Mort: I’m in charge

[Howaythelads]

The new board have not done better than the old board, until they have at least matched the Champions League qualifications, and sustained it for a longer period. Would you go along with this ?

 

I wouldnt. Because comparing era's is totally flawed.

 

Why ? Why should you lower your ambitions ?

 

 

 

Maybe a case of looking at the opposition than lowering ambitions. Can you imagine any promoted team finishing third in the Premier League ever again? I can't.

 

I don't think this has ever been a regular thing and when it has happened it's always been a big achievement.

[Thespence]

The new board have not done better than the old board, until they have at least matched the Champions League qualifications, and sustained it for a longer period. Would you go along with this ?

 

I wouldnt. Because comparing era's is totally flawed.

 

Why ? Why should you lower your ambitions ?

 

 

 

Because you can cherry pick what part of a era you want to compare it with & the environment that one era competed in compared  may not be like for like.  It is your method of what you class as success I dont understand it has nothing to do with ambition what so ever.

 

I want us to win the league,FA cup, league cup, Champions League & win back the NewcastleGateshead plate for the record.

[Mick]

 

Just wanted to add that he wasn't sacked for "only finishing 5th." Anybody clinging to that doesn't know what they're talking about. It isn't hindsight that we started going backwards DURING the season we finished 3rd.

 

Edit: Obviously meant "wasn't"

 

We lost 3 less games the season we finished 5th than the season we finished 3rd, Robson just needed to turn draws into wins.  The season we finished 5th has not been beaten by anybody as far as not losing goes, it's been equalled twice when finishing 2nd but not beaten.  If we lose against Chelsea we'll have equalled in 20 games the number lost in the full season.

[Baggio]

If you want to compare chairman over a period of time then you should be looking at their average league position while each was chairman, you should also take into account the league position the club was in when each chairman took charge and what they have contributed to improving the club.

 

Not just cherry pick a certain period of time when the club had short lived successful patch.

[Howaythelads]

By the way, sacking Robson when he was sacked was a mistake. He should have gone after we finished 3rd. Anybody who was going to the matches should at least understand why I'm saying that even IF they don't agree and wanted to stick by him. That would be a difference of opinion and that's ok.

 

Anyone coming back with sarcastic shite about how we'd like to finish 5th now may as well not bother because they'll be contributing nothing to the point, so they can sod off in advance before they ruin this thread even further.

 

Ta

 

 

I agree in hindsight, although I probably didn't at the time. If we could have got someone top class in for him after that season it really would have moved us up to the next level. Incidentally, what are your thoughts on the time he was sacked? Do you think, given the circumstance it would have been better to let him see out the year, whilst searching for a new manager to bring in, or did you agree with sacking him asap? Not trying to trap you in any way, just interested in your opinion.

 

I was always a huge Bobby fan, which I guess blinded me to his faults a bit - and didn't want him to go at any point during his tenure, but was happy to accept it was his last season and that we were looking for a long term replacement.

 

I think it was obvious Robson had lost the respect of the players and he needed to be replaced. I really do believe he should have gone after we finished 3rd and I said so at the time. Getting rid of Shearer and moving Robson out was the way forward but it didn't happen. A big mistake by the Board and probably bigger than appointing Souness. Once Robson's last season was underway it was so very obvious the players had no respect for Robson anymore, so despite it being ideal to change manager at the end of a season I think it became impossible and he had to go when he did.

 

There are lots of people who can be "blamed" (if that's the right word) for the sacking of Robson and many have been discussed on here. What I don't think has ever really been discussed is the fact that some responsibility rests with Robson himself and his immediate staff. Ability on the football field is paramount, but research into the character of a person should also be a part of deciding whether or not to sign someone. After that, guiding young players properly is a part of the job. The club initiated a policy of signing young players, Robson and his immediate staff are in the firing line for their part in the way certain players became ill-disciplined and basically let the club down. This is what led to the sacking of Robson, not "only finishing 5th."

[Dave]

The new board have not done better than the old board, until they have at least matched the Champions League qualifications, and sustained it for a longer period. Would you go along with this ?

 

I wouldnt. Because comparing era's is totally flawed.

 

Why ? Why should you lower your ambitions ?

 

 

 

Maybe a case of looking at the opposition than lowering ambitions. Can you imagine any promoted team finishing third in the Premier League ever again? I can't.

 

I don't think this has ever been a regular thing and when it has happened it's always been a big achievement.

 

I'd say it was impossible now. Just saying the league is very different to how it once was. Plenty of clubs have mega-rich owners/shareholders now, for example. If NE5 simply compares league finishes over the years I'm not sure how fair it will be. Finishing lower doesn't necessarily mean you had lower ambition, and accepting those finishes doesn't mean you accept lower ambition.

[Howaythelads]

The new board have not done better than the old board, until they have at least matched the Champions League qualifications, and sustained it for a longer period. Would you go along with this ?

 

I wouldnt. Because comparing era's is totally flawed.

 

Why ? Why should you lower your ambitions ?

 

 

 

Because you can cherry pick what part of a era you want to compare it with & the environment that one era competed in compared  may not be like for like.  It is your method of what you class as success I dont understand it has nothing to do with ambition what so ever.

 

I want us to win the league,FA cup, league cup, Champions League & win back the NewcastleGateshead plate for the record.

 

Interesting.

 

How do you measure success?

[Dave]

By the way, sacking Robson when he was sacked was a mistake. He should have gone after we finished 3rd. Anybody who was going to the matches should at least understand why I'm saying that even IF they don't agree and wanted to stick by him. That would be a difference of opinion and that's ok.

 

Anyone coming back with sarcastic shite about how we'd like to finish 5th now may as well not bother because they'll be contributing nothing to the point, so they can sod off in advance before they ruin this thread even further.

 

Ta

 

 

I agree in hindsight, although I probably didn't at the time. If we could have got someone top class in for him after that season it really would have moved us up to the next level. Incidentally, what are your thoughts on the time he was sacked? Do you think, given the circumstance it would have been better to let him see out the year, whilst searching for a new manager to bring in, or did you agree with sacking him asap? Not trying to trap you in any way, just interested in your opinion.

 

I was always a huge Bobby fan, which I guess blinded me to his faults a bit - and didn't want him to go at any point during his tenure, but was happy to accept it was his last season and that we were looking for a long term replacement.

 

I think it was obvious Robson had lost the respect of the players and he needed to be replaced. I really do believe he should have gone after we finished 3rd and I said so at the time. Getting rid of Shearer and moving Robson out was the way forward but it didn't happen. A big mistake by the Board and probably bigger than appointing Souness. Once Robson's last season was underway it was so very obvious the players had no respect for Robson anymore, so despite it being ideal to change manager at the end of a season I think it became impossible and he had to go when he did.

 

There are lots of people who can be "blamed" (if that's the right word) for the sacking of Robson and many have been discussed on here. What I don't think has ever really been discussed is the fact that some responsibility rests with Robson himself and his immediate staff. Ability on the football field is paramount, but research into the character of a person should also be a part of deciding whether or not to sign someone. After that, guiding young players properly is a part of the job. The club initiated a policy of signing young players, Robson and his immediate staff are in the firing line for their part in the way certain players became ill-disciplined and basically let the club down. This is what led to the sacking of Robson, not "only finishing 5th."

 

It could maybe be argued that Robson was a victim of the general slipping of respect from young people towards elders and authority in society in general.

[NE5]

 

You won't find a post from me saying we didn't need to change the board DAve.

 

What you will find, is posts saying that replacements that would be better are far from automatic, and would be quite difficult to find. So - to re-iterate again, although I hope you aren't going to tell me there is no need for this, when you are forcing it to be so.

 

The new board have not done better than the old board, until they have at least matched the Champions League qualifications, and sustained it for a longer period. Would you go along with this ?

 

 

 

So Mort doesn't have to only beat the CL qualification he has to do so for longer.  Does he also have to score more goals while conceding less and gain more points at every stage and in every game?

 

As usual, your agenda stops you reading properly.

 

If they finish in the top 5 for 3 seasons, and play regularly in europe including at least one Champions League run, over a decade then they have equalled it. Or are you going to move the goalposts to suit your usual anti Fred agenda  mackems.gif

 

 

[Mick]

 

As usual, your agenda stops you reading properly.

 

If they finish in the top 5 for 3 seasons, and play regularly in europe including at least one Champions League run, over a decade then they have equalled it. Or are you going to move the goalposts to suit your usual anti Fred agenda  mackems.gif

 

 

 

I've got no intention of moving goal posts, I thought you had but you've since explained in more detail and it appears that you haven't.

[NE5]

The new board have not done better than the old board, until they have at least matched the Champions League qualifications, and sustained it for a longer period. Would you go along with this ?

 

I wouldnt. Because comparing era's is totally flawed.

 

Why ? Why should you lower your ambitions ?

 

 

 

Because you can cherry pick what part of a era you want to compare it with & the environment that one era competed in compared  may not be like for like.  It is your method of what you class as success I dont understand it has nothing to do with ambition what so ever.

 

I want us to win the league,FA cup, league cup, Champions League & win back the NewcastleGateshead plate for the record.

 

Of course I want to win at least one trophy, but on the basis of league positions, I don't see what era it is has to do with anything. You can only compete against your competitors, the goalposts are the same for everybody whatever era.

 

[Guest Knightrider]

 

Just wanted to add that he wasn't sacked for "only finishing 5th." Anybody clinging to that doesn't know what they're talking about. It isn't hindsight that we started going backwards DURING the season we finished 3rd.

 

Edit: Obviously meant "wasn't"

 

We lost 3 less games the season we finished 5th than the season we finished 3rd, Robson just needed to turn draws into wins.  The season we finished 5th has not been beaten by anybody as far as not losing goes, it's been equalled twice when finishing 2nd but not beaten.  If we lose against Chelsea we'll have equalled in 20 games the number lost in the full season.

 

We lost our lowest number of games in our history IIRC and had a superb defensive record that season, while we were also strong at home. It was the draws that were killing us. Had we turned just a few of those into wins, we'd have finished in the top 4 easily. Our performances that season were shocking in the main though. I actually thought it would have been best for SBR to move upstairs after that season we finished 3rd and allow someone else to take things on further for the club because while I don't think we'd have went backwards under SBR, I don't think we'd have moved any further either. I was however, still in full support of him and didn't want him sacked or anything. Top 5 was more than good enough for me for a few years until the man himself decided to go as I believe he'd have left us in fantastic shape. He was clearly undermined in his final months though on and off the pitch. Just goes to show you how fickle football is really and even the strongest of foundations can quickly be demolished and it's happened to us twice now, after KK left from second to mid-table, and after Bobby from 5th to mid-table.

[NE5]

 

As usual, your agenda stops you reading properly.

 

If they finish in the top 5 for 3 seasons, and play regularly in europe including at least one Champions League run, over a decade then they have equalled it. Or are you going to move the goalposts to suit your usual anti Fred agenda  mackems.gif

 

 

 

I've got no intention of moving goal posts, I thought you had but you've since explained in more detail and it appears that you haven't.

 

What have you been reading over the last year/2 years ?

 

Nothing it would seem.

 

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

 

You won't find a post from me saying we didn't need to change the board DAve.

 

What you will find, is posts saying that replacements that would be better are far from automatic, and would be quite difficult to find. So - to re-iterate again, although I hope you aren't going to tell me there is no need for this, when you are forcing it to be so.

 

The new board have not done better than the old board, until they have at least matched the Champions League qualifications, and sustained it for a longer period. Would you go along with this ?

 

 

 

So Mort doesn't have to only beat the CL qualification he has to do so for longer.  Does he also have to score more goals while conceding less and gain more points at every stage and in every game?

 

As usual, your agenda stops you reading properly.

 

If they finish in the top 5 for 3 seasons, and play regularly in europe including at least one Champions League run, over a decade then they have equalled it. Or are you going to move the goalposts to suit your usual anti Fred agenda  mackems.gif

 

 

 

Breaking into the Champions League positions is a lot harder now than it was 4 or 5 years ago.  The fact that the wrong managerial choices have been made by the Halls and Shepherd since then (ie since Robson left) have made it even harder for us to get back in touch with them.  The top few teams are further away from the likes of us than they ever have been when we've been wanting to challenge them.

 

Sorry if that is also a bit wordy

[Mowen]

By the way, sacking Robson when he was sacked was a mistake. He should have gone after we finished 3rd. Anybody who was going to the matches should at least understand why I'm saying that even IF they don't agree and wanted to stick by him. That would be a difference of opinion and that's ok.

 

Anyone coming back with sarcastic shite about how we'd like to finish 5th now may as well not bother because they'll be contributing nothing to the point, so they can sod off in advance before they ruin this thread even further.

 

Ta

 

 

I agree in hindsight, although I probably didn't at the time. If we could have got someone top class in for him after that season it really would have moved us up to the next level. Incidentally, what are your thoughts on the time he was sacked? Do you think, given the circumstance it would have been better to let him see out the year, whilst searching for a new manager to bring in, or did you agree with sacking him asap? Not trying to trap you in any way, just interested in your opinion.

 

I was always a huge Bobby fan, which I guess blinded me to his faults a bit - and didn't want him to go at any point during his tenure, but was happy to accept it was his last season and that we were looking for a long term replacement.

 

I think it was obvious Robson had lost the respect of the players and he needed to be replaced. I really do believe he should have gone after we finished 3rd and I said so at the time. Getting rid of Shearer and moving Robson out was the way forward but it didn't happen. A big mistake by the Board and probably bigger than appointing Souness. Once Robson's last season was underway it was so very obvious the players had no respect for Robson anymore, so despite it being ideal to change manager at the end of a season I think it became impossible and he had to go when he did.

 

There are lots of people who can be "blamed" (if that's the right word) for the sacking of Robson and many have been discussed on here. What I don't think has ever really been discussed is the fact that some responsibility rests with Robson himself and his immediate staff. Ability on the football field is paramount, but research into the character of a person should also be a part of deciding whether or not to sign someone. After that, guiding young players properly is a part of the job. The club initiated a policy of signing young players, Robson and his immediate staff are in the firing line for their part in the way certain players became ill-disciplined and basically let the club down. This is what led to the sacking of Robson, not "only finishing 5th."

 

Thanks for answering. It's an interesting one. I now think, but didn't at the time, that he should have probably gone at the end of the 3rd season, however I disagree that his position was untenable when he left. I'd have given him until the end of the season once he'd started, and we (imo, obviously) probably would have finished somewhere around the UEFA places - also we'd have had time to search out a more appropriate replacement for him.

 

Obviously with hindsight taken into account he never should have been sacked when he was, because we now know who the fecking replacement was going to be!

[Guest Knightrider]

They say football changes every 3 years and that's why a lot of foreign teams will change not only their manager but also their team too every 3 years, even successful ones. I agree. Football has changed more in the last 3 years than it did between 92-99, in my opinion anyway.

[Howaythelads]

The new board have not done better than the old board, until they have at least matched the Champions League qualifications, and sustained it for a longer period. Would you go along with this ?

 

I wouldnt. Because comparing era's is totally flawed.

 

Why ? Why should you lower your ambitions ?

 

 

 

Maybe a case of looking at the opposition than lowering ambitions. Can you imagine any promoted team finishing third in the Premier League ever again? I can't.

 

I don't think this has ever been a regular thing and when it has happened it's always been a big achievement.

 

I'd say it was impossible now. Just saying the league is very different to how it once was. Plenty of clubs have mega-rich owners/shareholders now, for example. If NE5 simply compares league finishes over the years I'm not sure how fair it will be. Finishing lower doesn't necessarily mean you had lower ambition, and accepting those finishes doesn't mean you accept lower ambition.

 

I wouldn't disagree that the league is different to how it once was.

 

Regarding ambition, when I talk about previous league positions (rarely tbh) under previous Boards, I thought it was massively obvious that I'm looking at what was happening to achieve those positions? I didn't think that needed to be pointed out, to be honest. It's not just the league position that is the point. 

 

I basically agree with what you're saying....

You'll agree that finishing 14th under Souness doesn't mean the club had less ambition than it had the season before, obviously.

Finishing 5th for the first time in a couple of decades in the 70's but not spending to strengthen the squad tells you a story for why we then nose-dived, doesn't it?

Being promoted with the likes of Beardsley and Waddle in the side and then selling them tells you a story for why we then nose-dived, doesn't it? We can use the league positions when we highlight it, but it's the reason they happened that are indicators of the level of ambition. That's what I'm saying.

 

I think that league positions is a convenient way of looking at things for those who know the background. Perhaps when I've gone about this I'm guilty of not explaining things properly but then I do find a lot of people on this forum aren't really interested in reading and understanding posts that do anything other than slag the previous Board.

 

[Howaythelads]

They say football changes every 3 years and that's why a lot of foreign teams will change not only their manager but also their team too every 3 years, even successful ones. I agree. Football has changed more in the last 3 years than it did between 92-99, in my opinion anyway.

 

First time in my life I've heard of that one....

[Mowen]

They say football changes every 3 years and that's why a lot of foreign teams will change not only their manager but also their team too every 3 years, even successful ones. I agree. Football has changed more in the last 3 years than it did between 92-99, in my opinion anyway.

 

First time in my life I've heard of that one....

 

Same here

 

I agree with the final sentence though.

[Guest Knightrider]

They say football changes every 3 years and that's why a lot of foreign teams will change not only their manager but also their team too every 3 years, even successful ones. I agree. Football has changed more in the last 3 years than it did between 92-99, in my opinion anyway.

 

First time in my life I've heard of that one....

 

Sorry, been reading some foreign football books of late and that's the general consensus, can't say I've heard it myself regarding English football either but it wouldn't surprise me if people thought that way, more so these days.

[Howaythelads]

By the way, sacking Robson when he was sacked was a mistake. He should have gone after we finished 3rd. Anybody who was going to the matches should at least understand why I'm saying that even IF they don't agree and wanted to stick by him. That would be a difference of opinion and that's ok.

 

Anyone coming back with sarcastic shite about how we'd like to finish 5th now may as well not bother because they'll be contributing nothing to the point, so they can sod off in advance before they ruin this thread even further.

 

Ta

 

 

I agree in hindsight, although I probably didn't at the time. If we could have got someone top class in for him after that season it really would have moved us up to the next level. Incidentally, what are your thoughts on the time he was sacked? Do you think, given the circumstance it would have been better to let him see out the year, whilst searching for a new manager to bring in, or did you agree with sacking him asap? Not trying to trap you in any way, just interested in your opinion.

 

I was always a huge Bobby fan, which I guess blinded me to his faults a bit - and didn't want him to go at any point during his tenure, but was happy to accept it was his last season and that we were looking for a long term replacement.

 

I think it was obvious Robson had lost the respect of the players and he needed to be replaced. I really do believe he should have gone after we finished 3rd and I said so at the time. Getting rid of Shearer and moving Robson out was the way forward but it didn't happen. A big mistake by the Board and probably bigger than appointing Souness. Once Robson's last season was underway it was so very obvious the players had no respect for Robson anymore, so despite it being ideal to change manager at the end of a season I think it became impossible and he had to go when he did.

 

There are lots of people who can be "blamed" (if that's the right word) for the sacking of Robson and many have been discussed on here. What I don't think has ever really been discussed is the fact that some responsibility rests with Robson himself and his immediate staff. Ability on the football field is paramount, but research into the character of a person should also be a part of deciding whether or not to sign someone. After that, guiding young players properly is a part of the job. The club initiated a policy of signing young players, Robson and his immediate staff are in the firing line for their part in the way certain players became ill-disciplined and basically let the club down. This is what led to the sacking of Robson, not "only finishing 5th."

 

It could maybe be argued that Robson was a victim of the general slipping of respect from young people towards elders and authority in society in general.

 

I believe there is an element of that, tbh.

[Thespence]

The new board have not done better than the old board, until they have at least matched the Champions League qualifications, and sustained it for a longer period. Would you go along with this ?

 

I wouldnt. Because comparing era's is totally flawed.

 

Why ? Why should you lower your ambitions ?

 

 

 

Because you can cherry pick what part of a era you want to compare it with & the environment that one era competed in compared  may not be like for like.  It is your method of what you class as success I dont understand it has nothing to do with ambition what so ever.

 

I want us to win the league,FA cup, league cup, Champions League & win back the NewcastleGateshead plate for the record.

 

Of course I want to win at least one trophy, but on the basis of league positions, I don't see what era it is has to do with anything. You can only compete against your competitors, the goalposts are the same for everybody whatever era.

 

It is about Newcastle United V other football clubs. I also dont see what another era has to do with anything, that is why I wont be comparing this board to the last board.  If I do anything like this I tend to compare our previous & current football managers against each other. The goal posts are the same & so is the pitch but the environment that Newcastle United compete does change, I  remember in the 80's it was a top 6 people talked about & now where down to a top 4 becasue the elite are getting further away. We used to qualify for the Champions League, it has been a while but I blame players & poor managers for that & not the suits.

[Mick]

 

We lost our lowest number of games in our history IIRC and had a superb defensive record that season, while we were also strong at home. It was the draws that were killing us. Had we turned just a few of those into wins, we'd have finished in the top 4 easily. Our performances that season were shocking in the main though. I actually thought it would have been best for SBR to move upstairs after that season we finished 3rd and allow someone else to take things on further for the club because while I don't think we'd have went backwards under SBR, I don't think we'd have moved any further either. I was however, still in full support of him and didn't want him sacked or anything. Top 5 was more than good enough for me for a few years until the man himself decided to go as I believe he'd have left us in fantastic shape. He was clearly undermined in his final months though on and off the pitch. Just goes to show you how fickle football is really and even the strongest of foundations can quickly be demolished and it's happened to us twice now, after KK left from second to mid-table, and after Bobby from 5th to mid-table.

 

I honestly felt that we'd made progress in that season when we finished 5th by becoming harder to beat, we should have invested then, we would have done so from strength instead of cashing in and making a profit.  It's great that Robson gets blamed for the behavior of some of the younger players in the summer of 2004 when you consider that it's the same summer as Gary Speed was peddled behind his back for £750,000.  I'm sure having a player like Gary Speed in the dressing room would have done something towards keeping Dyer and Bellamy in check, it may have even reduced the appearance of him as being a lame duck as it was common knowledge amongst the players that this sale was done without the knowledge of the manager.

 

Who cares, let's just blame the manager for making himself a lame duck, let's also slam Bobby for allowing Dyer to crash his car on the way to training and Bellamy for being a thug while away in Wales.  Let's slam the manager for that but go mad when Bellamy is sold. 

[Mick]

 

What have you been reading over the last year/2 years ?

 

Nothing it would seem.

 

 

 

You appeared to want us to do both better and longer, I read that and questioned it, no big deal.

[Guest Knightrider]

 

We lost our lowest number of games in our history IIRC and had a superb defensive record that season, while we were also strong at home. It was the draws that were killing us. Had we turned just a few of those into wins, we'd have finished in the top 4 easily. Our performances that season were shocking in the main though. I actually thought it would have been best for SBR to move upstairs after that season we finished 3rd and allow someone else to take things on further for the club because while I don't think we'd have went backwards under SBR, I don't think we'd have moved any further either. I was however, still in full support of him and didn't want him sacked or anything. Top 5 was more than good enough for me for a few years until the man himself decided to go as I believe he'd have left us in fantastic shape. He was clearly undermined in his final months though on and off the pitch. Just goes to show you how fickle football is really and even the strongest of foundations can quickly be demolished and it's happened to us twice now, after KK left from second to mid-table, and after Bobby from 5th to mid-table.

 

I honestly felt that we'd made progress in that season when we finished 5th by becoming harder to beat, we should have invested then, we would have done so from strength instead of cashing in and making a profit.  It's great that Robson gets blamed for the behavior of some of the younger players in the summer of 2004 when you consider that it's the same summer as Gary Speed was peddled behind his back for £750,000.  I'm sure having a player like Gary Speed in the dressing room would have done something towards keeping Dyer and Bellamy in check, it may have even reduced the appearance of him as being a lame duck as it was common knowledge amongst the players that this sale was done without the knowledge of the manager.

 

Who cares, let's just blame the manager for making himself a lame duck, let's also slam Bobby for allowing Dyer to crash his car on the way to training and Bellamy for being a thug while away in Wales.  Let's slam the manager for that but go mad when Bellamy is sold. 

 

Agreed, for me we were tougher to beat and were solid defensively which is what you need to win trophies so in that sense we were progressing, but it effected our attack. Anyway I put it all down to balance issues, and giving time I'm sure Bobby would have found the right balance, or a happy medium.