Howaythelads

That's far too simplistic. It's a team game and defending starts at the front with keeping the ball when it's played upto the striker, by bringing people into play. The midfield has a massive influence on how a team defends. As a team we have to keep the ball more, we have to control the game more and so reduce the pressure on the defence. We looked shit without Butt. Dyer can play CM (although not his best position) and is an attacking threat when he's in that role, but he makes loads of runs and leaves gaps behind, this can only be compensated for by having someone alongside him who has a real football brain, who has genuine ability to sit and break up the opposition, to keep possession and to set us up in attack with some neat, sharp and quick passing. We had Parker in there, who wants to drill for oil every time he gets the ball ffs, if he's on his feet at the time, that is.

Him?

Selling Parker is something we should have done in January, there is too much money tied up in such an average footballer. Yup, amazingly, so I'd grab it while the media still thinks 'scotty' is ace.

But luque agreed to be paid less meaning we weren't picking up the remaining, thats what i heard anyway. Were not going to play him this season, so we might as well had the financial break (£800k) for 5months. The guy is clueless. No thats what you read on a speculative shite website. If opinion is masquerading as fact in the post-window depression then why not this version. PSV approach us for Luque but wont pay half his wages, freddy tells them no, Luque wants to go. PSV think, lets wait untill one day before window closes when their arses are going as no one has come in for him and ask again. They offer the same deal hoping that we are desperate enough for him to go. That is the sort of game you can play if, like PSV, you arent crying out desperately for someone but fancy them as a useful addition to the squad. They come back with same offer, Luque is pleading to be let go and Freddy obstructs the deal because PSV are taking the piss. Any other explanation is just pejorative bollocks. Good post, I doubt it'll make much of an impression on some though. Let's face facts here. We don't sign anyone, they moan. We sign someone, they moan. We don't sell someone, they moan. We do sell someone, they moan. Fred appoints a manager with a great track record, they moan. Fred appoints someone who doesn't have a great track record, they moan. It's absolutely hilarious stuff.

Which is what I've been saying since he joined the club. Get your tin hat on is my advice. BTW Barry is a very good player, I'd like to see him playing for us tbh.

I'd sell Ramage, Luque and Parker.

Another bullshiet post??? What premiership club is not in debt? If we buy good players and climb the league the debt will decrease also getting a Uefa cup place and maybe winning a trophy will help the better players we have more of a chance we have. mackems.gif

Is nobody bothered about the debt the club is in, or is this a CM thread?

Could be a backup plan because the player(s) they wanted weren't available or the clubs were asking too much money........Course, that would be impossible because they only have a plan if they sign the players certain individuals want them to sign.

I'd be prepared to take the gamble myself despite accepting that things could go bad and things are not always so simplistic. FS has put none of his own personal wealth into the club so can afford to be wreckless and he's also in a position where he answers to no-one so the burden of responsibility doesn't weigh so heavily on his mind, where as someone buying the club for over 100m is hardly likely to piss about or mess things up. In fact I'd say the opposite is far more likely, i.e. wanting to make the most of that investment and we all know for NUFC to make money it has to be successful. As far as I'm concerned there is no hope under FS and the current board and unless they grow some new brains this is as good as it gets under them, mid-table mediocrity which has been our average finish under them in terms of final league table placings. We need some fresh, independent ideas, some new enthusiasm, some new goals. The current board are hoping by throwing money at the club some fucker is going to one day get it right and that is no way to run a club, i.e. pot luck. That type of management never yeilds sustained success or stability. They've had a good number of years at the job, been paid massive wages and have failed, time for them to move over and give someone else a try, after all isn't that what we do with managers? None of that guarantees they will appoint the right man, or even that they will back him properly. Appointing the right man is the key. I agree, but there is no guarantee this board will appoint that right man either, so vis a vis. Do you think, because there is a possibility that a new board could be just as bad or worse than this one, that we should just accept this board and not look at other alternatives? At what point do you say, hold on, this isn't working? They've had 10 years at the job and spent vast sums as well as hiring and firing a whole host of managers but we are going backwards, and have done every season with the exception of 3 years under SBR a manager who fell into their laps who actually asked them for the job. Could it be that they themselves are part of the problem? A serious question for you HTL: Do you honestly trust and have confidence in the board? Another one, given that there is a possibility that a new board may not be better than this one by the same token could there be a possibility that a new board could be better than this one? I agree with you on many points regarding a new board and the dangers of that but I personally would take the gamble and as a club we should never accept that this lot is our lot and that no-one else can do better, that would be foolish and dangerous. If the board were managers, they'd have been sacked long ago and there would be no complaints, from yourself included. Why the difference of attitude when it comes to the board? We've had shite managers before, yet you wanted rid of Souness who based on what past managers acheieved, did well. You claim he took us backwords and wasted money (which he did) so should be sacked, well so have the board. the problem for people like myself,htl and ne5 is that we have lived the other side,through the truly crap boards.we want to know what will come in before a change,we can't risk going back to a westwood or a mckeag,you may want to take that risk,i dont......i'm pretty sure if the right man comes along myself,ne5 and htl will shout for him to take over.....till he appears,for us the risk of throwing everything in the air and seeing what happens is too great. Well, I've lived through the same crap boards and I want Fred to go. Fuck this "better the devil you know" nonsense. We're now at a point analagous to the point where SJH took over. This board has had its day and has clearly taken the club as far as it can go -- unless we're to drop even further down the leagues, of course. Football is now going through a period of renewed investment. Despite our massive resources, current board have managed us into a position where we haven't even got any money to buy players, never mind invest in other areas of the club. They've had their chance. They've made fortunes out of us. But they've failed to take us up another level and as long as they remain in charge we're going to remain a mediocre, mid-table outfit who'll be lucky to get into the UEFA Cup every now and again -- which is pretty much what we were when I first started going to matches all of 40 years ago. to contrast where we are now to the mckeag days is lying to win argument. To use the past to ignore the present and future is just as bad. To ignore the lessons of the past is even worse.

I'd be prepared to take the gamble myself despite accepting that things could go bad and things are not always so simplistic. FS has put none of his own personal wealth into the club so can afford to be wreckless and he's also in a position where he answers to no-one so the burden of responsibility doesn't weigh so heavily on his mind, where as someone buying the club for over 100m is hardly likely to piss about or mess things up. In fact I'd say the opposite is far more likely, i.e. wanting to make the most of that investment and we all know for NUFC to make money it has to be successful. As far as I'm concerned there is no hope under FS and the current board and unless they grow some new brains this is as good as it gets under them, mid-table mediocrity which has been our average finish under them in terms of final league table placings. We need some fresh, independent ideas, some new enthusiasm, some new goals. The current board are hoping by throwing money at the club some fucker is going to one day get it right and that is no way to run a club, i.e. pot luck. That type of management never yeilds sustained success or stability. They've had a good number of years at the job, been paid massive wages and have failed, time for them to move over and give someone else a try, after all isn't that what we do with managers? None of that guarantees they will appoint the right man, or even that they will back him properly. Appointing the right man is the key. I agree, but there is no guarantee this board will appoint that right man either, so vis a vis. Do you think, because there is a possibility that a new board could be just as bad or worse than this one, that we should just accept this board and not look at other alternatives? At what point do you say, hold on, this isn't working? They've had 10 years at the job and spent vast sums as well as hiring and firing a whole host of managers but we are going backwards, and have done every season with the exception of 3 years under SBR a manager who fell into their laps who actually asked them for the job. Could it be that they themselves are part of the problem? A serious question for you HTL: Do you honestly trust and have confidence in the board? Another one, given that there is a possibility that a new board may not be better than this one by the same token could there be a possibility that a new board could be better than this one? I agree with you on many points regarding a new board and the dangers of that but I personally would take the gamble and as a club we should never accept that this lot is our lot and that no-one else can do better, that would be foolish and dangerous. If the board were managers, they'd have been sacked long ago and there would be no complaints, from yourself included. Why the difference of attitude when it comes to the board? We've had shite managers before, yet you wanted rid of Souness who based on what past managers acheieved, did well. You claim he took us backwords and wasted money (which he did) so should be sacked, well so have the board. Yes, I do have faith in them. It's important to have a board that will back the manager and they will do that, all they need is some luck along the way in picking the right man, and by that I mean the kind of luck that extends to the manager not sending out weakened teams in a competition we could win, and the players turning up for the big games. It could so easily have been different and that is down to the manager and the players, not the board. The board has done their bit and with some mistakes along the way, yes. Your second question is one I don't really know why you're asking. I've said before it's a two way thing. Of course a new board could be better, I'm just intelligent enough and realistic enough to understand there is as good a chance (if not better) that a new board could be worse. It is other people who are naive enough to believe this can only go one way, that the current board is so bad a new board is bound to be better. The difference here is that you are in favour of the gamble and I'm not. Without patronising you I think that is because I've seen sub 15,000 crowds, I've lived through the frustration of one good season making me think that if we sign just a couple of players we could challenge the top 6, only to see the board instead sell our best player(s). It's happened time and time again and it could easily happen again if the wrong people are in charge. I don't feel patronised so no offence taken, calle me unrealistic or whatever, I want better for my club though than this current mob and having taken us backwards since taking over, coupled with me losing any faith in them backed by some big mistakes and bad management, I'd like to see them gone and would gamble on new owners, although wary that the grass isn't always greener. Like you said yourself the next time they get it wrong will be time up for them, so I think even you can see they're on borrowed time and rightly so. In the meantime we'll agree to disagree? Yeah, fair enough. I'm happy to agree to disagree, there's no problem with doing that. Others could learn something from the concept.

The first bit in bold is bad enough.

I'd be prepared to take the gamble myself despite accepting that things could go bad and things are not always so simplistic. FS has put none of his own personal wealth into the club so can afford to be wreckless and he's also in a position where he answers to no-one so the burden of responsibility doesn't weigh so heavily on his mind, where as someone buying the club for over 100m is hardly likely to piss about or mess things up. In fact I'd say the opposite is far more likely, i.e. wanting to make the most of that investment and we all know for NUFC to make money it has to be successful. As far as I'm concerned there is no hope under FS and the current board and unless they grow some new brains this is as good as it gets under them, mid-table mediocrity which has been our average finish under them in terms of final league table placings. We need some fresh, independent ideas, some new enthusiasm, some new goals. The current board are hoping by throwing money at the club some fucker is going to one day get it right and that is no way to run a club, i.e. pot luck. That type of management never yeilds sustained success or stability. They've had a good number of years at the job, been paid massive wages and have failed, time for them to move over and give someone else a try, after all isn't that what we do with managers? None of that guarantees they will appoint the right man, or even that they will back him properly. Appointing the right man is the key. I agree, but there is no guarantee this board will appoint that right man either, so vis a vis. Do you think, because there is a possibility that a new board could be just as bad or worse than this one, that we should just accept this board and not look at other alternatives? At what point do you say, hold on, this isn't working? They've had 10 years at the job and spent vast sums as well as hiring and firing a whole host of managers but we are going backwards, and have done every season with the exception of 3 years under SBR a manager who fell into their laps who actually asked them for the job. Could it be that they themselves are part of the problem? A serious question for you HTL: Do you honestly trust and have confidence in the board? Another one, given that there is a possibility that a new board may not be better than this one by the same token could there be a possibility that a new board could be better than this one? I agree with you on many points regarding a new board and the dangers of that but I personally would take the gamble and as a club we should never accept that this lot is our lot and that no-one else can do better, that would be foolish and dangerous. If the board were managers, they'd have been sacked long ago and there would be no complaints, from yourself included. Why the difference of attitude when it comes to the board? We've had shite managers before, yet you wanted rid of Souness who based on what past managers acheieved, did well. You claim he took us backwords and wasted money (which he did) so should be sacked, well so have the board. Yes, I do have faith in them. It's important to have a board that will back the manager and they will do that, all they need is some luck along the way in picking the right man, and by that I mean the kind of luck that extends to the manager not sending out weakened teams in a competition we could win, and the players turning up for the big games. It could so easily have been different and that is down to the manager and the players, not the board. The board has done their bit and with some mistakes along the way, yes. Your second question is one I don't really know why you're asking. I've said before it's a two way thing. Of course a new board could be better, I'm just intelligent enough and realistic enough to understand there is as good a chance (if not better) that a new board could be worse. It is other people who are naive enough to believe this can only go one way, that the current board is so bad a new board is bound to be better. The difference here is that you are in favour of the gamble and I'm not. Without patronising you I think that is because I've seen sub 15,000 crowds, I've lived through the frustration of one good season making me think that if we sign just a couple of players we could challenge the top 6, only to see the board instead sell our best player(s). It's happened time and time again and it could easily happen again if the wrong people are in charge.

Yes, I get the idea that you're a bit of a soft shite acting hard on the internet again. "I dont see why you need tos tick your oar in with insults" was the phrase i believe. Loser. Not sure why you're trying to quote something I said, unless you're just highlighting that you're sticking your oar in with yet more insults. I'd say that while you're incapable of making a football related point I don't think I'm the loser, tough lad. I'm open to discuss these ridiculous points anytime you feel upto it.

Yes, I get the idea that you're a bit of a soft shite acting hard on the internet again.

I'd be prepared to take the gamble myself despite accepting that things could go bad and things are not always so simplistic. FS has put none of his own personal wealth into the club so can afford to be wreckless and he's also in a position where he answers to no-one so the burden of responsibility doesn't weigh so heavily on his mind, where as someone buying the club for over 100m is hardly likely to piss about or mess things up. In fact I'd say the opposite is far more likely, i.e. wanting to make the most of that investment and we all know for NUFC to make money it has to be successful. As far as I'm concerned there is no hope under FS and the current board and unless they grow some new brains this is as good as it gets under them, mid-table mediocrity which has been our average finish under them in terms of final league table placings. We need some fresh, independent ideas, some new enthusiasm, some new goals. The current board are hoping by throwing money at the club some fucker is going to one day get it right and that is no way to run a club, i.e. pot luck. That type of management never yeilds sustained success or stability. They've had a good number of years at the job, been paid massive wages and have failed, time for them to move over and give someone else a try, after all isn't that what we do with managers? None of that guarantees they will appoint the right man, or even that they will back him properly. Appointing the right man is the key.

Yes, I agree with that.

Do you really believe your question can be answered with a yes or no? You have to consider their overall record, not just what has happened since one terrible managerial appointment. However, on the basis of their overall time in charge, and your insistence for just one word, I'd say 'yes'. Looking at the overall record I believe the board made a mistake not getting rid of Robson when we finished 3rd. I believe they made another mistake by appointing Souness. I also think people who babble on about the supposed bad treatment of Robson and the poor timing of his departure are being too simplistic. Would it have made any difference had Robson gone in the summer if the replacement had been Souness, for example? It may not have been Souness but it may still have turned out to be someone incompetent, you just don't know when you make the appointment because you can't actually predict the future. I'd have liked to see Robson go after we finished 3rd, but there was still no guarantee that the club would bring in the right man to take us forward, I just hoped it would happen. Other than those two bad decisions I think they've done a good job of running the club, we've made massive strides and what we're seeing right now is the fallout of that shite appointment. It's vital Roeder is the right man and does turn it around, if he doesn't and turns out to be the wrong man then I think 3 mistakes will be too many, but it will still be difficult to replace the board with better. There are no guarantees a board will back a manager to the same level the current board has done, and in those circumstances it won't matter how good the manager is. No backing means we'll be rubbish. There is also no guarantee a new board will automatically appoint the right man.

Yes. Managers and players come and go. The board remains the same – and that is where the buck should stop as that is where the crucial decisions and appointments are made. Obviously. What a load of shite. So it seems that when Souness fucked it all up the board should have gone and shithead would still be the manager today? Or are you saying that every club that fails (eg doesn't win th league) should sack the board and sack their manager? Well, I don't know what line of work you're in, chum, but in mine I often have to allocate budgets and put together teams of people to achieve specific tasks. If I handled my budgets unwisely, or made poor appointments, to the detriment of the work, that would be seen as my responsibility by the people who are paying my fees -- and rightly so. You can make every pathetic excuse for him you can think of (not many it seems -- we long ago heard all your "arguments" a dozen times) but the simple, incontrovertible fact is that Fat Fred is steering the ship. If we have a crap manager, or no money to buy players, then that's his responsibility. Obviously. Well done for describing a part of the role of the manager.

of course, getting another board who lack ambition like the old one, is impossible and simply will not happen to us No board with ambition would employ Souness and Roeder. You'll now come out with Liverpool employing Souness so I'll just remind you that Liverpool employed Souness after he'd been a success at Rangers, we employed him after he'd been a failure at Liverpool and beyond. Quite, and if we are talking players (Francis Lee/Darren Bent etc), you could pull such examples for any board including the current one strangely enough. For instance when Robson wanted Miguel, the board held back and then chose to provide Carr instead. Was that an example of ambition? If you really think this board haven't shown they have had ambition, then you must have been living on Mars. Quite simply, if they say they didn't have the money to buy Miguel then that will be fact, unless of course you are one of those who slate them for spending money then also slate them for not spending money. What did you think of spending 6m on Marcelino, 4m on Goma, 4m on Domi and 4.5m on Pistone ? They had more than enough money to buy him when Robson asked for him. The board stalled and when his price rocketed, bought Carr. Marcelino, Goma, Domi and Pistone? Poor to middling buys, but as you argue yourself, you have to back the manager you appoint, right? so whats your stance on this ? Should the club spend big money on defenders or not ? Tell us what you think, then don't go back on your response when you feel like slating the club whatever they do. I had a feeling you would be thick enough not to grasp the point. I have no stance on it. It is another example of the idiotic debates that you start to help you prance around the main points, usually around the time you get frustrated and feel the need to ramp up the insults. I couldn't give a toss how much or little we spend on defenders if the end result benefits the club. I only hope for the club to use the money wisely, just as I'm sure you were suggesting when you got all excited over the possibility of Francis Lee, and it is something that Shepherd and his managers have for the most part failed to do. refer yourself to the first post in this thread which was insulting. Or is it different when its done by someone you agree with rather than disagree with ? Your point about Francis Lee is, to be honest, daft at best and untrue at worst. This board, since 1992, have backed every manager they have appointed to the utmost, far more than their predecessors did for over 3 decades. The very fact that someone new [sniffer] has came along who has also witnessed these eras and you STILL think you know best, shows nothing other than you will never know anything or understand anything, being unprepared to listen to others who try to tell you factual information that they have seen and you have not. A pathetic attitude. Shame you can't make your mind up whether you want to slate the board for spending money on players, or not spending money on players. Its the answer I expected from you too I am not interested in another persons post or whether or not they insulted you. You bring insults into a conversation where there were none, and the fact you cannot acknowledge that is disappointing, but not unexpected. As for whether or not the club splash the cash, as I have tried to get through to you, I don't vehemently support either position. I can only judge on how things turn out, and for the most part Shepherd has overseen a period of relative waste and failure considering the vast riches the club generates these days (something I am happy to applaud the board for btw). If the club has no money and we are honest about it then I would support the board being frugal, but don't expect me to forget why we might have suddenly found ourselves in that trouble. If you spent less time shoving people into stereotypical little boxes and accept that most of these arguments are far less black and white than you try to make out, then we might get somewhere. But you prefer to have us all on opposite sides, and are yourself unprepared to listen. Shame. Talk about blinkers and hypocrisy. You say you aren't interested in someone's post that is insulting, but then you bang on at another member about insults they have supposedly posted. So it seems you are interested in insults after all, just so long as they aren't posted by someone you agree with. That makes you hypocritical, but that's not unexpected. If you think that's harsh I suggest you look up the meaning of the word, you'll find it fits very well. Your problem is you don't understand the role played by Souness in 'that trouble' you refer to. Do you think the board should back their manager only "sometimes?" Meaning they should interfere when they think he's getting it wrong? Are you saying the board shouldn't have backed their manager in an attempt to bring success? The board isn't great, they've made mistakes, but they must back their manager otherwise there is no chance at all of success. None. Which is how it used to be when we have had decent managers over the years. The board got it wrong with Souness, a massive error but that's where it all went badly wrong. That is not justification for ignoring the positives achieved by the board upto that appointment imo. By the way, it sounds as though you should change your login to something related to "hindsight", as it seems that's how you want to measure everything. You could try some constructive criticism for a change but then that's a bit more difficult, like.

Yes. Managers and players come and go. The board remains the same – and that is where the buck should stop as that is where the crucial decisions and appointments are made. Obviously. What a load of shite. So it seems that when Souness fucked it all up the board should have gone and shithead would still be the manager today? Or are you saying that every club that fails (eg doesn't win th league) should sack the board and sack their manager?

I find it hard to accept the "situation" when none of those points you mention are facts. EDIT (to sound less arsey): 1 - None of us know the club's financial situation for sure, there's the new TV money to consider, etc. 2 - I don't know about you, but I'm fairly chuffed with Martins and Sibierski and I still think Duff will come good, hell, even Bernard might do enough to be kept on if he can stay fit. 3 - This is another thing that you cannot possibly know for sure. I'd bet a fair few "goalscorers" could be bought if the money was right. 4 - Self-explanatory. 5 - Loan deals aren't always as smooth as you suggest there, if he does really well then we might not be able to keep him (which would be a right smack in the chops - see Distin, who I thought looked better than most of our defenders at the time. Distin/Woodgate would have been a sight.) We'll still be paying the wages, which will amount to a considerable sum. Could cost us loads if the bloke got injured or something. Aye, but if he spouts this rubbish often enough he thinks it'll become true.

Ramage is shite.

Couldn't have put it better myself. It's what happens when the blinkers of an agenda take over.