Llambias Q&A with Chronicle: OP updated with Thursday's articles

[Kitman]

I agree with most of Indi's long post.  Most people would I suspect settle for stability and steady improvement......the problem is we've had neither and have largely looked like relegation fodder since Keegan left.  I'm very disappointed with the transfer window (in terms of quantity of signings and the way we went about it) and I'm not surprised a lot of people don't trust them to fix things in the summer as a result.

 

The next manager appointment will be the most important since Sir Bobby's imo.  I'm still incredulous that they offered Kinnear another two years.  The manager situation is for me their biggest failing.  Fix that and we take a massive step forward;  bungle it and we're shafted, as there's no room for error anymore.

 

I really hope they're looking hard, and not waiting to see if Joe's coming back.  The cynic in me says the latter's most likely.

 

If they are decent human beings then they'll wait for Kinnear, if they are any good in business then they'll ditch him.

 

I know what you mean Mick but the position's changed - assuming that when they made the contract offer they weren't expecting him to have a triple bypass operation.

 

Joe was originally brought in as a stopgap, and thanks to him for that, but he's now had major open heart surgery and he's 62 years old.  Managing a premiership team must be one of the more stressful jobs going, especially on matchday with 50,000 fans at your back. 

 

Of course I know nothing about heart conditions but this seems to be a really serious warning shot.  He should be looking after his health and we shouldn't allow him the risk of  damaging it further.

 

To me it's not just good business, it's about looking after your employees and it should be taken out of Joe's hands imo.  Added to which I think he should be replaced in the summer anyway.

[Mick]

 

I know what you mean Mick but the position's changed - assuming that when they made the contract offer they weren't expecting him to have a triple bypass operation.

 

Joe was originally brought in as a stopgap, and thanks to him for that, but he's now had major open heart surgery and he's 62 years old.  Managing a premiership team must be one of the more stressful jobs going, especially on matchday with 50,000 fans at your back. 

 

Of course I know nothing about heart conditions but this seems to be a really serious warning shot.  He should be looking after his health and we shouldn't allow him the risk of  damaging it further.

 

To me it's not just good business, it's about looking after your employees and it should be taken out of Joe's hands imo.  Added to which I think he should be replaced in the summer anyway.

 

I would think he'll be advised to avoid stress so that would have to put a massive question mark on his career but the operation doesn't have to prevent him from managing again.

 

I would think that his future career as far as his health goes depends on what happened on the day he went into hospital.  If he's had another heart attack then he should be finished.  If it was simply chest pains brought on by Angina then he'll be better in two months time than he was two months ago as he should no longer suffer from Angina as the blockages have been removed.  This operation seemed to take 10 to 15 years off my dad’s age as he couldn’t climb a set of stairs.  After the operation he could walk for hours and still does at least 10 years later.

 

Kinnear will probably go home this weekend and that will be a tough time for him as he'll be away from the comfort of the medical staff on hand and the reassurance that they will bring, simply by being close at hand.  Every pain in his chest will have him thinking he's in trouble and he will have pain as he carries on healing.

 

He could take the decision himself next week when he gets home and has time to talk to his family, I'd rather it was down to him and I hope he throws the towel in.

 

[Kitman]

 

I know what you mean Mick but the position's changed - assuming that when they made the contract offer they weren't expecting him to have a triple bypass operation.

 

Joe was originally brought in as a stopgap, and thanks to him for that, but he's now had major open heart surgery and he's 62 years old.  Managing a premiership team must be one of the more stressful jobs going, especially on matchday with 50,000 fans at your back. 

 

Of course I know nothing about heart conditions but this seems to be a really serious warning shot.  He should be looking after his health and we shouldn't allow him the risk of  damaging it further.

 

To me it's not just good business, it's about looking after your employees and it should be taken out of Joe's hands imo.  Added to which I think he should be replaced in the summer anyway.

 

I would think he'll be advised to avoid stress so that would have to put a massive question mark on his career but the operation doesn't have to prevent him from managing again.

 

I would think that his future career as far as his health goes depends on what happened on the day he went into hospital.  If he's had another heart attack then he should be finished.  If it was simply chest pains brought on by Angina then he'll be better in two months time than he was two months ago as he should no longer suffer from Angina as the blockages have been removed.  This operation seemed to take 10 to 15 years off my dads age as he couldnt climb a set of stairs.  After the operation he could walk for hours and still does at least 10 years later.

 

Kinnear will probably go home this weekend and that will be a tough time for him as he'll be away from the comfort of the medical staff on hand and the reassurance that they will bring, simply by being close at hand.  Every pain in his chest will have him thinking he's in trouble and he will have pain as he carries on healing.

 

He could take the decision himself next week when he gets home and has time to talk to his family, I'd rather it was down to him and I hope he throws the towel in.

 

 

Thanks, that's really interesting.  I hope it sorts out his heart problems for good and I agree re the towel throwing in too.

[NE5]

Get back in your own thread NE5.

 

nowt to say then ?

 

 

Just joking man, I'm pretty bored, we all know spending money improves your chances of doing well, but it's not a given, you need the right manager, the right scouts and the right amount of money but you can do well without spending massive amount if you have the right manager e.g. Moyes and Everton.

 

on the other hand, if you are lucky enough to get a decent manager, and it IS a lottery, and don't back him, he'll be off. Like Moyes, unless Everton are taken over or it all suddenly goes tits up for him.

 

When you say "do well", how well do YOU want to do ?

 

 

 

It's a lottery getting a good manager?

 

No it's a skill, not an easy one but it is definately a skill.

 

is it now ?

 

We'll see how easily Arsenal replace Wenger and ManU replace Ferguson.

 

Or Everton replace Moyes ..........

 

 

 

Even a "good manager" isn't necessarily the "right manager", which I suppose adds credence to NE5's "lottery" theory.

 

Bit simplistic on the whole though, as usual.

 

you mean "realistic", as usual. Which also, as usual, too many people fail to grasp.

 

 

were you happy with the kinnear appointment ?

 

hey getting a good manager is a lottery right,surely theres as much chance getting a s*** one to turn out good results as there is a good one turning out bad to your thinking or maybe you are piffling again in anattempt to detect any criticism from the your beloved fred ?

 

(conversly it must work with players aswell...shevchenko,veron,woodgate at real,keane at liverpool......good players who didn't do it so surely it means it's pointless spending big as these players prove it works)

 

 

i'll stop you in your tracks........."back your manager"............what with ? where was the money going to come from......at this point you mention the debt of others and as always i mention the debt of the top 4 is different to ours as they are making money aside from those with sugar daddies where as we have consistently made losses (not a good scenario when begging to the banks with few assets left to hock). look at the other clubs who,like us have lived beyond their means,they are all cutting right back and ask yourself what liverpools or arsenals spending would be like if they missed out on the champs league for 3 or 4 years ?

 

often on here you have alluded to others having thir heads in the sand but it is clear the one one doing an ostrich is yourself in relation to the position fred left us in.

 

silly.

 

Especially when there are still people hell bent on defending Ashley to the bitter end, and I mean bitter end = relegation and with little chance of coming back.

 

Pleased for you that you still appear to write off all those european qualifications and champions league appearances and the manner in which they were achieved.

 

Still, nobody is "embarrassing us" any more, right ?

 

 

BORING !

 

we've covered the euro qualifications to death as that has little to do with the position we were in spring 2007.

 

defending ashley to the bitter end......like you defending fred ?

 

i never mentioned being embarassed by fred's utterences.

 

 

nice to see you keep your head in the sand re our position when fred left.

 

you mentioned Shepherd, not me, with a silly childish comment.

 

Yep, I will "defend" anybody who gave me the only 15 years out of 45 that tried to compete at the levels this club should always compete at, and thus gave me the best most consistent and highest league positions as a result.  As I've said before. 

 

 

 

Then you should be happy that your season ticket money is going towards paying the bills he racked up in the process.

 

The alternative is of course, only supporting the club when they are winning, as you did when the Halls and Shepherd took over [if you even did that]

 

 

Was that the Hall/Shepherd era where we were nearly relegated from the 1st division? Or the Hall/Shepherd era where we were finishing 13th in the league despite the big spending?

 

nah, the Hall/Shepherd who took over a club days from bankruptcy, getting 15000 gates and couldn't be sold for 1.25m quid, that became a club filling a 52000 all seater stadium, playing in the champions league, qualifying for europe more than anybody but 4 clubs, and was valued at anything between 100m and 200m quid.

 

I am sorry you feel the need to scorn the big spending that did all of that, what a shame you would have preferred solvency and 2nd division obscurity instead of beating Barcelona and playing in the San Siro.

 

 

 

You really are one blinkered old man aren't you. Who said I didn't appreciate the wonderful football we have experienced, but you paint the Hall/Shepherd days with such rose-tinted spectacles. You fail to see what it has cost this club to get these things. You know I wouldn't prefer to be in the 2nd division, but a happy medium of the club not being whored out to pay for the fabulous football we saw would have been nice, do you not think? As for the £100-£200 million quid. Are you happy that Sir John Hall and Fred Shepherd pocketed over £180 million between them when this club was sold, especially since Sir John Hall stood on the steps of St James when he first bought the club and stated he wasn't in it for the money! YEAH RIGHT!

 

oh dear. Resorting to insults. How old are you ? I'm not old you daft bugger, and I'm in good health too. If you don't want to listen to others who have seen things [without meaning to sound patronising] then you really do have a serious problem, and are talking like a naive teenager.

 

I don't believe you saw the mediocrity of the 1970's and 1980's if you think the souness, Roeder and Allardyce league positions were mediocre league positions.

 

Sorry like, but I don't. I believed you at first but your own comments have gave me the impression I now have.

 

I have no idea what makes you think I am happy with money going out of the club. All I have said is that the Halls and Shepherd are by far the best owners we have had in 50 years, in fact, the ONLY good owners in that time. To that extent, they deserved something, for the job they did and the initial risks they took, taking over the club in the state it was in.

 

And don't compare the state of the club in 1991 to now, because believe me, it was miles apart.

 

 

 

but we're in the same league position now as we were when shepherd left, so its not the league positions you care about? but how much money we spend? seems weird.

 

I don't ever remember us being in such a relegation scrap under Shepherd's tenure though.

 

point taken, but remember we're always only one or two results away from being out of it (just as much as the opposite is true i understand). but to criticise ashley on current league position while stating that the souness roeder allardyce finishes were not mediocre is hypocritical, whereas to criticise ashley on financial grounds is at best naive and at worst a blatant agenda.

 

I really don't know how many times this has to be said. A board that backs their manager and shows ambition will always be better than one who choose not to.

 

 

i agree, however i feel thats over simplifying the issue somewhat, dont you? in light of the clubs current financial status?

 

You mean seeing 2 of our best players, one of whom has been a fabric of the club and couldn't wait to get away, and our captain to follow soon, is over-simplifying ? I don't think so. In fact, its frightening.

 

 

 

no thats not what i mean because thats not what i said. i dont really think thats relevant to backing the manager? as it opens a whole load of other issues regarding whether jfk wanted given and n'zogbia to stay, what the club did to keep them etc, so lets not side track. i agree with you that boards should back their managers financially, but given the clubs finances at present, how should the board be providing more than they currently are?

 

I'm not sure either, but maybe Shay Given could shed some light on it ? As well as Keegan and Owen ? Don't you find their actions tell you something ?

 

 

i reckon they'd tell you they left cos the club aint going to be challenging anytime soon (and i would say it it was down to the financial mess we are in)

 

you would say we should have kept on borrowing to keep these players ,cross your fingers and hope we find success before the banks say "no" or "err can we have our money back please"

 

I understand what you and the others are saying. You wish we hadnt' played in the Champions League rather than aim for a relegation and solvency, and you think every club except us is successful, always appoint the right man, and make profits at the same time

 

 

oh we know that trick,the one where you try to make out someone said something they didn't.

 

 

what i am saying (and you well know it) is that after dropping out the champs league you can gamble a bit to get back in,but if you fail and you keep on gambling and failing.....you end up like all other gamblers who fail.

 

still awaiting your answer by the way of where the money would come from year on year when making losses year on year and do you understand that you can't keep borrowing for ever.

 

Simple difference is, I don't believe Ashley has a clue about football, or how to succeed, nor the desire to do what it takes even if this belief is incorrect. Whereas I have no doubt whatsoever that the Halls and Shepherd would have re-grouped and had another go, and probably had some success too.

 

 

do you feel you can draw a fair comparison at this point? given that ashley has only had the club for a small fraction of time compared to the last lot? the challenges he faces are different to the ones they faced when taking over, wouldnt you say?

 

Aye, Ashley is in a far better position.

 

In some ways and in other ways not.

 

The club is in far superior position now than it was in the early 90's.

 

It's true that there are loads of things that are better about the club and the situation it finds itself in now than in the early 90s:

 

Bigger, better SJP; better league position; better squad; higher profile; larger crowds; more TV money; more revenue full-stop; improved training facilities; and so-on.

 

However there are a number of things about the club and the current situation that are worse:

 

Bigger debt; higher supporter expectations (therefore increased demand for success, less patience, etc); huge wage bill; players are much more powerful when it comes to contracts, etc meaning it is harder to get rid of players you don't want and bring in players you do; hugely inflated transfer fees and player wages; bigger, stronger opposition, some with money's-no-object budgets; much less room for improvement, especially relative improvement compared to other Premiership clubs; the global "Credit Crunch"; a somewhat tarnished reputation; less obvious ways of improving things, and so-on.

 

So, I don't think it's true that Ashley's in a far better position, some things are better, others are worse, which is easier or more difficult is hard to judge, the problems are different, but there are still problems.

 

not a single thing is worse than in 1991. Nothing.

 

 

 

Would you like offer some evidence or arguments to refute the points I made then? Because without that your statement has no validity.

 

you've listed all the improvements yourself !

 

What else is there ?

 

You can't call expectations and the other things you have listed as "worse" when they are all by-products of the huge improvements and comparative success ?

 

The only thing I would pick out is "tarnished repuation", but to be honest, even that is nowhere near the appalling standing the club had in 1991.

 

 

 

I asked you about the problems not the improvements, so will you address the ones I've highlighted below, please:

 

However there are a number of things about the club and the current situation that are worse:

 

Bigger debt; higher supporter expectations (therefore increased demand for success, less patience, etc); huge wage bill; players are much more powerful when it comes to contracts, etc meaning it is harder to get rid of players you don't want and bring in players you do; hugely inflated transfer fees and player wages; bigger, stronger opposition, some with money's-no-object budgets; much less room for improvement, especially relative improvement compared to other Premiership clubs; the global "Credit Crunch"; a somewhat tarnished reputation; less obvious ways of improving things, and so-on.

 

I don't get you, as I said, most of them are by products of being more successul.

 

Players being more powerful is a football problem, including transfer fees and wages. Do you think differently ?

 

 

 

But as a football club, football's problems are our problems, are they not?

 

When the Halls and Shepherd took over they had to deal with the external conditions also. Ashley did not take over a perfect club in a perfect market, did he. Therefore there were problems and issues that needed (and still need) to be dealt with, something you seem to be denying. As I said, the problems may not be the same, but there are still problems. To deny that is to deny the obvious and it only takes away from the valid points of your argument.

 

I'm not denying anything. I can't see how you think we or anybody can address bigger issue football wide problems, unless you are advocating a maverick approach, and who is going to do that and run the risk of abject failure, because you must realise that if the big clubs adopt a hard line approach to wages, contracts, etc, the player will just go somewhere else.

 

To slightly move this debate further, I don't know if it is possible to do anything about this, but in the UK at least, nothing would happen without the PFA urging its big hitters to exercise restraint - what I have in mind here is a wage cap of sorts where they would agree to donate money into a pool to look after football[ers] and therefore clubs further down the ladders ?

 

Can't see it happening personally though.

 

 

 

BUMP

 

I answered him. Again

 

 

Does he agree or not, and why

 

You're right that we as an individual club cannot change the market conditions, but we do need to come up with a strategy to survive, if not thrive, within them, we cannot ignore them as we have tried to in the past, it won't work and we'll end up in serious financial trouble, we are pretty close to that at the moment in my view. I think that given where we find ourselves at present, both financially and in terms of the squad of players we have at the club, we need to have realistic expectations of where we go from here and how long that's going to take.

 

I don't know if you agree, but I do not think that it is possible for us to make the jump from here to be challenging for honours, in one go, instead it will take a number of steps. You're right that the previous board were ambitious and they did manage to take us to the verge of being a successful club on a couple of occasions. However, a number of mistakes were made and a number of misfortunes befell the club and the combination of those set us back. Attempts were made to address this, but for various reasons those attempts failed to have a lasting effect and therefore we suffered the costs - particularly financially, but also in other ways - of those attempts, but did not reap the benefits. This went on for a number of years and sometimes we made a little progress and sometimes we didn't, but the net result was that we fell behind the group of clubs that are regularly challenging for honours.

 

At some point between the present day and Robson's time the distance between us and the "big four" (for want of a better expression) became too large for us to address in one go. However our approach to trying to solve this did not change and we continued trying to do it by buying a couple of very expensive big-name players every once in a while, whilst neglecting a number of less glamorous areas that needed addressing. You can't win things and be consistently successful by adding one or two "mega-stars" to a dog-shit squad and each time you neglect improving the overall squad to finance the purchase of these players it becomes weaker and weaker, thereby making the likelihood of the tactic actually paying off, less and less.

 

At the same time, our desperation to make that leap lead to the proportion of our transfer expenditure that we allocated to individual signings increasing dramatically, to the extent that we spend a club record fee on Michael Owen, when the money would have been much better spent on a number of "lesser" players filling the gaps in our squad that we so desperately needed to address. Also, if you add someone who's on huge wages to a squad then you end up paying everyone else more money too, as they see what the star is on and expect some of that too. In the end, you're paying extortionate money to shite players you can't get rid of because no-one else is stupid enough to offer them the same. Year after year, we have been paying out Champions' League transfer-fees and wages and have had a mid-table team on the pitch and the results, and therefore the income, to go with it. This is a situation that cannot go on indefinitely, as in a similar way to what I have said above regarding the squad, every year we reach financially for the Champions' League and fail to get there the gap between where we are and where we're trying to get to widens.

 

I think Shepherd recognised this himself at various points. When under Robson we made the qualifying stages of the Champions' League, he made the - not unreasonable - assumption that we had a squad good enough to qualify and chose not to spend any money to improve it, only bringing in Bowyer on a free. I think he knew that sometimes when you achieve a higher level you need to take a bit of a breather, replenish your reserves and pay back some of what it cost you to get there. Unfortunately for him - and us - that turned out to be a mistake, a costly mistake from which we've never truly recovered. Ever since that, the general trend for NUFC has been downward and the financial state of the club has suffered accordingly, subsequently the challenge of bridging the gap has become harder and harder. This problem was exacerbated because, either through his own limited ability to come up with alternative approaches or a fear of fans' reaction should he fail to deliver a glamour signing, Fred's preferred tactic remained largely unchanged. His weakness for a big-name signing meant that, that was his favoured option, both in good times or bad, whether it was the right thing for the club or not and regardless of whether we could really afford it. He threw good money after bad and we ended up in the dire financial situation we find ourselves now.

 

There comes a point both financially and in terms of the playing squad, when we have to realise that the gap is just too wide to jump and instead we need to aim to go part of the way, establish ourselves there and then attempt to bridge the remaining distance. We need to be aiming to build a squad capable of consistently finishing in the top half of the Premiership and challenging for a UEFA Cup place, then once we've done that we can start thinking about the Champions' League and perhaps winning things. Oh, and we need to make sure that we don't screw ourselves financially doing so. If we go out and buy a couple of Champions' League players to play with the rest of our bottom-half of the league squad then it's not going to work and we'll have wasted the Champions' League transfer fees and wages we'd have paid-out for the honour and all. We're not ready for Champions' League players yet, we need UEFA cup players and top-half of the Premiership players at the moment. As much as people will hate to admit it and undoubtedly I'll get shit for saying this, but it's the truth and although sometimes the truth hurts; it's still the truth.

 

Far too many people seem to want us to go straight from where we are to the Champions' League in one fell swoop, well it ain't going to happen like that and if we keep kidding ourselves it is, then it'll never happen. When Ashley talks about the direction he wants to take the club, he seems to understand this, at least that's what I understand by the comparison to Villa, etc. Whether he's capable of pulling it off is another matter, but I'm willing to give him a while longer to find out. I never expected that there wouldn't be complications or teething troubles to start off with. I didn't expect them to be as big as they've turned out to be, but I don't think anyone really knew just how much of a financial mess the previous board had left behind and the credit crunch doesn't help matters either. I hope that Ashley hasn't made a Shepherd-esque error by assuming that we won't go down this season, in the same way that Fred assumed we'd reach the Champions' League. I honestly don't think we will, but I'm pretty sure I thought we'd beat Partizan at the time, too.

 

Basically, we need to establish ourselves nearer to the top of the Premiership, walk before we can run, or whatever. If we continue to aim too high, we'll end up falling on our arse...

 

 

 

 

...again!

 

I wouldn't disagree with a lot of your initial assessments, but in the case of Owen, only with hindsight can you say he hasn't been good value for money. Yes he had a history of niggling injuries, but nobody could have foreseen him being out for a whole season and only playing the games he has played. He was one of the few players who could fill the breach of Shearer, maybe not 100% what with Shearer being a Geordie and having his heart in the club etc but one of the few players able to take on the mantle. I believe that alongside Bellamy, he would have been one of the top partnerships in the mould of Cole/Beardsley, Shearer/Ferdinand, and Bellamy/Shearer. It wasn't to be but the reason for that has been well documented and the club can only do its best to attract such players, and for me attracting such players should always be the aim.

 

If anything, we haven't bought enough of these players. The line you take - a common one - of improving the team ie bringing in "lesser" players is the reason why you make so many wholesale changes in personnell, you buy players who you think may be the quality you would like, but they don't become that so you sell them and buy someone else, and the circle starts again. You can't beat top quality, which is there to stay, when you can get it. This is why I laugh when people make this silly "trophy signing" comments, the simple fact is the more top quality players you can get the better, although I don't think anybody who has made this comment can point to many of these players at the club either, even more laughable.

 

If - for a club like us, with our support and turnover [which is only maintained if we are winning on the pitch just like anybody else] we can't be in for these players then its selling ourselves short.

 

I am aware of the need to sometimes tighten up, but this is where we disagree, I don't think - again because of our support and turnover or potential turnover - that it means selling our best players or causing a situation whereby our best players lose confidence in the clubs desire to be successful causing them to want to move, which has happened in the last 18 months for the first time in nearly 20 years and will continue if the club continues its present path.

 

 

[TRon]

Get back in your own thread NE5.

 

nowt to say then ?

 

 

Just joking man, I'm pretty bored, we all know spending money improves your chances of doing well, but it's not a given, you need the right manager, the right scouts and the right amount of money but you can do well without spending massive amount if you have the right manager e.g. Moyes and Everton.

 

on the other hand, if you are lucky enough to get a decent manager, and it IS a lottery, and don't back him, he'll be off. Like Moyes, unless Everton are taken over or it all suddenly goes tits up for him.

 

When you say "do well", how well do YOU want to do ?

 

 

 

It's a lottery getting a good manager?

 

No it's a skill, not an easy one but it is definately a skill.

 

is it now ?

 

We'll see how easily Arsenal replace Wenger and ManU replace Ferguson.

 

Or Everton replace Moyes ..........

 

 

 

Even a "good manager" isn't necessarily the "right manager", which I suppose adds credence to NE5's "lottery" theory.

 

Bit simplistic on the whole though, as usual.

 

you mean "realistic", as usual. Which also, as usual, too many people fail to grasp.

 

 

were you happy with the kinnear appointment ?

 

hey getting a good manager is a lottery right,surely theres as much chance getting a s*** one to turn out good results as there is a good one turning out bad to your thinking or maybe you are piffling again in anattempt to detect any criticism from the your beloved fred ?

 

(conversly it must work with players aswell...shevchenko,veron,woodgate at real,keane at liverpool......good players who didn't do it so surely it means it's pointless spending big as these players prove it works)

 

 

i'll stop you in your tracks........."back your manager"............what with ? where was the money going to come from......at this point you mention the debt of others and as always i mention the debt of the top 4 is different to ours as they are making money aside from those with sugar daddies where as we have consistently made losses (not a good scenario when begging to the banks with few assets left to hock). look at the other clubs who,like us have lived beyond their means,they are all cutting right back and ask yourself what liverpools or arsenals spending would be like if they missed out on the champs league for 3 or 4 years ?

 

often on here you have alluded to others having thir heads in the sand but it is clear the one one doing an ostrich is yourself in relation to the position fred left us in.

 

silly.

 

Especially when there are still people hell bent on defending Ashley to the bitter end, and I mean bitter end = relegation and with little chance of coming back.

 

Pleased for you that you still appear to write off all those european qualifications and champions league appearances and the manner in which they were achieved.

 

Still, nobody is "embarrassing us" any more, right ?

 

 

BORING !

 

we've covered the euro qualifications to death as that has little to do with the position we were in spring 2007.

 

defending ashley to the bitter end......like you defending fred ?

 

i never mentioned being embarassed by fred's utterences.

 

 

nice to see you keep your head in the sand re our position when fred left.

 

you mentioned Shepherd, not me, with a silly childish comment.

 

Yep, I will "defend" anybody who gave me the only 15 years out of 45 that tried to compete at the levels this club should always compete at, and thus gave me the best most consistent and highest league positions as a result.  As I've said before. 

 

 

 

Then you should be happy that your season ticket money is going towards paying the bills he racked up in the process.

 

The alternative is of course, only supporting the club when they are winning, as you did when the Halls and Shepherd took over [if you even did that]

 

 

Was that the Hall/Shepherd era where we were nearly relegated from the 1st division? Or the Hall/Shepherd era where we were finishing 13th in the league despite the big spending?

 

nah, the Hall/Shepherd who took over a club days from bankruptcy, getting 15000 gates and couldn't be sold for 1.25m quid, that became a club filling a 52000 all seater stadium, playing in the champions league, qualifying for europe more than anybody but 4 clubs, and was valued at anything between 100m and 200m quid.

 

I am sorry you feel the need to scorn the big spending that did all of that, what a shame you would have preferred solvency and 2nd division obscurity instead of beating Barcelona and playing in the San Siro.

 

 

 

You really are one blinkered old man aren't you. Who said I didn't appreciate the wonderful football we have experienced, but you paint the Hall/Shepherd days with such rose-tinted spectacles. You fail to see what it has cost this club to get these things. You know I wouldn't prefer to be in the 2nd division, but a happy medium of the club not being whored out to pay for the fabulous football we saw would have been nice, do you not think? As for the £100-£200 million quid. Are you happy that Sir John Hall and Fred Shepherd pocketed over £180 million between them when this club was sold, especially since Sir John Hall stood on the steps of St James when he first bought the club and stated he wasn't in it for the money! YEAH RIGHT!

 

oh dear. Resorting to insults. How old are you ? I'm not old you daft bugger, and I'm in good health too. If you don't want to listen to others who have seen things [without meaning to sound patronising] then you really do have a serious problem, and are talking like a naive teenager.

 

I don't believe you saw the mediocrity of the 1970's and 1980's if you think the souness, Roeder and Allardyce league positions were mediocre league positions.

 

Sorry like, but I don't. I believed you at first but your own comments have gave me the impression I now have.

 

I have no idea what makes you think I am happy with money going out of the club. All I have said is that the Halls and Shepherd are by far the best owners we have had in 50 years, in fact, the ONLY good owners in that time. To that extent, they deserved something, for the job they did and the initial risks they took, taking over the club in the state it was in.

 

And don't compare the state of the club in 1991 to now, because believe me, it was miles apart.

 

 

 

but we're in the same league position now as we were when shepherd left, so its not the league positions you care about? but how much money we spend? seems weird.

 

I don't ever remember us being in such a relegation scrap under Shepherd's tenure though.

 

point taken, but remember we're always only one or two results away from being out of it (just as much as the opposite is true i understand). but to criticise ashley on current league position while stating that the souness roeder allardyce finishes were not mediocre is hypocritical, whereas to criticise ashley on financial grounds is at best naive and at worst a blatant agenda.

 

I really don't know how many times this has to be said. A board that backs their manager and shows ambition will always be better than one who choose not to.

 

 

i agree, however i feel thats over simplifying the issue somewhat, dont you? in light of the clubs current financial status?

 

You mean seeing 2 of our best players, one of whom has been a fabric of the club and couldn't wait to get away, and our captain to follow soon, is over-simplifying ? I don't think so. In fact, its frightening.

 

 

 

no thats not what i mean because thats not what i said. i dont really think thats relevant to backing the manager? as it opens a whole load of other issues regarding whether jfk wanted given and n'zogbia to stay, what the club did to keep them etc, so lets not side track. i agree with you that boards should back their managers financially, but given the clubs finances at present, how should the board be providing more than they currently are?

 

I'm not sure either, but maybe Shay Given could shed some light on it ? As well as Keegan and Owen ? Don't you find their actions tell you something ?

 

 

i reckon they'd tell you they left cos the club aint going to be challenging anytime soon (and i would say it it was down to the financial mess we are in)

 

you would say we should have kept on borrowing to keep these players ,cross your fingers and hope we find success before the banks say "no" or "err can we have our money back please"

 

I understand what you and the others are saying. You wish we hadnt' played in the Champions League rather than aim for a relegation and solvency, and you think every club except us is successful, always appoint the right man, and make profits at the same time

 

 

oh we know that trick,the one where you try to make out someone said something they didn't.

 

 

what i am saying (and you well know it) is that after dropping out the champs league you can gamble a bit to get back in,but if you fail and you keep on gambling and failing.....you end up like all other gamblers who fail.

 

still awaiting your answer by the way of where the money would come from year on year when making losses year on year and do you understand that you can't keep borrowing for ever.

 

Simple difference is, I don't believe Ashley has a clue about football, or how to succeed, nor the desire to do what it takes even if this belief is incorrect. Whereas I have no doubt whatsoever that the Halls and Shepherd would have re-grouped and had another go, and probably had some success too.

 

 

do you feel you can draw a fair comparison at this point? given that ashley has only had the club for a small fraction of time compared to the last lot? the challenges he faces are different to the ones they faced when taking over, wouldnt you say?

 

Aye, Ashley is in a far better position.

 

In some ways and in other ways not.

 

The club is in far superior position now than it was in the early 90's.

 

It's true that there are loads of things that are better about the club and the situation it finds itself in now than in the early 90s:

 

Bigger, better SJP; better league position; better squad; higher profile; larger crowds; more TV money; more revenue full-stop; improved training facilities; and so-on.

 

However there are a number of things about the club and the current situation that are worse:

 

Bigger debt; higher supporter expectations (therefore increased demand for success, less patience, etc); huge wage bill; players are much more powerful when it comes to contracts, etc meaning it is harder to get rid of players you don't want and bring in players you do; hugely inflated transfer fees and player wages; bigger, stronger opposition, some with money's-no-object budgets; much less room for improvement, especially relative improvement compared to other Premiership clubs; the global "Credit Crunch"; a somewhat tarnished reputation; less obvious ways of improving things, and so-on.

 

So, I don't think it's true that Ashley's in a far better position, some things are better, others are worse, which is easier or more difficult is hard to judge, the problems are different, but there are still problems.

 

not a single thing is worse than in 1991. Nothing.

 

 

 

Would you like offer some evidence or arguments to refute the points I made then? Because without that your statement has no validity.

 

you've listed all the improvements yourself !

 

What else is there ?

 

You can't call expectations and the other things you have listed as "worse" when they are all by-products of the huge improvements and comparative success ?

 

The only thing I would pick out is "tarnished repuation", but to be honest, even that is nowhere near the appalling standing the club had in 1991.

 

 

 

I asked you about the problems not the improvements, so will you address the ones I've highlighted below, please:

 

However there are a number of things about the club and the current situation that are worse:

 

Bigger debt; higher supporter expectations (therefore increased demand for success, less patience, etc); huge wage bill; players are much more powerful when it comes to contracts, etc meaning it is harder to get rid of players you don't want and bring in players you do; hugely inflated transfer fees and player wages; bigger, stronger opposition, some with money's-no-object budgets; much less room for improvement, especially relative improvement compared to other Premiership clubs; the global "Credit Crunch"; a somewhat tarnished reputation; less obvious ways of improving things, and so-on.

 

I don't get you, as I said, most of them are by products of being more successul.

 

Players being more powerful is a football problem, including transfer fees and wages. Do you think differently ?

 

 

 

But as a football club, football's problems are our problems, are they not?

 

When the Halls and Shepherd took over they had to deal with the external conditions also. Ashley did not take over a perfect club in a perfect market, did he. Therefore there were problems and issues that needed (and still need) to be dealt with, something you seem to be denying. As I said, the problems may not be the same, but there are still problems. To deny that is to deny the obvious and it only takes away from the valid points of your argument.

 

I'm not denying anything. I can't see how you think we or anybody can address bigger issue football wide problems, unless you are advocating a maverick approach, and who is going to do that and run the risk of abject failure, because you must realise that if the big clubs adopt a hard line approach to wages, contracts, etc, the player will just go somewhere else.

 

To slightly move this debate further, I don't know if it is possible to do anything about this, but in the UK at least, nothing would happen without the PFA urging its big hitters to exercise restraint - what I have in mind here is a wage cap of sorts where they would agree to donate money into a pool to look after football[ers] and therefore clubs further down the ladders ?

 

Can't see it happening personally though.

 

 

 

BUMP

 

I answered him. Again

 

 

Does he agree or not, and why

 

You're right that we as an individual club cannot change the market conditions, but we do need to come up with a strategy to survive, if not thrive, within them, we cannot ignore them as we have tried to in the past, it won't work and we'll end up in serious financial trouble, we are pretty close to that at the moment in my view. I think that given where we find ourselves at present, both financially and in terms of the squad of players we have at the club, we need to have realistic expectations of where we go from here and how long that's going to take.

 

I don't know if you agree, but I do not think that it is possible for us to make the jump from here to be challenging for honours, in one go, instead it will take a number of steps. You're right that the previous board were ambitious and they did manage to take us to the verge of being a successful club on a couple of occasions. However, a number of mistakes were made and a number of misfortunes befell the club and the combination of those set us back. Attempts were made to address this, but for various reasons those attempts failed to have a lasting effect and therefore we suffered the costs - particularly financially, but also in other ways - of those attempts, but did not reap the benefits. This went on for a number of years and sometimes we made a little progress and sometimes we didn't, but the net result was that we fell behind the group of clubs that are regularly challenging for honours.

 

At some point between the present day and Robson's time the distance between us and the "big four" (for want of a better expression) became too large for us to address in one go. However our approach to trying to solve this did not change and we continued trying to do it by buying a couple of very expensive big-name players every once in a while, whilst neglecting a number of less glamorous areas that needed addressing. You can't win things and be consistently successful by adding one or two "mega-stars" to a dog-shit squad and each time you neglect improving the overall squad to finance the purchase of these players it becomes weaker and weaker, thereby making the likelihood of the tactic actually paying off, less and less.

 

At the same time, our desperation to make that leap lead to the proportion of our transfer expenditure that we allocated to individual signings increasing dramatically, to the extent that we spend a club record fee on Michael Owen, when the money would have been much better spent on a number of "lesser" players filling the gaps in our squad that we so desperately needed to address. Also, if you add someone who's on huge wages to a squad then you end up paying everyone else more money too, as they see what the star is on and expect some of that too. In the end, you're paying extortionate money to shite players you can't get rid of because no-one else is stupid enough to offer them the same. Year after year, we have been paying out Champions' League transfer-fees and wages and have had a mid-table team on the pitch and the results, and therefore the income, to go with it. This is a situation that cannot go on indefinitely, as in a similar way to what I have said above regarding the squad, every year we reach financially for the Champions' League and fail to get there the gap between where we are and where we're trying to get to widens.

 

I think Shepherd recognised this himself at various points. When under Robson we made the qualifying stages of the Champions' League, he made the - not unreasonable - assumption that we had a squad good enough to qualify and chose not to spend any money to improve it, only bringing in Bowyer on a free. I think he knew that sometimes when you achieve a higher level you need to take a bit of a breather, replenish your reserves and pay back some of what it cost you to get there. Unfortunately for him - and us - that turned out to be a mistake, a costly mistake from which we've never truly recovered. Ever since that, the general trend for NUFC has been downward and the financial state of the club has suffered accordingly, subsequently the challenge of bridging the gap has become harder and harder. This problem was exacerbated because, either through his own limited ability to come up with alternative approaches or a fear of fans' reaction should he fail to deliver a glamour signing, Fred's preferred tactic remained largely unchanged. His weakness for a big-name signing meant that, that was his favoured option, both in good times or bad, whether it was the right thing for the club or not and regardless of whether we could really afford it. He threw good money after bad and we ended up in the dire financial situation we find ourselves now.

 

There comes a point both financially and in terms of the playing squad, when we have to realise that the gap is just too wide to jump and instead we need to aim to go part of the way, establish ourselves there and then attempt to bridge the remaining distance. We need to be aiming to build a squad capable of consistently finishing in the top half of the Premiership and challenging for a UEFA Cup place, then once we've done that we can start thinking about the Champions' League and perhaps winning things. Oh, and we need to make sure that we don't screw ourselves financially doing so. If we go out and buy a couple of Champions' League players to play with the rest of our bottom-half of the league squad then it's not going to work and we'll have wasted the Champions' League transfer fees and wages we'd have paid-out for the honour and all. We're not ready for Champions' League players yet, we need UEFA cup players and top-half of the Premiership players at the moment. As much as people will hate to admit it and undoubtedly I'll get shit for saying this, but it's the truth and although sometimes the truth hurts; it's still the truth.

 

Far too many people seem to want us to go straight from where we are to the Champions' League in one fell swoop, well it ain't going to happen like that and if we keep kidding ourselves it is, then it'll never happen. When Ashley talks about the direction he wants to take the club, he seems to understand this, at least that's what I understand by the comparison to Villa, etc. Whether he's capable of pulling it off is another matter, but I'm willing to give him a while longer to find out. I never expected that there wouldn't be complications or teething troubles to start off with. I didn't expect them to be as big as they've turned out to be, but I don't think anyone really knew just how much of a financial mess the previous board had left behind and the credit crunch doesn't help matters either. I hope that Ashley hasn't made a Shepherd-esque error by assuming that we won't go down this season, in the same way that Fred assumed we'd reach the Champions' League. I honestly don't think we will, but I'm pretty sure I thought we'd beat Partizan at the time, too.

 

Basically, we need to establish ourselves nearer to the top of the Premiership, walk before we can run, or whatever. If we continue to aim too high, we'll end up falling on our arse...

 

 

 

 

...again!

 

I wouldn't disagree with a lot of your initial assessments, but in the case of Owen, only with hindsight can you say he hasn't been good value for money. Yes he had a history of niggling injuries, but nobody could have foreseen him being out for a whole season and only playing the games he has played. He was one of the few players who could fill the breach of Shearer, maybe not 100% what with Shearer being a Geordie and having his heart in the club etc but one of the few players able to take on the mantle. I believe that alongside Bellamy, he would have been one of the top partnerships in the mould of Cole/Beardsley, Shearer/Ferdinand, and Bellamy/Shearer. It wasn't to be but the reason for that has been well documented and the club can only do its best to attract such players, and for me attracting such players should always be the aim.

 

If anything, we haven't bought enough of these players. The line you take - a common one - of improving the team ie bringing in "lesser" players is the reason why you make so many wholesale changes in personnell, you buy players who you think may be the quality you would like, but they don't become that so you sell them and buy someone else, and the circle starts again. You can't beat top quality, which is there to stay, when you can get it. This is why I laugh when people make this silly "trophy signing" comments, the simple fact is the more top quality players you can get the better, although I don't think anybody who has made this comment can point to many of these players at the club either, even more laughable.

 

If - for a club like us, with our support and turnover [which is only maintained if we are winning on the pitch just like anybody else] we can't be in for these players then its selling ourselves short.

 

I am aware of the need to sometimes tighten up, but this is where we disagree, I don't think - again because of our support and turnover or potential turnover - that it means selling our best players or causing a situation whereby our best players lose confidence in the clubs desire to be successful causing them to want to move, which has happened in the last 18 months for the first time in nearly 20 years and will continue if the club continues its present path.

 

 

 

This is a fair criticsm of Shepherd's time in my book, other people outside the region often commented that we tended to spend big on one or two trophy signings while leaving gaping holes in other areas of the squad. After Souness blew £48m, Roeder still ended up fielding the likes of Ramage and Huntington at the back. While it's great to sign the likes of Owen, unless you are going to strengthen likewise across the squad you end up out of pocket and with a disgruntled superstar who plays with a face like a smacked arse.

[NE5]

Get back in your own thread NE5.

 

nowt to say then ?

 

 

Just joking man, I'm pretty bored, we all know spending money improves your chances of doing well, but it's not a given, you need the right manager, the right scouts and the right amount of money but you can do well without spending massive amount if you have the right manager e.g. Moyes and Everton.

 

on the other hand, if you are lucky enough to get a decent manager, and it IS a lottery, and don't back him, he'll be off. Like Moyes, unless Everton are taken over or it all suddenly goes tits up for him.

 

When you say "do well", how well do YOU want to do ?

 

 

 

It's a lottery getting a good manager?

 

No it's a skill, not an easy one but it is definately a skill.

 

is it now ?

 

We'll see how easily Arsenal replace Wenger and ManU replace Ferguson.

 

Or Everton replace Moyes ..........

 

 

 

Even a "good manager" isn't necessarily the "right manager", which I suppose adds credence to NE5's "lottery" theory.

 

Bit simplistic on the whole though, as usual.

 

you mean "realistic", as usual. Which also, as usual, too many people fail to grasp.

 

 

were you happy with the kinnear appointment ?

 

hey getting a good manager is a lottery right,surely theres as much chance getting a s*** one to turn out good results as there is a good one turning out bad to your thinking or maybe you are piffling again in anattempt to detect any criticism from the your beloved fred ?

 

(conversly it must work with players aswell...shevchenko,veron,woodgate at real,keane at liverpool......good players who didn't do it so surely it means it's pointless spending big as these players prove it works)

 

 

i'll stop you in your tracks........."back your manager"............what with ? where was the money going to come from......at this point you mention the debt of others and as always i mention the debt of the top 4 is different to ours as they are making money aside from those with sugar daddies where as we have consistently made losses (not a good scenario when begging to the banks with few assets left to hock). look at the other clubs who,like us have lived beyond their means,they are all cutting right back and ask yourself what liverpools or arsenals spending would be like if they missed out on the champs league for 3 or 4 years ?

 

often on here you have alluded to others having thir heads in the sand but it is clear the one one doing an ostrich is yourself in relation to the position fred left us in.

 

silly.

 

Especially when there are still people hell bent on defending Ashley to the bitter end, and I mean bitter end = relegation and with little chance of coming back.

 

Pleased for you that you still appear to write off all those european qualifications and champions league appearances and the manner in which they were achieved.

 

Still, nobody is "embarrassing us" any more, right ?

 

 

BORING !

 

we've covered the euro qualifications to death as that has little to do with the position we were in spring 2007.

 

defending ashley to the bitter end......like you defending fred ?

 

i never mentioned being embarassed by fred's utterences.

 

 

nice to see you keep your head in the sand re our position when fred left.

 

you mentioned Shepherd, not me, with a silly childish comment.

 

Yep, I will "defend" anybody who gave me the only 15 years out of 45 that tried to compete at the levels this club should always compete at, and thus gave me the best most consistent and highest league positions as a result.  As I've said before. 

 

 

 

Then you should be happy that your season ticket money is going towards paying the bills he racked up in the process.

 

The alternative is of course, only supporting the club when they are winning, as you did when the Halls and Shepherd took over [if you even did that]

 

 

Was that the Hall/Shepherd era where we were nearly relegated from the 1st division? Or the Hall/Shepherd era where we were finishing 13th in the league despite the big spending?

 

nah, the Hall/Shepherd who took over a club days from bankruptcy, getting 15000 gates and couldn't be sold for 1.25m quid, that became a club filling a 52000 all seater stadium, playing in the champions league, qualifying for europe more than anybody but 4 clubs, and was valued at anything between 100m and 200m quid.

 

I am sorry you feel the need to scorn the big spending that did all of that, what a shame you would have preferred solvency and 2nd division obscurity instead of beating Barcelona and playing in the San Siro.

 

 

 

You really are one blinkered old man aren't you. Who said I didn't appreciate the wonderful football we have experienced, but you paint the Hall/Shepherd days with such rose-tinted spectacles. You fail to see what it has cost this club to get these things. You know I wouldn't prefer to be in the 2nd division, but a happy medium of the club not being whored out to pay for the fabulous football we saw would have been nice, do you not think? As for the £100-£200 million quid. Are you happy that Sir John Hall and Fred Shepherd pocketed over £180 million between them when this club was sold, especially since Sir John Hall stood on the steps of St James when he first bought the club and stated he wasn't in it for the money! YEAH RIGHT!

 

oh dear. Resorting to insults. How old are you ? I'm not old you daft bugger, and I'm in good health too. If you don't want to listen to others who have seen things [without meaning to sound patronising] then you really do have a serious problem, and are talking like a naive teenager.

 

I don't believe you saw the mediocrity of the 1970's and 1980's if you think the souness, Roeder and Allardyce league positions were mediocre league positions.

 

Sorry like, but I don't. I believed you at first but your own comments have gave me the impression I now have.

 

I have no idea what makes you think I am happy with money going out of the club. All I have said is that the Halls and Shepherd are by far the best owners we have had in 50 years, in fact, the ONLY good owners in that time. To that extent, they deserved something, for the job they did and the initial risks they took, taking over the club in the state it was in.

 

And don't compare the state of the club in 1991 to now, because believe me, it was miles apart.

 

 

 

but we're in the same league position now as we were when shepherd left, so its not the league positions you care about? but how much money we spend? seems weird.

 

I don't ever remember us being in such a relegation scrap under Shepherd's tenure though.

 

point taken, but remember we're always only one or two results away from being out of it (just as much as the opposite is true i understand). but to criticise ashley on current league position while stating that the souness roeder allardyce finishes were not mediocre is hypocritical, whereas to criticise ashley on financial grounds is at best naive and at worst a blatant agenda.

 

I really don't know how many times this has to be said. A board that backs their manager and shows ambition will always be better than one who choose not to.

 

 

i agree, however i feel thats over simplifying the issue somewhat, dont you? in light of the clubs current financial status?

 

You mean seeing 2 of our best players, one of whom has been a fabric of the club and couldn't wait to get away, and our captain to follow soon, is over-simplifying ? I don't think so. In fact, its frightening.

 

 

 

no thats not what i mean because thats not what i said. i dont really think thats relevant to backing the manager? as it opens a whole load of other issues regarding whether jfk wanted given and n'zogbia to stay, what the club did to keep them etc, so lets not side track. i agree with you that boards should back their managers financially, but given the clubs finances at present, how should the board be providing more than they currently are?

 

I'm not sure either, but maybe Shay Given could shed some light on it ? As well as Keegan and Owen ? Don't you find their actions tell you something ?

 

 

i reckon they'd tell you they left cos the club aint going to be challenging anytime soon (and i would say it it was down to the financial mess we are in)

 

you would say we should have kept on borrowing to keep these players ,cross your fingers and hope we find success before the banks say "no" or "err can we have our money back please"

 

I understand what you and the others are saying. You wish we hadnt' played in the Champions League rather than aim for a relegation and solvency, and you think every club except us is successful, always appoint the right man, and make profits at the same time

 

 

oh we know that trick,the one where you try to make out someone said something they didn't.

 

 

what i am saying (and you well know it) is that after dropping out the champs league you can gamble a bit to get back in,but if you fail and you keep on gambling and failing.....you end up like all other gamblers who fail.

 

still awaiting your answer by the way of where the money would come from year on year when making losses year on year and do you understand that you can't keep borrowing for ever.

 

Simple difference is, I don't believe Ashley has a clue about football, or how to succeed, nor the desire to do what it takes even if this belief is incorrect. Whereas I have no doubt whatsoever that the Halls and Shepherd would have re-grouped and had another go, and probably had some success too.

 

 

do you feel you can draw a fair comparison at this point? given that ashley has only had the club for a small fraction of time compared to the last lot? the challenges he faces are different to the ones they faced when taking over, wouldnt you say?

 

Aye, Ashley is in a far better position.

 

In some ways and in other ways not.

 

The club is in far superior position now than it was in the early 90's.

 

It's true that there are loads of things that are better about the club and the situation it finds itself in now than in the early 90s:

 

Bigger, better SJP; better league position; better squad; higher profile; larger crowds; more TV money; more revenue full-stop; improved training facilities; and so-on.

 

However there are a number of things about the club and the current situation that are worse:

 

Bigger debt; higher supporter expectations (therefore increased demand for success, less patience, etc); huge wage bill; players are much more powerful when it comes to contracts, etc meaning it is harder to get rid of players you don't want and bring in players you do; hugely inflated transfer fees and player wages; bigger, stronger opposition, some with money's-no-object budgets; much less room for improvement, especially relative improvement compared to other Premiership clubs; the global "Credit Crunch"; a somewhat tarnished reputation; less obvious ways of improving things, and so-on.

 

So, I don't think it's true that Ashley's in a far better position, some things are better, others are worse, which is easier or more difficult is hard to judge, the problems are different, but there are still problems.

 

not a single thing is worse than in 1991. Nothing.

 

 

 

Would you like offer some evidence or arguments to refute the points I made then? Because without that your statement has no validity.

 

you've listed all the improvements yourself !

 

What else is there ?

 

You can't call expectations and the other things you have listed as "worse" when they are all by-products of the huge improvements and comparative success ?

 

The only thing I would pick out is "tarnished repuation", but to be honest, even that is nowhere near the appalling standing the club had in 1991.

 

 

 

I asked you about the problems not the improvements, so will you address the ones I've highlighted below, please:

 

However there are a number of things about the club and the current situation that are worse:

 

Bigger debt; higher supporter expectations (therefore increased demand for success, less patience, etc); huge wage bill; players are much more powerful when it comes to contracts, etc meaning it is harder to get rid of players you don't want and bring in players you do; hugely inflated transfer fees and player wages; bigger, stronger opposition, some with money's-no-object budgets; much less room for improvement, especially relative improvement compared to other Premiership clubs; the global "Credit Crunch"; a somewhat tarnished reputation; less obvious ways of improving things, and so-on.

 

I don't get you, as I said, most of them are by products of being more successul.

 

Players being more powerful is a football problem, including transfer fees and wages. Do you think differently ?

 

 

 

But as a football club, football's problems are our problems, are they not?

 

When the Halls and Shepherd took over they had to deal with the external conditions also. Ashley did not take over a perfect club in a perfect market, did he. Therefore there were problems and issues that needed (and still need) to be dealt with, something you seem to be denying. As I said, the problems may not be the same, but there are still problems. To deny that is to deny the obvious and it only takes away from the valid points of your argument.

 

I'm not denying anything. I can't see how you think we or anybody can address bigger issue football wide problems, unless you are advocating a maverick approach, and who is going to do that and run the risk of abject failure, because you must realise that if the big clubs adopt a hard line approach to wages, contracts, etc, the player will just go somewhere else.

 

To slightly move this debate further, I don't know if it is possible to do anything about this, but in the UK at least, nothing would happen without the PFA urging its big hitters to exercise restraint - what I have in mind here is a wage cap of sorts where they would agree to donate money into a pool to look after football[ers] and therefore clubs further down the ladders ?

 

Can't see it happening personally though.

 

 

 

BUMP

 

I answered him. Again

 

 

Does he agree or not, and why

 

You're right that we as an individual club cannot change the market conditions, but we do need to come up with a strategy to survive, if not thrive, within them, we cannot ignore them as we have tried to in the past, it won't work and we'll end up in serious financial trouble, we are pretty close to that at the moment in my view. I think that given where we find ourselves at present, both financially and in terms of the squad of players we have at the club, we need to have realistic expectations of where we go from here and how long that's going to take.

 

I don't know if you agree, but I do not think that it is possible for us to make the jump from here to be challenging for honours, in one go, instead it will take a number of steps. You're right that the previous board were ambitious and they did manage to take us to the verge of being a successful club on a couple of occasions. However, a number of mistakes were made and a number of misfortunes befell the club and the combination of those set us back. Attempts were made to address this, but for various reasons those attempts failed to have a lasting effect and therefore we suffered the costs - particularly financially, but also in other ways - of those attempts, but did not reap the benefits. This went on for a number of years and sometimes we made a little progress and sometimes we didn't, but the net result was that we fell behind the group of clubs that are regularly challenging for honours.

 

At some point between the present day and Robson's time the distance between us and the "big four" (for want of a better expression) became too large for us to address in one go. However our approach to trying to solve this did not change and we continued trying to do it by buying a couple of very expensive big-name players every once in a while, whilst neglecting a number of less glamorous areas that needed addressing. You can't win things and be consistently successful by adding one or two "mega-stars" to a dog-shit squad and each time you neglect improving the overall squad to finance the purchase of these players it becomes weaker and weaker, thereby making the likelihood of the tactic actually paying off, less and less.

 

At the same time, our desperation to make that leap lead to the proportion of our transfer expenditure that we allocated to individual signings increasing dramatically, to the extent that we spend a club record fee on Michael Owen, when the money would have been much better spent on a number of "lesser" players filling the gaps in our squad that we so desperately needed to address. Also, if you add someone who's on huge wages to a squad then you end up paying everyone else more money too, as they see what the star is on and expect some of that too. In the end, you're paying extortionate money to shite players you can't get rid of because no-one else is stupid enough to offer them the same. Year after year, we have been paying out Champions' League transfer-fees and wages and have had a mid-table team on the pitch and the results, and therefore the income, to go with it. This is a situation that cannot go on indefinitely, as in a similar way to what I have said above regarding the squad, every year we reach financially for the Champions' League and fail to get there the gap between where we are and where we're trying to get to widens.

 

I think Shepherd recognised this himself at various points. When under Robson we made the qualifying stages of the Champions' League, he made the - not unreasonable - assumption that we had a squad good enough to qualify and chose not to spend any money to improve it, only bringing in Bowyer on a free. I think he knew that sometimes when you achieve a higher level you need to take a bit of a breather, replenish your reserves and pay back some of what it cost you to get there. Unfortunately for him - and us - that turned out to be a mistake, a costly mistake from which we've never truly recovered. Ever since that, the general trend for NUFC has been downward and the financial state of the club has suffered accordingly, subsequently the challenge of bridging the gap has become harder and harder. This problem was exacerbated because, either through his own limited ability to come up with alternative approaches or a fear of fans' reaction should he fail to deliver a glamour signing, Fred's preferred tactic remained largely unchanged. His weakness for a big-name signing meant that, that was his favoured option, both in good times or bad, whether it was the right thing for the club or not and regardless of whether we could really afford it. He threw good money after bad and we ended up in the dire financial situation we find ourselves now.

 

There comes a point both financially and in terms of the playing squad, when we have to realise that the gap is just too wide to jump and instead we need to aim to go part of the way, establish ourselves there and then attempt to bridge the remaining distance. We need to be aiming to build a squad capable of consistently finishing in the top half of the Premiership and challenging for a UEFA Cup place, then once we've done that we can start thinking about the Champions' League and perhaps winning things. Oh, and we need to make sure that we don't screw ourselves financially doing so. If we go out and buy a couple of Champions' League players to play with the rest of our bottom-half of the league squad then it's not going to work and we'll have wasted the Champions' League transfer fees and wages we'd have paid-out for the honour and all. We're not ready for Champions' League players yet, we need UEFA cup players and top-half of the Premiership players at the moment. As much as people will hate to admit it and undoubtedly I'll get shit for saying this, but it's the truth and although sometimes the truth hurts; it's still the truth.

 

Far too many people seem to want us to go straight from where we are to the Champions' League in one fell swoop, well it ain't going to happen like that and if we keep kidding ourselves it is, then it'll never happen. When Ashley talks about the direction he wants to take the club, he seems to understand this, at least that's what I understand by the comparison to Villa, etc. Whether he's capable of pulling it off is another matter, but I'm willing to give him a while longer to find out. I never expected that there wouldn't be complications or teething troubles to start off with. I didn't expect them to be as big as they've turned out to be, but I don't think anyone really knew just how much of a financial mess the previous board had left behind and the credit crunch doesn't help matters either. I hope that Ashley hasn't made a Shepherd-esque error by assuming that we won't go down this season, in the same way that Fred assumed we'd reach the Champions' League. I honestly don't think we will, but I'm pretty sure I thought we'd beat Partizan at the time, too.

 

Basically, we need to establish ourselves nearer to the top of the Premiership, walk before we can run, or whatever. If we continue to aim too high, we'll end up falling on our arse...

 

 

 

 

...again!

 

I wouldn't disagree with a lot of your initial assessments, but in the case of Owen, only with hindsight can you say he hasn't been good value for money. Yes he had a history of niggling injuries, but nobody could have foreseen him being out for a whole season and only playing the games he has played. He was one of the few players who could fill the breach of Shearer, maybe not 100% what with Shearer being a Geordie and having his heart in the club etc but one of the few players able to take on the mantle. I believe that alongside Bellamy, he would have been one of the top partnerships in the mould of Cole/Beardsley, Shearer/Ferdinand, and Bellamy/Shearer. It wasn't to be but the reason for that has been well documented and the club can only do its best to attract such players, and for me attracting such players should always be the aim.

 

If anything, we haven't bought enough of these players. The line you take - a common one - of improving the team ie bringing in "lesser" players is the reason why you make so many wholesale changes in personnell, you buy players who you think may be the quality you would like, but they don't become that so you sell them and buy someone else, and the circle starts again. You can't beat top quality, which is there to stay, when you can get it. This is why I laugh when people make this silly "trophy signing" comments, the simple fact is the more top quality players you can get the better, although I don't think anybody who has made this comment can point to many of these players at the club either, even more laughable.

 

If - for a club like us, with our support and turnover [which is only maintained if we are winning on the pitch just like anybody else] we can't be in for these players then its selling ourselves short.

 

I am aware of the need to sometimes tighten up, but this is where we disagree, I don't think - again because of our support and turnover or potential turnover - that it means selling our best players or causing a situation whereby our best players lose confidence in the clubs desire to be successful causing them to want to move, which has happened in the last 18 months for the first time in nearly 20 years and will continue if the club continues its present path.

 

 

 

This is a fair criticsm of Shepherd's time in my book, other people outside the region often commented that we tended to spend big on one or two trophy signings while leaving gaping holes in other areas of the squad. After Souness blew £48m, Roeder still ended up fielding the likes of Ramage and Huntington at the back. While it's great to sign the likes of Owen, unless you are going to strengthen likewise across the squad you end up out of pocket and with a disgruntled superstar who plays with a face like a smacked arse.

 

I don't think you understand the point I'm making. What I'm saying is that they backed the managers but the managers didn't make good judgements. We have bought lots of central midfield players [for example] because none of them have proved good enough, nobody has replaced both Rob Lee and Gary Speed properly, from Jenas, Parker, Emre, Butt, Barton and now Nolan. I quite like Nolan I must be honest, although he isn't a "top" player, however in our current position I think he will be a good buy because he will give a lot of leadership too to a group of players who seem to be far too quiet and need it badly.

 

In short, you are still using this silly "trophy player" comment, the trophy winning clubs are the ones who have the most "trophy players". In fact now we are on about it, give me the names of the players you think are these "trophy players" that you despise so much.

 

If a top player becomes available, then you MUST attempt to get him, its as simple as that.

 

BTW, I live outside of the area, I have regular contact with supporters of various clubs all over the country, and not a single person has EVER said to me that we have spent too much money on these trophy signings.

 

 

 

[TRon]

Get back in your own thread NE5.

 

nowt to say then ?

 

 

Just joking man, I'm pretty bored, we all know spending money improves your chances of doing well, but it's not a given, you need the right manager, the right scouts and the right amount of money but you can do well without spending massive amount if you have the right manager e.g. Moyes and Everton.

 

on the other hand, if you are lucky enough to get a decent manager, and it IS a lottery, and don't back him, he'll be off. Like Moyes, unless Everton are taken over or it all suddenly goes tits up for him.

 

When you say "do well", how well do YOU want to do ?

 

 

 

It's a lottery getting a good manager?

 

No it's a skill, not an easy one but it is definately a skill.

 

is it now ?

 

We'll see how easily Arsenal replace Wenger and ManU replace Ferguson.

 

Or Everton replace Moyes ..........

 

 

 

Even a "good manager" isn't necessarily the "right manager", which I suppose adds credence to NE5's "lottery" theory.

 

Bit simplistic on the whole though, as usual.

 

you mean "realistic", as usual. Which also, as usual, too many people fail to grasp.

 

 

were you happy with the kinnear appointment ?

 

hey getting a good manager is a lottery right,surely theres as much chance getting a s*** one to turn out good results as there is a good one turning out bad to your thinking or maybe you are piffling again in anattempt to detect any criticism from the your beloved fred ?

 

(conversly it must work with players aswell...shevchenko,veron,woodgate at real,keane at liverpool......good players who didn't do it so surely it means it's pointless spending big as these players prove it works)

 

 

i'll stop you in your tracks........."back your manager"............what with ? where was the money going to come from......at this point you mention the debt of others and as always i mention the debt of the top 4 is different to ours as they are making money aside from those with sugar daddies where as we have consistently made losses (not a good scenario when begging to the banks with few assets left to hock). look at the other clubs who,like us have lived beyond their means,they are all cutting right back and ask yourself what liverpools or arsenals spending would be like if they missed out on the champs league for 3 or 4 years ?

 

often on here you have alluded to others having thir heads in the sand but it is clear the one one doing an ostrich is yourself in relation to the position fred left us in.

 

silly.

 

Especially when there are still people hell bent on defending Ashley to the bitter end, and I mean bitter end = relegation and with little chance of coming back.

 

Pleased for you that you still appear to write off all those european qualifications and champions league appearances and the manner in which they were achieved.

 

Still, nobody is "embarrassing us" any more, right ?

 

 

BORING !

 

we've covered the euro qualifications to death as that has little to do with the position we were in spring 2007.

 

defending ashley to the bitter end......like you defending fred ?

 

i never mentioned being embarassed by fred's utterences.

 

 

nice to see you keep your head in the sand re our position when fred left.

 

you mentioned Shepherd, not me, with a silly childish comment.

 

Yep, I will "defend" anybody who gave me the only 15 years out of 45 that tried to compete at the levels this club should always compete at, and thus gave me the best most consistent and highest league positions as a result.  As I've said before. 

 

 

 

Then you should be happy that your season ticket money is going towards paying the bills he racked up in the process.

 

The alternative is of course, only supporting the club when they are winning, as you did when the Halls and Shepherd took over [if you even did that]

 

 

Was that the Hall/Shepherd era where we were nearly relegated from the 1st division? Or the Hall/Shepherd era where we were finishing 13th in the league despite the big spending?

 

nah, the Hall/Shepherd who took over a club days from bankruptcy, getting 15000 gates and couldn't be sold for 1.25m quid, that became a club filling a 52000 all seater stadium, playing in the champions league, qualifying for europe more than anybody but 4 clubs, and was valued at anything between 100m and 200m quid.

 

I am sorry you feel the need to scorn the big spending that did all of that, what a shame you would have preferred solvency and 2nd division obscurity instead of beating Barcelona and playing in the San Siro.

 

 

 

You really are one blinkered old man aren't you. Who said I didn't appreciate the wonderful football we have experienced, but you paint the Hall/Shepherd days with such rose-tinted spectacles. You fail to see what it has cost this club to get these things. You know I wouldn't prefer to be in the 2nd division, but a happy medium of the club not being whored out to pay for the fabulous football we saw would have been nice, do you not think? As for the £100-£200 million quid. Are you happy that Sir John Hall and Fred Shepherd pocketed over £180 million between them when this club was sold, especially since Sir John Hall stood on the steps of St James when he first bought the club and stated he wasn't in it for the money! YEAH RIGHT!

 

oh dear. Resorting to insults. How old are you ? I'm not old you daft bugger, and I'm in good health too. If you don't want to listen to others who have seen things [without meaning to sound patronising] then you really do have a serious problem, and are talking like a naive teenager.

 

I don't believe you saw the mediocrity of the 1970's and 1980's if you think the souness, Roeder and Allardyce league positions were mediocre league positions.

 

Sorry like, but I don't. I believed you at first but your own comments have gave me the impression I now have.

 

I have no idea what makes you think I am happy with money going out of the club. All I have said is that the Halls and Shepherd are by far the best owners we have had in 50 years, in fact, the ONLY good owners in that time. To that extent, they deserved something, for the job they did and the initial risks they took, taking over the club in the state it was in.

 

And don't compare the state of the club in 1991 to now, because believe me, it was miles apart.

 

 

 

but we're in the same league position now as we were when shepherd left, so its not the league positions you care about? but how much money we spend? seems weird.

 

I don't ever remember us being in such a relegation scrap under Shepherd's tenure though.

 

point taken, but remember we're always only one or two results away from being out of it (just as much as the opposite is true i understand). but to criticise ashley on current league position while stating that the souness roeder allardyce finishes were not mediocre is hypocritical, whereas to criticise ashley on financial grounds is at best naive and at worst a blatant agenda.

 

I really don't know how many times this has to be said. A board that backs their manager and shows ambition will always be better than one who choose not to.

 

 

i agree, however i feel thats over simplifying the issue somewhat, dont you? in light of the clubs current financial status?

 

You mean seeing 2 of our best players, one of whom has been a fabric of the club and couldn't wait to get away, and our captain to follow soon, is over-simplifying ? I don't think so. In fact, its frightening.

 

 

 

no thats not what i mean because thats not what i said. i dont really think thats relevant to backing the manager? as it opens a whole load of other issues regarding whether jfk wanted given and n'zogbia to stay, what the club did to keep them etc, so lets not side track. i agree with you that boards should back their managers financially, but given the clubs finances at present, how should the board be providing more than they currently are?

 

I'm not sure either, but maybe Shay Given could shed some light on it ? As well as Keegan and Owen ? Don't you find their actions tell you something ?

 

 

i reckon they'd tell you they left cos the club aint going to be challenging anytime soon (and i would say it it was down to the financial mess we are in)

 

you would say we should have kept on borrowing to keep these players ,cross your fingers and hope we find success before the banks say "no" or "err can we have our money back please"

 

I understand what you and the others are saying. You wish we hadnt' played in the Champions League rather than aim for a relegation and solvency, and you think every club except us is successful, always appoint the right man, and make profits at the same time

 

 

oh we know that trick,the one where you try to make out someone said something they didn't.

 

 

what i am saying (and you well know it) is that after dropping out the champs league you can gamble a bit to get back in,but if you fail and you keep on gambling and failing.....you end up like all other gamblers who fail.

 

still awaiting your answer by the way of where the money would come from year on year when making losses year on year and do you understand that you can't keep borrowing for ever.

 

Simple difference is, I don't believe Ashley has a clue about football, or how to succeed, nor the desire to do what it takes even if this belief is incorrect. Whereas I have no doubt whatsoever that the Halls and Shepherd would have re-grouped and had another go, and probably had some success too.

 

 

do you feel you can draw a fair comparison at this point? given that ashley has only had the club for a small fraction of time compared to the last lot? the challenges he faces are different to the ones they faced when taking over, wouldnt you say?

 

Aye, Ashley is in a far better position.

 

In some ways and in other ways not.

 

The club is in far superior position now than it was in the early 90's.

 

It's true that there are loads of things that are better about the club and the situation it finds itself in now than in the early 90s:

 

Bigger, better SJP; better league position; better squad; higher profile; larger crowds; more TV money; more revenue full-stop; improved training facilities; and so-on.

 

However there are a number of things about the club and the current situation that are worse:

 

Bigger debt; higher supporter expectations (therefore increased demand for success, less patience, etc); huge wage bill; players are much more powerful when it comes to contracts, etc meaning it is harder to get rid of players you don't want and bring in players you do; hugely inflated transfer fees and player wages; bigger, stronger opposition, some with money's-no-object budgets; much less room for improvement, especially relative improvement compared to other Premiership clubs; the global "Credit Crunch"; a somewhat tarnished reputation; less obvious ways of improving things, and so-on.

 

So, I don't think it's true that Ashley's in a far better position, some things are better, others are worse, which is easier or more difficult is hard to judge, the problems are different, but there are still problems.

 

not a single thing is worse than in 1991. Nothing.

 

 

 

Would you like offer some evidence or arguments to refute the points I made then? Because without that your statement has no validity.

 

you've listed all the improvements yourself !

 

What else is there ?

 

You can't call expectations and the other things you have listed as "worse" when they are all by-products of the huge improvements and comparative success ?

 

The only thing I would pick out is "tarnished repuation", but to be honest, even that is nowhere near the appalling standing the club had in 1991.

 

 

 

I asked you about the problems not the improvements, so will you address the ones I've highlighted below, please:

 

However there are a number of things about the club and the current situation that are worse:

 

Bigger debt; higher supporter expectations (therefore increased demand for success, less patience, etc); huge wage bill; players are much more powerful when it comes to contracts, etc meaning it is harder to get rid of players you don't want and bring in players you do; hugely inflated transfer fees and player wages; bigger, stronger opposition, some with money's-no-object budgets; much less room for improvement, especially relative improvement compared to other Premiership clubs; the global "Credit Crunch"; a somewhat tarnished reputation; less obvious ways of improving things, and so-on.

 

I don't get you, as I said, most of them are by products of being more successul.

 

Players being more powerful is a football problem, including transfer fees and wages. Do you think differently ?

 

 

 

But as a football club, football's problems are our problems, are they not?

 

When the Halls and Shepherd took over they had to deal with the external conditions also. Ashley did not take over a perfect club in a perfect market, did he. Therefore there were problems and issues that needed (and still need) to be dealt with, something you seem to be denying. As I said, the problems may not be the same, but there are still problems. To deny that is to deny the obvious and it only takes away from the valid points of your argument.

 

I'm not denying anything. I can't see how you think we or anybody can address bigger issue football wide problems, unless you are advocating a maverick approach, and who is going to do that and run the risk of abject failure, because you must realise that if the big clubs adopt a hard line approach to wages, contracts, etc, the player will just go somewhere else.

 

To slightly move this debate further, I don't know if it is possible to do anything about this, but in the UK at least, nothing would happen without the PFA urging its big hitters to exercise restraint - what I have in mind here is a wage cap of sorts where they would agree to donate money into a pool to look after football[ers] and therefore clubs further down the ladders ?

 

Can't see it happening personally though.

 

 

 

BUMP

 

I answered him. Again

 

 

Does he agree or not, and why

 

You're right that we as an individual club cannot change the market conditions, but we do need to come up with a strategy to survive, if not thrive, within them, we cannot ignore them as we have tried to in the past, it won't work and we'll end up in serious financial trouble, we are pretty close to that at the moment in my view. I think that given where we find ourselves at present, both financially and in terms of the squad of players we have at the club, we need to have realistic expectations of where we go from here and how long that's going to take.

 

I don't know if you agree, but I do not think that it is possible for us to make the jump from here to be challenging for honours, in one go, instead it will take a number of steps. You're right that the previous board were ambitious and they did manage to take us to the verge of being a successful club on a couple of occasions. However, a number of mistakes were made and a number of misfortunes befell the club and the combination of those set us back. Attempts were made to address this, but for various reasons those attempts failed to have a lasting effect and therefore we suffered the costs - particularly financially, but also in other ways - of those attempts, but did not reap the benefits. This went on for a number of years and sometimes we made a little progress and sometimes we didn't, but the net result was that we fell behind the group of clubs that are regularly challenging for honours.

 

At some point between the present day and Robson's time the distance between us and the "big four" (for want of a better expression) became too large for us to address in one go. However our approach to trying to solve this did not change and we continued trying to do it by buying a couple of very expensive big-name players every once in a while, whilst neglecting a number of less glamorous areas that needed addressing. You can't win things and be consistently successful by adding one or two "mega-stars" to a dog-shit squad and each time you neglect improving the overall squad to finance the purchase of these players it becomes weaker and weaker, thereby making the likelihood of the tactic actually paying off, less and less.

 

At the same time, our desperation to make that leap lead to the proportion of our transfer expenditure that we allocated to individual signings increasing dramatically, to the extent that we spend a club record fee on Michael Owen, when the money would have been much better spent on a number of "lesser" players filling the gaps in our squad that we so desperately needed to address. Also, if you add someone who's on huge wages to a squad then you end up paying everyone else more money too, as they see what the star is on and expect some of that too. In the end, you're paying extortionate money to shite players you can't get rid of because no-one else is stupid enough to offer them the same. Year after year, we have been paying out Champions' League transfer-fees and wages and have had a mid-table team on the pitch and the results, and therefore the income, to go with it. This is a situation that cannot go on indefinitely, as in a similar way to what I have said above regarding the squad, every year we reach financially for the Champions' League and fail to get there the gap between where we are and where we're trying to get to widens.

 

I think Shepherd recognised this himself at various points. When under Robson we made the qualifying stages of the Champions' League, he made the - not unreasonable - assumption that we had a squad good enough to qualify and chose not to spend any money to improve it, only bringing in Bowyer on a free. I think he knew that sometimes when you achieve a higher level you need to take a bit of a breather, replenish your reserves and pay back some of what it cost you to get there. Unfortunately for him - and us - that turned out to be a mistake, a costly mistake from which we've never truly recovered. Ever since that, the general trend for NUFC has been downward and the financial state of the club has suffered accordingly, subsequently the challenge of bridging the gap has become harder and harder. This problem was exacerbated because, either through his own limited ability to come up with alternative approaches or a fear of fans' reaction should he fail to deliver a glamour signing, Fred's preferred tactic remained largely unchanged. His weakness for a big-name signing meant that, that was his favoured option, both in good times or bad, whether it was the right thing for the club or not and regardless of whether we could really afford it. He threw good money after bad and we ended up in the dire financial situation we find ourselves now.

 

There comes a point both financially and in terms of the playing squad, when we have to realise that the gap is just too wide to jump and instead we need to aim to go part of the way, establish ourselves there and then attempt to bridge the remaining distance. We need to be aiming to build a squad capable of consistently finishing in the top half of the Premiership and challenging for a UEFA Cup place, then once we've done that we can start thinking about the Champions' League and perhaps winning things. Oh, and we need to make sure that we don't screw ourselves financially doing so. If we go out and buy a couple of Champions' League players to play with the rest of our bottom-half of the league squad then it's not going to work and we'll have wasted the Champions' League transfer fees and wages we'd have paid-out for the honour and all. We're not ready for Champions' League players yet, we need UEFA cup players and top-half of the Premiership players at the moment. As much as people will hate to admit it and undoubtedly I'll get shit for saying this, but it's the truth and although sometimes the truth hurts; it's still the truth.

 

Far too many people seem to want us to go straight from where we are to the Champions' League in one fell swoop, well it ain't going to happen like that and if we keep kidding ourselves it is, then it'll never happen. When Ashley talks about the direction he wants to take the club, he seems to understand this, at least that's what I understand by the comparison to Villa, etc. Whether he's capable of pulling it off is another matter, but I'm willing to give him a while longer to find out. I never expected that there wouldn't be complications or teething troubles to start off with. I didn't expect them to be as big as they've turned out to be, but I don't think anyone really knew just how much of a financial mess the previous board had left behind and the credit crunch doesn't help matters either. I hope that Ashley hasn't made a Shepherd-esque error by assuming that we won't go down this season, in the same way that Fred assumed we'd reach the Champions' League. I honestly don't think we will, but I'm pretty sure I thought we'd beat Partizan at the time, too.

 

Basically, we need to establish ourselves nearer to the top of the Premiership, walk before we can run, or whatever. If we continue to aim too high, we'll end up falling on our arse...

 

 

 

 

...again!

 

I wouldn't disagree with a lot of your initial assessments, but in the case of Owen, only with hindsight can you say he hasn't been good value for money. Yes he had a history of niggling injuries, but nobody could have foreseen him being out for a whole season and only playing the games he has played. He was one of the few players who could fill the breach of Shearer, maybe not 100% what with Shearer being a Geordie and having his heart in the club etc but one of the few players able to take on the mantle. I believe that alongside Bellamy, he would have been one of the top partnerships in the mould of Cole/Beardsley, Shearer/Ferdinand, and Bellamy/Shearer. It wasn't to be but the reason for that has been well documented and the club can only do its best to attract such players, and for me attracting such players should always be the aim.

 

If anything, we haven't bought enough of these players. The line you take - a common one - of improving the team ie bringing in "lesser" players is the reason why you make so many wholesale changes in personnell, you buy players who you think may be the quality you would like, but they don't become that so you sell them and buy someone else, and the circle starts again. You can't beat top quality, which is there to stay, when you can get it. This is why I laugh when people make this silly "trophy signing" comments, the simple fact is the more top quality players you can get the better, although I don't think anybody who has made this comment can point to many of these players at the club either, even more laughable.

 

If - for a club like us, with our support and turnover [which is only maintained if we are winning on the pitch just like anybody else] we can't be in for these players then its selling ourselves short.

 

I am aware of the need to sometimes tighten up, but this is where we disagree, I don't think - again because of our support and turnover or potential turnover - that it means selling our best players or causing a situation whereby our best players lose confidence in the clubs desire to be successful causing them to want to move, which has happened in the last 18 months for the first time in nearly 20 years and will continue if the club continues its present path.

 

 

 

This is a fair criticsm of Shepherd's time in my book, other people outside the region often commented that we tended to spend big on one or two trophy signings while leaving gaping holes in other areas of the squad. After Souness blew £48m, Roeder still ended up fielding the likes of Ramage and Huntington at the back. While it's great to sign the likes of Owen, unless you are going to strengthen likewise across the squad you end up out of pocket and with a disgruntled superstar who plays with a face like a smacked arse.

 

I don't think you understand the point I'm making. What I'm saying is that they backed the managers but the managers didn't make good judgements. We have bought lots of central midfield players [for example] because none of them have proved good enough, nobody has replaced both Rob Lee and Gary Speed properly, from Jenas, Parker, Emre, Butt, Barton and now Nolan. I quite like Nolan I must be honest, although he isn't a "top" player, however in our current position I think he will be a good buy because he will give a lot of leadership too to a group of players who seem to be far too quiet and need it badly.

 

In short, you are still using this silly "trophy player" comment, the trophy winning clubs are the ones who have the most "trophy players". In fact now we are on about it, give me the names of the players you think are these "trophy players" that you despise so much.

 

If a top player becomes available, then you MUST attempt to get him, its as simple as that.

 

BTW, I live outside of the area, I have regular contact with supporters of various clubs all over the country, and not a single person has EVER said to me that we have spent too much money on these trophy signings.

 

 

 

 

So you are blaming the managers for poor judgement despite the fact they were appointed by the Chairman who's judgement was sound I take it?

 

BTW, I love trophy signings. Since Sheperd became Chairman I think trophy signings have been fairly limited compared to when John Hall was the Leader and we had quality across the pitch. 

 

 

[NE5]

Get back in your own thread NE5.

 

nowt to say then ?

 

 

Just joking man, I'm pretty bored, we all know spending money improves your chances of doing well, but it's not a given, you need the right manager, the right scouts and the right amount of money but you can do well without spending massive amount if you have the right manager e.g. Moyes and Everton.

 

on the other hand, if you are lucky enough to get a decent manager, and it IS a lottery, and don't back him, he'll be off. Like Moyes, unless Everton are taken over or it all suddenly goes tits up for him.

 

When you say "do well", how well do YOU want to do ?

 

 

 

It's a lottery getting a good manager?

 

No it's a skill, not an easy one but it is definately a skill.

 

is it now ?

 

We'll see how easily Arsenal replace Wenger and ManU replace Ferguson.

 

Or Everton replace Moyes ..........

 

 

 

Even a "good manager" isn't necessarily the "right manager", which I suppose adds credence to NE5's "lottery" theory.

 

Bit simplistic on the whole though, as usual.

 

you mean "realistic", as usual. Which also, as usual, too many people fail to grasp.

 

 

were you happy with the kinnear appointment ?

 

hey getting a good manager is a lottery right,surely theres as much chance getting a s*** one to turn out good results as there is a good one turning out bad to your thinking or maybe you are piffling again in anattempt to detect any criticism from the your beloved fred ?

 

(conversly it must work with players aswell...shevchenko,veron,woodgate at real,keane at liverpool......good players who didn't do it so surely it means it's pointless spending big as these players prove it works)

 

 

i'll stop you in your tracks........."back your manager"............what with ? where was the money going to come from......at this point you mention the debt of others and as always i mention the debt of the top 4 is different to ours as they are making money aside from those with sugar daddies where as we have consistently made losses (not a good scenario when begging to the banks with few assets left to hock). look at the other clubs who,like us have lived beyond their means,they are all cutting right back and ask yourself what liverpools or arsenals spending would be like if they missed out on the champs league for 3 or 4 years ?

 

often on here you have alluded to others having thir heads in the sand but it is clear the one one doing an ostrich is yourself in relation to the position fred left us in.

 

silly.

 

Especially when there are still people hell bent on defending Ashley to the bitter end, and I mean bitter end = relegation and with little chance of coming back.

 

Pleased for you that you still appear to write off all those european qualifications and champions league appearances and the manner in which they were achieved.

 

Still, nobody is "embarrassing us" any more, right ?

 

 

BORING !

 

we've covered the euro qualifications to death as that has little to do with the position we were in spring 2007.

 

defending ashley to the bitter end......like you defending fred ?

 

i never mentioned being embarassed by fred's utterences.

 

 

nice to see you keep your head in the sand re our position when fred left.

 

you mentioned Shepherd, not me, with a silly childish comment.

 

Yep, I will "defend" anybody who gave me the only 15 years out of 45 that tried to compete at the levels this club should always compete at, and thus gave me the best most consistent and highest league positions as a result.  As I've said before. 

 

 

 

Then you should be happy that your season ticket money is going towards paying the bills he racked up in the process.

 

The alternative is of course, only supporting the club when they are winning, as you did when the Halls and Shepherd took over [if you even did that]

 

 

Was that the Hall/Shepherd era where we were nearly relegated from the 1st division? Or the Hall/Shepherd era where we were finishing 13th in the league despite the big spending?

 

nah, the Hall/Shepherd who took over a club days from bankruptcy, getting 15000 gates and couldn't be sold for 1.25m quid, that became a club filling a 52000 all seater stadium, playing in the champions league, qualifying for europe more than anybody but 4 clubs, and was valued at anything between 100m and 200m quid.

 

I am sorry you feel the need to scorn the big spending that did all of that, what a shame you would have preferred solvency and 2nd division obscurity instead of beating Barcelona and playing in the San Siro.

 

 

 

You really are one blinkered old man aren't you. Who said I didn't appreciate the wonderful football we have experienced, but you paint the Hall/Shepherd days with such rose-tinted spectacles. You fail to see what it has cost this club to get these things. You know I wouldn't prefer to be in the 2nd division, but a happy medium of the club not being whored out to pay for the fabulous football we saw would have been nice, do you not think? As for the £100-£200 million quid. Are you happy that Sir John Hall and Fred Shepherd pocketed over £180 million between them when this club was sold, especially since Sir John Hall stood on the steps of St James when he first bought the club and stated he wasn't in it for the money! YEAH RIGHT!

 

oh dear. Resorting to insults. How old are you ? I'm not old you daft bugger, and I'm in good health too. If you don't want to listen to others who have seen things [without meaning to sound patronising] then you really do have a serious problem, and are talking like a naive teenager.

 

I don't believe you saw the mediocrity of the 1970's and 1980's if you think the souness, Roeder and Allardyce league positions were mediocre league positions.

 

Sorry like, but I don't. I believed you at first but your own comments have gave me the impression I now have.

 

I have no idea what makes you think I am happy with money going out of the club. All I have said is that the Halls and Shepherd are by far the best owners we have had in 50 years, in fact, the ONLY good owners in that time. To that extent, they deserved something, for the job they did and the initial risks they took, taking over the club in the state it was in.

 

And don't compare the state of the club in 1991 to now, because believe me, it was miles apart.

 

 

 

but we're in the same league position now as we were when shepherd left, so its not the league positions you care about? but how much money we spend? seems weird.

 

I don't ever remember us being in such a relegation scrap under Shepherd's tenure though.

 

point taken, but remember we're always only one or two results away from being out of it (just as much as the opposite is true i understand). but to criticise ashley on current league position while stating that the souness roeder allardyce finishes were not mediocre is hypocritical, whereas to criticise ashley on financial grounds is at best naive and at worst a blatant agenda.

 

I really don't know how many times this has to be said. A board that backs their manager and shows ambition will always be better than one who choose not to.

 

 

i agree, however i feel thats over simplifying the issue somewhat, dont you? in light of the clubs current financial status?

 

You mean seeing 2 of our best players, one of whom has been a fabric of the club and couldn't wait to get away, and our captain to follow soon, is over-simplifying ? I don't think so. In fact, its frightening.

 

 

 

no thats not what i mean because thats not what i said. i dont really think thats relevant to backing the manager? as it opens a whole load of other issues regarding whether jfk wanted given and n'zogbia to stay, what the club did to keep them etc, so lets not side track. i agree with you that boards should back their managers financially, but given the clubs finances at present, how should the board be providing more than they currently are?

 

I'm not sure either, but maybe Shay Given could shed some light on it ? As well as Keegan and Owen ? Don't you find their actions tell you something ?

 

 

i reckon they'd tell you they left cos the club aint going to be challenging anytime soon (and i would say it it was down to the financial mess we are in)

 

you would say we should have kept on borrowing to keep these players ,cross your fingers and hope we find success before the banks say "no" or "err can we have our money back please"

 

I understand what you and the others are saying. You wish we hadnt' played in the Champions League rather than aim for a relegation and solvency, and you think every club except us is successful, always appoint the right man, and make profits at the same time

 

 

oh we know that trick,the one where you try to make out someone said something they didn't.

 

 

what i am saying (and you well know it) is that after dropping out the champs league you can gamble a bit to get back in,but if you fail and you keep on gambling and failing.....you end up like all other gamblers who fail.

 

still awaiting your answer by the way of where the money would come from year on year when making losses year on year and do you understand that you can't keep borrowing for ever.

 

Simple difference is, I don't believe Ashley has a clue about football, or how to succeed, nor the desire to do what it takes even if this belief is incorrect. Whereas I have no doubt whatsoever that the Halls and Shepherd would have re-grouped and had another go, and probably had some success too.

 

 

do you feel you can draw a fair comparison at this point? given that ashley has only had the club for a small fraction of time compared to the last lot? the challenges he faces are different to the ones they faced when taking over, wouldnt you say?

 

Aye, Ashley is in a far better position.

 

In some ways and in other ways not.

 

The club is in far superior position now than it was in the early 90's.

 

It's true that there are loads of things that are better about the club and the situation it finds itself in now than in the early 90s:

 

Bigger, better SJP; better league position; better squad; higher profile; larger crowds; more TV money; more revenue full-stop; improved training facilities; and so-on.

 

However there are a number of things about the club and the current situation that are worse:

 

Bigger debt; higher supporter expectations (therefore increased demand for success, less patience, etc); huge wage bill; players are much more powerful when it comes to contracts, etc meaning it is harder to get rid of players you don't want and bring in players you do; hugely inflated transfer fees and player wages; bigger, stronger opposition, some with money's-no-object budgets; much less room for improvement, especially relative improvement compared to other Premiership clubs; the global "Credit Crunch"; a somewhat tarnished reputation; less obvious ways of improving things, and so-on.

 

So, I don't think it's true that Ashley's in a far better position, some things are better, others are worse, which is easier or more difficult is hard to judge, the problems are different, but there are still problems.

 

not a single thing is worse than in 1991. Nothing.

 

 

 

Would you like offer some evidence or arguments to refute the points I made then? Because without that your statement has no validity.

 

you've listed all the improvements yourself !

 

What else is there ?

 

You can't call expectations and the other things you have listed as "worse" when they are all by-products of the huge improvements and comparative success ?

 

The only thing I would pick out is "tarnished repuation", but to be honest, even that is nowhere near the appalling standing the club had in 1991.

 

 

 

I asked you about the problems not the improvements, so will you address the ones I've highlighted below, please:

 

However there are a number of things about the club and the current situation that are worse:

 

Bigger debt; higher supporter expectations (therefore increased demand for success, less patience, etc); huge wage bill; players are much more powerful when it comes to contracts, etc meaning it is harder to get rid of players you don't want and bring in players you do; hugely inflated transfer fees and player wages; bigger, stronger opposition, some with money's-no-object budgets; much less room for improvement, especially relative improvement compared to other Premiership clubs; the global "Credit Crunch"; a somewhat tarnished reputation; less obvious ways of improving things, and so-on.

 

I don't get you, as I said, most of them are by products of being more successul.

 

Players being more powerful is a football problem, including transfer fees and wages. Do you think differently ?

 

 

 

But as a football club, football's problems are our problems, are they not?

 

When the Halls and Shepherd took over they had to deal with the external conditions also. Ashley did not take over a perfect club in a perfect market, did he. Therefore there were problems and issues that needed (and still need) to be dealt with, something you seem to be denying. As I said, the problems may not be the same, but there are still problems. To deny that is to deny the obvious and it only takes away from the valid points of your argument.

 

I'm not denying anything. I can't see how you think we or anybody can address bigger issue football wide problems, unless you are advocating a maverick approach, and who is going to do that and run the risk of abject failure, because you must realise that if the big clubs adopt a hard line approach to wages, contracts, etc, the player will just go somewhere else.

 

To slightly move this debate further, I don't know if it is possible to do anything about this, but in the UK at least, nothing would happen without the PFA urging its big hitters to exercise restraint - what I have in mind here is a wage cap of sorts where they would agree to donate money into a pool to look after football[ers] and therefore clubs further down the ladders ?

 

Can't see it happening personally though.

 

 

 

BUMP

 

I answered him. Again

 

 

Does he agree or not, and why

 

You're right that we as an individual club cannot change the market conditions, but we do need to come up with a strategy to survive, if not thrive, within them, we cannot ignore them as we have tried to in the past, it won't work and we'll end up in serious financial trouble, we are pretty close to that at the moment in my view. I think that given where we find ourselves at present, both financially and in terms of the squad of players we have at the club, we need to have realistic expectations of where we go from here and how long that's going to take.

 

I don't know if you agree, but I do not think that it is possible for us to make the jump from here to be challenging for honours, in one go, instead it will take a number of steps. You're right that the previous board were ambitious and they did manage to take us to the verge of being a successful club on a couple of occasions. However, a number of mistakes were made and a number of misfortunes befell the club and the combination of those set us back. Attempts were made to address this, but for various reasons those attempts failed to have a lasting effect and therefore we suffered the costs - particularly financially, but also in other ways - of those attempts, but did not reap the benefits. This went on for a number of years and sometimes we made a little progress and sometimes we didn't, but the net result was that we fell behind the group of clubs that are regularly challenging for honours.

 

At some point between the present day and Robson's time the distance between us and the "big four" (for want of a better expression) became too large for us to address in one go. However our approach to trying to solve this did not change and we continued trying to do it by buying a couple of very expensive big-name players every once in a while, whilst neglecting a number of less glamorous areas that needed addressing. You can't win things and be consistently successful by adding one or two "mega-stars" to a dog-shit squad and each time you neglect improving the overall squad to finance the purchase of these players it becomes weaker and weaker, thereby making the likelihood of the tactic actually paying off, less and less.

 

At the same time, our desperation to make that leap lead to the proportion of our transfer expenditure that we allocated to individual signings increasing dramatically, to the extent that we spend a club record fee on Michael Owen, when the money would have been much better spent on a number of "lesser" players filling the gaps in our squad that we so desperately needed to address. Also, if you add someone who's on huge wages to a squad then you end up paying everyone else more money too, as they see what the star is on and expect some of that too. In the end, you're paying extortionate money to shite players you can't get rid of because no-one else is stupid enough to offer them the same. Year after year, we have been paying out Champions' League transfer-fees and wages and have had a mid-table team on the pitch and the results, and therefore the income, to go with it. This is a situation that cannot go on indefinitely, as in a similar way to what I have said above regarding the squad, every year we reach financially for the Champions' League and fail to get there the gap between where we are and where we're trying to get to widens.

 

I think Shepherd recognised this himself at various points. When under Robson we made the qualifying stages of the Champions' League, he made the - not unreasonable - assumption that we had a squad good enough to qualify and chose not to spend any money to improve it, only bringing in Bowyer on a free. I think he knew that sometimes when you achieve a higher level you need to take a bit of a breather, replenish your reserves and pay back some of what it cost you to get there. Unfortunately for him - and us - that turned out to be a mistake, a costly mistake from which we've never truly recovered. Ever since that, the general trend for NUFC has been downward and the financial state of the club has suffered accordingly, subsequently the challenge of bridging the gap has become harder and harder. This problem was exacerbated because, either through his own limited ability to come up with alternative approaches or a fear of fans' reaction should he fail to deliver a glamour signing, Fred's preferred tactic remained largely unchanged. His weakness for a big-name signing meant that, that was his favoured option, both in good times or bad, whether it was the right thing for the club or not and regardless of whether we could really afford it. He threw good money after bad and we ended up in the dire financial situation we find ourselves now.

 

There comes a point both financially and in terms of the playing squad, when we have to realise that the gap is just too wide to jump and instead we need to aim to go part of the way, establish ourselves there and then attempt to bridge the remaining distance. We need to be aiming to build a squad capable of consistently finishing in the top half of the Premiership and challenging for a UEFA Cup place, then once we've done that we can start thinking about the Champions' League and perhaps winning things. Oh, and we need to make sure that we don't screw ourselves financially doing so. If we go out and buy a couple of Champions' League players to play with the rest of our bottom-half of the league squad then it's not going to work and we'll have wasted the Champions' League transfer fees and wages we'd have paid-out for the honour and all. We're not ready for Champions' League players yet, we need UEFA cup players and top-half of the Premiership players at the moment. As much as people will hate to admit it and undoubtedly I'll get shit for saying this, but it's the truth and although sometimes the truth hurts; it's still the truth.

 

Far too many people seem to want us to go straight from where we are to the Champions' League in one fell swoop, well it ain't going to happen like that and if we keep kidding ourselves it is, then it'll never happen. When Ashley talks about the direction he wants to take the club, he seems to understand this, at least that's what I understand by the comparison to Villa, etc. Whether he's capable of pulling it off is another matter, but I'm willing to give him a while longer to find out. I never expected that there wouldn't be complications or teething troubles to start off with. I didn't expect them to be as big as they've turned out to be, but I don't think anyone really knew just how much of a financial mess the previous board had left behind and the credit crunch doesn't help matters either. I hope that Ashley hasn't made a Shepherd-esque error by assuming that we won't go down this season, in the same way that Fred assumed we'd reach the Champions' League. I honestly don't think we will, but I'm pretty sure I thought we'd beat Partizan at the time, too.

 

Basically, we need to establish ourselves nearer to the top of the Premiership, walk before we can run, or whatever. If we continue to aim too high, we'll end up falling on our arse...

 

 

 

 

...again!

 

I wouldn't disagree with a lot of your initial assessments, but in the case of Owen, only with hindsight can you say he hasn't been good value for money. Yes he had a history of niggling injuries, but nobody could have foreseen him being out for a whole season and only playing the games he has played. He was one of the few players who could fill the breach of Shearer, maybe not 100% what with Shearer being a Geordie and having his heart in the club etc but one of the few players able to take on the mantle. I believe that alongside Bellamy, he would have been one of the top partnerships in the mould of Cole/Beardsley, Shearer/Ferdinand, and Bellamy/Shearer. It wasn't to be but the reason for that has been well documented and the club can only do its best to attract such players, and for me attracting such players should always be the aim.

 

If anything, we haven't bought enough of these players. The line you take - a common one - of improving the team ie bringing in "lesser" players is the reason why you make so many wholesale changes in personnell, you buy players who you think may be the quality you would like, but they don't become that so you sell them and buy someone else, and the circle starts again. You can't beat top quality, which is there to stay, when you can get it. This is why I laugh when people make this silly "trophy signing" comments, the simple fact is the more top quality players you can get the better, although I don't think anybody who has made this comment can point to many of these players at the club either, even more laughable.

 

If - for a club like us, with our support and turnover [which is only maintained if we are winning on the pitch just like anybody else] we can't be in for these players then its selling ourselves short.

 

I am aware of the need to sometimes tighten up, but this is where we disagree, I don't think - again because of our support and turnover or potential turnover - that it means selling our best players or causing a situation whereby our best players lose confidence in the clubs desire to be successful causing them to want to move, which has happened in the last 18 months for the first time in nearly 20 years and will continue if the club continues its present path.

 

 

 

This is a fair criticsm of Shepherd's time in my book, other people outside the region often commented that we tended to spend big on one or two trophy signings while leaving gaping holes in other areas of the squad. After Souness blew £48m, Roeder still ended up fielding the likes of Ramage and Huntington at the back. While it's great to sign the likes of Owen, unless you are going to strengthen likewise across the squad you end up out of pocket and with a disgruntled superstar who plays with a face like a smacked arse.

 

I don't think you understand the point I'm making. What I'm saying is that they backed the managers but the managers didn't make good judgements. We have bought lots of central midfield players [for example] because none of them have proved good enough, nobody has replaced both Rob Lee and Gary Speed properly, from Jenas, Parker, Emre, Butt, Barton and now Nolan. I quite like Nolan I must be honest, although he isn't a "top" player, however in our current position I think he will be a good buy because he will give a lot of leadership too to a group of players who seem to be far too quiet and need it badly.

 

In short, you are still using this silly "trophy player" comment, the trophy winning clubs are the ones who have the most "trophy players". In fact now we are on about it, give me the names of the players you think are these "trophy players" that you despise so much.

 

If a top player becomes available, then you MUST attempt to get him, its as simple as that.

 

BTW, I live outside of the area, I have regular contact with supporters of various clubs all over the country, and not a single person has EVER said to me that we have spent too much money on these trophy signings.

 

 

 

 

So you are blaming the managers for poor judgement despite the fact they were appointed by the Chairman who's judgement was sound I take it?

 

BTW, I love trophy signings. Since Sheperd became Chairman I think trophy signings have been fairly limited compared to when John Hall was the Leader and we had quality across the pitch. 

 

 

 

I doubt very much that a single person with less than 30% of shares ran the club single handed, made all the major decisions, and told everybody else including the major shareholders later.

 

Of course, I realise you will change the rules to suit your agenda opinion

 

Meanwhile, it would appear that Douglas Hall was instrumental in the decision to sack Bobby Robson, which blows your nonsensical and highly unlikely idea away, as only an utter idiot would think someone with less than 30% of shares would make such decisions o his own anyway

 

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20050220/ai_n9771152

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/jul/25/newsstory.sport8

 

I'm pleased for you that you think nobody else appoints managers who make some bad decisions. Those 87 other clubs who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did over a period of 15 years, must have some setup.

 

 

[merlin]

Hopefully in the summer the first team will be boosted in numbers & freshened up with the likes of Viduka, Owen & a few others who have hung around the club for a while going nowhere getting moved on or contracts not renewed. Getting L.Blanc in as coach would also make me very happy.

 

There long term plan of signing young youth internationals could turn out to be great. There is no doubt a few of these lads will fail to make the grade but as the club is at a stage were it cant compete signing the best youngsters then it has to  be smarter than the other clubs. I don't think Wise is the man for this gig but as he is in place lets hope he goes on to prove most of us wrong & he can sit with European Football elite DOF:Foschi, Munchi & Lacombe

 

Aye, the plan is great in theory but for it to work the football side needs to be as meticulous as the financial planning. The appointment of the right manager is key and who the club go for will tell us a lot about Ashley's plans and whether they match up with the big talk.

 

Spot on, I liked what Ricky Sbragia  was saying about signing players:

 

But the club is determined that it will have as complete a dossier on any potential new signing as possible in the future - an aim that most managers strive for but often fail to fully achieve.

 

Sbragia though is a cautious character by nature and sees it as a vital part of his role to ensure the club's money is spent as fruitfully as possible.

 

The club's two signings in the January transfer window, Tal Ben-Haim and Calum Davenport, were both players that the club knew about in great detail and felt confident would fit into Sunderland's plans.

 

And Sbragia regards successful player recruitment as one of the absolute keys to any hope of progress on Wearside.

 

He said: "It was something I saw first-hand at Manchester United - the care taken over recruitment and the planning that might go into it, months and months and sometimes even years in advance.

 

"United make sure that they are constantly tracking players and, just as importantly, checking to see whether the temperament and talent of particular individuals would suit United.

 

"I always said that if I ever became a manager I would never sign a player that I hadn't seen in the flesh myself and that's something I intend to keep to."

 

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/safc/Sunderland-eye-top-young-keeper.4987413.jp

 

I don't know how many times I've heard Newcastle managers say the player has to be right for this club, then end up getting sacked because they bought bad players. Hopefullt Ricky Sbragia will follow their example.

 

They probably meant ' the player has to have an agent who gives me a backhander from the deal'.....!

[thomas]

I doubt very much that a single person with less than 30% of shares ran the club single handed, made all the major decisions, and told everybody else including the major shareholders later.

A persons stake in the company is only part of the story, which you don't seem to realize.  Bill Gates is still the single largest shareholder of Microsoft but is completely removed from decision making.  Steve Ballmer (a minority shareholder GASP! ) runs the show. 

 

Banging on about what percentage he owned is pointless when the authority given to him wasn't dictated by shares owned. 

 

Freddy was running things after SJH stepped aside and gave control of the families interests to Dougie. 

 

I suspect you know this.  You know that Freddy steamrolled Dougie, told him what was what, how "I've been doing this for years son, leave this up to me." was probably the order of the day.  You know it. 

 

[NE5]

I doubt very much that a single person with less than 30% of shares ran the club single handed, made all the major decisions, and told everybody else including the major shareholders later.

A persons stake in the company is only part of the story, which you don't seem to realize.  Bill Gates is still the single largest shareholder of Microsoft but is completely removed from decision making.  Steve Ballmer (a minority shareholder GASP! ) runs the show. 

 

Banging on about what percentage he owned is pointless when the authority given to him wasn't dictated by shares owned. 

 

Freddy was running things after SJH stepped aside and gave control of the families interests to Dougie. 

 

I suspect you know this.  You know that Freddy steamrolled Dougie, told him what was what, how "I've been doing this for years son, leave this up to me." was probably the order of the day.  You know it. 

 

 

one big company ie Microsoft, doesn't mean everybody is the same. You should also have cottoned onto the fact by now that football isn't like a normal business, because if it was, all these successful businessmen would be successful in football.

 

Not that I consider qualifying for the champions League, reaching 2 FA Cup Finals, qualifying for the UEFA Cup, expanding and filling the stadium to be failure. At the end of the day, despite mistakes which everybody makes, as has been pointed out to you by myself and one or two others who are now starting to understand, they/he didn't settle for mediocrity and all these people still blindly supporting Ashley will kill for half of that if their man does it. And those quotes from Douglas Hall are quite obviously statements saying that - as had been the case since appointing Keegan the first time - that the club had been very much run by all concerned.

 

The Halls are no fools, there is no way they would have allowed one person to make such appointments on their own with such a stake in the club.

 

I doubt Freddie Shepherd said anything like that to Douglas, and you know it. Would you like me to support that with the comments from Keegans book re who was responsible for appointing Keegan, again ?

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

[NE5]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

 

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

[Guest toonlass]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

 

Are we still on this question?

[NE5]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

 

Are we still on this question?

 

he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies.

 

 

[relámpago blanco]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

 

Are we still on this question?

 

he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies.

 

 

Would you be happy if Shepherd bought the club back?

[madras]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

 

Are we still on this question?

 

he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies.

 

 

it's not the only question on here that goes unanswered though is it ?

 

do you keep on borrowing while making a loss and debts mounting until you are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

 

 

he's a bit shy with the answer. the truth being he knows you can't borrow indefinitly but to say so would break his argument. so instead he'll reply (not answer) that you won't compete without spending (whilst neglecting to say where the money will come from,maybe throwing in a reference to other clubs in debt of which none are actually in our position)

[NE5]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

 

Are we still on this question?

 

he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies.

 

 

it's not the only question on here that goes unanswered though is it ?

 

do you keep on borrowing while making a loss and debts mounting until you are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

 

 

he's a bit shy with the answer. the truth being he knows you can't borrow indefinitly but to say so would break his argument. so instead he'll reply (not answer) that you won't compete without spending (whilst neglecting to say where the money will come from,maybe throwing in a reference to other clubs in debt of which none are actually in our position)

 

I've answered you. You don't know if the next player will be the one that gives you great value, you don't deliberately buy a player that doesn't give good value, and re the question that mandiarse refuses to answer because he KNOWS he has agreed with at least 4 of those 6 appointments, is that you don't deliberately appoint managers who you think will fail either.

 

The worst scenario is the one that Ashley is taking which is not to take the risks to compete, so stand by for a dose of REAL mediocrity, far worse than what you previously thought it was.

 

 

[NE5]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

 

Are we still on this question?

 

he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies.

 

 

Would you be happy if Shepherd bought the club back?

 

do you mean the Halls and Shepherd ?

 

 

[relámpago blanco]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

 

Are we still on this question?

 

he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies.

 

 

Would you be happy if Shepherd bought the club back?

 

do you mean the Halls and Shepherd ?

 

 

I don't think SJH would, so say Douglas Hall and The Shepherds.

[ToonTastic]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

 

Are we still on this question?

 

he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies.

 

 

Would you be happy if Shepherd bought the club back?

 

do you mean the Halls and Shepherd ?

 

 

I don't think SJH would, so say Douglas Hall and The Shepherds.

 

Don't think Douglas Hall would I think it's Shepherds and other people.

[relámpago blanco]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

 

Are we still on this question?

 

he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies.

 

 

Would you be happy if Shepherd bought the club back?

 

do you mean the Halls and Shepherd ?

 

 

I don't think SJH would, so say Douglas Hall and The Shepherds.

 

Don't think Douglas Hall would I think it's Shepherds and other people.

Of course DH would, piss about on drunken trips whilst getting 1m per year salary?

[Dr Venkman]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

 

Are we still on this question?

 

he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies.

 

 

it's not the only question on here that goes unanswered though is it ?

 

do you keep on borrowing while making a loss and debts mounting until you are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

 

 

he's a bit shy with the answer. the truth being he knows you can't borrow indefinitly but to say so would break his argument. so instead he'll reply (not answer) that you won't compete without spending (whilst neglecting to say where the money will come from,maybe throwing in a reference to other clubs in debt of which none are actually in our position)

 

I've answered you. You don't know if the next player will be the one that gives you great value, you don't deliberately buy a player that doesn't give good value, and re the question that mandiarse refuses to answer because he KNOWS he has agreed with at least 4 of those 6 appointments, is that you don't deliberately appoint managers who you think will fail either.

 

The worst scenario is the one that Ashley is taking which is not to take the risks to compete, so stand by for a dose of REAL mediocrity, far worse than what you previously thought it was.

 

 

 

err, no it isnt.

[NE5]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

 

Are we still on this question?

 

he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies.

 

 

Would you be happy if Shepherd bought the club back?

 

do you mean the Halls and Shepherd ?

 

 

I don't think SJH would, so say Douglas Hall and The Shepherds.

 

Don't think Douglas Hall would I think it's Shepherds and other people.

Of course DH would, piss about on drunken trips whilst getting 1m per year salary?

 

eeerr........and the relevance, if the team is playing regularly in europe, filling the stadium, and signing good footballers, is what exactly ?

 

 

[NE5]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

 

Are we still on this question?

 

he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies.

 

 

it's not the only question on here that goes unanswered though is it ?

 

do you keep on borrowing while making a loss and debts mounting until you are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

 

 

he's a bit shy with the answer. the truth being he knows you can't borrow indefinitly but to say so would break his argument. so instead he'll reply (not answer) that you won't compete without spending (whilst neglecting to say where the money will come from,maybe throwing in a reference to other clubs in debt of which none are actually in our position)

 

I've answered you. You don't know if the next player will be the one that gives you great value, you don't deliberately buy a player that doesn't give good value, and re the question that mandiarse refuses to answer because he KNOWS he has agreed with at least 4 of those 6 appointments, is that you don't deliberately appoint managers who you think will fail either.

 

The worst scenario is the one that Ashley is taking which is not to take the risks to compete, so stand by for a dose of REAL mediocrity, far worse than what you previously thought it was.

 

 

 

err, no it isnt.

 

yes it is. It led to near bankruptcy and one foot in the 3rd division.