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

[Guest Knightrider]

I refer to Souness' final campaign in the hotseat.

 

 

First month of the premiership: no goals in the 'for' tally, and no wins on the board.

 

Owen, a proven goal scorer, as a signing - brought in to address the goal scoring drought, and afterall it was Souness who passed a piece of notepaper - with Owen's name on it - across the chairman's table. More of a signing out of neccessity, as opposed to some type of boadroom chartered gimick signing aimed at appeasing supporters.

 

Was that before of after Souness was denied the significantly lower funds to purchase his number one striker Anelka...

 

I don't want to get into this debate, but Owen was a trophy signing, to appease fans, to put bums on seats. No doubt Souness said aye to the idea of signing Owen, but the way I remember it he wanted Anelka first and we could have had him for £10m quid. The whole grande hotel business with Sky cameras poking out of the sky was all staged managed and need I say more about the official unveiling.

 

Owen was also a panic signing, we'd started the season goaless as you said which only helped us come to the eventual fee we paid for him, way over the top. Some £6m more than what Anelka would have went for and double what Liverpool had offered for Owen.

 

If Owen this proven goalscorer was a necessity, what was Anelka this proving goalscorer?

 

Spin it all you like, there is no denying what kind of signing Owen was.

[NE5]

 

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.

 

is that so. I don't understand how anyone can't see that Boumsong wasn't bought to play in the team in Woodgates position.

 

As you think that Roeder was a total "failure" you can tell us how many other ex NUFC managers finished 7th in the top league, even once, especially under the board in the 1970's and 1980's, as they were all "the same as" the one Roeder had, they would have all therefore been on a level playing field.

 

 

 

[NE5]

I refer to Souness' final campaign in the hotseat.

 

 

First month of the premiership: no goals in the 'for' tally, and no wins on the board.

 

Owen, a proven goal scorer, as a signing - brought in to address the goal scoring drought, and afterall it was Souness who passed a piece of notepaper - with Owen's name on it - across the chairman's table. More of a signing out of neccessity, as opposed to some type of boadroom chartered gimick signing aimed at appeasing supporters.

 

Was that before of after Souness was denied the significantly lower funds to purchase his number one striker Anelka...

 

I don't want to get into this debate, but Owen was a trophy signing, to appease fans, to put bums on seats. No doubt Souness said aye to the idea of signing Owen, but the way I remember it he wanted Anelka first and we could have had him for £10m quid. The whole grande hotel business with Sky cameras poking out of the sky was all staged managed and need I say more about the official unveiling.

 

Owen was also a panic signing, we'd started the season goaless as you said which only helped us come to the eventual fee we paid for him, way over the top. Some £6m more than what Anelka would have went for and double what Liverpool had offered for Owen.

 

If Owen this proven goalscorer was a necessity, what was Anelka this proving goalscorer?

 

Spin it all you like, there is no denying what kind of signing Owen was.

 

All players are bought to put bums on seats.

 

Souness said himself that he handed Shepherd a piece of paper with Owens name on it as the player he would most like to sign.

 

I don't understand why people have a problem with signing a player of the calibre of Micheal Owen. Staggering.

 

 

[TRon]

Roeder's appointment was a poor decision regardless of any stats or results short term. There is no getting away from this whatever spin anyone wants to put on it. A very poor decision.

[NE5]

 

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.

 

oh dear. Nobody has replaced Tony Green, going  by that unbelievable criteria, [see my sig for the full comment] made only to hide your embarrassment.

 

 

[Baggio]

 

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.

 

is that so. I don't understand how anyone can't see that Boumsong wasn't bought to play in the team in Woodgates position.

 

As you think that Roeder was a total "failure" you can tell us how many other ex NUFC managers finished 7th in the top league, even once, especially under the board in the 1970's and 1980's, as they were all "the same as" the one Roeder had, they would have all therefore been on a level playing field.

 

 

 

 

Are you saying Roeder wasn't a failure then?

[Baggio]

Roeder's appointment was a poor decision regardless of any stats or results short term. There is no getting away from this whatever spin anyone wants to put on it. A very poor decision.

 

Agreed.

 

Unambitious I would say.

[NE5]

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

I see someone has edited a comment you've made.

 

How childish and stupid.

 

 

[Guest Knightrider]

I refer to Souness' final campaign in the hotseat.

 

 

First month of the premiership: no goals in the 'for' tally, and no wins on the board.

 

Owen, a proven goal scorer, as a signing - brought in to address the goal scoring drought, and afterall it was Souness who passed a piece of notepaper - with Owen's name on it - across the chairman's table. More of a signing out of neccessity, as opposed to some type of boadroom chartered gimick signing aimed at appeasing supporters.

 

Was that before of after Souness was denied the significantly lower funds to purchase his number one striker Anelka...

 

I don't want to get into this debate, but Owen was a trophy signing, to appease fans, to put bums on seats. No doubt Souness said aye to the idea of signing Owen, but the way I remember it he wanted Anelka first and we could have had him for £10m quid. The whole grande hotel business with Sky cameras poking out of the sky was all staged managed and need I say more about the official unveiling.

 

Owen was also a panic signing, we'd started the season goaless as you said which only helped us come to the eventual fee we paid for him, way over the top. Some £6m more than what Anelka would have went for and double what Liverpool had offered for Owen.

 

If Owen this proven goalscorer was a necessity, what was Anelka this proving goalscorer?

 

Spin it all you like, there is no denying what kind of signing Owen was.

 

All players are bought to put bums on seats.

 

Souness said himself that he handed Shepherd a piece of paper with Owens name on it as the player he would most like to sign.

 

I don't understand why people have a problem with signing a player of the calibre of Micheal Owen. Staggering.

 

 

 

My problem with Owen's signing wasn't even about the whole fan appeasement thing, but about spending all that money on an injury prone player who didn't want to be here and the manner in which we went about it, i.e. doubling what Liverpool had offered for a player who last resort would only really sign for us on loan to preserve his England place, that was before Madrid laughed their arses off when we just hit them with £16m who they were quite prepared to let out on loan never mind selling. That and the fact we could have had Anelka for much cheaper, Souness' first choice who actually wanted to come. I remember myself and Wullie getting lots of stick for our views on the Owen signing, but like him I still stand by my comments he was a waste of money and while you could argue he was the right kind of player in terms of pedigree, name, quality etc., he was signed at the wrong time by the wrong set of people by the wrong kind of club, a club that needed to spend whatever money it had a hell of a lot more wisely, our subsequent debt levels showed that. Anyway, all under the bridge, he's playing well and if KK wants to keep him I back that decision all the way despite my personal feelings that we should still cut our losses.

[NE5]

I refer to Souness' final campaign in the hotseat.

 

 

First month of the premiership: no goals in the 'for' tally, and no wins on the board.

 

Owen, a proven goal scorer, as a signing - brought in to address the goal scoring drought, and afterall it was Souness who passed a piece of notepaper - with Owen's name on it - across the chairman's table. More of a signing out of neccessity, as opposed to some type of boadroom chartered gimick signing aimed at appeasing supporters.

 

Was that before of after Souness was denied the significantly lower funds to purchase his number one striker Anelka...

 

I don't want to get into this debate, but Owen was a trophy signing, to appease fans, to put bums on seats. No doubt Souness said aye to the idea of signing Owen, but the way I remember it he wanted Anelka first and we could have had him for £10m quid. The whole grande hotel business with Sky cameras poking out of the sky was all staged managed and need I say more about the official unveiling.

 

Owen was also a panic signing, we'd started the season goaless as you said which only helped us come to the eventual fee we paid for him, way over the top. Some £6m more than what Anelka would have went for and double what Liverpool had offered for Owen.

 

If Owen this proven goalscorer was a necessity, what was Anelka this proving goalscorer?

 

Spin it all you like, there is no denying what kind of signing Owen was.

 

All players are bought to put bums on seats.

 

Souness said himself that he handed Shepherd a piece of paper with Owens name on it as the player he would most like to sign.

 

I don't understand why people have a problem with signing a player of the calibre of Micheal Owen. Staggering.

 

 

 

My problem with Owen's signing wasn't even about the whole fan appeasement thing, but about spending all that money on an injury prone player who didn't want to be here and the manner in which we went about it, i.e. doubling what Liverpool had offered for a player who last resort would only really sign for us on loan to preserve his England place, that was before Madrid laughed their arses off when we just hit them with £16m who they were quite prepared to let out on loan never mind selling. That and the fact we could have had Anelka for much cheaper, Souness' first choice who actually wanted to come. I remember myself and Wullie getting lots of stick for our views on the Owen signing, but like him I still stand by my comments he was a waste of money and while you could argue he was the right kind of player in terms of pedigree, name, quality etc., he was signed at the wrong time by the wrong set of people by the wrong kind of club, a club that needed to spend whatever money it had a hell of a lot more wisely, our subsequent debt levels showed that. Anyway, all under the bridge, he's playing well and if KK wants to keep him I back that decision all the way despite my personal feelings that we should still cut our losses.

 

well, that wasn't what Souness said , unless he's a liar.

 

Oh, wait a moment ............

 

Edit: remember too mate that Shearer appeared to be instrumental in persuading Owen  to sign ?

 

 

[Guest Knightrider]

Even I predicted Roeder failing and was dead set against it, despite one of my positive posts linke above about him, that was when he was in the job though, and I'm like that with all the managers or have been, even Souness who like Roeder I said would fail and never wanted him here. I don't think anyone did.

[Baggio]

I like how NE5 believes Souness when he spoke about wanting Owen as his first choice yet doesn't believe Keegan when he said he had money to spend in January but it was his choice not to.

 

Whatever fits your agenda I suppose.

[Guest Knightrider]

I refer to Souness' final campaign in the hotseat.

 

 

First month of the premiership: no goals in the 'for' tally, and no wins on the board.

 

Owen, a proven goal scorer, as a signing - brought in to address the goal scoring drought, and afterall it was Souness who passed a piece of notepaper - with Owen's name on it - across the chairman's table. More of a signing out of neccessity, as opposed to some type of boadroom chartered gimick signing aimed at appeasing supporters.

 

Was that before of after Souness was denied the significantly lower funds to purchase his number one striker Anelka...

 

I don't want to get into this debate, but Owen was a trophy signing, to appease fans, to put bums on seats. No doubt Souness said aye to the idea of signing Owen, but the way I remember it he wanted Anelka first and we could have had him for £10m quid. The whole grande hotel business with Sky cameras poking out of the sky was all staged managed and need I say more about the official unveiling.

 

Owen was also a panic signing, we'd started the season goaless as you said which only helped us come to the eventual fee we paid for him, way over the top. Some £6m more than what Anelka would have went for and double what Liverpool had offered for Owen.

 

If Owen this proven goalscorer was a necessity, what was Anelka this proving goalscorer?

 

Spin it all you like, there is no denying what kind of signing Owen was.

 

All players are bought to put bums on seats.

 

Souness said himself that he handed Shepherd a piece of paper with Owens name on it as the player he would most like to sign.

 

I don't understand why people have a problem with signing a player of the calibre of Micheal Owen. Staggering.

 

 

 

My problem with Owen's signing wasn't even about the whole fan appeasement thing, but about spending all that money on an injury prone player who didn't want to be here and the manner in which we went about it, i.e. doubling what Liverpool had offered for a player who last resort would only really sign for us on loan to preserve his England place, that was before Madrid laughed their arses off when we just hit them with £16m who they were quite prepared to let out on loan never mind selling. That and the fact we could have had Anelka for much cheaper, Souness' first choice who actually wanted to come. I remember myself and Wullie getting lots of stick for our views on the Owen signing, but like him I still stand by my comments he was a waste of money and while you could argue he was the right kind of player in terms of pedigree, name, quality etc., he was signed at the wrong time by the wrong set of people by the wrong kind of club, a club that needed to spend whatever money it had a hell of a lot more wisely, our subsequent debt levels showed that. Anyway, all under the bridge, he's playing well and if KK wants to keep him I back that decision all the way despite my personal feelings that we should still cut our losses.

 

well, that wasn't what Souness said , unless he's a liar.

 

Oh, wait a moment ............

 

Anelka was the one player Souness had tried to sign long before we showed any interest in Owen so he must have been pretty high up on his wishlist. And if Fenerbache are to be believed, the player's agent and Anelka himself, we'd been in touch and had offered what was considered a derisory offer by Fenerbache. I know Souness was angry about that because he said so live on TV in the buildup to our away match against Deportivo that sparked a huge thread on here debating whether FS was undermining his manager and just why, we weren't prepaired to meet their evaluation of a player the manager wanted which of course, become even more fishy when we then went and spent far more on Owen.

[Baggio]

I refer to Souness' final campaign in the hotseat.

 

 

First month of the premiership: no goals in the 'for' tally, and no wins on the board.

 

Owen, a proven goal scorer, as a signing - brought in to address the goal scoring drought, and afterall it was Souness who passed a piece of notepaper - with Owen's name on it - across the chairman's table. More of a signing out of neccessity, as opposed to some type of boadroom chartered gimick signing aimed at appeasing supporters.

 

Was that before of after Souness was denied the significantly lower funds to purchase his number one striker Anelka...

 

I don't want to get into this debate, but Owen was a trophy signing, to appease fans, to put bums on seats. No doubt Souness said aye to the idea of signing Owen, but the way I remember it he wanted Anelka first and we could have had him for £10m quid. The whole grande hotel business with Sky cameras poking out of the sky was all staged managed and need I say more about the official unveiling.

 

Owen was also a panic signing, we'd started the season goaless as you said which only helped us come to the eventual fee we paid for him, way over the top. Some £6m more than what Anelka would have went for and double what Liverpool had offered for Owen.

 

If Owen this proven goalscorer was a necessity, what was Anelka this proving goalscorer?

 

Spin it all you like, there is no denying what kind of signing Owen was.

 

All players are bought to put bums on seats.

 

Souness said himself that he handed Shepherd a piece of paper with Owens name on it as the player he would most like to sign.

 

I don't understand why people have a problem with signing a player of the calibre of Micheal Owen. Staggering.

 

 

 

My problem with Owen's signing wasn't even about the whole fan appeasement thing, but about spending all that money on an injury prone player who didn't want to be here and the manner in which we went about it, i.e. doubling what Liverpool had offered for a player who last resort would only really sign for us on loan to preserve his England place, that was before Madrid laughed their arses off when we just hit them with £16m who they were quite prepared to let out on loan never mind selling. That and the fact we could have had Anelka for much cheaper, Souness' first choice who actually wanted to come. I remember myself and Wullie getting lots of stick for our views on the Owen signing, but like him I still stand by my comments he was a waste of money and while you could argue he was the right kind of player in terms of pedigree, name, quality etc., he was signed at the wrong time by the wrong set of people by the wrong kind of club, a club that needed to spend whatever money it had a hell of a lot more wisely, our subsequent debt levels showed that. Anyway, all under the bridge, he's playing well and if KK wants to keep him I back that decision all the way despite my personal feelings that we should still cut our losses.

 

well, that wasn't what Souness said , unless he's a liar.

 

Oh, wait a moment ............

 

Anelka was the one player Souness had tried to sign long before we showed any interest in Owen so he must have been pretty high up on his wishlist. And if Fenerbache are to be believed, the player's agent and Anelka himself, we'd been in touch and had offered what was considered a derisory offer by Fenerbache. I know Souness was angry about that because he said so live on TV in the buildup to our away match against Deportivo that sparked a huge thread on here debating whether FS was undermining his manager and just why, we weren't prepaired to meet their evaluation of a player the manager wanted which of course, become even more fishy when we then went and spent far more on Owen.

 

I remember that, they spoke to Souness in the airport about it and he kept saying "You'd better ask the chairman" and that "I know the lads desperate to come here"

[NE5]

I refer to Souness' final campaign in the hotseat.

 

 

First month of the premiership: no goals in the 'for' tally, and no wins on the board.

 

Owen, a proven goal scorer, as a signing - brought in to address the goal scoring drought, and afterall it was Souness who passed a piece of notepaper - with Owen's name on it - across the chairman's table. More of a signing out of neccessity, as opposed to some type of boadroom chartered gimick signing aimed at appeasing supporters.

 

Was that before of after Souness was denied the significantly lower funds to purchase his number one striker Anelka...

 

I don't want to get into this debate, but Owen was a trophy signing, to appease fans, to put bums on seats. No doubt Souness said aye to the idea of signing Owen, but the way I remember it he wanted Anelka first and we could have had him for £10m quid. The whole grande hotel business with Sky cameras poking out of the sky was all staged managed and need I say more about the official unveiling.

 

Owen was also a panic signing, we'd started the season goaless as you said which only helped us come to the eventual fee we paid for him, way over the top. Some £6m more than what Anelka would have went for and double what Liverpool had offered for Owen.

 

If Owen this proven goalscorer was a necessity, what was Anelka this proving goalscorer?

 

Spin it all you like, there is no denying what kind of signing Owen was.

 

All players are bought to put bums on seats.

 

Souness said himself that he handed Shepherd a piece of paper with Owens name on it as the player he would most like to sign.

 

I don't understand why people have a problem with signing a player of the calibre of Micheal Owen. Staggering.

 

 

 

My problem with Owen's signing wasn't even about the whole fan appeasement thing, but about spending all that money on an injury prone player who didn't want to be here and the manner in which we went about it, i.e. doubling what Liverpool had offered for a player who last resort would only really sign for us on loan to preserve his England place, that was before Madrid laughed their arses off when we just hit them with £16m who they were quite prepared to let out on loan never mind selling. That and the fact we could have had Anelka for much cheaper, Souness' first choice who actually wanted to come. I remember myself and Wullie getting lots of stick for our views on the Owen signing, but like him I still stand by my comments he was a waste of money and while you could argue he was the right kind of player in terms of pedigree, name, quality etc., he was signed at the wrong time by the wrong set of people by the wrong kind of club, a club that needed to spend whatever money it had a hell of a lot more wisely, our subsequent debt levels showed that. Anyway, all under the bridge, he's playing well and if KK wants to keep him I back that decision all the way despite my personal feelings that we should still cut our losses.

 

well, that wasn't what Souness said , unless he's a liar.

 

Oh, wait a moment ............

 

Anelka was the one player Souness had tried to sign long before we showed any interest in Owen so he must have been pretty high up on his wishlist. And if Fenerbache are to be believed, the player's agent and Anelka himself, we'd been in touch and had offered what was considered a derisory offer by Fenerbache. I know Souness was angry about that because he said so live on TV in the buildup to our away match against Deportivo that sparked a huge thread on here debating whether FS was undermining his manager and just why, we weren't prepaired to meet their evaluation of a player the manager wanted which of course, become even more fishy when we then went and spent far more on Owen.

 

I like how Souness always considers himself to be his own man, then puts up with stuff like this [if true]. I actually think that he's many things, but a yes man he isn't.

 

BTW, didn't Anelka move from man city to Fenerbache for something like 16m, then to Bolton for half of that ? Something not quite right there I would say ....

 

 

[fredbob]

I refer to Souness' final campaign in the hotseat.

 

 

First month of the premiership: no goals in the 'for' tally, and no wins on the board.

 

Owen, a proven goal scorer, as a signing - brought in to address the goal scoring drought, and afterall it was Souness who passed a piece of notepaper - with Owen's name on it - across the chairman's table. More of a signing out of neccessity, as opposed to some type of boadroom chartered gimick signing aimed at appeasing supporters.

 

Was that before of after Souness was denied the significantly lower funds to purchase his number one striker Anelka...

 

I don't want to get into this debate, but Owen was a trophy signing, to appease fans, to put bums on seats. No doubt Souness said aye to the idea of signing Owen, but the way I remember it he wanted Anelka first and we could have had him for £10m quid. The whole grande hotel business with Sky cameras poking out of the sky was all staged managed and need I say more about the official unveiling.

 

Owen was also a panic signing, we'd started the season goaless as you said which only helped us come to the eventual fee we paid for him, way over the top. Some £6m more than what Anelka would have went for and double what Liverpool had offered for Owen.

 

If Owen this proven goalscorer was a necessity, what was Anelka this proving goalscorer?

 

Spin it all you like, there is no denying what kind of signing Owen was.

 

All players are bought to put bums on seats.

 

Souness said himself that he handed Shepherd a piece of paper with Owens name on it as the player he would most like to sign.

 

I don't understand why people have a problem with signing a player of the calibre of Micheal Owen. Staggering.

 

 

 

My problem with Owen's signing wasn't even about the whole fan appeasement thing, but about spending all that money on an injury prone player who didn't want to be here and the manner in which we went about it, i.e. doubling what Liverpool had offered for a player who last resort would only really sign for us on loan to preserve his England place, that was before Madrid laughed their arses off when we just hit them with £16m who they were quite prepared to let out on loan never mind selling. That and the fact we could have had Anelka for much cheaper, Souness' first choice who actually wanted to come. I remember myself and Wullie getting lots of stick for our views on the Owen signing, but like him I still stand by my comments he was a waste of money and while you could argue he was the right kind of player in terms of pedigree, name, quality etc., he was signed at the wrong time by the wrong set of people by the wrong kind of club, a club that needed to spend whatever money it had a hell of a lot more wisely, our subsequent debt levels showed that. Anyway, all under the bridge, he's playing well and if KK wants to keep him I back that decision all the way despite my personal feelings that we should still cut our losses.

 

well, that wasn't what Souness said , unless he's a liar.

 

Oh, wait a moment ............

 

Anelka was the one player Souness had tried to sign long before we showed any interest in Owen so he must have been pretty high up on his wishlist. And if Fenerbache are to be believed, the player's agent and Anelka himself, we'd been in touch and had offered what was considered a derisory offer by Fenerbache. I know Souness was angry about that because he said so live on TV in the buildup to our away match against Deportivo that sparked a huge thread on here debating whether FS was undermining his manager and just why, we weren't prepaired to meet their evaluation of a player the manager wanted which of course, become even more fishy when we then went and spent far more on Owen.

 

I remember that, they spoke to Souness in the airport about it and he kept saying "You'd better ask the chairman" and that "I know the lads desperate to come here"

 

Probably lying though, the chairmans never had a precedent of undermining his managers.

[TRon]

I don't have any problem with making spectacular signings like Owen if they are part of a total squad upgrade. Blowing your wad on one player because it looks good in the media is not clever decision-making though.

[Shearergol]

 

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.    

 

Well that makes no sense does it. I guess it did in your head though, as you're obviously laughing inside.

 

Anyway, to go through the points:

 

Boumsong was actually on for Rangers' player of the year award, and their fans were gutted he was leaving (although happy with the £8.5m). You're proving my original point by trying to claim you thought he was shit already (again, can you link to one of your posts where you claimed this please?). In fact, I'll even give you the chance of finding some posts from Rangers fans on other forums who claimed Boumsong was shit for them, before he was sold. At the time, the only thing bad about the deal was the fee, and clearly only you had the foresight to see that it would be a bad signing. Well done at that

 

As for the "how's he getting on now?" - he's playing for one of the top teams in France, after playing for one of the top teams in Italy. What's your point? He clearly wasn't suited to this league (everyone can see that) but he's still playing for top European clubs. Funny that eh.

 

Right, Owen being injury prone:

 

2004-05 40 games played

2003-04 38 games played

2002-03 54 games played

 

So basically, until he signed for Newcastle he was playing consistently. Yet you want to claim now that you KNEW he was a bad signing because he wouldn't play enough games?? The cost per goal is 100% HINDSIGHT. Again, show me your reaction when he signed, and I'll back down.

 

You're your own worse enemy Mick - in your debates with NE5 you end up losing out because it would kill you to ever back down on anything.

 

Prove you're right by linking your posts.

 

 

[ChezGiven]

Wullie - its also taken Owen to get over 2 career threatening injuries before we started reaping the rewards, no one is to blame for that but the orthopaedics department in heaven.

 

As for Roeder's appointment, it appears in retrospect he was was a stop-gap till Shepherd got Allardyce. That also went tits up but many thought he was the answer at the time.

[Baggio]

BTW, didn't Anelka move from man city to Fenerbache for something like 16m, then to Bolton for half of that ?

 

No.

[NE5]

 

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.    

 

Well that makes no sense does it. I guess it did in your head though, as you're obviously laughing inside.

 

Anyway, to go through the points:

 

Boumsong was actually on for Rangers' player of the year award, and their fans were gutted he was leaving (although happy with the £8.5m). You're proving my original point by trying to claim you thought he was shit already (again, can you link to one of your posts where you claimed this please?). In fact, I'll even give you the chance of finding some posts from Rangers fans on other forums who claimed Boumsong was shit for them, before he was sold. At the time, the only thing bad about the deal was the fee, and clearly only you had the foresight to see that it would be a bad signing. Well done at that

 

As for the "how's he getting on now?" - he's playing for one of the top teams in France, after playing for one of the top teams in Italy. What's your point? He clearly wasn't suited to this league (everyone can see that) but he's still playing for top European clubs. Funny that eh.

 

Right, Owen being injury prone:

 

2004-05 40 games played

2003-04 38 games played

2002-03 54 games played

 

So basically, until he signed for Newcastle he was playing consistently. Yet you want to claim now that you KNEW he was a bad signing because he wouldn't play enough games?? The cost per goal is 100% HINDSIGHT. Again, show me your reaction when he signed, and I'll back down.

 

You're your own worse enemy Mick - in your debates with NE5 you end up losing out because it would kill you to ever back down on anything.

 

Prove you're right by linking your posts.

 

 

that is right, I also distinctly remember Rangers fans coming onto the rivals network [ie ToTT] particularly and saying they were pissed off at losing Boumsong.

 

see the bold bit  stick to facts and you can't go wrong, its that simple, but go for personalities instead and ........

 

 

[NE5]

Wullie - its also taken Owen to get over 2 career threatening injuries before we started reaping the rewards, no one is to blame for that but the orthopaedics department in heaven.

 

As for Roeder's appointment, it appears in retrospect he was was a stop-gap till Shepherd got Allardyce . That also went tits up but many thought he was the answer at the time.

 

aye, ie planning, which he didn't do, apparently 

 

[Baggio]

 

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.    

 

Well that makes no sense does it. I guess it did in your head though, as you're obviously laughing inside.

 

Anyway, to go through the points:

 

Boumsong was actually on for Rangers' player of the year award, and their fans were gutted he was leaving (although happy with the £8.5m). You're proving my original point by trying to claim you thought he was shit already (again, can you link to one of your posts where you claimed this please?). In fact, I'll even give you the chance of finding some posts from Rangers fans on other forums who claimed Boumsong was shit for them, before he was sold. At the time, the only thing bad about the deal was the fee, and clearly only you had the foresight to see that it would be a bad signing. Well done at that

 

As for the "how's he getting on now?" - he's playing for one of the top teams in France, after playing for one of the top teams in Italy. What's your point? He clearly wasn't suited to this league (everyone can see that) but he's still playing for top European clubs. Funny that eh.

 

Right, Owen being injury prone:

 

2004-05 40 games played

2003-04 38 games played

2002-03 54 games played

 

So basically, until he signed for Newcastle he was playing consistently. Yet you want to claim now that you KNEW he was a bad signing because he wouldn't play enough games?? The cost per goal is 100% HINDSIGHT. Again, show me your reaction when he signed, and I'll back down.

 

You're your own worse enemy Mick - in your debates with NE5 you end up losing out because it would kill you to ever back down on anything.

 

Prove you're right by linking your posts.

 

 

that is right, I also distinctly remember Rangers fans coming onto the rivals network [ie ToTT] particularly and saying they were pissed off at losing Boumsong.

 

see the bold bit  stick to facts and you can't go wrong, its that simple, but go for personalities instead and ........

 

 

 

But you said you said you knew Boumsong was shit too, what did you base this opinion on.

 

 

[fredbob]

Wullie - its also taken Owen to get over 2 career threatening injuries before we started reaping the rewards, no one is to blame for that but the orthopaedics department in heaven.

 

As for Roeder's appointment, it appears in retrospect he was was a stop-gap till Shepherd got Allardyce . That also went tits up but many thought he was the answer at the time.

 

aye, ie planning, which he didn't do, apparently 

 

 

Are you for real??

 

The new board are lambasted for not signing players from "poxy clubs like Blackburn" but the old board arent lambasted for not being able to sell nufc to managers from 'poxy clubs likes Bolton"

 

Also, what kind of a plan is it employ a manager you know you will sack?

 

Thats a joke NE5, you know it.

[Optimistic Nut]

I don't have any problem with making spectacular signings like Owen if they are part of a total squad upgrade. Blowing your wad on one player because it looks good in the media is not clever decision-making though.

 

It wasn't a one off signing though was it? It was around a time we'd signed a centre-back, left-back, 3 centre-midfielders, a couple of squad fillers, and a couple of wingers.