Shepherd plans Toon takeover - Doesn't make for pretty reading

[NE5]

Would people be happy if FS bought Newcastle but then stepped down as Chairman and basically stayed in the backround like J.Hall?

 

 

 

I would, but only if a competent board were appointed on his behalf. I say "happy", ideally I'll never be fully happy with the club until it is in the ownership of fans, the only people who will always have the clubs best interests at heart, regardless. But aye I'd be happy enough, I wouldn't complain put it that way. Good question BTW.

 

yes it is. And my answer is I don't mind either way, so long as the team is winning. But my view is that if the team is winning mobody cares about the board in the slightest.

 

 

[tmonkey]

All Shephard has to do to be a good chairman is appoint a manager with a domestic and European track record, foreign or not, and back him - allow him to build the club up the way he sees fit - backroom staff, scouting network, transfers.

 

Doesnt matter if we dont win anything, doesnt matter if were mid table for a season or two, all we're asking for is someone who deserves the job to get it, and then to be backed - not only with some money (Dalglish wasnt), but also in all other aspects of running the club. Sir Bobby was a great appointment, Shephard's only "successful" one out of 5 thus far, yet it only lasted a few years before he stopped backing Sir Bobby, refusing to purchase who Sir Bobby wanted because he thought Sir Bobby had already spent too much (yet has the cheek to claim he backs his managers with money), refusing to back Sir Bobby when he tried to sell Shearer, refusing to install the modern training systems that Sir Bobby requested.

 

Just appoint a proven good manager, and back him. Thats all he has to do, all we're asking for. Its not much at all, in fact its what he should be doing in his job as chairman. Its got **** all to do with "life cycles" of a club being at the top and being unable to last there.

 

Yet he cant do it. He lives in his own world, where he knows the best way of running the club and us fans are just idiots to be controlled like kids with presents (players), promises and "pleasant suprises". In his own world, decisions like appointing Souness are good ones, even though the rest of the world can see likewise.

 

Shame. We could and should be doing so much better, not because we're blind or have fantasies of the club being bigger than it is or have too high expectations, but because the board have consistently given the wrong man the job, or given the right man the job and failed to back him in more ways than one.

[NE5]

All Shephard has to do to be a good chairman is appoint a manager with a domestic and European track record, foreign or not, and back him - allow him to build the club up the way he sees fit - backroom staff, scouting network, transfers.

 

Doesnt matter if we dont win anything, doesnt matter if were mid table for a season or two, all we're asking for is someone who deserves the job to get it, and then to be backed - not only with some money (Dalglish wasnt), but also in all other aspects of running the club. Sir Bobby was a great appointment, Shephard's only "successful" one out of 5 thus far, yet it only lasted a few years before he stopped backing Sir Bobby, refusing to purchase who Sir Bobby wanted because he thought Sir Bobby had already spent too much (yet has the cheek to claim he backs his managers with money), refusing to back Sir Bobby when he tried to sell Shearer, refusing to install the modern training systems that Sir Bobby requested.

 

Just appoint a proven good manager, and back him. Thats all he has to do, all we're asking for. Its not much at all, in fact its what he should be doing in his job as chairman. Its got **** all to do with "life cycles" of a club being at the top and being unable to last there.

 

Yet he cant do it. He lives in his own world, where he knows the best way of running the club and us fans are just idiots to be controlled like kids with presents (players), promises and "pleasant suprises". In his own world, decisions like appointing Souness are good ones, even though the rest of the world can see likewise.

 

Shame. We could and should be doing so much better, not because we're blind or have fantasies of the club being bigger than it is or have too high expectations, but because the board have consistently given the wrong man the job, or given the right man the job and failed to back him in more ways than one.

 

you say this in bold above

 

then you say this

Listing Dalglish's trophies as evidence of him being a top manager means nowt.

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31684.msg610755.html#msg610755

 

I'm not sure what you mean by Dalglish not being backed. He changed the team totally, so he was certainly allowed to do what he wanted to do. Whether that means for more defensive football or not, if its successful, do you care ? Would you have cared if we had won 1-0 against Arsenal and bored the pants off the whole world ? I wouldn't. If we had won, it wouldn't have bored you, or me, and a clubs duty is to its own supporters, nobody else's.

 

For the record, I don't disagree with most of your points. But Dalglish - and Gullit - went because they were getting bad results, do you think we should have stuck with both of them  ? Remember at the time, the vast majority of supporters wouldn't have supported this move,  and backed the sackings, whatever they say now ?

 

I don't wish to harp about the old board either mate when I have said I agree with you, but this board has backed its managers to the hilt. Nobody can say they haven't, the board for decades pre-1992 are the example of a board that doesn't back their managers, if you are too young to know this, then look at the mackems in the last 20 years instead. Which is what we were like.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

All Shephard has to do to be a good chairman is appoint a manager with a domestic and European track record, foreign or not, and back him - allow him to build the club up the way he sees fit - backroom staff, scouting network, transfers.

 

Doesnt matter if we dont win anything, doesnt matter if were mid table for a season or two, all we're asking for is someone who deserves the job to get it, and then to be backed - not only with some money (Dalglish wasnt), but also in all other aspects of running the club. Sir Bobby was a great appointment, Shephard's only "successful" one out of 5 thus far, yet it only lasted a few years before he stopped backing Sir Bobby, refusing to purchase who Sir Bobby wanted because he thought Sir Bobby had already spent too much (yet has the cheek to claim he backs his managers with money), refusing to back Sir Bobby when he tried to sell Shearer, refusing to install the modern training systems that Sir Bobby requested.

 

Just appoint a proven good manager, and back him. Thats all he has to do, all we're asking for. Its not much at all, in fact its what he should be doing in his job as chairman. Its got **** all to do with "life cycles" of a club being at the top and being unable to last there.

 

Yet he cant do it. He lives in his own world, where he knows the best way of running the club and us fans are just idiots to be controlled like kids with presents (players), promises and "pleasant suprises". In his own world, decisions like appointing Souness are good ones, even though the rest of the world can see likewise.

 

Shame. We could and should be doing so much better, not because we're blind or have fantasies of the club being bigger than it is or have too high expectations, but because the board have consistently given the wrong man the job, or given the right man the job and failed to back him in more ways than one.

 

The turning point is in bold, in my opinion.

 

But then far be it from me to slag Fred, according to the monkey, Oz  and now cyberbats I love Fred.....

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

if anyone wants to digest this thread without NE5/HTL inpunt I might be arsed to read what's in it

 

otherwise  bluesleepw.gif

[Keefaz]

if anyone wants to digest this thread without NE5/HTL inpunt I might be arsed to read what's in it

 

otherwise  bluesleepw.gif

 

Mate, sometimes I think the same about this entire forum minus your whinging contributions.

[Howaythelads]

if anyone wants to digest this thread without NE5/HTL inpunt I might be arsed to read what's in it

 

otherwise  bluesleepw.gif

 

There is actually some decent dialogue going on here. Nobody forces you to read the thread, so if you don't like it just bugger off. Nobody will miss you. Whether people are in agreement or not in this thread, you make NO contribution.

[Guest Knightrider]

Managing Newcastle United should be so easy, how can anyone get it so wrong as many previous managers and chairmen have all done? Lets be honest, we are easily pleased as fans. Put out a team that plays good football and is fully committed and we'll get behind them like no other set of fans can or do. We are patient, loyal and knowledgeable and we put our money where our mouths are. Only one man in my lifetime and the lifetime of many older generations has given us a team to really be proud of, Kevin Keegan, assisted by Sir John Hall.

 

That's sad and a great mystery to many.

 

We deserve better, or rather the club does because its a great club.

 

I'm in agreement with Tmonkey here. All the board have to do is appoint a top-class manager, back that manager 100% and by that I don't just mean in the transfer market, I mean in all departments like scouting, fitness, coaching, the backroom team - everything. And then hope for the best.

 

If that manager then fails, there can be no argument or blame.

 

The current board hasn't done that. They've appointed a whole host of different managers but only Sir Bobby could be considered truly top-class and while he was backed in the transfer market he wasn't given full control of the club like he needed to be given. He was undermined in many departments from the sacking of Gordon Milne and Mick Wadsworth, to the sale of Gary Speed and the lack of funding for new pitches and player analysis software.

 

For whatever reason the current board seem almost afraid to hand over full control. They don't seem to trust anyone with their prised asset yet ironically if they would only just let go, they would become far more respected and would make more money too as the more successful the team are, the more money the club makes.

 

That is why fans question the motives of the board because they seem to go out of their way to make things difficult for their managers and themselves. They turn fans against them with their words, actions and reactions.

[Howaythelads]

Managing Newcastle United should be so easy, how can anyone get it so wrong as many previous managers and chairmen have all done? Lets be honest, we are easily pleased as fans. Put out a team that plays good football and is fully committed and we'll get behind them like no other set of fans can or do. We are patient, loyal and knowledgeable and we put our money where our mouths are. Only one man in my lifetime and the lifetime of many older generations has given us a team to really be proud of, Kevin Keegan, assisted by Sir John Hall.

 

That's sad and a great mystery to many.

 

We deserve better, or rather the club does because its a great club.

 

I'm in agreement with Tmonkey here. All the board have to do is appoint a top-class manager, back that manager 100% and by that I don't just mean in the transfer market, I mean in all departments like scouting, fitness, coaching, the backroom team - everything. And then hope for the best.

 

If that manager then fails, there can be no argument or blame.

 

The current board hasn't done that. They've appointed a whole host of different managers but only Sir Bobby could be considered truly top-class and while he was backed in the transfer market he wasn't given full control of the club like he needed to be given. He was undermined in many departments from the sacking of Gordon Milne and Mick Wadsworth, to the sale of Gary Speed and the lack of funding for new pitches and player analysis software.

 

For whatever reason the current board seem almost afraid to hand over full control. They don't seem to trust anyone with their prised asset yet ironically if they would only just let go, they would become far more respected and would make more money too as the more successful the team are, the more money the club makes.

 

That is why fans question the motives of the board because they seem to go out of their way to make things difficult for their managers and themselves. They turn fans against them with their words, actions and reactions.

 

It almost sounds real, now that two of you have posted similar stuff. The fact is that the managers are backed, how else do you explain Souness being allowed to bin our two most creative players, replacing them with shite and being allowed to build his own team before it finally dawned on the Board that they'd made a mistake? They gave him a free hand, same as they've given to them all until they proved they were unable to improve the team.

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

if anyone wants to digest this thread without NE5/HTL inpunt I might be arsed to read what's in it

 

otherwise  bluesleepw.gif

 

There is actually some decent dialogue going on here. Nobody forces you to read the thread, so if you don't like it just bugger off. Nobody will miss you. Whether people are in agreement or not in this thread, you make NO contribution.

 

right OK

 

just because I haven't pisssed around for 20 pages my opinion is irrelevant

 

WHATEVER MINGER

 

:obi:

[OzzieMandias]

Managing Newcastle United should be so easy, how can anyone get it so wrong as many previous managers and chairmen have all done? Lets be honest, we are easily pleased as fans. Put out a team that plays good football and is fully committed and we'll get behind them like no other set of fans can or do. We are patient, loyal and knowledgeable and we put our money where our mouths are. Only one man in my lifetime and the lifetime of many older generations has given us a team to really be proud of, Kevin Keegan, assisted by Sir John Hall.

 

That's sad and a great mystery to many.

 

We deserve better, or rather the club does because its a great club.

 

I'm in agreement with Tmonkey here. All the board have to do is appoint a top-class manager, back that manager 100% and by that I don't just mean in the transfer market, I mean in all departments like scouting, fitness, coaching, the backroom team - everything. And then hope for the best.

 

If that manager then fails, there can be no argument or blame.

 

The current board hasn't done that. They've appointed a whole host of different managers but only Sir Bobby could be considered truly top-class and while he was backed in the transfer market he wasn't given full control of the club like he needed to be given. He was undermined in many departments from the sacking of Gordon Milne and Mick Wadsworth, to the sale of Gary Speed and the lack of funding for new pitches and player analysis software.

 

For whatever reason the current board seem almost afraid to hand over full control. They don't seem to trust anyone with their prised asset yet ironically if they would only just let go, they would become far more respected and would make more money too as the more successful the team are, the more money the club makes.

 

That is why fans question the motives of the board because they seem to go out of their way to make things difficult for their managers and themselves. They turn fans against them with their words, actions and reactions.

 

Good post.

 

I'd say, before backing a manager to the hilt, they need the intelligence to find the right one who's worth backing – and then back them the way Manure have backed Ferguson, or the Arse have let Wenger have it all his own way. It's not just about flashing a bit of transfer cash and going "Hey look, I'm backing the manager here!". (Particularly ridiculous as most of our managers get shown the door about five weeks after this happens.)

 

The closest the current board has come to the right kind of appointment – out of five attempts – was Bobby Robson. Did they back him? Well, up to a point. He had the lowest average annual transfer spend of any Fat Fred appointment. If you read his Mail on Sunday column last week you'll find him "open-mouthed" with envy at the training facilities his mate Ferguson has at his command. "I looked down from the window in his office on several training pitches, all with undersoil heating. I counted 22 fitness bikes in the gym where the first-team squad can warm up together before training. By the pool, I spotted an underwater treadmill to aid the recovery of injured players. Alex said they had five full-time physios as well as academy coaches, fitness coaches and a club doctor... It became clear that Alex has built a dynasty at United not only by developing great players and building great teams, but also by having the foresight of how the club should be run for future generations of players."

 

The people running our club, our "big club" with its huge resources, manifestly lack that kind of foresight. Though of course Bobby Robson was never going to be the right man to establish a dynasty and take the club into the future. He was simply too bloody old!

[OzzieMandias]

Link to the Bobby Robson column:

 

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=414561&in_page_id=1951&in_author_id=353

[Martin Lol]

:obi: :obi: :obi: :obi: :obi:

 

Will remember that.

 

That isn't laughing at Newcastle, just at the very idea that FFS buying outright control would in any way be beneficial for the club.  It would be the worst possible scenario for NUFC imho and the vast majority of contributors heare share that opinion.

 

But we don't post laughing smileys at the idea, also nobody mentioned it being beneficial to the club before you posted this, the fact is you've come on here yet again to laugh at our misfortune, I'm just glad that more people are seeing you for what you really are.

 

 

It's your opinion that I come here to laugh at your misfortune, which is far removed from fact.  If you took off the blinkers for 5 minutes you'd see that your opinion and fact are not one and the same.

[Howaythelads]

Managing Newcastle United should be so easy, how can anyone get it so wrong as many previous managers and chairmen have all done? Lets be honest, we are easily pleased as fans. Put out a team that plays good football and is fully committed and we'll get behind them like no other set of fans can or do. We are patient, loyal and knowledgeable and we put our money where our mouths are. Only one man in my lifetime and the lifetime of many older generations has given us a team to really be proud of, Kevin Keegan, assisted by Sir John Hall.

 

That's sad and a great mystery to many.

 

We deserve better, or rather the club does because its a great club.

 

I'm in agreement with Tmonkey here. All the board have to do is appoint a top-class manager, back that manager 100% and by that I don't just mean in the transfer market, I mean in all departments like scouting, fitness, coaching, the backroom team - everything. And then hope for the best.

 

If that manager then fails, there can be no argument or blame.

 

The current board hasn't done that. They've appointed a whole host of different managers but only Sir Bobby could be considered truly top-class and while he was backed in the transfer market he wasn't given full control of the club like he needed to be given. He was undermined in many departments from the sacking of Gordon Milne and Mick Wadsworth, to the sale of Gary Speed and the lack of funding for new pitches and player analysis software.

 

For whatever reason the current board seem almost afraid to hand over full control. They don't seem to trust anyone with their prised asset yet ironically if they would only just let go, they would become far more respected and would make more money too as the more successful the team are, the more money the club makes.

 

That is why fans question the motives of the board because they seem to go out of their way to make things difficult for their managers and themselves. They turn fans against them with their words, actions and reactions.

 

Good post.

 

I'd say, before backing a manager to the hilt, they need the intelligence to find the right one who's worth backing – and then back them the way Manure have backed Ferguson, or the Arse have let Wenger have it all his own way. It's not just about flashing a bit of transfer cash and going "Hey look, I'm backing the manager here!". (Particularly ridiculous as most of our managers get shown the door about five weeks after this happens.)

 

The closest the current board has come to the right kind of appointment – out of five attempts – was Bobby Robson. Did they back him? Well, up to a point. He had the lowest average annual transfer spend of any Fat Fred appointment. If you read his Mail on Sunday column last week you'll find him "open-mouthed" with envy at the training facilities his mate Ferguson has at his command. "I looked down from the window in his office on several training pitches, all with undersoil heating. I counted 22 fitness bikes in the gym where the first-team squad can warm up together before training. By the pool, I spotted an underwater treadmill to aid the recovery of injured players. Alex said they had five full-time physios as well as academy coaches, fitness coaches and a club doctor... It became clear that Alex has built a dynasty at United not only by developing great players and building great teams, but also by having the foresight of how the club should be run for future generations of players."

 

The people running our club, our "big club" with its huge resources, manifestly lack that kind of foresight. Though of course Bobby Robson was never going to be the right man to establish a dynasty and take the club into the future. He was simply too bloody old!

 

I agree with the first bit, it was a good post by grass although I don't agree with it all.

 

Re the bit in bold.

 

What criteria do you recommend the Board use to determine who this right man is they should then back in the same way Arsenal's Board backed Wenger and before him Rioch, the same Board having appointed those 2 managers?

[Howaythelads]

if anyone wants to digest this thread without NE5/HTL inpunt I might be arsed to read what's in it

 

otherwise  bluesleepw.gif

 

There is actually some decent dialogue going on here. Nobody forces you to read the thread, so if you don't like it just bugger off. Nobody will miss you. Whether people are in agreement or not in this thread, you make NO contribution.

 

right OK

 

just because I haven't pisssed around for 20 pages my opinion is irrelevant

 

WHATEVER MINGER

 

:obi:

 

Yeah, right ok.

 

Vicky, whether you want to acknowledge it or not there have been some good posts in this thread along with some shite I agree. People don't have to agree with each other, not agreeing with someone doesn't make their post shite. A lot of people are repeating themselves, not just those you disagree with.

 

I'm aware than many people don't agree with my opinions and so think I'm a wanker. Be that as it may, I don't believe others are a wanker for having a differing opinion to my own so that's their problem.

 

Your repeated references to myself and NE5 in recent times is making you appear a tosser of the highest order. Do everyone a favour and grow up, ffs.

[OzzieMandias]

Managing Newcastle United should be so easy, how can anyone get it so wrong as many previous managers and chairmen have all done? Lets be honest, we are easily pleased as fans. Put out a team that plays good football and is fully committed and we'll get behind them like no other set of fans can or do. We are patient, loyal and knowledgeable and we put our money where our mouths are. Only one man in my lifetime and the lifetime of many older generations has given us a team to really be proud of, Kevin Keegan, assisted by Sir John Hall.

 

That's sad and a great mystery to many.

 

We deserve better, or rather the club does because its a great club.

 

I'm in agreement with Tmonkey here. All the board have to do is appoint a top-class manager, back that manager 100% and by that I don't just mean in the transfer market, I mean in all departments like scouting, fitness, coaching, the backroom team - everything. And then hope for the best.

 

If that manager then fails, there can be no argument or blame.

 

The current board hasn't done that. They've appointed a whole host of different managers but only Sir Bobby could be considered truly top-class and while he was backed in the transfer market he wasn't given full control of the club like he needed to be given. He was undermined in many departments from the sacking of Gordon Milne and Mick Wadsworth, to the sale of Gary Speed and the lack of funding for new pitches and player analysis software.

 

For whatever reason the current board seem almost afraid to hand over full control. They don't seem to trust anyone with their prised asset yet ironically if they would only just let go, they would become far more respected and would make more money too as the more successful the team are, the more money the club makes.

 

That is why fans question the motives of the board because they seem to go out of their way to make things difficult for their managers and themselves. They turn fans against them with their words, actions and reactions.

 

Good post.

 

I'd say, before backing a manager to the hilt, they need the intelligence to find the right one who's worth backing – and then back them the way Manure have backed Ferguson, or the Arse have let Wenger have it all his own way. It's not just about flashing a bit of transfer cash and going "Hey look, I'm backing the manager here!". (Particularly ridiculous as most of our managers get shown the door about five weeks after this happens.)

 

The closest the current board has come to the right kind of appointment – out of five attempts – was Bobby Robson. Did they back him? Well, up to a point. He had the lowest average annual transfer spend of any Fat Fred appointment. If you read his Mail on Sunday column last week you'll find him "open-mouthed" with envy at the training facilities his mate Ferguson has at his command. "I looked down from the window in his office on several training pitches, all with undersoil heating. I counted 22 fitness bikes in the gym where the first-team squad can warm up together before training. By the pool, I spotted an underwater treadmill to aid the recovery of injured players. Alex said they had five full-time physios as well as academy coaches, fitness coaches and a club doctor... It became clear that Alex has built a dynasty at United not only by developing great players and building great teams, but also by having the foresight of how the club should be run for future generations of players."

 

The people running our club, our "big club" with its huge resources, manifestly lack that kind of foresight. Though of course Bobby Robson was never going to be the right man to establish a dynasty and take the club into the future. He was simply too bloody old!

 

I agree with the first bit, it was a good post by grass although I don't agree with it all.

 

Re the bit in bold.

 

What criteria do you recommend the Board use to determine who this right man is they should then back in the same way Arsenal's Board backed Wenger and before him Rioch, the same Board having appointed those 2 managers?

 

Any criteria at all other than "has a couple of trophies on his CV" would be a start. They need to match a vision of what the playing side of the club could and should be and find a candidate who is capable of steering the club's development. An ability to develop young players as well as motivate experienced ones, good ideas about how the playing side of the club should be organised and run, the know-how to build and operate an effective scouting network and find the right non-playing staff. Obvious stuff, really. All the current shower have ever done is stumble from one crisis to the next. "Oh look! It's a few games into the season and we don't have a manager! Who can we get that isn't like the last one?"

 

The point is that since Keegan nothing has been consolidated. Our "success" was always fragile and without foundation, as seen by the way we've touched the heights twice – and then twice watched things simply fall apart as soon as a key figure has left the club.

 

Of course, visions of the club's future seem a bit misplaced now that the board's perennial short-termism has led us to the current position: floundering at the bottom of the table with a crap manager, piss-poor squad and mounting financial problems.

[Guest Knightrider]

HTL I agree with your comments about the board and Souness, they did indeed back Souness (too much as it turned out) but for all the wrong reasons (IMO) and I think that big war chest came in a vain attempt to try and polish the turd that was their appointment. Again I can't deny that or fault it, I can question their reasoning and the ammount they handed him but if we stick to the plain and simple "they backed him" line, there is no argument.

 

However had Souness tried to change the scouting, the fitness and diet and tried to make other wholesale changes, he'd have been met with a firm "no" like all the previous managers were. I remember Souness asking for a new pitch and we was told no, the same as Bobby.

 

Have you noticed how every year we are linked with the same old players? We always go for the same players? That's because the scouting set up hasn't changed. We will most probably sign Distin and Bridge in January if rumours are to be believed, and we tried to buy Viduka in the summer, all players Souness also tried to buy, two of them Sir Bobby tried to buy.

 

Now I'm not saying the board are trying to sign players for their managers (although there is solid evidence that suggests the board have went over their manager's heads with one or two down the years) but there is a system at the club that never changes, regardless. Important areas of the club. When we hire a new manager he is allowed an assistant, he's allowed to change the goalkeeping coach etc. but he has no say over the reserves, the academy, the medics, the physios or the scouting team.

 

Arsene Wenger does, Rafa Benitez does, Mourinho does, Fergie does. All of those clubs are successful and that's no fluke, that's because the managers have ful control, as well as being top notch managers of course.

 

Sir Bobby was never afforded that type of freedom. Just read his book, many of his ideas never made FS's desk.

 

They back their men with money but I would say that is a minimal requirement and also a business need too. In short they have to provide a portion of funds for new players to a) keep fans renewing, b) to keep money away from the taxman, and c) to provide the manager with a means to manage.

 

If they could apply that to every other area of managing a football club we'd be winning trophies every season and wouldn't be talking about sacking the board, takeovers etc. - in fact we'd probably be fighting new owners off.

 

To sum up, for this club to move forward a top-class manager needs appointed and he needs to get total control and freedom to manage of every single area of the clun relating to his area of management. I.e the first-team, extending all the way to the juniors. Basically what KK was afforded. Do that and we will achieve success in one way or another. Don't do that and we'll fail which is what we have done 4 times out of 5, which is unacceptable for a club of our size, demands and aspirations. The board instead of trying to excuse their mistakes should hold their hands up and say "this isn't good enough, we demand better". I.e. time for our old friend - standards

[Guest Knightrider]

BTW some of the posts in this thread, from HTL and NE5 too, are canny reading and is N.O at its best. There is no need to get petty and personal or bicker over points when issues can clearly be discussed intelligently like they have been in some of the posts, fellas. More of the same please.

 

Oh and Vicky, you've got a cheek lad.

[Guest Knightrider]

A quote from Sir Bobby's article in the daily Mail:

 

Alex seemed very proud as he showed me the facilities at Carrington, and rightly so. He took a big interest in how it was built, personally visiting other clubs like Bayern Munich to see what they had done.

 

This is the control and freedom of a manager I'm talking about.

 

Just think of the knowledge (spanning different countries, styles and generations), the enthusiasm, dedication, passion, loyalty and feeling for this club they threw out the door when they sacked Sir Bobby.

 

I remember when SBR took over, one of his first press conferences went into detail about his early job at the club which was to take a look at the club from top to bottom and draft up plans to change it, it stands out because he said he'd been working for 18 hours one day on it. 18 hours, I believe him. Most of those plans sadly never made it to fruition, however.

 

They say you have to make the most of your opportunities in life, well we didn't with Sir Bobby. He achieved a great deal just on being handed money, what could he have achieved with complete control? Remember this is a man credited with changing the Portuguese and Dutch leagues. A man who put in place a scouting system at PSV that saw them snap up Ronaldo and the like. A man who gave Mourinho his big break. A man who introduced the sweeper system to the England national side and the only manager to achieve a degree of success with English players playing a 3-5-2 - the Semis of the World Cup to be precise.

 

We discarded all that for Souness. Makes your blood boil.

[Howaythelads]

Managing Newcastle United should be so easy, how can anyone get it so wrong as many previous managers and chairmen have all done? Lets be honest, we are easily pleased as fans. Put out a team that plays good football and is fully committed and we'll get behind them like no other set of fans can or do. We are patient, loyal and knowledgeable and we put our money where our mouths are. Only one man in my lifetime and the lifetime of many older generations has given us a team to really be proud of, Kevin Keegan, assisted by Sir John Hall.

 

That's sad and a great mystery to many.

 

We deserve better, or rather the club does because its a great club.

 

I'm in agreement with Tmonkey here. All the board have to do is appoint a top-class manager, back that manager 100% and by that I don't just mean in the transfer market, I mean in all departments like scouting, fitness, coaching, the backroom team - everything. And then hope for the best.

 

If that manager then fails, there can be no argument or blame.

 

The current board hasn't done that. They've appointed a whole host of different managers but only Sir Bobby could be considered truly top-class and while he was backed in the transfer market he wasn't given full control of the club like he needed to be given. He was undermined in many departments from the sacking of Gordon Milne and Mick Wadsworth, to the sale of Gary Speed and the lack of funding for new pitches and player analysis software.

 

For whatever reason the current board seem almost afraid to hand over full control. They don't seem to trust anyone with their prised asset yet ironically if they would only just let go, they would become far more respected and would make more money too as the more successful the team are, the more money the club makes.

 

That is why fans question the motives of the board because they seem to go out of their way to make things difficult for their managers and themselves. They turn fans against them with their words, actions and reactions.

 

Good post.

 

I'd say, before backing a manager to the hilt, they need the intelligence to find the right one who's worth backing – and then back them the way Manure have backed Ferguson, or the Arse have let Wenger have it all his own way. It's not just about flashing a bit of transfer cash and going "Hey look, I'm backing the manager here!". (Particularly ridiculous as most of our managers get shown the door about five weeks after this happens.)

 

The closest the current board has come to the right kind of appointment – out of five attempts – was Bobby Robson. Did they back him? Well, up to a point. He had the lowest average annual transfer spend of any Fat Fred appointment. If you read his Mail on Sunday column last week you'll find him "open-mouthed" with envy at the training facilities his mate Ferguson has at his command. "I looked down from the window in his office on several training pitches, all with undersoil heating. I counted 22 fitness bikes in the gym where the first-team squad can warm up together before training. By the pool, I spotted an underwater treadmill to aid the recovery of injured players. Alex said they had five full-time physios as well as academy coaches, fitness coaches and a club doctor... It became clear that Alex has built a dynasty at United not only by developing great players and building great teams, but also by having the foresight of how the club should be run for future generations of players."

 

The people running our club, our "big club" with its huge resources, manifestly lack that kind of foresight. Though of course Bobby Robson was never going to be the right man to establish a dynasty and take the club into the future. He was simply too bloody old!

 

I agree with the first bit, it was a good post by grass although I don't agree with it all.

 

Re the bit in bold.

 

What criteria do you recommend the Board use to determine who this right man is they should then back in the same way Arsenal's Board backed Wenger and before him Rioch, the same Board having appointed those 2 managers?

 

Any criteria at all other than "has a couple of trophies on his CV" would be a start. They need to match a vision of what the playing side of the club could and should be and find a candidate who is capable of steering the club's development. An ability to develop young players as well as motivate experienced ones, good ideas about how the playing side of the club should be organised and run, the know-how to build and operate an effective scouting network and find the right non-playing staff. Obvious stuff, really. All the current shower have ever done is stumble from one crisis to the next. "Oh look! It's a few games into the season and we don't have a manager! Who can we get that isn't like the last one?"

 

The point is that since Keegan nothing has been consolidated. Our "success" was always fragile and without foundation, as seen by the way we've touched the heights twice – and then twice watched things simply fall apart as soon as a key figure has left the club.

 

Of course, visions of the club's future seem a bit misplaced now that the board's perennial short-termism has led us to the current position: floundering at the bottom of the table with a crap manager, piss-poor squad and mounting financial problems.

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

I have to say that I don't believe the Board goes into a season expecting to sack any manager, they do have a plan, it's just that it's so important to stay in the PL that managers are under pressure if any club gets off to a poor start. Why else are people shouting for Roeder's head now?  People are claiming we have a better group of players than performances indicate ( don't agree myself ) and that Roeder is not the man. Well he's been appointed and perhaps the Board has a plan for him to see it through. When do you deviate from the plan? How many matches need to go by before they sack him and are then accused of not actually having a plan at all?

 

Robson stayed for 5 years and he stayed that long because the club was making progress. I think there was a long term plan that was blown apart due to his loss of control of the dressing room and the subsequent bad start to the season. On the face of it that bad start could easily have been a good start but for some key moments in those matches, so some will always question why he was sacked at that time, but who knows what was going on behind the scenes? If the manager had lost the dressing room as has been speculated and thought by many at the time I don't think the Board can be expected to turn a blind eye to it, plan or no plan.

The mistake was appointing Souness and then having done it not realisinig early enough that they'd made an error. Of course, that could have been the Board sticking to a plan and I'm not taking the piss by saying that. Managers stand or fall by the results on the field.

 

I believe the circumstances were forced on the Board to act when they did when sacking Robson, I don't believe they went into that season believing they'd have to be looking for a new manager. Same with Dalglish and Gullit, who wasn't helped by the people's hero, Shearer, was he? Managers aren't generally sacked when a team is getting good results, although I'd do it if I identified a better man who could take the club further. Like Liverpool did with Hoolia. What would have happened if the club had moved Robson into another role when we finished 3rd? That was a position of strength but they didn't do it. I don't think they recognised it, which was a mistake. They're not ruthless enough in my opinion. They're reactionary, but then I've said all this before, it's just forgotten in all the bullshit. What is the best time to change a manager?

 

The manager is a key figure, which is why I specifically mentioned Wenger and Rioch. It will be interesting to see how Manure get on when Ferguson finally goes, it will hinge not on their structure within the club but entirely on their choice of manager. If they get it wrong they will go backwards. Same with Arsenal. Chelsea made the step up due to the money of Abramovich, but they also have managed to appoint a top manager, without it a club won't succeed.

[Taylor Swift]

All Shephard has to do to be a good chairman is appoint a manager with a domestic and European track record, foreign or not, and back him - allow him to build the club up the way he sees fit - backroom staff, scouting network, transfers.

 

Doesnt matter if we dont win anything, doesnt matter if were mid table for a season or two, all we're asking for is someone who deserves the job to get it, and then to be backed - not only with some money (Dalglish wasnt), but also in all other aspects of running the club. Sir Bobby was a great appointment, Shephard's only "successful" one out of 5 thus far, yet it only lasted a few years before he stopped backing Sir Bobby, refusing to purchase who Sir Bobby wanted because he thought Sir Bobby had already spent too much (yet has the cheek to claim he backs his managers with money), refusing to back Sir Bobby when he tried to sell Shearer, refusing to install the modern training systems that Sir Bobby requested.

 

Just appoint a proven good manager, and back him. Thats all he has to do, all we're asking for. Its not much at all, in fact its what he should be doing in his job as chairman. Its got **** all to do with "life cycles" of a club being at the top and being unable to last there.

 

Yet he cant do it. He lives in his own world, where he knows the best way of running the club and us fans are just idiots to be controlled like kids with presents (players), promises and "pleasant suprises". In his own world, decisions like appointing Souness are good ones, even though the rest of the world can see likewise.

 

Shame. We could and should be doing so much better, not because we're blind or have fantasies of the club being bigger than it is or have too high expectations, but because the board have consistently given the wrong man the job, or given the right man the job and failed to back him in more ways than one.

 

The turning point is in bold, in my opinion.

 

But then far be it from me to slag Fred, according to the monkey, Oz  and now cyberbats I love Fred.....

 

What do you have against Shearer? I remember sometime last year when we were still in 14th or something like that and Shearer came out and said 'we can still make 7th', your response was something along the lines of 'here he goes spouting shit again'...

 

And now putting our downfall on the fact that we did not sell our main striker who had just scored 28 goals the season prior (iirc). I hate it when people now overplay the importance of Bellamy. Before, Bellamy was underrated.. now? He's just fucking overrated. Sure, he changed the way we played, which lengthened Shearer's career by a few years but if Shearer wasn't there to finish those balls sent in by him and our wingers, we would never have reached the heights that we did. Bellamy never fucking scored more than 10 league goals in a season for us!! And as we can see now, with Shearer gone, we are really desperate for a goalscorer similar to him.

[BottledDog]

Robson stayed for 5 years and he stayed that long because the club was making progress. I think there was a long term plan that was blown apart due to his loss of control of the dressing room and the subsequent bad start to the season. On the face of it that bad start could easily have been a good start but for some key moments in those matches, so some will always question why he was sacked at that time, but who knows what was going on behind the scenes? If the manager had lost the dressing room as has been speculated and thought by many at the time I don't think the Board can be expected to turn a blind eye to it, plan or no plan.

 

But (and Robson also highlighted it in his biog) it was also clear to everyone that as soon as Shepherd stated that Robson would not get another contract he was a dead duck, and the team subconsciously or otherwise would have latched onto that and taken advantage (as happened with Ferguson).

 

At the very least that showed terrible naivety from Shepherd, at worst it showed contempt for a long standing manager. Either way, it was less a case of the board tuning a blind eye, and rather the case that the board were in a large way complicit in 'losing the dressing room'.

 

[merlin]

Referring to the allegation of undue influence of the Halls, wasn't the sacking of SBR attributed to their interference at the time? Or does my elderly memory fail me again?

 

Regarding the Halls & SBR - Bobby Robson was SJH's first choice to succeed KK in 1997, and it was SJH who pressured the board to appoint him in 1999 when they were having doubts about it. To be fair, quite a few of us wondered in Sir Bobby was getting too old for Premiership management by then , but SJH had no doubts..

As to his dismissal, we ALL know this was handled badly and he should have been given much better treatment from the club - his experience & contacts would have been invaluable behind the scenes, but he should have stepped aside at the end of 2003/4. He was apparently prepared to help in the choice of his successor....

Incidentally, agree with Knightrider & others that most of this thread has been very well-discussed and some good points made by all - we may disagree on the problems at NUFC, but everyone wants the best for the Club .

[Howaythelads]

HTL I agree with your comments about the board and Souness, they did indeed back Souness (too much as it turned out) but for all the wrong reasons (IMO) and I think that big war chest came in a vain attempt to try and polish the turd that was their appointment. Again I can't deny that or fault it, I can question their reasoning and the ammount they handed him but if we stick to the plain and simple "they backed him" line, there is no argument.

 

However had Souness tried to change the scouting, the fitness and diet and tried to make other wholesale changes, he'd have been met with a firm "no" like all the previous managers were. I remember Souness asking for a new pitch and we was told no, the same as Bobby.

 

Have you noticed how every year we are linked with the same old players? We always go for the same players? That's because the scouting set up hasn't changed. We will most probably sign Distin and Bridge in January if rumours are to be believed, and we tried to buy Viduka in the summer, all players Souness also tried to buy, two of them Sir Bobby tried to buy.

 

Now I'm not saying the board are trying to sign players for their managers (although there is solid evidence that suggests the board have went over their manager's heads with one or two down the years) but there is a system at the club that never changes, regardless. Important areas of the club. When we hire a new manager he is allowed an assistant, he's allowed to change the goalkeeping coach etc. but he has no say over the reserves, the academy, the medics, the physios or the scouting team.

 

Arsene Wenger does, Rafa Benitez does, Mourinho does, Fergie does. All of those clubs are successful and that's no fluke, that's because the managers have ful control, as well as being top notch managers of course.

 

Sir Bobby was never afforded that type of freedom. Just read his book, many of his ideas never made FS's desk.

 

They back their men with money but I would say that is a minimal requirement and also a business need too. In short they have to provide a portion of funds for new players to a) keep fans renewing, b) to keep money away from the taxman, and c) to provide the manager with a means to manage.

 

If they could apply that to every other area of managing a football club we'd be winning trophies every season and wouldn't be talking about sacking the board, takeovers etc. - in fact we'd probably be fighting new owners off.

 

To sum up, for this club to move forward a top-class manager needs appointed and he needs to get total control and freedom to manage of every single area of the clun relating to his area of management. I.e the first-team, extending all the way to the juniors. Basically what KK was afforded. Do that and we will achieve success in one way or another. Don't do that and we'll fail which is what we have done 4 times out of 5, which is unacceptable for a club of our size, demands and aspirations. The board instead of trying to excuse their mistakes should hold their hands up and say "this isn't good enough, we demand better". I.e. time for our old friend - standards

 

Some good points, can't argue so I won't try.

[Howaythelads]

All Shephard has to do to be a good chairman is appoint a manager with a domestic and European track record, foreign or not, and back him - allow him to build the club up the way he sees fit - backroom staff, scouting network, transfers.

 

Doesnt matter if we dont win anything, doesnt matter if were mid table for a season or two, all we're asking for is someone who deserves the job to get it, and then to be backed - not only with some money (Dalglish wasnt), but also in all other aspects of running the club. Sir Bobby was a great appointment, Shephard's only "successful" one out of 5 thus far, yet it only lasted a few years before he stopped backing Sir Bobby, refusing to purchase who Sir Bobby wanted because he thought Sir Bobby had already spent too much (yet has the cheek to claim he backs his managers with money), refusing to back Sir Bobby when he tried to sell Shearer, refusing to install the modern training systems that Sir Bobby requested.

 

Just appoint a proven good manager, and back him. Thats all he has to do, all we're asking for. Its not much at all, in fact its what he should be doing in his job as chairman. Its got **** all to do with "life cycles" of a club being at the top and being unable to last there.

 

Yet he cant do it. He lives in his own world, where he knows the best way of running the club and us fans are just idiots to be controlled like kids with presents (players), promises and "pleasant suprises". In his own world, decisions like appointing Souness are good ones, even though the rest of the world can see likewise.

 

Shame. We could and should be doing so much better, not because we're blind or have fantasies of the club being bigger than it is or have too high expectations, but because the board have consistently given the wrong man the job, or given the right man the job and failed to back him in more ways than one.

 

The turning point is in bold, in my opinion.

 

But then far be it from me to slag Fred, according to the monkey, Oz  and now cyberbats I love Fred.....

 

What do you have against Shearer? I remember sometime last year when we were still in 14th or something like that and Shearer came out and said 'we can still make 7th', your response was something along the lines of 'here he goes spouting shit again'...

 

And now putting our downfall on the fact that we did not sell our main striker who had just scored 28 goals the season prior (iirc). I hate it when people now overplay the importance of Bellamy. Before, Bellamy was underrated.. now? He's just ****ing overrated. Sure, he changed the way we played, which lengthened Shearer's career by a few years but if Shearer wasn't there to finish those balls sent in by him and our wingers, we would never have reached the heights that we did. Bellamy never ****ing scored more than 10 league goals in a season for us!! And as we can see now, with Shearer gone, we are really desperate for a goalscorer similar to him.

 

Nowt.  Not being funny, but I'd like you to find the post you refer to.

 

In general terms I think Shearer does spout shite in that he talks in cliches. He also babbles a load of shite about Geordies thinking winning the FA Cup is more important than the league. Apart from that he's just another player who has played and done well for the club I support. They come and go. I'm not interested in a hero and I'm not interested in sentimentality either. He should have gone sooner than he did, well before the end he was holding the club back and I don't like that no matter how good he was in his prime.