fredbob

See what i wanna know is what is the difference between backing a terrible manager and not backing an excellent manager? To me they dont seem that conversely different.

Seems clear that Zog, Duff and Smith are playing for their future, its not like he's tried to fit them into a system thats he knows works but has deliberatley put them in a system that they would all indivudallly thrive or fail. Persoanlly as annoying as the Zog situation is, i really want him to come good, although having said that 442 doesnt look like an option, cant see what keegan will of seen to want to keep it next season.

To be honest - the only thing that would worry me about the possbility of owen leaving is the affect it might have on Keegan, seems clear to me that keeganis desperate to have him and if the board decided to chuck him who knows what that could do to Keegan. As for him as a player - think we can do better. Anelka would be a perfect option and there are plentymore out there.

Would rather have Lennon - think Lennon would suit our strikers better, Pennants crossing ability would be wasted with the midgets up front and Viduka is hardly dominant in the air. Can see Lennon doing on the right what Martins is doing on the left.

Good news and bad news. If there's an ounce of truth in it, of course. Which I doubt. I feel like there is some truth to it. I think Keegan knew this is what he had to do from the outset and basically this is why he claimed we would be miles away from the top 4 and unable to challenge next year. I don't think he feels he can make as much rapid progress under these conditions i.e. building a younger squad. However, I am just as happy for us to make slower progress with a young talented squad and the idea of the likes of Veloso, Gomis, Nasri etc coming in excites me rather than the Crouches, Riises, Campbells etc. I think I'm with Ashley on this one. Yeah it might take a little longer but we'll get there eventually as long as we can get the right players in.It will be really refreshing to have some top young talent at the club for a change. The sensible approach - as usual - would be a compromise between the two. The two or three major signings Keegan has continually referred to are players that can go straight into the team. They might be young (Modric), but they're not youngsters in terms of being 'for the future'. The ideal solution is say six or seven signings, with half being the likes of Modric, and the others being some warm/hot prospects who can bulk out the squad. Think Nani at Man Utd. Id agree with that and i'd go as far as saying that that is exactly what will happen. It wouldnt make sense for Keegan to be allowed to identify the targets if the club had very little intention of allowing them to come. I dont think for a second that Keegan or Wise for that matter would allow the board to dictate the type of transfers that were allowed at the club to make especially with absoltutley no football epxerinece in them. There has to be some compromise with the 2 people at this club who know what footballs all about.

Where did you get the information on season ticket sales while Robson was manager? I remember us advertising season tickets on Metro Radio when Souness was in charge but don't remember anything like that before then. You must know that our poor season had seen us finish 5th in the league and compete in the semi-final of the UEFA Cup which we would have possibly won if it wasn't for Jenas, Dyer and Bellamy missing both games due to injury and Woodgate missing the away game. I'm sure somebody said yesterday that we even had to use Michael Bridges in the home game when he came on as sub for Ameobi. It was my theory - my point of view on how things transpired, im basing on the fact that the fans were extremely unhappy at the time and SBRs rating were really low, i think that might of lead to unprecedented poor season ticket sales. Hence why towards the end of the window Shepherd put in the bid for Rooney which was more pr than substance because SBR was out the door and Shepherd knew it. Also that season Bellamy, Dyer, Jenas and Woodgate only played 5 times together all season- who's to say what could of beenin we had them all together.

My theory on debt is that it was actually (ironically) something which lead us to have to spend more in the transfer markets on these "trophy signings". Stadium debt was secured against Season ticket sales and after SBR had failed to get us to CL and there was disgruntle amongst the fans it showed in the level of season ticket sales, which are imperative to the clubs finances. With the lack of interest after the poor season it made it obviosu in Shepherds eyes to get rid of SBR for risk of further failure and also meant that he was forced to put in a PR bid for Rooney which he helpfully annonuced to the world, this was something that got the interest going again and we were ok for that season. Then came the Souness debacle-again ST sales were poor after a shitty season and for the first time in a long time were forced to advertise the fact that ST sales were poor leading to a contversial spending spree where names apprenetly became the main fixture (trophy signing phrase applicable here). I think it just lead to becoming a vicious circle which Shepherd couldnt rise above because the appoointemnts that he made werent great and his stock had fallen so low with the fans. If he just had the initiave to look beyond these shores and search for a worthy manager he could of broke the circle. Im not saying that there would of been success if we went abroad but i think its clear that the calibre of manager abroad is higher than it is in England. In my opinion it would of taken only one good appointment for the circle to of been broken. then again i could be completely wrong about everything ive just said.....

not bad, some of what I said doesn't really look like I wanted.......look at it as meaning that even I can accept that every player can't cost 20m quid, and take it also as meaning that of course I'm aware that sometimes you find a gem for less money ...... Its the general attitude of the club, is what I'm talking about. As said in the other post, when players become available, players so good that you have to have, then you simply MUST try and get the money and get them. For a club like Newcastle, this is quite simply not a problem or shouldn't be a problem. The club is too big to be run on over stringent prudency, but it bothers me that the new board appear to be making noises that suggest this is what they are going to do. You should ALWAYS be looking at buying players for any position, better than what you have. It is what has led to the events of this week, and Keegan should know. I've never denied that Shepherd may have been a c*** sometimes, but basically I'm not bothered by off the field things, up to a point. I just don't care. I don't want a nice man running the club who doesn't have any ambition for it, I saw that for 30 years, many other clubs still have it. I just don't want it. I just want a board who back its manager and aim for real success, and I don't care who they are, what their backround is, or what they do, so long as they deliver this. This is what the successful clubs do. Chelsea fans don't care where Abramovic makes his money, ManU fans didn't care about Edwards and for the moment may not like the Glaziers but aren't making any noises because they are winning trophies too. Thanks for calling me a miserable old bugger ......... I'm neither, you young whippersnapper you .... Good post. I actually agree to some extent with alot of sentiment thats it that post but some of it regarding financial prudency is a bit unfair - esepcially as we have had substantials bits made for anumber of players. Well, if we bought a centre forward with more mobility than Viduka, say Ashton - a midfield player such as Modric would have been, and a centre back like Richard Dunne to go alongside Taylor and Faye and fight for places and give us strength in depth, I'd be fairly pleased with that for the moment. Then David Bentley came along and the club said he had spent his budget. Well, I would be unhappy with this. This is what I mean. Newcastle are too big to exercise such prudency. The spend would be worth it, and I'd be be dismayed to miss out on such a player and such an opportunity. This the difference between a truly ambitious club and a lesser one. Especially considering the ground we want to make up on the top teams. Also consider that a "sell to buy" policy is inappropriate in such circumstances too.I can accept that in this event, one or two players would go ie Milner and/or Duff if he doesn't come good, but you sort the books out later and get the player while you can. Again thats a fair point but id actually be more unhappy if it was the other way round and we missed out on Dunne, Ashton and Modric and got just Bentley instead. This is the crux of my argument. EDIT: well how do you sort the books out later if what you do doesnt lead to success and financial benefits - at which point would we call it time on our expenditure and look to sell or lower wages, that seems a bit contradictory. Especially as that is exactly the situation we were in when Ashley came in. There needs to be a compromise somehwere and for me the best way to do it is to stick to a given budget - as much as id hate to miss out on Bentley if he were to come available but we had already spent our lot on him then thats tough - theres is always next season adn there are always other players.

not bad, some of what I said doesn't really look like I wanted.......look at it as meaning that even I can accept that every player can't cost 20m quid, and take it also as meaning that of course I'm aware that sometimes you find a gem for less money ...... Its the general attitude of the club, is what I'm talking about. As said in the other post, when players become available, players so good that you have to have, then you simply MUST try and get the money and get them. For a club like Newcastle, this is quite simply not a problem or shouldn't be a problem. The club is too big to be run on over stringent prudency, but it bothers me that the new board appear to be making noises that suggest this is what they are going to do. You should ALWAYS be looking at buying players for any position, better than what you have. It is what has led to the events of this week, and Keegan should know. I've never denied that Shepherd may have been a c*** sometimes, but basically I'm not bothered by off the field things, up to a point. I just don't care. I don't want a nice man running the club who doesn't have any ambition for it, I saw that for 30 years, many other clubs still have it. I just don't want it. I just want a board who back its manager and aim for real success, and I don't care who they are, what their backround is, or what they do, so long as they deliver this. This is what the successful clubs do. Chelsea fans don't care where Abramovic makes his money, ManU fans didn't care about Edwards and for the moment may not like the Glaziers but aren't making any noises because they are winning trophies too. Thanks for calling me a miserable old bugger ......... I'm neither, you young whippersnapper you .... Good post. I actually agree to some extent with alot of sentiment thats it that post but some of it regarding financial prudency is a bit unfair - esepcially as we have had substantials bits made for anumber of players.

Id agree with him as well but i dont agree with it if its not in the best interests of the club and when it was abundanlty clear that we needed a new CB and a midfilder after the chaiman had sold them with telling the manager then it makes it even more farcical that we'd go an attept to sign a player who no doubt is quality but not required. At the moment we are short in midfield and maybe the CB position (not the the same degree as SBR was mind) we're not exactly ample in the striker departemnt like we were then but if a striker like Luca Toni came available and was signed by the club at the expense of other positions would it be recieved well by then fans? I wouldnt take it well.

names ? Owen is the only player that genuinely springs to mind to me of players we have actually bought when people bandy this "trophy player" stuff about, because until recently he'd been a massive failure for this football club. Rooney is probably the best example of it, though, and we didn't even sign him. Owens goals, and Martins, have just saved us from relegation. Poor signing ? I don't think so. I don't think ManU would consider Rooney a "trophy" signing, and to be honest I find it absolutely incredible that any Newcastle United supporter would be unhappy to have him. Ridiculous. Just giving you the answer you were asking for, as I assume those two would be the players singled out as trophy signings/potential trophy signings. As for the bold bit, it's a very superficial argument, as someone could easily counter with "if that £16M had been better spent, we might not have been fighting relegation to begin with", which would be a fair enough comment. Then we'd end up in that brilliant never-ending cycle again. Faced with a choice of spending 16m quid on a proven player who you know is top class, or 3 or 4 sub standard players who are decidely risky, its a complete no brainer. The quality player wins every single time, for me. Alan Shearer spring to mind ? Was he a "trophy" player then ? Owen was actually one of the few players around capable of stepping into his shoes, and not being fazed by it or anything. Its exactly the sort of player the club should have looked to replace Shearer with, which they did. Well kind of yes. didnt we have to end up needing to sell players in order to finance the summer budget after Shearer had signed. Im not doubting the quality of the singin or the player but if i rememebr correctyl signing Shearer compromised us as a club. So in some respects yes he was a trophy signing. People have a definite view of what a trophy signing is and they dont discrimnate the facts a trophy signings ability or overall quality but people are able to assess there usefullness to a club. For example if you ask them who they;d rather sign Klass Jan Huntelaar otr Thierry Henry, i can bet alot of money that a lot of people would go for Huntelaar. Now for you id imagine you;d go for Thierry Henry - and thats fair enough, i think people would describe him somewhat of a trophy player and if you can see the reasons why people would rather spend the same money on an unproven talent who has bags of potential then maybe you;ll figure out the difference. oh, I'm quite aware of the difference fredbob. Thanks all the same. Thierry is getting on a bit, the price would have to reflect his age is what I think, just thought I'd add that, along with reminding you that Dyer, Jenas, Bramble, Cort, Ambrose, Gavilan, and Viana all had "potential" I realise it suits some people to pretend the club hasn't attempted this path before ......... Sorry - i didnt mean for it to sound patronising- was merely offering my view on my definition of what is a "trophy signing". To be fair you mention a few names who were all part of our most successful period, i get the impression that you think people are implying that the old board didnt invest in youth, period, and quite frankly you;d be wrong, but its an interesting point that you would point to talent that was acquired during one of our most successful spells under Shepherd, something which in my view was not a coincident. So yourself acknowledge the difference between Henry and Huntelaar, well those difference are what defines a trophy sgining in my book. I just think that the term "trophy signings" which you obviously dislike got coined at a period of histroy in NUFC when big money and had very little to show for it - some people think it was the teams faults for not performing other blame the policy itselfs.

names ? Owen is the only player that genuinely springs to mind to me of players we have actually bought when people bandy this "trophy player" stuff about, because until recently he'd been a massive failure for this football club. Rooney is probably the best example of it, though, and we didn't even sign him. Owens goals, and Martins, have just saved us from relegation. Poor signing ? I don't think so. I don't think ManU would consider Rooney a "trophy" signing, and to be honest I find it absolutely incredible that any Newcastle United supporter would be unhappy to have him. Ridiculous. Just giving you the answer you were asking for, as I assume those two would be the players singled out as trophy signings/potential trophy signings. As for the bold bit, it's a very superficial argument, as someone could easily counter with "if that £16M had been better spent, we might not have been fighting relegation to begin with", which would be a fair enough comment. Then we'd end up in that brilliant never-ending cycle again. Faced with a choice of spending 16m quid on a proven player who you know is top class, or 3 or 4 sub standard players who are decidely risky, its a complete no brainer. The quality player wins every single time, for me. Alan Shearer spring to mind ? Was he a "trophy" player then ? Owen was actually one of the few players around capable of stepping into his shoes, and not being fazed by it or anything. Its exactly the sort of player the club should have looked to replace Shearer with, which they did. Well kind of yes. didnt we have to end up needing to sell players in order to finance the summer budget after Shearer had signed. Im not doubting the quality of the singin or the player but if i rememebr correctyl signing Shearer compromised us as a club. So in some respects yes he was a trophy signing. People have a definite view of what a trophy signing is and they dont discrimnate the facts a trophy signings ability or overall quality but people are able to assess there usefullness to a club. For example if you ask them who they;d rather sign Klass Jan Huntelaar otr Thierry Henry, i can bet alot of money that a lot of people would go for Huntelaar. Now for you id imagine you;d go for Thierry Henry - and thats fair enough, i think people would describe him somewhat of a trophy player and if you can see the reasons why people would rather spend the same money on an unproven talent who has bags of potential then maybe you;ll figure out the difference.

Agree with that - signings made which arent made primarily for the benefit for the first team - in fact any signings which isnt 100% for the 1st teams benifit are trophy signings. Another good example would be Butt. An example of someone who isnt a trophy signing but relatively speaking was as much of a flop as Luque is Viana, this is where i differentiate trophy signings. I dont think its a simple case as they "were expenisve but were crap so must be trophy signings" becasue for me Viana was contrare and proves that theory to be rubbish.

Probably because he can get to France in 2 hours. You can get from Newcastle to France in not much more than that, man. the difference between flying to paris from london and newcastle is half an hour. Is there as many flights to Paris as there is at Heathrow? I mean, its not like he can go back to france everyday after training whereas London may be more accesible for his family.

An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc) On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with s**** like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them. I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million. Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in. Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge. I posted that in February 2007 on toontastic. I think it's something a lot of people have been aware of, but not best pleased to post, simply because of the fact that it's them. There's also a lot of fans who won't stand for taking their approach, because it "lacks ambition", and of course the vast majority of us love to see the club spending big sums on well-known players. This club was rotten - and still is to a good extent - by all accounts, and it's going to take a lot longer than one season to sort it all out. I get as carried away as anyone at times, but if Ashley and Mort are genuinely saying the wage bill is too high, too obscene, and if it is up to anywhere near the rumoured 80% mark as far as the ratio with turnover goes, then surely we're best off taking a similar approach to that which you suggested all that time ago? I know it's not going to be an instant fix, but Keegan has already shown what he can achieve with this current set of players. Bomb out the overpaid and underachieving - Emre, Duff, Smith and Carr would probably top most people's lists as far as that goes - and replace them with the sort of players you mention, who are up and coming and will command less wages while still offering us more than those four mentioned have done all season, and surely we'll see further progress on the field? I know it's hardly a glamourous route to take, but it might be the most sensible/sustainable one. I think a lot of people are expecting Ashley to do an "Abramovich" simply because he has the money to do it... but it's a f****** massively risky strategy, especially now when a Chelsea already exist. It was different when they did it, they were the first and nobody could compete... but doesn't Abramovich even have an outline for getting them to be self-sustainable by 2010 or something? Football clubs cannot be bottomless pits of money, it would seem, even for billionaires. Absolutely spot on in my opinion, in todays games it no longer seems to be the policy of buying "los galaticos", as its extremely unsustainable especially without success which seems to be the case right now - Chelsea are one of a few clubs wo are in a position to be able to do that but even now they are actively looking to phase out the reliance on Romans money. you look at Man U, Spurs and Arsenall approach nowadays iand even in the past and you can see that Man U were the most succesfful when they brought players through and reached a peak, same with Arsenal. In fact Man U went through a lean period whereby they spent the heaviest they've ever done and ended up going through a bad dry spell which goes to show the improtance in investing a youth talent - hell even nufc were the most successfull when we tried to buy youth in SBR era.

Hope he sticks it out for one more year. I think every footballer out there would struggle to have a bad time when there team is playing well and doing well. Think he'd benefit massively from the fans if he came out next season and produced what we know he can - theres no place like nufc when the place is buzzing and the football club is the heartbeat of that buzz.

I dont get it why is there so little loyatly to one of the best footballing instistuions in Europe?? Look at the names who have chse to leave rather than being forced out - Man U and other teams rarely struggle to get a player to resign cos there all so desperate to play for them - why isnt it the same at Arsenal?

Aye- them and arsenal are run pretty perfectly to be honest - i get the feeling though that the Spurs are all self financed and thats theres little financial input from ENIC and Joe Lewis i think that Ashley is looking to do the same.

Same for you then, I'm all ears, how did they get the information? Im with GM with this one so you're better off listening to him - he seems to make more sense then i do! Fatal error ever aligning yourself with me. But I agree with your second point. Ill go all in and take that gamble - for the time being anyway. To be fair, my second point applies to most the people on this board so....

Same for you then, I'm all ears, how did they get the information? Im with GM with this one so you're better off listening to him - he seems to make more sense then i do!

Of course you assume that nobody knows anything more than the hacks. Nope - just allying to the fact that maybe just maybe there is some basis to all the stories and the idea that someone is "gullible or stupid" for giving a second thought to a more than feasible newspaper story is a little naive especiually when they have absolutely nothing to back the opinion up either. Theres irony in there somewhere.....

i say its wrong so it must be wrong

Surely you can't be referring to me there? Anyone who doesn't just laugh at it tbh. It's horseshit. They make it up. Are you basing that on supposition and precedent or do you have an insider as well?

Precisely- its not being gullible but its taking a realistic view that maybe it may hold water. Its so stupid that people are quick to call people gullible yet believe there own instincts based entirely on supposition. With the exact same amount of evidence as the papers- yet the papers are the ones who are bullshitting. thats a little naive if you ask me.

I know this is gonna sound like im being a wind up merchant but are people saying that the papers would take the direct quotes of a source knowing it had absolute no basis to it whatsoever (ie was 100% made up)- all the papers seem to be taking the same view, surely it actually does have some basis. We're kidding ourselve if we think this meeting was just about transfer targets.