themanupstairs

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

Released at this time of year precisely for that reason. This will make Team England a shitload as people can wear it to go out better than some other recent ones. Will be a massive seller imo

They have had 3 windows to do that already and look at the non productive players they've brought in, so what makes you think they'll magically turn it around should we survive? Problem is they had 3 and a half windows with 3 different managers

The solution to all this malarkey is so fucking simple really!!!!!! it's mind boggling!!! as you say, new manager, clear the dead-wood, reasonable transfer budget. The hardest part will be picking the right manager. Why not consult SBR on who he might see as a good manager for the future? Give the man the job, and allow him to build a squad up for 2 or 3 years and take stock at that point. Also, got to be a manager/coaching staff ready and willing to work with the youth and bring them through ffs!!

We're nowhere near Man Utd as a club ffs!!! For one, Glazier came in, and kept the same footballing set-up! Man Utd was superbly run prior to the takeover!! They didn't have a managerial merry-go-round, they didn't have an ageing over paid squad! they didn't have a useless and dysfunctional academy and youth set-up! You cannot even begin to compare us with Man Utd!!! We had already fallen way way way behind them in terms of footballing institutions years ago. If we had won that title in '95, we may have had a chance. That chance was blown by Graham f***ing Fenton. I never suggested we were on the same level pegging, hence the phrase 'on a different scale'. That was obviously lost upon you at the time. The phrase mentioned applies both to overall market strength - both home & abroad - and the sort of spending undertaken by the Glaziers to maintain their status on this football business front ie. result-driven market appeal. As for the points placed in bold. All overseen by just one bloke, the most important man at the club - the manager. The very essence and the core of their respective and successful set-ups, all undermined by Ashley's whoosh woo woo Continental system. A system whom the likes of Wenger and i dare say it Ferguson wouldn't work within either. Will you go on record to suggest the next listed signings - Gavilan, Bramble, Viana, Bernard, Ambrose, N'Zogbia under Robson, Dyer & Domi under Gullit.... project type/youth players - were not overseen by the managers in question and that we didn't have a similar set-up in place. Admittedly we didn't have the same far-reaching scouting network in place. But nonetheless the manager oversaw which youngsters were brought inot the fold. I've repeatedly stated from the outset that i never expected a 100m spending spree over a couple of Summers in the wake Ashley's take-over, nor did i expect the club do come in with the sort of money thrown for the youngsters earmarked as the tools of requirement in order to replicate to Arsenal youth-driven model. I've previously cited the desultory pittance we offered for Delph as the obvious example - ie. of us not spending the required amount needed to poach the higher echelons of the youth talent pool - in the Summer transfer window non-event, a window where the top brass put the manager's most valued players on sale behind his back. Before comparisons are made to the expenditure layed out for Rose, and what Leeds accepted. With regards to Delph, at a similar age to Rose when the latter moved to Spurs, he is more a player who fits into the mould of somebody who is more likely to make an immediate impact and that's purely down to physical attributes when compared to the impish Rose. By comparison Rose waas a riskier prospect, a longer-term reach hence a Leeds - a club noted for their academy/talent production line - for any club willing to gamble on the scope of improvement ie. to make an impact at EPL level. And in Rose's case there was a contractual issue at hand, which featured heavily in the tiny amount Spurs payed for him. This contractual issue, with regards to him quitting Leeds' academy, has already been posted elsewhere. This is a shocking indictment levied upon the Ashley regime, in the wake of their much mooted Arsenal model talk. I suppose the likes of Nile Ranger, by sheer fluke, will consistently fall out of trees and into their lap........will they? Do you hear me saying, "bloody hell that Mike Ashley sure is doing a fine job running NUFC?" Again, the real question has been side-stepped, which is: HOW DID FREDDIE SHEPHERD PLAN ON MANAGING OUR DEBT WHILE KEEPING US COMPETITIVE ON THE FOOTBALL PITCH TO ACHIEVE EVEN MORE EUROPEAN QUALIFICATION (MORE TIMES THAN ANYONE BAR 4 CLUBS etc..etc..), SEEING THAT HE FAILED MISERABLY WITH HIS APPOINTMENT OF SOUNESS? HOW WOULD FREDDIE SHEPHERD HAVE HANDLED THE REIGN OF SAM ALLARDYCE, SEEING AS MOST ON HERE AGREE (not me mind) THAT HAD ALLARDYCE STAYED WE WOULD HAVE BEEN RELEGATED? The point being argued here is Shepherd would have never allowed this to happen VS. Oh yes he would have as our debt was getting out of control and we still had a shit manager and god-awful playing staff

We're nowhere near Man Utd as a club ffs!!! For one, Glazier came in, and kept the same footballing set-up! Man Utd was superbly run prior to the takeover!! They didn't have a managerial merry-go-round, they didn't have an ageing over paid squad! they didn't have a useless and dysfunctional academy and youth set-up! You cannot even begin to compare us with Man Utd!!! We had already fallen way way way behind them in terms of footballing institutions years ago. If we had won that title in '95, we may have had a chance. That chance was blown by Graham fucking Fenton.

You'd already put a full stop in your sentance, comma, there really was no need to spell it out as well. Full stop fyp

Kaka shouldn't even be on that list. The most overrated pretty boy footballer in the history of the modern game. Andrea Pirlo is a better player. Granted he's had a shit time of it since winning the world cup. As for the best player in the world? Leo Messi. Full stop

I would rather us play with ten men than with Ameobi, to be honest. Which we almost are, if we're starting Owen as well. Shirley Owen and Shola would equate to playing with nine men? Effectiively 7 with Butt as he is like giving Chelsea a 12th man :lol:

so relegation due to lack of investment and zero ambition is the answer ? Shame on those who scorn the people who gave us the best decade and a half of the last 50 years by a million miles. As HTL said yesterday, how many of you actually thought we were winding you up, when only a handful of people including me and him knew what we were talking about. You should be telling the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal how they are doing it all wrong, and their priority should be to make a profit and sell their highest earning players. Answer his question instead of babbling on like a sexually frustrated woman there are dozens of "questions" I've asked people on here.........and you haven't told anybody to directly answer me. My reply is in the league positions of the club during the Halls and Shepherd, the progress of the club, the full to capacity expanded stadium, the european qualifications, the top quality footballers, and the FACT that the club couldn't sell itself for 2.5m quid in 1991 and at the end of the Halls and Shepherd was sold for anything between 100m and 200m quid. If you are one of these clueless idiots who think the last few years under the Halls and Shepherd were s*** , refer to my previous reply. If not, then - as nobody says anything about your daft comment about "sexually frustrated woman", I'm going to tell you that you are a stupid daft clueless c*** and maybe different banning rules will be applied to me ......... but maybe I'm wrong, and I suppose one or two people will like to prove me wrong so lets see what they do. The Halls and Shepherd would never have sat back and watched this club go down like this, while making profits. They saved the club from the very situation it is heading for , you clueless b****** [name calling again.........] Lets see who gets banned for abuse here If I'm banned for this it conclusively proves there are different rules for different people ....... You really are a piece of work Likening your answers to those of a woman who isn't getting laid is the same as calling you a useless daft c*** now is it? By your own admission, and you say FS would have never allowed the club to go down, he hired Allardyce to run the club on a shoe-string budget. Let's say Ashley didn't come anywhere near the club, and Allardyce didn't do so well for FS. What do you think the chairman would have done? Backed him with more money in January (taking us even DEEPER into debt), or sacked him, brought in yet ANOTHER manager, and backed HIM in turn with more cash hence taking the club deeper into debt? The reason I'm posting smilies and not replying with full answers to some of the bollocks I'm reading is that it's already been done to death, and I've already replied with my tuppence countless times. I have yet to read however, a reply from you, answering the question that Teasy has asked you. Oh, and you can't really do anything but laugh at that post from HTT.

Wonder if Wise consulted the manager/coach? Indirect criticism of the first team's overall pattern of play, and one where he stands little chance to develop as a ball-carrying winger/attacking midfielder? We don't exactly create open space for our widemen, by spreading the play from left-to-right and so forth. Very little build-up play from the back, complimented with the outlet balls from the middle of the engine room to wide channels. Our inadequacies with regards to our ball-movent & overall pattern of play doesn't present as the ideal footballing education for a lightweight but otherwise quick & skillful youngster. Perhaps he sees that his football future - particularly learning the tools of the trade at a senior level - lies elsewhere. good post. the bit in bold really saddens me tbh

that was a prem fixture. We beat them 2-0 at St James' in the coca-cola that season Kitson scored his first goal for us in that match no?

I think Ferguson more than likely would have told him to f*** off. Tbf Gillespie did look class against us in the cup I think it was. He was also an integral part of the team during Keegan's reign. didn't he score against us in their 2-0 win over us in 94-95 at Old Trafford. His performance that day was what impressed Keegan iirc It was definitely something against us around that time. Just couldn't remember the exact fixture. Yup. Lost 2-0 at OT if I'm not mistaken. Gillespie ran with the ball, cut inside and fired low to the keeper's right hand side. Also, may have been our very first defeat of the new season iirc

in before the lock edit: or merge :colo:

sexy back

very underrated player in that team of ours. Only Nobby has done better than he did since he left. He also played for a while up front through the middle when Shearer was out and Arsprilla was arse farting around doing nothing as was pretty normal for him, and Gillespie never got the credit he deserved for sticking it out and giving it his best shot. the sentence in bold is the only reason you posted in this thread it's unlike you to actually join in when talking about football if it's nowt to do with shepherd and ashley as for Gillespie, I think he was underrated as he came in the deal that took Cole to Man U. At the time I felt cheated, and wasn't sure what value Gillespie would bring us. Totally changed my mind that season he, Ferdinand, Beardsley and Ginola ripped the league apart. ahhhhh those good old days

Think he may have had a free voucher for the new weightwatchers system at BCFC

Can think of one or two top 4 sides in the premier league who'd take Habib on as a first choice RB

Got to be Bassong by a continent mile!

Bollocks. Kinnear is clueless