Mort: I’m in charge

[ChezGiven]

Welcome back NE5.

 

Putting aside views about the previous board is essential in assessing the current board. We cant let sentiment get in the way of judgements, especially if you were among those desperate to get rid of Shepherd et al.

 

What matters is what has always mattered. That the board backs the manager when the manager needs backing. I for one think the current squad is cying out for investment. These investments take time and a club in our position needs to be aware of its current position in the market. January is not the time to do all of this. However, if for example, Arshavin goes to another club in the prem and ends up a success, i would suggest that there had been a problem.

 

It seems the ANC angle changes the nature of this thread though.

[Parky]

Welcome back NE5.

 

Putting aside views about the previous board is essential in assessing the current board. We cant let sentiment get in the way of judgements, especially if you were among those desperate to get rid of Shepherd et al.

 

What matters is what has always mattered. That the board backs the manager when the manager needs backing. I for one think the current squad is cying out for investment. These investments take time and a club in our position needs to be aware of its current position in the market. January is not the time to do all of this. However, if for example, Arshavin goes to another club in the prem and ends up a success, i would suggest that there had been a problem.

 

It seems the ANC angle changes the nature of this thread though.

 

 

blueyes.gif

 

 

[NE5]

Welcome back NE5.

 

Putting aside views about the previous board is essential in assessing the current board. We cant let sentiment get in the way of judgements, especially if you were among those desperate to get rid of Shepherd et al.

 

What matters is what has always mattered. That the board backs the manager when the manager needs backing. I for one think the current squad is cying out for investment. These investments take time and a club in our position needs to be aware of its current position in the market. January is not the time to do all of this. However, if for example, Arshavin goes to another club in the prem and ends up a success, i would suggest that there had been a problem.

 

It seems the ANC angle changes the nature of this thread though.

 

yes, that is exactly the sort of example I also mean.

 

I'm also worried that he has spent big money on Enrique, and isn't playing him. More spunked money perhaps ?

 

Thanks for the welcome too mate.

 

 

[fredbob]

Bobby Robson also set out to look for promising young players, who would maybe become top players.

 

Needless to say, it didn't work, and there is absolutely no grounds to think it would work again

 

Welcome back BUT we did get in the CL with them some of them kids, two of them won young player of year & one of them was Bellers.

 

You can't turn your back on younger players any more than you can turn your back on the big name player who will raise expectation

 

 

 

are you saying that raising expectation is good? if so why? not spoiling for a fight, just seems like a strange thing to say

 

of course raising expectation is good. Why shouldn't it be ? Thats the whole idea. Would you rather support a club who would be happy to just stay up, for instance ? If so, you should have supported NUFC through the 1960's, 70's and 80's. For instance.

 

NUFC and expectations have raised and changed completely since 1992, and not a single NUFC supporter would say otherwise [or maybe there is, there's always one, or two, or three.............]

 

 

 

i think you're confusing expectation with ambition - 2 completely different things, no doubt both have risen since 92, but the unreasonably high expectations around this club has had a crippling effect, its that very expectation which led us to sack a lengendery manager in the game for finishing 5th. Which in hindsight was absurd.

 

High ambition is a good thing, high expectation is a bad thing.

 

 

 

 

[fredbob]

Bobby Robson also set out to look for promising young players, who would maybe become top players.

 

Needless to say, it didn't work, and there is absolutely no grounds to think it would work again

 

Welcome back BUT we did get in the CL with them some of them kids, two of them won young player of year & one of them was Bellers.

 

You can't turn your back on younger players any more than you can turn your back on the big name player who will raise expectation

 

 

 

are you saying that raising expectation is good? if so why? not spoiling for a fight, just seems like a strange thing to say

 

of course raising expectation is good. Why shouldn't it be ? Thats the whole idea. Would you rather support a club who would be happy to just stay up, for instance ? If so, you should have supported NUFC through the 1960's, 70's and 80's. For instance.

 

NUFC and expectations have raised and changed completely since 1992, and not a single NUFC supporter would say otherwise [or maybe there is, there's always one, or two, or three.............]

 

 

 

i think that the raising of expectations should go hand in hand with progress though, and by that i mean higher league finishes, you seem to be getting the cart before the horse there, i think trying to raise expectation in any other way is a very dangerous game to play, dont you? surely expectation and whats ACTUALLY happening should be directly related, that way you acheive a greater harmony around the club. i'm not saying dont be ambitious, just dont be daft.

 

Expectations are totally different to when the old board took over the club in 1992 mate. Thats a fact. It's proven by the fact that 52000 people go to home games, whereas before that it was less than half. And people actually demand to qualify for europe, whereas people used to just be happy to be in the top league [and I'm not just talking about the fans here]

 

 

 

why cant i have a discussion with you without feeling like your just out on a crusade to vindicate the old board ? you're ignoring what i'm saying and responding to points i haven't made, i didnt say expectations haven't risen, i'm not saying people didnt used to be happy just being in the top league, i'm saying expectations should correlate with how the TEAM and CLUB is progressing. not with how much money we spend, although at some point these things are going to be related, obviously, i think its a much more delicate balance than just throwing money at it

 

its nothing of the kind mate. I realise you have a point - unlike some - and I'm trying to discuss it with you. I'm not vindicating anybody, the very fact you think that suggests you don't fully understand how expectations were raised under the old board. I shouldn't need to point this out at all, it is obvious. People aren't happy that we are only halfway in the top league just now, and last season, but that is because they expect higher placings because they are used to it.

 

While spending money is no guarantee of absolute success - the reason for that is because there are only 2 major trophies - but ask yourself if the teams that have won the trophies spent more. The answer is yes. Draw your own conclusions.

 

One thing is for sure, if we aren't prepared to bring in players to this club that the current top 4 want themselves, we will NEVER join them.

 

Thats not vindicating anybody. Its a stone cold fact.

 

 

 

Would you like to ask yourself how many managers in total have these clubs had in the past 10 years? 

 

Also, i wouldnt bet against us being the fifth highest spenders in the league. when will people learn that spending money isnt the answer, you have to build foundations first. All the clubs you're talking aobut have solid foundations, and that solidarity starts with a consistent, good manager.  Draw your own conclusion.

 

 

 

 

[Dr Venkman]

Bobby Robson also set out to look for promising young players, who would maybe become top players.

 

Needless to say, it didn't work, and there is absolutely no grounds to think it would work again

 

Welcome back BUT we did get in the CL with them some of them kids, two of them won young player of year & one of them was Bellers.

 

You can't turn your back on younger players any more than you can turn your back on the big name player who will raise expectation

 

 

 

are you saying that raising expectation is good? if so why? not spoiling for a fight, just seems like a strange thing to say

 

of course raising expectation is good. Why shouldn't it be ? Thats the whole idea. Would you rather support a club who would be happy to just stay up, for instance ? If so, you should have supported NUFC through the 1960's, 70's and 80's. For instance.

 

NUFC and expectations have raised and changed completely since 1992, and not a single NUFC supporter would say otherwise [or maybe there is, there's always one, or two, or three.............]

 

 

 

i think that the raising of expectations should go hand in hand with progress though, and by that i mean higher league finishes, you seem to be getting the cart before the horse there, i think trying to raise expectation in any other way is a very dangerous game to play, dont you? surely expectation and whats ACTUALLY happening should be directly related, that way you acheive a greater harmony around the club. i'm not saying dont be ambitious, just dont be daft.

 

Expectations are totally different to when the old board took over the club in 1992 mate. Thats a fact. It's proven by the fact that 52000 people go to home games, whereas before that it was less than half. And people actually demand to qualify for europe, whereas people used to just be happy to be in the top league [and I'm not just talking about the fans here]

 

 

 

why cant i have a discussion with you without feeling like your just out on a crusade to vindicate the old board ? you're ignoring what i'm saying and responding to points i haven't made, i didnt say expectations haven't risen, i'm not saying people didnt used to be happy just being in the top league, i'm saying expectations should correlate with how the TEAM and CLUB is progressing. not with how much money we spend, although at some point these things are going to be related, obviously, i think its a much more delicate balance than just throwing money at it

 

its nothing of the kind mate. I realise you have a point - unlike some - and I'm trying to discuss it with you. I'm not vindicating anybody, the very fact you think that suggests you don't fully understand how expectations were raised under the old board. I shouldn't need to point this out at all, it is obvious. People aren't happy that we are only halfway in the top league just now, and last season, but that is because they expect higher placings because they are used to it.

 

While spending money is no guarantee of absolute success - the reason for that is because there are only 2 major trophies - but ask yourself if the teams that have won the trophies spent more. The answer is yes. Draw your own conclusions.

 

One thing is for sure, if we aren't prepared to bring in players to this club that the current top 4 want themselves, we will NEVER join them.

 

Thats not vindicating anybody. Its a stone cold fact.

 

 

 

Would you like to ask yourself how many managers in total have these clubs had in the past 10 years? 

 

Also, i wouldnt bet against us being the fifth highest spenders in the league. when will people learn that spending money isnt the answer, you have to build foundations first. All the clubs you're talking aobut have solid foundations, and that solidarity starts with a consistent, good manager.  Draw your own conclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

yep, thats what i'm trying to say, also agree with the post above too

[NE5]

Bobby Robson also set out to look for promising young players, who would maybe become top players.

 

Needless to say, it didn't work, and there is absolutely no grounds to think it would work again

 

Welcome back BUT we did get in the CL with them some of them kids, two of them won young player of year & one of them was Bellers.

 

You can't turn your back on younger players any more than you can turn your back on the big name player who will raise expectation

 

 

 

are you saying that raising expectation is good? if so why? not spoiling for a fight, just seems like a strange thing to say

 

of course raising expectation is good. Why shouldn't it be ? Thats the whole idea. Would you rather support a club who would be happy to just stay up, for instance ? If so, you should have supported NUFC through the 1960's, 70's and 80's. For instance.

 

NUFC and expectations have raised and changed completely since 1992, and not a single NUFC supporter would say otherwise [or maybe there is, there's always one, or two, or three.............]

 

 

 

i think that the raising of expectations should go hand in hand with progress though, and by that i mean higher league finishes, you seem to be getting the cart before the horse there, i think trying to raise expectation in any other way is a very dangerous game to play, dont you? surely expectation and whats ACTUALLY happening should be directly related, that way you acheive a greater harmony around the club. i'm not saying dont be ambitious, just dont be daft.

 

Expectations are totally different to when the old board took over the club in 1992 mate. Thats a fact. It's proven by the fact that 52000 people go to home games, whereas before that it was less than half. And people actually demand to qualify for europe, whereas people used to just be happy to be in the top league [and I'm not just talking about the fans here]

 

 

 

why cant i have a discussion with you without feeling like your just out on a crusade to vindicate the old board ? you're ignoring what i'm saying and responding to points i haven't made, i didnt say expectations haven't risen, i'm not saying people didnt used to be happy just being in the top league, i'm saying expectations should correlate with how the TEAM and CLUB is progressing. not with how much money we spend, although at some point these things are going to be related, obviously, i think its a much more delicate balance than just throwing money at it

 

its nothing of the kind mate. I realise you have a point - unlike some - and I'm trying to discuss it with you. I'm not vindicating anybody, the very fact you think that suggests you don't fully understand how expectations were raised under the old board. I shouldn't need to point this out at all, it is obvious. People aren't happy that we are only halfway in the top league just now, and last season, but that is because they expect higher placings because they are used to it.

 

While spending money is no guarantee of absolute success - the reason for that is because there are only 2 major trophies - but ask yourself if the teams that have won the trophies spent more. The answer is yes. Draw your own conclusions.

 

One thing is for sure, if we aren't prepared to bring in players to this club that the current top 4 want themselves, we will NEVER join them.

 

Thats not vindicating anybody. Its a stone cold fact.

 

 

 

Would you like to ask yourself how many managers in total have these clubs had in the past 10 years? 

 

Also, i wouldnt bet against us being the fifth highest spenders in the league. when will people learn that spending money isnt the answer, you have to build foundations first. All the clubs you're talking aobut have solid foundations, and that solidarity starts with a consistent, good manager.  Draw your own conclusion.

 

 

YOu could say that if Keegan had won the league he may still be here, or would have lasted a lot longer. ?

 

YOu could also say that if bobby Robson had been 10 years younger he would still be here, and that would make us on a level footing than these other clubs ?

 

You could equally say that both of these managers would likely to have won a cup by now if they had stayed, and dare i say it, under the ex board, the worst ever in football responsible for us being the biggest mongs who ever competed for anything.

 

Joking, yes, of course. But this is the impression a lot of people give of what they think of them.

 

Back on track ...... it doesn't change the fact that, yes, you are right, having a good youth policy, facilities, scouting system are important, but they always has been. It doesn't have to start with "good foundations", it can equally start with success at first team level. The success of Keegan is responsible for the growth of NUFC into the club we have now, I agree we all want to go further, but this is also true, is it not ?

 

Liverpools success all started with Shankly, building a good first team that got noticed. Likewise Leeds under Revie, Derby under Clough. Its the first team that counts, its the first team that gets you supporters, money, and exposure.

 

There is no right or wrong way to do this. Either method can work with the right people ie the right team manager.

 

Spending the 5th, 4th most - whatever - is the reason why we have qualified for europe more than most teams, I bet you if we hadn't spent that money we would not have done that. The proof being that, when we didn't, we didn't !!!!

 

Its strange that DV - and you ? -  are saying I am looking for ways to vindicate the old board mate, because to me it seems that many people are looking for ways to crucify them too. At the end of the day, they had ambition for the club, and you shouldn't really knock that, because they were doing quite well up until they appointed Souness.

 

You see, I think I am just putting things into perspective

 

 

[Mick]

 

YOu could say that if Keegan had won the league he may still be here, or would have lasted a lot longer. ?

 

YOu could also say that if bobby Robson had been 10 years younger he would still be here, and that would make us on a level footing than these other clubs ?

 

You could equally say that both of these managers would likely to have won a cup by now if they had stayed, and dare i say it, under the ex board, the worst ever in football responsible for us being the biggest mongs who ever competed for anything.

 

Joking, yes, of course. But this is the impression a lot of people give of what they think of them.

 

Back on track ...... it doesn't change the fact that, yes, you are right, having a good youth policy, facilities, scouting system are important, but they always has been. It doesn't have to start with "good foundations", it can equally start with success at first team level. The success of Keegan is responsible for the growth of NUFC into the club we have now, I agree we all want to go further, but this is also true, is it not ?

 

Liverpools success all started with Shankly, building a good first team that got noticed. Likewise Leeds under Revie, Derby under Clough. Its the first team that counts, its the first team that gets you supporters, money, and exposure.

 

There is no right or wrong way to do this. Either method can work with the right people ie the right team manager.

 

Spending the 5th, 4th most - whatever - is the reason why we have qualified for europe more than most teams, I bet you if we hadn't spent that money we would not have done that. The proof being that, when we didn't, we didn't !!!!

 

Its strange that DV - and you ? -  are saying I am looking for ways to vindicate the old board mate, because to me it seems that many people are looking for ways to crucify them too. At the end of the day, they had ambition for the club, and you shouldn't really knock that, because they were doing quite well up until they appointed Souness.

 

You see, I think I am just putting things into perspective

 

 

 

Where would we have to finish at the end of this season for you to look back on it and be able to think that we've done quite well?

[fredbob]

Bobby Robson also set out to look for promising young players, who would maybe become top players.

 

Needless to say, it didn't work, and there is absolutely no grounds to think it would work again

 

Welcome back BUT we did get in the CL with them some of them kids, two of them won young player of year & one of them was Bellers.

 

You can't turn your back on younger players any more than you can turn your back on the big name player who will raise expectation

 

 

 

are you saying that raising expectation is good? if so why? not spoiling for a fight, just seems like a strange thing to say

 

of course raising expectation is good. Why shouldn't it be ? Thats the whole idea. Would you rather support a club who would be happy to just stay up, for instance ? If so, you should have supported NUFC through the 1960's, 70's and 80's. For instance.

 

NUFC and expectations have raised and changed completely since 1992, and not a single NUFC supporter would say otherwise [or maybe there is, there's always one, or two, or three.............]

 

 

 

i think that the raising of expectations should go hand in hand with progress though, and by that i mean higher league finishes, you seem to be getting the cart before the horse there, i think trying to raise expectation in any other way is a very dangerous game to play, dont you? surely expectation and whats ACTUALLY happening should be directly related, that way you acheive a greater harmony around the club. i'm not saying dont be ambitious, just dont be daft.

 

Expectations are totally different to when the old board took over the club in 1992 mate. Thats a fact. It's proven by the fact that 52000 people go to home games, whereas before that it was less than half. And people actually demand to qualify for europe, whereas people used to just be happy to be in the top league [and I'm not just talking about the fans here]

 

 

 

why cant i have a discussion with you without feeling like your just out on a crusade to vindicate the old board ? you're ignoring what i'm saying and responding to points i haven't made, i didnt say expectations haven't risen, i'm not saying people didnt used to be happy just being in the top league, i'm saying expectations should correlate with how the TEAM and CLUB is progressing. not with how much money we spend, although at some point these things are going to be related, obviously, i think its a much more delicate balance than just throwing money at it

 

its nothing of the kind mate. I realise you have a point - unlike some - and I'm trying to discuss it with you. I'm not vindicating anybody, the very fact you think that suggests you don't fully understand how expectations were raised under the old board. I shouldn't need to point this out at all, it is obvious. People aren't happy that we are only halfway in the top league just now, and last season, but that is because they expect higher placings because they are used to it.

 

While spending money is no guarantee of absolute success - the reason for that is because there are only 2 major trophies - but ask yourself if the teams that have won the trophies spent more. The answer is yes. Draw your own conclusions.

 

One thing is for sure, if we aren't prepared to bring in players to this club that the current top 4 want themselves, we will NEVER join them.

 

Thats not vindicating anybody. Its a stone cold fact.

 

 

 

Would you like to ask yourself how many managers in total have these clubs had in the past 10 years? 

 

Also, i wouldnt bet against us being the fifth highest spenders in the league. when will people learn that spending money isnt the answer, you have to build foundations first. All the clubs you're talking aobut have solid foundations, and that solidarity starts with a consistent, good manager.  Draw your own conclusion.

 

 

YOu could say that if Keegan had won the league he may still be here, or would have lasted a lot longer. ?

 

YOu could also say that if bobby Robson had been 10 years younger he would still be here, and that would make us on a level footing than these other clubs ?

 

You could equally say that both of these managers would likely to have won a cup by now if they had stayed, and dare i say it, under the ex board, the worst ever in football responsible for us being the biggest mongs who ever competed for anything.

 

Joking, yes, of course. But this is the impression a lot of people give of what they think of them.

 

Back on track ...... it doesn't change the fact that, yes, you are right, having a good youth policy, facilities, scouting system are important, but they always has been. It doesn't have to start with "good foundations", it can equally start with success at first team level. The success of Keegan is responsible for the growth of NUFC into the club we have now, I agree we all want to go further, but this is also true, is it not ?

 

Liverpools success all started with Shankly, building a good first team that got noticed. Likewise Leeds under Revie, Derby under Clough. Its the first team that counts, its the first team that gets you supporters, money, and exposure.

 

There is no right or wrong way to do this. Either method can work with the right people ie the right team manager.

 

Spending the 5th, 4th most - whatever - is the reason why we have qualified for europe more than most teams, I bet you if we hadn't spent that money we would not have done that. The proof being that, when we didn't, we didn't !!!!

 

Its strange that DV - and you  ? -  are saying I am looking for ways to vindicate the old board mate, because to me it seems that many people are looking for ways to crucify them too. At the end of the day, they had ambition for the club, and you shouldn't really knock that, because they were doing quite well up until they appointed Souness.

 

You see, I think I am just putting things into perspective

 

 

 

Well, this is it, altough i dont particulary want to go down the whole new board old board debate, not in this thread anyway i find that you make a lot of references to darker times, as though we should be judging ourselves agaisnt how it used to be. Which in my opinion is silly.  

 

If a business is struggling, then someone comes in and completely turns it around, does that make the person who turned it around completeyl immune from criticisms- i mean if he was to make a mistake which set the business back (kept changing the boss of the company) Is he not still accountable irrespctive of the condition of the business before he took over. Because if you think about it, that is exactly what happened at newcastle. If that personsets the business back he will not be able to say "well you should of seen the state of it before i took over", that's not how things work.

 

In '92 we were in a position to estabilish ourselves as a dominant force in the premiership. We were on a level playing field with a lot of clubs, minus the history. True?

Well what went wrong? Why are we in the position we are in today? There was mistakes made somewhere. We spent alot of money in those days, i'd say more than any other club bar Man U. Something went wrong when Keegan left, our expectations were sky high, and because of this, the proceeding managers all failed against those high expecatations. Now ever since those keegan days, there has only been one period of stability, and even then it was undermined alot.

 

As you've helpfully stated in your retort, all those clubs were built by a single manager, thats where the stability has come from. In the past 10 years, we've had 6-7 managers? In the exact same period, off the top of my head, Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal have had 4-5. Chelsea weren't in the same category as those 3 because they werent estabilished as a "big top 4 team" until the russian dollar came in.

 

The fact is that 'lynchpin' to your argument is that the board isnt showing any ambition if it doesnt spend the money, when in actual fact it hasnt really wroked so far for us, the fact is that without the stability that the other clubs have had in having a consistent manager we wont ever catch up. Have a look at Everton, moyes has really slipped under the radar with what he's achieved with (up until recent times) low budget and longevity, look at Allardyce at Bolton. Look at what they achieved, now take a look at Souness, take a look at O'Leary at Leeds, Tigana at fulham, numerous coaches at Real Madrid. The common fact between them all is that they've all had relative amounts of money thrown at them and all have failed. This is why you need to start from the bottom.

 

 

 

[NE5]

Bobby Robson also set out to look for promising young players, who would maybe become top players.

 

Needless to say, it didn't work, and there is absolutely no grounds to think it would work again

 

Welcome back BUT we did get in the CL with them some of them kids, two of them won young player of year & one of them was Bellers.

 

You can't turn your back on younger players any more than you can turn your back on the big name player who will raise expectation

 

 

 

are you saying that raising expectation is good? if so why? not spoiling for a fight, just seems like a strange thing to say

 

of course raising expectation is good. Why shouldn't it be ? Thats the whole idea. Would you rather support a club who would be happy to just stay up, for instance ? If so, you should have supported NUFC through the 1960's, 70's and 80's. For instance.

 

NUFC and expectations have raised and changed completely since 1992, and not a single NUFC supporter would say otherwise [or maybe there is, there's always one, or two, or three.............]

 

 

 

i think that the raising of expectations should go hand in hand with progress though, and by that i mean higher league finishes, you seem to be getting the cart before the horse there, i think trying to raise expectation in any other way is a very dangerous game to play, dont you? surely expectation and whats ACTUALLY happening should be directly related, that way you acheive a greater harmony around the club. i'm not saying dont be ambitious, just dont be daft.

 

Expectations are totally different to when the old board took over the club in 1992 mate. Thats a fact. It's proven by the fact that 52000 people go to home games, whereas before that it was less than half. And people actually demand to qualify for europe, whereas people used to just be happy to be in the top league [and I'm not just talking about the fans here]

 

 

 

why cant i have a discussion with you without feeling like your just out on a crusade to vindicate the old board ? you're ignoring what i'm saying and responding to points i haven't made, i didnt say expectations haven't risen, i'm not saying people didnt used to be happy just being in the top league, i'm saying expectations should correlate with how the TEAM and CLUB is progressing. not with how much money we spend, although at some point these things are going to be related, obviously, i think its a much more delicate balance than just throwing money at it

 

its nothing of the kind mate. I realise you have a point - unlike some - and I'm trying to discuss it with you. I'm not vindicating anybody, the very fact you think that suggests you don't fully understand how expectations were raised under the old board. I shouldn't need to point this out at all, it is obvious. People aren't happy that we are only halfway in the top league just now, and last season, but that is because they expect higher placings because they are used to it.

 

While spending money is no guarantee of absolute success - the reason for that is because there are only 2 major trophies - but ask yourself if the teams that have won the trophies spent more. The answer is yes. Draw your own conclusions.

 

One thing is for sure, if we aren't prepared to bring in players to this club that the current top 4 want themselves, we will NEVER join them.

 

Thats not vindicating anybody. Its a stone cold fact.

 

 

 

Would you like to ask yourself how many managers in total have these clubs had in the past 10 years? 

 

Also, i wouldnt bet against us being the fifth highest spenders in the league. when will people learn that spending money isnt the answer, you have to build foundations first. All the clubs you're talking aobut have solid foundations, and that solidarity starts with a consistent, good manager.  Draw your own conclusion.

 

 

YOu could say that if Keegan had won the league he may still be here, or would have lasted a lot longer. ?

 

YOu could also say that if bobby Robson had been 10 years younger he would still be here, and that would make us on a level footing than these other clubs ?

 

You could equally say that both of these managers would likely to have won a cup by now if they had stayed, and dare i say it, under the ex board, the worst ever in football responsible for us being the biggest mongs who ever competed for anything.

 

Joking, yes, of course. But this is the impression a lot of people give of what they think of them.

 

Back on track ...... it doesn't change the fact that, yes, you are right, having a good youth policy, facilities, scouting system are important, but they always has been. It doesn't have to start with "good foundations", it can equally start with success at first team level. The success of Keegan is responsible for the growth of NUFC into the club we have now, I agree we all want to go further, but this is also true, is it not ?

 

Liverpools success all started with Shankly, building a good first team that got noticed. Likewise Leeds under Revie, Derby under Clough. Its the first team that counts, its the first team that gets you supporters, money, and exposure.

 

There is no right or wrong way to do this. Either method can work with the right people ie the right team manager.

 

Spending the 5th, 4th most - whatever - is the reason why we have qualified for europe more than most teams, I bet you if we hadn't spent that money we would not have done that. The proof being that, when we didn't, we didn't !!!!

 

Its strange that DV - and you  ? -  are saying I am looking for ways to vindicate the old board mate, because to me it seems that many people are looking for ways to crucify them too. At the end of the day, they had ambition for the club, and you shouldn't really knock that, because they were doing quite well up until they appointed Souness.

 

You see, I think I am just putting things into perspective

 

 

 

Well, this is it, altough i dont particulary want to go down the whole new board old board debate, not in this thread anyway i find that you make a lot of references to darker times, as though we should be judging ourselves agaisnt how it used to be. Which in my opinion is silly.  

 

If a business is struggling, then someone comes in and completely turns it around, does that make the person who turned it around completeyl immune from criticisms- i mean if he was to make a mistake which set the business back (kept changing the boss of the company) Is he not still accountable irrespctive of the condition of the business before he took over. Because if you think about it, that is exactly what happened at newcastle. If that personsets the business back he will not be able to say "well you should of seen the state of it before i took over", that's not how things work.

 

In '92 we were in a position to estabilish ourselves as a dominant force in the premiership. We were on a level playing field with a lot of clubs, minus the history. True?

Well what went wrong? Why are we in the position we are in today? There was mistakes made somewhere. We spent alot of money in those days, i'd say more than any other club bar Man U. Something went wrong when Keegan left, our expectations were sky high, and because of this, the proceeding managers all failed against those high expecatations. Now ever since those keegan days, there has only been one period of stability, and even then it was undermined alot.

 

As you've helpfully stated in your retort, all those clubs were built by a single manager, thats where the stability has come from. In the past 10 years, we've had 6-7 managers? In the exact same period, off the top of my head, Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal have had 4-5. Chelsea weren't in the same category as those 3 because they werent estabilished as a "big top 4 team" until the russian dollar came in.

 

The fact is that 'lynchpin' to your argument is that the board isnt showing any ambition if it doesnt spend the money, when in actual fact it hasnt really wroked so far for us, the fact is that without the stability that the other clubs have had in having a consistent manager we wont ever catch up. Have a look at Everton, moyes has really slipped under the radar with what he's achieved with (up until recent times) low budget and longevity, look at Allardyce at Bolton. Look at what they achieved, now take a look at Souness, take a look at O'Leary at Leeds, Tigana at fulham, numerous coaches at Real Madrid. The common fact between them all is that they've all had relative amounts of money thrown at them and all have failed. This is why you need to start from the bottom.

 

 

sorry mate, I think you are wrong. You think I am defending the old board, but I think you are attacking the old board to a degree that you are losing perspective, and simply spouting the cliches of the moment.

 

The people who were jumping for joy when the club bought Boumsong, Luque etc are now saying that the way to certain success is to bring through youngsters and not spend money.

 

Hmmmmm.......

 

The clubs that have had the longest serving managers, have this BECAUSE the first team has been successful, not because they are building foundations, or the foundations that have been there already, they have been there BECAUSE of the success of the first team.

 

Alex Ferguson was one game from the sack after 6 years at manure, while "building foundations". Why ? Because the first team were not performing as the supporters and directors wanted. Nobody in this situation gives a stuff about the foundations of the club. Simple fact of fooball, is that the manager is sacked if the first team doesn't get results.

 

Now, THAT is perspective, and true. Not a cliche, nor a "business plan" in sight. Its football. And how football works.

 

I tell you something, and if you disagree, please say so and why. We will NEVER match the top clubs who win the trophies if we don't have players that they themselves want. And a FACT is that we are not going to do this by finding them as youngsters. If that were possible, then manure, Liverpool and Chelsea would themselves not be spending the money they have been spending.

 

Would you like to tell me why they spend so much money when they have these "solid foundations". ?

 

The managers you mention, didn't get sacked for spending money, they got sacked for exercising bad judgement with it.

 

As a footnote, you can take a club like Everton, who have had stability for 6 years. How many times have they qualified for europe, and how much money have they spent in comparison to their neighbours ? Do you see NUFC as a club run like this, or a club run like Liverpool ?

 

Edit. Re-reading this.......I'm quite shocked you appear to think its acceptable for Everton to be a small club operating with a small budget.

 

[NE5]

 

YOu could say that if Keegan had won the league he may still be here, or would have lasted a lot longer. ?

 

YOu could also say that if bobby Robson had been 10 years younger he would still be here, and that would make us on a level footing than these other clubs ?

 

You could equally say that both of these managers would likely to have won a cup by now if they had stayed, and dare i say it, under the ex board, the worst ever in football responsible for us being the biggest mongs who ever competed for anything.

 

Joking, yes, of course. But this is the impression a lot of people give of what they think of them.

 

Back on track ...... it doesn't change the fact that, yes, you are right, having a good youth policy, facilities, scouting system are important, but they always has been. It doesn't have to start with "good foundations", it can equally start with success at first team level. The success of Keegan is responsible for the growth of NUFC into the club we have now, I agree we all want to go further, but this is also true, is it not ?

 

Liverpools success all started with Shankly, building a good first team that got noticed. Likewise Leeds under Revie, Derby under Clough. Its the first team that counts, its the first team that gets you supporters, money, and exposure.

 

There is no right or wrong way to do this. Either method can work with the right people ie the right team manager.

 

Spending the 5th, 4th most - whatever - is the reason why we have qualified for europe more than most teams, I bet you if we hadn't spent that money we would not have done that. The proof being that, when we didn't, we didn't !!!!

 

Its strange that DV - and you ? -  are saying I am looking for ways to vindicate the old board mate, because to me it seems that many people are looking for ways to crucify them too. At the end of the day, they had ambition for the club, and you shouldn't really knock that, because they were doing quite well up until they appointed Souness.

 

You see, I think I am just putting things into perspective

 

 

 

Where would we have to finish at the end of this season for you to look back on it and be able to think that we've done quite well?

 

I want to see signs that Allardyce knows the game and is on the right lines, and the chairman and owner are understanding what it takes to match those top teams that win the trophies. At the moment, I see neither.

 

 

 

[fredbob]

Bobby Robson also set out to look for promising young players, who would maybe become top players.

 

Needless to say, it didn't work, and there is absolutely no grounds to think it would work again

 

Welcome back BUT we did get in the CL with them some of them kids, two of them won young player of year & one of them was Bellers.

 

You can't turn your back on younger players any more than you can turn your back on the big name player who will raise expectation

 

 

 

are you saying that raising expectation is good? if so why? not spoiling for a fight, just seems like a strange thing to say

 

of course raising expectation is good. Why shouldn't it be ? Thats the whole idea. Would you rather support a club who would be happy to just stay up, for instance ? If so, you should have supported NUFC through the 1960's, 70's and 80's. For instance.

 

NUFC and expectations have raised and changed completely since 1992, and not a single NUFC supporter would say otherwise [or maybe there is, there's always one, or two, or three.............]

 

 

 

i think that the raising of expectations should go hand in hand with progress though, and by that i mean higher league finishes, you seem to be getting the cart before the horse there, i think trying to raise expectation in any other way is a very dangerous game to play, dont you? surely expectation and whats ACTUALLY happening should be directly related, that way you acheive a greater harmony around the club. i'm not saying dont be ambitious, just dont be daft.

 

Expectations are totally different to when the old board took over the club in 1992 mate. Thats a fact. It's proven by the fact that 52000 people go to home games, whereas before that it was less than half. And people actually demand to qualify for europe, whereas people used to just be happy to be in the top league [and I'm not just talking about the fans here]

 

 

 

why cant i have a discussion with you without feeling like your just out on a crusade to vindicate the old board ? you're ignoring what i'm saying and responding to points i haven't made, i didnt say expectations haven't risen, i'm not saying people didnt used to be happy just being in the top league, i'm saying expectations should correlate with how the TEAM and CLUB is progressing. not with how much money we spend, although at some point these things are going to be related, obviously, i think its a much more delicate balance than just throwing money at it

 

its nothing of the kind mate. I realise you have a point - unlike some - and I'm trying to discuss it with you. I'm not vindicating anybody, the very fact you think that suggests you don't fully understand how expectations were raised under the old board. I shouldn't need to point this out at all, it is obvious. People aren't happy that we are only halfway in the top league just now, and last season, but that is because they expect higher placings because they are used to it.

 

While spending money is no guarantee of absolute success - the reason for that is because there are only 2 major trophies - but ask yourself if the teams that have won the trophies spent more. The answer is yes. Draw your own conclusions.

 

One thing is for sure, if we aren't prepared to bring in players to this club that the current top 4 want themselves, we will NEVER join them.

 

Thats not vindicating anybody. Its a stone cold fact.

 

 

 

Would you like to ask yourself how many managers in total have these clubs had in the past 10 years? 

 

Also, i wouldnt bet against us being the fifth highest spenders in the league. when will people learn that spending money isnt the answer, you have to build foundations first. All the clubs you're talking aobut have solid foundations, and that solidarity starts with a consistent, good manager.  Draw your own conclusion.

 

 

YOu could say that if Keegan had won the league he may still be here, or would have lasted a lot longer. ?

 

YOu could also say that if bobby Robson had been 10 years younger he would still be here, and that would make us on a level footing than these other clubs ?

 

You could equally say that both of these managers would likely to have won a cup by now if they had stayed, and dare i say it, under the ex board, the worst ever in football responsible for us being the biggest mongs who ever competed for anything.

 

Joking, yes, of course. But this is the impression a lot of people give of what they think of them.

 

Back on track ...... it doesn't change the fact that, yes, you are right, having a good youth policy, facilities, scouting system are important, but they always has been. It doesn't have to start with "good foundations", it can equally start with success at first team level. The success of Keegan is responsible for the growth of NUFC into the club we have now, I agree we all want to go further, but this is also true, is it not ?

 

Liverpools success all started with Shankly, building a good first team that got noticed. Likewise Leeds under Revie, Derby under Clough. Its the first team that counts, its the first team that gets you supporters, money, and exposure.

 

There is no right or wrong way to do this. Either method can work with the right people ie the right team manager.

 

Spending the 5th, 4th most - whatever - is the reason why we have qualified for europe more than most teams, I bet you if we hadn't spent that money we would not have done that. The proof being that, when we didn't, we didn't !!!!

 

Its strange that DV - and you  ? -  are saying I am looking for ways to vindicate the old board mate, because to me it seems that many people are looking for ways to crucify them too. At the end of the day, they had ambition for the club, and you shouldn't really knock that, because they were doing quite well up until they appointed Souness.

 

You see, I think I am just putting things into perspective

 

 

 

Well, this is it, altough i dont particulary want to go down the whole new board old board debate, not in this thread anyway i find that you make a lot of references to darker times, as though we should be judging ourselves agaisnt how it used to be. Which in my opinion is silly.  

 

If a business is struggling, then someone comes in and completely turns it around, does that make the person who turned it around completeyl immune from criticisms- i mean if he was to make a mistake which set the business back (kept changing the boss of the company) Is he not still accountable irrespctive of the condition of the business before he took over. Because if you think about it, that is exactly what happened at newcastle. If that personsets the business back he will not be able to say "well you should of seen the state of it before i took over", that's not how things work.

 

In '92 we were in a position to estabilish ourselves as a dominant force in the premiership. We were on a level playing field with a lot of clubs, minus the history. True?

Well what went wrong? Why are we in the position we are in today? There was mistakes made somewhere. We spent alot of money in those days, i'd say more than any other club bar Man U. Something went wrong when Keegan left, our expectations were sky high, and because of this, the proceeding managers all failed against those high expecatations. Now ever since those keegan days, there has only been one period of stability, and even then it was undermined alot.

 

As you've helpfully stated in your retort, all those clubs were built by a single manager, thats where the stability has come from. In the past 10 years, we've had 6-7 managers? In the exact same period, off the top of my head, Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal have had 4-5. Chelsea weren't in the same category as those 3 because they werent estabilished as a "big top 4 team" until the russian dollar came in.

 

The fact is that 'lynchpin' to your argument is that the board isnt showing any ambition if it doesnt spend the money, when in actual fact it hasnt really wroked so far for us, the fact is that without the stability that the other clubs have had in having a consistent manager we wont ever catch up. Have a look at Everton, moyes has really slipped under the radar with what he's achieved with (up until recent times) low budget and longevity, look at Allardyce at Bolton. Look at what they achieved, now take a look at Souness, take a look at O'Leary at Leeds, Tigana at fulham, numerous coaches at Real Madrid. The common fact between them all is that they've all had relative amounts of money thrown at them and all have failed. This is why you need to start from the bottom.

 

 

sorry mate, I think you are wrong. You think I am defending the old board, but I think you are attacking the old board to a degree that you are losing perspective, and simply spouting the cliches of the moment.

 

The people who were jumping for joy when the club bought Boumsong, Luque etc are now saying that the way to certain success is to bring through youngsters and not spend money.

 

Hmmmmm.......

 

The clubs that have had the longest serving managers, have this BECAUSE the first team has been successful, not because they are building foundations, or the foundations that have been there already, they have been there BECAUSE of the success of the first team.

 

Alex Ferguson was one game from the sack after 6 years at manure, while "building foundations". Why ? Because the first team were not performing as the supporters and directors wanted. Nobody in this situation gives a stuff about the foundations of the club. Simple fact of fooball, is that the manager is sacked if the first team doesn't get results.

 

Now, THAT is perspective, and true. Not a cliche, nor a "business plan" in sight. Its football. And how football works.

 

I tell you something, and if you disagree, please say so and why. We will NEVER match the top clubs who win the trophies if we don't have players that they themselves want. And a FACT is that we are not going to do this by finding them as youngsters. If that were possible, then manure, Liverpool and Chelsea would themselves not be spending the money they have been spending.

 

Would you like to tell me why they spend so much money when they have these "solid foundations". ?

 

The managers you mention, didn't get sacked for spending money, they got sacked for exercising bad judgement with it.

 

As a footnote, you can take a club like Everton, who have had stability for 6 years. How many times have they qualified for europe, and how much money have they spent in comparison to their neighbours ? Do you see NUFC as a club run like this, or a club run like Liverpool ?

 

Edit. Re-reading this.......I'm quite shocked you appear to think its acceptable for Everton to be a small club operating with a small budget.

 

 

So let me get this right...you make a coment about us not spending enough "ask yourself if the teams that have won the trophies spent more. The answer is yes" implying that the successful clubs are the ones that have spent the most. Yes?

 

I retorted by pointing out that we are probably the highest spenders outside the top 4, if not higher than some on the top 4 over a period of 10 years. Which might not be too far from the truth. Therefore by your definition we should be up there? Which we arent.

 

I also pointed out that unlike the other clubs we have had no stability at the club, no solid foundation in the form of a steady manager, i'm not talking about scouting, or youth set up, i'm literally talking about having the right man appionted to do a good job for a sustained period of time. "All the clubs you're talking aobut have solid foundations, and that solidarity starts with a consistent, good manager."

 

Your next argument confuses me a little, who are you to say what could of been achieved had Keegan stayed? Or had Sir Bobby been younger? What point are you trying to make.

 

Yes, Keegan was responsible for the team, it was the right man to do the job, he'd proven himself as he was in a stable job and the foundations were set, the board spent heavily with him,  fast forward a few years and we have SBR after 2 unsubstantial years in the job, money is spent as the foundations are set, then we start to achieve something, but increduosly, we still end up sacking him after a 5th place finish. Both achieved good levels of success.

 

To be fair to me and DV, you actually brought up the old board, "Expectations are totally different to when the old board took over the club in 1992 mate. Thats a fact." and thats what instigated DV to respond. 

 

Your overall point seems to be that you need to spend on the first team in order to get it right, well i am saying that the manager needs to prove that he is good enough in order to get the money. Like i said, i have no doubts in my mind that ifSA said that he desperately needed a DM for example and it was thouroughly ustified to Mort then the funds would be released. And the responsibiltyof the appointment of a capable manager lies with the board, theres no hard luck about it, if a seemingly good appointment turns out crap then its your fault. Full Stop.

 

The strange thing about having a discussion with you is that we've started with your comment about spending being the key to success, and ended up talking about the shortcomings of the old board. With you, ironically saying that we are forever attacking the old board, when in actual fact you were speculating about the 'worrying fact that Mort's not gonna spend, which would be suicidal'

 

To summarise, your view is that we need to spend more, even though spending ridiculous amounts havent really worked (basically disagreeing with Morts views), and my view is that we need to get a stable foundation to build on so we have something to spend on in the future, (which in my opinion is the view of Mort)which i agree with.

 

The fact that we have spent alot over the years and after all those years we find ourselves a mid table club, with admittedly more qualifications than any other team. However this is such a misleading statement, i cant remember the exact number of qualifications we've had, but the meat of our qualifications were achieved when we were in stable positions with stable managers, and doesnt coincide with the periods of time when we spent the most money. If we were to look at the qualifications in accordance to league position, do you think that we'd be the fifth most qualified team in the premiership of all time. I dont think so, and as that is the case, does that still justify the success of the old board having spent so much. I also dont think so. Draw your own conclusions. 

 

 

 

[NE5]

Bobby Robson also set out to look for promising young players, who would maybe become top players.

 

Needless to say, it didn't work, and there is absolutely no grounds to think it would work again

 

Welcome back BUT we did get in the CL with them some of them kids, two of them won young player of year & one of them was Bellers.

 

You can't turn your back on younger players any more than you can turn your back on the big name player who will raise expectation

 

 

 

are you saying that raising expectation is good? if so why? not spoiling for a fight, just seems like a strange thing to say

 

of course raising expectation is good. Why shouldn't it be ? Thats the whole idea. Would you rather support a club who would be happy to just stay up, for instance ? If so, you should have supported NUFC through the 1960's, 70's and 80's. For instance.

 

NUFC and expectations have raised and changed completely since 1992, and not a single NUFC supporter would say otherwise [or maybe there is, there's always one, or two, or three.............]

 

 

 

i think that the raising of expectations should go hand in hand with progress though, and by that i mean higher league finishes, you seem to be getting the cart before the horse there, i think trying to raise expectation in any other way is a very dangerous game to play, dont you? surely expectation and whats ACTUALLY happening should be directly related, that way you acheive a greater harmony around the club. i'm not saying dont be ambitious, just dont be daft.

 

Expectations are totally different to when the old board took over the club in 1992 mate. Thats a fact. It's proven by the fact that 52000 people go to home games, whereas before that it was less than half. And people actually demand to qualify for europe, whereas people used to just be happy to be in the top league [and I'm not just talking about the fans here]

 

 

 

why cant i have a discussion with you without feeling like your just out on a crusade to vindicate the old board ? you're ignoring what i'm saying and responding to points i haven't made, i didnt say expectations haven't risen, i'm not saying people didnt used to be happy just being in the top league, i'm saying expectations should correlate with how the TEAM and CLUB is progressing. not with how much money we spend, although at some point these things are going to be related, obviously, i think its a much more delicate balance than just throwing money at it

 

its nothing of the kind mate. I realise you have a point - unlike some - and I'm trying to discuss it with you. I'm not vindicating anybody, the very fact you think that suggests you don't fully understand how expectations were raised under the old board. I shouldn't need to point this out at all, it is obvious. People aren't happy that we are only halfway in the top league just now, and last season, but that is because they expect higher placings because they are used to it.

 

While spending money is no guarantee of absolute success - the reason for that is because there are only 2 major trophies - but ask yourself if the teams that have won the trophies spent more. The answer is yes. Draw your own conclusions.

 

One thing is for sure, if we aren't prepared to bring in players to this club that the current top 4 want themselves, we will NEVER join them.

 

Thats not vindicating anybody. Its a stone cold fact.

 

 

 

Would you like to ask yourself how many managers in total have these clubs had in the past 10 years? 

 

Also, i wouldnt bet against us being the fifth highest spenders in the league. when will people learn that spending money isnt the answer, you have to build foundations first. All the clubs you're talking aobut have solid foundations, and that solidarity starts with a consistent, good manager.  Draw your own conclusion.

 

 

YOu could say that if Keegan had won the league he may still be here, or would have lasted a lot longer. ?

 

YOu could also say that if bobby Robson had been 10 years younger he would still be here, and that would make us on a level footing than these other clubs ?

 

You could equally say that both of these managers would likely to have won a cup by now if they had stayed, and dare i say it, under the ex board, the worst ever in football responsible for us being the biggest mongs who ever competed for anything.

 

Joking, yes, of course. But this is the impression a lot of people give of what they think of them.

 

Back on track ...... it doesn't change the fact that, yes, you are right, having a good youth policy, facilities, scouting system are important, but they always has been. It doesn't have to start with "good foundations", it can equally start with success at first team level. The success of Keegan is responsible for the growth of NUFC into the club we have now, I agree we all want to go further, but this is also true, is it not ?

 

Liverpools success all started with Shankly, building a good first team that got noticed. Likewise Leeds under Revie, Derby under Clough. Its the first team that counts, its the first team that gets you supporters, money, and exposure.

 

There is no right or wrong way to do this. Either method can work with the right people ie the right team manager.

 

Spending the 5th, 4th most - whatever - is the reason why we have qualified for europe more than most teams, I bet you if we hadn't spent that money we would not have done that. The proof being that, when we didn't, we didn't !!!!

 

Its strange that DV - and you  ? -  are saying I am looking for ways to vindicate the old board mate, because to me it seems that many people are looking for ways to crucify them too. At the end of the day, they had ambition for the club, and you shouldn't really knock that, because they were doing quite well up until they appointed Souness.

 

You see, I think I am just putting things into perspective

 

 

 

Well, this is it, altough i dont particulary want to go down the whole new board old board debate, not in this thread anyway i find that you make a lot of references to darker times, as though we should be judging ourselves agaisnt how it used to be. Which in my opinion is silly.  

 

If a business is struggling, then someone comes in and completely turns it around, does that make the person who turned it around completeyl immune from criticisms- i mean if he was to make a mistake which set the business back (kept changing the boss of the company) Is he not still accountable irrespctive of the condition of the business before he took over. Because if you think about it, that is exactly what happened at newcastle. If that personsets the business back he will not be able to say "well you should of seen the state of it before i took over", that's not how things work.

 

In '92 we were in a position to estabilish ourselves as a dominant force in the premiership. We were on a level playing field with a lot of clubs, minus the history. True?

Well what went wrong? Why are we in the position we are in today? There was mistakes made somewhere. We spent alot of money in those days, i'd say more than any other club bar Man U. Something went wrong when Keegan left, our expectations were sky high, and because of this, the proceeding managers all failed against those high expecatations. Now ever since those keegan days, there has only been one period of stability, and even then it was undermined alot.

 

As you've helpfully stated in your retort, all those clubs were built by a single manager, thats where the stability has come from. In the past 10 years, we've had 6-7 managers? In the exact same period, off the top of my head, Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal have had 4-5. Chelsea weren't in the same category as those 3 because they werent estabilished as a "big top 4 team" until the russian dollar came in.

 

The fact is that 'lynchpin' to your argument is that the board isnt showing any ambition if it doesnt spend the money, when in actual fact it hasnt really wroked so far for us, the fact is that without the stability that the other clubs have had in having a consistent manager we wont ever catch up. Have a look at Everton, moyes has really slipped under the radar with what he's achieved with (up until recent times) low budget and longevity, look at Allardyce at Bolton. Look at what they achieved, now take a look at Souness, take a look at O'Leary at Leeds, Tigana at fulham, numerous coaches at Real Madrid. The common fact between them all is that they've all had relative amounts of money thrown at them and all have failed. This is why you need to start from the bottom.

 

 

sorry mate, I think you are wrong. You think I am defending the old board, but I think you are attacking the old board to a degree that you are losing perspective, and simply spouting the cliches of the moment.

 

The people who were jumping for joy when the club bought Boumsong, Luque etc are now saying that the way to certain success is to bring through youngsters and not spend money.

 

Hmmmmm.......

 

The clubs that have had the longest serving managers, have this BECAUSE the first team has been successful, not because they are building foundations, or the foundations that have been there already, they have been there BECAUSE of the success of the first team.

 

Alex Ferguson was one game from the sack after 6 years at manure, while "building foundations". Why ? Because the first team were not performing as the supporters and directors wanted. Nobody in this situation gives a stuff about the foundations of the club. Simple fact of fooball, is that the manager is sacked if the first team doesn't get results.

 

Now, THAT is perspective, and true. Not a cliche, nor a "business plan" in sight. Its football. And how football works.

 

I tell you something, and if you disagree, please say so and why. We will NEVER match the top clubs who win the trophies if we don't have players that they themselves want. And a FACT is that we are not going to do this by finding them as youngsters. If that were possible, then manure, Liverpool and Chelsea would themselves not be spending the money they have been spending.

 

Would you like to tell me why they spend so much money when they have these "solid foundations". ?

 

The managers you mention, didn't get sacked for spending money, they got sacked for exercising bad judgement with it.

 

As a footnote, you can take a club like Everton, who have had stability for 6 years. How many times have they qualified for europe, and how much money have they spent in comparison to their neighbours ? Do you see NUFC as a club run like this, or a club run like Liverpool ?

 

Edit. Re-reading this.......I'm quite shocked you appear to think its acceptable for Everton to be a small club operating with a small budget.

 

 

So let me get this right...you make a coment about us not spending enough "ask yourself if the teams that have won the trophies spent more. The answer is yes" implying that the successful clubs are the ones that have spent the most. Yes?

 

I retorted by pointing out that we are probably the highest spenders outside the top 4, if not higher than some on the top 4 over a period of 10 years. Which might not be too far from the truth. Therefore by your definition we should be up there? Which we arent.

 

I also pointed out that unlike the other clubs we have had no stability at the club, no solid foundation in the form of a steady manager, i'm not talking about scouting, or youth set up, i'm literally talking about having the right man appionted to do a good job for a sustained period of time. "All the clubs you're talking aobut have solid foundations, and that solidarity starts with a consistent, good manager."

 

Your next argument confuses me a little, who are you to say what could of been achieved had Keegan stayed? Or had Sir Bobby been younger? What point are you trying to make.

 

Yes, Keegan was responsible for the team, it was the right man to do the job, he'd proven himself as he was in a stable job and the foundations were set, the board spent heavily with him,  fast forward a few years and we have SBR after 2 unsubstantial years in the job, money is spent as the foundations are set, then we start to achieve something, but increduosly, we still end up sacking him after a 5th place finish. Both achieved good levels of success.

 

To be fair to me and DV, you actually brought up the old board, "Expectations are totally different to when the old board took over the club in 1992 mate. Thats a fact." and thats what instigated DV to respond. 

 

Your overall point seems to be that you need to spend on the first team in order to get it right, wellam saying that the manager needs to prove that he is good enough in order to get the money.e i said, i have no doubts in my mind that ifSA said that he desperately needed a DM for example and it was thouroughly ustified to Mort then the funds would be released. And the responsibiltyof the appointment of a capable manager lies with the board, theres no hard luck about it, if a seemingly good appointment turns out crap then its your fault. Full Stop.

 

The strange thing about having a discussion with you is that we've started with your comment about spending being the key to success, and ended up talking about the shortcomings of the old board. With you, ironically saying that we are forever attacking the old board, when in actual fact you were speculating about the 'worrying fact that Mort's not gonna spend, which would be suicidal'

 

To summarise, your view is that we need to spend more, even though spending ridiculous amounts havent really worked (basically disagreeing with Morts views), and my view is that we need to get a stable foundation to build on so we have something to spend on in the future, (which in my opinion is the view of Mort)which i agree with.

 

The fact that we have spent alot over the years and after all those years we find ourselves a mid table club, with admittedly more qualifications than any other team. However this is such a misleading statement, i cant remember the exact number of qualifications we've had, but the meat of our qualifications were achieved when we were in stable positions with stable managers, and doesnt coincide with the periods of time when we spent the most money. If we were to look at the qualifications in accordance to league position, do you think that we'd be the fifth most qualified team in the premiership of all time. I dont think so, and as that is the case, does that still justify the success of the old board having spent so much. I also dont think so. Draw your own conclusions. 

 

 

I cannot agree that the manager must prove he is good enough to earn the money. It they think he isn't good enough, they should not appoint him in the first place. A good board shows ambition to back their appointments to the best of their ability, and a shite board doesn't.

 

Yes, I basically don't agree with Morts view. I think he is naive, or simply trying to pull the wool over people's eyes for some reason. Meaning they are going to run the club like Everton instead of Liverpool, but are courting public opinion by making PR gestures and gimmicks to get the public - or the gullible public - on their side. I hope that this proves to be incorrect, but its how I see the signs, and as I said, basically, I don't think what Mort is saying in itself will lead to success. The only thing that will do that is the right manager with boardroom backing. Do you seriously think that we can outdo Chelsea and manure by "building good foundations" and finding young players on the cheap that will rival Ronaldo, Rooney, Drogba, Essien etc etc. I'm sorry mate, but I've haven't heard such a load of tripe since numerous people proclaimed that Boumsong and Luque would be world beaters on account of them being expensive foreigners. All of these judgements being borne out of nothing other than unbelievable naivety.

 

Take it or leave it. My opinion is that we will never match and beat these team unless we have players that they themselves want ie these "trophy players" who win the trophies. You can be happy with players like Cacapa, Faye, Viduka etc etc if you like,  but I'm sorry they are nothing other than cheap and nasty corner shop signings made by clubs who are trying to build good teams on the cheap. And nowhere will you see that being done by truly ambitious clubs. It never worked for NUFC in the past - pre 1992, and it definitely won't work now, in a world where money rules more than ever before.

 

Makes me laugh, people like this. Who every other day moronically shouted for the old board to "splash the cash" and are now saying it isn't necessary.

 

I've stuck to my guns from day 1, because I know I'm right. To be successful and win trophies, you need the trophy winning players that the clubs who win the trophies have, that they want. And if you don't attempt to do this, then you are accepting 2nd best. If that is what you want, its your prerogative.

 

As I said. The stable clubs are only stable because the managers have won things. Do you think we should have kept Dalglish and Gullitt, who were trophy winning managers elsewhere, attracted to a club who showed ambition ? If not, then don't bother preaching on about "planning" and "stability" etc etc

 

As I also said -  Chelsea and Manu have spent big, but have "solid foundations". If you think that having "solid foundations" means you don't have to spend to be winners, why do they keep doing it ? And what use then is "solid foundations" to the winning capability of the first team ?

 

You will never win things if you don't show the ambition to do so. Kids stuff. If you continue to deny this, then there is only one person here who is bringing boardroom politics into this, and it isn't me. It is you for losing perspective, and refusing to accept that the old board had ambition, because you want to slate them instead of realising the true value of it.

 

Have you really told us how Chelsea and ManU have won all these cups despite spending less than us, or have I missed it ?

 

 

[Mick]

 

Where would we have to finish at the end of this season for you to look back on it and be able to think that we've done quite well?

 

I want to see signs that Allardyce knows the game and is on the right lines, and the chairman and owner are understanding what it takes to match those top teams that win the trophies. At the moment, I see neither.

 

 

 

 

What would be more of a sign of an improvement, a higher league finish or almost £20 million spent on a Spanish winger and a defender from Rangers?

[Dr Venkman]

DV, i like it. for the record i'm really not crucifying the old board all the time, i used to, but the club has moved on now and so should we, i only started talking about them because you did, NE5. i'm more than happy as long as we're progressing, on the pitch obviously. because that's the only place i can persoanlly see the progression with my own eyes. if that takes years, it takes years, so be it.

 

i dont think for one second that ashley/mort want us to be anything other than the best team in the world and will do what they can to make it so. i also think that shepherd wanted that, but thats a whole different thread.

 

i've enjoyed this discussion, but i think we need a few more transfer windows behind us before we can have it properly.

[NE5]

 

Where would we have to finish at the end of this season for you to look back on it and be able to think that we've done quite well?

 

I want to see signs that Allardyce knows the game and is on the right lines, and the chairman and owner are understanding what it takes to match those top teams that win the trophies. At the moment, I see neither.

 

 

 

 

What would be more of a sign of an improvement, a higher league finish or almost £20 million spent on a Spanish winger and a defender from Rangers?

 

how about answering me ?

 

You're moving the goalposts. 20m spent on 2 such players who justified their fees - and that Rangers right back looks a canny player - would almost certainly justify a higher finish. [but that particular judgement is up to the manager].

 

What would you say if we lost out on, for instance, Dean Ashton or David Bentley to someone like Man City or Everton because they were prepared to pay more than us ? Are such players not "trophy players" anymore, and as such you would prefer the club to buy lesser players to keep the books perfectly balanced ?

 

 

 

 

[Lazy]

I agree with Mort and fredbob.

[Lotus]

 

Where would we have to finish at the end of this season for you to look back on it and be able to think that we've done quite well?

 

I want to see signs that Allardyce knows the game and is on the right lines, and the chairman and owner are understanding what it takes to match those top teams that win the trophies. At the moment, I see neither.

 

 

 

 

What would be more of a sign of an improvement, a higher league finish or almost £20 million spent on a Spanish winger and a defender from Rangers?

 

how about answering me ?

 

You're moving the goalposts. 20m spent on 2 such players who justified their fees - and that Rangers right back looks a canny player - would almost certainly justify a higher finish. [but that particular judgement is up to the manager].

 

What would you say if we lost out on, for instance, Dean Ashton or David Bentley to someone like Man City or Everton because they were prepared to pay more than us ? Are such players not "trophy players" anymore, and as such you would prefer the club to buy lesser players to keep the books perfectly balanced ?

 

 

 

 

Under SBR we signed players like Gallacher, Andy O'Brien, Bassedas, Gavilan, Quinn, Elliot, etc. Then, because of his good management, we improved a bit and then he bought better players like Robert and Bellamy who made a huge difference.

I think we have to improve a bit in terms of league finishes so that we have a bit more money and a better profile to attract the better players. Under SBR we didn't just go out and spend big and finish 4th.

Incidentally, £6m -Smith, £6m Barton and £6m Enrique (i think?) is hardly bargain basement stuff!

[UV]

I retorted by pointing out that we are probably the highest spenders outside the top 4, if not higher than some on the top 4 over a period of 10 years. Which might not be too far from the truth. Therefore by your definition we should be up there? Which we arent.

 

We were up there when we were spending the money though. If we stop spending money then we definitely wont be. Don't forget to add in wages when you talk about expenditure too. Arsenal get away with not spending as much on transfers as the other "big 4" because of Wenger, but they still have a much higher wage bill than us.

 

I also pointed out that unlike the other clubs we have had no stability at the club, no solid foundation in the form of a steady manager, i'm not talking about scouting, or youth set up, i'm literally talking about having the right man appionted to do a good job for a sustained period of time. "All the clubs you're talking aobut have solid foundations, and that solidarity starts with a consistent, good manager."

 

So will you be happy with the level of success shown by for example Charlton under Curbishley, or Bolton under Allardyce? They both had the stability and solid foundations you are talking about over the period where we didn't but were "spending ridiculous amounts" which didn't work at all; except for getting us into Europe/cup finals of course.

 

Also could you explain how you account for the most successful team in Europe? Hint: since 1990 - 5 league titles, 4 domestic cups, 3 european cups, 20 (twenty) managers.

[johnnypd]

we weren't up there when Souness spent £50m in 8 months.

[UV]

we weren't up there when Souness spent £50m in 8 months.

 

Because Souness is shite.

 

I'll simplify it for you:

 

Shit manager + no money = do badly

Shit manager + lots of money = do okay, might get lucky occasionally

Good manager + no money = do okay, might get lucky occasionally

Good manager + lots of money = do well

[johnnypd]

i'd say it's more like

 

shit manager + no money - do very badly

shit manager + lots of money - do badly

good manager + no money - do okay, might get lucky occasionally

good manager + lots of money - do well

 

but fundamentally, you need to get a good manager in place first, if you don't have that, it doesn't matter how much money you spend it will be for nothing. in fact if you back a poor manager with loads of dosh, you're actively harming the club by wrecking its finances.

[UV]

It depends on how you define "do badly". Personally I define any season where we don't get relegated as "okay".

 

Edit: You edited. ^ that doesn't make much sense in the context of the edit.

 

I think you're underestimating the ability of money to miraculously improve the apparent ability of managers. (eg Martin Jol). Do you think Avram Grant is a top class manager? He seems to be doing okay.

[Thespence]

Our team is average, to come up with a statement like that I have used our current league position rather than player reputations. Sam needs to work out which position is our s****'st in what he classes as our best starting 11 & replace him with a player that would be in his top 5 players at club. Repeat this process over a few years & I reckon we will be okay.

 

 

[johnnypd]

It depends on how you define "do badly". Personally I define any season where we don't get relegated as "okay".

 

Edit: You edited. ^ that doesn't make much sense in the context of the edit.

 

I think you're underestimating the ability of money to miraculously improve the apparent ability of managers. (eg Martin Jol). Do you think Avram Grant is a top class manager? He seems to be doing okay.

 

Jol is a decent manager, his achievements in the netherlands are quite similar to what Allardyce has done at bolton, though he didn't actually deal with transfers so you can't say if he wasted money or spent wisely. he had the help of specialist talent spotters, one of whom was Wenger's chief scout and the other who is widely known as the best scout in world football and is now at chelsea. their best signings were all brought in relatively cheaply - chimbonda £4.5m carrick for less than £4m, Lennon for £1m, davids and naybet for nothing, as well as building up a reserve of talented youngsters for the future. when they spent more money on players like zokora, bent or berbatov is when the problems arose, as Jol felt compelled to include them in the side even if he didn't personally rate those players or know how to fit them into the team, which is one limitation of the DofF approach.

 

grant looks like an ok manager too based on what he did in the israeli league and the israel national team (undefeated in qualfying in a group with france, switzerland and ireland), as well as helping pompey capture the likes of krancjar, utaka and muntari which shows he has an eye for talent. then again he hasn't actually spent anything at chelsea and has inherited a great side, one that is a special case with the amount of money they spend. both of them look far more able than roeder or souness.

 

i'm not underestimating the importance of money, without spending significant amounts you won't be successful. on the other hand, even if you spend loads, like souness did, but you have a shit manager like souness, you'll still be shit, and there's a good chance the money spent will be wasted on dross which harms the club in the long run.

 

turning the thread back to allardyce, i'd class his achievements at Bolton in the "good manager + no money - do okay, might get lucky occasionally" bracket. but he was a good manager for the specific conditions at Bolton, a smallish club with a limited budget and endless patience, he could use his ability to wheel and deal and slowly build a tough, direct team with a somewhat scientific approach. at the minute it is hard to say whether he is a good manager for the specific conditions at this club so i'd understand if Mort and Ashley don't back him with a huge amount of money in January, which is a hard time to buy players anyway.