January Transfer Window

[ChezGiven]

Nice thread HTL. I go for option A which everyone else said was their option C which in this coming window wont exist. There were options over the summer to fill in the gaps on the cheap but for whatever reasons they didnt happen. The option C which people want (just a few million; not too much) doesnt exist as a solution to our problems. We need firepower and i think we should gamble.

 

There will be cheap options this winter with contracts ending in the summer and some clubs looking to cash in.

 

Beckham?  bluebiggrin.gif

 

We need a big strong athletic striker/defender. This is going to cost a fortune. There are plenty of other clubs prepared to pay decent wages nowadays and they arent involved in a relegation scrap.

 

Viduka is a big strong striker and Distin is an athletic defender. Both coming to the end of their contracts. Apparently Pearce doesnt want to sell Distin but would the City board let an asset potentially worth a couple of million walk out on a free in 6 months?

 

So if we go for these two thats how much money? With us in the relegation zone too...

 

Neither would be free and am not sure Viduka is the sort of character we need. Still, not bad suggestions.

 

I would be suprised if both players cost over £4m.

 

Not sure about Viduka's character but he is more likely to score than any of the strikers we currently have on the books.

 

So £4m plus big wages is nowt. When next years figures are published and the income to wages ratio has gone up are you going to slag off the Board even more than you do now, given that they would have done what you want them to do? Why don't you want the club to sell Parker and Emre to reduce the debt? 

 

This would keep Macbeth and his monkey happy for starters, or would they then claim the club has no ambition?

 

I would slag off the board for putting us in this position in the first place. If it saves us going down its a worthy investment but there is only one reason we are in this position, the boards inability to sign a manager who can take us forward without having to spend stupid sums of money!

 

None of which gets anywhere close to answering the question in the thread.

 

Broken f****** record.

 

AND! If the boards inability to appoint a manager who can take us forward is the only problem we have, then why not advocate a new manager? Surely that whole sentiment about the manager assumes we have the right players just the wrong manager. No matter what your opinion of the chairman or the past, if its just a question of having the wrong manager but that we DO have the right players then we should just replace the manager.

 

If you disagree then that means you think the players arent good enough, in which case its not the managerial appointment that is to blame, its our recent past. 

[Howaythelads]

Nice thread HTL. I go for option A which everyone else said was their option C which in this coming window wont exist. There were options over the summer to fill in the gaps on the cheap but for whatever reasons they didnt happen. The option C which people want (just a few million; not too much) doesnt exist as a solution to our problems. We need firepower and i think we should gamble.

 

There will be cheap options this winter with contracts ending in the summer and some clubs looking to cash in.

 

Beckham?  bluebiggrin.gif

 

We need a big strong athletic striker/defender. This is going to cost a fortune. There are plenty of other clubs prepared to pay decent wages nowadays and they arent involved in a relegation scrap.

 

Viduka is a big strong striker and Distin is an athletic defender. Both coming to the end of their contracts. Apparently Pearce doesnt want to sell Distin but would the City board let an asset potentially worth a couple of million walk out on a free in 6 months?

 

So if we go for these two thats how much money? With us in the relegation zone too...

 

Neither would be free and am not sure Viduka is the sort of character we need. Still, not bad suggestions.

 

I would be suprised if both players cost over £4m.

 

Not sure about Viduka's character but he is more likely to score than any of the strikers we currently have on the books.

 

So £4m plus big wages is nowt. When next years figures are published and the income to wages ratio has gone up are you going to slag off the Board even more than you do now, given that they would have done what you want them to do? Why don't you want the club to sell Parker and Emre to reduce the debt? 

 

This would keep Macbeth and his monkey happy for starters, or would they then claim the club has no ambition?

 

I would slag off the board for putting us in this position in the first place. If it saves us going down its a worthy investment but there is only one reason we are in this position, the boards inability to sign a manager who can take us forward without having to spend stupid sums of money!

 

None of which gets anywhere close to answering the question in the thread.

 

Broken f****** record.

 

AND! If the boards inability to appoint a manager who can take us forward is the only problem we have, then why not advocate a new manager? Surely that whole sentiment about the manager assumes we have the right players just the wrong manager. No matter what your opinion of the chairman or the past, if its just a question of having the wrong manager but that we DO have the right players then we should just replace the manager.

 

If you disagree then that means you think the players arent good enough, in which case its not the managerial appointment that is to blame, its our recent past. 

 

I think it's a no brainer the players aren't good enough.  We have no decent strikers, for example.

[Guest Moe-Ali]

I think we only need a single striker, and two defenders come january, i would happily take, David Navarro, Wayne bridge and Giuseppe Rossi, untill the end of the season.

 

So we'd look like..

 

 

Given

 

Ramage Navarro Taylor Bridge

 

Dyer/Milner Butt/Emre Parker Zoggy/Duff

 

Luque/Rossi Martins

 

These are all good team players and i think we could be succesful with that.

 

Keep the heads up.

Later.

 

 

 

[Mick]

 

online, and avoiding it

 

 

 

Online and avoiding what?  Why would I want to avoid your brothers thread?  I assume you do mean me.

 

All I'll say is that you can't answer the question at this time, things could be so bad by the time we reach January that we'll be selling while some of our players retain value because if we do go down we'll be selling in the bargain basement just to get the wages down.

 

If you or your brother are interested then ask again in January and I'll consider answering it.

 

PS

 

I can't comment on something before I see it, unlike you who will see something and just avoid it because you don't want to answer it.

 

Happy with that?

 

Well, basically, you must be thinking we won't stay where we are or you would reply now. Which will probably piss you off mightily if you don't have grounds to continue being macbeths monkey .... glad you think that being in the bottom few positions for a few weeks is the same as spending decades in the same position or lower, what a fool.   

 

 

 

I'll be over the moon if we're not where we are, you'll try anything to discredit people who don't agree with you but it just makes you look even more stupid, hard to believe that anybody could think you were more stupid, I know.

 

Great if we're only at the bottom for a few weeks but for now that's where we are so don't start bragging about getting out of it before it happens.

[Martin Lol]

I was hearing last night that Pompey won't be going after Anthony Gardner after all (as everyone had been hoping) as Redknapp has reputedly struck a deal for Distin. If it is true, would be a blow for Spurs fans and possibly Newcastle too. 

[Mick]

It's a loaded question.  So here's another: whom would you hold ultimately responsible if we go down?

 

It's loaded only if you think people want to slag the Board despite the Board doing what they want them to do.

 

The Board has made mistakes, how many times does it have to be said and ignored, so slag them for that and for Fred calling Geordie women dogs, if that's what does it for you and you think it's bad for performances on the pitch. But don't slag them for doing what you want.

 

It's a really very simple about the Board. What you won't accept is that if Souness had spent the £50m on that 5th placed squad properly we wouldn't be where we are now. Souness picked the players to come in and it was him who booted various players out he couldn't manage, while undermining their fee, all of which was supported by those moaning right now. The same people who slagged people like me for telling them it would go pear shaped.  "No, we'll be better off", they said. The same people are now saying we'll be better off without the current Board. 

 

(Broken record alert...."and who appointed Souness?".....end of broken record alert).

 

I'm sure you're not so stupid that you don't get the point, but probably like others all you really want to do is moan on and on and on and on and on............

 

I'm sure those members who have taken the trouble to respond properly aren't the type who will complain later. Which says it all.

Souness did get rid of players, mainly Bellamy and Robert, but we all knew that was coming the day he was appointed, Shepherd must have known that, and he backed him while doing it and took a great deal of pleasure in letting us know that Shearer was, then wasn't, going to knock 10 bells out of one of Bellamy.  Shepherd brought Souness in to sort out what was seen as a problem dressing room and Bellamy was one of the main problems and had to go according to some, Souness and Shepherd both seemed to share that view.  Shepherd only backed down once he'd seen how we played and struggled without Bellamy.  Shepherd was as much to blame for us giving Bellamy away as Souness was.

[NE5]

 

online, and avoiding it

 

 

 

Online and avoiding what?  Why would I want to avoid your brothers thread?  I assume you do mean me.

 

All I'll say is that you can't answer the question at this time, things could be so bad by the time we reach January that we'll be selling while some of our players retain value because if we do go down we'll be selling in the bargain basement just to get the wages down.

 

If you or your brother are interested then ask again in January and I'll consider answering it.

 

PS

 

I can't comment on something before I see it, unlike you who will see something and just avoid it because you don't want to answer it.

 

Happy with that?

 

Well, basically, you must be thinking we won't stay where we are or you would reply now. Which will probably piss you off mightily if you don't have grounds to continue being macbeths monkey .... glad you think that being in the bottom few positions for a few weeks is the same as spending decades in the same position or lower, what a fool.   

 

 

 

I'll be over the moon if we're not where we are, you'll try anything to discredit people who don't agree with you but it just makes you look even more stupid, hard to believe that anybody could think you were more stupid, I know.

 

Great if we're only at the bottom for a few weeks but for now that's where we are so don't start bragging about getting out of it before it happens.

 

stupid is think spending decades lower than we are at the moment, and selling our best players who all want to leave, especially staring at relegation to the 3rd division. Only KK bandwagon jumpers think like that.

 

 

[NE5]

It's a loaded question.  So here's another: whom would you hold ultimately responsible if we go down?

 

It's loaded only if you think people want to slag the Board despite the Board doing what they want them to do.

 

The Board has made mistakes, how many times does it have to be said and ignored, so slag them for that and for Fred calling Geordie women dogs, if that's what does it for you and you think it's bad for performances on the pitch. But don't slag them for doing what you want.

 

It's a really very simple about the Board. What you won't accept is that if Souness had spent the £50m on that 5th placed squad properly we wouldn't be where we are now. Souness picked the players to come in and it was him who booted various players out he couldn't manage, while undermining their fee, all of which was supported by those moaning right now. The same people who slagged people like me for telling them it would go pear shaped.  "No, we'll be better off", they said. The same people are now saying we'll be better off without the current Board. 

 

(Broken record alert...."and who appointed Souness?".....end of broken record alert).

 

I'm sure you're not so stupid that you don't get the point, but probably like others all you really want to do is moan on and on and on and on and on............

 

I'm sure those members who have taken the trouble to respond properly aren't the type who will complain later. Which says it all.

Souness did get rid of players, mainly Bellamy and Robert, but we all knew that was coming the day he was appointed, Shepherd must have known that, and he backed him while doing it and took a great deal of pleasure in letting us know that Shearer was, then wasn't, going to knock 10 bells out of one of Bellamy.  Shepherd brought Souness in to sort out what was seen as a problem dressing room and Bellamy was one of the main problems and had to go according to some, Souness and Shepherd both seemed to share that view.  Shepherd only backed down once he'd seen how we played and struggled without Bellamy.  Shepherd was as much to blame for us giving Bellamy away as Souness was.

 

what a stupid post. If Souness had wanted Bellamy to stay, he would have stayed. He wanted Dyer to stay so he was backed by his chairman , do you think Shepherd thought Dyer was a lovely lad .....  whatever Souness is, and he's a lot of things, but one thing he isn't is anybody's yes man.

 

 

[Mick]

 

online, and avoiding it

 

 

 

Online and avoiding what?  Why would I want to avoid your brothers thread?  I assume you do mean me.

 

All I'll say is that you can't answer the question at this time, things could be so bad by the time we reach January that we'll be selling while some of our players retain value because if we do go down we'll be selling in the bargain basement just to get the wages down.

 

If you or your brother are interested then ask again in January and I'll consider answering it.

 

PS

 

I can't comment on something before I see it, unlike you who will see something and just avoid it because you don't want to answer it.

 

Happy with that?

 

Well, basically, you must be thinking we won't stay where we are or you would reply now. Which will probably piss you off mightily if you don't have grounds to continue being macbeths monkey .... glad you think that being in the bottom few positions for a few weeks is the same as spending decades in the same position or lower, what a fool.   

 

 

 

I'll be over the moon if we're not where we are, you'll try anything to discredit people who don't agree with you but it just makes you look even more stupid, hard to believe that anybody could think you were more stupid, I know.

 

Great if we're only at the bottom for a few weeks but for now that's where we are so don't start bragging about getting out of it before it happens.

 

stupid is think spending decades lower than we are at the moment, and selling our best players who all want to leave, especially staring at relegation to the 3rd division. Only KK bandwagon jumpers think like that.

 

 

 

So you agree then.

[Mick]

It's a loaded question.  So here's another: whom would you hold ultimately responsible if we go down?

 

It's loaded only if you think people want to slag the Board despite the Board doing what they want them to do.

 

The Board has made mistakes, how many times does it have to be said and ignored, so slag them for that and for Fred calling Geordie women dogs, if that's what does it for you and you think it's bad for performances on the pitch. But don't slag them for doing what you want.

 

It's a really very simple about the Board. What you won't accept is that if Souness had spent the £50m on that 5th placed squad properly we wouldn't be where we are now. Souness picked the players to come in and it was him who booted various players out he couldn't manage, while undermining their fee, all of which was supported by those moaning right now. The same people who slagged people like me for telling them it would go pear shaped.  "No, we'll be better off", they said. The same people are now saying we'll be better off without the current Board. 

 

(Broken record alert...."and who appointed Souness?".....end of broken record alert).

 

I'm sure you're not so stupid that you don't get the point, but probably like others all you really want to do is moan on and on and on and on and on............

 

I'm sure those members who have taken the trouble to respond properly aren't the type who will complain later. Which says it all.

Souness did get rid of players, mainly Bellamy and Robert, but we all knew that was coming the day he was appointed, Shepherd must have known that, and he backed him while doing it and took a great deal of pleasure in letting us know that Shearer was, then wasn't, going to knock 10 bells out of one of Bellamy.  Shepherd brought Souness in to sort out what was seen as a problem dressing room and Bellamy was one of the main problems and had to go according to some, Souness and Shepherd both seemed to share that view.  Shepherd only backed down once he'd seen how we played and struggled without Bellamy.  Shepherd was as much to blame for us giving Bellamy away as Souness was.

 

what a stupid post. If Souness had wanted Bellamy to stay, he would have stayed. He wanted Dyer to stay so he was backed by his chairman , do you think Shepherd thought Dyer was a lovely lad .....  whatever Souness is, and he's a lot of things, but one thing he isn't is anybody's yes man.

 

 

 

You can't read, can you?

 

Where did I say that Souness wanted Bellamy to stay?

 

Are you telling me that you didn't think Souness and Bellamy were heading for a collision as soon as Souness arrived, Dyer, Bellamy and Robert were all mentioned as being likely to fall out with Souness and most of the papers predicted the fall-outs that occurred although not how they would occur, I’m sure we both predicted what would happen.

 

Souness didn't want Bellamy to stay because he wouldn't jump when told to, the same thing happened at Blackburn with a number of players, it's something that Souness did and was predicted.  Dyer stayed because he buckled and didn't have the balls to try it on with Souness.

 

If I could see what was going to happen and I'm sure you've also said that it was predictable then surely Shepherd must have expected it.

 

Are you saying that Shepherd knew nothing about the history Souness brought to the club?  My guess is that you do, you absolve Shepherd of any responsibility when appointing Souness, it's all the fault of Souness and the fans who were willing to give him a chance, once appointed.

 

[NE5]

It's a loaded question.  So here's another: whom would you hold ultimately responsible if we go down?

 

It's loaded only if you think people want to slag the Board despite the Board doing what they want them to do.

 

The Board has made mistakes, how many times does it have to be said and ignored, so slag them for that and for Fred calling Geordie women dogs, if that's what does it for you and you think it's bad for performances on the pitch. But don't slag them for doing what you want.

 

It's a really very simple about the Board. What you won't accept is that if Souness had spent the £50m on that 5th placed squad properly we wouldn't be where we are now. Souness picked the players to come in and it was him who booted various players out he couldn't manage, while undermining their fee, all of which was supported by those moaning right now. The same people who slagged people like me for telling them it would go pear shaped.  "No, we'll be better off", they said. The same people are now saying we'll be better off without the current Board. 

 

(Broken record alert...."and who appointed Souness?".....end of broken record alert).

 

I'm sure you're not so stupid that you don't get the point, but probably like others all you really want to do is moan on and on and on and on and on............

 

I'm sure those members who have taken the trouble to respond properly aren't the type who will complain later. Which says it all.

Souness did get rid of players, mainly Bellamy and Robert, but we all knew that was coming the day he was appointed, Shepherd must have known that, and he backed him while doing it and took a great deal of pleasure in letting us know that Shearer was, then wasn't, going to knock 10 bells out of one of Bellamy.  Shepherd brought Souness in to sort out what was seen as a problem dressing room and Bellamy was one of the main problems and had to go according to some, Souness and Shepherd both seemed to share that view.  Shepherd only backed down once he'd seen how we played and struggled without Bellamy.  Shepherd was as much to blame for us giving Bellamy away as Souness was.

 

what a stupid post. If Souness had wanted Bellamy to stay, he would have stayed. He wanted Dyer to stay so he was backed by his chairman , do you think Shepherd thought Dyer was a lovely lad .....  whatever Souness is, and he's a lot of things, but one thing he isn't is anybody's yes man.

 

 

 

You can't read, can you?

 

Where did I say that Souness wanted Bellamy to stay?

 

Are you telling me that you didn't think Souness and Bellamy were heading for a collision as soon as Souness arrived, Dyer, Bellamy and Robert were all mentioned as being likely to fall out with Souness and most of the papers predicted the fall-outs that occurred although not how they would occur, I’m sure we both predicted what would happen.

 

Souness didn't want Bellamy to stay because he wouldn't jump when told to, the same thing happened at Blackburn with a number of players, it's something that Souness did and was predicted.  Dyer stayed because he buckled and didn't have the balls to try it on with Souness.

 

If I could see what was going to happen and I'm sure you've also said that it was predictable then surely Shepherd must have expected it.

 

Are you saying that Shepherd knew nothing about the history Souness brought to the club?  My guess is that you do, you absolve Shepherd of any responsibility when appointing Souness, it's all the fault of Souness and the fans who were willing to give him a chance, once appointed.

 

 

oh dear.

 

I have said on numerous occasions the board have no excuse for appointing Souness. The one thing you have got right is when you agreed with me that this was a terrible appointment.

 

Shame you don't have a reply to the questions as to why all our best ex managers and players all wanted to leave the club though, under the board that you think is the same as the one who has actually bought top England players and qualifed for europe regularly instead.

 

 

[Mick]

 

oh dear.

 

I have said on numerous occasions the board have no excuse for appointing Souness. The one thing you have got right is when you agreed with me that this was a terrible appointment.

 

Shame you don't have a reply to the questions as to why all our best ex managers and players all wanted to leave the club though, under the board that you think is the same as the one who has actually bought top England players and qualifed for europe regularly instead.

 

 

 

I got the impression from you that it was all down to Ozzie.

[NE5]

 

oh dear.

 

I have said on numerous occasions the board have no excuse for appointing Souness. The one thing you have got right is when you agreed with me that this was a terrible appointment.

 

Shame you don't have a reply to the questions as to why all our best ex managers and players all wanted to leave the club though, under the board that you think is the same as the one who has actually bought top England players and qualifed for europe regularly instead.

 

 

 

I got the impression from you that it was all down to Ozzie.

 

still don't address the point or answer the question, along with your puppet master...

 

 

[tmonkey]

Shame you don't have a reply to the questions as to why all our best ex managers and players all wanted to leave the club though, under the board that you think is the same as the one who has actually bought top England players and qualifed for europe regularly instead.

 

Means nowt when judging the performance of Shephard as chairman. Hes not the one responsible for our transition from small club back to big club (although he could end up being responsible for taking us from big club back to small club, assuming he hasnt already).

 

2nd to 19th, 4 diabolically failed managerial appointments out of 5, dragging the club's name through the dirt several times and making us a national laughing stock, taking millions out of the club in the process, etc etc.

 

Thats what Shephard should be judged by, along with the few successes weve had, which unfortunately for him, and you, pale in significance to his failures.

 

But I guess your crusade must go on.

[NE5]

 

online, and avoiding it

 

 

 

Online and avoiding what?  Why would I want to avoid your brothers thread?  I assume you do mean me.

 

All I'll say is that you can't answer the question at this time, things could be so bad by the time we reach January that we'll be selling while some of our players retain value because if we do go down we'll be selling in the bargain basement just to get the wages down.

 

If you or your brother are interested then ask again in January and I'll consider answering it.

 

PS

 

I can't comment on something before I see it, unlike you who will see something and just avoid it because you don't want to answer it.

 

Happy with that?

 

Well, basically, you must be thinking we won't stay where we are or you would reply now. Which will probably piss you off mightily if you don't have grounds to continue being macbeths monkey .... glad you think that being in the bottom few positions for a few weeks is the same as spending decades in the same position or lower, what a fool.   

 

 

 

I'll be over the moon if we're not where we are, you'll try anything to discredit people who don't agree with you but it just makes you look even more stupid, hard to believe that anybody could think you were more stupid, I know.

 

Great if we're only at the bottom for a few weeks but for now that's where we are so don't start bragging about getting out of it before it happens.

 

stupid is think spending decades lower than we are at the moment, and selling our best players who all want to leave, especially staring at relegation to the 3rd division. Only KK bandwagon jumpers think like that.

 

 

 

So you agree then.

 

it would appear you have a problem when  I mention KK bandwagon jumpers

 

 

[NE5]

If it means selling Parker & Emre then so be it, but we need a major overhaul asap.

 

It should of been done in the summer, but fat cunt didn't want to commit to GR, but he had to, just to clean up the mess Souness made.

 

I think we need.

 

Bridge

Distin

Neill or Young

 

Replacements for Parker or Emre if sold.

 

2 strikers, one loan from abroad (not getting games in a big team) & a proven older head in the EPL.

 

We can't go down the route of a major overhaul, especially in mid season. We need some striking power, and/or someone who will make things happen up front, hold the ball, chase the ball, and enable the whole team to push forward and take more initiative. We also need an attacking box to box midfield player to back this forward player and his partner up. As a result of these changes the team will be a different side. And, just as much, we need one of these players at least to be a leader, have desire and will to win,all the time, and one who can take pressure and all of our players able to play for a club like us. Its easier said than done. As always, it needs the manager not just able to assess the situation correctly, but spend his money properly. Because the reason we are where we are, is because managers..particularly the last one, but Bobby Robson also must take some blame, has wasted far too much money on players who should not have been brought to the club.

 

 

 

No we cant, it should of been done pre-season, it wasn't so now we must do as much as we can.

 

What it sounds like is you want us to go buy Shearer's replacement in the window.

 

But what you want will be £10m minimum, and that's doing what FS has done (and why were screwed) putting all our eggs in one basket.

 

You want a classic mid on top? Cant be done, however, there are cheap options at the back that would cement our EPL status in the 2nd half of the campaign, and then we can finish off what needs doing next summer.

 

But i agree with the two players that we need. Stick Shearer & Speed in a time machine, sorted.

 

We already have Shearers replacment in the club. He cost 16m quid but is injured. Signing him I believe was a huge and brilliant sigining...in fact a forward looking signing of the highest calibre, which most people agreed with at the time, but for some reaon chose to later say it  wasn't forward thinking and is in fact the action that only shit clubs with shit boards do.

 

Unbelievable. You simply could not make this up.

 

 

[NE5]

Shame you don't have a reply to the questions as to why all our best ex managers and players all wanted to leave the club though, under the board that you think is the same as the one who has actually bought top England players and qualifed for europe regularly instead.

 

Means nowt when judging the performance of Shephard as chairman. Hes not the one responsible for our transition from small club back to big club (although he could end up being responsible for taking us from big club back to small club, assuming he hasnt already).

 

2nd to 19th, 4 diabolically failed managerial appointments out of 5,

 

please explain who you would have considered a more ambitious appointment at the time - or ever - than a manager who had won 4

League titles, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards.

 

Please also explain who you would have appointed instead of a manager who won the FA Cup with his first job and left his club in the top 3 of the premiership at the time.

 

Genuine question, and one that I have asked before, that nobody has replied to, especially macbeth and his monkey. But now is your chance.

 

 

[Baggio]

We already have Shearers replacment in the club. He cost 16m quid but is injured. Signing him I believe was a huge and brilliant sigining...in fact a forward looking signing of the highest calibre, which most people agreed with at the time, but for some reaon chose to later say it  wasn't forward thinking and is in fact the action that only shit clubs with shit boards do.

 

Unbelievable. You simply could not make this up.

 

I don't recall anyone saying signing players like Owen is what only shit clubs do.

 

The signing of Owen was great for the club but so far its failed spectacularly, his injuries are just plain bad luck and nobody without the benefit of hindsight could have predicted what happened next, people talk about his signing as 'putting all our eggs in one basket' but that wasn't really the case as we bought Luque only days earlier, a signing that really does seem bizarre looking back at things.

 

I think people question the wisdom of signing him now because of the financial loss that was announced, that could have been avoided though by not signing Luque.

 

Again, that's me looking back in hindsight.

[Baggio]

Shame you don't have a reply to the questions as to why all our best ex managers and players all wanted to leave the club though, under the board that you think is the same as the one who has actually bought top England players and qualifed for europe regularly instead.

 

Means nowt when judging the performance of Shephard as chairman. Hes not the one responsible for our transition from small club back to big club (although he could end up being responsible for taking us from big club back to small club, assuming he hasnt already).

 

2nd to 19th, 4 diabolically failed managerial appointments out of 5,

 

please explain who you would have considered a more ambitious appointment at the time - or ever - than a manager who had won 4

League titles, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards.

 

Please also explain who you would have appointed instead of a manager who won the FA Cup with his first job and left his club in the top 3 of the premiership at the time.

 

Genuine question, and one that I have asked before, that nobody has replied to, especially macbeth and his monkey. But now is your chance.

 

 

 

I read an interview by Freddie Shepherd in the paper the other day and he said Dalglish was appointed by Sir John Hall.

 

Gullit is a tricky one, he done well at Chelsea but as someone has said on here previously he had the location to help him attract his old friends from Serie A who were looking for one final pay day, he wasn't someone I wanted at the club but he certainly wasn't that bad a manager at the time, I don't think anyone could have predicted he'd fail like he did.

 

Who would I have had instead? It was too long ago for me to remember now, I can look back at managers from around that time but the better one's would only be picked on hindsight, I'm surprised we didn't go back in for Sir Bobby as he'd been moved upstairs at Barcelona by then (I think) so they would have been more likely to have let him go.

[Howaythelads]

We already have Shearers replacment in the club. He cost 16m quid but is injured. Signing him I believe was a huge and brilliant sigining...in fact a forward looking signing of the highest calibre, which most people agreed with at the time, but for some reaon chose to later say it  wasn't forward thinking and is in fact the action that only shit clubs with shit boards do.

 

Unbelievable. You simply could not make this up.

 

I don't recall anyone saying signing players like Owen is what only shit clubs do.

 

The signing of Owen was great for the club but so far its failed spectacularly, his injuries are just plain bad luck and nobody without the benefit of hindsight could have predicted what happened next, people talk about his signing as 'putting all our eggs in one basket' but that wasn't really the case as we bought Luque only days earlier, a signing that really does seem bizarre looking back at things.

 

I think people question the wisdom of signing him now because of the financial loss that was announced, that could have been avoided though by not signing Luque.

 

Again, that's me looking back in hindsight.

 

Well Souness apparently signed a proper player for the left side when he signed Luque. One of the problems has been that the player he booted out was our most creative player, disliked because he didn't do twirls and/or run around like a headless chicken. Luque of course does neither of these things, in fact he does very little so yes, very bizarre. I recall people being excited about that one though, at the time many wanted rid of Robert so not many were complaining.

[Guest Knightrider]

The signing of Owen is everything that is wrong with this club, on and off the stands. Don't get me wrong, he's a great player or was and I was excited about his signing but I knew it would come at more than a heavy financial cost. I just knew blowing all that money on him could have and should have been spent elsewhere. Owen is the type of player you buy when you want to win the league ala KK buying Shearer, not to get you from 14th to 7th.

 

16m could have bought us Bent, Johnson and err, Bellamy

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing though and of course, had Owen been fit for a full season, we might have finished 6th or maybe even higher given that we weren't too far off Arsenal's points tally in the end.

 

Regarding this transfer window, we have no choice but to spend money due to the cock-ups in the summer. We can only hope whatever money is made available is spent well and on the right players to make whatever does get spent, go far and give us some much needed value for money. For once.

 

I personally don't have faith in them, the board or Roeder, getting such players so I'm not so sure what should be done. If we don't buy we are fucked but if we do and we don't buy well, we're even more fucked.

 

That's what happens when you appoint poor managers (Souness and now Roeder).

 

Ideally, to save on costs and the ever growing wage bill we should look at some cheap, quick fixes, players like Viduka who has a year left at Boro. He wouldn't cost much although he may want good wages. Alan Smith on loan maybe, Kevin Davies from Bolton. Good players who can help us out.

 

It is all about staying up now, but on a shoe-string budget. We don't want to be offering Atletico Madrid 25m for Torres, or Charlton 12m for Bent, Spurs 10 for Defoe, or West Ham likewise for Ashton. As good as those players are, one injury could fuck us ala Owen.

[Howaythelads]

The signing of Owen is everything that is wrong with this club, on and off the stands. Don't get me wrong, he's a great player or was and I was excited about his signing but I knew it would come at more than a heavy financial cost. I just knew blowing all that money on him could have and should have been spent elsewhere. Owen is the type of player you buy when you want to win the league ala KK buying Shearer, not to get you from 14th to 7th.

 

16m could have bought us Bent, Johnson and err, Bellamy

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing though and of course, had Owen been fit for a full season, we might have finished 6th or maybe even higher given that we weren't too far off Arsenal's points tally in the end.

 

Regarding this transfer window, we have no choice but to spend money due to the cock-ups in the summer. We can only hope whatever money is made available is spent well and on the right players to make whatever does get spent, go far and give us some much needed value for money. For once.

 

I personally don't have faith in them, the board or Roeder, getting such players so I'm not so sure what should be done. If we don't buy we are fucked but if we do and we don't buy well, we're even more fucked.

 

That's what happens when you appoint poor managers (Souness and now Roeder).

 

Ideally, to save on costs and the ever growing wage bill we should look at some cheap, quick fixes, players like Viduka who has a year left at Boro. He wouldn't cost much although he may want good wages. Alan Smith on loan maybe, Kevin Davies from Bolton. Good players who can help us out.

 

It is all about staying up now, but on a shoe-string budget. We don't want to be offering Atletico Madrid 25m for Torres, or Charlton 12m for Bent, Spurs 10 for Defoe, or West Ham likewise for Ashton. As good as those players are, one injury could **** us ala Owen.

 

Decent post, tbh.

[tmonkey]

Shame you don't have a reply to the questions as to why all our best ex managers and players all wanted to leave the club though, under the board that you think is the same as the one who has actually bought top England players and qualifed for europe regularly instead.

 

Means nowt when judging the performance of Shephard as chairman. Hes not the one responsible for our transition from small club back to big club (although he could end up being responsible for taking us from big club back to small club, assuming he hasnt already).

 

2nd to 19th, 4 diabolically failed managerial appointments out of 5,

 

please explain who you would have considered a more ambitious appointment at the time - or ever - than a manager who had won 4

League titles, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards.

 

Please also explain who you would have appointed instead of a manager who won the FA Cup with his first job and left his club in the top 3 of the premiership at the time.

 

Genuine question, and one that I have asked before, that nobody has replied to, especially macbeth and his monkey. But now is your chance.

 

Listing Dalglish's trophies as evidence of him being a top manager means nowt. Why, at the time, did so many of us cringe at his appointment? I certainly did - yet you clearly thought hed be a great success. Again, who was in the wrong?

 

He may have won trophies with Blackburn and Pool, but he had been out of the game for several years after his failed DOF role when Blackburn were shiite after winning the title, and he was completely the wrong type of manager to take over the crop of players we had at the time - defensive, stubborn, and was always going to dislike some of our key players as they simply wouldnt suit his view of the game. It wasnt suprising at all that he tore Keegan's squad apart as soon as he could, pissing about players like Ginola and Beardo. That is why I did not want Shephard to appoint him, I was hoping we would get a progessive manager in - eg Sir Bobby, who Shephard continually approached at the wrong time when he could have appointed a caretaker and then gone for Sir Bobby as soon as he was available , or did what Milan did to get Ancelotti, ie sack the current manager as soon as the man they really wanted was available - but Shephard took the gamble on an unsuitable and retired candidate, and it blew up in his face.

 

Gullit, meanwhile, I was not sure about. I remember vividly his last few months at Chelsea, with all the reports about the player revolts and the "dark clouds" that had loomed at Stamford Bridge under his tenure - it was guaranteed that he had severe man-management problems. His teams were also bloody shiite in Europe for the players they had. Only reason why I wasnt too against his appointment was that he had achieved success at Chelsea by attracting Serie A rejects, a league far stronger at that time, and hoped that we might do the same too, and therefore we might build a quality team despite his lack of managerial ability. In hindsight, the fact that Chelsea are a London club, fashionable to foreigner superstars particularly at that time, should not have been overlooked. But thats hindsight, and I dont blame Shephard for this appointment, but it still turned out to be a shiite one, for which Shephard needs to be held accountable.

 

As for who I would have appointed, I simply cannot remember who the candidates were at the time, apart from Sir Bobby, who Shephard approached with poor timing and allegedly poor negotiation techniques. I personally would have looked for a manager with a European/Continental track record of moderate success, and good success at domestic level, and/or modern philosophies and training/coaching methods. If that manager wasnt available, appoint a caretaker to take the team to the end of the season, and spend the summer getting the right man.

 

Shephard, however, has proven for a fact he is not competent enough to do any of this. His timing is shocking when dismissing managers, he seems to have no tact or nous in recruiting, resulting in many decent/good managers being brushed aside for the likes of Sounses and Roeder to be appointed.

 

So, now ive taken my "chance", how about you replying to my initial statement, as opposed to asking for lengthy answers to red herrings you continue to dream up:

 

2nd to 19th, 4 diabolically failed managerial appointments out of 5, dragging the club's name through the dirt several times and making us a national laughing stock, taking millions out of the club in the process, etc etc.

 

Thats what Shephard should be judged by, along with the few successes weve had, which unfortunately for him, and you, pale in significance to his failures.

 

Add to that list:

 

- selling/buying players behind the managers' backs, as well as in front of them (Souness/Roeder took a backseat as Shephard signed the players he wanted)

- backing a player over the manager, twice at least

- failing to release funds to strengthen at the time that we needed it most (03), whilst declaring millions in dividends

- making daft and unsettling comments time after time in the media, eg Sir Bobby's last season announced publicly with his knowledge, the "top 8 in world" comments

 

Again, add all this to his track record of taking a club from 2nd and certain perennial title challengers to several relegation worries and early sackings, finishing in the bottom half of the Premiership more times than we have finished in the top half, and explain how he has done a good job, without any of your ridiculous red herrings about the club's state donkey years ago.

[tmonkey]

The signing of Owen is everything that is wrong with this club, on and off the stands. Don't get me wrong, he's a great player or was and I was excited about his signing but I knew it would come at more than a heavy financial cost. I just knew blowing all that money on him could have and should have been spent elsewhere. Owen is the type of player you buy when you want to win the league ala KK buying Shearer, not to get you from 14th to 7th.

 

16m could have bought us Bent, Johnson and err, Bellamy

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing though and of course, had Owen been fit for a full season, we might have finished 6th or maybe even higher given that we weren't too far off Arsenal's points tally in the end.

 

Thats the thing though, it didnt require any hindsight at all. Some of us on here knew things would turn out for the worse because its common sense (noone knew hed get injured in the WC, but that hed get injured regularly and wed be in the shitters once he did). It was common sense that had many of us on here knowing Souness' appointment would end in utter disaster and ruin for the club, just as some of us dreaded the appointment of Roeder with his appalling track record.

 

Youd think our chairman would be wiser, more competent, more knowledgeable, more thorough, more researched, then us fans when making these fundamental choices, yet hes not - he couldnt even see the walking disaster that was Souness, and even threw money at him, whilst most of our fans and the rest of the country were in utter disbelief at the appointment. That is what is so disheartening - he simply cannot be trusted to make footballing decisions anymore. The proof is the past few years, the performances, the results, the strife, the headlines, the embarassments.

[Guest Knightrider]

Dalglish's sacking was very odd. From being the right man for the job, backed up by 14m to spend, to being bombed out in the space of a few weeks was strange to say the least and while technically he wasn't sacked, he was compensated which is all the same really. Something or another must have happened for him to get the boot. I was shocked myself. We were unbeaten in the league and he'd just spent 14m quid. I can't remember fans chanting for him to go or any real angst although there were boos against Charlton in the 0-0 draw but the point at Stamford Bridge was considered a great one and only a few weeks prior we'd beaten Juventyus at home and I remember a buzz around the place.

 

All accounts point to him having an excellent relationship with the squad or as good as any relationship between a manager and a team could be (you're always going to have one or two problems) and the board spoke well of him in pre-season.

 

I guess we'll never know the real reason why he was peddled.

 

I personally believe a dispute developed which couldn't be reconciled, hence Dalglish being paid compensation or hush money, whatever you wan't to call it. I remember him doing a TV interview on some chat show not long after and he wasn't allowed to talk about his departure, or didn't want to, presumably not to affect the outcome of compensation talks.

 

If that was the case, I don't think his departure could be helped, although the timing, as ever with this club, didn't actually help did it? We lost 4-1 at home post-Dalglish with a certain little fella going by the name of Mikey notching a hat-trick.

 

Oh and some French bloke scored his first and last ever Toon goal.

 

And Ruud Gullit took over...