Guest thompers Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=432802&CPID=8&clid=4&lid=&title=Shepherd:+I+don Shepherd: I don't decide signings By Peter ORourke - Created on 3 Dec 2006 Newcastle chairman Freddy Shepherd insists he has no influence over who the club sign. It has been suggested that Shepherd makes the decisions on who the club signs and not the manager Glenn Roeder. Shepherd has promised to make funds available to Roeder to bolster his injury-hit squad in January and Shepherd is adamant Roeder has the final say on who comes into the club. "I don't interfere with transfers and it is ludicrous to suggest that I bring in the players or make signings without the manager being involved," Shepherd said in the News of the World. "There is no way I have ever said to a manager 'There is Mr X - you have got him whether you like him or not'. "It would be madness for anyone to do that. I know that they do that on the continent, but it wouldn't work in English football. "I don't get involved in team selection and I don't hang around the training ground. That's not what I am paid for "We have spent £250 million on players since I have been on the board, so no one can ever accuse us of not backing managers." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=432802&CPID=8&clid=4&lid=&title=Shepherd:+I+don Shepherd: I don't decide signings By Peter ORourke - Created on 3 Dec 2006 Newcastle chairman Freddy Shepherd insists he has no influence over who the club sign. It has been suggested that Shepherd makes the decisions on who the club signs and not the manager Glenn Roeder. Shepherd has promised to make funds available to Roeder to bolster his injury-hit squad in January and Shepherd is adamant Roeder has the final say on who comes into the club. "I don't interfere with transfers and it is ludicrous to suggest that I bring in the players or make signings without the manager being involved," Shepherd said in the News of the World. "There is no way I have ever said to a manager 'There is Mr X - you have got him whether you like him or not'. "It would be madness for anyone to do that. I know that they do that on the continent, but it wouldn't work in English football. "I don't get involved in team selection and I don't hang around the training ground. That's not what I am paid for "We have spent £250 million on players since I have been on the board, so no one can ever accuse us of not backing managers." I take it you are disappointed it doesn't suit your "opinion" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 Here we go..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newcastle Fan Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 well what he is saying: " i sure as hell didnt sign this peace of crap duff'" had to make sure i get here first b4 everyone else change duff to luque Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 http://www.zenflyfishing.com/photos/Seis841amMaleBSPclseup29June2005.jpg NE5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 As I see it, Shepherd doesn't go against the will of the manager, he appears to do his own initial negotiations over star players before approaching manager and saying: "I am able to sign player X, do you want him" and player X is generally of such a calibre that no manager could turn the offer down. The annoying thing is that the manager/chairman subsequently miss out on those lower profile but still very important signings further down the line for whatever reason. My major gripe with Shepherd is not in the transfer market, but with his two most recent managerial appointments and the sacking of Sir Bobby Robson. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 http://www.zenflyfishing.com/photos/Seis841amMaleBSPclseup29June2005.jpg thompers :winking: edited for truth !!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenny Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 My major gripe with Shepherd is not in the transfer market, but with his two most recent managerial appointments and the sacking of Sir Bobby Robson. Agreed, although i think sbr sacking was just! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 My major gripe with Shepherd is not in the transfer market, but with his two most recent managerial appointments and the sacking of Sir Bobby Robson. Agreed, although i think sbr sacking was just! The timing wasn't! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 We should never have sold Bellamy. Or Robert. Luque is fantastic. We're a top 5 club. Yah-de-fookin-yah... :roll: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 notice he doesn't say he never SELLS players behind the manager's back Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stozo Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 We should never have sold Bellamy. Or Robert. Luque is fantastic. We're a top 5 club. Yah-de-fookin-yah... :roll: Don't think you can blame Fat Fred for Bellamy and Robert. While I agree they should not have been sold there positions were made impossible by Souness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenny Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 My major gripe with Shepherd is not in the transfer market, but with his two most recent managerial appointments and the sacking of Sir Bobby Robson. Agreed, although i think sbr sacking was just! The timing wasn't! no he should have gone sooner Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmonkey Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 Example: Sir Bobby wanting Miguel, Shephard wanting Carr. Bids made for Miguel are below valutaion and rejected, bids made for Carr accepted, Sir Bobby agrees that its better to have Carr than noone, Shephard's statement of "I don't interfere with transfers and it is ludicrous to suggest that I bring in the players or make signings without the manager being involved" holds. Fact is though hes still indirectly forcing the manager to buy who he sees as the better option. Probably done this countless times - another example which I suspect is the Owen signing. Souness wanted Anelka all summer, whilst we know for a fact Shephad wanted to land an England international striker to replace Shearer because of the Rooney bids - so what happens? Anelka deal dies because we dont want to match their 8mill valuation, Owen gets signed for 16mill. And as Invicta Toon says, he doesnt mention anything about selling players, which we know hes done behind his manager's back - but even if he did, hed still say the managers were "involved", because theyd have been told about the sale. Doesnt talk about players he hasnt sold either - namely, a certain Shearer who the chairman refused to sell when the manager wanted to. I guess in Shephard's eyes, thats not "interferring" either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garth Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 My answer to Fat Fred :finger: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 Example: Sir Bobby wanting Miguel, Shephard wanting Carr. Bids made for Miguel are below valutaion and rejected, bids made for Carr accepted, Sir Bobby agrees that its better to have Carr than noone, Shephard's statement of "I don't interfere with transfers and it is ludicrous to suggest that I bring in the players or make signings without the manager being involved" holds. unbelievable. I will leave macbeth - and maybe his monkey - to explain that Carr cost a lot less money and maybe he felt at that time he needed to watch the books. I wait for you to post in future criticising the club for overspending. As classic a case of "damned if they do damned if they don't" as it would be possible to find. And for the record, I would have liked Miguel, I think he is one of the best right backs going. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil K Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 My major gripe with Shepherd is not in the transfer market, but with his two most recent managerial appointments and the sacking of Sir Bobby Robson. Agreed, although i think sbr sacking was just! The timing wasn't! Absolutely correct. SBR should have been moved upstairs a season earlier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 Example: Sir Bobby wanting Miguel, Shephard wanting Carr. Bids made for Miguel are below valutaion and rejected, bids made for Carr accepted, Sir Bobby agrees that its better to have Carr than noone, Shephard's statement of "I don't interfere with transfers and it is ludicrous to suggest that I bring in the players or make signings without the manager being involved" holds. unbelievable. I will leave macbeth - and maybe his monkey - to explain that Carr cost a lot less money and maybe he felt at that time he needed to watch the books. I wait for you to post in future criticising the club for overspending. As classic a case of "damned if they do damned if they don't" as it would be possible to find. And for the record, I would have liked Miguel, I think he is one of the best right backs going. But spends £8.5m on Boumsong? :confused: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 Example: Sir Bobby wanting Miguel, Shephard wanting Carr. Bids made for Miguel are below valutaion and rejected, bids made for Carr accepted, Sir Bobby agrees that its better to have Carr than noone, Shephard's statement of "I don't interfere with transfers and it is ludicrous to suggest that I bring in the players or make signings without the manager being involved" holds. unbelievable. I will leave macbeth - and maybe his monkey - to explain that Carr cost a lot less money and maybe he felt at that time he needed to watch the books. I wait for you to post in future criticising the club for overspending. As classic a case of "damned if they do damned if they don't" as it would be possible to find. And for the record, I would have liked Miguel, I think he is one of the best right backs going. So it makes better financial sense to sign a poor right back who's on the decline, than to sign one of the best going that would easily hold his price? That's watching the books? Perhaps it's this kind of financial sense that sees us take losses on players so often? Huh, NE5? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 Example: Sir Bobby wanting Miguel, Shephard wanting Carr. Bids made for Miguel are below valutaion and rejected, bids made for Carr accepted, Sir Bobby agrees that its better to have Carr than noone, Shephard's statement of "I don't interfere with transfers and it is ludicrous to suggest that I bring in the players or make signings without the manager being involved" holds. unbelievable. I will leave macbeth - and maybe his monkey - to explain that Carr cost a lot less money and maybe he felt at that time he needed to watch the books. I wait for you to post in future criticising the club for overspending. As classic a case of "damned if they do damned if they don't" as it would be possible to find. And for the record, I would have liked Miguel, I think he is one of the best right backs going. So it makes better financial sense to sign a poor right back who's on the decline, than to sign one of the best going that would easily hold his price? That's watching the books? Perhaps it's this kind of financial sense that sees us take losses on players so often? Huh, NE5? People are discussing financial outlay, and that alone. You can't criticise the club for spending more than they have, or should, then on the other hand say they should have spent more than they did. The decision on the respective merits of the player rests with the manager and the manager alone. If the club didn't have the money to buy Miguel, then the manager has to lower his budget and find an alternative. This is the policy that macbeth, his monkey and others advocate. The club did precisely that. MY opinion is that the club should have gone the extra mile and bought Miquel, but I always say this. The ONLY thing that matters is quality, but macbeth and his monkey and others put money first. Having said that, would you or would you not say that as an expensive player, he would be a "trophy player", or does that only apply if they flop :winking: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 My major gripe with Shepherd is not in the transfer market, but with his two most recent managerial appointments and the sacking of Sir Bobby Robson. Agreed, although i think sbr sacking was just! The timing wasn't! :roll: But the sacking of Gullit was timed ok? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 Example: Sir Bobby wanting Miguel, Shephard wanting Carr. Bids made for Miguel are below valutaion and rejected, bids made for Carr accepted, Sir Bobby agrees that its better to have Carr than noone, Shephard's statement of "I don't interfere with transfers and it is ludicrous to suggest that I bring in the players or make signings without the manager being involved" holds. unbelievable. I will leave macbeth - and maybe his monkey - to explain that Carr cost a lot less money and maybe he felt at that time he needed to watch the books. I wait for you to post in future criticising the club for overspending. As classic a case of "damned if they do damned if they don't" as it would be possible to find. And for the record, I would have liked Miguel, I think he is one of the best right backs going. Boumsong, Owen, Luque, Marcelino, Viana... no-one can accuse this club of over-spending. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 We definetly don't spend enough money on full backs. We always have to go for the £10m striker, why don't we ever spend the money sensibly and get a couple of quality full backs? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 Example: Sir Bobby wanting Miguel, Shephard wanting Carr. Bids made for Miguel are below valutaion and rejected, bids made for Carr accepted, Sir Bobby agrees that its better to have Carr than noone, Shephard's statement of "I don't interfere with transfers and it is ludicrous to suggest that I bring in the players or make signings without the manager being involved" holds. unbelievable. I will leave macbeth - and maybe his monkey - to explain that Carr cost a lot less money and maybe he felt at that time he needed to watch the books. I wait for you to post in future criticising the club for overspending. As classic a case of "damned if they do damned if they don't" as it would be possible to find. And for the record, I would have liked Miguel, I think he is one of the best right backs going. Boumsong, Owen, Luque, Marcelino, Viana... no-one can accuse this club of over-spending. Well. I distinctly remember a LOT of people supporting the signings of Boumsong, Luque and Owen. Perhaps you would rather we bought players at the level of the mackems, as we used to do ? Just so you can then criticise for not buying quality players ? I'm sure that policy would please macbeth and his monkey etc .... and you ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 We definetly don't spend enough money on full backs. We always have to go for the £10m striker, why don't we ever spend the money sensibly and get a couple of quality full backs? Basically because most clubs, correctly, spend the bigger money on forwards. A quite amazing comment, as the club spent 6m on Barton, 4m on Domi to name 2, who never completely won over people. Same as central defenders 6m on Marcelino, 4m on Goma ... I'm sure you get the drift .... the criticism then was they spent too much on defenders ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now