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

[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.

 

Blind and unfounded speculation 

 

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

 

 

 

The amount he takes is not speculation, it's well published.

 

What he might take if not being monitored is speculation, based on what he's done.

[NE5]

 

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?

 

 

quite amazing that a long term supporter like you, still can't tell us why Waddle, Beardsley, Gazza, Robson, Lee and Cox all left the club. Its obvious the different club that exists now in comparison to then is something you can't bear witness to.

 

Quite amazing how someone who says they do figures, or business, or whatever, STILL thinks the major shareholders in the football club aren't involved with and probably have the ultimate say in the big decisions.  :lol:

 

But then again, you fail to see anything else other than what you blindly want to, so I'm not surprised.

 

 

[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?

 

 

quite amazing that a long term supporter like you, still can't tell us why Waddle, Beardsley, Gazza, Robson, Lee and Cox all left the club. Its obvious the different club that exists now in comparison to then is something you can't bear witness to.

 

Quite amazing how someone who says they do figures, or business, or whatever, STILL thinks the major shareholders in the football club aren't involved with and probably have the ultimate say in the big decisions.  :lol:

 

But then again, you fail to see anything else other than what you blindly want to, so I'm not surprised.

 

 

 

       

 

Is that the best you can do?  bluebiggrin.gif 

[NE5]

 

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?

 

 

quite amazing that a long term supporter like you, still can't tell us why Waddle, Beardsley, Gazza, Robson, Lee and Cox all left the club. Its obvious the different club that exists now in comparison to then is something you can't bear witness to.

 

Quite amazing how someone who says they do figures, or business, or whatever, STILL thinks the major shareholders in the football club aren't involved with and probably have the ultimate say in the big decisions.  :lol:

 

But then again, you fail to see anything else other than what you blindly want to, so I'm not surprised.

 

 

 

       

 

Is that the best you can do?  bluebiggrin.gif 

 

well, we know its the best you can do 

[Mick]

 

       

 

Is that the best you can do?  bluebiggrin.gif 

 

well, we know its the best you can do 

 

At least I didn't post something that was made up of 9 words, 5 of which were from the post of the person I was replying to.

 

9 and 5, what a coincidence, it's the number of times Ellis and Villa finished above Newcastle while they were both chairman, care to comment on that?

[NE5]

 

       

 

Is that the best you can do?  bluebiggrin.gif 

 

well, we know its the best you can do 

 

At least I didn't post something that was made up of 9 words, 5 of which were from the post of the person I was replying to.

 

9 and 5, what a coincidence, it's the number of times Ellis and Villa finished above Newcastle while they were both chairman, care to comment on that?

 

what, 9 times and 5 times :lol:

 

From European champions to ?

 

Glad you still think looking into the 3rd division and spending decades selling your best players is the same as buying England players and playing in europe  Care to change your comment about that ?

 

We know it's because you can't .... no wonder you agree with the WUM, you're both clueless and bandwagon jumpers

 

In the light of your view that major shareholders don't get involved in the major decisions, as in your comments earlier

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?

 

laughable in itself, you should read this

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/sir-bobby-shepherd-in-talks/

[Mick]

 

what, 9 times and 5 times :lol:

 

From European champions to ?

 

Glad you still think looking into the 3rd division and spending decades selling your best players is the same as buying England players and playing in europe  Care to change your comment about that ?

 

We know it's because you can't .... no wonder you agree with the WUM, you're both clueless and bandwagon jumpers

 

I really look forward to your thought provoking posts, I think I might print that one out and see if it'll help send me to sleep later, it's doing it now so it should work. bluesleep.gif  bluesleep.gif  bluesleep.gif  bluesleep.gif

[NE5]

 

what, 9 times and 5 times :lol:

 

From European champions to ?

 

Glad you still think looking into the 3rd division and spending decades selling your best players is the same as buying England players and playing in europe  Care to change your comment about that ?

 

We know it's because you can't .... no wonder you agree with the WUM, you're both clueless and bandwagon jumpers

 

I really look forward to your thought provoking posts, I think I might print that one out and see if it'll help send me to sleep later, it's doing it now so it should work. bluesleep.gif  bluesleep.gif  bluesleep.gif  bluesleep.gif

 

I thought you just said you could read, you've missed half the post .. 

 

Funniest thing ever really, thinking major shareholders don;t get involved in the major decisions ? Would you leave it to someone else ? Actually, I think you probably would .... 

[Mick]

 

I thought you just said you could read, you've missed half the post ..   

 

Funniest thing ever really, thinking major shareholders don;t get involved in the major decisions ? Would you leave it to someone else ? Actually, I think you probably would .... 

:roll:

You are totally clueless when it comes to commenting about what major shareholders do, you just have no idea how a boardroom is run and you  prove that with your crazy ramblings.  bluebiggrin.gif

[Cronky]

On the question of managers, there aren't any guarantees, but you do expect the Board to try and get in the best man available. Now I'm not convinced that Shepherd did that with Souness and Roeder. I think he wanted managers that were happy with Shearer's exceptional status at the club, first as a player and now as an ambassador-manager in waiting. One way or another, I think that ruled some good candidates out.

 

On O'Neill, I'd heard that the Halls were keen but Shepherd wasn't. Certainly I've not detected any sign that Freddie wasn't 100% happy with Roeder's appointment. It also fits what we know of Shepherd's 'hands on' style. O'Neill is a man who wants to make all this own appointments, and who wants to be heard at Boardroom level, and that wouldn't suit Freddie.

[NE5]

 

I thought you just said you could read, you've missed half the post ..   

 

Funniest thing ever really, thinking major shareholders don;t get involved in the major decisions ? Would you leave it to someone else ? Actually, I think you probably would .... 

:roll:

You are totally clueless when it comes to commenting about what major shareholders do, you just have no idea how a boardroom is run and you  prove that with your crazy ramblings.   bluebiggrin.gif

 

and you do ? 

 

You could at least tell us why Gazza, Beardsley, Waddle, Cox, Lee and Robson all wanted to leave the club, and Shearer didnt'...then explain how staring into the 3rd division and selling your best players is the same as buying England internationals and playing in europe is the same, with your knowledge of boardrooms and Newcastle United, this should be an easy question  .....

 

How many posts have you made in this thread without answering the main question in it ? Why not ?

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

On the question of managers, there aren't any guarantees, but you do expect the Board to try and get in the best man available. Now I'm not convinced that Shepherd did that with Souness and Roeder. I think he wanted managers that were happy with Shearer's exceptional status at the club, first as a player and now as an ambassador-manager in waiting. One way or another, I think that ruled some good candidates out.

 

On O'Neill, I'd heard that the Halls were keen but Shepherd wasn't. Certainly I've not detected any sign that Freddie wasn't 100% happy with Roeder's appointment. It also fits what we know of Shepherd's 'hands on' style. O'Neill is a man who wants to make all this own appointments, and who wants to be heard at Boardroom level, and that wouldn't suit Freddie.

 

if you said that was factual bob, and not "what you heard", it would be commentable, but you didn't. All the managers seem to have made their own appointments to me.

 

I find it hard to believe that possible managers would think Alan Shearer would step on their toes, nor do I believe Alan Shearer to be thick enough not to realise the effect such an impression would give on possible candidates to manage the club he supports just like me and you.

 

In fact, I have heard that Alan Shearer never liked Souness. He only backed him in public so when he was binned he didnt' get the cockeny scumbags ie the ones that Ozzie Mandiarse dished the dirt on the club to, saying he was responsible for getting another manager sacked. In fact, this is my opinion based on the fact that I was told Shearer didn't like Souness.

 

[Dinho lad]

[NE5]

 

[Dinho lad]

 

 

[NE5]

 

 

 

alright then Kluivertdhino ? you can join in if you have something worthwhile to add

 

 

[NE5]

 

 

 

alright then Kluivertdhino ? you can join in if you have something worthwhile to add

 

 

No.

 

I thought not 

[Dinho lad]

Yes.

 

Shepherd is an idiot. And anybody that dosen't see that.......is also an idiot. Thank you.

[NE5]

Yes.

 

Shepherd is an idiot. And anybody that dosen't see that.......is also an idiot. Thank you.

 

and you are ? 

 

pretty dumb ... with no knowledge about NUFC. Or Newcastle, probably, but thats just my opinion 

[Dinho lad]

 

 

 

alright then Kluivertdhino ? you can join in if you have something worthwhile to add

 

 

No.

 

I thought not

 

 

 

[NE5]

 

 

 

alright then Kluivertdhino ? you can join in if you have something worthwhile to add

 

 

No.

 

I thought not

 

 

 

Hows Fraser 

 

 

[Syrette]

[Dinho lad]

Yes.

 

Shepherd is an idiot. And anybody that dosen't see that.......is also an idiot. Thank you.

 

and you are ?

 

pretty dumb ... with no knowledge about NUFC. Or Newcastle, probably, but thats just my opinion

 

L0o0o0o0oo0oo0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0oo0o0oo0o0o0oo0o0lz! OMG!

[Dinho lad]

I hope your son/daughter aren't reading your embarrassing stuff on here. They'd be really ashamed of their big fat daddy!

[NE5]

strange how this thread has gone down the pan, since macbeths monkey swiftly followed by Kluiverthino decided to enter the fray, avoiding the main question though