Mort: I’m in charge

[Guest alex]

He was directly responsible. Even if he wasn't solely responsible. As chairman and a major shareholder you can see why he gets the blame.

 

Nor the credit for anything ?

 

Constant negative vibes. We didn't qualify for europe more than anyone else bar 4 clubs through having a shit board and chairman that didnt' know what they were doing. Nor expand the stadium to 52000, nor show ambition to bring top players to finance the signing of top players to the club, nor the signing of Woodgate 6 months prior to the summer of 2003 but is slated for spending nothing in the summer instead and millions to qualify in the first place ....

 

The list is as long as your arm. I've just pointed out facts. If the FACT that the club was light years more healthy than it was in 1992 doesn't suit people's "opinions" then thats just too bad.

 

 

I was simply countering the notion he wasn't directly responsible for Souness being appointed. He was.

[Mick]

Question:

 

Who sacked Sir Bobby?

 

Sir John Hall's Answer:

 

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/newcastleunited/news/tm_objectid=14660423%26method=full%26siteid=50081-name_page.html

 

"The problems in the dressing room seemed to continue through into the season and I can understand Freddy Shepherd, the chairman's decision.

 

 

"It was the right decision, to my mind, and I'm standing by him.

[NE5]

Question:

 

Who sacked Sir Bobby?

 

Sir John Hall's Answer:

 

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/newcastleunited/news/tm_objectid=14660423%26method=full%26siteid=50081-name_page.html

 

"The problems in the dressing room seemed to continue through into the season and I can understand Freddy Shepherd, the chairman's decision.

 

 

"It was the right decision, to my mind, and I'm standing by him.

 

oh dear.

 

You don't want to understand a single thing that doesn't suit your "opinion" do you

 

Do you really think that SJH is going to say " I disagree with this decision but I'm leaving my investment worth millions of pounds in the hands of someone else " 

 

Priceless.

 

mackems.gif

[NE5]

He was directly responsible. Even if he wasn't solely responsible. As chairman and a major shareholder you can see why he gets the blame.

 

Nor the credit for anything ?

 

Constant negative vibes. We didn't qualify for europe more than anyone else bar 4 clubs through having a shit board and chairman that didnt' know what they were doing. Nor expand the stadium to 52000, nor show ambition to bring top players to finance the signing of top players to the club, nor the signing of Woodgate 6 months prior to the summer of 2003 but is slated for spending nothing in the summer instead and millions to qualify in the first place ....

 

The list is as long as your arm. I've just pointed out facts. If the FACT that the club was light years more healthy than it was in 1992 doesn't suit people's "opinions" then thats just too bad.

 

 

I was simply countering the notion he wasn't directly responsible for Souness being appointed. He was.

 

And just as directly responsible for us expanding the stadium, buying a top class defender before all of our rivals among other quality players, and qualifying for europe more than everybody but 4 clubs ?

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

 

[Guest alex]

I was also being pedantic.

[Mick]

 

oh dear.

 

You don't want to understand a single thing that doesn't suit your "opinion" do you

 

Do you really think that SJH is going to say " I disagree with this decision but I'm leaving my investment worth millions of pounds in the hands of someone else " 

 

Priceless.

 

mackems.gif

 

So are you saying Sir John's a liar?

 

Maybe you've got some direct quotes to prove it?

[NE5]

 

oh dear.

 

You don't want to understand a single thing that doesn't suit your "opinion" do you

 

Do you really think that SJH is going to say " I disagree with this decision but I'm leaving my investment worth millions of pounds in the hands of someone else " 

 

Priceless.

 

mackems.gif

 

So are you saying Sir John's a liar?

 

Maybe you've got some direct quotes to prove it?

 

oh dear.

 

mackems.gif

[Mick]

 

oh dear.

 

mackems.gif

 

Thought not.

[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

 

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

 

 

 

different situation, different context, different views, yeah he should've been sacked, but had freddy claimed it was his last season pre season and started going over his head to sell players i would say he should've gone BEFORE he decided that sort of thing was a good idea

 

you can have different opinions on when is the right or wrong time to sack one manager as opposed to the next, only a really stupid person wouldnt understand context, or someone with an a*****

 

Firstly, it is isn't a different situation or a different context at all. It's about sacking your manager when you feel that it is time for a change/lost the plot/not going to go any further.

 

The only problem with sacking Robson was the replacement. Sacking Gullit wasn't a problem - at the SAME time of the season - because the replacement was a good one.

 

There is nothing difficult about this. It's only difficult if you are looking for a stick to beat someone with. I'm also very pleased for you that you another one of these people who think the major shareholders of a multi million pound company allow someone else to make the major managerial decisions all on their own. Do you think Ashley will allow Mort to run the club all on his own ? What an absolutely stupid notion, I don't believe the amount of times myself and others ie ChezGiven and UV [i think] have had to point this out.

 

By the way, people/fan pressure DOES count in football in case you don't realise. But the point of my comment is to say that a lof of fans and possibly even the majority of the clubs supporters, agreed with the decision to sack Bobby Robson, so don't bother using hindsight to say it was wrong now, or to change history and say it wasn't the case.

 

 

it's all good mate, i'm pleased for you too, cant be arsed anymore

[fredbob]

He was directly responsible. Even if he wasn't solely responsible. As chairman and a major shareholder you can see why he gets the blame.

 

Nor the credit for anything ?

 

Constant negative vibes. We didn't qualify for europe more than anyone else bar 4 clubs through having a s*** board and chairman that didnt' know what they were doing. Nor expand the stadium to 52000, nor show ambition to bring top players to finance the signing of top players to the club, nor the signing of Woodgate 6 months prior to the summer of 2003 but is slated for spending nothing in the summer instead and millions to qualify in the first place ....

 

The list is as long as your arm. I've just pointed out facts. If the FACT that the club was light years more healthy than it was in 1992 doesn't suit people's "opinions" then thats just too bad.

 

 

 

Only the real naive people who dont understand the situation or too ignorant to understand the situation say the board was s***, most of us, acknowledge the achievements fo the board, i cant see anywhere where anyone has said "the board was s***". Can you?

 

When we talk about the negatives of the board, coincidently or not, all the negatives occured whilst Sheperd was in charge. I don think there are many posts which dispute anything pre SBR. It is what occured during Sir Bobbys spell and after that has caused much tension.

 

Im not even sure what you are arguing anymore, i cant help but get the feeling, that your responses are now defensive of sheperd rather than defense of the old board.

 

Answer this,

 

If team 'A' qualifies for Europe 7 times in 10 seasons,

and

If team 'B' finishes in the top10, 4 times in 10 seasons.

 

which team is more successful?

 

Answer this and you will finally understand why the 'most Euro qualifications stat' is such a shitty stat which does nothing but make you look desperate.

 

The rules of the game, is that you have to answer either A or B. Nothing more or less. No changing the subject or avoiding the question. Just answer the question.

 

 

[madras]

souness was right to kick out bellamy

[Guest alex]

souness was right to kick out bellamy

Where he fucked up was replacing him with Luque.

[madras]

souness was right to kick out bellamy

Where he f***** up was replacing him with Luque.

thats right,any other decent forward and we'd have been ok

[Baggio]

souness was right to kick out bellamy

Where he fucked up was replacing him with Luque.

 

He replaced Bellamy with Owen tbf.

[madras]

souness was right to kick out bellamy

Where he f***** up was replacing him with Luque.

 

He replaced Bellamy with Owen tbf.

so he didn''t replace shearer ? (knowing shearer needed replacing)

[Guest alex]

souness was right to kick out bellamy

Where he fucked up was replacing him with Luque.

 

He replaced Bellamy with Owen tbf.

Not really like for like, are they? My point stands even if you apply it to Owen though, as it's turned out.

[Guest alex]

souness was right to kick out bellamy

Where he f***** up was replacing him with Luque.

 

He replaced Bellamy with Owen tbf.

so he didn''t replace shearer ? (knowing shearer needed replacing)

Luque replaced Shearer. Who replaced Robert?

[Mick]

It doesn't matter who Luque and Owen replaced, they've both been poor signings.

[Baggio]

souness was right to kick out bellamy

Where he fucked up was replacing him with Luque.

 

He replaced Bellamy with Owen tbf.

Not really like for like, are they? My point stands even if you apply it to Owen though, as it's turned out.

 

Luque's not really like for like either considering he spent the majority of his career out wide.

 

 

[Guest alex]

souness was right to kick out bellamy

Where he fucked up was replacing him with Luque.

 

He replaced Bellamy with Owen tbf.

Not really like for like, are they? My point stands even if you apply it to Owen though, as it's turned out.

 

Luque's not really like for like either considering he spent the majority of his career out wide.

 

 

So neither of them replaced Bellamy then

[Baggio]

It doesn't matter who Luque and Owen replaced, they've both been poor signings.

 

Shame we didn't get Anelka and Boa Morte tbh, could of got both for what we paid for Owen.

[madras]

It doesn't matter who Luque and Owen replaced, they've both been poor signings.

 

Shame we didn't get Anelka and Boa Morte tbh, could of got both for what we paid for Owen.

thats "hindsight"  for those folks looking in

[Guest alex]

It doesn't matter who Luque and Owen replaced, they've both been poor signings.

 

Shame we didn't get Anelka and Boa Morte tbh, could of got both for what we paid for Owen.

Souness wanted both, or so the story goes.

[Baggio]

It doesn't matter who Luque and Owen replaced, they've both been poor signings.

 

Shame we didn't get Anelka and Boa Morte tbh, could of got both for what we paid for Owen.

thats "hindsight"  for those folks looking in

 

For you maybe, a few on here preferred Anelka to Owen at the time because of the options he opened up for us formation wise.

[madras]

It doesn't matter who Luque and Owen replaced, they've both been poor signings.

 

Shame we didn't get Anelka and Boa Morte tbh, could of got both for what we paid for Owen.

Souness wanted both, or so the story goes.

even more intriguing