January Transfer Window

[Guest Knightrider]

BTW that talk show, it was with Ally McCoist wasn't it?

[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.

 

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.

 

True and that is what is so frustrating because we could all see it, much as we can today under Roeder. Different time, different man, different team - same old Newcastle, however.

 

I've never felt so disgusted by my club as the day Souness was appointed. It was just wrong on every level. I remember it well, I was gobsmacked and when I saw Souness being interviewed heading out of Ewood (or their training ground) where he confirmed it, I was raging with anger.

 

I knew from that moment that we were fucked. What made it worse was I also knew, as the new manager, I had no choice but to support him and wish him well, knowing it was all going to end in tears.

 

He got some leeway with me did Souness, Roeder will get the same.

 

And he'll go the same way as the Scot.

[Mick]

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

No, it would appear that you think I have a problem when you mention it, just because you think I have a problem with it doesn't mean that it's true, at least not outside of your head.

 

Inside your head you're getting messages that Shepherd is a good chairman, that makes all messages coming from inside your head void.

[Mick]

 

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.

 

 

 

Some people also said it was the wrong decision and pointed out that the club were putting all eggs into one basket and so it has been proven.

 

Signing Owen has not been a brilliant signing so far.

[Mick]

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.

 

Putting £16 million plus into the Owen signing was crazy with his injury record and was a case of putting all our eggs into one basket, Luque was brought into play left wing, a replacement for Robert.

 

Owen was brought into play up front, Bellamy and Kluivert had left and Shearer was on his last legs, we put all of that money into replacing at least two players.

 

People say that Owen was brought in to replace Shearer, if that's the case then our stupid club gets things done in the wrong order as Kluivert and Bellamy had actually left the club so needed replacing first.

[Guest Pugwash]

I know nowt, but can only think Owen was brought in to replace Shearer as a big name.  In my mind I see Owen being brought in to replace Bellamy as a pacy striker who would score more goals but not contribute as much with all-round play.

 

If Souness had not gone out of his way to put Bellamy in his place, and played him as a striker instead of out wide, then perhaps Bellamy would not have seemed so much of a twat, would have remained at Newcastle, and the £16m could have been spent on a Shearer replacement  and other areas of the team. 

[NE5]

 

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.

 

 

 

Some people also said it was the wrong decision and pointed out that the club were putting all eggs into one basket and so it has been proven.

 

Signing Owen has not been a brilliant signing so far.

 

bring back Rob MacDonald and Tony Cunningham eh, signings sanctioned by the board you think is the same as the one who buy England players like Owen.

 

 

[Guest elbee909]

 

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.

 

 

 

Some people also said it was the wrong decision and pointed out that the club were putting all eggs into one basket and so it has been proven.

 

Signing Owen has not been a brilliant signing so far.

 

bring back Rob MacDonald and Tony Cunningham eh, signings sanctioned by the board you think is the same as the one who buy England players like Owen.

 

 

[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.

 

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.

 

If listing Dalglish's trophies is evidence of not being a great manager, why do people [maybe you I don't know and can't be arsed to look at what you've posted] think that winning the League Cup and the Scottish title is proof that O'Neill is ? I am interested to know your view on this, and therefore your view on O'Neill, and therefore your criteria for appointing managers if you don't look at the trophies they have won and their managerial record.

 

I also don't remember anyone cringing when Dalglish was appointed. The whole of football expected him to make the changes needed to Keegans team to go further, in fact.

 

As for being out of the game, Keegan was out of the game for 8 years. O'Neill has been out of the game too, yet people don't seem to think it matters in their case. If you are going to say things and set standards, be consistent and stop twisting them to suit your "opinion".

 

You have no proof that the board interferes in transfers. If this is the case, why do the managers put up with it ? Souness is no yes man and Bobby Robson as a Newcastle supporter [who wasn't interested in the job pre-1992 though when we had a shit board and were going nowhere] make it a matter of principle as others have in the past ie Lee, Cox and Keegan ?

 

I am pleased you think the club appointed/approached Robson at a poor time. Considering he had been approached 2 years earlier. When exactly do you think they should have approached him, at the end of the season having kept Gullit on and been relegated, or stick with the "plan" having appointed Gullit.

 

I am not defending anyone, just making valid points. People should make their opinions on facts and not things they just make up or change as they go, or applying hindsight ie your views on Gullit, as they won the FA Cup and he left a good team that was in europe at the time and went on to win more trophies with his team. I wasn't too keen on him personally because I didn't like all this "sexy football" bollocks, the only thing that matters to me is winning football but would have been more than happy if we had won the FA Cup Final in 1999 as would everyone else too.

 

 

[NE5]

 

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.

 

 

 

Some people also said it was the wrong decision and pointed out that the club were putting all eggs into one basket and so it has been proven.

 

Signing Owen has not been a brilliant signing so far.

 

bring back Rob MacDonald and Tony Cunningham eh, signings sanctioned by the board you think is the same as the one who buy England players like Owen.

 

 

 

don't you have a reply, or is it that you think I am making this up or something. Which responses like that, don't complain when people like me label you as a daft little kid who knows nothing, because that is the message it puts across.

 

 

 

 

[Howaythelads]

 

- 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

 

 

I'm only going to address one point in your post, as it's not directed toward me.

 

The point about not buying in summer 2003 has been brought up LOADS of times and I've responded to it LOADS of times, I may be wrong but I think you've posted this comment before and I've replied to you before. You could have the decency to at least make an effort to address my response to your comment.

 

Here it is again...

 

<snip>

This has already been done to death. The facts show the club speculated to move from the Gullit mediocrity to a CL qualifying place by spending nearly £50m quid net in the 32 months prior to summer 2003, it's also a fact the club lashed out millions in January 2003 on Woodgate, something that is always ignored by those who babble on about summer 2003. From Jan 2001 ( ish ) through to summer 2003 the wage bill increased massively as well because we'd speculated by bringing in nearly a dozen players in 32 months under Robson, with only 2 reserve players leaving the club for very small fees.

<snip>

 

Thanks in advance

[OzzieMandias]

In other words, there was no need to strengthen the team in 2003 because we'd bought some players a couple of years previously.

 

:roll:

[NE5]

In other words, there was no need to strengthen the team in 2003 because we'd bought some players a couple of years previously.

 

:roll:

 

shame you didn't go and dish the dirt on the club to a scumbag cockney journo who hates Newcastle, in your usual style, you might have got rid of them when we were in the Champions League, as you were obviously so unhappy with that

 

 

[NE5]

 

- 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

 

 

I'm only going to address one point in your post, as it's not directed toward me.

 

The point about not buying in summer 2003 has been brought up LOADS of times and I've responded to it LOADS of times, I may be wrong but I think you've posted this comment before and I've replied to you before. You could have the decency to at least make an effort to address my response to your comment.

 

Here it is again...

 

<snip>

This has already been done to death. The facts show the club speculated to move from the Gullit mediocrity to a CL qualifying place by spending nearly £50m quid net in the 32 months prior to summer 2003, it's also a fact the club lashed out millions in January 2003 on Woodgate, something that is always ignored by those who babble on about summer 2003. From Jan 2001 ( ish ) through to summer 2003 the wage bill increased massively as well because we'd speculated by bringing in nearly a dozen players in 32 months under Robson, with only 2 reserve players leaving the club for very small fees.

<snip>

 

Thanks in advance

 

Indeed. I deliberately ignored it for the same reason.

[Guest elbee909]

 

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.

 

 

Some people also said it was the wrong decision and pointed out that the club were putting all eggs into one basket and so it has been proven.

 

Signing Owen has not been a brilliant signing so far.

 

bring back Rob MacDonald and Tony Cunningham eh, signings sanctioned by the board you think is the same as the one who buy England players like Owen.

 

 

 

don't you have a reply, or is it that you think I am making this up or something. Which responses like that, don't complain when people like me label you as a daft little kid who knows nothing, because that is the message it puts across.

 

 

Ok, I apologise for the length of the reply.  That's all though.  I just had to smile at the reversion to type.

 

Daft, to me, is not arguing the point, but quoting it and then bringing up another separate and irrelevant point which may (or may not) have been made by the poster elsewhere, as if that invalidates the point to which you were replying.  What have Cunningham and McDonald got to do with the argument that Owen has been a poor signing for us so far?  No need to fade in the record that you've been playing elsewhere, as here it's just noise.

 

For what it's worth I do agree with you that Owen was a huge signing, but it's obviously not turned out brilliantly.  I totally disagree that it was forward thinking, a real indicator of that would have been more evenly distributed spending on more pressing areas of the squad.  I'm not saying we didn't need strikers, but to spend that much on only one, with an injury record that's never been great, seems irresponsible.

 

Owen was a luxury signing for us and paying that much for him wasn't the cleverest.  You might argue that I'm only saying that with hindsight, and you'd be right, but the hindsight extended to his injury record at Liverpool and was there for all to see.  He could put up with being a bit-part player at Real Madrid but he's not, and never will be, as reliable as Shearer in terms of the number of games we get out of him.

[NE5]

 

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.

 

 

Some people also said it was the wrong decision and pointed out that the club were putting all eggs into one basket and so it has been proven.

 

Signing Owen has not been a brilliant signing so far.

 

bring back Rob MacDonald and Tony Cunningham eh, signings sanctioned by the board you think is the same as the one who buy England players like Owen.

 

 

 

don't you have a reply, or is it that you think I am making this up or something. Which responses like that, don't complain when people like me label you as a daft little kid who knows nothing, because that is the message it puts across.

 

 

Ok, I apologise for the length of the reply.  That's all though.  I just had to smile at the reversion to type.

 

Daft, to me, is not arguing the point, but quoting it and then bringing up another separate and irrelevant point which may (or may not) have been made by the poster elsewhere, as if that invalidates the point to which you were replying.  What have Cunningham and McDonald got to do with the argument that Owen has been a poor signing for us so far?  No need to fade in the record that you've been playing elsewhere, as here it's just noise.

 

For what it's worth I do agree with you that Owen was a huge signing, but it's obviously not turned out brilliantly.  I totally disagree that it was forward thinking, a real indicator of that would have been more evenly distributed spending on more pressing areas of the squad.  I'm not saying we didn't need strikers, but to spend that much on only one, with an injury record that's never been great, seems irresponsible.

 

Owen was a luxury signing for us and paying that much for him wasn't the cleverest.  You might argue that I'm only saying that with hindsight, and you'd be right, but the hindsight extended to his injury record at Liverpool and was there for all to see.  He could put up with being a bit-part player at Real Madrid but he's not, and never will be, as reliable as Shearer in terms of the number of games we get out of him.

 

Ok, some fair points. One thing about football, is that unless you buy players the top clubs themselves want, the ones that win the trophies, you will never be a top club yourself and join them. Whatever the price. Sometimes this means you have to pay the top dollar. Because Owen is injured it is easy to say we should not have bought him - in fact we did pay too much, but you often pay that, all clubs do sometimes, you are far better off paying a few million quid more for a guaranteed quality player than wasting the same amount or more on a gamble that doesn't pay off. So, people should never knock the club for buying proven quality players, if they do the job on the field, you will get your money back, or in football terms, the purchase of the player will be money well spent.

 

Nobody could possibly have predicted Owens injury problems. The position we are in now, you can say we should have spread the money around, but at the time we weren't in the position we are in now. We were looking for a long term replacement to fill the boots of Shearer, and basically, we got one of the few players around who could do it.

 

The money spent on Luque and Boumsong, another 17m quid, is the REAL money that has been wasted and spent badly. Add to that of course, the offloading of Bellamy and Robert, especially Bellamy. If he was still here, we would have one quality player playing his guts out for the club, and arguably would be up to 20m quid better off because it is highly likely we would not have bought both Luque and Martins.

 

 

[Mick]

 

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.

 

 

 

Some people also said it was the wrong decision and pointed out that the club were putting all eggs into one basket and so it has been proven.

 

Signing Owen has not been a brilliant signing so far.

 

bring back Rob MacDonald and Tony Cunningham eh, signings sanctioned by the board you think is the same as the one who buy England players like Owen.

 

 

 

If Shepherd stays at the club much longer then that's the standard you might have to get used to.

[Mick]

 

- 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

 

 

I'm only going to address one point in your post, as it's not directed toward me.

 

The point about not buying in summer 2003 has been brought up LOADS of times and I've responded to it LOADS of times, I may be wrong but I think you've posted this comment before and I've replied to you before. You could have the decency to at least make an effort to address my response to your comment.

 

Here it is again...

 

<snip>

This has already been done to death. The facts show the club speculated to move from the Gullit mediocrity to a CL qualifying place by spending nearly £50m quid net in the 32 months prior to summer 2003, it's also a fact the club lashed out millions in January 2003 on Woodgate, something that is always ignored by those who babble on about summer 2003. From Jan 2001 ( ish ) through to summer 2003 the wage bill increased massively as well because we'd speculated by bringing in nearly a dozen players in 32 months under Robson, with only 2 reserve players leaving the club for very small fees.

<snip>

 

Thanks in advance

 

Where does this net figure of £50 million in 32 months come from?  I've just added up the figures which came to £38.2 million and that included Woodgate.

 

Here's what I can see and your figure doesn't match what this shows.

 

http://www.nufcmismanagement.info/shepherd-spend.html

 

 

Average transfer spend under Freddy Shepherd

 

 

Newcastle's transfers in 2006

Spent: £15.14m, Sold: £8.5m (Net: £6.64m)

 

Newcastle's transfers in 2005

Spent: £49.3m Net, Sold: £18.4m (Net: £30.9m)

 

Newcastle's transfers in 2004

Spent: £9m, Sold: £19.4m (Net: -10.4)

 

Newcastle's transfers in 2003

Spent: £9m, Sold: £0 (Net: £9.0m)

 

Newcastle's transfers in 2002

Spent: £18m, Sold: £.6m (Net: £17.4m)

 

Newcastle's transfers in 2001

Spent: £18.3m, Sold: £6.5m (Net: £11.8m)

 

Newcastle's transfers in 2000

Spent: £17.4m, Sold: £16.59m (Net: £0.81m)

 

Newcastle's transfers in 1999

Spent: £34.6m, Sold: £25.8m (Net: £8.8m)

 

Newcastle's transfers in 1998

Spent: £26.0m, Sold: £10.4m (Net: £15.6m)

 

Total Net transfer spend £90.55m Average Net transfer spend £10.06m

 

 

 

Managers Annual Net Spend Under Shepherd

Kenny Dalglish: 1 year, £15.65m

 

Ruud Gullit: 1 year, £7.625m

 

Sir Bobby Robson: 5 years, £5.947m

 

Graeme Souness: 1 year, £30.9m

 

Glenn Roeder: 1 year, £6.64m

 

 

[NE5]

 

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.

 

 

 

Some people also said it was the wrong decision and pointed out that the club were putting all eggs into one basket and so it has been proven.

 

Signing Owen has not been a brilliant signing so far.

 

bring back Rob MacDonald and Tony Cunningham eh, signings sanctioned by the board you think is the same as the one who buy England players like Owen.

 

 

 

If Shepherd stays at the club much longer then that's the standard you might have to get used to.

 

I very much doubt it.

 

You would stop going again wouldn't you ?

 

 

[Syrette]

 

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.

 

 

 

Some people also said it was the wrong decision and pointed out that the club were putting all eggs into one basket and so it has been proven.

 

Signing Owen has not been a brilliant signing so far.

 

bring back Rob MacDonald and Tony Cunningham eh, signings sanctioned by the board you think is the same as the one who buy England players like Owen.

 

 

 

If Shepherd stays at the club much longer then that's the standard you might have to get used to.

 

I very much doubt it.

 

You would stop going again wouldn't you ?

 

 

 

You think we could attract players of the calibre of Owen in the Championship?

[Mick]

 

I very much doubt it.

 

You would stop going again wouldn't you ?

 

 

 

You very much doubt it?

 

After finishing 7th in the Premiership we attract a Man City reserve on a free, a Rangers regect after the transfer window has closed and a Man U kid on loan and you doubt it.

 

You need a reality check.

[NE5]

 

I very much doubt it.

 

You would stop going again wouldn't you ?

 

 

 

You very much doubt it?

 

After finishing 7th in the Premiership we attract a Man City reserve on a free, a Rangers regect after the transfer window has closed and a Man U kid on loan and you doubt it.

 

You need a reality check.

 

yes, I very much doubt it. You obviously weren't around when we had those players, or you would realise how the chances of repeating the decades of neglect that you think are no different to what is happening now, is in fact light years away.

 

 

[Mick]

 

yes, I very much doubt it. You obviously weren't around when we had those players, or you would realise how the chances of repeating the decades of neglect that you think are no different to what is happening now, is in fact light years away.

 

 

 

You remind me of a song by Kosheen, it had words that went something like "it's all in my head," it just about sums you up.

[Elliottman]

 

I very much doubt it.

 

You would stop going again wouldn't you ?

 

 

 

You very much doubt it?

 

After finishing 7th in the Premiership we attract a Man City reserve on a free, a Rangers regect after the transfer window has closed and a Man U kid on loan and you doubt it.

 

You need a reality check.

 

fail to mention £10mil on Martins and £5mil on Duff.

[NE5]

 

I very much doubt it.

 

You would stop going again wouldn't you ?

 

 

 

You very much doubt it?

 

After finishing 7th in the Premiership we attract a Man City reserve on a free, a Rangers regect after the transfer window has closed and a Man U kid on loan and you doubt it.

 

You need a reality check.

 

fail to mention £10mil on Martins and £5mil on Duff.

 

its called cherry picking the bits that suit you, or not knowing what he's talking about as he usually doesn't