Keegan to launch £9m unfair dismissal claim?

[UV]

UV is bookmarking posts going back years and waiting for the opportunity to confront the original poster with them. Bizarre and slightly disturbing 

 

I was actually just looking through 2 threads on previous takeover attempts as I wanted to refresh my memory on people's opinions on the matter back then. I must say I was shocked that Ozzie didn't seem to care who the new owners were as if there were nothing to lose.

 

At least back then SJH managed to put the club up for sale for 2 years without going into a huff, putting the club into a state of limbo and refusing to sign any more players.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

Or did Keegan walk that time because he knew that in the short-term he'd have to sell the likes of Ferdinand & Ginola?

 

And Dalglish even said himself that it was the club that accepted the money from Bolton for Robbie Elliott, not him. If he'd stuck out that first year or so, then the money was made available for him by Shepherd. (although to be fair to Dalglish, a fair bit of his early spending was buying in fringe players to help re-set up the reserve side which Keegan got rid of).

 

Who's to say the same thing wouldn't have applied here?

 

I said a few posts ago that you wouldn't find any posts by me agreeing with the club going PLC ?

 

As far as backing the manager goes, I have said that I had reservations about it until the continued backing their managers. This has been said before, its not really my fault that people don't see it [but I'm sure I'll still get the blame] and I'll say it again, who has backed their managers more than the Halls and Shepherd at NUFC.

 

Answer = nobody else has competed at the top levels while running this club for over 50 years.

 

Lastly, why do you persist in thinking that a minority shareholder has been running the club single handed ?

 

 

Agreed and they were able to continue backing their managers because they raised finances through the public offering.

 

So not Sky money, season ticket sales and income from European football, then?

 

They were able to back managers because of the money coming into the club from ST sales, Sky, European jaunts, sponsorship, other commercial ventures and not because of money raised by going public.

[NE5]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

 

Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both?

and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ?

 

so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ?

 

Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst?

 

you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them.

 

 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

In what ways did it help us??

 

"It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt". You'll have to ask macbeth what then happened to that money but its better to get people to give it to you for a share in the business than it is to lend if from the bank (on the whole)

 

You're the one trying to sound like the font of all knowledge and insight on Keegan yet dont even understand what actually was going on at the time. As i've had to repeat the ways in which it helped us and (implicitly) why it was better than the alternative, it shows you neither understand what happened or why it happened.

 

You've explained how it could help us, which again you didn't have to explain because I know all that. I simply offered that becoming a PLC didn't really help the club in terms of the end result and it is that in which I was knocking, and not the virtues of being a PLC. You're arguing a point I wasn't making. How about arguing against the point I was and that is becoming a PLC didn't help the club (not that it wouldn't or couldn't). You keep spinning your patronising s**** though, I'm sure it will impress someone. Oh look, Fredbob's impressed

 

 

You couldnt make this up.

 

 

 

Chez hands his arse to Fredbob...

 

 

Good one. Maybe after you've finished using yours as a mouthpieces we can get back onto something that makes sense.

 

Are you trying to say I talk shite like

[fredbob]

I gave him the benefit of all doubt from day one to be fair.

 

But you seem to have lost complete faith in him now - but so far havent presented anything substantial to back these feelings up. Im not asking for you in particular to do so but its the same with a lot of people everyone has this definitive opinion but no one backs it up or takes in account the situation at the time. In my eyes the only thing that Ashley has done wrong so far that we can definitievly criticise him for is for not doing his research on the club and appointing Keegan.

 

I think Dave is quite right to have lost faith in him, and also quite right to admirably admit it.

 

 

 

My point isnt that he's lost faith, its that he and alot of others have lost all their faith and i cant understand why. Even I've lost faith in him becasue i truly dont know his full intentions but all im doing is pointing out whats right in front of there eyes becasue not many people seem to be acknowledging it.

[Baggio]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

 

At least fredbob is trying to put up some kind of argument, misguided though it may be. 

 

But as I guess you want Ashley to sell up to anyone, I'm not sure why you're sticking up for him.

 

How can you read that post as me "sticking up for Ashley"?

 

I assume you'd want new owners as aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

Why don't you stop "assuming" and deal with what people actually write?

 

Oops, my bad. I missed out the quotes. That's not my opinion, it's yours from 2 years ago when a dodgy investment group showed an interest in buying us.

 

no-one has the first clue about what the belgravia groups intentions are toward NUFC, and who, or group of people, will act as the club's executive directors if they do take control

 

 

They'll want to make money. This can only be done by, first and foremost, by pursuing success on the pitch and making Newcastle once again a team that people want to watch – something that now seems to be way beyond Shepherd and his cronies.

 

Aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

I just assumed you'd still think the same now. 

 

I know I take the piss out of NE5 and vice versa on things we remember each other saying in the past but you must of spent time looking through Ozzie's posts to come up with that one, which is up there with some of the saddest things I've seen on here in the past few years.

 

Well done.

 

mackems.gif

 

big brother is watching, or should be.

 

Suffice to say you don't bother me in the slightest, meanwhile as I've proved you completely incorrect in your view of ashley and this DOF bollocks, I'll leave it there rather than carry on an "argument" and ruin the thread.

 

 

 

You were trying to fight me last week, not the actions of someone who isn't bothered by me. mackems.gif

 

As for being proven wrong, you said Souness was better than Keegan, Taylor was going to be England captain, Allardyce was a foolproof appointment, Smith was the best replacement for Shearer and you wanted to get rid of Robert for James Beattie.

 

Like others have said though, it's funny how threads descend into a slagfest when you show up.

[Baggio]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

Or did Keegan walk that time because he knew that in the short-term he'd have to sell the likes of Ferdinand & Ginola?

 

And Dalglish even said himself that it was the club that accepted the money from Bolton for Robbie Elliott, not him. If he'd stuck out that first year or so, then the money was made available for him by Shepherd. (although to be fair to Dalglish, a fair bit of his early spending was buying in fringe players to help re-set up the reserve side which Keegan got rid of).

 

Who's to say the same thing wouldn't have applied here?

 

I said a few posts ago that you wouldn't find any posts by me agreeing with the club going PLC ?

 

As far as backing the manager goes, I have said that I had reservations about it until the continued backing their managers. This has been said before, its not really my fault that people don't see it [but I'm sure I'll still get the blame] and I'll say it again, who has backed their managers more than the Halls and Shepherd at NUFC.

 

Answer = nobody else has competed at the top levels while running this club for over 50 years.

 

Lastly, why do you persist in thinking that a minority shareholder has been running the club single handed ?

 

 

Agreed and they were able to continue backing their managers because they raised finances through the public offering.

 

So not Sky money, season ticket sales and income from European football, then?

 

They were able to back managers because of the money coming into the club from ST sales, Sky, European jaunts, sponsorship, other commercial ventures and not because of money raised by going public.

 

Off the top of my head I seem to remember the float raising around £40 million which was put into the club accounts.

[fredbob]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

 

Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both?

and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ?

 

so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ?

 

Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst?

 

you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them.

 

 

 

You can also go back decades and find clubs who have appoitned good managers and not backed them - sound familiar?

 

How come ones accpetable yet the other isnt?

 

Also noticed how you phrased is "managers that didnt win things" - how about appointing a competenet manager.

 

Anyway i think we're digressing and i dont want to turn it into one of "those" threads.

 

 

[fredbob]

In what ways did it help us??

 

"It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt". You'll have to ask macbeth what then happened to that money but its better to get people to give it to you for a share in the business than it is to lend if from the bank (on the whole)

 

You're the one trying to sound like the font of all knowledge and insight on Keegan yet dont even understand what actually was going on at the time. As i've had to repeat the ways in which it helped us and (implicitly) why it was better than the alternative, it shows you neither understand what happened or why it happened.

 

You've explained how it could help us, which again you didn't have to explain because I know all that. I simply offered that becoming a PLC didn't really help the club in terms of the end result and it is that in which I was knocking, and not the virtues of being a PLC. You're arguing a point I wasn't making. How about arguing against the point I was and that is becoming a PLC didn't help the club (not that it wouldn't or couldn't). You keep spinning your patronising s**** though, I'm sure it will impress someone. Oh look, Fredbob's impressed

 

 

You couldnt make this up.

 

 

 

Chez hands his arse to Fredbob...

 

 

Good one. Maybe after you've finished using yours as a mouthpieces we can get back onto something that makes sense.

 

Are you trying to say I talk s**** like

 

Is this another thing you dont understand?

 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

In what ways did it help us??

 

"It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt". You'll have to ask macbeth what then happened to that money but its better to get people to give it to you for a share in the business than it is to lend if from the bank (on the whole)

 

You're the one trying to sound like the font of all knowledge and insight on Keegan yet dont even understand what actually was going on at the time. As i've had to repeat the ways in which it helped us and (implicitly) why it was better than the alternative, it shows you neither understand what happened or why it happened.

 

You've explained how it could help us, which again you didn't have to explain because I know all that. I simply offered that becoming a PLC didn't really help the club in terms of the end result and it is that in which I was knocking, and not the virtues of being a PLC. You're arguing a point I wasn't making. How about arguing against the point I was and that is becoming a PLC didn't help the club (not that it wouldn't or couldn't). You keep spinning your patronising s**** though, I'm sure it will impress someone. Oh look, Fredbob's impressed

 

 

You couldnt make this up.

 

 

 

Chez hands his arse to Fredbob...

 

 

Good one. Maybe after you've finished using yours as a mouthpieces we can get back onto something that makes sense.

 

Are you trying to say I talk s**** like

 

Is this another thing you dont understand?

 

 

Double ouch. You're a bitch Fredbob.

[madras]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

 

Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both?

and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ?

 

so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ?

 

Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst?

 

you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them.

 

 

and what did the supporters think of their boards when they appointed bad'un

 

 

after bad'un

 

 

 

after bad'un ?

[NE5]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

 

At least fredbob is trying to put up some kind of argument, misguided though it may be. 

 

But as I guess you want Ashley to sell up to anyone, I'm not sure why you're sticking up for him.

 

How can you read that post as me "sticking up for Ashley"?

 

I assume you'd want new owners as aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

Why don't you stop "assuming" and deal with what people actually write?

 

Oops, my bad. I missed out the quotes. That's not my opinion, it's yours from 2 years ago when a dodgy investment group showed an interest in buying us.

 

no-one has the first clue about what the belgravia groups intentions are toward NUFC, and who, or group of people, will act as the club's executive directors if they do take control

 

 

They'll want to make money. This can only be done by, first and foremost, by pursuing success on the pitch and making Newcastle once again a team that people want to watch – something that now seems to be way beyond Shepherd and his cronies.

 

Aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

I just assumed you'd still think the same now. 

 

I know I take the piss out of NE5 and vice versa on things we remember each other saying in the past but you must of spent time looking through Ozzie's posts to come up with that one, which is up there with some of the saddest things I've seen on here in the past few years.

 

Well done.

 

mackems.gif

 

big brother is watching, or should be.

 

Suffice to say you don't bother me in the slightest, meanwhile as I've proved you completely incorrect in your view of ashley and this DOF bollocks, I'll leave it there rather than carry on an "argument" and ruin the thread.

 

 

 

You were trying to fight me last week, not the actions of someone who isn't bothered by me. mackems.gif

 

As for being proven wrong, you said Souness was better than Keegan, Taylor was going to be England captain, Allardyce was a foolproof appointment, Smith was the best replacement for Shearer and you wanted to get rid of Robert for James Beattie.

 

Like others have said though, it's funny how threads descend into a slagfest when you show up.

 

aye, isn't it strange that you jumped into this thread and chose to respond to me instead of the numerous others ?

 

Like I said, big brother is watching ...... bye.

 

 

 

[fredbob]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

Or did Keegan walk that time because he knew that in the short-term he'd have to sell the likes of Ferdinand & Ginola?

 

And Dalglish even said himself that it was the club that accepted the money from Bolton for Robbie Elliott, not him. If he'd stuck out that first year or so, then the money was made available for him by Shepherd. (although to be fair to Dalglish, a fair bit of his early spending was buying in fringe players to help re-set up the reserve side which Keegan got rid of).

 

Who's to say the same thing wouldn't have applied here?

 

I said a few posts ago that you wouldn't find any posts by me agreeing with the club going PLC ?

 

As far as backing the manager goes, I have said that I had reservations about it until the continued backing their managers. This has been said before, its not really my fault that people don't see it [but I'm sure I'll still get the blame] and I'll say it again, who has backed their managers more than the Halls and Shepherd at NUFC.

 

Answer = nobody else has competed at the top levels while running this club for over 50 years.

 

Lastly, why do you persist in thinking that a minority shareholder has been running the club single handed ?

 

 

Agreed and they were able to continue backing their managers because they raised finances through the public offering.

 

So not Sky money, season ticket sales and income from European football, then?

 

They were able to back managers because of the money coming into the club from ST sales, Sky, European jaunts, sponsorship, other commercial ventures and not because of money raised by going public.

 

So in the midst of all this - remind me again how was the Rt Hon. Keegan right to walk the first time? What exactly did he 'forsee' and how was his actions 'perfectly justified'?

 

Or are you just talking shit?

[OzzieMandias]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

 

Excuses for what ? What excuses are you making for Ashley ? And what excuses are you making for emailing london based journalists about the club, why don't you do it now, or do you think qualifying regularly for europe was worse than the current predicament ?

 

 

 

For Fred. It was just making me laugh the way even the slighest implied criticism of Shepherd invariably provokes loads of the same old double-talk, spin and bullshit from you.

 

The world won't end, you know, if someone expresses an adverse opinion of our former chairman and you let it pass without boring everyone to death with opinions and spin we've all heard a hundred times before.

 

 

[Baggio]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

 

At least fredbob is trying to put up some kind of argument, misguided though it may be. 

 

But as I guess you want Ashley to sell up to anyone, I'm not sure why you're sticking up for him.

 

How can you read that post as me "sticking up for Ashley"?

 

I assume you'd want new owners as aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

Why don't you stop "assuming" and deal with what people actually write?

 

Oops, my bad. I missed out the quotes. That's not my opinion, it's yours from 2 years ago when a dodgy investment group showed an interest in buying us.

 

no-one has the first clue about what the belgravia groups intentions are toward NUFC, and who, or group of people, will act as the club's executive directors if they do take control

 

 

They'll want to make money. This can only be done by, first and foremost, by pursuing success on the pitch and making Newcastle once again a team that people want to watch – something that now seems to be way beyond Shepherd and his cronies.

 

Aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

I just assumed you'd still think the same now. 

 

I know I take the piss out of NE5 and vice versa on things we remember each other saying in the past but you must of spent time looking through Ozzie's posts to come up with that one, which is up there with some of the saddest things I've seen on here in the past few years.

 

Well done.

 

mackems.gif

 

big brother is watching, or should be.

 

Suffice to say you don't bother me in the slightest, meanwhile as I've proved you completely incorrect in your view of ashley and this DOF bollocks, I'll leave it there rather than carry on an "argument" and ruin the thread.

 

 

 

You were trying to fight me last week, not the actions of someone who isn't bothered by me. mackems.gif

 

As for being proven wrong, you said Souness was better than Keegan, Taylor was going to be England captain, Allardyce was a foolproof appointment, Smith was the best replacement for Shearer and you wanted to get rid of Robert for James Beattie.

 

Like others have said though, it's funny how threads descend into a slagfest when you show up.

 

aye, isn't it strange that you jumped into this thread and chose to respond to me instead of the numerous others ?

 

Like I said, big brother is watching ...... bye.

 

 

 

 

Because you were the one that replied to one of my posts maybe?

 

Talk about paranoid.

[NE5]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

 

Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both?

and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ?

 

so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ?

 

Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst?

 

you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them.

 

 

 

You can also go back decades and find clubs who have appoitned good managers and not backed them - sound familiar?

 

How come ones accpetable yet the other isnt?

 

Also noticed how you phrased is "managers that didnt win things" - how about appointing a competenet manager.

 

Anyway i think we're digressing and i dont want to turn it into one of "those" threads.

 

 

you can indeed. Joe Harvey, Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox would without a shadow of doubt done better at Newcastle with the Halls and Shepherd running the club than the people who were doing it at the time.

 

Lee and Cox buggered off to clubs that would back him ie Everton, and Cox to Derby....then in the 3rd division but thats where he went, such was the depth of his justified anger and disappointment at his employers.

 

This is the pattern you see through the game. Good managers move to clubs that back them, and leave ones that don't. I can name you examples stretching back decades, but shouldn't really have to mate.

 

 

 

 

[fredbob]

In what ways did it help us??

 

"It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt". You'll have to ask macbeth what then happened to that money but its better to get people to give it to you for a share in the business than it is to lend if from the bank (on the whole)

 

You're the one trying to sound like the font of all knowledge and insight on Keegan yet dont even understand what actually was going on at the time. As i've had to repeat the ways in which it helped us and (implicitly) why it was better than the alternative, it shows you neither understand what happened or why it happened.

 

You've explained how it could help us, which again you didn't have to explain because I know all that. I simply offered that becoming a PLC didn't really help the club in terms of the end result and it is that in which I was knocking, and not the virtues of being a PLC. You're arguing a point I wasn't making. How about arguing against the point I was and that is becoming a PLC didn't help the club (not that it wouldn't or couldn't). You keep spinning your patronising s**** though, I'm sure it will impress someone. Oh look, Fredbob's impressed

 

 

You couldnt make this up.

 

 

 

Chez hands his arse to Fredbob...

 

 

Good one. Maybe after you've finished using yours as a mouthpieces we can get back onto something that makes sense.

 

Are you trying to say I talk s**** like

 

Is this another thing you dont understand?

 

 

Double ouch. You're a bitch Fredbob.

 

[madras]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

 

Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both?

and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ?

 

so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ?

 

Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst?

 

you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them.

 

 

 

You can also go back decades and find clubs who have appoitned good managers and not backed them - sound familiar?

 

How come ones accpetable yet the other isnt?

 

Also noticed how you phrased is "managers that didnt win things" - how about appointing a competenet manager.

 

Anyway i think we're digressing and i dont want to turn it into one of "those" threads.

 

 

you can indeed. Joe Harvey, Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox would without a shadow of doubt done better at Newcastle with the Halls and Shepherd running the club than the people who were doing it at the time.

 

Lee and Cox buggered off to clubs that would back him ie Everton, and Cox to Derby....then in the 3rd division but thats where he went, such was the depth of his justified anger and disappointment at his employers.

 

This is the pattern you see through the game. Good managers move to clubs that back them, and leave ones that don't. I can name you examples stretching back decades, but shouldn't really have to mate.

 

 

 

 

all 100% true and theres no denying it.

 

but apppointing a poor manager,you're right lots of clubs have done it,but appointing another bad one as his successor shows poor judgement,to appoint a third off the spin is crap in the extreme and you would say it was the actions of a crap board if anywhere else.

[fredbob]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

 

Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both?

and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ?

 

so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ?

 

Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst?

 

you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them.

 

 

 

You can also go back decades and find clubs who have appoitned good managers and not backed them - sound familiar?

 

How come ones accpetable yet the other isnt?

 

Also noticed how you phrased is "managers that didnt win things" - how about appointing a competenet manager.

 

Anyway i think we're digressing and i dont want to turn it into one of "those" threads.

 

 

you can indeed. Joe Harvey, Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox would without a shadow of doubt done better at Newcastle with the Halls and Shepherd running the club than the people who were doing it at the time.

 

Lee and Cox buggered off to clubs that would back him ie Everton, and Cox to Derby....then in the 3rd division but thats where he went, such was the depth of his justified anger and disappointment at his employers.

 

This is the pattern you see through the game. Good managers move to clubs that back them, and leave ones that don't. I can name you examples stretching back decades, but shouldn't really have to mate.

 

 

 

 

 

So in your mind a person is right to feel a board should leave becasue "they dont back a good manager" but are wrong to want a board to leave for backing a crap appointment(s). They seems paradoxily the same issue.

 

EDIT:  The point in question is that if you feel it was the right time for a change (like 99.9% of the people out there) then you're indirectly acknowledging that they werent doing a good job anymore.

[Parky]

Basically if the fat cunt had known about the debt he probably wouldn't have bought the club. The rest is void.

[ChezGiven]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

Or did Keegan walk that time because he knew that in the short-term he'd have to sell the likes of Ferdinand & Ginola?

 

And Dalglish even said himself that it was the club that accepted the money from Bolton for Robbie Elliott, not him. If he'd stuck out that first year or so, then the money was made available for him by Shepherd. (although to be fair to Dalglish, a fair bit of his early spending was buying in fringe players to help re-set up the reserve side which Keegan got rid of).

 

Who's to say the same thing wouldn't have applied here?

 

I said a few posts ago that you wouldn't find any posts by me agreeing with the club going PLC ?

 

As far as backing the manager goes, I have said that I had reservations about it until the continued backing their managers. This has been said before, its not really my fault that people don't see it [but I'm sure I'll still get the blame] and I'll say it again, who has backed their managers more than the Halls and Shepherd at NUFC.

 

Answer = nobody else has competed at the top levels while running this club for over 50 years.

 

Lastly, why do you persist in thinking that a minority shareholder has been running the club single handed ?

 

 

Agreed and they were able to continue backing their managers because they raised finances through the public offering.

 

So not Sky money, season ticket sales and income from European football, then?

 

They were able to back managers because of the money coming into the club from ST sales, Sky, European jaunts, sponsorship, other commercial ventures and not because of money raised by going public.

 

Off the top of my head I seem to remember the float raising around £40 million which was put into the club accounts.

 

Which helped us to keep getting into Europe etc etc and to outspend rivals that also had sky money coming in. The seaons ticket sales were dedicated to repaying the stadium loan immediately after the expansion. Therefore, to compete and spend above our rivals we needed to generate extra capital for players above and beyond the money from season tickets as that was tied to the stadium loan.

 

HTT is obviously so retarded he thinks the Halls and Shepherd pocketed the money from the floatation. 

 

 

[NE5]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

 

Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both?

and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ?

 

so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ?

 

Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst?

 

you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them.

 

 

 

You can also go back decades and find clubs who have appoitned good managers and not backed them - sound familiar?

 

How come ones accpetable yet the other isnt?

 

Also noticed how you phrased is "managers that didnt win things" - how about appointing a competenet manager.

 

Anyway i think we're digressing and i dont want to turn it into one of "those" threads.

 

 

you can indeed. Joe Harvey, Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox would without a shadow of doubt done better at Newcastle with the Halls and Shepherd running the club than the people who were doing it at the time.

 

Lee and Cox buggered off to clubs that would back him ie Everton, and Cox to Derby....then in the 3rd division but thats where he went, such was the depth of his justified anger and disappointment at his employers.

 

This is the pattern you see through the game. Good managers move to clubs that back them, and leave ones that don't. I can name you examples stretching back decades, but shouldn't really have to mate.

 

 

 

 

all 100% true and theres no denying it.

 

but apppointing a poor manager,you're right lots of clubs have done it,but appointing another bad one as his successor shows poor judgement,to appoint a third off the spin is crap in the extreme and you would say it was the actions of a crap board if anywhere else.

 

there is no doubt that Souness was a disastrous and poor choice, but Roeder had some merit - other clubs have promoted people from within - and Allardyce certainly had merit. The club had appointed - and attracted - trophy winners before, which is something they completely failed to do pre-1992.

 

Whatever the ins and outs of all this - who is going to have a guess at how long it will take for this club to match the league positions and european qualifications achieved under the Halls and Shepherd ? And THAT is the 64 dollar question, and the only one that counts that we are interested in. Its what I've pointed out for ages, which was never acknowledged by other so called long term supporters who only bleated on about how "embarrassed" the poor little dears had been.

 

 

[PRL]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

 

Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both?

and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ?

 

so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ?

 

Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst?

 

you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them.

 

 

 

You can also go back decades and find clubs who have appoitned good managers and not backed them - sound familiar?

 

How come ones accpetable yet the other isnt?

 

Also noticed how you phrased is "managers that didnt win things" - how about appointing a competenet manager.

 

Anyway i think we're digressing and i dont want to turn it into one of "those" threads.

 

 

you can indeed. Joe Harvey, Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox would without a shadow of doubt done better at Newcastle with the Halls and Shepherd running the club than the people who were doing it at the time.

 

Lee and Cox buggered off to clubs that would back him ie Everton, and Cox to Derby....then in the 3rd division but thats where he went, such was the depth of his justified anger and disappointment at his employers.

 

This is the pattern you see through the game. Good managers move to clubs that back them, and leave ones that don't. I can name you examples stretching back decades, but shouldn't really have to mate.

 

 

 

 

all 100% true and theres no denying it.

 

but apppointing a poor manager,you're right lots of clubs have done it,but appointing another bad one as his successor shows poor judgement,to appoint a third off the spin is crap in the extreme and you would say it was the actions of a crap board if anywhere else.

 

there is no doubt that Souness was a disastrous and poor choice, but Roeder had some merit - other clubs have promoted people from within - and Allardyce certainly had merit. The club had appointed - and attracted - trophy winners before, which is something they completely failed to do pre-1992.

 

Whatever the ins and outs of all this - who is going to have a guess at how long it will take for this club to match the league positions and european qualifications achieved under the Halls and Shepherd ? And THAT is the 64 dollar question, and the only one that counts that we are interested in. Its what I've pointed out for ages, which was never acknowledged by other so called long term supporters who only bleated on about how "embarrassed" the poor little dears had been.

 

 

 

64 dollar? That's not that much...

[fredbob]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

 

Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both?

and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ?

 

so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ?

 

Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst?

 

you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them.

 

 

 

You can also go back decades and find clubs who have appoitned good managers and not backed them - sound familiar?

 

How come ones accpetable yet the other isnt?

 

Also noticed how you phrased is "managers that didnt win things" - how about appointing a competenet manager.

 

Anyway i think we're digressing and i dont want to turn it into one of "those" threads.

 

 

you can indeed. Joe Harvey, Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox would without a shadow of doubt done better at Newcastle with the Halls and Shepherd running the club than the people who were doing it at the time.

 

Lee and Cox buggered off to clubs that would back him ie Everton, and Cox to Derby....then in the 3rd division but thats where he went, such was the depth of his justified anger and disappointment at his employers.

 

This is the pattern you see through the game. Good managers move to clubs that back them, and leave ones that don't. I can name you examples stretching back decades, but shouldn't really have to mate.

 

 

 

 

all 100% true and theres no denying it.

 

but apppointing a poor manager,you're right lots of clubs have done it,but appointing another bad one as his successor shows poor judgement,to appoint a third off the spin is crap in the extreme and you would say it was the actions of a crap board if anywhere else.

 

there is no doubt that Souness was a disastrous and poor choice, but Roeder had some merit - other clubs have promoted people from within - and Allardyce certainly had merit. The club had appointed - and attracted - trophy winners before, which is something they completely failed to do pre-1992.

 

Whatever the ins and outs of all this - who is going to have a guess at how long it will take for this club to match the league positions and european qualifications achieved under the Halls and Shepherd ? And THAT is the 64 dollar question, and the only one that counts that we are interested in. Its what I've pointed out for ages, which was never acknowledged by other so called long term supporters who only bleated on about how "embarrassed" the poor little dears had been.

 

 

 

Which lends itself to the question that was posed earlier in this thread, how are we supposed to match those excellent finishes and European adventures when the boards arent even given a chance to make any real impression?

 

Its the politics of this club bringing it down. How high have we set the bar and how sturdy is that bar? So far the evidence suggests that its not gonna take too much for the bar to fall.

[NE5]

 

 

64 dollar? That's not that much...

 

its the clubs transfer budget