fredbob

I wish they would appoint someone, im gettin so impatient. I wanna be inspired. Want someone i really can get behind, although not literally!

My theory is that the big managers out there are foreign and therefore have long names which are hard to spell, therefore making the plaque on the managers office door more expensive as there are more letters to pay for.

Just out of interest, mort has said that they have identified an spoken to other candidates about the position. Now if this is the case and is to be taken literally, then doesnt mean that that would be an official apporoach if he was in club management. Surely some club mole or source would of given the media a clue if there manager had been approached. Could that possbily mean that we are talking to candidates who arent in employement or arent with a club, maybe a coutry?

50m quid = no backing mackems.gif Buying what you want for other people isn't backing them, particularly when it's done to massage your own overinflated ego. only a mug or a liar would put up with being treated like that, he doesn't need the money, and as i said, could have kicked up a stink and got himself sacked for it if he was so principled. 50m quid is 50m quid. End of. And nobody told him to sell Bellamy and Robert for a total of 4m quid. No mention of Boumsong or Faye, I see. At the end of the day FS (or FFS, whichever you prefer) took over as Chairman of an improving club in a climate that was God-given to further improve it. He didn't do that; he was inept in his recruitment (including that of Souness, the man you so deride for lacking the qualities FS recruited him for). The only man who was a success was dismissed by FS in a particularly craven and disreputable way. I will forever shudder at the memory of his pose in the programme; it spoke a thousand words. He was a chairman of a well supported club in the Sky era that had been brought back from the brink by two men of vision. And he f***** it up. this has been said before. If you seriously think that one man was solely responsible for the appointment of a s*** manager ....... And the major shareholders with millions of pounds of shares in the club, took no part in it........ Shame people like you NEVER mention that they weren't "inept" when playing in the Champions League, Europe more than every club bar 4, and 2 FA Cup Finals. Also, it has been said before that "the 2 men of vision" you have in mind being Keegan and Sir John Hall. Well, it wasn't Sir John Halls idea to appoint Keegan, it was Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. They had to persuade him, and in the end outvoted him. This is in Keegans book. It doesn't suit your "opinion" to accept that all of the managers were selected by virtue of a board majority though does it ? Well look, you have to shore up your argument with evidence that is uncontrovertible purely on the basis that it's some sort of inside information. How do you know how the voting went and who voted in which particular way? The facts that we can all know speak for themselves. The rest of us deal only in those facts. Of course chairmen make recommendations to boards. As a major shareholder himself FS' opinion would have been compelling; surely you recognise this? I don't mention European competition and cup finals because a large part of my argument (see above) is predicated upon the fact that such successes were unavoidable for our club, given the nature of modern football. What about the sacking of SBR? Do you accept this was a craven act? That is the quality of your man and he is your man. What ? Are you saying that we had a God given right to qualify for the Champs League and play in 2 Cup Finals to the extent you can't give credit to anyone ? What about the sacking of SBR ? He should have been sacked earlier. And ........ nobody is "my man". I just recognise the old board did some things quite well. Nobody qualifies more for europe more than everybody but 4 clubs unless they are doing something right. Never ceases to make me smile, the amount of people who think our last decade has been a "disaster", despite having it patiently explained to them how far forward we moved as a club under the Halls and Shepherd. Amazing. Don't prop up your failing argument by reference to the Halls. I place Douglas and Freddy in the same category. SJH is another matter entirely. When did FS take over? When was he sacked? How did he take the club from Champions League to Premiership also-rans in that time? to pinch an idea from Chez Given SJH "hows it going then Fred" FS "OK johnny, i want to change the manager though" SJH "ok" FS "do you have any ideas then " SJH "nah just go along and do what you want Freddie son" FS "but don't you want to know whats going on and talk about who we all need to get in ? What about the money you've got tied up in the club " SJH "oh, you mean all those millions ? Don't worry about it Freddie, just go and appoint who you want man" Hilarious, if you really believe it like This FS character sounds like a nice, well thought out chap!

50m quid = no backing mackems.gif Buying what you want for other people isn't backing them, particularly when it's done to massage your own overinflated ego. only a mug or a liar would put up with being treated like that, he doesn't need the money, and as i said, could have kicked up a stink and got himself sacked for it if he was so principled. 50m quid is 50m quid. End of. And nobody told him to sell Bellamy and Robert for a total of 4m quid. No mention of Boumsong or Faye, I see. At the end of the day FS (or FFS, whichever you prefer) took over as Chairman of an improving club in a climate that was God-given to further improve it. He didn't do that; he was inept in his recruitment (including that of Souness, the man you so deride for lacking the qualities FS recruited him for). The only man who was a success was dismissed by FS in a particularly craven and disreputable way. I will forever shudder at the memory of his pose in the programme; it spoke a thousand words. He was a chairman of a well supported club in the Sky era that had been brought back from the brink by two men of vision. And he f***** it up. this has been said before. If you seriously think that one man was solely responsible for the appointment of a s*** manager ....... And the major shareholders with millions of pounds of shares in the club, took no part in it........ Shame people like you NEVER mention that they weren't "inept" when playing in the Champions League, Europe more than every club bar 4, and 2 FA Cup Finals. Also, it has been said before that "the 2 men of vision" you have in mind being Keegan and Sir John Hall. Well, it wasn't Sir John Halls idea to appoint Keegan, it was Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. They had to persuade him, and in the end outvoted him. This is in Keegans book. It doesn't suit your "opinion" to accept that all of the managers were selected by virtue of a board majority though does it ? I see you've fine tuned your "most time in europe stat". So you can teach an old dog new tricks! no its exactly the same, and I'm still waiting for you to "blow it out of the water" In your world it means prove it wrong, in my world (reality) it means puting some well needed perspective on it, perspective which stops it completely being used in the context that you use. Anyway, to summarize...

Astonishing that people are now defending Souness Nobodies defending Souness, no ones saying, crikey, maybe he could of done a good job. People are well aware of his disruptive nature and poor managment skills but the fact that him as well as SBR have both come out and said similar things about the chairmen suggest that something may not have been all good at the club. How can you not acknowlede that, how many managers can thrive with that much interfering??

50m quid = no backing mackems.gif Buying what you want for other people isn't backing them, particularly when it's done to massage your own overinflated ego. only a mug or a liar would put up with being treated like that, he doesn't need the money, and as i said, could have kicked up a stink and got himself sacked for it if he was so principled. 50m quid is 50m quid. End of. And nobody told him to sell Bellamy and Robert for a total of 4m quid. No mention of Boumsong or Faye, I see. At the end of the day FS (or FFS, whichever you prefer) took over as Chairman of an improving club in a climate that was God-given to further improve it. He didn't do that; he was inept in his recruitment (including that of Souness, the man you so deride for lacking the qualities FS recruited him for). The only man who was a success was dismissed by FS in a particularly craven and disreputable way. I will forever shudder at the memory of his pose in the programme; it spoke a thousand words. He was a chairman of a well supported club in the Sky era that had been brought back from the brink by two men of vision. And he f***** it up. this has been said before. If you seriously think that one man was solely responsible for the appointment of a s*** manager ....... And the major shareholders with millions of pounds of shares in the club, took no part in it........ Shame people like you NEVER mention that they weren't "inept" when playing in the Champions League, Europe more than every club bar 4, and 2 FA Cup Finals. Also, it has been said before that "the 2 men of vision" you have in mind being Keegan and Sir John Hall. Well, it wasn't Sir John Halls idea to appoint Keegan, it was Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. They had to persuade him, and in the end outvoted him. This is in Keegans book. It doesn't suit your "opinion" to accept that all of the managers were selected by virtue of a board majority though does it ? Well look, you have to shore up your argument with evidence that is uncontrovertible purely on the basis that it's some sort of inside information. How do you know how the voting went and who voted in which particular way? The facts that we can all know speak for themselves. The rest of us deal only in those facts. Of course chairmen make recommendations to boards. As a major shareholder himself FS' opinion would have been compelling; surely you recognise this? I don't mention European competition and cup finals because a large part of my argument (see above) is predicated upon the fact that such successes were unavoidable for our club, given the nature of modern football. What about the sacking of SBR? Do you accept this was a craven act? That is the quality of your man and he is your man. What ? Are you saying that we had a God given right to qualify for the Champs League and play in 2 Cup Finals to the extent you can't give credit to anyone ? What about the sacking of SBR ? He should have been sacked earlier. And ........ nobody is "my man". I just recognise the old board did some things quite well. Nobody qualifies more for europe more than everybody but 4 clubs unless they are doing something right. Never ceases to make me smile, the amount of people who think our last decade has been a "disaster", despite having it patiently explained to them how far forward we moved as a club under the Halls and Shepherd. Amazing. Maybe not!

50m quid = no backing mackems.gif Buying what you want for other people isn't backing them, particularly when it's done to massage your own overinflated ego. only a mug or a liar would put up with being treated like that, he doesn't need the money, and as i said, could have kicked up a stink and got himself sacked for it if he was so principled. 50m quid is 50m quid. End of. And nobody told him to sell Bellamy and Robert for a total of 4m quid. No mention of Boumsong or Faye, I see. At the end of the day FS (or FFS, whichever you prefer) took over as Chairman of an improving club in a climate that was God-given to further improve it. He didn't do that; he was inept in his recruitment (including that of Souness, the man you so deride for lacking the qualities FS recruited him for). The only man who was a success was dismissed by FS in a particularly craven and disreputable way. I will forever shudder at the memory of his pose in the programme; it spoke a thousand words. He was a chairman of a well supported club in the Sky era that had been brought back from the brink by two men of vision. And he f***** it up. this has been said before. If you seriously think that one man was solely responsible for the appointment of a s*** manager ....... And the major shareholders with millions of pounds of shares in the club, took no part in it........ Shame people like you NEVER mention that they weren't "inept" when playing in the Champions League, Europe more than every club bar 4, and 2 FA Cup Finals. Also, it has been said before that "the 2 men of vision" you have in mind being Keegan and Sir John Hall. Well, it wasn't Sir John Halls idea to appoint Keegan, it was Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. They had to persuade him, and in the end outvoted him. This is in Keegans book. It doesn't suit your "opinion" to accept that all of the managers were selected by virtue of a board majority though does it ? I see you've fine tuned your "most time in europe stat". So you can teach an old dog new tricks!

Lets see now. Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and Souness himself were all attracted to the club. So what exactly is Souness' point here ? Surely he can't be stupid enough to be attracted to an unattractive club could he ? What a moron he is, but I didn't expect people to actually defend him for anything All I'm saying is that it is good that despite being sacked/being unpopular/not getting the best treatment (tick as applicable), it can only be good for us that former managers are willing to put in a good word for us if individuals are undecided. I agree with that. I'd rather Souness was prepared to accept a rather large chunk of blame himself for the mess he made though. In the end of the day, thats history. We may have been shaped by the past, but looking back at what has happenned over the years isn't going to shape us for the future. Look. Its nothing to do with looking back. Souness is unable to take any blame for the complete mess he made of the job. He lied about Craig Bellamy, and he has a history of being involved in these sort of confronations, and always blames the other guy. If you want to look forward, I will say that results prove the last board did some major things quite well, and the way forward is to carry on doing these things rather just instantly dismiss everything on account of it being done by a fat b****** and his mate who went to a brothel and called us all mugs for buying 40 quid shirts. I mean, who the hell pays 40 quid for a shirt ? How much is Shepherd responsible for what happened with SBR andSouness then?

SAcked within 2 years

Precisely, which makes this club pretty unfixable, in my opinion without the right appointment.

Are there many honourable manaegrs out there who have quite clearly fucked up and admitted it?

This club needs either Shearer/Keegan or a very well known successful manager to unite the fans toget them all behind the team and club. There are plenty of suitable managers out there who are doing very well with there respective clubs but arent world known or in the football main stream. I have no doubt that we could go and appoint a very competent manager like Co Adriaanse and still not have the united backing of the fans, which at this stage is imperative fo the club.

Spot on. I cant imagine many other managers saying the same about any other club in the premiership outisde the top 4. If respectively seapking they were treated the saem way we treated them. It speaks volume about the potential and passion that this club ha.

Basically, if Souness had had an ounce of pride and integrity he'd have resigned if this had been happening. Remember this is the bloke who said that he was only given money "to tart the team up". Aye, 50m quid. With the £££'s involved these days who resigns apart from Ruud I cant think of anyone else. Even Jose M bit his lip at Chelsea becasue of the numbers involved. Lets put it another way. He's telling us he allowed the chairman to walk all over him then ? I wouldn't admit that to millions on TV. [he could have stood up to him, got the sack and took his comp that way, either way, you know your days are numbered if this happens] So I doubt very much he is telling it as it was here. Arent you missing the point a little here...fair enough, the big honourable man would of resigned and lost out on £££ but in reality that doesnt happen anymore, from the sounds of it, (and i may be getting sucked in here) that he genuinely liked the club and its fans and didnt want to walk out on such a big job. The main issue here is that he, like the manager before him and i imagine Roeder as well was undermined completely, how in any walk of life is that acceptable? Dont get me wrong, i still think he would of done a s*** job and i dont want him near this club ever again, not even inthe stands, but how does it transfer down to the changing room if the gaffer is having signings made for him. Especially if that gaffer is a well known OTT disciplinarian. I don't think you've made a valid point anywhere tbh, you even denied a blatant u-turn in the other thread Souness had absolutely no time for this club or anything in it, the only thing he wanted was the payday and to massage his ego. Fair enough, i think the correct opinion will be somewhere between the 2 views. As for the u turn if you dont understand the subtleties to the the point then ignore it (blantently taken from The Spence)!! There is no subtlety to it whatsoever. Anyway, cheers blantently didnt understand it then.

Basically, if Souness had had an ounce of pride and integrity he'd have resigned if this had been happening. Remember this is the bloke who said that he was only given money "to tart the team up". Aye, 50m quid. With the £££'s involved these days who resigns apart from Ruud I cant think of anyone else. Even Jose M bit his lip at Chelsea becasue of the numbers involved. Lets put it another way. He's telling us he allowed the chairman to walk all over him then ? I wouldn't admit that to millions on TV. [he could have stood up to him, got the sack and took his comp that way, either way, you know your days are numbered if this happens] So I doubt very much he is telling it as it was here. Arent you missing the point a little here...fair enough, the big honourable man would of resigned and lost out on £££ but in reality that doesnt happen anymore, from the sounds of it, (and i may be getting sucked in here) that he genuinely liked the club and its fans and didnt want to walk out on such a big job. The main issue here is that he, like the manager before him and i imagine Roeder as well was undermined completely, how in any walk of life is that acceptable? Dont get me wrong, i still think he would of done a s*** job and i dont want him near this club ever again, not even inthe stands, but how does it transfer down to the changing room if the gaffer is having signings made for him. Especially if that gaffer is a well known OTT disciplinarian. I don't think you've made a valid point anywhere tbh, you even denied a blatant u-turn in the other thread Souness had absolutely no time for this club or anything in it, the only thing he wanted was the payday and to massage his ego. Fair enough, i think the correct opinion will be somewhere between the 2 views. As for the u turn if you dont understand the subtleties to the the point then ignore it (blantently taken from The Spence)!!

Basically, if Souness had had an ounce of pride and integrity he'd have resigned if this had been happening. Remember this is the bloke who said that he was only given money "to tart the team up". Aye, 50m quid. With the £££'s involved these days who resigns apart from Ruud I cant think of anyone else. Even Jose M bit his lip at Chelsea becasue of the numbers involved. Lets put it another way. He's telling us he allowed the chairman to walk all over him then ? I wouldn't admit that to millions on TV. [he could have stood up to him, got the sack and took his comp that way, either way, you know your days are numbered if this happens] So I doubt very much he is telling it as it was here. Arent you missing the point a little here...fair enough, the big honourable man would of resigned and lost out on £££ but in reality that doesnt happen anymore, from the sounds of it, (and i may be getting sucked in here) that he genuinely liked the club and its fans and didnt want to walk out on such a big job. The main issue here is that he, like the manager before him and i imagine Roeder as well was undermined completely, how in any walk of life is that acceptable? Dont get me wrong, i still think he would of done a s*** job and i dont want him near this club ever again, not even inthe stands, but how does it transfer down to the changing room if the gaffer is having signings made for him. Especially if that gaffer is a well known OTT disciplinarian.

I dont think it was someone who the majority wanted, Allardyce was everyones inevitable choice and was accepted as so. Throughout the years i can only think of 2 or 3 managers who the fans could of got behind, Keegan, Bobby and Dalglish, Dalglish was unformtunate becasue he came after a golden time in our history and his style of football was always gonna be judged agaisnt his predecessor. There are plenty of people who i think could do a job, but i think that they still wouldnt be accepted because they are either unknwn and unfamiliar. In my opinion its only Shearer and Keegan, or a big big foriegn manager with big achievemnts who would be accepted.

I actually dont think that the managers style of coaching is the main problem for Allardyce's successor. I genuinely think that the most iportant aspect about this appointment is that it is someone who every single fan can get behind. There isnt a single manager out there who can guaratee succes, (some come close), the improtant thing for the club s that they appoint someone who the fans wont turn on. Shearer sits high on that list becasue the fans could stand by him, a high class appoitment irrespective of coaching style isantoher tye of manager that people could get behind. Anyone less known or between the 2 wont get the support at all. Managers like Quique Flores, Manchini, Co Adriaanse etc, these are all managers who are quite successful but arent on the big stage so wont get the support that is requirted to enable contiuity.

How ridiculous would it be if we got turned down by Redknapp and appointed Hitzfeld.

I doubt we've got 52,000 win at all costs people. Which is the whole point of the question!

I must be honest, I really don't know how to answer a question like this. Particularly as Arsenal have been more successful than Chelsea in the last decade. Im glad you didnt slate it, im not sure either. True they have been more successful but havent had the "clinicalness" that Chelsea have. ie consecutive titles. If you ask me, Chelsea at there best were superior to Arsenal at there best. Ok, not superior but better. I could have slated it. The concept that playing attractive football is preferable to winning football is something I don't grasp at all. Winning football is entertaining to your own supporters. End of. So if one of the contrasting style won you 1 more trophy in x years would you still prefer that style? This hypothetical is getting a bit out of hand now. As was stated, winning football is the main concern for fans. Winning 'ugly' is ok, as long as you're winning. As we saw, losing ugly is a whole different story... I just wanted to see peoples views on style. Its something that is attribtued as on of the things that the" fans want". Its dismissed as myths by alot of people i just wanted to know if it actually has some merits. Which i genuinely think it does. I think alot of people heads say "substance" but thir hearts say "style". If im perfectly honest, along with NJS id say style as well. I watch football to be entertained and nothing pleases me more than seeing beautiful football. I just wanted to know if there was any compromise for success. Obvioulsy not, we have 52000 win at all costs people out there. I shall stop my questioning.

Is this him saying "I mean business now" ?? It's a sign that maybe it's less of a hobby to him and more of a business (yes, I know invested £250m is an expensive hobby). I had no real problem with him wearing the shirt and sitting with the fans, but I'd rather hear that he's in the board room actually attempting to run his business. I completely agree. I think seeing him sitting in the stands wearing a Newcastle shirt has been embarrassing as f**k. And no, I'm not taking the piss why?

I must be honest, I really don't know how to answer a question like this. Particularly as Arsenal have been more successful than Chelsea in the last decade. Im glad you didnt slate it, im not sure either. True they have been more successful but havent had the "clinicalness" that Chelsea have. ie consecutive titles. If you ask me, Chelsea at there best were superior to Arsenal at there best. Ok, not superior but better. I could have slated it. The concept that playing attractive football is preferable to winning football is something I don't grasp at all. Winning football is entertaining to your own supporters. End of. So if one of the contrasting style won you 1 more trophy in x years would you still prefer that style?

Its all hypothetical ladies, thats the whole point of the question becase it link directly with Ashleys interview inthe sense that we are actively looking to be an attacking side rather than the safer "Clinical grind out wins side".