Baggio Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 First of all that quote doesn't make sense, secondly if you're happy to knock someone for something you agreed with at the time then that's up to you, it's not something I'd do though. Thirdly Stephen Spence never played for Newcastle and didn't set Shearer up, common knowledge really to most Newcastle fans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 White flag from Baggio. But thanks for coming on the show! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 White flag from Baggio. But thanks for coming on the show! Not really, it's just going around in circles. Did Gullit fail? Yes Would I knock Shepherd because Gullit failed even though I was happy with his appointment at the time? No Would I knock Shepherd for appoint two shit managers in Souness and Roeder who were obvious;y not good enough? Yes Would I knock Sir John Hall because Dalglish failed even though I was happy with him at the time? No Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 White flag from Baggio. But thanks for coming on the show! Not really, it's just going around in circles. A sure sign that your argument is bollocks. Did Gullit fail? Yes Making three out of Shepherd's four managerial appointments failures. Would I knock Shepherd because Gullit failed even though I was happy with his appointment at the time? No Would I knock Shepherd for appoint two shit managers in Souness and Roeder who were obvious;y not good enough? Yes Would I knock Sir John Hall because Dalglish failed even though I was happy with him at the time? No Who cares? The issue is Shepherd's 75 percent failure rate in making managerial appointments. What you say you said or didn't say is nothing but a small wet fart in the howling gale of history. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 White flag from Baggio. But thanks for coming on the show! Not really, it's just going around in circles. A sure sign that your argument is bollocks. Did Gullit fail? Yes Making three out of Shepherd's four managerial appointments failures. Would I knock Shepherd because Gullit failed even though I was happy with his appointment at the time? No Would I knock Shepherd for appoint two shit managers in Souness and Roeder who were obvious;y not good enough? Yes Would I knock Sir John Hall because Dalglish failed even though I was happy with him at the time? No Who cares? The issue is Shepherd's 75 percent failure rate in making managerial appointments. What you say you said or didn't say is nothing but a small wet fart in the howling gale of history. How is my argument bollocks? My argument has always been that I wouldn't knock someone for a decision I agreed with, not that I thought Gullit wasn't a failure. As for my opinion being a small wet fart, that's hardly cutting from someone who thinks a player called Stephen Spence played for Newcastle when it was a clearly made up bullshit story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I think a more valid question would be "Was Fat Fred a thick, blundering twat?" The next question naturally has to be "should a thick blundering twat be in charge of Newcastle United?" Surely the sensible answer to both questions has to be Yes No In that order. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy1982 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Hard to argue with that Big Tron! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 My argument has always been that I wouldn't knock someone for a decision I agreed with, not that I thought Gullit wasn't a failure. Well, I'm sure the issue of who you would or wouldn't knock for whatever reason is of great interest to a huge number of people. However, you did kick off with this self-regarding drivel in reply to people who were quite rightly pointing out that Gullit was another of Shepherd's many failed managerial appointments. I am pleased that you seem finally to be acknowledging that your argument was irrelevant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 I think a more valid question would be "Was Fat Fred a thick, blundering twat?" The next question naturally has to be "should a thick blundering twat be in charge of Newcastle United?" Surely the sensible answer to both questions has to be Yes No In that order. I think a suitable response would be to point out the fact that if we have had blundering twats running the club, what does it say about the 87 clubs who have not qualified for europe as often as we did. I also think it says a lot about the intellect of supporters - if you can call them supporters as you clearly have zero perspective and as such are clearly one of those people who jumped on the Keegan/Hall/Sheperd/Fletcher bandwagon because you are whining on that we didn't win any of the trophies that you expected to win when the board you slate attracted you back to the club if you ever attended in the first place - that they seriously think that such qualifications for europe, added to the fact that we have qualified for europe more than every club in the country bar 4, is disputed by someone who clearly thinks that NUFC have always finished in the top 3 of the country and the Halls and Sheperd are to blame for bringing all those tropyhy laden glory days to an end Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 I think a more valid question would be "Was Fat Fred a thick, blundering twat?" The next question naturally has to be "should a thick blundering twat be in charge of Newcastle United?" Surely the sensible answer to both questions has to be Yes No In that order. I think a suitable response would be to point out the fact that if we have had blundering twats running the club, what does it say about the 87 clubs who have not qualified for europe as often as we did. I'd venture to say that a few of them might well have done better if they'd been gifted our resources and the circumstances that Shepherd inherited. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 So Shepherd appointed a highly rated young manager who had already won the Fa cup, played attractive football and was someone who 95% of the fans were happy with yet because it didn't work out for whatever reason you're knocking him for it as if it was a s*** appointment. Unbelievable agenda driven s****. As for the comment about selling to buy Shearer, we had to sell because we had to become debt free to become a PLC, would we have had to sell if we were remaining in private hands? No, otherwise we would have sold sooner. The comments about appointing Gullit might be more valid if he was a one off but he wasn't. The fact that all but one manager who worked under Shepherd failed is damning, to me it's not necessarily the wrong appointment but the wrong person to work for. What would you think of yourself if you kept appointing people, some who had achieved success under a previous employer but failed while working for you? Would you say that they were shite or would you start to think that maybe you were a part of the problem? If anybody on here has people working for them they’ll understand this, if I, or anybody else, keep employing people who fail then I’ll/they’ll be seen as part of the problem and I’d agree with that being right. You’re only as good as the people who work for you, what they’ve done in the past is no reflection on you, only what they do while working for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy1982 Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 I think a more valid question would be "Was Fat Fred a thick, blundering t***?" The next question naturally has to be "should a thick blundering t*** be in charge of Newcastle United?" Surely the sensible answer to both questions has to be Yes No In that order. I think a suitable response would be to point out the fact that if we have had blundering twats running the club, what does it say about the 87 clubs who have not qualified for europe as often as we did. I also think it says a lot about the intellect of supporters - if you can call them supporters as you clearly have zero perspective and as such are clearly one of those people who jumped on the Keegan/Hall/Sheperd/Fletcher bandwagon because you are whining on that we didn't win any of the trophies that you expected to win when the board you slate attracted you back to the club if you ever attended in the first place - that they seriously think that such qualifications for europe, added to the fact that we have qualified for europe more than every club in the country bar 4, is disputed by someone who clearly thinks that NUFC have always finished in the top 3 of the country and the Halls and Sheperd are to blame for bringing all those tropyhy laden glory days to an end Well I think thats a bit unfair NE5. Apart from anything else, I'd say 83-85 of those clubs didn't have the resources, playing staff and support base that we had when Sheperd was installed as chairman. And to question the intellect and loyalty of people who just hapen to have higher expectations for the club than you... I for example am 25; therefore the time when I was starting to devote all my free time to playing football was 89-90ish onwards, just like every other kid my age. Then getting properly into nufc shortly after, obviously being happy as larry when Keegan saved us and then getting totally addicted during 92-93. It is not the fault of people like me if our most impressionable years coincided with the Keegan era is it? I'm sure most of us aren't ignorant to the barren years that the club has experiencd over most of its history, and respect people like you who have stuck with the club during those times, but equally we are perfectly entitled to be disappointed by the decline post 97, much of which Sheperd must take the blame for. We are disappointed because our personal experience of nufc had led us to believe better thing were in store. Robson saved us again and gave us some great seasons but the sad fact is that no growth or develpment occured in this time, if we look back at it now. its true that the ground was developped fairly extensively but as a club we have been directionless for a long time, loping from one quick fix to the next, and Sheperd has to take the blame. Life is full of disappointments but there is nothing wrong in assessing what or who is to blame for those disappointments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Shepherd was not a good chairman. His choice of managers - Souness and Roeder's multitudinous offers of jobs since should be enough proof, for God's sake. Agreed, and DON'T forget how the team was sold short in 2003 as he wanted his dividends...that and his nepotism etc etc added to the points made already, are why he was a bad Chairman. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Harry Norway Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 I sure hope Sib is injuried tomorrow,if not he sure can punish us very hard,stupid not to sign him for several years,instead of Viduka!!!!!!!!!!! Look out for a flying Sib at St.james tomorrow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ridzuan Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 I sure hope Sib is injuried tomorrow,if not he sure can punish us very hard,stupid not to sign him for several years,instead of Viduka!!!!!!!!!!! Look out for a flying Sib at St.james tomorrow. Hoping for Sib to be injured?? Thats not nice isnt it.Anyway,whatever it is,he should be given a great reception during the match and whether he is playing or not,I believe we have the quality to beat them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmymag Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 I think a more valid question would be "Was Fat Fred a thick, blundering t***?" The next question naturally has to be "should a thick blundering t*** be in charge of Newcastle United?" Surely the sensible answer to both questions has to be Yes No In that order. I think a suitable response would be to point out the fact that if we have had blundering twats running the club, what does it say about the 87 clubs who have not qualified for europe as often as we did. I also think it says a lot about the intellect of supporters - if you can call them supporters as you clearly have zero perspective and as such are clearly one of those people who jumped on the Keegan/Hall/Sheperd/Fletcher bandwagon because you are whining on that we didn't win any of the trophies that you expected to win when the board you slate attracted you back to the club if you ever attended in the first place - that they seriously think that such qualifications for europe, added to the fact that we have qualified for europe more than every club in the country bar 4, is disputed by someone who clearly thinks that NUFC have always finished in the top 3 of the country and the Halls and Sheperd are to blame for bringing all those tropyhy laden glory days to an end Well I think thats a bit unfair NE5. Apart from anything else, I'd say 83-85 of those clubs didn't have the resources, playing staff and support base that we had when Sheperd was installed as chairman. And to question the intellect and loyalty of people who just hapen to have higher expectations for the club than you... I for example am 25; therefore the time when I was starting to devote all my free time to playing football was 89-90ish onwards, just like every other kid my age. Then getting properly into nufc shortly after, obviously being happy as larry when Keegan saved us and then getting totally addicted during 92-93. It is not the fault of people like me if our most impressionable years coincided with the Keegan era is it? I'm sure most of us aren't ignorant to the barren years that the club has experiencd over most of its history, and respect people like you who have stuck with the club during those times, but equally we are perfectly entitled to be disappointed by the decline post 97, much of which Sheperd must take the blame for. We are disappointed because our personal experience of nufc had led us to believe better thing were in store. Robson saved us again and gave us some great seasons but the sad fact is that no growth or develpment occured in this time, if we look back at it now. its true that the ground was developped fairly extensively but as a club we have been directionless for a long time, loping from one quick fix to the next, and Sheperd has to take the blame. Life is full of disappointments but there is nothing wrong in assessing what or who is to blame for those disappointments. Very good post that no one can argue with....... .......I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 I think a more valid question would be "Was Fat Fred a thick, blundering twat?" The next question naturally has to be "should a thick blundering twat be in charge of Newcastle United?" Surely the sensible answer to both questions has to be Yes No In that order. I think a suitable response would be to point out the fact that if we have had blundering twats running the club, what does it say about the 87 clubs who have not qualified for europe as often as we did. I also think it says a lot about the intellect of supporters - if you can call them supporters as you clearly have zero perspective and as such are clearly one of those people who jumped on the Keegan/Hall/Sheperd/Fletcher bandwagon because you are whining on that we didn't win any of the trophies that you expected to win when the board you slate attracted you back to the club if you ever attended in the first place - that they seriously think that such qualifications for europe, added to the fact that we have qualified for europe more than every club in the country bar 4, is disputed by someone who clearly thinks that NUFC have always finished in the top 3 of the country and the Halls and Sheperd are to blame for bringing all those tropyhy laden glory days to an end This just goes to showcase your lack of judgement to be fair, as I was here when McKeag was chairman, that jug-eared solicitor you keep blathering on about. I don't see how that means I can't correctly call Shepherd a thick blundering twat when he clearly is one. Let's not forgot another example of his bone-headed leadership when he almost appointed another disastrous manager in Steve Bruce. The same Steve Bruce who is constantly on the telly whining in perplexion that he thought he had such and such signing in the bag then it fell through. "I just don't understand it...!" Of course you don't you thick fucking pleb, because you're a shit manager and only someone even thicker would consider giving you a job because...wait for it...you're a geordie!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2sheds Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 What a load of shite is being talked by the people defending shepherds decision to sack Bobby. FFS you do realise Bobby was the ONLY decent manager this twat hired in 10 years don't you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 What a load of shite is being talked by the people defending shepherds decision to sack Bobby. FFS you do realise Bobby was the ONLY decent manager this twat hired in 10 years don't you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 I think a more valid question would be "Was Fat Fred a thick, blundering t***?" The next question naturally has to be "should a thick blundering t*** be in charge of Newcastle United?" Surely the sensible answer to both questions has to be Yes No In that order. I think a suitable response would be to point out the fact that if we have had blundering twats running the club, what does it say about the 87 clubs who have not qualified for europe as often as we did. I also think it says a lot about the intellect of supporters - if you can call them supporters as you clearly have zero perspective and as such are clearly one of those people who jumped on the Keegan/Hall/Sheperd/Fletcher bandwagon because you are whining on that we didn't win any of the trophies that you expected to win when the board you slate attracted you back to the club if you ever attended in the first place - that they seriously think that such qualifications for europe, added to the fact that we have qualified for europe more than every club in the country bar 4, is disputed by someone who clearly thinks that NUFC have always finished in the top 3 of the country and the Halls and Sheperd are to blame for bringing all those tropyhy laden glory days to an end Well I think thats a bit unfair NE5. Apart from anything else, I'd say 83-85 of those clubs didn't have the resources, playing staff and support base that we had when Sheperd was installed as chairman. And to question the intellect and loyalty of people who just hapen to have higher expectations for the club than you... I for example am 25; therefore the time when I was starting to devote all my free time to playing football was 89-90ish onwards, just like every other kid my age. Then getting properly into nufc shortly after, obviously being happy as larry when Keegan saved us and then getting totally addicted during 92-93. It is not the fault of people like me if our most impressionable years coincided with the Keegan era is it? I'm sure most of us aren't ignorant to the barren years that the club has experiencd over most of its history, and respect people like you who have stuck with the club during those times, but equally we are perfectly entitled to be disappointed by the decline post 97, much of which Sheperd must take the blame for. We are disappointed because our personal experience of nufc had led us to believe better thing were in store. Robson saved us again and gave us some great seasons but the sad fact is that no growth or develpment occured in this time, if we look back at it now. its true that the ground was developped fairly extensively but as a club we have been directionless for a long time, loping from one quick fix to the next, and Sheperd has to take the blame. Life is full of disappointments but there is nothing wrong in assessing what or who is to blame for those disappointments. Sorry Jimmy, I don't think anybody has higher expectations than me, I just think they live in a fantasy world. Simple fact is, playing regularly in europe isn't exactly failure. The ex directors raised expectations among supporters, but you can choose to recognise this or not, its up to the individual. Failure to recognise this is a failure to grasp reality. The club hasn't had as good a manager as Keegan, and this is the only reason why we haven't finished 2nd since he left. I'm not knocking you or anyone else who grew up in the Keegan era, for a start you are a damn sight luckier than I was growing up in the Seymour, McKeag eras. All people like myself can do is point out our experience, and that it is not impossible for us to have shite directors and slide back to the levels of Sheff Wed etc. Do you disagree or not ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 What a load of shite is being talked by the people defending shepherds decision to sack Bobby. FFS you do realise Bobby was the ONLY decent manager this twat hired in 10 years don't you? mackems.gif mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 The club hasn't had as good a manager as Keegan, and this is the only reason why we haven't finished 2nd since he left. Hmm. I wonder whose responsibility it was to find a manager who would take us forward... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 The club hasn't had as good a manager as Keegan, and this is the only reason why we haven't finished 2nd since he left. Hmm. I wonder whose responsibility it was to find a manager who would take us forward... please tell us what your criteria is for appointing managers ? Including Souness, who you backed, and still do ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 What a load of s**** is being talked by the people defending shepherds decision to sack Bobby. FFS you do realise Bobby was the ONLY decent manager this t*** hired in 10 years don't you? Written off Allardyce already I take it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 So you don't know whose responsibility it was to appoint managers? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now