"Shepherd was not a good chairman" - Sibierski

[Thespence]

Anyone know the net spend for the seasons 1904-05, 1906-07, 1908-09 & 1926-27?

 

I also think the Chairman for them seasons were the best the club ever had.

 

undoubtedly were mate.

 

You can't argue with results, unfortunately a canny few people think you can !!

 

Football ultimately is a result industry but in this day of celebrity we sometimes get sidetracked by the characters.

[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.

 

 

I knew straight away who the people were that would pick out the bits of that post that suited them and nothing else

 

You were one of them

 

To be honest the whole post was full of contradictions but I can't be arsed to go through everything with a fine tooth comb. I can if you want though. That crap about it being the players fault...now there's cop-out if I ever saw it.

[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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I knew straight away who the people were that would pick out the bits of that post that suited them and nothing else

 

You were one of them

 

To be honest the whole post was full of contradictions but I can't be arsed to go through everything with a fine tooth comb. I can if you want though. That crap about it being the players fault...now there's cop-out if I ever saw it.

 

mackems.gif

 

You obviously failed to spot that although we finished 3rd in 02-03 the performances generally were below the level of 01-02 when we finished 4th. There is a reason for that. And as for the latter part of 2002-2003 it was as plain as the difference between night and day there was a problem with some of the players. There is a reason for that too.

 

BTW I couldn't give a toss whether you go through the post or not, as NE5 said, there were some people I also knew would be capable of only picking out a sentence or two that suited them and you were definitely one of them.

 

 

[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.

 

 

I knew straight away who the people were that would pick out the bits of that post that suited them and nothing else

 

You were one of them

 

To be honest the whole post was full of contradictions but I can't be arsed to go through everything with a fine tooth comb. I can if you want though. That crap about it being the players fault...now there's cop-out if I ever saw it.

 

mackems.gif

 

You obviously failed to spot that although we finished 3rd in 02-03 the performances generally were below the level of 01-02 when we finished 4th. There is a reason for that. And as for the latter part of 2002-2003 it was as plain as the difference between night and day there was a problem with some of the players. There is a reason for that too.

 

 

 

 

There will always be players who aren't able to maintain their standards, this happens at Man U and Chelsea as well, and they get shipped out, (Whiteside, Kanchelski, Staam etc). That's the manager's job, so what is the point of complaining that it is the player's fault, when they start taking the piss? So it's right to lay the blame for lack of discipline at Robson's door, but that also has to be balanced to what he brought to the club such as prestige, dignity and relative success (see we're not all glory hunters).

 

I don't have any issue with Robson being sacked assuming those in the know could see that the decline was irreversible and not just a blip, because even Ferguson has those. My problem is, and always has been, what criteria has been used to select a new manager? Souness was a rotten choice and most on here were dubious right from the start, although like all good supporters they will give a new man support until he proves a complete disaster. Steve Bruce was a rotten choice, and even the fact he was considered should have set the alarm bells ringing. His main quality being that he was a geordie - talk about professional decision making! Roeder was a rotten choice, and if Souness was appointed to instill discipline, on what basis was Roeder then hired? To uninstall it? To fetch Alan Oliver a biscuit very time he summoned him to Thompson House?

 

Absolute bollocks.

[NE5]

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.

 

 

I knew straight away who the people were that would pick out the bits of that post that suited them and nothing else

 

You were one of them

 

To be honest the whole post was full of contradictions but I can't be arsed to go through everything with a fine tooth comb. I can if you want though. That crap about it being the players fault...now there's cop-out if I ever saw it.

 

mackems.gif

 

You obviously failed to spot that although we finished 3rd in 02-03 the performances generally were below the level of 01-02 when we finished 4th. There is a reason for that. And as for the latter part of 2002-2003 it was as plain as the difference between night and day there was a problem with some of the players. There is a reason for that too.

 

 

 

 

There will always be players who aren't able to maintain their standards, this happens at Man U and Chelsea as well, and they get shipped out, (Whiteside, Kanchelski, Staam etc). That's the manager's job, so what is the point of complaining that it is the player's fault, when they start taking the piss? So it's right to lay the blame for lack of discipline at Robson's door, but that also has to be balanced to what he brought to the club such as prestige, dignity and relative success (see we're not all glory hunters).

 

I don't have any issue with Robson being sacked assuming those in the know could see that the decline was irreversible and not just a blip, because even Ferguson has those. My problem is, and always has been, what criteria has been used to select a new manager? Souness was a rotten choice and most on here were dubious right from the start, although like all good supporters they will give a new man support until he proves a complete disaster. Steve Bruce was a rotten choice, and even the fact he was considered should have set the alarm bells ringing. His main quality being that he was a geordie - talk about professional decision making! Roeder was a rotten choice, and if Souness was appointed to instill discipline, on what basis was Roeder then hired? To uninstall it? To fetch Alan Oliver a biscuit very time he summoned him to Thompson House?

 

Absolute bollocks.

 

what criteria do you think was applied in the cases of Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and Allardyce ?

 

And if you think the criteria was wrong, what do YOU think it should be ?

 

You could also explain why you appear to think that we are the only club who appoints a shite manager now and again, which obviously accounts for the fact that 87 clubs haven't played in europe as often as we have in the last decade.

 

Lastly, I completely fail to see how you can say that not performing in 2 FA Cup Finals, a Champions League decider, numerous FA Cup and League Cup games against lower league opposition, and not least of which when the manager played weakened teams in the League Cup especially, has anything to do with the board of directors.

 

What a load of bollocks

 

 

[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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I knew straight away who the people were that would pick out the bits of that post that suited them and nothing else

 

You were one of them

 

To be honest the whole post was full of contradictions but I can't be arsed to go through everything with a fine tooth comb. I can if you want though. That crap about it being the players fault...now there's cop-out if I ever saw it.

 

mackems.gif

 

You obviously failed to spot that although we finished 3rd in 02-03 the performances generally were below the level of 01-02 when we finished 4th. There is a reason for that. And as for the latter part of 2002-2003 it was as plain as the difference between night and day there was a problem with some of the players. There is a reason for that too.

 

 

 

 

There will always be players who aren't able to maintain their standards, this happens at Man U and Chelsea as well, and they get shipped out, (Whiteside, Kanchelski, Staam etc). That's the manager's job, so what is the point of complaining that it is the player's fault, when they start taking the piss? So it's right to lay the blame for lack of discipline at Robson's door, but that also has to be balanced to what he brought to the club such as prestige, dignity and relative success (see we're not all glory hunters).

 

I don't have any issue with Robson being sacked assuming those in the know could see that the decline was irreversible and not just a blip, because even Ferguson has those. My problem is, and always has been, what criteria has been used to select a new manager? Souness was a rotten choice and most on here were dubious right from the start, although like all good supporters they will give a new man support until he proves a complete disaster. Steve Bruce was a rotten choice, and even the fact he was considered should have set the alarm bells ringing. His main quality being that he was a geordie - talk about professional decision making! Roeder was a rotten choice, and if Souness was appointed to instill discipline, on what basis was Roeder then hired? To uninstall it? To fetch Alan Oliver a biscuit very time he summoned him to Thompson House?

 

Absolute bollocks.

 

What are you on about gloryhunters for?

 

I know exactly what Robson brought to the club, I don't have to be told. Fact is he lost the players as they went off the rails. Such a situation is bound to have an effect on the relationship between the Board and the manager. Maybe it's a chicken and egg thing. Did the attitude of the Board change toward Robson because he lost the plot which sent the players off the rails, or did some of the players become out of control twáts anyway, which undermined Robson in the eyes of the Board and then Robson lost the plot? I think it's the latter, going by the way some of the players were known to be carrying on. As I said originally and you seem to have missed, I'm not going to knock Robson that much, he did a fine job and was let down by some of the players.

 

As for the rest of it, most of us know Souness and Roeder were shit appointments. I didn't even want Roeder as caretaker but the posts are gone. His role was only ever going to be one of recovering from Souness to some extent while the money was replenished before appointing a better man.

[OzzieMandias]

And, by the way, dishing the dirt is dishing the dirt in whatever language you choose to call it, and whoever you dished it to.

 

He didn't deny he "dished the dirt". As he says above, it was Shepherd not NUFC that this "dirt" focussed on.

 

Mel

 

Ironic that mandiarse is being defended in his dishing the dirt on the club by making out it was aimed toward an individual when the wum himself can't admit that negative comments made by Bellamy about the club were really a swipe at how Souness was managing the club.

 

Moronic stuff.

 

What "dirt" do you imagine I "dished" in an interview that never happened, which wasn't going to be done by me anyway, but which would have been a response to a widely reported remark by Shepherd? 

[TRon]

 

 

what criteria do you think was applied in the cases of Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and Allardyce ?

 

And if you think the criteria was wrong, what do YOU think it should be ?

 

 

Those were good appointments based on sound reasoning, which is why to this day I haven't knocked them. My criteria is sound reasoning, which is why I ask how Freddie as Chairman, arrived to the conclusion, Bruce, Souness or Roeder were the right appointments for a club aiming for CL football? To have approached one of those three would raise an eyebrow, but all three would make any neutral think either Freddie's thick as pig-shit, or someone's on the make in all this.

 

You could also explain why you appear to think that we are the only club who appoints a shite manager now and again, which obviously accounts for the fact that 87 clubs haven't played in europe as often as we have in the last decade.

 

Lastly, I completely fail to see how you can say that not performing in 2 FA Cup Finals, a Champions League decider, numerous FA Cup and League Cup games against lower league opposition, and not least of which when the manager played weakened teams in the League Cup especially, has anything to do with the board of directors.

 

What a load of bollocks

 

 

 

you're right you are talking a load of bollocks there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Thespence]

Those were good appointments based on sound reasoning, which is why to this day I haven't knocked them. My criteria is sound reasoning, which is why I ask how Freddie as Chairman, arrived to the conclusion, Bruce, Souness or Roeder were the right appointments for a club aiming for CL football?

 

Your Bender

 

To me it seem obvious: Bruce: Fred thought a Geordie would do the job. Souness:He was brought in to sort dressing room out that had spiralled out of control. Roeder: Caretaker done well. They are the reasons I think Fred did what the did

[Howaythelads]

Those were good appointments based on sound reasoning, which is why to this day I haven't knocked them. My criteria is sound reasoning, which is why I ask how Freddie as Chairman, arrived to the conclusion, Bruce, Souness or Roeder were the right appointments for a club aiming for CL football?

 

Your Bender

 

To me it seem obvious: Bruce: Fred thought a Geordie would do the job. Souness:He was brought in to sort dressing room out that had spiralled out of control. Roeder: Caretaker done well. They are the reasons I think Fred did what the did

 

I agree and it's obvious. So why do people ask?

[TRon]

because they were poor reasons.

[NE5]

 

what criteria do you think was applied in the cases of Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and Allardyce ?

 

And if you think the criteria was wrong, what do YOU think it should be ?

 

Those were good appointments based on sound reasoning, which is why to this day I haven't knocked them. My criteria is sound reasoning, which is why I ask how Freddie as Chairman, arrived to the conclusion, Bruce, Souness or Roeder were the right appointments for a club aiming for CL football? To have approached one of those three would raise an eyebrow, but all three would make any neutral think either Freddie's thick as pig-shit, or someone's on the make in all this.

 

You could also explain why you appear to think that we are the only club who appoints a shite manager now and again, which obviously accounts for the fact that 87 clubs haven't played in europe as often as we have in the last decade.

 

Lastly, I completely fail to see how you can say that not performing in 2 FA Cup Finals, a Champions League decider, numerous FA Cup and League Cup games against lower league opposition, and not least of which when the manager played weakened teams in the League Cup especially, has anything to do with the board of directors.

 

What a load of bollocks

 

 

 

you're right you are talking a load of bollocks there.

 

 

so you think players not turning up and performing in 2 FA Cup Finals, a Champions League decider, numerous Cup games against lower league opposition, and managers fielding weakened teams, is the fault of the directors do you  mackems.gif mackems.gif

 

Would you like to tell us what you think of the performance of directors that are running clubs who are big city clubs, just like us, that haven't reached 2 FA Cup Finals, and played Champions League deciders, and qualified for europe as often as us  ?

 

Should be good for comedy value this, not that I expect you to reply 

 

Anyway, not bad of you to admit that for 8 years out of the last 10, you were happy with the manager, and the criteria used to appont them, by the shit board  mackems.gif What do you think of all the other big city clubs thatt haven't been able to appoint managers of this calibre ?

 

I don;t expect an answer to that either, but you may surprise me.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

because they were poor reasons.

 

Aah. I see.

 

Here's a tip. Next time you ask a question make sure you ask what you really want to ask. 

[Lazy]

I think he was was an alright chairman, made some good decisions and made some bad ones; I just feel he made more of the bad ones.

 

No question the man did a lot for us, but at some of the really important times, such as who he should have hired after Souness - he let himself down. I mean come on, most of us we're shouting from the roof tops "Get Hitzfeld!", and he brushed it off as some kind of betting scam! What makes it worse is that he hired a manager with a crappy record and no management license - solely because he had a few good results for us.

 

Judging by some of the posts that have been made, he's a step up from the board that were there before him (the ones before John Hall etc), but Ashley/Mort are a step up from him.

 

None of it matters now anyway, I just hope that this thread dies soon, so that I can read about something more interesting in the morning before I go to work.

[WhatTheFunk]

 

To be honest...and in my own thick-minded opinion of course....I believe the only good work done in appointing a new manager by the board since Keegan has been Allardyce. Here's why:

 

-Post Keegan....entertainers....but couldn't finish things off and win the trophy---> Dalglish. Straightforward no brainer. Manager who has won lots and was pragmatic in his approach, and had just won the title with a small club.

 

-Post Dalglish....dour football...stopped getting results...got itchy feet---> Gullit. Starting to spring out some form of success at unfancied Chelsea. Sexy football. Continental manager and mentality. Again, not too difficult a decision to make at the time.

 

-Post Gullit....no results...falling out with players...didn't seem to understand the club or city or fans---> Robson. Managerial legend, and massive supporter. A world class appointment no doubt. But how obvious a choice was he? Very!

 

-Post Robson...lost the dressing room....lost the confidence of the board...did not like players signed over his head---> Souness. Notorious hardman, his biggest asset. Winning trophies here and there a bonus. Easy to control and use as puppet. no problems. Easy yet shite decision as it turned out.

 

-Post Souness...no results...falling out with best players...heading toward fizzy pop league...expensive flops...no training methods to speak of---> Roeder. Successful academy manager, and nice guy who wouldn't push best players out of the club....knows the club well...can steady the ship...already an employee at NUFC, so no need to pay transfer fee.

 

When Roeder was sacked...at this juncture, the board could have gone out and made another appointment for other reasons:

 

- Sven: glam factor. successful manager. raise the club's profile once again

- Shearer: Geordie hero. club all time top scorer. repeating the Keegan russian roulette routine

 

among others....

 

IMO the correct appointment FINALLY by bringing in Big Sam Allardyce. A highly progressive manager with an eye to the future. Creative yet very scientific in his approach. Big balls of steel. Burning desire to win almost as bad as Sir Alex. Will build from the bottom up, and take a top down approach to size up problems and find solutions.

 

In conclusion...maybe Shepherd and the board finally learned from all their previous mistakes? When they have gone for the sensationalist, or the pragmatic, or the glamorous....in hindsight, none were as successful as we had hoped, and some flattered to deceive. Here's to hoping that Fat Fred's parting gift to the club in Allardyce is where he really showed his worth to the club.

[NE5]

 

To be honest...and in my own thick-minded opinion of course....I believe the only good work done in appointing a new manager by the board since Keegan has been Allardyce. Here's why:

 

-Post Keegan....entertainers....but couldn't finish things off and win the trophy---> Dalglish. Straightforward no brainer. Manager who has won lots and was pragmatic in his approach, and had just won the title with a small club.

 

-Post Dalglish....dour football...stopped getting results...got itchy feet---> Gullit. Starting to spring out some form of success at unfancied Chelsea. Sexy football. Continental manager and mentality. Again, not too difficult a decision to make at the time.

 

-Post Gullit....no results...falling out with players...didn't seem to understand the club or city or fans---> Robson. Managerial legend, and massive supporter. A world class appointment no doubt. But how obvious a choice was he? Very!

 

-Post Robson...lost the dressing room....lost the confidence of the board...did not like players signed over his head---> Souness. Notorious hardman, his biggest asset. Winning trophies here and there a bonus. Easy to control and use as puppet. no problems. Easy yet shite decision as it turned out.

 

-Post Souness...no results...falling out with best players...heading toward fizzy pop league...expensive flops...no training methods to speak of---> Roeder. Successful academy manager, and nice guy who wouldn't push best players out of the club....knows the club well...can steady the ship...already an employee at NUFC, so no need to pay transfer fee.

 

When Roeder was sacked...at this juncture, the board could have gone out and made another appointment for other reasons:

 

- Sven: glam factor. successful manager. raise the club's profile once again

- Shearer: Geordie hero. club all time top scorer. repeating the Keegan russian roulette routine

 

among others....

 

IMO the correct appointment FINALLY by bringing in Big Sam Allardyce. A highly progressive manager with an eye to the future. Creative yet very scientific in his approach. Big balls of steel. Burning desire to win almost as bad as Sir Alex. Will build from the bottom up, and take a top down approach to size up problems and find solutions.

 

In conclusion...maybe Shepherd and the board finally learned from all their previous mistakes? When they have gone for the sensationalist, or the pragmatic, or the glamorous....in hindsight, none were as successful as we had hoped, and some flattered to deceive. Here's to hoping that Fat Fred's parting gift to the club in Allardyce is where he really showed his worth to the club.

 

no one is calling you "thick", just for disagreeing with you, like that some of that toontastic crowd [who are mostly thick as it happens by the way, but not because I disagree with them, just because they are thick, and dumb, full stop] but Dalglish improved an already top team at a big club, Liverpool, which was EXACTLY what was needed at Newcastle at the time. They also played with more flair, when he improved them.

 

What is wrong with appointing a foreign, innovative, young, coach, in Gullit ? [Although I personally wouldn't have appointed him because I thought the sexy football stuff was bollocks and just a reaction to the supporters of the way things turned out under Dalglish] But he had the support of the majority of the fans.

 

You shouldn't really understate appointments you think are "obvious", [including Robson], in your haste to slate the old board, if they are obvious, this must mean they have good qualities and are good candidates for the job, correct ?

 

Was Alex Ferguson an obvious choice for ManU ? Would you slate them for that ? Anyone who looked at what he did, would say that he was easily on his way to a top job in England, it was just a matter of who saw him and recognised it first. Was Dalglish an obvious choice for Jack Walker ?

 

On reflection, and putting aside for the moment that eventually we ended up with Robson who did very well for the club, maybe Dalglish and Gullit could have had more time, especially Dalglish ? If either of those had won the FA Cup Final, they certainly would not have been sacked. One single game, 90 minutes, and our history could have been very different, for better or worse.

 

 

 

 

[WhatTheFunk]

 

To be honest...and in my own thick-minded opinion of course....I believe the only good work done in appointing a new manager by the board since Keegan has been Allardyce. Here's why:

 

-Post Keegan....entertainers....but couldn't finish things off and win the trophy---> Dalglish. Straightforward no brainer. Manager who has won lots and was pragmatic in his approach, and had just won the title with a small club.

 

-Post Dalglish....dour football...stopped getting results...got itchy feet---> Gullit. Starting to spring out some form of success at unfancied Chelsea. Sexy football. Continental manager and mentality. Again, not too difficult a decision to make at the time.

 

-Post Gullit....no results...falling out with players...didn't seem to understand the club or city or fans---> Robson. Managerial legend, and massive supporter. A world class appointment no doubt. But how obvious a choice was he? Very!

 

-Post Robson...lost the dressing room....lost the confidence of the board...did not like players signed over his head---> Souness. Notorious hardman, his biggest asset. Winning trophies here and there a bonus. Easy to control and use as puppet. no problems. Easy yet s**** decision as it turned out.

 

-Post Souness...no results...falling out with best players...heading toward fizzy pop league...expensive flops...no training methods to speak of---> Roeder. Successful academy manager, and nice guy who wouldn't push best players out of the club....knows the club well...can steady the ship...already an employee at NUFC, so no need to pay transfer fee.

 

When Roeder was sacked...at this juncture, the board could have gone out and made another appointment for other reasons:

 

- Sven: glam factor. successful manager. raise the club's profile once again

- Shearer: Geordie hero. club all time top scorer. repeating the Keegan russian roulette routine

 

among others....

 

IMO the correct appointment FINALLY by bringing in Big Sam Allardyce. A highly progressive manager with an eye to the future. Creative yet very scientific in his approach. Big balls of steel. Burning desire to win almost as bad as Sir Alex. Will build from the bottom up, and take a top down approach to size up problems and find solutions.

 

In conclusion...maybe Shepherd and the board finally learned from all their previous mistakes? When they have gone for the sensationalist, or the pragmatic, or the glamorous....in hindsight, none were as successful as we had hoped, and some flattered to deceive. Here's to hoping that Fat Fred's parting gift to the club in Allardyce is where he really showed his worth to the club.

 

no one is calling you "thick", just for disagreeing with you, like that some of that toontastic crowd [who are mostly thick as it happens by the way, but not because I disagree with them, just because they are thick, and dumb, full stop] but Dalglish improved an already top team at a big club, Liverpool, which was EXACTLY what was needed at Newcastle at the time. They also played with more flair, when he improved them.

 

What is wrong with appointing a foreign, innovative, young, coach, in Gullit ? [Although I personally wouldn't have appointed him because I thought the sexy football stuff was bollocks and just a reaction to the supporters of the way things turned out under Dalglish] But he had the support of the majority of the fans.

 

You shouldn't really understate appointments you think are "obvious", [including Robson], in your haste to slate the old board, if they are obvious, this must mean they have good qualities and are good candidates for the job, correct ?

 

Was Alex Ferguson an obvious choice for ManU ? Would you slate them for that ? Anyone who looked at what he did, would say that he was easily on his way to a top job in England, it was just a matter of who saw him and recognised it first. Was Dalglish an obvious choice for Jack Walker ?

 

On reflection, and putting aside for the moment that eventually we ended up with Robson who did very well for the club, maybe Dalglish and Gullit could have had more time, especially Dalglish ? If either of those had won the FA Cup Final, they certainly would not have been sacked. One single game, 90 minutes, and our history could have been very different, for better or worse.

 

 

 

 

 

Sure. Nothing wrong at all with picking the "obvious" choice who the board will have believed to be the solution to our problems at any given time. However, it's not as difficult as biting the bullet and having the calmness or steadiness to make a change or appointment that would bring more than just short term solutions or quick fixes. IMO that has been the previous board's major shortcoming in that they always seemed to worry about the now, rather than the future when it came to managerial appointments.

[Guest Gemmill]

no one is calling you "thick", just for disagreeing with you, like that some of that toontastic crowd [who are mostly thick as it happens by the way, but not because I disagree with them, just because they are thick, and dumb, full stop]

 

But you digress.

[Parky]

no one is calling you "thick", just for disagreeing with you, like that some of that toontastic crowd [who are mostly thick as it happens by the way, but not because I disagree with them, just because they are thick, and dumb, full stop]

 

But you digress.

 

I always saw them as a kind of vanguard of the intellectual elite of football boards.

[NE5]

no one is calling you "thick", just for disagreeing with you, like that some of that toontastic crowd [who are mostly thick as it happens by the way, but not because I disagree with them, just because they are thick, and dumb, full stop]

 

But you digress.

 

you can comment on the footballing points Gemma, if you like

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

 

To be honest...and in my own thick-minded opinion of course....I believe the only good work done in appointing a new manager by the board since Keegan has been Allardyce. Here's why:

 

-Post Keegan....entertainers....but couldn't finish things off and win the trophy---> Dalglish. Straightforward no brainer. Manager who has won lots and was pragmatic in his approach, and had just won the title with a small club.

 

-Post Dalglish....dour football...stopped getting results...got itchy feet---> Gullit. Starting to spring out some form of success at unfancied Chelsea. Sexy football. Continental manager and mentality. Again, not too difficult a decision to make at the time.

 

-Post Gullit....no results...falling out with players...didn't seem to understand the club or city or fans---> Robson. Managerial legend, and massive supporter. A world class appointment no doubt. But how obvious a choice was he? Very!

 

-Post Robson...lost the dressing room....lost the confidence of the board...did not like players signed over his head---> Souness. Notorious hardman, his biggest asset. Winning trophies here and there a bonus. Easy to control and use as puppet. no problems. Easy yet s**** decision as it turned out.

 

-Post Souness...no results...falling out with best players...heading toward fizzy pop league...expensive flops...no training methods to speak of---> Roeder. Successful academy manager, and nice guy who wouldn't push best players out of the club....knows the club well...can steady the ship...already an employee at NUFC, so no need to pay transfer fee.

 

When Roeder was sacked...at this juncture, the board could have gone out and made another appointment for other reasons:

 

- Sven: glam factor. successful manager. raise the club's profile once again

- Shearer: Geordie hero. club all time top scorer. repeating the Keegan russian roulette routine

 

among others....

 

IMO the correct appointment FINALLY by bringing in Big Sam Allardyce. A highly progressive manager with an eye to the future. Creative yet very scientific in his approach. Big balls of steel. Burning desire to win almost as bad as Sir Alex. Will build from the bottom up, and take a top down approach to size up problems and find solutions.

 

In conclusion...maybe Shepherd and the board finally learned from all their previous mistakes? When they have gone for the sensationalist, or the pragmatic, or the glamorous....in hindsight, none were as successful as we had hoped, and some flattered to deceive. Here's to hoping that Fat Fred's parting gift to the club in Allardyce is where he really showed his worth to the club.

 

no one is calling you "thick", just for disagreeing with you, like that some of that toontastic crowd [who are mostly thick as it happens by the way, but not because I disagree with them, just because they are thick, and dumb, full stop] but Dalglish improved an already top team at a big club, Liverpool, which was EXACTLY what was needed at Newcastle at the time. They also played with more flair, when he improved them.

 

What is wrong with appointing a foreign, innovative, young, coach, in Gullit ? [Although I personally wouldn't have appointed him because I thought the sexy football stuff was bollocks and just a reaction to the supporters of the way things turned out under Dalglish] But he had the support of the majority of the fans.

 

You shouldn't really understate appointments you think are "obvious", [including Robson], in your haste to slate the old board, if they are obvious, this must mean they have good qualities and are good candidates for the job, correct ?

 

Was Alex Ferguson an obvious choice for ManU ? Would you slate them for that ? Anyone who looked at what he did, would say that he was easily on his way to a top job in England, it was just a matter of who saw him and recognised it first. Was Dalglish an obvious choice for Jack Walker ?

 

On reflection, and putting aside for the moment that eventually we ended up with Robson who did very well for the club, maybe Dalglish and Gullit could have had more time, especially Dalglish ? If either of those had won the FA Cup Final, they certainly would not have been sacked. One single game, 90 minutes, and our history could have been very different, for better or worse.

 

 

Sure. Nothing wrong at all with picking the "obvious" choice who the board will have believed to be the solution to our problems at any given time. However, it's not as difficult as biting the bullet and having the calmness or steadiness to make a change or appointment that would bring more than just short term solutions or quick fixes. IMO that has been the previous board's major shortcoming in that they always seemed to worry about the now, rather than the future when it came to managerial appointments.

 

I really don't see how people can criticise the logic of appointing Dalglish, at the time he was quite simply the outstanding candidate for the job, along with Bobby Robson.

 

No one could have known he would rip the team apart the way he did, but as he had succeeded at his 2 previous clubs, there is a case now for saying we could have stuck with him.

 

And I'm not sure if that is what I would have done personally, to be honest, it's just a thought. We will never know.

 

I didn't really want Gullit but saw the merits in him. I was happy enough to go to Wembley, and if you look back at the cup run and the league results that season, we did look a more positive team with more direction until he got his management of the players spectacularly wrong.

 

 

[Guest Gemmill]

no one is calling you "thick", just for disagreeing with you, like that some of that toontastic crowd [who are mostly thick as it happens by the way, but not because I disagree with them, just because they are thick, and dumb, full stop]

 

But you digress.

 

you can comment on the footballing points Gemma, if you like

 

 

 

 

 

And risk getting into a protracted snoozefest with you?  I think I'll pass

[OzzieMandias]

I mean come on, most of us we're shouting from the roof tops "Get Hitzfeld!", and he brushed it off as some kind of betting scam!

 

Hush! If you point this out, the Shepherd fan club will all start accusing you of "dishing the dirt".

[NE5]

I mean come on, most of us we're shouting from the roof tops "Get Hitzfeld!", and he brushed it off as some kind of betting scam!

 

Hush! If you point this out, the Shepherd fan club will all start accusing you of "dishing the dirt".

 

Still watching those videos about that quality player Stephen Spence are you  mackems.gif

[NE5]

no one is calling you "thick", just for disagreeing with you, like that some of that toontastic crowd [who are mostly thick as it happens by the way, but not because I disagree with them, just because they are thick, and dumb, full stop]

 

But you digress.

 

you can comment on the footballing points Gemma, if you like

 

 

 

 

 

And risk getting into a protracted snoozefest with you?  I think I'll pass

 

a wise decision, acknowledging you know nothing compared to me, you're maybe not so daft after all