"Shepherd was not a good chairman" - Sibierski

[TRon]

Gullitt was appointed to bring back 'sexy football' after Dalglish. Some of the unsexy footballers at Newcastle didn't take kindly to it.

[OzzieMandias]

 

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.

 

 

I've only just noticed that one – Sibierski must be full of shit because he's French? 

 

Talk about scraping the barrel. That's almost as feeble as the "you can't criticise Shepherd because it means criticising Shepherd" argument.

[OzzieMandias]

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

 

He had one season as manager of Feyenoord. They didn't win anything, finished fourth, Gullit quit.

[Dr Venkman]

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 t***. 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 t*** 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 t*** 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 t*** 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 s*** appointments, yet have attracted 50000 fans to home games, and why they have attended if things have been so s**** ?

 

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

 

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?

 

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, s****, hopeless, call it what you want.

 

 

But it's quite feasable that a chairman could inherit a strong club, and through utter incompetence in all areas, take them backwards?

 

Personally i've no argument against your point that Hall took us over, and took us to where we want to be, and from then on things were way better than they had been, yep, great, all fine. But i just cant get over this sticking up for shepherd thing, i mean, we went, BACKWARDS MAN. Worse managers, worse players, worse performances from players, worse league finishes. To be honest i dont even mind the debt, a club thats moving forward with a manageable debt? Fine, absolutely fine, but a club thats moving backwards AND going more into debt, nope, sorry, good riddance.

[fredbob]

so ne5, have we, in your opinion progressed since FS took charge? are we overall in a better posiiton than we were when SJH was chairmaen, simple question, pretty much generalises this entire argument.

Think carefully, dont refer to the past because for the 20th time thats exactly what it was the past. Now, i say this because its clear you were around in the dark days of this club and you seems intent on reminding us how bad you had it, just ike a grandad goes on about "how he got the cane in his days", and "you'd be lucky to get an orange for xmas in my day" well, noone is really interested in those type of arguments....if you continue to look at the less important past, you forget to look at the more important present and future. Think hard and answer honestly because if you think that we have progressed as a club financially and on the playing field then you honestly support your own argument, however, if you dont think we have progressed then it automatically means FS was a poor chairmen, simple as that....can you honestly say that he was a success, i have already acknowledged that SBR was a good move how many euro seasons did we get out of him? how many season was FS in charge and how many euro quals did we get, how many of those qulaifications we SBR and how many time did we qualify from positional qulaification i'e 5th, as opposed to FA cup losers? Tell me now, was FS a success? please just answer the question, with support for your answers and dont qutoe me on any tiny mistake i make and scrutinize the shit out of it? Sorry to sound like a teacher but its impossible to get a straight answer out of you...its like trying to nail diarroea to a fucking wall.

[Baggio]

Are you going to answer my question Fredbob? Would you have preferred Shepherd not to have signed Martins because we couldn't afford him even though without his goals it was near certain relegation? Also would you have preferred the club not to expand the stadium so we didn't borrow £44 million to build the extra 16,000 seats?

[OzzieMandias]

Would you have preferred Shepherd not to have signed Martins because we couldn't afford him even though without his goals it was near certain relegation?

 

Personally I would have preferred Shepherd not to have mismanaged the club to the point that there could be talk of "near certain relegation".

[fredbob]

Are you going to answer my question Fredbob? Would you have preferred Shepherd not to have signed Martins because we couldn't afford him even though without his goals it was near certain relegation? Also would you have preferred the club not to expand the stadium so we didn't borrow £44 million to build the extra 16,000 seats?

 

Yes martin was a big success , and a good singing by Shepard, but in the big picture is that really an achievement to substantiate the claim he was a good chairman? This was the same chairmen would paid £11m for Luque (nufc.com) £8m for Boum-shlong etc? it can all be flipped around, in fact i dont know why i'm even arguing that point, you've made it for me, why the hell under his chairmenship were we fighting relegation in the first place??

 

LEt me ask you this then, from when FS took charge, do you think we are where we could/should of been? Do you think that we have progressed as a club in the 10 years he has been in charge? Do you think that from when he took us over when we were title challengers (2nd) to where we are now (Uefa Cup hopefuls) shows a significant level of improvement? If yes then you're a fool, if the answers to theses questions are no, then you are forced to agree therefore that overall he wasn't a succes.

Note i have generalised his tenure as Chairmanship and not picked out specific events to make my arguments.

[Baggio]

You've kind of missed the point as I wasn't referring to how good Martins has been and how shit others have been compared to him. My point was that with the club in debt and the purchase of Martins adding £10 million to that, do you think it was right of him to sign him or would you have preferred to have £10 less debt to repay?

[NE5]

Gullitt was appointed to bring back 'sexy football' after Dalglish. Some of the unsexy footballers at Newcastle didn't take kindly to it.

 

I think winning the FA Cup with his former club, may have something to do with it, but of course Fat Fred the king pie eater couldn;t attract good managers to Newcastle  mackems.gif

 

Or do you think such a statistic is irrelevant, and they should appoint a manager who hasn't won anything ?

 

Think carefully before you reply, and tell us what exactly YOUR criteria would be

 

 

[brummie]

Ignore this. I should read posts properly before posting.

[fredbob]

You've kind of missed the point as I wasn't referring to how good Martins has been and how s*** others have been compared to him. My point was that with the club in debt and the purchase of Martins adding £10 million to that, do you think it was right of him to sign him or would you have preferred to have £10 less debt to repay?

 

Well its a pretty simple decision, yes he was right to sign martins, but how is that really relevant to the overall argument of him being a successful chairman?

[Baggio]

Gullit was an exciting young manager who had won the FA cup with Chelsea playing excellent football, he also had the ability to attract big name players because of his reputation as a player.

[NE5]

 

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.

 

Your hatred of Shepherd, and your eagerness to slate him for the 6 inches of snow outside knows no bounds.

 

Aside of the fact that most of your points are non-factual, emotionally driven bollocks, motivated by the fact that you don't like Fred because he called you a few nasty names.

 

Read carefully the following phrase.

 

The major shareholder of a multi million pound industry doesn't leave the single most important decisions to one individual who owns less shares than he does.

 

I've told you this, possibly a hundred times by now, and you, laughingly STILL ignore it mackems.gif

 

What specifically do you not understand about this comment ?

 

 

[NE5]

Gullit was an exciting young manager who had won the FA cup with Chelsea playing excellent football, he also had the ability to attract big name players because of his reputation as a player.

 

correct

 

But Ozzie Mandiarse knew in advance he would be a "failure", what a shame he can't let us into his secret criteria for appointing managers, like Graeme, who he still insists did the right things when he was manager of Newcastle.

 

mackems.gif

[TRon]

Gullitt was appointed to bring back 'sexy football' after Dalglish. Some of the unsexy footballers at Newcastle didn't take kindly to it.

 

I think winning the FA Cup with his former club, may have something to do with it, but of course Fat Fred the king pie eater couldn;t attract good managers to Newcastle  mackems.gif

 

Or do you think such a statistic is irrelevant, and they should appoint a manager who hasn't won anything ?

 

Think carefully before you reply, and tell us what exactly YOUR criteria would be

 

 

 

Not being a thick pie-eating twat would be a good start. Answer my question at the 9th time of asking and be assured I will answer yours. In fact I'll answer it regardless, for the same reason you won't. I know I'm right and so do you.

 

 

[NE5]

Are you going to answer my question Fredbob? Would you have preferred Shepherd not to have signed Martins because we couldn't afford him even though without his goals it was near certain relegation? Also would you have preferred the club not to expand the stadium so we didn't borrow £44 million to build the extra 16,000 seats?

 

Yes martin was a big success , and a good singing by Shepard , but in the big picture is that really an achievement to substantiate the claim he was a good chairman? This was the same chairmen would paid £11m for Luque (nufc.com) £8m for Boum-shlong etc? it can all be flipped around, in fact i dont know why i'm even arguing that point, you've made it for me, why the hell under his chairmenship were we fighting relegation in the first place??

 

LEt me ask you this then, from when FS took charge, do you think we are where we could/should of been? Do you think that we have progressed as a club in the 10 years he has been in charge? Do you think that from when he took us over when we were title challengers (2nd) to where we are now (Uefa Cup hopefuls) shows a significant level of improvement? If yes then you're a fool, if the answers to theses questions are no, then you are forced to agree therefore that overall he wasn't a succes.

Note i have generalised his tenure as Chairmanship and not picked out specific events to make my arguments.

 

he was a signing by Roeder, not Shepherd, and from this point on your argument is pointless, as you clearly don't understand the management structure of a football club.

 

Sorry like .

 

 

[Dave]

It was Souness who signed Owen then?

[NE5]

Gullitt was appointed to bring back 'sexy football' after Dalglish. Some of the unsexy footballers at Newcastle didn't take kindly to it.

 

I think winning the FA Cup with his former club, may have something to do with it, but of course Fat Fred the king pie eater couldn;t attract good managers to Newcastle  mackems.gif

 

Or do you think such a statistic is irrelevant, and they should appoint a manager who hasn't won anything ?

 

Think carefully before you reply, and tell us what exactly YOUR criteria would be

 

 

Not being a thick pie-eating twat would be a good start. Answer my question at the 9th time of asking and be assured I will answer yours. In fact I'll answer it regardless, for the same reason you won't. I know I'm right and so do you.

 

 

Being a pie eater is irrelevant.

 

But you must surely agree that, having qualified for europe more than anyone else but 4 clubs, there must be one hell of a lot of thick stupid chairman out there, as I've said before, and I'm still waiting for you to make a constructive disagreement with.

 

 

[fredbob]

Are you going to answer my question Fredbob? Would you have preferred Shepherd not to have signed Martins because we couldn't afford him even though without his goals it was near certain relegation? Also would you have preferred the club not to expand the stadium so we didn't borrow £44 million to build the extra 16,000 seats?

 

Yes martin was a big success , and a good singing by Shepard , but in the big picture is that really an achievement to substantiate the claim he was a good chairman? This was the same chairmen would paid £11m for Luque (nufc.com) £8m for Boum-shlong etc? it can all be flipped around, in fact i dont know why i'm even arguing that point, you've made it for me, why the hell under his chairmenship were we fighting relegation in the first place??

 

LEt me ask you this then, from when FS took charge, do you think we are where we could/should of been? Do you think that we have progressed as a club in the 10 years he has been in charge? Do you think that from when he took us over when we were title challengers (2nd) to where we are now (Uefa Cup hopefuls) shows a significant level of improvement? If yes then you're a fool, if the answers to theses questions are no, then you are forced to agree therefore that overall he wasn't a succes.

Note i have generalised his tenure as Chairmanship and not picked out specific events to make my arguments.

 

he was a signing by Roeder, not Shepherd, and from this point on your argument is pointless, as you clearly don't understand the management structure of a football club.

 

Sorry like .

 

 

 

lol, can you read? am not sure why that invalidates my argument, i was replying to someone elses query, in fact yet again, you miss the point of the entrie argument and pick out one tiny insignificant bit, you're embarressingly infuiriating. You seem to have ignored some of my others posts, ones that were directed to you.

[TRon]

So you agree he was thick then?

 

 

[Dinho lad]

Shepherd was not a good chairman.

[NE5]

It was Souness who signed Owen then?

 

never said it wasn't.

 

Whats your point Dave. Souness signed Luque, Boumsong, Owen, Parker, Emre, to replace Robert, Woodgate, and Bellamy,  and Shearer in the long term. He also signed amady Faye, to replace Gary Speed/Nicky Butt, and Babayaro to replace Bernard.

 

So who's to blame for wasting the vast majority of the money that the board trusted for their manager to spend, which is what good boards do ?

 

Unless of course you think they should have stuck their noses in and vetoed these signings ?

 

[Dave]

It was Souness who signed Owen then?

 

never said it wasn't.

 

Whats your point Dave. Souness signed Luque, Boumsong, Owen, Parker, Emre, to replace Robert, Woodgate, and Bellamy,  and Shearer in the long term. He also signed amady Faye, to replace Gary Speed/Nicky Butt, and Babayaro to replace Bernard.

 

So who's to blame for wasting the vast majority of the money that the board trusted for their manager to spend, which is what good boards do ?

 

Unless of course you think they should have stuck their noses in and vetoed these signings ?

 

 

Taken out all the chaff that wasn't relevant to my point.

 

I just wondered about your 'good boards sign England internationals' thing that's all.

[NE5]

So you agree he was thick then?

 

 

 

Whats the matter, have I outed you

 

Do you actually know any more about this club than Ozzie, and his favourite player Stephen Spence  mackems.gif