fredbob

Forced out my arse. For over a year he received nothing but gushing praise for everything he or any of his appointments did (or in the vast majority of cases simply for the things they didn't do, or were only perceived to have done) by the vast majority of supporters. This was based initially on nothing more than his own claims of club salvation by paying off a debt which became due once he bought the club (which was coincidentally in his own best interests to do), and some pie in the sky notion of becoming the next Arsenal by trying out a managerial structure Arsenal don't employ, spending zero money on transfers, and basically hoping Dennis Wise will be the next Arsene Wenger. Then from January people bought more heavily into the sham because he brought onboard someone the fans trusted, someone who we knew would put the best interests of the club (not the business) first and foremost. Some people bought into it for 3 years up front. How do you expect people to react when that person then walks out after half a year at a potential financial loss to himself and knowing very well he'll be called a quitter? Just shrug and say oh well, it's obviously the fault of this person who we trust, not someone who we put blind faith in but has yet to deliver anything tangible at all, the system is what's important, bring on Gus? Of course people are going to get on SSN with banners, of course people are going protest, or course angry words are going to be spoken and written. But has there been any violence? Has there been any vandalism? Has there been any real trouble at all? No. Yet what does Ashley do at the very first spot of a complaint at his ownership? Does he even try to explain himself and win the supporters back? Does he f***. Completely out of character he gives up straight away. He cries about how big a footy fan he is even though noone knows who he supports, how he's just an ordinary bloke who wanted a bit of fun, and think of the children!!! He was going to plough loads of money into the team year after year honest he was... if only he'd be given the chance... but now sadly he's been forced into giving up his dream and will now have to sell up - well only if he can make a couple of hundred million pounds profit in just over a year like, that's only fair isn't, after all he's dramatically turned round the fortunes of the club by paying off some of a bank loan hasn't he. Wake up and smell the roses. Just like the people who believe they're actually buying something at 70% off, just like the people who rush to the never ending closing down sale, just like the people who bought Sports Direct shares when it floated. You've been had. I dont understand why he wouldnt of sold at the first oppurtunity is he was such a charlatan? Why would he pay off the excess debts (ie the debts he didnt have to pay off, it would of made very lttle difference to the price of the club) what do you think he could of done with the club with an extra £50m sitting in his back pocket? If his policy all along was to have break even why bid £16m on modric? Who could he have sold in our squad to make that money back. Its pretty widly accpeted that he's rebuffed a fair few offers including ADUG mabye even DIC, why should it all be part of the masterplan right now? If anything the protests would of made the club more univestable. It all doesnt add up if you genuinely beleive this was some shrewd masterplan even the most cynical of people couldnt make that jigsaw fit. The thing is is that physical violence has been threatened upon him - a lookalike even got attacked, not a coincidence but a testament to the belief he felt he was in danger, try not to underplay that fact becasue it proves that it is a distinct reality - which is abhorrent in my opinion. I have stated many times - i haveabsolutely no issues with a sensible level of protests - voicing there concerns, waving handerkerchiefs, whatever action that would protray unhappiness at the way things are going - but be honest - the only result that 50k+ wanted was ashley leaving so how can it be described as anything but trying to force hi out is beyond me, esecially as they were armend with little evidence of the true events.

The problem I see with that is, if the fans hadn't protested we wouldn't have had Zico, Terim or Deschamps, we would have had Gus Poyet. He was clearly Wise's first choiice, and it's suggested he was even offered it, and turned it down mainly because of the feared adverse fan reaction. Ok, we're a mess now, but if the alternative is KK gone without a whimper, Ashley still firmly in place with his break-even transfer policy, Dennis stronger than ever because his mate Gus is our manager then I think I'll happily take the short term pain if it gets us a happier longer term solution. The way the fans stood up to be counted en masse over this makes me proud to be a Geordie. Fair point! In fact one that i actually think stands up to anything else written in the thread. however to counter that - there is no suggestion that Poyet would of been a bad manager and if he was willing to work within that structure and work within the policy the club had specified i still see no resounding reason why the system would fail. This system relies purely on the managers skill to coach and motivate his players, it doesnt rely on the managers skill to run the entire club top to bottom, or even his ability to spot players. Supposing Poyet was able to work closely with Wise and equally agree on targets - thats is the one major issue hindering the club sorted, the next would be his skill as a coach. There is still no resounding evidence that this system would fail with a manager who could work within its restraint - hence why i beleive it was premature to try and force him out. I have absolutley no problems with people protesting, or voicing there concerns, i have no problem with people being unhappy at Ashley but i think the active nature of tryin to force the owner out off the back of one MAJOR mistake which could easily be rectified is far too much. Especially with what i beleive he has done for the club, irrespective if he gets the debt repayment back in his asking price. We are in a helathier situation as club now then we were before he took over. Simple.

Which shows you choose to beleive the first of my 2 scenarios that i gave - whereas im probably a disciple of the second. You have just as much evidence as i do regarding what actually went on at the club - yet you have blindly backed one man deifintitely over the other with absolutely no knowledge of the truth. I have probably chosen to back the other man becasue i believed in what he had planned for the club and i saw that as being more important than the whims of a manager who's managerial record doesnt warrant such blind faith. You have chosen to back a manager purely and simply becasue of something he achieved 15 years ago for the club, and you believe that that is more imporant for the club in the long run. The difference between our beliefs is that one has already dramatically changed the future of the club for no good reason and the other hasnt. I am not backing KK purely and simply because of events of 15 years ago, I'm backing him because all the evidence (including some fed to national Sunday papers by Ashley's camp a week or two into this saga) is that Keegan didn't get players he was promised in the final days of the window, and was landed with Gonzalez and Xisco instead. Your final paragraph is just gibberish. Sunday papers? Each paper has its own view and version of the events. And if you say he didnt get the players he was promised - do you know the circumstances if which the players didnt join? Or are you assuming that Wise didnt fancy them and therefore didnt even bother going for them? Im not, my basis of belief is not becasue x undrmined y, or y stabbed z in the back, its that i value the long term plan which Ashley seemed to be pitching over any individual at the club. Supposing, things did go smoother - we could have had Deschamps, we could have had Terim we could even have had Zico by now, would that of been such a resounding disaster? To me, no. If Ashley allowed his director of football to overrule Deschamps, Terim or Zico on transfers, it would be a disaster, yes. So no decent retort then? Nice one. WTF? I am challenging the validity of Ashley's long-term plan. That's my retort. Where's yours? How is that a retort? All you've done is made an assumption and stated it as though its a feature of the structure and is part of the plan, which is quite fankly rubbish. Question for you - can you tell me the exact circumstances of Keegans departure steering clear of hear'say and what you read in the papers? Where did Wise undermine him? Why? How has he undermined him? etc... Do you have first hand view of the events?? Clearly (and I'm not referring to your tenuous grasp of grammar and spelling here) you don't know the meaning of the word retort. That aside, yes, I am making assumptions. An assumption based on the evidence as I see it - EXACTLY as you are doing re Ashley's supposed "masterplan". An interpretation of the evidence which is, quite fankly, rubbish. Haha, you pendantic sad b****** - thats the second/third person today who's pointed out poor english - whoopy-f***ing-doo, poor english on an internet message board - how wrong are my priorities, i best ring my mum and dad up and tell them they did a bad job. You still dont get it do you - you have a go at me for poor english (yes it did hit a sore point) and yet you fail to see the massive gap in your logic - ie the level of protests were justified based purely on assumptions from inconsistent evidence written in the newspapers, do you actually know the full circumstance in which Keegan didnt get the players he was promised or are you assuming that Wise wasnt interested from the start and had no intention of purchasing them? Thats the stick you're beating them with and you dont even know if its 100% true. My "assumptions" on Ashleys masterplan was that he was looking to invest in younger players from all around the globe for smaller wages with the aim of making them stars for the club, reducing the clubs inflated wage bills whilst not compromising the qulaity. I fail to see why that is an assumption? i dont need evididence - it WAS the way the club wanted to go - how you can deny that is beyond me. Firstly, re your English, boo fuckin' hoo. If you challenge someone on semantics (eg the meaning of "retort"), you're asking for trouble. Secondly, what were fans left to do other than make assumptions? Not a word came from Ashley and co to counter the obvious interpretation: that Keegan walked having been sold short by the board (Wise, Jimenez, whoever). The main difference between us is that I acknowledge I am making assumptions, whereas you somehow don't see that YOU are making an assumption in believing that Ashley's masterplan did NOT include the fundamental, fatal flaw of authorising his part-time director of football to overrule his manager on transfers. Dear me - that is a train crash of a post. You think forcing the owner out is a reasonable response armed with nothing but assumptions? How can i argue with that logic? But your missing the point again - i'm not the one protesting in the masses about my point becasue of exactly the point you mention it was an assumption - i dont know the full circumstances or facts, all i know is that Ashleys alleged system and transfer policy was one i was willing to give a chance. i dont feel that my actions based on these assumptions have lead to the owner wanting to sell....do you see my point yet?? p.s where did i challenge you on the meaning of retort? All i said was that your response wasnt a very good one becasue it dealt purely in speculation.

You see, i have absolutely no right saying what you've put is right or wrong so i wont, (although my view is different to yours) but i would say that you've over simplified one aspect of your argument and thats the bit about Ashley selling, you've forgotten to mention that he felt he and his family were unsafe in the place he owned, a fear that was backed up by the assault on a lookalike. To me, that puts a huge slant on your final point. Would you risk the safety of your family knowing it was a very real possilbity? Does anyone even consider that he may of felt that he'd already done alot for the club and may of felt that he deserved more support? This is the family that accompanied him how many times exactly ? I wasnt counting. Does it change anything about the statement though. In the exact same situation, are you crass enough and pig headed enough to say you would of stuck around and potentially put yourself and family in danger? Especially if you felt that the club owed you big time. He doesn't need to sit in the away end with the supporters to "hang around". Plenty of past chairmen have put up with abuse from the fans before, but not one has been physically assaulted. Westwood, Seymour, McKeag and Shepherd all suffered tremendous amounts of abuse during there time. I don't deny there may be some knacker who'll try and take a swing for him, but the knacker would likely never get close enough to connect. His personal safety was never in danger, this was just a convenient line to make the gullible feel sympathy for him. it obviously worked on you, or does it just help fill your anti KK agenda ? I genuinely hand on heart dont have an anti Keegan agenda whatseover - i was extremely happy with what he was doing for the club but i just feel the fans reaction to his departure was far too much and they sacrificed something which they were practically begging for before Ashley took over, a long term sutainable plan and all for what? A manager who is absolutely synonomous with the club but someone whos managerial record doesnt hold a flame to some of the managers out there, and certainly not one that is any better than some of the candidates that were alledely interested in us. (CL Final, UEFA Cup vs Arsenal - semi final Euro 2008, CL/QF) All you're saying begs the question why should he have to avoid sitting where he wants? - isnt there a part of you that would feel the club owed you had you paid of so much debt? The bit in bold is either a massive contradiction or you havent thought it through at least... you;ve basically said there would of been a very good chance of someone trying to attack him but it's just a line to make people feel sorry for him??

You see, i have absolutely no right saying what you've put is right or wrong so i wont, (although my view is different to yours) but i would say that you've over simplified one aspect of your argument and thats the bit about Ashley selling, you've forgotten to mention that he felt he and his family were unsafe in the place he owned, a fear that was backed up by the assault on a lookalike. To me, that puts a huge slant on your final point. Would you risk the safety of your family knowing it was a very real possilbity? Does anyone even consider that he may of felt that he'd already done alot for the club and may of felt that he deserved more support? In principle I agree that if you ever feel that you are in a situation whereby your family are in anyway under potential threat, then that situation is best avoided. I certainly woudl not want my daughter subjected to anything like that. However, my cynical side says to me that they did absolutely nothing, not one single thing, to try and calm the situation. The only thing we heard from them in the interim period was the "fact" statement which did nothing more than inflame the already growing unrest and anger. Personally I think that was deliberate. Again, looking at his apparent "I dont give a toss, I will do what I want attitude" doesnt marry up with his "i am not going to the ground I am scared" response. He also didnt have to take his family to the matches during the period of unrest. I know he said he just wanted to enjoy the whole football experience and just have some fun but as the owner of the club, I believe he had a responsibility to act as such (when appropriate) and not always just be the "club owning, one of the lads, Mike Ashley" Fair enough - at last someone who actually argues there point. To be honest - i still disagree with you - i actually get the feeling that Ashley feels the club should be grateful to him due to debt repayment and may of felt that threaten of physical violence upon him by a huge number of people was just too much and not worth the hassle, especally when he knows people are intersted and theres a helathy profit at the end. I may be supremely naive but i genuinely do belive that he wanted to make nufc a success in the end. Its a shame we didnt see his plan come to frution.

Which shows you choose to beleive the first of my 2 scenarios that i gave - whereas im probably a disciple of the second. You have just as much evidence as i do regarding what actually went on at the club - yet you have blindly backed one man deifintitely over the other with absolutely no knowledge of the truth. I have probably chosen to back the other man becasue i believed in what he had planned for the club and i saw that as being more important than the whims of a manager who's managerial record doesnt warrant such blind faith. You have chosen to back a manager purely and simply becasue of something he achieved 15 years ago for the club, and you believe that that is more imporant for the club in the long run. The difference between our beliefs is that one has already dramatically changed the future of the club for no good reason and the other hasnt. I am not backing KK purely and simply because of events of 15 years ago, I'm backing him because all the evidence (including some fed to national Sunday papers by Ashley's camp a week or two into this saga) is that Keegan didn't get players he was promised in the final days of the window, and was landed with Gonzalez and Xisco instead. Your final paragraph is just gibberish. Sunday papers? Each paper has its own view and version of the events. And if you say he didnt get the players he was promised - do you know the circumstances if which the players didnt join? Or are you assuming that Wise didnt fancy them and therefore didnt even bother going for them? Im not, my basis of belief is not becasue x undrmined y, or y stabbed z in the back, its that i value the long term plan which Ashley seemed to be pitching over any individual at the club. Supposing, things did go smoother - we could have had Deschamps, we could have had Terim we could even have had Zico by now, would that of been such a resounding disaster? To me, no. If Ashley allowed his director of football to overrule Deschamps, Terim or Zico on transfers, it would be a disaster, yes. So no decent retort then? Nice one. WTF? I am challenging the validity of Ashley's long-term plan. That's my retort. Where's yours? How is that a retort? All you've done is made an assumption and stated it as though its a feature of the structure and is part of the plan, which is quite fankly rubbish. Question for you - can you tell me the exact circumstances of Keegans departure steering clear of hear'say and what you read in the papers? Where did Wise undermine him? Why? How has he undermined him? etc... Do you have first hand view of the events?? Clearly (and I'm not referring to your tenuous grasp of grammar and spelling here) you don't know the meaning of the word retort. That aside, yes, I am making assumptions. An assumption based on the evidence as I see it - EXACTLY as you are doing re Ashley's supposed "masterplan". An interpretation of the evidence which is, quite fankly, rubbish. Haha, you pendantic sad b****** - thats the second/third person today who's pointed out poor english - whoopy-f***ing-doo, poor english on an internet message board - how wrong are my priorities, i best ring my mum and dad up and tell them they did a bad job. You still dont get it do you - you have a go at me for poor english (yes it did hit a sore point) and yet you fail to see the massive gap in your logic - ie the level of protests were justified based purely on assumptions from inconsistent evidence written in the newspapers, do you actually know the full circumstance in which Keegan didnt get the players he was promised or are you assuming that Wise wasnt interested from the start and had no intention of purchasing them? Thats the stick you're beating them with and you dont even know if its 100% true. What if i said Keegan was dragging his heels over targets and caused Wise to go over his head - you wouldnt see me protesting with that assumption, you definitely wouldnt see me triyng to force keegan out of his job even if it is what i belive and is based upon much the same "evidence" as you claim to base your belief on. My "assumptions" on Ashleys masterplan was that he was looking to invest in younger players from all around the globe for smaller wages with the aim of making them stars for the club, reducing the clubs inflated wage bills whilst not compromising the qulaity. I fail to see why that is an assumption? i dont need evididence - it WAS the way the club wanted to go - how you can deny that is beyond me.

You see, i have absolutely no right saying what you've put is right or wrong so i wont, (although my view is different to yours) but i would say that you've over simplified one aspect of your argument and thats the bit about Ashley selling, you've forgotten to mention that he felt he and his family were unsafe in the place he owned, a fear that was backed up by the assault on a lookalike. To me, that puts a huge slant on your final point. Would you risk the safety of your family knowing it was a very real possilbity? Does anyone even consider that he may of felt that he'd already done alot for the club and may of felt that he deserved more support? This is the family that accompanied him how many times exactly ? I wasnt counting. Does it change anything about the statement though. In the exact same situation, are you crass enough and pig headed enough to say you would of stuck around and potentially put yourself and family in danger? Especially if you felt that the club owed you big time.

You see, i have absolutely no right saying what you've put is right or wrong so i wont, (although my view is different to yours) but i would say that you've over simplified one aspect of your argument and thats the bit about Ashley selling, you've forgotten to mention that he felt he and his family were unsafe in the place he owned, a fear that was backed up by the assault on a lookalike. To me, that puts a huge slant on your final point. Would you risk the safety of your family knowing it was a very real possilbity? Does anyone even consider that he may of felt that he'd already done alot for the club and may of felt that he deserved more support?

I'm not sure why you keep banging on about why you think Keegan should have left, as in the context of the original question it is completely irrelevant. Frankly you should be asking yourself why he was ever appointed in the first place as he was quite clearly not someone who would be able to work happily under the system which has been set up since. Even Ashley must have been very aware of this as he put clauses in Keegan's contract to try and stop him talking about non-team matters and stop him resigning once he realised just how little say he would actually have in the buying and selling of players. I've never heard of such clauses in a manager's contract before, and it leads me to the conclusion that Keegan's level of influence in these key decisions was planned to deviate from what was verbally agreed at the start. Ashley just either underestimated Keegan's principals or overestimated how important the money was to him. He probably thought he'd get a season or two out of Keegan putting a supporter friendly face to his sham of a plan before he got rid by blaming him for the poor performance of Wise's purchases. bang on you're absolutely right- Ashley and Co made a stupendous mistake in expecting him to work in those circumstances - they must shoulder the blame for the lack of foresight, it could be argued that Keegan could be blamed as well at this point for accpeting the job - but i wont. the rest of what you say seems like conjecture - im not sure anyone knows the full story, so i couldnt possibly specualte. Anyway, back to the point. I only ever raised your quote as you used a phrase in the question as a feeble excuse to try and dodge answering it. Unless you think a "mediocre manager" whose "position seemed untenable for the system" would not obviously hold the club back, then I really don't see what your problem with the phrasing of the original question is. the point is that in my view (obviously based on as much evidence as your view is) he was holding the club back by not getting into line with the policy of player recruitment , not becasue i thought he was a mediocre manager adn was doing a poor job as you were implying by the nature of your question. I pointed to his mediocre record as means of putting perspective on why protesting to the extent we did was pretty silly and backed up the media "myth" that we're delusion - we are. You said the squad has improved dramatically. You said Keegan is a mediocre manager. Why then is the quality of the football played by the team so s*** if the squad has improved dramatically? Why then is the squad's confidence low if we all we have done is lose a mediocre manager? wow, you are really getting caught up with this mediocre definition - ill put it to you (like i have done before) how would you describe his managerial record and how does it differ from anything Allardyce has actually achieved or McLaren has achieved or Curbishley, even Jim Smith and Derby. How would you describe these managers? They're all on a pretty similar level of achievments if you ask me. My opinion anyway. I'm glad you brought up Souness & Roeder actually. Can you answer these questions: Is the squad better now in your opinion than when Roeder took over from Souness? Yes or no. Yes Is statistically (using the same principals as you have to describe Keegan as mediocre) Souness a better manager than Keegan? Yes or no. Good question - statistically speaking yes he is. Just in the same way Dalglish is statistically a better manager than Keegan. Works both ways you see. I feel you're misunderstanding my point htough - my point is though that he doesnt have the record which demands so much blind faith, he's no longer instrumental to our club and is replacebale, unlike a Fergie or a Wenger... Is statistically (using the same principals as you have to describe Keegan as mediocre) Roeder a worse manager than Keegan? Yes or no. Yes he is a worse manager than keegan. If your answers to the above are as I expect they should be in your opinion yes to all 3, can you explain to me how at that time when we replaced a better manager with a worse one the performances turned around, we managed to finish 7th and got to the FA cup quarter finals, and yet now we are looking like relegation fodder and have been dumped out of the FA cup at the first hurdle, at home by the only team who have started worse than us in the division? Something's wrong with your opinion of the squad strength and/or your logic of how to rate a manager. I think it's both. Already answered this - in fact i used this as reasoning as to why we are doing badly now. Note, i havent said once i beleve Keegan is a bad manager - get it out your head - ive just pointed that i feel sacrificing the long term plan of ashley and all good that he;s done for the club for the whims of a manager whose managerial record doesnt warrant that sort of blind loyalty - with little or no facts to back up any protests at all is ridiculous. If you want more answers look through this post - i think ive just about come full circle.

Which shows you choose to beleive the first of my 2 scenarios that i gave - whereas im probably a disciple of the second. You have just as much evidence as i do regarding what actually went on at the club - yet you have blindly backed one man deifintitely over the other with absolutely no knowledge of the truth. I have probably chosen to back the other man becasue i believed in what he had planned for the club and i saw that as being more important than the whims of a manager who's managerial record doesnt warrant such blind faith. You have chosen to back a manager purely and simply becasue of something he achieved 15 years ago for the club, and you believe that that is more imporant for the club in the long run. The difference between our beliefs is that one has already dramatically changed the future of the club for no good reason and the other hasnt. I am not backing KK purely and simply because of events of 15 years ago, I'm backing him because all the evidence (including some fed to national Sunday papers by Ashley's camp a week or two into this saga) is that Keegan didn't get players he was promised in the final days of the window, and was landed with Gonzalez and Xisco instead. Your final paragraph is just gibberish. Sunday papers? Each paper has its own view and version of the events. And if you say he didnt get the players he was promised - do you know the circumstances if which the players didnt join? Or are you assuming that Wise didnt fancy them and therefore didnt even bother going for them? Im not, my basis of belief is not becasue x undrmined y, or y stabbed z in the back, its that i value the long term plan which Ashley seemed to be pitching over any individual at the club. Supposing, things did go smoother - we could have had Deschamps, we could have had Terim we could even have had Zico by now, would that of been such a resounding disaster? To me, no. If Ashley allowed his director of football to overrule Deschamps, Terim or Zico on transfers, it would be a disaster, yes. So no decent retort then? Nice one. WTF? I am challenging the validity of Ashley's long-term plan. That's my retort. Where's yours? How is that a retort? All you've done is made an assumption and stated it as though its a feature of the structure and is part of the plan, which is quite fankly rubbish. Question for you - can you tell me the exact circumstances of Keegans departure steering clear of hear'say and what you read in the papers? Where did Wise undermine him? Why? How has he undermined him? etc... Do you have first hand view of the events??

Im not sure ive ever had a post from you which actually gets the crux of any of my points. "obvioudly holding us back"?? Where have i said that then? You've made that up, and that is the crux of your entire post. So basically a non post - well done. Ahhh, out of context quoting - how refreshing. Nice change of pace to your usualy miss the point posts i suppose. I'm not sure if you think you're being clever by deliberately trying to avoid the question, but if you ever managed to structure a sentence so it made sense you might have better luck putting across some of your so called points. Put some context around your words "for the best interests of the club Keegan should definitely of left" if you like, but perhaps you could also explain how having a "mediocre manager" as you call Keegan would not hold us back. I would expect results to immediately improve as the players were relieved of the mediocrity. Pointing out someones poor english? Very cute. Well, if you read the bit around that quote you've highlighted you'd of seen that i was giving 2 scenarios which both sets of fans believe as the true account of what happened at the club. (i.e Keegan was undermined from the start or Keegan dragged his heals over the signings and didnt pick suitable targets himself). And you'd of seen that the outcome in both scenarios was that Keegan would/should of left, either he resigned becasue of his principles or he was forced due to not fitting in with the policy. As his position seemed untenable for the system - it was in nufc best interest that keegan should of left. No way here am i implying that he was a s*** manager who was holding us back, but that he just didnt fit in. The bit about him being a mediocre manager is in reference to his record and blind backing in light of his record. So in fact the context changes absolutely nothing, and the quote "for the best interests of the club Keegan should definitely of left" fully represents your opinion. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll ever so slightly rephrase the questions then in the hope that you might answer them. How does having a "mediocre manager" whose "position seemed untenable for the system" in your opinion not hold us back? Now that "the squad has improved dramatically" and we have relieved ourselves of a "mediocre manager" who was obviously holding us back "should definitely of left", why do we keep losing abjectly to poor teams? Is this still part of the "long term plan for the club with slow steady progress"? Not a bad post UV. Well done. (From your original post) Keegan should of left NOT becasue i thought he was a s*** manager - but becasue he wasnt going to fit in with the system. Why is that so hard to understand? Thats what i meant but your original post implies i thought he should of left becasue he was apoor manager who was doing a crap job for the team. So yes the context is important. If he was happy with the way things were then he could of stayed as he would be getting in line with the system and he wouldnt of been holding us back, but he wasnt therefore had to go. Are you a journo? Keegans record as manager is not much better than the likes of Allardyce, Curbishley, Veneables or arguably McLaren. (Try not to get stuck on this point) How would you describe these managers? Excellent? Good? Average? Poor? Mediocre?,what is it on Keegans permanent record which seperates himself from these? His best achievemnt as manager was 10 years ago - alot of these managers best achievements were more recent in arguably more harder times. I just dont understand how anyone would describe a manager who's best achievemnt was 10 years ago to be anything other than average at best? How do you rate what Jim Smith did at Derby or what Peter Ried did at Sunderland? Are they anything other than average managers? You seem to be getting hung up on the description of keegan as mediocre - i used mediocre to apply perspective to some of the over reactions to his leaving, i beleive my belief is 'vindicated'. We're losing to poor teams becasue the the squads confidence is low and they are unhappy. the opposite occured when Roeder took over from Souness.

Which shows you choose to beleive the first of my 2 scenarios that i gave - whereas im probably a disciple of the second. You have just as much evidence as i do regarding what actually went on at the club - yet you have blindly backed one man deifintitely over the other with absolutely no knowledge of the truth. I have probably chosen to back the other man becasue i believed in what he had planned for the club and i saw that as being more important than the whims of a manager who's managerial record doesnt warrant such blind faith. You have chosen to back a manager purely and simply becasue of something he achieved 15 years ago for the club, and you believe that that is more imporant for the club in the long run. The difference between our beliefs is that one has already dramatically changed the future of the club for no good reason and the other hasnt. I am not backing KK purely and simply because of events of 15 years ago, I'm backing him because all the evidence (including some fed to national Sunday papers by Ashley's camp a week or two into this saga) is that Keegan didn't get players he was promised in the final days of the window, and was landed with Gonzalez and Xisco instead. Your final paragraph is just gibberish. Sunday papers? Each paper has its own view and version of the events. And if you say he didnt get the players he was promised - do you know the circumstances if which the players didnt join? Or are you assuming that Wise didnt fancy them and therefore didnt even bother going for them? Im not, my basis of belief is not becasue x undrmined y, or y stabbed z in the back, its that i value the long term plan which Ashley seemed to be pitching over any individual at the club. Supposing, things did go smoother - we could have had Deschamps, we could have had Terim we could even have had Zico by now, would that of been such a resounding disaster? To me, no. If Ashley allowed his director of football to overrule Deschamps, Terim or Zico on transfers, it would be a disaster, yes. So no decent retort then? Nice one.

Unsurprisingly - NE5 being completely floored again. What a condescending idiot - worse still being patronising for the wrong facts and lies !! Aye but we qualified for Europe more times than any team bar 4, so that makes it alright. The fact that its pretty safe to say we wouldnt of qualified for CL again under Shepherd and therefore get back on financial track is irrelevant. Keep up.

No problems.

Which shows you choose to beleive the first of my 2 scenarios that i gave - whereas im probably a disciple of the second. You have just as much evidence as i do regarding what actually went on at the club - yet you have blindly backed one man deifintitely over the other with absolutely no knowledge of the truth. I have probably chosen to back the other man becasue i believed in what he had planned for the club and i saw that as being more important than the whims of a manager who's managerial record doesnt warrant such blind faith. You have chosen to back a manager purely and simply becasue of something he achieved 15 years ago for the club, and you believe that that is more imporant for the club in the long run. The difference between our beliefs is that one has already dramatically changed the future of the club for no good reason and the other hasnt. I am not backing KK purely and simply because of events of 15 years ago, I'm backing him because all the evidence (including some fed to national Sunday papers by Ashley's camp a week or two into this saga) is that Keegan didn't get players he was promised in the final days of the window, and was landed with Gonzalez and Xisco instead. Your final paragraph is just gibberish. Sunday papers? Each paper has its own view and version of the events. And if you say he didnt get the players he was promised - do you know the circumstances if which the players didnt join? Or are you assuming that Wise didnt fancy them and therefore didnt even bother going for them? Im not, my basis of belief is not becasue x undrmined y, or y stabbed z in the back, its that i value the long term plan which Ashley seemed to be pitching over any individual at the club. Supposing, things did go smoother - we could have had Deschamps, we could have had Terim we could even have had Zico by now, would that of been such a resounding disaster? To me, no.

Im not sure ive ever had a post from you which actually gets the crux of any of my points. "obvioudly holding us back"?? Where have i said that then? You've made that up, and that is the crux of your entire post. So basically a non post - well done. Ahhh, out of context quoting - how refreshing. Nice change of pace to your usualy miss the point posts i suppose. I'm not sure if you think you're being clever by deliberately trying to avoid the question, but if you ever managed to structure a sentence so it made sense you might have better luck putting across some of your so called points. Put some context around your words "for the best interests of the club Keegan should definitely of left" if you like, but perhaps you could also explain how having a "mediocre manager" as you call Keegan would not hold us back. I would expect results to immediately improve as the players were relieved of the mediocrity. Pointing out someones poor english? Very cute. Well, if you read the bit around that quote you've highlighted you'd of seen that i was giving 2 scenarios which both sets of fans believe as the true account of what happened at the club. (i.e Keegan was undermined from the start or Keegan dragged his heals over the signings and didnt pick suitable targets himself). And you'd of seen that the outcome in both scenarios was that Keegan would/should of left, either he resigned becasue of his principles or he was forced due to not fitting in with the policy. As his position seemed untenable for the system - it was in nufc best interest that keegan should of left. No way here am i implying that he was a shit manager who was holding us back, but that he just didnt fit in. The bit about him being a mediocre manager is in reference to his record and blind backing in light of his record.

Cockney OUT

Which shows you choose to beleive the first of my 2 scenarios that i gave - whereas im probably a disciple of the second. You have just as much evidence as i do regarding what actually went on at the club - yet you have blindly backed one man deifintitely over the other with absolutely no knowledge of the truth. I have probably chosen to back the other man becasue i believed in what he had planned for the club and i saw that as being more important than the whims of a manager who's managerial record doesnt warrant such blind faith. You have chosen to back a manager purely and simply becasue of something he achieved 15 years ago for the club, and you believe that that is more imporant for the club in the long run. The difference between our beliefs is that one has already dramatically changed the future of the club for no good reason and the other hasnt.

Im not sure ive ever had a post from you which actually gets the crux of any of my points. "obvioudly holding us back"?? Where have i said that then? You've made that up, and that is the crux of your entire post. So basically a non post - well done. Ahhh, out of context quoting - how refreshing. Nice change of pace to your usualy miss the point posts i suppose.

Can you quote the seasons when any of those got within a million miles (or 4 points) of winning the title? Thanks. I like the way you specify the number of points we were from winning. Goes to show how threadbare your argument actually is. Okay one place, two games, 4 days anyway you like - explain how those managers have achieved as much as KK did. We all know Keegan was/is "over" emotional - that's one of the reasons why he connected with the fans so its okay to comment on it but comparing what he did with non-entities and football murderers shows you've completely missed what he did. At a time when so many people are simply falling out of love with football, Keegan was the perfect antidote to that. In the cold light of day its possible that someone more clinical could have and still will be "better" for the club in the medium/long term but this sniping at a man who has done more for Newcastle United than anyone in my lifetime is absolutely pathetic. Ok, i was gonna edit my last post - becasue i didnt want people to think i was anti keegan and go down a whole different debate, my major point and the point of this whole thread is that maybe the fans have thought with there hearts and not there heads - they've blindly backed a manager with a not so great managerial record with no facts and by doing that have sacrificed the remotest possiblty of seeing what i think is a good much needed long term plan come anywhere near into fruition. I think thats why maybe the media are half correct by calling us impatient and delusional becasue theres an definitive element of 'not seeing the wood for the trees'. EDIT: another who's proved my point - thinking with their hearts not there heads- by that token of sentimentality Shepherad et al are untouchable in your eyes as there achievments HAVE to be paralleled with Keegans.

Im not sure ive ever had a post from you which actually gets the crux of any of my points. "obvioudly holding us back"?? Where have i said that then? You've made that up, and that is the crux of your entire post. So basically a non post - well done.

Can you quote the seasons when any of those got within a million miles (or 4 points) of winning the title? Thanks. I like the way you specify the number of points we were from winning. Goes to show how threadbare your argument actually is.

When you say "so long" you actually mean 10 days (?), right? Were you one of non exisiting people who have alway hated the clubs secrecy and hated that the media knew 'nothing'? If so, then i suppose 10 days IS a long time, then again, for me i was happy to wait - especially as we dont know the nature of the meeting that Ahley had with keegan and especially as how Ashley was on 'business' at the time. Still doesnt equate to forcing him out, especially after having put in so much of his personal welath into the club, bringing back a hugely popular figure, regenerating the youth system and improving our scouting sytem beyond the realms of the major clubs in the major leagues. He hasnt even been given ONE chance to rectify his one major mistake - which was employing Keegan in the first place. As for your diluted protests - who's to say? Moot point really. Ok, so Mclaren was one of 4 manager i mentioned - although strictly speaking silverware will always been on your permanent record of achievments, not " got a team from second division to near the top of the premier league - with a fair bit of cash". Pedantic i know, but unfortunately true. The bottom line is that he IS part of a group of mediocre managers, any defence of him is defence based purely on personal feelings for the man, becasue someone with equal record at antoerh club wouldnt get a second hearing here, and that isnt subjectivity. As for your final question - it depends on what side you view the argument - if you genuinely believe that Wise hasbeen indermining Keegan from the start and Keegan actually had NO say on the signings then it would be Wise who should of left - and Keegan should of left when he was first undermined as his principles are so strong. But if you view the argument as Keegans targets not fitting into the policy of the club and possibly dragging his heels over the situation forcing Wise to sign players over his head without his authoriy then maybe Keegan was right to leave. As you can see, in both scenarios Keegan doesnt come of favourably so i'd say that for the best interests of the club Keegan should definitely of left and replaced with a manager who could defintiely work within a team structure. There is also a case for Wise becoming an antagonist and him therefore leaving as well. He hasnt even been given ONE chance to rectify his one major mistake - which was employing Keegan in the first place . . ." WTF? You condemn Keegan unreservedly for NOT accepting Wise's input, then conclude by saying Wise could be an "antagonist" and should go as well. WTF? You say the point about diluted protests is "moot", yet the basis of your original argument was that the strength of those very same protests proved NUFC fans are not patient enough. WTF? "improving our scouting sytem beyond the realms of the major clubs in the major leagues . . ." WTF??? We are playing David f***ing Edgar at right-back ffs...................... Im struggling to see what you find so difficult to understand with this. Keegan didnt fit in with the system, he was unable to work within a team structure and therefore was the wrong man for the job. Ashley has to take the blame for this, and as of yet he hasn't (and wont) be given the chance to rectify this mistake and employ a manager who would fit in and potentially make the sytem work. The 2 paragraphs i gave were 2 scenarios that are being genrally accpeted by both sets of fans with differeing views, the line about Wise being an antagonist should of been put with the first scenaroi. Poor Enlgish, my mistake. Either way you;ve not exactly responded to my point just tried to point out a possible contradiction. Im saying the point about diluted protests is moot becasue the protests have already taken place. The subsequent wheels have been set into motion and therefore the damage has been done. To suggest that "if he'd released a statement (a few days ) earlier would of resulted in less voiceferous protests" is nothing more than conjecture and something you couldnt prove at all. I mean, are you actually intimiating that 50k+ people who have protested agaisnt the club and threatend the owner and possilby his family with physical violence with actually no stone cold hard facts have the rationale to tone down there protests if only the owner had spoken (a few days ) earlier? Thats a claim and a half that is. Think that one through. What has David edgar playinga RB got to do with the improvement of the scouting system? I never said it was flawless. All im saying is that its definitely been improved. All ive noticed is that you dont try to prove your points - you try to counter mine which is a sign of a weaker argument. Just an observation.

What like at Boro? where he had a lower win percentage than Roeder, Fat Sam and Souness. To be fair his job was survival and he managed that in an interim capacity at Boro, i actually think that at leeds he did insanely well to keep them up with what was going on at that club, was made a scapegoat there though. You're taking the piss surely? He took over a top 5 team minus Rio Ferdinand and had them fighting relegation by November. The vultures only circled when it looked like they were heading down and they had to get Peter Reid in to keep them up. Probably remember it differenlty to you. I thought they were on a downward spiral from the start - thats why Leary left. to be fair, i cant comment on it too much cos i cant remember buti always thought that he did ok to keep them up becasue it was defintiely ad ownward spiral.

What like at Boro? where he had a lower win percentage than Roeder, Fat Sam and Souness. To be fair his job was survival and he managed that in an interim capacity at Boro, i actually think that at leeds he did insanely well to keep them up with what was going on at that club, was made a scapegoat there though.