"Shepherd was not a good chairman" - Sibierski

[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 ........

 

 

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.

 

 

Well, its strange, but I don't see why people like you have to slate the old board for everything they do, making things up, and telling us what you "think" [but no facts], and every time you - yes you - "think" something, its always anti - board. I'm quite happy to correct you when you get facts wrong, or tell you when you are lacking in facts.

 

Which of course, doesn't make it my "opinion" at all, its just facts. It is FACT that only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than us, it is FACT that we filled 50000 stadium every week which is certainly not a sign of a club run by total absolute idiots, it is FACT that we have competed for and bought major international players, it is FACT that we have expanded the stadium and training complex in the last decade, it is FACT that we achieved 3 consecutive top 5 finishes for the first time in 50 years, and it is FACT that we have attracted trophy winning managers to the club in the belief that we were a progressive club striving to help them win more trophies in the managerial careers. If this doesn't register with you, or you continue to give us your non-factually based "opinions", then feel free. I will however, tell you when you get your facts wrong.

 

And that is not in any shape or form "defending" anyone. Look on it as a learning curve, or better still, look at the facts, statistics and record of european qualifications to save me the bother.

 

BTW, maybe you could explain why our previous directors failed to take such advantage of the same fanbase ? And why other clubs such as the mackems have failed to take advantage of theirs as much as we have in the last 10-15 years, along with other clubs like Villa, Everton, man City, Birmingham, Wolves, Spurs, Portsmouth, Southampton, Leeds, to name some, ALL of whom are big city clubs that have also been top clubs in the past, and most who have won a domestic trophy since we last did ?

 

Or are you someone else who appears to think that we have bigger buffoons as directors than that little lot in the last decade or so, despite somehow doing better ?

 

 

[NE5]

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.

 

We obviously gave your idol, Graeme, the money to buy proper players like that Stephen Spence  mackems.gif

[NE5]

 

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.

 

I've told you before, I'd prefer you to tell us how spending years in the old 2nd division in front of a half full stadium and selling our best players, is "just the same" as buying major players and playign regularly in europe.

 

You can also tell us who you will blame if Allardyce fails to win a trophy while he is manager here ? That must be about the 10th time I've asked you this BTW

 

 

[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.

 

We obviously gave your idol, Graeme, the money to buy proper players like that Stephen Spence  mackems.gif

 

Glad you agree that it was Shepherd's fault.

 

I'm sure, therefore, you can also agree that citing circumstances which Shepherd himself created as a reason not to hold him responsible for the consequences is an argument that could only be advanced by a dribbling moron.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

om

 

I don't bother reading your posts much anymore and the one above is a good example of why. You never have managed to grasp the role of the manager versus the role of the Chairman and Board.

 

It's also no surprise to see that name-calling is something you still throw into the mix when you don't have any valid point to make. The irony.

[NE5]

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.

 

We obviously gave your idol, Graeme, the money to buy proper players like that Stephen Spence  mackems.gif

 

Glad you agree that it was Shepherd's fault.

 

I'm sure, therefore, you can also agree that citing circumstances which Shepherd himself created as a reason not to hold him responsible for the consequences is an argument that could only be advanced by a dribbling moron.

 

 

dribbling moron, as in those who backed Souness' changes to the club don't you ?

 

Are you going to tell us when you first saw this Stephen Spence play for the toon  mackems.gif

 

Still as pointless as ever.

 

 

[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.

 

We obviously gave your idol, Graeme, the money to buy proper players like that Stephen Spence  mackems.gif

 

Glad you agree that it was Shepherd's fault.

 

I'm sure, therefore, you can also agree that citing circumstances which Shepherd himself created as a reason not to hold him responsible for the consequences is an argument that could only be advanced by a dribbling moron.

 

 

dribbling moron, as in those who backed Souness' changes to the club don't you ?

 

Are you going to tell us when you first saw this Stephen Spence play for the toon  mackems.gif

 

Still as pointless as ever.

 

 

 

A rare moment of self-knowledge. Congrats.

[Mick]

 

Well, its strange, but I don't see why people like you have to slate the old board for everything they do, making things up, and telling us what you "think" [but no facts], and every time you - yes you - "think" something, its always anti - board. I'm quite happy to correct you when you get facts wrong, or tell you when you are lacking in facts.

 

Which of course, doesn't make it my "opinion" at all, its just facts. It is FACT that only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than us, it is FACT that we filled 50000 stadium every week which is certainly not a sign of a club run by total absolute idiots, it is FACT that we have competed for and bought major international players, it is FACT that we have expanded the stadium and training complex in the last decade, it is FACT that we achieved 3 consecutive top 5 finishes for the first time in 50 years, and it is FACT that we have attracted trophy winning managers to the club in the belief that we were a progressive club striving to help them win more trophies in the managerial careers. If this doesn't register with you, or you continue to give us your non-factually based "opinions", then feel free. I will however, tell you when you get your facts wrong.

 

And that is not in any shape or form "defending" anyone. Look on it as a learning curve, or better still, look at the facts, statistics and record of european qualifications to save me the bother.

 

BTW, maybe you could explain why our previous directors failed to take such advantage of the same fanbase ? And why other clubs such as the mackems have failed to take advantage of theirs as much as we have in the last 10-15 years, along with other clubs like Villa, Everton, man City, Birmingham, Wolves, Spurs, Portsmouth, Southampton, Leeds, to name some, ALL of whom are big city clubs that have also been top clubs in the past, and most who have won a domestic trophy since we last did ?

 

Or are you someone else who appears to think that we have bigger buffoons as directors than that little lot in the last decade or so, despite somehow doing better ?

 

 

 

Here's some facts:

 

Before Shepherd became chairman we were 2nd in the league, when he left we had just finished 13th.

 

Another fact is that before Shepherd became chairman the club had cash in the bank, when he left we had debt which had shot to £80 million while we borrowed £44 million for the ground extension.

 

Freddy Shepherd said we had one of the best training facilities in Europe, Allardyce complained that it was a converted squash club.

 

Shitty Doug Ellis finished above Shepherd more often than not while both were running the two clubs and you claim league position is the measure of success.

 

A good chairman always backs his manager, Chris Mort has backed Allardyce more than Shepherd backed Roeder, Gullit and Sir Bobby when it comes to net spend.

 

It is FACT that we filled 50000 stadium every week, not true, last season saw our largest attendance fall for years and this year would have been far worse if it wasn't for the changes that have taken place. 

 

Steve Bruce claims that he was offered the Newcastle job.

 

Souness was not sacked because we lost so many games, he was sacked because three of our players collided.

[Mick]

 

I've told you before, I'd prefer you to tell us how spending years in the old 2nd division in front of a half full stadium and selling our best players, is "just the same" as buying major players and playign regularly in europe.

 

You can also tell us who you will blame if Allardyce fails to win a trophy while he is manager here ? That must be about the 10th time I've asked you this BTW

 

 

 

If you told me before then just post the link and I'll be able to read it.

[OzzieMandias]

om

 

I don't bother reading your posts much anymore

 

Well, I'm heartbroken but I guess I'll just have to deal with it.

[OzzieMandias]

anti-board

 

Must say that this one always makes me laugh. As an attempt to refute criticism of Shepherd on the grounds that it is criticism of Shepherd, it must rank among the most pathetic arguments ever.

 

 

[Dave]

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

 

 

 

Never had you down as an ITK.

[OzzieMandias]

Quite the reverse, really.

[Baggio]

We got into debt because we took the gamble to improve ourselves as a club, both with a 16,000 expansion and signing a World class player in Michael Owen. Do people have a problem that we're in debt or the fact we've slipped back after Souness and Roeder? Would people have preferred us not to have been ambitious in the transfer market and left the stadium at 36,000? 

[OzzieMandias]

We got into debt because we took the gamble to improve ourselves as a club, both with a 16,000 expansion and signing a World class player in Michael Owen. Do people have a problem that we're in debt or the fact we've slipped back after Souness and Roeder? Would people have preferred us not to have been ambitious in the transfer market and left the stadium at 36,000? 

 

It's not one or the other, though, is it? It's possible to be ambitious without getting tens of millions into debt. I'd say the problem was not "ambition", but poor decision-making – such as appointing crap managers and then giving them too much money to spend.

 

This is as true of what happened when we had Gullit as it was when we had Shepherd. Look at how long Bobby had to spend rejigging the squad and selling in order to buy before Shepherd could once again muster up some transfer funds.

 

[Baggio]

Gullit was a good manager before he came here, would you have preferred Shepherd not back him? He'd be slagged off for that then like he was for supposedly hanging Souness "out to dry" when he it looked like he wasn't going to give him much to spend in the summer.

[Howaythelads]

Gullit was a good manager before he came here, would you have preferred Shepherd not back him? He'd be slagged off for that then like he was for supposedly hanging Souness "out to dry" when he it looked like he wasn't going to give him much to spend in the summer.

 

You're wasting your time.

[OzzieMandias]

Gullit was a good manager before he came here, would you have preferred Shepherd not back him?

 

Gullit did good for a short time in one managerial appointment at a very different club. This did not stop him being a bad appointment.

[Howaythelads]

Manager MoneyOut   Money In       Balance

Gullit     £33.400,000   £25.775,000 -£7.625,000

Robson      £54.290,000 £24.050,000   -£30.240,000

 

Souness doesn't bear thinking about, but for some reason he was missed out in the reference to spending made earlier on.

 

The current manager hasn't been backed better financially than Robson. Thought I'd mention the facts, like.

 

According to those guru's at nufc.com:

Current spend under FS is ~£18.9m plus Smith(TBC)

Current fees in under FS is ~£7.7m plus Luque(TBC) and Dyer(TBC)

 

 

 

[Northern Monkey]

 

Well, its strange, but I don't see why people like you have to slate the old board for everything they do, making things up, and telling us what you "think" [but no facts], and every time you - yes you - "think" something, its always anti - board. I'm quite happy to correct you when you get facts wrong, or tell you when you are lacking in facts.

 

Which of course, doesn't make it my "opinion" at all, its just facts. It is FACT that only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than us, it is FACT that we filled 50000 stadium every week which is certainly not a sign of a club run by total absolute idiots, it is FACT that we have competed for and bought major international players, it is FACT that we have expanded the stadium and training complex in the last decade, it is FACT that we achieved 3 consecutive top 5 finishes for the first time in 50 years, and it is FACT that we have attracted trophy winning managers to the club in the belief that we were a progressive club striving to help them win more trophies in the managerial careers. If this doesn't register with you, or you continue to give us your non-factually based "opinions", then feel free. I will however, tell you when you get your facts wrong.

 

And that is not in any shape or form "defending" anyone. Look on it as a learning curve, or better still, look at the facts, statistics and record of european qualifications to save me the bother.

 

BTW, maybe you could explain why our previous directors failed to take such advantage of the same fanbase ? And why other clubs such as the mackems have failed to take advantage of theirs as much as we have in the last 10-15 years, along with other clubs like Villa, Everton, man City, Birmingham, Wolves, Spurs, Portsmouth, Southampton, Leeds, to name some, ALL of whom are big city clubs that have also been top clubs in the past, and most who have won a domestic trophy since we last did ?

 

Or are you someone else who appears to think that we have bigger buffoons as directors than that little lot in the last decade or so, despite somehow doing better ?

 

 

 

Here's some facts:

 

Before Shepherd became chairman we were 2nd in the league, when he left we had just finished 13th.

 

Another fact is that before Shepherd became chairman the club had cash in the bank, when he left we had debt which had shot to £80 million while we borrowed £44 million for the ground extension.

 

Freddy Shepherd said we had one of the best training facilities in Europe, Allardyce complained that it was a converted squash club.

 

Shitty Doug Ellis finished above Shepherd more often than not while both were running the two clubs and you claim league position is the measure of success.

 

A good chairman always backs his manager, Chris Mort has backed Allardyce more than Shepherd backed Roeder, Gullit and Sir Bobby when it comes to net spend.

 

It is FACT that we filled 50000 stadium every week, not true, last season saw our largest attendance fall for years and this year would have been far worse if it wasn't for the changes that have taken place. 

 

Steve Bruce claims that he was offered the Newcastle job.

 

Souness was not sacked because we lost so many games, he was sacked because three of our players collided.

 

Some of those are true, some of them have holes so big even Skirge could see them.

[Northern Monkey]

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

 

 

 

Never had you down as an ITK.

 

Got as much chance as some of the others on here.

[OzzieMandias]

Manager MoneyOut    Money In        Balance

Gullit     £33.400,000   £25.775,000 -£7.625,000

Robson      £54.290,000 £24.050,000   -£30.240,000

 

Souness doesn't bear thinking about, but for some reason he was missed out in the reference to spending made earlier on.

 

The current manager hasn't been backed better financially than Robson. Thought I'd mention the facts, like.

 

According to those guru's at nufc.com:

Current spend under FS is ~£18.9m plus Smith(TBC)

Current fees in under FS is ~£7.7m plus Luque(TBC) and Dyer(TBC)

 

 

Your Gullit-Robson comparison is of course meaningless unless you calculate it by season.

 

As Robson was here for about five times as long as Gullit, that means Robson's average net spend per season was lower than Gullit's.

 

In Robson's first two seasons, meanwhile, he had a minus net spend – raising about £3 million more from sales than he spent on new players.

 

Thus, so far, the current manager has been backed by much more cash than Robson in the same situation.

 

Nice try, though.

[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

 

 

Never had you down as an ITK.

 

Oh well Dave, you haven't been following my little prophecies enough over the past few years mate 

 

 

[TRon]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Yes, I realise chairmen can't get all their appointments 100% right but that's not what I was debating. All I ask you is what was Shepherd's REASONING for wanting to appoint Bruce, Souness or Roeder? What do you think it was?

 

If you think he had good reason then why not share your thoughts? Because when you try and fob off the Steve Bruce links, or refuse to discuss the appointment of Messrs Souness and Roeder, it looks like you are running scared - don't want to admit to the unpalatable truth that these appointments stunk of incompetence, and I challenge you to argue otherwise, and no, "all chairmen make bad appointments" doesn't count as an argument. With Dalglish, and Gullitt there were genuine reasons for believing they might move the club on, but Bruce, Roeder and Souness can only have been head-hunted through sheer stupidity. No one has even attempted to deny this so I rest my case.

 

 

[Guest elbee909]

The Gullit thing has always interested me, the manager, is he good or bad debate.  Has he done anything of note post-Newcastle?