The official Fat Fred Out campaign

[peasepud]

He sacked him because despite his outstanding track record of success, he didn't do well enough for my club.

 

Now perhaps you can answer the perfectly valid questions in NE5's last post. To save you scrolling here it is again, slightly edited to help you and some others understand.............

 

1. Why would you not have appointed Dalglish given the strength of his track record ?

2. If you don't appoint managers on the basis of their track record, how would you choose them ?

3. On the basis of track record and Dalglish being a shite appointment, do you agree that would rule out Wenger, Ferguson, Capello, Lippi etc who are all similar to what Dalglish was at the time ?

 

 

Bumped for the benefit of omarse and the rest, who criticise but include no substance to their posts.........

 

At least someone has had a go at point number 1, it would be good if omarse had a go at all 3.

 

There's no point in the moaning bastard having a go at point 1, he knew in advance that Dalglish would fail so that's why he wouldn't have appointed him. 

 

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

[Howaythelads]

He sacked him because despite his outstanding track record of success, he didn't do well enough for my club.

 

Now perhaps you can answer the perfectly valid questions in NE5's last post. To save you scrolling here it is again, slightly edited to help you and some others understand.............

 

1. Why would you not have appointed Dalglish given the strength of his track record ?

2. If you don't appoint managers on the basis of their track record, how would you choose them ?

3. On the basis of track record and Dalglish being a shite appointment, do you agree that would rule out Wenger, Ferguson, Capello, Lippi etc who are all similar to what Dalglish was at the time ?

 

 

Bumped for the benefit of omarse and the rest, who criticise but include no substance to their posts.........

 

At least someone has had a go at point number 1, it would be good if omarse had a go at all 3.

 

There's no point in the moaning bastard having a go at point 1, he knew in advance that Dalglish would fail so that's why he wouldn't have appointed him. 

 

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.

[Cajun]

He sacked him because despite his outstanding track record of success, he didn't do well enough for my club.

 

Now perhaps you can answer the perfectly valid questions in NE5's last post. To save you scrolling here it is again, slightly edited to help you and some others understand.............

 

1. Why would you not have appointed Dalglish given the strength of his track record ?

2. If you don't appoint managers on the basis of their track record, how would you choose them ?

3. On the basis of track record and Dalglish being a shite appointment, do you agree that would rule out Wenger, Ferguson, Capello, Lippi etc who are all similar to what Dalglish was at the time ?

 

 

Bumped for the benefit of omarse and the rest, who criticise but include no substance to their posts.........

 

At least someone has had a go at point number 1, it would be good if omarse had a go at all 3.

 

There's no point in the moaning bastard having a go at point 1, he knew in advance that Dalglish would fail so that's why he wouldn't have appointed him. 

 

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.

 

When we signed Souness he was on the verge of getting the boot from his current employer as he was taking them down!

 

 

[Guest rdiu]

He sacked him because despite his outstanding track record of success, he didn't do well enough for my club.

 

Now perhaps you can answer the perfectly valid questions in NE5's last post. To save you scrolling here it is again, slightly edited to help you and some others understand.............

 

1. Why would you not have appointed Dalglish given the strength of his track record ?

2. If you don't appoint managers on the basis of their track record, how would you choose them ?

3. On the basis of track record and Dalglish being a shite appointment, do you agree that would rule out Wenger, Ferguson, Capello, Lippi etc who are all similar to what Dalglish was at the time ?

 

 

Bumped for the benefit of omarse and the rest, who criticise but include no substance to their posts.........

 

At least someone has had a go at point number 1, it would be good if omarse had a go at all 3.

 

There's no point in the moaning bastard having a go at point 1, he knew in advance that Dalglish would fail so that's why he wouldn't have appointed him.

 

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.

 

u must be kidding blueeek.gif

[Howaythelads]

He sacked him because despite his outstanding track record of success, he didn't do well enough for my club.

 

Now perhaps you can answer the perfectly valid questions in NE5's last post. To save you scrolling here it is again, slightly edited to help you and some others understand.............

 

1. Why would you not have appointed Dalglish given the strength of his track record ?

2. If you don't appoint managers on the basis of their track record, how would you choose them ?

3. On the basis of track record and Dalglish being a shite appointment, do you agree that would rule out Wenger, Ferguson, Capello, Lippi etc who are all similar to what Dalglish was at the time ?

 

 

Bumped for the benefit of omarse and the rest, who criticise but include no substance to their posts.........

 

At least someone has had a go at point number 1, it would be good if omarse had a go at all 3.

 

There's no point in the moaning bastard having a go at point 1, he knew in advance that Dalglish would fail so that's why he wouldn't have appointed him. 

 

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.

 

When we signed Souness he was on the verge of getting the boot from his current employer as he was taking them down!

 

 

 

Is that meant to be a revelation like?

[Cajun]

He sacked him because despite his outstanding track record of success, he didn't do well enough for my club.

 

Now perhaps you can answer the perfectly valid questions in NE5's last post. To save you scrolling here it is again, slightly edited to help you and some others understand.............

 

1. Why would you not have appointed Dalglish given the strength of his track record ?

2. If you don't appoint managers on the basis of their track record, how would you choose them ?

3. On the basis of track record and Dalglish being a shite appointment, do you agree that would rule out Wenger, Ferguson, Capello, Lippi etc who are all similar to what Dalglish was at the time ?

 

 

Bumped for the benefit of omarse and the rest, who criticise but include no substance to their posts.........

 

At least someone has had a go at point number 1, it would be good if omarse had a go at all 3.

 

There's no point in the moaning bastard having a go at point 1, he knew in advance that Dalglish would fail so that's why he wouldn't have appointed him. 

 

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.

 

When we signed Souness he was on the verge of getting the boot from his current employer as he was taking them down!

 

 

 

Is that meant to be a revelation like?

 

No just sums up Shepherd, anyone who knew anything about football knew it was a terrible idea except seemingly one person! Unfortunately that person runs this club!

[Howaythelads]

He sacked him because despite his outstanding track record of success, he didn't do well enough for my club.

 

Now perhaps you can answer the perfectly valid questions in NE5's last post. To save you scrolling here it is again, slightly edited to help you and some others understand.............

 

1. Why would you not have appointed Dalglish given the strength of his track record ?

2. If you don't appoint managers on the basis of their track record, how would you choose them ?

3. On the basis of track record and Dalglish being a shite appointment, do you agree that would rule out Wenger, Ferguson, Capello, Lippi etc who are all similar to what Dalglish was at the time ?

 

 

Bumped for the benefit of omarse and the rest, who criticise but include no substance to their posts.........

 

At least someone has had a go at point number 1, it would be good if omarse had a go at all 3.

 

There's no point in the moaning bastard having a go at point 1, he knew in advance that Dalglish would fail so that's why he wouldn't have appointed him.

 

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.

 

u must be kidding blueeek.gif

 

Eh? Do you think he doesn't have a better track record up to the time he was appointed as Newcastle manager? That is what we're talking about, Fred appointing managers......

[OzzieMandias]

 

He sacked him because despite his outstanding track record of success, he didn't do well enough for my club.

 

So you disagree with NE5's assertion that getting us to an FA Cup Final means he was "successful"?

 

1. Why would you not have appointed Dalglish given the strength of his track record ?

2. If you don't appoint managers on the basis of their track record, how would you choose them ?

3. On the basis of track record and Dalglish being a shite appointment, do you agree that would rule out Wenger, Ferguson, Capello, Lippi etc who are all similar to what Dalglish was at the time ?

 

 

You need to look at the big picture.

 

With the sole exception of Robson -- who was practically down on his knees begging to be offered the job –- all of Fat Fred's managerial appointments have been unsuccessful. One after another. Each one worse than the one before.

 

If you represented the big picture as a graph, it would show a steady downward progression, from top right to bottom left, with an upwards spike for the Robson era nothing but a blip in the inexorable slide into mediocrity.

 

Getting it wrong once – could happen to anyone. Getting it wrong twice – bad luck, eh? Getting it wrong four times out of five, by which time we've pissed away our finances and established such an appalling reputation that no manager of any stature would want to come and work for the club? Only one answer to that – Shepherd out!

[Howaythelads]

 

He sacked him because despite his outstanding track record of success, he didn't do well enough for my club.

 

So you disagree with NE5's assertion that getting us to an FA Cup Final means he was "successful"?

 

1. Why would you not have appointed Dalglish given the strength of his track record ?

2. If you don't appoint managers on the basis of their track record, how would you choose them ?

3. On the basis of track record and Dalglish being a shite appointment, do you agree that would rule out Wenger, Ferguson, Capello, Lippi etc who are all similar to what Dalglish was at the time ?

 

 

You need to look at the big picture.

 

With the sole exception of Robson -- who was practically down on his knees begging to be offered the job –- all of Fat Fred's managerial appointments have been unsuccessful. One after another. Each one worse than the one before.

 

If you represented the big picture as a graph, it would show a steady downward progression, from top right to bottom left, with an upwards spike for the Robson era nothing but a blip in the inexorable slide into mediocrity.

 

Getting it wrong once – could happen to anyone. Getting it wrong twice – bad luck, eh? Getting it wrong four times out of five, by which time we've pissed away our finances and established such an appalling reputation that no manager of any stature would want to come and work for the club? Only one answer to that – Shepherd out!

 

Irony, tbh.

 

I understand the managers haven't brought success, not beinig funny but I'm still waiting for you to come up with a suggestion for a foolproof method of selecting a manager. You keep repeating how he's got it wrong, but tell me how he was to know these quality managers could be backed with cash and get it wrong on the field? What should he have done differently? What was wrong with the appointments at the time they were made?

 

He could appoint Wenger now and what would you say if Wenger fúcked it up? Still blame Fred....?

 

BTW Robson has apparently turned down approaches in the past. Why's that, do you think?

[morpeth mag]

On a lighter note - the slogan for the campaign a la Blue Peter

 

'Time for walkies Shep'

 

or am I showing my age?

[Superior Acuña]

I never understood why kenny didnt work.  Great manager and talks sense.  I'd wished hed stayed longer.

[OzzieMandias]

 

He sacked him because despite his outstanding track record of success, he didn't do well enough for my club.

 

So you disagree with NE5's assertion that getting us to an FA Cup Final means he was "successful"?

 

1. Why would you not have appointed Dalglish given the strength of his track record ?

2. If you don't appoint managers on the basis of their track record, how would you choose them ?

3. On the basis of track record and Dalglish being a shite appointment, do you agree that would rule out Wenger, Ferguson, Capello, Lippi etc who are all similar to what Dalglish was at the time ?

 

 

You need to look at the big picture.

 

With the sole exception of Robson -- who was practically down on his knees begging to be offered the job –- all of Fat Fred's managerial appointments have been unsuccessful. One after another. Each one worse than the one before.

 

If you represented the big picture as a graph, it would show a steady downward progression, from top right to bottom left, with an upwards spike for the Robson era nothing but a blip in the inexorable slide into mediocrity.

 

Getting it wrong once – could happen to anyone. Getting it wrong twice – bad luck, eh? Getting it wrong four times out of five, by which time we've pissed away our finances and established such an appalling reputation that no manager of any stature would want to come and work for the club? Only one answer to that – Shepherd out!

 

Irony, tbh.

 

I understand the managers haven't brought success, not beinig funny but I'm still waiting for you to come up with a suggestion for a foolproof method of selecting a manager. You keep repeating how he's got it wrong, but tell me how he was to know these quality managers could be backed with cash and get it wrong on the field? What should he have done differently? What was wrong with the appointments at the time they were made?

 

He could appoint Wenger now and what would you say if Wenger fúcked it up? Still blame Fred....?

 

 

 

Frankly, even if it was just down Fat Fred having appallingly bad luck, that would be reason enough to wish him gone.

 

And if he'd the gumption to appoint Wenger, would he have let him do things precisely his way, as Dein has done at Arsenal? I think not.

 

BTW Robson has apparently turned down approaches in the past. Why's that, do you think?

 

He was already in a job at Barcelona when SJH approached him.

 

 

[peasepud]

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. 

[Guest Johan]

Cant believe people are still defending the fools that run the club! Anyone who has anything more positive to say about Shepherd than "OUT OUT OUT OUT" should get their head checked.

[Howaythelads]

 

He sacked him because despite his outstanding track record of success, he didn't do well enough for my club.

 

So you disagree with NE5's assertion that getting us to an FA Cup Final means he was "successful"?

 

1. Why would you not have appointed Dalglish given the strength of his track record ?

2. If you don't appoint managers on the basis of their track record, how would you choose them ?

3. On the basis of track record and Dalglish being a shite appointment, do you agree that would rule out Wenger, Ferguson, Capello, Lippi etc who are all similar to what Dalglish was at the time ?

 

 

You need to look at the big picture.

 

With the sole exception of Robson -- who was practically down on his knees begging to be offered the job –- all of Fat Fred's managerial appointments have been unsuccessful. One after another. Each one worse than the one before.

 

If you represented the big picture as a graph, it would show a steady downward progression, from top right to bottom left, with an upwards spike for the Robson era nothing but a blip in the inexorable slide into mediocrity.

 

Getting it wrong once – could happen to anyone. Getting it wrong twice – bad luck, eh? Getting it wrong four times out of five, by which time we've pissed away our finances and established such an appalling reputation that no manager of any stature would want to come and work for the club? Only one answer to that – Shepherd out!

 

Irony, tbh.

 

I understand the managers haven't brought success, not beinig funny but I'm still waiting for you to come up with a suggestion for a foolproof method of selecting a manager. You keep repeating how he's got it wrong, but tell me how he was to know these quality managers could be backed with cash and get it wrong on the field? What should he have done differently? What was wrong with the appointments at the time they were made?

 

He could appoint Wenger now and what would you say if Wenger fúcked it up? Still blame Fred....?

 

 

 

Frankly, even if it was just down Fat Fred having appallingly bad luck, that would be reason enough to wish him gone.

 

And if he'd the gumption to appoint Wenger, would he have let him do things precisely his way, as Dein has done at Arsenal? I think not.

 

BTW Robson has apparently turned down approaches in the past. Why's that, do you think?

 

He was already in a job at Barcelona when SJH approached him.

 

 

 

Still no answer then.....

[Howaythelads]

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.

[Howaythelads]

Cant believe people are still defending the fools that run the club! Anyone who has anything more positive to say about Shepherd than "OUT OUT OUT OUT" should get their head checked.

 

:roll:

[Rehhagel]

Who did Dalglish sign? I can only remember the following:

 

Des Hamilton - Bradford

Carl Serrant - Oldham

Bjarni Gudjohnson - Iceland

Garry Brady - Spurs

Shay Given

Yon Darl Tomasson? - Denmark

Paul someone, striker from a lower division team

Stephen Glass - Aberdeen

 

Apart from Given, did he sign anyone good?

[ianovthetoon]

Who did Dalglish sign? I can only remember the following:

 

Des Hamilton - Bradford

Carl Serrant - Oldham

Bjarni Gudjohnson - Iceland

Garry Brady - Spurs

Shay Given

Yon Darl Tomasson? - Denmark

Paul someone, striker from a lower division team

Stephen Glass - Aberdeen

 

Apart from Given, did he sign anyone good?

 

 

 

Nobby Solano

Gary Speed

Dabizas(Debatable)

Deitmar Hamann

 

[Guest stormrider]

Andreas Andersson!

[Rehhagel]

Oh didn't know he got Nobby, Haman was an awesome signing, shame he left to Liverpool.

 

Dalglish got Tomasson AND Andersson?

[Guest The Fox]

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. :)

[Rehhagel]

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.

 

[peasepud]

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.

[JH]

Interesting read in today's Sunday Sun:

 

Better the devil you know?

By Neil Farrington, The Sunday Sun

 

Anyone with time, money and hope invested in the emotional black hole that is Newcastle United has a right to scream blue murder right now.

 

And in any business, the buck stops with the man at the top.

 

So it's hardly startling that the blood being bayed for belongs to Freddy Shepherd.

 

What wouldn't be too much more surprising is if the chairman now decided enough was enough.

 

Never mind he's as Geordie as a bottle o' dog, has overseen the expansion of St James's Park and allowed his managers to spend a gross £200 million-plus on players . . .

 

His hometown team are 10 places and several notches in class below where they were when he took over, the ground is a temple of gloom and much of that money has been wasted by his managers.

 

Mostly the fans' money. His managers. And there's the rub.

 

The less successful the manager, the more discredited the chairman who saw fit to appoint him. One cannot hang the other out to dry.

 

Managers, in the case of Shepherd, who himself has been well paid by the club for his services.

 

The chairman would have people judge him in purely business terms.

 

Well, he has simply got business decisions of too much importance wrong in recent years - most obviously the timing of Sir Bobby Robson's sacking and the appointment of He Who Must Not Be Named - to be spared a backlash.

 

But all that said, I make two points.

 

First, it is strange that the Halls should be spared the wrath of the Magpie mob.

 

Here is a family that has banked multi-millions from the club during Shepherd's tenure for what appears to be a lot, lot less work.

 

A family that - Shepherd in or Shepherd out - holds the club's major shareholding, and all the power and culpability that comes with it.

 

Second, next to the strangers of the Belgravia Group, Shepherd may be the better devil to know.

 

I keep hearing that the intentions of United's would-be buyers are even less well known than the buyers themselves.

 

But, as an investment group, I don't see how their intentions could be much clearer: they are to make money . . . and make it fast.

 

The cash for Belgravia to buy the club would, apparently, come from a hedge fund.

 

And the investors in said hedge fund will have as much emotional commitment to Newcastle United as the average Chelsea fan.

 

That's none at all.

 

In layman's language, a hedge fund lends money for investment in companies - at a very high rate of interest - in search of a big gain in a short time. Two or three years being the norm.

 

They rarely involve themselves in companies like football clubs for the long term.

 

Unlike Roman Abramovich (below), it's cash rather than glory they are after. Cash, say, by getting Newcastle back into the Champions League.

 

Granted, that might seem a short-term aim to savour for supporters.

 

But it seems to me just as likely that the prospect of opening a casino at St James's is the business boost that Belgravia are interested in.

 

And what would become of the club once the profiteers had made their fast buck?

 

Fans should be even more wary of the implications of Newcastle NOT delivering its new owners instant success.

 

Hedge funds tend to impose very harsh conditions on companies in the event of the best case scenario not working out.

 

The fund which helped finance Malcolm Glazer's takeover of Manchester United made such alarming demands that the American switched to alternative funding a year down the line - and had to hand the hedge fund a hefty pay off for providing the initial cash.

 

And what of the man leading the Belgravia Group? The man who, perhaps, might replace Shepherd.

 

I understand Duncan Hickman attended Millfield public school in Somerset and is a fund manager. That's a stockbroker made good (very good) to you and me.

 

As far as I can tell, his football background extends no further than once being involved with the fad of issuing club credit cards.

 

Otherwise, he used to be a director of a management company which represented Jenson Button.

 

He lives in Jersey and, to be frank, doesn't seem to stick at any one thing for very long.

 

In fact, I believe Mr Hickman has been a director of at least 17 companies - not including any arm of the Belgravia Group - in recent years.

 

Does he strike you as the ideal man to run Newcastle United?

 

If you support Sunderland (who know all about people overseeing failure from Jersey), perhaps he does.

 

And if you bleed black and white? Rail against Shepherd all you will.

 

But just be careful what you wish for.

 

Link