Howaythelads

Brings me back to the national ID card, age and IQ profile...... Playing devil's advocate here, but why does your opinion count and their's does not? Been drinking, have you, Dave? Where did I say my opinion counts and others doesn't? My opinion is clearly based on a superior maturity, intelligence and knowledge of all things, but that still doesn't mean I can't be wrong. I might be. Perhaps it's right to be full of hatred regarding all things Fred, and to want to see where Shearer's shit comes from, so I can eat it like the kids who think he can say no wrong. Fact is, Shearer has come out with plenty of 'Geordie' type stuff and how great the fans are in interviews, he also came out verbally in support of Souness despite everyone knowing by then that Souness was the worst manager we've had in living memory. I don't recall threads about it, but perhaps they did exist and I just missed them, eh? Or perhaps I am right and the people who continually look for any angle to slate the Board, no matter how ridiculous or obscure the latest topic may be, are the utter wankers I think they are.

Brings me back to the national ID card, age and IQ profile......

He generally talks shit, so what? I honestly don't give a toss what Fred says. To be honest, what annoys me is when Shearer is interviewed and tells the world that Newcastle fans would prefer to win the FA Cup than win the League Title. Now that is a bigger load of shit than anything Fred has ever spouted........and the problem is that Shearer seems to believe it anarl.

Any excuse from the normal suspects to have a go at the club and the Chairman, or the Board. I really do wonder why they 'support' the club. I wouldn't mind seeing the age and IQ profile of those constantly complaining about feeling 'embarrassed'. bluebiggrin.gif That national ID card sounds better to me as every day goes by.

Agreed

Totally agree.

Go F*** yourself, misquoting me again to try and back up your shitty dim-witted argument. bluelaugh.gif Misquoting you? Your position is how I described it and is clear by your posts. You think the Board should interfere in the transfer dealings if the manager is shite but not if the manager is good. How do you determine when the manager is shite? Why are you still doing it? Please quote where I said that I think the board should interfere. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,33560.msg643650.html#msg643650 The only conclusion to be drawn from your answer to that straight question is that if the manager is shite the Board should interfere. I've asked you more than once now how you determine the point at which a manager is judged to be shit other than his performance for Newcastle United, in order to know when the Board should interfere, but you haven't replied. You can try a reply now, if you like. Try to remember that for almost 2 years Robson signed mainly crap players. So I haven't actually said it and you're just "drawing conclusions"? I haven't replied because I'm sick of stating the obvious and think you're a ****. You talk shit. NE5 actually sometimes contructs a productive argument, but you're just shit. Pathetic and shit. CONCLUSION: 5. a reasoned deduction or inference. You said enough for it to be obvious what you're claiming, despite how stupid and unbelievable it is. No, I stated that I could understand it if it was a shit manager. I could reason with it. I never, NOT ONCE, ZERO TIMES, said that I think that they SHOULD interfere. What I have been suggesting is that if they do feel that they must interfere, at least interfere when Souness is blowing £50m instead of interfering when Bobby is trying to sign Carrick and Miguel. In response to a straight question of whether or not you believe a Board should interfere in team affairs you said that it depends on the manager. The clear meaning of your answer is that if you don't rate the manager you think it's fine for the Board to interfere in team affairs. I think that's a fair conclusion to make from your statement. Now if you're claiming that reasonable conclusion is incorrect then perhaps you believe the Board should interfere when a manager is doing a good job. An idiotic view like this is entirely possible in your case. "It depends who is manager" was more of a sarcastic swipe at Souness and a swipe at how Bobby was treated than any true portrayal of my opinion on transfer interference. Does this clear up your incorrect perception of my posts? If you say so then I'll accept that's what you meant to say. It's a forum, you should think about the lack of any body language when you write a post because it's not what you actually did say. I think you're a little bit daft thompers, but you're nowhere near being a total arsehole like mick, macbeth, booboo and a few others. I don't think you're a liar, so ok, I'll accept what you're saying. All managers get the bullet at some stage and it's never, ever very pretty when they do. Robson had lost the plot ages before he went, which could be seen in the team performances from the latter stages of when we finished 3rd right through the following season. He did a great job during his time but he had to go, so I don't have any great hang up about how he was treated. I'm more pissed off than most though about the replacement. Total disaster. Had the replacement been a good one ( like Robson himself replacing Gullit ) we wouldn't be writing these type of posts right now because people like you wouldn't bang on the way you do about the Board.

Go F*** yourself, misquoting me again to try and back up your shitty dim-witted argument. bluelaugh.gif Misquoting you? Your position is how I described it and is clear by your posts. You think the Board should interfere in the transfer dealings if the manager is shite but not if the manager is good. How do you determine when the manager is shite? Why are you still doing it? Please quote where I said that I think the board should interfere. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,33560.msg643650.html#msg643650 The only conclusion to be drawn from your answer to that straight question is that if the manager is shite the Board should interfere. I've asked you more than once now how you determine the point at which a manager is judged to be shit other than his performance for Newcastle United, in order to know when the Board should interfere, but you haven't replied. You can try a reply now, if you like. Try to remember that for almost 2 years Robson signed mainly crap players. So I haven't actually said it and you're just "drawing conclusions"? I haven't replied because I'm sick of stating the obvious and think you're a ****. You talk shit. NE5 actually sometimes contructs a productive argument, but you're just shit. Pathetic and shit. CONCLUSION: 5. a reasoned deduction or inference. You said enough for it to be obvious what you're claiming, despite how stupid and unbelievable it is. No, I stated that I could understand it if it was a shit manager. I could reason with it. I never, NOT ONCE, ZERO TIMES, said that I think that they SHOULD interfere. What I have been suggesting is that if they do feel that they must interfere, at least interfere when Souness is blowing £50m instead of interfering when Bobby is trying to sign Carrick and Miguel. In response to a straight question of whether or not you believe a Board should interfere in team affairs you said that it depends on the manager. The clear meaning of your answer is that if you don't rate the manager you think it's fine for the Board to interfere in team affairs. I think that's a fair conclusion to make from your statement. Now if you're claiming that reasonable conclusion is incorrect then perhaps you believe the Board should interfere when a manager is doing a good job. An idiotic view like this is entirely possible in your case.

Where did you watch the match? Stamford Bridge

Go F*** yourself, misquoting me again to try and back up your shitty dim-witted argument. bluelaugh.gif Misquoting you? Your position is how I described it and is clear by your posts. You think the Board should interfere in the transfer dealings if the manager is shite but not if the manager is good. How do you determine when the manager is shite? Why are you still doing it? Please quote where I said that I think the board should interfere. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,33560.msg643650.html#msg643650 The only conclusion to be drawn from your answer to that straight question is that if the manager is shite the Board should interfere. I've asked you more than once now how you determine the point at which a manager is judged to be shit other than his performance for Newcastle United, in order to know when the Board should interfere, but you haven't replied. You can try a reply now, if you like. Try to remember that for almost 2 years Robson signed mainly crap players. So I haven't actually said it and you're just "drawing conclusions"? I haven't replied because I'm sick of stating the obvious and think you're a ****. You talk shit. NE5 actually sometimes contructs a productive argument, but you're just shit. Pathetic and shit. CONCLUSION: 5. a reasoned deduction or inference. You said enough for it to be obvious what you're claiming, despite how stupid and unbelievable it is.

Where did you watch the match?

Jesus, I can't believe the Fat Fuck has embarrassed us again. The world must be pissing themselves laughing at us knowing we have a chairman who uses his LEFT hand to scratch his nose. bluebiggrin.gif

Go F*** yourself, misquoting me again to try and back up your shitty dim-witted argument. bluelaugh.gif Misquoting you? Your position is how I described it and is clear by your posts. You think the Board should interfere in the transfer dealings if the manager is shite but not if the manager is good. How do you determine when the manager is shite? Why are you still doing it? Please quote where I said that I think the board should interfere. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,33560.msg643650.html#msg643650 The only conclusion to be drawn from your answer to that straight question is that if the manager is shite the Board should interfere. I've asked you more than once now how you determine the point at which a manager is judged to be shit other than his performance for Newcastle United, in order to know when the Board should interfere, but you haven't replied. You can try a reply now, if you like. Try to remember that for almost 2 years Robson signed mainly crap players.

WOOP! WOOP! THICKO ALERT!!! bluelaugh.gif

Go F*** yourself, misquoting me again to try and back up your shitty dim-witted argument. bluelaugh.gif Misquoting you? Your position is how I described it and is clear by your posts. You think the Board should interfere in the transfer dealings if the manager is shite but not if the manager is good. How do you determine when the manager is shite?

So you consider Jenas, a player we made a £4million profit on as a poor signing? I agree, shit bit of business there! Think about what you're saying. Defeated by the debate, so you're ignoring the point. Well done, thompers. I'm not even surprised, which is a shame. You'll note that I didn't ignore the point and that there were 2 further replies. Both a load of bollocks, tbh. The fact is, your criteria for accepting interference from the Board is stupid. Using the same kind of measure applied to all managers would have meant Robson having decisions taken out of his hands well before he signed Bellamy and Robert.

Ok, let's treat this ridiculous concept as serious for a moment. Let's take a look at 2 managers most will agree did a good job at Newcastle, Keegan and Robson. Keegan - Track record = None. Transfers - Well I know we were in a very poor position (although some don't realise it ) but KK's second signing was a total shite one in Darren MacDonough. Who was Peter Garland? KK's 4th signing. Keegan shifted him out only months after signing him, so he must count as a mistake. Not a very good start in the transfer market and the club was skint, it was vital to get it right because the club couldn't afford too many mistakes. So at what point should the Board have thought...." Hmm, we should do this ourselves". Robson - Track record = Very Good Transfers - His first two signings, Helder and Gallacher were sound. He also got rid of the players who hadn't been performing under Gullit, like Maric who turned out not to want to be at the club (like Luque now). However, Robson's next signing was Gavilan, followed by Bassedas, then Cort, then the clown Lua Lua and also Wayne Quinn. The only player who was decent value in that period was Acuna. Robson didn't get it right until he'd been at the club for nearly 2 years, at which time signed Bellamy and Robert. Where should it have ended with Robson? When should the Board have done it themselves in the way you advocate? He wasted a lot of money. Even after gettting it right with Bellamy and Robert he went on to sign Jenas, he signed Bramble, a player now vililfied as shite. He also signed Viana. Those last 3 players costing a lot of money. He signed Bowyer, O'Brien and Ambrose. Not many rated those 3 players that highly. Think about what you're saying. Without side tracking this topic into Robson's player signing track record...I had to point out that I wouldn't consider Jenas, Lua Lua and Bowyer as a bad buys...Jenas did well in the first season and we sold him for good money and made profit. Lua Lua played well for us and scored good number of goals and vital ones, it was his attitude that was the problem not his skills and still sold him for a reasonable profit. Bowyer was a free agent and did reasonably well for us and got some money for him when we sold him to Westham... Also Ambrose and O'Brien did a job for us and got our money back for both of them... I still thing Bramble is ok for the amount of money we paid for his signature... The only ones that I think were a waste of money were Carl Cort, Bassedas, Wayne Quinn, Gavilan and Hugo Viana which I think he would have done alright if shown a bit more patience and faith by the manager and supporters... These players you list as the shite buys were in the main the first ones made by Robson. So under the criteria offered by thompers shouldn't the Board have taken over the responsiblity from Robson regarding the signing and sale of players? Upto the signings of Bellamy and Robert he'd proven to be pretty inept in the transfer market for Newcastle United. That's the point I'm making, because thompers believes a good manager should get a free reign but a crap one should suffer interference by the Board. How do you determine the point in time when the Board interferes?

To be fair, who the F*** understands the real point of ANY of your posts? WOOP! WOOP! IDIOT ALERT!!! bluelaugh.gif

So you consider Jenas, a player we made a £4million profit on as a poor signing? I agree, shit bit of business there! Think about what you're saying. Defeated by the debate, so you're ignoring the point. Well done, thompers. I'm not even surprised, which is a shame.

Ok, let's treat this ridiculous concept as serious for a moment. Let's take a look at 2 managers most will agree did a good job at Newcastle, Keegan and Robson. Keegan - Track record = None. Transfers - Well I know we were in a very poor position (although some don't realise it ) but KK's second signing was a total shite one in Darren MacDonough. Who was Peter Garland? KK's 4th signing. Keegan shifted him out only months after signing him, so he must count as a mistake. Not a very good start in the transfer market and the club was skint, it was vital to get it right because the club couldn't afford too many mistakes. So at what point should the Board have thought...." Hmm, we should do this ourselves". Robson - Track record = Very Good Transfers - His first two signings, Helder and Gallacher were sound. He also got rid of the players who hadn't been performing under Gullit, like Maric who turned out not to want to be at the club (like Luque now). However, Robson's next signing was Gavilan, followed by Bassedas, then Cort, then the clown Lua Lua and also Wayne Quinn. The only player who was decent value in that period was Acuna. Robson didn't get it right until he'd been at the club for nearly 2 years, at which time signed Bellamy and Robert. Where should it have ended with Robson? When should the Board have done it themselves in the way you advocate? He wasted a lot of money. Even after gettting it right with Bellamy and Robert he went on to sign Jenas, he signed Bramble, a player now vililfied as shite. He also signed Viana. Those last 3 players costing a lot of money. He signed Bowyer, O'Brien and Ambrose. Not many rated those 3 players that highly. Think about what you're saying.

Handy things, those DVD's.

Good one.

Nope, I agree Butt should take presedence now due to performances, but surely a place can be found for Parker ? Not for me, mate. I'd sooner put Dyer back in the centre before Parker, assuming he was fit, that is. So it's 2 from Butt, Emre and Dyer with Parker nowhere really. I just don't think he's that good, certainly nowhere near as good as those other 3 at what they do.

So why do you think we perform better when he's NOT playing? I don't think we do, most of the games quoted above were when Shearer and Roeder took over from Soumess, we were a completely different team then! Butt has been brilliant lately so has Emre, we DO need three excellent CM with our workload and injury record though)! Parker has still been our best outfield player so far this season (as he was by miles last season), typified by his awesome performance V Watford in the Cup. He's been out for a few games injured and has been bad mouthed by some. He'll be back soon though, he'll put in a couple of awesome shifts and they'll be all sorts of attempted back peddling, absolute rubbish talked to explain why he looks so good but really isn't and the fickle ones will change there minds yet again. Everyone's entitled to their opinion its true, i'm quite confident i'm right on this one, Parker is a very very good player its up to Roeder to play him correctly and get the best out of him and we will yet again very soon. Some people have very short memories or are not happy with the true rubbish i.e. Car, Shambles and Luque being bad mouthed so unbelievably they start on the likes of Parker and Emre who are our world class players. I've never changed my mind about Parker, I've always seen him as over-rated. He's no better than average at his best, you won't be getting any u-turns from me. As for the comment about "world class players"..... bluelaugh.gif

So another, in your opinion, poor player signed for millions sanctioned by the board? Yup. Souness was crap, there's no doubt about it. Thompers, straight question for you, yes or no will do. Do you believe the Board should interfere with team affairs, making the decisions on who should join and who should leave? It depends who's manager at the time. what sort of response is that I hope I don't hear you criticising Fred for interfering with managers doing their jobs when you have just said you agree with it If I was chairman, I'd certainly not interfere with Robson, I'd trust him to do his thing, as a proven competent manager. With Souness, if I was chairman, I wouldn't appoint him in the first place, but if he actually was at the helm, I wouldn't trust him with £50m that's for sure. But of course, it comes down, again, to the poor manager selection thing. so, you agree that a chairman should tell his manager who to buy and sell ? If thats the way you want to twist it honey im sure thats what he really meant! What's your criteria for appointing a manager? Try not to include anything that can only come from hindsight........