tmonkey

Just buy an entire defence, and for the first time since weve joined the Premiership, we'll have a supremely solid defence that the rest of the team can build on every time it gets the ball. Baines £7mill Miguel £8mill Andrade £8mill Woodgate £3mill With a defence like that and Given behind it, all the rest of the team has to do is create a few chances and finish one or two. Martins, Duff, Dyer, Emre, Zog, Owen - not too shabby under a good manager.

Buy a small 3rd world country and force everyone to play football every day for food, clean water and clothes, especially the kids. Would solve our scouting network & youth system problems in 10-20 years when we have entire villages of good players to choose from.

Stuart Pearce was touted alongside Shearer as the best prospects from the FA Coaching courses. That where those stories came from, because it was reported at a time when Pearce's Man City were doing well and he was the media's golden boy. Havent heard that statement in a while, purely because Pearce is doing shit and is considered a poor manager at present, so his hype has shown itself to be ridiculously blown out of proportion at the time. Its funny how it was repeated so often at the time - the FA said it, therefore its evidence of how great these managers will be. Why? What reason is there to believe the FA saying that these two were the brightest stars of the coaching classes when we ourselves know absolutely nothing about these "classes"? Who were the other candidates in those classes for example? What made Shearer/Pearce stand out so much, and has their involvement in top flight football since kids given them an unfair advantage over the other "students"? Who were the previous "bright sparks" that these classes have produced, and where are they right now in the managerial world? How would "shit" managers perform in these classes - your Souness', Kinnears, Roeders and Steve McLarens? They'll probably know tons more about setting out training regimes, giving a few kids some motivational talks, tactics and knowledge about the game in detail - all of that would probably be great in a classroom, in fact theyd probably be teaching the classes, but would mean nowt in real life because we know theyre poor managers. Its not as though the FA dont have a reason for talking them up either. Firstly, theyre legendary England international ex-footballers, secondly, as a guess, theyre probably the only ones from that "class" who have even the remotest chance of managing a Premiership team, and therefore one day the national side. Clearly, its in their interests to suck up to them as much as they can right now. Shearer himself may well be a good manager, we'll not know until hes had a crack or two, but I personally dont want us to be the ones who take that gamble. Hes got completely different traits to Keegan imo, Keegan was a man manager and motivator personified, vital attributes for someone who lacks in tactical and organisational skills. Cant put out advanced tactics, or know nowt about organising a defence? Doesnt matter as much if you can motivate a talented player to sprint to the mountain tops and get the very best out of him and the entire team on the pitch. Shearer for me is closer to being a Souness style manager - distanced, unwilling to accept differences, stubborn, and possibly a big problem to get on with anyone he has had disagreements with or disliked (Sutton? Maric? Gullitt? Bellamy? Sir Bobby? Luque?). You could say the same about someone like Sir Alex, but would Shearer have anything like Sir Alex's abilities with regards to creating and building a great youth, training, coaching and fitness setup? Big gamble written all over it.

I'm sure they'll know all about the campaign for Hitzfeld, if they don't then they only need visit http://www.hitzfeldforthetoon.com to find out. Bit of a coincidence that Fat Fred, on hearing about the campaign, laughed it off and claimed it was a secretive betting ring scam, and now the banner of the webby says: "HITZFELDFORTHETOON.COM When a thing is funny, search it carefully for a hidden truth." Someone sold out!

IMO, those sets of results show the difference a manager makes. The first game was under Cuper, a good manager, the second game was under a caretaker manager, think it was Cuper's assistant who took over for a while. Martins was class in the first game, dogshit in the second.

Owen really needs to bulk up imo, ala Del Piero post 99, because hes got the type of frame that gets injured easily. Hes like a little boy running around on match-stick (aka Dyer) legs, all it will take is one collision or an odd landing and snap. Problem here is that itd affect his game mobility wise. Either that, or he continues playing the way he has done for us in his few appearances, ie very rarely getting involved in the game and just hovering around the centrebacks waiting for half chances, meaning he avoids having to get stuck in or having defenders thumping into him regularly. Only problem with that is hes going to have to get "involved" at some point during a game, meaning he risks injury because hes so lightweight. Clearly I have no faith in him ever playing regularly enough for us in the first team. Madrid were big and smart enough to use him as backup, and hed probably do well for us in that role since itd minimise the risks of injuries, but if we tried that with him hed no doubt kick up a fuss and force a transfer.

Distin would be a good signing if cheap - average centreback at Premiership level, but he is a leader, has pace, and is comfortable on the ball, attributes we are desperate for. Even being an average centreback is a major step forward for us, because we have total dross playing for us - including Taylor, who is performing poorly despite his potential. Marseille's Beye would be a quality addition if we could get him, good centreback and solid right back. Also hope we make a move for Baines. We would sort out the left back position for the next decade if we could get him. Much better at defending than Bridge, 5 years younger with the potential to improve, imo is a better all-round footballer especially with his distribution, and would almost certainly command less wages than Bridge. Can see him developing into the left back equivalent of Gary Neville, although that might be getting a tad carried away. Wont be cheap, but then spending a few million and high wages every few years trying to fix the problem isnt cheap either.

Honeymoon period, combined with us playing some shiite teams, as well as some decent teams who were simply shiite on the day. Also, the squad is actually weakened now for several reasons. - The arrival of Duff's shadow has pissed NZogbia off, so we now have two totally off colour left wingers. - Solano seems to have lost his legs whilst Milner continues to be frustratingly poor at times so we have problems on the right wing. - Shearer has retired and Ameobi is crocked more than he usually is, whilst Sibierski is plain shiite despite the effort and Martins is on a different planet to the rest of the team, forget wavelength. Rossi is a kid who is out of his depth in the Premiership at this point in time. Meaning we have a poorer frontline than the shiite we had up front in the honeymoon period. - Boumsong and Elliott have gone without being replaced, Moore has regularly been found out, all giving us a weaker backline. - Faye and Bowyer have both gone, and been replaced by Butt. Not sure about the quality, apart from a good game or two theyre all consistently poor footballers, but we're weaker in numbers as well as selection, since Bowyer could play as an attacking centre mid. Hence, its probably less to do with Shearer and more to do with the players being on a high back then, as well as easier fixtures, as well as a slightly stronger squad.

Mourinho incites them as best he can as well.

Isnt the TV money effectively doubling from the season after next according to the new multi-party deal? That is what was reported as being the case with this new broadcasting rights package, and must be why there are so many interested parties now wanting to take over Premiership clubs.

Im not so sure Souness was backed the way it looks on paper. From the start of his short stay with us, he wanted to play 4-3-3. That was the system he tried initially, a system he only changed when we fell behind to Herenveen and the chants for his head became loud - it failed because we simply did not have the players to play it. That was his "vision" for me, he tried to force it even without the right players, and along with buying already developed players, it was his "masterplan" for success with us. I remember him talking about the Chelsea system and admiring it, and I think thats the way he wanted us to go. In his last season with us, he spent most of the summer talking up the 4-3-3 system he wanted us to play. He targeted Anelka and Boa Morte as key signings, along with others like Joaquin, all players ideally suited to a 4-3-3. Very clear imo, even the midfield signings were tailored to this, because Emre was at his best for Inter on the left of a 3 man central midfield, whilst it seemed that Jenas was meant to stay despite the signing of Parker - that was going to be our 3 man central midfield, although Jenas himself wanted out. Even Luque's signing fits this picture. Luque peaked for Deportivo on the left side of an attacking trio for Deportivo - theres been alot of debate on here about whether he his position is as a striker or left midfielder, its a bit of both, ie the left side of the frontline in a 4-3-3. The signing of Luque himself has many a time been reported as the Shephard brothers' decision, and it does seem to be the case given that iirc news of a bid came a few days before the Souness comments about asking his mate in Spain about Luque (ie trying to save face and make it look like his signing). Yet the final few days of the transfer window undid everything Souness had planned for, and im dead certain that was down to Freddy Shephard. One year earlier, Shephard had put in a 22mill bid for Wayne Rooney without his manager's knowledge, a bid that failed. Clearly, it was Shephard who wanted to get an England international striker into the side, the long term replacement for Shearer. When the Rooney bid failed, who would have logically been the next best thing? Clearly, with Owen's signing, we were never, ever going to be able to play 4-3-3. And no doubt, that is why we also brought Solano in on the very last minute and got rid of Jenas, completing the switch to 4-4-2, a system Sounses clearly didnt want to play - hence why he had Solano tucking in all the time. Therefore, I think Souness was not backed, in fact he was undermined in that he had absolutely no control over who was being signed. Shephard wanted to replace Shearer with a big name international forward, it was his decision to go for Owen (and it was no doubt his decision to make a bid for Torres - seems like Freddy's been watching a bit of La Liga, credit to him for that). Unfortunately, that decision has backfired miserably, not only did we pay a huge amount for a striker with a teenage boy's frame (similar to Dyer, stick-men) with a poor injury record, we also undid everything Souness had planned for and made some of his signings useless. In his own world, Shephard no doubt means well, but hes simply not fit to be making these footballing decisions. His world clearly lacks any kind of depth with regards to football, I remember how when we signed Bowyer on a Bosman as our only transfer in 2003, Shephard was boasting about adding an England international to the team. I can see exactly what he was thinking - "We have just finished 4th, added Woodgate in the previous window, and have a good young squad that had a very good CL and domestic season - therefore we should improve with experience alone - hence, adding an England international would represent a significant improvement, so money can be saved for other things". Thats exactly how I would expect a business man with little footballing knowledge to think, because he wont have followed the form of the player closely (Bowyer completely off form for a few years and far from an England international, having only appeared once and looking out of his depth at that level), or the needs of the squad/manager to improve the competition and add different options. But thats the way he thinks unfortunately, again its no doubt that type of unanalyzed hypothesis that had us appointing Souness, its also no doubt the reason why he lost faith in Sir Bobby ("ive given him this amount of money, hes spent big on some players that havent performed, therefore he is not good at signing players" - everyone knows how all top managers spend poorly on a consistent basis). Shephard controlling things in his own world is always going to land us in trouble, unless he hands the reign over to a manager talented and competent enough to run the club the way it should be.

All Shephard has to do to be a good chairman is appoint a manager with a domestic and European track record, foreign or not, and back him - allow him to build the club up the way he sees fit - backroom staff, scouting network, transfers. Doesnt matter if we dont win anything, doesnt matter if were mid table for a season or two, all we're asking for is someone who deserves the job to get it, and then to be backed - not only with some money (Dalglish wasnt), but also in all other aspects of running the club. Sir Bobby was a great appointment, Shephard's only "successful" one out of 5 thus far, yet it only lasted a few years before he stopped backing Sir Bobby, refusing to purchase who Sir Bobby wanted because he thought Sir Bobby had already spent too much (yet has the cheek to claim he backs his managers with money), refusing to back Sir Bobby when he tried to sell Shearer, refusing to install the modern training systems that Sir Bobby requested. Just appoint a proven good manager, and back him. Thats all he has to do, all we're asking for. Its not much at all, in fact its what he should be doing in his job as chairman. Its got **** all to do with "life cycles" of a club being at the top and being unable to last there. Yet he cant do it. He lives in his own world, where he knows the best way of running the club and us fans are just idiots to be controlled like kids with presents (players), promises and "pleasant suprises". In his own world, decisions like appointing Souness are good ones, even though the rest of the world can see likewise. Shame. We could and should be doing so much better, not because we're blind or have fantasies of the club being bigger than it is or have too high expectations, but because the board have consistently given the wrong man the job, or given the right man the job and failed to back him in more ways than one.

Bloody strange then that on matchday the majority on here name them as a pair in their favoured XI. I still dont see it. Absolutely nothing has changed since the initial comments of their partnership being shiite were put forward many months ago. We're still a poor team managed by a poor coach, with shiite movement and linkup play. A Parker-Emre midfield is not suited for that type of team, but it can be a top partnership in the right circumstances. When Dyer came on, we dominated the game, particularly in central midfield, where we passed the ball around them, and towards the end we were cutting through them like a knife through butter. No end product? No creativity? It was all there in the latter stages of yesterday's game. Why did it take a substitution and the belief that we could nick a win for there to be such a big difference? IMO thats clearly an indication that we have the wrong players around Parker-Emre for that partnership to work, as well as a lack of good coaching/tactics/drilling, rather than the partnership itself being unable to work. That partnership will excel if it has the players around it to carry the attacking burden (which Dyer is able to do), its what many of the top teams have (although we're missing a destroy/powerhouse option to add to the central midfield pool). Question is, do we want to change the central midfield to get the best out of a shiite team, or show some patience, improve the team/setup and get the best out of a potentially very good midfield?

Thought he had a cracking second half, particularly when Dyer came on. Still though, the first half highlighted the need for having both a good manager and some form of squad depth. This was the type of game where we could do with a powerhouse or battling midfielder in alongside Parker, and Emre could be either rotated or played in another position. As well as this, he didnt seem to be motivated at all in the first half, like the rest of the team there was no belief in their own ability - for whatever reason, when Dyer came on, this seemed to change, and we immediately looked a pretty good side.

Money, City offered higher. Hes considered a greedy mercenary, but people are forgetting who our chairman is - most likely Shephard decided that Distin should be grateful to play at a "top 8" club like ours, so tried dwindling his wages, ie Shephard's standard negotiation technique.

Want to see more of that Lugano fella who played for Fenerbahce, looked a class act against us (even though he was up against a poor attack) in the same way Woodgate looked a class act whenever he played.

At least two of the big boys will get to the semi's and from there will play their first teams. Our chances are extremely slim with this, so in our best interests, its good if we draw one of the big teams, get knocked out, but put in a good performance to boost morale. That way we have less distractions for the Premiership, and weve probably got more chance of winning the UEFA.

Thats the thing though, it didnt require any hindsight at all. Some of us on here knew things would turn out for the worse because its common sense (noone knew hed get injured in the WC, but that hed get injured regularly and wed be in the shitters once he did). It was common sense that had many of us on here knowing Souness' appointment would end in utter disaster and ruin for the club, just as some of us dreaded the appointment of Roeder with his appalling track record. Youd think our chairman would be wiser, more competent, more knowledgeable, more thorough, more researched, then us fans when making these fundamental choices, yet hes not - he couldnt even see the walking disaster that was Souness, and even threw money at him, whilst most of our fans and the rest of the country were in utter disbelief at the appointment. That is what is so disheartening - he simply cannot be trusted to make footballing decisions anymore. The proof is the past few years, the performances, the results, the strife, the headlines, the embarassments.

Means nowt when judging the performance of Shephard as chairman. Hes not the one responsible for our transition from small club back to big club (although he could end up being responsible for taking us from big club back to small club, assuming he hasnt already). 2nd to 19th, 4 diabolically failed managerial appointments out of 5, please explain who you would have considered a more ambitious appointment at the time - or ever - than a manager who had won 4 League titles, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards. Please also explain who you would have appointed instead of a manager who won the FA Cup with his first job and left his club in the top 3 of the premiership at the time. Genuine question, and one that I have asked before, that nobody has replied to, especially macbeth and his monkey. But now is your chance. Listing Dalglish's trophies as evidence of him being a top manager means nowt. Why, at the time, did so many of us cringe at his appointment? I certainly did - yet you clearly thought hed be a great success. Again, who was in the wrong? He may have won trophies with Blackburn and Pool, but he had been out of the game for several years after his failed DOF role when Blackburn were shiite after winning the title, and he was completely the wrong type of manager to take over the crop of players we had at the time - defensive, stubborn, and was always going to dislike some of our key players as they simply wouldnt suit his view of the game. It wasnt suprising at all that he tore Keegan's squad apart as soon as he could, pissing about players like Ginola and Beardo. That is why I did not want Shephard to appoint him, I was hoping we would get a progessive manager in - eg Sir Bobby, who Shephard continually approached at the wrong time when he could have appointed a caretaker and then gone for Sir Bobby as soon as he was available , or did what Milan did to get Ancelotti, ie sack the current manager as soon as the man they really wanted was available - but Shephard took the gamble on an unsuitable and retired candidate, and it blew up in his face. Gullit, meanwhile, I was not sure about. I remember vividly his last few months at Chelsea, with all the reports about the player revolts and the "dark clouds" that had loomed at Stamford Bridge under his tenure - it was guaranteed that he had severe man-management problems. His teams were also bloody shiite in Europe for the players they had. Only reason why I wasnt too against his appointment was that he had achieved success at Chelsea by attracting Serie A rejects, a league far stronger at that time, and hoped that we might do the same too, and therefore we might build a quality team despite his lack of managerial ability. In hindsight, the fact that Chelsea are a London club, fashionable to foreigner superstars particularly at that time, should not have been overlooked. But thats hindsight, and I dont blame Shephard for this appointment, but it still turned out to be a shiite one, for which Shephard needs to be held accountable. As for who I would have appointed, I simply cannot remember who the candidates were at the time, apart from Sir Bobby, who Shephard approached with poor timing and allegedly poor negotiation techniques. I personally would have looked for a manager with a European/Continental track record of moderate success, and good success at domestic level, and/or modern philosophies and training/coaching methods. If that manager wasnt available, appoint a caretaker to take the team to the end of the season, and spend the summer getting the right man. Shephard, however, has proven for a fact he is not competent enough to do any of this. His timing is shocking when dismissing managers, he seems to have no tact or nous in recruiting, resulting in many decent/good managers being brushed aside for the likes of Sounses and Roeder to be appointed. So, now ive taken my "chance", how about you replying to my initial statement, as opposed to asking for lengthy answers to red herrings you continue to dream up: Add to that list: - selling/buying players behind the managers' backs, as well as in front of them (Souness/Roeder took a backseat as Shephard signed the players he wanted) - backing a player over the manager, twice at least - failing to release funds to strengthen at the time that we needed it most (03), whilst declaring millions in dividends - making daft and unsettling comments time after time in the media, eg Sir Bobby's last season announced publicly with his knowledge, the "top 8 in world" comments Again, add all this to his track record of taking a club from 2nd and certain perennial title challengers to several relegation worries and early sackings, finishing in the bottom half of the Premiership more times than we have finished in the top half, and explain how he has done a good job, without any of your ridiculous red herrings about the club's state donkey years ago.

Means nowt when judging the performance of Shephard as chairman. Hes not the one responsible for our transition from small club back to big club (although he could end up being responsible for taking us from big club back to small club, assuming he hasnt already). 2nd to 19th, 4 diabolically failed managerial appointments out of 5, dragging the club's name through the dirt several times and making us a national laughing stock, taking millions out of the club in the process, etc etc. Thats what Shephard should be judged by, along with the few successes weve had, which unfortunately for him, and you, pale in significance to his failures. But I guess your crusade must go on.

So Shephard has been chairman since 1992? http://vnuuk.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/red_herring.jpg

BTW, totally forgot to post a reply to this part: :rolllrg: After all this time, posting hundreds of replies about how Shephard has not taken us backwards, you are now telling us that we should expect it, understand it, and that were are morons if we dont? Utterly pathetic. Why dont you stick to your guns and continue posting crap about how Shephard has NOT taken us backwards, like you have been over the past few years? Because its simply not possible to make that arguement anymore because youd be laughed at in the same way people who believe the world is flat are mocked? Just shows how wrong you are, doesnt it, that youve changed your stance entirely after all that defiance and self-assured rubbish you constantly kept putting forward in your continued Shephard-worshipping e-forum-crusade.

Tough call, certainly got the ball first with the faintest of touches so its not a penalty for me, but its certainly borderline, because the "clearance" was so weak that had Hleb not been brought down, he might just have reached the ball. Its like the difference between: 1) A defender who makes a weak back pass under pressure, and then pulls down the opposition forward all in one motion - always a foul. and 2) A defender who makes a last ditch slide tackle on a forward through on goal, clearing the ball and bringing the forward down in one motion - never a foul. This incident is smack in the middle in between those boundaries.

:rolllrg: Where have I said replacing the board will lead to automatic improvement? Ive said plenty of times we could possibly end up with a worse chairman than Shephard, because they do exist no doubt - which in no way negates the notion that Shephard is a shit chairman. So, after a red herring, you now resort to straw man fallacies. If you dont know what a straw man is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy

What has that got to do with Shepherd and us being 2nd bottom of the league, we look like getting relegated while running up the biggest losses in the history of our club? Its got nothing to do with Shephard's performance as chairman, its just a red herring. In case he doesnt know what red herrings are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi Likewise, the position of the club in the 70s or 80s bears no relevance to the performance of Shephard as chairman, because Shephard took over a club in a completely different situation to what it was in those times. NE5 of course refuse to acknowledge this because he chooses to, but thats his problem, hes just a laughing stock because of it (probably doesnt see that either).