Howaythelads

Thanks for that, mate. BTW Souness had a decent track record, better than O'Neills in fact. At the point of signing him he was one of the very few managers below us in the league. That in itself, should have told Shepherd to stay clear. You're being influenced by gejon, here. Not sure why you're posting this like. I hope you don't think I was pleased when Souness was given the job, like. Or that I think he was a good appointment. Just pointing out to the head in the sand crew who think it's easy that he had a better track record than O'Neill, and there are more than a few who would spurt all over the place had Fred gone for O'Neill.

So you disagree with NE5's assertion that getting us to an FA Cup Final means he was "successful"? You need to look at the big picture. With the sole exception of Robson -- who was practically down on his knees begging to be offered the job –- all of Fat Fred's managerial appointments have been unsuccessful. One after another. Each one worse than the one before. If you represented the big picture as a graph, it would show a steady downward progression, from top right to bottom left, with an upwards spike for the Robson era nothing but a blip in the inexorable slide into mediocrity. Getting it wrong once – could happen to anyone. Getting it wrong twice – bad luck, eh? Getting it wrong four times out of five, by which time we've pissed away our finances and established such an appalling reputation that no manager of any stature would want to come and work for the club? Only one answer to that – Shepherd out! Irony, tbh. I understand the managers haven't brought success, not beinig funny but I'm still waiting for you to come up with a suggestion for a foolproof method of selecting a manager. You keep repeating how he's got it wrong, but tell me how he was to know these quality managers could be backed with cash and get it wrong on the field? What should he have done differently? What was wrong with the appointments at the time they were made? He could appoint Wenger now and what would you say if Wenger fúcked it up? Still blame Fred....? Frankly, even if it was just down Fat Fred having appallingly bad luck, that would be reason enough to wish him gone. And if he'd the gumption to appoint Wenger, would he have let him do things precisely his way, as Dein has done at Arsenal? I think not. He was already in a job at Barcelona when SJH approached him. Still no answer then.....

If he decides the replacement was wrong and sacks Roeder and then appoints someone who, in your opinion is also not correct, does that mean he should "consider his position" or does that venture into 'Shepherd Out' territory in your opinion? Looks like you have to be led by the nose........ There is a post just a few up from yours in which I posted a link..............that's a clue.

I'll sgree with you on the Mlner piont should have been brought on earlier. However I'll say with the midfield it's pretty obvious Parker slightly damaged his knee early in the game and because of the lack of depth on the bench Roeder was forced to make Parker the holding midfield player and make Butt attempt to play Parker's role. As for Taylor/Carr I didn't think Carr played that bad today and Taylor looked slighly uncertain at RB on Wednesday. He could have brought on Milner for Parker if needed. Given up on using words again? Don't blame you at your age typing must be a bit of a struggle! There are no words to describe the stupidity of your suggestion, tbh. Ironic... Obviously you've realised....

So you disagree with NE5's assertion that getting us to an FA Cup Final means he was "successful"? You need to look at the big picture. With the sole exception of Robson -- who was practically down on his knees begging to be offered the job –- all of Fat Fred's managerial appointments have been unsuccessful. One after another. Each one worse than the one before. If you represented the big picture as a graph, it would show a steady downward progression, from top right to bottom left, with an upwards spike for the Robson era nothing but a blip in the inexorable slide into mediocrity. Getting it wrong once – could happen to anyone. Getting it wrong twice – bad luck, eh? Getting it wrong four times out of five, by which time we've pissed away our finances and established such an appalling reputation that no manager of any stature would want to come and work for the club? Only one answer to that – Shepherd out! Irony, tbh. I understand the managers haven't brought success, not beinig funny but I'm still waiting for you to come up with a suggestion for a foolproof method of selecting a manager. You keep repeating how he's got it wrong, but tell me how he was to know these quality managers could be backed with cash and get it wrong on the field? What should he have done differently? What was wrong with the appointments at the time they were made? He could appoint Wenger now and what would you say if Wenger fúcked it up? Still blame Fred....? BTW Robson has apparently turned down approaches in the past. Why's that, do you think?

I'll sgree with you on the Mlner piont should have been brought on earlier. However I'll say with the midfield it's pretty obvious Parker slightly damaged his knee early in the game and because of the lack of depth on the bench Roeder was forced to make Parker the holding midfield player and make Butt attempt to play Parker's role. As for Taylor/Carr I didn't think Carr played that bad today and Taylor looked slighly uncertain at RB on Wednesday. He could have brought on Milner for Parker if needed. Given up on using words again? Don't blame you at your age typing must be a bit of a struggle! There are no words to describe the stupidity of your suggestion, tbh.

Agreed. Not the player we need in a relegation dogfight.

I'll sgree with you on the Mlner piont should have been brought on earlier. However I'll say with the midfield it's pretty obvious Parker slightly damaged his knee early in the game and because of the lack of depth on the bench Roeder was forced to make Parker the holding midfield player and make Butt attempt to play Parker's role. We played 2 holding midfield players at home to the bottom team in the League. Defend that. We've been doing that most of the time since Souness wasted the money on Parker and Emre. Don't forget how much the team improved when Parker was out last season and Bowyer was in the middle, breaking forward etc. The problem is that Parker doesn't know how to break forward and Emre plays deep as well. With Emre out of the team and Butt in the team it still isn't ideal, but it would have been better had Parker been out and Emre alongside Butt because at least Emre would make an attempt to create something in advanced areas. Parker is the liability in all of this. The best combo in the middle would be Butt and Dyer, imo.

I'll sgree with you on the Mlner piont should have been brought on earlier. However I'll say with the midfield it's pretty obvious Parker slightly damaged his knee early in the game and because of the lack of depth on the bench Roeder was forced to make Parker the holding midfield player and make Butt attempt to play Parker's role. As for Taylor/Carr I didn't think Carr played that bad today and Taylor looked slighly uncertain at RB on Wednesday. He could have brought on Milner for Parker if needed.

Luque isn't a striker, he's a wide player.

Interesting. So what would you do if this happened and it was a success?

Bumped for the benefit of omarse and the rest, who criticise but include no substance to their posts......... At least someone has had a go at point number 1, it would be good if omarse had a go at all 3. There's no point in the moaning bastard having a go at point 1, he knew in advance that Dalglish would fail so that's why he wouldn't have appointed him. 1. Dalglish appeared to be the right choice at the time. 2. If you dont choose based on track record then you use whatever criteria Shepherd used to select the last two cos neither could be on track record. 3. Dalglish wasnt a shite appointment Thanks for that, mate. BTW Souness had a decent track record, better than O'Neills in fact. u must be kidding blueeek.gif Eh? Do you think he doesn't have a better track record up to the time he was appointed as Newcastle manager? That is what we're talking about, Fred appointing managers......

Bumped for the benefit of omarse and the rest, who criticise but include no substance to their posts......... At least someone has had a go at point number 1, it would be good if omarse had a go at all 3. There's no point in the moaning bastard having a go at point 1, he knew in advance that Dalglish would fail so that's why he wouldn't have appointed him. 1. Dalglish appeared to be the right choice at the time. 2. If you dont choose based on track record then you use whatever criteria Shepherd used to select the last two cos neither could be on track record. 3. Dalglish wasnt a shite appointment Thanks for that, mate. BTW Souness had a decent track record, better than O'Neills in fact. When we signed Souness he was on the verge of getting the boot from his current employer as he was taking them down! Is that meant to be a revelation like?

Bumped for the benefit of omarse and the rest, who criticise but include no substance to their posts......... At least someone has had a go at point number 1, it would be good if omarse had a go at all 3. There's no point in the moaning bastard having a go at point 1, he knew in advance that Dalglish would fail so that's why he wouldn't have appointed him. 1. Dalglish appeared to be the right choice at the time. 2. If you dont choose based on track record then you use whatever criteria Shepherd used to select the last two cos neither could be on track record. 3. Dalglish wasnt a shite appointment Thanks for that, mate. BTW Souness had a decent track record, better than O'Neills in fact.

So you think he should have stuck to "the long term plan" Can't answer the question, then. Big surprise. He sacked him because despite his outstanding track record of success, he didn't do well enough for my club. Now perhaps you can answer the perfectly valid questions in NE5's last post. To save you scrolling here it is again, slightly edited to help you and some others understand............. 1. Why would you not have appointed Dalglish given the strength of his track record ? 2. If you don't appoint managers on the basis of their track record, how would you choose them ? 3. On the basis of track record and Dalglish being a shite appointment, do you agree that would rule out Wenger, Ferguson, Capello, Lippi etc who are all similar to what Dalglish was at the time ? Bumped for the benefit of omarse and the rest, who criticise but include no substance to their posts......... At least someone has had a go at point number 1, it would be good if omarse had a go at all 3. There's no point in the moaning bastard having a go at point 1, he knew in advance that Dalglish would fail so that's why he wouldn't have appointed him.

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,21421.msg398634.html#msg398634 Ok, I think this more or less shows that my comment earlier wasn't a lie. What's more, the post above isn't the first time I'd said it. Now please show me where the change of mind is, especially if you are able to read and understand the date on the post I just linked to. Take your time deciding how to handle your embarrassment, but here's a hint, an apology will show you to be someone of integrity, some kind of abuse will show you to be a wanker. Which is it to be?

:roll:

You really are quite pathetic arent you? emot-yawn.gif gay.gif

Oh dear, is that the best you can do? Give your head a shake for your own sake. You're backing the bloke who had just posted a record loss, gates are falling and we're in the bottom of the table fighting for our place in the division. I didn't support the old directors so I've a clear conscience on that one, I just don't think the bloke you worship is any better and he seems to go out of his way to prove that he's no better. You claimed Ellis was shite but Shepherd wasn't, even though Ellis has finished above Freddy more than the other way round. We've just posted massive losses and you are still supporting him, you really are a comedy genius, even if you're not aware just how stupid you are looking. Ellis took Villa "massively backwards" from European Champions during 26 years [TWENTY SIX]. I think even you would admit that is long enough to prove he was incapable of keeping them in the position that is their right or maintain their former glories. Or maybe now. He also didn't back his managers, which a long term supporter - cough cough - of Newcastle United should be aware of the importance of. It may be that this board has taken the club as far forward as they can, but it doesn't mean the replacements will be better. As in thinking replacing Keegan would lead to automatic improvement, and replacing Robson, you should be aware it isn't so easy as that. Long term supporters - cough cough - should be more aware than this, having saw for themselves that Newcastle United are not immune from treading the depths of the old 2nd division and selling their best players. Do you still view this as a "golden era" etc, challenging for promotion with a few has beens then selling our best players when we get up being the height of ambition? There are a few people looking stupid on here...in my view they are those who think that a fairy is waiting in the wings to guarantee moving NUFC onto trophies that are theirs by divine right, and will have the good of the club at heart despite being shown this is far from certain, and be automatically better than the current board, yet are unable to name who this person is. Shut up ffs. Nobody has bollocks made of crystal so can't predict the outcome of ANY new chairman, but being scared of change is the same as accepting mediocrity. The FACT is that we ARE moving backwards under Shepherd, and the MAJORITY of fans would rather have somebody else managing our resources than Shepherd. Yes, a change could turn out a complete disaster, AS COULD ANY APPOINTMENT AT ANY LEVEL IN FOOTBALL! However, if you look at Shepherd's abysmal money-wasting record, it would be difficult for any new chairman to do worse than the Shepster nobody can predict the outcome of ANY manager either. Glad you acknowledge that. Maybe Fox [and others] will and tell us how he thought appointing Dalglish was a failure, unless he has a crystal ball and saw something in his outstanding track record that nobody else did. And - shut up and listen The chairman doesn't choose who his manager spends money on -- geddit :roll: You reckon? Well just think, if he did, why would he appoint a manager and pay himself instead ... Someone to talk the blame when it goes tits up. emot-yawn.gif gay.gif

Come to think of it, I'd take Robert back in Jan and use him up front, he'd be more effective than the rest of our strikers and would sweat no less than the likes of Ameobi.

It's too late for Robert, but there is nothing wrong with bringing any player back who will improve the team. Do you think Beardsley only had one spell at the club, or something? McDermott? Wouldn't you take Bellamy back right now?

Well, two people. gay.gif When do you get to the nob rant......

A mistake we're still paying the price for, agreed? The club may pay the ultimate price at the rate it's going. I think it'll take a few years to recover from the Souness debacle. You mean bankruptcy? Do you blame anyone in particular for this mistake? No, I mean relegation. Fairly sure that relegation and the subsequent drop in income would quickly lead to bankruptcy though... Anyway, do you blame anyone in particular for the mistake? Ahem...[/clearsthroat] Yes, I blame Souness for taking a team from 5th position, spending £50m and making it worse. I blame the Board for appointing a bad manager, something I hope they have corrected with Roeder but only time will tell on that one. You should take something for that throat.

So you think he should have stuck to "the long term plan" Can't answer the question, then. Big surprise. He sacked him because despite his outstanding track record of success, he didn't do well enough for my club. Now perhaps you can answer the perfectly valid questions in NE5's last post. To save you scrolling here it is again, slightly edited to help you and some others understand............. 1. Why would you not have appointed Dalglish given the strength of his track record ? 2. If you don't appoint managers on the basis of their track record, how would you choose them ? 3. On the basis of track record and Dalglish being a shite appointment, do you agree that would rule out Wenger, Ferguson, Capello, Lippi etc who are all similar to what Dalglish was at the time ?

A lie, tbh.