We always back our managers at Newcastle....

[Baggio]

he might tell you that he was only interested in peasepuds response ?

 

If he does then thats up to him, I can't force a reply out of him although It would make him look a hypocrite for all the times he's complained about people not answering questions he's puts forward.

 

I'm not sure why he wouldn't give his opinion on it though, he seems a honest enough bloke.

 

Thats a fair reply. I've asked you a question. Others can answer it too if they like, in fact it is open to everyone. The question that HTL has asked you is also a fair one too, and I am interested in your response and anyone else who answers it too.

 

 

 

 

 

You know I know the answer.

 

Freddie Fletcher, Douglas Hall and Freddie Shepherd. In that order of influence IMO.

 

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by bringing this up though, both the club and English football in general has evolved a hell of a lot since back then, the club with a lot of help from the three I've named above (before you mention it :wink:)

 

But can they take us any further? IMO I don't think they can.

[Dave]

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.

[Baggio]

Basically, once a club feels the manager is wrong and its time to move on, then they have to take action. And again, at the time, the vast majority of fans agreed that his time and his best days were over.

 

But the club didn't do that, instead they left him in limbo when what they should have done was to move him aside in the summer and headhunted a replacement who could build on what he'd done.

[NE5]

he might tell you that he was only interested in peasepuds response ?

 

If he does then thats up to him, I can't force a reply out of him although It would make him look a hypocrite for all the times he's complained about people not answering questions he's puts forward.

 

I'm not sure why he wouldn't give his opinion on it though, he seems a honest enough bloke.

 

Thats a fair reply. I've asked you a question. Others can answer it too if they like, in fact it is open to everyone. The question that HTL has asked you is also a fair one too, and I am interested in your response and anyone else who answers it too.

 

 

 

 

 

You know I know the answer.

 

Freddie Fletcher, Douglas Hall and Freddie Shepherd. In that order of influence IMO.

 

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by bringing this up though, both the club and English football in general has evolved a hell of a lot since back then, the club with a lot of help from the three I've named above (before you mention it :wink:)

 

But can they take us any further? IMO I don't think they can.

 

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.

 

 

[Baggio]

 

irrelevant. We all have an opinion as to who the right manager is, apart from obvious ones such as Ferguson and Wenger for instance.

 

Plenty of people said Souness should have a free reign.

 

This is a matter of principle. The club think they have the right manager, so you either have to think they are a good board for backing them, or a good board for interfering. You can't have both.

 

 

Thats madness!

 

The board is a good board for backing an awful manager because they think he's good?!

 

That says a lot about their judgement more than anything else.

[NE5]

 

irrelevant. We all have an opinion as to who the right manager is, apart from obvious ones such as Ferguson and Wenger for instance.

 

Plenty of people said Souness should have a free reign.

 

This is a matter of principle. The club think they have the right manager, so you either have to think they are a good board for backing them, or a good board for interfering. You can't have both.

 

 

Thats madness!

 

The board is a good board for backing an awful manager because they think he's good?!

 

That says a lot about their judgement more than anything else.

 

the same board who appointed Keegan ? Nobody [well some did at the time] is saying Souness was the right person, but the point is the club supported their choice or their own man. You do understand this ? Or don't you ?

 

 

[Baggio]

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.

 

I think I'll take your advice mate, HTL does seem a decent bloke to debate with but NE5 reminds me of Bart's Crusty the Clown doll on the Simpson's, you pull the string in the back and it repeats 8 phrases.

 

I'm off out on the piss in a bit anyway, have fun!

[Syrette]

he might tell you that he was only interested in peasepuds response ?

 

If he does then thats up to him, I can't force a reply out of him although It would make him look a hypocrite for all the times he's complained about people not answering questions he's puts forward.

 

I'm not sure why he wouldn't give his opinion on it though, he seems a honest enough bloke.

 

Thats a fair reply. I've asked you a question. Others can answer it too if they like, in fact it is open to everyone. The question that HTL has asked you is also a fair one too, and I am interested in your response and anyone else who answers it too.

 

 

 

 

 

You know I know the answer.

 

Freddie Fletcher, Douglas Hall and Freddie Shepherd. In that order of influence IMO.

 

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by bringing this up though, both the club and English football in general has evolved a hell of a lot since back then, the club with a lot of help from the three I've named above (before you mention it :wink:)

 

But can they take us any further? IMO I don't think they can.

 

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.

 

 

 

http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/sucks2.jpg

[NE5]

Basically, once a club feels the manager is wrong and its time to move on, then they have to take action. And again, at the time, the vast majority of fans agreed that his time and his best days were over.

 

But the club didn't do that, instead they left him in limbo when what they should have done was to move him aside in the summer and headhunted a replacement who could build on what he'd done.

 

Well, that is a moot point.....the fact is, he himself signed a 12 month rolling contract then expressed surprise that he didn't have "years" left. ..... another thing is, during that summer, we signed Kluivert, Butt, Carr and Milner. The vast majority of people were happy with these signings, especially Kluivert, and said we would keep going upwards and expected to stay in the Champions League places. So why on earth would you think of changing your manager ?

 

FWIW....I think Robson should have stayed longer, having started the season, but if we had replaced him with Wenger, Ferguson or Mourinho for instance I wouldn't have complained about "timing" nor do I think anyone else would have done.

 

 

[NE5]

he might tell you that he was only interested in peasepuds response ?

 

If he does then thats up to him, I can't force a reply out of him although It would make him look a hypocrite for all the times he's complained about people not answering questions he's puts forward.

 

I'm not sure why he wouldn't give his opinion on it though, he seems a honest enough bloke.

 

Thats a fair reply. I've asked you a question. Others can answer it too if they like, in fact it is open to everyone. The question that HTL has asked you is also a fair one too, and I am interested in your response and anyone else who answers it too.

 

 

 

 

 

You know I know the answer.

 

Freddie Fletcher, Douglas Hall and Freddie Shepherd. In that order of influence IMO.

 

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by bringing this up though, both the club and English football in general has evolved a hell of a lot since back then, the club with a lot of help from the three I've named above (before you mention it :wink:)

 

But can they take us any further? IMO I don't think they can.

 

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.

 

 

 

http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/sucks2.jpg

 

another chronic post of, eeerrr, nothing, from you chronic lad. Keep it up. You're knowledge, wit and wisdom has us all awestruck.

 

Better if you raised a point or two if you can, I'd keep you right.

 

 

 

 

[Baggio]

 

irrelevant. We all have an opinion as to who the right manager is, apart from obvious ones such as Ferguson and Wenger for instance.

 

Plenty of people said Souness should have a free reign.

 

This is a matter of principle. The club think they have the right manager, so you either have to think they are a good board for backing them, or a good board for interfering. You can't have both.

 

 

Thats madness!

 

The board is a good board for backing an awful manager because they think he's good?!

 

That says a lot about their judgement more than anything else.

 

the same board who appointed Keegan ? Nobody [well some did at the time] is saying Souness was the right person, but the point is the club supported their choice or their own man. You do understand this ? Or don't you ?

 

 

 

It isn't the same board, Freddie Fletcher isn't here anymore and as Keegan said he couldn't have done what he did with the club without him.

 

And yes I understand, so no need to try and be patronising to make your comments sound superior.

 

As I've said, it says a lot about their judgement now to even appoint a manager as bad as Souness, it also has fuck all to do with appointing Keegan nearly 15 years ago.

 

Anyway I'm off out now.

[Syrette]

he might tell you that he was only interested in peasepuds response ?

 

If he does then thats up to him, I can't force a reply out of him although It would make him look a hypocrite for all the times he's complained about people not answering questions he's puts forward.

 

I'm not sure why he wouldn't give his opinion on it though, he seems a honest enough bloke.

 

Thats a fair reply. I've asked you a question. Others can answer it too if they like, in fact it is open to everyone. The question that HTL has asked you is also a fair one too, and I am interested in your response and anyone else who answers it too.

 

 

 

 

 

You know I know the answer.

 

Freddie Fletcher, Douglas Hall and Freddie Shepherd. In that order of influence IMO.

 

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by bringing this up though, both the club and English football in general has evolved a hell of a lot since back then, the club with a lot of help from the three I've named above (before you mention it :wink:)

 

But can they take us any further? IMO I don't think they can.

 

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.

 

 

 

http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/sucks2.jpg

 

another chronic post of, eeerrr, nothing, from you chronic lad. Keep it up. You're knowledge, wit and wisdom has us all awestruck.

 

Better if you raised a point or two if you can, I'd keep you right.

 

 

Just having a bit of fun, calm down.

 

[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 ?

[Dave]

It's not worth discussing things with you, sorry.

[NE5]

 

irrelevant. We all have an opinion as to who the right manager is, apart from obvious ones such as Ferguson and Wenger for instance.

 

Plenty of people said Souness should have a free reign.

 

This is a matter of principle. The club think they have the right manager, so you either have to think they are a good board for backing them, or a good board for interfering. You can't have both.

 

 

Thats madness!

 

The board is a good board for backing an awful manager because they think he's good?!

 

That says a lot about their judgement more than anything else.

 

the same board who appointed Keegan ? Nobody [well some did at the time] is saying Souness was the right person, but the point is the club supported their choice or their own man. You do understand this ? Or don't you ?

 

 

 

It isn't the same board, Freddie Fletcher isn't here anymore and as Keegan said he couldn't have done what he did with the club without him.

 

And yes I understand, so no need to try and be patronising to make your comments sound superior.

 

As I've said, it says a lot about their judgement now to even appoint a manager as bad as Souness, it also has fuck all to do with appointing Keegan nearly 15 years ago.

 

Anyway I'm off out now.

 

don't get me wrong, I didn't want Souness as you know. They should have sacked him long before they did, but from their point of view they backed their man. In all walks of life, people make bad decisions, I'm not patronising when I say that you have no choice but to accept that that happens whether you like it or not.

 

I don't see how it has nothing to do with Keegan, because it points out that all we need is a manager like him again.

 

Have a good night out.

[NE5]

It's not worth discussing things with you, sorry.

 

Sorry Dave, I didn't realise it was a discussion...its a simple matter of yes or no ..... and it wasn't even my question !!!!!!

 

 

[Dave]

I didn't offer any opinion on the subject, nor do I intend to. My point was a general one.

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

yay! another thread filled with HTL/NE5 megaquotes

[NE5]

yay! another thread filled with HTL/NE5 megaquotes

 

but can anyone give an answer to the points I have stated at 0614?

 

 

 

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

was that 6.14pm?

 

or the 614th post?

[NE5]

was that 6.14pm?

 

or the 614th post?

 

post number 28  bluebigeek.gif

[OzzieMandias]

The things I post are not coloured at all by any sort of bias or anything.

 

:obi:

[Howaythelads]

was that 6.14pm?

 

or the 614th post?

 

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

 

What a loser.

[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

[Mick]

 

 

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.