"Shepherd was not a good chairman" - Sibierski

[NE5]

 

I'm pleased to hear that you think the club shouldn't have expanded the stadium, or build the new training facilities that others had been saying we had needed for the best part of half a century.

 

Not looking ahead or building for the future in any shape or form, of course.

 

As said to others, there must be one hell of a lot of thick chairmen out there, who didn't get anywhere near qualifying for europe as often as we have done, filling a big stadium, signing top international players, and persuading trophy winning managers to come to the club. But you can ignore that if it suits your opinion.

 

 

 

If the debt was built up to expand the stadium and training facilities, why did it almost double while our capacity was 52,000?

 

To clarify, so you think the club shouldn't have looked at the future ?

 

Oh dear.

 

mackems.gif

 

 

[NE5]

#La-di-da-di-la-di-da#

 

Are you purposely ignoring what I'm writing for the laugh?

 

I'm not, I'm actually wondering why you are deliberately avoiding the point that I'm making, that I think you understand perfectly, but simply won't admit it

 

 

[Dave]

#La-di-da-di-la-di-da#

 

Are you purposely ignoring what I'm writing for the laugh?

 

I'm not, I'm actually wondering why you are deliberately avoiding the point that I'm making, that I think you understand perfectly, but simply won't admit it

 

 

 

The irony.

 

Look mate, you were the one that made the specific point about hoping the new board 'break a record transfer', I merely picked up on it as being bizarrely irrelevent to success. We all want NUFC to buy the best players if we can afford it, I said that fucking yesterday. Who wouldn't? I wondered why you particularly decided to mention breaking transfer records. Your repeated deflection tactics have not altered my view that it is simply a veiled dig at the new lot, as everyone knows they will not break any record transfers.

[TRon]

All I asked earlier, was can someone provide me with Shepherd's reasoning, I repeat: REASONING, for targeting Bruce, Souness and Roeder as portential managers of Newcastle. Because for me, the only reason you would consider that lot would be that you were a thick twat. As NE5 and co have carefully avoided answering this, I can only assume they know this is true.

 

I have told you that, looking at our last decade, whereby only 4 clubs have qualified for europe more than us, and we have attracted top trophy winning managers, top international players, and filled a 50000 stadium, there must be a hell of a lot of thick twats out there. I suspect that really you wouldn't know a thick twat was if it stood in front of you and said "Stephen Spence was a top footballer". How thick do you think all the other chairman are, if they can't do better than the thick incompetent tosser we had at Newcastle ?

 

Bruce was not offered the Newcastle job.

 

I have not excused Souness, even though the thick twat Liverpool, Southampton, Blackburn and Rangers directors also appointed him to manage clubs in the UK.

 

Roeder had its merits, as he did well as a caretaker. I take it you also think that Steve Gibson is a thick twat for appointing 2 managers without winning track records in management, and little experience.

 

I also suspect that as you have carefully avoided answering this, you know the point I am making to be correct.

 

Quite a lot of people thought Roeder was worth a punt, and some people such as Ozzie Mandiarse still defend the actions of Souness when he was manager. I think you should ask them what their thoughts are regarding this, I take it you knew in advance that Roeder wouldn't work out. Could you please tell us if you thought that a manager who had won 4 league titles with 2 different clubs was a bad appointment, and if so what criteria you would use instead ? And while you are at it, you can tell us how you appear to think that we are the only club with the only chairman that have made shit appointments, yet have attracted 50000 fans to home games, and why they have attended if things have been so shite ?

 

Yes, I mean you. Assuming you go, why have you done this if things have been so shite ?

 

I also see that you STILL are unable to see the completely ludicrous suggestion that the majority shareholders of a multi million pound industry leave the most important decision to someone else.

 

 

 

Look all I am asking is that someone who supports Shepherd's leadership can attempt to suggest his reasoning for wanting to appoint managers like Souness, Bruce or Roeder. What made him pinpoint these men? Was it their tactical acumen? Was it their successful transfer dealings? Was it because they were good players? Was it because they were geordies? What was it you believe your man saw in these potential leaders of our club?

[Liam Liam Liam O]

All I asked earlier, was can someone provide me with Shepherd's reasoning, I repeat: REASONING, for targeting Bruce, Souness and Roeder as portential managers of Newcastle. Because for me, the only reason you would consider that lot would be that you were a thick twat. As NE5 and co have carefully avoided answering this, I can only assume they know this is true.

 

I have told you that, looking at our last decade, whereby only 4 clubs have qualified for europe more than us, and we have attracted top trophy winning managers, top international players, and filled a 50000 stadium, there must be a hell of a lot of thick twats out there. I suspect that really you wouldn't know a thick twat was if it stood in front of you and said "Stephen Spence was a top footballer". How thick do you think all the other chairman are, if they can't do better than the thick incompetent tosser we had at Newcastle ?

 

Bruce was not offered the Newcastle job.

 

I have not excused Souness, even though the thick twat Liverpool, Southampton, Blackburn and Rangers directors also appointed him to manage clubs in the UK.

 

Roeder had its merits, as he did well as a caretaker. I take it you also think that Steve Gibson is a thick twat for appointing 2 managers without winning track records in management, and little experience.

 

I also suspect that as you have carefully avoided answering this, you know the point I am making to be correct.

 

Quite a lot of people thought Roeder was worth a punt, and some people such as Ozzie Mandiarse still defend the actions of Souness when he was manager. I think you should ask them what their thoughts are regarding this, I take it you knew in advance that Roeder wouldn't work out. Could you please tell us if you thought that a manager who had won 4 league titles with 2 different clubs was a bad appointment, and if so what criteria you would use instead ? And while you are at it, you can tell us how you appear to think that we are the only club with the only chairman that have made shit appointments, yet have attracted 50000 fans to home games, and why they have attended if things have been so shite ?

 

Yes, I mean you. Assuming you go, why have you done this if things have been so shite ?

 

I also see that you STILL are unable to see the completely ludicrous suggestion that the majority shareholders of a multi million pound industry leave the most important decision to someone else.

 

 

 

Look all I am asking is that someone who supports Shepherd's leadership can attempt to suggest his reasoning for wanting to appoint managers like Souness, Bruce or Roeder. What made him pinpoint these men? Was it their tactical acumen? Was it their successful transfer dealings? Was it because they were good players? Was it because they were geordies? What was it you believe your man saw in these potential leaders of our club?

 

Now there is a question that can't be answered!

[Wullie]

Bruce - I had the chance to manage them but felt loyalty to the people I work for here at Birmingham.

 

This article seems to suggest that Steve Bruce had the opportunity to manage NUFC. Odd that no-one in power at NUFC put him right since he was lying according to NE5.

 

One interesting point is that for so long NE5 has said that one of the primary aims of a good board was to sign England internationals - well we signed two in the space of six weeks this summer. Roeder never signed any and Souness only signed two in his time here, even Robson only signed three in five years, one of whom never played for England again (Bowyer), one has six caps in eight years (Woodgate) and another hardly played for England again after joining us because of his age (Butt).

 

Surely Ashley is doing a bloody good job in this respect?

[merlin]

Shepherd's gone - HISTORY.

 

Just drop this thread immediately, because its irrelevant - we all know(or MOST of us !) that Shepherd left the club in a worse position than when he took over ; end of story.

The new board face a big job in restoring our credibility ,but have made a great start as has Allardyce - and before anyone mentions that Shepherd appointed him, look back to the time he fired Robson and could have had Big Sam then - except that Shepherd had Shearer on the interviewing board according to Allardyce - now THAT'S real Chairmanship, isn't it !!??

 

For heaven's sake lets stop fighting the battles of the last war and concentrate on the future - it looks a good deal better than the past right now...

[Mick]

 

I'm pleased to hear that you think the club shouldn't have expanded the stadium, or build the new training facilities that others had been saying we had needed for the best part of half a century.

 

Not looking ahead or building for the future in any shape or form, of course.

 

As said to others, there must be one hell of a lot of thick chairmen out there, who didn't get anywhere near qualifying for europe as often as we have done, filling a big stadium, signing top international players, and persuading trophy winning managers to come to the club. But you can ignore that if it suits your opinion.

 

 

 

If the debt was built up to expand the stadium and training facilities, why did it almost double while our capacity was 52,000?

 

To clarify, so you think the club shouldn't have looked at the future ?

 

Oh dear.

 

mackems.gif

 

 

 

No, to clarify, you said how we aquired the £80 million debt and I explained that you were wrong.

[Northern Monkey]

Bruce - I had the chance to manage them but felt loyalty to the people I work for here at Birmingham.

 

This article seems to suggest that Steve Bruce had the opportunity to manage NUFC. Odd that no-one in power at NUFC put him right since he was lying according to NE5.

 

One interesting point is that for so long NE5 has said that one of the primary aims of a good board was to sign England internationals - well we signed two in the space of six weeks this summer. Roeder never signed any and Souness only signed two in his time here, even Robson only signed three in five years, one of whom never played for England again (Bowyer), one has six caps in eight years (Woodgate) and another hardly played for England again after joining us because of his age (Butt).

 

Surely Ashley is doing a bloody good job in this respect?

 

in fairness:

 

not every stupid comment gets rebuffed by any club, so they wouldn't necessarily comment on whether or not wrong-face Bruce was offered the job.

 

and neither Smith or Barton are england regulars, are they. In fact, there is an argument that Smith shouldn't really be there at all, as surely no-one would argue that he is international class!

 

I'm not saying Allardyce hasn't bought well in most cases, because he has. but Barton and Smith? Not exactly first team internationals if we're honest, are they.

[NE5]

#La-di-da-di-la-di-da#

 

Are you purposely ignoring what I'm writing for the laugh?

 

I'm not, I'm actually wondering why you are deliberately avoiding the point that I'm making, that I think you understand perfectly, but simply won't admit it

 

 

 

The irony.

 

Look mate, you were the one that made the specific point about hoping the new board 'break a record transfer', I merely picked up on it as being bizarrely irrelevent to success. We all want NUFC to buy the best players if we can afford it, I said that fucking yesterday. Who wouldn't? I wondered why you particularly decided to mention breaking transfer records. Your repeated deflection tactics have not altered my view that it is simply a veiled dig at the new lot, as everyone knows they will not break any record transfers.

 

I don't want to dig at them. I would prefer them to just back the manager, and buy the quality of players that the club should be buying. So far, we haven't really seen it. People may call them "trophy" players, ie having a dig - naively - at the old board, but I call them quality players and the quality we ought to be bringing in.

 

 

[NE5]

 

I'm pleased to hear that you think the club shouldn't have expanded the stadium, or build the new training facilities that others had been saying we had needed for the best part of half a century.

 

Not looking ahead or building for the future in any shape or form, of course.

 

As said to others, there must be one hell of a lot of thick chairmen out there, who didn't get anywhere near qualifying for europe as often as we have done, filling a big stadium, signing top international players, and persuading trophy winning managers to come to the club. But you can ignore that if it suits your opinion.

 

 

 

If the debt was built up to expand the stadium and training facilities, why did it almost double while our capacity was 52,000?

 

To clarify, so you think the club shouldn't have looked at the future ?

 

Oh dear.

 

mackems.gif

 

 

 

No, to clarify, you said how we aquired the £80 million debt and I explained that you were wrong.

 

I understand how the 80m came about, you don't. Your simply posting anti-board shite again. If you prefer the days of Mckeag, Westwood etc, when we sold players to keep the club running instead of attempting to speculate, thats your lookout.

 

 

[NE5]

Bruce - I had the chance to manage them but felt loyalty to the people I work for here at Birmingham.

 

This article seems to suggest that Steve Bruce had the opportunity to manage NUFC. Odd that no-one in power at NUFC put him right since he was lying according to NE5.

 

One interesting point is that for so long NE5 has said that one of the primary aims of a good board was to sign England internationals - well we signed two in the space of six weeks this summer. Roeder never signed any and Souness only signed two in his time here, even Robson only signed three in five years, one of whom never played for England again (Bowyer), one has six caps in eight years (Woodgate) and another hardly played for England again after joining us because of his age (Butt).

 

Surely Ashley is doing a bloody good job in this respect?

 

This summers buys have been in the Owen class have they ?

 

mackems.gif

 

FWIW, I would consider Owen an England player, and not Barton and Smith. You may differ of course. Even if you do, you won't understand the significance of having England players now, even squad players, as compared to England players when we had a shite board, in terms of the premiership. Which I've explained before, and can't be arsed to explain to you again.

 

 

[NE5]

All I asked earlier, was can someone provide me with Shepherd's reasoning, I repeat: REASONING, for targeting Bruce, Souness and Roeder as portential managers of Newcastle. Because for me, the only reason you would consider that lot would be that you were a thick twat. As NE5 and co have carefully avoided answering this, I can only assume they know this is true.

 

I have told you that, looking at our last decade, whereby only 4 clubs have qualified for europe more than us, and we have attracted top trophy winning managers, top international players, and filled a 50000 stadium, there must be a hell of a lot of thick twats out there. I suspect that really you wouldn't know a thick twat was if it stood in front of you and said "Stephen Spence was a top footballer". How thick do you think all the other chairman are, if they can't do better than the thick incompetent tosser we had at Newcastle ?

 

Bruce was not offered the Newcastle job.

 

I have not excused Souness, even though the thick twat Liverpool, Southampton, Blackburn and Rangers directors also appointed him to manage clubs in the UK.

 

Roeder had its merits, as he did well as a caretaker. I take it you also think that Steve Gibson is a thick twat for appointing 2 managers without winning track records in management, and little experience.

 

I also suspect that as you have carefully avoided answering this, you know the point I am making to be correct.

 

Quite a lot of people thought Roeder was worth a punt, and some people such as Ozzie Mandiarse still defend the actions of Souness when he was manager. I think you should ask them what their thoughts are regarding this, I take it you knew in advance that Roeder wouldn't work out. Could you please tell us if you thought that a manager who had won 4 league titles with 2 different clubs was a bad appointment, and if so what criteria you would use instead ? And while you are at it, you can tell us how you appear to think that we are the only club with the only chairman that have made shit appointments, yet have attracted 50000 fans to home games, and why they have attended if things have been so shite ?

 

Yes, I mean you. Assuming you go, why have you done this if things have been so shite ?

 

I also see that you STILL are unable to see the completely ludicrous suggestion that the majority shareholders of a multi million pound industry leave the most important decision to someone else.

 

 

 

Look all I am asking is that someone who supports Shepherd's leadership can attempt to suggest his reasoning for wanting to appoint managers like Souness, Bruce or Roeder. What made him pinpoint these men? Was it their tactical acumen? Was it their successful transfer dealings? Was it because they were good players? Was it because they were geordies? What was it you believe your man saw in these potential leaders of our club?

 

You are quite wrong. I'm not "supporting" anyones leadership, I'm correcting the assertion you keep making about the old board. No board runs a club that qualifies more for europe than everyone bar 4 teams, fills a 50000 stadium, and buys Top quality international footballers, that is incompetent, shite, hopeless, call it what you want.

 

I'm also pointing you in the direction of reality, in that not everyone can appoint Alex Ferguson and Wenger, simply because there aren't too many of them around. How many directors in the game have appointed shite managers ? Are you saying that everbody who wins nothing has a shite chairmen and board of directors ? Because, the vast majority haven't done as well as we have done.

 

As for Sibierski, as Spence more or less said too, how often do you see a Frenchman display integrity, as much as we liked the bloke when he was here, this sort of thing happens all the time in football.

 

 

[Dave]

How do you know Bruce was not offered the job, NE5? It's always struck me as odd how you are so certain.

[Cronky]

I guess if you lump the Shepherd and Hall Chairmanships together, and compare the club's performance with our performance pre-1991, and with the performances of clubs outside the top four, then you'd be happy.

 

If you look at the situation when Shepherd took over as Chairman, and compare where he took us with what we could reasonably have expected him to achieve, then he's been a failure. A monumental one, in fact.

 

I think the first comparison is a bit contrived, and the second one is fair, but it's down to personal choice.

[NE5]

How do you know Bruce was not offered the job, NE5? It's always struck me as odd how you are so certain.

 

Well, lets put it this way, I know of 2 who were, and my source [and a rather good one I would add] is pretty adamant they were the only 2

 

 

[NE5]

I guess if you lump the Shepherd and Hall Chairmanships together, and compare the club's performance with our performance pre-1991, and with the performances of clubs outside the top four, then you'd be happy.

 

If you look at the situation when Shepherd took over as Chairman, and compare where he took us with what we could reasonably have expected him to achieve, then he's been a failure. A monumental one, in fact.

 

I think the first comparison is a bit contrived, and the second one is fair, but it's down to personal choice.

 

aye, I expect by the same criteria, you think Arsenal have gone monumentally backwards since they finished the season unbeaten, or do you think they should have stayed there - and they haven't even changed manager

 

 

 

 

[Cronky]

I guess if you lump the Shepherd and Hall Chairmanships together, and compare the club's performance with our performance pre-1991, and with the performances of clubs outside the top four, then you'd be happy.

 

If you look at the situation when Shepherd took over as Chairman, and compare where he took us with what we could reasonably have expected him to achieve, then he's been a failure. A monumental one, in fact.

 

I think the first comparison is a bit contrived, and the second one is fair, but it's down to personal choice.

 

aye, I expect by the same criteria, you think Arsenal have gone monumentally backwards since they finished the season unbeaten, or do you think they should have stayed there - and they haven't even changed manager

 

 

Arsenal have gone from 1st to 4th, within a highly competitive top four. We went from 2nd to the bottom half of the table.

[NE5]

I guess if you lump the Shepherd and Hall Chairmanships together, and compare the club's performance with our performance pre-1991, and with the performances of clubs outside the top four, then you'd be happy.

 

If you look at the situation when Shepherd took over as Chairman, and compare where he took us with what we could reasonably have expected him to achieve, then he's been a failure. A monumental one, in fact.

 

I think the first comparison is a bit contrived, and the second one is fair, but it's down to personal choice.

 

aye, I expect by the same criteria, you think Arsenal have gone monumentally backwards since they finished the season unbeaten, or do you think they should have stayed there - and they haven't even changed manager

 

 

Arsenal have gone from 1st to 4th, within a highly competitive top four. We went from 2nd to the bottom half of the table.

 

From unbeaten in the league to 4th ?

 

What did you think of the mackems dropping from 7th to bottom ?

 

3 years ago, Charlton finished 7th, and Southampton finished 12th, what do you think of that ?

 

What is your opinion on the 87 clubs that haven't qualified as much for europe as we have, do you agree that the vast majority of those club, especially the ones with a half decent fanbase, must also have shit and incompetent directors ?

 

What about Leeds, dropping from 3rd to the 3rd division, or whatever its called now ?

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

Anyone but our old ex directors eh ? The thickest and the only thick directors in the world ? How many clubs exactly, must have shit directors, do you accept that under the new manager we were about to go forwards again ?

 

You totally miss the point anyway, the point is not just necessarily comparing the progress made under the ex board and their predecessor before 1992, its also highlighting that a board who were really shit would pretty much inflict the same ........

 

 

[fredbob]

I guess if you lump the Shepherd and Hall Chairmanships together, and compare the club's performance with our performance pre-1991, and with the performances of clubs outside the top four, then you'd be happy.

 

If you look at the situation when Shepherd took over as Chairman, and compare where he took us with what we could reasonably have expected him to achieve, then he's been a failure. A monumental one, in fact.

 

I think the first comparison is a bit contrived, and the second one is fair, but it's down to personal choice.

 

aye, I expect by the same criteria, you think Arsenal have gone monumentally backwards since they finished the season unbeaten, or do you think they should have stayed there - and they haven't even changed manager

 

 

 

 

 

Ne5 is impossible to argue with, he gives you so much to correct it becomes impossible to answer them all, by your reckoning then ne5, why was shepard a good chairman? Is it because of the excellent financial situation he left us in? (+£80m) Is is because of the sucessful appointments he made? (Souness, Dalglish...) Is it because of the unquestionable uninterfereing support he gave to his managers?(Gary Speed, Carrck, Prozone...) Is it the finacial backing he gave to managers, money which he didnt have? (Northern Rock sponsorship money-Chris Mort)

What actually, in his tenurship as Chariman of Newcastle united football club was so damn important to this football club that makes you defend him so vehementely, something which 51, 999 people seemed to hae missed yet you have seen?

You see, i struggle to see what impact he has had, his biggest achivement was SBR, and for 5 odd years, we were in a superb position, SBR was on the decline, i think its impossible to argue that point and it was time that we looked to a future with a manager that could of taken us to the next level, instead he single handedly destroyed those 5 odd years of excellent progress making the success SBR brought irrelevant, destroyed, pointless...by undermining SBR and saying by publically stating he wasn't going to have his contract renewed before even telling SBR he undermined SBR in the biggest sense, the dressing room was gone, by these actions he made one of the biggest jobs in england unwantable, how many chairmen are capable of doing this? Cue Souness and Roeder, a mess that we are starting to rectify now, i personnaly hold Shepard responsible for all these things this is the reason i feel he was terrible, the only thing that would of made me be less scathing to Shepard would of been if he handled the financial sides of the club well....did his job properly, but i personally dont think he did, its your call to criticise that fact but we are both clueless as the the true financial situation of the club and can therefore only specualte. I put it to you ne5 to try and justify your opinion,all without refereing to the 1920's please??? Please?

[Baggio]

Sir John Hall appointed Dalglish.

 

Btw Fredbob, how would you have felt if he didn't sign Martins last season because we couldn't afford it, only to be relegated because we didn't have his goals?

 

Would that have been a good move?

[NE5]

I guess if you lump the Shepherd and Hall Chairmanships together, and compare the club's performance with our performance pre-1991, and with the performances of clubs outside the top four, then you'd be happy.

 

If you look at the situation when Shepherd took over as Chairman, and compare where he took us with what we could reasonably have expected him to achieve, then he's been a failure. A monumental one, in fact.

 

I think the first comparison is a bit contrived, and the second one is fair, but it's down to personal choice.

 

aye, I expect by the same criteria, you think Arsenal have gone monumentally backwards since they finished the season unbeaten, or do you think they should have stayed there - and they haven't even changed manager

 

 

 

 

 

Ne5 is impossible to argue with, he gives you so much to correct it becomes impossible to answer them all, by your reckoning then ne5, why was shepard a good chairman? Is it because of the excellent financial situation he left us in? (+£80m) Is is because of the sucessful appointments he made? (Souness, Dalglish...) Is it because of the unquestionable uninterfereing support he gave to his managers?(Gary Speed, Carrck, Prozone...) Is it the finacial backing he gave to managers, money which he didnt have? (Northern Rock sponsorship money-Chris Mort)

What actually, in his tenurship as Chariman of Newcastle united football club was so damn important to this football club that makes you defend him so vehementely, something which 51, 999 people seemed to hae missed yet you have seen?

You see, i struggle to see what impact he has had, his biggest achivement was SBR, and for 5 odd years, we were in a superb position, SBR was on the decline, i think its impossible to argue that point and it was time that we looked to a future with a manager that could of taken us to the next level, instead he single handedly destroyed those 5 odd years of excellent progress making the success SBR brought irrelevant, destroyed, pointless...by undermining SBR and saying by publically stating he wasn't going to have his contract renewed before even telling SBR he undermined SBR in the biggest sense, the dressing room was gone, by these actions he made one of the biggest jobs in england unwantable, how many chairmen are capable of doing this? Cue Souness and Roeder, a mess that we are starting to rectify now, i personnaly hold Shepard responsible for all these things this is the reason i feel he was terrible, the only thing that would of made me be less scathing to Shepard would of been if he handled the financial sides of the club well....did his job properly, but i personally dont think he did, its your call to criticise that fact but we are both clueless as the the true financial situation of the club and can therefore only specualte. I put it to you ne5 to try and justify your opinion,all without refereing to the 1920's please??? Please?

 

sorry fredbob, there is a bigger picture to most of your points, I've raised some of them, and Baggio also has asked you a good question.

 

The simple fact, is, that in the last 50 years, we have only once finished in the top 5 for 3 consecutive seasons. Whether you think this comparison is irrelevant is wrong, of course it is relevant. Its an achievement against all of his predecessors, and shows in its own right that the club have improved a lot in every way under the recently departed board members.

 

You simply cannot ignore this, if you want to make factual points and discuss the merits of the job they did.

 

Do you seriously think that Dalglish, Gullit, Robson, and now Allardyce were managers who would not have signed contracts with progressive clubs aiming to win trophies ?

 

Souness, I have never defended. Roeder did well and for some people merited a chance, people on here agreed with him getting a chance. The fact that he proved not up to it in the end, is neither here nor there, clubs give opportunities to ex coaches and new managers all the time. Having tried trophy winners, it was a change of approach. Sometimes they work.

 

I don't think the Newcastle job is "unwantable", in fact, I think such a statement is absolute tosh. It WAS pretty much so, when we really did have shit directors though. And how do you explain this comment, when Allardyce has just accepted the same job ?

 

Sorry mate, you are just over-reacting to hype and people around you - I presume - who are agreeing with each other without looking at the bigger picture or attempting to understand reality.

 

 

[Cronky]

I guess if you lump the Shepherd and Hall Chairmanships together, and compare the club's performance with our performance pre-1991, and with the performances of clubs outside the top four, then you'd be happy.

 

If you look at the situation when Shepherd took over as Chairman, and compare where he took us with what we could reasonably have expected him to achieve, then he's been a failure. A monumental one, in fact.

 

I think the first comparison is a bit contrived, and the second one is fair, but it's down to personal choice.

 

aye, I expect by the same criteria, you think Arsenal have gone monumentally backwards since they finished the season unbeaten, or do you think they should have stayed there - and they haven't even changed manager

 

 

Arsenal have gone from 1st to 4th, within a highly competitive top four. We went from 2nd to the bottom half of the table.

 

From unbeaten in the league to 4th ?

 

What did you think of the mackems dropping from 7th to bottom ?

 

3 years ago, Charlton finished 7th, and Southampton finished 12th, what do you think of that ?

 

What is your opinion on the 87 clubs that haven't qualified as much for europe as we have, do you agree that the vast majority of those club, especially the ones with a half decent fanbase, must also have shit and incompetent directors ?

 

What about Leeds, dropping from 3rd to the 3rd division, or whatever its called now ?

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

Anyone but our old ex directors eh ? The thickest and the only thick directors in the world ? How many clubs exactly, must have shit directors, do you accept that under the new manager we were about to go forwards again ?

 

You totally miss the point anyway, the point is not just necessarily comparing the progress made under the ex board and their predecessor before 1992, its also highlighting that a board who were really shit would pretty much inflict the same ........

 

 

And my point is that you can draw all these comparisons with other clubs and other boards, but none of them are completely valid because the potential of each club, at various times, is different. You can expect Charlton and Southampton to be struggling against relegation, but not the Newcastle that Shepherd took over as Chairman, because by that time we were a big club in terms of resources.

 

Ridsdale is in a class of his own as a failure, because he took a top four club into relegation. However, it's not as though, under Shepherd, that we were a million miles away from that happening to us.

 

Ultimately it's all subjective, so you're entitled to your opinion. I just don't see how you can be so sure you're right that you have to leap to Shepherd's defence every time someone states a different view.

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Btw Fredbob, how would you have felt if he didn't sign Martins last season because we couldn't afford it, only to be relegated because we didn't have his goals?

 

Ask yourself how we came to be in such a mess that we could only afford necessary players by going even deeper into debt.

[Mick]

 

I understand how the 80m came about, you don't. Your simply posting anti-board s**** again. If you prefer the days of Mckeag, Westwood etc, when we sold players to keep the club running instead of attempting to speculate, thats your lookout.

 

 

 

If you know the reason and I don't then maybe you can put me right.