"Shepherd was not a good chairman" - Sibierski

[Dr Venkman]

What exactly does breaking transfer records have to do with anything?

 

i'll second that notion, irrelevant tbh, ambiton, yes please, spending loads of money because you think it looks ambitious, no thanks

[TRon]

Seriously, the main problem with Shepherd wasn't that he fleeced the club, was too fat, was calling Newcastle fans who bought the shirt mugs, geordie women dogs, wanted to punch John Barnwell on the nose, etc...

 

My concern with Freddie was his incredible stupidity. To be fair, he made a decent call when he made Allardyce his first choice, but that hardly tested the grey cells too much. Where the mind boggles though was in his choice of Steve Bruce, Souness and Roeder in fairly quick succession.

 

Shepherd's geordie-tinged specs for Bruce are an indictment of everything wrong with his leadership, for want of a better word. Bruce has since been exposed as a duffer of almost comic proportions, yet we were handing him the most important job at Newcastle United on account of being a geordie (who probably supports Man U now in any case).

 

So like I said earlier, I have nowt against Shepherd other than he was a thick twat. I would love to be convinced otherwise but not one of his supporters to this day have so much as attempted to explain his REASONING for offering the manager's job to the likes of Souness, Bruce and Roeder. What was he thinking exactly? How can you justify it?

[NE5]

 

I would say that I wouldn't believe a word that Souness says. After all, he's been called him a liar before. I have no idea where you get the idea that Shepherd decided he wanted to buy Nicky Butt and Bobby Robson didn't, thats  a new one on me. If it was a choice between the 2, and Butt was the best financial option for the club at the time, then I'm sorry but all chairman have to exercise this option sometimes, they had shown they back the managers as much as possible, so you will have to believe that would be the reason and accept it.

 

 

Is Mort a better chairman than Shepherd because he's spent more cash this year then Shepherd spent last year?

 

has he ? Remind us how much we got for Dyer and Parker again ? Interesting you are now considering this criteria, having in the past insinuated it was completely irrelevant.   mackems.gif

 

Anyway, I thought you said it is our money and not theirs  mackems.gif

 

NE5, to be honest, regardless of whether i agree or disagree with your points, i think its only fair that someone points out to you that following everything you say with one of those laughing emoticons only serves to make you appear extremely patronising and smarmy, it's no way to conduct a discussion if you want any respect

 

I take your point, but I only do it when posts don't make sense, and MICK usually isn't a person who applies consistent logic

 

 

 

The question in bold has nothing to do with my logic, it's about yours and you clearly don't want to answer it so I'll leave it as the silence is answer enough.

 

Simple fact is, and simple is the operative word here, is its simply too early to say. See what they do next year, and the year after, and the year after. Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two, or set a new one or two for ourselves.

 

Pretty basic, really.

 

As I said. Simple. Shouldn't really need explaining.

 

If Allardyces doesn't succeed, who will you blame by the way, I don't recall you answering that when I asked you on numerous occasions ?

 

 

 

 

 

The big money trophy signings were one of FFS's biggest failings so there's no need for the current management to "break a transfer record or two" .

 

complete rubbish. Where would manure, Chelsea, and Liverpool be without their biggest money signings.

 

 

[NE5]

What exactly does breaking transfer records have to do with anything?

 

i'll second that notion, irrelevant tbh, ambiton, yes please, spending loads of money because you think it looks ambitious, no thanks

 

now, you harped on earlier about me posting laughing smillies, but I'm sorely tempted to in this case.

 

See my last post. If you think we can be successful, and challenge the top clubs by making 3m and 4m quid players, or even a bit more than that, you are clearly living in cloud cuckoo land and are totally brainwashed by the other idiots castigating the club for buying these so - called "trophy players", which is quite the most absurd and ridiculous phrase I have seen on these message boards

 

 

 

 

[Dave]

What exactly does breaking transfer records have to do with anything?

 

i'll second that notion, irrelevant tbh, ambiton, yes please, spending loads of money because you think it looks ambitious, no thanks

 

now, you harped on earlier about me posting laughing smillies, but I'm sorely tempted to in this case.

 

See my last post. If you think we can be successful, and challenge the top clubs by making 3m and 4m quid players, or even a bit more than that, you are clearly living in cloud cuckoo land and are totally brainwashed by the other idiots castigating the club for buying these so - called "trophy players", which is quite the most absurd and ridiculous phrase I have seen on these message boards

 

 

 

 

 

What exactly does breaking transfer records have to do with anything?

[NE5]

Seriously, the main problem with Shepherd wasn't that he fleeced the club, was too fat, was calling Newcastle fans who bought the shirt mugs, geordie women dogs, wanted to punch John Barnwell on the nose, etc...

 

My concern with Freddie was his incredible stupidity. To be fair, he made a decent call when he made Allardyce his first choice, but that hardly tested the grey cells too much. Where the mind boggles though was in his choice of Steve Bruce, Souness and Roeder in fairly quick succession.

 

Shepherd's geordie-tinged specs for Bruce are an indictment of everything wrong with his leadership, for want of a better word. Bruce has since been exposed as a duffer of almost comic proportions, yet we were handing him the most important job at Newcastle United on account of being a geordie (who probably supports Man U now in any case).

 

So like I said earlier, I have nowt against Shepherd other than he was a thick twat. I would love to be convinced otherwise but not one of his supporters to this day have so much as attempted to explain his REASONING for offering the manager's job to the likes of Souness, Bruce and Roeder. What was he thinking exactly? How can you justify it?

 

mackems.gif

 

can't resist it. Could you please explain how other chairmen have also been stupid enough to appoint these people, what makes you so bright you think that every chairman appoints guaranteed winning managers ? My biggest point with views like you have, is the complete lack of realism. There are LOADS of managers out there who are "failures", in fact the vast majority are, they are ALL sacked in the end, so why do you think we should be so different - do you think Steve Gibson is a great chairman, for instance, if you do, explain why he is such a thick twat he also appointed a manager with no experience of managing, twice ?

 

And Birmingham are owned by 2 of the richest men in the country, who obviously are great owners, putting money into the club, have its best interests at heart, and appointed Steve Bruce, all because they aren't the stupid thick Fred.

 

So how thick and stupid do you consider the chairmen of the 87 clubs that haven't matched us to be ?

 

At the end of the day, the FACTS are that the thick stupid and incompetent chairman was the chairman when the club achieved the first 3 consecutive top 5 league positions in 50 years, and qualified for europe more than every other club bar 4. I realise that this FACT won't wake you up to the real world though. If this is thick, there are a fooking damn sight more thick chairmen out there than we realise, it would seem, and what does it say about his predecessors ?

 

There ARE reasons as to why these managers are chosen, I'm not defending them because I don't agree with them either, especially in Souness' case, but I'll also say you are yet another person who is falling into the trap of blaming someone who isn't the majority shareholder for these big decisions, which are undoubtedly made, decided and sanctioned with either their choosing or at the very least with their complete agreement.

 

Simple fact is mate, people like you just don't like him, which is fair enough, I've never said I like him either only that I don't care about the PR gaffes he made, but you are allowing this to influence your judgement, whereas I am not.

 

 

[NE5]

What exactly does breaking transfer records have to do with anything?

 

i'll second that notion, irrelevant tbh, ambiton, yes please, spending loads of money because you think it looks ambitious, no thanks

 

now, you harped on earlier about me posting laughing smillies, but I'm sorely tempted to in this case.

 

See my last post. If you think we can be successful, and challenge the top clubs by making 3m and 4m quid players, or even a bit more than that, you are clearly living in cloud cuckoo land and are totally brainwashed by the other idiots castigating the club for buying these so - called "trophy players", which is quite the most absurd and ridiculous phrase I have seen on these message boards

 

 

What exactly does breaking transfer records have to do with anything?

 

Do you, or do you not, want Newcastle United to have players that the top 4 clubs themselves want ? Do you or do you accept that without such players, we will never catch them ? And do you or do you not accept that you do not find these players for 3 or 4m quid playing for smaller clubs all the time ?

 

Howay Dave, stop believing this bollocks about trophy players man, a few years of real mediocre ones and the penny will drop, don't mean to sound patronising, but thats an unbelievable question.

 

Do you seriously think that if we get into the good position, then splashing out on the Rooneys, Shearers, Keanes, Ronaldos of this world isn't whats required to go higher ?

 

 

[Dave]

Buy good players, yes. Spend money if required to get the best players, yes.

 

Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two

 

That's what you said. What exactly do you have in mind? And what does it have to do with anything?

[NE5]

Buy good players, yes. Spend money if required to get the best players, yes.

 

Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two

 

That's what you said. What exactly do you have in mind? And what does it have to do with anything?

 

Liverpool have bought Torres. ManU have bought Tevez and Nani and Rooney. Chelsea have bought Drogba, Ballack. Do you think it is possible to compete with this if you don't match and better them ?

 

These clubs are showing you how it is done.

 

 

[Dave]

Buy good players, yes. Spend money if required to get the best players, yes.

 

Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two

 

That's what you said. What exactly do you have in mind? And what does it have to do with anything?

 

Liverpool have bought Torres. ManU have bought Tevez and Nani and Rooney. Chelsea have bought Drogba, Ballack. Do you think it is possible to compete with this if you don't match and better them ?

 

These clubs are showing you how it is done.

 

 

 

None of those were particularly 'record' transfers. Which records would you like to see us break?

[NE5]

Buy good players, yes. Spend money if required to get the best players, yes.

 

Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two

 

That's what you said. What exactly do you have in mind? And what does it have to do with anything?

 

Liverpool have bought Torres. ManU have bought Tevez and Nani and Rooney. Chelsea have bought Drogba, Ballack. Do you think it is possible to compete with this if you don't match and better them ?

 

These clubs are showing you how it is done.

 

 

 

None of those were particularly 'record' transfers.

 

Don't know what you mean by that, of course they were, how many players have we bought for or even close to those brackets ?

 

Two.

 

 

 

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Funny how Liverpool managed to win the Champions League without Torres.

 

What was the "record signing" that helped them do that?

[Dave]

Buy good players, yes. Spend money if required to get the best players, yes.

 

Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two

 

That's what you said. What exactly do you have in mind? And what does it have to do with anything?

 

Liverpool have bought Torres. ManU have bought Tevez and Nani and Rooney. Chelsea have bought Drogba, Ballack. Do you think it is possible to compete with this if you don't match and better them ?

 

These clubs are showing you how it is done.

 

 

 

None of those were particularly 'record' transfers.

 

Don't know what you mean by that, of course they were

 

 

 

 

Explain? 'Record transfer' means the highest fee does it not?

[NE5]

Buy good players, yes. Spend money if required to get the best players, yes.

 

Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two

 

That's what you said. What exactly do you have in mind? And what does it have to do with anything?

 

Liverpool have bought Torres. ManU have bought Tevez and Nani and Rooney. Chelsea have bought Drogba, Ballack. Do you think it is possible to compete with this if you don't match and better them ?

 

These clubs are showing you how it is done.

 

 

 

None of those were particularly 'record' transfers.

 

Don't know what you mean by that, of course they were

 

 

Explain? 'Record transfer' means the highest fee does it not?

 

I mean that these clubs are keeping pace with each other, buying the top players, beating their own records, to reach top spots and win the trophies. They know that if they don't do this, they won't reach top spot or win the trophies !!

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Explain Arsenal, then.

[NE5]

Funny how Liverpool managed to win the Champions League without Torres.

 

What was the "record signing" that helped them do that?

 

oh dear

 

 

[TRon]

Seriously, the main problem with Shepherd wasn't that he fleeced the club, was too fat, was calling Newcastle fans who bought the shirt mugs, geordie women dogs, wanted to punch John Barnwell on the nose, etc...

 

My concern with Freddie was his incredible stupidity. To be fair, he made a decent call when he made Allardyce his first choice, but that hardly tested the grey cells too much. Where the mind boggles though was in his choice of Steve Bruce, Souness and Roeder in fairly quick succession.

 

Shepherd's geordie-tinged specs for Bruce are an indictment of everything wrong with his leadership, for want of a better word. Bruce has since been exposed as a duffer of almost comic proportions, yet we were handing him the most important job at Newcastle United on account of being a geordie (who probably supports Man U now in any case).

 

So like I said earlier, I have nowt against Shepherd other than he was a thick twat. I would love to be convinced otherwise but not one of his supporters to this day have so much as attempted to explain his REASONING for offering the manager's job to the likes of Souness, Bruce and Roeder. What was he thinking exactly? How can you justify it?

 

mackems.gif

 

can't resist it. Could you please explain how other chairmen have also been stupid enough to appoint these people, what makes you so bright you think that every chairman appoints guaranteed winning managers ? My biggest point with views like you have, is the complete lack of realism. There are LOADS of managers out there who are "failures", in fact the vast majority are, they are ALL sacked in the end, so why do you think we should be so different - do you think Steve Gibson is a great chairman, for instance, if you do, explain why he is such a thick twat he also appointed a manager with no experience of managing, twice ?

 

And Birmingham are owned by 2 of the richest men in the country, who obviously are great owners, putting money into the club, have its best interests at heart, and appointed Steve Bruce, all because they aren't the stupid thick Fred.

 

So how thick and stupid do you consider the chairmen of the 87 clubs that haven't matched us to be ?

 

At the end of the day, the FACTS are that the thick stupid and incompetent chairman was the chairman when the club achieved the first 3 consecutive top 5 league positions in 50 years, and qualified for europe more than every other club bar 4. I realise that this FACT won't wake you up to the real world though. If this is thick, there are a fooking damn sight more thick chairmen out there than we realise, it would seem, and what does it say about his predecessors ?

 

There ARE reasons as to why these managers are chosen, I'm not defending them because I don't agree with them either, especially in Souness' case, but I'll also say you are yet another person who is falling into the trap of blaming someone who isn't the majority shareholder for these big decisions, which are undoubtedly made, decided and sanctioned with either their choosing or at the very least with their complete agreement.

 

Simple fact is mate, people like you just don't like him, which is fair enough, I've never said I like him either only that I don't care about the PR gaffes he made, but you are allowing this to influence your judgement, whereas I am not.

 

 

 

Thank you for your lengthy response, but all I aked you to consider was Sheperd's REASONING for considering Bruce, Souness and Roeder management material for a massive club like Newcastle? As an avid supporter of Freddie Shepherd, it's worrying that you haven't managed to address such a simple question.

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Funny how Liverpool managed to win the Champions League without Torres.

 

What was the "record signing" that helped them do that?

 

oh dear

 

 

 

I don't remember him. Midfielder?

[NE5]

Explain Arsenal, then.

 

the next Arsene Wenger was down the pub tonight. I'm sure it was him, if it wasn't, I'm sure another one will turn up tomorrow  mackems.gif

 

Maybe you should come and meet him, and see if he fits your magic criteria for appointing winning managers who don't need to spend money to be successful.

 

Where did you say Arsenal will finish this season again  mackems.gif

 

 

[Dave]

Buy good players, yes. Spend money if required to get the best players, yes.

 

Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two

 

That's what you said. What exactly do you have in mind? And what does it have to do with anything?

 

Liverpool have bought Torres. ManU have bought Tevez and Nani and Rooney. Chelsea have bought Drogba, Ballack. Do you think it is possible to compete with this if you don't match and better them ?

 

These clubs are showing you how it is done.

 

 

 

None of those were particularly 'record' transfers.

 

Don't know what you mean by that, of course they were

 

 

Explain? 'Record transfer' means the highest fee does it not?

 

I mean that these clubs are keeping pace with each other, buying the top players, beating their own records, to reach top spots and win the trophies. They know that if they don't do this, they won't reach top spot or win the trophies !!

 

 

 

I'll quote you again:

Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two, or set a new one or two for ourselves.

 

To break a British transfer record we'd have to spend more than £30m (Shevchenko); a world transfer record £46m (Zidane).

 

I'm picking up your point about breaking a transfer record, as you went on to mention our own after that.

 

So I ask again, what on earth does spending £30m+ on a player have to do with anything?

 

[NE5]

Funny how Liverpool managed to win the Champions League without Torres.

 

What was the "record signing" that helped them do that?

 

oh dear

 

 

 

I don't remember him. Midfielder?

 

your mate Graeme bought him, he's a proper player.

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Explain Arsenal, then.

 

the next Arsene Wenger was down the pub tonight. I'm sure it was him, if it wasn't, I'm sure another one will turn up tomorrow  mackems.gif

 

Maybe you should come and meet him, and see if he fits your magic criteria for appointing winning managers who don't need to spend money to be successful.

 

Where did you say Arsenal will finish this season again  mackems.gif

 

 

 

I don't know. Where did I say they'd end up this season?

[NE5]

Buy good players, yes. Spend money if required to get the best players, yes.

 

Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two

 

That's what you said. What exactly do you have in mind? And what does it have to do with anything?

 

Liverpool have bought Torres. ManU have bought Tevez and Nani and Rooney. Chelsea have bought Drogba, Ballack. Do you think it is possible to compete with this if you don't match and better them ?

 

These clubs are showing you how it is done.

 

 

 

None of those were particularly 'record' transfers.

 

Don't know what you mean by that, of course they were

 

 

Explain? 'Record transfer' means the highest fee does it not?

 

I mean that these clubs are keeping pace with each other, buying the top players, beating their own records, to reach top spots and win the trophies. They know that if they don't do this, they won't reach top spot or win the trophies !!

 

 

 

I'll quote you again:

Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two, or set a new one or two for ourselves.

 

To break a British transfer record we'd have to spend more than £30m (Shevchenko); a world transfer record £46m (Zidane).

 

I'm picking up your point about breaking a transfer record, as you went on to mention our own after that.

 

So I ask again, what on earth does spending £30m+ on a player have to do with anything?

 

 

I didnt' say that we need to spend 30m quid, I'm saying we need to buy players of the calibre of Owen and Shearer if we are to have any chance at all.

 

 

[NE5]

Explain Arsenal, then.

 

the next Arsene Wenger was down the pub tonight. I'm sure it was him, if it wasn't, I'm sure another one will turn up tomorrow  mackems.gif

 

Maybe you should come and meet him, and see if he fits your magic criteria for appointing winning managers who don't need to spend money to be successful.

 

Where did you say Arsenal will finish this season again  mackems.gif

 

 

I don't know. Where did I say they'd end up this season?

 

Well, according to you, you are just implying that they will finish higher than manu, Liverpool and Chelsea for spending less money and showing everyone you don't need the best players.

 

Otherwise, why are you disputing my point  blueyes.gif

 

what do you think of your mate Graeme recommending Amady Faye to Rangers ?  mackems.gif

[OzzieMandias]

So, Arsenal prove you don't need "record transfers" to win things. And Shepherd has proved that "record transfers" don't stop you from ending up in the bottom half of the table more often than not.