fredbob

Still no real movement, noone seems keen to take the ball off another player.

This season, with so much, instability, i dont think thie problem lies with weaknesses within the team (although there obviously are some), i think the problem lies with the way the team is actually playing. The personnel we have is alot better than our position suggests. I think SA and Mort realisie this and arent looking to invest too heavily as adding more players will undoubltedly rock an already unsteady ship. Im happy to have a reasonably quiet transfer period providing money is invested in the summer.

Given Beye Cacapa/Roz Taylor Enrique Butt/Faye --- Geremi Duff ------------------------ Zog Owen Martins Is what id love to see, 442/424 but I think we'll see Given Beye Cacapa Faye Zog Duff Butt Emre Milner Viduka Owen

Is this a serious question or are you playing dumb again? My question is a serious one, by the way. Answer the question by all means. Nah. Playing dumb is daft and I really can't be bothered with the toontastic type of stuff you like so much. Theres nothing wrong at all with using hindsight to assess whether a decision was a success or not. Not sure if HTL is misinterpretting your post but i think he might mean that you cant use hindsight to assess whether a decision was right or wrong.

What happened to Routledge? Might be worth a punt for about £1 million. Have him and we can throw in Tainio if you want? Seriously though, what is the deal with Routledge? He's no worse than Lennon but he doesn't even get a look in. Did he fall out with the club? Giles Barnes has come back and looked really good so far, reminds me of Dyer but more consistent. Wanted him a long time ago, think it'd be worth testing there resolve considering they know they're down. Cant see too many in the league competeing with us either.

I think we need better protection of the defense, so a static defensive midfielder like Makalele would be nice. A pacy right midfielder would be nice, someone whos actually gonna try and get behind the full back. Im actually quite happy with our forwards. No dea why people keep mentioning Arshavin, how many ruski football fans do we have??

Nor the credit for anything ? Constant negative vibes. We didn't qualify for europe more than anyone else bar 4 clubs through having a s*** board and chairman that didnt' know what they were doing. Nor expand the stadium to 52000, nor show ambition to bring top players to finance the signing of top players to the club, nor the signing of Woodgate 6 months prior to the summer of 2003 but is slated for spending nothing in the summer instead and millions to qualify in the first place .... The list is as long as your arm. I've just pointed out facts. If the FACT that the club was light years more healthy than it was in 1992 doesn't suit people's "opinions" then thats just too bad. Only the real naive people who dont understand the situation or too ignorant to understand the situation say the board was s***, most of us, acknowledge the achievements fo the board, i cant see anywhere where anyone has said "the board was s***". Can you? When we talk about the negatives of the board, coincidently or not, all the negatives occured whilst Sheperd was in charge. I don think there are many posts which dispute anything pre SBR. It is what occured during Sir Bobbys spell and after that has caused much tension. Im not even sure what you are arguing anymore, i cant help but get the feeling, that your responses are now defensive of sheperd rather than defense of the old board. Answer this, If team 'A' qualifies for Europe 7 times in 10 seasons, and If team 'B' finishes in the top10, 4 times in 10 seasons. which team is more successful? Answer this and you will finally understand why the 'most Euro qualifications stat' is such a shitty stat which does nothing but make you look desperate. The rules of the game, is that you have to answer either A or B. Nothing more or less. No changing the subject or avoiding the question. Just answer the question.

You would have said the same about the SJP expansion 5 years ago And? 5 years ago no one could have predicted that we would be in the freefall that we were at the end of Fred's time. That's stunning, don't you think? 10 years ago I don't think many predicted that we'd be in financial trouble and our future would be looking seemingly bleak. That's the main thing I've been trying to say so far, though god knows I've tried my best to sound as confusing as possible. ??? And in 5 years time Wenger may have let and Arsenal may be struggling to get 8th place in the Premier league. You've said exactly what I was getting at, the Emirates looks sound now, SJP look sound 5 years ago Aye, the MANAGER makes a massive difference, which is where we went wrong with the appointment of Souness, obviously. .....or even the sacking of SBR? didn't hear too many voices against it at the time. Never mind, after today, do you hope the club continue carrying on putting the books first, standby for more real mediocrity or worse. I thought when the Halls and Shepherd left, all this mediocrity would come to an end. I reckon we need a few of these quality trophy players to get up the league a bit, don't you I've always been unhappy with the sacking of SBR. I dont know what agenda you have me trying to push but you have the wrong man, i wasnt for Shepard during his reign as chairmen, although i supported most of his decisions. I am not one of these people who think the new board are magically sorting out all the problems, but i am extremely encouraged by what has already occured with the new board, but i feel obliged to respond to some absolute stupendous critism of the new board which is borderline idiotic. considering that we are 5 months into their ownership. Whehther you turn out to be correct or wrong is irrelevant to me but to sit there and criticise something so quickly with absolutley NOTHING solid to back it up except for some loose misinterpretation is mind boggling to me. Idiotic. A simple FACT, dear boy, is that Sir Bobby Robson's team was booed for only finishing 5th, this epitomised the feeling of a lot of fans at that time. I would presume those who booed the team that day were the same people - like booboo - who laugh at the team when they aren't performing well. I'm not saying that you were one of those, because I don't know, but what I do know is if you ignore this comment, you are ignoring history. So don't start laying the blame at the feet of the board, they acted in what was thought was the decision to be made at the time. Most fans backed it - even those who didn't shamefully boo - the only problem was the replacement. What a shame we didn't find the next Arsene Wenger though during the last decade eh, how incompetent can you get bloody hell man, the stuff you'll come out with to absolve them of any blame, unbelievable "they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time". I fail to see how this is making excuses, unless you are going to tell us that the majority of fans didn't agree that it was time for a change ? well, first of all, 'dont go laying the blame at the feet of the board', referencing the blame they're getting for a decision THEY made, 100% sums you up secondly, 'they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time', is vague, weak, and ducks BLAME, why are they acting on what other people think? dont they have the courage of their convictions? did they EVER do anything wrong mate apart from appointing souness, or are you just gonna blame the fans, players and managers? and lastly, bobby should have gone at the end of the season previous, waiting and doing it then was STUPID, sorry like, on this occasion FREDDY, WAS STUPID I'm sure if they had used hindsight, like you, they wouldn't have done it either. Only someone really stupid won't understand this. Do you also think Gullit should have been kept on until the end of the season ? Your views have no credibility if they aren't consistent, I don't suppose you will understand this different situation, different context, different views, yeah he should've been sacked, but had freddy claimed it was his last season pre season and started going over his head to sell players i would say he should've gone BEFORE he decided that sort of thing was a good idea you can have different opinions on when is the right or wrong time to sack one manager as opposed to the next, only a really stupid person wouldnt understand context, or someone with an a***** Firstly, it is isn't a different situation or a different context at all. It's about sacking your manager when you feel that it is time for a change/lost the plot/not going to go any further. The only problem with sacking Robson was the replacement. Sacking Gullit wasn't a problem - at the SAME time of the season - because the replacement was a good one. There is nothing difficult about this. It's only difficult if you are looking for a stick to beat someone with. I'm also very pleased for you that you another one of these people who think the major shareholders of a multi million pound company allow someone else to make the major managerial decisions all on their own. Do you think Ashley will allow Mort to run the club all on his own ? What an absolutely stupid notion, I don't believe the amount of times myself and others ie ChezGiven and UV [i think] have had to point this out. By the way, people/fan pressure DOES count in football in case you don't realise. But the point of my comment is to say that a lof of fans and possibly even the majority of the clubs supporters, agreed with the decision to sack Bobby Robson, so don't bother using hindsight to say it was wrong now, or to change history and say it wasn't the case. Dont you think that the chairman, as the bridge between the fans and the board, is accountable for the boards decision. Isnt that part and parcel of the job. I dont see anyone specifying that Sheperd was directly responsible for the appointment of Souness. But rather using Sheperds name in context of the him being representativeof the boards views. Ive said all this before, but i guess you see what you want to see. eerrr... [bit in bold] ....... I'm not seeing anything other than basic common sense BTW Again, read it again, no one is arguing that Fred Sheperd made the decision. No one has tried to argue that Sheperd made the decision. People are using his name because he is accountable to the fans for the boards decision. Simple as that. Whether he argued till he was blue against the appointmnet, he will always be accoutable for the decision because that is his job. See what you want to see.

You would have said the same about the SJP expansion 5 years ago And? 5 years ago no one could have predicted that we would be in the freefall that we were at the end of Fred's time. That's stunning, don't you think? 10 years ago I don't think many predicted that we'd be in financial trouble and our future would be looking seemingly bleak. That's the main thing I've been trying to say so far, though god knows I've tried my best to sound as confusing as possible. ??? And in 5 years time Wenger may have let and Arsenal may be struggling to get 8th place in the Premier league. You've said exactly what I was getting at, the Emirates looks sound now, SJP look sound 5 years ago Aye, the MANAGER makes a massive difference, which is where we went wrong with the appointment of Souness, obviously. .....or even the sacking of SBR? didn't hear too many voices against it at the time. Never mind, after today, do you hope the club continue carrying on putting the books first, standby for more real mediocrity or worse. I thought when the Halls and Shepherd left, all this mediocrity would come to an end. I reckon we need a few of these quality trophy players to get up the league a bit, don't you I've always been unhappy with the sacking of SBR. I dont know what agenda you have me trying to push but you have the wrong man, i wasnt for Shepard during his reign as chairmen, although i supported most of his decisions. I am not one of these people who think the new board are magically sorting out all the problems, but i am extremely encouraged by what has already occured with the new board, but i feel obliged to respond to some absolute stupendous critism of the new board which is borderline idiotic. considering that we are 5 months into their ownership. Whehther you turn out to be correct or wrong is irrelevant to me but to sit there and criticise something so quickly with absolutley NOTHING solid to back it up except for some loose misinterpretation is mind boggling to me. Idiotic. A simple FACT, dear boy, is that Sir Bobby Robson's team was booed for only finishing 5th, this epitomised the feeling of a lot of fans at that time. I would presume those who booed the team that day were the same people - like booboo - who laugh at the team when they aren't performing well. I'm not saying that you were one of those, because I don't know, but what I do know is if you ignore this comment, you are ignoring history. So don't start laying the blame at the feet of the board, they acted in what was thought was the decision to be made at the time. Most fans backed it - even those who didn't shamefully boo - the only problem was the replacement. What a shame we didn't find the next Arsene Wenger though during the last decade eh, how incompetent can you get bloody hell man, the stuff you'll come out with to absolve them of any blame, unbelievable "they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time". I fail to see how this is making excuses, unless you are going to tell us that the majority of fans didn't agree that it was time for a change ? well, first of all, 'dont go laying the blame at the feet of the board', referencing the blame they're getting for a decision THEY made, 100% sums you up secondly, 'they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time', is vague, weak, and ducks BLAME, why are they acting on what other people think? dont they have the courage of their convictions? did they EVER do anything wrong mate apart from appointing souness, or are you just gonna blame the fans, players and managers? and lastly, bobby should have gone at the end of the season previous, waiting and doing it then was STUPID, sorry like, on this occasion FREDDY, WAS STUPID I'm sure if they had used hindsight, like you, they wouldn't have done it either. Only someone really stupid won't understand this. Do you also think Gullit should have been kept on until the end of the season ? Your views have no credibility if they aren't consistent, I don't suppose you will understand this different situation, different context, different views, yeah he should've been sacked, but had freddy claimed it was his last season pre season and started going over his head to sell players i would say he should've gone BEFORE he decided that sort of thing was a good idea you can have different opinions on when is the right or wrong time to sack one manager as opposed to the next, only a really stupid person wouldnt understand context, or someone with an a***** Firstly, it is isn't a different situation or a different context at all. It's about sacking your manager when you feel that it is time for a change/lost the plot/not going to go any further. The only problem with sacking Robson was the replacement. Sacking Gullit wasn't a problem - at the SAME time of the season - because the replacement was a good one. There is nothing difficult about this. It's only difficult if you are looking for a stick to beat someone with. I'm also very pleased for you that you another one of these people who think the major shareholders of a multi million pound company allow someone else to make the major managerial decisions all on their own. Do you think Ashley will allow Mort to run the club all on his own ? What an absolutely stupid notion, I don't believe the amount of times myself and others ie ChezGiven and UV [i think] have had to point this out. By the way, people/fan pressure DOES count in football in case you don't realise. But the point of my comment is to say that a lof of fans and possibly even the majority of the clubs supporters, agreed with the decision to sack Bobby Robson, so don't bother using hindsight to say it was wrong now, or to change history and say it wasn't the case. Dont you think that the chairman, as the bridge between the fans and the board, is accountable for the boards decision. Isnt that part and parcel of the job. I dont see anyone specifying that Sheperd was directly responsible for the appointment of Souness. But rather using Sheperds name in context of the him being representativeof the boards views. Ive said all this before, but i guess you see what you want to see.

During the period that they have all had stable managers, yes. Theres no point tracing back throught their respective histoy's because that doesnt illustrate the specifics of my point. Of course, nufc have been more successful over a course of the premiership, but all our notbale success has occured with long term stable managers.

No-one thinking about the implications of sacking a manager after 6 months? Financial reasons arent even close to being the main issue with sacking SA. Who wants to come to such an underachieving club with instant success as a sminimum. What a load of bollocks. If no one is gonna look at the reality of the situation we are in, nufc will be doomed as a club forever. I honestly feel that way. We're looking to appoint a world class manager, but we will automatically be draining the pool of potential talent by sacking the previous manager after 6 months. I cant help but see a similarity between us and Real Madrid, just minus the success. The first guaratue that any manager will want is longetivity, and so far nufc historically have failed to deliver. How can we progress if we constantly fal at the first hurdle.

To be honest i think it could be us as well. I would explain the constant selcetion of players like Smith and Barton.....whi so far have grafted but havent brought any real quality.

Kind of missed my point, I havent once said that that backing the manager finacially and with time hasnt provided success or isnt fundamental for success. I happen to think that succes is acquired by sticking with a good manager, and success is augmented by backing them financially. There is a subtlety to what im saying which differs from what you are implying. Im tryin to say that gettin the right man for the job and sticking by him is actually more important than the financial backing, however by this i am not implying that financial backing isnt an important aspect, it hugely important, but NOT as important as continutiy of a manager. As has been proven by the current situation we find ourselves in. However, club which have done well in recent years with there limited resources include, Everton, Bolton, Charlton, Blackburn. All clubs which have had steady managers. Hence why i believe sticking with the manager is the more important aspect. Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U, have stuck by there manager, even during difficulttimes, but have applied there resources as well in order to sustain the success that they are achieving now. Newcastle, have changed managers and have used there resources quite badly, and in my opinion are struggling because of this approach. all clubs who improved almost straight away. stability doesnt bring success as much as success brings stability Thats arguable. Everton had a few bad season after very succeful seasons, but the club backed moyes through the difficult periods, not sacked him like we did with SBR. Although thats diverting alittle bit, the point i was making is that these have all achieved relative levels of success with a consistent manager all absent of any decent resources. everton improved straight away i think then nearly got relegated the year after...but they could say moyes had improved their club originally to fall back on....i'm struggling to think of many who've came in and took their club backwards (thinking of the teams souness and roeder had to put out at times i think thats fair)over 6 months and stayed to prove anything. Again, im not tryin to advocate any particular appointment, if you read any of my earlier posts i dont mention Souness or Roeder as people we should stick by, im just trying to make a genrelaised point that if we get a competent manager we should stick by him. Also tryin to say that gettin the right man and sticking by him is more important than the financial backing of a manager, which is important but just not as. The clubs ive mentioned are all beneficiaries of this approach. i agree with the sentiment,just not sure allardyce is the man. (now thats how to disagree in a non-spiteful manner.........mick,NE5 take note!) It could go either way, but i wont be one of the ones who says we should sack him. I just have an inkling that he could besuccessful.

Kind of missed my point, I havent once said that that backing the manager finacially and with time hasnt provided success or isnt fundamental for success. I happen to think that succes is acquired by sticking with a good manager, and success is augmented by backing them financially. There is a subtlety to what im saying which differs from what you are implying. Im tryin to say that gettin the right man for the job and sticking by him is actually more important than the financial backing, however by this i am not implying that financial backing isnt an important aspect, it hugely important, but NOT as important as continutiy of a manager. As has been proven by the current situation we find ourselves in. However, club which have done well in recent years with there limited resources include, Everton, Bolton, Charlton, Blackburn. All clubs which have had steady managers. Hence why i believe sticking with the manager is the more important aspect. Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U, have stuck by there manager, even during difficulttimes, but have applied there resources as well in order to sustain the success that they are achieving now. Newcastle, have changed managers and have used there resources quite badly, and in my opinion are struggling because of this approach. all clubs who improved almost straight away. stability doesnt bring success as much as success brings stability Thats arguable. Everton had a few bad season after very succeful seasons, but the club backed moyes through the difficult periods, not sacked him like we did with SBR. Although thats diverting alittle bit, the point i was making is that these have all achieved relative levels of success with a consistent manager all absent of any decent resources. everton improved straight away i think then nearly got relegated the year after...but they could say moyes had improved their club originally to fall back on....i'm struggling to think of many who've came in and took their club backwards (thinking of the teams souness and roeder had to put out at times i think thats fair)over 6 months and stayed to prove anything. Again, im not tryin to advocate any particular appointment, if you read any of my earlier posts i dont mention Souness or Roeder as people we should stick by, im just trying to make a genrelaised point that if we get a competent manager we should stick by him. Also tryin to say that gettin the right man and sticking by him is more important than the financial backing of a manager, which is important but just not as. The clubs ive mentioned are all beneficiaries of this approach.

There have been other clubs in the past which have done well albeit in less pressurized times with limited resources, teams like Derby and even Sunderland and Wimbledon. I didnt restart this debate by disputing the appointments, i was disputing a claim that the decline occured at the appointment of Souness, i believe that the sacking of SBR was when the decline occured but that got rebutted for some reason. Then it got dragged all over the plave NE5/HTL style. Iwas just tryin to argue the importance of sticking by the manager, not advocating the backing of a manager who would put the future of the club at risk. I think Charlton and Bolton are actually decent examples, granted Bolton play decent wages, but had they the resources to compete at nufc levels financially then they could of augmented there already overachieved achievements.The same can be said with Charlton, considering the size and level of resources the lcub had, it did well to not only stay the the PL but sustain a decent level of success. Both clubs had long serving managers. Which in my opinion proves the diminshed importance of financial backing.

Kind of missed my point, I havent once said that that backing the manager finacially and with time hasnt provided success or isnt fundamental for success. I happen to think that succes is acquired by sticking with a good manager, and success is augmented by backing them financially. There is a subtlety to what im saying which differs from what you are implying. Im tryin to say that gettin the right man for the job and sticking by him is actually more important than the financial backing, however by this i am not implying that financial backing isnt an important aspect, it hugely important, but NOT as important as continutiy of a manager. As has been proven by the current situation we find ourselves in. However, club which have done well in recent years with there limited resources include, Everton, Bolton, Charlton, Blackburn. All clubs which have had steady managers. Hence why i believe sticking with the manager is the more important aspect. Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U, have stuck by there manager, even during difficulttimes, but have applied there resources as well in order to sustain the success that they are achieving now. Newcastle, have changed managers and have used there resources quite badly, and in my opinion are struggling because of this approach. all clubs who improved almost straight away. stability doesnt bring success as much as success brings stability Thats arguable. Everton had a few bad season after very succeful seasons, but the club backed moyes through the difficult periods, not sacked him like we did with SBR. Although thats diverting alittle bit, the point i was making is that these have all achieved relative levels of success with a consistent manager all absent of any decent resources.

Kind of missed my point, I havent once said that that backing the manager finacially and with time hasnt provided success or isnt fundamental for success. I happen to think that succes is acquired by sticking with a good manager, and success is augmented by backing them financially. There is a subtlety to what im saying which differs from what you are implying. I think both are importnat aspects, however if you were to ask me which would provide the most long term success, then i would say that sticking with the manager would be the best approach. Im tryin to say that gettin the right man for the job and sticking by him is actually more important than the financial backing, however by this i am not implying that financial backing isnt an important aspect, it hugely important, but NOT as important as continutiy of a manager. As has been proven by the current situation we find ourselves in. However, club which have done well in recent years with there limited resources include, Everton, Bolton, Charlton, Blackburn. All clubs which have had steady managers. Hence why i believe sticking with the manager is the more important aspect. Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U, have stuck by there manager, even during difficulttimes, but have applied there resources as well in order to sustain the success that they are achieving now. Newcastle, have changed managers and have used there resources quite badly, and in my opinion are struggling because of this approach.

clipped because its getting too long ..... I'm cherry picking nothing. Sticking with a manager DOES NOT lead to automatic success. This is why I asked you if you think we should have stuck with Dalglish ? Yes or no ? It appears by your criteria that you think we should have done. If your answer is no, then you are then saying that the board was right to sack him, and you accept that you have to sack the manager if you think it is right to do so and therefore destroying your entire point. I would not swap Evertons last decade for ours by the way. I would guess that not too many people other than you would suggest that they would do this. The way to success is to appoint the right manager and back him with the resources. These are essential. Backing the manager is a decision made by the board, it is not automatic, you appear not to understand this and this is what people like me keep trying to explain. If you are too young to remember the directors through the 60's, 70's and 80's, then look at how the mackems have been run by Bob Murray. It is the same. Finally, if appointing the "right" man was so easy, then everybody would do it, and I'lll leave you to think about this absurd notion in your own time. Dear me.... I never said it does lead to automatic success, but i think it will lead to better long term success. Which is far far more important. Sticking with Dlaglish?? Its a moot point, why can you not see that? We will never know, he brought a lot of good players to the team. How can i definitevely answer 'yes' after only one season. I've only ever seen 2 long term managers at nufc and they achieved the best success. Where has the financial backing of the manager been integral to any of my arguments? It's been an aspect of my arguments but hasnt been the key to my arguments. Of course backing the manager isnt guareteed. I've never disputed that. Not sure what you're trying to get at there.

You stick with the RIGHT manager and you back him. This is obvious and nobody is saying otherwise as far as I can tell. 1. It's not easy to appoint the RIGHT manager. 2. It's not automatic that a Board will financially back the manager. 3. When you know you have the wrong man, or the current man can take you no further, you SACK him. The first 2 points are what many people on here very much don't want to acknowledge as being true. I couldnt agree more with you. I also acknowledge that appointing the right man is a difficult, and i have never attacked the board in general, but rather the era of which Shepard was in charge, because in my opinion this is when the decline started. My original argument was that i thought that the decline occured at the sackig of SBR who i acknowledge hadnt had the best of seasons footballing wise but had still achieved a notable finish to the season. He was a victim of his age and the result against Partizan Belgrade the saem season, coupled with missing the CL spot to Liverpool. My point is that when perspective and common sense was required the most, the board failed to deliver a sensible decision and sacked the second best manager in their "ownership" of the club. The future of the club wasnt assesed when making this decision and we are paying the price for it right now. I never brought up the names of Dalglish and Gullit because they werent part of my arguments. That was brought up by NE5. In retort to my "keep the right" manager line. No idea why.

That midfield looks alright, i think Zog could do a good job in the centre, similar to Dyer and will track back and defend. Just like the Speed.Dyer partenership/

Unfortunately he's probably right. We in here are only a small % of toon fans, and the uneducated majority would love to see Shearer back, and would even be their first choice. Loads of people you speak to hold that opinion, its crazy. i don't know any that think that....quite a lot who think he'll be the next manager though. The thing that i dont understand is that if you ask alot of fans who they want if they could have anyone, alot of them would go for world class managers with proven records, yet the same fans would be reasonably happy if Shearer was installed, without any credible reasoning except that ts been done in the past, it may happen here.

How about a sweepstake on what his next injury will be? I predict a bruised phalange.

I'll eagerly await the "big four" apart from Chelsea and most of the rest of the teams in the league going into administration then. Strange how all these people who are slating having ambiton are unable to see this is how the top 4 became the top 4, and our relative success in our recent past has also came as a result of the same thing. Do they really think you can be successful unless you try to compete at the top levels ? Quite amazing. Do you not think that it acould also be due to the fact they made astute appointments and didnt sack them as regularly as they changed their pants.? Well, are you saying we should have stuck with Dalglish ? Or Gullit, and not therefore appointed Bobby Robson when we did ? Been here before mate, the appointments arent what im scrutinizing, the 2 major responsiblities of the board are the appointment of the right manager adn the backing of the manager, for years, like the top 4 we have backied the manager, but when it comes to appointing and sticking by the right manager, we've failed miserably, and it kinda shows in the urrent gulf of class between us and the top 4. Im saying that the rotation of managers is the reason why we're behind the top4. Are you now ? The top 4 have kept the manager because they were in the top 4 wouldn't you say ....... Why is the 5th most qualified club for europe over a decade = s**** managers all the time ? Are Everton behind the top 4 because they have rotated their managers ? Moyes has been there longer than Chelsea and Liverpools current managers ....... And, do you therefore think we should have kept Dalglish and Gullit ? I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep any manager you care to name at this club for 20 years if you like, but if the board don't match the ambition of the boards at the top 4 clubs, we will never join them. (your first point)Ok, but we were in the top 5 the last time we changed our manager. (your second point) 5th most qualified club in over a decade is such a misleading stat, stop using it. I've already said why its a misleading stat and cant be bothered to explain it all again. Nothing seems to go in with you. And they say ignorance is bliss... (your third point) No, Everton arent behind jut becasue they rotated there managers, they are behind because they dont have the same financial resources as we do. Care to explain how they were one of the biggest supported clubs in the country, won a couple of league titles, FA Cups and a european trophy while we were in the 2nd division then, and below them for decades, including pinching the only manager we had who put together a team that finished in the top 5 in 40 years ? Then tell us who reversed that trend ? Don't bother saying its a misleading statistic, because it isn't. Answer it, if you can, and if you don't, I'll put it down to you not having a clue. We will see. I don't agree it would be down to sticking with a manager for 6 years though, and our crowd wouldn't put up with 6 years of the dross - for the most part - Everton have watched either, they are up in arms at watching a fraction of that. some people would say Allardyce is an astute appointment, in fact they do. Come back when you understand where the boards role becomes the responsibility of the manager, and his players. As you don't appear to have answered, do you think we should have stuck with Dalglish ? Do you think we should have stuck with Gullit ? Do you think we should have stuck with Souness ? Do you think we should stick with Allardyce ? By your reckoning, we should have stuck with Dalglish, and by now, we would automatically be winning the league. An absurd theory. Guess this is gonna be one of those moments where i say i dont understand. I dont understand. I dont understand quite how that is relevant to the current situation with Everton and Moyes, and Newcastle with SBR,Souness, Roeder and Allardyce. My point is about the continuity of the management being key to success EVEN without proper backing. I dont understand why the achievements of the old board are quite relevant to the point i am making. What has the history of the club got to do with my theory that sticking with the manager has been the key to Evertons recent success. My point, is that appointing and sticking with the right manager is just as important if not more important than bacaking them financially. There are a number of clubs who have proved that to be the case. My point is that if you get the right manager and stick by him, you will atttain more level of success then if you appoint the wrong managers but back everyone unscrupiuosly. My point isnt that we will break into the top 4 with a consistent manager without backing. For me the success of other club with lower budgets than ours proves to show that financial power and backing isnt the SINGLE most important aspect of running a successful club, but rather the key to augmenting our success. How anaybody cant see that the top5 Euro qual is a misleading fact is beyond me. If you will please answer me this, Team 'A' qualifies for Europe 6 times in 10 seasons. Team 'B' finishes in the top 10, 4 times out of 10 seasons. Which team was the most successful? Now if you cant answer one of those definitevely then you cant use in as conclusive proof of success. Simple. If YOU dont answer that question, then you will lose alot of credibilty in my eyes. I happen to think you are an excellent fountain of knowledge but your application of knowledge is horrendous. I was against Allardyce to be honest, in fact i remeber arguing with you a while back about which appointment was the best. (i think) however i will stand by him, like i have for every single appointment bar Souness and Roeder. i happen to think that Allardyce has all the credentials to bring us into a successfuly era to be honest. Do i think we should of stuck with Dalglish? Dont you think its something of a moot point considering we will never no if it was a correct decision or not. I do think we should stick with Allardyce yes, because if in 4 years time he puts us into a comfortable position where there is significant improvemtn then it will be worhtwhile becasue of the good it does for the clubs morale and reputation. Lol, errr what? Fancy pointing out where i said that?? Credibility shrinking faster than i thought. Oh dear. By your reckoning if we throw money at the problem we will break into the top 4. What is your measure of success for the board? After they estabilished us in the premiership and made us title contenders what do you think there objectives for the future was? Do you think they delievered on those objectives? Unless you see that the most important objectives for any institution are the ones your are actively trying to achieve you will never see the point that everyone os putting across. If you fail to achieve those objectives, you cant fall back onto the achievemnts of the past as a decent explanation for the current failures. Simple innit!! Aplologies for the big post, but if you would humour me please and answer all the questions for me instead of cherry picking any flaws that would be greatly appreciated.

I'll eagerly await the "big four" apart from Chelsea and most of the rest of the teams in the league going into administration then. Strange how all these people who are slating having ambiton are unable to see this is how the top 4 became the top 4, and our relative success in our recent past has also came as a result of the same thing. Do they really think you can be successful unless you try to compete at the top levels ? Quite amazing. Do you not think that it acould also be due to the fact they made astute appointments and didnt sack them as regularly as they changed their pants.? Well, are you saying we should have stuck with Dalglish ? Or Gullit, and not therefore appointed Bobby Robson when we did ? Been here before mate, the appointments arent what im scrutinizing, the 2 major responsiblities of the board are the appointment of the right manager adn the backing of the manager, for years, like the top 4 we have backied the manager, but when it comes to appointing and sticking by the right manager, we've failed miserably, and it kinda shows in the urrent gulf of class between us and the top 4. Im saying that the rotation of managers is the reason why we're behind the top4. Are you now ? The top 4 have kept the manager because they were in the top 4 wouldn't you say ....... Why is the 5th most qualified club for europe over a decade = s**** managers all the time ? Are Everton behind the top 4 because they have rotated their managers ? Moyes has been there longer than Chelsea and Liverpools current managers ....... And, do you therefore think we should have kept Dalglish and Gullit ? I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep any manager you care to name at this club for 20 years if you like, but if the board don't match the ambition of the boards at the top 4 clubs, we will never join them. (your first point)Ok, but we were in the top 5 the last time we changed our manager. (your second point) 5th most qualified club in over a decade is such a misleading stat, stop using it. I've already said why its a misleading stat and cant be bothered to explain it all again. Nothing seems to go in with you. And they say ignorance is bliss... (your third point) No, Everton arent behind jut becasue they rotated there managers, they are behind because they dont have the same financial resources as we do. However its interesting you brought Everton up because they are the only team to break the top 4 since the top 4 became so dominant. All with a steady manager. So that kinda goes to prove my point. That despite having limited resources with a consistent manger they were able to break the top 4. Again to reiterate my point - i believe that an astute appointment needs to be stuck by, not sacked when the "cracks" seem to be appearing. Where do you think everton would be today if they sacked Moyes when he finished 11th having finished 4th the previous season? Why was SBR sacked after finishing 5th? Did they make an astute apointment to justify the decision? (your 4th point) Something of a moot point. As i believed at the time that Dalglish was a good appointment, but who is to saythat he wouldnt of been a success. The fact that he destryoed a title challengin squad was too much, so i'd agree with the sacking. It was justifiable. (your final point) I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep changing managers for the next 20 years if you like, and if the board match the financial ambitions the top 4 clubs, we still wont join them. We've tried the "back as many managers as possible" routine, now i suggest we start backing the right man for the job and not sack him after the first apparent "decline" under his leadership. a la SBR. Well if we look at the 10 years that Shepard was in charge. Ie the past decade you look mention. you'll see that Euro qualification was merited by league finishing [(direct qualification) (ie true measure of teams performnace)] only 3 times, all under SBR. In those 10 years we finished in the top 10 only 4 times. Incedently how can you use a stat like '3, top 5 consecutive finshes in 50 years' as a major point for the success of the club historically, then say it was the correct decision to sack the manager who achieved the success. A little contradicotry if you ask me. Now if you ask me, FA cup final runners up adn Intertoto qualification dont exactly measure the success of the board at a club this size. (Bare in mind the top5 highest league finihses you use) Honestly Mr Sheperd, i dont have an agenda, just fan who's saying it how he sees it. So are you saying that they back all there managers and see which ones are the most successful and stick through thick and thin, just like they did with Houllier to an obvious point, just like they have done with Wenger despite barely qualifying for CL, and just like they did with Fergie when he went a couple of season winning Jack and spunking a load of money up the wall in the process. Ha ha, i was gonna say the same thing, but thought you'd retort by saying it was plainly obviousl he was destroying the side, and that i must of had my head in the clouds etc etc. If I could use hindsight, I would have won the lottery last Saturday. I completely 100% agree with you there. So was SBR the wrong guy? Why had the confidence gone in them so quickly? Measured against unrealistic expectations? Hindsight exactly applicable in the case of either of them becasue they both only had one season. Who's to say. Altohugh i beleive the sacking of Gullit was correct, becasue he destryed the moral o that side.

I'll eagerly await the "big four" apart from Chelsea and most of the rest of the teams in the league going into administration then. Strange how all these people who are slating having ambiton are unable to see this is how the top 4 became the top 4, and our relative success in our recent past has also came as a result of the same thing. Do they really think you can be successful unless you try to compete at the top levels ? Quite amazing. Do you not think that it acould also be due to the fact they made astute appointments and didnt sack them as regularly as they changed their pants.? Well, are you saying we should have stuck with Dalglish ? Or Gullit, and not therefore appointed Bobby Robson when we did ? Been here before mate, the appointments arent what im scrutinizing, the 2 major responsiblities of the board are the appointment of the right manager adn the backing of the manager, for years, like the top 4 we have backied the manager, but when it comes to appointing and sticking by the right manager, we've failed miserably, and it kinda shows in the urrent gulf of class between us and the top 4. Im saying that the rotation of managers is the reason why we're behind the top4. Are you now ? The top 4 have kept the manager because they were in the top 4 wouldn't you say ....... Why is the 5th most qualified club for europe over a decade = s**** managers all the time ? Are Everton behind the top 4 because they have rotated their managers ? Moyes has been there longer than Chelsea and Liverpools current managers ....... And, do you therefore think we should have kept Dalglish and Gullit ? I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep any manager you care to name at this club for 20 years if you like, but if the board don't match the ambition of the boards at the top 4 clubs, we will never join them. (your first point)Ok, but we were in the top 5 the last time we changed our manager. (your second point) 5th most qualified club in over a decade is such a misleading stat, stop using it. I've already said why its a misleading stat and cant be bothered to explain it all again. Nothing seems to go in with you. And they say ignorance is bliss... (your third point) No, Everton arent behind jut becasue they rotated there managers, they are behind because they dont have the same financial resources as we do. However its interesting you brought Everton up because they are the only team to break the top 4 since the top 4 became so dominant. All with a steady manager. So that kinda goes to prove my point. That despite having limited resources with a consistent manger they were able to break the top 4. Again to reiterate my point - i believe that an astute appointment needs to be stuck by, not sacked when the "cracks" seem to be appearing. Where do you think everton would be today if they sacked Moyes when he finished 11th having finished 4th the previous season? Why was SBR sacked after finishing 5th? Did they make an astute apointment to justify the decision? (your 4th point) Something of a moot point. As i believed at the time that Dalglish was a good appointment, but who is to saythat he wouldnt of been a success. The fact that he destryoed a title challengin squad was too much, so i'd agree with the sacking. It was justifiable. (your final point) I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep changing managers for the next 20 years if you like, and if the board match the financial ambitions the top 4 clubs, we still wont join them. We've tried the "back as many managers as possible" routine, now i suggest we start backing the right man for the job and not sack him after the first apparent "decline" under his leadership. a la SBR.