney bid was to be funded from some kind of special package via Banks that was available only for this special player. That's what I heard anyway, so don't ask me for a link and I'm not saying it is a fact. It is speculation.

Some experience will be needed, I don't know much about Edgar so it'll be interesting to see whether or not Roeder has enough faith in him to select him for this match. Given Solano, Taylor, Huntington, Parker Milner, Butt, Emre, Sibierski Dyer, Martins I don't for a moment believe Roeder will select this team. Such is his obsession with selecting Parker in CM he will probably put his name down first and fill the rest in from there. I would put the really important players down first ( Butt, Emre, Dyer, Martins) and in their strongest roles and build it from there. Although obviously well out of position I'd expect both Parker and Sibierski to have enough discipline to maintain these roles and give the team some balance and shape, which will be vital in this game. I won't expect much attacking flair down our left of course, it's more a containment thing with those two players. Everyone else is in a role for which they're well suited, so if the two players out of position are good enough pro's we should be able to maintain that team balance and shape when we don't have the ball, which will be often today. In reality though I expect to see Butt at CB and Emre wide left. Butt may be ok as a stopgap at CB but this would leave Parker for the CM and that weakens the team by a massive amount imo. Also, when Emre is out wide left he's proven he doesn't have the discipline to maintain that role, so we'll be wide open down that side if he's used there. The same goes for Dyer, if he is used wide left he'll be all over the show. Even if we're generally outplayed and have trouble with possession we must have some kind of attacking threat to at least give them something to worry about, hence I'd go with the pace of Dyer and Martins up front, hopefully dragging their defenders around a bit. I expect Roeder to put out something like this: Given Solano, Taylor, Butt, Huntington Milner, Parker, Dyer, Emre Sibierski, Martins Which of course keeps the headless chicken Parker in CM and as I've said, we'll be wide open down our left flank and have no shape when we lose the ball. Just my opinion and an explanation of "why".

No, the only FACT is that this is your opinion. Another FACT is that the club has often spent relatively big money on defenders, I say relatively because it's generally accepted that strikers do in the majority of cases cost more than defenders. That's another FACT. There can be any number of reasons why the club didn't sign Miguel and signed Carr. Please post a link to the FACTS of how this happened and I'll read it. Carr would have been a player on the managers "wish list", for want of a better name for the players he'd like to bring to the football club. So would Butt. I am not a club insider, but I would GUESS that the process goes along these lines: The team manager meets with the Board and presents in someway a LIST of names of players he is interested in signing. Of course the Board doesn't then sign ALL of those players, they will have to be prudent, do their job properly and assess the financial implications of bringing in the players the manager is asking for. Did you really take my earlier comment literally and think I was saying the Board buys EVERY player the manager EVER asks for? What I'm saying is that if the club has £10m to spend and Roeder wants to splash it all on defenders I'm sure the Board will back him. If he wants to splash it all on strikers I'm sure they'd back him. It is his decision as team manager. I think it's fairly clear what I'm saying so it's odd that you don't appear to understand it even if you don't agree. That last bit is a question by the way. I'm not saying you said it, so don't get confused again by believing I'm putting words in your mouth when I'm doing no such thing. Cheers Jon No worries. Don't mention it, mate.

No, the only FACT is that this is your opinion. Another FACT is that the club has often spent relatively big money on defenders, I say relatively because it's generally accepted that strikers do in the majority of cases cost more than defenders. That's another FACT. There can be any number of reasons why the club didn't sign Miguel and signed Carr. Please post a link to the FACTS of how this happened and I'll read it. Carr would have been a player on the managers "wish list", for want of a better name for the players he'd like to bring to the football club. So would Butt. I am not a club insider, but I would GUESS that the process goes along these lines: The team manager meets with the Board and presents in someway a LIST of names of players he is interested in signing. Of course the Board doesn't then sign ALL of those players, they will have to be prudent, do their job properly and assess the financial implications of bringing in the players the manager is asking for. Did you really take my earlier comment literally and think I was saying the Board buys EVERY player the manager EVER asks for? (That bit is a question by the way. I'm not saying you said it, so don't get confused again by believing I'm putting words in your mouth when I'm doing no such thing) What I'm saying is that if the club has £10m to spend and Roeder wants to splash it all on defenders I'm sure the Board will back him. If he wants to splash it all on strikers I'm sure they'd back him. It is his decision as team manager. I think it's fairly clear what I'm saying so it's odd that you don't appear to understand it even if you don't agree. Cheers

Jon you must realise that Superbore has an agenda and refuses to acknowledge any points that shoot down his laughable opinions. Here's your chance to pick just ONE of these obviously so many laughable opinions, start a new thread and we can debate this laughable opinion of mine like adults. Or we can do it via PM if you don't want to be embarrassed on the open forum. I'm happy to enter into any kind of debate with you, mate. Are you happy to debate like an adult or aren't you?