Cronky

For his own sake, it sounds like he should have had the operation a long time ago. You hope that there won't be any long-term effects, but playing on when an injury hasn't fully mended is exactly how you get long-term problems. It's very difficult for a young player to make that decision and it ought to have been taken out of his hands.

I watched Villa and Everton at the weekend, and it really pissed me off. Villa's squad is certainly no better than ours, but he had them playing with 100% concentration, organised, confident and determined. O'Neill gets the basics right. Villa's position is not a fluke and he'd have done a similar job with us.

Genuine query this. This organisation must feel that there is some chance of making money out of the club, and naturally we hope it's through investment in the squad and getting the club into the Champions League / Trophy-winning places where the revenue starts to take off, and you can expect more from fringe commercial activities. If this isn't their real agenda, how else could they make money out of a near £100 million investment? If they start selling players, the club would sink down the leagues, turnover would collapse and they'd end up deeper in debt. Are there any other saleable assets which could possibly cover the initial amount? Seeing we don't own the land of the ground, the only land that could possibly sold would be the training ground, but again, would it be worth their while? How feasible is an 'asset-stripping' exercise? I guess what I'm driving at is that, from my perspective, the only possible way of making money out of a football club our size is to make them successful on the pitch. Or to put it another way, there's no way of making money if a team is unsuccessful. Assuming that Belgravia know what they're doing, should we be worried? Given that the current Board is already making money out of the club, do we really have anything to lose? I'm not well-versed in financial affairs, so I'd really welcome other perspectives on this.

Yeah, he was a good player who put in a good stint for us. I can remember him taking a very good goal in what I think was a 3-0 win at Palace. Not that strong if I remember, but skilful and reliable.

This bloke is just the head of a Football Association, and his opinion about a player is no more valid than Sepp Blatter's or Brian Barwick's. He's not an expert or a professional on matters on the pitch. It's completely ridiculous for him to make comments about Martins' career being ruined when he's only played half a dozen games for us. He's just making himself look stupid.

If Charlton are anywhere remotely near the relegation zone, they won't let Darren Bent go. A more realistic target is Marcus Bent, who could do a fill-in job for us for a few months, assuming a big money signing is out of the quesiton.

My reading of the situation is that both Shepherd and the Halls reached the conclusion during that season that Sir Bob should go. The Halls wanted him to go at the end of the season, but Shepherd wanted to give him one more season. The master plan in Freddie’s mind was for Shearer to take over as manager after he’d finished playing, and another season would allow that to happen. On reflection, the Halls were right in the sense that if you’re going to go, go now. Freddie’s fudge and nudge approach unravelled very quickly. He initially wanted to keep the knowledge of Sir Bob’s retirement secret, but then realised that this would probably be impossible and would only lead to months of speculation and unconvincing denials or evasion. He then came out with it, and Sir Bob was then a dead man walking, losing even more of his standing in the dressing room and round the club. IMO, the big mistake came earlier, at the start of the season, when Sir Bob wanted to start building for a future without Shearer, and Freddie didn’t back him. That’s the point when Sir Bob became a dead duck, not in control of the area that should have been his. That’s the point when we stopped being run in a professional manner, and we ended up with a series of decisions which were heavily influenced by the need to accommodate the career plans of one man.

It's a list of the bad decisions that the club has made over the last four years, but the author didn't draw it all together into an overall conclusion. Which IMO should be - Shepherd may be a good businessman, but he's been a disaster when he's been involved in the football side. He should either leave that to a Chief Executive and / or Director of Football, or get out altogether.

I think the idea that Freddie would have done a much better job if it wasn't for the interference of the Halls needs to be knocked on the head. I can't detect any sign that the Halls get involved in transfer decisions. There have been indications that they get involved in the more major decision of the manager's appointment, but the word was that they imposed the choice of Sir Bob on Freddie, not the other way round. As for Sir Bob's dismissal, the Halls were in favour of it, but again I can't see that Freddie didn't reach the same conclusion himself by the end. I'd also heard that the Halls wanted O'Neill, but Freddie wanted Roeder. If anything, I don't think they get involved enough. The club has become a bit of a one-man band.

Unless there's something going on behind the scenes which we're not aware of, this doesn't sound like a good decision. I think Dowie's a good man, and he's inherited a difficult situation.

On the question of managers, there aren't any guarantees, but you do expect the Board to try and get in the best man available. Now I'm not convinced that Shepherd did that with Souness and Roeder. I think he wanted managers that were happy with Shearer's exceptional status at the club, first as a player and now as an ambassador-manager in waiting. One way or another, I think that ruled some good candidates out. On O'Neill, I'd heard that the Halls were keen but Shepherd wasn't. Certainly I've not detected any sign that Freddie wasn't 100% happy with Roeder's appointment. It also fits what we know of Shepherd's 'hands on' style. O'Neill is a man who wants to make all this own appointments, and who wants to be heard at Boardroom level, and that wouldn't suit Freddie.

Some very good points here, and I think we're getting to the heart of the problem. It's not enough for a Chairman to spend money on players. He also has to back his manager's judgement on how the money should be spent.

This whole speech shows how carried away Freddie has become with his role. The most important person at a club is the manager, not the chairman. The chairman should be a background figure who finds the best available manager, and who provides the resources for the manager to do the job. From the tone of Freddie's comments, you'd have thought he was Mr NUFC. I'm particularly pissed off at hearing him say that he'd rather the fans attack him, rather than the manager and the players. When Sir Bob and then Souness were attacked by his cronies in the local press, he let them hang out to dry. The minute he comes under attack, he comes out with an endless serious of excuses and distractions, using the media to get his message across. I'm beginning to think that he is not a very nice man.

I first heard this story about FS wanting to take the club private some time ago. For whatever reason, it hasn't happened, and I don't know why he should be in a position to make it happen now. Or perhaps that's wishful thinking on my part. We need a change.

How do you come to this? He is terrible and is by far our worst defender. He dives in all of the time and lacks concentration. He is thick as mince, and that is why he makes so many mistakes. I think the reality is he doesn't make any more mistakes than any of the other central defenders. The difference is they get highlighted more because of his reputation. On the plus side, he's stronger and quicker than any of our other defenders, and is often able to bail us out of difficult situations. He's not great, but I think the idea that Moore, Ramage and Taylor are better is ridiculous.

Looks like we're better than Chelsea. Someone tell the players.

The three main strikers being out is a problem. But of available options, I voted for confidence. We look hesitant.

A no brainer as far as I'm concerned. Keep. His mistakes will get ironed out with experience. He has the ability to get past his man in a variety of ways, and he also seems to have a good temperament. There's plenty to build on.

He's our best central defender, which isn't saying much I know, but at the moment I don't think we can afford to let him go.

Who would have thought a few months ago that we'd be playing Sibierski as a lone striker? Shola looked very unfit. Even if he'd been fit, I don't think him and Sibierski are a partnership. There's no pace there at all. The back four were very lucky not to concede a goal. Is Bramble injured, because if not, I really think he should have been playing. That's not a compliment to Titus - that's how poor I thought Moore was. Zoggy didn't look up for it at all. Something's wrong there. But if there's hope, it's Dyer. I felt that when he came on, the whole team got a bit of a lift. His individual performance was superb - he covered ground, he made himself available, he got forward, he enabled the whole strategy of keeping the ball on the deck, to work. On top of that, he was composed, rarely lost the ball, and made his contribution count. Fingers crossed, he's matured as a person and as a player. Pity he can't shoot, but hey ho.

I agree. Freddie paid too much money and offered too high wages for a player that we couldn't really afford. That's why he's bleating.

I think if you see more games, odds are your opinion will be more sensible, or at least it ought to be. But I've noticed on here, that those who go to all the home games are often the most angry or otherwise emotional, and that can cloud their judgement.

I think we're plum in the wrong here. Players come back injured from international duty all the time. It's an inevitable hazard of having an international dimension to the game. The only reason why Shepherd is making a fuss is because, in Owen's case, we're losing a lot of money rather than a smaller amount. If the international game means anything at all, then the best players need to be available. If clubs either withold players, or National Associations don't pick certain players because they can't afford compensation, then the international game will soon become a meaningless sideshow, rather than the pinnacle that it is. Club Chairmen tend to pursue their own interests without any oversight of the good of the game as a whole. If control of the game ever falls into the hands of people like Freddie Shepherd, it'll be a very sad day.

Smith was very poor against Southend. He couldn't keep hold of the ball at all, and looked off the pace. I thought he was the biggest single reason why they lost. He was never the quickest to start off with, and this injury may have a long-term effect. So no, I don't think this is a golden opportunity missed.

I think a player who's only had a modest career may have the desire to prove themselves and gain success as a manager, whereas there might not be the same incentive and drive with a more successful player. Also, a less talented player may also have had to achieve what he has by hard work, listening intently to coaches and thinking deeply about the game. That attitude can then stand him in good stead as a manager. I think Shearer actually has the potential to be a good manager. I don't think he was blessed with great natural talent, but he applied himself very intelligently and with a lot of hard graft. I think he understands the game well and has leadership qualities. The question marks are - does he want it enough? ie Is he prepared to make the sacrifices and put up with the hassle? And - will he be able to get the best out of the more temperamental characters in the dressing room? The hard man approach won't work every time.