fredbob

I've never really entirely understood this concept that signing supposed creative players will definitively make us creative, i always thought that the way you played made chances. I mean, if we signed Elano, i still dont think that we'd turn into a creative team, becaseu we dont really have the output for his vision, i.e players who are gonna get into dangerous positions.

When we play 433 I would imagine Sam will always have at least 2 strikers/forward in the front 3. I cant see Owen being played in a 4-3-3 system. I think SA will go 4-4-2 and have 2 wide players. Has anyone read SA article in Zoo magazine?? He says something about not actually playing a 433 and so cant understnad the criticism of the system wen its not always being played. Also says that he's aware that the squad at full strength is best suited to 442.

Ive only counted one bad game from cacapa and that was that nightmare 15mins, how come no one is rating him near the top of their rankings. Faye hasnt had a bad game so i can see why he at the top but not Beye, he's only shown what he's capable of recently.

How do you figure that one out? Because my opinion on the matter differs from the norm? Yeah, grats on that one. Why should I (or any of us) care about this anyways? The blokes getting shipped out and thats that. Nothing we say or do here on this board is going to change any of that ffs. Stop trying to be heroes. That's a lame argument - you shouldn't care about stuff you can't do anything about? I'm just saying don't try and s*** on other people's opinons and call them all sorts of names under the sun because they have an opinion. So what if someone was of the opinion that your girlfriend was a slut?? His boyfriend would be pissed.

Ashley isn't the bestest chairman in the whole world, he isn't even chairman. You're desperate to see us fail. Isnt spending £25m on a manager they dint appoint quite ambitious? Isnt signing 9 players of a good quality quite ambitious? Isnt clearing the debt run up by the last regime so the club can progress more efficiently ambitious? Why is it that sepnding money on players in your world is the only sign of true ambition? Why isnt the club actviely looking to improve the youth system by signing potential stars for the future ambitious? What has the chairman actually specifically said that implies he's not looking to improve the squad? Therefore insinuating that theres no ambition. Would just like to point out as well that Mort has been in the club for 5 months and so far (excluding the purchase of the club) £100m has been spent by him, is that a lack of ambition? You seem to think that Shepards method of running the club was the only blueprint for success inthe premiership (i.e throwing money at people)? But didnt his method leave us in a precarious position? £80m in debt? Wheres the justification for all this praise? Are you related to Freddy Shepard? And by any chance are you a journalist or a politician? (that was aimed at NE5 bytheway, think i misquoted)

At the end of the 2003-4 season we should have told him thanks, but time to move on. Liverpool brought in Benitez, Chelsea got Mourinho, Spurs brought Jol into the club...we hung on to Robson and the fault of Shepherd was that he hung on too long before getting rid of him. Liverpool, brought in Benitez after securing alot of cups, Chelsea could buy anyone they wanted, and Jol was reletively unknown so not exactly a manager you could say was gonna be an improvement on what you already had (although they did actually appoint Santini, which was quite ambitious) the difference for Totenhamm is that ehy didnt sack there manager for non football reasons, (i.e a legendary manager in the game). What justification was there to sack him after the 03-04, everyone seems to think that it was a dead certainty that we were going down the drain despite the fact that this guy was probably the most experineced manger in the entire Europe. Why did we hang on too long? We had only one relatively poor season, and still finished 5th. I've still not heard a single genuine footballing reason for his sacking. "Cracks started to show" is not a footballing reason for all you mystic megs out there who predicted the future just like the great Dougie "the Dickhead" Hall. How anyone can sit there and tell me that we were destined for failire after fininshing 5th with one of the most capable managers ever to grace the game is beyond me. What the hell do you base this on after one poorish season? Victim of his age, i cant tell you how much i hate that fact, but the genreal consensu was he was old and therefore incapable. "He must be losing it at this age" I bet he had more energy and footballing intellegence in his little finger than 75% of premiershiop managers.

We also bought Woodgate in the January, I hope nobody is saying we shouldn't buy a player of that calibre just because its the "wrong time" - a completely absurd view if ever you saw one. Mate, you're an idiot, I've never known anyone as selective as you. Can you point out anyone in this thread who says we shouldnt sign players of high calibre if available and essential. It's all about context mate, and the context that most people were trying to imply was that generally speaking, using the January period to try and build a squad isnt the most practical thing to try and do, both business wise, and importantly footballing wise. Not a single person in this thread has said we shouldnt sign any players in the Jan period but that seems to be the context your asserting in your posts. Without sounding patronizing, do you know the difference between squad strengthening and squad building? If you see the difference that i do, then you would understand that squad building(i.e adding depth and quality throughout the squad) in January is a bad idea for a number of reasons, whereas squad strengthening (i.e, addressignt the weaknesses of the team) is what is required. Thats the point im trying to argue anyway.

The general consensus of those who believe that SBR was right to be sacked is that the cracks started to appear we were going down the wrong track so he needed to be 'got rid of' as soon as possible. Is that correct? For those who thought that it was the right dcision to sack him.....who do you think would of come to a club that sacks there legendary manager for fininshing 5th after 4 years of insipid football? All this without any trophies or titles for god knows how many years to justify the sacking? Who were you hoping to get?

Dennis Bergkamp was signed by Bruce Rioch. See here if you don't believe me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Bergkamp) Mort and Co are intelligent, well educated guys and they understand the club's situation more than any of us on here (they would have inherited all sorts of issues from Shepherds running of the club behind the scenes I'm sure). It's up to Mort and Co to deliver on our potential and I'd like to think they realise that means implementing long term, sustainable plans and not the sticky plaster mentality of the past regimes. That doesn't mean less emphasis on the short term, but it will mean chucking resource at those planning for and working towards the long term. I get the impression that some people are waiting with baited breath for him or Ashley to f*** up in order to use it as some sort of justification of the previous regime and their handling of club affairs? He's not put a foot wrong in my opinion and long may it continue. Continuity and stability may be buzzwords but they're exactly what we need and in Sam and Mort I'm confident that in the medium term we'll be a much better club for it. I, for one, thank him for his work so far. Great post bytheway, pretty much everyhting ive tried to say in one post! Crikey, my english is shit and i'm english!

Looks photoshopped to me. Am i the only one who thinks that?

You obviously weren't watching us play, then. We were not on the right track, we had been on the right track but had left it 18 months earlier, which is when Robson should have been nicely moved to one side. He was sacked too late. We werent playing to the high standard we'd become climatized to for the previous 2 seasons, convieniently forgetting the 3-4 season of insipid perfomrnace we'd had with the previous regimes. Which is fine, but EVERY single manager out there has had poor seasons, where it has looked like they were going down the wrong track every one, Fergie, Houllier, Wenger....i could name loads thoroughout the entire of Europe as well. But none were sacked after there supposed first poor season. If the football was so poor, how the hell did we finish 5th? Thats a good season in my book. He was a victim of his own age if you ask me. The bottom line is that irrespective of the performances, SBR had, for those 3-4 seasons, got us into a situation where we had the means to reestabilish ourselves as a big club in Enlgand. And instead of sticking with him until there were footballing reasons to get rid, i.e poor finishing position, we sack him for 1 and his first season of lower standard football. The real litmus test is would you sack Allardyce under the exact same circumstances? i mean, if he built us up for the next 2 season, then fininshed 4, 3, then 5th playuing good football, would you sack Allardyce? The situations are similar from when they took over, except for the estabilishment of the top 4.

I dont understand why people thought that this was the correct decision to sack him. Was it the supposed lack of discipline in the dressing room? Is a sacking for supposedly losing the dressing room justifiable? I understand that missing out on CL for 2 seasons was hertbreaking but we had a great run in the UEFA cup. We were finally back on the right track. Why would anyone change a winning side on the basis of a supposed "lost dressing room". To this day I still can't see any justification for the sacking or any logic in it for that manner. Ipersonally believe that SBR would of stepped down in his own time and would of helped in gettin a new manager as well.

Sam wants to sign players all year round. Before the transfer window came in players used to join clubs as late as March & none of the integration bollocks was mentioned. True but times have changed, I cant remeber any manager in the past worrying about intergrating players, trying to find them a place to stay, bank accounts, Mosques etc, but times have changed so much that these little touches have become vitally important. If we were to go into the specifics of the intergrtion im talking about, i mean how about the effect of having 5-6 players being signed in one month on the team, more specifically the players whose position are under threat. How do they react? you'd like them to step up a gear but thats not always the case, and the perfomrnace of the team will suffer. If you are able to sign the same players over a period of 6 months, do you think that the effect will still be the same? I dont. Steve Bruce while at Birmingham signed a load of players & ended up staying because of it. West Ham spent big last Jan & stayed up. I can find a stack of other clubs. There is never a wrong time to sign player that will improve your team. You have been sucked in managerial bullshit. There are always exceptions to every rule. I'd be an idiot to think otherwise, but you havent really given great examples. I mean, you are using examples which are completely different circumstances to ours, these were definitive relegations candidates, of course they had to spend, the players that were bourhgt were deemed essential. I've already said that nufc would be right to purchase an essential player. Both teams needed to rebuild the squad. Now look at the bigger teams, the teams looking to progress, did they utilise the jan period as prolifically as the teams you;ve mentioned. Nope. Why? becasue they see they major flaws inthe Jan period. What are you telling me that i dont already know? you are arguing a competely different point to what i'm arguing the quote below is something ive said about 15times now. Im trying to argue using the January period as a period of squad rebuilding and spending a lot of money is a bad idea both business wise and footballing wise. Hardly managerial bullshit, i mean, your looking at the first 11 on the pitch, i'm looking at the entire club down to tea lady.

Sam wants to sign players all year round. Before the transfer window came in players used to join clubs as late as March & none of the integration bollocks was mentioned. True but times have changed, I cant remeber any manager in the past worrying about intergrating players, trying to find them a place to stay, bank accounts, Mosques etc, but times have changed so much that these little touches have become vitally important. If we were to go into the specifics of the intergrtion im talking about, i mean how about the effect of having 5-6 players being signed in one month on the team, more specifically the players whose position are under threat. How do they react? you'd like them to step up a gear but thats not always the case, and the perfomrnace of the team will suffer. If you are able to sign the same players over a period of 6 months, do you think that the effect will still be the same? I dont.

We had a squad which finished 7th with half a season of Souness which was poor enough to get him the sack, and half a season of Roeder. Last season we had MAJOR injury problems for a large part of it, so our performances or final position last season cannot seriously be taken as a true reflection of the quality of the squad we had. You say Geremi and Viduka and Barton are vast improvements over what we had, but we are currently doing worse than last season if you take into account the teams we have played so far. If the squad is vastly improved and Mort and Allardyce are doing everything right, what's going wrong on the pitch? This is a club that sacked a legend in the game for finishing 5th, if Souness had stayed god knows where we'd of fininshed Roeder had the honeymoon period and it proved to be the case the season after. We had crippling injury problems in all 3 seasons but still had good enough squad to complete, and we also have had no injury issues this season which i attribute to Allardyces excellent fitness techniques. Partial bad lucj, partial bad coaching as Allardyce this season hs proven. How are we doing worse than last season? You dont judge a season on the opposition you've played, you judge it on the points you've aquired and the posiiton you're in. Add to the fact that we're not even halfway through the season. what are we arguing here? The perfomrance of the team, or the process in which we spend money? Becasue i'm arguing about the way we spend our oney, and if you ask me, the quality of the squad has improved lots between this season and last, and im sure it'll be the same the season after that. Why cant you see that? I cant understand why noone else (bar Lazy) understands that we as a club arent in a position to compete in the market with the likes of Man U and chelsea so we have to start slowly and build up, not throw money at the problem at the first available oppurtunity. We did that with Shepard, it dint work, we ended up £80m in debt with nothing to show for it, absolutley nothing. To be fair to mort and Ashley he spent alot of money in the summer on a manager he didnt appoint, does that not suggest that he is willing to put the money in when it matters. It does to me. Again, i wanna reiterate for the 12th time now, all im talking about is the January period. I dont think its a good time or idea to spend vast quantities of money, in a period where it is notoriously difficult to buy quality players. Why is that so hard to understand?

My bad, Owen was a bad example, dint really illustrate my point, my point is that generally speaking, January is a bad time to spend lots of money, you end up paying premium on average players and in the unlkely situation of actually signining a fair few people you have trouble intergrating them in a team which is in 'flow'. Allardyce has said manyy times about the perils of Jan period, and you'll find a lot of clubs dont really utilise the period. There two reasons why we shouldnt use the jan period to it's fullest potential. To be fair, i've already said numerous times that i think that if Allardyce justifies the purchase of aplayer in the jan period then mort will put his hand in his pocket, so the point about the attacking player is unneccassary. i personally think we need a DM more than an AM, but thats my personal opinion. I just personally belive that planning to spend a lot of money in the jan period is a bad idea.

We were up there when we were spending the money though. If we stop spending money then we definitely wont be. Don't forget to add in wages when you talk about expenditure too. Arsenal get away with not spending as much on transfers as the other "big 4" because of Wenger, but they still have a much higher wage bill than us. So will you be happy with the level of success shown by for example Charlton under Curbishley, or Bolton under Allardyce? They both had the stability and solid foundations you are talking about over the period where we didn't but were "spending ridiculous amounts" which didn't work at all; except for getting us into Europe/cup finals of course. Also could you explain how you account for the most successful team in Europe? Hint: since 1990 - 5 league titles, 4 domestic cups, 3 european cups, 20 (twenty) managers. Let me make this perfectly clear to you all, i havent once said i dont think the manager should be given money to spend, i agree that a good manager needs money in order to improve their squad. However, this entire discussion is about Mort's recent quotes about the appproaching transfer window, i was attacking the generalised views that some people were making, implying that Mort had made this statement as though it were his business plans for the club. Which in my opinion is bollocks. And people who are arguing this point are idiots. I argued that Mort, as well as SA think it is a bad idea spending stupid money in January as it bad business and often doesnt really lead to vast improvements. However, Mort has said that he will try to use this window to improve the future of the club by primarily investing in youth. Rather than gettin replacements for the ANC. I also said that i personally think that if the right player was needed and it was justified by allardyce, then Mort wouldnt hesitate to soend the money. So basically i am in partial agreement with peoples views that money needs to be spent. BUT not in this transfer period bad time to spend money. Has no one learnt from the 17m spent on Owen. How much did we overpay, irrespective of his current situation. I'd say we overspent by £6-7m. £6-7m? Thats a huge amount of money, and it was the period that we signed the players that dictated the price. Makes no sense. Granted in that particular period of time, we desperately needed the player, but this period can we honestly say we need a player in the same vain that we needed Owen. I dont think so and i think Mort shares the same view. The fundamental flaw with your views is that you arent taking into accoount the current situation of our club, we had a squad which was low on quality, and because of the lack of european football, or even a decent repuatation we cant attract the type of players we may need, i.e the "trophy signings" in order to make the vast improvements, instead we have to take it slowly, improve the genereal quality of the squad and the depth, make improvements in the league, achieve euro qualifications, then try and go the the higher calibre of player because we have means to do so. To do this you need as much improvemnt on the squad as much as you can afford and your reputations will allow, if you ask me, getting the likes of Geremi and Viduka and Barton, are all vast improvements on the squad we had. Yet they arent the type of players we need to break the top4. Can you see that? So it needs to start slow, becasue we have no other choice. Mort and Allardyce are 100% correct in the way they are doing things. That is all.

Very happy with the appoinment to be honest. Anyone who's not because he's not english needs to take at look at themselves. Best man for the job. Simple. I'm just worried that the nationalsts who would of wanted an Enlglish manager are gonna be the ones in mass who will complain when we dont play "sexy football" even though we win. Silly really but i can already see it happening a la Sven. Bottom line is that there are no world class english managers, and it doesnt matter how good the car looks or how big the engine is, you aint gonna win races with a poor driver.

Welcome back BUT we did get in the CL with them some of them kids, two of them won young player of year & one of them was Bellers. You can't turn your back on younger players any more than you can turn your back on the big name player who will raise expectation are you saying that raising expectation is good? if so why? not spoiling for a fight, just seems like a strange thing to say of course raising expectation is good. Why shouldn't it be ? Thats the whole idea. Would you rather support a club who would be happy to just stay up, for instance ? If so, you should have supported NUFC through the 1960's, 70's and 80's. For instance. NUFC and expectations have raised and changed completely since 1992, and not a single NUFC supporter would say otherwise [or maybe there is, there's always one, or two, or three.............] i think that the raising of expectations should go hand in hand with progress though, and by that i mean higher league finishes, you seem to be getting the cart before the horse there, i think trying to raise expectation in any other way is a very dangerous game to play, dont you? surely expectation and whats ACTUALLY happening should be directly related, that way you acheive a greater harmony around the club. i'm not saying dont be ambitious, just dont be daft. Expectations are totally different to when the old board took over the club in 1992 mate. Thats a fact. It's proven by the fact that 52000 people go to home games, whereas before that it was less than half. And people actually demand to qualify for europe, whereas people used to just be happy to be in the top league [and I'm not just talking about the fans here] why cant i have a discussion with you without feeling like your just out on a crusade to vindicate the old board ? you're ignoring what i'm saying and responding to points i haven't made, i didnt say expectations haven't risen, i'm not saying people didnt used to be happy just being in the top league, i'm saying expectations should correlate with how the TEAM and CLUB is progressing. not with how much money we spend, although at some point these things are going to be related, obviously, i think its a much more delicate balance than just throwing money at it its nothing of the kind mate. I realise you have a point - unlike some - and I'm trying to discuss it with you. I'm not vindicating anybody, the very fact you think that suggests you don't fully understand how expectations were raised under the old board. I shouldn't need to point this out at all, it is obvious. People aren't happy that we are only halfway in the top league just now, and last season, but that is because they expect higher placings because they are used to it. While spending money is no guarantee of absolute success - the reason for that is because there are only 2 major trophies - but ask yourself if the teams that have won the trophies spent more. The answer is yes. Draw your own conclusions. One thing is for sure, if we aren't prepared to bring in players to this club that the current top 4 want themselves, we will NEVER join them. Thats not vindicating anybody. Its a stone cold fact. Would you like to ask yourself how many managers in total have these clubs had in the past 10 years? Also, i wouldnt bet against us being the fifth highest spenders in the league. when will people learn that spending money isnt the answer, you have to build foundations first. All the clubs you're talking aobut have solid foundations, and that solidarity starts with a consistent, good manager. Draw your own conclusion. YOu could say that if Keegan had won the league he may still be here, or would have lasted a lot longer. ? YOu could also say that if bobby Robson had been 10 years younger he would still be here, and that would make us on a level footing than these other clubs ? You could equally say that both of these managers would likely to have won a cup by now if they had stayed, and dare i say it, under the ex board, the worst ever in football responsible for us being the biggest mongs who ever competed for anything. Joking, yes, of course. But this is the impression a lot of people give of what they think of them. Back on track ...... it doesn't change the fact that, yes, you are right, having a good youth policy, facilities, scouting system are important, but they always has been. It doesn't have to start with "good foundations", it can equally start with success at first team level. The success of Keegan is responsible for the growth of NUFC into the club we have now, I agree we all want to go further, but this is also true, is it not ? Liverpools success all started with Shankly, building a good first team that got noticed. Likewise Leeds under Revie, Derby under Clough. Its the first team that counts, its the first team that gets you supporters, money, and exposure. There is no right or wrong way to do this. Either method can work with the right people ie the right team manager. Spending the 5th, 4th most - whatever - is the reason why we have qualified for europe more than most teams, I bet you if we hadn't spent that money we would not have done that. The proof being that, when we didn't, we didn't !!!! Its strange that DV - and you ? - are saying I am looking for ways to vindicate the old board mate, because to me it seems that many people are looking for ways to crucify them too. At the end of the day, they had ambition for the club, and you shouldn't really knock that, because they were doing quite well up until they appointed Souness. You see, I think I am just putting things into perspective Well, this is it, altough i dont particulary want to go down the whole new board old board debate, not in this thread anyway i find that you make a lot of references to darker times, as though we should be judging ourselves agaisnt how it used to be. Which in my opinion is silly. If a business is struggling, then someone comes in and completely turns it around, does that make the person who turned it around completeyl immune from criticisms- i mean if he was to make a mistake which set the business back (kept changing the boss of the company) Is he not still accountable irrespctive of the condition of the business before he took over. Because if you think about it, that is exactly what happened at newcastle. If that personsets the business back he will not be able to say "well you should of seen the state of it before i took over", that's not how things work. In '92 we were in a position to estabilish ourselves as a dominant force in the premiership. We were on a level playing field with a lot of clubs, minus the history. True? Well what went wrong? Why are we in the position we are in today? There was mistakes made somewhere. We spent alot of money in those days, i'd say more than any other club bar Man U. Something went wrong when Keegan left, our expectations were sky high, and because of this, the proceeding managers all failed against those high expecatations. Now ever since those keegan days, there has only been one period of stability, and even then it was undermined alot. As you've helpfully stated in your retort, all those clubs were built by a single manager, thats where the stability has come from. In the past 10 years, we've had 6-7 managers? In the exact same period, off the top of my head, Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal have had 4-5. Chelsea weren't in the same category as those 3 because they werent estabilished as a "big top 4 team" until the russian dollar came in. The fact is that 'lynchpin' to your argument is that the board isnt showing any ambition if it doesnt spend the money, when in actual fact it hasnt really wroked so far for us, the fact is that without the stability that the other clubs have had in having a consistent manager we wont ever catch up. Have a look at Everton, moyes has really slipped under the radar with what he's achieved with (up until recent times) low budget and longevity, look at Allardyce at Bolton. Look at what they achieved, now take a look at Souness, take a look at O'Leary at Leeds, Tigana at fulham, numerous coaches at Real Madrid. The common fact between them all is that they've all had relative amounts of money thrown at them and all have failed. This is why you need to start from the bottom. sorry mate, I think you are wrong. You think I am defending the old board, but I think you are attacking the old board to a degree that you are losing perspective, and simply spouting the cliches of the moment. The people who were jumping for joy when the club bought Boumsong, Luque etc are now saying that the way to certain success is to bring through youngsters and not spend money. Hmmmmm....... The clubs that have had the longest serving managers, have this BECAUSE the first team has been successful, not because they are building foundations, or the foundations that have been there already, they have been there BECAUSE of the success of the first team. Alex Ferguson was one game from the sack after 6 years at manure, while "building foundations". Why ? Because the first team were not performing as the supporters and directors wanted. Nobody in this situation gives a stuff about the foundations of the club. Simple fact of fooball, is that the manager is sacked if the first team doesn't get results. Now, THAT is perspective, and true. Not a cliche, nor a "business plan" in sight. Its football. And how football works. I tell you something, and if you disagree, please say so and why. We will NEVER match the top clubs who win the trophies if we don't have players that they themselves want. And a FACT is that we are not going to do this by finding them as youngsters. If that were possible, then manure, Liverpool and Chelsea would themselves not be spending the money they have been spending. Would you like to tell me why they spend so much money when they have these "solid foundations". ? The managers you mention, didn't get sacked for spending money, they got sacked for exercising bad judgement with it. As a footnote, you can take a club like Everton, who have had stability for 6 years. How many times have they qualified for europe, and how much money have they spent in comparison to their neighbours ? Do you see NUFC as a club run like this, or a club run like Liverpool ? Edit. Re-reading this.......I'm quite shocked you appear to think its acceptable for Everton to be a small club operating with a small budget. So let me get this right...you make a coment about us not spending enough "ask yourself if the teams that have won the trophies spent more. The answer is yes" implying that the successful clubs are the ones that have spent the most. Yes? I retorted by pointing out that we are probably the highest spenders outside the top 4, if not higher than some on the top 4 over a period of 10 years. Which might not be too far from the truth. Therefore by your definition we should be up there? Which we arent. I also pointed out that unlike the other clubs we have had no stability at the club, no solid foundation in the form of a steady manager, i'm not talking about scouting, or youth set up, i'm literally talking about having the right man appionted to do a good job for a sustained period of time. "All the clubs you're talking aobut have solid foundations, and that solidarity starts with a consistent, good manager." Your next argument confuses me a little, who are you to say what could of been achieved had Keegan stayed? Or had Sir Bobby been younger? What point are you trying to make. Yes, Keegan was responsible for the team, it was the right man to do the job, he'd proven himself as he was in a stable job and the foundations were set, the board spent heavily with him, fast forward a few years and we have SBR after 2 unsubstantial years in the job, money is spent as the foundations are set, then we start to achieve something, but increduosly, we still end up sacking him after a 5th place finish. Both achieved good levels of success. To be fair to me and DV, you actually brought up the old board, "Expectations are totally different to when the old board took over the club in 1992 mate. Thats a fact." and thats what instigated DV to respond. Your overall point seems to be that you need to spend on the first team in order to get it right, well i am saying that the manager needs to prove that he is good enough in order to get the money. Like i said, i have no doubts in my mind that ifSA said that he desperately needed a DM for example and it was thouroughly ustified to Mort then the funds would be released. And the responsibiltyof the appointment of a capable manager lies with the board, theres no hard luck about it, if a seemingly good appointment turns out crap then its your fault. Full Stop. The strange thing about having a discussion with you is that we've started with your comment about spending being the key to success, and ended up talking about the shortcomings of the old board. With you, ironically saying that we are forever attacking the old board, when in actual fact you were speculating about the 'worrying fact that Mort's not gonna spend, which would be suicidal' To summarise, your view is that we need to spend more, even though spending ridiculous amounts havent really worked (basically disagreeing with Morts views), and my view is that we need to get a stable foundation to build on so we have something to spend on in the future, (which in my opinion is the view of Mort)which i agree with. The fact that we have spent alot over the years and after all those years we find ourselves a mid table club, with admittedly more qualifications than any other team. However this is such a misleading statement, i cant remember the exact number of qualifications we've had, but the meat of our qualifications were achieved when we were in stable positions with stable managers, and doesnt coincide with the periods of time when we spent the most money. If we were to look at the qualifications in accordance to league position, do you think that we'd be the fifth most qualified team in the premiership of all time. I dont think so, and as that is the case, does that still justify the success of the old board having spent so much. I also dont think so. Draw your own conclusions.

Welcome back BUT we did get in the CL with them some of them kids, two of them won young player of year & one of them was Bellers. You can't turn your back on younger players any more than you can turn your back on the big name player who will raise expectation are you saying that raising expectation is good? if so why? not spoiling for a fight, just seems like a strange thing to say of course raising expectation is good. Why shouldn't it be ? Thats the whole idea. Would you rather support a club who would be happy to just stay up, for instance ? If so, you should have supported NUFC through the 1960's, 70's and 80's. For instance. NUFC and expectations have raised and changed completely since 1992, and not a single NUFC supporter would say otherwise [or maybe there is, there's always one, or two, or three.............] i think that the raising of expectations should go hand in hand with progress though, and by that i mean higher league finishes, you seem to be getting the cart before the horse there, i think trying to raise expectation in any other way is a very dangerous game to play, dont you? surely expectation and whats ACTUALLY happening should be directly related, that way you acheive a greater harmony around the club. i'm not saying dont be ambitious, just dont be daft. Expectations are totally different to when the old board took over the club in 1992 mate. Thats a fact. It's proven by the fact that 52000 people go to home games, whereas before that it was less than half. And people actually demand to qualify for europe, whereas people used to just be happy to be in the top league [and I'm not just talking about the fans here] why cant i have a discussion with you without feeling like your just out on a crusade to vindicate the old board ? you're ignoring what i'm saying and responding to points i haven't made, i didnt say expectations haven't risen, i'm not saying people didnt used to be happy just being in the top league, i'm saying expectations should correlate with how the TEAM and CLUB is progressing. not with how much money we spend, although at some point these things are going to be related, obviously, i think its a much more delicate balance than just throwing money at it its nothing of the kind mate. I realise you have a point - unlike some - and I'm trying to discuss it with you. I'm not vindicating anybody, the very fact you think that suggests you don't fully understand how expectations were raised under the old board. I shouldn't need to point this out at all, it is obvious. People aren't happy that we are only halfway in the top league just now, and last season, but that is because they expect higher placings because they are used to it. While spending money is no guarantee of absolute success - the reason for that is because there are only 2 major trophies - but ask yourself if the teams that have won the trophies spent more. The answer is yes. Draw your own conclusions. One thing is for sure, if we aren't prepared to bring in players to this club that the current top 4 want themselves, we will NEVER join them. Thats not vindicating anybody. Its a stone cold fact. Would you like to ask yourself how many managers in total have these clubs had in the past 10 years? Also, i wouldnt bet against us being the fifth highest spenders in the league. when will people learn that spending money isnt the answer, you have to build foundations first. All the clubs you're talking aobut have solid foundations, and that solidarity starts with a consistent, good manager. Draw your own conclusion. YOu could say that if Keegan had won the league he may still be here, or would have lasted a lot longer. ? YOu could also say that if bobby Robson had been 10 years younger he would still be here, and that would make us on a level footing than these other clubs ? You could equally say that both of these managers would likely to have won a cup by now if they had stayed, and dare i say it, under the ex board, the worst ever in football responsible for us being the biggest mongs who ever competed for anything. Joking, yes, of course. But this is the impression a lot of people give of what they think of them. Back on track ...... it doesn't change the fact that, yes, you are right, having a good youth policy, facilities, scouting system are important, but they always has been. It doesn't have to start with "good foundations", it can equally start with success at first team level. The success of Keegan is responsible for the growth of NUFC into the club we have now, I agree we all want to go further, but this is also true, is it not ? Liverpools success all started with Shankly, building a good first team that got noticed. Likewise Leeds under Revie, Derby under Clough. Its the first team that counts, its the first team that gets you supporters, money, and exposure. There is no right or wrong way to do this. Either method can work with the right people ie the right team manager. Spending the 5th, 4th most - whatever - is the reason why we have qualified for europe more than most teams, I bet you if we hadn't spent that money we would not have done that. The proof being that, when we didn't, we didn't !!!! Its strange that DV - and you ? - are saying I am looking for ways to vindicate the old board mate, because to me it seems that many people are looking for ways to crucify them too. At the end of the day, they had ambition for the club, and you shouldn't really knock that, because they were doing quite well up until they appointed Souness. You see, I think I am just putting things into perspective Well, this is it, altough i dont particulary want to go down the whole new board old board debate, not in this thread anyway i find that you make a lot of references to darker times, as though we should be judging ourselves agaisnt how it used to be. Which in my opinion is silly. If a business is struggling, then someone comes in and completely turns it around, does that make the person who turned it around completeyl immune from criticisms- i mean if he was to make a mistake which set the business back (kept changing the boss of the company) Is he not still accountable irrespctive of the condition of the business before he took over. Because if you think about it, that is exactly what happened at newcastle. If that personsets the business back he will not be able to say "well you should of seen the state of it before i took over", that's not how things work. In '92 we were in a position to estabilish ourselves as a dominant force in the premiership. We were on a level playing field with a lot of clubs, minus the history. True? Well what went wrong? Why are we in the position we are in today? There was mistakes made somewhere. We spent alot of money in those days, i'd say more than any other club bar Man U. Something went wrong when Keegan left, our expectations were sky high, and because of this, the proceeding managers all failed against those high expecatations. Now ever since those keegan days, there has only been one period of stability, and even then it was undermined alot. As you've helpfully stated in your retort, all those clubs were built by a single manager, thats where the stability has come from. In the past 10 years, we've had 6-7 managers? In the exact same period, off the top of my head, Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal have had 4-5. Chelsea weren't in the same category as those 3 because they werent estabilished as a "big top 4 team" until the russian dollar came in. The fact is that 'lynchpin' to your argument is that the board isnt showing any ambition if it doesnt spend the money, when in actual fact it hasnt really wroked so far for us, the fact is that without the stability that the other clubs have had in having a consistent manager we wont ever catch up. Have a look at Everton, moyes has really slipped under the radar with what he's achieved with (up until recent times) low budget and longevity, look at Allardyce at Bolton. Look at what they achieved, now take a look at Souness, take a look at O'Leary at Leeds, Tigana at fulham, numerous coaches at Real Madrid. The common fact between them all is that they've all had relative amounts of money thrown at them and all have failed. This is why you need to start from the bottom.

What a waste of talent, one of those rare type of players who are capable of doing extraordinary things.

End of thread!

Welcome back BUT we did get in the CL with them some of them kids, two of them won young player of year & one of them was Bellers. You can't turn your back on younger players any more than you can turn your back on the big name player who will raise expectation are you saying that raising expectation is good? if so why? not spoiling for a fight, just seems like a strange thing to say of course raising expectation is good. Why shouldn't it be ? Thats the whole idea. Would you rather support a club who would be happy to just stay up, for instance ? If so, you should have supported NUFC through the 1960's, 70's and 80's. For instance. NUFC and expectations have raised and changed completely since 1992, and not a single NUFC supporter would say otherwise [or maybe there is, there's always one, or two, or three.............] i think that the raising of expectations should go hand in hand with progress though, and by that i mean higher league finishes, you seem to be getting the cart before the horse there, i think trying to raise expectation in any other way is a very dangerous game to play, dont you? surely expectation and whats ACTUALLY happening should be directly related, that way you acheive a greater harmony around the club. i'm not saying dont be ambitious, just dont be daft. Expectations are totally different to when the old board took over the club in 1992 mate. Thats a fact. It's proven by the fact that 52000 people go to home games, whereas before that it was less than half. And people actually demand to qualify for europe, whereas people used to just be happy to be in the top league [and I'm not just talking about the fans here] why cant i have a discussion with you without feeling like your just out on a crusade to vindicate the old board ? you're ignoring what i'm saying and responding to points i haven't made, i didnt say expectations haven't risen, i'm not saying people didnt used to be happy just being in the top league, i'm saying expectations should correlate with how the TEAM and CLUB is progressing. not with how much money we spend, although at some point these things are going to be related, obviously, i think its a much more delicate balance than just throwing money at it its nothing of the kind mate. I realise you have a point - unlike some - and I'm trying to discuss it with you. I'm not vindicating anybody, the very fact you think that suggests you don't fully understand how expectations were raised under the old board. I shouldn't need to point this out at all, it is obvious. People aren't happy that we are only halfway in the top league just now, and last season, but that is because they expect higher placings because they are used to it. While spending money is no guarantee of absolute success - the reason for that is because there are only 2 major trophies - but ask yourself if the teams that have won the trophies spent more. The answer is yes. Draw your own conclusions. One thing is for sure, if we aren't prepared to bring in players to this club that the current top 4 want themselves, we will NEVER join them. Thats not vindicating anybody. Its a stone cold fact. Would you like to ask yourself how many managers in total have these clubs had in the past 10 years? Also, i wouldnt bet against us being the fifth highest spenders in the league. when will people learn that spending money isnt the answer, you have to build foundations first. All the clubs you're talking aobut have solid foundations, and that solidarity starts with a consistent, good manager. Draw your own conclusion.

Welcome back BUT we did get in the CL with them some of them kids, two of them won young player of year & one of them was Bellers. You can't turn your back on younger players any more than you can turn your back on the big name player who will raise expectation are you saying that raising expectation is good? if so why? not spoiling for a fight, just seems like a strange thing to say of course raising expectation is good. Why shouldn't it be ? Thats the whole idea. Would you rather support a club who would be happy to just stay up, for instance ? If so, you should have supported NUFC through the 1960's, 70's and 80's. For instance. NUFC and expectations have raised and changed completely since 1992, and not a single NUFC supporter would say otherwise [or maybe there is, there's always one, or two, or three.............] i think you're confusing expectation with ambition - 2 completely different things, no doubt both have risen since 92, but the unreasonably high expectations around this club has had a crippling effect, its that very expectation which led us to sack a lengendery manager in the game for finishing 5th. Which in hindsight was absurd. High ambition is a good thing, high expectation is a bad thing.

Totally agree. Top, top player and is actually under-rated by England & Premiership fans. He's more important to England than any other player. He's the only England player to consistently to a quality and looks as good for his club as he does England unlike every single other England player. Absolutely, he's massively underated, i'd honestly put him in my world 11. The best english defender in 60 years if you ask me, if only his attitude and desire showed on the itch as well as off it he'd be a collosuss in the game. He could easily have been england captain. Terry who?