fredbob

I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison. their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying... he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that. I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one. What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness? I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ? You havent got a clue? I think you do but you dont want to admit it sonny, jimbob. Well, yes, but the real question is if they will suffer the disgrace of "going backwards", or if they have a divine right to stay where they are forever. Do you think any scousers would then trace their demise down to signing Torres, Keane, Kuyt and Masherano, and say it shouldn't have been done ? I dont see anyone saying the demise was down to signing Robert, Bellamy or Shearer, I see the majority of the people saying it was down to appointing Souness, backing him with so much money compunded that decision. you can't criticise the decision, and the buys and sales he made, when you agreed with it all and backed it all right up the end. Not saying you did, I don't know if you did or not [did you say the other day that you did ?] but plenty of people DID, such as mandiarse for one. The bigger picture being that they didn't purposely appoint a manager they knew would fuck up, he was THEIR choice, and they backed their choice. Shame soopa Mike didn't back his own appointment in the same way ? Oops, I forgot. You agreed with soopa mike that we shouldn't spend ie waste, any money, didn't you. You mean to say you cant support a decision even though you disagree with it? Thats eseentially what you're saying, I didnt agree with the decision to sack SBR but i supported the decision becasue as a fan thats what i do. I disagreed with the appointments of Roeder, Souness and even remember arguing with you amongst others about the appointment of Allardyce but at the end of the day i supported each and every appointment. Your're right, i have no intention of trying to prove that Shepherd et al decidied to purposely appoint a bad manager, all i can do is highlight the dmetrimental affect it had on the club, which is what im doing. Someone has to be accountable for the decision to appointmnet a bad manager.

I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison. their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying... he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that. I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one. What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness? I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ? You havent got a clue? I think you do but you dont want to admit it sonny, jimbob. Well, yes, but the real question is if they will suffer the disgrace of "going backwards", or if they have a divine right to stay where they are forever. Do you think any scousers would then trace their demise down to signing Torres, Keane, Kuyt and Masherano, and say it shouldn't have been done ? I dont see anyone saying the demise was down to signing Robert, Bellamy or Shearer, I see the majority of the people saying it was down to appointing Souness, backing him with so much money compunded that decision.

Another way of looking at it is that everyone starts knowing nothing. Sure HE didnt have the "DOF" experience, but what expereince do you need in spotting good young players, Jiminez had the ocntacts, Vetere and Fucillo had the eye and Wise had the title to bring it all together. Also is worth mentioning that Wise was a memeber of the board.

I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison. their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying... he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that. I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one. What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness? I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ? You havent got a clue? I think you do but you dont want to admit it sonny, jimbob.

I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison. their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying... he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that. I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one. What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness?

I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison. their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying...

Something that never seemed to happen, for whatever reason. Maybe their ideas of the 'the right price' where too far apart, or maybe Keegan forgot about this principle and wanted Ashley to spend big straight away. Or perhaps he just wanted a left back. He did publicly state a left back was his top priority at the start of the summer. He walked becasue he couldnt get a left back? As an example of a broader principle. We needed a left back and our director of recruitment failed to deliver, preferring to spend what little cash was available on Xisco. I cant knock that point down, its a fair point, all i can say though is that Atouba was on his way and we did have a bid for Warnock knocked back, again, Would warnock represent value, especially in front of the younger Enrique who'd just been signed for £6m. Was Atouba another player that Keegan turned down (rightly so in my opinion)?

Something that never seemed to happen, for whatever reason. Maybe their ideas of the 'the right price' where too far apart, or maybe Keegan forgot about this principle and wanted Ashley to spend big straight away. Or perhaps he just wanted a left back. He did publicly state a left back was his top priority at the start of the summer. He walked becasue he couldnt get a left back?

I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison.

I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt?

I wonder how Ashley feel when he heard this "dream factory" speech. Fredbob, add "did not give Allardyce enough backings/sack him immediately" into Ashley.co's criticizing list. Agree with all the other words. I would if agreed with it but i dont.

big deal The old board did it all the time, and still retained their ambition for other players, high league positions, and didn't make profits in the transfer market while undermining the manager, causing him to walk, just like the manager before him complained and just like the current one may do yet, because they certainly aren't giving him much of a chance either. One day, like the others, you might wake up. They broke the transfer fee record all the time? Maybe so. As well as low ones. Errr, yes they did, when Woodgate was sold for a profit. SBR knew nothing about the Woodgate sale, he was eventually sacked is disgraceful circumstances. So he was undermined.

How do you and others form basis for criticisim if you have no opinion as to what went on? I guess its becasue Keegan loves this club so much that people cant entertain the notion that he may of took advantage of the situation with his standing at the club, especially with a failing buiness behind him, especially with him putting in a full claim against club he loves....its just an idea, not that i fully agree with it. Aren't you the one who keeps banging on about the fact that no-one should be criticising Ashley, Lambias, or Wise because we don't know exactly to the last detail what went on? In the immediate aftermath of the sitaution, yes i did. More vocal about it during the pathetic protests and banner waving, becasue i knew the problem it would cause, i was also pushing this "theory" along time ago and didnt get a single credible retort. Everyones criticising Wise and Co for underming Keegan, no ones asking why he was undermined, its a failry basic question, incidentally a question the majority of fans still arent asking. (Im assuming you have the 3 month old post ready to copy and paste in case i denied it ) A little bit of foresight goes a long way. The waters becoming a lot more clear now, if you can find many things to criticise Ashley, Wise and co then feel free, i can only think of 2, poor communication, and appointing Keegan.

Fair enough. But who's to say that this didnt cross Keegans mind once he knew he was out of his depth? How was he ot of his depth? the seaon had started OK and the team seemed to be improving and if Dennis Wise is the DOF in charge of recruitment why does he never watch the first team to asses where we need to strengthen and the least said about Xisco and Nacho the better. If he (Wise) is contracted to staff the academy thne fine he's doing that but be more clear with roles and again if he's doing that he shouldn't be forcing 1st teamers on a manager be that Keegan, Kinnear or anyone else. In my opinion Keegan didnt know the transfer market well enough, not to the degree that Ashley had hoped anway (he had to look up our squad on the interenet becasue he didnt know who alf of them were), he couldnt provide a list of targets that fitin with the club policy and it meant that we largely pursued Wise and co's list. This is what casued big problems in my opinion. We did seem to be doing well, thats very true but if being undermined was the key issue in him leaving and the undermining occured late in the window, wouldnt that suggest that no underming went on througouht the window, otherwise he'd of left when it first occured, no?

Fair enough. But who's to say that this didnt cross Keegans mind once he knew he was out of his depth?

How do you and others form basis for criticisim if you have no opinion as to what went on? I guess its becasue Keegan loves this club so much that people cant entertain the notion that he may of took advantage of the situation with his standing at the club, especially with a failing buiness behind him, especially with him putting in a full claim against club he loves....its just an idea, not that i fully agree with it.

Its all fair and well laughing at someones elses opinion, but how about you and others offer you're own explanations which explain the events, Im hearing alot of cirticism but very few retorts, its straight out of the NE5 school of debating. I never said he was right bytheway, all im saying is that those who are laughing at it arent exactly giving there version of events, probably because they know it wouldnt add up. Having said that, there is part of me that thinks Keegan did use his standing in the area to his advantage in this whole farce, especialy once he knew it wasnt going his way.

there's a few quotes from mort from around january which basically say that keegan is just the coach. i think he had some say in the targets but they were unrealistic so wise and the other two had to get the players in as the end of the window was getting nearer. There’s also quotes from Wise saying Keegan had the final say on transfers. Face it, the management structure Ashley put in place was/is garbage So why do you think Wise undermined him on the last day of the transfer window and not the first if this was always the case? For me, the explanation that best fits the information we have is that Keegan was jerking everyone around until someone finally lost their temper and told him to f*** off. Getting sacked with compensation was always Keegan's main objective, and he took advantage of it. Everyones happy to laugh and denoune it as rubbish but i dont see many alternative explanations being brought to the table. Personally my theory is that Keegan didnt know the market well enough and struggled to find players who fit in with the clubs (now vindicated transfer policy), he constantly reminded everyone that premiership experience was vitally important but obviously this criteria would contradict the clubs transfer policy as there were few players who would fit into the young and premiership experience criteria, andwould provide value for money, Guthrie is an example of when Keegan got it right. I think that the club brought the attention of many players to keegan but becasue he didnt know who they were and dint have an oppurtunity to see them in action he turned them down, i belive this process went on and on until Wise and co felt they had to act and hence the signing of Xisco and Nacho, we apparently had bids for Warnock and we also alledgedly had atouba on his way which shows that the club were looking to fill the LB spot.

there's a few quotes from mort from around january which basically say that keegan is just the coach. i think he had some say in the targets but they were unrealistic so wise and the other two had to get the players in as the end of the window was getting nearer. There’s also quotes from Wise saying Keegan had the final say on transfers. Face it, the management structure Ashley put in place was/is garbage So why do you think Wise undermined him on the last day of the transfer window and not the first if this was always the case?

The answer is because Fred is s***. Understand? The others are able to do it with reasonable debt. Fred cannot do it despite have huge debt. That's why I said your question is silly. The answer contradicts with your stands. You might say you're an accountant, but like Mike Ashley, you understand zilch about football. Well...I think it's unarguable that administration is an intolerable sin for an owner/chairman. That's the basic for any football club. End of discussion because I know you couldn't have any new points to add on. Give it up man. It is meaningless. So is it administration or liquidation that we headed towards under Freds last stand? Kecks off and arse bared in Fenwicks if that one gets a properly argued response Hence it being asked! He's used the terms interchangably over the past couple of pages and I doubt he knows the difference between the two or the different approaches taken during each process I think he's claimed to be an accountant as well.

A more pertinent question in all this is why did Wise undermine Keegan? Baring in mind this only happened on the last day of the window and there seems to be a lot of evidence to suggest that Keegan DID have say on the transfers (reportedly tunring down a fair number of foreign targets) why was it that Wise et al felt they had to undermine Keegan in such a big way? Is it a simple case of it always being the plan? In which case why didnt the underminng come much earlier or is there another reason?

As opposed to a scrap metal merchant running one http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,59575.0.html doesn't quite compare with this. Are you saying you have been envious of the mackems over the past 15 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example did a grand job, that Bob Murray like, applying solid financial ground rules, to ensure they didn't go bust or in debt. He obviously fell down because he didn't let enough in for free that weren't interested in watching a losing team anymore. But look how well its set them up now to invest in the team, look at how much investement they're making, look at the ambition they're showing..........look at how well they're doing.... This is an example of you're flimsy arguments, spending huge amounts guarantees nothing, who do you think has bought the better players over the past 2 years, NUFC or Sunderland? Just a heads up, you'd be undermings the fundamental principles of your argument by saying NUFC, playit safe and go for Sunderland.

Something else that isnt touched on much, as a member of the board is it not the norm to have the manager report to the directors regarding transfers andstuff like that - its then upto the board to decide upon whether to pursue the player, does that not go someway to explain any ambiguity on the issue. It does to me.

My interpretation is that he's primarily youth based but also suggests players for the first team as well. so where does laying the law down to Kevin keegan, having turned up late smelling of drink come into it. It confirms my belief that he's a cunt, doesnt change anything about his job role. I wonder how that alledged incident got leaked.

My interpretation is that he's primarily youth based but also suggests players for the first team as well.