Shearer night on Five Live

[Thespence]

So come on then, lads. Surely one of you can make some kind of case from available evidence that Shearer's masterplan involved very little spending.

 

We dont have to man because you have told us the information is not out there that is why you "WOULD LOVE TO KNOW".

 

What was it about the phrase "from available evidence" that you didn't understand?

 

What are you after articles by Louise Taylor? Lee Ryder? Go search google to quench your thirst.

 

Me and at least two others have expressed the opinion that the reasonable assumption is that Shearer's masterplan involved heavy spending.

 

You have so far tried to bawl me down on this by insisting that we do not know the answer.

 

Well of course we don't know the answer. We are dealing in assumptions. If you disagree with mine, try making a case for a different assumption. Or admit that you can't.

 

What is the point though? You wont change your mind as we have all seen many times, so is it even a bigger waste of time trying to prove point on something you have made clear  you dont the answer too.

 

[OzzieMandias]

So come on then, lads. Surely one of you can make some kind of case from available evidence that Shearer's masterplan involved very little spending.

 

We dont have to man because you have told us the information is not out there that is why you "WOULD LOVE TO KNOW".

 

What was it about the phrase "from available evidence" that you didn't understand?

 

What are you after articles by Louise Taylor? Lee Ryder? Go search google to quench your thirst.

 

Me and at least two others have expressed the opinion that the reasonable assumption is that Shearer's masterplan involved heavy spending.

 

You have so far tried to bawl me down on this by insisting that we do not know the answer.

 

Well of course we don't know the answer. We are dealing in assumptions. If you disagree with mine, try making a case for a different assumption. Or admit that you can't.

 

You haven't made a case for there being big demands though.  This is your argument:

 

"And after the whole Keegan thing, I don't blame Ashley at all for not wanting to appoint another Toon icon with big spending demands. "

 

"That would be my assumption, too. Still wish we knew the details, though."

 

Not much of an argument.  A similar counter-argument would be 'I assume there weren't big demands.'

 

 

No one seems willing to say that, though.

[OzzieMandias]

So come on then, lads. Surely one of you can make some kind of case from available evidence that Shearer's masterplan involved very little spending.

 

We dont have to man because you have told us the information is not out there that is why you "WOULD LOVE TO KNOW".

 

What was it about the phrase "from available evidence" that you didn't understand?

 

What are you after articles by Louise Taylor? Lee Ryder? Go search google to quench your thirst.

 

Me and at least two others have expressed the opinion that the reasonable assumption is that Shearer's masterplan involved heavy spending.

 

You have so far tried to bawl me down on this by insisting that we do not know the answer.

 

Well of course we don't know the answer. We are dealing in assumptions. If you disagree with mine, try making a case for a different assumption. Or admit that you can't.

 

What is the point though? You wont change your mind as we have all seen many times, so is it even a bigger waste of time trying to prove point on something you have made clear  you dont the answer too.

 

 

Aye, keep dodging the question and eventually I'll get bored.

[Guest malandro]

So come on then, lads. Surely one of you can make some kind of case from available evidence that Shearer's masterplan involved very little spending.

 

We dont have to man because you have told us the information is not out there that is why you "WOULD LOVE TO KNOW".

 

What was it about the phrase "from available evidence" that you didn't understand?

 

What are you after articles by Louise Taylor? Lee Ryder? Go search google to quench your thirst.

 

Me and at least two others have expressed the opinion that the reasonable assumption is that Shearer's masterplan involved heavy spending.

 

You have so far tried to bawl me down on this by insisting that we do not know the answer.

 

Well of course we don't know the answer. We are dealing in assumptions. If you disagree with mine, try making a case for a different assumption. Or admit that you can't.

 

What is the point though? You wont change your mind as we have all seen many times, so is it even a bigger waste of time trying to prove point on something you have made clear  you dont the answer too.

 

 

Aye, keep dodging the question and eventually I'll get bored.

I answered your question and you dodged it.

[Thespence]

So come on then, lads. Surely one of you can make some kind of case from available evidence that Shearer's masterplan involved very little spending.

 

We dont have to man because you have told us the information is not out there that is why you "WOULD LOVE TO KNOW".

 

What was it about the phrase "from available evidence" that you didn't understand?

 

What are you after articles by Louise Taylor? Lee Ryder? Go search google to quench your thirst.

 

Me and at least two others have expressed the opinion that the reasonable assumption is that Shearer's masterplan involved heavy spending.

 

You have so far tried to bawl me down on this by insisting that we do not know the answer.

 

Well of course we don't know the answer. We are dealing in assumptions. If you disagree with mine, try making a case for a different assumption. Or admit that you can't.

 

What is the point though? You wont change your mind as we have all seen many times, so is it even a bigger waste of time trying to prove point on something you have made clear  you dont the answer too.

 

 

Aye, keep dodging the question and eventually I'll get bored.

 

I have given you the answer search google if you want to know stuff "from available evidence", I read them papers about 2 years ago.

[Frazzle]

So come on then, lads. Surely one of you can make some kind of case from available evidence that Shearer's masterplan involved very little spending.

 

We dont have to man because you have told us the information is not out there that is why you "WOULD LOVE TO KNOW".

 

What was it about the phrase "from available evidence" that you didn't understand?

 

What are you after articles by Louise Taylor? Lee Ryder? Go search google to quench your thirst.

 

Me and at least two others have expressed the opinion that the reasonable assumption is that Shearer's masterplan involved heavy spending.

 

You have so far tried to bawl me down on this by insisting that we do not know the answer.

 

Well of course we don't know the answer. We are dealing in assumptions. If you disagree with mine, try making a case for a different assumption. Or admit that you can't.

 

You haven't made a case for there being big demands though.  This is your argument:

 

"And after the whole Keegan thing, I don't blame Ashley at all for not wanting to appoint another Toon icon with big spending demands. "

 

"That would be my assumption, too. Still wish we knew the details, though."

 

Not much of an argument.  A similar counter-argument would be 'I assume there weren't big demands.'

 

 

No one seems willing to say that, though.

 

I'd say there probably weren't big demands, not by normal Championship standards anyway.  Hughton's demands that summer (£0) were always going to be less than Shearer's.

[OzzieMandias]

So come on then, lads. Surely one of you can make some kind of case from available evidence that Shearer's masterplan involved very little spending.

 

We dont have to man because you have told us the information is not out there that is why you "WOULD LOVE TO KNOW".

 

What was it about the phrase "from available evidence" that you didn't understand?

 

What are you after articles by Louise Taylor? Lee Ryder? Go search google to quench your thirst.

 

Me and at least two others have expressed the opinion that the reasonable assumption is that Shearer's masterplan involved heavy spending.

 

You have so far tried to bawl me down on this by insisting that we do not know the answer.

 

Well of course we don't know the answer. We are dealing in assumptions. If you disagree with mine, try making a case for a different assumption. Or admit that you can't.

 

What is the point though? You wont change your mind as we have all seen many times, so is it even a bigger waste of time trying to prove point on something you have made clear  you dont the answer too.

 

 

Aye, keep dodging the question and eventually I'll get bored.

 

I have given you the answer search google if you want to know stuff "from available evidence", I read them papers about 2 years ago.

 

Well done. I'm now thoroughly bored.

[OzzieMandias]

So come on then, lads. Surely one of you can make some kind of case from available evidence that Shearer's masterplan involved very little spending.

 

We dont have to man because you have told us the information is not out there that is why you "WOULD LOVE TO KNOW".

 

What was it about the phrase "from available evidence" that you didn't understand?

 

What are you after articles by Louise Taylor? Lee Ryder? Go search google to quench your thirst.

 

Me and at least two others have expressed the opinion that the reasonable assumption is that Shearer's masterplan involved heavy spending.

 

You have so far tried to bawl me down on this by insisting that we do not know the answer.

 

Well of course we don't know the answer. We are dealing in assumptions. If you disagree with mine, try making a case for a different assumption. Or admit that you can't.

 

You haven't made a case for there being big demands though.  This is your argument:

 

"And after the whole Keegan thing, I don't blame Ashley at all for not wanting to appoint another Toon icon with big spending demands. "

 

"That would be my assumption, too. Still wish we knew the details, though."

 

Not much of an argument.  A similar counter-argument would be 'I assume there weren't big demands.'

 

 

No one seems willing to say that, though.

 

I'd say there probably weren't big demands, not by normal Championship standards anyway.  Hughton's demands that summer (£0) were always going to be less than Shearer's.

 

Hmm. Yes. Although it wasn't really £0 in that people were predicting a fire sale followed by immediate relegation to League One, and actually Ashley just moved on those who didn't want to stay, and put in enough money to keep the rest on the wage bill.

 

Meanwhile, and given his remark that he didn't think the squad was good enough to come straight back up, I can't see a single scenario in which Shearer's plan wouldn't have involved a fair bit more spending than that. Spending that would have been unnecessary, as we now know.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I can't think of any other reason than the money Shearer thought we had to spend to get promoted for them to not give him the job.

 

He was wrong in his assessment of what was needed of course, but we might have been better placed for survival this year had it happened and had the better players been brought in last year.

[TheGuv]

I'd love to hear a Keegan interview like that too.

[Hanshithispantz]

Yeah a Keegan interview would be good, I was suprised with how open Shearer was last night, he never dodged a single question and answered everyone fully which was nice to see. I would expect the same, if not probably more from Keegan.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I'd love to hear a Keegan interview like that too.

 

What's needed is a Clough vs Revie question time type of thing Ashley, Wise, Llambias, Mort, Keegan & Shearer.

[TheGuv]

Yeah a Keegan interview would be good, I was suprised with how open Shearer was last night, he never dodged a single question and answered everyone fully which was nice to see. I would expect the same, if not probably more from Keegan.

 

Yep definitely.

I'd love to hear a Keegan interview like that too.

 

What's needed is a Clough vs Revie question time type of thing Ashley, Wise, Llambias, Mort, Keegan & Shearer.

 

That would be unreal

 

 

[Guest malandro]

I can't think of any other reason than the money Shearer thought we had to spend to get promoted for them to not give him the job.

 

He was wrong in his assessment of what was needed of course, but we might have been better placed for survival this year had it happened and had the better players been brought in last year.

The club had to increase its debt by at least £25m to pay for last season’s promotion. It’s hard to imagine Shearer was demanding a transfer budget in excess of that. For all we know he might have got us back up for less. Not that we can ever know how things would have panned out.

 

What we do know is (according to Shearer) he was treated without respect. Just like KK was treated without respect. Just like the traditions of the club are being treated without respect. This is the important thing that came to light out of last night’s interview. Ozzie's obsession with how much money Shearer thought it would take to rebuild the club (that’s rebuild the club not just get back into the PL) is merely an attempt to draw attention away from this continuing trend.

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I can't think of any other reason than the money Shearer thought we had to spend to get promoted for them to not give him the job.

 

He was wrong in his assessment of what was needed of course, but we might have been better placed for survival this year had it happened and had the better players been brought in last year.

The club had to increase its debt by at least £25m to pay for last season’s promotion. It’s hard to imagine Shearer was demanding a transfer budget in excess of that. For all we know he might have got us back up for less. Not that we can ever know how things would have panned out.

 

What we do know is (according to Shearer) he was treated without respect. Just like KK was treated without respect. Just like the traditions of the club are being treated without respect. This is the important thing that came to light out of last night’s interview. Ozzie's obsession with how much money Shearer thought it would take to rebuild the club (that’s rebuild the club not just get back into the PL) is merely an attempt to draw attention away from this continuing trend.

 

 

Why do you think they decided not to give him the job?

[David28]

I'd love to hear a Keegan interview like that too.

 

Yep. 

[Guest malandro]

I can't think of any other reason than the money Shearer thought we had to spend to get promoted for them to not give him the job.

 

He was wrong in his assessment of what was needed of course, but we might have been better placed for survival this year had it happened and had the better players been brought in last year.

The club had to increase its debt by at least £25m to pay for last seasons promotion. Its hard to imagine Shearer was demanding a transfer budget in excess of that. For all we know he might have got us back up for less. Not that we can ever know how things would have panned out.

 

What we do know is (according to Shearer) he was treated without respect. Just like KK was treated without respect. Just like the traditions of the club are being treated without respect. This is the important thing that came to light out of last nights interview. Ozzie's obsession with how much money Shearer thought it would take to rebuild the club (thats rebuild the club not just get back into the PL) is merely an attempt to draw attention away from this continuing trend.

 

 

Why do you think they decided not to give him the job?

Because he had ambition? Because he wasn’t a yes man? Because they thought the prospect of him becoming manager would shift some season tickets? Because they thought it would be funny to piss him about? Because that’s what the I-Ching advised?

 

Perhaps they should tell us, put and end to the guessing games.

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I can't think of any other reason than the money Shearer thought we had to spend to get promoted for them to not give him the job.

 

He was wrong in his assessment of what was needed of course, but we might have been better placed for survival this year had it happened and had the better players been brought in last year.

The club had to increase its debt by at least £25m to pay for last seasons promotion. Its hard to imagine Shearer was demanding a transfer budget in excess of that. For all we know he might have got us back up for less. Not that we can ever know how things would have panned out.

 

What we do know is (according to Shearer) he was treated without respect. Just like KK was treated without respect. Just like the traditions of the club are being treated without respect. This is the important thing that came to light out of last nights interview. Ozzie's obsession with how much money Shearer thought it would take to rebuild the club (thats rebuild the club not just get back into the PL) is merely an attempt to draw attention away from this continuing trend.

 

 

Why do you think they decided not to give him the job?

Because he had ambition? Because he wasn’t a yes man? Because they thought the prospect of him becoming manager would shift some season tickets? Because they thought it would be funny to piss him about? Because that’s what the I-Ching advised?

 

Perhaps they should tell us, put and end to the guessing games.

 

 

No, but why do you think it was?

[Guest jonlane86]

Regular posters will know I usually jump to the defence of Mike and Derek, however they monumentally stuffed up by not having the courtesy of contacting Shearer to tell him that he wasn't going to be the permanent manager.

[Guest malandro]

I can't think of any other reason than the money Shearer thought we had to spend to get promoted for them to not give him the job.

 

He was wrong in his assessment of what was needed of course, but we might have been better placed for survival this year had it happened and had the better players been brought in last year.

The club had to increase its debt by at least £25m to pay for last seasons promotion. Its hard to imagine Shearer was demanding a transfer budget in excess of that. For all we know he might have got us back up for less. Not that we can ever know how things would have panned out.

 

What we do know is (according to Shearer) he was treated without respect. Just like KK was treated without respect. Just like the traditions of the club are being treated without respect. This is the important thing that came to light out of last nights interview. Ozzie's obsession with how much money Shearer thought it would take to rebuild the club (thats rebuild the club not just get back into the PL) is merely an attempt to draw attention away from this continuing trend.

 

 

Why do you think they decided not to give him the job?

Because he had ambition? Because he wasnt a yes man? Because they thought the prospect of him becoming manager would shift some season tickets? Because they thought it would be funny to piss him about? Because thats what the I-Ching advised?

 

Perhaps they should tell us, put and end to the guessing games.

 

 

No, but why do you think it was?

Ambition. Shearer would want NUFC to try and be the club it can be, while I suspect Ashley just wants our club to hang around the PL long enough to claw back some of the money he has lent it before selling up.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I can't think of any other reason than the money Shearer thought we had to spend to get promoted for them to not give him the job.

 

He was wrong in his assessment of what was needed of course, but we might have been better placed for survival this year had it happened and had the better players been brought in last year.

The club had to increase its debt by at least £25m to pay for last seasons promotion. Its hard to imagine Shearer was demanding a transfer budget in excess of that. For all we know he might have got us back up for less. Not that we can ever know how things would have panned out.

 

What we do know is (according to Shearer) he was treated without respect. Just like KK was treated without respect. Just like the traditions of the club are being treated without respect. This is the important thing that came to light out of last nights interview. Ozzie's obsession with how much money Shearer thought it would take to rebuild the club (thats rebuild the club not just get back into the PL) is merely an attempt to draw attention away from this continuing trend.

 

 

Why do you think they decided not to give him the job?

Because he had ambition? Because he wasnt a yes man? Because they thought the prospect of him becoming manager would shift some season tickets? Because they thought it would be funny to piss him about? Because thats what the I-Ching advised?

 

Perhaps they should tell us, put and end to the guessing games.

 

 

No, but why do you think it was?

Ambition. Shearer would want NUFC to try and be the club it can be, while I suspect Ashley just wants our club to hang around the PL long enough to claw back some of the money he has lent it before selling up.

 

Ambition would mean lots of money to spend then, which is what I suggested.

[Guest malandro]

I can't think of any other reason than the money Shearer thought we had to spend to get promoted for them to not give him the job.

 

He was wrong in his assessment of what was needed of course, but we might have been better placed for survival this year had it happened and had the better players been brought in last year.

The club had to increase its debt by at least £25m to pay for last season’s promotion. It’s hard to imagine Shearer was demanding a transfer budget in excess of that. For all we know he might have got us back up for less. Not that we can ever know how things would have panned out.

 

What we do know is (according to Shearer) he was treated without respect. Just like KK was treated without respect. Just like the traditions of the club are being treated without respect. This is the important thing that came to light out of last night’s interview. Ozzie's obsession with how much money Shearer thought it would take to rebuild the club (that’s rebuild the club not just get back into the PL) is merely an attempt to draw attention away from this continuing trend.

 

 

Why do you think they decided not to give him the job?

Because he had ambition? Because he wasn’t a yes man? Because they thought the prospect of him becoming manager would shift some season tickets? Because they thought it would be funny to piss him about? Because that’s what the I-Ching advised?

 

Perhaps they should tell us, put and end to the guessing games.

 

 

No, but why do you think it was?

Ambition. Shearer would want NUFC to try and be the club it can be, while I suspect Ashley just wants our club to hang around the PL long enough to claw back some of the money he has lent it before selling up.

 

Ambition would mean lots of money to spend then, which is what I suggested.

It requires investment at strategic times in playing staff, coaching staffing, scouting networks, training facilities, ground development... which isn’t going to happen if Ashley is planning on taking future profits out of the club instead of reinvesting them.

 

What you're saying is NUFC can’t afford to be ambitious, which is exactly the kind of brainwashed drivel the ‘lowering exceptions’ campaign has been all about.

 

[Thespence]

I can't think of any other reason than the money Shearer thought we had to spend to get promoted for them to not give him the job.

 

It is a given he wanted Bassong & Beye to stay. Also The Lions wages would have been a lot higher than the puppets.

[Mick]

What Shearer wanted isn’t relevant, his treatment is.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Shearer was always a short term 'thing' with Ashley and co, a last ditch attempt to stay up, hoping his appointment would spur on players and fans alike to push towards safety, in a similar vein to how the KK appointment panned out following Big Sam. I don't for one minute believe had he kept us up, they'd have appointed him full-time, just like I never believed they'd have appointed him full-time following relegation. They used him.