The official Fat Fred Out campaign

[biggs]

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.

cannot argue with a word you said .The sooner fat fred goes the better .If we get taken over surely it cannot be any worse than our current situation with fat fred with his sailors cap on and our rudderless ship proverbly drifting out at sea .

[OzzieMandias]

An obvious pre-condition of getting the manager's job at NUFC is a willingness to put with Fat Fred. Perhaps it's extreme to label such candidates "yes-men", but we can take it as read that a "no-man" is out of the question.

 

This of course narrows the field of potential managers rather drastically, and has a direct bearing on our current predicament.

 

 

[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.

cannot argue with a word you said .The sooner fat fred goes the better .If we get taken over surely it cannot be any worse than our current situation with fat fred with his sailors cap on and our rudderless ship proverbly drifting out at sea .

 

Take a stab at the questions in my post then, matey.

 

[Guest ArtyH]

On the topic of " yes " men, is that a possible reason why M.O'N did not arrive or even Ottmar Hitzfeld. I could not see either of those two putting up with F.S's shite!!! As F.S wants to be a manager/chairman it would not work with those two top candidates. It should be obvious to Shepherd that he has no talent for football, so he should leave and let us get on with appointing a successor to manager and chairman.

I can see only one way F.S can retain his position and keep some form of credibility, and that would be to appoint HITZFELD as the new manager and NOT interfere with any running of the team ( I did not say the club ).

IMHO that would appease the fans, with a top class manager and inject a bit of hope into the club, something which has been missing for a few years.

[Howaythelads]

An obvious pre-condition of getting the manager's job at NUFC is a willingness to put with Fat Fred. Perhaps it's extreme to label such candidates "yes-men", but we can take it as read that a "no-man" is out of the question.

 

This of course narrows the field of potential managers rather drastically, and has a direct bearing on our current predicament.

 

 

 

Total bollocks. Unless you think Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and Souness were all yes men. And Keegan of course, because Fred was at the club then.

 

Souness could never be considered anything other than his own man, despite being a total incompetent. If team had done well on the field of play he'd still be manager now, "yes man" or "no man".

 

You're clutchinig at straws, Omarse.

[OzzieMandias]

 

 

You're clutchinig at straws, Omarse.

 

Very mature.

 

When Dogleash took the job, nobody yet knew what kind of chairman Fat Fred would turn out to be. Several disastrous appointments, stupid public gaffes, and ill-timed managerial sackings later, only a few deluded souls are in any doubt about what kind of chairman he is.

 

It should be obvious to the poorest fool that this is one big part of the reason why no top managers want to come here anymore.

 

 

[Guest The Fox]

HTL

If you had looked back at the recent posts I have answered your question re previous Managers.

I note you do not respond to the timing of the Robson sacking and the fact it was done very few games into the season and no successor had been lined up. As for Roeder I base that on the image he portrays, the fact his Assistant Manager was sacked, no statement from Roeder. The reserve team Manager leaves, no statement from Roeder. The poor use of the transfer window. You know as well as I do, and you do not have to be an insider, that Roeder will not upset the hand that so unexpectedly appointed him.m Thats my opinion, you disagree, fair enough.

What do you get from the Board is:

Appointing Robson who the fans loved and thensadly botching his departure

Appointing Gullit and then really not fully backing him because he had the temerity in their eyes to drop Shearer.

Appoiinting Dalglish and then the timing of the sacking left a lot to be desired..

 

I would give them the benefit of the doubt after Dalglish/Gullit/Robson. 2 failures, 1 success.

However after Souness and then Roeder, do me  a favour.

Whether a Chairman has been successful is entirely dependant on success or otherwise on the pitch. Sir John Hall was, Freddie Shepherd is not.

You are playing devils advocate here because even your unsubstantiated support of Shepherd must have taken a considerable knock by his last two appoinments.

 

[indi]

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. 

 

There's so much more than simply a manager's track record that should be taken into consideration though.

 

Off the top of my head:

 

The manager's personality: What kind of person is he? Is he arrogant, the type of person who will fall out with players and be too stubborn to bury the hatchet for the sake of the team? This kind of stuff can be found out about by talking to people that the manager has worked with previously: players, staff, other club chairmen, etc.

 

The kind of football the manager prefers: Will their style fit with the players already at the club or will the majority of the squad have to be changed to suit the new style? This is a very important thing to know particularly from a financial point of view as big changes will involve a big investment. Again this can be found out by talking to people with previous experience of the potential new manager, as well as watching tapes of how his previous teams have played, and discussing it with him directly.

 

What the manager's plans would be if he were to get the job: Will he want to change things like coaching staff, or bring in new training methods, and equipment (pro-zone, etc), or will he keep things relatively the same? Again the best way to find this out would be to simply ask the candidate what he would do and where he sees that leading the club.

 

General background checks: Does the candidate have any skeletons in his cupboard that could come out and harm the club? Another one that can be found out by asking people who know the manager from his previous jobs.

 

 

All this seems pretty obvious stuff, yet we've fallen foul of each and every one of the above since Fred became Chairman, which leads me to believe that either we aren't looking into this kind of stuff to the required degree or we simply aren't doing it at all.

 

You can never guarantee that the manager you appoint is going to turn out to be good or bad, but you can do a lot more than we seem to do to find out beforehand.

[NE5]

 

 

You're clutchinig at straws, Omarse.

 

Very mature.

 

When Dogleash took the job, nobody yet knew what kind of chairman Fat Fred would turn out to be. Several disastrous appointments, stupid public gaffes, and ill-timed managerial sackings later, only a few deluded souls are in any doubt about what kind of chairman he is.

 

It should be obvious to the poorest fool that this is one big part of the reason why no top managers want to come here anymore.

 

 

 

why aren't you mature enough to answer the first part of his post instead of clipping it ?

 

 

[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.

 

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.

 

canny replies.

 

do you accept that as Robson wasn't persuaded to leave Barcelona that Dalglish was a good option, in view of his track record though. At the time I don't recall too many fans unhappy with appointing a man with Dalglish's track record, in fact the money was very much on him doing the trick with keegans team, only he knows why he ripped up the team so quickly .. well, we know why but he has never confirmed it.

 

The club can indeed look at personalities, as well as track record, no doubt they knew that Dalglish was dour, and Gullit was distant, but as those approaches had been successful previously what possible grounds can anyone have that the same approach wouldn't work at Newcastle.

 

You may be right that the board has taken the club as far as they can, which will piss off me as much as anyone, but it is only right that people accept that since 1992 they have taken the club a long way, will be leaving a far better club than the one they found and get the credit they deserve for that. As I have posted before, for me, it is the same board since 1992 - if SJH gets the plaudits for the teams better results under Keegan it is also only fair that people accept that it was indeed Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher who appointed him ie SJH may have been a charismatic figure and a good front man for the club, but so far as results on the field go, it was someone else who appointed the manager and they deserve the credit for that. Its been a joint board effort IMO, especially as the major shareholders have remained the same, a fact which was pointed out in the article in the Sunday Sun yesterday. My opinion on replacements remains the same however, there is nothing wrong with Newcastle that the right manager will not put right, and I think replacing the current board with anyone other than an individual or a group of individuals who are in it for the good of the club, and for the long haul, and can show they have the backing, expertise and desire to be successful has the potential to be an absolute disaster. You can appoint the wrong manager ie Souness and sack him, but we won't get rid of a board if we end up with people who aren't interested in the club or are small time and won't back their managers.

 

The amount of backing the board has gave their managers leads me to think they don't like choosing the cheap option anywhere, they have made it quite obvious they are prepared to pay for success. If indeed they have taken the cheap option anywhere, they have done it out of necessity rather than a desire to do it, IMO. So I partly agree with you on that one, or maybe we do agree ... 

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

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.

 

So what you are saying is, you don't really have any opinion or can make any judgements, you just apply hindsight, correct ? The point being, if you are incapable of making a judgement then you really aren't in a position to criticise someone else's, we know you aren't paid by the club like he is, most people aren't, but that doesn't mean criticising without offering a positive response.

 

And - ref the transfer window, are you unable to see that the loan signings were made rather than make panic buys for money .....  :roll:

which they may not have - having spent 15m quid, more than most clubs, again - or wait for the players they want .....

 

 

 

[Mick]

 

 

You're clutchinig at straws, Omarse.

 

Very mature.

 

When Dogleash took the job, nobody yet knew what kind of chairman Fat Fred would turn out to be. Several disastrous appointments, stupid public gaffes, and ill-timed managerial sackings later, only a few deluded souls are in any doubt about what kind of chairman he is.

 

It should be obvious to the poorest fool that this is one big part of the reason why no top managers want to come here anymore.

 

 

 

why aren't you mature enough to answer the first part of his post instead of clipping it ?

 

 

 

Do you think the bit at the top and highlighted was mature?  Or does it not matter when its your "mate."

[NE5]

 

 

You're clutchinig at straws, Omarse.

 

Very mature.

 

When Dogleash took the job, nobody yet knew what kind of chairman Fat Fred would turn out to be. Several disastrous appointments, stupid public gaffes, and ill-timed managerial sackings later, only a few deluded souls are in any doubt about what kind of chairman he is.

 

It should be obvious to the poorest fool that this is one big part of the reason why no top managers want to come here anymore.

 

 

 

why aren't you mature enough to answer the first part of his post instead of clipping it ?

 

 

 

Do you think the bit at the top and highlighted was mature?  Or does it not matter when its your "mate."

 

the difference is Omarse NEVER gives a constructive mature response.

 

 

[NE5]

HTL

If you had looked back at the recent posts I have answered your question re previous Managers.

I note you do not respond to the timing of the Robson sacking and the fact it was done very few games into the season and no successor had been lined up. As for Roeder I base that on the image he portrays, the fact his Assistant Manager was sacked, no statement from Roeder. The reserve team Manager leaves, no statement from Roeder. The poor use of the transfer window. You know as well as I do, and you do not have to be an insider, that Roeder will not upset the hand that so unexpectedly appointed him.m Thats my opinion, you disagree, fair enough.

What do you get from the Board is:

Appointing Robson who the fans loved and thensadly botching his departure

Appointing Gullit and then really not fully backing him because he had the temerity in their eyes to drop Shearer.

Appoiinting Dalglish and then the timing of the sacking left a lot to be desired..

 

I would give them the benefit of the doubt after Dalglish/Gullit/Robson. 2 failures, 1 success.

However after Souness and then Roeder, do me  a favour.

Whether a Chairman has been successful is entirely dependant on success or otherwise on the pitch. Sir John Hall was, Freddie Shepherd is not.

You are playing devils advocate here because even your unsubstantiated support of Shepherd must have taken a considerable knock by his last two appoinments.

 

 

more successful, with a manager chosen and appointed by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher and not himself .... how does that grab you ?

[Mick]

 

the difference is Omarse NEVER gives a constructive mature response.

 

 

 

The difference is something else and I'm sure we both know what it is. blueyes.gif

[NE5]

 

the difference is Omarse NEVER gives a constructive mature response.

 

 

 

The difference is something else and I'm sure we both know what it is. blueyes.gif

 

Its quite simple, Omarse talks rubbish and is just as much a WUM as he always was.

 

 

[NE5]

True Faith are backing the Shepherd out campaign

 

your point is ?

 

 

[Mick]

True Faith are backing the Shepherd out campaign

 

your point is ?

 

 

 

His point is probably that True Faith want Shepherd out, that's just a guess.

[Cajun]

True Faith are backing the Shepherd out campaign

 

your point is ?

 

 

 

Long shot but im gonna have to go with:

 

True Faith are backing the Shepherd out campaign

[Dokko]

True Faith are backing the Shepherd out campaign

 

your point is ?

 

 

 

His point is probably that True Faith want Shepherd out, that's just a guess.

 

[Mick]

True Faith are backing the Shepherd out campaign

 

your point is ?

 

 

 

Long shot but im gonna have to go with:

 

True Faith are backing the Shepherd out campaign

 

That's at least two who have come up with the same guess.

[NE5]

True Faith are backing the Shepherd out campaign

 

your point is ?

 

 

 

Long shot but im gonna have to go with:

 

True Faith are backing the Shepherd out campaign

 

smashing for them then !

 

:winking:

[Cajun]

True Faith are backing the Shepherd out campaign

 

your point is ?

 

 

 

Long shot but im gonna have to go with:

 

True Faith are backing the Shepherd out campaign

 

smashing for them then !

 

:winking:

 

Super!

[Baggio]

True Faith are backing the Shepherd out campaign

 

your point is ?

 

 

 

Long shot but im gonna have to go with:

 

True Faith are backing the Shepherd out campaign

 

smashing for them then !

 

:winking:

 

Super!

 

http://www.jimbowen.tv/images/bullseye.jpg

 

Super Smashing Great!

[NE5]

True Faith are backing the Shepherd out campaign

 

your point is ?

 

 

 

Long shot but im gonna have to go with:

 

True Faith are backing the Shepherd out campaign

 

smashing for them then !

 

:winking:

 

Super!

 

http://www.jimbowen.tv/images/bullseye.jpg

 

Super Smashing Great!

 

aye, those True Faith writers are the bizz...what about Mag Writers, what do you think of them