TRon

Who knows what Dalglish would have done, but the fact is he didn't make the best of the resources he had available to him. The ultra defensive formations were overkill and that's what cost him his job. He probably did when you look at our lack of striking options. Tomasson never stood a chance. Tomasson wasn't really a forward though was he? He was a goal scoring midfielder who ended up losing his way after being pushed up front. I really liked the look of him when we signed him as well.

I must admit I thought that Shearer was going downhill as well but we had two magic seasons under Robson where he looked rejuvenated. Which brings us back to the point about the makeup of the team being crucial, not just the individual.

Who knows what Dalglish would have done, but the fact is he didn't make the best of the resources he had available to him. The ultra defensive formations were overkill and that's what cost him his job.

Wasn't the argument at the time though, that with Robert, Ambrose, Viana, Dyer, Jenas & Bowyer, we needed someone in the "holding role". Speed was still more of a goal threat than all but Robert from that list even when he left though. Dyer had his moments I guess. He was hardly prolific when he left though, and nor was he for Bolton for a couple of seasons. He was slowing down, and at almost 35 it's not hard to see why you'd want to think about replacing him with someone younger (but mature enough for the responsibility of the role) when you're a team attempting to get into the top 4. <snip> A lot of hindsight and a certain amount of rewriting of history going on in the last couple of pages. Like Robson himself, just because the replacement didn't work out doesn't mean the decision to get rid was wrong. Snipped the stats to shorten the quote pyramid. Yes, he wasn't so much of a goal threat and had slowed down a lot, but he offered more than most. He was powerful in the air and, although he got forward less and less, knew his way around the penalty area and certainly offered a threat when he was going forward. He ultimately needed replacing and I was very happy for a competitor for his place to come in, but the idea to actually get rid of him was nonsensical imo. He was a very experienced head combined with still being a decent player, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was getting more and more involved in the coaching aspect given what he's done since he left. He would have been vital in the continued development of the so called brat pack, there's a hell of a lot the likes of Bowyer, Dyer and Jenas could and would have learnt from him; at the very least he was a top pro who kept himself in shape and worked very hard. He would have continued to be a big asset for the club even if not playing as much. If you are going to have Alan Shearer in your side it can work, but you have to have players around him who will compensate for his lack of pace. Robson did this with Bellamy, Dyer and Robert, and Keegan also before that. Dalglish's teams especially stick in my mind as built on solid players with no flair, and in those type of teams Shearer could look impotent. He still scored around 20 goals in the one full season under Dalglish. Well as you know, my memory is trashed from that far back, but I recall Dalglish did well while Keegan's players were still around, but once he brought in his own grafter type players we became less and less potent as an attacking force. Who were the midfielders in that season, any idea? We definitely did become less potent as an attacking force. But that year Shearer had his injury and was very poor in the league when he came back, we'd lost Ferdinand, Asprilla, Bearsdley (who was at the end anyway) and an unhappy Ginola. Although in his time for us Dalglish bought us some very good players. What factored against Dalglish was simply that he was the opposite of Keegan. Dalglish didn't buy bad players I agree, but those players didn't make a good team, there wasn't any flair or attacking instinct there and for that he has to take the blame. Fans aren't daft and they didn't start chanting "Attack, attack...attack, attack, attack!" beacuse they suddenly all had collective brain farts. The most effective Shearer I saw was in SBR's team paired with Bellamy along with players like Robert, Dyer and Solano. Who bought Nobby? Well I never denied Dalglish bought some good players did I? Shearer was also most effective for us in his first season. That will always come down to personal opinion but I always thought him and Ferdinand didn't really click that well, but they were both devastating strikers in their own right so it didn't really matter.

Wasn't the argument at the time though, that with Robert, Ambrose, Viana, Dyer, Jenas & Bowyer, we needed someone in the "holding role". Speed was still more of a goal threat than all but Robert from that list even when he left though. Dyer had his moments I guess. He was hardly prolific when he left though, and nor was he for Bolton for a couple of seasons. He was slowing down, and at almost 35 it's not hard to see why you'd want to think about replacing him with someone younger (but mature enough for the responsibility of the role) when you're a team attempting to get into the top 4. <snip> A lot of hindsight and a certain amount of rewriting of history going on in the last couple of pages. Like Robson himself, just because the replacement didn't work out doesn't mean the decision to get rid was wrong. Snipped the stats to shorten the quote pyramid. Yes, he wasn't so much of a goal threat and had slowed down a lot, but he offered more than most. He was powerful in the air and, although he got forward less and less, knew his way around the penalty area and certainly offered a threat when he was going forward. He ultimately needed replacing and I was very happy for a competitor for his place to come in, but the idea to actually get rid of him was nonsensical imo. He was a very experienced head combined with still being a decent player, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was getting more and more involved in the coaching aspect given what he's done since he left. He would have been vital in the continued development of the so called brat pack, there's a hell of a lot the likes of Bowyer, Dyer and Jenas could and would have learnt from him; at the very least he was a top pro who kept himself in shape and worked very hard. He would have continued to be a big asset for the club even if not playing as much. If you are going to have Alan Shearer in your side it can work, but you have to have players around him who will compensate for his lack of pace. Robson did this with Bellamy, Dyer and Robert, and Keegan also before that. Dalglish's teams especially stick in my mind as built on solid players with no flair, and in those type of teams Shearer could look impotent. He still scored around 20 goals in the one full season under Dalglish. Well as you know, my memory is trashed from that far back, but I recall Dalglish did well while Keegan's players were still around, but once he brought in his own grafter type players we became less and less potent as an attacking force. Who were the midfielders in that season, any idea? We definitely did become less potent as an attacking force. But that year Shearer had his injury and was very poor in the league when he came back, we'd lost Ferdinand, Asprilla, Bearsdley (who was at the end anyway) and an unhappy Ginola. Although in his time for us Dalglish bought us some very good players. What factored against Dalglish was simply that he was the opposite of Keegan. Dalglish didn't buy bad players I agree, but those players didn't make a good team, there wasn't any flair or attacking instinct there and for that he has to take the blame. Fans aren't daft and they didn't start chanting "Attack, attack...attack, attack, attack!" beacuse they suddenly all had collective brain farts. The most effective Shearer I saw was in SBR's team paired with Bellamy along with players like Robert, Dyer and Solano. Who bought Nobby? Well I never denied Dalglish bought some good players did I?

Good player but the fact liverpool used him as a holding midfielder says it best.

Wasn't the argument at the time though, that with Robert, Ambrose, Viana, Dyer, Jenas & Bowyer, we needed someone in the "holding role". Speed was still more of a goal threat than all but Robert from that list even when he left though. Dyer had his moments I guess. He was hardly prolific when he left though, and nor was he for Bolton for a couple of seasons. He was slowing down, and at almost 35 it's not hard to see why you'd want to think about replacing him with someone younger (but mature enough for the responsibility of the role) when you're a team attempting to get into the top 4. <snip> A lot of hindsight and a certain amount of rewriting of history going on in the last couple of pages. Like Robson himself, just because the replacement didn't work out doesn't mean the decision to get rid was wrong. Snipped the stats to shorten the quote pyramid. Yes, he wasn't so much of a goal threat and had slowed down a lot, but he offered more than most. He was powerful in the air and, although he got forward less and less, knew his way around the penalty area and certainly offered a threat when he was going forward. He ultimately needed replacing and I was very happy for a competitor for his place to come in, but the idea to actually get rid of him was nonsensical imo. He was a very experienced head combined with still being a decent player, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was getting more and more involved in the coaching aspect given what he's done since he left. He would have been vital in the continued development of the so called brat pack, there's a hell of a lot the likes of Bowyer, Dyer and Jenas could and would have learnt from him; at the very least he was a top pro who kept himself in shape and worked very hard. He would have continued to be a big asset for the club even if not playing as much. If you are going to have Alan Shearer in your side it can work, but you have to have players around him who will compensate for his lack of pace. Robson did this with Bellamy, Dyer and Robert, and Keegan also before that. Dalglish's teams especially stick in my mind as built on solid players with no flair, and in those type of teams Shearer could look impotent. He still scored around 20 goals in the one full season under Dalglish. Well as you know, my memory is trashed from that far back, but I recall Dalglish did well while Keegan's players were still around, but once he brought in his own grafter type players we became less and less potent as an attacking force. Who were the midfielders in that season, any idea? We definitely did become less potent as an attacking force. But that year Shearer had his injury and was very poor in the league when he came back, we'd lost Ferdinand, Asprilla, Bearsdley (who was at the end anyway) and an unhappy Ginola. Although in his time for us Dalglish bought us some very good players. What factored against Dalglish was simply that he was the opposite of Keegan. Dalglish didn't buy bad players I agree, but those players didn't make a good team, there wasn't any flair or attacking instinct there and for that he has to take the blame. Fans aren't daft and they didn't start chanting "Attack, attack...attack, attack, attack!" beacuse they suddenly all had collective brain farts. The most effective Shearer I saw was in SBR's team paired with Bellamy along with players like Robert, Dyer and Solano.

That's my point, only one creative player in that lot, Gillespie, and he was a Keegan signing, so was Lee who you could include at a push.

Wasn't the argument at the time though, that with Robert, Ambrose, Viana, Dyer, Jenas & Bowyer, we needed someone in the "holding role". Speed was still more of a goal threat than all but Robert from that list even when he left though. Dyer had his moments I guess. He was hardly prolific when he left though, and nor was he for Bolton for a couple of seasons. He was slowing down, and at almost 35 it's not hard to see why you'd want to think about replacing him with someone younger (but mature enough for the responsibility of the role) when you're a team attempting to get into the top 4. <snip> A lot of hindsight and a certain amount of rewriting of history going on in the last couple of pages. Like Robson himself, just because the replacement didn't work out doesn't mean the decision to get rid was wrong. Snipped the stats to shorten the quote pyramid. Yes, he wasn't so much of a goal threat and had slowed down a lot, but he offered more than most. He was powerful in the air and, although he got forward less and less, knew his way around the penalty area and certainly offered a threat when he was going forward. He ultimately needed replacing and I was very happy for a competitor for his place to come in, but the idea to actually get rid of him was nonsensical imo. He was a very experienced head combined with still being a decent player, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was getting more and more involved in the coaching aspect given what he's done since he left. He would have been vital in the continued development of the so called brat pack, there's a hell of a lot the likes of Bowyer, Dyer and Jenas could and would have learnt from him; at the very least he was a top pro who kept himself in shape and worked very hard. He would have continued to be a big asset for the club even if not playing as much. If you are going to have Alan Shearer in your side it can work, but you have to have players around him who will compensate for his lack of pace. Robson did this with Bellamy, Dyer and Robert, and Keegan also before that. Dalglish's teams especially stick in my mind as built on solid players with no flair, and in those type of teams Shearer could look impotent. He still scored around 20 goals in the one full season under Dalglish. Well as you know, my memory is trashed from that far back, but I recall Dalglish did well while Keegan's players were still around, but once he brought in his own grafter type players we became less and less potent as an attacking force. Who were the midfielders in that season, any idea?

I would think that Hughton will do his best to cook up a formation that includes Butt in the line up, now he's got his foot back in the door it will be a job shifting him I reckon.

Does anyone know who sits on the abitration panel? This talk of agendas has got me worried that some smug bastards might like to see mighty Newcastle £10m poorer.

Wasn't the argument at the time though, that with Robert, Ambrose, Viana, Dyer, Jenas & Bowyer, we needed someone in the "holding role". Speed was still more of a goal threat than all but Robert from that list even when he left though. Dyer had his moments I guess. He was hardly prolific when he left though, and nor was he for Bolton for a couple of seasons. He was slowing down, and at almost 35 it's not hard to see why you'd want to think about replacing him with someone younger (but mature enough for the responsibility of the role) when you're a team attempting to get into the top 4. <snip> A lot of hindsight and a certain amount of rewriting of history going on in the last couple of pages. Like Robson himself, just because the replacement didn't work out doesn't mean the decision to get rid was wrong. Snipped the stats to shorten the quote pyramid. Yes, he wasn't so much of a goal threat and had slowed down a lot, but he offered more than most. He was powerful in the air and, although he got forward less and less, knew his way around the penalty area and certainly offered a threat when he was going forward. He ultimately needed replacing and I was very happy for a competitor for his place to come in, but the idea to actually get rid of him was nonsensical imo. He was a very experienced head combined with still being a decent player, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was getting more and more involved in the coaching aspect given what he's done since he left. He would have been vital in the continued development of the so called brat pack, there's a hell of a lot the likes of Bowyer, Dyer and Jenas could and would have learnt from him; at the very least he was a top pro who kept himself in shape and worked very hard. He would have continued to be a big asset for the club even if not playing as much. If you are going to have Alan Shearer in your side it can work, but you have to have players around him who will compensate for his lack of pace. Robson did this with Bellamy, Dyer and Robert, and Keegan also before that. Dalglish's teams especially stick in my mind as built on solid players with no flair, and in those type of teams Shearer could look impotent.

What difference does it make who's fault it is? What are the repercussions for the club is what bothers me. Indeed. Who gives a crap who is right is some legal pissing contest between Ashley and Keegan (or more factually Keegan vs NUFC). What I care about is the 10million and where that comes from. We are in being run against what looks like a very tight budget (missing out on loan signings etc). If we're lose ten million quid due to this we could be f***ed in terms of betting promoted. And again despite who is right or wrong in the argument. Keegan has chosen to sue the club. We were relegated and obviously financially stuffed and Keegan still continued with his legal case. Keegan was offered 4 million (allegedly) and he still carries on with his legal case to make an extra couple million. All for personal gain. IMO this makes Keegan a c*** on equal footing with Ashely if not worse. So the players must be c***s for picking up their wages each week. In fact any member of staff picking up their legal entitlements from the club is a bigger c*** than Ashley according to this logic. I mean, nobody should be taking money from the club under the current circumstances. Even if they are legally entitled to it. That's a completely false analogy. Keegan isn't claiming for work that he's done for the club. He's claiming that he should be paid up for the rest of his contract, despite the fact that he left the job early. There's also a suggestion that he's claiming for loss of supposed future earnings at other clubs. All of which would have to come out of the club. In order to support Keegan you have to believe a) that his job had become impossible and b) that it is fair that he gets paid compensation in quite large quantities (note - this is compensation, not earned wages). I find both difficult to accept. There are also posters on here who actually believe that a) and b) are compatible with him 'loving' the club. None of us are on our best behaviour when there's large amounts of money at stake, and we shouldn't get too much on our high horse when someone tries to use grey areas of the law to make money. But we shouldn't look at it in any other way than as blatant self-seeking. All that Keegan will get is what he's found to be legally entitled to. It might be millions, it might be nothing but he won't be getting any money unless it's found (by the people who actually have the evidence in front of them) that he's in the right and the club was in the wrong. In which case, the flow of money out of the club is down to the man that made the poor decisions rather than Keegan. If it proves that Keegan is entitled to that money, I don't exactly see why he's a c*** for not pumping millions of what will effectively be his own cash directly into Ashley's pocket the club. Well if Keegan's entitled to his wages after walking out of a job and fans are going to argue on his behalf from a legal perspective, then they can't really complain if Ashley keeps the club and bleeds it dry either. He put the money down and invested and he's just as entitled as Keegan to cash in I suppose, by that logic. Of course the fans can complain. They can complain about anything they like. They probably couldn't mount a legal objection to anything Ashley does though. I'd just like to know exactly how it's Keegan's fault if it's found that Ashley didn't fulfill his legal and contratual obligations? Of course it's not Keegan's fault if it's found that Ashley didn't fulfil his legal and contractual obligations. On the other hand it will be Keegan's fault if it's found he did. This is a correct and perfectly legal response to your post, I sent the draft to my solicitor to check before posting.

do you think if they don't there aren't others we could loan in ? By then we could be sold anyway and whoever has seen fit to invest in us rather than cash in, might have their own ideas of players they want.

It's based on the game at Blackburn where our title hopes went up in smoke. There was a lass in the crowd who burst into tears and Sky Sports zoomed in after Shearer scored the winner for Blackburn IIRC. Graeme Fenton scored both. Cunt. Just as well I included the IIRC then

It's based on the game at Blackburn where our title hopes went up in smoke. There was a lass in the crowd who burst into tears and Sky Sports zoomed in after Shearer scored the winner for Blackburn IIRC.

i'd still guess the club didn't make a profit in january. Keegan's probably going to make a bigger profit in one month than Ashley has in two years at Newcastle. Ah well, that's employment law for you. It's a right fucker isn't it - him getting all that money for fucking us up and getting us relegated. When Ashley sells off more players to get his cash back at least we'll know it's gone to a good cause

i'd still guess the club didn't make a profit in january. Keegan's probably going to make a bigger profit in one month than Ashley has in two years at Newcastle.

What difference does it make who's fault it is? What are the repercussions for the club is what bothers me. Indeed. Who gives a crap who is right is some legal pissing contest between Ashley and Keegan (or more factually Keegan vs NUFC). What I care about is the 10million and where that comes from. We are in being run against what looks like a very tight budget (missing out on loan signings etc). If we're lose ten million quid due to this we could be f***ed in terms of betting promoted. And again despite who is right or wrong in the argument. Keegan has chosen to sue the club. We were relegated and obviously financially stuffed and Keegan still continued with his legal case. Keegan was offered 4 million (allegedly) and he still carries on with his legal case to make an extra couple million. All for personal gain. IMO this makes Keegan a c*** on equal footing with Ashely if not worse. So the players must be c***s for picking up their wages each week. In fact any member of staff picking up their legal entitlements from the club is a bigger c*** than Ashley according to this logic. I mean, nobody should be taking money from the club under the current circumstances. Even if they are legally entitled to it. That's a completely false analogy. Keegan isn't claiming for work that he's done for the club. He's claiming that he should be paid up for the rest of his contract, despite the fact that he left the job early. There's also a suggestion that he's claiming for loss of supposed future earnings at other clubs. All of which would have to come out of the club. In order to support Keegan you have to believe a) that his job had become impossible and b) that it is fair that he gets paid compensation in quite large quantities (note - this is compensation, not earned wages). I find both difficult to accept. There are also posters on here who actually believe that a) and b) are compatible with him 'loving' the club. None of us are on our best behaviour when there's large amounts of money at stake, and we shouldn't get too much on our high horse when someone tries to use grey areas of the law to make money. But we shouldn't look at it in any other way than as blatant self-seeking. All that Keegan will get is what he's found to be legally entitled to. It might be millions, it might be nothing but he won't be getting any money unless it's found (by the people who actually have the evidence in front of them) that he's in the right and the club was in the wrong. In which case, the flow of money out of the club is down to the man that made the poor decisions rather than Keegan. If it proves that Keegan is entitled to that money, I don't exactly see why he's a c*** for not pumping millions of what will effectively be his own cash directly into Ashley's pocket the club. Well if Keegan's entitled to his wages after walking out of a job and fans are going to argue on his behalf from a legal perspective, then they can't really complain if Ashley keeps the club and bleeds it dry either. He put the money down and invested and he's just as entitled as Keegan to cash in I suppose, by that logic.

Testament to the strength of character of the man. I always find it strange how SBR was supposed to have lost control of the dressing room yet he was still strong enough to threaten Shearer with relegation to the subs bench before he got the boot. That was the main prob with Bob at the time. He was tough where he SHOULDN'T have been, and lax where serious discipline was needed (Dyer, Jenas, Bellamy for starters) Bobby had his own way of handling players, I can think of Lineker being given leeway over training during the world cup. He handled Bellamy differently to how Souness did that's for sure, I think history will judge who got that one right.

He did for the reserves didn't he? That's one more box ticked then isn't it?

By that time there were rumours that things weren't right behind the scenes and decisions were being made behind his back by Shepherd. If that was the case making controversial decisions like that might have been a bit more difficult than if his position was more secure.

Testament to the strength of character of the man. I always find it strange how SBR was supposed to have lost control of the dressing room yet he was still strong enough to threaten Shearer with relegation to the subs bench before he got the boot.

Just about 100% spot on. Shame it's easier for media and fans to spin it different though.

So we have to blame Keegan for not being sold? Just kidding...Just kidding. No more Keegan debate please. is keegan suing any other club apart from Newcastle? Just kidding! btw...