Cronky

Despite the experience with Ashley, I'd much rather we had a single owner than a consortium or some finance company. The owners of a football club have to do it for the pleasure and the status, and you're far more likely to find that with a single owner. Unless you own Man U, there's no way you can make money. The best you can hope for is to break even. I can't see what's in it for someone in a ten-man consortium unless they're hoping to get some return on their investment.

Thats all true, but to put a positive spin on it he's still excellent at what he does, so when its required its another way of doing things. Well, he's not the only one who can take set pieces any more. His crossing is still probably better than anyone else's, but given his other limitations, I wouldn't pick him just for that. Unless you're playing the likes of Andorra, who always play in exactly the same way, no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy. We need players who are flexible.

There really isn't much more in that article than speculation. And I'm a bit surprised that anyone is still taking this so-called Profitable group seriously.

Whenever Beckham plays, we seem to end up in a tactical straitjacket. Despite the fact that we won comfortably last night, I didn't see much of the fluidity and interchanging of positions that we'll need to break down the better defences. The problem with Beckham is that he's very reluctant to move out of that quarterback position ie in space behind the attacking players and spraying passes forward to them. He even tends to get in that kind of position when he's out wide. He never seems to make runs forward, trying to get on the end of passes and flick-ons, like Gerrard or Lampard. That's basically because he's not comfortable receiving the ball in tight spaces under pressure and tends to avoid it, because he lacks pace and close control. At that level, you don't really want a player who's only going to stick to a limited role. He has to be able to respond to opportunities as they arise, because the opportunities aren't that plentiful. His presence means that everyone ends up having to stick to their positions more, and we then look very predictable.

Was wondering about this myself. Part of me thinks that he could really pull the strings in midfield alongside the likes Gerrard, but it's partly down to how Capello wants to play. It was a bit of an armchair ride for Beckham tonight though, wasn't it. Andorra weren't bothering to pressure the ball further up the field, so Beckham had the ball with lots of space and unlimited time. The wide men were also in lots of space so they weren't difficult to hit. Even then, I thought he hit a few bad passes. After his crap performances in the last World Cup, it's really surprising to me that he's still there, in with a chance of going this time around. Yesterday's man, IMO.

RB is so not up-for-grabs. Mainly due to there being no competition for GJo whatsoever. You gonna put Wes Brown in there? or Gary Neville!? I can't say I fancy the alternatives, no, but Johnson worries me. I think he's a nervous player, and on the big occasion I can see him making a rick and giving a goal away. At the later stages of a World Cup, that's all it would take. I wouldn't rule out Gary Neville. Hopefully though, Johnson will show more maturity and cement his place, because he has so much to offer overall.

Barring injuries, the first choice team for next year looks nailed on for most positions, which is very heartening. Terry, Ferdinand, Barry, Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney and Heskey will start. It's then between SWP and Walcott for the right side. Goalkeeper and RB are still up for grabs, though if Johnson could show just a bit more composure in defence, he'd walk it. I'd like to see Gibbs give Ashley Cole a run for his money. I hope it won't come too soon for him, because I think he is real class.

I prefer SWP to Walcott in that position. A good defence will snuff Walcott out, because he relies so much on his pace. SWP has far better techinque on the ball. In some ways games like that where we're physically dominant tend to show up our lack of skill. It's really irritating, when you consider the opposition, to see midfielders run back to take the ball from the centre backs, as though the defenders can't be trusted to move forward and hit a pass themselves.

I'd go along with Albert's goal in the 5-0. It was the slow motion quality of it that made it special. I was watching in a pub, and I knew the minute he hit it, it was going in. I started jumping up and down even as the ball was curling over Schmiechel. Unfortunately these questions always make me a bit sad as well, because it hits home that we don't have a trophy to celebrate.

We've been down this route before, with these strange companies trying to draw attention to themselves, but I still can't fathom out the logic of it. 'Look at us, we make a big show of having money to invest and then we don't go through with it.' I know they say that all publicity is good publicity, but there has to be a few exceptions to that.

I suspect they're trying to pick the club up on the cheap. They're feeding the supporters with all the things they'd like to hear - appointing Shearer, fans' representatives in positions of power, other Geordie figures, transfer funds etc -and then hoping that all that will produce public pressure on Ashley to accept their bid. Ashley has responded with it's £100m or nothing. The Singapore strategy might well succeed, given the influence that fans have at our club, one way or another, but let's be careful what we wish for.

Business success involves a hell of a lot of luck. Being in the right place at the right time with the right people around you can make even a complete moron a lot of money. With us, Ashley seemed to be content to rely on his luck rather than good management and his luck just ran out. The situation reminds me a bit of what happened with Alan Sugar a few years ago, when he bought Spurs. He ended up having to sack Terry Venables, who was the fans' favourite, and found himself out of control of his own business. Like Ashley, he was glad to get out in the end. The only criterion for success in a business is making money. With a football club, success is trophies and there's a degree of customer involvement and interest in decisions which would normally be entirely up to an owner. True. Tbh I can understand people thinking that Ashley is deliberately running the club down because his decision making is so catastrophic that it seems inconceivable that he thinks he is doing the right things. But he is a trader and a chancer who got lucky in a market he understands. He thinks that means he has ability to run something else which he doesn't understand and like others before him (Sugar being one as you say) he is very wrong. People like Ashley are used to making decisions in their own time and in their own way, those that work for him know that and set things up around him accordingly. But in a business like a football club decisions are absolutely time critical and success depends upon the assets of the club being moulded into a cohesive unit (and not being viewed as a potential profitable resale). Ashley, though rich, isn't really very clever at all and I have thought since the word go that he was completely out of his depth owning a Premiership club. I'd kind of agree with your conclusion that there's a different skill-set needed to run a football club, when compared with running a business, and that Ashley has fallen short. I don't think it's the time pressure factor that's significant though, and I wouldn't say that Ashley has necessarily been lucky in his business life, any more than Sugar was lucky. In business, they each saw opportunities neglected by other people and went for it hell for leather. The problem with a football club is that it is only partly a business. The other part is a kind of community institution in which the fans have a big influence, and in that respect it's like running a public service. The strain in running a public service is that you have the press, the government and the public on your back, demanding that you run things in a certain way, and you're not your own master. So a lot of what you would like to do has to be weighed up and compromises reached. So you get the worst of both worlds - you have to pick up the tab at the end of the day, but you don't get the free hand that you would get in business. Like you said, maybe Ashley just doesn't have the kind of brain that can anticipate that kind of difficulty and deal with it. He's also used to shunning the limelight, and may not have the kind of thick skin you need in that very public position. I didn't like Shepherd, but he did have the hide of a rhino when the criticism started flying. Strictly in the world of business, appointing Wise and Keegan together might have made a lot of sense. Keegan would produce an entertaining product for the customers and Wise would look after the long-term strategy and the finances. But in practice, that was a disaster. Keegan is more than an employee - he's a public figure with a lot of support and he wasn't averse to using that status to try to get what he wanted, despite what may have been written into his contract. Ashley has not been in control since that point, because he was never going to win a PR battle with Keegan. It's just not a situation that occurs in the business world.

does anyone think personal terms are the problem ? I suspect £1.75 million is way in excess of the usual salary for a manager in the Championship, but I don't think it's the main issue. I think Shearer has made it known he's not happy to preside over a cost-cutting exercise, and that's what Ashley feels is needed. I may be wrong. Ashley may be thoroughly hacked off with an employee who has basically failed his probation period demanding a large salary and financial backing before he'll accept the job.

Business success involves a hell of a lot of luck. Being in the right place at the right time with the right people around you can make even a complete moron a lot of money. With us, Ashley seemed to be content to rely on his luck rather than good management and his luck just ran out. The situation reminds me a bit of what happened with Alan Sugar a few years ago, when he bought Spurs. He ended up having to sack Terry Venables, who was the fans' favourite, and found himself out of control of his own business. Like Ashley, he was glad to get out in the end. The only criterion for success in a business is making money. With a football club, success is trophies and there's a degree of customer involvement and interest in decisions which would normally be entirely up to an owner.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/08/alan-shearer-newcastle-delays-mike-ashley The point that is conveniently ignored in both those articles is that Shearer has said that he will only accept the job under certain conditions. The conditions are the cause of the delay, not any assessment of Shearer's ability. Now as none of us know what those conditions are, we don't know how realistic they are for an owner to accept. They're obviously not acceptable to Ashley, but may be okay for someone else. We'll have to see. In the real world, the owner decides the financial parameters, and the prospective manager decides whether to take the job. In Planet Newcastle, things are different.

Luke Edwards is actually talking sense for once I beg to differ. I think it's a really silly article. If the prospective new owners want Shearer, they'll appoint him. If they don't want him, then if Shearer's already been given a contract that will only put them off. They're not going to have as their first step the sacking of the local hero. As for only offering him a short contract so that if the new people don't want him, they won't have to put up with him for long - new heights of silliness. There's also this conviction that, despite Shearer's poor record while in charge, he's the only man for the job. Now I'll admit that getting the fans on side is an important consideration, but it's not the only one. So you think that being without a manager in our situation is ideal. The point is that if the owner is going, he can't appoint the manager. As with the Keegan situation last September, people can't jump up and down demanding that Ashley goes if he won't appoint the manager they want, and then complain about the chaos that results.

Luke Edwards is actually talking sense for once I beg to differ. I think it's a really silly article. If the prospective new owners want Shearer, they'll appoint him. If they don't want him, then if Shearer's already been given a contract that will only put them off. They're not going to have as their first step the sacking of the local hero. As for only offering him a short contract so that if the new people don't want him, they won't have to put up with him for long - new heights of silliness. There's also this conviction that, despite Shearer's poor record while in charge, he's the only man for the job. Now I'll admit that getting the fans on side is an important consideration, but it's not the only one.

But what is it about Keegan specifically? As has been discussed on other threads, Steve Bruce has walked out on other clubs (in bitter circumstances a la Crystyal Palace) for "better" jobs yet teams continue to employ him and many of our fans would take him Steve Bruce's behaviour hasn't always met the highest standards, but he's moved on to what he sees as better opportunities. Keegan's whole motivation to be a manager is more questionable. I see him as a glory hunter who can't stick it through the difficult times. In order to survive and thrive long-term, you have to have a passion for the job itself, and Keegan gets discouraged too easily.

I don't want Shepherd back because I don't think he's the sort that learns from his mistakes. If something goes wrong, it's someone else's fault. If he does get back, he'll think he was right all along and it'll only enhance his totally misguided faith in himself. As for Keegan, it surprised me that any major club was prepared to offer him a chance after the way he walked out of the England job. Years on, his reputation may still be intact within large sections of our support, but not anywhere else.

Has Glen Johnson played full back before? Very talented player, but he's giving a great impression of someone who doesn't know what he's doing.

Yeah, I'm sure it was 'only' 3-2. It's interesting though that Ginola pointed to that game as the one where he lost heart, because there was something inevitable about that defeat, even as I was watching it at the time. I wanted them to talk about the Blackburn away game, which came a short while later. That was the big missed chance to get back in the driving seat. We scored with 10 minutes left, but then fell apart because we didn't know whether we were supposed to attack or defend, and lost 2-1. If we'd won that game, we have gone into the last match only needing a home win to get the title. If I end up in hell, the worst they could do is play the last ten minutes of that game to me, over and over again. It was like a collective nervous breakdown swept through the side. We were just terrible.

'A consortium of local businessmen backed by Middle East investors' doesn't sound too convincing to me. Either the Mail doesn't know what's going on and it's covering all the possibilities, or it's some flimsy alliance of not very wealthy people which won't provide much backing.

Isn't the club more at fault here than the player though? A large part of me thinks that we got what we deserved in the end. If you remember, the week before he signed, he said that he was only prepared to go to us on loan, and that he wanted to join Liverpool, who were the other club in the running. Shepherd then made an inflated bid which made it impossible for Real to accept Liverpool's offer, so we deliberately put Owen in the position where he either had to bite the bullet and join a club he didn't want to, or spend a season in Real's reserves and therefore possibly miss out on the World Cup. Okay, we didn't force him to join, but morally speaking we were in the wrong IMO, and it was a foolish move anyway because if you manipulate a player into joining you like that, his commitment isn't going to be the same. Then Keegan comes in and makes him the Captain, not because he's the most suitable player for the job, but because he's fallen out with Owen in the past and he wants to make a public gesture that things are okay. Then when he reaches the final year of his contract, the club doesn't issue him with the sign or move ultimatum that is normal and sensible, because Wise and Keegan aren't working together properly and Keegan insists that he stays and we should try to sign him again on the same ridiculous terms that he'd never get anywhere else. It's the club that has cocked this up. As many will know, I don't rate Owen the player but I've no problem with Owen the man.

It's this sort of thinking that has got us into this mess in the first place. What has been needed is some form of positive action to get the club moving forward on the pitch, not more balancing of the books or fiddling in the hope some used car salesman can flog the club (again). Unless you're going to bankroll a club in the style of Chelsea or Man City, then the books do have to be balanced in the long term. Getting into increasing debt in the hope that the resulting success that enables you to pay off the debt doesn't work in today's climate, and there aren't many sugardaddies around whose pockets are deep enough to really make a difference. Not any more. I don't think Ashley's overall financial strategy was wrong. He made mistakes in his appointments on the football side of things.

I'm not a business person, but if I've understood it right, this plan that's been put to the banks is based on Shearer's proposals, and would be part of the package for whoever took over from Ashley. The hope presumably is that Shearer would be put in place now, and be able to begin the task of team-building without delay, and the new owner who might come along further down the line would know what they were getting into financially and on the managerial front. Shearer in place could make the club more attractive, most supporters would be happy and the price of the club would reflect the business plan that was in place. Ashley has concluded - realistically I dare say - that with all that's happened, things will never be right between him and most supporters, and this is the best way forward. I don't know what the chances are of everything falling into place in the way Ashley hopes, but the overall intention seems pretty reasonable in what is a very messy situation. A lot depends on how realistic the plan is in view of our financial position, but it may also flounder on new owners not fancying taking on Shearer and the power he wields through his popularity. They may see a repeat of the Keegan fiasco further down the line and say no thanks, but that's another consideration.