Teasy Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Two questions for you. Would you say Newcastle United were in good shape when Shepherd a) took charge of the club, and b) left the club? One question for you. Would you prefer Newcastle United to be in a) the Premiership or b) the Championship? One question for you. Would you say banana's are a) too yellow or b) not yellow enough? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Yup. These were the only significant mistakes made by Fred. He wasn't prepared to tackle the positions of Robson and Shearer at the right moment. Can't believe that like. Not so much the Shearer thing, I disagree but I can see what you're getting at, rather that you think those were the only significant mistakes he made. How the managers turned out is hindsight, mate. All any Board can be expected to do is : 1. Appoint a manager based on their track record. 2. Take a gamble on an unknown they believe (for reasons that may be know "in the game") will be a good 'un. 3. Back them. The Board went with option 1 with the exception of Roeder. For example, if Ashley appointed Wenger, backed him to the hilt and Wenger messed it up I'd be blaming Wenger, not Ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Yup. These were the only significant mistakes made by Fred. He wasn't prepared to tackle the positions of Robson and Shearer at the right moment. Can't believe that like. Not so much the Shearer thing, I disagree but I can see what you're getting at, rather that you think those were the only significant mistakes he made. How the managers turned out is hindsight, mate. All any Board can be expected to do is : 1. Appoint a manager based on their track record. 2. Take a gamble on an unknown they believe (for reasons that may be know "in the game") will be a good 'un. 3. Back them. The Board went with option 1 with the exception of Roeder. For example, if Ashley appointed Wenger, backed him to the hilt and Wenger messed it up I'd be blaming Wenger, not Ashley. So why was Souness appointed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatwax Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Two questions for you. Would you say Newcastle United were in good shape when Shepherd a) took charge of the club, and b) left the club? One question for you. Would you prefer Newcastle United to be in a) the Premiership or b) the Championship? One question for you. Would you say banana's are a) too yellow or b) not yellow enough? Depends on the banana. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 We still would have finished 4th without doubt had SBR not sold Solano. But the indications were there and when Liverpool offered decent money for Shearer in the summer of 04 we should have accepted (funnily enough it was Shepherd, not Robson who said no) ridiculous that a year later we extended his contract even further, I remember the city absolutely buzzing and me having about 15 arguments with 15 different people that day Yup. These were the only significant mistakes made by Fred. He wasn't prepared to tackle the positions of Robson and Shearer at the right moment. Is this some sort of sick joke? Two questions for you. Would you say Newcastle United were in good shape when Shepherd a) took charge of the club, and b) left the club? Small picture, mate. Small picture, but I'll answer as always. a) Good b) Not so good Now some for you. Q. Why do you think the team was in the bottom half of the table just before Ashley stepped in? Q. Do you think the managers (other than Roeder) appointed by the previous Board had good quality track records? Q. What would be your criteria for selection of a manager? Q. If you ran the club, appointed a previously successful manager, backed him to the hilt but he messed it up, do you blame ... a) Yourself for appointing a manager, who in hindsight, wasn't able to replicate previous good work and you should have known it all along. b) The manager for performing poorly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Two questions for you. Would you say Newcastle United were in good shape when Shepherd a) took charge of the club, and b) left the club? One question for you. Would you prefer Newcastle United to be in a) the Premiership or b) the Championship? One question for you. Would you say banana's are a) too yellow or b) not yellow enough? Depends on the banana. Bollocks man. It's clearly b. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Yup. These were the only significant mistakes made by Fred. He wasn't prepared to tackle the positions of Robson and Shearer at the right moment. Can't believe that like. Not so much the Shearer thing, I disagree but I can see what you're getting at, rather that you think those were the only significant mistakes he made. How the managers turned out is hindsight, mate. All any Board can be expected to do is : 1. Appoint a manager based on their track record. 2. Take a gamble on an unknown they believe (for reasons that may be know "in the game") will be a good 'un. 3. Back them. The Board went with option 1 with the exception of Roeder. For example, if Ashley appointed Wenger, backed him to the hilt and Wenger messed it up I'd be blaming Wenger, not Ashley. So why was Souness appointed? According to many he was just the man for the job at that time. I'm sure you recall. In any case, though I thought he was shite I was assured he had a decent track record of winning trophies at other clubs. If you want to look at the big picture regarding the appointment of Souness I think a number of people should take responsibility for that, even Robson to an extent, he was the manager and unfortunately he lost the respect of the players. Or at least, he seemed to from the outside. The club clearly introduced a policy of buying young players at more affordable prices (we were paying ~£6m for young players at a time when manure were paying nearly £30 for Veron, for example). I think this was a good idea so I wouldn't know it, but extreme care needs to be taken that you're getting players who are also decent and stable human beings. Newcastle as a club obviously got this very wrong as we all saw a number of players behaving like arseholes with no respect for the manager or much else really. Hence Souness. I said this at the time and I still believe it now. Had certain players not been apparently out of control I doubt we'd have seen Souness at this football club other than on the losing side as manager of other clubs. I wrote a post at the time about reactionary appointments, the Board did this with Gullit and with Souness, yes they made mistakes but don't forget that both of these managers also had winning track records. So, as much as I was distraught when Souness was appointed, believing from the beginning he would get rid of our best players (Bellamy and Robert), I can understand the reasoning behind his appointment. Can't you? It seems obvious to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I can't remember many claiming Souness was just the man for the job at all. Most were stunned and disgusted as I recall. Can't be arsed arguing it about it, just thought I'd make that point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I can't remember many claiming Souness was just the man for the job at all. Most were stunned and disgusted as I recall. Can't be arsed arguing it about it, just thought I'd make that point. Really? My recollection is the opposite, he certainly had plenty of support in his destruction of the team. Just thought I'd make that point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I was certainly stunned and disgusted. I remember a few happy Blackburn fans though. There is absolutely no doubt that he was a catastrophic appointment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 The day I heard he'd been appointed, I put his face up on the office darts board. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I'm really glad we've got a proper server now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I'm really glad we've got a proper server now. What are you on about now? Have you ever not had a proper server? Dave, once Souness was appointed most wanted to give him a chance because we all hoped for the best. Almost everyone is like that because we all want the club to do well. Souness had a decent enough track record at other clubs, better at the time than others touted such as O'Neill, so to that extent the appointment made sense when you also take into account the supposed discipline issues. What I'm on about is the support he was given after it became clear just a couple of months into the job that he really was going to rip the team apart. There were plenty of people at that time who maintained for a long time that he had to be given time to build his own team, they insisted he was the right man for the job of sorting things out and ridding the club of the cancer's. I'm amazed you can't remember. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Just checked the vote. 13 people want Ashley to stay. Shocking, tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I was referring to his appointment in the first place, not what people supported or otherwise when he started making changes to the squad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I was referring to his appointment in the first place, not what people supported or otherwise when he started making changes to the squad. I wasn't. Why do you want to limit something to a particular second in time? Any reason? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 So why was Souness appointed? According to many he was just the man for the job at that time. I'm sure you recall. That is the point I disputed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazzaA2 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 We still would have finished 4th without doubt had SBR not sold Solano. But the indications were there and when Liverpool offered decent money for Shearer in the summer of 04 we should have accepted (funnily enough it was Shepherd, not Robson who said no) ridiculous that a year later we extended his contract even further, I remember the city absolutely buzzing and me having about 15 arguments with 15 different people that day Yup. These were the only significant mistakes made by Fred. He wasn't prepared to tackle the positions of Robson and Shearer at the right moment. His management choices were the worst. Had Robson left in the summer of 2004 and replaced with a top manager, we would not have been in solid decline ever since. Instead he sacks him early season and then brings in Greame Souness Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I still remember the feeling when I heard, felt like I'd been punched in the stomach and I wanted to be sick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 So why was Souness appointed? According to many he was just the man for the job at that time. I'm sure you recall. That is the point I disputed. Aah, right. So in your world, "at that time" is a split second event. Fair enough. In my world, "at that time" is a general term to denote a "period in the history of the club." So, during that period it seems generally accepted the club had some problem players, Souness was appointed to sort it out and many thought he was just the man to do it. That's my point and I thought it was obvious tbh. I'll be more careful next time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I still remember the feeling when I heard, felt like I'd been punched in the stomach and I wanted to be sick. That's how I felt. I almost crashed my car, tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 We still would have finished 4th without doubt had SBR not sold Solano. But the indications were there and when Liverpool offered decent money for Shearer in the summer of 04 we should have accepted (funnily enough it was Shepherd, not Robson who said no) ridiculous that a year later we extended his contract even further, I remember the city absolutely buzzing and me having about 15 arguments with 15 different people that day Yup. These were the only significant mistakes made by Fred. He wasn't prepared to tackle the positions of Robson and Shearer at the right moment. His management choices were the worst. Had Robson left in the summer of 2004 and replaced with a top manager, we would not have been in solid decline ever since. Instead he sacks him early season and then brings in Greame Souness It's my opinion that the bit about summer is irrelevant. Had Robson been replaced by a decent manager at the time he was replaced we'd have been ok. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_R Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 When Souness was appointed, I think everyone was inwardly disgusted (I certainly was) but by then the damage is done and you have to support your club and therefore the manager. So people started saying things like "Hopefully he'll instill some discipline" and "Don't forget he has won some cups before with unfancied clubs". I don't think that is people liking the appointment, it's just people trying to make the best of a bad situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 When Souness was appointed, I think everyone was inwardly disgusted (I certainly was) but by then the damage is done and you have to support your club and therefore the manager. So people started saying things like "Hopefully he'll instill some discipline" and "Don't forget he has won some cups before with unfancied clubs". I don't think that is people liking the appointment, it's just people trying to make the best of a bad situation. Agree. HTL just shit stirring. Ignore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 We still would have finished 4th without doubt had SBR not sold Solano. But the indications were there and when Liverpool offered decent money for Shearer in the summer of 04 we should have accepted (funnily enough it was Shepherd, not Robson who said no) ridiculous that a year later we extended his contract even further, I remember the city absolutely buzzing and me having about 15 arguments with 15 different people that day Yup. These were the only significant mistakes made by Fred. He wasn't prepared to tackle the positions of Robson and Shearer at the right moment. His management choices were the worst. Had Robson left in the summer of 2004 and replaced with a top manager, we would not have been in solid decline ever since. Instead he sacks him early season and then brings in Greame Souness It's my opinion that the bit about summer is irrelevant. Had Robson been replaced by a decent manager at the time he was replaced we'd have been ok. Surely though the problem was that the timing was badly wrong, and there were no decent managers available 4 matches into a season? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts