Timing: Our past, the present, our future? by NE5

[merlin]

Quote "I think it is pretty obvious to say the club hasn’t reached the Keegan heights since, at least on the playing side of things."

So at last you admit it has gone backwards since Keegans days, all under the Chairmanship of Freddie.

Case closed.

 

So you expect a club to stay 2nd forever ?

 

I expect such naivety from people who don't go to games.

 

 

So going to football matches removes naivety?  Does it get rid of dandruff as well?

 

 

OK then, so - do YOU think clubs have a divine right to stay 2nd forever, or they are "shit" ?

 

You are into turntables, right ? Do you think a rega planar 2 is shite because it isn't as good as a rega 3 ?

 

I think it is pretty fair. The facts are that SJH was chairman while Keegan was manager and we have not done so well since.

 

However - we still have the same board, primarily, with the same major shareholders. Is this correct or not ?

 

Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher were responsible for appointing Keegan as manager, NOT Sir John Hall.

 

So - why exactly does Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher get zero credit for Keegans appointment ? And SJH all of it ?

 

The same SJH who showed outstanding leadership and "planning" that he almost lost him only weeks into his managerial career for going back on his word to sign a couple of players for a couple of hundred grand apiece ? Good leadership and good planning ?

 

Hall Jnr and Shepherd were also responsible for appointing Dalglish to succeed Keegan, who was a multiple trophy winner [ 4 League championships with 2 different clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards] and one of the highest qualified managers in world football to take on the Newcastle job. If you are not impressed with that, what is your criteria for appointing managers ?

 

I am sorry...I can accept you have an "opinion", but where plain facts show an opinion to be flawed, it is right that facts are pointed out and if people can't accept them because they have a paranoid opinion, and no mind of their own that enables them to arrive at a factual based opinion, then that is their problem.

 

As for Fox, he was a whinging bugger when Robson was manager, so as I said, I am not surprised he is whinging now. You know, the same Bobby Robson who got us in the top 3, and played in the Champions League while having a shite board.

 

 

 

I can shed some light on the claim that  SJH 'went back on his word ' about signing a couple of players , prompting KK to walk away. This actually happened on March 12 , 1992(the day we played Swindon, winning 3-1 , and KK left straight after the game).

As ever with KK , he jumped first & asked questions later - I know for a fact that the Bank which NUFC were using at that time , wanted to take 250,000 , PRIVATE MONEY put up by SJH & Lady Hall , to pay off part of the O/Draft. SJH would not allow that to happen , which is why the deal was delayed(this was actually for Kilcline). In the end , an agreement was reached which allowed the club to use the money for the player , but KK reacted without clarifying the position first. SJH had to ring him up at his home in Romsey(Hants) to sort the whole thing out , and he actually said 'there are 2 people who can save NUFC, and they are both on different ends of this phone-line...'

 

The rest is history , but DON'T accuse SJH of 'backing out' - why would he ? He had spent 4 years & a few Mill in order to get the club in the first place. Shepherd is NOT A PATCH on him as Chairman , without question.

[Kitman]

We haven't had a good manager in charge long enough...Simple Rob.

 

Agree with that & Gemmill's comment.  The right manager would change everything. 

 

NE5's right in that the physical infrastructure's there, although whether we are as competitive in our scouting/academy/coaching/medical set ups as we should be, I don't know.  But it's not as if the stadium and training facilities give us a real edge over the top clubs is it, cos they have these things too.

 

My biggest bugbear with the board is that they never seem to plan ahead in terms of succession, and the manager that would suit the club and the players and the football we want to play.  Our style of doing things seems to be

 

a) leave things till the last minute

b) have no clue who you'd like to appoint once you've sacked the manager

c)  restrict the candidates available by lousy timing in sacking the previous manager

d) have no idea who may be available or want to come here

e) don't speak to anyone or sound them out at any stage

f)  wait for the CVs to come in so they can make a decision

g) fluff the appointment

 

and then start at a) again.  I feel the chances of a Wenger style appointment are zero in that the board seem to have no insight into what makes a top appointment, don't plan ahead, and are now seemingly blinded by their prejudices about foreign managers.  I have zero confidence in the board to make a top class appointment, I think they are too small time in their outlook and lack genuine insight into what makes a football club successful.

 

Incidentally I think this is common amongst most football clubs & I don't expect us to displace Man Utd or to win trophies.  I do expect us to show some improvement from year to year however, whereas I think we have been going backwards for some considerable time despite spending an awful lot of money.  We can't keep buying our way out of trouble as an answer to our problems.

 

I totally understand NE5's viewpoint, and agree with it to a certain extent, the frustration is that I feel our club should do so much better than it does, with the resources and talent that it has, and just cos it was shit in the old days doesn't make me feel any better about it. 

 

 

[Cronky]

There are some good points in NE5's article, but I do think we’ve got to take a more realistic view of the Keegan era. We were more successful than previous Newcastle sides, because more money was available. In fact, we were spending more money than any other side in the League, possibly bar Man Utd. The spending spree couldn’t last forever, and that situation no longer exists.

 

I get the impression that Shepherd thinks that the ‘Geordie Nation’ sentiment that surrounded the Keegan era is still the way forward. That’s underpinned this promotion from within that’s gone on recently with the management team, and his obvious hope that Shearer will take over as Manager one day. He also is apparently unwilling to sell out to anyone outside the region.

 

All of which are mistakes. We should be looking to bring in new blood, and new ideas, like the other major clubs are doing. It's time for a change.

 

 

[Kitman]

There are some good points in NE5's article, but I do think we’ve got to take a more realistic view of the Keegan era. We were more successful than previous Newcastle sides, because more money was available. In fact, we were spending more money than any other side in the League, possibly bar Man Utd. The spending spree couldn’t last forever, and that situation no longer exists.

 

I get the impression that Shepherd thinks that the ‘Geordie Nation’ sentiment that surrounded the Keegan era is still the way forward. That’s underpinned this promotion from within that’s gone on recently with the management team, and his obvious hope that Shearer will take over as Manager one day. He also is apparently unwilling to sell out to anyone outside the region.

 

All of which are mistakes. We should be looking to bring in new blood, and new ideas, like the other major clubs are doing. It's time for a change.

 

 

 

"Patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel".

[STM]

SJH and Freddie are just two average chairman, both of which have hired one good manager a piece. On the one hand SJH, as Ne5 says, got lucky with a hit or miss keegan appointment. On the other, Freddie hired Robson who was always going to improve our club but was it inspired or just plain obvious? I'd also like to remind a few that Freddie nearly Bolloxed that up by offering him embarrassing wages.

 

We've spent 100's of millions down the years on players, which shows great amition. However, am i the only one that would have preffered us to throw the boat and get in a world class manager, instead of signing numours trophy players to appease the fans. A good manager doesn't need the luxury of multi millions to make a club successfull, look at Wenger. That's how to run a club! When will we learn that managers make clubs a success not players?

[Guest JPFIN]

I enjoyed the article. Why so many people cant accept NE5's point of view I dont know.

While I'd prefer someone else as our chairman, the points made out by NE5 are very much valid(even when said for the umpteenth time).

Shepherds reign hasnt been as big a failure as many people seem to think. Surely he has made mistakes, maybe more than one chairman should be allowed to do, but to say he has been a failure for not reaching the Keegan heights is way too simplistic. Its the black and white approach that i hate. Yes, you can say the article is very pro Shepherd, but I dont think its too much, especially when NE5 backs his opinions well.

There has been good times during the Shepherd reign, but not many are giving him credit for that.

 

Shepherd out!

 

 

 

 

The Chairman's main job is to appoint the right manager.  Robson aside, he's got every one of those decisions wrong.  And as has been pointed out elsewhere, appointing Robson was beyond obvious so Shepherd gets no credit for it.  If my gran had been chairman(woman) for a day she could have made the decision to appoint Robson too - it wasn't even a decision that needed making.  Every time he's been required to think and appoint someone through his own thought processes, he's fucked it up.

 

How many more failed appointments do we endure?  He is getting it all wrong time and again, and the "well it could be worse" defence that NE5 constantly falls back on is not good enough.

 

I agree with that. He cant seem to get it right, but until the Souness appointment he did sign some decent managers. Why they werent as succesfull here as they were in other clubs is debatable(Shepherd should also ask this from himself). What I think characterises Shepherds signing policy well, is that the managers seem to be the opposites of their predecessors.

I wouldnt trust him to appoint a good manager next time around, but still I think he's been a decent chairman over the years. Not the utterly crap one like some say, nor worth the endless praise courtesy of NE5. Two FA cup finals and a couple of years in the champion league is decent in my opinion, not that we cant do better. Its not an easy task to get back into top four again though, and any chairman would find it hard. But like you said Freddie has had enough chances to get it right and failed.

[Cheshire Mag]

I enjoyed the article. Why so many people cant accept NE5's point of view I dont know.

While I'd prefer someone else as our chairman, the points made out by NE5 are very much valid(even when said for the umpteenth time).

Shepherds reign hasnt been as big a failure as many people seem to think. Surely he has made mistakes, maybe more than one chairman should be allowed to do, but to say he has been a failure for not reaching the Keegan heights is way too simplistic. Its the black and white approach that i hate. Yes, you can say the article is very pro Shepherd, but I dont think its too much, especially when NE5 backs his opinions well.

There has been good times during the Shepherd reign, but not many are giving him credit for that.

 

Shepherd out!

 

 

 

 

The Chairman's main job is to appoint the right manager.  Robson aside, he's got every one of those decisions wrong.  And as has been pointed out elsewhere, appointing Robson was beyond obvious so Shepherd gets no credit for it.  If my gran had been chairman(woman) for a day she could have made the decision to appoint Robson too - it wasn't even a decision that needed making.  Every time he's been required to think and appoint someone through his own thought processes, he's fucked it up.

 

How many more failed appointments do we endure?  He is getting it all wrong time and again, and the "well it could be worse" defence that NE5 constantly falls back on is not good enough.

 

So you can say (Souness aside), that you were not happy when Dalglish and Gullit were appointed as managers of NUFC, especially with their track records?

[Guest Knightrider]

SJH and Freddie are just two average chairman, both of which have hired one good manager a piece. On the one hand SJH, as Ne5 says, got lucky with a hit or miss keegan appointment. On the other, Freddie hired Robson who was always going to improve our club but was it inspired or just plain obvious? I'd also like to remind a few that Freddie nearly Bolloxed that up by offering him embarrassing wages.

 

We've spent 100's of millions down the years on players, which shows great amition. However, am i the only one that would have preffered us to throw the boat and get in a world class manager, instead of signing numours trophy players to appease the fans. A good manager doesn't need the luxury of multi millions to make a club successfull, look at Wenger. That's how to run a club! When will we learn that managers make clubs a success not players?

 

Sir John Hall wasn't an average Chairman, naive perhaps, but as a Chairman he was as good as any. He masterminded the rise of Newcastle off the field and allowed Keegan to mastermind the club on it, the two dovetailing to create a unique club at the time, certainly in our own history. I doubt we'll ever have a better Chairman than Sir John Hall.

 

As for Keegan's appointment being a gamble or down to luck, I disagree 100%. His appointment was a calculated masterstroke. We forget his remit was to save the club from relegation first and foremost, not to win promotion and challenge for league titles. It was only after we stayed up and he and the club wanted to form a longer lasting partnership did we start looking towards such lofty heights, lead of course by KK himself. That is where the ambition for the club came from, not so much the boardroom who were willing to do a rescue job and hand the club over to fans which suggests their long term plans for the club didn't go beyond saving it.

 

What Newcastle needed at that time to stay up wasn't a master tactician, someone with vast experience or a proven manager, but someone who could wake up the city and players, who came with passion, enthusiasm, motivation, high standards and a sense of feeling for the club.

 

We didn't stay up because we defended better, played greater attacking football or because we tactically outsmarted our opponents, no, we stayed up because the players showed more desire and more hunger, where as the fans coming back just gave everyone a lift.

 

In that sense KK was very much planned and brought in not for his experience of management and his tactical ability or anything like that, he was appointed for his personal skills and his character traits because the club didn't need experience or a master tactician to get us out the hole.

 

You could say we got lucky long-term because no-one knew KK would be so good in so many areas of management and take us to the heights he did, but initially he wasn't a gamble that paid off, he was a calculated masterstroke, an inspired appointment based on a set criteria the club were looking for at the time that Ardiles didn't have and no other manager we could have appointed, would have brought to the club.

 

As the title of this thread is about timing, Newcastle and KK were made for each other at that time, fate perhaps. A gamble though? Not for me, we had nowt to lose for there to be a gamble.

[Raconteur]

So you can say (Souness aside), that you were not happy when Dalglish and Gullit were appointed as managers of NUFC, especially with their track records?

 

It's very difficult to answer that question without being accused of being a revisionist. Anyone who says "I had reservations at the time for reasons x, y and z" is immediately assumed to be lying to make themselves look prophetic...

 

[Guest Gemmill]

I enjoyed the article. Why so many people cant accept NE5's point of view I dont know.

While I'd prefer someone else as our chairman, the points made out by NE5 are very much valid(even when said for the umpteenth time).

Shepherds reign hasnt been as big a failure as many people seem to think. Surely he has made mistakes, maybe more than one chairman should be allowed to do, but to say he has been a failure for not reaching the Keegan heights is way too simplistic. Its the black and white approach that i hate. Yes, you can say the article is very pro Shepherd, but I dont think its too much, especially when NE5 backs his opinions well.

There has been good times during the Shepherd reign, but not many are giving him credit for that.

 

Shepherd out!

 

 

 

 

The Chairman's main job is to appoint the right manager.  Robson aside, he's got every one of those decisions wrong.  And as has been pointed out elsewhere, appointing Robson was beyond obvious so Shepherd gets no credit for it.  If my gran had been chairman(woman) for a day she could have made the decision to appoint Robson too - it wasn't even a decision that needed making.  Every time he's been required to think and appoint someone through his own thought processes, he's fucked it up.

 

How many more failed appointments do we endure?  He is getting it all wrong time and again, and the "well it could be worse" defence that NE5 constantly falls back on is not good enough.

 

So you can say (Souness aside), that you were not happy when Dalglish and Gullit were appointed as managers of NUFC, especially with their track records?

 

Were either of them a success?  Asking whether I was happy with them or not is irrelevant.  Ultimately they were both failures, which falls on Shepherd's head.

[NE5]

OK then, so - do YOU think clubs have a divine right to stay 2nd forever, or they are "shit" ?

 

What's divinity got to do with anything?

 

Why are you happy to accept such a discernible decline over the last ten years?  Who does the buck stop with, in your opinion?  Don't give us the 'your opinion isn't worth anything because you've not seen a really shit board' argument either, it's simply not relevant.  Do we have a divine right to be becoming more and more mediocre with every passing year?  Robson, to Souness, to Roeder - give us a break, someone couldn't lose the plot any more than that.

 

I think it is pretty fair. The facts are that SJH was chairman while Keegan was manager and we have not done so well since.

 

However - we still have the same board, primarily, with the same major shareholders. Is this correct or not ?

 

Yeah, and aren't they doing better than ever.  Hooray.  Now of course they have less opposition at board level due to cronyism than any time before.  Double hooray.

 

 

Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher were responsible for appointing Keegan as manager, NOT Sir John Hall.

 

That's interesting, I'd not heard that.  Course, at that time Shepherd had had practically no knowledge of running a club.  You'd think with experience he'd have got better at appointing managers.  Unless - as I think most of us know - it was a fucking lucky strike backed with supreme bankrolling by... hmm, not Freddy, but Sir John Hall.

 

Perhaps if inexperience works, he should let Belgravia come on board, because it's pretty obvious experience isn't leading to success for him.

 

 

So - why exactly does Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher get zero credit for Keegans appointment ? And SJH all of it ?

 

He bankrolled it.  Probably why.

 

The same SJH who showed outstanding leadership and "planning" that he almost lost him only weeks into his managerial career for going back on his word to sign a couple of players for a couple of hundred grand apiece ? Good leadership and good planning ?

 

If Freddy had done it you'd be defending him to the hilt, arguing prudence.  And planning?  Again, where was the planning post-Robson, post-Souness?

 

Hall Jnr and Shepherd were also responsible for appointing Dalglish to succeed Keegan, who was a multiple trophy winner [ 4 League championships with 2 different clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards] and one of the highest qualified managers in world football to take on the Newcastle job. If you are not impressed with that, what is your criteria for appointing managers?

 

Hmm.  Forget mine - ask me what their criteria are, if they can appoint Roeder post-Souness?  Souness, post-Robson?  Each one quite possibly worse, on paper, than the one before.  And I'd love to know the exact set of criteria for dispensing with one might be, sacking Robson four games into a season, fucking genius timing that one.  Leading to one of the most horrendously shit appointments in recent times, who was only dispensed with when three players ran into each other.  Jesus.

 

And how we can credit anyone at the club now with appointing Robson when they saw fit to treat him so unbelievably shabbily to boot him out is beyond me.

 

Dalglish.  He was appointed largely because... he was free to appoint.  That's the criteria I think they went for there, in all honesty.  Big name, free.  All the more laughable when you consider how much we probably paid Blackburn for a worse manager in Souness.  Where's the logic, the consistent logic?

 

Dalglish is one you like to fall back on though, I do think he's someone who let football pass him by post-Blackburn.  Celtic went pretty, well, shite for him and it takes someone to mess up so convincingly in a 2 horse league.

 

I am sorry...I can accept you have an "opinion", but where plain facts show an opinion to be flawed, it is right that facts are pointed out and if people can't accept them because they have a paranoid opinion, and no mind of their own that enables them to arrive at a factual based opinion, then that is their problem.

 

Same goes for you, I hope.

 

 

Its pretty straightforward. Do you think being 5th best over a decade, qualifying for europe 7 times in that period, filling a 52,000 stadium and buyuing major and current England interational footballers is shit ?

 

If you don't then the conlusion must be that you think we have a divine right to do better.

 

That is unrealistic and fantastically naive. Not to mention completely indicative of the higher standards set by the current board, which I presume STILL escapes you.

 

Poor lot, these new Newcastle fans, they think playing regularly in europe and buying major England players is not good enough for them....they sound more and more like idiotic manu gloryseekers all the time  :roll:

 

as I have said, I am not backing or defending anybody, just stating facts. This is why I am correct and you are wrong, my opinion is based on facts, whereas others - not just you - are repeating what others spout through not looking at them and having a mind of your own.

 

Sadly, you defeat your own logic by saying we got Dalglish because he was free, then paid to appoint Souness. Dalglish was appointed as a serious statement of intent to build on the Keegan legacy. Before 1992 he wouldn't have even considered the Newcastle job. Like many others including Bobby Robson. If you disagree with that, it shows completely you have absolutely zero awareness of that era, and hence having zero awareness of that era explains completely why you completely underestimate the board we have nowadays.

 

ie. Naive.

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

Well how can anyone take NE5's posts seriously, he is just a wind up merchant.

He denies we have gone backwards since Sir John Hall, yet states we have not reached the Keegan heights since. So thats's the first contradiction. Then states do you expect us to stay 2nd forever, well if we have finished below 2nd we have gone backwards. Does not take a lot of working out.

As has been pointed out elsewhere he ignores facts, such as Shepherds appointments and Roeder's managerial record. Add the uninspiring lot we now have on the pitch and as I've said time and time again we have gone backwards.

But keep taking the tablets mate.

 

A long time supporter mate.......who travelled more to Newcastle - when I was living near where you do now - more in one year than you have done in total I bet.

 

For the record, I don't deny we haven't matched the 2nd place....I have said that from day 1, only that unrealistic nuggets think we can get every appointment right and so have a right to stay there.

 

Long term supporters, know that the current board have shown a million times more ambition than the old directors between 1964 and 1992, so much so they wouldn't even dispute it, only those who weren't , do.

 

 

[NE5]

I enjoyed the article. Why so many people cant accept NE5's point of view I dont know.

While I'd prefer someone else as our chairman, the points made out by NE5 are very much valid(even when said for the umpteenth time).

Shepherds reign hasnt been as big a failure as many people seem to think. Surely he has made mistakes, maybe more than one chairman should be allowed to do, but to say he has been a failure for not reaching the Keegan heights is way too simplistic. Its the black and white approach that i hate. Yes, you can say the article is very pro Shepherd, but I dont think its too much, especially when NE5 backs his opinions well.

There has been good times during the Shepherd reign, but not many are giving him credit for that.

 

Shepherd out!

 

 

 

 

The Chairman's main job is to appoint the right manager.  Robson aside, he's got every one of those decisions wrong.  And as has been pointed out elsewhere, appointing Robson was beyond obvious so Shepherd gets no credit for it.  If my gran had been chairman(woman) for a day she could have made the decision to appoint Robson too - it wasn't even a decision that needed making.  Every time he's been required to think and appoint someone through his own thought processes, he's fucked it up.

 

How many more failed appointments do we endure?  He is getting it all wrong time and again, and the "well it could be worse" defence that NE5 constantly falls back on is not good enough.

 

as has been said in your reply to Jussi, you are far too simplistic. Nobody has a divine right, or is capable of appointing a manager who keeps you at the top forever, nobody has a right to stay 2nd forever. We have not appointed someone who has been as good as Keegan, however not many people would have backed against Dalglish, Gullit and Robson doing it, especially Dalglish.

 

The chairmans job, is actually to run the club to maximise its income, and so be capable of backing the manager it appoints, and having the desire to back the manager . I have explained this before, if you don't understand it, I can't explain it any differently. It is not automatic, and if you don't believe me, explain why our old directors didn't and also why many other big clubs currently don't either.

 

The old board appointed the right managers in Lee and Cox, at the time. But they lost them.....

 

It is a sad sign of your total paranoia that you can't even give credit for appointing Robson where it is due, never mind completely ignoring where I have posted facts stating that Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd were the people responsible for appointing Keegan.

 

 

[Guest Geordie_krispy]

NE5, why do you always bring up the fact that you've been to more games than ayone else?

 

Yes, it help so t get a feel for the atmosphere and see how players play off the ball.  But saying that, you can probably get a more in depth overview of the game as a whole,a nd how the team played on the whole of the pitch by watching it on tv, the full match no the highlights mind you  :wullie:    Unless you have the eyes of a hawk and can see if a player slipped or was just too slow or was ball watching rather than marking their man properly for the other side/end of the stadium, even if I was in the first row i'd have problems seeing everything on the pitch at all times.

 

Btw, it was a good article which obviously took time to write. That was a simple compliment, I both disagree and agree with some of the replies you've made since writing the article though.  Like the fact that you say:

 

"Its pretty straightforward. Do you think being 5th best over a decade, qualifying for europe 7 times in that period, filling a 52,000 stadium and buyuing major and current England interational footballers is shit ?"

 

Do you think that buying Owen was a masterstoke? And would it not have been better buying 2 other strikers for the same amount? Given Owen's injury record and our recent injury prone-training/players/pitch/whatever?  The only player you could be thinking of is Owen, unless you're counting Butt or under21 internationals, in which case Milner.  Or going back a couple of seasons and talking about Bowyer or Woodgate or Bramble or Dyer.  Parker i suppose had only 1 cap?

 

But back on topic, i think that we haven't gone backwards, possibly a little, but maybe we were just over acheiving?  :confused:  I think it's more likely that we've stagnated, when other clubs have moved forwards. Villa for example were in a very similar situation we are in now, and it took their Chairman being bought out and a new manager instilling a new feel to the club for them to turn around, but it might only be the honeymoon period, you never know. 

 

The likes of Everton, come in waves, good 1 season, dire the next, medicore after that, then the make a few good signings and their riding the wave again.

 

But look at Portsmouth, they improved their whole squad in the summer.  Yes they started well but do you think that it will continue now they've tasted defeat? or will they go back to mid table mediocrity?

 

We can bitch and moan all we want at each other and at the board if we want to, or not.  But the only way that the club can move forward is with change, that may mean a change in personel at the highest level, or a re-structring, or even just a general lift in spirits of the enitre crowd at a home game.  We used to be called the 12th man during Keegan's time at the helm, the past few seasons i think we've been more like the 12th man for the opposition some times

[NE5]

Quote "I think it is pretty obvious to say the club hasn’t reached the Keegan heights since, at least on the playing side of things."

So at last you admit it has gone backwards since Keegans days, all under the Chairmanship of Freddie.

Case closed.

 

So you expect a club to stay 2nd forever ?

 

I expect such naivety from people who don't go to games.

 

 

So going to football matches removes naivety?  Does it get rid of dandruff as well?

 

 

OK then, so - do YOU think clubs have a divine right to stay 2nd forever, or they are "shit" ?

 

You are into turntables, right ? Do you think a rega planar 2 is shite because it isn't as good as a rega 3 ?

 

I think it is pretty fair. The facts are that SJH was chairman while Keegan was manager and we have not done so well since.

 

However - we still have the same board, primarily, with the same major shareholders. Is this correct or not ?

 

Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher were responsible for appointing Keegan as manager, NOT Sir John Hall.

 

So - why exactly does Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher get zero credit for Keegans appointment ? And SJH all of it ?

 

The same SJH who showed outstanding leadership and "planning" that he almost lost him only weeks into his managerial career for going back on his word to sign a couple of players for a couple of hundred grand apiece ? Good leadership and good planning ?

 

Hall Jnr and Shepherd were also responsible for appointing Dalglish to succeed Keegan, who was a multiple trophy winner [ 4 League championships with 2 different clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards] and one of the highest qualified managers in world football to take on the Newcastle job. If you are not impressed with that, what is your criteria for appointing managers ?

 

I am sorry...I can accept you have an "opinion", but where plain facts show an opinion to be flawed, it is right that facts are pointed out and if people can't accept them because they have a paranoid opinion, and no mind of their own that enables them to arrive at a factual based opinion, then that is their problem.

 

As for Fox, he was a whinging bugger when Robson was manager, so as I said, I am not surprised he is whinging now. You know, the same Bobby Robson who got us in the top 3, and played in the Champions League while having a shite board.

 

 

 

I can shed some light on the claim that  SJH 'went back on his word ' about signing a couple of players , prompting KK to walk away. This actually happened on March 12 , 1992(the day we played Swindon, winning 3-1 , and KK left straight after the game).

As ever with KK , he jumped first & asked questions later - I know for a fact that the Bank which NUFC were using at that time , wanted to take 250,000 , PRIVATE MONEY put up by SJH & Lady Hall , to pay off part of the O/Draft. SJH would not allow that to happen , which is why the deal was delayed(this was actually for Kilcline). In the end , an agreement was reached which allowed the club to use the money for the player , but KK reacted without clarifying the position first. SJH had to ring him up at his home in Romsey(Hants) to sort the whole thing out , and he actually said 'there are 2 people who can save NUFC, and they are both on different ends of this phone-line...'

 

The rest is history , but DON'T accuse SJH of 'backing out' - why would he ? He had spent 4 years & a few Mill in order to get the club in the first place. Shepherd is NOT A PATCH on him as Chairman , without question.

 

 

Keegan says on page 205 in his book "Neither George Forbes nor Peter Mallinger knew that on Monday 3 February 1992 I was being asked to take over as Newcastle Manager on the Wednesday. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglas Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles".

 

Further down the page he says about a meeting they had " I was not very impressed with him (Hall Snr). It was obvious that he wasn't comfortable with my proposed appointment. I could understand why, because he has put his name to an article by Bob Cass in the Mail on Sunday three days earlier which claimed that ossie's job was safe, and I knew that his family had built up a strong friendship with Ossie's. I was also concerned that neither Mallinger nor Forbes was present. Whatever Sir John thought about the situation he was in the minority. The other 3 laid the cards on the table: the club was on its way down and they had to do something very quickly if they were going to halt the decline. It seemed to me that Sir John was being given no choice.

 

He seemed anxious to get away - his original reason for coming down to London with his wife Lady Mae was to buy some trees in Kew Gardens. But I would not let him slip away until I knew how much money would be available to me for players. He told me that there would be 1m straight away and a further million if it was required. That was what I wanted to hear. It might not sound like a lot of money these days, but then I felt it was as much as I needed"

 

Further down he says "I must have been the only manager to be appointed without the knowledge of the chairman and vice chairman, neither of whom was informed until an hour before the press conference at which the news was made public. And even the future chairman - the man with the money - indicated that it was his colleagues rather than himself who wanted me."

 

A few pages later, on page 213, he says "What I did not know what that Sir John hall was playing political games with the other directors, Bob Young, George Forbes, Peter Mallinger and Gordon McKeag, in the matter of funds he had promised me. He was quite prepared to put in his share of the money I needed, which amounted to 40 per cent, but he told the others that  they had to find the

remaining 60 per cent. That was not fair, because none of them had been given a say in my appointment, or even known about it, let alone an  opportunity to turn down or agree to my original demands. As far as I was concerned, it wasn't their problem and I never held anything against Forbes and Mallinger over the issue.

 

All this was going on as a sideshow to the relegation battle and I decided that enough was enough. I filled Terry {Mac} in on the details and told him that we had no alternative but to go. Sir John had to keep his promises, regardless of his problems with the others and how much they might or might not put in."

 

Later, on pagef 214, he says "The player I wanted, Darren McDonough from Luton, was only going to cost £100,000,  a fraction of the 1m or even the 2m pledged to me to get the club out of trouble"

 

Then, after the Swindon game, while driving out of the ground with Terry (Mac) - " I'm finished here and none of you know. I was furious, not with Forbes, Mallinger or the other directors, but with Sir John Hall".

 

I have heard what you say mate ie about the 250 grand. I am only quoting from Keegans book. It is only one side, but does anyone think Keegan told us lies ? I don't. I'm not casting judgement on SJH either, nobody can after how it all turned out, I too wish we were still in such a position and that Keegan had not left the club.

 

 

[NE5]

NE5, why do you always bring up the fact that you've been to more games than ayone else?

 

only when or if they ask for it.

 

And I haven't been to more games than anyone else  :winking:

 

Yes, it help so t get a feel for the atmosphere and see how players play off the ball.  But saying that, you can probably get a more in depth overview of the game as a whole,a nd how the team played on the whole of the pitch by watching it on tv, the full match no the highlights mind you  :wullie:    Unless you have the eyes of a hawk and can see if a player slipped or was just too slow or was ball watching rather than marking their man properly for the other side/end of the stadium, even if I was in the first row i'd have problems seeing everything on the pitch at all times.

 

Btw, it was a good article which obviously took time to write. That was a simple compliment, I both disagree and agree with some of the replies you've made since writing the article though.  Like the fact that you say:

 

"Its pretty straightforward. Do you think being 5th best over a decade, qualifying for europe 7 times in that period, filling a 52,000 stadium and buyuing major and current England interational footballers is shit ?"

 

Do you think that buying Owen was a masterstoke? And would it not have been better buying 2 other strikers for the same amount? Given Owen's injury record and our recent injury prone-training/players/pitch/whatever?  The only player you could be thinking of is Owen, unless you're counting Butt or under21 internationals, in which case Milner.  Or going back a couple of seasons and talking about Bowyer or Woodgate or Bramble or Dyer.  Parker i suppose had only 1 cap?

 

But back on topic, i think that we haven't gone backwards, possibly a little, but maybe we were just over acheiving?  :confused:  I think it's more likely that we've stagnated, when other clubs have moved forwards. Villa for example were in a very similar situation we are in now, and it took their Chairman being bought out and a new manager instilling a new feel to the club for them to turn around, but it might only be the honeymoon period, you never know. 

 

The likes of Everton, come in waves, good 1 season, dire the next, medicore after that, then the make a few good signings and their riding the wave again.

 

But look at Portsmouth, they improved their whole squad in the summer.  Yes they started well but do you think that it will continue now they've tasted defeat? or will they go back to mid table mediocrity?

 

We can bitch and moan all we want at each other and at the board if we want to, or not.  But the only way that the club can move forward is with change, that may mean a change in personel at the highest level, or a re-structring, or even just a general lift in spirits of the enitre crowd at a home game.  We used to be called the 12th man during Keegan's time at the helm, the past few seasons i think we've been more like the 12th man for the opposition some times

 

thanks for the comments though mate, it was intended to be a balanced article, I have tried to see the good and bad things about the board. The board may well be approaching the end of the line, that is why I said what I did towards the end, because I realise that. That is not pro-Shepherd. Nor is where I say that he has made "reactionary" appointments, although don't lose sight of the fact that Dalglish, Gullit and Robson were all highly regarded and proven winners. You would be pushed to find someone with as many titles and honours to his name as a manager than Dalglish.

 

Maybe the Keegan era did come too quickly, without proper foundations, and discarding the youth scheme made things more difficult to consolidate a sound footing after he had gone ? Good point, I never thought of putting that in.

 

I think buying Owen is without a doubt good forward planning as Shearers replacement, whether or not we would be better off with 2 forwards - I don;t know - you could say we have bought 2 forwards ie Martins and Luque !!!! If Owen was playing and scoring goals we would probably be happy but as he is injured again, we would undoubtedly be better off with 2 players who were playing, so long as they justified their fees and delivered the performances. But thats football, sometimes these things happen you can't predict them.

 

Portsmouth won't have the quality to stay where they are, I don;t think. Do you ? They have made a good start though so shouldn't have the problems they had last year, and if it had been up to me, I would have kept Lua Lua, world beater he isn't but he would be playing now and he didn't get a chance at Newcastle.

 

Cheers for that.

 

 

[Guest Gemmill]

Do you think being 5th best over a decade, qualifying for europe 7 times in that period, filling a 52,000 stadium and buyuing major and current England interational footballers is shit ?

 

 

 

Autopost.

[Guest Geordie_krispy]

thanks for the comments though mate, it was intended to be a balanced article, I have tried to see the good and bad things about the board. The board may well be approaching the end of the line, that is why I said what I did towards the end, because I realise that. That is not pro-Shepherd. Nor is where I say that he has made "reactionary" appointments, although don't lose sight of the fact that Dalglish, Gullit and Robson were all highly regarded and proven winners. You would be pushed to find someone with as many titles and honours to his name as a manager than Dalglish.

 

Maybe the Keegan era did come too quickly, without proper foundations, and discarding the youth scheme made things more difficult to consolidate a sound footing after he had gone ? Good point, I never thought of putting that in.

 

I think buying Owen is without a doubt good forward planning as Shearers replacement, whether or not we would be better off with 2 forwards - I don;t know - you could say we have bought 2 forwards ie Martins and Luque !!!! If Owen was playing and scoring goals we would probably be happy but as he is injured again, we would undoubtedly be better off with 2 players who were playing, so long as they justified their fees and delivered the performances. But thats football, sometimes these things happen you can't predict them.

 

Portsmouth won't have the quality to stay where they are, I don;t think. Do you ? They have made a good start though so shouldn't have the problems they had last year, and if it had been up to me, I would have kept Lua Lua, world beater he isn't but he would be playing now and he didn't get a chance at Newcastle.

 

Cheers for that.

 

 

 

Credit where credit's due mate.

 

The buying 2 strikers thing i was thinking more along the lines of instead of buying Owen, we could've bought Andy Johnson and someone else, i seem to remember him being scoffed at by the majority of the people here.  May be mistaken, but i think it's in the same with Ashton.  Who here would not have prefered Johnson to Martins? Nearly the same money and a player with pace, strength and the ability.  But the same couldbe said for James Beattie, but look at him now.  Personally i think the forward we're "lining up" to buy in january is Ashton, i think we would've bougth him in the summer but he got injured.  Don't know why but it's just a gut feeling.  Plus i think he's mroe the Shearer replacement Freddie was thinking of, a player with the same style of play.  But saying that, we've needed to change the style of play for years, with Shearer's lack of mobility and now he's gone, but not forgotten, we still paly liek we have Shearer of a few seasons ago.

 

 

My view on the past few managers:

 

I think the arguements of who brought Keagan in could go on and on, and i think both views are probably right.  Hall snr was in-essence in charge, but his hand was guided by jnr, fletcher & shepard.  So really both "parties" could take credit for bringing him in.  When he left, he left us in it, simple as. 

 

The board brought in a manager who had the experience of winning, very recently too, Dalgleish's downfall was bringing in his own team of players and selling the old squad too quickly.  But he was sacked for not winning the fa cup, and not performing in the league.(personally i think we should've given him another season, but he did sign some over the hill liverpool players to try and bring a '80's liverpool style of play into the club). 

 

When Gullit was made manager is was to try and bring back some of the Keagan style of football, but he didn't seem to have the knowledge or ability inthe transfer market to do so, and so with a decent cup run ending in another humilation in the fa cup final he was on his way too, probably correctly.

 

Robson was offered the job when Keagan left, he didn't take it due to his commitments at PSV, which he then left to go to Portugal, and so when the offer/opportunity to get the job cam earound again he jumped on it, probably regretting the fact he didn't take it the first time ( I haven't read his book, don't know if it's true, just my view).  He did well, got us out of the quagmire, introduced some stability in the club, but was probably waiting for someone, possibly Shearer, to become his assistant and then take over.  This never happened and so he lost his way, adn was booted, too late, not because he should've gone earlier, but surely a thought process longer than second would've shown that you get a new manager in during the summer, not at the start of a new season?? blueconfused.gif

 

Souness was obviously a last grasp at someone who'd one something recently, and showed that it was a fluke or let's say a good cup run doesn't make a good team.

 

Roeder is a good COACH, not a good manager, personally i'd have him as my head coach, with a more tactically asstute manager in charge of the first team.

 

The main downfall with the board atm is that they seem to think that big money striker signing's will make the team score loads and therfore win a-la Keagan's doens't matter how many you score we can score more, on a side note it would be interesting to see if the Keagan defence was as bad as everyone seems to remember it being.  To win things in this day and age of the premiership with it's bigger squads of higher class palyers, you need to have good players alround.  Look at Man Utd, they've never looked as good as when they had the squad of '99.  Yes they probably have better individual players, but the overall ability of the squad is less, just the compare the defences, Stam or Rio? Schmeical or Van der Sar? Neville or... oh wait he's still there.  The still rely on Giggs and scholes to produce a much needed solid attack/defence, yes Rooney & Ronaldo play damn well together or apart but 2 men don't make a team, nevermind a squad.

[tmonkey]

NE5 clearly will never understand that it doesnt matter what the club was 20, 30, 40 years ago when it comes to judging the performance of Shephard as chairman. Its perfectly reasonable to say that us "younger" supporters should be greatful for what the club is today compared to what it was in the early 80s, but its completely illogical to then state that Shephard is doing a good job because of this comparison.

 

For all it matters, we may have been a pub team with 2-3 "supporters" playing on a bit of grass in the 70s/80s. Irrelevant. Shephard needs to be judged on the job hes done with the resources he has had to work with and the position of the business he inherited.

 

Hes done poorly from this viewpoint.

 

What I cant understand is why NE5 refuses to acknowledge this. Its simple common sense, its 1+1=2 - no multi million dollar business judges performance of their current senior managers by comparing the business to when it was someones's market stall decades ago - but for whatever reason, for whatever agenda, NE5 is purposely ignoring this fundamental premise, obviously because its suits him to do so, and he will no doubt continue to do so, using as many side tracks and red herrings as possible and knocking down plenty of straw men in his quest.

[macbeth]

I've only read the first two pages of messages.

 

I feel so disappointed. NE5 produces a long detailed history with a reasoned argument. Slips over into opinion rather than fact a few times but nothing that can't be avoided when you are trying to get a point across.

 

Then within a couple of subsequent postings he's not accepting others opinions cos they are younger, or glory-hunters, or mad for expecting things to stay the same or even wishing improvement. For God's sake man rise above it. If you've got something to say, and the original article shows you have, then argue about the points in it. To dismiss someone's opinion because they wanted Robson out, or are under 30, or weren't there in 1968 to see us play, or some other personal prejuduce you have just weakens everything else you valdily point out as plusses within the 15 years.

 

Dismissing others so readily just makes you look as though you can't actually see anything wrong with Shepherd and Hall. I hate what they have done with a vengance. I hate the Hall & Shepherds taking nearly £33m out of the clubs coffers in 9 years. You seem not to mind. You and I can, and have, played this to exhaustion. That I hate them robbing my club of that money does not mean I don't appreciate they financed the stadium extension well. I wouldn't instantly dismiss someone for having an alternate position, as you so readily do.

 

You are a lot older than most posters on here, you should have a more mature attitude, rather than just name calling.

 

 

[Guest Gemmill]

NE5 clearly will never understand that it doesnt matter what the club was 20, 30, 40 years ago when it comes to judging the performance of Shephard as chairman. Its perfectly reasonable to say that us "younger" supporters should be greatful for what the club is today compared to what it was in the early 80s, but its completely illogical to then state that Shephard is doing a good job because of this comparison.

 

For all it matters, we may have been a pub team with 2-3 "supporters" playing on a bit of grass in the 70s/80s. Irrelevant. Shephard needs to be judged on the job hes done with the resources he has had to work with and the position of the business he inherited.

 

Hes done poorly from this viewpoint.

 

What I cant understand is why NE5 refuses to acknowledge this. Its simple common sense, its 1+1=2 - no multi million dollar business judges performance of their current senior managers by comparing the business to when it was someones's market stall decades ago - but for whatever reason, for whatever agenda, NE5 is purposely ignoring this fundamental premise, obviously because its suits him to do so, and he will no doubt continue to do so, using as many side tracks and red herrings as possible and knocking down plenty of straw men in his quest.

 

Pretty much bang on the money.  It wouldn't be so frustrating arguing with him if there was the glimmer of realisation that Shepherd is a bit shit, but he genuinely genuinely believes that this man is doing a good job.  What can you say in the face of someone being so blind to what's actually going on?

 

And then there's the fact that he's incapable of focussing on and discussing one point, preferring instead to just re-post his stock phrases in the face of whatever reasoned logic debate you send his way.  I try not to get involved in arguments with him, but every now and again something will happen and I'll think "Maybe this will have opened his eyes to Shepherd's performance", try and point it out to him, and what do you get fired back at you?  "5th best in the country, regularly signing internationals, full houses, qualification for Europe, blah blah blah".  That's as good as he wants it to get, it seems.

[NE5]

NE5 clearly will never understand that it doesnt matter what the club was 20, 30, 40 years ago when it comes to judging the performance of Shephard as chairman. Its perfectly reasonable to say that us "younger" supporters should be greatful for what the club is today compared to what it was in the early 80s, but its completely illogical to then state that Shephard is doing a good job because of this comparison.

 

For all it matters, we may have been a pub team with 2-3 "supporters" playing on a bit of grass in the 70s/80s. Irrelevant. Shephard needs to be judged on the job hes done with the resources he has had to work with and the position of the business he inherited.

 

Hes done poorly from this viewpoint.

 

What I cant understand is why NE5 refuses to acknowledge this. Its simple common sense, its 1+1=2 - no multi million dollar business judges performance of their current senior managers by comparing the business to when it was someones's market stall decades ago - but for whatever reason, for whatever agenda, NE5 is purposely ignoring this fundamental premise, obviously because its suits him to do so, and he will no doubt continue to do so, using as many side tracks and red herrings as possible and knocking down plenty of straw men in his quest.

 

you are still missing a fundamental difference, despite it being pointed out to you .......it is a football club, not the high street. And - as I point out, being 5th best over the span of a decade, isn't too bad.

 

I think it suits you to ignore the facts I have stated. You have zero awareness of football reality if you think the only success is to win one of the two domestic trophies. As I have also pointed out, the club have came a long way, since 1992, with basically the same major shareholders.

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

I've only read the first two pages of messages.

 

I feel so disappointed. NE5 produces a long detailed history with a reasoned argument. Slips over into opinion rather than fact a few times but nothing that can't be avoided when you are trying to get a point across.

 

Then within a couple of subsequent postings he's not accepting others opinions cos they are younger, or glory-hunters, or mad for expecting things to stay the same or even wishing improvement. For God's sake man rise above it. If you've got something to say, and the original article shows you have, then argue about the points in it. To dismiss someone's opinion because they wanted Robson out, or are under 30, or weren't there in 1968 to see us play, or some other personal prejuduce you have just weakens everything else you valdily point out as plusses within the 15 years.

 

Dismissing others so readily just makes you look as though you can't actually see anything wrong with Shepherd and Hall. I hate what they have done with a vengance. I hate the Hall & Shepherds taking nearly £33m out of the clubs coffers in 9 years. You seem not to mind. You and I can, and have, played this to exhaustion. That I hate them robbing my club of that money does not mean I don't appreciate they financed the stadium extension well. I wouldn't instantly dismiss someone for having an alternate position, as you so readily do.

 

You are a lot older than most posters on here, you should have a more mature attitude, rather than just name calling.

 

 

says he, who has reverted to name calling and been banned for it.

 

I don't really have much to say to you, because you aren't interested in the football club, you are right we have played it to exhaustion. I'm not surprised you have replied in this thread...surprisingly [or not] you yourself should spend more time putting right those who think we can buy half a team of internationals every summer...despite the absurdity of the same people then saying they expect it from a "shit" board.

 

 

[NE5]

NE5 clearly will never understand that it doesnt matter what the club was 20, 30, 40 years ago when it comes to judging the performance of Shephard as chairman. Its perfectly reasonable to say that us "younger" supporters should be greatful for what the club is today compared to what it was in the early 80s, but its completely illogical to then state that Shephard is doing a good job because of this comparison.

 

For all it matters, we may have been a pub team with 2-3 "supporters" playing on a bit of grass in the 70s/80s. Irrelevant. Shephard needs to be judged on the job hes done with the resources he has had to work with and the position of the business he inherited.

 

Hes done poorly from this viewpoint.

 

What I cant understand is why NE5 refuses to acknowledge this. Its simple common sense, its 1+1=2 - no multi million dollar business judges performance of their current senior managers by comparing the business to when it was someones's market stall decades ago - but for whatever reason, for whatever agenda, NE5 is purposely ignoring this fundamental premise, obviously because its suits him to do so, and he will no doubt continue to do so, using as many side tracks and red herrings as possible and knocking down plenty of straw men in his quest.

 

Pretty much bang on the money.  It wouldn't be so frustrating arguing with him if there was the glimmer of realisation that Shepherd is a bit shit, but he genuinely genuinely believes that this man is doing a good job.  What can you say in the face of someone being so blind to what's actually going on?

 

And then there's the fact that he's incapable of focussing on and discussing one point, preferring instead to just re-post his stock phrases in the face of whatever reasoned logic debate you send his way.  I try not to get involved in arguments with him, but every now and again something will happen and I'll think "Maybe this will have opened his eyes to Shepherd's performance", try and point it out to him, and what do you get fired back at you?  "5th best in the country, regularly signing internationals, full houses, qualification for Europe, blah blah blah".  That's as good as he wants it to get, it seems.

 

I have put up the facts. Its not my problem if you just go into automode again ....   

[Delima]

Freddie Shepherd has a dick.

 

I have also put up a fact.

 

If you agree with this fact than you must agree that Freddie Shepherd is a dick.

 

Oh no maybe this fact is wrong ...