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

[tmonkey]

Im not so sure Souness was backed the way it looks on paper.

 

From the start of his short stay with us, he wanted to play 4-3-3. That was the system he tried initially, a system he only changed when we fell behind to Herenveen and the chants for his head became loud - it failed because we simply did not have the players to play it. That was his "vision" for me, he tried to force it even without the right players, and along with buying already developed players, it was his "masterplan" for success with us. I remember him talking about the Chelsea system and admiring it, and I think thats the way he wanted us to go.

 

In his last season with us, he spent most of the summer talking up the 4-3-3 system he wanted us to play. He targeted Anelka and Boa Morte as key signings, along with others like Joaquin, all players ideally suited to a 4-3-3. Very clear imo, even the midfield signings were tailored to this, because Emre was at his best for Inter on the left of a 3 man central midfield, whilst it seemed that Jenas was meant to stay despite the signing of Parker - that was going to be our 3 man central midfield, although Jenas himself wanted out.

 

Even Luque's signing fits this picture. Luque peaked for Deportivo on the left side of an attacking trio for Deportivo - theres been alot of debate on here about whether he his position is as a striker or left midfielder, its a bit of both, ie the left side of the frontline in a 4-3-3. The signing of Luque himself has many a time been reported as the Shephard brothers' decision, and it does seem to be the case given that iirc news of a bid came a few days before the Souness comments about asking his mate in Spain about Luque (ie trying to save face and make it look like his signing).

 

Yet the final few days of the transfer window undid everything Souness had planned for, and im dead certain that was down to Freddy Shephard. One year earlier, Shephard had put in a 22mill bid for Wayne Rooney without his manager's knowledge, a bid that failed. Clearly, it was Shephard who wanted to get an England international striker into the side, the long term replacement for Shearer. When the Rooney bid failed, who would have logically been the next best thing?

 

Clearly, with Owen's signing, we were never, ever going to be able to play 4-3-3. And no doubt, that is why we also brought Solano in on the very last minute and got rid of Jenas, completing the switch to 4-4-2, a system Sounses clearly didnt want to play - hence why he had Solano tucking in all the time.

 

Therefore, I think Souness was not backed, in fact he was undermined in that he had absolutely no control over who was being signed. Shephard wanted to replace Shearer with a big name international forward, it was his decision to go for Owen (and it was no doubt his decision to make a bid for Torres - seems like Freddy's been watching a bit of La Liga, credit to him for that). Unfortunately, that decision has backfired miserably, not only did we pay a huge amount for a striker with a teenage boy's frame (similar to Dyer, stick-men) with a poor injury record, we also undid everything Souness had planned for and made some of his signings useless.

 

In his own world, Shephard no doubt means well, but hes simply not fit to be making these footballing decisions. His world clearly lacks any kind of depth with regards to football,

 

I remember how when we signed Bowyer on a Bosman as our only transfer in 2003, Shephard was boasting about adding an England international to the team. I can see exactly what he was thinking - "We have just finished 4th, added Woodgate in the previous window, and have a good young squad that had a very good CL and domestic season - therefore we should improve with experience alone - hence, adding an England international would represent a significant improvement, so money can be saved for other things". Thats exactly how I would expect a business man with little footballing knowledge to think, because he wont have followed the form of the player closely (Bowyer completely off form for a few years and far from an England international, having only appeared once and looking out of his depth at that level), or the needs of the squad/manager to improve the competition and add different options. But thats the way he thinks unfortunately, again its no doubt that type of unanalyzed hypothesis that had us appointing Souness, its also no doubt the reason why he lost faith in Sir Bobby ("ive given him this amount of money,  hes spent big on some players that havent performed, therefore he is not good at signing players" - everyone knows how all top managers spend poorly on a consistent basis).

 

Shephard controlling things in his own world is always going to land us in trouble, unless he hands the reign over to a manager talented and competent enough to run the club the way it should be.

[Howaythelads]

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'.

 

 

Good points again. Not much to say really other than as grass has remembered I thought the change should have been made when we finished 3rd, 16 months before it actually happened. The whole thing was a mistake by the Board, the final nail being the appointment of the worst manager I've ever seen for Newcastle.

[Howaythelads]

Im not so sure Souness was backed the way it looks on paper.

 

From the start of his short stay with us, he wanted to play 4-3-3. That was the system he tried initially, a system he only changed when we fell behind to Herenveen and the chants for his head became loud - it failed because we simply did not have the players to play it. That was his "vision" for me, he tried to force it even without the right players, and along with buying already developed players, it was his "masterplan" for success with us. I remember him talking about the Chelsea system and admiring it, and I think thats the way he wanted us to go.

 

In his last season with us, he spent most of the summer talking up the 4-3-3 system he wanted us to play. He targeted Anelka and Boa Morte as key signings, along with others like Joaquin, all players ideally suited to a 4-3-3. Very clear imo, even the midfield signings were tailored to this, because Emre was at his best for Inter on the left of a 3 man central midfield, whilst it seemed that Jenas was meant to stay despite the signing of Parker - that was going to be our 3 man central midfield, although Jenas himself wanted out.

 

Even Luque's signing fits this picture. Luque peaked for Deportivo on the left side of an attacking trio for Deportivo - theres been alot of debate on here about whether he his position is as a striker or left midfielder, its a bit of both, ie the left side of the frontline in a 4-3-3. The signing of Luque himself has many a time been reported as the Shephard brothers' decision, and it does seem to be the case given that iirc news of a bid came a few days before the Souness comments about asking his mate in Spain about Luque (ie trying to save face and make it look like his signing).

 

Yet the final few days of the transfer window undid everything Souness had planned for, and im dead certain that was down to Freddy Shephard. One year earlier, Shephard had put in a 22mill bid for Wayne Rooney without his manager's knowledge, a bid that failed. Clearly, it was Shephard who wanted to get an England international striker into the side, the long term replacement for Shearer. When the Rooney bid failed, who would have logically been the next best thing?

 

Clearly, with Owen's signing, we were never, ever going to be able to play 4-3-3. And no doubt, that is why we also brought Solano in on the very last minute and got rid of Jenas, completing the switch to 4-4-2, a system Sounses clearly didnt want to play - hence why he had Solano tucking in all the time.

 

Therefore, I think Souness was not backed, in fact he was undermined in that he had absolutely no control over who was being signed. Shephard wanted to replace Shearer with a big name international forward, it was his decision to go for Owen (and it was no doubt his decision to make a bid for Torres - seems like Freddy's been watching a bit of La Liga, credit to him for that). Unfortunately, that decision has backfired miserably, not only did we pay a huge amount for a striker with a teenage boy's frame (similar to Dyer, stick-men) with a poor injury record, we also undid everything Souness had planned for and made some of his signings useless.

 

In his own world, Shephard no doubt means well, but hes simply not fit to be making these footballing decisions. His world clearly lacks any kind of depth with regards to football,

 

I remember how when we signed Bowyer on a Bosman as our only transfer in 2003, Shephard was boasting about adding an England international to the team. I can see exactly what he was thinking - "We have just finished 4th, added Woodgate in the previous window, and have a good young squad that had a very good CL and domestic season - therefore we should improve with experience alone - hence, adding an England international would represent a significant improvement, so money can be saved for other things". Thats exactly how I would expect a business man with little footballing knowledge to think, because he wont have followed the form of the player closely (Bowyer completely off form for a few years and far from an England international, having only appeared once and looking out of his depth at that level), or the needs of the squad/manager to improve the competition and add different options. But thats the way he thinks unfortunately, again its no doubt that type of unanalyzed hypothesis that had us appointing Souness, its also no doubt the reason why he lost faith in Sir Bobby ("ive given him this amount of money,  hes spent big on some players that havent performed, therefore he is not good at signing players" - everyone knows how all top managers spend poorly on a consistent basis).

 

Shephard controlling things in his own world is always going to land us in trouble, unless he hands the reign over to a manager talented and competent enough to run the club the way it should be.

 

For the sake of accuracy among what is a post of massive speculation on your part I'll say that we also signed Woodgate and Ambrose in 2003, not just Bowyer.

[BottledDog]

Im not so sure Souness was backed the way it looks on paper.

 

From the start of his short stay with us, he wanted to play 4-3-3. That was the system he tried initially, a system he only changed when we fell behind to Herenveen and the chants for his head became loud - it failed because we simply did not have the players to play it. That was his "vision" for me, he tried to force it even without the right players, and along with buying already developed players, it was his "masterplan" for success with us. I remember him talking about the Chelsea system and admiring it, and I think thats the way he wanted us to go.

 

In his last season with us, he spent most of the summer talking up the 4-3-3 system he wanted us to play. He targeted Anelka and Boa Morte as key signings, along with others like Joaquin, all players ideally suited to a 4-3-3. Very clear imo, even the midfield signings were tailored to this, because Emre was at his best for Inter on the left of a 3 man central midfield, whilst it seemed that Jenas was meant to stay despite the signing of Parker - that was going to be our 3 man central midfield, although Jenas himself wanted out.

 

Even Luque's signing fits this picture. Luque peaked for Deportivo on the left side of an attacking trio for Deportivo - theres been alot of debate on here about whether he his position is as a striker or left midfielder, its a bit of both, ie the left side of the frontline in a 4-3-3. The signing of Luque himself has many a time been reported as the Shephard brothers' decision, and it does seem to be the case given that iirc news of a bid came a few days before the Souness comments about asking his mate in Spain about Luque (ie trying to save face and make it look like his signing).

 

Yet the final few days of the transfer window undid everything Souness had planned for, and im dead certain that was down to Freddy Shephard. One year earlier, Shephard had put in a 22mill bid for Wayne Rooney without his manager's knowledge, a bid that failed. Clearly, it was Shephard who wanted to get an England international striker into the side, the long term replacement for Shearer. When the Rooney bid failed, who would have logically been the next best thing?

 

Clearly, with Owen's signing, we were never, ever going to be able to play 4-3-3. And no doubt, that is why we also brought Solano in on the very last minute and got rid of Jenas, completing the switch to 4-4-2, a system Sounses clearly didnt want to play - hence why he had Solano tucking in all the time.

 

Therefore, I think Souness was not backed, in fact he was undermined in that he had absolutely no control over who was being signed. Shephard wanted to replace Shearer with a big name international forward, it was his decision to go for Owen (and it was no doubt his decision to make a bid for Torres - seems like Freddy's been watching a bit of La Liga, credit to him for that). Unfortunately, that decision has backfired miserably, not only did we pay a huge amount for a striker with a teenage boy's frame (similar to Dyer, stick-men) with a poor injury record, we also undid everything Souness had planned for and made some of his signings useless.

 

In his own world, Shephard no doubt means well, but hes simply not fit to be making these footballing decisions. His world clearly lacks any kind of depth with regards to football,

 

I remember how when we signed Bowyer on a Bosman as our only transfer in 2003, Shephard was boasting about adding an England international to the team. I can see exactly what he was thinking - "We have just finished 4th, added Woodgate in the previous window, and have a good young squad that had a very good CL and domestic season - therefore we should improve with experience alone - hence, adding an England international would represent a significant improvement, so money can be saved for other things". Thats exactly how I would expect a business man with little footballing knowledge to think, because he wont have followed the form of the player closely (Bowyer completely off form for a few years and far from an England international, having only appeared once and looking out of his depth at that level), or the needs of the squad/manager to improve the competition and add different options. But thats the way he thinks unfortunately, again its no doubt that type of unanalyzed hypothesis that had us appointing Souness, its also no doubt the reason why he lost faith in Sir Bobby ("ive given him this amount of money,  hes spent big on some players that havent performed, therefore he is not good at signing players" - everyone knows how all top managers spend poorly on a consistent basis).

 

Shephard controlling things in his own world is always going to land us in trouble, unless he hands the reign over to a manager talented and competent enough to run the club the way it should be.

 

For the sake of accuracy among what is a post of massive speculation on your part I'll say that we also signed Woodgate and Ambrose in 2003, not just Bowyer.

 

That's true, I often made the same point myself when arguing that we had actually spent a fair wedge that year. But still, I think we had all hoped for a little more fine tuning, and in hindsight it looks a poor summer.

[Guest Knightrider]

What made the summer of 2003 all the more worse was that Freddy Shepherd actually said there would be funds for SBR to spend and that fans can be excited about the calibre of player we'd be trying to sign, players like Ronaldinho were linked. The money was there, but only for superstars seemingly. Could it be that in that summer SBR wanted good money to replace Shearer and the board, in blind panic of having to deal with all that aggro had SBR dropped Shearer in place of a younger more mobile striker like he had wanted to do, thought "well if we don't give him any money, he can't buy a replacement"?

 

Fantastic post BTW Tmonkey, I never quite looked at things like that. I'd say you aren't far wrong there with your analysis either.

 

Does anyone remember Souness' "you better ask the chairman" comments live on telly prior to our match in Spain against Depor when asked about Boa Morte and Anelka? He was pissed that day and I clearly remember a few posts on here from members, soem who couldn't stand the man, feeling he was being undermined, especially when he said he knew both Anelka and Boa Morte wanted to sign for the club before saying "its all in the hands of the chairman".

 

A few weeks later we signed Luque, Solano and Owen and not Anelka, Boa Morte and Joaquin, players Souness expressed a desire to sign, as Tmonkey notes.

[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 ****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.

 

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,17785.msg331286.html#msg331286

 

Here.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Re: The traingin ground comparison with Man U:

 

I'm sure I can remember back in the KK days high profile jaunts by management and board to the likes of Juve, Milan, Barca, PSV etc to pick up a master blusprint for a world class training ground development.

 

I also did a geography coursework on the development of the new training site (looking at the environmental impact, but also getting access to the plans and speaking to a few developers) and the finished product is pretty close to this initial blueprint.

 

So what happened? Did we just look at the fancy doorknobs and carpetes at these places which we visited or was something major just lost in translation?

[Cronky]

Some very good points here, and I think we're getting to the heart of the problem. It's not enough for a Chairman to spend money on players. He also has to back his manager's judgement on how the money should be spent.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Some very good points here, and I think we're getting to the heart of the problem. It's not enough for a Chairman to spend money on players. He also has to back his manager's judgement on how the money should be spent.

 

Which is what sets SJH apart from FS.

 

Watch the official history DVD, the section on when KK wanted to sell Cole.

 

SJH's words 'In business you have to trust your MD'.

[Slugsy]

To get back on the thread topic, I have never seen such a blatant leak into the press by Shepherd to raise the share price and get Belgravia to make a move!!!

 

There is no danger Shepherd will be able to afford to take the club over without another investor or crippling the club with debt.

[lovejoy]

Im not so sure Souness was backed the way it looks on paper.

 

From the start of his short stay with us, he wanted to play 4-3-3. That was the system he tried initially, a system he only changed when we fell behind to Herenveen and the chants for his head became loud - it failed because we simply did not have the players to play it. That was his "vision" for me, he tried to force it even without the right players, and along with buying already developed players, it was his "masterplan" for success with us. I remember him talking about the Chelsea system and admiring it, and I think thats the way he wanted us to go.

 

In his last season with us, he spent most of the summer talking up the 4-3-3 system he wanted us to play. He targeted Anelka and Boa Morte as key signings, along with others like Joaquin, all players ideally suited to a 4-3-3. Very clear imo, even the midfield signings were tailored to this, because Emre was at his best for Inter on the left of a 3 man central midfield, whilst it seemed that Jenas was meant to stay despite the signing of Parker - that was going to be our 3 man central midfield, although Jenas himself wanted out.

 

Even Luque's signing fits this picture. Luque peaked for Deportivo on the left side of an attacking trio for Deportivo - theres been alot of debate on here about whether he his position is as a striker or left midfielder, its a bit of both, ie the left side of the frontline in a 4-3-3. The signing of Luque himself has many a time been reported as the Shephard brothers' decision, and it does seem to be the case given that iirc news of a bid came a few days before the Souness comments about asking his mate in Spain about Luque (ie trying to save face and make it look like his signing).

 

Yet the final few days of the transfer window undid everything Souness had planned for, and im dead certain that was down to Freddy Shephard. One year earlier, Shephard had put in a 22mill bid for Wayne Rooney without his manager's knowledge, a bid that failed. Clearly, it was Shephard who wanted to get an England international striker into the side, the long term replacement for Shearer. When the Rooney bid failed, who would have logically been the next best thing?

 

Clearly, with Owen's signing, we were never, ever going to be able to play 4-3-3. And no doubt, that is why we also brought Solano in on the very last minute and got rid of Jenas, completing the switch to 4-4-2, a system Sounses clearly didnt want to play - hence why he had Solano tucking in all the time.

 

Therefore, I think Souness was not backed, in fact he was undermined in that he had absolutely no control over who was being signed. Shephard wanted to replace Shearer with a big name international forward, it was his decision to go for Owen (and it was no doubt his decision to make a bid for Torres - seems like Freddy's been watching a bit of La Liga, credit to him for that). Unfortunately, that decision has backfired miserably, not only did we pay a huge amount for a striker with a teenage boy's frame (similar to Dyer, stick-men) with a poor injury record, we also undid everything Souness had planned for and made some of his signings useless.

 

In his own world, Shephard no doubt means well, but hes simply not fit to be making these footballing decisions. His world clearly lacks any kind of depth with regards to football,

 

I remember how when we signed Bowyer on a Bosman as our only transfer in 2003, Shephard was boasting about adding an England international to the team. I can see exactly what he was thinking - "We have just finished 4th, added Woodgate in the previous window, and have a good young squad that had a very good CL and domestic season - therefore we should improve with experience alone - hence, adding an England international would represent a significant improvement, so money can be saved for other things". Thats exactly how I would expect a business man with little footballing knowledge to think, because he wont have followed the form of the player closely (Bowyer completely off form for a few years and far from an England international, having only appeared once and looking out of his depth at that level), or the needs of the squad/manager to improve the competition and add different options. But thats the way he thinks unfortunately, again its no doubt that type of unanalyzed hypothesis that had us appointing Souness, its also no doubt the reason why he lost faith in Sir Bobby ("ive given him this amount of money,  hes spent big on some players that havent performed, therefore he is not good at signing players" - everyone knows how all top managers spend poorly on a consistent basis).

 

Shephard controlling things in his own world is always going to land us in trouble, unless he hands the reign over to a manager talented and competent enough to run the club the way it should be.

 

 

geat post apart from this bit.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Im not so sure Souness was backed the way it looks on paper.

 

From the start of his short stay with us, he wanted to play 4-3-3. That was the system he tried initially, a system he only changed when we fell behind to Herenveen and the chants for his head became loud - it failed because we simply did not have the players to play it. That was his "vision" for me, he tried to force it even without the right players, and along with buying already developed players, it was his "masterplan" for success with us. I remember him talking about the Chelsea system and admiring it, and I think thats the way he wanted us to go.

 

In his last season with us, he spent most of the summer talking up the 4-3-3 system he wanted us to play. He targeted Anelka and Boa Morte as key signings, along with others like Joaquin, all players ideally suited to a 4-3-3. Very clear imo, even the midfield signings were tailored to this, because Emre was at his best for Inter on the left of a 3 man central midfield, whilst it seemed that Jenas was meant to stay despite the signing of Parker - that was going to be our 3 man central midfield, although Jenas himself wanted out.

 

Even Luque's signing fits this picture. Luque peaked for Deportivo on the left side of an attacking trio for Deportivo - theres been alot of debate on here about whether he his position is as a striker or left midfielder, its a bit of both, ie the left side of the frontline in a 4-3-3. The signing of Luque himself has many a time been reported as the Shephard brothers' decision, and it does seem to be the case given that iirc news of a bid came a few days before the Souness comments about asking his mate in Spain about Luque (ie trying to save face and make it look like his signing).

 

Yet the final few days of the transfer window undid everything Souness had planned for, and im dead certain that was down to Freddy Shephard. One year earlier, Shephard had put in a 22mill bid for Wayne Rooney without his manager's knowledge, a bid that failed. Clearly, it was Shephard who wanted to get an England international striker into the side, the long term replacement for Shearer. When the Rooney bid failed, who would have logically been the next best thing?

 

Clearly, with Owen's signing, we were never, ever going to be able to play 4-3-3. And no doubt, that is why we also brought Solano in on the very last minute and got rid of Jenas, completing the switch to 4-4-2, a system Sounses clearly didnt want to play - hence why he had Solano tucking in all the time.

 

Therefore, I think Souness was not backed, in fact he was undermined in that he had absolutely no control over who was being signed. Shephard wanted to replace Shearer with a big name international forward, it was his decision to go for Owen (and it was no doubt his decision to make a bid for Torres - seems like Freddy's been watching a bit of La Liga, credit to him for that). Unfortunately, that decision has backfired miserably, not only did we pay a huge amount for a striker with a teenage boy's frame (similar to Dyer, stick-men) with a poor injury record, we also undid everything Souness had planned for and made some of his signings useless.

 

In his own world, Shephard no doubt means well, but hes simply not fit to be making these footballing decisions. His world clearly lacks any kind of depth with regards to football,

 

I remember how when we signed Bowyer on a Bosman as our only transfer in 2003, Shephard was boasting about adding an England international to the team. I can see exactly what he was thinking - "We have just finished 4th, added Woodgate in the previous window, and have a good young squad that had a very good CL and domestic season - therefore we should improve with experience alone - hence, adding an England international would represent a significant improvement, so money can be saved for other things". Thats exactly how I would expect a business man with little footballing knowledge to think, because he wont have followed the form of the player closely (Bowyer completely off form for a few years and far from an England international, having only appeared once and looking out of his depth at that level), or the needs of the squad/manager to improve the competition and add different options. But thats the way he thinks unfortunately, again its no doubt that type of unanalyzed hypothesis that had us appointing Souness, its also no doubt the reason why he lost faith in Sir Bobby ("ive given him this amount of money,  hes spent big on some players that havent performed, therefore he is not good at signing players" - everyone knows how all top managers spend poorly on a consistent basis).

 

Shephard controlling things in his own world is always going to land us in trouble, unless he hands the reign over to a manager talented and competent enough to run the club the way it should be.

 

 

geat post apart from this bit.

 

If you mean Bobby knew about it, his interview on Sky Sports suggested he knew nothing of the Woodgate bid or the Rooney bid until after both had been lodged/accepted (depending on the bid).

 

He looked a man bemused by the whole circus

[lovejoy]

Im not so sure Souness was backed the way it looks on paper.

 

From the start of his short stay with us, he wanted to play 4-3-3. That was the system he tried initially, a system he only changed when we fell behind to Herenveen and the chants for his head became loud - it failed because we simply did not have the players to play it. That was his "vision" for me, he tried to force it even without the right players, and along with buying already developed players, it was his "masterplan" for success with us. I remember him talking about the Chelsea system and admiring it, and I think thats the way he wanted us to go.

 

In his last season with us, he spent most of the summer talking up the 4-3-3 system he wanted us to play. He targeted Anelka and Boa Morte as key signings, along with others like Joaquin, all players ideally suited to a 4-3-3. Very clear imo, even the midfield signings were tailored to this, because Emre was at his best for Inter on the left of a 3 man central midfield, whilst it seemed that Jenas was meant to stay despite the signing of Parker - that was going to be our 3 man central midfield, although Jenas himself wanted out.

 

Even Luque's signing fits this picture. Luque peaked for Deportivo on the left side of an attacking trio for Deportivo - theres been alot of debate on here about whether he his position is as a striker or left midfielder, its a bit of both, ie the left side of the frontline in a 4-3-3. The signing of Luque himself has many a time been reported as the Shephard brothers' decision, and it does seem to be the case given that iirc news of a bid came a few days before the Souness comments about asking his mate in Spain about Luque (ie trying to save face and make it look like his signing).

 

Yet the final few days of the transfer window undid everything Souness had planned for, and im dead certain that was down to Freddy Shephard. One year earlier, Shephard had put in a 22mill bid for Wayne Rooney without his manager's knowledge, a bid that failed. Clearly, it was Shephard who wanted to get an England international striker into the side, the long term replacement for Shearer. When the Rooney bid failed, who would have logically been the next best thing?

 

Clearly, with Owen's signing, we were never, ever going to be able to play 4-3-3. And no doubt, that is why we also brought Solano in on the very last minute and got rid of Jenas, completing the switch to 4-4-2, a system Sounses clearly didnt want to play - hence why he had Solano tucking in all the time.

 

Therefore, I think Souness was not backed, in fact he was undermined in that he had absolutely no control over who was being signed. Shephard wanted to replace Shearer with a big name international forward, it was his decision to go for Owen (and it was no doubt his decision to make a bid for Torres - seems like Freddy's been watching a bit of La Liga, credit to him for that). Unfortunately, that decision has backfired miserably, not only did we pay a huge amount for a striker with a teenage boy's frame (similar to Dyer, stick-men) with a poor injury record, we also undid everything Souness had planned for and made some of his signings useless.

 

In his own world, Shephard no doubt means well, but hes simply not fit to be making these footballing decisions. His world clearly lacks any kind of depth with regards to football,

 

I remember how when we signed Bowyer on a Bosman as our only transfer in 2003, Shephard was boasting about adding an England international to the team. I can see exactly what he was thinking - "We have just finished 4th, added Woodgate in the previous window, and have a good young squad that had a very good CL and domestic season - therefore we should improve with experience alone - hence, adding an England international would represent a significant improvement, so money can be saved for other things". Thats exactly how I would expect a business man with little footballing knowledge to think, because he wont have followed the form of the player closely (Bowyer completely off form for a few years and far from an England international, having only appeared once and looking out of his depth at that level), or the needs of the squad/manager to improve the competition and add different options. But thats the way he thinks unfortunately, again its no doubt that type of unanalyzed hypothesis that had us appointing Souness, its also no doubt the reason why he lost faith in Sir Bobby ("ive given him this amount of money,  hes spent big on some players that havent performed, therefore he is not good at signing players" - everyone knows how all top managers spend poorly on a consistent basis).

 

Shephard controlling things in his own world is always going to land us in trouble, unless he hands the reign over to a manager talented and competent enough to run the club the way it should be.

 

 

geat post apart from this bit.

 

If you mean Bobby knew about it, his interview on Sky Sports suggested he knew nothing of the Woodgate bid or the Rooney bid until after both had been lodged/accepted (depending on the bid).

 

He looked a man bemused by the whole circus

 

 

well according to his book he was asked by freddy if he wanted rooney, he said yes as long as it didnt hinder him getting a centre half

[Baggio]

Does anyone remember Souness' "you better ask the chairman" comments live on telly prior to our match in Spain against Depor when asked about Boa Morte and Anelka? He was pissed that day and I clearly remember a few posts on here from members, soem who couldn't stand the man, feeling he was being undermined, especially when he said he knew both Anelka and Boa Morte wanted to sign for the club before saying "its all in the hands of the chairman".

 

A few weeks later we signed Luque, Solano and Owen and not Anelka, Boa Morte and Joaquin, players Souness expressed a desire to sign, as Tmonkey notes.

 

Shocking stuff that, I remember we wouldn't bid up on £6.5 million for Boa Morte and then Luque appears costing £3 million more than that.

[David Icke - Son of God]

Shepherd is either seriously deluded or trying to force Belgravia into making a move. Either way I can't see him coming out on top.

[NE5]

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?

 

interesting, because one thing strikes me, consistently in these type of debates, and that is the people who constantly criticise the club for "not appointing the right man", NEVER tell us what their criteria is for guaranteed success...on one hand they want someone who is "proven", then they say it is no guarantee, or want someone who is not as proven as some of the ones we have had.

 

What mass hypocrisy.

 

They also ignore the fact that Arsenal and manu made poor appointments themselves before they got the right one, despite it being pointed out to them. And they also only name the same 3 or 4 clubs, unable to realise that all the other top clubs are all looking for the same "right man"....as stated, it will be very interesting to see what manu and Arsenal do when Messrs Ferguson and Wenger move on, whats the odds on them both getting the "right man" at the first attempt. Remember this is the real world we are talking about here.

 

Its not as if Newcastle United haven't had long serving managers, because in the last 14 years, we have had 2 that did 5 years each. Does anyone think we should have stuck with Dalglish and Gullit and the "long term plan" despite the team losing games and playing poorly ?

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,32099.102.html An example is this, where tmonkey was asked this question by me and has been online and ignored it ? And I'm not being funny, I was interested in what he would have said, as I am with everyone else who is asked.

 

 

[Guest]

Shepherd taking us private wouldn't be the worst thing in the world imo.

[NE5]

Shepherd taking us private wouldn't be the worst thing in the world imo.

 

We have no choice in the matter anyway

 

 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

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?

 

interesting, because one thing strikes me, consistently in these type of debates, and that is the people who constantly criticise the club for "not appointing the right man", NEVER tell us what their criteria is for guaranteed success...on one hand they want someone who is "proven", then they say it is no guarantee, or want someone who is not as proven as some of the ones we have had.

 

What mass hypocrisy.

 

They also ignore the fact that Arsenal and manu made poor appointments themselves before they got the right one, despite it being pointed out to them. And they also only name the same 3 or 4 clubs, unable to realise that all the other top clubs are all looking for the same "right man"....as stated, it will be very interesting to see what manu and Arsenal do when Messrs Ferguson and Wenger move on, whats the odds on them both getting the "right man" at the first attempt. Remember this is the real world we are talking about here.

 

Its not as if Newcastle United haven't had long serving managers, because in the last 14 years, we have had 2 that did 5 years each. Does anyone think we should have stuck with Dalglish and Gullit and the "long term plan" despite the team losing games and playing poorly ?

 

 

 

I don't think there is a guaranteed success formula for managers, as we have seen first hand what works for one man at one club won't necessarly work elsewhere. The boards (apparent) policy of looking at the previous managers fatal flaw and appointing someone with the direct opposite characteristic does however show that they don't look at the whole picture (i.e. what was good with the previous manager and what needs improved on, not right lads KK was too attacking, lets get Kenny in, oh bugger he's a bit boring lets bring in Sexy Ruud etc).

 

What a GOOD board should be able to do however is see when a manager is not being a success in his job and look for ways to remedy this. With Bobby we needed an authority in the changing room who would not undermine the boss but could step up in 2 to 3 years time - Jose would have been ideal if he had fancied the job ahead of Chelsea. What was need with Souness was a tactical coach and a top drawer scout - not £50m to spend in two weeks.

 

What we don't know (and will never know under the current set up) is how much of the reactionary decision making is down to the Halls and how much is down to Shepherd. For all we know Doug/Sir John may be the ones who want to stay British whilst Fred wanted a Sven or Hitzfeld. Maybe the Halls want to keep Shearers seat warm and Fred wanted O'Neill and his band of Merry men.

 

What I see with Roeder is a lack of conviction and belief in himself and his team. Bringing in a Keegan-esq man to motivate is what is needed now, but of course the answer is £20m in January.

 

[NE5]

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?

 

interesting, because one thing strikes me, consistently in these type of debates, and that is the people who constantly criticise the club for "not appointing the right man", NEVER tell us what their criteria is for guaranteed success...on one hand they want someone who is "proven", then they say it is no guarantee, or want someone who is not as proven as some of the ones we have had.

 

What mass hypocrisy.

 

They also ignore the fact that Arsenal and manu made poor appointments themselves before they got the right one, despite it being pointed out to them. And they also only name the same 3 or 4 clubs, unable to realise that all the other top clubs are all looking for the same "right man"....as stated, it will be very interesting to see what manu and Arsenal do when Messrs Ferguson and Wenger move on, whats the odds on them both getting the "right man" at the first attempt. Remember this is the real world we are talking about here.

 

Its not as if Newcastle United haven't had long serving managers, because in the last 14 years, we have had 2 that did 5 years each. Does anyone think we should have stuck with Dalglish and Gullit and the "long term plan" despite the team losing games and playing poorly ?

 

 

 

I don't think there is a guaranteed success formula for managers, as we have seen first hand what works for one man at one club won't necessarly work elsewhere. The boards (apparent) policy of looking at the previous managers fatal flaw and appointing someone with the direct opposite characteristic does however show that they don't look at the whole picture (i.e. what was good with the previous manager and what needs improved on, not right lads KK was too attacking, lets get Kenny in, oh bugger he's a bit boring lets bring in Sexy Ruud etc).

 

What a GOOD board should be able to do however is see when a manager is not being a success in his job and look for ways to remedy this. With Bobby we needed an authority in the changing room who would not undermine the boss but could step up in 2 to 3 years time - Jose would have been ideal if he had fancied the job ahead of Chelsea. What was need with Souness was a tactical coach and a top drawer scout - not £50m to spend in two weeks.

 

What we don't know (and will never know under the current set up) is how much of the reactionary decision making is down to the Halls and how much is down to Shepherd. For all we know Doug/Sir John may be the ones who want to stay British whilst Fred wanted a Sven or Hitzfeld. Maybe the Halls want to keep Shearers seat warm and Fred wanted O'Neill and his band of Merry men.

 

What I see with Roeder is a lack of conviction and belief in himself and his team. Bringing in a Keegan-esq man to motivate is what is needed now, but of course the answer is £20m in January.

 

 

Some of us spotted your point in the first paragraph ages ago, and posted it ages ago too. However, it may surprise you that quite a lot of clubs tend to make "reactionary" appointments, or managers that do well somewhere else and not so well for you. Quite a lot of clubs also appoint a replacement to a successful manager as somone similar ie George Graham succeeded by Bruce Rioch at Arsenal is a perfect example. Also some clubs appoint ex coaches, managers without experience, ie Liverpool appointing Dalglish, then Fagan, then Roy Evans.....you see, somehow people think we are the only club that does these things. We aren't.

 

The answer to our current position is to spend 20m [or less] WELL in January. If Roeder had spent his 15m in the summer WELL, we wouldn't be where we are now. And by that I mean if he had spent 10m quid on a striker who had came in and scored goals immediately like Andy Cole did, instead of Martins, we would be happier with him and the team. Also if Souness has spent more of his money WELL we would be better off. You can't throw money at problems and waste it. I have said on numerous occasions, the most vital thing in football is for a manager to spend his money well, if he doesn't do that then he will lose his job and you will struggle.

 

What we also need, is - as much as I now loathe him and think in the long run he's a permantly injured waste of space - Kieron Dyer to stay fit, play and perform. If he does that, he's a key player and would make a significant difference to the team.

 

Having said that, spending 20m quid in January is very risky, but in my view the club may well have to do it to preserve premiership status. Interestingly there are more than a few people quick to criticise the club for spending money, then not spending money, who still have not taken part in the thread which asked the very question, "Should they or shouldn't they"

 

I completely agree with your comments on the respective influence of the Halls and Shepherd, which I have been saying for ages. It is unimagineable that the major shareholders of the football club are not involved in and are party to making the biggest decisions.

 

 

[Rob W]

Shepherd taking us private wouldn't be the worst thing in the world imo.

 

well it cuts out the chances of serious new investment

 

FFS isn't SERIOUSLY rich and so we'd be in much the same situation as we are now - they'll save about £ 1 million by delisting but that's washers really

[Mick]

Shepherd taking us private wouldn't be the worst thing in the world imo.

 

Would you trust Shepherd with the clubs finances if it was a closed shop and he could take anything he wanted without being answerable to anybody?

 

I wouldn't, he takes enough when he's accountable so I would expect a lot more to leave the club if it could be done on the quiet.

[NE5]

Shepherd taking us private wouldn't be the worst thing in the world imo.

 

Would you trust Shepherd with the clubs finances if it was a closed shop and he could take anything he wanted without being answerable to anybody?

 

I wouldn't, he takes enough when he's accountable so I would expect a lot more to leave the club if it could be done on the quiet.

 

Blind and unfounded speculation 

 

Nothing other than expected. Undoubtedly a cut and paste job.

 

 

[Mick]

 

Some of us spotted your point in the first paragraph ages ago, and posted it ages ago too. However, it may surprise you that quite a lot of clubs tend to make "reactionary" appointments, or managers that do well somewhere else and not so well for you. Quite a lot of clubs also appoint a replacement to a successful manager as somone similar ie George Graham succeeded by Bruce Rioch at Arsenal is a perfect example. Also some clubs appoint ex coaches, managers without experience, ie Liverpool appointing Dalglish, then Fagan, then Roy Evans.....you see, somehow people think we are the only club that does these things. We aren't.

 

The answer to our current position is to spend 20m [or less] WELL in January. If Roeder had spent his 15m in the summer WELL, we wouldn't be where we are now. And by that I mean if he had spent 10m quid on a striker who had came in and scored goals immediately like Andy Cole did, instead of Martins, we would be happier with him and the team. Also if Souness has spent more of his money WELL we would be better off. You can't throw money at problems and waste it. I have said on numerous occasions, the most vital thing in football is for a manager to spend his money well, if he doesn't do that then he will lose his job and you will struggle.

 

What we also need, is - as much as I now loathe him and think in the long run he's a permantly injured waste of space - Kieron Dyer to stay fit, play and perform. If he does that, he's a key player and would make a significant difference to the team.

 

Having said that, spending 20m quid in January is very risky, but in my view the club may well have to do it to preserve premiership status. Interestingly there are more than a few people quick to criticise the club for spending money, then not spending money, who still have not taken part in the thread which asked the very question, "Should they or shouldn't they"

 

I completely agree with your comments on the respective influence of the Halls and Shepherd, which I have been saying for ages. It is unimagineable that the major shareholders of the football club are not involved in and are party to making the biggest decisions.

 

 

 

Your comment in your first paragraph is laughable, nobody can guarantee success and that's true.  Souness and Roeder were almost guaranteed to deliver failure and most people could see that, including you with Souness.

 

That case for the defence of Shepherd is a load of bollocks, we're not talking about Shepherd bringing in good managers, we're talking about him bringing in serial failures, people with a track-record which mirrored the failure that he's presided over.

 

Not one of those managers you've mentioned were as bad as our last two managers, at least not before they were appointed so your point is totally rubbish as you are using a few in isolation when we do it for fun.

 

You then go on about the spending of both our last two managers, Souness is the person who brought George Weah's cousin over on the strength of a telephone conversation, not only that, he watched him in training and still played him.

 

What track-record has Roeder got when it comes to spending money?

 

Your comments about the Hall's and Shepherd are about as meaningful as the rest of your post, fact less.  It's already been mentioned this week that the Hall's play little part in the running of our club, I'm sure you even quoted Sir Bobby from his book saying that he'd hardly seen Douglas in 5 years.  That's hardly the profile of somebody who is making all of the decisions is it?

 

I'll try and educate you for the last time on this point but you must know that shares mean nothing away from the AGM, don't you?  Shares only count at the Annual General Meeting; during board meetings it's one man one vote except for the chairman who has the casting vote in the case of a tie, which makes Shepherd the most powerful man in the board-room.

 

You either can’t take things in or you chose not to, which one is it?

 

[ianovthetoon]

The nail has ben firmly hit on the head, Freddie Shepherd ISN'T seriously rich. The question then must be how would he fund a takeover. As the club has long term debts secured against future ticket sales, that route is out of the question, so perhaps he has his own backers, maybe they have a few quid and would be pro active in taking the club forward. It's a possibility