"Shepherd was not a good chairman" - Sibierski

[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

 

 

 

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

 

he still supports the changes made by his idol, Graeme

 

 

[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?

 

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 ?

 

 

 

Attempting to argue, however feebly, that Shepherd's criteria for managerial appointments were good ones is putting the cart before the horse.

 

His 75 percent failure rate clearly indicates that his criteria were not good ones at all.

[NE5]

 

 

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?

 

You have always said the old board also spent money on players, you even attempted to make out a case and justify the sales of Beardsley, Gazza and Waddle to paint the Halls and Shepherd in as bad a light as possible.

 

In short, you have said that such things don't matter and are more concerned with being called nasty names, wanting them out for doing this. So its a bit late now to decide that the criteria I have used all along is now relevant, just because it suits you.

 

But I knew that I was right.  mackems.gif

[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 ?

 

 

 

Attempting to argue, however feebly, that Shepherd's criteria for managerial appointments were good ones is putting the cart before the horse.

 

His 75 percent failure rate clearly indicates that his criteria were not good ones at all.

 

So what criteria would you use ?

 

 

[Mick]

 

he still supports the changes made by his idol, Graeme

 

 

 

And Ozzie's idol was appointed and supported to the tune of almost £50 million by whose idol?

[Mick]

 

You have always said the old board also spent money on players, you even attempted to make out a case and justify the sales of Beardsley, Gazza and Waddle to paint the Halls and Shepherd in as bad a light as possible.

 

In short, you have said that such things don't matter and are more concerned with being called nasty names, wanting them out for doing this. So its a bit late now to decide that the criteria I have used all along is now relevant, just because it suits you.

 

But I knew that I was right.  mackems.gif

 

I'm not asking you to give an answer based on whatever criteria you may think I base my opinion on, I'm asking you to anwer based on the criteria you have repeatedly used.

 

A simple yes or no based on your own criteria will do.

 

Yes or no?

[Dave]

Shepherd's not here any more. When will we stop talking about him?

[Mick]

Shepherd's not here any more. When will we stop talking about him?

 

You'll have to blame Sibierski for this one.

[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?

 

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 ?

 

 

 

Attempting to argue, however feebly, that Shepherd's criteria for managerial appointments were good ones is putting the cart before the horse.

 

His 75 percent failure rate clearly indicates that his criteria were not good ones at all.

 

So what criteria would you use ?

 

 

 

Well, they'd obviously depend on the circumstance.

 

Have I, for example, as a hypothetical football chairman, just sacked the old manager a few games into the season after letting him spend all the transfer kitty?

 

How much debt am I allowed to get into while buying trophy players for him?

[Thespence]

Who was better Sir John or Fred?

[Dr Venkman]

 

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

 

NE5, to be honest, regardless of whether i agree or disagree with your points, i think its only fair that someone points out to you that following everything you say with one of those laughing emoticons only serves to make you appear extremely patronising and smarmy, it's no way to conduct a discussion if you want any respect

[Guest jimmy1982]

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 s**** directors and slide back to the levels of Sheff Wed etc. Do you disagree or not ?

 

 

 

 

 

Aye, I agree with that NE5. I always enjoy listening to people who've supported the club for a lot longer than me.  

 

Still don't agree that Sheperd wasn't a bad chairman though!  

 

 

 

[NE5]

 

You have always said the old board also spent money on players, you even attempted to make out a case and justify the sales of Beardsley, Gazza and Waddle to paint the Halls and Shepherd in as bad a light as possible.

 

In short, you have said that such things don't matter and are more concerned with being called nasty names, wanting them out for doing this. So its a bit late now to decide that the criteria I have used all along is now relevant, just because it suits you.

 

But I knew that I was right.  mackems.gif

 

I'm not asking you to give an answer based on whatever criteria you may think I base my opinion on, I'm asking you to anwer based on the criteria you have repeatedly used.

 

A simple yes or no based on your own criteria will do.

 

Yes or no?

 

oh well, as this criteria has never influenced your "opinion", and you think they are "all the same" [unless they call you nasty names] I dont' understand why you are so bothered.

 

There is not much difference in the amount of money, allowing for inflation, so I suppose it all depends on how well the manager has spent the money.

 

Who appointed the current manager by the way ?

 

And if we haven't at least matched the Champions League positions achieved under Shepherd in, say, 10 years down the line, who will you say has been the most successful ?

 

 

[Guest elbee909]

If this discussion is going on ten years time I'll probably have to buy some guns.

[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

 

NE5, to be honest, regardless of whether i agree or disagree with your points, i think its only fair that someone points out to you that following everything you say with one of those laughing emoticons only serves to make you appear extremely patronising and smarmy, it's no way to conduct a discussion if you want any respect

 

I take your point, but I only do it when posts don't make sense, and MICK usually isn't a person who applies consistent logic

 

 

[NE5]

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 s**** directors and slide back to the levels of Sheff Wed etc. Do you disagree or not ?

 

 

Aye, I agree with that NE5. I always enjoy listening to people who've supported the club for a lot longer than me.  

 

Still don't agree that Sheperd wasn't a bad chairman though!  

 

 

cheers jimmy, enjoyed the discussion mate.

 

 

[NE5]

Who was better Sir John or Fred?

 

Well, Sir John has more charisma, they both have different plus and minus points. Sir John was more popular because of that and because Keegan was manager and the team did better, but he and dogless sold the club down the river and didn't care about it anymore, and let Shepherd down, who was their ally when they took over control of the club back in 1992. Sir John spouted on about Geordie Nation bollocks, and is a true blue Tory who didn't give a toss about smaller clubs in true Thatcher style, and didn't get flak for it, but when Shepherd spouted on about Geordie bollocks and said he didn't give a toss about smaller clubs, he was castigated. No difference really.

 

The Halls also may well have sold the club to any old shitehawk who put up the money, but Shepherd wouldn't have done that.

 

I take the view that they have all been running the club between them mate, they only changed the chairman when SJH called it a day. It's merely a case of the major shareholder exercising control but leaving the day to day running of the club to the younger man. You can bet your arse that the Halls were instrumental in choosing managers and agreeing with if not making all the big decisions.

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

If this discussion is going on ten years time I'll probably have to buy some guns.

 

If the country keeps going the way it is, you'll be buying a gun in a corner shop, unless they are all banned, in 10 years time mate.

 

 

[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?

 

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

 

NE5, to be honest, regardless of whether i agree or disagree with your points, i think its only fair that someone points out to you that following everything you say with one of those laughing emoticons only serves to make you appear extremely patronising and smarmy, it's no way to conduct a discussion if you want any respect

 

I take your point, but I only do it when posts don't make sense, and MICK usually isn't a person who applies consistent logic

 

 

 

The question in bold has nothing to do with my logic, it's about yours and you clearly don't want to answer it so I'll leave it as the silence is answer enough.

[2sheds]

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?

 

mackems.gif mackems.gif

 

Just stick to laughing at your own lines as is your habit - unless you wish to expand this well thought out answer.

[2sheds]

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?

 

It 4 games into the season it's a little early to tell whether he's a success or a failure.

 

And that doesn't mean I've written Allardyce off

[Thespence]

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?

 

It 4 games into the season it's a little early to tell whether he's a success or a failure.

 

And that doesn't mean I've written Allardyce off

 

Why NE5 is laughing & Unbelievable is saying that is because Fred gave Sam 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

 

NE5, to be honest, regardless of whether i agree or disagree with your points, i think its only fair that someone points out to you that following everything you say with one of those laughing emoticons only serves to make you appear extremely patronising and smarmy, it's no way to conduct a discussion if you want any respect

 

I take your point, but I only do it when posts don't make sense, and MICK usually isn't a person who applies consistent logic

 

 

 

The question in bold has nothing to do with my logic, it's about yours and you clearly don't want to answer it so I'll leave it as the silence is answer enough.

 

Simple fact is, and simple is the operative word here, is its simply too early to say. See what they do next year, and the year after, and the year after. Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two, or set a new one or two for ourselves.

 

Pretty basic, really.

 

As I said. Simple. Shouldn't really need explaining.

 

If Allardyces doesn't succeed, who will you blame by the way, I don't recall you answering that when I asked you on numerous occasions ?

 

 

 

 

[jimmymag]

 

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

 

NE5, to be honest, regardless of whether i agree or disagree with your points, i think its only fair that someone points out to you that following everything you say with one of those laughing emoticons only serves to make you appear extremely patronising and smarmy, it's no way to conduct a discussion if you want any respect

 

I take your point, but I only do it when posts don't make sense, and MICK usually isn't a person who applies consistent logic

 

 

 

The question in bold has nothing to do with my logic, it's about yours and you clearly don't want to answer it so I'll leave it as the silence is answer enough.

 

Simple fact is, and simple is the operative word here, is its simply too early to say. See what they do next year, and the year after, and the year after. Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two, or set a new one or two for ourselves.

 

Pretty basic, really.

 

As I said. Simple. Shouldn't really need explaining.

 

If Allardyces doesn't succeed, who will you blame by the way, I don't recall you answering that when I asked you on numerous occasions ?

 

 

 

 

 

The big money trophy signings were one of FFS's biggest failings so there's no need for the current management to "break a transfer record or two" .

[Dave]

What exactly does breaking transfer records have to do with anything?