Howaythelads

According to helpless lasses, no doubt. I prefer to kick them in the face tbh. Assuming you can tell the face from the arse......

According to helpless lasses, no doubt.

Aye, I know. And scared shitless by Wullie the tough guy mod.

Here we go with the internet hardman routine again.....We may have different opinions, but I'm not stupid. How about addressing the main point, or is that too difficult despite me being the stupid one? "Internet hardman" says the bloke who offered to meet Gemmill and/or alex for a fight. What a scream. I'm the one not addressing the main point despite you just having brought up Jermaine Jenas for some bizarre reason? Shot yourself in the foot a bit there didn't you? :roll: Same old refuge, tough guy. Don't forget, you're the one posting the abuse.

Ever stopped to wonder at the impression created outside the area by these wankers pumping out all that money to no effect except a steady decline from the position of almost winning a trophy to wondering whether we can avoid relegation? Not to mention the impression created by conversations with fake sheikhs and tactless dismissals of the game's lower ranks. :roll: Same question to you. Do you think they had to give £200m to the managers to buy players. We know that many people get a rag on at Fred for calling Geordie women dogs ( FYI I didn't marry one ) and so think he's a wanker. How exactly does that stop Newcastle supporters appearing as wankers to outsiders by not being happy with a Board that funds it's managers to that extent? These are two different things. Perhaps you will actually answer these questions. Or will it be a snip of a few words and a bit of sarcasm as usual?

Here we go with the internet hardman routine again.....We may have different opinions, but I'm not stupid. How about addressing the main point, or is that too difficult despite me being the stupid one?

Hmmm, some wouldn't be keen on that. Trophy signing, you see.

Clueless toss. Ever stopped to wonder at the impression created outside the area by these wankers going on about sacking a Board that's pumped somewhere close to £200m into buying players? Good one, ace. Not as good as yours tbh. £200m and in danger of being relegated. That's some board. :roll: Do you really not understand that this figure of £200m could easily be a fraction of that over the same time, avoidance of relegation and a cup run being the aim season after season? You won't understand until it's too late. Then you'll claim you never wanted Fred out, just like you claim you never said Jenas was the next Vieira until he was on his way out the door.

Clueless toss. Ever stopped to wonder at the impression created outside the area by these wankers going on about sacking a Board that's pumped somewhere close to £200m into buying players? Good one, ace.

Clueless toss. Ever stopped to wonder at the impression created outside the area by these wankers going on about sacking a Board that's pumped somewhere close to £200m into buying players?

I thought Dave Jones would have been a good choice, a realistic option compared to the Hitzfeld dreamers. I recall when Souness hadn't yet been sacked and I scoffed at the idea of Roeder being appointed as a caretaker manager should Souness go (as most of us hoped), that's because Roeder struck me as a coach and that's it. Promoting a coach to the managers job rarely works. I'd have to dig out the old posts to see who slagged me off for that one, but I guarantee they'll claim now they never rated him. :winking:

On the contrary, in his final season he came in and turned the team's form around, keeping Souness in a job when it would have been better he hadn't done. Only for Souness to make him the scapegoat for a bad team performance and boot him out again. Fact is the team hasn't had anywhere near the goal threat it had before the departure of Bellamy and Robert. People were told.......

More realistic than the Luque reference....

Cherry picking?

£45 million since flotation according to some fella on the three legends supposedly. Gospel

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes. And it's a laugh to say they've been "prepared to pay for success"? What success? They got ripped off. Or rather, we did. You think they have to spend money bringing in players do you? No, just that it's dumb to imagine (or present) them as philanthropic donors, selflessly turning out their pockets to back the manager. They pay themselves very handsomely for what they do, even though in some cases (Dodgy Doug the prime example) it's difficult to work out exactly what that might be. Meanwhile, they're presiding over steadily diminishing returns. Nobody is saying that or suggesting that. You just like to spin it that way for some reason. Well you can read the quote that started this discussion your way, and I'll read what it actually says. Thought you were on the verge there of a proper exchange of posts........

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes. And it's a laugh to say they've been "prepared to pay for success"? What success? They got ripped off. Or rather, we did. You think they have to spend money bringing in players do you? No, just that it's dumb to imagine (or present) them as philanthropic donors, selflessly turning out their pockets to back the manager. They pay themselves very handsomely for what they do, even though in some cases (Dodgy Doug the prime example) it's difficult to work out exactly what that might be. Meanwhile, they're presiding over steadily diminishing returns. Nobody is saying that or suggesting that. You just like to spin it that way for some reason.

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes. And it's a laugh to say they've been "prepared to pay for success"? What success? They got ripped off. Or rather, we did. You think they have to spend money bringing in players do you?

Total bollocks. Unless you think Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and Souness were all yes men. And Keegan of course, because Fred was at the club then. Souness could never be considered anything other than his own man, despite being a total incompetent. If team had done well on the field of play he'd still be manager now, "yes man" or "no man". You're clutchinig at straws, Omarse.

cannot argue with a word you said .The sooner fat fred goes the better .If we get taken over surely it cannot be any worse than our current situation with fat fred with his sailors cap on and our rudderless ship proverbly drifting out at sea . Take a stab at the questions in my post then, matey.

See the bit in bold. Who are you posting that to? Everyone knows that, already. Would you care to explain what it is in Fred's track record of appointing managers (albeit shite ones, of course) that shows they're based on whether they're are a cheap or expensive option? Please post the source of the information that leads you to accuse Roeder of being a "yes man". Is it because you think he just has that look about him, or are you a club insider? We know you aren't paid to be a manager, that's hardly a surprise in any walk of life, but you repeatedly claim that Fred has appointed duff managers, I'm still waiting for you to tell me the criteria he should have used that would guarantee a manager who would be successful at Newcastle. You rightly point out there was nothing in Roeder's track record that would merit his appointment, so it seems you believe you have some idea.......and of course that you want to base it on someone's track record.

Only if he sees Luque as a striker. More likely that he doesn't even think of him at all.

Indigo http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31195.msg597334.html#msg597334 Rather than quote it all I've just linked back to it. All of the comment indicating Fred appointing manageres in a reactionary way is stuff I've posted on before, so I don't know what makes you think I'm saying the opposite. I can see the errors Fred has made, I've posted on it lots of times but certain individuals prefer to ignore that fact. I'm pointing out that in the past Fred has appointed people with excellent track records and I'm not sure how else he can do it. He's tried a different approach this time and is still being slaughtered for it. Until someone using hindsight to beat him up with over these appointments can tell me how they knew in advance Dalglish and Gullit would fail, I'll carry on posting the way I do about Fred. As I've said, even Sourness has a better track record than everyone's hero O'Neill, yet for some reason he's deemed to be good enough and would be considered by many to be a good appointment. If he's good enough on his track record then so were the others. Nobody knows how it will then turn out.

I can't say I agree with you there HTL - Shepherd did make something of a rod for his back by publically saying that Robson wouldn't have his contract renewed at the end of the 2004/05 season. This made Robson's position untenable - would you agree? If Shepherd knew after the 2003/04 season that the next season would be Robson's last, should he not have made preparations for his replacement as soon as he made that decision? The popular opinion is that during the summer of 2004 Robson should have been "moved upstairs" and someone else installed - now whether or not you agree with that, would you agree that it is easier (and more preferable) to appoint a manager in the off season rather than mid season? It seems that Shepherd planned to dispense with Robson's services and yet didn't have a plan to replace him - now, it is possible he thought he would cross that bridge when he came to it (at the 2004/05 season) but when he decided to sack Robson a handful of games into the season he suddenly had to appoint someone immediately - which resulted in something of a circus and the (allegedly fifth choice) Scottish maggot being plucked from the sinking ship that was Blackburn I guess my point is that as soon as Shepherd decided he was going to get rid of Robson, he should have immediately begun formulating contingency plans - a "fire now" plan (summer 04), a "fire during the season" plan, and a "release at the end of contract" plan... It's all very well to say my thoughts are with the benefit of hindsight, but really, it's common sense. If you plan to get rid of a manager, then you also need to plan for his replacement... There's a lesson for this for Freddy now too - if he boots Roeder, then I hope to God he's already got someone lined up, because we don't want to be scraping the bottom of the barrell and come up with another Souness, do we?!? That's a very good post, but I do think you've answered your own question. Fred probably did have a plan to replace Robson but not until the end of the season, as you said. I doubt very much Fred allowed Robson to spend money in the summer with the expectation we would start off looking like relegation fodder. In that situation the Board has to act before it's too late. People are right now clamouring for Fred to get rid of Roeder ( and himself ) despite it not being expected, if he sacks Roeder will he then be criticised for having no plan? Sacking managers can't really be predicted as it's usually sparked by an unexpected situation. Unless you expect a club to always have a plan in place to get a new manager, which can't be easy unless you're restricting yourself to just those top managers currently out of work, I'm not sure how someone can criticise the Board for the unexpected situation of having to sack a man they thought would leave in 9 months time.

Is it more valid if you repeat yourself? Not that I've got a clue as to what you're on about. Likewise, your post above is a total nonsense. Anyway, just answer the point(s) in my post, you don't have to be mentioned specifically, you know. I notice you also have no comment in relation to the link I posted to a comment of mine made last May, a comment that laid out my thoughts on Fred and the appointment of Roeder. You've also made no comment that I've seen in relation to my agreeing with Dave, or least Dave agreeing with something I posted about when Souness was appointed. You either can't keep up or you only select what suits you at the time. What points are you asking to be answered? The post from May doesn't need commenting on, you seem to have set a target at which point you think Shepherd should go but you seem to absolve him of any wrong doing so far, that's the way I read it. As for selecting what I respond to, yes I do, I'm sure nobody replies to every post on here, I know I don't. You are totally dumb. There's not much point in exchanging posts with you in future, Mick.