For Those who Said last season we needed defenders

[Cajun]

Big Sam was absolutely right to get in the defenders that he did, this is something that has needed addressing for years now, I'm pretty sure that the investments will prove their worth given time. The point about stats though is close to home. Somethimes when I look at a side put out by Allardyce I wonder if he's putting someone in there because the numbers add up nicely. Geremi, Butt and Smith in theory must look impossible to play against for a creative player, but As Dr Spectrum put it so well, three defensive midfielders ended up chasing Elano's shadow all afternoon. City were slick and sharp, passing quickly and running at pace. We were plodding in comparison.

 

 

.....I remember people on here only a few weeks ago saying we didn't really need a creative midfielder as we created a bucket load of chances against Wigan.. mackems.gif

 

 

YOu know who you are...

 

I don't remember anyone saying that, not telling stories again are we Jack?

 

 

Were you one of them?  mackems.gif

 

YOu're defensive reply is jogging my memory....

 

YOU particlularly went on and on and on about the chances against Wigan while I was advising caution..."21 chances not good enough and words to that affect. Keep calling me a liar and personalising every post where you quote me...just carry on..with THAT....

 

If you have summat personal against me I suggest we go to PM.

 

And btw I have no interest in Scientology either....but carry on..

 

So YOUR post wasn't directed at me then Jackanory?

 

If you can't take a bit of stick don't start trying to be smart then crying when it comes back to you!

 

The Wigan thing was people moaning we didn't create enough chances, fact is we created enough chances to have 20 shots and 10 of them were on target. It was poor finishing that meant we didn't win 3 or 4 nil. Its also a fact that I have said on numerous occasions we need N'Zogbia and Barton back AND the money spent on Smith would have been better spent on a more creative player. You choose to ignore these things though because it doesn't fit in with your snide remarks.

[Howaythelads]

 

Sorry HTL , one chuckle brother at a time.

 

I know you like to jump in when NE5 begins to make a tit of himself and start a tag team effort with him but not today.

 

You could try posting into the £45 million debt paid off thread that you and your mate have been avoiding if you want a reply from me.

 

Poor refuge, tbh. You know the point I made shows you to be a know-nowt.

 

Bye for now.

 

Why have you avoided the £45 million debt thread, HTL?

 

Wasn't aware I had. I don't look at every thread. Do you?

 

Depends on if I think it's of any interest or not.

 

A thread about our great new owner paying off £45 million of debt would be a worthy read.

 

I don't have the slightest interest in finances. I even leave my own personal finances to my wife, such is my apathy toward the subject of finances in general.

 

If they back the manager in the transfer market I'll be happy with what they're doing. If they don't, I won't be.  The rest is down to the manager and the players.

[Thespence]

It's my opinion that the reason those players left in the 80's was the same reason other players left before them, in the 60's and 70's.  When players leave the club for West Ham claiming they are leaving on grounds of ambition you have to sit up and take notice. When the club finishes 5th for the first time in decades and the manager is refused money to improve the team by signing 2 players from middlesboro, ultimately leading to Lee's departure, followed closely by the majority of the players and a relegation the following season, you have to look at the Board and wonder what the hell they were doing.

 

The mentality of the supporters from when I started going in 1968 right through to SJH arriving was one of hope that we might CHALLENGE FOR A TOP 6 SPOT, (sorry about the capitals, but I want to highlight that bit) or have a good cup run. We were a mid-table team for years. The "golden era" some go on about on here when Macdonald was the focal point of the team was actually 3 seasons in a row of finishing in 15th position.

 

Nobody I knew ever talked about us winning the League title. Standing on the terraces match after match I never once heard anyone talking about us being good enough to challenge for the league, such was the known attitude of the Board at the time.

 

Whenever the club looked like needing 2 or 3 players to break into that top 6, the Board would instead sell our best player or best couple of players. That's the way it was for years but it all changed with the arrival of SJH. Expectations quite rightly went up and have stayed that way. We aren't satisfied with challenging for 6th place now. That alone should tell you there is a difference now.

 

There is a massive difference between selling Cole on the grounds that Keegan wanted to restructure the team and the sale of those players you mention from the 80's. A massive difference. Same with Woodgate, who was and generally still is, a bit of a crock. Selling Ferdinand was a definite error, but that was highlighted by the injury to Shearer. To be honest, I have nothing against any club selling a player for good money if they believe a player is past his peak and the offer is a good one. I'd have sold Shearer the season after we finished 3rd, for example. It wouldn't have been because I have no ambition, I thought at the time and still do that it would have been a good thing for the club. These are difficult judgements to make though, sometimes the wrong decision will be taken but that's not a sign of a lack of ambition. Despite being an error, the decision to sell Ferdinand was nowhere close to being made with the same motivation as that which led to sale of players from the late 60's through to the early 90's, imo.

 

Lots of valid points & a good post

[2sheds]

It's my opinion that the reason those players left in the 80's was the same reason other players left before them, in the 60's and 70's.  When players leave the club for West Ham claiming they are leaving on grounds of ambition you have to sit up and take notice. When the club finishes 5th for the first time in decades and the manager is refused money to improve the team by signing 2 players from middlesboro, ultimately leading to Lee's departure, followed closely by the majority of the players and a relegation the following season, you have to look at the Board and wonder what the hell they were doing.

 

The mentality of the supporters from when I started going in 1968 right through to SJH arriving was one of hope that we might CHALLENGE FOR A TOP 6 SPOT, (sorry about the capitals, but I want to highlight that bit) or have a good cup run. We were a mid-table team for years. The "golden era" some go on about on here when Macdonald was the focal point of the team was actually 3 seasons in a row of finishing in 15th position.

 

Nobody I knew ever talked about us winning the League title. Standing on the terraces match after match I never once heard anyone talking about us being good enough to challenge for the league, such was the known attitude of the Board at the time.

 

Whenever the club looked like needing 2 or 3 players to break into that top 6, the Board would instead sell our best player or best couple of players. That's the way it was for years but it all changed with the arrival of SJH. Expectations quite rightly went up and have stayed that way. We aren't satisfied with challenging for 6th place now. That alone should tell you there is a difference now.

 

There is a massive difference between selling Cole on the grounds that Keegan wanted to restructure the team and the sale of those players you mention from the 80's. A massive difference. Same with Woodgate, who was and generally still is, a bit of a crock. Selling Ferdinand was a definite error, but that was highlighted by the injury to Shearer. To be honest, I have nothing against any club selling a player for good money if they believe a player is past his peak and the offer is a good one. I'd have sold Shearer the season after we finished 3rd, for example. It wouldn't have been because I have no ambition, I thought at the time and still do that it would have been a good thing for the club. These are difficult judgements to make though, sometimes the wrong decision will be taken but that's not a sign of a lack of ambition. Despite being an error, the decision to sell Ferdinand was nowhere close to being made with the same motivation as that which led to sale of players from the late 60's through to the early 90's, imo.

 

Lots of valid points & a good post

 

I hate to say this but I agree.

 

That last paragraph in particular has some very good points.

[Howaythelads]

It's my opinion that the reason those players left in the 80's was the same reason other players left before them, in the 60's and 70's.  When players leave the club for West Ham claiming they are leaving on grounds of ambition you have to sit up and take notice. When the club finishes 5th for the first time in decades and the manager is refused money to improve the team by signing 2 players from middlesboro, ultimately leading to Lee's departure, followed closely by the majority of the players and a relegation the following season, you have to look at the Board and wonder what the hell they were doing.

 

The mentality of the supporters from when I started going in 1968 right through to SJH arriving was one of hope that we might CHALLENGE FOR A TOP 6 SPOT, a(sorry about the capitals, but I want to highlight that bit) or have a good cup run. We were a mid-table team for years. The "golden era" some go on about on here when Macdonald was the focal point of the team was actually 3 seasons in a row of finishing in 15th position.

 

Nobody I knew ever talked about us winning the League title. Standing on the terraces match after match I never once heard anyone talking about us being good enough to challenge for the league, such was the known attitude of the Board at the time.

 

Whenever the club looked like needing 2 or 3 players to break into that top 6, the Board would instead sell our best player or best couple of players. That's the way it was for years but it all changed with the arrival of SJH. Expectations quite rightly went up and have stayed that way. We aren't satisfied with challenging for 6th place now. That alone should tell you there is a difference now.

 

There is a massive difference between selling Cole on the grounds that Keegan wanted to restructure the team and the sale of those players you mention from the 80's. A massive difference. Same with Woodgate, who was and generally still is, a bit of a crock. Selling Ferdinand was a definite error, but that was highlighted by the injury to Shearer. To be honest, I have nothing against any club selling a player for good money if they believe a player is past his peak and the offer is a good one. I'd have sold Shearer the season after we finished 3rd, for example. It wouldn't have been because I have no ambition, I thought at the time and still do that it would have been a good thing for the club. These are difficult judgements to make though, sometimes the wrong decision will be taken but that's not a sign of a lack of ambition. Despite being an error, the decision to sell Ferdinand was nowhere close to being made with the same motivation as that which led to sale of players from the late 60's through to the early 90's, imo.

 

Lots of valid points & a good post

 

I hate to say this but I agree.

 

That last paragraph in particular has some very good points.

 

Bit of a shame you hate it when you agree with me, tbh. It's a forum, people don't have to agree all the time. I'm not bothered who is making a post, I either agree or I don't.

 

I agree with your second sentence quoted above by the way....

[NE5]

NE5

Why take Bobby Robson out of Shepherds time, why not take Souness out and then it becomes a pretty good decade ?

Who sacked Bobby then gave Souness £50million to piss away?

 

Don't bother spouting any rubbish about him landing on the doorstep as he was a geordie, he'd been a Geordie for the previous 60-odd years of his life and didn't fall onto the doorstep then. The simple fact is, he came to Newcastle because it was the first time the club was decent enough for him.

 

Thats a lie.

 

Robson was approached when Keegan bottled it but he honoured his contract to Barcelona then.

 

He wasn't approached after Daglish departed because of this refusal.

 

The club finally decided to approach him again after Gullit left

 

 

you're infatuated with people telling "lies" aren't you.

 

In fact, the world didn't begin in 1997.

 

So you are telling lies if you say it did.

 

Thank you and goodbye

 

EDit: to make one comment re your statemtent that "Keegan bottled it".

 

That man showed more courage to take on the Newcastle Job when he did, than anyone else had ever done before at Newcastle in all my 40+ years supporting this club.

 

I'll let you work out the rest, and where Bobby Robson really comes in, for yourself

 

 

The BBC said:

Newcastle first tried to get Sir Bobby as manager after Keegan had resigned in 1997, but Sir Bobby honoured his contract with Barcelona and Newcastle settled for Dalglish instead.

 

Item 9 on this list http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/sport/2005/02/28/bobby_facts.shtml

 

Caught out again NE5, do you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?

 

Like I said, the world and football didn't begin in 1997. I'll let you work it out, or carry on making a fool of yourself if you like. Do you think I'm not aware of the information contained in that link.

 

In fact, another person was in the frame for the job at that time, but he too already had a club. A big club. Bigger than us, or he may have took the job. Like Robson and Dalglish, he wasn't interested in the club when we had s**** directors.

 

Your comment about Keegan is even more foolish, and shows even more your lack of perception and true knowledge of the club and its history

 

 

 

Does all this waffle mean you accept you were wrong when you said "The simple fact is, he came to Newcastle because it was the first time the club was decent enough for him." ?

 

no, it means you don't understand very much, and even more damning, you won't be told anything.

 

 

[NE5]

NE5

Why take Bobby Robson out of Shepherds time, why not take Souness out and then it becomes a pretty good decade ?

Who sacked Bobby then gave Souness £50million to piss away?

 

Don't bother spouting any rubbish about him landing on the doorstep as he was a geordie, he'd been a Geordie for the previous 60-odd years of his life and didn't fall onto the doorstep then. The simple fact is, he came to Newcastle because it was the first time the club was decent enough for him.

 

Thats a lie.

 

Robson was approached when Keegan bottled it but he honoured his contract to Barcelona then.

 

He wasn't approached after Daglish departed because of this refusal.

 

The club finally decided to approach him again after Gullit left

 

 

you're infatuated with people telling "lies" aren't you.

 

In fact, the world didn't begin in 1997.

 

So you are telling lies if you say it did.

 

Thank you and goodbye

 

EDit: to make one comment re your statemtent that "Keegan bottled it".

 

That man showed more courage to take on the Newcastle Job when he did, than anyone else had ever done before at Newcastle in all my 40+ years supporting this club.

 

I'll let you work out the rest, and where Bobby Robson really comes in, for yourself

 

 

The BBC said:

Newcastle first tried to get Sir Bobby as manager after Keegan had resigned in 1997, but Sir Bobby honoured his contract with Barcelona and Newcastle settled for Dalglish instead.

 

Item 9 on this list http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/sport/2005/02/28/bobby_facts.shtml

 

Caught out again NE5, do you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?

 

Like I said, the world and football didn't begin in 1997. I'll let you work it out, or carry on making a fool of yourself if you like. Do you think I'm not aware of the information contained in that link.

 

In fact, another person was in the frame for the job at that time, but he too already had a club. A big club. Bigger than us, or he may have took the job. Like Robson and Dalglish, he wasn't interested in the club when we had s**** directors.

 

Your comment about Keegan is even more foolish, and shows even more your lack of perception and true knowledge of the club and its history

 

 

 

Does all this waffle mean you accept you were wrong when you said "The simple fact is, he came to Newcastle because it was the first time the club was decent enough for him." ?

 

How long do you think Bobby Robson has been in football management?

 

Robson had ample opportunity to show some interest in managing Newcastle United while he was manager of a small club like Ipswich. He didn't show any interest because he knew Ipswich had more ambition and a better Board than Newcastle United right up until SJH ousted the set of tossers who had been selling our best players for years. Robson was too good for Newcastle at that time and he knew it, he showed interest later on when he knew better people were running the club.

 

 

what a shame some people have to be taught to suck eggs, and still can't grasp it

 

 

[2sheds]

no, it means you don't understand very much, and even more damning, you won't be told anything.

 

POT KETTLE BLACK

[Sima]

Allardyce has just said the priority is shoring up the leaky defence.

 

So NE5 isn't going to get what he wants.

[NE5]

Ousted the set of tossers who had been selling our best players for years.

 

Aye you wouldnt see us selling the likes of Cole, Sir Les & Woodgate under Hall or Shepherd.

 

I know Kev gave it big licks about wanting & Gilly but lets be honest we cashed in on player we bought for less than £2 million.

 

They also bought them mate. Clubs do sell players as well as buy them, and the sales of Cole and Les were decisions made by the manager. Woodgate was money influenced, but I think most of us realised that bearing in mind his injury record, it was a good deal for the club and a chance we could not deny him. Remember Owen also went to Real, and Liverpool don't sell their best players either ?

 

Speaking of Owen, I would snatch anyones hand off now who offered us a decent fee for him, and I don't advocate selling your best players, but there are exceptions in certain circumstances.

 

[Dave]

No doubt it'll be the new board holding him back.

[NE5]

NE5

Why take Bobby Robson out of Shepherds time, why not take Souness out and then it becomes a pretty good decade ?

Who sacked Bobby then gave Souness £50million to piss away?

 

Don't bother spouting any rubbish about him landing on the doorstep as he was a geordie, he'd been a Geordie for the previous 60-odd years of his life and didn't fall onto the doorstep then. The simple fact is, he came to Newcastle because it was the first time the club was decent enough for him.

 

Thats a lie.

 

Robson was approached when Keegan bottled it but he honoured his contract to Barcelona then.

 

He wasn't approached after Daglish departed because of this refusal.

 

The club finally decided to approach him again after Gullit left

 

 

you're infatuated with people telling "lies" aren't you.

 

In fact, the world didn't begin in 1997.

 

So you are telling lies if you say it did.

 

Thank you and goodbye

 

EDit: to make one comment re your statemtent that "Keegan bottled it".

 

That man showed more courage to take on the Newcastle Job when he did, than anyone else had ever done before at Newcastle in all my 40+ years supporting this club.

 

I'll let you work out the rest, and where Bobby Robson really comes in, for yourself

 

 

The BBC said:

Newcastle first tried to get Sir Bobby as manager after Keegan had resigned in 1997, but Sir Bobby honoured his contract with Barcelona and Newcastle settled for Dalglish instead.

 

Item 9 on this list http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/sport/2005/02/28/bobby_facts.shtml

 

Caught out again NE5, do you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?

 

Like I said, the world and football didn't begin in 1997. I'll let you work it out, or carry on making a fool of yourself if you like. Do you think I'm not aware of the information contained in that link.

 

In fact, another person was in the frame for the job at that time, but he too already had a club. A big club. Bigger than us, or he may have took the job. Like Robson and Dalglish, he wasn't interested in the club when we had s**** directors.

 

Your comment about Keegan is even more foolish, and shows even more your lack of perception and true knowledge of the club and its history

 

 

 

Does all this waffle mean you accept you were wrong when you said "The simple fact is, he came to Newcastle because it was the first time the club was decent enough for him." ?

 

How long do you think Bobby Robson has been in football management?

 

Robson had ample opportunity to show some interest in managing Newcastle United while he was manager of a small club like Ipswich. He didn't show any interest because he knew Ipswich had more ambition and a better Board than Newcastle United right up until SJH ousted the set of tossers who had been selling our best players for years. Robson was too good for Newcastle at that time and he knew it, he showed interest later on when he knew better people were running the club.

 

 

Sorry HTL , one chuckle brother at a time.

 

I know you like to jump in when NE5 begins to make a tit of himself and start a tag team effort with him but not today.

 

You could try posting into the £45 million debt paid off thread that you and your mate have been avoiding if you want a reply from me.

 

I'm not avoiding anything, I just have other things to do than read every thread.

 

Shame you still think football began in 1997 mind.

 

mackems.gif

[Mick]

 

 

They also bought them mate. Clubs do sell players as well as buy them, and the sales of Cole and Les were decisions made by the manager. Woodgate was money influenced, but I think most of us realised that bearing in mind his injury record, it was a good deal for the club and a chance we could not deny him. Remember Owen also went to Real, and Liverpool don't sell their best players either ?

 

Speaking of Owen, I would snatch anyones hand off now who offered us a decent fee for him, and I don't advocate selling your best players, but there are exceptions in certain circumstances.

 

 

Some of us said that £17 million for Owen was crazy, we were right.

[Dave]

You don't read every thread but seem very skilled at hunting out discussions about the board. That's why people are surprised you've given that one a miss so far.

[Mick]

 

I'm not avoiding anything, I just have other things to do than read every thread.

 

Shame you still think football began in 1997 mind.

 

mackems.gif

 

Throw in a link to where he said that, I missed it but would love to take the water out of him for saying it.

[NE5]

 

 

I seriously believe when clubs who are bigger than Newcastle come flashing the cash players leave, that to me is how football works & is not something that should be held against ANY board of ANY era at SJP.

 

Beardsley with his ability was always going to leave, same with Gazza & Waddle. Do you seriously believe that they wouldnt have? Maybe not to Spurs but they would of left.

 

It happens at most clubs, Keegan and Rush both left Liverpool when club and players were at the top of their game.

 

This is true.

 

I am not sure why HTL mentioned us selling our best players in a manner  that it is a slight on the board in 80's.

 

HTL - Just for the record I was very happy when Hall & Shepherd took over. Our standing in the game as a club has moved up. We now aim higher than at anytime in my lifetime. But during this era we have been wasteful with so much money. The fans were still being taken for granted. Our youth system is still a joke, missing out on players like Carrick & Josh Walker. I often read your posts & NE5 & fully understand your points view & maybe seeing the likes of Paul Sweeny & Billy Askew makes you more appreciative of what we have now.

 

thats very fair mate.

 

It's all I try to say, personally. I'm not denying the fact that they have made mistakes, of course they have, but the basic ingredient of ambition and proving it has been there, this is why we have signed top players instead of creating a situation where 3 locally born

World Class players with their whole careers ahead of them, desired to leave the club to further their careers.

 

A truly disgraceful state of affairs for a club such as Newcastle. But it is true.

 

 

[NE5]

no, it means you don't understand very much, and even more damning, you won't be told anything.

 

POT KETTLE BLACK

 

you have absolutely nothing that you can tell me

 

 

[NE5]

 

 

They also bought them mate. Clubs do sell players as well as buy them, and the sales of Cole and Les were decisions made by the manager. Woodgate was money influenced, but I think most of us realised that bearing in mind his injury record, it was a good deal for the club and a chance we could not deny him. Remember Owen also went to Real, and Liverpool don't sell their best players either ?

 

Speaking of Owen, I would snatch anyones hand off now who offered us a decent fee for him, and I don't advocate selling your best players, but there are exceptions in certain circumstances.

 

 

Some of us said that £17 million for Owen was crazy, we were right.

 

of course, but not half as bad as 17m quid on Boumsong and Luque, who a hell of a lot of people on here and elsewhere thought were great signings

 

Still, instead of Owen, we could have bought someone like Jon Stead, like the good old days. We could also have run the club like a business and not bought Martins, and got relegated, just like the good old days.

 

 

[NE5]

Allardyce has just said the priority is shoring up the leaky defence.

 

So NE5 isn't going to get what he wants.

 

and neither will you if he continues to ignore the forwards

 

 

 

[Thespence]

thats very fair mate.

 

It's all I try to say, personally. I'm not denying the fact that they have made mistakes, of course they have, but the basic ingredient of ambition and proving it has been there, this is why we have signed top players

 

No problem mate.

 

I often see your posts where you compare Hall & Shepherd against the board they succeeded, while Mick & Co are looking at the faults of the Hall & Shepherd regime. So both of yous will always be right (or nearly always ) because how yous are evaluating is different.

[Mick]

 

of course, but not half as bad as 17m quid on Boumsong and Luque, who a hell of a lot of people on here and elsewhere thought were great signings

 

Still, instead of Owen, we could have bought someone like Jon Stead, like the good old days. We could also have run the club like a business and not bought Martins, and got relegated, just like the good old days.

 

 

 

Jon Stead and Owen have something in common, the number 8.  It's the number of goals Stead scored for Blackburn and the number Owen has scored for us.

 

The cost per goal for Owen here has so far been £3,375,000 the cost per goal for stead was £1,740,000 while he was at his worst for Sunderland.  Both figures are estimates based on the reported wages and transfer fee of both players and the number of goals scored, 8 against 2.

[NE5]

 

of course, but not half as bad as 17m quid on Boumsong and Luque, who a hell of a lot of people on here and elsewhere thought were great signings

 

Still, instead of Owen, we could have bought someone like Jon Stead, like the good old days. We could also have run the club like a business and not bought Martins, and got relegated, just like the good old days.

 

 

 

Jon Stead and Owen have something in common, the number 8.  It's the number of goals Stead scored for Blackburn and the number Owen has scored for us.

 

The cost per goal for Owen here has so far been £3,375,000 the cost per goal for stead was £1,740,000 while he was at his worst for Sunderland.  Both figures are estimates based on the reported wages and transfer fee of both players and the number of goals scored, 8 against 2.

 

So you would rather we had bought Stead than Owen ?

 

 

[TRon]

 

 

It's my opinion that the reason those players left in the 80's was the same reason other players left before them, in the 60's and 70's.  When players leave the club for West Ham claiming they are leaving on grounds of ambition you have to sit up and take notice. When the club finishes 5th for the first time in decades and the manager is refused money to improve the team by signing 2 players from middlesboro, ultimately leading to Lee's departure, followed closely by the majority of the players and a relegation the following season, you have to look at the Board and wonder what the hell they were doing.

 

The mentality of the supporters from when I started going in 1968 right through to SJH arriving was one of hope that we might CHALLENGE FOR A TOP 6 SPOT, (sorry about the capitals, but I want to highlight that bit) or have a good cup run. We were a mid-table team for years. The "golden era" some go on about on here when Macdonald was the focal point of the team was actually 3 seasons in a row of finishing in 15th position.

 

Nobody I knew ever talked about us winning the League title. Standing on the terraces match after match I never once heard anyone talking about us being good enough to challenge for the league, such was the known attitude of the Board at the time.

 

Whenever the club looked like needing 2 or 3 players to break into that top 6, the Board would instead sell our best player or best couple of players. That's the way it was for years but it all changed with the arrival of SJH. Expectations quite rightly went up and have stayed that way. We aren't satisfied with challenging for 6th place now. That alone should tell you there is a difference now.

 

There is a massive difference between selling Cole on the grounds that Keegan wanted to restructure the team and the sale of those players you mention from the 80's. A massive difference. Same with Woodgate, who was and generally still is, a bit of a crock. Selling Ferdinand was a definite error, but that was highlighted by the injury to Shearer. To be honest, I have nothing against any club selling a player for good money if they believe a player is past his peak and the offer is a good one. I'd have sold Shearer the season after we finished 3rd but that wouldn't have been because I have no ambition, I thought at the time and still do that it would have been a good thing for the club. This is a stark contrast to the motivation behind selling those players in the previous few decades. These are difficult judgements to make though, sometimes the wrong decision will be taken but that's not a sign of a lack of ambition. Despite being an error, the decision to sell Ferdinand was nowhere close to being made with the same motivation as that which led to sale of players from the late 60's through to the early 90's, imo.

 

That's all pretty much spot on, except I'd go further and say the sale of Ferdinand and Woodgate were good business as well. I wouldn't say that about a lot of Shepherd's dealings but credit where it's due.

 

 

[Mick]

 

So you would rather we had bought Stead than Owen ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't rather have Stead you brought him into it, I just showed how Owen hasn't proven to have been any better for us than Stead was for Blackburn and how much they've cost per goal.

 

I said at the time we bought Owen that we could have spent the money better instead of putting £17 million into an injury prone player.  I also said at the time that we were crazy to bid £9 milion more than our nearest and only rivals to his signature, Liverpool who bid £8 million.

[madras]

 

So you would rather we had bought Stead than Owen ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't rather have Stead you brought him into it, I just showed how Owen hasn't proven to have been any better for us than Stead was for Blackburn and how much they've cost per goal.

 

I said at the time we bought Owen that we could have spent the money better instead of putting £17 million into an injury prone player.  I also said at the time that we were crazy to bid £9 milion more than our nearest and only rivals to his signature, Liverpool who bid £8 million.

what liverpool bid means little,the only price that matters is that at which madrid would be willing to sell. £17mill was probably high but not by the £9mill you say (if indeed it's true that liverpool bid £8mill or  bid at all). why we bid that much was to stop madrid accepting offers that came nowhere near this.

 

the argument about wether it could have been better spent is very much a one of hindsight.