The official Fat Fred Out campaign

[Guest 1nol]

It like that in the Leazes if you try and get a chant going, let alone anything militant!

[Guest ToonFanNorway]

Pm me lads if you wanna help with the website 

[NE5]

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. :)

 

You still don't explain your method of picking managers John, to guarantee a good job well done, other than simply using hindsight. Maybe if you thought Dalglish was going to "fail" when he was appointed, you should have told the board, they might have listened to you, providing you explained how you thought he was a certain failure

 

Will O'Neill match Dalglish ? Will he win a trophy ? Will he match Bobby Robson ? Will he even win the FA Cup like Gullit and Souness? To date, his only success is the League Cup, beating Tranmere in the Final, when all the big clubs weren't interested in it and played reserve teams in it , including us [for which you strangely blame the board].

 

 

[NE5]

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

 

Very good article. Some points have been mentioned already on here by myself and others. The dangers are clear, as is the delusion currently doing the rounds.

 

 

[NE5]

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.

 

I think yesterday, and lately in general, has completely proved the fact that the attack and midfield is where our real and most needed weaknesses lie, as I have said a few times. Whether or not Roeder has spent his money well on Martins is up in the air, but the fact he addressed the area we needed most is indisputable, unless you think we should be playing with Luque and nobody else up front for the next few weeks ... and whatever follows ....

 

 

[NE5]

Still waiting for you to address the following:

Under Sitr John Hall and Keegan we finished 2nd twice . Not only that we had a terrific side and played exhilarating football and became much loved throughout the land.

Under Shepherds guidance apart from Robson we have not come close to that and now have a side that would not live with Keegans and quite frankly is boring and one dimensional.

That to my mind and most others I think would signify a downward spiral and the fact that Shepherd inherited the Chair and has wasted what Sir John Hall and Keegan achieved.

Hence my comment that Shepherd has not been successful compared to JH/KK days, which is all I have ever said.

 

Bu the way I refer you to my previous numerous posts where I have answered both yourself and NE5 over and over gain. I am not going to waste time repeating what you are unableor refuse to grasp.

 

hence the question.....who then would YOU have appointed and on what criteria ?

 

 

[NE5]

 

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.

 

I can't say I agree with you there HTL - Shepherd did make something of a rod for his back by publically saying that Robson wouldn't have his contract renewed at the end of the 2004/05 season. This made Robson's position untenable - would you agree?

 

If Shepherd knew after the 2003/04 season that the next season would be Robson's last, should he not have made preparations for his replacement as soon as he made that decision? The popular opinion is that during the summer of 2004 Robson should have been "moved upstairs" and someone else installed - now whether or not you agree with that, would you agree that it is easier (and more preferable) to appoint a manager in the off season rather than mid season?

 

It seems that Shepherd planned to dispense with Robson's services and yet didn't have a plan to replace him - now, it is possible he thought he would cross that bridge when he came to it (at the 2004/05 season) but when he decided to sack Robson a handful of games into the season he suddenly had to appoint someone immediately - which resulted in something of a circus and the (allegedly fifth choice) Scottish maggot being plucked from the sinking ship that was Blackburn

 

I guess my point is that as soon as Shepherd decided he was going to get rid of Robson, he should have immediately begun formulating contingency plans - a "fire now" plan (summer 04), a "fire during the season" plan, and a "release at the end of contract" plan...

 

It's all very well to say my thoughts are with the benefit of hindsight, but really, it's common sense. If you plan to get rid of a manager, then you also need to plan for his replacement...

 

There's a lesson for this for Freddy now too - if he boots Roeder, then I hope to God he's already got someone lined up, because we don't want to be scraping the bottom of the barrell and come up with another Souness, do we?!?

 

 

when you - and others - say "plan for a replacement" what exactly do you mean ? You are aware that tapping managers currently in jobs is illegal ?

 

And do you consider the prospect of Shearer being the next manager, or whatever, to be a "plan" or not, and if not, why.

 

 

[indi]

HTL, I think you and I see the same things, but we read them in an almost exactly opposite way.

 

You point out that Fred has appointed a number of big-name managers and see this as something positive with which to defend him, but that's not how I read it at all. What I see is a chairman who always goes for the easy option, rather than the right one.

 

Anyone, could have said (at the repective times) I'll have: Kenny Dalglish, Ruud Guillit, Bobby Robson, with little or no thought at all, and that's the problem. Little or no thought at all went into those appointments, they were all easy options, and two out of three were the wrong option.

 

When they needed to replace Keegan they went for the easy option of Dalglish: a manager that had been massively successful with Liverpool and had managed to win the league with Blackburn. On first look a great appointment, how could it possibly fail? But it's obvious that either; Dalglish was never asked what he intended to do with the team once he was in charge; or if he was, no thought was given as to what that would mean for the club and team. Unless, they really thought that instead of taking a pretty successful team and adding that little bit extra to make it a trophy winning team, Dalglish's prefered option of ripping it apart and starting again from scratch, was a good idea!?!?

 

Gullit was again the easy option. Dalglish's dour personality and his team's even more dour football, had proved to be unpopular with the fans, so who do you appoint? Ruud Gullit, a flamboyant dreadlocked Dutchman with a reputation for "sexy football" and some measure of success as manager of Chelsea. Once again a no-brainer, or so it appeared, but had any research been done on what kind of man this was? For example was he the type of man who might fall out with the club's star player, or perhaps the club captain? And was he the type of person that would let these disputes escalate to the extent that the club captain didn't even receive a shirt number and the star player was sat on the bench as we lost to our most bitter rivals? Obviously not.

 

With Robson, Shepherd got lucky, big style. He needed a replacement for Gullit and who should just so happen to be available? Bobby Robson: a fantastically successful manager, having won trophies all around Europe; with massive experience having held some of the biggest jobs in world-football, including England and Barcalona; one of the nicest blokes you could ever meet, someone to heal the rifts within the club; and not only that, but a dyed-in-the-wool Geordie to boot. Add to this the fact that Robson would have crawled over razor-blades to get the job and you have the easiest decision in the history of the known-universe. An idiot could have got that one right and so he did.

 

Now after first undermining and then sacking Robson, Shepherd had made things more difficult for himself, there was no longer a queue of big-name managers at his door - largely due to his own actions I must add - but he still went for the easiest of the available options, the one that required the least effort on his behalf: Graeme Souness. Robson had been criticised for "losing the dressing room", players had apparently refused to play and so-on, so what's the obvious decision? Go for a well-known hard-man disciplinarian like Graeme Souness, an easy decision to make, considering that everyone else had turned you down and he was hardly going to say no, given that he was on the verge of the sack at Blackburn. We could have gone all out to get a decent manager and done what it took to convince them that NUFC was the right place for them, but he didn't. Once again Fred chose the path of least resistance.

 

With the sacking of Souness, Shepherd was left in a situation where he had given himself even fewer options than ever before, becuase not only were we the least attractive managerial challenge we'd been for a long time (pre-Keegan), we were also skint. But despite that, the opportunity again existed to convince a decent manager that his future lied at SJP. Now, I'm not saying this would have been easy, but it was definately possible, yet again Fred failed to do it and went for what was now the easiest option, that being the cheapest option: Glen Roeder. Roeder is undeniably a nice bloke, but despite the post Souness upturn in our fortunes he's quite simply not up to the job, in much the same way that Souness wasn't up to the job. Yet again, the easiet option has not turned out to be the best option.

 

 

Another thing you've pointed out in defence of Shepherd is that the managers he's appointed have had superior records to managers like Wenger at the time of their respective appointments. Well again; you see this as a defence of Fred and I see it as a criticism off him.

 

When Arsenal appointed Wenger they took what at the time seemed like a big risk. I remember when it happened people were going: "Who!?!" They were thinking: why have Arsenal appointed this strange looking French bloke, who no-one's heard of and has been managing in the J-League, have they gone mad!?! Well they hadn't gone mad, they'd just pulled off a master-stroke, which would see them established as one of the biggest and best teams in the world. They brought in the best man for the job and they backed him with everything he needed to do it, and they didn't give a shit about how big-a-name or glittering reputation, he had.

 

It's been well documented that for a while after Alex Ferguson was given the Man Utd job, he was distinctly unpopular with the fans and a lot of them wanted him sacked because he hadn't brought them instant success. But the club stuck with him because they knew he was the right man for the job, they backed him and sure enough, they were right to do so.

 

So what's the difference between them and us? Well neither Arsenal nor Man Utd went for the easy option, they went for the right option; despite it being a much harder path to follow. They knew they had made the right choice and they stuck with it. But how did, they manage to make these right decisions, even though they were much less obvious than the ones we made? Well they looked beyond the seemingly obvious for a start, they were not seduced by the glamour of appointing yet another big-name trophy-manager and spent time and effort in making sure they had got the right-name, not simply the biggest. Once they had made this decision they stuck with it becasue they had confidence in it being a good one, confidence drawn from the thought that had gone into making it in the first place, confidence that cannot be drawn from a decision based upon what is the easiest thing to do.

 

Fred has never had this type of confidence in the managers he's appointed, hence all the mid-season parting-of-the-ways. The reason he's never had confidence is because he's never based his decision upon being certain that he's appointing the right man for the job, it's always been based upon appointing the easiest man for the job. Even on the one occasion that the easiest man for the job, has also been the right man for the job (Robson), Fred didn't have the confidence in his decision to back that man with what he needed to do the job. The whole, buy no-one (apart from Bowyer on a free) despite the manager saying we needed players bringing-in and fail to qualify for the Champions' League situation, springs to mind here. Due to this, NUFC has never been able to establish itself as a major force in the English or European game. We've had a number of false dawns, but then when they haven't worked out and the manager's been given the boot, we've usually had to build again from scratch and overall the general trend is a downward one.

 

Now, I'm not saying that I wouldn't have got rid of Dalglish, Gullit, or Souness, if I was in the same situation - although, I'd have kept Robson until at least the end of the season - but how many Man Utd fans are grateful now, that their board had more confidence in Ferguson than they did? Even if these decisions were correct, they were decisions that could have been avoided, had more thought been put into the managerial appointment in the first place. Yet, here we are again, in a situation that is the culmination of years and years of bad decisions by those in charge of NUFC. A situation that is going to be very difficult to get out of, due to the fact that every time Fred's made the easy-but-wrong decision it's become harder for him to make the right decision the next time.

 

For me there is no way out of this with Fred at the helm. I think it's too hard for him to make the right decision now, and even if it wasn't, his track record shows that he's unlikely to make it anyway. I don't believe that the kind of manager that we need to appoint to get out of this situation, sees Fred as someone they could work with and I feel that the attractions of managing NUFC are greatly overshadowed by the things that would put people off. The only way out I can see is with someone else at the head of the club, someone without the stigma that Fred's managed to attach to himself, whether that person being someone appointed by new owners or not.

 

 

To sum up:

 

SHEPHERD OUT.

[JH]

Did anyone else just read this bit?:

 

To sum up:

 

SHEPHERD OUT.

[Guest ToonFanNorway]

YES Jonny Hall i did  bluelaugh.gif

 

Nah Good point Indigo

[NE5]

Indigo.....Bobby Robson was not a lucky appointment mate. He was first choice in 1997 to succeed Keegan, so was very much at the forefront as a wanted man since that time.  And Alex Ferguson was not a small time appointment for manure, having taken over Scottish football with a club outside Rangers and Celtic, he was hot property, very hot property, and preceded by a long line of managers at manu who were all failures, most of whom were also appointed "with not much forethought and planning". This is a fact mate.

 

We didn't get lucky regarding Bobby Robson any more than manure did with Ferguson.

 

I agree with a lot of your post, but your inability to give credit where it is due does you no credit and the supposition that Manu and Arsenal always appoint managers with the criteria you apply ruins it. Arsenal appointing Wenger was indeed a master stroke, after Bruce Rioch, but so was our appointment of Keegan, who incidentally was chosen and persuaded to take the Newcastle job by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Freddie Fletcher. Sir John had very little input to it and was in fact very much against it as he was reluctant to sack Ardiles, this information is in Keegans book.

 

And as a footnote...Bobby Robson may well have "walked over broken glass" to become manager of Newcastle in 1999 but during the 1960's, 70's and 80's he wouldn't touch it with a bargepole .......

 

Regarding your comments about managers with and without track records, do you advocate managers with track records or not ? If so, then the past appointments should be met with a degree of support by you, if not then you should be happy with Roeder and therefore prepared to give him time as he may have been appointed for the reasons you put forward ?

 

And regarding your comment about Bowyer and the summer of 2003, it has been pointed out on numerous occasions that we bought in advance of that summer, ie Woodgate, good forward planning in view of the fact that if we had waited until the summer there was a real possibility that he would have gone somewhere else. Because of that deal, and the money spent over the previous 2-3 years to lift the club from mid table to Champions League, there also may not have been any left, whether we like it or not you have to see that probability. Agreed or not ?

 

I'm just curious for your thoughts.

 

 

 

[johnnypd]

we got extraordinarily lucky with Robson. Shepherd offered him a derisory wage (considering this stature) and Robson was gracious enough to give Shepherd another chance. most other managers would've laughed him off and that would've been the end of it.

[NE5]

we got extraordinarily lucky with Robson. Shepherd offered him a derisory wage (considering this stature) and Robson was gracious enough to give Shepherd another chance. most other managers would've laughed him off and that would've been the end of it.

 

another chance of what Johnny ?

 

I would say having turned down the club in 1997, Robson was the one who should have been happy to have been offered it again.

 

Either way, nobody can say it was "lucky" or "not planned" when he had been approached 2 years earlier.

 

 

[Parky]

Robson was on the shortlist for some time, he wasn't a lucky appointment, it was only lucky in the sense he came when he did and we really needed him.

[Parky]

The analysis of Dalglish amongst that lot is the hardest one. Although a sound appointment by CV alone, I would have had some reservations in the sense that he had the best backroom and staff perhaps in world football at his feet (at Liverpool) and won the title with Blackburn with a huge treasure chest.

[Howaythelads]

Indigo

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31195.msg597334.html#msg597334

 

Rather than quote it all I've just linked back to it.

 

All of the comment indicating Fred appointing manageres in a reactionary way is stuff I've posted on before, so I don't know what makes you think I'm saying the opposite.

 

I can see the errors Fred has made, I've posted on it lots of times but certain individuals prefer to ignore that fact.

 

I'm pointing out that in the past Fred has appointed people with excellent track records and I'm not sure how else he can do it. He's tried a different approach this time and is still being slaughtered for it. Until someone using hindsight to beat him up with over these appointments can tell me how they knew in advance Dalglish and Gullit would fail, I'll carry on posting the way I do about Fred.

 

As I've said, even Sourness has a better track record than everyone's hero O'Neill, yet for some reason he's deemed to be good enough and would be considered by many to be a good appointment. If he's good enough on his track record then so were the others. Nobody knows how it will then turn out. 

[ianovthetoon]

The one thing that strikes me about all of the last few managerial appointments is that it's always claimed that the club have been inundated with applications for the job. As these people are showing a desire to manage the club, you would think they would at least be given the chance to put their case to the board as to how they would approach the job. I know they probably get the odd fruit loop sending their CV in cos they did well on a computer game but surely there must be some feasible names in there too. Freddie is obviously incapabable of appointing the right man, so surely if he delegated this job to someone else, be it a specialist recruitment company to provide a shortlist, or maybe if he employed someone to do the job he is currently trying to do, that of Chief Executive. At the end of the day Roman Abramovich didn't choose Mourinho it was Peter Kenyon

[Guest smoggeordie]

True Faith are backing the Shepherd out campaign

[indi]

Indigo.....Bobby Robson was not a lucky appointment mate. He was first choice in 1997 to succeed Keegan, so was very much at the forefront as a wanted man since that time.  And Alex Ferguson was not a small time appointment for manure, having taken over Scottish football with a club outside Rangers and Celtic, he was hot property, very hot property, and preceded by a long line of managers at manu who were all failures, most of whom were also appointed "with not much forethought and planning". This is a fact mate.

 

We didn't get lucky regarding Bobby Robson any more than manure did with Ferguson.

 

The way I understand it, Robson was John Hall's choice to succeed Keegan, a choice that wasn't supported by Shepherd or Hall Jr, that may be wrong, but that's how I heard it. Incidentally, to answer a question posed by HTL earlier in this thread (well sort of answer it), the reason why I wouldn't have appointed Dalglish, is because I simply wouldn't have taken no for an answer from Robson. I'd have done whatever it took to persuade him to come to SJP and not stopped until he said yes. This may seem unrealistic, but I think he could have been convinced if we have been prepared to put in the effort and show the commitment to wait for him to change his mind. I often wonder where we'd be now if he had come then and been able to spend all the time and money that Dalglish and Gullit went on to waste.

 

My point about Ferguson wasn't that he was a small-time appointment, but that his board stuck by him through some tough times, when it would have been a lot easier for them to give in to the pressure and sack him. They did this becuase they were sure they'd got the right man for the job, they were proven to be correct.

 

 

I agree with a lot of your post, but your inability to give credit where it is due does you no credit and the supposition that Manu and Arsenal always appoint managers with the criteria you apply ruins it. Arsenal appointing Wenger was indeed a master stroke, after Bruce Rioch, but so was our appointment of Keegan, who incidentally was chosen and persuaded to take the Newcastle job by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Freddie Fletcher. Sir John had very little input to it and was in fact very much against it as he was reluctant to sack Ardiles, this information is in Keegans book.

 

And as a footnote...Bobby Robson may well have "walked over broken glass" to become manager of Newcastle in 1999 but during the 1960's, 70's and 80's he wouldn't touch it with a bargepole .......

 

My argument has never been that Shepherd is a rubbish chairman, but that he is just not good enough: that he has taken us as far as he can and in fact is now taking us backward and that if we are to progress from here we need someone else to do it.

 

There is no supposition on my behalf that Arsenal and Man Utd always appoint good managers or do so in the way I have described, I was talking specifically about the appointment of two people Arsene Wenger and Alex Ferguson. I made no comment on any other appointment by either of those two clubs and that was deliberate, because I don't think what I said applies to any other appointments they have made in the past, although I dare say it'll apply to appointments they make in the future.

 

I have heard that about Keegan's appointment before and I'm happy to give credit where credit's due and some of that is due to Freddy Shepherd. You are right about Robson not wanting to come near us in the 60's, 70's and 80's and the fact that he did want to be manager when he did is partly down to the role played by Shepherd and I again give him credit like that. However, the longer things go on in the way they currently are, the lesser the likelihood of NUFC being able to draw the interest of a manager of the stature of Bobby Robson in the future. A situation I can only see being rectified following the departure of Shepherd form the club.

 

 

Regarding your comments about managers with and without track records, do you advocate managers with track records or not ? If so, then the past appointments should be met with a degree of support by you, if not then you should be happy with Roeder and therefore prepared to give him time as he may have been appointed for the reasons you put forward ?

 

I think that a manager's track record should be one of a great many things that should be looked into by a club thinking of appointing him. My problem with the way NUFC have appointed managers is that too often the reputation/track record of a manager seems to have been the only thing taken into account. You may remember that a number of times in the past I've said that I look forward to the day when we sign someone I've never heard of, well the I feel similarly about the manager's role. The point I'm trying to make is that we always go for the obvious choice, the no brainer. So if someone turned up who I knew little about, I wouldn't immediately think: "who the fuck is this nobody!?!", I'd think: "I wonder why they chose him? They must have been impressed by what he had to say..." and so-on. Again, I have to use Wenger as an example, but do you think he got the Arsenal job based on his reputation making him a household-name? Well he certainly wasn't a name used much in my household. There were plenty of big-names that would have taken that job at the time, but they went for the geeky-looking school-teacherish French bloke from Japan, why did they do that?

 

Re: Roeder, if I believed for a second that he had been appointed because he was the best man for the job, rather than the cheapest option, I would indeed be prepared to give him time to do his job. When we did have a manager I believed was the right man for the job (Robson), if you remember, I defended him to the last. I still believe that he'd have been able to turn that season around and I think we'd be in a better position now, if he'd have remained manager, although I would have wanted a succession plan to have been in place as well.

 

 

And regarding your comment about Bowyer and the summer of 2003, it has been pointed out on numerous occasions that we bought in advance of that summer, ie Woodgate, good forward planning in view of the fact that if we had waited until the summer there was a real possibility that he would have gone somewhere else. Because of that deal, and the money spent over the previous 2-3 years to lift the club from mid table to Champions League, there also may not have been any left, whether we like it or not you have to see that probability. Agreed or not ?

 

I'm just curious for your thoughts.

 

 

Well, maybe the money wasn't there, but as you say yourself, Shepherd has consistantly backed his managers with the club's money and as I remember it he's done so at times when the club will have had much less income than it would have after a successful season like the one that had seen us finish third and reach the qualifying stages of the Champions' League. I find it hard to believe that given his willingness to spend, both prior to, and following that particular summer, Shepherd couldn't have found some money from somewhere to fund the purchase of a couple of players, if he'd have wanted to.

[Raconteur]

 

when you - and others - say "plan for a replacement" what exactly do you mean ? You are aware that tapping managers currently in jobs is illegal ?

 

And do you consider the prospect of Shearer being the next manager, or whatever, to be a "plan" or not, and if not, why.

 

 

 

Yes, appointing Shearer one day is a plan - a plan of dubious merit, but a plan nonetheless... I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here?

 

May I ask - what do you feel Shepherd should be doing in the current situation? Should he stand behind Roeder unreservedly until three players run into each other on the pitch again and then start looking for a replacement? Or should he be making quiet, discreet phone calls to the agents of managers? And with regards to tapping up managers, well, not all managers are currently employed and thus can't be tapped up, and secondly if he did have an employed manager in mind then it is child's play to circumvent those rules through the use of intermediaries...

 

I guess what exactly do I have in mind by planning for managers is discreet phone calls along the lines of "Mr. Agent, might your client Manager X be interested in an interview for the Newcastle manager's job should it become available in the short term?"

 

I would like to think that at this very minute, in a locked drawer in his desk, he has a list of prospective managers he would approach if/when the board makes the decision to sack Roeder. I would also hope that list has more than the name of Alan Shearer on it!

 

[Guest The Fox]

You can go on as much as you like, there was nothing in Roeders track record to merit appointing him.

As to the appointment of Managers, Robson should either have been sacked in the summer or given more games in the season when he was sacked so early, that would have given the Board time to line up a decent replacement. Instead Shepherd was blinded by the discipline problem.

The sacking of Manager is something that builds over a period of time, time in which you look around at potential replacements, Shepherd blatantly did not do that. Its not a case of he was a great Manager last week but now he's terrible so he must go, in which case there would not be time to plan ahead.

Similar scenario with Roeder as caretaker, plenty of time to look around but the easier, cheaper option was to hope that Roeder would be relatively successful and go with him. Add the bonus that with him you would have no problems as he is a yes man.

Its not up to us to appoint Managers, I'm not paid to do that ,but I know if you end up in the bottom half of the table then the appoinment has not been a success. Its as simple as that.

The transfer window showed the calibre of this club. Throughout we had Shepherd and Roeder stating that there was plenty of time until the end of August, they would not rush things and the players had to be investigated. What happens panick buying in the last couple of days for Bernard, Sibierski and Rossi on loan, not to mention Martins. The very thing they said they would not do.

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

didn't Robson decline to come to replace Keegan because he was honour bound by his Barca contract?

[OzzieMandias]

didn't Robson decline to come to replace Keegan because he was honour bound by his Barca contract?

 

Yep. So he says.

[BottledDog]

Instead Shepherd was blinded by the discipline problem.

 

A problem he exacerbated by telling the world and his dog that Robson would not be getting a new contract.

[Howaythelads]

You can go on as much as you like, there was nothing in Roeders track record to merit appointing him.

As to the appointment of Managers, Robson should either have been sacked in the summer or given more games in the season when he was sacked so early, that would have given the Board time to line up a decent replacement. Instead Shepherd was blinded by the discipline problem.

The sacking of Manager is something that builds over a period of time, time in which you look around at potential replacements, Shepherd blatantly did not do that. Its not a case of he was a great Manager last week but now he's terrible so he must go, in which case there would not be time to plan ahead.

Similar scenario with Roeder as caretaker, plenty of time to look around but the easier, cheaper option was to hope that Roeder would be relatively successful and go with him. Add the bonus that with him you would have no problems as he is a yes man.

Its not up to us to appoint Managers, I'm not paid to do that ,but I know if you end up in the bottom half of the table then the appoinment has not been a success. Its as simple as that.

The transfer window showed the calibre of this club. Throughout we had Shepherd and Roeder stating that there was plenty of time until the end of August, they would not rush things and the players had to be investigated. What happens panick buying in the last couple of days for Bernard, Sibierski and Rossi on loan, not to mention Martins. The very thing they said they would not do.

 

See the bit in bold. Who are you posting that to? Everyone knows that, already.

 

Would you care to explain what it is in Fred's track record of appointing managers (albeit shite ones, of course) that shows they're based on whether they're are a cheap or expensive option?

 

Please post the source of the information that leads you to accuse Roeder of being a "yes man". Is it because you think he just has that look about him, or are you a club insider?

 

We know you aren't paid to be a manager, that's hardly a surprise in any walk of life, but you repeatedly claim that Fred has appointed duff managers, I'm still waiting for you to tell me the criteria he should have used that would guarantee a manager who would be successful at Newcastle. You rightly point out there was nothing in Roeder's track record that would merit his appointment, so it seems you believe you have some idea.......and of course that you want to base it on someone's track record.