bobbydazzla Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 fucking shite. relegation fodder turn up and take 3 pts off us at home. how totally fucking predictable. NUFC is a fucking stinking shite ming fuck of a bad joke. I wish I'd never started supporting the fucking shambolic excuse for a club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Two weeks ago you were probably loving it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Mongo Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Most people seem to assume that the board just started doing transfer dealings without Keegan's consent out of spite, deliberately to try and undermine him and force him out of the club. I'm yet to see a convincing argument as to why they would do that? My guess is that, probably among many other niggling things, Keegan felt massively let down when after he'd been convinced/forced to sell Milner, and told the fans to judge him after the last day of the transfer windows, he got only a loan signing they hadn't even bothered telling him about and a very inexperienced striker, making him look a right cunt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Most people seem to assume that the board just started doing transfer dealings without Keegan's consent out of spite, deliberately to try and undermine him and force him out of the club. I'm yet to see a convincing argument as to why they would do that? My guess is that, probably among many other niggling things, Keegan felt massively let down when after he'd been convinced/forced to sell Milner, and told the fans to judge him after the last day of the transfer windows, he got only a loan signing they hadn't even bothered telling him about and a very inexperienced striker, making him look a right cunt. That's not a reason as to why they would bring someone in behind his back though, is it. I reckon it's pretty safe to assume that both sides wanted more signings than we ended up with. Why do you think that didn't happen? We had made a number of signings, everyone including Keegan was saying that there was money to spend, even before we'd brought any in through sales, yet as you say, we ended up only adding a loan signing and an U-21 striker. Why did things stop working towards the end of the window? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Two weeks ago you were probably loving it. 3 weeks ago, 2 weeks ago we'd just been spanked by the arse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Toon Argy Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Are there any photo/videos of todays game/protests available online? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4 Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Two weeks ago you were probably loving it. 3 weeks ago, 2 weeks ago we'd just been spanked by the arse Aye but exactly, it didn't matter then. Just bring the next games with a confident squad of players etc... What a shambles. Current situation is not as bad as maybe it has been before, but never witnessed such a spectacular implosion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbydazzla Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 2 weeks ago I was still moaning like fuck about how threadbare our squad was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Most people seem to assume that the board just started doing transfer dealings without Keegan's consent out of spite, deliberately to try and undermine him and force him out of the club. I'm yet to see a convincing argument as to why they would do that? My guess is that, probably among many other niggling things, Keegan felt massively let down when after he'd been convinced/forced to sell Milner, and told the fans to judge him after the last day of the transfer windows, he got only a loan signing they hadn't even bothered telling him about and a very inexperienced striker, making him look a right cunt. That's not a reason as to why they would bring someone in behind his back though, is it. I reckon it's pretty safe to assume that both sides wanted more signings than we ended up with. Why do you think that didn't happen? We had made a number of signings, everyone including Keegan was saying that there was money to spend, even before we'd brought any in through sales, yet as you say, we ended up only adding a loan signing and an U-21 striker. Why did things stop working towards the end of the window? They don't want to spend too much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Two weeks ago you were probably loving it. 3 weeks ago, 2 weeks ago we'd just been spanked by the arse Aye but exactly, it didn't matter then. Just bring the next games with a confident squad of players etc... What a shambles. Current situation is not as bad as maybe it has been before, but never witnessed such a spectacular implosion. souness did a pretty spectacular job of fucking things up pretty quickly. we need 2 things to finish top 6 this season, we need a good manager (maybe keegan, definately not ince or poyet) and the fans to get behind the team. 2 weeks ago i was happy with how things were going, one of the reasons for this was because i remember how shit it was under the previous 3 incumbents. i'm so pissed of this is now the 4th managerial appointment in a row that has worked against the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Four games in and david edgar is starting. Steven taylor is starting. Charlie is starting at left back. Geremi is starting. Butt is starting. Shola is starting. And the transfer policy has been a success? it's a shame that no one will be held accountable for this, or come out and admit their transfer policy was total and utter bollocks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 ... I agree with the majority of that but the part in bold is mostly assumption. Now I'm not going to pretend to know what kind of relationship existed between 'the board' and Keegan. I don't know what was agreed or what promises were broken... and neither do you. It's just one word against the other. We don't know what went on it's all opinion. The one fact we can take from it is that the two entities couldn't work together. It took just one transfer window for it to all fall apart. You choose to blame Wise and Llambias but you know no more than I do. It's all hearsay. Now the players that have come in have been good. It's still a little early to tell with Xisco and Gonzalez but they've at least looked promising. I see real cause for optimism in that regard. As the two parties couldn't work together I think it's perfectly reasonable to evaluate what's more important for us as a club. A recruitment system that seems to be delivering the goods or motivation provided by a manager like Keegan. I see the recruitment of talent as a much more long-term and eventually more beneficial to the club. We missed Keegan today, no doubt... and the sooner will fill the void he left, the better - but it shouldn't be at the expense of the setup. it is an assumption but one that seems reasonable based on the facts. all the talk was about us going for Gomis, Keegan went to see him personally and concluded that he wasnt good enough. he also had Bassong in on trial and went for him, and had Zayatte in too, but chose not to pursue him. the earlier signings look like vetere doing the scouting, keegan filtering through his suggestions and getting those he likes, and jiminez sealing the deals. problems arose when the board started doing transfer business without his consent, both in and out - so really it's not that got that much to do with Vetere, the bloke who actually goes out and finds players. as it stands, its too early to judge the signings. Remember people were mightily impressed with Emre early on but for various reasons that was a move that didnt work out. Nacho has played for a few minutes so its ridiculously early to make judgements about him, Xisco was fairly poor but had some positive elements to his game - looks like he needs more time. Guthrie was shit and topped it off with a silly red. Coloccini was hit and miss, sometimes very good, others bullied by the hull attack. the fact we're only missing one of our signings and we still lost suggests we're far, far from the required quality and quantity we need. So it seems that things were going along quite well until a point, which begs the question: why did that change? Most people seem to assume that the board just started doing transfer dealings without Keegan's consent out of spite, deliberately to try and undermine him and force him out of the club. I'm yet to see a convincing argument as to why they would do that? There is an possible argument that they might have done that after Keegan stopped playing ball and started vetoing everyone they tried to bring in, possibly because his "list" wasn't happening for whatever reason. That's a theory based upon rumour and intrigue, just like all the rest of them, but at least it's believable, unlike many of the "Keegan is innocent, he has done no wrong and the board are entirely at fault" type tosh that's being spouted and swallowed by many people. Seems to me that things were working, something stopped them from continuing to work, with the deadline looming the club recognised the need for extra bodies and brought in a couple of players seemingly without Keegan's consent, he walked, the board tried to get him to reconsider and for whatever reason it didn't work. The crux of the matter is what stopped things working and caused the situation to explode into the farce that it has now become? I think that it's pretty obvious that everyone's made mistakes and behaved badly since that happened, but what caused it all to escalate in the first place? My guess is that it'll be both sides' fault and that the people who are heavily heavily pro-Keegan will get quite a rude awakening, that is if they ever do wake up. Perhaps you should wait till KK takes MA to court. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 oh god i'm crying im actually crying. i havent cried since the fa cup final in 99. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbydazzla Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 WE ARE A FUCKING JOKE. THIS IS JUSTIFIED BY HOW OFTEN SHITPILE TEAMS COME UP HERE AND TAKE 3 POINTS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Four games in and david edgar is starting. Steven taylor is starting. Charlie is starting at left back. Geremi is starting. Butt is starting. Shola is starting. And the transfer policy has been a success? it's a shame that no one will be held accountable for this, or come out and admit their transfer policy was total and utter bollocks except it wasn't. we've got 7-8 first teamers injured, the transfer policy wasn't responsible for that. and yes, it shows how thin our squad is and yes, we should have bought 2 or 3 more players as keegan, ashley and the fans were saying all summer, but we still haven't had to start 2 17 year old kids like everton have, or sold our best 2 strikers bringing in 1, unproven in this league like spurs have (while not stregnthening 2 key areas) and we haven't resorted to giving shit like anton ferdinand 50K a week. our best fit XI today would have been: Given Edgar Taylor Colo Bassong Geremi Nacho Guthrie Zog Owen Xisco that should on paper beat hull easily, and if we'd started like that we may well have. its not been perfect, but we've improved the squad more than in any other season since we signed bellamy and robert (another transfer window that was supposed to be a failure). all clubs had problems in the transfer window this season, and we didn't have europe like all the clubs we're competing with. we did well under the circumstances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 oh god i'm crying im actually crying. i havent cried since the fa cup final in 99. So's Jesus after he read your post. Now stop being a fucking puff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Mongo Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 That's not a reason as to why they would bring someone in behind his back though, is it. I reckon it's pretty safe to assume that both sides wanted more signings than we ended up with. Why do you think that didn't happen? We had made a number of signings, everyone including Keegan was saying that there was money to spend, even before we'd brought any in through sales, yet as you say, we ended up only adding a loan signing and an U-21 striker. Why did things stop working towards the end of the window? One of the stories circulating was that Keegan was enraged when told by Wise that the Schweinsteiger transfer didn't happen because Tony Jimenez didn't want to sign him. Which seems like a reasonable response. So I think it might be true, since it would explain why Keegan flipped. Problem is, it's still just speculation, and I don't have any solid facts. It just fits the pattern I'd expect: first having to deal with an unwanted situation beyond his control (Milner) then a major blow (Schweinsteiger), and at last being pissed around for no good reason (Xisco and Nacho). Before that, he must have been disappointed with the slow progress on the transfer market, especially as there were people working "full time" on it. Poor communication has probably been a part of it as well. You don't get so easily disappointed if you know what to expect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mantis Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Most people seem to assume that the board just started doing transfer dealings without Keegan's consent out of spite, deliberately to try and undermine him and force him out of the club. I'm yet to see a convincing argument as to why they would do that? My guess is that, probably among many other niggling things, Keegan felt massively let down when after he'd been convinced/forced to sell Milner, and told the fans to judge him after the last day of the transfer windows, he got only a loan signing they hadn't even bothered telling him about and a very inexperienced striker, making him look a right c***. I think that was definately the final straw. He's justifying the sale of Milner on Friday believing what he has been told that he would get 4/5 new players to improve the team. Clearly he would have been expecting one to be a straight replacement for Milner. When they didnt transpire he must have just thought f*** this, i'm off, you find someone to take your threadbare squad forward. It was inevitable though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Most people seem to assume that the board just started doing transfer dealings without Keegan's consent out of spite, deliberately to try and undermine him and force him out of the club. I'm yet to see a convincing argument as to why they would do that? My guess is that, probably among many other niggling things, Keegan felt massively let down when after he'd been convinced/forced to sell Milner, and told the fans to judge him after the last day of the transfer windows, he got only a loan signing they hadn't even bothered telling him about and a very inexperienced striker, making him look a right cunt. That's not a reason as to why they would bring someone in behind his back though, is it. I reckon it's pretty safe to assume that both sides wanted more signings than we ended up with. Why do you think that didn't happen? We had made a number of signings, everyone including Keegan was saying that there was money to spend, even before we'd brought any in through sales, yet as you say, we ended up only adding a loan signing and an U-21 striker. Why did things stop working towards the end of the window? They don't want to spend too much. There's a big difference between "too much" and nothing, they clearly wanted to bring players in, even to the extent of doing it without Keegan's consent. So I'm not really sure what your point is, unless you've fallen into the same trap as others of equating spending ridiculous amounts of money to having a good transfer window. The quality of the players we've brought in seems quite good, one of the best - Jonas - cost us nothing, there was a clear desire from the board to bring in more players, but the emphasis was on value for money. I'm not really sure what people's problem is with that. Are you saying they should have brought in a trophy signing or two, and that you think Keegan quit over that? If you are, do you think that's a good thing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Most people seem to assume that the board just started doing transfer dealings without Keegan's consent out of spite, deliberately to try and undermine him and force him out of the club. I'm yet to see a convincing argument as to why they would do that? My guess is that, probably among many other niggling things, Keegan felt massively let down when after he'd been convinced/forced to sell Milner, and told the fans to judge him after the last day of the transfer windows, he got only a loan signing they hadn't even bothered telling him about and a very inexperienced striker, making him look a right cunt. That's not a reason as to why they would bring someone in behind his back though, is it. I reckon it's pretty safe to assume that both sides wanted more signings than we ended up with. Why do you think that didn't happen? We had made a number of signings, everyone including Keegan was saying that there was money to spend, even before we'd brought any in through sales, yet as you say, we ended up only adding a loan signing and an U-21 striker. Why did things stop working towards the end of the window? They don't want to spend too much. There's a big difference between "too much" and nothing, they clearly wanted to bring players in, even to the extent of doing it without Keegan's consent. So I'm not really sure what your point is, unless you've fallen into the same trap as others of equating spending ridiculous amounts of money to having a good transfer window. The quality of the players we've brought in seems quite good, one of the best - Jonas - cost us nothing, there was a clear desire from the board to bring in more players, but the emphasis was on value for money. I'm not really sure what people's problem is with that. Are you saying they should have brought in a trophy signing or two, and that you think Keegan quit over that? If you are, do you think that's a good thing? jonas didn;t cost us nothing. i've seen 1 report saying 2m, 1 saying 8m and 1 saying 15m. i'm inclined to believe either 2 or 8mill. i think thats how much redknapp had rejected (8). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 ... I agree with the majority of that but the part in bold is mostly assumption. Now I'm not going to pretend to know what kind of relationship existed between 'the board' and Keegan. I don't know what was agreed or what promises were broken... and neither do you. It's just one word against the other. We don't know what went on it's all opinion. The one fact we can take from it is that the two entities couldn't work together. It took just one transfer window for it to all fall apart. You choose to blame Wise and Llambias but you know no more than I do. It's all hearsay. Now the players that have come in have been good. It's still a little early to tell with Xisco and Gonzalez but they've at least looked promising. I see real cause for optimism in that regard. As the two parties couldn't work together I think it's perfectly reasonable to evaluate what's more important for us as a club. A recruitment system that seems to be delivering the goods or motivation provided by a manager like Keegan. I see the recruitment of talent as a much more long-term and eventually more beneficial to the club. We missed Keegan today, no doubt... and the sooner will fill the void he left, the better - but it shouldn't be at the expense of the setup. it is an assumption but one that seems reasonable based on the facts. all the talk was about us going for Gomis, Keegan went to see him personally and concluded that he wasnt good enough. he also had Bassong in on trial and went for him, and had Zayatte in too, but chose not to pursue him. the earlier signings look like vetere doing the scouting, keegan filtering through his suggestions and getting those he likes, and jiminez sealing the deals. problems arose when the board started doing transfer business without his consent, both in and out - so really it's not that got that much to do with Vetere, the bloke who actually goes out and finds players. as it stands, its too early to judge the signings. Remember people were mightily impressed with Emre early on but for various reasons that was a move that didnt work out. Nacho has played for a few minutes so its ridiculously early to make judgements about him, Xisco was fairly poor but had some positive elements to his game - looks like he needs more time. Guthrie was shit and topped it off with a silly red. Coloccini was hit and miss, sometimes very good, others bullied by the hull attack. the fact we're only missing one of our signings and we still lost suggests we're far, far from the required quality and quantity we need. So it seems that things were going along quite well until a point, which begs the question: why did that change? Most people seem to assume that the board just started doing transfer dealings without Keegan's consent out of spite, deliberately to try and undermine him and force him out of the club. I'm yet to see a convincing argument as to why they would do that? There is an possible argument that they might have done that after Keegan stopped playing ball and started vetoing everyone they tried to bring in, possibly because his "list" wasn't happening for whatever reason. That's a theory based upon rumour and intrigue, just like all the rest of them, but at least it's believable, unlike many of the "Keegan is innocent, he has done no wrong and the board are entirely at fault" type tosh that's being spouted and swallowed by many people. Seems to me that things were working, something stopped them from continuing to work, with the deadline looming the club recognised the need for extra bodies and brought in a couple of players seemingly without Keegan's consent, he walked, the board tried to get him to reconsider and for whatever reason it didn't work. The crux of the matter is what stopped things working and caused the situation to explode into the farce that it has now become? I think that it's pretty obvious that everyone's made mistakes and behaved badly since that happened, but what caused it all to escalate in the first place? My guess is that it'll be both sides' fault and that the people who are heavily heavily pro-Keegan will get quite a rude awakening, that is if they ever do wake up. Perhaps you should wait till KK takes MA to court. From the sounds of things I think it's much more likely to be the other way around, but yeah, it'll be interesting to hear precisely what each side claims happened. I wonder if it'll have much impact upon the popular opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Christ, i could see this coming. For me though, bottom line, nothing's changed - we haven't learnt anything new, we're still managerless which is kind of the be all end all. We need a manager and we need players back from injury; i'm disappointed and bitter but i'm not slitting my wrists... this was inevitable, nothing's changed as far as i am concerned: We still don't know why Keegan resigned We still don't know if Wise is to blame We still don't know the details of Kev's contract We still don't know who's coming in We've lost a game. It was bound to happen amongst it all of the shit that's gone on. I'm very apathetic tbh. Not even gonna bother rating the players or anything; the majority were shit - and, as is the theme of this here post - we haven't learnt anything new. Zog is a winger, Edgar's not gonna make it, Butt is a horrific footballer, Shola is wank, Xisco is promising. Haven't paid too much to the post-match posts but i have scanned through and tend to agree with Luca Altieri's mindframe... it's not the end of the world, we've got a lot of good players here so when we get em back from injury and get a good coach that will fit with the policies in place, we can certainly salvage summat. However, one of the thing that continually pisses me off when i go to the games, then comes back on here, is when people who are nowhere near the stadium dare to make comments on the crowd and atmosphere. Not only do they not have the right to judge, but how can they judge anyway? Where i was up in the Gallowgate, there was a really good noise for the majority of the first half, with a lot of support even after the penalty... and it inevitably died in the second half, as you'd think it would when you're losing at home to Hull. Avoided any pre/post-match commotions, but i'm on about the game. Anyway, to Mike, get a manager that's gonna fit, or get out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darth Toon Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 It is a fact that we would have won that match if Kevin Keegan was our manager It is a fact that the bunch of twats left supposedly running our club should fuck off and die. It is a fact that if I ever encounter Derek Llambias in person I will end the cunt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LucaAltieri Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I love internet hard men. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 That's not a reason as to why they would bring someone in behind his back though, is it. I reckon it's pretty safe to assume that both sides wanted more signings than we ended up with. Why do you think that didn't happen? We had made a number of signings, everyone including Keegan was saying that there was money to spend, even before we'd brought any in through sales, yet as you say, we ended up only adding a loan signing and an U-21 striker. Why did things stop working towards the end of the window? One of the stories circulating was that Keegan was enraged when told by Wise that the Schweinsteiger transfer didn't happen because Tony Jimenez didn't want to sign him. Which seems like a reasonable response. So I think it might be true, since it would explain why Keegan flipped. Problem is, it's still just speculation, and I don't have any solid facts. It just fits the pattern I'd expect: first having to deal with an unwanted situation beyond his control (Milner) then a major blow (Schweinsteiger), and at last being pissed around for no good reason (Xisco and Nacho). Before that, he must have been disappointed with the slow progress on the transfer market, especially as there were people working "full time" on it. Poor communication has probably been a part of it as well. You don't get so easily disappointed if you know what to expect. I've seen stuff that makes me pretty certain that the only reason we didn't end up with Schweinsteiger was because he turned us down, that's hardly the fault of anyone at the club. I find it hard to believe that he was pissed around with no good reason, there must have been a reason, nobody would do that for no reason, the club obviously thought that it had to bring in those players without Keegan's agreement, why that was is the real question, but I doubt we'll find that out if this doesn't go to court, which isn't in our best interests either. You're absolutely right about poor communication though, on both sides, as demonstrated by the fact that they are communicating through lawyers and the press. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now