fredbob

Which question? Im saying we were in an unstable position prior to Ashley taking over. It is really down to indivduals views on what stability is. I personally mean the state of the club and the direction it was going. All things which look like being addressed so far.....ie stable manager, youth setup , scouting netwrok, coaching set up all the meat with the trimmings as well. Your saying the stablilty is a result of success, you're saying that the youth set up, the finance, the stable manager will all come after we achieve levels of success? Im so glad you said team 'A'..... Think about it...

If stablilty is having a healthy environemnt to achieve a considerable amount, then i want it. You need ambition to 'achieve a considerable amount' you don't just get that from stability. We do have ambition, but we didnt have the means to achieve it at the time that Allardyce took over, ie youth system, scouting, backroon staff etc. There didnt seem to be a plan but there was an apparent burdening debt which looked to afffect the future fo the club. Stability for me is having the platform to achieve something. We look like a different club off the field, but now we need to sort whats going on it. Whats the solution? Sack the manager, taking that stability away or stick with him see where he may lead us. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz So, we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, and everybody had a "plan" except us Crap stat, said it all before but you see what you wanna see. Not saying we didnt have a plan, but do you think we implented the plan to the end seeing as though you wanna go down that route? Boring. not for the first time, factual information destroys your entire "opinion" What do you mean "to the end". Are you saying we should have gave Dalglish, gullit, Souness or Roeder 5 years ? Facts which dont paint a true picture. Im saying that a plan has an point, do you think that the board implented there plan in the end? Are we reaping the benefits of this plan? Was Souness part of this long term plan? So we didn't have a "plan" during the era of Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder ? And you think we should have gave all of them more time to implement their "plans" If we had no "plan", then all those 87 clubs we qualified for europe more than, can't have had much of a "plan" themselves, wouldn't you agree ? From what i saw, after SBR, ie the decline of the old board. There didnt seem to be any plans, and the appointment of Souness underlied that fact. They showed that the appoint was reactive as opposed to proactive. You can never have a reactive approach for long term plans to be successfull. It doesnt work. Again, this whole argument has started by one little monir point of a bigger picture. Yet again you are failing to address the whole point of the original post and picking off the smaller less significant aspect. If you want me to blow your "top 4 stat" out the water i can do if you'd like. Upto you? Its a real shame you completely disregard the fact that other clubs have these grand "plans" that you think lead to automatic success. Maybe you ought to write to them or something and demand they all fall over and allow our "plan" to be "the plan". And - I take it that you still think Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder should have been allowed more time to carry out their "plans" BTW. Only 4 clubs have qualified more than us for the CL and europe within the last decade, and going back further, to 1992 as well. I'm waiting for your "opinion" on this, because you sure as hell won't produce a stat to disprove it. This another one of things that you make up in your head?? Where have i said that? errr.....what? eh? See above comments You're doing nothing but making yourself look pretty silly and desperate to be honest. Ah yes, the infamous "top 4 Euro qualification" stat which you cling to so valiantly. I dont aim to disprove the stat young man, but i could quite easily put a lot of perspective on it, some much needed perspective, some perspective which kind of undermines every argument that you have that falls back on this stat. you're backtracking. My point is quite clear. You advocate giving people time but don't directly say that the club was wrong - at the time - to make a managerial change. Therefore, you are moving the goalposts to suit your "opinion" The perspective that matters, is the FACT that as only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than us, they haven't had nearly as bad a "plan" as you make out. In fact, they must have had a better "plan" than most other clubs. And - you actually SAID you would disprove that stat, and now say you can't. Cheers for the reply, I think I've said all there is to say now. Wo wo wo, are we reading the same post, have a look at your first respone to my post. It was you highlighting "There didnt seem to be a plan" . Which was a minor point of a bigger argument. Yes im advocating giving the manager more time but i made no reference to the old boards appointments or change you did. Get over yourself man, this is a new era, clean slate. nothing to do with the old board. The perspective that matters is the how that stat influences peoples perceptions of our success over the course of the decade. Answer me this: Team 'A' qualifies for Europe 7 times in 10 years Team 'B' finishes in the top 10, 4 times in 10 years. Which team was more successful? Dare you to answer that question. Where did i say i would DISPROVE the stat??

Like how you make the cut off point the first 6 points, ignoirng the next 4 which would undermine your "argument"

Give him some credit, he has some lovely auburn wisps.

If stablilty is having a healthy environemnt to achieve a considerable amount, then i want it. You need ambition to 'achieve a considerable amount' you don't just get that from stability. We do have ambition, but we didnt have the means to achieve it at the time that Allardyce took over, ie youth system, scouting, backroon staff etc. There didnt seem to be a plan but there was an apparent burdening debt which looked to afffect the future fo the club. Stability for me is having the platform to achieve something. We look like a different club off the field, but now we need to sort whats going on it. Whats the solution? Sack the manager, taking that stability away or stick with him see where he may lead us. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz So, we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, and everybody had a "plan" except us Crap stat, said it all before but you see what you wanna see. Not saying we didnt have a plan, but do you think we implented the plan to the end seeing as though you wanna go down that route? Boring. not for the first time, factual information destroys your entire "opinion" What do you mean "to the end". Are you saying we should have gave Dalglish, gullit, Souness or Roeder 5 years ? Facts which dont paint a true picture. Im saying that a plan has an point, do you think that the board implented there plan in the end? Are we reaping the benefits of this plan? Was Souness part of this long term plan? So we didn't have a "plan" during the era of Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder ? And you think we should have gave all of them more time to implement their "plans" If we had no "plan", then all those 87 clubs we qualified for europe more than, can't have had much of a "plan" themselves, wouldn't you agree ? From what i saw, after SBR, ie the decline of the old board. There didnt seem to be any plans, and the appointment of Souness underlied that fact. They showed that the appoint was reactive as opposed to proactive. You can never have a reactive approach for long term plans to be successfull. It doesnt work. Again, this whole argument has started by one little monir point of a bigger picture. Yet again you are failing to address the whole point of the original post and picking off the smaller less significant aspect. If you want me to blow your "top 4 stat" out the water i can do if you'd like. Upto you? Its a real shame you completely disregard the fact that other clubs have these grand "plans" that you think lead to automatic success. Maybe you ought to write to them or something and demand they all fall over and allow our "plan" to be "the plan". And - I take it that you still think Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder should have been allowed more time to carry out their "plans" BTW. Only 4 clubs have qualified more than us for the CL and europe within the last decade, and going back further, to 1992 as well. I'm waiting for your "opinion" on this, because you sure as hell won't produce a stat to disprove it. This another one of things that you make up in your head?? Where have i said that? errr.....what? eh? See above comments You're doing nothing but making yourself look pretty silly and desperate to be honest. Ah yes, the infamous "top 4 Euro qualification" stat which you cling to so valiantly. I dont aim to disprove the stat young man, but i could quite easily put a lot of perspective on it, some much needed perspective, some perspective which kind of undermines every argument that you have that falls back on this stat.

The only positive i could get out that match was LuaLua, he looked very confident. Reminds me of Zog a little bit. Would like to see him on the wing.

Butt- only player in this match where i thought, "please DONT fucking shoot"

And play who at right-back though? ......I have absolutely no idea...Duff?

Scary that Smith is considered the one of the 2 best centre mdfileders for the club. Same for Butt as well. Butt is a reasonale DM but doesnt provide good enough defensive cover to make exception for a scarily bad passing. I still have no idea what Smith provides for the team, is he a defnsive midfilder, an up and down midfilder or an atacking midfilder. No idea. Roz looks clueless. Genuinely doesnt have a clue what to do at RB. Ive seen Duff defnd more than him. Enrique looks good to me, i have no complaints about him. Faye is a monster. Viduka looks ok, doesnt have enough support, needs midfilders running past him when he recives the ball 'deep' Owen - we should bring him on at half time. Id like to see Roz and Tay reunited, Faye in the midfield with Butt. See if those 2 can get a grip of the possession, give the wngers more freedom.

Every team in the world has the long term ambition to be the best team in the world. The only stumbling block to achieving this ambition is that every other team in the world has the long term ambition to be the best team in the world. We're not going to ever achieve that long term ambition if we don't first achieve short term goals, and the sooner we do that the better. Remember the fable of the tortoise & the hare? Boro, Bolton, Charlton are some of your models for this approach. Have there really been improvements off the field? Or have there just been changes? How is the improvement being measured? My guess is you'll say time is needed for these "improvements" to come to fruition and show results. Well I have no problem giving the manager and board time for things such as that, but not if it comes at the expense of the first team. Id agree genreally with what you're saying, i mean, i am arguing more about the good effects of lowering expectations a little at the club. I personally dont think the expectations currently match the current situation of the club. Yes, the tortoise won off the top of my head by taking his sweet time. Long time since i read it so probably havent interpreted it properly... How have these clubs expectations been lowered a bit in order to provide an easier environment? If anything there expectations and ambtions werent what they should of been. Well in my opinion yes, the active youth policy, the coaching set ups, the innovation that Allardyce has looked to implement, these were all vast iprovement from the last regimes. Im not saying they have been successful, YET, but are definite improvemnts becasue they gears us up to the future. To an extent yes, there needs to be context to this though, i agree that the performance of the first team shouldnt be sacrficed under any circumstances, however i feel that Allardyce needs a decent amount of time, the less time he has, the more excuses he has for failure. I think it would be best the the club to give him an environment where he has no excuses for his failures. The beginning of next season is the minimum time id of given him.

If stablilty is having a healthy environemnt to achieve a considerable amount, then i want it. You need ambition to 'achieve a considerable amount' you don't just get that from stability. We do have ambition, but we didnt have the means to achieve it at the time that Allardyce took over, ie youth system, scouting, backroon staff etc. There didnt seem to be a plan but there was an apparent burdening debt which looked to afffect the future fo the club. Stability for me is having the platform to achieve something. We look like a different club off the field, but now we need to sort whats going on it. Whats the solution? Sack the manager, taking that stability away or stick with him see where he may lead us. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz So, we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, and everybody had a "plan" except us Crap stat, said it all before but you see what you wanna see. Not saying we didnt have a plan, but do you think we implented the plan to the end seeing as though you wanna go down that route? Boring. not for the first time, factual information destroys your entire "opinion" What do you mean "to the end". Are you saying we should have gave Dalglish, gullit, Souness or Roeder 5 years ? Facts which dont paint a true picture. Im saying that a plan has an point, do you think that the board implented there plan in the end? Are we reaping the benefits of this plan? Was Souness part of this long term plan? So we didn't have a "plan" during the era of Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder ? And you think we should have gave all of them more time to implement their "plans" If we had no "plan", then all those 87 clubs we qualified for europe more than, can't have had much of a "plan" themselves, wouldn't you agree ? From what i saw, after SBR, ie the decline of the old board. There didnt seem to be any plans, and the appointment of Souness underlied that fact. They showed that the appoint was reactive as opposed to proactive. You can never have a reactive approach for long term plans to be successfull. It doesnt work. Again, this whole argument has started by one little monir point of a bigger picture. Yet again you are failing to address the whole point of the original post and picking off the smaller less significant aspect. If you want me to blow your "top 4 stat" out the water i can do if you'd like. Upto you?

What season are we expecting to see the fruits of this plan, any ideas? What if all these other pesky clubs have plans I have a plan that some class maverick, others say it is a timeless classic plan: HAVE BETTER PLAYERS THAN THE OPPOSTION & THEN WHEN YOU PLAY THEM SCORE MORE GOALS THAN THEM I dont know but lets sack him after 8 months and never find out rahter than giving him a reasonable amount of time to find out. Did I say sack him? Did you even read my post? What is a reasonable amount of time, how long are YOU willing to give Sam? Then whats your point? What were you implying by your post. I personally would of been happy to give him till next season before making any serious decision. He said he needs 3 years but i dont see why the next part of the plan (getting good performances on the field) cant be implemented after this summer.

If stablilty is having a healthy environemnt to achieve a considerable amount, then i want it. You need ambition to 'achieve a considerable amount' you don't just get that from stability. We do have ambition, but we didnt have the means to achieve it at the time that Allardyce took over, ie youth system, scouting, backroon staff etc. There didnt seem to be a plan but there was an apparent burdening debt which looked to afffect the future fo the club. Stability for me is having the platform to achieve something. We look like a different club off the field, but now we need to sort whats going on it. Whats the solution? Sack the manager, taking that stability away or stick with him see where he may lead us. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz So, we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, and everybody had a "plan" except us Crap stat, said it all before but you see what you wanna see. Not saying we didnt have a plan, but do you think we implented the plan to the end seeing as though you wanna go down that route? Boring. not for the first time, factual information destroys your entire "opinion" What do you mean "to the end". Are you saying we should have gave Dalglish, gullit, Souness or Roeder 5 years ? Facts which dont paint a true picture. Im saying that a plan has an point, do you think that the board implented there plan in the end? Are we reaping the benefits of this plan? Was Souness part of this long term plan?

What season are we expecting to see the fruits of this plan, any ideas? What if all these other pesky clubs have plans I have a plan that some class maverick, others say it is a timeless classic plan: HAVE BETTER PLAYERS THAN THE OPPOSTION & THEN WHEN YOU PLAY THEM SCORE MORE GOALS THAN THEM I dont know but lets sack him after 8 months and never find out rahter than giving him a reasonable amount of time to find out.

If stablilty is having a healthy environemnt to achieve a considerable amount, then i want it. You need ambition to 'achieve a considerable amount' you don't just get that from stability. We do have ambition, but we didnt have the means to achieve it at the time that Allardyce took over, ie youth system, scouting, backroon staff etc. There didnt seem to be a plan but there was an apparent burdening debt which looked to afffect the future fo the club. Stability for me is having the platform to achieve something. We look like a different club off the field, but now we need to sort whats going on it. Whats the solution? Sack the manager, taking that stability away or stick with him see where he may lead us. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz So, we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, and everybody had a "plan" except us Crap stat, said it all before but you see what you wanna see. Not saying we didnt have a plan, but do you think we implented the plan to the end seeing as though you wanna go down that route? Boring.

If stablilty is having a healthy environemnt to achieve a considerable amount, then i want it. You need ambition to 'achieve a considerable amount' you don't just get that from stability. We do have ambition, but we didnt have the means to achieve it at the time that Allardyce took over, ie youth system, scouting, backroon staff etc. There didnt seem to be a plan but there was an apparent burdening debt which looked to afffect the future fo the club. Stability for me is having the platform to achieve something. We look like a different club off the field, but now we need to sort whats going on it. Whats the solution? Sack the manager, taking that stability away or stick with him see where he may lead us.

If stablilty is having a healthy environemnt to achieve a considerable amount, then i want it.

Not true. If your expectation is Champions league football, your ambition is to win the league. If your expectation is UEFA cup football, your ambition is Champions league football. If your expectation is mid table, your ambition is UEFA cup football. If your expectation is lower table, your ambition is mid table. If your expectation is relegation, your ambition is lower table. In all cases your short term ambition is the next stage above your expectation, so lowering expectation inherently lowers (short term) ambition. What you are saying is that people's current expectation is too high and unrealistic for any manager. All others are saying is that expecting a visible improvement on the previous manager - who was considered bad enough to get rid of - is not an unreasonable expectation. You won't find many people who had Europe this season as a minimum expectation. This is the key to yours and the borthers grim entire argument it would appear, and is pretty short sighted and also not what im arguing, because after all, ambition is always in the long term. Its the ultimate goal. The use of "short term ambition" would suggest that you understad that point as well. Im actually saying that as long as the long term, ultimate goal stays the same (which it will do) and we are constantly looking to achieve our ultimate goal, then what harm does lowering the expecations and short term goals have on that ultimate ambtion being achieved? Does lowering the expectations give the management and board a more healthier environment to achieve success. I think so. As for the comment about improvement on Roeder, id have to agree to a certain degree, we havent seen a visible improvement on the field, but in defence of Allardyce and Mort we have seen what appears to be a massive upheaval in what happens off it. This links directly with my view that as long as we are "constantly looking to achieve our ultimate goal" then it would be ok in the long run to lower our expectations a bit in the short term. Dont get me wrong, i dont find what is occuring on the pitch acceptable, but i think with all the changes that have occured off the pitch, its already an improvement on what we saw last year. Maybe that should of been our expectations, to see some stability at the club.

Probably Keegans "LOVE IT, LOVE IT" moment. Threw away the league at that point, was never the same either.

So you think the major journo of the major newspaper in the city doesn't know how to contact the chairman of the football club, right ? The naivety of people on this board never ceases to amaze me Haha, point out where I said that please. You're clearly on the wind-up tonight. I never said he couldn't contact him. You just made that up in your head; it's called a straw-man argument. you're backtracking. The major journo of the local rag is an obvious way of getting contact info of the football club chairman. This is what I said. As usual, its fools who think that because Oliver is an idiot that he wouldn't have this info. Of course he would. He is bound to have it, the same as most or all of the players and officials at the club. You must be pretty stupid if you don't understand that the press aren't the most obvious and common method of getting information like this. More obvious than just ringing the club?? Hmm

Expectations are what you expect as a minimum achievement. Ambition is what you hope to achieve. If a club like ours which is massively underachieveing have there expectations (i.e minimum achievement) to be Europe then how many managers do you think will be able to live up to that expectation with the state of ourclub. If the minimum isnt achieved then the manager gets the chop, its a vicious circle. Its an impossible environment and is the primary reason why we find ourselves in the situation we are. Why would it be good for the club to set new managers near impossible tasks? By lowering the ambition, you are lowering what you hope the club achieves as the ultimate goal. That would be inexplicable. As I said previously, this is so excitingly getting closer to the mindset shown by the club during the glorious 30-odd years of winning trophies galore that we had before the takeover of the club by the Halls and Shepherd in 1992. Nope, that would be ambition you're on about there.

Wouldnt it be easier to contact the club? Who would you contact? Customer services? Do clubs do transfers through the local rag as well? You tellling me that nufc doesnt have a phone number or fax number? Some more discrete way of getting the chairmans number. Im just f****** around with you mate, no harm done

Sorry, but... mackems.gif how do you think football works Dave ? Do you think he looks in the phone book ? You genuinely belive that this person who works for "one of the biggest agents in the world" would contact the local journo in order to get the chairmans phone number? You genuinely belive that that would be the most discrete efficient way to aquire the number?

Wouldnt it be easier to contact the club? Who would you contact? Customer services? Do clubs do transfers through the local rag as well? You tellling me that nufc doesnt have a phone number or fax number? Some more discrete way of getting the chairmans number.

Expectations are what you expect as a minimum achievement. Ambition is what you hope to achieve. If a club like ours which is massively underachieveing have there expectations (i.e minimum achievement) to be Europe then how many managers do you think will be able to live up to that expectation with the state of ourclub. If the minimum isnt achieved then the manager gets the chop, its a vicious circle. Its an impossible environment and is the primary reason why we find ourselves in the situation we are. Why would it be good for the club to set new managers near impossible tasks? By lowering the ambition, you are lowering what you hope the club achieves as the ultimate goal. That would be inexplicable.