fredbob

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!

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.