Keegan to launch £9m unfair dismissal claim?

[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.

 

 

 

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.

 

I understand your point, but in my view Ashley's approach ticked all the wrong boxes and just wouldn't have worked. It was running the club like a 2nd rate one. If you want to match the trophy winning clubs, they are showing you how its done, you need players that they themselves want.

 

 

[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.

 

I understand your point, but in my view Ashley's approach ticked all the wrong boxes and just wouldn't have worked. It was running the club like a 2nd rate one. If you want to match the trophy winning clubs, they are showing you how its done, you need players that they themselves want.

 

 

 

Then this is the part where we agree to disagree - i think it would of worked you dont. I also dont think we saw enough of his plans for us to pass comment on it as an 'absolute'. I saw enough evidence to suggest he was looking to compete and invest you dont. (Modric - rumoured to turning the heads of Chelsea, Barca etc) I also think that it todays current climate irrespective of the agenda behind it, he should be commended for clearing the debt, who knows how this could set us up for the future.

 

[tgarve]

typical NE5 HTT debate.  boring!

[NE5]

typical NE5 HTT debate.  boring!

 

your previous 190 posts were all rivetting.

 

 

[Guest The Libertine]

I'll leave it there rather than carry on an "argument" and ruin the thread.

 

bye.

[Parky]

typical NE5 HTT debate.  boring!

 

How's the weather in South Korea?

[Parky]

 

 

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

 

its the clubs transfer budget

 

 

[UV]

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.

 

FFS Ashley has chosen to put the club in limbo and announce to the world that he wants rid of the club at the very first sign of unrest. He has let it be known that he wants to make around £100m profit from his disastrous year in charge.

 

Just like the fact that Shepherd is no longer chairman has NOTHING to do with what supporters wanted in the past. Ashley HAS NOT been forced out by a few banners and a bit of a protest now. He either intended to sell the club on for a profit from the start, or he realised making money out of a club is not as easy as playing Football Owner on the playstation and wants to get out quick before he runs the club into the Championship and actually loses some of his money.

 

I did not buy Newcastle to make money. I bought Newcastle because I love football.

 

Just bought the club for a bit of fun?  Don't make me laugh.

 

Okay then Mike. Stop crying for a second, put your money where your mouth is, and sell up for what you've put in, ie around £200m. Let the new owners spend the £100m profit you're asking for on players for the team, and we can all love the football together.

[Syrette]

He either intended to sell the club on for a profit from the start, or he realised making money out of a club is not as easy as playing Football Owner on the playstation and wants to get out quick before he runs the club into the Championship and actually loses some of his money.

 

OK, if you say so.

[UV]

He either intended to sell the club on for a profit from the start, or he realised making money out of a club is not as easy as playing Football Owner on the playstation and wants to get out quick before he runs the club into the Championship and actually loses some of his money.

 

OK, if you say so.

 

and the alternative is?

 

Oh, he Soooo upset, he just HAS to sell the club...

 

Well he has to if he can make a massive profit that is.

 

If not he'll bravely struggle on like the hero he is, but he's so upset he just wont be able to spend any of the 3 year season ticket sales or increased TV money. Sorry about that. He can't stand with the away fans anymore! What else can he do?

 

ITS ALL OUR FAULT! LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE DONE!!!

 

 

[Parky]

He either intended to sell the club on for a profit from the start, or he realised making money out of a club is not as easy as playing Football Owner on the playstation and wants to get out quick before he runs the club into the Championship and actually loses some of his money.

 

OK, if you say so.

 

and the alternative is?

 

Oh, he Soooo upset, he just HAS to sell the club...

 

Well he has to if he can make a massive profit that is.

 

If not he'll bravely struggle on like the hero he is, but he's so upset he just wont be able to spend any of the 3 year season ticket sales or increased TV money. Sorry about that. He can't stand with the away fans anymore! What else can he do?

 

ITS ALL OUR FAULT! LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE DONE!!!

 

 

 

 

 

YOu're right btw.

 

I maintain if he'd seen the debt early enough he wouldn't have purchased the club.

 

 

[TRon]

 

 

Just bought the club for a bit of fun?  Don't make me laugh.

 

Okay then Mike. Stop crying for a second, put your money where your mouth is, and sell up for what you've put in, ie around £200m. Let the new owners spend the £100m profit you're asking for on players for the team, and we can all love the football together.

 

I could be wrong but I'm sure the actual amount is closer to £230-240m.

[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.

 

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.

 

 

roeder had some merit. did you want him appointed ?

 

as for matching the league positions under the halls/shepherds.....does that mean finishing in the top half 4 times in 10 years ? just thought i'd bring this up as you try to make it sound like we were constant top 4 and in the champs lge every season.

[fredbob]

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.

 

FFS Ashley has chosen to put the club in limbo and announce to the world that he wants rid of the club at the very first sign of unrest. He has let it be known that he wants to make around £100m profit from his disastrous year in charge.

 

Just like the fact that Shepherd is no longer chairman has NOTHING to do with what supporters wanted in the past. Ashley HAS NOT been forced out by a few banners and a bit of a protest now. He either intended to sell the club on for a profit from the start, or he realised making money out of a club is not as easy as playing Football Owner on the playstation and wants to get out quick before he runs the club into the Championship and actually loses some of his money.

 

I did not buy Newcastle to make money. I bought Newcastle because I love football.

 

Just bought the club for a bit of fun? Don't make me laugh.

 

Okay then Mike. Stop crying for a second, put your money where your mouth is, and sell up for what you've put in, ie around £200m. Let the new owners spend the £100m profit you're asking for on players for the team, and we can all love the football together.

 

We've been through this before UV - had the fans not protested would he of sold? We dont know but I'm sure ADUG would answer that question having been alledgedly told in no uncertain terms the club wasnt for sale.

 

The point i was making about politics is that the bar fell off and it didnt take much, in fact it didnt take any evidence whatsoever. No surprises you missed it.

 

Theres still no reason to make it public - he could still of done it in private.

 

Edit: the value of the club defined by the shares was £134m the value of debt was £100m. The real value of the business is therefore NOT £234m but the value someone is willing to pay for a 'debt free' business with a turnover of approximately £90m and a playing squad of £100m with a weekly customer base of 50k+.

 

 

[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.

 

 

roeder had some merit . did you want him appointed ?

 

as for matching the league positions under the halls/shepherds.....does that mean finishing in the top half 4 times in 10 years ? just thought i'd bring this up as you try to make it sound like we were constant top 4 and in the champs lge every season.

 

I can give you examples of how the other clubs that always make successful appointments have made similar if that helps ?

 

Or will you reject it because it doesn't suit your opinion ?

 

 

[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.

 

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.

 

 

roeder had some merit. did you want him appointed ?

 

as for matching the league positions under the halls/shepherds.....does that mean finishing in the top half 4 times in 10 years ? just thought i'd bring this up as you try to make it sound like we were constant top 4 and in the champs lge every season.

 

I can give you examples of how the other clubs that always make successful appointments have made similar if that helps ?

 

Or will you reject it because it doesn't suit your opinion ?

 

 

go on. 3 off the trot as bad as souness,roeder and allardyce given a starting point of 5th top and recently in the champs lge 2nd stage.

 

then i'll ask if it wasn't constant crap management by those boards and i'll also ask if those boards could complain if they got slagged off by their clubs fans ?

[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.

 

 

roeder had some merit. did you want him appointed ?

 

as for matching the league positions under the halls/shepherds.....does that mean finishing in the top half 4 times in 10 years ? just thought i'd bring this up as you try to make it sound like we were constant top 4 and in the champs lge every season.

 

I can give you examples of how the other clubs that always make successful appointments have made similar if that helps ?

 

Or will you reject it because it doesn't suit your opinion ?

 

 

go on. 3 off the trot as bad as souness,roeder and allardyce given a starting point of 5th top and recently in the champs lge 2nd stage.

 

then i'll ask if it wasn't constant crap management by those boards and i'll also ask if those boards could complain if they got slagged off by their clubs fans ?

 

Bruce Rioch, Roy Evans, Wilf McGuiness, Colin Harvey, Christian Gross.........there's one for each of the old "big 5" ie clubs at the beginning of the premiership, for starters. Without hardly thinking.

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

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.

 

 

roeder had some merit . did you want him appointed ?

 

as for matching the league positions under the halls/shepherds.....does that mean finishing in the top half 4 times in 10 years ? just thought i'd bring this up as you try to make it sound like we were constant top 4 and in the champs lge every season.

 

I can give you examples of how the other clubs that always make successful appointments have made similar if that helps ?

 

Or will you reject it because it doesn't suit your opinion ?

 

 

 

[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.

 

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.

 

 

roeder had some merit. did you want him appointed ?

 

as for matching the league positions under the halls/shepherds.....does that mean finishing in the top half 4 times in 10 years ? just thought i'd bring this up as you try to make it sound like we were constant top 4 and in the champs lge every season.

 

I can give you examples of how the other clubs that always make successful appointments have made similar if that helps ?

 

Or will you reject it because it doesn't suit your opinion ?

 

 

go on. 3 off the trot as bad as souness,roeder and allardyce given a starting point of 5th top and recently in the champs lge 2nd stage.

 

then i'll ask if it wasn't constant crap management by those boards and i'll also ask if those boards could complain if they got slagged off by their clubs fans ?

 

Bruce Rioch, Roy Evans, Wilf McGuiness, Colin Harvey, Christian Gross.........there's one for each of the old "big 5" ie clubs at the beginning of the premiership, for starters. Without hardly thinking.

 

 

but they weren't off the trot at the same club were they. as i've already said,probably every club has made a bad appointment,some may have made 2,but whenn it;s 3 is has to be crap management at boardroom level

 

(in fact reply no 399 at the bottom of page 16)

[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.

 

 

roeder had some merit. did you want him appointed ?

 

as for matching the league positions under the halls/shepherds.....does that mean finishing in the top half 4 times in 10 years ? just thought i'd bring this up as you try to make it sound like we were constant top 4 and in the champs lge every season.

 

I can give you examples of how the other clubs that always make successful appointments have made similar if that helps ?

 

Or will you reject it because it doesn't suit your opinion ?

 

 

go on. 3 off the trot as bad as souness,roeder and allardyce given a starting point of 5th top and recently in the champs lge 2nd stage.

 

then i'll ask if it wasn't constant crap management by those boards and i'll also ask if those boards could complain if they got slagged off by their clubs fans ?

 

Bruce Rioch, Roy Evans, Wilf McGuiness, Colin Harvey, Christian Gross.........there's one for each of the old "big 5" ie clubs at the beginning of the premiership, for starters. Without hardly thinking.

 

 

but they weren't off the trot at the same club were they. as i've already said,probably every club has made a bad appointment,some may have made 2,but whenn it;s 3 is has to be crap management at boardroom level

 

(in fact reply no 399 at the bottom of page 16)

 

well...eer........Everton and Spurs were most definitely above us in 1991 pre Hall and Shepherd ?  I don't see them doing too much since, they haven't qualified for europe and played in it anywhere near us.

 

 

[TRon]

Souness and Roeder were abysmal decisions. If Ashley had made those appointments he'd have been hung drawn and quartered. Ironically his only proper appointment so far was the fans choice. Now he's being hung drawn and quartered for making that choice

 

 

[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.

 

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.

 

 

roeder had some merit. did you want him appointed ?

 

as for matching the league positions under the halls/shepherds.....does that mean finishing in the top half 4 times in 10 years ? just thought i'd bring this up as you try to make it sound like we were constant top 4 and in the champs lge every season.

 

I can give you examples of how the other clubs that always make successful appointments have made similar if that helps ?

 

Or will you reject it because it doesn't suit your opinion ?

 

 

go on. 3 off the trot as bad as souness,roeder and allardyce given a starting point of 5th top and recently in the champs lge 2nd stage.

 

then i'll ask if it wasn't constant crap management by those boards and i'll also ask if those boards could complain if they got slagged off by their clubs fans ?

 

Bruce Rioch, Roy Evans, Wilf McGuiness, Colin Harvey, Christian Gross.........there's one for each of the old "big 5" ie clubs at the beginning of the premiership, for starters. Without hardly thinking.

 

 

but they weren't off the trot at the same club were they. as i've already said,probably every club has made a bad appointment,some may have made 2,but whenn it;s 3 is has to be crap management at boardroom level

 

(in fact reply no 399 at the bottom of page 16)

 

well...eer........Everton and Spurs were most definitely above us in 1991 pre Hall and Shepherd ?  I don't see them doing too much since, they haven't qualified for europe and played in it anywhere near us.

 

 

i would certainly say that both those clubs have out performed us since 2004 infact i think spurs have finished above us each season and everton in all bar one.

[fredbob]

Id also add that they didnt make those bad appointments off the back of consistent CL qualifications and a 5th place finish.

 

I cant imagine the thought process involved in deciding that Souness would be a suitable replacement for SBR. One that would equal his achivements at the club if not improve on them.

 

To even consider putting SBR and Souness on the same level makes my blood run cold.

[Guest Edd]

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.

 

 

roeder had some merit. did you want him appointed ?

 

as for matching the league positions under the halls/shepherds.....does that mean finishing in the top half 4 times in 10 years ? just thought i'd bring this up as you try to make it sound like we were constant top 4 and in the champs lge every season.

 

I can give you examples of how the other clubs that always make successful appointments have made similar if that helps ?

 

Or will you reject it because it doesn't suit your opinion ?

 

 

go on. 3 off the trot as bad as souness,roeder and allardyce given a starting point of 5th top and recently in the champs lge 2nd stage.

 

then i'll ask if it wasn't constant crap management by those boards and i'll also ask if those boards could complain if they got slagged off by their clubs fans ?

 

Bruce Rioch, Roy Evans, Wilf McGuiness, Colin Harvey, Christian Gross.........there's one for each of the old "big 5" ie clubs at the beginning of the premiership, for starters. Without hardly thinking.

 

IIRC Rioch was only at Arsenal for a year and left them in a much better position than he found them.  And Roy Evans was hardly a failure.  Taking over from the shambles Souness left, he had four top-4 finishes in the years he was there in sole charge when the team hadn't been anywhere near that high for 3 years.

[afar]

UV is spot on, it just seems all too convenient for Ashley, he's got a lot of people feeling sorry for him right now, does he deserve that sympathy, I'm not so sure.

 

Making a huge profit on this venture in the economic climate we are currently in, just doesn't seem quite right to me.