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.

 

 

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.

 

We are talking about the tenure of the Halls and Shepherd running the club, not just the last 3 years.

 

You're just cherry picking.

[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.

 

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.

 

why were they both sacked then ?

 

BTW, Roeder was 7th. A position only achieved twice in 30 years before 1992. And not at all since Hall and Shepherd left.

 

 

[Mick]

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.

 

He's made no profit yet, how can UV be right?  Ashley would have to make £ billions profit to get a £ for £ profit that Sir John Hall walked away with.

[NE5]

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.

 

of course he's right.

 

 

[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.

 

We are talking about the tenure of the Halls and Shepherd running the club, not just the last 3 years.

 

You're just cherry picking.

no and you know i'm not. you know i think they done well till about the 2004 mark then they blew it big style with crap appointments and that in my opinion i couldn't see them returning us to the heights they themselves had helped us attain.

 

when i'm at work if i have a s*** year or two i can't defend myself by saying "aye but 10 yrs ago i was fanatstic"

[NE5]

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

 

 

you're totally wrong.

 

He's getting hung drawn and quartered for not backing him.

 

Rightly so too.

[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.

 

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.

 

why were they both sacked then ?

 

BTW, Roeder was 7th. A position only achieved twice in 30 years before 1992. And not at all since Hall and Shepherd left.

 

 

err we improved in our last full season on that of shepherd/halls last full season.

 

macfaul achieved 8th in a larger top flight.......we were still a poor team.

[madras]

oh and ne5....who did liverpool and arsenal replace those two with and were they succesful. remember we replaced souness with roeder...........

[NE5]

oh and ne5....who did liverpool and arsenal replace those two with and were they succesful. remember we replaced souness with roeder...........

 

my point is pretty straightforward, madras. The Halls and Shepherd have been the best directors in the last 5 decades - by a mile - and their successors haven't got anywhere near matching them and don't look like they ever will.

 

Despite you thinking it should all be so easy, thats one down.

 

So how long do YOU think it will take ?

 

 

[Parky]

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

 

 

 

 

I suppose the system that deliver the mighty Ramos is foolproof?

[Mick]

 

 

I suppose the system that deliver the mighty Ramos is foolproof?

 

The system did something ours hasn't done since 1969, it delivered a trophy.

[Parky]

 

 

I suppose the system that deliver the mighty Ramos is foolproof?

 

The system did something ours hasn't done since 1969, it delivered a trophy.

 

 

Ramos is still a clueless bufoon. The only thing keeping him in the job is the mahooosive payoff (8m?)

[Syrette]

 

 

I suppose the system that deliver the mighty Ramos is foolproof?

 

The system did something ours hasn't done since 1969, it delivered a trophy.

 

 

Ramos is still a clueless bufoon.

 

You're basing your opinion of his managerial skills entirely on the seven or so games played so far this season then I take it?

[Parky]

 

 

I suppose the system that deliver the mighty Ramos is foolproof?

 

The system did something ours hasn't done since 1969, it delivered a trophy.

 

 

Ramos is still a clueless bufoon.

 

You're basing your opinion of his managerial skills entirely on the seven or so games played so far this season then I take it?

 

Where you take it is not my concern.

[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.

 

why were they both sacked then ?

 

BTW, Roeder was 7th. A position only achieved twice in 30 years before 1992. And not at all since Hall and Shepherd left.

 

 

I thought you would know given how similar it is to our own current position.

 

Rioch left in an argument over player funding and Evans left because they brought Houlier in to work alongside him and it didn't work.  So that's not supporting the manager and not giving the manager full control.  Given your recent stance I'd have thought you would think both those managers were very hard done by and you would be slagging off their boards, or does that only apply to Ashley?

[Syrette]

 

 

I suppose the system that deliver the mighty Ramos is foolproof?

 

The system did something ours hasn't done since 1969, it delivered a trophy.

 

 

Ramos is still a clueless bufoon.

 

You're basing your opinion of his managerial skills entirely on the seven or so games played so far this season then I take it?

 

Where you take it is not my concern.

 

That a yes then?

 

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

The problem with Spurs is not the system. Right now, the biggest problem is that they've bought in too many players. The team doesn't know how to play together, and lost their two best players. I think they'll be just fine. It's not like Spurs haven't got good players in under their system. I just think they have changed the sqaud way way too much, and were destined for a bad start considering the insane window that just transpired for them.

[Parky]

 

 

I suppose the system that deliver the mighty Ramos is foolproof?

 

The system did something ours hasn't done since 1969, it delivered a trophy.

 

 

Ramos is still a clueless bufoon.

 

You're basing your opinion of his managerial skills entirely on the seven or so games played so far this season then I take it?

 

Where you take it is not my concern.

 

That a yes then?

 

 

No.

 

I said he'd fail in the Ramos thread as I got wind of the fact that they were going to sell their best 2 strikers from under his nose and replace them with shit. A manager who won't stand upto that or pays lip service to a system that has effectively destroyed Spurs hopes for a good season is a bufoon or has no self respect.

 

That's the difference between him and Keegan I guess.

[Parky]

The problem with Spurs is not the system. Right now, the biggest problem is that they've bought in too many players. The team doesn't know how to play together, and lost their two best players. I think they'll be just fine. It's not like Spurs haven't got good players in under their system. I just think they have changed the sqaud way way too much, and were destined for a bad start considering the insane window that just transpired for them.

 

 

Partly agree, but they've also bought a lot of iffy players who are untried in the PL for a lot of money.

[Guest Slippery Sam]

The problem with Spurs is not the system. Right now, the biggest problem is that they've bought in too many players. The team doesn't know how to play together, and lost their two best players. I think they'll be just fine. It's not like Spurs haven't got good players in under their system. I just think they have changed the sqaud way way too much, and were destined for a bad start considering the insane window that just transpired for them.

 

 

Partly agree, but they've also bought a lot of iffy players who are untried in the PL for a lot of money.

 

The problem with spurs is that they sold Robbie Keane - end of story.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Another thing is that they fouled up the whole Berbatov leaving thing...they should have just sold and gone and bought an actual replacement for Keane instead of desperately getting Campbell who has done little to date. I still think their "system:" has gotten them quality though.

[Parky]

The problem with Spurs is not the system. Right now, the biggest problem is that they've bought in too many players. The team doesn't know how to play together, and lost their two best players. I think they'll be just fine. It's not like Spurs haven't got good players in under their system. I just think they have changed the sqaud way way too much, and were destined for a bad start considering the insane window that just transpired for them.

 

 

Partly agree, but they've also bought a lot of iffy players who are untried in the PL for a lot of money.

 

The problem with spurs is that they sold Robbie Keane - end of story.

 

I agree. When we look back at this time I think people will be genuinely shocked how badly Spurs blew their position which Jol (wildly underrated) had built. The implosion at Spurs makes us look like Toy story.

[Parky]

Another thing is that they fouled up the whole Berbatov leaving thing...they should have just sold and gone and bought an actual replacement for Keane instead of desperately getting Campbell who has done little to date. I still think their "system:" has gotten them quality though.

 

Have to say that Levy is quite shrewd. But they needed to hold onto one of those two big sales for at least one transitional season. And where is their NEW DM?? A problem position for them lately.

[OzzieMandias]

 

 

I suppose the system that deliver the mighty Ramos is foolproof?

 

The system did something ours hasn't done since 1969, it delivered a trophy.

 

 

Ramos is still a clueless bufoon.

 

You're basing your opinion of his managerial skills entirely on the seven or so games played so far this season then I take it?

 

Where you take it is not my concern.

 

That a yes then?

 

 

No.

 

I said he'd fail in the Ramos thread as I got wind of the fact that they were going to sell their best 2 strikers from under his nose and replace them with shit. A manager who won't stand upto that or pays lip service to a system that has effectively destroyed Spurs hopes for a good season is a bufoon or has no self respect.

 

That's the difference between him and Keegan I guess.

 

That and winning half a dozen trophies.

[NE5]

 

 

I suppose the system that deliver the mighty Ramos is foolproof?

 

The system did something ours hasn't done since 1969, it delivered a trophy.

 

 

Ramos is still a clueless bufoon.

 

You're basing your opinion of his managerial skills entirely on the seven or so games played so far this season then I take it?

 

Where you take it is not my concern.

 

That a yes then?

 

 

No.

 

I said he'd fail in the Ramos thread as I got wind of the fact that they were going to sell their best 2 strikers from under his nose and replace them with shit. A manager who won't stand upto that or pays lip service to a system that has effectively destroyed Spurs hopes for a good season is a bufoon or has no self respect.

 

That's the difference between him and Keegan I guess.

 

That and winning half a dozen trophies.

 

and to think that I'm told I ruin threads.........

 

You said you were happy with Allardyce, when you could have told us about Ramos BTW