"Shepherd was not a good chairman" - Sibierski

[NE5]

People need to understand most clubs are in debt, my only problem was the "I backed every manager" when it was the club & the club has the debt to prove this. If Fred/others had said "The club has backed every manager under my Chairmanship" that would of been sweet for me.

 

Some of yous have grown up in era of the club never being relegated, so for me qualifying for the richest club competition every year is something I don't take for granted.  In saying that I would swop a 2nd place finish, a 3-2 win over Barca & a Intertoto Vase for a something as meaningless as being League Cup Winners, which the likes of Boro,Leicester & Blackburn have won in the last 10 years.

 

agree with most of that mate, especially the bold bit. Accepting that the phrase "backing the managers" could be phrased differently, don't you think that most of us realise this though, that its the board have backed the manager on behalf of the club and the supporters ?

 

I know that teaching some of these lads, especially one or two outstanding examples, to suck eggs is difficult like, if this is what you mean ?

 

I think its about time we won even the League Cup, and I would swap that this season for a top 6 finish, for instance. It would to the club a power of good, I've thought that for a few years, which is why it pissed me off when Bobby Robson fielded weakened teams and we were knocked out.

 

 

[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 s*** 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 f****** wall.

 

In short, the appointment of Allardyce is taking us forwards again, so what is your opinion on that

 

 

 

 

 

lol, so you admit we were behind? Crikey that sounded alwfully like a minor concede of defeat there, because if you ask me a compentent chairman doesnt allow us to be behind in the first place. Game set and match me thinks. From the moment Shepard said he wasnt going to replace SBR contract hes been a f****** disaster and now you admit we're going back in the right dierection having been in the wrong one for so long.  It wasnt that hard ne5 but we got it out of you. Well done

 

you keep missing the point. Managers change, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Why do you think nobody appoints managers who are sometimes not as good as a previous one ? This is a completely different thing to the structure and ambition of a football club and the board by the way. Your problem is like others, you simply don't understand this.

 

 

 

i think you're missing the point, you're absolutley right about managers changing, and it would be very naive to blame shepard completely for what transpired although on the flip side, the appointents didnt seem to fit the job, but again that is my opioion and a different debate. You seem to keep referring to the relatively smaller issues, im looking at the big picture. However what i am trying to draw out of you, my entire argument, the big big picture is, was Shepard a success in his 10 years or not? its a simple yes or no answer.

[NE5]

All clubs make good and bad appointments, you can't be right everytime or all clubs would be doing well. FS made some good and bad appointments, SBR was good and i think SA will be good. Don't remember how i felt about Dalgleish but i could understand the reasoning. Gullit's appointment was a joke and anyone who defended it were totally unaware of full stroy at Chelsea, SBR became available so that was a no-brainer, GS was the worst replacement and it was totally obvious what was going to happen, Roeder had only ever relegated teams so that was only going 1 way, SA has some pedigree, he deserves a chance at a bigger club. I applaud the previous board for SA's appointment and lambast them for Gullit, GS and GR.

I think the way handled the managers was the previous' board only really obvious weakness, making SOME bad choices, giving them too much £££ and selling players behind the managers back which is deplorable.

I might also add i thought the Owen deal was stupid.

Anyway, they did their best, there were ups and downs and now it's all history.

 

Good post. Personally, I would not have appointed Gullit, I would never have appointed Souness in a million years, and I wouldn't have appointed Roeder. I could see merits in Gullit and Roeder however, and supported them as a supporter. Souness I obviously hoped would win games but never thought he would do anything else other than ruin the club.

 

Just goes to show we all have our opinions, and people in boardrooms are no different, and I don't mean just at Newcastle. I think the Owen deal was overpriced, but at least we were getting a quality player, the successor to Shearer, but the biggest waste of money was on Boumsong and Luque, which came to about the same price as Owen. This is the money that should have been targetted better - by the manager.

 

Too many people here don't understand the different roles of managers and directors to be honest, even though they have been told many times.

 

The majority of fans were behind Gullit though mate, when he was here, you only had to read the fanzines etc to realise that, even in the summer before he was sacked, people were pleased he spent his money trying to improve the defenders at the club. They thought he was doing the right thing.

 

 

[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 .

 

 

 

errrr would you like to answer this part please, we'll start slow so a simple yes or no will do for the time being.

 

lets make it easy for you, I know you are a WUM, but I'll answer out of politeness and give you a chance to redeem yourself.

 

Lets just pretend that every club who thinks they should be top of the league, is actually top of the league. All at the same time. Problem solved.

 

mackems.gif

 

To be fair, i am not a Wind up merchant, i just find it increasingly difficult to get a decent straight answer out of you, you aksed a stupid question, i gave you a stupid answer, again, all i asked for was a yes or no, you actually haven't directly answered a single question i have put to you, so i find it increasingle frustrating to make a debate with you when you are continually avoiding the answers, being faecicious in your responses and avoiding the big ones. Its a shame, cos its clear you know a lot about this club, and have a good understanding of the history of the club but your arguments continue to fall short of major point of someone elses argument, i find you always pick off the little arguments and miss the big one.

I highlighted the questions i would of liked you to answer, even gave you intstructions on how to answer them (yes or no) and yet you've still avoided answering the questions. Its a clear sign of defeat, when someone cant answer a question directly. So thats how i will take it.

[NE5]

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 s*** 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 f****** wall.

 

In short, the appointment of Allardyce is taking us forwards again, so what is your opinion on that

 

 

 

 

 

lol, so you admit we were behind? Crikey that sounded alwfully like a minor concede of defeat there, because if you ask me a compentent chairman doesnt allow us to be behind in the first place. Game set and match me thinks. From the moment Shepard said he wasnt going to replace SBR contract hes been a f****** disaster and now you admit we're going back in the right dierection having been in the wrong one for so long.  It wasnt that hard ne5 but we got it out of you. Well done

 

you keep missing the point. Managers change, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Why do you think nobody appoints managers who are sometimes not as good as a previous one ? This is a completely different thing to the structure and ambition of a football club and the board by the way. Your problem is like others, you simply don't understand this.

 

 

 

i think you're missing the point, you're absolutley right about managers changing, and it would be very naive to blame shepard completely for what transpired although on the flip side, the appointents didnt seem to fit the job, but again that is my opioion and a different debate. You seem to keep referring to the relatively smaller issues, im looking at the big picture. However what i am trying to draw out of you, my entire argument, the big big picture is, was Shepard a success in his 10 years or not? its a simple yes or no answer.

 

You dont' see the bigger picture at all. Basically, the bigger picture is the realistic one, I'm sorry to say that you are either a WUM that has been sussed, or living in cloud cuckoo land. Teams league positions go up and down all the time, depending on managers, and we are no different. The board however, was basically unchanged during all the era's of these managers, both in their outlook and philosophy, and ambition for the club. When they realised they had a manager who was the wrong man, they changed him. You could tell us why you think a good manager like Allardyce signed for such shite directors if you like, but this is getting nowhere and so long as you fail to understand the difference in roles between a board and a manager, it never will get anywhere.

 

 

[Guest elbee909]

I think Shepherd was the best chairman we had, while he was chairman, mostly because we played in the intertoto cup more times than any of the teams who didn't enter it.

[OzzieMandias]

Managers blow hot and cold, but chairman are always great, even when they've lost the plot and are taking cllubs backwards. Right?

[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 .

 

 

 

errrr would you like to answer this part please, we'll start slow so a simple yes or no will do for the time being.

 

lets make it easy for you, I know you are a WUM, but I'll answer out of politeness and give you a chance to redeem yourself.

 

Lets just pretend that every club who thinks they should be top of the league, is actually top of the league. All at the same time. Problem solved.

 

mackems.gif

 

To be fair, i am not a Wind up merchant, i just find it increasingly difficult to get a decent straight answer out of you, you aksed a stupid question, i gave you a stupid answer, again, all i asked for was a yes or no, you actually haven't directly answered a single question i have put to you, so i find it increasingle frustrating to make a debate with you when you are continually avoiding the answers, being faecicious in your responses and avoiding the big ones. Its a shame, cos its clear you know a lot about this club, and have a good understanding of the history of the club but your arguments continue to fall short of major point of someone elses argument, i find you always pick off the little arguments and miss the big one.

I highlighted the questions i would of liked you to answer, even gave you intstructions on how to answer them (yes or no) and yet you've still avoided answering the questions. Its a clear sign of defeat, when someone cant answer a question directly. So thats how i will take it.

 

During the 15 years between 1992 and 2007, the majority shareholders, and the board and chairman as a whole, appointed managers, some were better than others, some years we did better than others, but essentially the board didn't change, in their outlook or ambition for the club. Thats my answer. The Keegan years, with Sir John as chairman, and the Robson years, with Shepherd as chairman, were undoubtedly the highlights. I can't see your problem, other than naively thinking it is inconceivable that a club should slip a few positions down the league for a short period. In fact, its not naive, its plain daft.

 

By the way, I don't think I asked you a stupid question at all, but I do think you asked me one.

 

Simple fact is, the same majority shareholders have been the same majority shareholders since 1992 until a few months ago. If you can try to understand that they don't allow others to run the club for them, then you may be on the way to reaching a correct "opinion"

 

 

[NE5]

I think Shepherd was the best chairman we had, while he was chairman, mostly because we played in the intertoto cup more times than any of the teams who didn't enter it.

 

you're getting closer, in actual fact, but I'm not really surprised you don't realise it.

 

 

[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 .

 

 

 

errrr would you like to answer this part please, we'll start slow so a simple yes or no will do for the time being.

 

lets make it easy for you, I know you are a WUM, but I'll answer out of politeness and give you a chance to redeem yourself.

 

Lets just pretend that every club who thinks they should be top of the league, is actually top of the league. All at the same time. Problem solved.

 

mackems.gif

 

To be fair, i am not a Wind up merchant, i just find it increasingly difficult to get a decent straight answer out of you, you aksed a stupid question, i gave you a stupid answer, again, all i asked for was a yes or no, you actually haven't directly answered a single question i have put to you, so i find it increasingle frustrating to make a debate with you when you are continually avoiding the answers, being faecicious in your responses and avoiding the big ones. Its a shame, cos its clear you know a lot about this club, and have a good understanding of the history of the club but your arguments continue to fall short of major point of someone elses argument, i find you always pick off the little arguments and miss the big one.

I highlighted the questions i would of liked you to answer, even gave you intstructions on how to answer them (yes or no) and yet you've still avoided answering the questions. Its a clear sign of defeat, when someone cant answer a question directly. So thats how i will take it.

 

During the 15 years between 1992 and 2007, the majority shareholders, and the board and chairman as a whole, appointed managers, some were better than others, some years we did better than others, but essentially the board didn't change, in their outlook or ambition for the club. Thats my answer. The Keegan years, with Sir John as chairman, and the Robson years, with Shepherd as chairman, were undoubtedly the highlights. I can't see your problem, other than naively thinking it is inconceivable that a club should slip a few positions down the league for a short period. In fact, its not naive, its plain daft.

 

By the way, I don't think I asked you a stupid question at all, but I do think you asked me one.

 

Simple fact is, the same majority shareholders have been the same majority shareholders since 1992 until a few months ago. If you can try to understand that they don't allow others to run the club for them, then you may be on the way to reaching a correct "opinion"

 

 

 

surely FS in a respresentative of the Boards opinions and while it may not of been his direct decisions to what occured a the club, irrespective he will be held repsonsible and it would be on his head that those decisions are placed. You seem keen to attribute Shepards success as a chairman down to the appointments he made, which i dont consider the big picture, i have already explained that i dont consider this the big picture and i have already stated that if the club were in the poisiton it was on the playing side but was more stable on the financial side i would respect FS alot more than i do now, however, he left us in a precarious posiiton, and i don want to gt into the nitty gritty details on why we have the debt, but overall from my point of view, i see a club from 92-97 which was going places, doing very well and had a bright future, from 97 onwards the shareholders stayed the same accoriding to you, but the chairman changed we have not achieved anywhere near the saem sort of success, now is this a coincidence or not?

[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.

 

You mean like Maric, Marcelino, Dyer, Goma etc etc...??

These all proved to be GREAT club servants, didn't they?......NOT!!

 

And what about his alienation of Rob Lee and Shearer ? What about the fact that he was so arrogant that

our best midfielder, Hamman, fell out with him and demanded a transfer..??

 

My comments were for the reason he was appointed, I thought that was pretty obvious tbh.

 

He attracted big name players such as Gianfranco Zola, Gianluca Vialli, Roberto Di Matteo, Gustavo Poyet, Frank Leboeuf etc.

[Howaythelads]

I think Shepherd was the best chairman we had, while he was chairman, mostly because we played in the intertoto cup more times than any of the teams who didn't enter it.

 

....says a 5 year old. 

[Guest BooBoo]

How many times has this forum had this same tired old debate? 

[Howaythelads]

Boo Boo,

 

The "debate" (if I may call it that) kicks off when the same people for some reason known only to them decide to create yet another thread slagging Fred and the previous Board. You don't see me or anyone else starting theads in praise of the Board. That's because it's clear mistakes were made, big mistakes, Souness in particular. They've paid the price now and people should leave it. It makes for a good old moan though, so they go on and on like bloody old fish wives.

 

The bottom line is the Board wasn't perfect but neither were they anywhere near as bad as some claim.

 

[Howaythelads]

The major mistake was the appointment of Souness. People ignore this or spout the inevitable, "but Fred appointed him." Be that ignorance as it may.

 

It is clearly correct the Halls would have had a major say regarding every managerial appointment since they took over the club, it is just too important a decision for this not to be the case. Fred may be the figurehead, but he would not have made these decisions alone. The same people who got it spectacularly right with Keegan have been making the decisions all along but they got it spectacularly wrong with the appointment of Souness. It doesn't suit the agenda of some moaners to acknowledge that though.

 

I think we could have had real success under the previous Board with some luck along the way because they had the ambition for success, unlike previous Boards going back decades. Everyone needs luck so this idea shouldn't be mocked. Ferguson had some at manure when he could have been on the way out. In addition to luck though you do need the manager to make good footballing decisions at key moments. Both luck and good managerial decisions are out of the control of the board. For example, players failing to turn up for big matches shows the mental capacity of the players signed by the manager and is nothing to do with the Board. Robson putting out weakened sides in a competition we could win is a bad decision by the manager, not by the Board. How many teams reach two FA Cup finals but both times find the opponents to be good enough to be that season's league champions? It doesn't happen that often but it happened to us twice. This is bad luck really. How about Souness putting himself and his inflated ego ahead of the club possibly preventing us winning the Uefa Cup. These things are decisions made by the manager, not by the Board. So everyone needs a little bit of luck at some stage and we haven't had much at key moments. 0-1 against manure anyone.......Winning something would have made such a difference.

 

Getting to the worst manager in my 48 years. Well, I lay some of blame for the debacle of Souness at the door of some of the players. I await the usual suspects harping on about that comment while ignoring the rest of the post.  I believe it was the player's lack of respect for Robson that led to his sacking, which was bad enough but when you add to that their lack of self discipline we were well on the road to the disastrous appointment of the worst manager of Newcastle in my lifetime. A manager brought in to restore order and discipline. The footballing decisions made by Souness as he ripped the team apart being loudly supported by many on here who now slag the Board mercilessly. Mind-boggling really. Robson did a great job but he was undermined by people like Dyer, not by Fred. That's why you see Robson sitting next to Fred at matches.

 

The Board does their bit by backing the manager to build a team/squad to a level where it is good enough to challenge for trophies but there are still no guarantees that you will win one. This doesn't mean the Board is poor. The board clearly did their bit because we did challenge near the top of the league only falling away again with the terrible appointment of Souness. Our club hasn't challenged like this for over half a century, so as bad as some may believe they were they remain by far the best this club has had for all of that time. Being better than Boards of the past doesn't make them perfect or immune to criticism for their errors, but it would be good if people acknowledged what they achieved because they achieved a lot for this football club and the City. They've paid the price for their mistakes. People slagging them off at every turn do themselves no favours in my opinion.

[Dave]

Two very fair posts.

[fredbob]

Boo Boo,

 

The "debate" (if I may call it that) kicks off when the same people for some reason known only to them decide to create yet another thread slagging Fred and the previous Board. You don't see me or anyone else starting theads in praise of the Board. That's because it's clear mistakes were made, big mistakes, Souness in particular. They've paid the price now and people should leave it. It makes for a good old moan though, so they go on and on like bloody old fish wives.

 

The bottom line is the Board wasn't perfect but neither were they anywhere near as bad as some claim.

 

 

Isn't the idea of these forums to try and debate these points at your will, irrespective of how many time it might of been discussed in the past, everything on the this forum is cast iron sooner or later but if people had 'left it' the second that there point was proved or not, we wouldn't have much of a forum

[ChezGiven]

The major mistake was the appointment of Souness. People ignore this or spout the inevitable, "but Fred appointed him." Be that ignorance as it may.

 

It is clearly correct the Halls would have had a major say regarding every managerial appointment since they took over the club, it is just too important a decision for this not to be the case. Fred may be the figurehead, but he would not have made these decisions alone. The same people who got it spectacularly right with Keegan have been making the decisions all along but they got it spectacularly wrong with the appointment of Souness. It doesn't suit the agenda of some moaners to acknowledge that though.

 

I think we could have had real success under the previous Board with some luck along the way because they had the ambition for success, unlike previous Boards going back decades. Everyone needs luck so this idea shouldn't be mocked. Ferguson had some at manure when he could have been on the way out. In addition to luck though you do need the manager to make good footballing decisions at key moments. Both luck and good managerial decisions are out of the control of the board. For example, players failing to turn up for big matches shows the mental capacity of the players signed by the manager and is nothing to do with the Board. Robson putting out weakened sides in a competition we could win is a bad decision by the manager, not by the Board. How many teams reach two FA Cup finals but both times find the opponents to be good enough to be that season's league champions? It doesn't happen that often but it happened to us twice. This is bad luck really. How about Souness putting himself and his inflated ego ahead of the club possibly preventing us winning the Uefa Cup. These things are decisions made by the manager, not by the Board. So everyone needs a little bit of luck at some stage and we haven't had much at key moments. 0-1 against manure anyone.......Winning something would have made such a difference.

 

Getting to the worst manager in my 48 years. Well, I lay some of blame for the debacle of Souness at the door of some of the players. I await the usual suspects harping on about that comment while ignoring the rest of the post.  I believe it was the player's lack of respect for Robson that led to his sacking, which was bad enough but when you add to that their lack of self discipline we were well on the road to the disastrous appointment of the worst manager of Newcastle in my lifetime. A manager brought in to restore order and discipline. The footballing decisions made by Souness as he ripped the team apart being loudly supported by many on here who now slag the Board mercilessly. Mind-boggling really. Robson did a great job but he was undermined by people like Dyer, not by Fred. That's why you see Robson sitting next to Fred at matches.

 

The Board does their bit by backing the manager to build a team/squad to a level where it is good enough to challenge for trophies but there are still no guarantees that you will win one. This doesn't mean the Board is poor. The board clearly did their bit because we did challenge near the top of the league only falling away again with the terrible appointment of Souness. Our club hasn't challenged like this for over half a century, so as bad as some may believe they were they remain by far the best this club has had for all of that time. Being better than Boards of the past doesn't make them perfect or immune to criticism for their errors, but it would be good if people acknowledged what they achieved because they achieved a lot for this football club and the City. They've paid the price for their mistakes. People slagging them off at every turn do themselves no favours in my opinion.

 

Pantomine audiences have always needed pantomine villains.

 

 

[merlin]

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.

 

You mean like Maric, Marcelino, Dyer, Goma etc etc...??

These all proved to be GREAT club servants, didn't they?......NOT!!

 

And what about his alienation of Rob Lee and Shearer ? What about the fact that he was so arrogant that

our best midfielder, Hamman, fell out with him and demanded a transfer..??

 

My comments were for the reason he was appointed, I thought that was pretty obvious tbh.

 

He attracted big name players such as Gianfranco Zola, Gianluca Vialli, Roberto Di Matteo, Gustavo Poyet, Frank Leboeuf etc.

 

So why do you think he signed such turkeys for NUFC then.?

Could it be that his Chelsea signings were arranged by a better scouting system, and that maybe he didn't bother to look at signings himself..??

 

OR - would there be another reason !! 'Persuasive' Players' Agents, perhaps, esp with his NUFC signings....

[Kitman]

The major mistake was the appointment of Souness. People ignore this or spout the inevitable, "but Fred appointed him." Be that ignorance as it may.

 

It is clearly correct the Halls would have had a major say regarding every managerial appointment since they took over the club, it is just too important a decision for this not to be the case. Fred may be the figurehead, but he would not have made these decisions alone. The same people who got it spectacularly right with Keegan have been making the decisions all along but they got it spectacularly wrong with the appointment of Souness. It doesn't suit the agenda of some moaners to acknowledge that though.

 

I think we could have had real success under the previous Board with some luck along the way because they had the ambition for success, unlike previous Boards going back decades. Everyone needs luck so this idea shouldn't be mocked. Ferguson had some at manure when he could have been on the way out. In addition to luck though you do need the manager to make good footballing decisions at key moments. Both luck and good managerial decisions are out of the control of the board. For example, players failing to turn up for big matches shows the mental capacity of the players signed by the manager and is nothing to do with the Board. Robson putting out weakened sides in a competition we could win is a bad decision by the manager, not by the Board. How many teams reach two FA Cup finals but both times find the opponents to be good enough to be that season's league champions? It doesn't happen that often but it happened to us twice. This is bad luck really. How about Souness putting himself and his inflated ego ahead of the club possibly preventing us winning the Uefa Cup. These things are decisions made by the manager, not by the Board. So everyone needs a little bit of luck at some stage and we haven't had much at key moments. 0-1 against manure anyone.......Winning something would have made such a difference.

 

Getting to the worst manager in my 48 years. Well, I lay some of blame for the debacle of Souness at the door of some of the players. I await the usual suspects harping on about that comment while ignoring the rest of the post.  I believe it was the player's lack of respect for Robson that led to his sacking, which was bad enough but when you add to that their lack of self discipline we were well on the road to the disastrous appointment of the worst manager of Newcastle in my lifetime. A manager brought in to restore order and discipline. The footballing decisions made by Souness as he ripped the team apart being loudly supported by many on here who now slag the Board mercilessly. Mind-boggling really. Robson did a great job but he was undermined by people like Dyer, not by Fred. That's why you see Robson sitting next to Fred at matches.

 

The Board does their bit by backing the manager to build a team/squad to a level where it is good enough to challenge for trophies but there are still no guarantees that you will win one. This doesn't mean the Board is poor. The board clearly did their bit because we did challenge near the top of the league only falling away again with the terrible appointment of Souness. Our club hasn't challenged like this for over half a century, so as bad as some may believe they were they remain by far the best this club has had for all of that time. Being better than Boards of the past doesn't make them perfect or immune to criticism for their errors, but it would be good if people acknowledged what they achieved because they achieved a lot for this football club and the City. They've paid the price for their mistakes. People slagging them off at every turn do themselves no favours in my opinion.

 

Top post 

 

imo until the club wins something, every regime is going to be judged a failure to a certain extent.  And winning things is bloody difficult.  If we consistently challenge I'll be happy, sooner or later then we'll get lucky.  With Souness and Roeder (post caretaker role) I only ever felt we'd head in one direction with them.

[Cronky]

Mind-boggling really. Robson did a great job but he was undermined by people like Dyer, not by Fred. That's why you see Robson sitting next to Fred at matches.

 

 

Well I'd defy anyone to read Sir Bob's autobiography, and come away with the conclusion that he wasn't undermined by Shepherd.

 

Sir Bob only started appearing at Freddie's side when the team was starting to flounder under Roeder, and the fans were starting to publicly turn on Freddie. At the same time, Freddie was starting to try and sell the idea that the Halls were undermining his work, and, by implication, that they were responsible for the position the club was in. Sir Bob is a forgiving soul, but in this case I think he was being used.

[TRon]

The major mistake was the appointment of Souness. People ignore this or spout the inevitable, "but Fred appointed him." Be that ignorance as it may.

 

 

 

But Fred did appoint him, he never claimed otherwise. Fred also appointed Roeder after claiming it was the 'fans choice'. He also wanted Steve "The Cabbage" Bruce to be Newcastle boss to take charge on account of being a geordie. The best thing Shepherd could have done for Newcastle was to pay someone with better judgement than himself to appoint the manager. He should have done what Ashley has done and brought in a Chris Mort rather than hogging the headlines himself as Mr Newcastle.

 

 

[jimmymag]

Mind-boggling really. Robson did a great job but he was undermined by people like Dyer, not by Fred. That's why you see Robson sitting next to Fred at matches.

 

 

Well I'd defy anyone to read Sir Bob's autobiography, and come away with the conclusion that he wasn't undermined by Shepherd.

 

Sir Bob only started appearing at Freddie's side when the team was starting to flounder under Roeder, and the fans were starting to publicly turn on Freddie. At the same time, Freddie was starting to try and sell the idea that the Halls were undermining his work, and, by implication, that they were responsible for the position the club was in. Sir Bob is a forgiving soul, but in this case I think he was being used.

 

When Shepherd announced to the world that SBR's contract would not be renewed at the end of the 2004/2005 season he made SBR a lame duck manager that the likes of Dire and Bellamy where only too happy to take advantage of.

 

To conclude that Shepherd did not undermine SBR is mind boggling really!

[Guest Knightrider]

Shepherd undermined Sir Bobby Robson massively in his final years as a Newcastle manager. It started with the pitch issues, denying Sir Bobby a new pitch, then FS had a go at the manager and players over the Wolves away fixture which we ridiculously played less than 48 hours after a European match away, so we could earn a few quid with it being televised. Then towards the end of that season FS had his big rant about paying Rolls Royce wages only to get Ford performances which didn't help matters, regardless of whether he was right or not. Then in the summer he sold Gary Speed without Sir Bobby's say so, tried to flog Bowyer again without his say so, sold Woodgate without his say so and tried to sign Rooney which at the time was "news to me" from Bobby. He also left him out to dry over Nobby's sale, regarding the price, which the club fixed with Villa, not Sir Bobby, yet he took all the flack.

 

He also denied him funds or permission to sign that Greek full-back, Miguel, Carrick, Smith, Beattie and when he sold Woodgate, while Robson was wanting defenders, FS was chasing an 18-year old striker.

 

And that's not even mentioning the public announcement that this would be Bobby's final season which again, came as news to Bobby who was told live about it at a Tennis match, much to his shock.

 

Then there was the Shearer incident against Valerenga, again Sir Bobby was left out to dry, and Celtic's interest in him. FS said "no" to their offer without even consulting the manager who may have considered it a good deal to sell him.

 

Further back FS didn't renew Wadsworth's contract which left Sir Bobby fuming, wouldn't allow him to bring in a DOF and wouldn't allow him to install Prozone. All things that served to handicap Robson's quest to manage the club as he saw fit, something he earned due to first saving us from relegation and then leading us to our most successful stint in the top-flight in terms of successive league finishes.

 

Was Sir Bobby undermined? Do bears shit in the woods...

[Ally]

All that may be true HTT, but thats all from Bobby's book. I'd like to hear Fred's side of the story tbh.