WhatTheFunk

Plus, the fact that it's being mentioned and stressed so much that he's here for 8 games, as well as all the goodwill and wishes towards Joe, makes it plain obvious that it's all being done for legal, moral, and publicity reasons.

If they said "we'll look at the manager situation in the summer", it would turn into a popularity contest between Shearer and Kinnear. Common sense says that we all stand united at this time, to make sure the club stays in the division. Full stop. They're smart enough to know that Shearer would win hands down any kind of popularity contest with JFK. It's already a popularity contest, it was when they appointed Shearer for these last 8 games. Not really sure where you are coming from with this comment. Not in public and in official statements it isn't! It would be if they came out and said if Shearer keeps us up, he'll stay on. At the moment the official line is one of unity of all behind the cause. What I'm saying is that the board are not so stupid not to know we'd take Big Al over JFK any day of the week!

If Shearer told the BBC he wanted to quit they'd have to let him. Of course!! But at this point, he's probably not even sure he wants it full-time. I think it's plain obvious to see in his body language and tone of voice in the PC.

picture tells a thousand words

If they said "we'll look at the manager situation in the summer", it would turn into a popularity contest between Shearer and Kinnear. Common sense says that we all stand united at this time, to make sure the club stays in the division. Full stop. They're smart enough to know that Shearer would win hands down any kind of popularity contest with JFK.

Did he give it in like a "It'll be hard for us to let Alan go", or a "f*** you, I know you love Alan but he's going" way? The former, I guess. Dunno though, he seems pretty sure Shearer is only here for eight games. IMO it has GOT to be Shearer's contract with the BBC. I think they're probably not too happy about any kind of talk that could breach his contract. I'm quite sure that all sorts of stuff was written into his contract, as they know the kind of managerial merry-go-round our club is, and that he'd be linked with every job going. Can't be anything else. The fact that he even mentioned the BBC in his press conference as his employers, thanking for giving him the sabbatical is a bit of a hint. Also, Shearer said all was finalized late last night, which is why we never heard from the club until later on in the evening. The BBC thing must be a sticking point.

I love it personally

You're nearly all a bunch of whinging bitching sooky la la's ffs!!! Let's fucking see how all this pans out. If Shearer enjoys managing the club and he wants the job, it will be his!! Besides, you can read what Llambias said any which way! When he mentioned him returning in the summer, it could also be taken in the context of putting Hughton and Calderwood in charge BEFORE contacting Shearer. Whatever it is, stop fucking moaning, and try to enjoy what;s left of this season. But most of all, keep the faith!!

Very impressed with this appointment. Impressed with Shearer's thinking, and impressed with whoever was behind all this from inside the club. Be it Ashley himself, or Llambias, or a new investor. Brilliant stuff if you ask me

in before the lock/delete

you're fucking optimistic man

Guess this might mean that it's curtains for Kinnear. "No plans to replace Wise" might be to quash reports that Kinnear is moving upstairs

Well at least we know for a fact that something is afoot. Still haven't wrapped my head round the whole Shearer in/Wise out thing yet, but I will have a good think about it when it's confirmed. Clearly though, Mike Ashley has felt the hot hell heat of relegation, and has played his card. Hopefully our interests and his stay on the same course from now on, and we can start to look like a professional outfit once more from top to bottom. Only this will bring results on the pitch.

Wise is gone

Whichever way it goes, I just hope we stay up this season and Ashley either sells up or clocks the fuck on, and we move on onwards and upwards starting next season. NE5, Unbelievable!, its been a pleasure. A night out on the town is calling me, as tomorrow's a bank holiday. Good luck and good night

Well, with Kinnear, Ashley's hands might be tied, as he may not be able to find someone better to manage the team. For all we know, and I sincerely hope, he may already have someone lined up for next season who would come in provided we stay up. Keegan was always going to end in tears.

of course they spent 50m hoping it would be well spent. Whats your point ? If you think about it in poker terms let's say, he raised big. And I mean REALLY BIG and went all in, hoping he'd psyche everyone out of the hand when he had nothing but a pair of 3's. whats poker got to do with it ? it's an analogy mate. After all business is risk whichever way you look at it.

Also, re: your last bit about the plan: If I came in at the time SJH and co. did, and had the money they did, I would have done the same exact thing. Coming into the club when Ashley did though, I would have never bought the club once I'd done my due diligence unless I was a multi-billionaire with enough liquidity to spend my way back into the top dogs. Ashley;s 2 biggest mistakes were the absence of due diligence and the appointment of Keegan. I wouldn't have made either school-boy errors, and I'm no fucking billionaire.

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we. Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one. The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income. What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive. Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish. Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract. do you seriously think a club appoints a manager with the intention not to back him ? Oh wait....... And your point is? Ashley has done it, and so did Shepherd. Shepherd [and the Halls] appointed a manager and decided not to show ambition and back him ? I don't think so. Yes. Souness. Giving him 50m to spend and then sacking him some months later is not called backing your man. Unless they were doing the buying and he was just a puppet... what about his sales ? What a load of bollocks. Sorry like. Do you think we should have kept faith with Souness then ? You're not the only one who backed him right to the end, so don't be shy. I backed him right to the end??? don't be a troll NE5!! I was mortified at his very appointment and wanted him out before he was in!!! I'm just highlighting the point about "backing managers". When you give your manager 50m to spend, you clearly have faith in him to spend it wisely and give you and the club a return on investment. Correct? Well by sacking him so soon after said investment, Shepherd clearly didn't have any faith in Souness and realized it was a big mistake. Unless Shepherd had another agenda for spending that money....which I speculate about in my previous posts. no, it wasn't a statement. Look again, and I ASKED "do you think we should have kept faith with Souness then". My comment that we didn't back him that you made is still bollocks though. We backed him with 50m quid until it was obvious to even the biggest tosspot - or most people anyway - that he had to go. As a general principle, you have to back your chosen manager. How much, depends on the size of a club you are and how ambitious the people who own/or run the club, CHOOSE to be. But when they have lost the plot, then you have to make a change. You can't "plan" in football like you do in the High Street, this lesson is being a tough one to learn for some people, it would appear, even though the events of the last 20 months or so ought to have made it crystal clear. You can't plan in football? That's a load of bollocks if I ever heard any how is ashley's plan doing, as the halls and Shepherd, according to some people didn't have one, other than - ahem - trying to bring in the best players possible when they could get them Incredible that you still don't get this. we're not debating that now. we're debating whether or not Shepherd backed Souness or not. I maintain that he did not. Unfortunately he allowed the useless t*** to waste away 50m. There's bad judgment, and then there's major f***-ups. This was a major f***-up on Shepherd's part, which has gone and undone all the great work he/they had done prior to that. they backed him, their chosen appointment, with 50m quid, unless you think that he [along with his fellow directors/major shareholders] chose the players to sign yet appointed and paid a manager, or alternatively they had made a profit in all the transfer windows, in which case we would possibly have been relegated 2 or 3 years ago instead of staying in the premiership. Do you or do you not therefore think they should have stuck with their chosen appointment when they felt he was losing the plot and we were in danger of heading down the league towards a relegation place ? As a fan of this club, obviously not!!! He should have never even been considered for the job. However, if I were a director or chairman, I would stick by him, as I had chosen him in the first place. It's not like Souness was some big shot manager and it just didn't work out for him here. He was just plain s***. Period. Unless of course, as I say, I was the chairman who spent 50m on players of MY choosing, and it didn't really matter to me who was manager. Which I think was the case. Well, I don't agree. They were right to sack Souness, but when they appointed him, he was their choice, not yours or mine. Theirs. So they back him. I bet you have worked with some knackers over the years and thought how the **** did they get this job, got promoted or whatever, but the people who appoint him back him. Football is no different, apart from being more ruthless because success is more defined if you are saying only 5 or 6 clubs are "successful" every season. Which we were for a number of years under the old regime using that yardstick. I was happy with Allardyce being appointed, but I think Ashley was right to sack him because the team was quite clearly on a slippery slope, you can't stick to a "plan" when you are looking down at relegation. He did right to do it, although there is also a case for saying if you can't expect a manager to succeed if you don't provide him with the tools, hence my point that if you want success, then you MUST back them, or its virtually impossible. You do understand this, do you ? Incidentally, as you are harping on about this "planning" business again, what sort of "plan" do you have in mind ? ONe like Ashleys, which is heading for the lower league, or one like the Halls and Shepherd which qualified regularly for europe ? Of course I understand it. And I agree with everything you said. Word for word. I just think Shepherd burned all his bridges with the appointment of Souness full-stop. 50m or not, it was plain wrong. And I for one, among many others, didn't need hindsight to see it coming.

of course they spent 50m hoping it would be well spent. Whats your point ? If you think about it in poker terms let's say, he raised big. And I mean REALLY BIG and went all in, hoping he'd psyche everyone out of the hand when he had nothing but a pair of 3's.

of course they spent 50m hoping it would be well spent. Whats your point ? My point is that he spent 50m, including signing Owen, hoping that the idiotic decision to appoint Souness/sell Woodgate (without a replacement) and Bellamy would get lost in all the hoo-haa and ruckus made when the players were paraded sporting the stripes.

Basically what I'm trying to say NE5 is that Shepherd spent the 50m hoping the high calibre players would save his own ass. He had no clue what he was doing with it.

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we. Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one. The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income. What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive. Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish. Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract. do you seriously think a club appoints a manager with the intention not to back him ? Oh wait....... And your point is? Ashley has done it, and so did Shepherd. Shepherd [and the Halls] appointed a manager and decided not to show ambition and back him ? I don't think so. Yes. Souness. Giving him 50m to spend and then sacking him some months later is not called backing your man. Unless they were doing the buying and he was just a puppet... what about his sales ? What a load of bollocks. Sorry like. Do you think we should have kept faith with Souness then ? You're not the only one who backed him right to the end, so don't be shy. I backed him right to the end??? don't be a troll NE5!! I was mortified at his very appointment and wanted him out before he was in!!! I'm just highlighting the point about "backing managers". When you give your manager 50m to spend, you clearly have faith in him to spend it wisely and give you and the club a return on investment. Correct? Well by sacking him so soon after said investment, Shepherd clearly didn't have any faith in Souness and realized it was a big mistake. Unless Shepherd had another agenda for spending that money....which I speculate about in my previous posts. no, it wasn't a statement. Look again, and I ASKED "do you think we should have kept faith with Souness then". My comment that we didn't back him that you made is still bollocks though. We backed him with 50m quid until it was obvious to even the biggest tosspot - or most people anyway - that he had to go. As a general principle, you have to back your chosen manager. How much, depends on the size of a club you are and how ambitious the people who own/or run the club, CHOOSE to be. But when they have lost the plot, then you have to make a change. You can't "plan" in football like you do in the High Street, this lesson is being a tough one to learn for some people, it would appear, even though the events of the last 20 months or so ought to have made it crystal clear. You can't plan in football? That's a load of bollocks if I ever heard any how is ashley's plan doing, as the halls and Shepherd, according to some people didn't have one, other than - ahem - trying to bring in the best players possible when they could get them Incredible that you still don't get this. we're not debating that now. we're debating whether or not Shepherd backed Souness or not. I maintain that he did not. Unfortunately he allowed the useless t*** to waste away 50m. There's bad judgment, and then there's major f***-ups. This was a major f***-up on Shepherd's part, which has gone and undone all the great work he/they had done prior to that. they backed him, their chosen appointment, with 50m quid, unless you think that he [along with his fellow directors/major shareholders] chose the players to sign yet appointed and paid a manager, or alternatively they had made a profit in all the transfer windows, in which case we would possibly have been relegated 2 or 3 years ago instead of staying in the premiership. Do you or do you not therefore think they should have stuck with their chosen appointment when they felt he was losing the plot and we were in danger of heading down the league towards a relegation place ? As a fan of this club, obviously not!!! He should have never even been considered for the job. However, if I were a director or chairman, I would stick by him, as I had chosen him in the first place. It's not like Souness was some big shot manager and it just didn't work out for him here. He was just plain shit. Period. Unless of course, as I say, I was the chairman who spent 50m on players of MY choosing, and it didn't really matter to me who was manager. Which I think was the case.

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we. Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one. The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income. What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive. Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish. Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract. do you seriously think a club appoints a manager with the intention not to back him ? Oh wait....... And your point is? Ashley has done it, and so did Shepherd. Shepherd [and the Halls] appointed a manager and decided not to show ambition and back him ? I don't think so. Yes. Souness. Giving him 50m to spend and then sacking him some months later is not called backing your man. Unless they were doing the buying and he was just a puppet... what about his sales ? What a load of bollocks. Sorry like. Do you think we should have kept faith with Souness then ? You're not the only one who backed him right to the end, so don't be shy. I backed him right to the end??? don't be a troll NE5!! I was mortified at his very appointment and wanted him out before he was in!!! I'm just highlighting the point about "backing managers". When you give your manager 50m to spend, you clearly have faith in him to spend it wisely and give you and the club a return on investment. Correct? Well by sacking him so soon after said investment, Shepherd clearly didn't have any faith in Souness and realized it was a big mistake. Unless Shepherd had another agenda for spending that money....which I speculate about in my previous posts. no, it wasn't a statement. Look again, and I ASKED "do you think we should have kept faith with Souness then". My comment that we didn't back him that you made is still bollocks though. We backed him with 50m quid until it was obvious to even the biggest tosspot - or most people anyway - that he had to go. As a general principle, you have to back your chosen manager. How much, depends on the size of a club you are and how ambitious the people who own/or run the club, CHOOSE to be. But when they have lost the plot, then you have to make a change. You can't "plan" in football like you do in the High Street, this lesson is being a tough one to learn for some people, it would appear, even though the events of the last 20 months or so ought to have made it crystal clear. You can't plan in football? That's a load of bollocks if I ever heard any how is ashley's plan doing, as the halls and Shepherd, according to some people didn't have one, other than - ahem - trying to bring in the best players possible when they could get them Incredible that you still don't get this. we're not debating that now. we're debating whether Shepherd backed Souness or not. I maintain that he did not. Unfortunately he allowed the useless t*** to waste away 50m. There's bad judgment, and then there's major f***-ups. This was a major f***-up on Shepherd's part, which has gone and undone all the great work he/they had done prior to that.