Howaythelads

Surely being in the first IX of any of the top 4 is a good measure of player's quality... Why not top3, or top 2, or why not even top 1 because that's the aim, isn't it? You could say that being good enough for 2nd isn't good enough. You miss the point anyway. The implication is that everyone outside the top 4 isn't good enough for the top 4, which is of course nonsense. There are individuals playing for those top 4 teams I wouldn't particularly want to see play for Newcastle as well. You build a team by getting a proper blend of attributes across the team and squad, not by thinking...."Hmm, would this player be a first choice at one of the teams that happened to finish in the top 4 last season."

But not for one of the BIG FOUR, so obviously shit.

He turned us down when we were 2nd in the Premiership, were we shit then? Didn't even consider us when we really needed even a half decent manager, at the peak of his playing and managerial career is what sniffer said, I think. Not like you to ignore what doesn't suit you though is it ? Maybe, as you've decided to jump in, you could tell the younger lads precisely what I meant when I talked about Gazza, Beardsley and Waddle all leaving the club ? Give him time to work out why you've brought the Middle East into it......

He didn't deny he "dished the dirt". As he says above, it was Shepherd not NUFC that this "dirt" focussed on. Mel Ironic that mandiarse is being defended in his dishing the dirt on the club by making out it was aimed toward an individual when the wum himself can't admit that negative comments made by Bellamy about the club were really a swipe at how Souness was managing the club.

I've been away for a while but nowt changes. You still don't grasp that although NE5 may be repeating previous opinions posted he is doing so in response to the same individuals posting a repeat of theirs. You only seem to think an opinion is repeated if you don't agree with it. Very odd, that. Why don't you suggest the repeated opinions of NE5, OM, Mick, tmonkey, Tron and a few others are "stickied?" Can't sticky any of yours though, since you never post any.... :parky:

Did SA actually say that? I thought he said Smith wasnt Dyers replacement and after we bought Smith and still had Dyer SA said if Dyer is sold he will look for a replacement. I dont understand the shit Smith is getting on here TBH. This aint aimed at you Baggio but the general tone of a few people, Smith may not be the most gifted player but that doesnt make him a shit player. So far i wouldnt say he's been shit or that he's been outstanding. I thought he had a good game against Bolton but average games for the rest. I'd agree Smiths best position is up front and ideally i'd prefer him to be rotated with the other strikers and not used in the midfield unless we have too. How come Smith is getting a lot of shit yet Viduka aint? I havent been impressed with Viduka but that doesnt mean im gonna write him off. When we agreed a deal with West Ham the first time around Allardyce came out and said that his replacement would be revealed tomorrow, the next day we signed Smith, from what I remember Allardyce said the money we got from Dyer when he did finally leave would be reinvested in the team. Smith is offering nothing, he gets stuck in in midfield but so will Faye when he plays at a fraction of the price, he's been a passenger in our last few games and he hasn't really offered us anything when we attack, as a team we have been struggling to create much and when you've spent £6 million on a player to play in midfield even though he's got few qualities to offer us then the fans are going to knock him. He's also only managed 3 goals in his last 79 games which is fucking attrocius. Get the blinkers off man. He's not being played to his strengths, nor was he at manure most of the time from what I saw of them. People who have said he's a victim of his versatility have got it spot on. I think some people just don't like him, hence stuff I've read in the past making out he's a bad lad, assuming his aggressive attitude on the field spills over into his general lifestyle when in fact off the field he's a model professional. There's a negative bias against him from a lot of people, not saying you in particular, but it's pretty obvious in a number of threads and more than a bit sad.

Can you really blame him for choosing Barca etc over us? Err aye. As a Newcastle fan all of my life I'd choose Newcastle. Wouldn't you?

Well I'd defy anyone to read Sir Bob's autobiography, and come away with the conclusion that he wasn't undermined by Shepherd. Sir Bob only started appearing at Freddie's side when the team was starting to flounder under Roeder, and the fans were starting to publicly turn on Freddie. At the same time, Freddie was starting to try and sell the idea that the Halls were undermining his work, and, by implication, that they were responsible for the position the club was in. Sir Bob is a forgiving soul, but in this case I think he was being used. When Shepherd announced to the world that SBR's contract would not be renewed at the end of the 2004/2005 season he made SBR a lame duck manager that the likes of Dire and Bellamy where only too happy to take advantage of. To conclude that Shepherd did not undermine SBR is mind boggling really! I was waiting for someone to come back with the "comments made by Fred" bit because it's just so obvious, and of course this would have undermined the manager given that some of the players were crap professionals. The thing is, the lack of respect from the players didn't happen overnight, it would have grown over time and become obvious to the Board and the Halls and is what led to those in charge beginning to doubt Robson. As I said after we finished 3rd, Robson should have gone then when we were on a high, that was another mistake by the Board and the Halls. Apart from irrational hatred I'm not at all sure why you're lumping Bellamy in with Dyer. Perhaps you can explain? Smacking John Carver over the head with a chair? Going off to Wales when injured? Getting pissed (note Bobby's comments on Bellamy as well as Dyer) and hitting women? Being a 'strange' boy, as Bobby called him? Having to have Freddie warn him about his conduct? They might have had something to do with it. Bellamy was a tit, Dyer was a tit. Both did well here under Bobbys managership and both did things professional footballers shouldn't. Let's include the hero Shearer then eh. Kicking Lennon in the mush, smacking Gillespie in the mush. Definitely material that undermines the position of a manager. Under the time of Robson, Dyer didn't do anything like as well as Bellamy. To suggest otherwise and to lump them together is absurd. shame he didn't kick Dire in the mush for putting the shirt on a hundred times at least and doing a disappearing act too. Letting everybody down where it matters most Thought I'd correct your post there.....

You were doing fine before that hyperbole. I had to look that up.

Well I'd defy anyone to read Sir Bob's autobiography, and come away with the conclusion that he wasn't undermined by Shepherd. Sir Bob only started appearing at Freddie's side when the team was starting to flounder under Roeder, and the fans were starting to publicly turn on Freddie. At the same time, Freddie was starting to try and sell the idea that the Halls were undermining his work, and, by implication, that they were responsible for the position the club was in. Sir Bob is a forgiving soul, but in this case I think he was being used. When Shepherd announced to the world that SBR's contract would not be renewed at the end of the 2004/2005 season he made SBR a lame duck manager that the likes of Dire and Bellamy where only too happy to take advantage of. To conclude that Shepherd did not undermine SBR is mind boggling really! I was waiting for someone to come back with the "comments made by Fred" bit because it's just so obvious, and of course this would have undermined the manager given that some of the players were crap professionals. The thing is, the lack of respect from the players didn't happen overnight, it would have grown over time and become obvious to the Board and the Halls and is what led to those in charge beginning to doubt Robson. As I said after we finished 3rd, Robson should have gone then when we were on a high, that was another mistake by the Board and the Halls. Apart from irrational hatred I'm not at all sure why you're lumping Bellamy in with Dyer. Perhaps you can explain? It can only be irrational love and respect for Shepherd that you can conclude that he never undermined SBR! If some players didn't have respect for SBR then that's more damning of them than Sir Bobby. Anyway, that's all in the past, the cancer has been cut out of the club, and I'm more than happy to move on and look forward to the future with renewed optimism..... .....but I'm still astounded that you feel that Shepherd never undermined Sir Bobby. Some things never change. You and some others have missed the overall point of my post in your haste to have a go. I just said that the Board doubting Robson (leading to any undermining of him obviously) was caused by the behaviour and attitude of the players. I obviously didn't explain myself well enough earlier with the comment along those lines, having overlooked there are people like you reading this forum. It think it's pretty obvious I'm blaming the players, so I don't see the point of your second sentence above. It's kind of obvious. By the way, what do you mean by "if the players didn't have respect?" Do you doubt it? You shouldn't mention cancer when it comes to this subject. And you called me an idiot. Was selling Gary Speed without telling his manager undermining? him? Or not? It's there to read in black and white unless you feel Bobby was telling lies, something he doesn't appear prone to. According to many on this forum Fred signs everyone that turns out shit and sells everyone we shouldn't sell. So it's pretty par for the course really.

Well I'd defy anyone to read Sir Bob's autobiography, and come away with the conclusion that he wasn't undermined by Shepherd. Sir Bob only started appearing at Freddie's side when the team was starting to flounder under Roeder, and the fans were starting to publicly turn on Freddie. At the same time, Freddie was starting to try and sell the idea that the Halls were undermining his work, and, by implication, that they were responsible for the position the club was in. Sir Bob is a forgiving soul, but in this case I think he was being used. When Shepherd announced to the world that SBR's contract would not be renewed at the end of the 2004/2005 season he made SBR a lame duck manager that the likes of Dire and Bellamy where only too happy to take advantage of. To conclude that Shepherd did not undermine SBR is mind boggling really! I was waiting for someone to come back with the "comments made by Fred" bit because it's just so obvious, and of course this would have undermined the manager given that some of the players were crap professionals. The thing is, the lack of respect from the players didn't happen overnight, it would have grown over time and become obvious to the Board and the Halls and is what led to those in charge beginning to doubt Robson. As I said after we finished 3rd, Robson should have gone then when we were on a high, that was another mistake by the Board and the Halls. Apart from irrational hatred I'm not at all sure why you're lumping Bellamy in with Dyer. Perhaps you can explain? Smacking John Carver over the head with a chair? Going off to Wales when injured? Getting pissed (note Bobby's comments on Bellamy as well as Dyer) and hitting women? Being a 'strange' boy, as Bobby called him? Having to have Freddie warn him about his conduct? They might have had something to do with it. Bellamy was a tit, Dyer was a tit. Both did well here under Bobbys managership and both did things professional footballers shouldn't. Let's include the hero Shearer then eh. Kicking Lennon in the mush, smacking Gillespie in the mush. Definitely material that undermines the position of a manager. Under the time of Robson, Dyer didn't do anything like as well as Bellamy. To suggest otherwise and to lump them together is absurd.

Well I'd defy anyone to read Sir Bob's autobiography, and come away with the conclusion that he wasn't undermined by Shepherd. Sir Bob only started appearing at Freddie's side when the team was starting to flounder under Roeder, and the fans were starting to publicly turn on Freddie. At the same time, Freddie was starting to try and sell the idea that the Halls were undermining his work, and, by implication, that they were responsible for the position the club was in. Sir Bob is a forgiving soul, but in this case I think he was being used. When Shepherd announced to the world that SBR's contract would not be renewed at the end of the 2004/2005 season he made SBR a lame duck manager that the likes of Dire and Bellamy where only too happy to take advantage of. To conclude that Shepherd did not undermine SBR is mind boggling really! I was waiting for someone to come back with the "comments made by Fred" bit because it's just so obvious, and of course this would have undermined the manager given that some of the players were crap professionals. The thing is, the lack of respect from the players didn't happen overnight, it would have grown over time and become obvious to the Board and the Halls and is what led to those in charge beginning to doubt Robson. As I said after we finished 3rd, Robson should have gone then when we were on a high, that was another mistake by the Board and the Halls. Apart from irrational hatred I'm not at all sure why you're lumping Bellamy in with Dyer. Perhaps you can explain? It can only be irrational love and respect for Shepherd that you can conclude that he never undermined SBR! If some players didn't have respect for SBR then that's more damning of them than Sir Bobby. Anyway, that's all in the past, the cancer has been cut out of the club, and I'm more than happy to move on and look forward to the future with renewed optimism..... .....but I'm still astounded that you feel that Shepherd never undermined Sir Bobby. Some things never change. You and some others have missed the overall point of my post in your haste to have a go. I just said that the Board doubting Robson (leading to any undermining of him obviously) was caused by the behaviour and attitude of the players. I obviously didn't explain myself well enough earlier with the comment along those lines, having overlooked there are people like you reading this forum. I think it's pretty obvious I'm blaming the players, so I don't see the point of your second sentence above. It's kind of obvious. By the way, what do you mean by "if the players didn't have respect?" Do you doubt it? You shouldn't mention cancer when it comes to this subject. And to think that you called me an idiot......

Sam out. What a wanker. I mean, sack the Board. Very good. Seriously. He's doing a good job, we're on the right lines but you have to wonder about how well he can ultimately do at this club if it's true he rates Ameobi.

Sam out. What a wanker. I mean, sack the Board, they aren't doing what I want.

Seems like Smith is the target of the moaners these days. We have 4 PL quality strikers but they won't complement each other across all 6 permutations imo. Viduka or Smith alongside Owen or Martins is how I see it. I don't want to see Viduka up front with Smith or Owen up front with Martins in 4-4-2, which I prefer. If Owen doesn't combine well with Martins that means if Viduka is injured we would be stuck with a shite attacking combination. Surely you can see that? We need 4 decent strikers, so we needed to sign another one. Smith is a decent player who was available. What is your problem with having 4 strikers? Why are you trying to slot them into an order of merit based on 1st-4th? I agree with what you say, I just think that Smith has been signed as a midfielder. I hope you're wrong.

Seems like Smith is the target of the moaners these days. We have 4 PL quality strikers but they won't complement each other across all 6 permutations imo. Viduka or Smith alongside Owen or Martins is how I see it. I don't want to see Viduka up front with Smith or Owen up front with Martins in 4-4-2, which I prefer. If Owen doesn't combine well with Martins that means if Viduka is injured we would be stuck with a shite attacking combination. Surely you can see that? We need 4 decent strikers, so we needed to sign another one. Smith is a decent player who was available. What is your problem with having 4 strikers? Why are you trying to slot them into an order of merit based on 1st-4th?

Well I'd defy anyone to read Sir Bob's autobiography, and come away with the conclusion that he wasn't undermined by Shepherd. Sir Bob only started appearing at Freddie's side when the team was starting to flounder under Roeder, and the fans were starting to publicly turn on Freddie. At the same time, Freddie was starting to try and sell the idea that the Halls were undermining his work, and, by implication, that they were responsible for the position the club was in. Sir Bob is a forgiving soul, but in this case I think he was being used. I hope you aren't a novelist......

Well I'd defy anyone to read Sir Bob's autobiography, and come away with the conclusion that he wasn't undermined by Shepherd. Sir Bob only started appearing at Freddie's side when the team was starting to flounder under Roeder, and the fans were starting to publicly turn on Freddie. At the same time, Freddie was starting to try and sell the idea that the Halls were undermining his work, and, by implication, that they were responsible for the position the club was in. Sir Bob is a forgiving soul, but in this case I think he was being used. When Shepherd announced to the world that SBR's contract would not be renewed at the end of the 2004/2005 season he made SBR a lame duck manager that the likes of Dire and Bellamy where only too happy to take advantage of. To conclude that Shepherd did not undermine SBR is mind boggling really! I was waiting for someone to come back with the "comments made by Fred" bit because it's just so obvious, and of course this would have undermined the manager given that some of the players were crap professionals. The thing is, the lack of respect from the players didn't happen overnight, it would have grown over time and become obvious to the Board and the Halls and is what led to those in charge beginning to doubt Robson. As I said after we finished 3rd, Robson should have gone then when we were on a high, that was another mistake by the Board and the Halls. Apart from irrational hatred I'm not at all sure why you're lumping Bellamy in with Dyer. Perhaps you can explain?

I don't agree that a measure of the quality of a player is whether or not he's considered good enough to be a first choice at manure, Chelsea, arse or the bin dippers.

The major mistake was the appointment of Souness. People ignore this or spout the inevitable, "but Fred appointed him." Be that ignorance as it may. It is clearly correct the Halls would have had a major say regarding every managerial appointment since they took over the club, it is just too important a decision for this not to be the case. Fred may be the figurehead, but he would not have made these decisions alone. The same people who got it spectacularly right with Keegan have been making the decisions all along but they got it spectacularly wrong with the appointment of Souness. It doesn't suit the agenda of some moaners to acknowledge that though. I think we could have had real success under the previous Board with some luck along the way because they had the ambition for success, unlike previous Boards going back decades. Everyone needs luck so this idea shouldn't be mocked. Ferguson had some at manure when he could have been on the way out. In addition to luck though you do need the manager to make good footballing decisions at key moments. Both luck and good managerial decisions are out of the control of the board. For example, players failing to turn up for big matches shows the mental capacity of the players signed by the manager and is nothing to do with the Board. Robson putting out weakened sides in a competition we could win is a bad decision by the manager, not by the Board. How many teams reach two FA Cup finals but both times find the opponents to be good enough to be that season's league champions? It doesn't happen that often but it happened to us twice. This is bad luck really. How about Souness putting himself and his inflated ego ahead of the club possibly preventing us winning the Uefa Cup. These things are decisions made by the manager, not by the Board. So everyone needs a little bit of luck at some stage and we haven't had much at key moments. 0-1 against manure anyone.......Winning something would have made such a difference. Getting to the worst manager in my 48 years. Well, I lay some of blame for the debacle of Souness at the door of some of the players. I await the usual suspects harping on about that comment while ignoring the rest of the post. I believe it was the player's lack of respect for Robson that led to his sacking, which was bad enough but when you add to that their lack of self discipline we were well on the road to the disastrous appointment of the worst manager of Newcastle in my lifetime. A manager brought in to restore order and discipline. The footballing decisions made by Souness as he ripped the team apart being loudly supported by many on here who now slag the Board mercilessly. Mind-boggling really. Robson did a great job but he was undermined by people like Dyer, not by Fred. That's why you see Robson sitting next to Fred at matches. The Board does their bit by backing the manager to build a team/squad to a level where it is good enough to challenge for trophies but there are still no guarantees that you will win one. This doesn't mean the Board is poor. The board clearly did their bit because we did challenge near the top of the league only falling away again with the terrible appointment of Souness. Our club hasn't challenged like this for over half a century, so as bad as some may believe they were they remain by far the best this club has had for all of that time. Being better than Boards of the past doesn't make them perfect or immune to criticism for their errors, but it would be good if people acknowledged what they achieved because they achieved a lot for this football club and the City. They've paid the price for their mistakes. People slagging them off at every turn do themselves no favours in my opinion.

Boo Boo, The "debate" (if I may call it that) kicks off when the same people for some reason known only to them decide to create yet another thread slagging Fred and the previous Board. You don't see me or anyone else starting theads in praise of the Board. That's because it's clear mistakes were made, big mistakes, Souness in particular. They've paid the price now and people should leave it. It makes for a good old moan though, so they go on and on like bloody old fish wives. The bottom line is the Board wasn't perfect but neither were they anywhere near as bad as some claim.

Milner is average with the potential to improve, exactly how much remains to be seen. If we want to challenge NOW he can be improved upon.

....says a 5 year old.

Manager MoneyOut Money In Balance Gullit £33.400,000 £25.775,000 -£7.625,000 Robson £54.290,000 £24.050,000 -£30.240,000 Souness doesn't bear thinking about, but for some reason he was missed out in the reference to spending made earlier on. The current manager hasn't been backed better financially than Robson. Thought I'd mention the facts, like. According to those guru's at nufc.com: Current spend under FS is ~£18.9m plus Smith(TBC) Current fees in under FS is ~£7.7m plus Luque(TBC) and Dyer(TBC)

You're wasting your time.