We always back our managers at Newcastle....

[Mick]

 

no. Its something you have said on numerous occasions, ie "they are just the same as the board pre-1992". Fooking hilarious you are .. 

 

Anyway, what about today. Well done Fred eh 

 

I've said Shepherd is as bad as them, true.

 

I've never said "that decades of selling our best players and playing in the old 2nd division is the same."  Again, that's just one of those facts that only resides between your lugs.

[Howaythelads]

 

By the same token - as the point you made about Roeder - you could say the club lacked ambition and couldn't appoint big name proven managers when they appointed Keegan ?? And at that time, they couldn't either. Bobby Robson would not have touched the job with a bargepole, "his team" that he was happy enough to take on later on though. So, looking at Dalglish, Gullit and Souness, if you made "big name" appointments who put their egos before the club, would YOU tread a similar path again ?

 

The fact is that choosing a man who knows the club, after considering the above, has its merits, when he has coaching expertise to go with it.

 

You are falling into the trap of believing what people say in the press PP. Why don't you just take no notice ? Does it matter what Shepherd says ? And if you want to believe it, what is wrong with talking up the club ?

 

I have no more idea than you if Roeder will succeed as manager. I think he is trying to do the right things to succeed, and attempting to play the right way to succeed. Therefore his fate will rest on mainly how he spends the money he is given and the amount of support he can be afforded. And - as I keep saying - the current board will back him as much as they can, as they have always done with their managers, who have all been handed enough money to succeed. A far worse scenario is having a board that will not do that. Thick will tell you that the board we had for decades before the current one also backed their managers just the same, which of course is why we ended up looking at the old 3rd division and 3 locally born England players all wanted to leave the club ... 

 

At least if Shearer is the long term prospective manager, then the club has a "plan" though, which is what people seem to think will bring automatic success ... 

 

Me ? I hope Roeder is still here in 5 years time. But you can't "plan" such things. And the use of "plan" isn't aimed at you either, but others most definitely.

 

 

 

I don't see what managerial appointments before Keegan have to do with Shepherd or why they should be a defence for him.

 

The club appointed Jack Charlton who had done well before and after Newcastle and knew the club, they appointed Ardilles who many people looked upon as being a very good up and coming manager, he'd done a brilliant job at Swindon, a team who played very good football, we also appointed McFaul who knew the club really well and so did Dinnis. 

 

You slate the old board for doing one thing and use it as a defence for Shepherd, how can you have it both ways?

 

Roeder was a supporter of West Ham yet got them relegated, how does knowing the club help?  It didn't help him at West Ham so why should it help him at a club that he didn't support?

 

As for the spending, I don't see how spending more than you can afford with nothing to show except for a massive loss is any better than not spending, the end result is the same, no trophies and financial problems.

 

At least one or two get some satisfaction out of wasting a lot of money, I don't.  I'd rather it was spent wisely or not at all.  My wife can spend all of my wages on crap, that doesn't make her any better than if she'd spent nothing.

 

I think you're missing the point about spending, Mick.

 

Nobody wants the money to be wasted, it's just that to have any chance at all of success any manager must be backed in the transfer market. If you have a Board that provides that backing then you have a chance. If you have a Board that doesn't provide that backing then you have no chance.

 

The scenario where the Board does back the manager in the transfer market still has to rely on the manager making the right choices, making the right decisions about who to bring in and who to let go. It also relies on the manager making the correct decisions on a match by match basis, something Souness could never do because he put his reputation as a tough guy before what was good for the club. I think we could have won the Uefa Cup for example, had Souness not failed to manage Bellamy and Robert.

 

We all know Souness was a terrible appointment and that's why the club isn't doing very well right now, it will take time to recover and that is what is happening now.

 

The Board that is in place right now will back their manager, he will be given the resources to bring success to the club then it is down to whether or not he is good enough. Robson was given enough resources to build a consistent top 5 team, but even he fúcked up in the likes of the League Cup by sending out under strength teams. This is a competition we could definitely have won during his time here, and then who knows once that trophy is in the cabinet and the decades of waiting is over? Putting out those under strength teams is a decision made by the manager, so it is on his head, it's not down to the Board.

 

Robson and others have been given the chance by the current Board to bring success to the club. The difference with Board's of the past is that they didn't provide managers with that level of support, meaning they had very little chance of success no matter how good a manager they may be.

[Mick]

 

I think you're missing the point about spending, Mick.

 

Nobody wants the money to be wasted, it's just that to have any chance at all of success any manager must be backed in the transfer market. If you have a Board that provides that backing then you have a chance. If you have a Board that doesn't provide that backing then you have no chance.

 

The scenario where the Board does back the manager in the transfer market still has to rely on the manager making the right choices, making the right decisions about who to bring in and who to let go. It also relies on the manager making the correct decisions on a match by match basis, something Souness could never do because he put his reputation as a tough guy before what was good for the club. I think we could have won the Uefa Cup for example, had Souness not failed to manage Bellamy and Robert.

 

We all know Souness was a terrible appointment and that's why the club isn't doing very well right now, it will take time to recover and that is what is happening now.

 

The Board that is in place right now will back their manager, if the manager is good enough he will be given the resources to bring success to the club. Robson was given enough resources to build a consistent top 5 team, but even he fúcked up in the likes of the League Cup by sending out under strength teams. This is a competition we could definitely have won during his time here, and then who knows once that trophy is in the cabinet and the decades of waiting is over? Putting out those under strength teams is a decision made by the manager, so it is on his head, it's not down to the Board.

 

Robson and others have been given the chance by the current Board to bring success to the club. The difference with Board's of the past is that they didn't provide managers with that level of support, meaning they had very little chance of success no matter how good a manager they may be.

 

Good post and one I agree with 100%.

 

The difference is that I don't think Shepherd can get the right manager to spend the money wisely, I really don't think any good manager would be willing to work for him and the last two appointments back this up.

 

Would Shepherd have appointed Souness and Roeder if top managers were after the job?

 

I know we argue quite a bit but I must admit to liking your posts, even if I disagree with them.

[Howaythelads]

 

I think you're missing the point about spending, Mick.

 

Nobody wants the money to be wasted, it's just that to have any chance at all of success any manager must be backed in the transfer market. If you have a Board that provides that backing then you have a chance. If you have a Board that doesn't provide that backing then you have no chance.

 

The scenario where the Board does back the manager in the transfer market still has to rely on the manager making the right choices, making the right decisions about who to bring in and who to let go. It also relies on the manager making the correct decisions on a match by match basis, something Souness could never do because he put his reputation as a tough guy before what was good for the club. I think we could have won the Uefa Cup for example, had Souness not failed to manage Bellamy and Robert.

 

We all know Souness was a terrible appointment and that's why the club isn't doing very well right now, it will take time to recover and that is what is happening now.

 

The Board that is in place right now will back their manager, if the manager is good enough he will be given the resources to bring success to the club. Robson was given enough resources to build a consistent top 5 team, but even he fúcked up in the likes of the League Cup by sending out under strength teams. This is a competition we could definitely have won during his time here, and then who knows once that trophy is in the cabinet and the decades of waiting is over? Putting out those under strength teams is a decision made by the manager, so it is on his head, it's not down to the Board.

 

Robson and others have been given the chance by the current Board to bring success to the club. The difference with Board's of the past is that they didn't provide managers with that level of support, meaning they had very little chance of success no matter how good a manager they may be.

 

Good post and one I agree with 100%.

 

The difference is that I don't think Shepherd can get the right manager to spend the money wisely, I really don't think any good manager would be willing to work for him and the last two appointments back this up.

 

Would Shepherd have appointed Souness and Roeder if top managers were after the job?

 

I know we argue quite a bit but I must admit to liking your posts, even if I disagree with them.

 

Mick,

 

In terms of his CV, Souness wasn't bad, his previous track record was certainly as good if not better than O'Neill's, for example.  I don't see him as a small time, unknown manager despite how shite he is.

 

At the time the appointment of Souness was made it was generally accepted that a number of players were out of control and needed to be sorted out, I was totally shocked I have to admit, but it seemed to have some logic behind it. I don't know who else was actually approached at the time but I don't for a moment believe that the club was unable to attract a top manager.

 

The Board has actually tried something different with the appointment of Roeder, that's all.

[NE5]

 

no. Its something you have said on numerous occasions, ie "they are just the same as the board pre-1992". Fooking hilarious you are .. 

 

Anyway, what about today. Well done Fred eh 

 

I've said Shepherd is as bad as them, true.

 

I've never said "that decades of selling our best players and playing in the old 2nd division is the same."  Again, that's just one of those facts that only resides between your lugs.

 

Your complete inability to equate the fact that ambition = spending money and attempting to be successful,  and no ambition = selling your best players and/or creating a situation where even locally born quality players see no future with you, are different actions undertaken by boards of directors with completely opposite outlooks,  is mind boggling.

 

 

[Mick]

 

Mick,

 

In terms of his CV, Souness wasn't bad, his previous track record was certainly as good if not better than O'Neill's, for example.  I don't see him as a small time, unknown manager despite how shite he is.

 

At the time the appointment of Souness was made it was generally accepted that a number of players were out of control and needed to be sorted out, I was totally shocked I have to admit, but it seemed to have some logic behind it. I don't know who else was actually approached at the time but I don't for a moment believe that the club was unable to attract a top manager.

 

The Board has actually tried something different with the appointment of Roeder, that's all.

 

I'll have to disagree on the merits of the Souness CV, I've gone over it enough times while attacking him to try to see any positives after he left Rangers. 

 

I know Shepherd has tried something different this time but I think it's a massive gamble and one which will end in failure.  It's not something which hasn't been done before, Dinnis, and McFaul were two caretakers who were given the job because of what they'd done while caretaker and add Charlton to that list when it comes to knowing the club.  I can't see any logic in it other than it's different to what came before.

 

Gaining control of certain players didn't have to be done the way it was, I think things could have easily been done better than the way Souness did them, he did what I expected and you probably expected, that's the worst thing about our last two managers, things have been too predictable and if the fans can see it then surely the chairman should also see it.

 

Of course Roeder might turn things around, I hope he does but doubt it, we made one step today and need to keep going and make use of the next transfer window more than we have the last few.

[Mick]

 

Your complete inability to equate the fact that ambition = spending money and attempting to be successful,  and no ambition = selling your best players and/or creating a situation where even locally born quality players see no future with you, are different actions undertaken by boards of directors with completely opposite outlooks,  is mind boggling.

 

 

 

What are you waffling on about now?

 

Concentrate, if possible.

 

Ambition is useless in the wrong hands, I'm not even sure if Shepherds ambition is to see the club win something or feather his own nest.  The warehouse sale and lease had nothing to do with the club moving forwards to win anything, it was all about taking as much cash out of the club as possible.

 

I couldn't give a shit if the club spends money or not, at least when it comes to spending money that we have got.  I'd rather the club was ambitious to win something, actions speak louder than words.

[NE5]

 

Your complete inability to equate the fact that ambition = spending money and attempting to be successful,  and no ambition = selling your best players and/or creating a situation where even locally born quality players see no future with you, are different actions undertaken by boards of directors with completely opposite outlooks,  is mind boggling.

 

 

 

What are you waffling on about now?

 

Concentrate, if possible.

 

Ambition is useless in the wrong hands, I'm not even sure if Shepherds ambition is to see the club win something or feather his own nest.  The warehouse sale and lease had nothing to do with the club moving forwards to win anything, it was all about taking as much cash out of the club as possible.

 

I couldn't give a shit if the club spends money or not, at least when it comes to spending money that we have got.  I'd rather the club was ambitious to win something, actions speak louder than words.

 

so you think the current board hasn't tried harder than the ones who ran the club between the 1950's and 1992 ? haha...priceless.

Absolute proof you are clueless.

 

AS HTL has just pointed out to you, if you have no ambition it is irrelevant if you appoint the "right hands" or not, and you agreed...you couldn't make it up.

 

Superbly dense.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

 

Mick,

 

In terms of his CV, Souness wasn't bad, his previous track record was certainly as good if not better than O'Neill's, for example.  I don't see him as a small time, unknown manager despite how shite he is.

 

At the time the appointment of Souness was made it was generally accepted that a number of players were out of control and needed to be sorted out, I was totally shocked I have to admit, but it seemed to have some logic behind it. I don't know who else was actually approached at the time but I don't for a moment believe that the club was unable to attract a top manager.

 

The Board has actually tried something different with the appointment of Roeder, that's all.

 

I'll have to disagree on the merits of the Souness CV, I've gone over it enough times while attacking him to try to see any positives after he left Rangers. 

 

I know Shepherd has tried something different this time but I think it's a massive gamble and one which will end in failure.  It's not something which hasn't been done before, Dinnis, and McFaul were two caretakers who were given the job because of what they'd done while caretaker and add Charlton to that list when it comes to knowing the club.  I can't see any logic in it other than it's different to what came before.

 

Gaining control of certain players didn't have to be done the way it was, I think things could have easily been done better than the way Souness did them, he did what I expected and you probably expected, that's the worst thing about our last two managers, things have been too predictable and if the fans can see it then surely the chairman should also see it.

 

Of course Roeder might turn things around, I hope he does but doubt it, we made one step today and need to keep going and make use of the next transfer window more than we have the last few.

 

But making use of the transfer window in the way you suggest is an indication of the Board showing ambition, Mick.

 

As it stands, I don't expect much in January simply because there is not a bottomless pit of money. Souness took a solid top 5 team, added £50m worth of players and took us to near relegation standard. There is a lot of work to do and I hope Roeder can do it although I'm far from convinced he's the man for the job. I wasn't even happy he was given the job as a caretaker but he did an excellent job, perhaps he'll continue do the business. He is going to need time and patience, that's for sure. The injury situation is very bad and although I hate falling back on that, it is a fact he was left a very unbalanced squad that is short on quality all over the place. There is only so much he can do under those circumstances.

[Guest BooBoo]

Out of interest are HTL and NE5 lovers?

[NE5]

Out of interest are HTL and NE5 lovers?

 

are you gang banging several other posters who are also clueless 

[Mick]

 

so you think the current board hasn't tried harder than the ones who ran the club between the 1950's and 1992 ? haha...priceless.

Absolute proof you are clueless.

 

AS HTL (my brother) has just pointed out to you, if you have no ambition it is irrelevant if you appoint the "right hands" or not, and you agreed...you couldn't make it up.

 

Superbly dense.

 

 

 

How has Shepherd tried harder than previous chairman?

 

How hard was it to take over the 2nd best team in the country with a 10,000 waiting list for season tickets?  Shepherd was handed the best chance this club has ever had and he's ballsed it up while making failure look easy.

 

As for HTL's comment that I agreed with, I think what you are trying to do by measuring ambition by how much a club spends is absolute rubbish, you should only spend what you can afford, is spending 100% of a £5 more ambitious than someone who spends 50% of a £20?

 

Chelsea have more money then any other team in Britian and they use it.

 

It doesn't mean they have more ambition than the rest of the clubs, you really are blinkered and narrow minded when it comes to defending Shepherd but we'll not be able to see right through you.

 

I'd love to know the real reason why somebody who claims to support the club defends the very thing that takes it backwards, that takes some working out.

[Mick]

Out of interest are HTL and NE5 lovers?

 

are you gang banging several other posters who are also clueless 

 

Why don't you answer him?

 

Do you want me to tell him for you?

[Baggio]

Out of interest are HTL and NE5 lovers?

 

are you gang banging several other posters who are also clueless 

 

Why don't you answer him?

 

Do you want me to tell him for you?

 

Are they related or something?

[Mick]

 

Are they related or something?

 

Ask them and I'll tell you if the answer is a lie or not.

[Guest BooBoo]

I suspect they may be sisters.

[Baggio]

Siamese twins?

 

http://www.lib.unc.edu/ncc/gallery/images_more/twins_large.gif

[Dave]

That picture.

[NE5]

thick Mick resorting to editing peoples posts rather than answer questions when he is proven to be an idiot.

 

If he can't see that showing ambition means you are making an attempt to win the trophies - something the old board NEVER did - then its nothing other than categoric proof that he isn't a long term supporter of the club, and never has been. In other words, a liar. Or the thickest person going .....  fantastically hilarious.

 

Buying players such as Owen and Woodgate is the same as selling Gazza, Beardsley and Waddle...so superbly dense you just couldn't make it up in a million years. 

[Howaythelads]

Mick

 

I think you're confusing outright ability of the current Board members with the concept of whether they have the ambition to try to succeed. These are two different things.  Even if you are right and they don't ultimately have the ability to bring success to the club this does not mean they have no ambition, and it is ambition we are talking about because that is what may be thrown away if the current Board is replaced. It simply can't be assumed that another Board could take over the club and show the same level of ambition, which if they don't it won't matter a jot if they are more talented individuals.

 

I can assure you it is far more frustrating supporting Newcastle when the Board doesn't even try to bring success than it is supporting Newcastle under the current circumstances.

[peasepud]

thick Mick resorting to editing peoples posts rather than answer questions when he is proven to be an idiot.

 

If he can't see that showing ambition means you are making an attempt to win the trophies - something the old board NEVER did - then its nothing other than categoric proof that he isn't a long term supporter of the club, and never has been. In other words, a liar. Or the thickest person going .....  fantastically hilarious.

 

Buying players such as Owen and Woodgate is the same as selling Gazza, Beardsley and Waddle...so superbly dense you just couldn't make it up in a million years. 

 

This isnt in anyway a defence of them but couldnt you say that the actual catalyst for our revival was the old board? After all if they hadnt had the ambition to bring in Keegan then he'd have had no reason to join us later as a manager.

[Howaythelads]

thick Mick resorting to editing peoples posts rather than answer questions when he is proven to be an idiot.

 

If he can't see that showing ambition means you are making an attempt to win the trophies - something the old board NEVER did - then its nothing other than categoric proof that he isn't a long term supporter of the club, and never has been. In other words, a liar. Or the thickest person going .....  fantastically hilarious.

 

Buying players such as Owen and Woodgate is the same as selling Gazza, Beardsley and Waddle...so superbly dense you just couldn't make it up in a million years. 

 

This isnt in anyway a defence of them but couldnt you say that the actual catalyst for our revival was the old board? After all if they hadnt had the ambition to bring in Keegan then he'd have had no reason to join us later as a manager.

 

The measurement of ambition of that particular Board came when we were promoted. They failed completely to show any despite a fantastic opportunity at that time.

[NE5]

thick Mick resorting to editing peoples posts rather than answer questions when he is proven to be an idiot.

 

If he can't see that showing ambition means you are making an attempt to win the trophies - something the old board NEVER did - then its nothing other than categoric proof that he isn't a long term supporter of the club, and never has been. In other words, a liar. Or the thickest person going .....    fantastically hilarious.

 

Buying players such as Owen and Woodgate is the same as selling Gazza, Beardsley and Waddle...so superbly dense you just couldn't make it up in a million years. 

 

This isnt in anyway a defence of them but couldnt you say that the actual catalyst for our revival was the old board? After all if they hadnt had the ambition to bring in Keegan then he'd have had no reason to join us later as a manager.

 

As a player ? An inspired version of what people now call a "trophy signing" if ever you wanted one. A big name, outstanding player, past his best and having played his last game for England, to deflect from the fact that the club was a nothing 2nd division club, with no real intention of ever going anywhere.

 

It was Arthur Cox who did it, by the way. He tracked him for ages, not the board who were so shite and narrow minded, they needed the brewery sponsorship money to or he wouldn't have got here at all.

 

It would have been far better, if the board then had been a decent board, buying England players, maybe win a trophy or two, not losing good managers ie Lee and Cox, and we had played in europe as often as we have done since they were booted out like.

 

 

[macbeth]

Your complete inability to equate the fact that ambition = spending money and attempting to be successful,  and no ambition = selling your best players and/or creating a situation where even locally born quality players see no future with you, are different actions undertaken by boards of directors with completely opposite outlooks,  is mind boggling.

 

 

 

To me that reads that you think Ridsdale was the most ambitious of chairman, and that the chairman who had to take over after him was totally unambitious.

 

I could at this point do a NE5ism and say "so you think Ridsdale would be better than Shepherd", and quote it for the next year, every time Shepehrd is mentioned.

 

Of course I wouldn't do that.

 

Maybe.

 

 

[macbeth]

It was Arthur Cox who did it, by the way. He tracked him for ages, not the board who were so shite and narrow minded, they needed the brewery sponsorship money to or he wouldn't have got here at all.

 

as opposed to Owen say who we only got because of Northern Rock. Why do you look down at brewery money, but admire Building Soceity money.

 

It would have been far better, if the board then had been a decent board, buying England players, maybe win a trophy or two, not losing good managers ie Lee and Cox, and we had played in europe as often as we have done since they were booted out like.

 

 

 

??