themanupstairs

Toon Amy seems to think so

ridiculous question like James! are we just expected to guess? just tell us man!

Dare I say it, I have the impression that the coaching and management set-up, despite big Al's lack of experience, will be more professional than Keegan's. This alone could see consistency brought into the equation. Something we really need if we're going to pick up as many points as possible. Tbh if Shearer gets the team selection and tactics right, with a bit of luck we could go the last 8 games unbeaten. At least that's the over-optimistic view I'm desperate to adopt.

I might get slated for this, but there's a certain twinkle in Shearer's eyes that was missing from Keegan's the 2nd time around. He has a "man on a mission" look about him that's reminded me of Keegan's first press conference sat there beside SJH. Also, the more and more I think of the AS/ID double act, the more it makes sense to me. Dare I say it, and I know I'm jumping the gun big time....but it may have the makings of a dynasty IF and only if we get the situation sorted in the boardroom

He's been here 5 minutes, and already action is being taken. Speaks much louder than words. Much much louder.

He won't be back. I'm certain of it. And if Shearer decides he doesn't want the job, we'll bring someone else in full time next season. I'm quite confident the mistakes Shearer was talking about included Kinnear. I can picture him saying to them in those meetings, "what the hell were you thinking hiring someone with serious health issues, who's been out of the game for so long". They probably said, "he was the only one willing to take it on". To which he would have replied, "well get rid of your controversial set-up, show some humility, and bring in someone who is qualified". Or something to that effect.

Don't think that was him... It wasn't the club photographer? It was certainly Shearer. That certainly wasn't shearer mate Hmm this stream isn't the best quality but it looked like him to me. if you're on about the bloke in a blue shirt and tie, aye I thought so too at first. But it wasnt him

im sure there's a cameraman behind it. it's probably to capture his entrance, then will pan left to the table. chill out people!!

nowt going on now tbh. no one on the conference table yet

Don't think that was him... It wasn't the club photographer? It was certainly Shearer. That certainly wasn't shearer mate

it's onnnnnnnnn mothafuckas :clap2:

The one thing about Shearer is his character. The man's aura precedes him, and he has a gigantic presence. He's just one of those people who were always destined for greatness. This alone might be the deciding factor that could make him a superb manager (we hope). As has been said, when these big ex-players manage their "own" teams, it seems to turn into something special. See: Klinsmann and/or Guardiola

dont be daft mate bottle of yer own broon ale!!!

I'd also like to second that statement. I do think there's only one Alan Shearer, and if there were two Alan Shearers, then I'd be singing there's two Alan Shearers, and life is beautiful and I love you all especially Lee Craig Stewart and I wish I could design websites like him and tell jokes like Billytray. Damn this is some good shiiiit

He also knows that the public up here are happiest and most on-board when the team is playing good flowing football. I don't think he will shy away from attempting to do that. It might not be the case in these final 8 games though, as the results will be what's most important.

He was also club captain. I don't envisage many club captains would come out openly criticizing the manager

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we. Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one. The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income. What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive. Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish. Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract. do you seriously think a club appoints a manager with the intention not to back him ? Oh wait....... And your point is? Ashley has done it, and so did Shepherd. Shepherd [and the Halls] appointed a manager and decided not to show ambition and back him ? I don't think so. Yes. Souness. Giving him 50m to spend and then sacking him some months later is not called backing your man. Unless they were doing the buying and he was just a puppet...

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we. Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one. The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income. What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive. Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish. Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract. do you seriously think a club appoints a manager with the intention not to back him ? Oh wait....... And your point is? Ashley has done it, and so did Shepherd.

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we. Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one. The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income. What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive. Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish. Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract. No, you back a manager by allowing him to build his own team within pre-set financial constraints. Hanging onto an underperforming manager at the expense of the club itself and its followers is an entirely different thing and coincidentally is what we are currently witnessing. Can you build a team in one and a half seasons? Shepherd backed a manager who had a history of heart problems, a reputation for being confrontational, and paid a fee to sign him on from a club that was bottom of the table. He gave Souness the 50m to spend in the hope that we'd win the Carling cup as he'd done with Blackburn. It was Shepherd's last call, hoping he'd go out all guns blazing. Shepherd had no intention of backing Souness to build a team. He wanted to live the pipe dream of being the one to win that elusive trophy for NUFC. Don't get me wrong. I can clearly see Shepherd's mistakes. Just how can you blame him for being ambitious and wanting to win throphies with NUFC is beyond me though. Shepherd bit off more than he could chew in the end, but he got very close to reaching the level we aspire to. Unfortunately, we are now stuck with his predecesor who also bit off much more than he can chew and it looks like he doesn't even have the ambition or nouse to get us where we should be aiming for. You can call a club like us winning something a pipe dream as much as you like, but the harsh fact is that for a club of our size and potential, winning trophies should be part of the game. Right now, it feels like we are much further removed from that aim than we have been for a while. Totally agree with you there mate. I do not in any way blame Shepherd for having the ambition!! On the contrary! I just think he fucked up big style, and we're paying for it.

The key for me is getting a good manager in. this

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we. Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one. The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income. What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive. Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish. Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract. No, you back a manager by allowing him to build his own team within pre-set financial constraints. Hanging onto an underperforming manager at the expense of the club itself and its followers is an entirely different thing and coincidentally is what we are currently witnessing. Can you build a team in one and a half seasons? Shepherd backed a manager who had a history of heart problems, a reputation for being confrontational, and paid a fee to sign him on from a club that was bottom of the table. He gave Souness the 50m to spend in the hope that we'd win the Carling cup as he'd done with Blackburn. It was Shepherd's last call, hoping he'd go out all guns blazing. Shepherd had no intention of backing Souness to build a team. He wanted to live the pipe dream of being the one to win that elusive trophy for NUFC.

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we. Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one. The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income. What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive. Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish. Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract.

first class contribution. Yes, it was, wasn't it? A very economical way of pointing out that anyone who believes Keegan is likely to return, or that the Keegan of today, in the football climate of today, would be likely to repeat his successes of 15 or more years ago, is living in a total fantasy world. Even Keegan knows it, as his outburst after the Chelsea match made very clear to anyone not blinded by sentiment and an inability to distinguish 2009 from 1992. no it wasn't, it was childish in the extreme, and pretty daft IMO by you, again. You are right about the need to succeed, and you are right about Keegan knowing it, but did you say this at the time, or have you cottoned on yet that Ashley - unlike his predecessors - doesn't understand what it takes to be successful ? So you think that football today is the same as it was in 1992, and that Keegan, even though he explicitly does not believe so himself, would have the same impact on a league now ruled by CL revenue and mega-investment? If so, sorry, but you're completely deluded. Absolutely. Forget the foreign imports. They haven't had as much of an effect on football as has the expansion of the CL. Back in the day when it was 1 or 2 teams that qualified, it kept things competitive. Since the expansion, the cream with the cream have floated to the top, and that's been that.

it doesn't prove what you have said, and many others. What it shows is that going by comments made on numerous occasions by people on here, the entire premiership is at deaths door. who said at deaths door ? drastic belt tightening certainly. who outside the top 4 is finding fresh cash to try and compete with those. all that link proved was that those with the biggest turnover to wages can finance (afford to have) the bigger debt. thats what you've been carping on about all these months isn't it "oooohhhh look at the debt on them" in a brians mam from the life of brian type voice. our debt and wages wouldn't be so bad if we were bringing in a lot extra revenue. do you think liverpool or arsenal would carry on as they are now if they dropped out the champs league for 5 seasons ? we were once in a position to speculate like that, you've been going a long time can you help me remember the actions of the board last time we qualified for the champs league, we bought woodgate in the winter before qualifying then in the summer of actually qualifying.........s*** i can't remember, will someone please help me out ? We failed to speculate to accumulate. We spent fuck all. We kept our powder dry. Fuck all. Nada. Zip. Nothing. Fuck all + Lee Bowyer on a free