Guest The Fox Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 If Managers bring success to a club then the Chairmans appointments have been successful. If they dont then the Chairmans appointments have been unsuccessful. Therefore Shepherd has been unsuccessful to all except NE5, HTL and one or two others. I think that says it all. I guarantee MON will have Villa finishing above us which will prove that he would have been a better aoppointment than Roeder, despite the President of the Lee Bowyer appreciation Society not liking him. :) I don't think that is proof. He'd have different players to work with, different attitudes, a different budget, a different environment in terms of pressure from fans,media and chairman, and also requiring a greater re-shaping of the team to his ideal which I believe is not attack oriented as the Newcastle squad is in terms of where the better players are. He'd have a harder job of improving the defence. That is why you find managers succeeding at certain clubs but not others (Dalglish), you're treating it as though all clubs have an equal blank state and the manager merely has to act on it to achieve what he wants, instead of keeping in mind the reactive elements. It's the same with players, they won't succeed everywhere because of the different environments. Not at all, MON took over a squad that many on here said was very poor and way below us. He had no time in the transfer market, but brought out the best in what he had. Roeder had all summer, failed to address our defensive issues and signed a forward Martins for a lot of money and we have yet to see whether this was a success. MON had not taken three clubs to relegation. To be appointed you should have had at least some considerable success elsewhere, I know Souness did have some, but a large part of that was in Scotland and Turkey, the Liverpool success was taking over a great squad and set up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 1. Dalglish appeared to be the right choice at the time. 2. If you dont choose based on track record then you use whatever criteria Shepherd used to select the last two cos neither could be on track record. 3. Dalglish wasnt a shite appointment Thanks for that, mate. BTW Souness had a decent track record, better than O'Neills in fact. At the point of signing him he was one of the very few managers below us in the league. That in itself, should have told Shepherd to stay clear. You're being influenced by gejon, here. Not sure why you're posting this like. I hope you don't think I was pleased when Souness was given the job, like. Or that I think he was a good appointment. Just pointing out to the head in the sand crew who think it's easy that he had a better track record than O'Neill, and there are more than a few who would spurt all over the place had Fred gone for O'Neill. I credit peasepud with a lot more up top than to be influenced by me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 If Managers bring success to a club then the Chairmans appointments have been successful. If they dont then the Chairmans appointments have been unsuccessful. Therefore Shepherd has been unsuccessful to all except NE5, HTL and one or two others. I think that says it all. I guarantee MON will have Villa finishing above us which will prove that he would have been a better aoppointment than Roeder, despite the President of the Lee Bowyer appreciation Society not liking him. :) It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 1. Dalglish appeared to be the right choice at the time. 2. If you dont choose based on track record then you use whatever criteria Shepherd used to select the last two cos neither could be on track record. 3. Dalglish wasnt a shite appointment Thanks for that, mate. BTW Souness had a decent track record, better than O'Neills in fact. At the point of signing him he was one of the very few managers below us in the league. That in itself, should have told Shepherd to stay clear. You're being influenced by gejon, here. Not sure why you're posting this like. I hope you don't think I was pleased when Souness was given the job, like. Or that I think he was a good appointment. Just pointing out to the head in the sand crew who think it's easy that he had a better track record than O'Neill, and there are more than a few who would spurt all over the place had Fred gone for O'Neill. My post was in no way having a go at yours, Im sure I know your stance on Souness What I was saying is that regardless of past glories, taking a manager whos about to be sacked from one of the few clubs doing worse than yourself to replace one of the most respected managers in the world (and then pay Blackburn for the priviledge!) wasnt a shrewd business move from the fat one. Couldn't agree more. The general belief is that Souness was offered the job to clear out the cancers in the club, or at least I think was the general belief while he was getting rid of our best players...... :cool:There was plenty of support for that at the tiime..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 If Managers bring success to a club then the Chairmans appointments have been successful. If they dont then the Chairmans appointments have been unsuccessful. Therefore Shepherd has been unsuccessful to all except NE5, HTL and one or two others. I think that says it all. I guarantee MON will have Villa finishing above us which will prove that he would have been a better aoppointment than Roeder, despite the President of the Lee Bowyer appreciation Society not liking him. :) It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand? So, Shep just appoints the managers and then sits back and let them run the show? Does he not get involved at all? By your own argument, the one common factor in a string of good managers failing is ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 If Managers bring success to a club then the Chairmans appointments have been successful. If they dont then the Chairmans appointments have been unsuccessful. Therefore Shepherd has been unsuccessful to all except NE5, HTL and one or two others. I think that says it all. I guarantee MON will have Villa finishing above us which will prove that he would have been a better aoppointment than Roeder, despite the President of the Lee Bowyer appreciation Society not liking him. :) It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand? So, Shep just appoints the managers and then sits back and let them run the show? Does he not get involved at all? By your own argument, the one common factor in a string of good managers failing is ..... So Robson failed in your opinion? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Shepherd has shown himself to be too reactive when employing managers rather than proactive IMO, hence Souness coming in 'to sort the discipline out' despite the fact he was doing an awful job with Blackburn. Also, sacking Robson six games in or whatever rather than getting rid in the summer and starting afresh when it was clear Robson was on the wane. All the others can be followed through in this manner too, regardless of their CVs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 If Managers bring success to a club then the Chairmans appointments have been successful. If they dont then the Chairmans appointments have been unsuccessful. Therefore Shepherd has been unsuccessful to all except NE5, HTL and one or two others. I think that says it all. I guarantee MON will have Villa finishing above us which will prove that he would have been a better aoppointment than Roeder, despite the President of the Lee Bowyer appreciation Society not liking him. :) It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand? So, Shep just appoints the managers and then sits back and let them run the show? Does he not get involved at all? By your own argument, the one common factor in a string of good managers failing is ..... So Robson failed in your opinion? in the chairmans opinion.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Shepherd has shown himself to be too reactive when employing managers rather than proactive IMO, hence Souness coming in 'to sort the discipline out' despite the fact he was doing an awful job with Blackburn. Also, sacking Robson six games in or whatever rather than getting rid in the summer and starting afresh when it was clear Robson was on the wane. All the others can be followed through in this manner too, regardless of their CVs. I posted that a couple of weeks after Souness was appointed, Dave. You've agreed at last. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 \o/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 If Managers bring success to a club then the Chairmans appointments have been successful. If they dont then the Chairmans appointments have been unsuccessful. Therefore Shepherd has been unsuccessful to all except NE5, HTL and one or two others. I think that says it all. I guarantee MON will have Villa finishing above us which will prove that he would have been a better aoppointment than Roeder, despite the President of the Lee Bowyer appreciation Society not liking him. :) It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand? So, Shep just appoints the managers and then sits back and let them run the show? Does he not get involved at all? By your own argument, the one common factor in a string of good managers failing is ..... So Robson failed in your opinion? in the chairmans opinion.... Eh? Small time thinking again, Victor. Overall I'm sure Fred believes Robson was a success, but he'd taken the club as far as it could go under his management, hence time to move on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 As I edited my post before though HTL, Shepherd failed again through the timing of Robson's dismissal. Thinking proactively he should have got rid in the summer and started afresh. The timing was awful, and virtually left us with someone of Souness' calibre. Also, the PR with regards to the 'this is his last season' was farcical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 If Managers bring success to a club then the Chairmans appointments have been successful. If they dont then the Chairmans appointments have been unsuccessful. Therefore Shepherd has been unsuccessful to all except NE5, HTL and one or two others. I think that says it all. I guarantee MON will have Villa finishing above us which will prove that he would have been a better aoppointment than Roeder, despite the President of the Lee Bowyer appreciation Society not liking him. :) It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand? So, Shep just appoints the managers and then sits back and let them run the show? Does he not get involved at all? By your own argument, the one common factor in a string of good managers failing is ..... So Robson failed in your opinion? in the chairmans opinion.... Eh? Small time thinking again, Victor. Overall I'm sure Fred believes Robson was a success, but he'd taken the club as far as it could go under his management, hence time to move on. So Shepherd's logic was, ah fuck this, I can get someone better than this old fart bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif It's too fucking easy with you man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehhagel Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 When I was a lad And old shep was a pup Over hills and meadows wed stray Just a boy and his dog We were both full of fun We grew up together that way Keegan Days I remember the time at the old swimmin hold When I would have drowned beyond doubt But old shep was right there To the rescue he came He jumped in and then pulled me out Old Shep gives Keegan lots of dosh As the years fast did roll Old shep he grew old His eyes were fast growing dim And one day the doctor looked at me and said I can do no more for him jim Now With hands that were trembling I picked up my gun And aimed it at sheps faithful head I just couldnt do it I wanted to run I wish they would shoot me instead Wishes He came to my side And looked up at me And laid his old head on my knee I had struck the best friend that a man ever had I cried so I scarcely could see HTL Old shep he has gone Where the good doggies go And no more with old shep will I roam But if dogs have a heaven Theres one thing I know Old shep has a wonderful home 30 years in the future Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 As I edited my post before though HTL, Shepherd failed again through the timing of Robson's dismissal. Thinking proactively he should have got rid in the summer and started afresh. The timing was awful, and virtually left us with someone of Souness' calibre. Also, the PR with regards to the 'this is his last season' was farcical. No, he didn't. He failed to bring in the correct replacement. It all comes round to the appointment of that bastard who is the worst manager of this club in my lifetime. The reason people point to the timing of Robson's departure as being poor would never happen had the Board appointed the right man to take his place. We'd be doing well now if the right manager had been appointed, who would care about the timing? The proof is in the departure of Gullit and the appointment of Robson, I never hear much criticism surrounding the appointment of Robson, do you? In any case, the proper 'timing' would have been at the end of the season we finished 3rd, not a few weeks before Robson eventually left. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 \o/ John will say I lied. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 If Managers bring success to a club then the Chairmans appointments have been successful. If they dont then the Chairmans appointments have been unsuccessful. Therefore Shepherd has been unsuccessful to all except NE5, HTL and one or two others. I think that says it all. I guarantee MON will have Villa finishing above us which will prove that he would have been a better aoppointment than Roeder, despite the President of the Lee Bowyer appreciation Society not liking him. :) It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand? So, Shep just appoints the managers and then sits back and let them run the show? Does he not get involved at all? By your own argument, the one common factor in a string of good managers failing is ..... So Robson failed in your opinion? in the chairmans opinion.... Eh? Small time thinking again, Victor. Overall I'm sure Fred believes Robson was a success, but he'd taken the club as far as it could go under his management, hence time to move on. So Shepherd's logic was, ah **** this, I can get someone better than this old fart bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif It's too ****ing easy with you man Stupid post again, tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 http://www.true-faith.co.uk/ This says it all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 http://www.true-faith.co.uk/ This says it all. http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cfr0046l.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 If Managers bring success to a club then the Chairmans appointments have been successful. If they dont then the Chairmans appointments have been unsuccessful. Therefore Shepherd has been unsuccessful to all except NE5, HTL and one or two others. I think that says it all. I guarantee MON will have Villa finishing above us which will prove that he would have been a better aoppointment than Roeder, despite the President of the Lee Bowyer appreciation Society not liking him. :) It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand? So, Shep just appoints the managers and then sits back and let them run the show? Does he not get involved at all? By your own argument, the one common factor in a string of good managers failing is ..... So Robson failed in your opinion? in the chairmans opinion.... Eh? Small time thinking again, Victor. Overall I'm sure Fred believes Robson was a success, but he'd taken the club as far as it could go under his management, hence time to move on. So Shepherd's logic was, ah **** this, I can get someone better than this old fart bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif It's too ****ing easy with you man Stupid post again, tbh. easy easy easy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 If Managers bring success to a club then the Chairmans appointments have been successful. If they dont then the Chairmans appointments have been unsuccessful. Therefore Shepherd has been unsuccessful to all except NE5, HTL and one or two others. I think that says it all. I guarantee MON will have Villa finishing above us which will prove that he would have been a better aoppointment than Roeder, despite the President of the Lee Bowyer appreciation Society not liking him. :) It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand? So, Shep just appoints the managers and then sits back and let them run the show? Does he not get involved at all? By your own argument, the one common factor in a string of good managers failing is ..... So Robson failed in your opinion? in the chairmans opinion.... Eh? Small time thinking again, Victor. Overall I'm sure Fred believes Robson was a success, but he'd taken the club as far as it could go under his management, hence time to move on. So Shepherd's logic was, ah **** this, I can get someone better than this old fart bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif It's too ****ing easy with you man Stupid post again, tbh. easy easy easy What's easy? I know it's a forum, but you seem to have some kind of problem...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 If Managers bring success to a club then the Chairmans appointments have been successful. If they dont then the Chairmans appointments have been unsuccessful. Therefore Shepherd has been unsuccessful to all except NE5, HTL and one or two others. I think that says it all. I guarantee MON will have Villa finishing above us which will prove that he would have been a better aoppointment than Roeder, despite the President of the Lee Bowyer appreciation Society not liking him. :) It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand? So, Shep just appoints the managers and then sits back and let them run the show? Does he not get involved at all? By your own argument, the one common factor in a string of good managers failing is ..... So Robson failed in your opinion? in the chairmans opinion.... Eh? Small time thinking again, Victor. Overall I'm sure Fred believes Robson was a success, but he'd taken the club as far as it could go under his management, hence time to move on. So Shepherd's logic was, ah **** this, I can get someone better than this old fart bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif It's too ****ing easy with you man Stupid post again, tbh. easy easy easy What's easy? I know it's a forum, but you seem to have some kind of problem...... easy to get you to abandon your daft point of view and resort to insults easy easy easy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 What's easy? I know it's a forum, but you seem to have some kind of problem...... It could have been worse for him, he could have been trying to defend a chairman who is beyond defence, that is what I call a big problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 If Managers bring success to a club then the Chairmans appointments have been successful. If they dont then the Chairmans appointments have been unsuccessful. Therefore Shepherd has been unsuccessful to all except NE5, HTL and one or two others. I think that says it all. I guarantee MON will have Villa finishing above us which will prove that he would have been a better aoppointment than Roeder, despite the President of the Lee Bowyer appreciation Society not liking him. :) It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand? So, Shep just appoints the managers and then sits back and let them run the show? Does he not get involved at all? By your own argument, the one common factor in a string of good managers failing is ..... So Robson failed in your opinion? in the chairmans opinion.... Eh? Small time thinking again, Victor. Overall I'm sure Fred believes Robson was a success, but he'd taken the club as far as it could go under his management, hence time to move on. So Shepherd's logic was, ah **** this, I can get someone better than this old fart bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif It's too ****ing easy with you man Stupid post again, tbh. easy easy easy What's easy? I know it's a forum, but you seem to have some kind of problem...... easy to get you to abandon your daft point of view and resort to insults easy easy easy Sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 What's easy? I know it's a forum, but you seem to have some kind of problem...... It could have been worse for him, he could have been trying to defend a chairman who is beyond defence, that is what I call a big problem. Easy way out, easy way out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts