Shepherd and his IDIOTIC choice Allardyce have DESTROYED NUFC

[sicsfingeredmong]

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/6706955.stm

 

Parker was sold to West Ham on the 6th of June, we then happen to raise whatever our intial offer was for Barton and it gets accepted in the process - ie. to match West Ham's bid: and West Ham were looking to buy 2  central midfielders at the time - and this took place after Parker's outgoing transfer was finalised. We eventually sign Barton a week later. The timeline backs up this opinion imo, that is from even getting from first to second base - getting to the stage where City let us through the door and allowed us to the talk to the player in question. Mick's point, backed up by his link of course, is still a moot one. It was worrying at the time to see the board waiting on incoming funds, rather than knocking the ambitious Hammers right of the water from the get-go, before getting back in the ball-park.

 

Closely resembles a 'finance through sales/sell to buy' transfer policy to me.

 

Cheers.

 

Just about the only transfer that stands on it's own - ie. one that wasn't financed by one major outgoing transfer, or through the sell-offs of bits & pieces or bit-part players - was the Smith transfer, and even that went on the back of a period of inactivity while the cautious buggers up top scoured over the books - something they should've down prior to buying SJH's shareholding...... all the while Allardyce's alleged targets slipped through the net, and i'm sure this is the transfer which Mick alluded to as being the deal that dependant on the book-end sales of Parker & Dyer at both ends of the transfer window.

 

Despite the shambolic happenings pertaining to January there seems to be quite a bit of resolute defending of Ashley & Mort going on here. I have a sneaking suspicion this might be the case simply because they're not Freddy Shepherd.

 

 

 

The defending of them in this case might have something to do with Parker being sold on 6th June, Ashley not owning the club until 15th June only to find we no longer have a hold up in the Barton transfer a day later on the 15th June. 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/6729863.stm

 

 

 

The obstacle you raise, with regards to Ashley taking complete control and that having a perceived delaying effect on transfers in the wake of him buying out SJH's shares in late May before finally taking control on June 15, certainly didn't act as temporary roadblock with regards to the Viduka signing. A pertinent point when you consider that up until June 7 Ashley owned all but approx 23% of the club's shares, all the while Shepherd was in his sickbed with pnuemonia as Mort effectively handled the takeover and ran the ship. By then it was pretty clear who was running things, and Shepherd was basically on the outer already. Mort being officially named 'chairman' weeks later was just a foregone formality.

 

 

[sicsfingeredmong]

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/6706955.stm

 

Parker was sold to West Ham on the 6th of June, we then happen to raise whatever our intial offer was for Barton and it gets accepted in the process - ie. to match West Ham's bid: and West Ham were looking to buy 2  central midfielders at the time - and this took place after Parker's outgoing transfer was finalised. We eventually sign Barton a week later. The timeline backs up this opinion imo, that is from even getting from first to second base - getting to the stage where City let us through the door and allowed us to the talk to the player in question. Mick's point, backed up by his link of course, is still a moot one. It was worrying at the time to see the board waiting on incoming funds, rather than knocking the ambitious Hammers right of the water from the get-go, before getting back in the ball-park.

 

Closely resembles a 'finance through sales/sell to buy' transfer policy to me.

 

Cheers.

 

Just about the only transfer that stands on it's own - ie. one that wasn't financed by one major outgoing transfer, or through the sell-offs of bits & pieces or bit-part players - was the Smith transfer, and even that went on the back of a period of inactivity while the cautious buggers up top scoured over the books - something they should've down prior to buying SJH's shareholding...... all the while Allardyce's alleged targets slipped through the net, and i'm sure this is the transfer which Mick alluded to as being the deal that wasn't dependant on the book-end sales of Parker & Dyer at both ends of the transfer window.

 

Despite the shambolic happenings pertaining to January there seems to be quite a bit of resolute defending of Ashley & Mort going on here. I have a sneaking suspicion this might be the case simply because they're not Freddy Shepherd.

 

 

 

The defending of them in this case might have something to do with Parker being sold on 6th June, Ashley not owning the club until 15th June only to find we no longer have a hold up in the Barton transfer a day later on the 16th June. 

 

Edit, s***, I was wrong with one of my dates, Barton signed the day before Ashley gained full control, he signed on 14th June, Mort only became chairman on 24th June. 

 

bold piece in your quote box: a typo already edited in my original post. You must've posted while i was editing.

[Mick]

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/6729863.stm

 

 

 

The obstacle you raise, with regards to Ashley taking complete control and that having a perceived delaying effect on transfers in the wake of him buying out SJH's shares in late May and finally taking control, certainly didn't act as temporary roadblock with regards to the Viduka signing. A pertinent point when you consider that up until June 7 Ashley owned all but approx 23% of the club's shares, all the while Shepherd was in his sickbed with pnuemonia as Mort effectively handled the takeover and ran the ship. By then it was pretty clear who was running things, and Shepherd was basically on the outer already. Mort being officially named 'chairman' weeks later was just a foregone formality.

 

 

 

I'll give you that one, Ashley actually gained a majority shareholding on the morning of the 7th, it still doesn't tie in the sale of Parker to the purchase of Barton, the time difference is 9 days.

[Mick]

 

 

bold piece in your quote box: a typo already edited in my original post. You must've posted while i was editing.

 

I alway try to highlight an edit, I've known people change posts after a reply has been made to the original and moan when a question isn't answered.   mackems.gif

[sicsfingeredmong]

 

 

bold piece in your quote box: a typo already edited in my original post. You must've posted while i was editing.

 

I alway try to highlight an edit, I've known people change posts after a reply has been made to the original and moan when a question isn't answered.  mackems.gif

 

You need to these days Mick. It's not unknown to have members on this very forum dismantle one argument based on a singular & innocent typo.

[Mick]

 

You need to these days Mick. It's not unknown to have members on this very forum dismantle one argument based on a singular & innocent typo.

 

I'm not sure what you're on about with that one but I wasn't referring to you with my edit comment if you thought I was.

[sicsfingeredmong]

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/6729863.stm

 

 

 

The obstacle you raise, with regards to Ashley taking complete control and that having a perceived delaying effect on transfers in the wake of him buying out SJH's shares in late May and finally taking control, certainly didn't act as temporary roadblock with regards to the Viduka signing. A pertinent point when you consider that up until June 7 Ashley owned all but approx 23% of the club's shares, all the while Shepherd was in his sickbed with pnuemonia as Mort effectively handled the takeover and ran the ship. By then it was pretty clear who was running things, and Shepherd was basically on the outer already. Mort being officially named 'chairman' weeks later was just a foregone formality.

 

 

 

I'll give you that one, Ashley actually gained a majority shareholding on the morning of the 7th, it still doesn't tie in the sale of Parker to the purchase of Barton, the time difference is 9 days.

 

 

 

Back to the Viduka signing, which eventually went through on the 8th, and this goes hand-in-hand with the whole debate as to when Mort & Ashley were effectively running things, prior to June 7th that is. It's bloody hard for a then acting chairman - ie. FS - to run things from the confines of hospital bed, or his sickbed at home if he was indeed an out-patient while all this to-and-fro-ing was happening at the time with regards to incoming & outgoing transfers.

 

It's a matter of when you do or don't believe Mort was effectively guiding the ship, post May 23.

[Mick]

 

Back to the Viduka signing, which eventually went through on the 8th, and this goes hand-in-hand with the whole debate as to when Mort & Ashley were effectively running things, prior to June 7th that is. It's bloody hard for a then acting chairman - ie. FS - to run things from the confines of hospital bed, or his sickbed at home if he was indeed an out-patient while all this to-and-fro-ing was happening at the time with regards to incoming & outgoing transfers.

 

It's a matter of when you do or don't believe Mort was effectively guiding the ship, post May 23.

 

I remember something in an interview in one of the papers when Mort said he gave the green light for earlier transfers, it's too late for me to go and find a link but I read it as the deals were done and just waiting for his blessing, I might look for it tomorrow.

[Baggio]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/6706955.stm

 

Parker was sold to West Ham on the 6th of June, we then happen to raise whatever our intial offer was for Barton and it gets accepted in the process - ie. to match West Ham's bid: and West Ham were looking to buy 2  central midfielders at the time - and this took place after Parker's outgoing transfer was finalised. We eventually sign Barton a week later. The timeline backs up this opinion imo, that is from even getting from first to second base - getting to the stage where City let us through the door and allowed us to the talk to the player in question. Mick's point, backed up by his link of course, is still a moot one. It was worrying at the time to see the board waiting on incoming funds, rather than knocking the ambitious Hammers right of the water from the get-go, before getting back in the ball-park.

 

Closely resembles a 'finance through sales/sell to buy' transfer policy to me.

 

Cheers.

 

I'm not sure if you're aware but Joey Barton had a buy out clause of £5.5 million in his contract so it wasn't a case of having to get through City to talk to the player, our offer wasn't rejected over the amount we were prepared to pay as a transfer but because we wanted to pay half the fee upfront and the other half in a month, now nobody knows why they wanted to do this but the talk at the time was that they wanted to find out if he was going to be formally charged over the Dabo incident which he would have found out on 02/08/2007.

 

It was also reported that West Ham registered their interest in Barton as a fall back option in case the Parker deal didn't go through and that Allardyce wouldn't let Parker go until Barton had agreed to join, that to me is backed up by Barton coming up for talks and a medical on 05/06/07 and Parker getting the nod to complete his deal the next day so you're incorrect in saying we raised our bid after Parker had moved clubs.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/6721801.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/6706955.stm

 

 

It seems the timeline doesn't back you up after all.

[NE5]

So having your theory pulled apart by Mick posting a link to the real reason why the Barton deal was delayed, you're now basing your whole buy to sell theory on one comment from the chairman saying the the players coming in were good business, even though the dates of the transfers don't back up your claim. Considering you didn't even know about the loyalty bonus holding up the deal I'd suggest you try and find out more about the situation before coming out with such bollocks in future. Cheers.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/6706955.stm

 

Parker was sold to West Ham on the 6th of June, we then happen to raise whatever our intial offer was for Barton and it gets accepted in the process - ie. to match West Ham's bid: and West Ham were looking to buy 2  central midfielders at the time - and this took place after Parker's outgoing transfer was finalised. We eventually sign Barton a week later. The timeline backs up this opinion imo, that is from even getting from first to second base - getting to the stage where City let us through the door and allowed us to the talk to the player in question. Mick's point, backed up by his link of course, is still a moot one. It was worrying at the time to see the board waiting on incoming funds, rather than knocking the ambitious Hammers right of the water from the get-go, before getting back in the ball-park. 

 

Closely resembles a 'finance through sales/sell to buy' transfer policy to me.

 

Cheers.

 

Just about the only transfer that stands on it's own - ie. one that wasn't financed by one major outgoing transfer, or through the sell-offs of bits & pieces or bit-part players - was the Smith transfer, and even that went on the back of a period of inactivity while the cautious buggers up top scoured over the books - something they should've down prior to buying SJH's shareholding...... all the while Allardyce's alleged targets slipped through the net, and i'm sure this is the transfer which Mick alluded to as being the deal that wasn't dependant on the book-end sales of Parker & Dyer at both ends of the transfer window.

 

Despite the shambolic happenings pertaining to January there seems to be quite a bit of resolute defending of Ashley & Mort going on here. I have a sneaking suspicion this might be the case simply because they're not Freddy Shepherd.

 

 

precisely, while West Ham were laughingly dubbed the "new Newcastle".

 

Shame we don't have their current points total.

 

 

[NE5]

 

indeed, and the frightening thing is, they ie Mort and Ashley, didn't appear to have seen the error of their ways during the recent transfer window.

 

Back street corner shop here we come if they continue the current direction.

 

 

 

The "frightening" thing is that this same topic has been covered before and the timelines were all posted yet once again it seems to be dragged up to slate the way the club is being run, we complain about the press having a go at the club yet we're as good as them at spinning, if not better at times.

 

For some people it's more important to back Fat Fred than their football club.

 

For some people its more important to slate someone off for eating all the pies than to be able to see that running a club who qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 actually means they are doing a decent job of running the football club.

 

 

 

Still dont listen do you, i cant believe someone can use a stat which doesnt hold much water considering it doesnt paint the true situation of the club.

 

You conitue to use the 7 european qualifications out of 10 years as opposed to the 4 top 10 finishes in the same 10 years stat, even thought the top 10 finishes show the truer picture for the club.  If we were to look at who had the most top 10 finishes for the club in those 10 years, do you think we'd still be the 5th best? Nope. Show much for your ambitious chairman crap.

 

No wonder your "opinions" hold no water on this board when you talkabout "facts" which have no relevant context to the situation and are contrived to fit a silly agenda.

 

 

 

If you want to talk about relevance, what relevance is the arbitrary choice of 10th? Top half. Wow. No footballing significance whatsoever. Mid table is much of a muchness, pretty much a lottery where you end up. Oh noes Spurs were better than us because in the 8 years they finished mid table they came 9th twice and 10th twice, but in the 6 years we came mid table the best we did was 11th!

 

If you want to talk about relevance you have to talk about relevant achievements. Qualifying for Europe is a relevant achievement.

 

It's a hell of a lot harder to get a team into the top 4 (which we did 5 times under the previous board) than it is to win the also-ran pissing contest in the middle.

 

 

Never mind, we'll be great now we're under new management, and thank god we didn't waste any money on players in January eh? You must be well chuffed about that.

 

Can you not see that? This isnt a question of ambition, that magic buzz word you like so much, this was a question of runing abusiness properly and using advantage that we had as a club to further ourselves. You have to realise that most fans see us as being on par with Man U at one point in our history, a bit further down the line we were on par with the likes of Chelsea and Liverpool.

 

Only if they were complete idiots. You didn't did you?

 

The success under the previous boards was never under-appreciated, especially while Freddie Fletcher and John Hall were still on board, but the appointments of Souness and Roeder showed a complete lack of judgement and football knowledge. There were other daft diversions as well, like spending all summer chasing Rooney then failing to sign anyone else when it all fell through. Shepherd vetoed too many good targets then replaced them with inferior playes. Anelka could have come if we'd pushed hard enough while he was in Turkey. Robson was refused Miguel because Shepherd wouldn't back him, and instead we got Carr. For someone who supposedly backed his managers Shepherd interfered quite a lot.

 

oh dear.

 

Coming from someone who is slating the old board for overspending, and defending the new board for underspending, I hope you see the irony in this but I don't expect you to.

 

To be fair, I can think of a few others just like you  mackems.gif

 

I assume you can read, but anyway, over-spending or under-spending wasn't the key part of my last post. It was about wise judgements and good decisions as Chairman.

 

I would suggest that qualifying for europe more than every club bar 4 over the course of a decade means they made more good decisions than most others

 

I assume you can read and understand this fairly basic point.

 

 

[TaylorJ_01]

I touch myself at night.

[Mowen]

I touch myself at night.

 

Funniest post I've ever seen.

[Dave]

The title of this thread still makes me laugh.

[NE5]

The title of this thread still makes me laugh.

 

 

phil used to be a sensible lad too