We always back our managers at Newcastle....

[peasepud]

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.

 

But its not speculation, we have failed miserably in the last two appointments to land a seriously good manager who can take us where we want to go. That is down to one of two reasons:

 

1) They dont want to come here and if that is the case then can you gove me any valid reasons why a manager wouldnt want to come? as you said in your post, any manager worth his salt should be biting our hands off, big club, passionate fans, nice place overall and a proven history of money to spend. Like I say the only reason I can come up with is that they dont want to work for Shepherd, can you gived me any other possible reason?

 

2) They have applied and Shepherd has ruled them out.

 

 

Either of these scenarios are good enough for me as the reason why Shep has run his course, if we cant attract managers or we attract them and he actually chose Souness and Roeder over the likes of Hitzfeld et al (and no Im not taking the blame for that one ) then a change of leadership at the top is the only way we can change the fortunes of this club.

 

[Mick]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Interesting comments about Keegan, where did I say the board ran the football team?

 

What about the rest of the post?  Is your lack of comment an acceptance of the post as being true?

[Mick]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

So we diclined under Souness only, what are the sequence of league finished under Shepherd?

 

I guess that they must all be top half apart from 1 year, is that right?

[Mick]

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 ?

 

 

 

     

 

Shepherd did.

[Mick]

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.

 

 

Jesus wept, you would have a manager sacked for substituting Bellamy, crazy.

 

Do you know that the manager with the most, no, only success under Shepherd was the least financially backed by him?

 

I don’t see how a chairman exercising a financial veto is a grey area at all, it’s his job to ensure the financial stability of the club above all else, Ridsdale is proof of that.

 

The chairman not doing so is an act of incompetence and a failure of his duty to the club.  You describing it as a grey area is your attempt to remove his responsibility for where we are now and it’s so easy to see through.

[NE5]

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.

 

But its not speculation, we have failed miserably in the last two appointments to land a seriously good manager who can take us where we want to go. That is down to one of two reasons:

 

1) They dont want to come here and if that is the case then can you gove me any valid reasons why a manager wouldnt want to come? as you said in your post, any manager worth his salt should be biting our hands off, big club, passionate fans, nice place overall and a proven history of money to spend. Like I say the only reason I can come up with is that they dont want to work for Shepherd, can you gived me any other possible reason?

 

2) They have applied and Shepherd has ruled them out.

 

 

Either of these scenarios are good enough for me as the reason why Shep has run his course, if we cant attract managers or we attract them and he actually chose Souness and Roeder over the likes of Hitzfeld et al (and no Im not taking the blame for that one ) then a change of leadership at the top is the only way we can change the fortunes of this club.

 

 

you missed the 3rd option, especially in Roeders case. Which is that he is the man they saw as the right man at the time. Right or wrong.

 

Why didn't other big city clubs such as Man City, Portsmouth, mackems, smogs, West Ham, Spurs, West Brom, Leeds etc etc all appoint Hitzfeld instead of the managers they chose ?

 

You put up a half decent argument, but lack realism.

 

Simple fact is, this board has taken us a long way forward in their time. They have made good and bad decisions, as everyone does. If you seriously think that we have a right to make the right appointment every time, then a lack of grasp of football reality is in order. Sorry if you don't like that PP but its true. Qualifying for europe regularly over a period of a decade is hardly failure, all the clubs I list would consider it great success. And all the clubs I mention, all of who except Pompey have won domestic trophies and been above us in the league for consolidated periods prior to 1992 we have overtaken since the current board took charge and raised the club.

 

What would you say if we appointed Hitzfeld and he put his ego before his job like some of the other "big names" we have appointed ?

 

 

[NE5]

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

 

Regular european qualification in the last decade, suggests we have appointed the "right man" more than most of our rivals. I don't expect you to understand that.

 

 

[NE5]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Interesting comments about Keegan, where did I say the board ran the football team?

 

What about the rest of the post?  Is your lack of comment an acceptance of the post as being true?

 

wtf are you babbling on about 

 

 

[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 ?

 

 

 

     

 

Shepherd did.

 

Strangely, so did the bloke [mackem WUM] that you also clipped. And even funnier, is you now actually agree with him 

 

2 people with no knowledge of the club between them ..............

[Mick]

 

wtf are you babbling on about 

 

 

 

I screwed the quotes up, I've edited the original so you can now reply to it without having to think too hard.

 

 

[Mick]

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 ?

 

 

 

     

 

Shepherd did.

 

Strangely, so did the bloke [mackem WUM] that you also clipped. And even funnier, is you now actually agree with him 

 

2 people with no knowledge of the club between them ..............

 

Strangely I still disagree with the opinion Ozzie had about giving Souness time, his opinion had nothing to do with us appointing Souness or keeping him for as long as we did, or, for Souness spending close to £50 million.

 

If it was the other way round and Ozzie was responsible for the above and Shepherd had no other part in it than to think it was a good idea then I'd not be having a go at Shepherd, I'd be having a go at Ozzie.

 

Fact is, Shepherd made those decisions, not Ozzie, as hard as that is for you to swallow, it doesn't change who is responsible anywhere other than in your head.

 

[Mick]

 

you missed the 3rd option, especially in Roeders case. Which is that he is the man they saw as the right man at the time. Right or wrong.

 

Why didn't other big city clubs such as Man City, Portsmouth, mackems, smogs, West Ham, Spurs, West Brom, Leeds etc etc all appoint Hitzfeld instead of the managers they chose ?

 

You put up a half decent argument, but lack realism.

 

Simple fact is, this board has taken us a long way forward in their time. They have made good and bad decisions, as everyone does. If you seriously think that we have a right to make the right appointment every time, then a lack of grasp of football reality is in order. Sorry if you don't like that PP but its true. Qualifying for europe regularly over a period of a decade is hardly failure, all the clubs I list would consider it great success. And all the clubs I mention, all of who except Pompey have won domestic trophies and been above us in the league for consolidated periods prior to 1992 we have overtaken since the current board took charge and raised the club.

 

What would you say if we appointed Hitzfeld and he put his ego before his job like some of the other "big names" we have appointed ?

 

 

 

He did miss the third option, he forgot he was talking about Shepherd, if he'd remembered then he would have added the third option, the one that just about sums up Shepherd.  Appointing a manager who has failed at every club he's managed and just another pointer, those clubs you mentioned.  How many tried to appoint Roeder?   I'll give you a clue, use 1 finger.

 

Simple fact is, and I will keep it simple for somebody who thinks a fall of 15 league places is an achievement, Shepherd has taken us backwards, I can't remember any chairman at our club taking us down so many league places and turning such a legacy into a financial nightmare, can you?

 

What makes you think Hitzfeld has a big ego?

 

Can you give us some proof of that?

 

[OzzieMandias]

Simple fact is, this board has taken us a long way forward in their time.

 

Aye, from the team of the 1990s, challenging for the big stuff, to the piss-poor squad of today, struggling to stay above the relegation zone.

 

You think that's good and you call ME a mackem?

 

[peasepud]

you missed the 3rd option, especially in Roeders case. Which is that he is the man they saw as the right man at the time. Right or wrong.

 

Why didn't other big city clubs such as Man City, Portsmouth, mackems, smogs, West Ham, Spurs, West Brom, Leeds etc etc all appoint Hitzfeld instead of the managers they chose ?

 

You put up a half decent argument, but lack realism.

 

Simple fact is, this board has taken us a long way forward in their time. They have made good and bad decisions, as everyone does. If you seriously think that we have a right to make the right appointment every time, then a lack of grasp of football reality is in order. Sorry if you don't like that PP but its true. Qualifying for europe regularly over a period of a decade is hardly failure, all the clubs I list would consider it great success. And all the clubs I mention, all of who except Pompey have won domestic trophies and been above us in the league for consolidated periods prior to 1992 we have overtaken since the current board took charge and raised the club.

 

What would you say if we appointed Hitzfeld and he put his ego before his job like some of the other "big names" we have appointed ?

 

Im not sure how arguing that Shepherd has failed to make any kind of appointment matching his supposed levels of ambition lacks realism  :confused:

 

The 3rd option you speak of, ie actually wanting Roeder then proves my argument beyond doubt (and is actually the 2nd option), the man does not see what most other football fans can, you can talk all you like about how nice a bloke Roeder is and how well he did to get us up there last year but put it all together and anyone with a hint of sense about them can see hes never a world beating manager (as proved in his previous appointments).

 

I use Hitzfeld as my example, not because I necessarily saw him as the one and only answer however he was available and is definitely a better gamble than Souness or Roeder. Thats what management of anything be it a football club or a small shop when it comes to taking on the right staff then you review the applications, weed out those that are clearly not right for the job and then interview those that match your criteria. Once you've spoke to them then its still a gamble on the person you select. Nothings guaranteed however a man who has won serious titles against a bloke who has been responsible for 2 clubs relegation is a no brainer.

 

Maybe Shepherd spoke to Hitzfeld, maybe he begged him to come and he just didnt want to (maybe he didnt know enough about the golf courses or summit ) thats fair enough, but there are many many other managers who have the necessary nous and reputation to take this club forward, none of those were even linked with us.

 

Like it or lump it, this club is unable to sign a "proper" manager under the current board, 2 shite appointments in a row following 3 good appointments who then failed to make the grade is a worrying statistic. Basing our future on the hoped appointment of Shearer is to me the most worrying thing going, theres nothing to say hes going to be successful, nothing he has shown to become the "one" yet proper fans such as yourself (and I mean that seriously, no sarcasm involved) are willing to believe that he'll do it. Just because the man who turned us around had no management experience doesnt mean everyone we get in that mould will be the same.

 

And that is the crux of my argument, the Geordie mafia, brotherhood of Geordies, black n white blood. Its time Shepherd realised its bollocks, I dont care what  background our new manager has as long as its a successful one. He can be a makem for all I care, win us things and he'll be a god in my eyes. I frankly couldnt care less if he cant speak a word of English never mind understand what "Haway hinny" means, all Im interested in is us forming a proper team, making real footballing decisions and winning us stuff.

 

Remember before he signed Souness? the magic words he used in the press? If I remember correctly they were along the lines of "you wouldnt believe some of the big names who have already applied". if that was true then he weeded those big names out in favour of Souness, if it was bollocks then again hes fed us shit to keep us sweet.

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

 

you missed the 3rd option, especially in Roeders case. Which is that he is the man they saw as the right man at the time. Right or wrong.

 

Why didn't other big city clubs such as Man City, Portsmouth, mackems, smogs, West Ham, Spurs, West Brom, Leeds etc etc all appoint Hitzfeld instead of the managers they chose ?

 

You put up a half decent argument, but lack realism.

 

Simple fact is, this board has taken us a long way forward in their time. They have made good and bad decisions, as everyone does. If you seriously think that we have a right to make the right appointment every time, then a lack of grasp of football reality is in order. Sorry if you don't like that PP but its true. Qualifying for europe regularly over a period of a decade is hardly failure, all the clubs I list would consider it great success. And all the clubs I mention, all of who except Pompey have won domestic trophies and been above us in the league for consolidated periods prior to 1992 we have overtaken since the current board took charge and raised the club.

 

What would you say if we appointed Hitzfeld and he put his ego before his job like some of the other "big names" we have appointed ?

 

 

 

He did miss the third option, he forgot he was talking about Shepherd, if he'd remembered then he would have added the third option, the one that just about sums up Shepherd.  Appointing a manager who has failed at every club he's managed and just another pointer, those clubs you mentioned.  How many tried to appoint Roeder?   I'll give you a clue, use 1 finger.

 

Simple fact is, and I will keep it simple for somebody who thinks a fall of 15 league places is an achievement, Shepherd has taken us backwards, I can't remember any chairman at our club taking us down so many league places and turning such a legacy into a financial nightmare, can you?

 

What makes you think Hitzfeld has a big ego?

 

Can you give us some proof of that?

 

 

I reckon a few of those clubs would of had Roeder had they thought he wanted a job and they needed a manager

 

you know he used to be West Ham manager right?

[Guest Phil K]

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

 

Regular european qualification in the last decade, suggests we have appointed the "right man" more than most of our rivals. I don't expect you to understand that.

 

 

Then you're judging us with clubs not winning anything (and some do - which we most damnably DO NOT) rather than those of a similar standiong of crowd, finances etc - why ?

We should be measured against the likes of those winning regularly.

Only man City are of a similar size who have a record almost as bad as us for winning trophies.

And they STILL have won more than us !!!!!

What would you rather have ?

A trophy or a (brief) run in the Champs League ?

I damn well know what I'd prefer.

[Mick]

 

I reckon a few of those clubs would of had Roeder had they thought he wanted a job and they needed a manager

 

you know he used to be West Ham manager right?

 

I'm sure all of those clubs were looking for managers while Roeder was out of work and yes, I knew he was at West Ham, he got them relegated, that's why I said "I'll give you a clue, use 1 finger."

[Mick]

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

 

Regular european qualification in the last decade, suggests we have appointed the "right man" more than most of our rivals. I don't expect you to understand that.

 

 

Then you're judging us with clubs not winning anything (and some do - which we most damnably DO NOT) rather than those of a similar standiong of crowd, finances etc - why ?

We should be measured against the likes of those winning regularly.

Only man City are of a similar size who have a record almost as bad as us for winning trophies.

And they STILL have won more than us !!!!!

What would you rather have ?

A trophy or a (brief) run in the Champs League ?

I damn well know what I'd prefer.

 

NE5 uses league position as the holy grail then playing in a cup as a defence for Shepherd, a cup that we've qualified through the back door as many times as through league position.

 

We've qualified through league position 3 times, the rest through the back door.

[NE5]

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

 

Regular european qualification in the last decade, suggests we have appointed the "right man" more than most of our rivals. I don't expect you to understand that.

 

 

Then you're judging us with clubs not winning anything (and some do - which we most damnably DO NOT) rather than those of a similar standiong of crowd, finances etc - why ?

We should be measured against the likes of those winning regularly.

Only man City are of a similar size who have a record almost as bad as us for winning trophies.

And they STILL have won more than us !!!!!

What would you rather have ?

A trophy or a (brief) run in the Champs League ?

I damn well know what I'd prefer.

 

NE5 uses league position as the holy grail then playing in a cup as a defence for Shepherd, a cup that we've qualified through the back door as many times as through league position.

 

We've qualified through league position 3 times, the rest through the back door.

 

and how many times did we qualify through the front door pre - 1992 - with the board that YOU stupidly think is the same as the current board 

 

No amount of bull can disguise the fact that you didn't really experience this period ....

[Mick]

 

and how many times did we qualify through the front door pre - 1992 - with the board that YOU stupidly think is the same as the current board 

 

No amount of bull can disguise the fact that you didn't really experience this period ....

 

Fact is pre-1992, we didn't have as many back doors although we did use them when we could, you can now use a fair play back door. bluebiggrin.gif

 

Do you agree that league position is the measure of success?

 

It's what you've used in the past when it's suited you, how has Shepherd done regarding league position?

[NE5]

you missed the 3rd option, especially in Roeders case. Which is that he is the man they saw as the right man at the time. Right or wrong.

 

Why didn't other big city clubs such as Man City, Portsmouth, mackems, smogs, West Ham, Spurs, West Brom, Leeds etc etc all appoint Hitzfeld instead of the managers they chose ?

 

You put up a half decent argument, but lack realism.

 

Simple fact is, this board has taken us a long way forward in their time. They have made good and bad decisions, as everyone does. If you seriously think that we have a right to make the right appointment every time, then a lack of grasp of football reality is in order. Sorry if you don't like that PP but its true. Qualifying for europe regularly over a period of a decade is hardly failure, all the clubs I list would consider it great success. And all the clubs I mention, all of who except Pompey have won domestic trophies and been above us in the league for consolidated periods prior to 1992 we have overtaken since the current board took charge and raised the club.

 

What would you say if we appointed Hitzfeld and he put his ego before his job like some of the other "big names" we have appointed ?

 

Im not sure how arguing that Shepherd has failed to make any kind of appointment matching his supposed levels of ambition lacks realism  :confused:

 

The 3rd option you speak of, ie actually wanting Roeder then proves my argument beyond doubt (and is actually the 2nd option), the man does not see what most other football fans can, you can talk all you like about how nice a bloke Roeder is and how well he did to get us up there last year but put it all together and anyone with a hint of sense about them can see hes never a world beating manager (as proved in his previous appointments).

 

I use Hitzfeld as my example, not because I necessarily saw him as the one and only answer however he was available and is definitely a better gamble than Souness or Roeder. Thats what management of anything be it a football club or a small shop when it comes to taking on the right staff then you review the applications, weed out those that are clearly not right for the job and then interview those that match your criteria. Once you've spoke to them then its still a gamble on the person you select. Nothings guaranteed however a man who has won serious titles against a bloke who has been responsible for 2 clubs relegation is a no brainer.

 

Maybe Shepherd spoke to Hitzfeld, maybe he begged him to come and he just didnt want to (maybe he didnt know enough about the golf courses or summit ) thats fair enough, but there are many many other managers who have the necessary nous and reputation to take this club forward, none of those were even linked with us.

 

Like it or lump it, this club is unable to sign a "proper" manager under the current board, 2 shite appointments in a row following 3 good appointments who then failed to make the grade is a worrying statistic. Basing our future on the hoped appointment of Shearer is to me the most worrying thing going, theres nothing to say hes going to be successful, nothing he has shown to become the "one" yet proper fans such as yourself (and I mean that seriously, no sarcasm involved) are willing to believe that he'll do it. Just because the man who turned us around had no management experience doesnt mean everyone we get in that mould will be the same.

 

And that is the crux of my argument, the Geordie mafia, brotherhood of Geordies, black n white blood. Its time Shepherd realised its bollocks, I dont care what  background our new manager has as long as its a successful one. He can be a makem for all I care, win us things and he'll be a god in my eyes. I frankly couldnt care less if he cant speak a word of English never mind understand what "Haway hinny" means, all Im interested in is us forming a proper team, making real footballing decisions and winning us stuff.

 

Remember before he signed Souness? the magic words he used in the press? If I remember correctly they were along the lines of "you wouldnt believe some of the big names who have already applied". if that was true then he weeded those big names out in favour of Souness, if it was bollocks then again hes fed us shit to keep us sweet.

 

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.

 

 

[NE5]

 

and how many times did we qualify through the front door pre - 1992 - with the board that YOU stupidly think is the same as the current board 

 

No amount of bull can disguise the fact that you didn't really experience this period ....

 

Fact is pre-1992, we didn't have as many back doors although we did use them when we could, you can now use a fair play back door. bluebiggrin.gif

 

Do you agree that league position is the measure of success?

 

It's what you've used in the past when it's suited you, how has Shepherd done regarding league position?

 

how does the first 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in over 50 years grab you ..

 

of course, you will say that decades of selling our best players and playing in the old 2nd division is the same ... 

 

 

[Mick]

 

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.

[Mick]

 

how does the first 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in over 50 years grab you ..

 

of course, you will say that decades of selling our best players and playing in the old 2nd division is the same ...   

 

 

 

The first 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in over 50 years shows just where this club could be if Shepherd could get the right manager in, it's a pity that he fails at this so many times.

 

As for your last sentence, another display of the contents of your head.

[NE5]

 

how does the first 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in over 50 years grab you ..

 

of course, you will say that decades of selling our best players and playing in the old 2nd division is the same ...   

 

 

 

The first 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in over 50 years shows just where this club could be if Shepherd could get the right manager in, it's a pity that he fails at this so many times.

 

As for your last sentence, another display of the contents of your head.

 

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