Howaythelads

Say that to the two lynatics on this forum who thinks the opposite-HTL and grandfather NE5 have you watched the game on saturday yet ? of course he has, he flys from wherever he lives to attend every game, he knows his stuff. terrible concept isn't it, fancy thinking that people who actually go to games have a clearer picture than those who don't. Whatever next. guess it depends.. if you sit on your seat the whole time staring at the pitch, then maybe you'll get a better view on things. i personally go to games to act mental, jump and make noise, that's why i usually go to away games in europe, where you know that everybody has come for that - purely to sing and support the team, not to watch every single tackle and make observations on players and tactics.. it's easier to think about those things when you're sitting quietly with a beer infront of the TV and you get all the camera angles, slow motions, virtual offside lines and shit so yes, watching live doesn't give you a clearer picture on things than TV broadcasts Are you claiming that watching a game on TV is a better source on which to judge a player than watching a match 'live' at the venue? If this is what you're saying can you explain why clubs the world over have networks of 'spies', who go to matches to watch and report on opponents before playing those team and also why thousands of clubs all over the planet send expert 'scouts' to watch and report on individual players a club may be interested in signing? I read your first sentence, but overall it seems that you're suggesting it's better to judge from TV than actually at the match.

Yes, they're gone. Good riddance. Shit club, shit fans.

Good job he's gone.

Didn't you blame Souness for the signing Luque and Boumsong? Two players with CVs showing they had won stuff at their previous clubs, both international stars? I can assure everyone if Allardyce is appointed and some of his signings fail, you'll be blaming him for more shit signings. What a wank analogy. What a shit reply. It is OK for you to blame a manager for shit signings, even though those signings came with a good reputation and a CV of success, players the manager wanted, yet it isn't OK for fans to blame a chairman for shit managers, even though those managers came with a good reputation and a CV of success, managers the chairman wanted? Can you not spot the irony in your point of view? Or rather the sillyness of your whole argument? No.

Say that to the two lynatics on this forum who thinks the opposite-HTL and grandfather NE5 have you watched the game on saturday yet ? of course he has, he flys from wherever he lives to attend every game, he knows his stuff. terrible concept isn't it, fancy thinking that people who actually go to games have a clearer picture than those who don't. Whatever next. The radio is always a good source of accurate information. For example, today I heard that Newcastle haven't won anything because there has never been a proper transfer strategy, this caused by managers not being given enough time in the job. This statement was backed up by the statistic of 8 managers in the last 10 years.

The thing is, the Board has appointed managers with better records than Allardyce who have failed and it has been held against Fred. How does this sound... Even if Dalglish fails, people wont be able to hold this appointment against Freddy Shepherd. Even if Gullit fails, people wont be able to hold this appointment against Freddy Shepherd. I can assure you that if Allardyce is appointed and fails people on here will be blaming Fred for another s*** managerial appointment. You couldn't make it up. OK, we give you Dalglish and Gullitt. Good appointments/managers who simply failed. What about Souness and Roeder? Whatever system of thought that Shepherd used to appoint Souness, an appointment which made us a national laughing stock with even the fans of the managers recent club howling in unison, it showed just how out of touch the man can be with the footballing world at times. Clearly, he has it in him to make disasterously bad decisions because the criteria he has for selecting the manager is faulty. If he thought Souness' CV was good on paper, then that was a faulty method of appointing the manager. What about his man management skills, and his ability to manage volatile players who usually happen to be the gifted ones? His success in the transfer market? His use of coaching methods? His tactical nous? His organisational abilities? The standard of backrom staff he requires, and the setup he wants alongside them? None of that will be on a CV, had he looked into those and looked at Souness' failures as well as his success', hed have come to the same conclusion that the rest of the country knew for a fact - Souness is a shiite manager and a big egotistical cunt to boot. And then you have Roeder. A manager with a track record of relegation. Whilst the likes of Liverpool and Chelsea are appointing managers who have won trophies like the CL, UEFA Cup, La Liga, etc, we appoint a manager who has, for whatever reasons, taken down 3 small clubs at significantly lower levels, and never managed a side in Europe. Shepherd should have known that a good spell as caretaker means nothing, half the people on this forum could have told him that, just like plenty on here who used more common sense than sentiment considered Roeder a shiite appointment and an imminent failure. There can be no excuses for Shepherd with the last 2 managerial appointments. He cocked up, he made serious blunders, he appointed managers that should never even have made the list for potential candidates, and as a result weve suffered and gone backwards. Nor can he be excused for undermining Sir Bobby Robon various times during his successful stint here as manager up until his daft sacking. Hopefully, this appointment will be where he redeems himself as chairman. I dont think anyone would care much if he was using the club to line his own pockets to a degree as long as there is success on the pitch. I stopped at "What about Souness and Roeder" because I've always said Souness was a shite appointment and I was against Roeder even being appointed as caretaker. Once he got that caretaker job it's fair to say he probably did enough for a stab in a permanent role, but it shouldn't have come to that in the first place. He's a youth team manager and that's his true level. Any reason in particular why you then went into whatever else it is you've written given my known position on Souness and Roeder?

Didn't you blame Souness for the signing Luque and Boumsong? Two players with CVs showing they had won stuff at their previous clubs, both international stars? I can assure everyone if Allardyce is appointed and some of his signings fail, you'll be blaming him for more shit signings. What a wank analogy.

Surprisingly decent post apart from the usual and not needed snipes.

The thing is, the Board has appointed managers with better records than Allardyce who have failed and it has been held against Fred. How does this sound... Even if Dalglish fails, people wont be able to hold this appointment against Freddy Shepherd. Even if Gullit fails, people wont be able to hold this appointment against Freddy Shepherd. I can assure you that if Allardyce is appointed and fails people on here will be blaming Fred for another s*** managerial appointment. You couldn't make it up. And who has blamed Shepherd for Dalglish and Gullit failing here? Not many. People blame Shepherd for appointing Souness and Roeder, two of the worst managers the Premiership has ever seen, don't let this get in the way of "everyone picks on poor fat Fred" bollocks. Don't suggest that HTL is a hypocrite who accuses others of "making stuff up" and then goes and does the exact same thing later? What am I making up? There have been dozens of posts if not threads where many people have claimed the only good appointment by the Board was Robson, that the rest were shit appointments. As many have said when banging on about this, the buck stops with Fat "pie eater" Fred. If this is not blaming Fred I'll be happy for you to enlighten me with an alternative meaning behind these comments made by many people over many months.

Another myth that people make up in the hope that if they say it enough it will become fact. As for the rest after the bold bit. Well, you obviously care 'cos you just saw fit to moan about it. Bloody hell, grass. I was taking the piss, of course it won't be the first time the club will have planned something in advance. Once again though you try and defend the board despite no-one criticising them. They'll actually get a thumbs up from me if Big Sam does get appointed, although I still want them out and for that to change they'll have to change themselves and undo all the crap they've created over the years, starting now with our finances, after the manager decision of course. Once again I'm defending nothing, just pointing out where people are making stuff up. No-one is making any stuff up. Locked on your defend the board at all times mission, you've picked out a comment that was made in jest and brought the board into things once again. Care to discuss other things, namely the new manager, whoever it is and give the board crap a miss for the evening? With your sarcastic remark about planning, which you're now claiming was a joke, you brought the Board into this thread, mate. Not me. Try the mirror.

Another myth that people make up in the hope that if they say it enough it will become fact. As for the rest after the bold bit. Well, you obviously care 'cos you just saw fit to moan about it. Bloody hell, grass. I was taking the piss, of course it won't be the first time the club will have planned something in advance. Once again though you try and defend the board despite no-one criticising them. They'll actually get a thumbs up from me if Big Sam does get appointed, although I still want them out and for that to change they'll have to change themselves and undo all the crap they've created over the years, starting now with our finances, after the manager decision of course. Once again I'm defending nothing, just pointing out where people are making stuff up.

Really like to know where you get this kind of information from, like. You put these "I think" bits in as a bit of a get out, but you make these comments as though they're fact when you're just making stuff up. Assuming for a moment that you're right, for all his weaknesses, are you suggesting Souness is/was some kind of 'yes man'?

The thing is, the Board has appointed managers with better records than Allardyce who have failed and it has been held against Fred. How does this sound... Even if Dalglish fails, people wont be able to hold this appointment against Freddy Shepherd. Even if Gullit fails, people wont be able to hold this appointment against Freddy Shepherd. I can assure you that if Allardyce is appointed and fails people on here will be blaming Fred for another shit managerial appointment. You couldn't make it up.

Another myth that people make up in the hope that if they say it enough it will become fact. As for the rest after the bold bit. Well, you obviously care 'cos you just saw fit to moan about it. Bloody hell, grass.

What on earth is this decent spine you're on about, mate? You're over-rating certain players again.

just cos he's been here years, he should be captain?? the fact that he has proven himself incapable of controlling and inspiring the back four, never mind the whole team, is a bit more relevant i think. Which goalkeeper can do that? I doubt even Lev Yashin could have done this. peter schmeichel. once again NUFC06 shows he doesnt have a clue about football

Do you have any opinions on football in general or on Newcastle United in particular, or do you just post spam? oh, i have some.. i just think it's pointless debating with spambots on Shepherd's payroll, so i keep it short and simple Easy way out there, then. Methinks you don't have the ability to construct any kind of reasonable argument worthy of debate. Doesn't bother me, tbh. As I said, nobody is claiming the Board has made no mistakes, all that is being highlighted is the reality rather than the "head in the sand" and frankly rather childish approach of only being able to see the mistakes since the appointment of Souness. It's ironic that the people slating the Board nowadays, and also slating both myself and NE5 for pointing out the reality are the very same people who at the time supported the Souness destruction of the team. like Gemmill too ? ..... seeing as he's decided to offer us his words of wisdom here ..... "Top boss". That is all. one edited post Gemma.......maybe we can find one post somewhere where you said you didn't say back Souness to the hilt mackems.gif You did back him all the way didn't you ? And you still think the changes he made and players he sold were good for the club don't you ? I'm glad you aren't my accountant mate. So its Gemmills fault and not the board who employed and funded him? shh man.. you can't make such assumptions unless you go to every game What a daft thing to say. Who said you have to go to every game, or have you joined the ranks of the brain dead, who due to an inability to debate an issue resort to making stuff up as they go along?

When are you going to accept that the timing of replacing Robson wasn't the problem (although he should have gone sooner), the problem was the wanker selected as the replacement. Robson replaced Gullit at a similar stage of the season ffs and nobody complains about the timing of that.

If it happens I hope you're right.

Surprisingly it seems you're serious, but I won't be drawn into this one. You know as well as I do. You also know that the majority of members believe it is impossible to have a Board worse than the current one, which is saying the same thing. As well you know. You can have the last word. Disappointed, you claim people have said that the old board was worse than this one and when I ask you to back it up, you don't. You now say that the majority of members don't reckon you can get more worse than this board, well I'll ask again, who are these members? Truth is, no-one has claimed these things or certainly not many, so therefore why do you consistently feel the need to remind us all how bad previous boards were and that the grass isn't always greener when the majority will already know this because it is obvious. Not about point scoring or having the last word BTW mate, FWIW I think you speak a lot of sense on these old board vs the current board and the current board vs a new potential board debates, just feel you use these things to defend the current lot a bit too much and can't seem to seperate these things when viewing the current lot for what they are. Your interpretation of people's comments over the last couple of years is the complete opposite of mine. If I was going to name names I'd be here all day, so take it that I think the majority of people on this forum don't believe it's possible for the club to have a worse Board than we have now. I read many posts that are written in such as way as to make that the only possible conclusion. As a hater of the Board I daresay you view these posts in a different way though. I'll add that I don't defend the current Board at all, I don't even heap praise on them for what they've done before appointing Souness, so you're getting a bit confused there. The stuff I post about the Board is mainly that it is just as possible to replace them with a worse group as it is possible to replace them with a better group. In fact, I think it'll be easier to end up with worse, so I'm probably wrong on that one anyway. We'll have to agree to disagree on it.

Just so you're not being misrepresented HTL, it wasn't "review his own position" I think the reason people are banging on about it at this moment (after a woeful finish to the season and Roeder resigning/jumping before being pushed) is because they want you to say one of three things in order to make sense of this statement and at the moment I don't think you've actually said any of them: A) Roeder was a good appointment B) Freddy should go. C) I didn't really mean it when I said that if Roeder turns out to not be a good appointment that Freddy should go. Are you so dumb that you're unable to read? What is there to "make sense of" in that statement? It seems clear enough to me. I know what I posted at that time and I know what I meant when I posted it. Do you want to explain to me which part of that post you don't understand? BTW I hadn't realised that what I say is so important to you that you feel you have to make a sudden appearance asking me to repeat it. Thanks though. I'm sorry to say I don't place the same level of importance on the stuff you write.

Surprisingly it seems you're serious, but I won't be drawn into this one. You know as well as I do. You also know that the majority of members believe it is impossible to have a Board worse than the current one, which is saying the same thing. As well you know. You can have the last word.

Interesting post and it makes me recall something from ages ago. I was worried about the appointment of Souness when I heard it announced on the car radio, but I could see the reasoning behind it. The players were supposed to be off the rails and needed some discipline. I believe the Board appointed Souness on that sole reason. This prompted a post from all that time ago explaining my belief that the main limitation of this Board is how they appoint a manager generally based on a single character trait only. You can trace it through right back to when Keegan left with Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and then Souness. Appointing someone based on such a narrow criteria doesn't work and this is where they've gone badly wrong imo. Of course, I can't accept criticism of the Board and I am a massive supporter of Fred because I don't harp on about him being a pie eating, fat b******...... Aye, your spot on about the narrow minded apointments. Thats why i think Allarydce is a good appointment he covers alot of the criteria. I can't stand anyone that posts abuse about anyone at the club, whether they are right or wrong. There aint any need for the stuff. Critical yes, abusive no. So i agree...... ya big prick! They all say that. I'm not sure about Allardyce. There's no doubt he's better than Roeder, but if this appointment happens I see it as a bigger risk than appointing Dalglish, Gullit and Robson. Allardyce is a small club manager which means he's only ever worked to a low level of expectation. Even Souness had operated at clubs that had big expectations. Compared to Bolton it's an entirely different situation at a club like Newcastle with the expectation now surrounding the club. I'm not sure how he will do under the weight of that expectation. There is also the issue of buying players to think about. Yes, he's signed some big name players and looks to have their respect, but to compete at the top he will have to spend bigger (assuming the Board can back him) than he has at Bolton and that will be another test of his judgement and his ability that he hasn't had to face so far as a manager. It's very risky. In short, this is an entirely different job that he'll have to tackle in a different way imo, there will be tests and challenges for him that he hasn't faced at all yet and has no experience of.

1. Yes they have. 2. I acknowledged it ages ago, I've never thought Roeder was a good appointment. I recall being slated for suggesting he shouldn't even be given the job as caretaker........ 1. Who? And even if they have, I bet it was only one or two and still, has no bearing on today. You've constantly brought the old boards up in posts, yet they have as much bearing on the current board as they have on them - nowt. 2. You've aknowledged their mistakes, can't remember you saying they need to go or we need to look at other options though. Jesus! Who, he says......? Ok.