fredbob

That stat about our our goals against is the key to me, i still belive that there is a great back 4 in their somewhere but ive noticed that no matter how well a player in defence plays we still end up conceeding goals which to me says that the protection of the back 4 isnt adequate enough. I'd rather we go for a defensive midfielder, Bouba Diop obisuly wont come but he's been looking imense for Portsmouth. I heard somehwere that Allardyce was after Elano butcouldnt because we were in the middle of a takeover or something like that.

I happen to think Milner plays well on the left. Although i defnintely dont see him as a long term playerfor us, i think he's very dangerous when hes on the edge of the box, but when he recieives the ball deep he's not so great as the lack of pace really shows. The most worrying thing about the SA quote for me is the future of Zog. If the article is about Milner being the best player left wing then that raises massive questions about enrique zog and duff. Especially Zog who i definitely see as along term player for us.

This is exactly what i mean. Do you not see the fundamental flaw with the whole "it could of been worse" attitutde.??!? This is exactly the attitude that you and all the older posters on the forum who support the old board have. How desperate for success can you actually be when you have this "it could of been worse" attitude? Until you achieve success you cant be happy, and even if you are successful you never stop. Its this intrinsic drive to succeed which all he people at the top of there respective fields have. It comes down to what you think the board are accountable for, and if you think that the boards responsiblity ends and the financial backing of there appointed manager , then in my opinion you are being naive. The boards job is to direct the club and business to success and when sucess or growth isnt achieved irrespective of the valid decisions that were made by the board, NO matter how justifiable or correct they were, the BOARD and the CHAIRMAN will always always be accountable. ESPECIALLY THE CHAIRMAN. This is all true unless there is exceptional circumstances and unforseeable events. None of which i saw. Now despite my posts i happen to think that the old board achieved a hell of a lot, and i genuinely understand that they brought this club back from the brink. Which as a nufc fan i genuinely appreciate. However, from a compltely ruthless point of view (at the risk of sounding ungrateful) i think the board failed to achieve what they could, and maybe should of achieved. Would just like to make things clear. Im not one of those people who were against the board. I'm not against the old board. I dont have any agenda against them and i supported every single one of there decisoions except Souness I even understood there decision to appoint Roeder. What my posts are aimed to do are not to fight for side or another or sling mud at the oldboard but to argue my personal opinion on the achivments of the the old board with hindsight. In my opinion mistakes are acceptable but when they affect the business they arent. If you think that mistakes which set businesses back 10 years are acceptable in any circumstance then you arent living in reality. Becasue thats defnintely not how it works in real life. I think every argument i have made is objective.

Whats everyone basing Arshavin on? Surely you all cant be watchig Russian football?

Right ok, im still not quite getting through to you, i completely understand how far this club has come, i really do, and i understand that Shepard et al were instrumental vital to the improvement of fortunes of this club. That point we both agree with. Yes? But this isnt the point i am arguing, i just dont understand how you could possibly say anything negative about the board after they've done absolutely nothing wrong. (Apologies to HTL, i thought you were arguing for the old board as well) It boggles the mind. When we talk about the old board, i cant help but think that you dont understand the concept of business, because in the end that is what the club is, a business. I dont understand how you dont understand that no matter how far a business come, if anyone within that business makes any mistake which would set that business back behind other competitors then the person or persons responsible for those mistakes are completely accountable. Look, you keep pointing to the European stat, it isnt really a great litmus test for the performance of the team. In fact, contrary to your "irrelevant" comment i think it is everything but. In those 10 years that we qualified for europe more than any other team bar 4, we qualified a total of 7 times(?) It seems like a nice stat, but in the same 10 years we qualified directly for europe only.....3 times. All under Sir Bobby......who was consequently sacked for his horrendous achievemtns. Now if you ask me, or anyone else, thats not exactly a stunning stat or a great advert for the boards recent achievements. As ths so called big club you call us, we fininshed in the top 10 only 4 times. 4 times??? Hardly a ringing success for a big club. Now as for ambition and financial baccking from board - your theory for success, i cant help but think that by the more realistic stats (4 top 10 finishes in10 years) paint a completely different picture to your (most euro qualfications outised top 4 stats) - Havent villa therefore finished in the top 10 more often than us? Have they qualified directly for Europe more than us? If so it blows your arguments out the water. For the past 10 years we have digressed so a change in the right direction would be nice for a change, where exactly do you think we;d end up with 10 years progression? Are you Freddy Shepard?

How many top 10 finishes did we achieve in the last 10 years? How many different managers achieved this success? Did we achieve these on the strength of the club or the strength of tthe managerial skills? Answer me this. Everton, Bolton, the top4(over a period of many years). Charlton before they lost Curbishly. Second point, please see the pervious post as it was modified.

you what ? how are the top 4 winning the cups ? Ok, i thought it would go down this route, apparently there is no compromise in the cyberworld of NE5 and HTL. Everything from club to poster shall be contrived in every possible negative way. It's so extremely naive to believe that there is only one model of success for running a club. (investing, investing, investing) Many clubs have progressed much further than us, quietly going about there business and overally being in a better situation than us. I see this club using there blueprint for success with the added advantage of having huge resources. Just to clarify a little more, because on second look my statement looks ambiguous, i dont think that that the club is looking to achieve automatic success, i genuinely dont, its an opinion and a view on how i think the club is being run. In my opinion, the club is looking at the big picture, i think there will be significant investemtn in the first team but also big investement off the field, to make this club self sustainable. If you look at the teams such as tottenham and Man City, they have been throwing there money around, and seem to be achieveing some level of success, but there future depends entirely on one person. Simple as that. Villa look like they are going down a simialr route to us. They arent looking for instant success. Whats the point of raising the already infalted expectations of an underachieving club? The people in charge of this club have shown good intelligence to not set themselves any targets which would serve no purpose but to raise the expectations of the stand monkeys. You may call that cynical, i believe it is common sense. Remember how the race of the Hare and Tortoise went? The bottom line is that i beleive the club are looking to take things slowly, theres no doubt that they're loooking to the future, and have the clubs best interest at heart. Im happy so far, and if you're already unhappy after 5 months, you really need to take a look at yourselves. Its madness to think you can even form a negative opinion on a board which so far hasnt actually put a foot out of place. Bytheway, thats probably my last post, unless you say something momentuously stupid. I'm finding your views a little outdated. You're crticizing the old board whenthey havent actually done anything wrong, you defend the old board suspiciously commited and have very little concept about the effects of the negative decisions the old board made. The sad things about your views is the complete ignorance to the irony that you and HTL miss in you're arguments for the old board and againstt he new board. The irony being that what the old board failed to achieve is now what the new board need to achieve to prove there success. Hope you see the irony in that. How can you defend someones huge mistakes and make the result of those mistakes someone elses resposbility after 5 months in charge. Undermining and discrediting everything there are attempted to achieve with your single minded views on how a club should be run. Madness I will reiterate this point everytime until you understand the ludicroudly of your arguments, so i guess it wont be my last post afterall

Fair comment, and in my view, all those things are what good boards do, accepting that they made one s**** appointment that defied belief. Everybody makes mistakes, but the basic ambition was there, and that is paramount. I agree with everything you say here. Not biased. I hated Souness but would still have liked him to succeed because he was manager of Newcastle. I'm only biased because I want NUFC to win above anything, I wasn't particularly happy at appointing Roeder, but thought that he deserved a break, and the club trying something different was worth a stab, so yes you are correct in what you say. I also accepted in the end that he had to go and it hadn't worked out. I can't see that the current youth policy is different, because we have new owners, they are setting out their stall as to how they think the club can succeed, and basically, I don't agree with them that this will lead to automatic success, and in fact I don't think we will attract the best young players if the first team doesn't move upwards. I don't know. I was happy with Allardyce, and we knew he would get backing from the board so it was a matter of how he spent his money. At the moment, I am disappointed that Allardyce appears to be getting things wrong. Patience is one thing [and not all of us have it] but watching someone making obvious errors is something else entirely. I agree, I just want to see signs that the clubs owner and chairman understand what it takes to succeed, and Allardyce to show that he understands the game by recognising where we need players most and exercising good judgement in the transfer market. Just now, I don't see either, I'm not happy with what I'm seeing and hearing from both parties. At the risk of causing a new debate, isnt this the whole point? The current board dont sound look like they are wanting automatic success. Wouldnt that be the best for the club, as spending huge amounts of money constantly isnt a sustainable way to run a successful business. I agree that investment needs to be made, and i have confindence that the board will back where nexcessary but i dont believe that the board are looking for instant success. And personally, if 10 years down the line the club have progressed singnificantly and is in a very healthy situation then i would be happy. Proabably agree with the second point, although i cant help but think that a lot of youngsters would love to come to a club of this size. We do have an unnaturally large reputation!

They could win the title in 2 years if they wanted! Scary

Examples? 99% of people on here, including you ? You can change that perception that I have simply by agreeing with me that the new owners aren't better, until they have at least matched those Champions League qualifications. But I'm not holding my breath that you - and other people without naming names but are obviuos - will admit this is the case. You asked the question by the way. Ah right, so you're assuming that's what people are assuming? I haven't got a clue what Ashley will spend. I haven't got a clue whether the new lot are 'better' than the old lot. They've not had the chance to prove they are any better or worse. You seem to have given them mere months before voicing your displeasure and spouting off about Champions League finishes, it's laughable. gotta agree, it seems very childish going on about who's 'not better', they've barely just taken over, it's saying stuff like that which makes you look biased NE5 Best ever 3 consecutive league positions in 50 years, more european qualifications than any other time in the clubs era, only bettered by 4 clubs is your answer I'm afraid. If you wish to dispute cold hard facts, I can't help you. No board who are s*** does this. BTW, is isn;t me who is saying anyone is better than anyone else, its rather the amount of people who are saying the new board are better when they are miles away form proving it yet. This is the only point that I am making. Two things then NE5. Do you think that the old board is better than this board? and And despite the consectutive top 3 finishes we still sack the manager, setting the club back 7-8 years. As for the euro qualification stat, its terribly misleading fact but you quote it so often as "cold hard fact" you could say we qualified for europe more time than any other team/ you could say that....or.... you could say under Shepards stweardship we fininhsed in the top 10 only 4 times out of 10 seasons, and 3 of those 4, top 10 fininshes were achieved by one manager who was sacked. One of 5 shepard sackings. Take SBR out the picture and you have 1 top ten finish in 5 years. Both are contain correct stats, one paints the truer picture. Now how many clubs achieved a better record league finishing wise? i'd say a few more(?),even if it was one more (Villa?) with the notorious Deadly Doug it would undermne alot of your arguments because it would equate to a chairman who has invest diddly squat(relatively speaking) and achieved more within that 10 year time scale tht you defined. Now which stat do you think is more accurate description of Freds time as Chairman. (about the 15th time ive peddled this fact without response) Incidently,what is your relationship with Freddy Shepard?

I take it you haven't read Morts comments about spendign in January [/astonished] You must be someone else who can't accept bare facts laid out in front of you, when they don't suit your opinions ? Basically, if the club don't act to fill glaring hole in the team, and say they won't act, what conclusion do you draw ? We haven't been s*** for years either BTW. I thought you were one of the better posters, until you said that. yeah, i've seen his comments, it made sense to me, i'm giving him a clean slate so i'll wait until the end of the season to make my judgement on how their first season in charge went, given the circumstances bare facts? we're specualting over what the club MIGHT do in january, there are no facts yet, and facts change my opinions, so, eh, what? i'm not sure if its a break down in communication but as far as i'm aware by saying years that can class as 2 years at the least, and i feel pretty assured that we've been s*** for at least two years, i dont really mind what you think of me well, I suppose if you've followed the club for 5 or 6 years, then the last 2 years could seem a long time. And if you've only supported the club since 1992, then the last few years have been comparitively not too good. But if you've supported the club longer than that, they have been a long way short of s***, and for that, you'll have to take my word for it. no i wont, there are many other sources of information, i dont have to take your word for anything, you've never said anything thats changed my views, as i'm sure i've never said anything thats changed yours, might aswell just pack it in Aye, and other sources of information will confirm that we have been a damn sight worse in previous decades than in the last couple of years. oh you're joining in are you? i wasnt beamed into the planet 2 years ago, i have a decent understanding of our history, i still think we've been s*** for the last few years, i was simply saying i dont have to take his word for it because he tends to get a bit preachy if you dont nip it in the bud Where was the, "na na ni na na....." I'm sure it would fit in well after your hissy bit in bold. If you have any understanding of the history of the club you'll know that as poor as the last few seasons have been there have been far, far worse in the memory of MANY supporters who still go to matches today. Anyone who is remotely successful in there life, are never happy with what they achieve. What you're saying there is that many people are grateful becasue of what they had to see. Well, im saying that in 92 we were in a position to estabilish ourselves as a dominant force in the premiership, we were on a level playin field with everyone, infact come 95(?) we were in a position to estabilish ourselves as THE dominant team in the premiership, but becasue oft he ineptitude of the board , failed, we fell so far behind it seems like an impossible task to do but we did. So by the modern view, what has been achieved isnt good enough, we didnt take the oppurtunity we were given therefore we wasted a golden oppurtunity, there cant be any excuse for that. No matter how bad it was. You're quite clearly one of these "it'll do" people. You clearly have absolutely no idea of where the old board found the club, claiming they were "inept". Must admit, this has made me laugh. In 1995 Sir John was chairman, Keegan was manager, and it was the year before we nearly won the league. Such is your lack of knowledge, you put a question mark against it. Credibily destroyed, I'm afraid. Yeh i understnd that, i understand about the state of the club was abhorrent pre Fletcher, Hall and Shep, what im trying to say, and as you have correctly pointed out my knowledge basis isnt fantastic on the account of having a life etc, but from my point of view, irrespective of who was in charge of the club or the position we were in i feel we wasted a golden oppurtunity to be a huge club. Now i dont claim to be a SOOPAFAN, i wouldnt dare pass myself of as that, all im tryin to do is offer my views on the clubs recent history, not the past, becasues thats not strictly relevant. Supposing the club started was created in 92, and what happened in the past didnt exist, how would you view the current situation and handling of the club? Thats the point of view that i am using. but it wasn't, was it. Do you really think that qualifying for europe more than every team bar 4 over the last 10 years is s*** ? mackems.gif Right ok, finally, i'm starting to grasp your point a little, thankfully with you're help (ironically)! I beleive by the sounds of it HTL has the same opinion as you, its unformtunate though that he hasnt contributed anything remotely interesting or important. Im someone who is keen to see someone elses point of view and try to understand from different points of views and have actually asked for some of his views about something which i dont fully understand and havent really got anything interesting from him. Thats pretty pathetic if you ask me. I dont like the "i know more than you, little boy" attitude, its extremely frustrating for someone who is actually keen to get that knowledge. Im a relatvely new poster so while my views maybe simialr to others you've clearly argued with in the past, they arent the same so i'd rather not be painted with the same tar brush. So, to my point, i beleive and please correct me if i am wrong, that you are partially crediting Shepard for the massive revival of this club, and the past is relevant becasue its the past that Shepard dragged us out of. You're saying that Shepards achievement for this club would be akin to say Ken Bates getting Leeds back into the premiership and playing in Europe, or maybe even a side in a more perilous situation. As a younger person I genuinely dont know the exact situation of the club in the darker days. Would that be correct? Would i be wrong in saying that the crux of your argument for Shepard, is that you believe that his greatest achievement for this club wasnt his European qualifications, or the FA cup finals, or CL qualifiaction or even title contenders that we take for granted but that he was partly responsible for putting the club in a position to be considering these things as an actual possiblity? People dont understand the magnitude of what he actually achieved. If this is true, then i think i finally see where you're coming from, and i have to agree with you, as much as i hate to say it. Shepards achievements would be comparable to say someone getting Millwall into the premiership and then qualifying for Europe consistently even having a stint as title challengers and bulding magnificent facilite and a stadium for the club. I'm not sure if thats a good example feel free to me correct if im wrong. Finally i think i can see things from your point of view, although your condensending way of arguing is such a struggle to try and understand, almost as antagonistic and petulant as HTL but not quite. The flip side to this argumetn comes from people who werent around the dark days and so by no fault of there own arent fully able to grasp the magnitude of his achievements and so look at his recenet achievements as a Chairman which tey have every right to. i think they argue the fact that while he did help get us into the position that he did, he failed to get us to the next step, it sticks in the mind so much nowadays because before he took over as chairman we were in a fantastic situation, title challengers, and byt the end of his reign we were a mid table team. The reasons for this slump can be debated for ever, and noone will be right or wrong, however one thing that cant be denied is that by the end of his reign we werent in the position that we should/could of been even though we were in a fastastic position to do so, and that will forever be deemed as a failure in my book. When you have the means to achieve something and its a very real possiblity, when you dont progres to where you hoped to be, no matter how much you dress it up, or talk about the past it will always be deemed failure. He made some horrendous gaffs and they are the mistakes that will stick in mind. At the risk of using another crap analogy, will tony blair be remembered for bringin peace to the NI, ROIreland? (A massive achievemtn) or rememebered for the mistakes in Iraq? (In my opinion a massive gaff). Most people will remember him for Iraq, just like most people will remember Shepard for Souness, treament of SBR, Roeder etc. Thst pretty much presents both sides of the arguments, and i suppose i agree with both. One of your arguments is that under shepard we qulaified for europe more times than any other team outside the top4, you could say that.... OR you could say under Shepards stweardship we fininhsed in the top 10 only 4 times out of 10 seasons, and 3 of those 4, top 10 fininshes were achieved by one manager who was sacked. One of 5 shepard sackings. Both are contain correct stats, one paints the truer picture. If you understand this statment, then i am sure you will start to see the point of view of those people who are anti Shepard, not necessarily agree with them, but understand them. And bytheway, i dont think there is anyone who actually thinks that Shepard was the worst chairman ever. this is getting long, I've amplified the section to reply. You are on the right lines. I don't understand why you say "I hate to say it". Why ? Do personalities matter when it comes to running the football club ? Surely all you want is success for the football club ? Nobody is saying they ie Shepherd AND the Halls [they all ran the club, Shepherd was not the major shareholder, so I simply fail to see why he is blamed for things when other people would have been by this very virtue highly involved in every major decision including the appointment of the managers], didn't make mistakes. But you have to see that everybody makes mistakes. On face value, the club has done very well, not as well as 4 other clubs, but only 4. They may have lost their way since appointing Souness, but who is to say they would not have found it again, nobody can. They proved their ambition for the club many times over, and before Souness the club had 5 great years under Keegan, a few lower positions, then the highest consecutive league positions for 50 years and regular european competition including the Champions League run. They have now been replaced, appointing Souness was the start of their downfall. Ashley came along and so we will never know if they would have got back on the right track or not. Ashley and Mort now have to make the club a success. Starting with matching the best that the Halls and Shepherd did, then sustaining it for longer. Not an easy task, by any stretch. As always, the appointment of the manager and how they back him will determine everything, and don't take it for granted that Ashley and Mort will appoint the "right" man, because everybody is wanting the same. Its tongue in cheek, you're the original pantomine villian. Dont take it personally! Well this depends on how you look at it. but the last paragraph looks at this point of view in a different light. One that i think paints a truer picture. Absolutely, i couldnt agree more with you there but do you not think though that becasue of those mistakes we are not the club we could of been. Do you not think that some of the more vital mistakes (i.e sacking Robson) could of been avoided levaing us in a much much better position both footballing wise and financially? Most fans nowadays feel that we were in an enviable situation where we could of been one of the teams in the higher echeleons, the so called top 4 could of been the top 5. Its definitely not an unrealistic belief. Because of those mistakes we are no more distinguishalbe than any other mid table team like Blackburn. Which is a little sad because the gulf between us and the top 4 is almost inpenertrable.

The people who ruin the forum are those who automatically post negatively against the opinion of certain individuals (not just NE5) based on who is making the post rather than the content of the post. If people would get their head out of their arse and read what he's posting they will find it makes sense. EG If you seriously believe that under the previous board, major decisions were made by one individual acting alone, then you (and others) are frankly a bit dim. I appreciate there is a dilemma here for some. Admitting that big decisions were made by a group of people is obviously going to mean some people can't continue with their childish pastime of slating one individual for everything. Think about it, before you blurt something out.... Agree completely fwiw. However i'm intrigued by certain posters questioning Mort's ambition, as if he were the only to do with the club who made any kind of decisions whatsoever. Well, at least you can grasp that he isn't the owner / major shareholder. But neither was Shepherd. If you are consistent in the way you look at things, you will accept that Shepherd wasn't solely to blame [or credit] for the clubs fortunes. Neither is Mort. But we are worried by the comments coming out of the club, although actions speak louder than words, some people have heard things like this before. They appear to be putting off spending money on the team, which indicates to me that it isn't on the agenda, and sadly this reads that they do not understand that if you want to match the top teams, you have to compete with them. Or maybe they have decided they aren't going to compete with these clubs, which the old board did to the best of their ability. Basically, if they have ambition to win things and compete in the CL, the sooner they get there the better. There is no point whatsoever in putting it off. Building the clubs profile asap increases the clubs attractiveness to these youngsters they say they want to bring in. Although we went down this road under Bobby Robson, so it isn't new even though some people are trying to imply that it is. We shall see. These are both massive assumptions. You have contrived the quotes negatively and i dont quite understand why? Maybe a precedent was set in the past whre the old old board went down a similar route and inevitably led to failure. If you were to scrutinzes his quotes positively, what positives would you draw? It seems to that you dismiss everything positive from his quotes as "PR, cliches and hype" but argue anyhting negative that can be contrived from his quotes with the commitment of a nufc chairman at a pie eating contest. Even though both scutinizations hold the same weight in water. Well, I'm not impressed by the summer signings, and I'm not impressed by comments coming out of the club. So we will see. And I'm totally unimpressed by PR, wearing tops at matches and buying people a pint, both of which are completely irrelevant to anything. If anything, I think wearing his top at matches is something he shouldn't do, if it means he is sitting close to fans, and listening to them, because he should be his own man and more detached. But ultimately, I'm more interested in how he runs the club and backs his managers. Fair points, i wouldnt say i was impressed by the signings as of yet, but i feel that they were a defnites improvement on the previous squad and that can only be a good thing. All the players have shown glimpses of genuine quality the responsibilty of getting them to work lies with SA. I'm liking the fact that Mort seemed willing to cooperate with SA during the summer....well thats i i saw the events anyway. Its also a fair point to dismiss everything he does as PR. Again it may be naive of me but is there not a tiny part of you which belives that Ashley may genuinely be a fan? I personally, judging by his reactions in the stands genuinely believe that he loves having this club. I dont think that sitting with the fans is just a cynical ploy, but is something he genuinely enjoys doing. Its open to opinion as to his true intentions, but at this point of time, i would like to believe that he is truly a fan who's looking to enjoy the experience. By no means though does this cloud my judgement on how he and Mort have run the club. Both seem like astute people and his current investment suggest to me that he has the best interests at heart, £105m of his own money is a lot of money in any business.

The people who ruin the forum are those who automatically post negatively against the opinion of certain individuals (not just NE5) based on who is making the post rather than the content of the post. If people would get their head out of their arse and read what he's posting they will find it makes sense. EG If you seriously believe that under the previous board, major decisions were made by one individual acting alone, then you (and others) are frankly a bit dim. I appreciate there is a dilemma here for some. Admitting that big decisions were made by a group of people is obviously going to mean some people can't continue with their childish pastime of slating one individual for everything. Think about it, before you blurt something out.... Agree completely fwiw. However i'm intrigued by certain posters questioning Mort's ambition, as if he were the only to do with the club who made any kind of decisions whatsoever. Well, at least you can grasp that he isn't the owner / major shareholder. But neither was Shepherd. If you are consistent in the way you look at things, you will accept that Shepherd wasn't solely to blame [or credit] for the clubs fortunes. Neither is Mort. But we are worried by the comments coming out of the club, although actions speak louder than words, some people have heard things like this before. They appear to be putting off spending money on the team, which indicates to me that it isn't on the agenda, and sadly this reads that they do not understand that if you want to match the top teams, you have to compete with them. Or maybe they have decided they aren't going to compete with these clubs, which the old board did to the best of their ability. Basically, if they have ambition to win things and compete in the CL, the sooner they get there the better. There is no point whatsoever in putting it off. Building the clubs profile asap increases the clubs attractiveness to these youngsters they say they want to bring in. Although we went down this road under Bobby Robson, so it isn't new even though some people are trying to imply that it is. We shall see. These are both massive assumptions. You have contrived the quotes negatively and i dont quite understand why? Maybe a precedent was set in the past whre the old old board went down a similar route and inevitably led to failure. If you were to scrutinzes his quotes positively, what positives would you draw? It seems to that you dismiss everything positive from his quotes as "PR, cliches and hype" but argue anyhting negative that can be contrived from his quotes with the commitment of a nufc chairman at a pie eating contest. Even though both scutinizations hold the same weight in water.

The people who ruin the forum are those who automatically post negatively against the opinion of certain individuals (not just NE5) based on who is making the post rather than the content of the post. If people would get their head out of their arse and read what he's posting they will find it makes sense. EG If you seriously believe that under the previous board, major decisions were made by one individual acting alone, then you (and others) are frankly a bit dim. I appreciate there is a dilemma here for some. Admitting that big decisions were made by a group of people is obviously going to mean some people can't continue with their childish pastime of slating one individual for everything. Think about it, before you blurt something out.... But surely the chairman has to bare the brunt of the decision? even if it is not actually his own? isnt that part and parcel of the job?

Not saying we dont need him, i just dont think he will be overly effective with the way we're playing, whats the point having someone who can play the important balls into advacned dangerous positions when the players wont be there to recieve it. We dont have the output because the movement from our wingers is s***. Cant rememeber the last time i saw Milner or Zog or Smith run behind the full backs, into the dangerous positions. If we had Elano i genuinely dont think he'd be very effective for us. Just my opinion

Dint think it'd be as one sided as that, I personally thought that Ronaldo has been the best player in the world. With Kaka in a very very close second. Its the CL semi which has swayed things, can understand that but Milan were pretty crap last year in the league, whreas Man U were quality in the league and quality in the CL bar 2 games. Messi should never have been voted second, no way in a million years has he achieved more than Ronaldo in the past year. Althoughthis year, he looks untouchable

scolari has come close enough

Defnintely, they effectively play 424 with there wingers.

I dont think we have the squad to play 433, and i think SA has realised that, he said in his Zoo column something along those words. I think the problem with us playin 433 lies with our forward line. Simple as that. I think the problem lies specifically with the wide forwards. For the 433 to be completely effective you need the forwards to be able to double up and become part of a 5 man midfield, while being able to be a sufficient threat in the box, I personally think that Smith could fit that role well, he seems like a very similar player to Diouf, but we also have Duff to return on the left, a player who is already comfortable playing on thw wide left of the fron t 3. This leaves us with Owen and Martins, arguably our most dangerous players, who are completely inneffective in a 433 situation. It also poses a problem for Zog, as he isnt the enough of a threat in the box to warrant a place on the left of the 3 forwards. The same can be said of Milner. This leaves us with 442, which seems like the best formation for our squad. One of the problems though that i think is hindering the 442 is the partnerships that the formation depends of to be effective, For the 442 to be completely effective it needs to be perfectly balanced with all the partnerships working well. The same dependence on partnerships isnt so important in the 433 formation. If SA gets all the balance and partnerships working well then i see no reason to try and change the team around too much.

To be honest, i actually dont think that having a class creative playmaker will make us any more creative. There isnt enough movement in the team for a "in the hole" creative midfielder to be effective in my opinion. I genuinely think that Emre could still be an important player for us. Its just the way that we play that stifles the effectiveness of creative players.

I take it you haven't read Morts comments about spendign in January [/astonished] You must be someone else who can't accept bare facts laid out in front of you, when they don't suit your opinions ? Basically, if the club don't act to fill glaring hole in the team, and say they won't act, what conclusion do you draw ? We haven't been s*** for years either BTW. I thought you were one of the better posters, until you said that. yeah, i've seen his comments, it made sense to me, i'm giving him a clean slate so i'll wait until the end of the season to make my judgement on how their first season in charge went, given the circumstances bare facts? we're specualting over what the club MIGHT do in january, there are no facts yet, and facts change my opinions, so, eh, what? i'm not sure if its a break down in communication but as far as i'm aware by saying years that can class as 2 years at the least, and i feel pretty assured that we've been s*** for at least two years, i dont really mind what you think of me well, I suppose if you've followed the club for 5 or 6 years, then the last 2 years could seem a long time. And if you've only supported the club since 1992, then the last few years have been comparitively not too good. But if you've supported the club longer than that, they have been a long way short of s***, and for that, you'll have to take my word for it. no i wont, there are many other sources of information, i dont have to take your word for anything, you've never said anything thats changed my views, as i'm sure i've never said anything thats changed yours, might aswell just pack it in Aye, and other sources of information will confirm that we have been a damn sight worse in previous decades than in the last couple of years. oh you're joining in are you? i wasnt beamed into the planet 2 years ago, i have a decent understanding of our history, i still think we've been s*** for the last few years, i was simply saying i dont have to take his word for it because he tends to get a bit preachy if you dont nip it in the bud Where was the, "na na ni na na....." I'm sure it would fit in well after your hissy bit in bold. If you have any understanding of the history of the club you'll know that as poor as the last few seasons have been there have been far, far worse in the memory of MANY supporters who still go to matches today. Anyone who is remotely successful in there life, are never happy with what they achieve. What you're saying there is that many people are grateful becasue of what they had to see. Well, im saying that in 92 we were in a position to estabilish ourselves as a dominant force in the premiership, we were on a level playin field with everyone, infact come 95(?) we were in a position to estabilish ourselves as THE dominant team in the premiership, but becasue oft he ineptitude of the board , failed, we fell so far behind it seems like an impossible task to do but we did. So by the modern view, what has been achieved isnt good enough, we didnt take the oppurtunity we were given therefore we wasted a golden oppurtunity, there cant be any excuse for that. No matter how bad it was. You're quite clearly one of these "it'll do" people. You clearly have absolutely no idea of where the old board found the club, claiming they were "inept". Must admit, this has made me laugh. In 1995 Sir John was chairman, Keegan was manager, and it was the year before we nearly won the league. Such is your lack of knowledge, you put a question mark against it. Credibily destroyed, I'm afraid. Yeh i understnd that, i understand about the state of the club was abhorrent pre Fletcher, Hall and Shep, what im trying to say, and as you have correctly pointed out my knowledge basis isnt fantastic on the account of having a life etc, but from my point of view, irrespective of who was in charge of the club or the position we were in i feel we wasted a golden oppurtunity to be a huge club. Now i dont claim to be a SOOPAFAN, i wouldnt dare pass myself of as that, all im tryin to do is offer my views on the clubs recent history, not the past, becasues thats not strictly relevant. Supposing the club started was created in 92, and what happened in the past didnt exist, how would you view the current situation and handling of the club? Thats the point of view that i am using. but it wasn't, was it. Do you really think that qualifying for europe more than every team bar 4 over the last 10 years is s*** ? mackems.gif Right ok, finally, i'm starting to grasp your point a little, thankfully with you're help (ironically)! I beleive by the sounds of it HTL has the same opinion as you, its unformtunate though that he hasnt contributed anything remotely interesting or important. Im someone who is keen to see someone elses point of view and try to understand from different points of views and have actually asked for some of his views about something which i dont fully understand and havent really got anything interesting from him. Thats pretty pathetic if you ask me. I dont like the "i know more than you, little boy" attitude, its extremely frustrating for someone who is actually keen to get that knowledge. Im a relatvely new poster so while my views maybe simialr to others you've clearly argued with in the past, they arent the same so i'd rather not be painted with the same tar brush. So, to my point, i beleive and please correct me if i am wrong, that you are partially crediting Shepard for the massive revival of this club, and the past is relevant becasue its the past that Shepard dragged us out of. You're saying that Shepards achievement for this club would be akin to say Ken Bates getting Leeds back into the premiership and playing in Europe, or maybe even a side in a more perilous situation. As a younger person I genuinely dont know the exact situation of the club in the darker days. Would that be correct? Would i be wrong in saying that the crux of your argument for Shepard, is that you believe that his greatest achievement for this club wasnt his European qualifications, or the FA cup finals, or CL qualifiaction or even title contenders that we take for granted but that he was partly responsible for putting the club in a position to be considering these things as an actual possiblity? People dont understand the magnitude of what he actually achieved. If this is true, then i think i finally see where you're coming from, and i have to agree with you, as much as i hate to say it. Shepards achievements would be comparable to say someone getting Millwall into the premiership and then qualifying for Europe consistently even having a stint as title challengers and bulding magnificent facilite and a stadium for the club. I'm not sure if thats a good example feel free to me correct if im wrong. Finally i think i can see things from your point of view, although your condensending way of arguing is such a struggle to try and understand, almost as antagonistic and petulant as HTL but not quite. The flip side to this argumetn comes from people who werent around the dark days and so by no fault of there own arent fully able to grasp the magnitude of his achievements and so look at his recenet achievements as a Chairman which tey have every right to. i think they argue the fact that while he did help get us into the position that he did, he failed to get us to the next step, it sticks in the mind so much nowadays because before he took over as chairman we were in a fantastic situation, title challengers, and byt the end of his reign we were a mid table team. The reasons for this slump can be debated for ever, and noone will be right or wrong, however one thing that cant be denied is that by the end of his reign we werent in the position that we should/could of been even though we were in a fastastic position to do so, and that will forever be deemed as a failure in my book. When you have the means to achieve something and its a very real possiblity, when you dont progres to where you hoped to be, no matter how much you dress it up, or talk about the past it will always be deemed failure. He made some horrendous gaffs and they are the mistakes that will stick in mind. At the risk of using another crap analogy, will tony blair be remembered for bringin peace to the NI, ROIreland? (A massive achievemtn) or rememebered for the mistakes in Iraq? (In my opinion a massive gaff). Most people will remember him for Iraq, just like most people will remember Shepard for Souness, treament of SBR, Roeder etc. Thst pretty much presents both sides of the arguments, and i suppose i agree with both. One of your arguments is that under shepard we qulaified for europe more times than any other team outside the top4, you could say that.... OR you could say under Shepards stweardship we fininhsed in the top 10 only 4 times out of 10 seasons, and 3 of those 4, top 10 fininshes were achieved by one manager who was sacked. One of 5 shepard sackings. Both are contain correct stats, one paints the truer picture. If you understand this statment, then i am sure you will start to see the point of view of those people who are anti Shepard, not necessarily agree with them, but understand them. And bytheway, i dont think there is anyone who actually thinks that Shepard was the worst chairman ever.

I take it you haven't read Morts comments about spendign in January [/astonished] You must be someone else who can't accept bare facts laid out in front of you, when they don't suit your opinions ? Basically, if the club don't act to fill glaring hole in the team, and say they won't act, what conclusion do you draw ? We haven't been s*** for years either BTW. I thought you were one of the better posters, until you said that. yeah, i've seen his comments, it made sense to me, i'm giving him a clean slate so i'll wait until the end of the season to make my judgement on how their first season in charge went, given the circumstances bare facts? we're specualting over what the club MIGHT do in january, there are no facts yet, and facts change my opinions, so, eh, what? i'm not sure if its a break down in communication but as far as i'm aware by saying years that can class as 2 years at the least, and i feel pretty assured that we've been s*** for at least two years, i dont really mind what you think of me well, I suppose if you've followed the club for 5 or 6 years, then the last 2 years could seem a long time. And if you've only supported the club since 1992, then the last few years have been comparitively not too good. But if you've supported the club longer than that, they have been a long way short of s***, and for that, you'll have to take my word for it. no i wont, there are many other sources of information, i dont have to take your word for anything, you've never said anything thats changed my views, as i'm sure i've never said anything thats changed yours, might aswell just pack it in Aye, and other sources of information will confirm that we have been a damn sight worse in previous decades than in the last couple of years. oh you're joining in are you? i wasnt beamed into the planet 2 years ago, i have a decent understanding of our history, i still think we've been s*** for the last few years, i was simply saying i dont have to take his word for it because he tends to get a bit preachy if you dont nip it in the bud Where was the, "na na ni na na....." I'm sure it would fit in well after your hissy bit in bold. If you have any understanding of the history of the club you'll know that as poor as the last few seasons have been there have been far, far worse in the memory of MANY supporters who still go to matches today. Anyone who is remotely successful in there life, are never happy with what they achieve. What you're saying there is that many people are grateful becasue of what they had to see. Well, im saying that in 92 we were in a position to estabilish ourselves as a dominant force in the premiership, we were on a level playin field with everyone, infact come 95(?) we were in a position to estabilish ourselves as THE dominant team in the premiership, but becasue oft he ineptitude of the board , failed, we fell so far behind it seems like an impossible task to do but we did. So by the modern view, what has been achieved isnt good enough, we didnt take the oppurtunity we were given therefore we wasted a golden oppurtunity, there cant be any excuse for that. No matter how bad it was. You're quite clearly one of these "it'll do" people. You clearly have absolutely no idea of where the old board found the club, claiming they were "inept". Must admit, this has made me laugh. In 1995 Sir John was chairman, Keegan was manager, and it was the year before we nearly won the league. Such is your lack of knowledge, you put a question mark against it. Credibily destroyed, I'm afraid. Yeh i understnd that, i understand about the state of the club was abhorrent pre Fletcher, Hall and Shep, what im trying to say, and as you have correctly pointed out my knowledge basis isnt fantastic on the account of having a life etc, but from my point of view, irrespective of who was in charge of the club or the position we were in i feel we wasted a golden oppurtunity to be a huge club. Now i dont claim to be a SOOPAFAN, i wouldnt dare pass myself of as that, all im tryin to do is offer my views on the clubs recent history, not the past, becasues thats not strictly relevant. Supposing the club started was created in 92, and what happened in the past didnt exist, how would you view the current situation and handling of the club? Thats the point of view that i am using.

How can that possibly be a fact? Because Keegan says so. He said that Shepherd, Fletcher and Hall Jnr wanted him, and Hall Snr didn't. Unless you know better ... whatever misinterpretation others wish to say .... I'm sure i remember seeing a Keegan quote...something along the lines of...(on the phone to SJH) "there are only 2 people who can save this club now, and they're on the phone to each other now" Does that mean anything?

If you read what he is typing, you would realise he is not really arsed about Jan or summer, he is more bothered signing players that are better than the current players. Which once we take out some of the crap in your posts is exactly the same thing your saying. OH MY GOD, well if you read any of my f****** posts you'll realises im talking about the Jan period, do you know why? Becasuse its directively related to Morts quotes. I>E THIS WHOLE THREAD. You have to be an amazing spin doctor to be able to attribue those quotes to anything other than this immediate transfer window. AND for the 20th time, i ve openly agreed with NE5 and others that we should adress the weaknesses in our squad, ie the signing of Woodgate etc, but i dont think we should be filling the squad at this time. Seriously, some people are so stupid, ive tried to include as much generic detail, addressing as many issues as i can but it seems many people struggle at the first f****** step. In the post I quoted you definitely mention the summer. Who is being a spin doctor? Me? NE5? You? I know you keep agreeing with NE5 on points, that is why I find it strange you asked your 'hypothetical' question. Did I touch nerve hinny? For your own sanity dont reply to this post, because I reckon you may turn out like How old are you? I mentioned summer as part of a hypothetical situation, the aim was to try and look at the summer period in context to the jan period. If you were to ask the fans out there the same situation im sure most of them would opt for the summer. but why? Thats what i was trying to get at. Theres a reason why people prefer the summer, and im sure its the saem for the clubs. Thats all im saying. i dont think ive ever spoken to anyone so stupid that they cant see that. Nevermind eh! I've been able to see ne5 points about generally strengthening the squad, obviously in order for the club to progress we need to invest to strengthen goes without saying. Of course, generally speaking his views are correct, im not arguing contrare to that but the bits that i disagree with are the ones which are directly relevant to Morts quotes. Says that we should sign all the time, which i disagree with, hence the points about Jan window period, whcih i will reiterate again, is releavant to Morts quotes. do you see where the difference in our arguments lie? ....probably not I don;t think most supporters would say the summer - not that it makes any difference anyway. Why would you not want a player who will improve the team in asap ? I don't see why you should not always be looking to improve your team, thats what football is all about. We have half the season left, we could qualify for europe with a couple of good players for the right positions, so why do you want to write it off and why would you support the board if they took the same stance. As I've said, I find such an attitude from them to be very worrying. In fact, to coin a word you used yourself, its a s*** approach. And, you WERE losing your cool, as HTL pointed out. Which makes you look very childish, not him for pointing it out. - Well then we're gonna have to agree to disagree there. If £40m was available to spend in only one of the transfer periods, im sure people would rather go for the summer period. The reasons that they'd give are exactly the same reasons that i am giving to support my view that too much money shouldnt be spent in Jan. This might be a difficult concept for you, but i actuall agree with you on this point and have stated throughout my posts this view, but i guess your in selective reading mode so must of missed it. I just think theres 2 types of transfers, transfers which imporve the team, and transfers which improve the squad. Again, without sounding patronizing, do you know the diffrerence? Becasue i have already said that we should be using the period to adress the weakness of the team and not the squad. As a club we are continuosly looking for quick fixes, before the season, we were happy to finish in a top 10 position. By your logic arent you selling yourself short, really showing a bit of a lack of ambition. Why dont we just try and improve the squad to title challenges, we can afford it. By your way we should be doing that, which bit of compromise in your brain has acknowledged that that isnt a possiblity, it needs to be a slower process but why?? oh, nothing is a difficult concept for me. I've supported NUFC too long for that. I'm talking back to when we were really s*** mind, which is a concept that I suspect is too difficult for you. By your last paragraph, it would appear you are simply a victim of the current hype and cliches. I don't suppose you complained too much when we played in the Champions League, due to the quick fix of Bellamy and Robert massively improving what was a mid table team. One day your brain may realise that if you want to reach these heights, you set standards, and the quicker you get there the better. I am pleased for you that you are happy with mid table league positions, despite moaning that it is s***. Quick fix ? What a load of bollocks. I am pleased for you that you are happy with mid table league positions, despite moaning that it is s***. Talk about using cliches! I mean, what does that mean? What hype? What cliche? Im just merely agreeing with Morts views on the January transfer window, i think its a good idea saving money in the january period where it will be put to better use in the summer period. I agree with you that money needs to be spent inthe jan period, but i disagree of the amount of money, your view is that we shoudl spend as much money as possible as often as you can. After witnesing the club do that for the past 10 years and see not a single trophy and being left £80m in debt, i'm more than happy to try a different approach. I'd hardly call Robert and Bellamy an ironic "quick fix", how long had SBR been in charge before they were signed? Do you think the transofrmation of the club would of been even more dramatic had they been signed in the first year? honestly mate, after the past 4 seasons of dross, i am definitely happy with a stable mid table finish this season. Any improvement on that would be a bonus. Would i be happy with a mid table finish next season? Would i bollocks. Why? Becasue the foundations are set and we need to improve. I have reality on my side, and before the season started, even though i knew that with the squad we possessed European qualification was possible, i knew deep down with so much change it was asking just that little bit too much. By demanading Europe in the first season, your automaitcally expecting CL as the next progressive step. Now thats a target you have set SA and the current board fo CL qualification in 2 years. Maybe that is true, there are always 2 sides of the coin, and signing supposed quality isnt always a guaratee, we could stay static, which would be even more of a disaster. I tohught that the aquisition of Luque and Boumsong were testament to that.

Whats so "funny"? I dont understand, me and you truly are on different wavelengths, i genuinely cannot understand where you're coming from no matter how hard i try.