Mort: I’m in charge

[Howaythelads]

 

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

 

 

 

You keep repeating yourself. That must be about a dozen times at least you've posted that. People must have their head up their arse if they still haven't got it.

[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.

 

Interesting.

 

How do you measure success?

 

Like most people winning football games, league positions & the one thing we all want a TROPHY.  I wonder are there Man Utd fans out there discussing the merits of Gill V Kenyon or Fergie working for the Edwards family V Sir Alex working for the Glazer family.

 

To me it seems obvious that the football manager is the most important person at a football club as when it goes tits up they get sacked so they must be the most influential people at any football club, so I tend to judge them. It is also obvious that players & the suits can influence how well or poor a manager does those.

 

 

[Mick]

 

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.

 

It did effect our balance, I don't know how we would have put that right, we may have had to use different midfielders for different games if we couldn't have found one to do two different jobs, we needed somebody like Patrick Vieira to run the middle of the team or a couple who could be picked for different games who could bring some of the different aspects that Vieira gave Arsenal.

[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?

 

Like most people winning football games, league positions & the one thing we all want a TROPHY.  I wonder are there Man Utd fans out there discussing the merits of Gill V Kenyon or Fergie working for the Edwards family V Sir Alex working for the Glazer family.

 

To me it seems obvious that the football manager is the most important person at a football club as when it goes tits up they get sacked so they must be the most influential people at any football club, so I tend to judge them. It is also obvious that players & the suits can influence how well or poor a manager does those.

 

 

 

I agree. I'm really not at all bothered about discussing the owner, the board at all, which is why I've NEVER started a thread about either of them. All I do is respond to those who are obsessed with discussing and abusing them.

 

Not being funny, but if Souness hadn't put himself ahead of the club and we'd won the Uefa Cup (we did have a good chance imo) do you think his time at the club could be called a success?

 

[Guest Knightrider]

 

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.

 

It did effect our balance, I don't know how we would have put that right, we may have had to use different midfielders for different games if we couldn't have found one to do two different jobs, we needed somebody like Patrick Vieira to run the middle of the team or a couple who could be picked for different games who could bring some of the different aspects that Vieira gave Arsenal.

 

Removing Shearer and replacing him with a mobile version of him (harder said than done) might of helped. That's the area I would have looked at anyway. A powerhouse in midfield would have also helped.

[Thespence]

Not being funny, but if Souness hadn't put himself ahead of the club and we'd won the Uefa Cup (we did have a good chance imo) do you think his time at the club could be called a success?

 

YES!!!! Seeing us win a trophy is what I day dream about dont think I have dreamt of wanting to finish 2nd,3rd or 4th before, although I have wanted us to finish in them positions many times.

[Howaythelads]

Not being funny, but if Souness hadn't put himself ahead of the club and we'd won the Uefa Cup (we did have a good chance imo) do you think his time at the club could be called a success?

 

YES!!!! Seeing us win a trophy is what I day dream about dont think I have dreamt of wanting to finish 2nd,3rd or 4th before, although I have wanted us to finish in them positions many times.

 

We'll have to disagree then. A one-off trophy from a cup competition against the backdrop of being absolute shite in the league during the Souness period could never have made that period a "success" imo.

 

[Thespence]

Not being funny, but if Souness hadn't put himself ahead of the club and we'd won the Uefa Cup (we did have a good chance imo) do you think his time at the club could be called a success?

 

YES!!!! Seeing us win a trophy is what I day dream about dont think I have dreamt of wanting to finish 2nd,3rd or 4th before, although I have wanted us to finish in them positions many times.

 

We'll have to disagree then. A one-off trophy from a cup competition against the backdrop of being absolute s**** in the league during the Souness period could never have made that period a "success" imo.

 

I see ending the trophy less spell as something that would lift the whole place & break down the tension. Maybe answering YES to classing the Souness period as success was wrong, but I do place Newcastle winning a trophy just below not getting relegated from Premiership as things that are important to me.

[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

 

 

 

Breaking into the Champions League positions is a lot harder now than it was 4 or 5 years ago. 

 

Do you mean for us, or generally.

 

Your wrong on both counts by the way. We finished in mid table for a few years before qualifying for the Champions League, just like now in fact.

 

And generally, there are still the same amount of teams, competing for the same amount of places. Assuming we "compete" for these places, and THAT my friend, is the whole basis of my point.

 

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

 

We are no further away than we were when Robson took over from Gullit.

 

This is really quite straightforward, if they don't equal them, they haven't done as good a job, and if they do better then they have done a better job and it will also be a very good one too. What is the problem people are having with this ? The only reason I can think of that they are disputing it, is for some reason they are reluctant to accept that doing better than the "shite board" may not be so easy as they all said it would be ......

 

 

[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.

 

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.

 

Whatever cosmetic changes are made in football, they change for everybody. Essentially, it is the same competitions you are in, so nothing is different. The only question is how you, yourself, adjust to the changes as you see them and your level of success is such that it is still put against the same rivals.

 

So, I'm happy enough to say that if the new board doesn't match the league positions of the old one, they haven't done so well, and if they better it, then great. The old board adapted to and met the challenge of their time, and did what they did. The new board have to match the challenge of the current time in exactly the same way.Some rules don't change though, if you want success, you have to back your manager and have players in your club that the other clubs want themselves.

 

I totally agree that the players and managers are to blame for far our disappointments BTW. Because we have clearly been backed by the directors to give us teams good enough to have won trophies, this is their particular role, and it would be foolish to say otherwise, but amazingly people have been doing so and stilll are.

 

 

[NE5]

Not being funny, but if Souness hadn't put himself ahead of the club and we'd won the Uefa Cup (we did have a good chance imo) do you think his time at the club could be called a success?

 

YES!!!! Seeing us win a trophy is what I day dream about dont think I have dreamt of wanting to finish 2nd,3rd or 4th before, although I have wanted us to finish in them positions many times.

 

We'll have to disagree then. A one-off trophy from a cup competition against the backdrop of being absolute s**** in the league during the Souness period could never have made that period a "success" imo.

 

I see ending the trophy less spell as something that would lift the whole place & break down the tension. Maybe answering YES to classing the Souness period as success was wrong, but I do place Newcastle winning a trophy just below not getting relegated from Premiership as things that are important to me.

 

I can agree that breaking the trophy less years is massively important to the club mate, and would be a huge psychological breakthrough.  There is nothing like expecting to win and having a mentality whereby other clubs expect you to be winners. However, if Souness had won the FA Cup or the UEFA Cup it would have seemed to me to be undeserved of him, because he did a shit job, Keegan and Bobby Robson deserved it far more, especially Keegan.

 

Does anyone really think that the name of Souness being cast as some sort of "hero" in the history of Newcastle United for winning the first trophy in 50 years, would have sat easy with you ? I can't think of anyone more hideous to have such an accolade to be honest.

 

[Howaythelads]

Not being funny, but if Souness hadn't put himself ahead of the club and we'd won the Uefa Cup (we did have a good chance imo) do you think his time at the club could be called a success?

 

YES!!!! Seeing us win a trophy is what I day dream about dont think I have dreamt of wanting to finish 2nd,3rd or 4th before, although I have wanted us to finish in them positions many times.

 

We'll have to disagree then. A one-off trophy from a cup competition against the backdrop of being absolute s**** in the league during the Souness period could never have made that period a "success" imo.

 

I see ending the trophy less spell as something that would lift the whole place & break down the tension. Maybe answering YES to classing the Souness period as success was wrong, but I do place Newcastle winning a trophy just below not getting relegated from Premiership as things that are important to me.

 

So do I on the bit in bold. But a single cup competition under the Souness regime wouldn't have been success in my eyes. The period under Robson was far more "successful," if you know what I mean.

[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.

So, I'm happy enough to say that if the new board doesn't match the league positions of the old one, they haven't done so well, and if they better it, then great. The old board adapted to and met the challenge of their time, and did what they did. The new board have to match the challenge of the current time in exactly the same way.Some rules don't change though, if you want success, you have to back your manager and have players in your club that the other clubs want themselves.

 

I totally agree that the players and managers are to blame for far our disappointments BTW. Because we have clearly been backed by the directors to give us teams good enough to have won trophies, this is their particular role, and it would be foolish to say otherwise, but amazingly people have been doing so and stilll are.

 

As I said I am not that fussed about boards. The new board didn't  buy a club sitting in a Champions League spot they bought a club that had sacked it previous manager & the club had just finished 13th in the league. The last mob tried for years to buy back into a Champions League spot that Newcastle United (not a board by the way) had not been in for a while but failed because it is a lot harder to crack than what it was a few years ago.  The 4 spots now seem covered by clubs who have won the league recently or the Champions League that is level competition we have to break now.  It is not just about backing a manager willy nilly as I am sure Fred would no doubt tell you himself & history shows that. It is about employing the right man first. How many did Man Utd go through until they got Fergie. I dont blame Shepherd/Hall  for Dogleash/Ruud/Souness being poor  managers at Newcastle & spending badly & equally I dont go round praising them for the work Keegan & Robson did.

 

You said previously "Why should you lower your ambitions" why should ambition be to finish at best 2nd or 3rd  & 4th. If you want to compare boards dont stop at the ones that won f***  but had few good league finishes aim for the boards that won the league: 1904-05, 1906-07, 1908-09, 1926-27. THATS WHAT I WANT.

 

It is always about players & managers a board can only make it easier to achieve what we all want a successful Newcastle United.

 

[fredbob]

the quickest way is to spend money you don't have.

 

I'll eagerly await the "big four" apart from Chelsea and most of the rest of the teams in the league going into administration then.

 

Strange how all these people who are slating having ambiton are unable to see this is how the top 4 became the top 4, and our relative success in our recent past has also came as a result of the same thing. Do they really think you can be successful unless you try to compete at the top levels ?

 

Quite amazing.

 

 

Do you not think that it acould also be due to the fact they made astute appointments and didnt sack them as regularly as they changed their pants.?

 

Well, are you saying we should have stuck with Dalglish ?

 

Or Gullit, and not therefore appointed Bobby Robson when we did ?

 

 

 

Been here before mate, the appointments arent what im scrutinizing, the 2 major responsiblities of the board are the appointment of the right manager adn the backing of the manager, for years, like the top 4 we have backied the manager, but when it comes to appointing and sticking by the right manager, we've failed miserably, and it kinda shows in the urrent gulf of class between us and the top 4.

 

Im saying that the rotation of managers is the reason why we're behind the top4.

 

Are you now ?

 

The top 4 have kept the manager because they were in the top 4 wouldn't you say .......

 

Why is the 5th most qualified club for europe over a decade = s**** managers all the time ?

 

Are Everton behind the top 4 because they have rotated their managers ? Moyes has been there longer than Chelsea and Liverpools current managers .......

 

And, do you therefore think we should have kept Dalglish and Gullit ?

 

I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep any manager you care to name at this club for 20 years if you like, but if the board don't match the ambition of the boards at the top 4 clubs, we will never join them.

 

 

 

(your first point)Ok, but we were in the top 5 the last time we changed our manager.

 

(your second point) 5th most qualified club in over a decade is such a misleading stat, stop using it. I've already said why its a misleading stat and cant be bothered to explain it all again. Nothing seems to go in with you.

 

And they say ignorance is bliss...

 

(your third point) No, Everton arent behind jut becasue they rotated there managers, they are behind because they dont have the same financial resources as we do. However its interesting you brought Everton up because they are the only team to break the top 4 since the top 4 became so dominant. All with a steady manager. So that kinda goes to prove my point. That despite having limited resources with a consistent manger they were able to break the top 4.

 

Again to reiterate my point - i believe that an astute appointment needs to be stuck by, not sacked when the "cracks" seem to be appearing.

Where do you think everton would be today if they sacked Moyes when he finished 11th having finished 4th the previous season?

Why was SBR sacked after finishing 5th? Did they make an astute apointment to justify the decision?

 

(your 4th point) Something of a moot point. As i believed at the time that Dalglish was a good appointment, but who is to saythat he wouldnt of been a success. The fact that he destryoed a title challengin squad was too much, so i'd agree with the sacking. It was justifiable.

 

(your final point)  I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep changing managers for the next 20 years if you like, and if the board match the financial ambitions the top 4 clubs, we still wont join them.

 

We've tried the "back as many managers as possible" routine, now i suggest we start backing the right man for the job and not sack him after the first apparent "decline" under his leadership. a la SBR.  

[NE5]

the quickest way is to spend money you don't have.

 

I'll eagerly await the "big four" apart from Chelsea and most of the rest of the teams in the league going into administration then.

 

Strange how all these people who are slating having ambiton are unable to see this is how the top 4 became the top 4, and our relative success in our recent past has also came as a result of the same thing. Do they really think you can be successful unless you try to compete at the top levels ?

 

Quite amazing.

 

 

Do you not think that it acould also be due to the fact they made astute appointments and didnt sack them as regularly as they changed their pants.?

 

Well, are you saying we should have stuck with Dalglish ?

 

Or Gullit, and not therefore appointed Bobby Robson when we did ?

 

 

 

Been here before mate, the appointments arent what im scrutinizing, the 2 major responsiblities of the board are the appointment of the right manager adn the backing of the manager, for years, like the top 4 we have backied the manager, but when it comes to appointing and sticking by the right manager, we've failed miserably, and it kinda shows in the urrent gulf of class between us and the top 4.

 

Im saying that the rotation of managers is the reason why we're behind the top4.

 

Are you now ?

 

The top 4 have kept the manager because they were in the top 4 wouldn't you say .......

 

Why is the 5th most qualified club for europe over a decade = s**** managers all the time ?

 

Are Everton behind the top 4 because they have rotated their managers ? Moyes has been there longer than Chelsea and Liverpools current managers .......

 

And, do you therefore think we should have kept Dalglish and Gullit ?

 

I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep any manager you care to name at this club for 20 years if you like, but if the board don't match the ambition of the boards at the top 4 clubs, we will never join them.

 

 

 

(your first point)Ok, but we were in the top 5 the last time we changed our manager.

 

(your second point) 5th most qualified club in over a decade is such a misleading stat, stop using it. I've already said why its a misleading stat and cant be bothered to explain it all again. Nothing seems to go in with you.

 

And they say ignorance is bliss...

 

(your third point) No, Everton arent behind jut becasue they rotated there managers, they are behind because they dont have the same financial resources as we do. However its interesting you brought Everton up because they are the only team to break the top 4 since the top 4 became so dominant. All with a steady manager. So that kinda goes to prove my point. That despite having limited resources with a consistent manger they were able to break the top 4.

 

Again to reiterate my point - i believe that an astute appointment needs to be stuck by, not sacked when the "cracks" seem to be appearing.

Where do you think everton would be today if they sacked Moyes when he finished 11th having finished 4th the previous season?

Why was SBR sacked after finishing 5th? Did they make an astute apointment to justify the decision?

 

(your 4th point) Something of a moot point. As i believed at the time that Dalglish was a good appointment, but who is to saythat he wouldnt of been a success. The fact that he destryoed a title challengin squad was too much, so i'd agree with the sacking. It was justifiable.

 

(your final point)  I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep changing managers for the next 20 years if you like, and if the board match the financial ambitions the top 4 clubs, we still wont join them.

 

We've tried the "back as many managers as possible" routine, now i suggest we start backing the right man for the job and not sack him after the first apparent "decline" under his leadership. a la SBR.  

 

how is the FACT that we have qualified for europe more than any team bar 4, and have the 5th highest average league position, and have finished in the top 5 for 3 consecutive seasons for the first time in 50 years, misleading ?

 

Really, if you want to continue your agenda, you are going to have to do better than this [although you won't change my mind unless you can change history]

 

I see your point with the "back the managers" approach, but unfortunately, you are obviously not looking at the top teams and recognising this is how they do it themselves.

 

Dalglish inherited a great team at Liverpool, and improved them. Who is to say that he wouldn't have done the same at Newcastle, unless - like yourself - you use hindsight.

 

If I could use hindsight, I would have won the lottery last Saturday.

 

I agree that we need to keep our manager if we want to build a real dynasty of a football club.

 

However, if someone is the wrong guy, you have to make a change.

 

You appear to be unable to see the fact that football demands a totally different sort of approach to normal business. I will refer you to my previous points, do you think we should have continued backing Dalglish and Gullitt when the confidence in them had gone ?

 

 

 

 

 

[madras]

the quickest way is to spend money you don't have.

 

I'll eagerly await the "big four" apart from Chelsea and most of the rest of the teams in the league going into administration then.

 

Strange how all these people who are slating having ambiton are unable to see this is how the top 4 became the top 4, and our relative success in our recent past has also came as a result of the same thing. Do they really think you can be successful unless you try to compete at the top levels ?

 

Quite amazing.

 

 

Do you not think that it acould also be due to the fact they made astute appointments and didnt sack them as regularly as they changed their pants.?

 

Well, are you saying we should have stuck with Dalglish ?

 

Or Gullit, and not therefore appointed Bobby Robson when we did ?

 

 

 

Been here before mate, the appointments arent what im scrutinizing, the 2 major responsiblities of the board are the appointment of the right manager adn the backing of the manager, for years, like the top 4 we have backied the manager, but when it comes to appointing and sticking by the right manager, we've failed miserably, and it kinda shows in the urrent gulf of class between us and the top 4.

 

Im saying that the rotation of managers is the reason why we're behind the top4.

 

Are you now ?

 

The top 4 have kept the manager because they were in the top 4 wouldn't you say .......

 

Why is the 5th most qualified club for europe over a decade = s**** managers all the time ?

 

Are Everton behind the top 4 because they have rotated their managers ? Moyes has been there longer than Chelsea and Liverpools current managers .......

 

And, do you therefore think we should have kept Dalglish and Gullit ?

 

I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep any manager you care to name at this club for 20 years if you like, but if the board don't match the ambition of the boards at the top 4 clubs, we will never join them.

 

 

 

(your first point)Ok, but we were in the top 5 the last time we changed our manager.

 

(your second point) 5th most qualified club in over a decade is such a misleading stat, stop using it. I've already said why its a misleading stat and cant be bothered to explain it all again. Nothing seems to go in with you.

 

And they say ignorance is bliss...

 

(your third point) No, Everton arent behind jut becasue they rotated there managers, they are behind because they dont have the same financial resources as we do. However its interesting you brought Everton up because they are the only team to break the top 4 since the top 4 became so dominant. All with a steady manager. So that kinda goes to prove my point. That despite having limited resources with a consistent manger they were able to break the top 4.

 

Again to reiterate my point - i believe that an astute appointment needs to be stuck by, not sacked when the "cracks" seem to be appearing.

Where do you think everton would be today if they sacked Moyes when he finished 11th having finished 4th the previous season?

Why was SBR sacked after finishing 5th? Did they make an astute apointment to justify the decision?

 

(your 4th point) Something of a moot point. As i believed at the time that Dalglish was a good appointment, but who is to saythat he wouldnt of been a success. The fact that he destryoed a title challengin squad was too much, so i'd agree with the sacking. It was justifiable.

 

(your final point)  I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep changing managers for the next 20 years if you like, and if the board match the financial ambitions the top 4 clubs, we still wont join them.

 

We've tried the "back as many managers as possible" routine, now i suggest we start backing the right man for the job and not sack him after the first apparent "decline" under his leadership. a la SBR. 

 

how is the FACT that we have qualified for europe more than any team bar 4, and have the 5th highest average league position, and have finished in the top 5 for 3 consecutive seasons for the first time in 50 years, misleading ?

 

Really, if you want to continue your agenda, you are going to have to do better than this [although you won't change my mind unless you can change history]

 

I see your point with the "back the managers" approach, but unfortunately, you are obviously not looking at the top teams and recognising this is how they do it themselves.

 

Dalglish inherited a great team at Liverpool, and improved them. Who is to say that he wouldn't have done the same at Newcastle, unless - like yourself - you use hindsight.

 

If I could use hindsight, I would have won the lottery last Saturday.

 

I agree that we need to keep our manager if we want to build a real dynasty of a football club.

 

However, if someone is the wrong guy, you have to make a change.

 

You appear to be unable to see the fact that football demands a totally different sort of approach to normal business. I will refer you to my previous points, do you think we should have continued backing Dalglish and Gullitt when the confidence in them had gone ?

 

 

 

 

 

NE5 has a point here re dalglish....brought in given,hamman,thomasson,solano. if it werent for the injuries to shearer and asprilla he'd have had a very good nucleus to build on.

[fredbob]

the quickest way is to spend money you don't have.

 

I'll eagerly await the "big four" apart from Chelsea and most of the rest of the teams in the league going into administration then.

 

Strange how all these people who are slating having ambiton are unable to see this is how the top 4 became the top 4, and our relative success in our recent past has also came as a result of the same thing. Do they really think you can be successful unless you try to compete at the top levels ?

 

Quite amazing.

 

 

Do you not think that it acould also be due to the fact they made astute appointments and didnt sack them as regularly as they changed their pants.?

 

Well, are you saying we should have stuck with Dalglish ?

 

Or Gullit, and not therefore appointed Bobby Robson when we did ?

 

 

 

Been here before mate, the appointments arent what im scrutinizing, the 2 major responsiblities of the board are the appointment of the right manager adn the backing of the manager, for years, like the top 4 we have backied the manager, but when it comes to appointing and sticking by the right manager, we've failed miserably, and it kinda shows in the urrent gulf of class between us and the top 4.

 

Im saying that the rotation of managers is the reason why we're behind the top4.

 

Are you now ?

 

The top 4 have kept the manager because they were in the top 4 wouldn't you say .......

 

Why is the 5th most qualified club for europe over a decade = s**** managers all the time ?

 

Are Everton behind the top 4 because they have rotated their managers ? Moyes has been there longer than Chelsea and Liverpools current managers .......

 

And, do you therefore think we should have kept Dalglish and Gullit ?

 

I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep any manager you care to name at this club for 20 years if you like, but if the board don't match the ambition of the boards at the top 4 clubs, we will never join them.

 

 

 

(your first point)Ok, but we were in the top 5 the last time we changed our manager.

 

(your second point) 5th most qualified club in over a decade is such a misleading stat, stop using it. I've already said why its a misleading stat and cant be bothered to explain it all again. Nothing seems to go in with you.

 

And they say ignorance is bliss...

 

(your third point) No, Everton arent behind jut becasue they rotated there managers, they are behind because they dont have the same financial resources as we do. However its interesting you brought Everton up because they are the only team to break the top 4 since the top 4 became so dominant. All with a steady manager. So that kinda goes to prove my point. That despite having limited resources with a consistent manger they were able to break the top 4.

 

Again to reiterate my point - i believe that an astute appointment needs to be stuck by, not sacked when the "cracks" seem to be appearing.

Where do you think everton would be today if they sacked Moyes when he finished 11th having finished 4th the previous season?

Why was SBR sacked after finishing 5th? Did they make an astute apointment to justify the decision?

 

(your 4th point) Something of a moot point. As i believed at the time that Dalglish was a good appointment, but who is to saythat he wouldnt of been a success. The fact that he destryoed a title challengin squad was too much, so i'd agree with the sacking. It was justifiable.

 

(your final point)  I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep changing managers for the next 20 years if you like, and if the board match the financial ambitions the top 4 clubs, we still wont join them.

 

We've tried the "back as many managers as possible" routine, now i suggest we start backing the right man for the job and not sack him after the first apparent "decline" under his leadership. a la SBR.  

 

how is the FACT that we have qualified for europe more than any team bar 4, and have the 5th highest average league position, and have finished in the top 5 for 3 consecutive seasons for the first time in 50 years, misleading ?

 

Well if we look at the 10 years that Shepard was in charge. Ie the past decade you look mention. you'll see that Euro qualification was merited by league finishing [(direct qualification) (ie true measure of teams performnace)] only 3 times, all under SBR. In those 10 years we finished in the top 10 only 4 times.

 

Incedently how can you use a stat like '3, top 5 consecutive finshes in 50 years' as a major point for the success of the club historically, then say it was the correct decision to sack the manager who achieved the success. A little contradicotry if you ask me.

 

Now if you ask me, FA cup final runners up adn Intertoto qualification dont exactly measure the success of the board at a club this size. (Bare in mind the top5 highest league finihses you use)

 

Really, if you want to continue your agenda, you are going to have to do better than this [although you won't change my mind unless you can change history]

 

Honestly Mr Sheperd, i dont have an agenda, just fan who's saying it how he sees it.

 

I see your point with the "back the managers" approach, but unfortunately, you are obviously not looking at the top teams and recognising this is how they do it themselves.

 

So are you saying that they back all there managers and see which ones are the most successful and stick through thick and thin, just like they did with Houllier to an obvious point, just like they have done with Wenger despite barely qualifying for CL, and just like they did with Fergie when he went a couple of season winning Jack and spunking a load of money up the wall in the process.

 

Dalglish inherited a great team at Liverpool, and improved them. Who is to say that he wouldn't have done the same at Newcastle, unless - like yourself - you use hindsight.

 

Ha ha, i was gonna say the same thing, but thought you'd retort by saying it was plainly obviousl he was destroying the side, and that i must of had my head in the clouds etc etc.

 

If I could use hindsight, I would have won the lottery last Saturday.

 

I agree that we need to keep our manager if we want to build a real dynasty of a football club.

 

I completely 100% agree with you there.

 

However, if someone is the wrong guy, you have to make a change.

 

So was SBR the wrong guy?

 

You appear to be unable to see the fact that football demands a totally different sort of approach to normal business. I will refer you to my previous points, do you think we should have continued backing Dalglish and Gullitt when the confidence in them had gone ?

 

Why had the confidence gone in them so quickly? Measured against unrealistic expectations? Hindsight exactly applicable in the case of either of them becasue they both only had one season. Who's to say. Altohugh i beleive the sacking of Gullit was correct, becasue he destryed the moral o that side.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dr Venkman]

The Emirates will pay itself off, that's why it's not a massive financial risk. The naming thing has already secured Arsenal £150m or so, so they're well on their way to securing enough money to pay for it.

 

And the other three, even though they have debts that would be massive risks for most clubs, they've got rich owners who can deal with it.

 

You would have said the same about the SJP expansion 5 years ago

 

And? 5 years ago no one could have predicted that we would be in the freefall that we were at the end of Fred's time. That's stunning, don't you think? 10 years ago I don't think many predicted that we'd be in financial trouble and our future would be looking seemingly bleak. That's the main thing I've been trying to say so far, though god knows I've tried my best to sound as confusing as possible.

 

???

 

And in 5 years time Wenger may have let and Arsenal may be struggling to get 8th place in the Premier league.

 

You've said exactly what I was getting at, the Emirates looks sound now, SJP look sound 5 years ago

 

Aye, the MANAGER makes a massive difference, which is where we went wrong with the appointment of Souness, obviously.

 

.....or even the sacking of SBR?

 

didn't hear too many voices against it at the time.

 

Never mind, after today, do you hope the club continue carrying on putting the books first, standby for more real mediocrity or worse. I thought when the Halls and Shepherd left, all this mediocrity would come to an end. I reckon we need a few of these quality trophy players to get up the league a bit, don't you

 

 

 

I've always been unhappy with the sacking of SBR.

 

I dont know what agenda you have me trying to push but you have the wrong man, i wasnt for Shepard during his reign as chairmen, although i supported most of his decisions. I am not one of these people who think the new board are magically sorting out all the problems, but i am extremely encouraged by what has already occured with the new board, but i feel obliged to respond to some absolute stupendous critism of the new board which is borderline idiotic. considering that we are 5 months into their ownership. Whehther you turn out to be correct or wrong is irrelevant to me but to sit there and criticise something so quickly with absolutley NOTHING solid to back it up except for some loose misinterpretation is mind boggling to me.

 

Idiotic.

 

A simple FACT, dear boy, is that Sir Bobby Robson's team was booed for only finishing 5th, this epitomised the feeling of a lot of fans at that time. I would presume those who booed the team that day were the same people - like booboo - who laugh at the team when they aren't performing well.

 

I'm not saying that you were one of those, because I don't know, but what I do know is if you ignore this comment, you are ignoring history. So don't start laying the blame at the feet of the board, they acted in what was thought was the decision to be made at the time. Most fans backed it - even those who didn't shamefully boo - the only problem was the replacement. What a shame we didn't find the next Arsene Wenger though during the last decade eh, how incompetent can you get

 

 

 

bloody hell man, the stuff you'll come out with to absolve them of any blame, unbelievable

 

"they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time". I fail to see how this is making excuses, unless you are going to tell us that the majority of fans didn't agree that it was time for a change ?

 

 

 

well, first of all, 'dont go laying the blame at the feet of the board', referencing the blame they're getting for a decision THEY made, 100% sums you up

 

secondly, 'they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time', is vague, weak, and ducks BLAME, why are they acting on what other people think? dont they have the courage of their convictions? did they EVER do anything wrong mate apart from appointing souness, or are you just gonna blame the fans, players and managers?

 

and lastly, bobby should have gone at the end of the season previous, waiting and doing it then was STUPID, sorry like, on this occasion FREDDY, WAS STUPID

[Guest alex]

Do you think any of the last 3 managerial appointments have been any good btw NE5?

[NE5]

the quickest way is to spend money you don't have.

 

I'll eagerly await the "big four" apart from Chelsea and most of the rest of the teams in the league going into administration then.

 

Strange how all these people who are slating having ambiton are unable to see this is how the top 4 became the top 4, and our relative success in our recent past has also came as a result of the same thing. Do they really think you can be successful unless you try to compete at the top levels ?

 

Quite amazing.

 

 

Do you not think that it acould also be due to the fact they made astute appointments and didnt sack them as regularly as they changed their pants.?

 

Well, are you saying we should have stuck with Dalglish ?

 

Or Gullit, and not therefore appointed Bobby Robson when we did ?

 

 

 

Been here before mate, the appointments arent what im scrutinizing, the 2 major responsiblities of the board are the appointment of the right manager adn the backing of the manager, for years, like the top 4 we have backied the manager, but when it comes to appointing and sticking by the right manager, we've failed miserably, and it kinda shows in the urrent gulf of class between us and the top 4.

 

Im saying that the rotation of managers is the reason why we're behind the top4.

 

Are you now ?

 

The top 4 have kept the manager because they were in the top 4 wouldn't you say .......

 

Why is the 5th most qualified club for europe over a decade = s**** managers all the time ?

 

Are Everton behind the top 4 because they have rotated their managers ? Moyes has been there longer than Chelsea and Liverpools current managers .......

 

And, do you therefore think we should have kept Dalglish and Gullit ?

 

I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep any manager you care to name at this club for 20 years if you like, but if the board don't match the ambition of the boards at the top 4 clubs, we will never join them.

 

 

 

(your first point)Ok, but we were in the top 5 the last time we changed our manager.

 

(your second point) 5th most qualified club in over a decade is such a misleading stat, stop using it. I've already said why its a misleading stat and cant be bothered to explain it all again. Nothing seems to go in with you.

 

And they say ignorance is bliss...

 

(your third point) No, Everton arent behind jut becasue they rotated there managers, they are behind because they dont have the same financial resources as we do.

 

Care to explain how they were one of the biggest supported clubs in the country, won a couple of league titles, FA Cups and a european trophy while we were in the 2nd division then, and below them for decades, including pinching the only manager we had who put together a team that finished in the top 5 in 40 years ?

 

Then tell us who reversed that trend ?

 

Don't bother saying its a misleading statistic, because it isn't. Answer it, if you can, and if you don't, I'll put it down to you not having a clue.

 

However its interesting you brought Everton up because they are the only team to break the top 4 since the top 4 became so dominant. All with a steady manager. So that kinda goes to prove my point. That despite having limited resources with a consistent manger they were able to break the top 4.

 

We will see. I don't agree it would be down to sticking with a manager for 6 years though, and our crowd wouldn't put up with 6 years of the dross - for the most part - Everton have watched either, they are up in arms at watching a fraction of that.

 

Again to reiterate my point - i believe that an astute appointment needs to be stuck by, not sacked when the "cracks" seem to be appearing.

Where do you think everton would be today if they sacked Moyes when he finished 11th having finished 4th the previous season?

Why was SBR sacked after finishing 5th? Did they make an astute apointment to justify the decision?

 

(your 4th point) Something of a moot point. As i believed at the time that Dalglish was a good appointment, but who is to saythat he wouldnt of been a success. The fact that he destryoed a title challengin squad was too much, so i'd agree with the sacking. It was justifiable.

 

(your final point)  I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep changing managers for the next 20 years if you like, and if the board match the financial ambitions the top 4 clubs, we still wont join them.

 

We've tried the "back as many managers as possible" routine, now i suggest we start backing the right man for the job and not sack him after the first apparent "decline" under his leadership. a la SBR.  

 

some people would say Allardyce is an astute appointment, in fact they do. Come back when you understand where the boards role becomes the responsibility of the manager, and his players. As you don't appear to have answered, do you think we should have stuck with Dalglish ? Do you think we should have stuck with Gullit ? Do you think we should have stuck with Souness ? Do you think we should stick with Allardyce ? By your reckoning, we should have stuck with Dalglish, and by now, we would automatically be winning the league. An absurd theory.

 

 

[NE5]

Do you think any of the last 3 managerial appointments have been any good btw NE5?

 

Do you ?

 

The board have backed them, thats for sure. Why only the last 3 [within the last 3-4 years] anyway

 

Believe it or not, I'm looking forward, and hoping for a more successful decade than the last decade, and like it or not, if they don't do so well, then they haven't been as successful. This is fairly basic common sense, and I can't see why people are disputing it.

 

 

[Guest alex]

Do you think any of the last 3 managerial appointments have been any good btw NE5?

 

Do you ?

 

The board have backed them, thats for sure. Why only the last 3 [within the last 3-4 years] anyway

 

Believe it or not, I'm looking forward, and hoping for a more successful decade than the last decade, and like it or not, if they don't do so well, then they haven't been as successful. This is fairly basic common sense, and I can't see why people are disputing it.

 

 

They get credit for backing managers but they should get criticism for appointing the wrong managers. Some balance is what I'm getting at.

[NE5]

The Emirates will pay itself off, that's why it's not a massive financial risk. The naming thing has already secured Arsenal £150m or so, so they're well on their way to securing enough money to pay for it.

 

And the other three, even though they have debts that would be massive risks for most clubs, they've got rich owners who can deal with it.

 

You would have said the same about the SJP expansion 5 years ago

 

And? 5 years ago no one could have predicted that we would be in the freefall that we were at the end of Fred's time. That's stunning, don't you think? 10 years ago I don't think many predicted that we'd be in financial trouble and our future would be looking seemingly bleak. That's the main thing I've been trying to say so far, though god knows I've tried my best to sound as confusing as possible.

 

???

 

And in 5 years time Wenger may have let and Arsenal may be struggling to get 8th place in the Premier league.

 

You've said exactly what I was getting at, the Emirates looks sound now, SJP look sound 5 years ago

 

Aye, the MANAGER makes a massive difference, which is where we went wrong with the appointment of Souness, obviously.

 

.....or even the sacking of SBR?

 

didn't hear too many voices against it at the time.

 

Never mind, after today, do you hope the club continue carrying on putting the books first, standby for more real mediocrity or worse. I thought when the Halls and Shepherd left, all this mediocrity would come to an end. I reckon we need a few of these quality trophy players to get up the league a bit, don't you

 

 

 

I've always been unhappy with the sacking of SBR.

 

I dont know what agenda you have me trying to push but you have the wrong man, i wasnt for Shepard during his reign as chairmen, although i supported most of his decisions. I am not one of these people who think the new board are magically sorting out all the problems, but i am extremely encouraged by what has already occured with the new board, but i feel obliged to respond to some absolute stupendous critism of the new board which is borderline idiotic. considering that we are 5 months into their ownership. Whehther you turn out to be correct or wrong is irrelevant to me but to sit there and criticise something so quickly with absolutley NOTHING solid to back it up except for some loose misinterpretation is mind boggling to me.

 

Idiotic.

 

A simple FACT, dear boy, is that Sir Bobby Robson's team was booed for only finishing 5th, this epitomised the feeling of a lot of fans at that time. I would presume those who booed the team that day were the same people - like booboo - who laugh at the team when they aren't performing well.

 

I'm not saying that you were one of those, because I don't know, but what I do know is if you ignore this comment, you are ignoring history. So don't start laying the blame at the feet of the board, they acted in what was thought was the decision to be made at the time. Most fans backed it - even those who didn't shamefully boo - the only problem was the replacement. What a shame we didn't find the next Arsene Wenger though during the last decade eh, how incompetent can you get

 

 

 

bloody hell man, the stuff you'll come out with to absolve them of any blame, unbelievable

 

"they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time". I fail to see how this is making excuses, unless you are going to tell us that the majority of fans didn't agree that it was time for a change ?

 

 

 

well, first of all, 'dont go laying the blame at the feet of the board', referencing the blame they're getting for a decision THEY made, 100% sums you up

 

secondly, 'they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time', is vague, weak, and ducks BLAME, why are they acting on what other people think? dont they have the courage of their convictions? did they EVER do anything wrong mate apart from appointing souness, or are you just gonna blame the fans, players and managers?

 

and lastly, bobby should have gone at the end of the season previous, waiting and doing it then was STUPID, sorry like, on this occasion FREDDY, WAS STUPID

 

I'm sure if they had used hindsight, like you, they wouldn't have done it either.

 

Only someone really stupid won't understand this.

 

Do you also think Gullit should have been kept on until the end of the season ? Your views have no credibility if they aren't consistent, I don't suppose you will understand this

 

 

[NE5]

Do you think any of the last 3 managerial appointments have been any good btw NE5?

 

Do you ?

 

The board have backed them, thats for sure. Why only the last 3 [within the last 3-4 years] anyway

 

Believe it or not, I'm looking forward, and hoping for a more successful decade than the last decade, and like it or not, if they don't do so well, then they haven't been as successful. This is fairly basic common sense, and I can't see why people are disputing it.

 

 

They get credit for backing managers but they should get criticism for appointing the wrong managers. Some balance is what I'm getting at.

 

They get credit for backing their managers and showing ambition, because it isn't automatic and they chose this way of doing things.

 

I've never backed Souness, unlike numerous other people. I've never gave them any credit for appointing Souness. As for Roeder, this has been said before. The great Steve Gibson has appointed a dud, so have many other chairmen. You're not daft Alex, unlike some people, you ought to understand that in football, nobody appoints good managers every time. We appointed winning managers who turned out to be wrong for Newcastle, and didn't even show committment to Newcastle, so Roeder had some merit. He lost the plot and was replaced. What in that situation do you think a good chairman should do, sack him or back him further ?

 

Seriously, I don't know where people get their ideas from, when they make out that nobody except us appoints a shit manager. Thats why I point out our league positions, which sort of show that we have got it right more than most.

 

 

[Dave]

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7571/mrdidgz4.jpg