"Shepherd was not a good chairman" - Sibierski

[NE5]

So you don't know whose responsibility it was to appoint managers?

 

oh, the people who run the club, board and directors.

 

What is your criteria for appointing managers ?

 

.

[gonufc]

NE5, putting aside the fact that Shepherd hired a couple of incompetent managers, he still held us back in places. Although he did a fair amount of good, in that he provided financial backing and hired a few good managers, the fact is that  he tampered with transfers and decisions that only managers should make...had he not done this I believe we could have seen a much more successful Newcastle.  So what I'm saying is even though we did well under Freddy (by regularly qualifying for europe) I still feel we could have done even better if he just let the manager (particularly Sir Bobby) make all the decisions he was entitled to make (such as who should be purchased and sold)

[OzzieMandias]

So you don't know whose responsibility it was to appoint managers?

 

oh, the people who run the club, board and directors.

 

How do you account for them getting it wrong so consistently?

 

You obviously don't think it was Shepherd's fault, so who is to blame?

[Thespence]

Going by some of the logic in this thread:

 

Leeds fans should want Peter Ridsdale back

Bradford fans should want Geoffrey Richmond back

Carlisle fans should want Michael knighton back

Darlington fans should the safe bomber back. Is he still in the clink?

[NE5]

So you don't know whose responsibility it was to appoint managers?

 

oh, the people who run the club, board and directors.

 

How do you account for them getting it wrong so consistently?

 

You obviously don't think it was Shepherd's fault, so who is to blame?

 

so, who would you have picked, and what is your criteria ?

 

Unlike you, I don't think qualifying for europe more than everyone else bar 4 teams is really "getting it all wrong", unless you are one of these fools who think we have an automatic right to always pick trophy winners, in which case I'm asking you what your criteria is, as you are clearly saying that a manager with 4 league titles with 2 different clubs, and a manager who had won the FA Cup with an up and coming team is not part of the criteria you apply ?

 

 

[NE5]

Going by some of the logic in this thread:

 

Leeds fans should want Peter Ridsdale back

Bradford fans should want Geoffrey Richmond back

Carlisle fans should want Michael knighton back

Darlington fans should the safe bomber back. Is he still in the clink?

 

Ozzie has a habit of not answering questions mate, its all part of his WUM philosophy, until he's made to look foolish 

 

You'll see, he won't answer what I've just asked him. In fact, if you look at my sig, you'll see how good his knowledge of NUFC is  mackems.gif

[gonufc]

NE5 care to answer my question at the top of the page?

[NE5]

NE5, putting aside the fact that Shepherd hired a couple of incompetent managers, he still held us back in places. Although he did a fair amount of good, in that he provided financial backing and hired a few good managers, the fact is that  he tampered with transfers and decisions that only managers should make...had he not done this I believe we could have seen a much more successful Newcastle.  So what I'm saying is even though we did well under Freddy (by regularly qualifying for europe) I still feel we could have done even better if he just let the manager (particularly Sir Bobby) make all the decisions he was entitled to make (such as who should be purchased and sold)

 

Apart from the strange business re Gary Speed, I have not seen anywhere to say he interfered with transfers, apart from the usual financial restrictions that all chairman have to sometimes use. And in that respect, you have to say that the club have backed their managers with plenty of money to build successful teams, fulfilling their terms of office.

 

Basically, the managers have bought too many shite players who have not been worth what they cost, that is the managers bad judgement and I fail to see how anyone else can be blamed.

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Going by some of the logic in this thread:

 

Leeds fans should want Peter Ridsdale back

Bradford fans should want Geoffrey Richmond back

Carlisle fans should want Michael knighton back

Darlington fans should the safe bomber back. Is he still in the clink?

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

So if Shepherd had no responsibility for managerial appointments, it's clear he also doesn't have any responsibility for the limited successes achieved while he was hanging around making a fortune.

 

Good job he's gone, then, as I'm sure NE5 will agree.

[gonufc]

NE5, putting aside the fact that Shepherd hired a couple of incompetent managers, he still held us back in places. Although he did a fair amount of good, in that he provided financial backing and hired a few good managers, the fact is that  he tampered with transfers and decisions that only managers should make...had he not done this I believe we could have seen a much more successful Newcastle.  So what I'm saying is even though we did well under Freddy (by regularly qualifying for europe) I still feel we could have done even better if he just let the manager (particularly Sir Bobby) make all the decisions he was entitled to make (such as who should be purchased and sold)

 

Apart from the strange business re Gary Speed, I have not seen anywhere to say he interfered with transfers, apart from the usual financial restrictions that all chairman have to sometimes use. And in that respect, you have to say that the club have backed their managers with plenty of money to build successful teams, fulfilling their terms of office.

 

Basically, the managers have bought too many s**** players who have not been worth what they cost, that is the managers bad judgement and I fail to see how anyone else can be blamed.

 

 

 

Well, for one, Souness claimed that he interfered with transfers as has Bobby. Bobby wanted Carrick but Freddy decided that he'd prefer Butt. Also, Shepherd was continually trying to flog Bowyer behind Bobby's back. These are only a couple of the publicised ones, I'm sure that there are many more instances (although of course I can't prove this).

[OzzieMandias]

NE5, putting aside the fact that Shepherd hired a couple of incompetent managers, he still held us back in places. Although he did a fair amount of good, in that he provided financial backing and hired a few good managers, the fact is that  he tampered with transfers and decisions that only managers should make...had he not done this I believe we could have seen a much more successful Newcastle.  So what I'm saying is even though we did well under Freddy (by regularly qualifying for europe) I still feel we could have done even better if he just let the manager (particularly Sir Bobby) make all the decisions he was entitled to make (such as who should be purchased and sold)

 

Apart from the strange business re Gary Speed, I have not seen anywhere to say he interfered with transfers, apart from the usual financial restrictions that all chairman have to sometimes use. And in that respect, you have to say that the club have backed their managers with plenty of money to build successful teams, fulfilling their terms of office.

 

Basically, the managers have bought too many s**** players who have not been worth what they cost, that is the managers bad judgement and I fail to see how anyone else can be blamed.

 

 

 

Well, for one, Souness claimed that he interfered with transfers as has Bobby. Bobby wanted Carrick but Freddy decided that he'd prefer Butt. Also, Shepherd was continually trying to flog Bowyer behind Bobby's back. These are only a couple of the publicised ones, I'm sure that there are many more instances (although of course I can't prove this).

 

Smoke, fire, etc.

[Thespence]

Fred tried his best but became a figure of fun. For me he panicked at the wrong times & dithered at the wrong times. He was nee John Hall either, John Hall could talk the patter & fail to deliver & nowt was said, Fred beat the same  drum & it was classed as playing  the "GEORDIE CARD".  I do object to people saying HE backed the managers!!!! It was the club that backed the managers as it was the clubs cash & it is the club that has debt to prove this.

 

I wonder if Sibs had got the contract he wanted what his views would of been, but I am sure he is Frenchman with honour (:having a laugh smiley) & he would of knocked it back because he wouldn't want to work for a "not a good chairman"

 

[Baggio]

NE5, putting aside the fact that Shepherd hired a couple of incompetent managers, he still held us back in places. Although he did a fair amount of good, in that he provided financial backing and hired a few good managers, the fact is that  he tampered with transfers and decisions that only managers should make...had he not done this I believe we could have seen a much more successful Newcastle.  So what I'm saying is even though we did well under Freddy (by regularly qualifying for europe) I still feel we could have done even better if he just let the manager (particularly Sir Bobby) make all the decisions he was entitled to make (such as who should be purchased and sold)

 

Apart from the strange business re Gary Speed, I have not seen anywhere to say he interfered with transfers, apart from the usual financial restrictions that all chairman have to sometimes use. And in that respect, you have to say that the club have backed their managers with plenty of money to build successful teams, fulfilling their terms of office.

 

Basically, the managers have bought too many s**** players who have not been worth what they cost, that is the managers bad judgement and I fail to see how anyone else can be blamed.

 

 

 

Well, for one, Souness claimed that he interfered with transfers as has Bobby. Bobby wanted Carrick but Freddy decided that he'd prefer Butt. Also, Shepherd was continually trying to flog Bowyer behind Bobby's back. These are only a couple of the publicised ones, I'm sure that there are many more instances (although of course I can't prove this).

 

Smoke, fire, etc.

 

I heard he forced Stephen Spence out after a few games too, such a shame after the great assist he gave Shearer... mackems.gif

[NE5]

NE5, putting aside the fact that Shepherd hired a couple of incompetent managers, he still held us back in places. Although he did a fair amount of good, in that he provided financial backing and hired a few good managers, the fact is that  he tampered with transfers and decisions that only managers should make...had he not done this I believe we could have seen a much more successful Newcastle.  So what I'm saying is even though we did well under Freddy (by regularly qualifying for europe) I still feel we could have done even better if he just let the manager (particularly Sir Bobby) make all the decisions he was entitled to make (such as who should be purchased and sold)

 

Apart from the strange business re Gary Speed, I have not seen anywhere to say he interfered with transfers, apart from the usual financial restrictions that all chairman have to sometimes use. And in that respect, you have to say that the club have backed their managers with plenty of money to build successful teams, fulfilling their terms of office.

 

Basically, the managers have bought too many s**** players who have not been worth what they cost, that is the managers bad judgement and I fail to see how anyone else can be blamed.

 

 

 

Well, for one, Souness claimed that he interfered with transfers as has Bobby. Bobby wanted Carrick but Freddy decided that he'd prefer Butt. Also, Shepherd was continually trying to flog Bowyer behind Bobby's back. These are only a couple of the publicised ones, I'm sure that there are many more instances (although of course I can't prove this).

 

I would say that I wouldn't believe a word that Souness says. After all, he's been called him a liar before. I have no idea where you get the idea that Shepherd decided he wanted to buy Nicky Butt and Bobby Robson didn't, thats  a new one on me. If it was a choice between the 2, and Butt was the best financial option for the club at the time, then I'm sorry but all chairman have to exercise this option sometimes, they had shown they back the managers as much as possible, so you will have to believe that would be the reason and accept it.

 

 

[NE5]

So if Shepherd had no responsibility for managerial appointments, it's clear he also doesn't have any responsibility for the limited successes achieved while he was hanging around making a fortune.

 

Good job he's gone, then, as I'm sure NE5 will agree.

 

Aren't you going to tell us your 100% method of selecting managers that win trophies  mackems.gif

[Mick]

 

I would say that I wouldn't believe a word that Souness says. After all, he's been called him a liar before. I have no idea where you get the idea that Shepherd decided he wanted to buy Nicky Butt and Bobby Robson didn't, thats  a new one on me. If it was a choice between the 2, and Butt was the best financial option for the club at the time, then I'm sorry but all chairman have to exercise this option sometimes, they had shown they back the managers as much as possible, so you will have to believe that would be the reason and accept it.

 

 

 

Is Mort a better chairman than Shepherd because he's spent more cash this year then Shepherd spent last year?

[Baggio]

NE5, putting aside the fact that Shepherd hired a couple of incompetent managers, he still held us back in places. Although he did a fair amount of good, in that he provided financial backing and hired a few good managers, the fact is that  he tampered with transfers and decisions that only managers should make...had he not done this I believe we could have seen a much more successful Newcastle.  So what I'm saying is even though we did well under Freddy (by regularly qualifying for europe) I still feel we could have done even better if he just let the manager (particularly Sir Bobby) make all the decisions he was entitled to make (such as who should be purchased and sold)

 

Apart from the strange business re Gary Speed, I have not seen anywhere to say he interfered with transfers, apart from the usual financial restrictions that all chairman have to sometimes use. And in that respect, you have to say that the club have backed their managers with plenty of money to build successful teams, fulfilling their terms of office.

 

Basically, the managers have bought too many s**** players who have not been worth what they cost, that is the managers bad judgement and I fail to see how anyone else can be blamed.

 

 

 

Well, for one, Souness claimed that he interfered with transfers as has Bobby. Bobby wanted Carrick but Freddy decided that he'd prefer Butt. Also, Shepherd was continually trying to flog Bowyer behind Bobby's back. These are only a couple of the publicised ones, I'm sure that there are many more instances (although of course I can't prove this).

 

I would say that I wouldn't believe a word that Souness says. After all, he's been called him a liar before. I have no idea where you get the idea that Shepherd decided he wanted to buy Nicky Butt and Bobby Robson didn't, thats  a new one on me. If it was a choice between the 2, and Butt was the best financial option for the club at the time, then I'm sorry but all chairman have to exercise this option sometimes, they had shown they back the managers as much as possible, so you will have to believe that would be the reason and accept it.

 

 

 

Shepherd didn't want Nicky Butt so that's bollocks, what happened was Robson went to Shepherd with a list of 4 players he was interested in - Carrick, Butt, Van Bommel and Shaun Davis, Sir Bobby asked about getting Carrick but Shepherd wasn't keen on spending £3 million on a player with 12 months left on his contract, his plan was to sign one of the other 3 and get Carrick in January when his fee would be around £500,000 as he was told Carrick wanted to come here.

 

As for Souness claiming he interfered, he said at the time that Shepherd is the only one who decides who comes and who doesn't which can be interpreted a few ways, he then goes on to explain that Shepherd arranged the fee's, contracts etc so the way I interpreted it is that the deals are completed by Shepherd, not that he goes out and decides what players to move for.

[OzzieMandias]

So if Shepherd had no responsibility for managerial appointments, it's clear he also doesn't have any responsibility for the limited successes achieved while he was hanging around making a fortune.

 

Good job he's gone, then, as I'm sure NE5 will agree.

 

Aren't you going to tell us your 100% method of selecting managers that win trophies  mackems.gif

 

Please clarify. Are you arguing that

 

a) Shepherd was a really great chairman because a 25 percent success rate in his most important decisions is, in your opinion, really good? Or,

 

b) Shepherd was a really great chairman because you doubt my ability to be very good at the job?

[NE5]

 

I would say that I wouldn't believe a word that Souness says. After all, he's been called him a liar before. I have no idea where you get the idea that Shepherd decided he wanted to buy Nicky Butt and Bobby Robson didn't, thats  a new one on me. If it was a choice between the 2, and Butt was the best financial option for the club at the time, then I'm sorry but all chairman have to exercise this option sometimes, they had shown they back the managers as much as possible, so you will have to believe that would be the reason and accept it.

 

 

Is Mort a better chairman than Shepherd because he's spent more cash this year then Shepherd spent last year?

 

has he ? Remind us how much we got for Dyer and Parker again ? Interesting you are now considering this criteria, having in the past insinuated it was completely irrelevant.  mackems.gif

 

Anyway, I thought you said it is our money and not theirs  mackems.gif

[OzzieMandias]

Sir Bobby asked about getting Carrick but Shepherd wasn't keen on spending £3 million on a player with 12 months left on his contract, his plan was to sign one of the other 3 and get Carrick in January when his fee would be around £500,000 as he was told Carrick wanted to come here.

 

A fine example of one of Shepherd's really brilliant decisions.

[NE5]

So if Shepherd had no responsibility for managerial appointments, it's clear he also doesn't have any responsibility for the limited successes achieved while he was hanging around making a fortune.

 

Good job he's gone, then, as I'm sure NE5 will agree.

 

Aren't you going to tell us your 100% method of selecting managers that win trophies  mackems.gif

 

Please clarify. Are you arguing that

 

a) Shepherd was a really great chairman because a 25 percent success rate in his most important decisions is, in your opinion, really good? Or,

 

b) Shepherd was a really great chairman because you doubt my ability to be very good at the job?

 

No, I'm asking you what your criteria for appointing managers who are nailed on to win trophies ?

 

As you clearly state that a manager who has won 4 league titles with 2 different clubs, and an up and coming manager who had just won the FA Cup with an up and coming team doesn't figure with you ?

 

 

[NE5]

Sir Bobby asked about getting Carrick but Shepherd wasn't keen on spending £3 million on a player with 12 months left on his contract, his plan was to sign one of the other 3 and get Carrick in January when his fee would be around £500,000 as he was told Carrick wanted to come here.

 

A fine example of one of Shepherd's really brilliant decisions.

 

he must have been keeping the money for your idol, Graeme

 

 

[Baggio]

Sir Bobby asked about getting Carrick but Shepherd wasn't keen on spending £3 million on a player with 12 months left on his contract, his plan was to sign one of the other 3 and get Carrick in January when his fee would be around £500,000 as he was told Carrick wanted to come here.

 

A fine example of one of Shepherd's really brilliant decisions.

 

he must have been keeping the money for your idol, Graeme

 

 

 

Ozzie wasn't one of those idiots that backed Souness right to the end was he?

[Mick]

 

 

has he ? Remind us how much we got for Dyer and Parker again ? Interesting you are now considering this criteria, having in the past insinuated it was completely irrelevant.   mackems.gif

 

Anyway, I thought you said it is our money and not theirs  mackems.gif

 

We've brought in something like £14.5 million through selling players, Mort has sold those two players for something like £14 million so it looks like Mort has made profits on 2 players who most fans couldn't wait to get rid of so it looks like two excellent pieces of business.

 

We've spent something in the region of £23 million on players which means our net spend is in the region of £8.5 million.  You have always used Freddy backing his managers as a sign of approval for him so does Mort spending more make him better?  It's a simple question using the method you've used for years to back Shepherd, you've used it in this thread, even on this page.  Roeder had a net spend of £7.64 million.

 

Edit, when have I ever said it was our money?