Mort - "not looking to make one-off signings to appease fans"

[NE5]

Owen was a great signing. It was only when he got injured so often for us that fans started to claim he shouldn't have been signed in the first place (apart from Wullie, who hated him from the start).

 

is the correct answer

 

 

[NE5]

 

things would be a lot more straightforward if you just admitted that you are totally motivated by personalites and not facts.

 

 

And that comes from the person who probably has 95% of his posts either in threads about the board or threads which are randomly hijacked into becoming threads about the board.  

 

the title of this thread is about who exactly ? Its not about the tea lady 

[NE5]

Or Roeder imo.

 

with hindsight yes, I think there was some justification for giving him a go, it just didn't work out. Lots of clubs take this path or promoting a caretaker who does quite well, Manu, Liverpool, Chelsea have all been there too.

 

 

[Baggio]

When Bentley chooses Liverpool over us, have the board failed?

 

if it means they missed the boat in January ?

 

"we won't be buying any players unless they are for the future" ring any bells ............

 

 

 

I wouldn't say Woodgate was a signing for the future.

 

Seriously though the comments you're referring to were made under Allardyce and I don't think you can blame them for being reluctant to give him more money considering the poor job he was doing.

 

A mid-20's centrehalf with an innate reading of the game beyond his years, and as a straight out defensive package - ie. ability-wise - many a manager would plan to build their rearguard around such a player for a decade or thereabouts.

 

Sounds very much like a signing for the future, and at the same time getting the jump - by making a sudden & quick move in January - on any rival clubs looking to follow suit, especially in the ensuing Summer window when i daresay that many clubs, big clubs, would've been banging down the doors at a cash-strapped Elland Road..

 

 

Woodgate in January 2003 wasn't a signing for the future, [we won't even mention getting in first before all our rivals at the end of the season in question] but 2 months ago he would have been a good buy ?

 

Good one that .

 

 

 

You said: "we won't be buying any players unless they are for the future" ring any bells ............

 

I replied: I wouldn't say Woodgate was a signing for the future.

 

Because we had a bid accepted for him in January, so we couldn't have been going for players that are for the future unless you consider a 28 year old Woodgate to be a player for the future and a 23 year old Bentley not to be.

 

Not like you to get the wrong end of the stick, Steve.

 

[NE5]

I don't think anyone particularly hated Owen, it was more the 'all our eggs in one very fragile basket' nature of the transfer that worried people.

 

I can see that Dave, but don't you think that only a few players had the backround, ability and stature to replace Shearer ? Replacing such a player isn't something to hand over to a young player of little experience etc ?

 

[Baggio]

Or Roeder imo.

 

It was just so obvious he was going to fail, I don't think anyone thought he could make a success of the club.

[Guest alex]

Or Roeder imo.

 

with hindsight yes, I think there was some justification for giving him a go, it just didn't work out. Lots of clubs take this path or promoting a caretaker who does quite well, Manu, Liverpool, Chelsea have all been there too.

 

 

I can't think of another team in the league who'd have thought about giving him a job at the time and I thought he'd turn out to be shit so I'm not purely employing hindsight. His track record shouldn't have been overshadowed by his doing well as a caretaker here. It should have been a case of thank you and back to the academy to continue your good work there. I thought that at the time too.

[Shearergol]

Or Roeder imo.

 

with hindsight yes, I think there was some justification for giving him a go, it just didn't work out. Lots of clubs take this path or promoting a caretaker who does quite well, Manu, Liverpool, Chelsea have all been there too.

 

 

I can't think of another team in the league who'd have thought about giving him a job at the time and I thought he'd turn out to be shit so I'm not purely employing hindsight. His track record shouldn't have been overshadowed by his doing well as a caretaker here. It should have been a case of thank you and back to the academy to continue your good work there. I thought that at the time too.

 

99% of the forum said exactly the same thing. There is no hindsight to apply with the Roeder appointment; it was an awful decision, and destined to fail from the start.

[STM]

Or Roeder imo.

 

It was just so obvious he was going to fail, I don't think anyone thought he could make a success of the club.

 

Then why did the majority want him to get his chance as permanent manager?

 

Maybe you didn't think he would be a success, but most of us wanted him to get his crack, including me, but maybe that's one for the "owning up" thread.

[Guest alex]

Oh aye, I wasn't trying to make out I was some sort of soothsayer It was a fairly common view to say the least. You just knew (as Baggio says) that it wouldn't work out well.

[Shearergol]

Or Roeder imo.

 

It was just so obvious he was going to fail, I don't think anyone thought he could make a success of the club.

 

Then why did the majority want him to get his chance as permanent manager?

 

Maybe you didn't think he would be a success, but most of us wanted him to get his crack, including me, but maybe that's one for the "owning up" thread.

 

Link???

[Guest alex]

Or Roeder imo.

 

It was just so obvious he was going to fail, I don't think anyone thought he could make a success of the club.

 

Then why did the majority want him to get his chance as permanent manager?

 

Maybe you didn't think he would be a success, but most of us wanted him to get his crack, including me, but maybe that's one for the "owning up" thread.

I'm not sure the majority did in fairness. I fucking didn't anyway.

[lovejoy]

I don't know what this argument is about, really.

 

The last lot had their chance and fluffed it. The failure to capitalise on the wonderful work done by Sir Bobby, coupled with a series of poor managerial appointments, led to a period of decline from which we only now have a chance of emerging because of a new broom in the boardroom and investment sufficient to clear some of the debts Shepherd had built up. He's history. And no one in their right mind is shedding any tears over the fact.

 

The new lot are still getting settled in. They seem to have got all their key people in place and are apparently thinking long-term, which has to be welcome news to anyone who cares for the future of the club. If it all means leaving behind knee-jerk, sell-a-season-ticket signings (or the hype of attempted signings such as Rooney or Ronaldinho) in favour of a sustained, intelligent and realistic period of squad-building and investment under the right manager, then that is good news. I'm more optimistic right now than I have been since just before we lost to Partizan, five long years ago.

 

It's dumb to rant and roar about the new lot before they've even got through their first proper transfer window. So far they're doing all right.

 

good post.

 

agree with all of that

 

the last lot had their chance and fluffed it  ?

 

Previously I thought you knew your stuff mate.

 

Respect for your opinions disintegrated after that I'm afraid.

 

 

 

i think they did fluff it in the grand scheme of things, and i think they accounts that have now come to light would support that notion.

 

i also stand by what i have always said in that i would have rather had shepherd in than many other chairmen who are in the premiership today, phil gartside and the tools from birmingham to name just 2, but that doesnt mean i cant criticise decisions he made here.

 

he always backed his managers, which is correct and we were all very happy for him to do so, regardless of what is said now, but the state of the accounts show he did it to the point of neglect, and results show he did it with the wrong managers.

 

i think him fluffing it is a pretty fair assumption, he balls'ed it up in the grand scheme of things and, whats more, even he will know that.

 

the new regime deserve a chance and shouldnt be chasitised for what they may or may not do in their first full summer at the helm, we'll have to see.

 

to sum up, the last lot ha dtheir chance, and fluffed it, time for someone else to have a go.

 

and as for your respect for my opinions disintergrating, is that because i have agreed with ozzie or because i have agreed with what he said? either way, i couldnt realy give a s**** to be honest with you.

 

Took a bit time to find this ? It's nowt to do with agreeing with Ozzie or anybody.

 

I just don't think our record over the decade as a whole, and leaving the club in a position where a rich man with no connection to the region found it attractive, is fluffing it. Although there is no defence for appointing Souness.

 

 

 

 

 

i suppose it depends on your definition of fluffing it i suppose.

 

the souness and roeder appointments were a travesty, as was his timing of bobbys sacking.

 

 

[NE5]

Or Roeder imo.

 

with hindsight yes, I think there was some justification for giving him a go, it just didn't work out. Lots of clubs take this path or promoting a caretaker who does quite well, Manu, Liverpool, Chelsea have all been there too.

 

 

I can't think of another team in the league who'd have thought about giving him a job at the time and I thought he'd turn out to be shit so I'm not purely employing hindsight. His track record shouldn't have been overshadowed by his doing well as a caretaker here. It should have been a case of thank you and back to the academy to continue your good work there. I thought that at the time too.

 

manu appointed a string of caretakers. Liverpool appointed Fagan, and Paisley. In recent times Blackburn have appointed brian Kidd. Charlton appointed that dope "Lee". Chelsea appointed Vialli. Blackburn [again] appointed Harford. Smoggies appointed Southgate. Sheff Wed appointed Francis, Bolton appointed Sammy Lee. There are lots more, its a huge list, its always happend. Some successful, some hopeless. Thats the point and you can't dispute it.

 

 

[STM]

Or Roeder imo.

 

with hindsight yes, I think there was some justification for giving him a go, it just didn't work out. Lots of clubs take this path or promoting a caretaker who does quite well, Manu, Liverpool, Chelsea have all been there too.

 

 

 

Agree, especially taking into account numerous polls on here that said the majority wanted him to stay on.

[Shearergol]

Or Roeder imo.

 

with hindsight yes, I think there was some justification for giving him a go, it just didn't work out. Lots of clubs take this path or promoting a caretaker who does quite well, Manu, Liverpool, Chelsea have all been there too.

 

 

 

Agree, especially taking into account numerous polls on here that said the majority wanted him to stay on.

 

I'll ask again. Link?

[Guest alex]

Or Roeder imo.

 

with hindsight yes, I think there was some justification for giving him a go, it just didn't work out. Lots of clubs take this path or promoting a caretaker who does quite well, Manu, Liverpool, Chelsea have all been there too.

 

 

I can't think of another team in the league who'd have thought about giving him a job at the time and I thought he'd turn out to be shit so I'm not purely employing hindsight. His track record shouldn't have been overshadowed by his doing well as a caretaker here. It should have been a case of thank you and back to the academy to continue your good work there. I thought that at the time too.

 

manu appointed a string of caretakers. Liverpool appointed Fagan, and Paisley. In recent times Blackburn have appointed brian Kidd. Charlton appointed that dope "Lee". Chelsea appointed Vialli. Blackburn [again] appointed Harford. Smoggies appointed Southgate. Sheff Wed appointed Francis, Bolton appointed Sammy Lee. There are lots more, its a huge list, its always happend. Some successful, some hopeless. Thats the point and you can't dispute it.

 

 

Yes, and I predicted Roeder would be hopeless. Which is my point. What's yours though? Caretakers sometimes make good managers and sometimes don't? Was that really a point worth making?

[STM]

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=20207.0

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=19140.0

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=34360.0

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=35974.0

 

Here's a few links for you. Reading through them, it wasn't as conclusive an opinion as i first thought. However, i'd say looking at the comments there is at least a 50/50 split between the people on this forum. Plenty of arguements for either side and some very respected opinions who wanted to keep him here.

 

Certainly not a case of "It was just so obvious he was going to fail, I don't think anyone thought he could make a success of the club."

 

 

 

 

 

[Baggio]

It's Roeder!

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=19310.0

 

[STM]

It's Roeder!

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=19310.0

 

 

Just posted that link above. Hardly a conclusive no to roeder now is it?

[NE5]

Or Roeder imo.

 

with hindsight yes, I think there was some justification for giving him a go, it just didn't work out. Lots of clubs take this path or promoting a caretaker who does quite well, Manu, Liverpool, Chelsea have all been there too.

 

 

I can't think of another team in the league who'd have thought about giving him a job at the time and I thought he'd turn out to be shit so I'm not purely employing hindsight. His track record shouldn't have been overshadowed by his doing well as a caretaker here. It should have been a case of thank you and back to the academy to continue your good work there. I thought that at the time too.

 

manu appointed a string of caretakers. Liverpool appointed Fagan, and Paisley. In recent times Blackburn have appointed brian Kidd. Charlton appointed that dope "Lee". Chelsea appointed Vialli. Blackburn [again] appointed Harford. Smoggies appointed Southgate. Sheff Wed appointed Francis, Bolton appointed Sammy Lee. There are lots more, its a huge list, its always happend. Some successful, some hopeless. Thats the point and you can't dispute it.

 

 

Yes, and I predicted Roeder would be hopeless. Which is my point. What's yours though? Caretakers sometimes make good managers and sometimes don't? Was that really a point worth making?

 

yes, that is the point. That is, of course, part of the basis upon which he was appointed.

 

 

 

 

[Baggio]

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=34360.0

 

 

It's HTT's thread where he got all excited when Roeder won a few games mid season and got us up to 11th.

[Baggio]

It's Roeder!

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=19310.0

 

 

Just posted that link above. Hardly a conclusive no to roeder now is it?

 

Most just wishing him good luck, he was never going to get us anywhere and most point out what an unambitious appointment it was.

[Guest alex]

Or Roeder imo.

 

with hindsight yes, I think there was some justification for giving him a go, it just didn't work out. Lots of clubs take this path or promoting a caretaker who does quite well, Manu, Liverpool, Chelsea have all been there too.

 

 

I can't think of another team in the league who'd have thought about giving him a job at the time and I thought he'd turn out to be shit so I'm not purely employing hindsight. His track record shouldn't have been overshadowed by his doing well as a caretaker here. It should have been a case of thank you and back to the academy to continue your good work there. I thought that at the time too.

 

manu appointed a string of caretakers. Liverpool appointed Fagan, and Paisley. In recent times Blackburn have appointed brian Kidd. Charlton appointed that dope "Lee". Chelsea appointed Vialli. Blackburn [again] appointed Harford. Smoggies appointed Southgate. Sheff Wed appointed Francis, Bolton appointed Sammy Lee. There are lots more, its a huge list, its always happend. Some successful, some hopeless. Thats the point and you can't dispute it.

 

 

Yes, and I predicted Roeder would be hopeless. Which is my point. What's yours though? Caretakers sometimes make good managers and sometimes don't? Was that really a point worth making?

 

yes, that is the point. That is, of course, part of the basis upon which he was appointed.

 

 

 

 

Which I find unforgiveable due to his poor track record at previous clubs. As though caretakers sometimes doing well was a good enough reason to give Roeder the job. If you are saying that, I disagree, if you aren't - what are you saying? Or to make it simpler - why was Roeder worth employing at the time? I can't think of a reason and I couldn't then.

[STM]

It's Roeder!

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=19310.0

 

 

Just posted that link above. Hardly a conclusive no to roeder now is it?

 

Most just wishing him good luck, he was never going to get us anywhere and most point out what an unambitious appointment it was.

 

To sum up what i was saying....

 

I hated FS as much as anyone but as you can see there was fair chunk (not the majority perhaps), that were happy with his appointment on a full time basis, me included. So i won't let me hatred of Shepard cloud my judgement of  an appointment that quite a few fans were happy with.

 

In hinesight of course, those fans who said it was unambitious and the wrong move (including yourself) where correct.