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

[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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

fair enough, you called it right. What happened to him at West Ham could have been down to the fact that he could have died ie he had serious health problems. This to me is mitigating cirumstances, and I thought on the basis that I've explained he was worth a go. I wasn't judging him on what happened to him at West Ham. You wouldn't judge anybody in life having had a brain tumour, well I wouldn't have thought so.

 

He was out of his depth. But pointing a gun at the board for making an appointment the likes of which pretty much every other club has made is a bit harsh.

 

They got it wrong and replaced him when it became obvious, they weren't the first or the last board to do that, although a lot of 2nd rate clubs would have stuck with it.

 

 

[Guest alex]

Even if you ignore West Ham, his track record is still poor and there's certainly nothing on his CV to suggest he was the right man for us when he got the job. That's why it was a daft appointment imo. Plain and simple. Him subsequently being found to be out of his depth was entirely predictable. In some ways it was a worse choice than Souness because I think at least with Souness other people had been approached and there was pressure to get someone in quickly. They had loads of time to sort out Souness' permanent successor though which made it even worse in a way. I don't think Roeder was any worse as a manager than Souness though, he wasn't that bad imo.

[Baggio]

So you wouldn't have had a problem if Mort made Nigel Pearson manager then, NE5?

[Mick]

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).

 

It wasn't just Wullie who didn't get carried away although he may have had the most to say on the subject.

[Cronky]

Promoting from within (eg Fagan, Paisley) isn't quite the same as deciding to let a caretaker carry on long-term. In the first examples, you're deciding that they're the best person for the job right from the start. In the case of Roeder, the Board made a temporary appointment and then decided to make it permanent because things seemed to be going well.

 

In the case of a caretaker, a team may get a temporary boost by the departure of the manager who was struggling, and by the injection of new ideas. The caretaker may be protected from some of the longer-term difficulties eg dealing with difficult / moody characters. So promoting a caretaker can be risky, and a somewhat lazy option.

[Cronky]

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).

 

It wasn't just Wullie who didn't get carried away although he may have had the most to say on the subject.

 

I was a sceptic, and I'm happy to admit that I still am. I'm not saying he's a bad player. Just not worth the money we shelled out, and are continuing to shell out.

[fredbob]

Even if you ignore West Ham, his track record is still poor and there's certainly nothing on his CV to suggest he was the right man for us when he got the job. That's why it was a daft appointment imo. Plain and simple. Him subsequently being found to be out of his depth was entirely predictable. In some ways it was a worse choice than Souness because I think at least with Souness other people had been approached and there was pressure to get someone in quickly. They had loads of time to sort out Souness' permanent successor though which made it even worse in a way. I don't think Roeder was any worse as a manager than Souness though, he wasn't that bad imo.

 

See my issue with the appointment of Roeder was that i couldnt see the point of it, the general consensus with that appointment that that he could possibly get us into the top half and stabilize us as a club.

 

Why didnt we make an effort to get a manager who's had the ability to get us where we hoped to be in the end rather than a manager we knew who wouldnt get us where we wantedto be...

 

It just didnt make sense in my head, it was an appointment which had a definite shelf life which meant we would need a new manager in the forseeable future again.

[Mick]

 

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 

 

I didn't mention this thread in particular, I mentioned your posts in general, I've left the posts so you can try again.  

[Shearergol]

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).

 

It wasn't just Wullie who didn't get carried away although he may have had the most to say on the subject.

 

I've noticed recently that you've been right about every single decision made by the club, yet haven't seen any posts to back it up. Strange that.

[Mick]

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 s*** 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.

 

Most people knew he was out of his depth, I can think of very few who thought the appointment was a good one.

[Mick]

 

I've noticed recently that you've been right about every single decision made by the club, yet haven't seen any posts to back it up. Strange that.

 

I haven't been right about everything at all, I guess you must be wrong more than most seeing as how ofter you use hindsight as a response to posts, I was right about Souness, Roeder, Boumsong and Owen, plenty of other were also right so it's no big deal.

 

What was your thoughts when they came to the club?

[Shearergol]

 

I've noticed recently that you've been right about every single decision made by the club, yet haven't seen any posts to back it up. Strange that.

 

I haven't been right about everything at all, I guess you must be wrong more than most seeing as how ofter you use hindsight as a response to posts, I was right about Souness, Roeder, Boumsong and Owen, plenty of other were also right so it's no big deal.

 

What was your thoughts when they came to the club?

 

Gutted about Souness and Roeder. Happy with Boumsong and Owen.

 

I personally thought Boumsong was class at Rangers; it just didn't work out in this league.

 

In what way were you right about Owen by the way? Are you now saying we'd have been better off without him?

[NE5]

Even if you ignore West Ham, his track record is still poor and there's certainly nothing on his CV to suggest he was the right man for us when he got the job. That's why it was a daft appointment imo. Plain and simple. Him subsequently being found to be out of his depth was entirely predictable. In some ways it was a worse choice than Souness because I think at least with Souness other people had been approached and there was pressure to get someone in quickly. They had loads of time to sort out Souness' permanent successor though which made it even worse in a way. I don't think Roeder was any worse as a manager than Souness though, he wasn't that bad imo.

 

you have the wrong end of the stick. Personally I wouldn't have appointed him, I'm just saying that on the basis he did well as a caretaker then the continuity factor gave it a degree of credibility, and he was worth some support for that and being an ex captain of the club would have did his best for the club, unlike his predecessor.

 

We all make mistakes but I disagree with you in the respect that I think Roeder at least was an understandable one.

 

 

[Baggio]

Even if you ignore West Ham, his track record is still poor and there's certainly nothing on his CV to suggest he was the right man for us when he got the job. That's why it was a daft appointment imo. Plain and simple. Him subsequently being found to be out of his depth was entirely predictable. In some ways it was a worse choice than Souness because I think at least with Souness other people had been approached and there was pressure to get someone in quickly. They had loads of time to sort out Souness' permanent successor though which made it even worse in a way. I don't think Roeder was any worse as a manager than Souness though, he wasn't that bad imo.

 

you have the wrong end of the stick. Personally I wouldn't have appointed him, I'm just saying that on the basis he did well as a caretaker then the continuity factor gave it a degree of credibility, and he was worth some support for that and being an ex captain of the club would have did his best for the club, unlike his predecessor.

 

We all make mistakes but I disagree with you in the respect that I think Roeder at least was an understandable one.

 

 

 

Do you think the Roeder appointment lacked ambition?

[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 

 

I didn't mention this thread in particular, I mentioned your posts in general, I've left the posts so you can try again.  

 

I've got a better idea, why not tell us who Boumsong was signed to replace  mackems.gif

[Guest alex]

Even if you ignore West Ham, his track record is still poor and there's certainly nothing on his CV to suggest he was the right man for us when he got the job. That's why it was a daft appointment imo. Plain and simple. Him subsequently being found to be out of his depth was entirely predictable. In some ways it was a worse choice than Souness because I think at least with Souness other people had been approached and there was pressure to get someone in quickly. They had loads of time to sort out Souness' permanent successor though which made it even worse in a way. I don't think Roeder was any worse as a manager than Souness though, he wasn't that bad imo.

 

you have the wrong end of the stick. Personally I wouldn't have appointed him, I'm just saying that on the basis he did well as a caretaker then the continuity factor gave it a degree of credibility, and he was worth some support for that and being an ex captain of the club would have did his best for the club, unlike his predecessor.

 

We all make mistakes but I disagree with you in the respect that I think Roeder at least was an understandable one.

 

 

No bother, agree to differ eh?

[Mick]

 

Gutted about Souness and Roeder. Happy with Boumsong and Owen.

 

I personally thought Boumsong was class at Rangers; it just didn't work out in this league.

 

In what way were you right about Owen by the way? Are you now saying we'd have been better off without him?

 

Boumsong wasn't class at Rangers and I was unfortunate enough to see a bit of him while living in Scotland as Rangers and Celtic were given something like 90% of the football coverage.  Boumsong just made me laugh when he pissed about with the ball and seemed to take twice as long as anybody else to realise what was happening, he looked OK against pub teams who would struggle in our third division, nowt flash.  If he "just just didn't work out in this league," how's he getting on now?

 

Paying £17 million for an injury prone Owen was crazy, and no I didn't know he would get the two serious injuries that he's had since joining us, I expected two or three pulled hamstrings a year and thought our money could have been spent to improve the team more than it did, Anelka would have been my choice.  Owen has cost something like £2 million a goal averaged over the best part of 3 seasons now, he's good when fit but the same use as any other player when injured, no use at all. 

[Mick]

 

you have the wrong end of the stick. Personally I wouldn't have appointed him, I'm just saying that on the basis he did well as a caretaker then the continuity factor gave it a degree of credibility, and he was worth some support for that and being an ex captain of the club would have did his best for the club, unlike his predecessor.

 

We all make mistakes but I disagree with you in the respect that I think Roeder at least was an understandable one.

 

 

 

Roeder was true to form, a total failure as manager and I can't understand why anybody would think that he would do a good job for us but I can understand why you defend the decision.

[Shearergol]

 

Gutted about Souness and Roeder. Happy with Boumsong and Owen.

 

I personally thought Boumsong was class at Rangers; it just didn't work out in this league.

 

In what way were you right about Owen by the way? Are you now saying we'd have been better off without him?

 

Boumsong wasn't class at Rangers and I was unfortunate enough to see a bit of him while living in Scotland as Rangers and Celtic were given something like 90% of the football coverage.  Boumsong just made me laugh when he pissed about with the ball and seemed to take twice as long as anybody else to realise what was happening, he looked OK against pub teams who would struggle in our third division, nowt flash.  If he "just just didn't work out in this league," how's he getting on now?

 

Paying £17 million for an injury prone Owen was crazy, and no I didn't know he would get the two serious injuries that he's had since joining us, I expected two or three pulled hamstrings a year and thought our money could have been spent to improve the team more than it did, Anelka would have been my choice.  Owen has cost something like £2 million a goal averaged over the best part of 3 seasons now, he's good when fit but the same use as any other player when injured, no use at all. 

 

"I personally thought"

 

There's so many holes in that paragraph which I don't have time to answer. I'll do it later

[Mick]

 

I've got a better idea, why not tell us who Boumsong was signed to replace  mackems.gif

 

Like everybody else, I know who he was signed to replace, he was just nowhere near good enough and didn't replace Woodgate.  It's just typical of you to try to make something out of nothing.

[Wullie]

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).

 

Dave's already responded for me. I didn't hate Michael Owen at all, never have, just didn't think we should have spent so much on him in the situation we were in. I stand by it as well, it's taken three years, three managerial changes and a takeover to even begin reaping any rewards.

[Mick]

 

"I personally thought"

 

There's so many holes in that paragraph which I don't have time to answer. I'll do it later

 

Why wait?

[Shearergol]

 

"I personally thought"

 

There's so many holes in that paragraph which I don't have time to answer. I'll do it later

 

Why wait?

 

Don't have time?

 

Logging off now.

[Mick]

 

Don't have time?

 

Logging off now.

 

That's convenient, I thought the holes were so numerous it would not have taken long to respond.    

[Guest Phil K]

Kluivert looked better than alreet, in fact he looked class and a considerable goal threat. But like Bellamy he was f***** off to preserve Shearer's place in the team, f****** disgraceful

What utter sh*te.

Another pillock with a short memory about Shearer.

Kluivert was fine and dandy, no doubt though.