fredbob

Ive asked this before and he always goes quiet. At one point i genuiney had my suspicions that he was Freddy Shephard. True story.

He's fat Fred's fuckbuddy.

NE5, what is your link to the old board? Are you a friend of Freddy Shephard? Serious question bytheway.

I base it on the fact that he started looking for a new job as soon as he was sacked, he wanted a new challenge at 71. He's probably still looking for one now. An ambitious one? A confident one? A good one? Not the point anyway, he wasn't sacked for only coming fifth (although we were clearly looking on the slide). Robson was getting on. Like Shearer he was going to have to be replaced soon. The idea was to get in a new manager at the end of the season and save up a bit to give him a pot of cash to replace Shearer. Robson wasn't happy with this though and started acting up about it. This along with lack of player discipline and results at the start of the season forced the hand of the board into getting rid before they intended to. No, although his health may have been a factor for the board in deciding not to renew his rolling contract. The point is you keep banging on about the club being in the position it is now because Robson was sacked. The fact is, if he hadn't at most we would have got another couple of years out of him, and then we would have been in a situation where we had a manager who was in and out of hospital with Carver effectively as manager. Who knows what the state of the club would have been after that? The state of the club now is mostly because of the appoinments of Souness and Allardyce (I don't think Roeder did any harm to the club), not because of the sacking of Robson. And the best job he could muster was an advisory role to Staunton, are you telling me thats the best job available to him, considering you're implying he still thinks he could of handled a top class job. I completely disagree with your view on this one, my point aboutMourihno may of been not entirely the strongest but i still think that it showed he was looking to wind down eventually, i cant imagine that someone like SBR would look to jeapordise the club to suit his needs. Well said i suppose. All i was trying to say was that him being moved upstairs was an idealogy, it wasnt a statement certifiable instructions, but a suggestion of a more teneable idea. Rather than sack him in the manner which proceeded. Oh yeah, if only. Do you think we have the history to demand such a criteria for our managers, i mean, the likesof Barcelona and Real get away with it because they have a stellar history whereas poor old Newcasltes best achievement was a top 2 finish in the premier league. I cant beleive there is a top manager out there who would look at nufc having sacked alegendary manager in the game and a local hero after finishing 4th, 3rd and 5th in the league, the same manager who helped save the club from relegation not 5 years previously and think, now theres a challenge i'd love. Our expectations 5 years after staving off relegation were CL qualification. No manager in there right minds would look at us. And to top it all off, you are saying that we were looking to replace SBR whilst in his job and SBR kind of new it so kicked up a fuss. (SBR had already recommended Emile Mpenza to replace Shearer but that got rebuffed - possibly because it wasnt high profile enough) He's had cancer all his life, was it a factor when they signed him in the first place? So are you saying that in hindsight, it was a good decision to get rid of SBR because he ended up getting cancer and would of been useless for us? I cant tell you how silly an argument this is. There is a hell of a lot of assumpiton in what you've said. If you are that determined to suggest that it was right for SBR to go, then fair enough, but if he did need to go, he needed to go in the most appropriate way to ensure that his pride is honoured and selfishly speaking the integrity of the club was maintained. As it transpired both didnt happen and so we were left with blood on our hands. Do you ever question why we ended up with Souness as apparently the best candidate available? My personal opinion is that having finished the previous season in 3rd position he should of been given the oppurtunity to prove he wasnt on the slide. Im sure he would of proved us wrong. Asit stands the board played mystic meg and lost. And that is why we are in the position we are in today.

No. And people call Newcastle fans delusional.

But would i be hard pushed to find people who renewed there tickets during the process of handing £50m to other clubs?

How much was the original loan? I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million. never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window mackems.gif How long have they been in debt to such an extent that they are now? Typically stupid argument. I've tried to explain the mess the club was in before they completely transformed it but you don't want to listen. Your loss. Was talking about the top 4. The stats that were released earlier show a business which categorically wasnt being run properly. This statement has nothing to do with thier ambition or transfer funds but the fact that they didnt stick to a sustainable business plan which is the norm for other clubs, including the 87 or so who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? They have better "business plans" then You're missing the point though, we havent always operated this way, in fact we were more successful when we operated the normal way. Its apretty silly comparison to be honest. It seems to me that Shephard et al were forced to open up the threshold on wages and transfers after the sacking of Bobby in orde to stir up interest for season ticket sales. To me, the whole plan was akin to a person using one credit card to clear the debts off another credit card. on the contrary, we operated in the "normal" way for over 30 years and ended up with one foot in the 3rd division, sub 20,000 crowds, and any half decent player that we managed to find somewhere down in the 4th division moved on to further their career, not to mention 3 local lads who all became major England players. By "normal" i mean the standard accepted, ie with a wage bill which was ridiculously dispropoitnate to the clubs standings. There isnt a single successfull club in the world which had the wage figures that we did and the reason for this is that they are unsustainable. I dont complain about debt in the sense that if we are £30m in debt if we spend £30m that makes us £60m in debt, thats by all accounts is the way that alot of people seem to view debt, i understand that clubs need to speculate in order to accumulate, but i think you miss the fact that the club had no choice but to risk the fututre of the club by extendeing the wage threshold in order to cover the fallacies of there decisions, which in turn put the future of the club at reasonable risk. Shephard was in a situation where because of the poor decision he and the board had made, the season ticket revenue against which the loan for the sttadium was pinned against was dropping, he and the board were desperate capture the imagination of the season ticket holders by attempting to cover up there poor decisions by firstly attempting to sign Wayne Rooney, then go on a lavish £50m spending spree, which (by putting 2 and 2 together and getting..) included shunning lesser options such as Boa Morte (undeniably Souness' first choice) and going on the lavish but expensive Luque which included lavish wages and silly transfer fee. The Anelka and Owen situation is a little clouded so i wont go into it but i believe honestly that the same applies here. When 20k people turned up for the signing of Owen shephard et al must of been licking thier lips. They had recouped the interest back in the team and had the interest payments for the loan susidised for another season. Never in the past did any of our signings have to do more with the business that it did for the club. It was a calculated risk, and as far as i can see and forsee wouldnt of paid off. To clarify, you are saying the club didn't focus enough on making a profit ie through handing their appointed manager a lot of money, then criticising moves to bring in another player or make other moves to increase spectator interest and generate more money ? What? I never said anything about making a profit, i said the club didnt stick to the orthodox accepted plan, i.e 50% wage bill of revenue. Which to me suggests that they were forced to such extreme measure because of the poor decisions they made, ie the sacking of Bobby and replacement. the only criticism i have of the signings were that 2 of them in my mind at least werent made in the interest of the playing side of the team, but made for the sake of the business. I'e Signing "foreigner so must be classy" Luque as opposed to signing "tried and tested so not very interesting Boa Morte" stoked up more interest so the fans obvioulsy came on board expecting a new era, ergo, season ticket sales increased and the clubs debts were tamed for antoher season. The same financial risk was taken with Owen, we were forced to pay inflated wages for Owen because there was no other way to sign him, it was a mark of desperation to try and recoup interest for season ticket holders. In my opinion the signing was made for the business primarily, not the first team, the circumstancial evidence would suggest the saem as well. you see, you're being hypocritical again. You are complaining about the business angle not being in good order then complaining they signed players primarily for the business rather than the team ? At least, that is your view, but I don't agree. I think Owen was signed as one of the few players able to fill the boots of Alan shearer, about to enter his last season as the clubs record goalscorer. I naturally therefore view it as good foresight and "planning", which should please some people although its a shame that just because they hate the fat b****** they are unable to see this deal or admit it for what it was. One point, is that you are addressing the wrong person if you choose to have a go at the signing of Luque, the vast majority of people on here took the view that because he's a foreigner he must be good, but sadly for you I was the exact opposite, in fact I took one look at him on his debut and was absolutely slaughtered for writing him off as a complete waste of space. Bobby Robson had been increasingly showing signs that age was catching up with him, by the way. And your point about Mourhino in the earlier post is incorrect. Bobby Robson didn't want him to come to Newcastle and succeed him, he wanted to bring him to the club as his number 2 as he had been previously in Portugal. Mourhinho turned it down because he wanted to be his own number 1. I dont understand what is hypocritical. All im trying to say is that in my opinion Owen was signed in order to aid the business ie to drive season ticket sales which looked to be dwindling and not primarily to replace shearer. I think the same applies to Luque as well, i still dont understand why he was signed over Boa Morte when it was clear to everyoe that he was wanted first by Souness. I dont understadn how other business mange to spend big and not compromise there wage structure as much as we ended up doing. Thats bad business in my mind. The reason we operated like we did because there was no other way to attract these players, and Shephard et al ahd to gamble, thats why he negotiated Owen with that clause. Supposing Owen did stay fit, and scored plently, and we didnt qualify for Europe what a situation would that of been. The point with Luque is that like you said, it did work, and there were people who thought "he was mint" and it drew people in. Season ticket holders and the crowds still came. When it was clear that Souness wanted Boa Morte why did we end up spending nearly twice as much on Luque for possibly double his wages....to draw in the punters and it worked. It wasnt for the best interests of the fottball team but for the business. As for SBR and Mourihno, you are right, SBR wanted Mourihno to come in as his number 2 but in the light that he would eventually take over, but Mourihno thought he would nbever leave so opted to be his ownman.

Most of them? Unless the manager leaves the club, what's the point of sacking one manager to appoint someone exactly the same? The board of that club would get (rightly) slaughtered by their fans. BTW, do you think Robson should still be manager? So you think that most clubs have sacked or replaced a manager whichhas directly affected the team and therefore the business? It was actually an open question, the one that comes to mind would be Charlton replacing Curbishley with Dowie, but even that had itmerits. I just think that the club of our size should not been in a situation where it makes mistakes on the most fundamental decision, i.e the appointment of a new manager. to get in wrong once in such spectacular fashoin is one thing, to get it wrong twice is undefendable, and potentially getting it wrong 3 times (not really putting any emphasis on the Allardyce appointment because he didnt obviusly have Shephard behind him although the signs suggested that Allardyce wouldnt have gone down well anyway) is shocking. To be honest yes i would of liked to stuck with Bobby, he had brought us to a place where we deserved to be and i think fans lost sight a little bit. It was a new beginning for the club and even though he had had a poor season which was compounded by no CL qualification i still think that had Shephard backed him to the extent he backed Souness then we would e in a much stronger position. People seem to suggest that SBR was on his last legs and the signs were there, well yes, we had had one poor season but if you cant trust a legendary manager to turn it around, who can you trust? In light of the treatment SBR recieved (undermining him etc) as well as the sacking, the job became completely unteneable, with outrageously fickle fans who booed the boys off for finishing 5th and a chairman who seemed intent on undermining the manager at every oppurtunity, who else would of come on board. SBR should of been left to finish the job he started, if i rememebr correctly he already had Mourihno marked downto take over but Mourihno turned down thining SBR would never leave, this to me suggests SBR did have leaving the club on his mind at one point, he should of been moved upstairs in all ideal situations, should of been able to plan his own "retirement" in order to prepare the club better. The whole SBR sacking was an amateur mistake, and has cost the club alot. Robson would never have stepped down willingly, and if people think Shearer is a spectre over the club keeping away quality managers and undermining the ones we had, what would a (relatively) successful ex-manager in a senior role have been? To clarify, you think Robson should still have been manager a year later while he was in & out of hospital for his brain tumour? Your first point is down to a matter opinion, who knows if SBR would of eventually stepped down, but the fact that he spoke to Mourihno and asked him to come here so that he would take over the job eventually, suggests to me that SBR did realise that there was a shelf life to him career at NUFC. Thats what i base my opinion on, what do you base your opinion on? As for the SBR undermining the new manager, again i said it was a suggesstion, an idealogy, not necessarily what should of been done, in the end, we ended up sacking him for finishing 4th, 3rd and 5th. Could you tell me of a manager who would like to come in and have to achieve 4th as a minimum to keep his job? As for you second point, what a silly thing to say. Are you trying to intimate that i would rather have the future of the clubs interest at heart rather than SBR, was anyone to predict what was to happen to SBR regarding the brain tumours?

I thought the infatuation with the board on here is because NE5 insists on talking about it in nearly every thread he posts in every day, even if it has nothing to do with the subject. that as well!!

How much was the original loan? I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million. never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window mackems.gif How long have they been in debt to such an extent that they are now? Typically stupid argument. I've tried to explain the mess the club was in before they completely transformed it but you don't want to listen. Your loss. Was talking about the top 4. The stats that were released earlier show a business which categorically wasnt being run properly. This statement has nothing to do with thier ambition or transfer funds but the fact that they didnt stick to a sustainable business plan which is the norm for other clubs, including the 87 or so who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? They have better "business plans" then You're missing the point though, we havent always operated this way, in fact we were more successful when we operated the normal way. Its apretty silly comparison to be honest. It seems to me that Shephard et al were forced to open up the threshold on wages and transfers after the sacking of Bobby in orde to stir up interest for season ticket sales. To me, the whole plan was akin to a person using one credit card to clear the debts off another credit card. on the contrary, we operated in the "normal" way for over 30 years and ended up with one foot in the 3rd division, sub 20,000 crowds, and any half decent player that we managed to find somewhere down in the 4th division moved on to further their career, not to mention 3 local lads who all became major England players. By "normal" i mean the standard accepted, ie with a wage bill which was ridiculously dispropoitnate to the clubs standings. There isnt a single successfull club in the world which had the wage figures that we did and the reason for this is that they are unsustainable. I dont complain about debt in the sense that if we are £30m in debt if we spend £30m that makes us £60m in debt, thats by all accounts is the way that alot of people seem to view debt, i understand that clubs need to speculate in order to accumulate, but i think you miss the fact that the club had no choice but to risk the fututre of the club by extendeing the wage threshold in order to cover the fallacies of there decisions, which in turn put the future of the club at reasonable risk. Shephard was in a situation where because of the poor decision he and the board had made, the season ticket revenue against which the loan for the sttadium was pinned against was dropping, he and the board were desperate capture the imagination of the season ticket holders by attempting to cover up there poor decisions by firstly attempting to sign Wayne Rooney, then go on a lavish £50m spending spree, which (by putting 2 and 2 together and getting..) included shunning lesser options such as Boa Morte (undeniably Souness' first choice) and going on the lavish but expensive Luque which included lavish wages and silly transfer fee. The Anelka and Owen situation is a little clouded so i wont go into it but i believe honestly that the same applies here. When 20k people turned up for the signing of Owen shephard et al must of been licking thier lips. They had recouped the interest back in the team and had the interest payments for the loan susidised for another season. Never in the past did any of our signings have to do more with the business that it did for the club. It was a calculated risk, and as far as i can see and forsee wouldnt of paid off. To clarify, you are saying the club didn't focus enough on making a profit ie through handing their appointed manager a lot of money, then criticising moves to bring in another player or make other moves to increase spectator interest and generate more money ? What? I never said anything about making a profit, i said the club didnt stick to the orthodox accepted plan, i.e 50% wage bill of revenue. Which to me suggests that they were forced to such extreme measure because of the poor decisions they made, ie the sacking of Bobby and replacement. the only criticism i have of the signings were that 2 of them in my mind at least werent made in the interest of the playing side of the team, but made for the sake of the business. I'e Signing "foreigner so must be classy" Luque as opposed to signing "tried and tested so not very interesting Boa Morte" stoked up more interest so the fans obvioulsy came on board expecting a new era, ergo, season ticket sales increased and the clubs debts were tamed for antoher season. The same financial risk was taken with Owen, we were forced to pay inflated wages for Owen because there was no other way to sign him, it was a mark of desperation to try and recoup interest for season ticket holders. In my opinion the signing was made for the business primarily, not the first team, the circumstancial evidence would suggest the saem as well.

Most of them? Unless the manager leaves the club, what's the point of sacking one manager to appoint someone exactly the same? The board of that club would get (rightly) slaughtered by their fans. BTW, do you think Robson should still be manager? So you think that most clubs have sacked or replaced a manager whichhas directly affected the team and therefore the business? It was actually an open question, the one that comes to mind would be Charlton replacing Curbishley with Dowie, but even that had itmerits. Another that comes to mind is when West Ham replaced Redknapp with Roeder, and the same actaully applies to Southampton and Portsmouth. We know what happned with these clubs. I just think that the club of our size should not been in a situation where it makes mistakes on the most fundamental decision, i.e the appointment of a new manager. to get in wrong once in such spectacular fashoin is one thing, to get it wrong twice is undefendable, and potentially getting it wrong 3 times (not really putting any emphasis on the Allardyce appointment because he didnt obviusly have Shephard behind him although the signs suggested that Allardyce wouldnt have gone down well anyway) is shocking. To be honest yes i would of liked to stuck with Bobby, he had brought us to a place where we deserved to be and i think fans lost sight a little bit. It was a new beginning for the club and even though he had had a poor season which was compounded by no CL qualification i still think that had Shephard backed him to the extent he backed Souness then we would e in a much stronger position. People seem to suggest that SBR was on his last legs and the signs were there, well yes, we had had one poor season but if you cant trust a legendary manager to turn it around, who can you trust? In light of the treatment SBR recieved (undermining him etc) as well as the sacking, the job became completely unteneable, with outrageously fickle fans who booed the boys off for finishing 5th and a chairman who seemed intent on undermining the manager at every oppurtunity, who else would of come on board. SBR should of been left to finish the job he started, if i rememebr correctly he already had Mourihno marked downto take over but Mourihno turned down thining SBR would never leave, this to me suggests SBR did have leaving the club on his mind at one point, he should of been moved upstairs in all ideal situations, should of been able to plan his own "retirement" in order to prepare the club better. The whole SBR sacking was an amateur mistake, and has cost the club alot.

How much was the original loan? I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million. never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window mackems.gif How long have they been in debt to such an extent that they are now? Typically stupid argument. I've tried to explain the mess the club was in before they completely transformed it but you don't want to listen. Your loss. Was talking about the top 4. The stats that were released earlier show a business which categorically wasnt being run properly. This statement has nothing to do with thier ambition or transfer funds but the fact that they didnt stick to a sustainable business plan which is the norm for other clubs, including the 87 or so who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? They have better "business plans" then You're missing the point though, we havent always operated this way, in fact we were more successful when we operated the normal way. Its apretty silly comparison to be honest. It seems to me that Shephard et al were forced to open up the threshold on wages and transfers after the sacking of Bobby in orde to stir up interest for season ticket sales. To me, the whole plan was akin to a person using one credit card to clear the debts off another credit card. on the contrary, we operated in the "normal" way for over 30 years and ended up with one foot in the 3rd division, sub 20,000 crowds, and any half decent player that we managed to find somewhere down in the 4th division moved on to further their career, not to mention 3 local lads who all became major England players. By "normal" i mean the standard accepted, ie with a wage bill which was ridiculously dispropoitnate to the clubs standings. There isnt a single successfull club in the world which had the wage figures that we did and the reason for this is that they are unsustainable. I dont complain about debt in the sense that if we are £30m in debt if we spend £30m that makes us £60m in debt, thats by all accounts is the way that alot of people seem to view debt, i understand that clubs need to speculate in order to accumulate, but i think you miss the fact that the club had no choice but to risk the fututre of the club by extendeing the wage threshold in order to cover the fallacies of there decisions, which in turn put the future of the club at reasonable risk. Shephard was in a situation where because of the poor decision he and the board had made, the season ticket revenue against which the loan for the sttadium was pinned against was dropping, he and the board were desperate capture the imagination of the season ticket holders by attempting to cover up there poor decisions by firstly attempting to sign Wayne Rooney, then go on a lavish £50m spending spree, which (by putting 2 and 2 together and getting..) included shunning lesser options such as Boa Morte (undeniably Souness' first choice) and going on the lavish but expensive Luque which included lavish wages and silly transfer fee. The Anelka and Owen situation is a little clouded so i wont go into it but i believe honestly that the same applies here. When 20k people turned up for the signing of Owen shephard et al must of been licking thier lips. They had recouped the interest back in the team and had the interest payments for the loan susidised for another season. Never in the past did any of our signings have to do more with the business that it did for the club. It was a calculated risk, and as far as i can see and forsee wouldnt of paid off.

Personally, i think the "infatuation" with the board has come as a result of there not being too many clubs in recent history who's board's decisions when appointing or sacking a manager have actually affected the team directly as much as they have done at nufc. You often get reasonably like for like mangers changes, but rarely has there been a sacking and appointment as lop sided as SBR-Souness, i personally cant think of one, can anyone else?

To me, the whole issue with Shephard et al comes down to the sacking of SBR. Thinking back to the time that SBR was last in charge there was alot of (unfair) discontent towards SBR and the team I'd imagine that as a result the renewal of season ticket sales werent as rapid as usual and therefore Shephard et al hands were being forced into action in order to stir up interest, which meant the sacking of SBR and also the bid for Rooney, (not sure if the sale of Woodgate is linked). This to me made the job untenable and hence the only man who would take the jobwas soon to be sacked - Souness who jumped ship, again not inspiring many people our hand was forced again with the lavish spending, which includedexpensive high wage acqusitions of Luque, Owen and Boumsong, the circle begins. The thing is that this whole situation could of been saved with a decent appointment, for a man who has been involved with football for 15 years or so, his and the borads footballing judgement was terrible. I would in all honesty put a lot of our current challenges at the feet of GS. It will take another 2/3 seasons to recover from that. ....or the sackingof SBR???

To me, the whole issue with Shephard et al comes down to the sacking of SBR. Thinking back to the time that SBR was last in charge there was alot of (unfair) discontent towards SBR and the team I'd imagine that as a result the renewal of season ticket sales werent as rapid as usual and therefore Shephard et al hands were being forced into action in order to stir up interest, which meant the sacking of SBR and also the bid for Rooney, (not sure if the sale of Woodgate is linked). This to me made the job untenable and hence the only man who would take the jobwas soon to be sacked - Souness who jumped ship, again not inspiring many people our hand was forced again with the lavish spending, which includedexpensive high wage acqusitions of Luque, Owen and Boumsong, the circle begins. The thing is that this whole situation could of been saved with a decent appointment, for a man who has been involved with football for 15 years or so, his and the borads footballing judgement was terrible.

How much was the original loan? I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million. never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window mackems.gif How long have they been in debt to such an extent that they are now? Typically stupid argument. I've tried to explain the mess the club was in before they completely transformed it but you don't want to listen. Your loss. Was talking about the top 4. The stats that were released earlier show a business which categorically wasnt being run properly. This statement has nothing to do with thier ambition or transfer funds but the fact that they didnt stick to a sustainable business plan which is the norm for other clubs, including the 87 or so who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? They have better "business plans" then You're missing the point though, we havent always operated this way, in fact we were more successful when we operated the normal way. Its apretty silly comparison to be honest. It seems to me that Shephard et al were forced to open up the threshold on wages and transfers after the sacking of Bobby in orde to stir up interest for season ticket sales. To me, the whole plan was akin to a person using one credit card to clear the debts off another credit card.

you're happy with this relegation fight and the possibility of ending up where the Halls and the fat b****** found us as soon as they have left then ? we have a debt and make a loss. the top 4 (abramovic apart) have debts and make profits...can you spot the difference ? please tell us how they make a profit ? they make an operating profit...ie over the finacial year they bring in more than they pay out...if you can do this it's ok to carry debts,create debt to invest with etc. if, on the other hand, you are paying out more than you have coming in,building up more debt can be ruinous. Unless your future revenue was about to spike permananently by 35% of your current revenue, in which case who gives a s***. yes? But nufc had been operating like this way before the TV revenue was to come to fruition. Doesnt the fact that we 72% of our revenue was being used for wages suggest that Shephard had to take massive financial risks and increase the wage threshold in order to attract the "top" players to help drive season ticket sales in order to cover his own back. It turned into a vicious cirlce.

How much was the original loan? I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million. never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window mackems.gif How long have they been in debt to such an extent that they are now? Typically stupid argument. I've tried to explain the mess the club was in before they completely transformed it but you don't want to listen. Your loss. Was talking about the top 4. The stats that were released earlier show a business which categorically wasnt being run properly. This statement has nothing to do with thier ambition or transfer funds but the fact that they didnt stick to a sustainable business plan which is the norm for other clubs, including the ones winning trophies. They made one bad decision after another and ended up having to gamble the future of the club in order to help cover the inept decisions. With the club £100m in debt and having 72% of its revenue supped away by the tropy signings with no European competition to help back the finances up, where do you think this club was going? My opinion is that there came apoint where this club was mismanged to an extent that they had to gamble the entire business and implement an unsustainable plan which could and possilby would of backfired unless things started to improve and quick. All the while the board were attaining lovely dividends at the end of it which were clearly undeserved. Add the the fact that Shephard was the second best paid chairman in the league (if i rememebr correctly) and you see every reason why fans get frustrated with him. Also the bit in bold, how is that relevant to todays situation? Are you saying that as long are we are in a better situation than we are pre92 then we are a success? I dont quite see where the past has any relevance to the present when is comes to running a business. I mean, if we were to transfer that idealogy to another club (obviosly not a direct comparison but a relative one) and Arsenal were to do the unthinkable and sack Wenger and replace him with Allardyce (for example) and the club were to sustain heavy periods or relative mediocrity, then could the board be excused because of there past achievments? Because thats basically what you are saying. Surely you see this point??? Is that not a fair-ish comparison?

How much was the original loan? I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million. never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window mackems.gif How long have they been in debt to such an extent that they are now? Typically stupid argument.

Keegan has made bad teams better throughout his career. Souness has only ever made good teams worse. Pretty broad generalisation, i mean, i suppose the question is do you think that Keegan could recreate what Souness did in the same stuation? Im not sure he could.

Would also have to say that Wenger has been a better manager. Ferguson made a side that became dominant in english football and didnt really have no one to match him on a consistent basis, Wenger came along and not only revolutionesed football, but created a team that not only matched Man U, but also bettered it. His tansfer record is phenomenal and his record at blending squads - i.e removing older players and bringing in new players is much better than Ferguson who could safely rely ona single formula of players throughout the mid 90's. Not only this but his stlye of football is wonderful, with style and more imporantly substance. I suppose Fergusons greatest achievements mark to a period where his team was the only dominant team in England however Wengers greatest achievement would be to break that dominance, which in my opinion is harder to do. Antoher question would be, would i have faith in Ferguson recreating a club like he did at Man U as much as i would trust Wenger to creat a club like he did at Arsenal? The answer for me would be no.

Surely its fair to say that Souness is a better manager overall than Keegan? I know there is discontent towards Souness because of obvious reasons but he has throughtout his career won more things than keegan has and also done it in foreign leagues, there are obvious vairable which cant really be accounted for in greater details such as managing dominant teams but i think it is fair to say that at the end of the day, whenboth retire Sounes would be considered thebtter manager.

Think G Neville is criminally underrated. not entirely sure what people have seen to suggest he's not as good as others make out. The only criticsim i could make for him is that he isnt as dynamic and athletic as the likes of Cafu and Zanetti and therefore isnt as effective and as pentrative when he goes forward but i still think he supports the RW really well. Would put him up there with the best in the world in his pomp. If he was foriegn there would be no question.

It would appear he also took some league points with him too. He should have shared some with his mate Souness. Some league points and some beans and maybe the two of them wouldn't have found it necessary to boot your idol, Bellamy right out of Newcastle. What a can of beans they made out of that one. I see. It escapes your attention that the fat b****** and his mate Bobby also brought my idol, Bellamy, into the club too. Most unlike you to pick out what suits your opinion and discard the rest. Well then, that makes it perfectly justifiable to sell him then. He did buy him after all. What a silly argument. That about sums up all your other arguments. oh dear. Have you decided whether or not you advocate spending money on quality footballers or not yet, ref your dramatic u-turn ? Or do you have any consistent view of anything that you find yourself able to stick to that doesn't involve personalities ? mackems.gif Well said! Really addressed the point there, bravo! Personalities have nothing to do with my judgment, in fact, i say the same things over and over again, ive supported all of Shephards decsions, but at the end of the day wen push came to shove, the last 10 years are irrelavant to the current state of the club, you cant seem to accepth that. I dont know why, i accept that he was part of the great revival of the club, and i understand he brought some good times to this club, but 4 years, thats right, 4 whole years after his best achievement the club is in no better situation than the one he took over. What other business would accept that? your poor grammar and spelling says everything I'm afraid. Not to mention that you - and you aren't the only one - who STILL thinks that Shepherd ran the whole club all on his own despite the Halls being the majority shareholders. Do you also think that Mort runs the whole club and makes all the decisions on his own too mackems.gif What a stupid little comment to make. I cant believe you're that desperate to score points that you would look at someones english, what a pathetic little man you are. You should really take a look at what you've just put, its an embaressing statement to make, what are you, 53 years of age? You should really take a look at yourself if you think that that is an acceptable or appropriate comment to make. And for what its worth, im aware that Shephard doesnt run the club on his own, but it also needs to be said that as the chairman he was the boards representatives to the fans. He has to shoulder the responsibilty of the boards decisions even if they werent his. Also, isnt a charimans role to recommend things to the board, ie the financial backing of the manager, or the sacking, sale or purchase of a player etc? Can the board act without the chaimens recommendation? Not point scoring. Just can't be bothered with your inability to open your mind, fact is I've tried to tell you the bigger picture as someone who's supported the club for over 40 years and you don't want to listen. Also - like it or not, if you want to put up good debate then your presentation of your points is important. Don't take it personally. mackems.gif mackems.gif mackems.gif mackems.gif Point well and truly made, no need to reply to this old man. Your point has well and truly been made.

It would appear he also took some league points with him too. He should have shared some with his mate Souness. Some league points and some beans and maybe the two of them wouldn't have found it necessary to boot your idol, Bellamy right out of Newcastle. What a can of beans they made out of that one. I see. It escapes your attention that the fat b****** and his mate Bobby also brought my idol, Bellamy, into the club too. Most unlike you to pick out what suits your opinion and discard the rest. Well then, that makes it perfectly justifiable to sell him then. He did buy him after all. What a silly argument. That about sums up all your other arguments. oh dear. Have you decided whether or not you advocate spending money on quality footballers or not yet, ref your dramatic u-turn ? Or do you have any consistent view of anything that you find yourself able to stick to that doesn't involve personalities ? mackems.gif Well said! Really addressed the point there, bravo! Personalities have nothing to do with my judgment, in fact, i say the same things over and over again, ive supported all of Shephards decsions, but at the end of the day wen push came to shove, the last 10 years are irrelavant to the current state of the club, you cant seem to accepth that. I dont know why, i accept that he was part of the great revival of the club, and i understand he brought some good times to this club, but 4 years, thats right, 4 whole years after his best achievement the club is in no better situation than the one he took over. What other business would accept that? your poor grammar and spelling says everything I'm afraid. Not to mention that you - and you aren't the only one - who STILL thinks that Shepherd ran the whole club all on his own despite the Halls being the majority shareholders. Do you also think that Mort runs the whole club and makes all the decisions on his own too mackems.gif What a stupid little comment to make. I cant believe you're that desperate to score points that you would look at someones english, what a pathetic little man you are. You should really take a look at what you've just put, its an embaressing statement to make, what are you, 53 years of age? You should really take a look at yourself if you think that that is an acceptable or appropriate comment to make. And for what its worth, im aware that Shephard doesnt run the club on his own, but it also needs to be said that as the chairman he was the boards representatives to the fans. He has to shoulder the responsibilty of the boards decisions even if they werent his. Also, isnt a charimans role to recommend things to the board, ie the financial backing of the manager, or the sacking, sale or purchase of a player etc? Can the board act without the chaimens recommendation?