Dr Venkman Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think had Freddy Shepherd remained chairman, Big Sam would have been more successful and eventually the club would have turned around at least on the pitch anyway (during the course of Big Sam's contract). I think I agree with that and I think he will do a good job at Blackburn, for them, like Bolton. You were pleased when we appointed him too. Do you think we should have kept him? mandiarse is your man (or girl). debate really doesnt get any better than this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think had Freddy Shepherd remained chairman, Big Sam would have been more successful and eventually the club would have turned around at least on the pitch anyway (during the course of Big Sam's contract). he would of always had failed with that type of football at any decent sized club With the popularity contest aye, which we all know counts for a lot here, certainly more than most places, but I think people would have put up with that and to be honest I even think the atmosphere would have been a bit different than it was in his first 24 games as I feel having a new billionaire owner helped to raise people's expectations. Big Sam was literally the last chance saloon for Shepherd and many fans at the time of his appointment were willing to buy into what FS was trying to sell us in the shape of Big Sam and his ideas knowing he was experienced at working with smaller budgets which under FS was coming due to the poor financial state of the club. We'll never really know of course but at the time he was the perfect man for us and the club was the perfect club for him. By appointing such a manager FS without actually saying as such basically admitted we needed to put an end to the wild transfer ways, high wages and any behind the scenes meddling by board directors. Big Sam when questioned about that did say he had carte blanch to run the whole show, something Roeder never quite had and Sir Bobby towards the end either. To me the whole set-up seemed like an acceptance of our situation on and off the field and an attempt to reverse the club's ailing fortunes, both financially and football wise. I didn't like FS by that time much less trust him but I backed his appointment and believed it could work and I stand by that belief long after Big Sam left who despite those 24 games, hadn't failed spectacularly like has been painted, although he never achieved anything either but then who does in 24 games... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think had Freddy Shepherd remained chairman, Big Sam would have been more successful and eventually the club would have turned around at least on the pitch anyway (during the course of Big Sam's contract). he would of always had failed with that type of football at any decent sized club By appointing such a manager FS without actually saying as such basically admitted we needed to put an end to the wild transfer ways, high wages and any behind the scenes meddling by board directors. which is why we brought in smith barton, viduka and geremi on massive wages? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yes, I was pleased when we appointed Allardyce. Allardyce was getting it wrong, so you have to make a decision, and I agreed with the need to make the change or we could have gone down, pretty much like now in fact, pretty strange how despite changing ownership from the old s**** board that anyone would do better than, we are now in the biggest danger we have ever been of returning to where the Halls and Shepherd found us, 2 managers later. If you want hindsight based comments, mandiarse is your man (or girl). Your point is ? You also said that the chairman at Bolton was a good chairman for appointing allardyce, and better than fat fred too, didn't you ? You really need to grow up. its well deserved. Let him argue his own case, starting with being honest about his judgement of our managerial appointments at the time they were made. In fact, logical thinking based on results and not personalities isn't your strong point either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think had Freddy Shepherd remained chairman, Big Sam would have been more successful and eventually the club would have turned around at least on the pitch anyway (during the course of Big Sam's contract). he would of always had failed with that type of football at any decent sized club By appointing such a manager FS without actually saying as such basically admitted we needed to put an end to the wild transfer ways, high wages and any behind the scenes meddling by board directors. which is why we brought in smith barton, viduka and geremi on massive wages? Smith, Barton and Geremi came after FS didn't they? Viduka on big wages is natural as he was a free transfer. Not that Big Sam would have had anything to do with the wages anyway, that's down to agents, chairmen and accountants. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think had Freddy Shepherd remained chairman, Big Sam would have been more successful and eventually the club would have turned around at least on the pitch anyway (during the course of Big Sam's contract). he would of always had failed with that type of football at any decent sized club By appointing such a manager FS without actually saying as such basically admitted we needed to put an end to the wild transfer ways, high wages and any behind the scenes meddling by board directors. which is why we brought in smith barton, viduka and geremi on massive wages? Smith, Barton and Geremi came after FS didn't they? Viduka on big wages is natural as he was a free transfer. Not that Big Sam would have anything to do with the wages anyway, that's down to agents, chairmen and accountants. i was getting at the point that you seemed to suggest that with allardyce came a drop in wages we paid to players. are you suggesting that if shepherd had been there we would have brought in WORSE players than those four? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think had Freddy Shepherd remained chairman, Big Sam would have been more successful and eventually the club would have turned around at least on the pitch anyway (during the course of Big Sam's contract). he would of always had failed with that type of football at any decent sized club By appointing such a manager FS without actually saying as such basically admitted we needed to put an end to the wild transfer ways, high wages and any behind the scenes meddling by board directors. which is why we brought in smith barton, viduka and geremi on massive wages? Smith, Barton and Geremi came after FS didn't they? Viduka on big wages is natural as he was a free transfer. Not that Big Sam would have anything to do with the wages anyway, that's down to agents, chairmen and accountants. i was getting at the point that you seemed to suggest that with allardyce came a drop in wages we paid to players. are you suggesting that if shepherd had been there we would have brought in WORSE players than those four? No, that's you using some flawed logic of yours. I don't know who would have arrived, maybe the very same players we did end up buying on the very same wages, or maybe not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 With the popularity contest aye, which we all know counts for a lot here, certainly more than most places, but I think people would have put up with that and to be honest I even think the atmosphere would have been a bit different than it was in his first 24 games as I feel having a new billionaire owner helped to raise people's expectations. Big Sam was literally the last chance saloon for Shepherd and many fans at the time of his appointment were willing to buy into what FS was trying to sell us in the shape of Big Sam and his ideas knowing he was experienced at working with smaller budgets which under FS was coming due to the poor financial state of the club. We'll never really know of course but at the time he was the perfect man for us and the club was the perfect club for him. By appointing such a manager FS without actually saying as such basically admitted we needed to put an end to the wild transfer ways, high wages and any behind the scenes meddling by board directors. Big Sam when questioned about that did say he had carte blanch to run the whole show, something Roeder never quite had and Sir Bobby towards the end either. To me the whole set-up seemed like an acceptance of our situation on and off the field and an attempt to reverse the club's ailing fortunes, both financially and football wise. I didn't like FS by that time much less trust him but I backed his appointment and believed it could work and I stand by that belief long after Big Sam left who despite those 24 games, hadn't failed spectacularly like has been painted, although he never achieved anything either but then who does in 24 games... I agree with most of that, I thought that he was about as good as we could get at the time. It's a pity that he turned out to be shit, Derby away is his epitaph. The man was a very poor manager while here and he only has himself to blame for that, he was way out of his depth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 The man was a very poor manager while here and he only has himself to blame for that, he was way out of his depth. He was I agree but even still I still think after a season he'd have begun to make his mark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 He was I agree but even still I still think after a season he'd have begun to make his mark. I'm not sure that he could adapt. He was arrogant which is not always a bad thing but for him while here it was his biggest flaw as he was unable to change when things were clearly not working. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 With the popularity contest aye, which we all know counts for a lot here, certainly more than most places, but I think people would have put up with that and to be honest I even think the atmosphere would have been a bit different than it was in his first 24 games as I feel having a new billionaire owner helped to raise people's expectations. Big Sam was literally the last chance saloon for Shepherd and many fans at the time of his appointment were willing to buy into what FS was trying to sell us in the shape of Big Sam and his ideas knowing he was experienced at working with smaller budgets which under FS was coming due to the poor financial state of the club. We'll never really know of course but at the time he was the perfect man for us and the club was the perfect club for him. By appointing such a manager FS without actually saying as such basically admitted we needed to put an end to the wild transfer ways, high wages and any behind the scenes meddling by board directors. Big Sam when questioned about that did say he had carte blanch to run the whole show, something Roeder never quite had and Sir Bobby towards the end either. To me the whole set-up seemed like an acceptance of our situation on and off the field and an attempt to reverse the club's ailing fortunes, both financially and football wise. I didn't like FS by that time much less trust him but I backed his appointment and believed it could work and I stand by that belief long after Big Sam left who despite those 24 games, hadn't failed spectacularly like has been painted, although he never achieved anything either but then who does in 24 games... I agree with most of that, I thought that he was about as good as we could get at the time. It's a pity that he turned out to be shit, Derby away is his epitaph. The man was a very poor manager while here and he only has himself to blame for that, he was way out of his depth. i'm going to give you some credit and show that I agree with you for a change here.......he was indeed a poor manager while he was here, but I don't know what you mean by it being his own fault. He complained - at the time - about the level of support inside the club. Its OK saying he should have had more time, maybe he should, but personally I'm going to say that because he was losing the plot and the fans, Ashley made the decision that had to be made for better or worse because there is no way of knowing how it is going to work out. Especially when his replacement was appointed. Mike Ashley showed through his treatment of Keegan, or maybe it was his flawed knowledge of football, that he was the wrong man for us or any club of our size by not understanding how to be successful, and not looking like he was prepared to learn, or allow his own appointment to show him the ropes and trust him. What could have been the making of this club, and getting us back up where Keegan mark 1 and Bobby Robson put us, and doing brilliantly by enticing Keegan back by whatever it took to do it, is lost. He loses, we lose, Keegan loses, the players lose, everybody. And that is all MIKE ASHLEY'S fault , compounded by the fact that it would appear he undoubtedly had a chance to think again and didn't take it. After all the demonstrations, and the turning against him, his stance is now obvious. He isn't going to change, and for that reason, he's got no complaints and it remains his own fault. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think had Freddy Shepherd remained chairman, Big Sam would have been more successful and eventually the club would have turned around at least on the pitch anyway (during the course of Big Sam's contract). he would of always had failed with that type of football at any decent sized club By appointing such a manager FS without actually saying as such basically admitted we needed to put an end to the wild transfer ways, high wages and any behind the scenes meddling by board directors. which is why we brought in smith barton, viduka and geremi on massive wages? Smith, Barton and Geremi came after FS didn't they? Viduka on big wages is natural as he was a free transfer. Not that Big Sam would have anything to do with the wages anyway, that's down to agents, chairmen and accountants. i was getting at the point that you seemed to suggest that with allardyce came a drop in wages we paid to players. are you suggesting that if shepherd had been there we would have brought in WORSE players than those four? No, that's you using some flawed logic of yours. I don't know who would have arrived, maybe the very same players we did end up buying on the very same wages, or maybe not. 'By appointing such a manager FS without actually saying as such basically admitted we needed to put an end to the wild transfer ways, high wages' if you're going to get your handbag out and call my logic flawed then please explain what exactly i was supposed to take from that, if it isnt that Allardyce would sign players on lower wages than we were used to? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 but you backed Souness spending spree, and his sales, on this very message board and said it would succeed Ozzie is a right bastard for supporting the appointment of Souness, the bloke who appointed him is great. And anyway I didn't support the appointment of Souness. That must make Shepherd a cunt. well, your support of Souness was well documented, unfortunately on the old server, if it isn't true that you supported him right to the end, why not confirm that from the moment he kicked out Bellamy he was getting it wrong, as was the case. Anyway, I found this. http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,38118.msg765469.html#msg765469 And remember when UV and myself were asked to provide proof of anyone wanting "anyone but fred", which you denied, and UV found your comment "nothing to fear from a change at the top". Didn't you also comment lately on how sad you found the lads who walked around inside the ground with the banner ? http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31195.msg582620.html#msg582620 http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31195.msg591099.html#msg591099 Can't find a single thing in there about me "supporting the appointment of Souness". So here's yet another chance for you to admit you were talking out of your arse (the only available orifice when someone has his head as deep in the sand as you do), and say sorry for making up stories. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 but you backed Souness spending spree, and his sales, on this very message board and said it would succeed Ozzie is a right bastard for supporting the appointment of Souness, the bloke who appointed him is great. And anyway I didn't support the appointment of Souness. That must make Shepherd a cunt. well, your support of Souness was well documented, unfortunately on the old server, if it isn't true that you supported him right to the end, why not confirm that from the moment he kicked out Bellamy he was getting it wrong, as was the case. Anyway, I found this. http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,38118.msg765469.html#msg765469 And remember when UV and myself were asked to provide proof of anyone wanting "anyone but fred", which you denied, and UV found your comment "nothing to fear from a change at the top". Didn't you also comment lately on how sad you found the lads who walked around inside the ground with the banner ? http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31195.msg582620.html#msg582620 http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31195.msg591099.html#msg591099 Can't find a single thing in there about me "supporting the appointment of Souness". So here's yet another chance for you to admit you were talking out of your arse (the only available orifice when someone has his head as deep in the sand as you do), and say sorry for making up stories. But do you still think we are better off with Mike Ashley, or do you also still think Belgravia would also have done better than Fred ? What is your opinion on fans carrying banners of protest in stadiums ? What is your view of Sam Allardyce and your opinion that the old board made a good choice of manager when they appointed him ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 He's on BBC1 now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.S.R. Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Shepherd on the tv now, talking about how you have to be a madman or glutton for punishment to want to be chairman of NUFC - from his luxury Caribbean hideaway. What a martyr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Freddy looks OOOOOLLLLLLDDDDD. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Freddy looks OOOOOLLLLLLDDDDD. Lost a bit of weight too by the looks of things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Mike Ashley Vs Freddie Shepherd...i think i'd rather have the old fat bastard back tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 He's just said when he left we had made a profit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Owen looked much younger when we signed him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Laying into Babayaro. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Just slated Babayaro. Which is fair enough really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Is that where we went looking for somewhere to have a kick about Wullie? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Babayaro was an utter cunt. It took family members dropping dead for him to turn in for a game. Prick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now