fredbob

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.

How do you define English? English by nationality, or English by ethinicity (ie white Anglo-Saxon, excluding McLaren, Allardyce, Ince etc all English nationals of Scottish, Irish, African etc origin)? How could you accept a foreign coach and not a foreign player? Imagine the prime minister being an Italian. I'd define an englishman as someone who's roots are based in england. Id stretch as far as sayin that the player could be born in Iraqistan but if National pride is incorporated in those 90minutes, not those 2 months of preperation beforehand!

I imagine it'll be Geremi to be honest, Smith is gonna be the up and down midfielder. Actually looking formward to this, just prying there is a bit of decent movement!

I think he will become a British citizen, hence why he can play for England. I know It's not the point is it? He was born in Spain. What about the technically Canadian Owen Hargreaves? I can handle someone who's roots are based within our nation, but to have someone who was born in a neighbouring european country with absolute no link to the nation but 'qualify' through technicalities is just a little bit too much for me. Almunia=qualified englishman Englishman, in your own words? I can absolutely understand your sentiment, I am against the appointment of Capello, or any other foreign coach. But Almunia if he qualifies technically as an Englishman surely must be considered as Englishman? I don't rate Almunia and I don't wish him near the national team because he is no better than who are already there. But if he decides to be an English and he is accepted legally then he must receive equal treatement, as guaranteed constitutionally, as other law abiding Englishman. Ya see, the strange thing is is that i have absolutely no problems whatsoever with a forigen manager, for me, those 90minutes on the pitch with 11 players representing the country is far more important for "national pride" than having a foriegn 'pupeteer' pulling the strings off the pitch. Thats the way i see it. As long as the car is english i dont mind what the nationality of the driver is.

I think he will become a British citizen, hence why he can play for England. I know It's not the point is it? He was born in Spain. What about the technically Canadian Owen Hargreaves? I can handle someone who's roots are based within our nation, but to have someone who was born in a neighbouring european country with absolute no link to the nation but 'qualify' through technicalities is just a little bit too much for me. Almunia=qualified englishman [Parky] But you know all of us came from Africa, right? [/Parky] lol, touche mr aspith, touche

Pretty happy with that to be honest, should be interesting to see Faye and Taylor, the only premiership experienced defenders we have. Might be a decent partnership. Very happy with the midfield to be honest, Emre will be given more of a free license in that midfield with Geremi and Smith providing cover. Not exactly happy with Zog at lb, Valencia is a decent player.

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?

I think he will become a British citizen, hence why he can play for England. I know It's not the point is it? He was born in Spain. What about the technically Canadian Owen Hargreaves? I can handle someone who's roots are based within our nation, but to have someone who was born in a neighbouring european country with absolute no link to the nation but 'qualify' through technicalities is just a little bit too much for me. Almunia=qualified englishman

How sellable is the club to the really top level managers out there? I cant help but think that nufc dont have a great repuataions amongst the managers of the game. Cant really see anyone coming who's already got a proven track record - unless : (i) they're short of a few... or (ii) desperate to join the english premiership I dont really think that any manager is gonna be sold by the potetial of the club anymore, not after the way the past managers have been treated. If Allardyce was to get the sack, that definitely wont help the reputation.

They could win the title in 2 years if they wanted! Scary Nah, really don't see the potential in QPR. Strange move. Chelsea and Fulham are next door, and their fanbase is limited. While there is no scope for development of Loftus Road. It doesn't matter how much money you have, getting quality players to QPR is going to be virtually impossible. Ya never know, them achieving something within 3 years isnt gonna be too strange a thought. Significant investemnt will get them into the premiership easily. There's gotta be some reason why they're all investeing, theres gotta be some money making potential there, if not, thats even more worrying for everyone becasue it means the club is nothing more or less than a toy for the fat cats. It would make the job irresistable for any manager to know there would be unlimited spending.

Am i the only one who's thought that the best partnership has been Taylor Roz? We've conceeded a lot of goals with Cacapa and Faye despite them playing well indivdually.

I'm personally more concerned for Enrique, enriques absense is restricting the most attacking player we have in this midfield. SA has said that he believes the squad to be a 442 squad, i cant imagine SA favouring Emre at all to be honest. In my opinion Allardyce is obsessed with having midfielders who will track back and provide defensive cover when required and its not in Emre's natural game to track back. Allardyce is obsessed with work rate. I imagine his stats show that Emres hearts not pumping hard enough and isnt seeing enough of the football pitch, it would explain why he prefers Smith Barton Geremi and Butt.

This is scary that this could be even possible. I dont mind one bit about the management situation and nationality, but having players who definitely have no passion for the country is a horrible horrible idea. It would make us an absolute laughing stock. He's not exactly world class, to even begin to warrant such ideas. I remmebr a simialr situaion with Di Canio, and Cudicini but they both said that they wouldnt be interested.

Past 2 pages have been the most interesting out of this entire thread. I wouldnt dream of even posting about the financial staes of the club to such an extent, i guess i was one of those "idiots" that Chez mentions, but if the financial debt was secured against the season ticket sales and gate revenues 10 years ago when we were in a very good positions, when things turned sour, werent the Publicity stunts pre renewal dates (Rooney, Owen, Luque etc) signs of potential desperation? Having racked up an apparent £100m debt, and spent £50m Northern Rocks money, where was the next lot of signinifcant invesment gonna come from without European qualification?

I really don't give a toss son. I'm talking about football. If you aren't happy with today and this season, then I suggest you contact the board and request they show some ambition. If not, and you're happy with this approach whereby they put balancing the books first, then stop whinging. So in that one sentence you've given youself the get out to completely ignore the post becasue its not strictly football but directly relevant to my arguments about football. Open ya mind sunshine. You might finally see the light. I know you can see what im saying is correct, it oozes out of everyone of your responses. As for your second point....5 months mate and nowhere in those 5 months is there a quote saying the manager wont be backed. In fact i seem to be getting positive quotes out of SA which suggest a different perspective. Do you not see the same thing Mr Sheperd?

Naive young fool. Do you seriously think a few hundred grand a year is the difference between us challenging Chelsea. Priceless. mackems.gif You have a lot to learn about life lad, if you think people in business don't do this sort of thing everywhere. Fantastically hilarious. Anyway, I'd prefer you not to bother me again. Dont you think it's naive to beleive that the finanacial implications are the most important aspect of this fact. Prime example of not seeing the big picture. How does the fact that everyone else may do it make it any more acceptable?

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with. I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world. Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam. Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc. Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship. As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch. And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept. You still insist that one man ran the football club, if that isn't an agenda, I don't know what is. If you also still insist that football is the same as a high street business, please tell us what high street business would be unhappy to achieve the 5th best results in the country over a decade ? How do you know we didn't have a manager lined up to replace Bobby Robson ? What difference does the "timing" make ? We've been through this before, so do you think that we should have stuck with Gullit and not replaced him with Bobby Robson because it was "the wrong time" ? What utter bollocks. What good has Allardyce having the summer did him so far ? More utter bollocks, but hey, keep spouting the cliches in your quest to discredit the old board at every opportunity. Dogless Hall said that sacking Bobby Robson was the right decision, by the way, not Shepherd. I don't suppose that will alter your "opinion" that it was Shepherd though. Terry Venables is one of the highest regarded coaches in the game by the way, and to this date is the last English manager to manage a team that reached the European Cup Final. Just thought I would tell you that. Do you think the Birmingham and Wigan chairman are better than Shepherd and Hall for appointing Bruce ? Don;t let facts spoil your "opinion" though. I see you have moved this on from discussing the spending of money now, as your total hypocrisy has been shown. In the past ten years, didnt we fininsh 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, 13th? Hardly 5th best results. How many businesses do you think look at the current state of business with the context being what has been achieved in the past?? You're really struggling to grasp this concept. I mean, how many businesses try and justify mistakes made in the present with arguments such as "we did well in 96", "94 was a good year", "you should of seen the state of the business in 87". Just out of interest, where do you think nufc stood as a club before Shepard took a direct involvlement, i.e became chairmen? Who do you think is accountable for the digression of the business? Do you think the past achievemnts of those in charge are relevant to the digression of the current state? I suggest you look at our league positions for the 30 years previous to this. If you don't understand that this shows how far forward the club moved, then I'm sorry, but its your problem. Oh dear, again, you fail to see the club in a modern context. You're treating the club as though it will end tomorrow. If it did, then by all means, the old board achieved astonishing things, and deserve all the plaudits. But in the modern context the DAY they left the club, they left it in a precariuos situation, both financially and footballing wise due to some horrendous decisions. It undermined all there other achievements. Although not their greatest one. Please tell us how we aren;t doing so well, as the new board are the bestest board in the world and don't do anything wrong, and the old board did nothing other than mess everybody around and were the most incompetent board that ever run a football club and absolutely anybody else would be miles better mackems.gif The more you say the more it is clear that you have been having this debate for many years, like i said earlier, you dont have to paint me with the same tar brush as everyone else. Like ive said before, i happen to think the old board achieved amazing things, things which will not probably be seen for a long long time. I just happen to have a ruthless opinion on the everall success of a business and therefore the board becasue i happen to understand business. The stats show that they achieved pinnacles at 2 seperate periods of their history and both times they werent able to capitalise, the first pinnacle under keegan was acceptable, like you say they made possibly the correct decisions in appointments after keegan, although Gullit is questionable as a potential title winning manager. They fell back a few years with the utter destruction of the squad and team morale by the previous managers and went about searching for another top class manager, which they achieved. Full marks so far, however this is when things went pear shaped, after achieveing an amazing turn around in fortunes the club not only failed to capatilise on the current sucess of the club, but single handedly destryoed the upturn in fortunes for the club, with what i call an inexplicable decsion to sack a manager who'd achieved good levels of success. This is all without mentioning the constant undermining that the old board (ill say for arguments sake) did to SBR. The next 3 years were a disaster. And we now find ourselves in a place no less advanced than a team who had been relegated a little while after winning the title. Now if you apply the same peaks and troughs to a business you'll se what the rest of us see in terms of the old boards achievements.

I dont know of a single businessman who will look at their individual greatest success for the business as a sort of 'get out of jail free card' for any future failures for that business. Imagine someone setting a business back off the back of one crazy decision, is that person or persons excusable fort he current state of the business because of what he or she may have achieved for the business in the past. I could point you in the direction of some businesses who sacked people for setting the business back if you want. How about one where the company sacked the founders son for setting the business back. It underlines the point im trying to make, becasue despite the fact that that persons father created the entire business and was therefore responsible for all the directors earining fat wedges he was still sacked off the back of a crazy decision. That is how business works. That is the view i take on the old boards running of nufc.

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with. I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world. Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam. Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc. Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship. As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch. And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept. You still insist that one man ran the football club, if that isn't an agenda, I don't know what is. If you also still insist that football is the same as a high street business, please tell us what high street business would be unhappy to achieve the 5th best results in the country over a decade ? How do you know we didn't have a manager lined up to replace Bobby Robson ? What difference does the "timing" make ? We've been through this before, so do you think that we should have stuck with Gullit and not replaced him with Bobby Robson because it was "the wrong time" ? What utter bollocks. What good has Allardyce having the summer did him so far ? More utter bollocks, but hey, keep spouting the cliches in your quest to discredit the old board at every opportunity. Dogless Hall said that sacking Bobby Robson was the right decision, by the way, not Shepherd. I don't suppose that will alter your "opinion" that it was Shepherd though. Terry Venables is one of the highest regarded coaches in the game by the way, and to this date is the last English manager to manage a team that reached the European Cup Final. Just thought I would tell you that. Do you think the Birmingham and Wigan chairman are better than Shepherd and Hall for appointing Bruce ? Don;t let facts spoil your "opinion" though. I see you have moved this on from discussing the spending of money now, as your total hypocrisy has been shown. In the past ten years, didnt we fininsh 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, 13th? Hardly 5th best results. How many businesses do you think look at the current state of business with the context being what has been achieved in the past?? You're really struggling to grasp this concept. I mean, how many businesses try and justify mistakes made in the present with arguments such as "we did well in 96", "94 was a good year", "you should of seen the state of the business in 87". Just out of interest, where do you think nufc stood as a club before Shepard took a direct involvlement, i.e became chairmen? Who do you think is accountable for the digression of the business? Do you think the past achievemnts of those in charge are relevant to the digression of the current state? I suggest you look at our league positions for the 30 years previous to this. If you don't understand that this shows how far forward the club moved, then I'm sorry, but its your problem. Oh dear, again, you fail to see the club in a modern context. You're treating the club as though it will end tomorrow. If it did, then by all means, the old board achieved astonishing things, and deserve all the plaudits. But in the modern context the DAY they left the club, they left it in a precariuos situation, both financially and footballing wise due to some horrendous decisions. It undermined all there other achievements. Although not their greatest one.

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with. I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world. Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam. Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc. Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship. As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch. And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept. Not sure i have the energy to argue the point any more, but 2 things to add to your post are the attempt to sign Boa Morte, £5m too much but £9.5m on Luque wasnt. It just reeked of a cynical ploy to draw in the fans, what sells more, brand spangly Luque or run of the mill seen it before Boa morte. Also dint he buy a warehouse for £150k and rent it out to the club for £500k per annum. If ever there was a fact that underlined his true motives for the business or even showed his exploitivitve nature of the club and fans, that would be it. Complete utter rubbish. And who cares about a warehouse, this sort of thing goes on in "business" everywhere anyway. If you want to watch a team that buys 2m and 3m type players, you should support the mackems, or NUFC for 30 years pre-1992. In fact, we signed a few cheap type players last summer, no doubt you are happy with the resultant team, and if so, stop whinging then Bit of a sore point? I care about the implication of the warehouse renting. Seems a bit daft to call in "utter rubbsh" arent they FACTS as you like to call them. Also, Boa Morte was a very good player, not sure if it was the tosh that was around him that made him look better but everytime i saw him against big teams he looked very dangerous. "If you want to see a team who buys 2m and 3m type players, you should support the Mackems of NUFC for 30 years pre-1992" - Oh dear, i cant even begin to tell you what is wrong with everything you've just said there. What a horrible statement. Are you sure you're not Freddy Shepard? Come on, tell me! Be honest now! I really think, if you have any credibility left at all, you could at least begin to spell people's names correctly. Your insinuation is so stupid, its just not worth even commenting on. My comment will make perfect sense to people that understand the history of the club. It was trluy a horrific car crash of a statement NE5. If you cant see what is wrong with that statement then i dont know what else i can say to you. You're really missing the point. Truly astonishing.

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with. I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world. Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam. Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc. Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship. As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch. And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept. Not sure i have the energy to argue the point any more, but 2 things to add to your post are the attempt to sign Boa Morte, £5m too much but £9.5m on Luque wasnt. It just reeked of a cynical ploy to draw in the fans, what sells more, brand spangly Luque or run of the mill seen it before Boa morte. Also dint he buy a warehouse for £150k and rent it out to the club for £500k per annum. If ever there was a fact that underlined his true motives for the business or even showed his exploitivitve nature of the club and fans, that would be it. Complete utter rubbish. And who cares about a warehouse, this sort of thing goes on in "business" everywhere anyway. If you want to watch a team that buys 2m and 3m type players, you should support the mackems, or NUFC for 30 years pre-1992. In fact, we signed a few cheap type players last summer, no doubt you are happy with the resultant team, and if so, stop whinging then When on earth did NUFC buy £2m-£3m players prior to 1992? Yet more garbage from the court jester and proof that the kid doesnt know what he's talking about. Oh dear + smilie. yet another post from you saying absolutely nothing. I suggest you go back to the pub and laugh at your own players, you certainly don't have much of a clue to do anything else. You could however, explain your objections to the club allowing their manager to spend 9m on a player that he rated as being quality and worth the money, as that is what it appears you are doing. Somehow I think this will be beyond you. errrr....who was it that Souness actually wanted and why was he not signed in your opinion?

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with. I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world. Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam. Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc. Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship. As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch. And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept. Not sure i have the energy to argue the point any more, but 2 things to add to your post are the attempt to sign Boa Morte, £5m too much but £9.5m on Luque wasnt. It just reeked of a cynical ploy to draw in the fans, what sells more, brand spangly Luque or run of the mill seen it before Boa morte. Also dint he buy a warehouse for £150k and rent it out to the club for £500k per annum. If ever there was a fact that underlined his true motives for the business or even showed his exploitivitve nature of the club and fans, that would be it. Complete utter rubbish. And who cares about a warehouse, this sort of thing goes on in "business" everywhere anyway. If you want to watch a team that buys 2m and 3m type players, you should support the mackems, or NUFC for 30 years pre-1992. In fact, we signed a few cheap type players last summer, no doubt you are happy with the resultant team, and if so, stop whinging then Bit of a sore point? I care about the implication of the warehouse renting. Seems a bit daft to call in "utter rubbsh" arent they FACTS as you like to call them. Also, Boa Morte was a very good player, not sure if it was the tosh that was around him that made him look better but everytime i saw him against big teams he looked very dangerous. "If you want to see a team who buys 2m and 3m type players, you should support the Mackems of NUFC for 30 years pre-1992" - Oh dear, i cant even begin to tell you what is wrong with everything you've just said there. What a horrible statement. Are you sure you're not Freddy Shepard? Come on, tell me! Be honest now!

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with. I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world. Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam. Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc. Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship. As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch. And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept. You still insist that one man ran the football club, if that isn't an agenda, I don't know what is. If you also still insist that football is the same as a high street business, please tell us what high street business would be unhappy to achieve the 5th best results in the country over a decade ? How do you know we didn't have a manager lined up to replace Bobby Robson ? What difference does the "timing" make ? We've been through this before, so do you think that we should have stuck with Gullit and not replaced him with Bobby Robson because it was "the wrong time" ? What utter bollocks. What good has Allardyce having the summer did him so far ? More utter bollocks, but hey, keep spouting the cliches in your quest to discredit the old board at every opportunity. Dogless Hall said that sacking Bobby Robson was the right decision, by the way, not Shepherd. I don't suppose that will alter your "opinion" that it was Shepherd though. Terry Venables is one of the highest regarded coaches in the game by the way, and to this date is the last English manager to manage a team that reached the European Cup Final. Just thought I would tell you that. Do you think the Birmingham and Wigan chairman are better than Shepherd and Hall for appointing Bruce ? Don;t let facts spoil your "opinion" though. I see you have moved this on from discussing the spending of money now, as your total hypocrisy has been shown. In the past ten years, didnt we fininsh 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, 13th? Hardly 5th best results. How many businesses do you think look at the current state of business with the context being what has been achieved in the past?? You're really struggling to grasp this concept. I mean, how many businesses try and justify mistakes made in the present with arguments such as "we did well in 96", "94 was a good year", "you should of seen the state of the business in 87". Just out of interest, where do you think nufc stood as a club before Shepard took a direct involvlement, i.e became chairmen? Who do you think is accountable for the digression of the business? Do you think the past achievemnts of those in charge are relevant to the digression of the current state?

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with. I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world. Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam. Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc. Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship. As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch. And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept. Not sure i have the energy to argue the point any more, but 2 things to add to your post are the attempt to sign Boa Morte, £5m too much but £9.5m on Luque wasnt. It just reeked of a cynical ploy to draw in the fans, what sells more, brand spangly Luque or run of the mill seen it before Boa morte. Also dint he buy a warehouse for £150k and rent it out to the club for £500k per annum. If ever there was a fact that underlined his true motives for the business or even showed his exploitivitve nature of the club and fans, that would be it.

Not really seen much of him, i heard he was a up and down midfileder, like Barton, would be a Allardyce type signing, not really seen much of him but i woldnt mind a defensive midfielder imporvemnt on Butt, i dont think Butt protects the back four that much. Diarra ticks all the boxes for me age wise and position wise!