We always back our managers at Newcastle....

[merlin]

 

 

Interesting. Where do you get the order from ? Nobody knows the "order of merit" in this. Keegans doesn't state any such order.

 

I find it very laughable, that so many people have such a problem with Shepherd that they are completely unable to give him [and dogless] and credit for anything.

 

The facts are as stated. Those 3 people appointed and chose Keegan. Fact. Nobody told us who pushed the most, simply that all 3 wanted him, Sir John didn't and they persuaded him to go along with it.

 

You know why I brought it up. The things I post are not coloured at all by any sort of bias or anything. They are just facts. I won't make any judgement at all without facts to back it up. Others would make better judgements if they did the same. You may be right that the current board, who have taken the club a long way forward since they came in, in 1992, and they may have gone as far as they can. But I still think there is nothing wrong with the club that a manager like Keegan would not put right instantly. You can have the best accountants, secretaries, operations officers, whoever you like in the world, and any "plan" you like, but if they get a manager who is not right for you, they are pissing in the wind. And, who exactly do you think could tap the resources of the club better than what we have, unless they put money in direct ?

 

And - think about this one...relevant to the thread - if you appoint a board who DON'T have the ambition to back their manager, you will NEVER be a top club. Factamundo. Proven through decades throughout football, and not just our own history, there are current clubs too, look 12 miles down the road for all the proof you want.

 

 

 

I'm sure Freddy Fletcher was given the lions share of brownie points for bringing Keegan to the club as manager during the SOS fiasco when he was getting stick from the fans for his part in that, I can't prove it as it's just my memory.

 

As for the board taking us forward since 1992, that was under the guidance of Sir John Hall, we've gone a long way backwards under Shepherd.  We've gone from 2nd in the Premiership to where we are now, 17th and on the same number of points as Sheffield United who are in a relegation position.

 

As for a manager like Keegan instantly putting things right, that's probably true, the thing is, Shepherd thinks that Souness and Roeder are the men to do that.  Souness was the man to improve on 5th in the league and Roeder was the man to improve on 14th which he did for one half season but is so far failing to do this season, he could possibly fail to beat what Souness did in his one and only full season.

 

Also, think about this, shitty Ellis spent less than us and still finished above us in the league, more times than we finished above them with Shepherd steering the ship.  Spending money is useless and just turns a potential profit into a loss without any gain for the club if the club can't appoint a manager who can spend the money wisely, Factamundo.  Spending is useless when you go backwards while doing it, spending is only of use when it improves you as a club and as a team, we've got nothing for the money spent so we've failed as a club, again, Factamundo.

 

 

 

The situation of the Club and its performance over the past 3 years tell the whole tale of its decline under the DIRECTION of Shepherd as Chairman - 'FACTAMUNDO' !!

[Howaythelads]

 

 

Interesting. Where do you get the order from ? Nobody knows the "order of merit" in this. Keegans doesn't state any such order.

 

I find it very laughable, that so many people have such a problem with Shepherd that they are completely unable to give him [and dogless] and credit for anything.

 

The facts are as stated. Those 3 people appointed and chose Keegan. Fact. Nobody told us who pushed the most, simply that all 3 wanted him, Sir John didn't and they persuaded him to go along with it.

 

You know why I brought it up. The things I post are not coloured at all by any sort of bias or anything. They are just facts. I won't make any judgement at all without facts to back it up. Others would make better judgements if they did the same. You may be right that the current board, who have taken the club a long way forward since they came in, in 1992, and they may have gone as far as they can. But I still think there is nothing wrong with the club that a manager like Keegan would not put right instantly. You can have the best accountants, secretaries, operations officers, whoever you like in the world, and any "plan" you like, but if they get a manager who is not right for you, they are pissing in the wind. And, who exactly do you think could tap the resources of the club better than what we have, unless they put money in direct ?

 

And - think about this one...relevant to the thread - if you appoint a board who DON'T have the ambition to back their manager, you will NEVER be a top club. Factamundo. Proven through decades throughout football, and not just our own history, there are current clubs too, look 12 miles down the road for all the proof you want.

 

 

 

I'm sure Freddy Fletcher was given the lions share of brownie points for bringing Keegan to the club as manager during the SOS fiasco when he was getting stick from the fans for his part in that, I can't prove it as it's just my memory.

 

As for the board taking us forward since 1992, that was under the guidance of Sir John Hall, we've gone a long way backwards under Shepherd.  We've gone from 2nd in the Premiership to where we are now, 17th and on the same number of points as Sheffield United who are in a relegation position.

 

As for a manager like Keegan instantly putting things right, that's probably true, the thing is, Shepherd thinks that Souness and Roeder are the men to do that.  Souness was the man to improve on 5th in the league and Roeder was the man to improve on 14th which he did for one half season but is so far failing to do this season, he could possibly fail to beat what Souness did in his one and only full season.

 

Also, think about this, shitty Ellis spent less than us and still finished above us in the league, more times than we finished above them with Shepherd steering the ship.  Spending money is useless and just turns a potential profit into a loss without any gain for the club if the club can't appoint a manager who can spend the money wisely, Factamundo.  Spending is useless when you go backwards while doing it, spending is only of use when it improves you as a club and as a team, we've got nothing for the money spent so we've failed as a club, again, Factamundo.

 

 

 

The situation of the Club and its performance over the past 3 years tell the whole tale of its decline under the DIRECTION of Shepherd as Chairman - 'FACTAMUNDO' !!

 

Good that you realise the decline during the latter stages of Robson's time and the massive mistake of appointing Souness as his replacement. Most of us have known that for ages though, but at least you got there in the end.

[Howaythelads]

was that 6.14pm?

 

or the 614th post?

 

Probably somewhere between your retarded poll #2000 and #2001.

 

What a loser.

 

post number 2000 and a half? riiiight

 

You obviously don't realise how much of a saddo you appear that you go around mentioning other members in loads of threads. You're a soft shite, tbh. And as I already said, a total loser anarl.

[NE5]

 

 

Interesting. Where do you get the order from ? Nobody knows the "order of merit" in this. Keegans doesn't state any such order.

 

I find it very laughable, that so many people have such a problem with Shepherd that they are completely unable to give him [and dogless] and credit for anything.

 

The facts are as stated. Those 3 people appointed and chose Keegan. Fact. Nobody told us who pushed the most, simply that all 3 wanted him, Sir John didn't and they persuaded him to go along with it.

 

You know why I brought it up. The things I post are not coloured at all by any sort of bias or anything. They are just facts. I won't make any judgement at all without facts to back it up. Others would make better judgements if they did the same. You may be right that the current board, who have taken the club a long way forward since they came in, in 1992, and they may have gone as far as they can. But I still think there is nothing wrong with the club that a manager like Keegan would not put right instantly. You can have the best accountants, secretaries, operations officers, whoever you like in the world, and any "plan" you like, but if they get a manager who is not right for you, they are pissing in the wind. And, who exactly do you think could tap the resources of the club better than what we have, unless they put money in direct ?

 

And - think about this one...relevant to the thread - if you appoint a board who DON'T have the ambition to back their manager, you will NEVER be a top club. Factamundo. Proven through decades throughout football, and not just our own history, there are current clubs too, look 12 miles down the road for all the proof you want.

 

 

 

I'm sure Freddy Fletcher was given the lions share of brownie points for bringing Keegan to the club as manager during the SOS fiasco when he was getting stick from the fans for his part in that, I can't prove it as it's just my memory.

 

As for the board taking us forward since 1992, that was under the guidance of Sir John Hall, we've gone a long way backwards under Shepherd.  We've gone from 2nd in the Premiership to where we are now, 17th and on the same number of points as Sheffield United who are in a relegation position.

 

As for a manager like Keegan instantly putting things right, that's probably true, the thing is, Shepherd thinks that Souness and Roeder are the men to do that.  Souness was the man to improve on 5th in the league and Roeder was the man to improve on 14th which he did for one half season but is so far failing to do this season, he could possibly fail to beat what Souness did in his one and only full season.

 

Also, think about this, shitty Ellis spent less than us and still finished above us in the league, more times than we finished above them with Shepherd steering the ship.  Spending money is useless and just turns a potential profit into a loss without any gain for the club if the club can't appoint a manager who can spend the money wisely, Factamundo.  Spending is useless when you go backwards while doing it, spending is only of use when it improves you as a club and as a team, we've got nothing for the money spent so we've failed as a club, again, Factamundo.

 

 

your memory consistently fails you. But I think that is due to ignorance, through not having witnessed that period.

 

The club moved forward on the field under the guidance of Keegan. Only one person ran the football team, and that was Keegan, not Sir John Hall. It's no wonder that you are so clueless, as you still think the board run the football team and not the manager. One day you might understand this is not the case.

 

 

[NE5]

 

 

Interesting. Where do you get the order from ? Nobody knows the "order of merit" in this. Keegans doesn't state any such order.

 

I find it very laughable, that so many people have such a problem with Shepherd that they are completely unable to give him [and dogless] and credit for anything.

 

The facts are as stated. Those 3 people appointed and chose Keegan. Fact. Nobody told us who pushed the most, simply that all 3 wanted him, Sir John didn't and they persuaded him to go along with it.

 

You know why I brought it up. The things I post are not coloured at all by any sort of bias or anything. They are just facts. I won't make any judgement at all without facts to back it up. Others would make better judgements if they did the same. You may be right that the current board, who have taken the club a long way forward since they came in, in 1992, and they may have gone as far as they can. But I still think there is nothing wrong with the club that a manager like Keegan would not put right instantly. You can have the best accountants, secretaries, operations officers, whoever you like in the world, and any "plan" you like, but if they get a manager who is not right for you, they are pissing in the wind. And, who exactly do you think could tap the resources of the club better than what we have, unless they put money in direct ?

 

And - think about this one...relevant to the thread - if you appoint a board who DON'T have the ambition to back their manager, you will NEVER be a top club. Factamundo. Proven through decades throughout football, and not just our own history, there are current clubs too, look 12 miles down the road for all the proof you want.

 

 

 

I'm sure Freddy Fletcher was given the lions share of brownie points for bringing Keegan to the club as manager during the SOS fiasco when he was getting stick from the fans for his part in that, I can't prove it as it's just my memory.

 

As for the board taking us forward since 1992, that was under the guidance of Sir John Hall, we've gone a long way backwards under Shepherd.  We've gone from 2nd in the Premiership to where we are now, 17th and on the same number of points as Sheffield United who are in a relegation position.

 

As for a manager like Keegan instantly putting things right, that's probably true, the thing is, Shepherd thinks that Souness and Roeder are the men to do that.  Souness was the man to improve on 5th in the league and Roeder was the man to improve on 14th which he did for one half season but is so far failing to do this season, he could possibly fail to beat what Souness did in his one and only full season.

 

Also, think about this, shitty Ellis spent less than us and still finished above us in the league, more times than we finished above them with Shepherd steering the ship.  Spending money is useless and just turns a potential profit into a loss without any gain for the club if the club can't appoint a manager who can spend the money wisely, Factamundo.  Spending is useless when you go backwards while doing it, spending is only of use when it improves you as a club and as a team, we've got nothing for the money spent so we've failed as a club, again, Factamundo.

 

 

 

The situation of the Club and its performance over the past 3 years tell the whole tale of its decline under the DIRECTION of Shepherd as Chairman - 'FACTAMUNDO' !!

 

And the previous years ? Before Souness came was what exactly ? I know the team has declined under Souness, I predicted it. That is why he has gone. The old board, pre-1992 though, would have kept him as simply being in the top league was success in their eyes, unlike nowadays. Factamundo.

 

 

 

 

[merlin]

 

 

Interesting. Where do you get the order from ? Nobody knows the "order of merit" in this. Keegans doesn't state any such order.

 

I find it very laughable, that so many people have such a problem with Shepherd that they are completely unable to give him [and dogless] and credit for anything.

 

The facts are as stated. Those 3 people appointed and chose Keegan. Fact. Nobody told us who pushed the most, simply that all 3 wanted him, Sir John didn't and they persuaded him to go along with it.

 

You know why I brought it up. The things I post are not coloured at all by any sort of bias or anything. They are just facts. I won't make any judgement at all without facts to back it up. Others would make better judgements if they did the same. You may be right that the current board, who have taken the club a long way forward since they came in, in 1992, and they may have gone as far as they can. But I still think there is nothing wrong with the club that a manager like Keegan would not put right instantly. You can have the best accountants, secretaries, operations officers, whoever you like in the world, and any "plan" you like, but if they get a manager who is not right for you, they are pissing in the wind. And, who exactly do you think could tap the resources of the club better than what we have, unless they put money in direct ?

 

And - think about this one...relevant to the thread - if you appoint a board who DON'T have the ambition to back their manager, you will NEVER be a top club. Factamundo. Proven through decades throughout football, and not just our own history, there are current clubs too, look 12 miles down the road for all the proof you want.

 

 

 

I'm sure Freddy Fletcher was given the lions share of brownie points for bringing Keegan to the club as manager during the SOS fiasco when he was getting stick from the fans for his part in that, I can't prove it as it's just my memory.

 

As for the board taking us forward since 1992, that was under the guidance of Sir John Hall, we've gone a long way backwards under Shepherd.  We've gone from 2nd in the Premiership to where we are now, 17th and on the same number of points as Sheffield United who are in a relegation position.

 

As for a manager like Keegan instantly putting things right, that's probably true, the thing is, Shepherd thinks that Souness and Roeder are the men to do that.  Souness was the man to improve on 5th in the league and Roeder was the man to improve on 14th which he did for one half season but is so far failing to do this season, he could possibly fail to beat what Souness did in his one and only full season.

 

Also, think about this, shitty Ellis spent less than us and still finished above us in the league, more times than we finished above them with Shepherd steering the ship.  Spending money is useless and just turns a potential profit into a loss without any gain for the club if the club can't appoint a manager who can spend the money wisely, Factamundo.  Spending is useless when you go backwards while doing it, spending is only of use when it improves you as a club and as a team, we've got nothing for the money spent so we've failed as a club, again, Factamundo.

 

 

 

The situation of the Club and its performance over the past 3 years tell the whole tale of its decline under the DIRECTION of Shepherd as Chairman - 'FACTAMUNDO' !!

 

Good that you realise the decline during the latter stages of Robson's time and the massive mistake of appointing Souness as his replacement. Most of us have known that for ages though, but at least you got there in the end.

 

'Got there in the end' HTL !?

You've GOT to be joking !! I put a thread up on a rival site back in 03 about the lack of action in the transfer market prior to our Champs Lge qualifiers but ALSO criticised some of SBRs buys.

What sort of response do you think I got ? I can assure you that everything was pooh-poohed in the same way you have tried to rubbish the point I made, and NO-ONE agreed - don't suppose YOU post on any other sites do you....!? Maybe YOU were one of those who disagreed and now ADMIT that the Chairman has messed-up big time..Well , you DO , don't you.....!!??

[merlin]

 

 

Interesting. Where do you get the order from ? Nobody knows the "order of merit" in this. Keegans doesn't state any such order.

 

I find it very laughable, that so many people have such a problem with Shepherd that they are completely unable to give him [and dogless] and credit for anything.

 

The facts are as stated. Those 3 people appointed and chose Keegan. Fact. Nobody told us who pushed the most, simply that all 3 wanted him, Sir John didn't and they persuaded him to go along with it.

 

You know why I brought it up. The things I post are not coloured at all by any sort of bias or anything. They are just facts. I won't make any judgement at all without facts to back it up. Others would make better judgements if they did the same. You may be right that the current board, who have taken the club a long way forward since they came in, in 1992, and they may have gone as far as they can. But I still think there is nothing wrong with the club that a manager like Keegan would not put right instantly. You can have the best accountants, secretaries, operations officers, whoever you like in the world, and any "plan" you like, but if they get a manager who is not right for you, they are pissing in the wind. And, who exactly do you think could tap the resources of the club better than what we have, unless they put money in direct ?

 

And - think about this one...relevant to the thread - if you appoint a board who DON'T have the ambition to back their manager, you will NEVER be a top club. Factamundo. Proven through decades throughout football, and not just our own history, there are current clubs too, look 12 miles down the road for all the proof you want.

 

 

 

I'm sure Freddy Fletcher was given the lions share of brownie points for bringing Keegan to the club as manager during the SOS fiasco when he was getting stick from the fans for his part in that, I can't prove it as it's just my memory.

 

As for the board taking us forward since 1992, that was under the guidance of Sir John Hall, we've gone a long way backwards under Shepherd.  We've gone from 2nd in the Premiership to where we are now, 17th and on the same number of points as Sheffield United who are in a relegation position.

 

As for a manager like Keegan instantly putting things right, that's probably true, the thing is, Shepherd thinks that Souness and Roeder are the men to do that.  Souness was the man to improve on 5th in the league and Roeder was the man to improve on 14th which he did for one half season but is so far failing to do this season, he could possibly fail to beat what Souness did in his one and only full season.

 

Also, think about this, shitty Ellis spent less than us and still finished above us in the league, more times than we finished above them with Shepherd steering the ship.  Spending money is useless and just turns a potential profit into a loss without any gain for the club if the club can't appoint a manager who can spend the money wisely, Factamundo.  Spending is useless when you go backwards while doing it, spending is only of use when it improves you as a club and as a team, we've got nothing for the money spent so we've failed as a club, again, Factamundo.

 

 

 

The situation of the Club and its performance over the past 3 years tell the whole tale of its decline under the DIRECTION of Shepherd as Chairman - 'FACTAMUNDO' !!

 

And the previous years ? Before Souness came was what exactly ? I know the team has declined under Souness, I predicted it. That is why he has gone. The old board, pre-1992 though, would have kept him as simply being in the top league was success in their eyes, unlike nowadays. Factamundo.

 

 

 

 

 

The current Board will be DELIGHTED if we are still in the Prem at the end of the season - is that progress..??

[Howaythelads]

 

'Got there in the end' HTL !?

You've GOT to be joking !! I put a thread up on a rival site back in 03 about the lack of action in the transfer market prior to our Champs Lge qualifiers but ALSO criticised some of SBRs buys.

What sort of response do you think I got ? I can assure you that everything was pooh-poohed in the same way you have tried to rubbish the point I made, and NO-ONE agreed - don't suppose YOU post on any other sites do you....!? Maybe YOU were one of those who disagreed and now ADMIT that the Chairman has messed-up big time..Well , you DO , don't you.....!!??

 

:roll:

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

was that 6.14pm?

 

or the 614th post?

 

Probably somewhere between your retarded poll #2000 and #2001.

 

What a loser.

 

post number 2000 and a half? riiiight

 

You obviously don't realise how much of a saddo you appear that you go around mentioning other members in loads of threads. You're a soft shite, tbh. And as I already said, a total loser anarl.

 

fucking shattered tbh.  bluecry.gif

[macbeth]

With every new registration brings another opportunity for NE5 to argue with someone.

 

Why do you bother? Nothing ever gets agreed. It's not like you even appreciate the opinions of others.

 

howay man Dave, its a straightforward question. Do you think a board should interfere or not ?

 

If you do, don't criticise when they do, and if you don't, don't criticise when they don't.

 

What do YOU think ?

 

I'll have a go.

 

The board should never ever interfere with the choice of player the manager makes. They appoint the manager and they should give him total control over the players he wishes to bring in. (The only time this woudl change would be if a Direcotr of Football was in place, and he shoudl be involved nwith the team manager, but we don't have a DoF)

 

What the board do have to do is to tell the manager how  much money he can have to build his side the way he wants to.

 

If you are Carlisle United chairman you tell your manager that he has a budget of nothing to go on players, unless he trades some players out. Carlisle manager decides that there ar enly free players to be brought inand that he will use his development skills to improve the players he has.

 

If you are manager of Stoke you tell your manager that he has £150,000 to spend plus anythign he can raise from transfers. Stoke sell aplayer for £100k and bring in another for £250k. All other improvement to come from developing players.

 

What didn't happen at NUFC was this settign of a budget. Souness came to his chairman and said I want these players. Chairman said okay, without seemingly having any idea how much the club coudl afford. No bounce back by the board, or even leadership, by saying "Graeme we back you 100% and here is £20m". Instead the board abdicated responsibility and just let him spend, spend, spend.

 

The manager demonstrably got it wrong with his choices but the board had no control. The manager should always want more, and better players, it will help him have a better side. That is the managers role. If he doesn't want to improve the side he isn't the right man.

 

The board have to manage the whoel company, and they are solely responsible for the finances. The cchairmna of Carlisle, and the board at Stoke didn't let their manager's spend £50k or £500k on a player, cos they knew the club couldn't afford that. Those boards looked at what could be afforded and backed the manager to the hilt, without compromising the long term future of the clubs.

 

Our board just decided to borrow as much money as they could to buy players, without any view of how much could be afforded.

 

I know the argument that we HAD to buy otherwise we would have gone down. That is a fair comment. But a year on I'm not sure what has changed

 

 

[NE5]

With every new registration brings another opportunity for NE5 to argue with someone.

 

Why do you bother? Nothing ever gets agreed. It's not like you even appreciate the opinions of others.

 

howay man Dave, its a straightforward question. Do you think a board should interfere or not ?

 

If you do, don't criticise when they do, and if you don't, don't criticise when they don't.

 

What do YOU think ?

 

I'll have a go.

 

The board should never ever interfere with the choice of player the manager makes. They appoint the manager and they should give him total control over the players he wishes to bring in. (The only time this woudl change would be if a Direcotr of Football was in place, and he shoudl be involved nwith the team manager, but we don't have a DoF)

 

correct. But don't expect to see an end to quite a lot of people continue blaming the board for bringing in bad players. Most of whom will not answer this question.

 

What the board do have to do is to tell the manager how  much money he can have to build his side the way he wants to.

 

If you are Carlisle United chairman you tell your manager that he has a budget of nothing to go on players, unless he trades some players out. Carlisle manager decides that there ar enly free players to be brought inand that he will use his development skills to improve the players he has.

 

If you are manager of Stoke you tell your manager that he has £150,000 to spend plus anythign he can raise from transfers. Stoke sell aplayer for £100k and bring in another for £250k. All other improvement to come from developing players.

 

What didn't happen at NUFC was this settign of a budget. Souness came to his chairman and said I want these players. Chairman said okay, without seemingly having any idea how much the club coudl afford. No bounce back by the board, or even leadership, by saying "Graeme we back you 100% and here is £20m". Instead the board abdicated responsibility and just let him spend, spend, spend.

 

The manager demonstrably got it wrong with his choices but the board had no control. The manager should always want more, and better players, it will help him have a better side. That is the managers role. If he doesn't want to improve the side he isn't the right man.

 

The board have to manage the whoel company, and they are solely responsible for the finances. The cchairmna of Carlisle, and the board at Stoke didn't let their manager's spend £50k or £500k on a player, cos they knew the club couldn't afford that. Those boards looked at what could be afforded and backed the manager to the hilt, without compromising the long term future of the clubs.

 

Our board just decided to borrow as much money as they could to buy players, without any view of how much could be afforded.

 

I know the argument that we HAD to buy otherwise we would have gone down. That is a fair comment. But a year on I'm not sure what has changed

 

 

teaching people to suck eggs. Some of us know all of this. There are still plenty of others around who may rally to your cause. Your first paragraph answered the question, which required an answer on a professional judgement level not a financial one, so the 2nd paragrapgh was not really needed. However, there will be numerous people who will criticise the club for not meeting an extra million quid or so for a player who goes somewhere else and is a success ie Carrick then they will criticise the club for meeting an extra million or so for a player who they do buy and isn't a success ie Luque. This is the "damned whatever they do" but I'm sure you know this yourself really .....

 

Of course, they could run the club like the mackems do, which would suit your view that they should not take any financial risks at all.

 

The only thing that has changed in the past year is we have changed our manager, and our top striker, Englands number 1 - the calibre of player we have always bought since the 1950's and beyond - has been injured, along with one other important one who would also have made a difference ie Dyer. [Whisper it also, but a certain Alan Shearer is being missed despite people saying we wouldn't miss him]. As for the club being short of numbers and quality, that is because they are attempting to do 2 things at once ie buy quality and restore a position whereby we can qualify for europe and compete for the cups while at the same time realise money is tight due to the stupidity of the last manager, who many backed to build his team and supported the club throwing money at him ie Ozzie Mandiarse etc. It is those people that you should lecture about finance, because they clearly do think we can simply buy half a team every summer.

 

Someone said in another thread we should buy Wayne Bridge for 6m in January, for instance.

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Had any luck yet winning people over to the "Fat Fred Is Great" campaign?

[NE5]

Had any luck yet winning people over to the "Fat Fred Is Great" campaign?

 

Still think we'll do better with your man Souness in charge and Craig Bellamy gone ?

 

 

[NE5]

 

 

Interesting. Where do you get the order from ? Nobody knows the "order of merit" in this. Keegans doesn't state any such order.

 

I find it very laughable, that so many people have such a problem with Shepherd that they are completely unable to give him [and dogless] and credit for anything.

 

The facts are as stated. Those 3 people appointed and chose Keegan. Fact. Nobody told us who pushed the most, simply that all 3 wanted him, Sir John didn't and they persuaded him to go along with it.

 

You know why I brought it up. The things I post are not coloured at all by any sort of bias or anything. They are just facts. I won't make any judgement at all without facts to back it up. Others would make better judgements if they did the same. You may be right that the current board, who have taken the club a long way forward since they came in, in 1992, and they may have gone as far as they can. But I still think there is nothing wrong with the club that a manager like Keegan would not put right instantly. You can have the best accountants, secretaries, operations officers, whoever you like in the world, and any "plan" you like, but if they get a manager who is not right for you, they are pissing in the wind. And, who exactly do you think could tap the resources of the club better than what we have, unless they put money in direct ?

 

And - think about this one...relevant to the thread - if you appoint a board who DON'T have the ambition to back their manager, you will NEVER be a top club. Factamundo. Proven through decades throughout football, and not just our own history, there are current clubs too, look 12 miles down the road for all the proof you want.

 

 

 

I'm sure Freddy Fletcher was given the lions share of brownie points for bringing Keegan to the club as manager during the SOS fiasco when he was getting stick from the fans for his part in that, I can't prove it as it's just my memory.

 

As for the board taking us forward since 1992, that was under the guidance of Sir John Hall, we've gone a long way backwards under Shepherd.  We've gone from 2nd in the Premiership to where we are now, 17th and on the same number of points as Sheffield United who are in a relegation position.

 

As for a manager like Keegan instantly putting things right, that's probably true, the thing is, Shepherd thinks that Souness and Roeder are the men to do that.  Souness was the man to improve on 5th in the league and Roeder was the man to improve on 14th which he did for one half season but is so far failing to do this season, he could possibly fail to beat what Souness did in his one and only full season.

 

Also, think about this, shitty Ellis spent less than us and still finished above us in the league, more times than we finished above them with Shepherd steering the ship.  Spending money is useless and just turns a potential profit into a loss without any gain for the club if the club can't appoint a manager who can spend the money wisely, Factamundo.  Spending is useless when you go backwards while doing it, spending is only of use when it improves you as a club and as a team, we've got nothing for the money spent so we've failed as a club, again, Factamundo.

 

 

 

The situation of the Club and its performance over the past 3 years tell the whole tale of its decline under the DIRECTION of Shepherd as Chairman - 'FACTAMUNDO' !!

 

And the previous years ? Before Souness came was what exactly ? I know the team has declined under Souness, I predicted it. That is why he has gone. The old board, pre-1992 though, would have kept him as simply being in the top league was success in their eyes, unlike nowadays. Factamundo.

 

 

The current Board will be DELIGHTED if we are still in the Prem at the end of the season - is that progress..??

 

under the current circumstances most of us will. But being content to stay there for the next 5, 10 years is a different thing altogether as i think you very well know.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

was that 6.14pm?

 

or the 614th post?

 

Probably somewhere between your retarded poll #2000 and #2001.

 

What a loser.

 

post number 2000 and a half? riiiight

 

You obviously don't realise how much of a saddo you appear that you go around mentioning other members in loads of threads. You're a soft shite, tbh. And as I already said, a total loser anarl.

 

****ing shattered tbh.  bluecry.gif

 

No, just a mentally challenged, soft shite tbh.

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

was that 6.14pm?

 

or the 614th post?

 

Probably somewhere between your retarded poll #2000 and #2001.

 

What a loser.

 

post number 2000 and a half? riiiight

 

You obviously don't realise how much of a saddo you appear that you go around mentioning other members in loads of threads. You're a soft shite, tbh. And as I already said, a total loser anarl.

 

****ing shattered tbh.  bluecry.gif

 

No, just a mentally challenged, soft shite tbh.

 

mentally challenged?

 

you'd have to be to want to wade through yours and NE5's mega threads

 

thankfully i'm not

[peasepud]

while at the same time realise money is tight due to the stupidity of the last manager, who many backed to build his team and supported the club throwing money at him ie Ozzie Mandiarse etc. It is those people that you should lecture about finance, because they clearly do think we can simply buy half a team every summer.

 

Someone said in another thread we should buy Wayne Bridge for 6m in January, for instance.

 

This is one thing I can never understand about your arguments though, on one hand you applaud Shepherd for backing Souness while slagging off anyone who at the time said we should also back him. You cant have it both ways. Both yourself and HTL state that you knew Souness was a shite appointment yet when backing Shepherd have argued he has consistently selected managers with good track records.

 

The post above both slags off Souness's purchases yet at the same time goes on about how Shepherd shows ambition by bringing in Englands best striker. So basically, the manager (when its Sourness) gets slagged off for poor buys but the chairman gets the credit for good ones. You argue that the chairman should trust the managers judgement and allow him to spend the cash they supply how he sees fit which means that Shepherd would have handed Souness that same 17million regardless of who he decided to buy.

[NE5]

while at the same time realise money is tight due to the stupidity of the last manager, who many backed to build his team and supported the club throwing money at him ie Ozzie Mandiarse etc. It is those people that you should lecture about finance, because they clearly do think we can simply buy half a team every summer.

 

Someone said in another thread we should buy Wayne Bridge for 6m in January, for instance.

 

This is one thing I can never understand about your arguments though, on one hand you applaud Shepherd for backing Souness while slagging off anyone who at the time said we should also back him. You cant have it both ways. Both yourself and HTL state that you knew Souness was a shite appointment yet when backing Shepherd have argued he has consistently selected managers with good track records.

 

The post above both slags off Souness's purchases yet at the same time goes on about how Shepherd shows ambition by bringing in Englands best striker. So basically, the manager (when its Sourness) gets slagged off for poor buys but the chairman gets the credit for good ones. You argue that the chairman should trust the managers judgement and allow him to spend the cash they supply how he sees fit which means that Shepherd would have handed Souness that same 17million regardless of who he decided to buy.

 

you misunderstand PP. I have said this before - personally, I would not have appointed Souness, ever. I would also have sacked him when he assaulted Bellamy on the training ground. I would also have sacked him for subbing him at Charlton, because it was obvious to all from that point on that he was going to put his ego before the best interests of the club. But I know this, or thought it would happen, because I noticed what he was like at Rangers, when I was working in jockland at the time.

 

However, the board appointed him, and backed him. That is their responsibility, to back him - or sack him. For as long as they employ him they have to back him and allow him to manage. Just because I didn't want him doesn't change this. Wrong people getting promoted, and appointed, happens everywhere in life, but once they are in they must be supported, until or unless their position becomes untenable.

 

I have never gave a chairman the credit for choosing any player the club buys, because that is, or should be, always the decision of the manager. The chairman can of course exercise a financial veto if he chooses which is a grey area and one where any chairman can in effect "interfere".  We don't know the financial position if a manager wants a player do we ? You can only measure the amount of backing they actually get and all of ours have had plenty, more than enough in fact to have won trophies with, so the blame for not doing that rests completely with the players, and managers IMO.

 

Especially considering the amount of times they have bottled situations even when we had a team that was playing in the CL, which is obviously good enough to have won the League Cup at least, and the managers for playing scratch sides in League Cup games where we lost to lower league opposition.

 

[James]

Back the managers the board does. Appointing the right managers in the first place, Shepherd does not, which is why he should go.

[Cajun]

Appointing Souness is the biggest f*ck up they could make. Im sure if I made a decision at work which everyone at the time could see was wrong and it caused that much damage to the company I would have gotten the boot!

[peasepud]

you misunderstand PP. I have said this before - personally, I would not have appointed Souness, ever. I would also have sacked him when he assaulted Bellamy on the training ground. I would also have sacked him for subbing him at Charlton, because it was obvious to all from that point on that he was going to put his ego before the best interests of the club. But I know this, or thought it would happen, because I noticed what he was like at Rangers, when I was working in jockland at the time.

 

However, the board appointed him, and backed him. That is their responsibility, to back him - or sack him. For as long as they employ him they have to back him and allow him to manage. Just because I didn't want him doesn't change this. Wrong people getting promoted, and appointed, happens everywhere in life, but once they are in they must be supported, until or unless their position becomes untenable.

 

I have never gave a chairman the credit for choosing any player the club buys, because that is, or should be, always the decision of the manager. The chairman can of course exercise a financial veto if he chooses which is a grey area and one where any chairman can in effect "interfere".  We don't know the financial position if a manager wants a player do we ? You can only measure the amount of backing they actually get and all of ours have had plenty, more than enough in fact to have won trophies with, so the blame for not doing that rests completely with the players, and managers IMO.

 

Especially considering the amount of times they have bottled situations even when we had a team that was playing in the CL, which is obviously good enough to have won the League Cup at least, and the managers for playing scratch sides in League Cup games where we lost to lower league opposition.

 

I fully agree on that one, this club has handed over enough cash to managers to ensure we won and continued to win serious silverware yet in each case we havent had the bottle/ guts/ tactical nous to do it when it counted, the lost FA Cup finals, thrown away league leads are all down to the players/ manager at the time none of the blame for that can go on the chairmans shoulders. Now we've fallen way way behind the others with our seemingly endless supply of cash running out so its not looking rosy for the future. What we can blame the chariman/ board for though is getting us in this position overall, the continual revolving door that is NUFC management hasnt built a stable platform to build on. Roeder is the final straw as far as Im concerned, he was never the fans choice, yes people appluaded what he had done but there were no protests in the streets or mass petitions to get him here.

 

Sad fact of life is that big name managers dont want to come here, dont see us as a good job to take which is sad and ultimately is down to the chairman. Quality managers dont look and think the fans are shite, players crap, stadium falling apart or the area is horrible. What it is, is they dont think they can work with or trust Shepherd to treat them fairly.

[macbeth]

 

teaching people to suck eggs. Some of us know all of this. There are still plenty of others around who may rally to your cause. Your first paragraph answered the question, which required an answer on a professional judgement level not a financial one, so the 2nd paragrapgh was not really needed. However, there will be numerous people who will criticise the club for not meeting an extra million quid or so for a player who goes somewhere else and is a success ie Carrick then they will criticise the club for meeting an extra million or so for a player who they do buy and isn't a success ie Luque. This is the "damned whatever they do" but I'm sure you know this yourself really .....

 

Of course, they could run the club like the mackems do, which would suit your view that they should not take any financial risks at all.

 

The only thing that has changed in the past year is we have changed our manager, and our top striker, Englands number 1 - the calibre of player we have always bought since the 1950's and beyond - has been injured, along with one other important one who would also have made a difference ie Dyer. [Whisper it also, but a certain Alan Shearer is being missed despite people saying we wouldn't miss him]. As for the club being short of numbers and quality, that is because they are attempting to do 2 things at once ie buy quality and restore a position whereby we can qualify for europe and compete for the cups while at the same time realise money is tight due to the stupidity of the last manager, who many backed to build his team and supported the club throwing money at him ie Ozzie Mandiarse etc. It is those people that you should lecture about finance, because they clearly do think we can simply buy half a team every summer.

 

Someone said in another thread we should buy Wayne Bridge for 6m in January, for instance.

 

 

 

I think we shoudl invent a new phrase that covers your view of the board. I'm sure others can refine it, but essentially it could be "blameless if he does, blameless if he doesn't".

 

I'm not sure why you feel I'd want a Murray in charge. He would just be as financially incompetent as Shepherd, so we'd still be in the mess. But surely it wsn'ty Murray's fault anyway, it was Reid, Wilkinson etc to blame for their mess.  :winking:

 

 

[NE5]

 

teaching people to suck eggs. Some of us know all of this. There are still plenty of others around who may rally to your cause. Your first paragraph answered the question, which required an answer on a professional judgement level not a financial one, so the 2nd paragrapgh was not really needed. However, there will be numerous people who will criticise the club for not meeting an extra million quid or so for a player who goes somewhere else and is a success ie Carrick then they will criticise the club for meeting an extra million or so for a player who they do buy and isn't a success ie Luque. This is the "damned whatever they do" but I'm sure you know this yourself really .....

 

Of course, they could run the club like the mackems do, which would suit your view that they should not take any financial risks at all.

 

The only thing that has changed in the past year is we have changed our manager, and our top striker, Englands number 1 - the calibre of player we have always bought since the 1950's and beyond - has been injured, along with one other important one who would also have made a difference ie Dyer. [Whisper it also, but a certain Alan Shearer is being missed despite people saying we wouldn't miss him]. As for the club being short of numbers and quality, that is because they are attempting to do 2 things at once ie buy quality and restore a position whereby we can qualify for europe and compete for the cups while at the same time realise money is tight due to the stupidity of the last manager, who many backed to build his team and supported the club throwing money at him ie Ozzie Mandiarse etc. It is those people that you should lecture about finance, because they clearly do think we can simply buy half a team every summer.

 

Someone said in another thread we should buy Wayne Bridge for 6m in January, for instance.

 

 

 

I think we shoudl invent a new phrase that covers your view of the board. I'm sure others can refine it, but essentially it could be "blameless if he does, blameless if he doesn't".

 

I'm not sure why you feel I'd want a Murray in charge. He would just be as financially incompetent as Shepherd, so we'd still be in the mess. But surely it wsn'ty Murray's fault anyway, it was Reid, Wilkinson etc to blame for their mess.  :winking:

 

 

the above completetely shows your lack of understanding of football. Maybe life too. Nobody has said the board are not to blame for appointing Souness.

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

you misunderstand PP. I have said this before - personally, I would not have appointed Souness, ever. I would also have sacked him when he assaulted Bellamy on the training ground. I would also have sacked him for subbing him at Charlton, because it was obvious to all from that point on that he was going to put his ego before the best interests of the club. But I know this, or thought it would happen, because I noticed what he was like at Rangers, when I was working in jockland at the time.

 

However, the board appointed him, and backed him. That is their responsibility, to back him - or sack him. For as long as they employ him they have to back him and allow him to manage. Just because I didn't want him doesn't change this. Wrong people getting promoted, and appointed, happens everywhere in life, but once they are in they must be supported, until or unless their position becomes untenable.

 

I have never gave a chairman the credit for choosing any player the club buys, because that is, or should be, always the decision of the manager. The chairman can of course exercise a financial veto if he chooses which is a grey area and one where any chairman can in effect "interfere".  We don't know the financial position if a manager wants a player do we ? You can only measure the amount of backing they actually get and all of ours have had plenty, more than enough in fact to have won trophies with, so the blame for not doing that rests completely with the players, and managers IMO.

 

Especially considering the amount of times they have bottled situations even when we had a team that was playing in the CL, which is obviously good enough to have won the League Cup at least, and the managers for playing scratch sides in League Cup games where we lost to lower league opposition.

 

I fully agree on that one, this club has handed over enough cash to managers to ensure we won and continued to win serious silverware yet in each case we havent had the bottle/ guts/ tactical nous to do it when it counted, the lost FA Cup finals, thrown away league leads are all down to the players/ manager at the time none of the blame for that can go on the chairmans shoulders. Now we've fallen way way behind the others with our seemingly endless supply of cash running out so its not looking rosy for the future. What we can blame the chariman/ board for though is getting us in this position overall, the continual revolving door that is NUFC management hasnt built a stable platform to build on. Roeder is the final straw as far as Im concerned, he was never the fans choice, yes people appluaded what he had done but there were no protests in the streets or mass petitions to get him here.

 

Sad fact of life is that big name managers dont want to come here, dont see us as a good job to take which is sad and ultimately is down to the chairman. Quality managers dont look and think the fans are shite, players crap, stadium falling apart or the area is horrible. What it is, is they dont think they can work with or trust Shepherd to treat them fairly.

 

All speculation PP. We can't prove it one way or another, or at least not yet, but I bet loads of "big name" managers would come to Newcastle.

 

Anyone worth their salt and was confident in their ability would love to take on the challenge of giving us the team that everyone knows we have waited too long for, apart from the Keegan years, and the rewards and acclaim that would go with it.

 

Having said that, we have seen that sometimes the "big names" are more interested in their big name, than the good of the club, once they get here.

 

The fact that we are the biggest underachievers going isn't down to the current board BTW. It is the 30+ years of decline up until 1992 that has led to this label, because at least since then we have attempted to compete at the level we should have been at. Its like Keegan said, the first trophy will be the hardest. If we had been run better by their predecessors their would not be the stigma attached to us that exists, less pressure, etc etc, a vicious circle. The current board has gave it their best crack, and they are the first ones to do that for 50 years.

 

I don't think Roeder is the final straw actually, I think they will get one more crack and it will probably be Shearer.

 

 

[macbeth]

All speculation PP. We can't prove it one way or another, or at least not yet, but I bet loads of "big name" managers would come to Newcastle.

 

Anyone worth their salt and was confident in their ability would love to take on the challenge of giving us the team that everyone knows we have waited too long for, apart from the Keegan years, and the rewards and acclaim that would go with it.

 

Having said that, we have seen that sometimes the "big names" are more interested in their big name, than the good of the club, once they get here. I suspect their boss at the time taught them all about that

 

The fact that we are the biggest underachievers going isn't down to the current board BTW. BLAMELESS ALERT It is the 30+ years of decline up until 1992 that has led to this label, because at least since then we have attempted to compete at the level we should have been at. Its like Keegan said, the first trophy will be the hardest. If we had been run better by their predecessors their would not be the stigma attached to us that exists, less pressure, etc etc, a vicious circle. The current board has gave it their best crack, and they are the first ones to do that for 50 years. BLAMELESS ALERT

 

I don't think Roeder is the final straw actually, I think they will get one more crack and it will probably be Shearer.