Freddy defending himself. Again. Yawn.

[Guest thompers]

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:

 

 

 

No it only applies when they are past their best and a bigger club wants rid of them before they get shit, and the intelligent bastards at our club snap them up for one last big pay day. Surely you can establish the difference between a big money trophy signing and a big money prospect? Duff being an example of the former, and somebody like Bellamy (at the time we signed him) being an example of the latter. The trophy player is taking a step down the ladder in his career (indicating decline) whereas the prospect is taking a step up (therefore indicting that he's improving). We sign a LOT of our players from bigger clubs, often for big fees. Is this difficult to understand? Are you grasping the concept of a 'trophy player' yet?

 

So you think that signing Carr over 'one of the best right backs around' was genuinely because we couldn't afford Miguel (we couldn't scrape a little bit extra for a FAR superior player)?

 

How do you feel about Freddy not wanting to pay £3m for Carrick because he wanted to wait to try and get him cheaper? The money was obviously there, as he paid it for Butt instead. Do you feel Carrick wasn't worth the 3m at the time? Do you feel that Butt, the trophy signing, has been a better player for us than the prospect, Carrick, would have been?

[Guest thompers]

Perhaps you would rather we bought players at the level of the mackems, as we used to do ?

 

 

The problem is, we do sign players at the level of the mackems. The only difference is that we pay £10m each for them.

[Cajun]

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.

 

 

 

They still spend good money on full backs, ours cost a total of about £3m at the monent and thats including the "back ups" of which we dont really have!

[Guest thompers]

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 .....

 

 

 

 

Wow, so you're defending the clubs full-back buying by naming 2 that we signed in the 90s? And I'm not positive, but wasn't Barton signed by Sir John?

[Syrette]

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 ?

 

 

 

End of the day, in HINDSIGHT, we have overspent on a few players. And though I was not one of them, plenty thought we spent too much on Boumsong and Owen at the time.

[NE5]

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:

 

 

 

No it only applies when they are past their best and a bigger club wants rid of them before they get shit, and the intelligent bastards at our club snap them up for one last big pay day. Surely you can establish the difference between a big money trophy signing and a big money prospect? Duff being an example of the former, and somebody like Bellamy (at the time we signed him) being an example of the latter. The trophy player is taking a step down the ladder in his career (indicating decline) whereas the prospect is taking a step up (therefore indicting that he's improving). We sign a LOT of our players from bigger clubs, often for big fees. Is this difficult to understand? Are you grasping the concept of a 'trophy player' yet?

 

yes I understand the difference. I don't think personally we have any trophy players at Newcastle. I don't think you understand what a "trophy player" is.

 

So you think that signing Carr over 'one of the best right backs around' was genuinely because we couldn't afford Miguel (we couldn't scrape a little bit extra for a FAR superior player)?

 

How do you feel about Freddy not wanting to pay £3m for Carrick because he wanted to wait to try and get him cheaper? The money was obviously there, as he paid it for Butt instead. Do you feel Carrick wasn't worth the 3m at the time? Do you feel that Butt, the trophy signing, has been a better player for us than the prospect, Carrick, would have been?

 

As I said, address this question to macbeth and his monkey, it is the path they advocate, not me.

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

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 ?

 

 

 

End of the day, in HINDSIGHT , we have overspent on a few players. And though I was not one of them, plenty thought we spent too much on Boumsong and Owen at the time.

 

Of course, this is what I've been saying for ages. Any old smart arse can use hindsight, and plenty do.

 

To amplify my comments about Miguel, I don't necessarily think the club overspent on Owen, it is always worth going the extra mile for proven quality, it is others who advocate not doing this. Then criticise when they do.  :roll:

 

In the end, it boils down to professional judgment. The club is in the financial state it is in because of wasting transfer money on Boumsong and Luque, rather than Owen. Along with selling Bellamy. Thats not hindsight either, because I and others said that at the time too.

 

If the chairman can support his manager in the transfer market, then he is showing his aims and ambitions as best as possible, you can't say you want him to do this then criticise him if the player doesn't succeed, that is the managers judgement that has failed. You either want this approach, or you want him to exercise severe financial restraint over his manager. Which is it ?

 

 

[Guest thompers]

[Guest thompers]

What is a trophy player then? Tell me, seeing as you don't think that my assessment is correct.

[NE5]

 

[tmonkey]

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.

 

No money for Miguel, yet we had 25mill to spare to sign Rooney that same summer?

 

Care to explain that, bearing in mind that Sir Bobby wanted us to buy Miguel for 5/6mill before Euro 2004 - which Shephard refused - and the 25mill Rooney bid was made after Euro 2004?

 

If you missed the implication of this question, its all about timing - Sir Bobby wanted Miguel at a time when Shephard had a huge amount of cash tucked away, yet Shephard denied Sir Bobby those funds because Shephard had other plans for that money, ie a mammoth bid for Rooney later on. Sir Bobby wasnt to know about the Rooney interest until either just before, or during, the bid was made several months later. So put simply, Shephard manipulates the amount available to managers for whoever it is they want to spend, but spends big on players he wants once his managers' primary targets are all denied because of "lack of funds".

 

Not that you care, youre more interested in defending Shephard than debating the actual issues.

[Mick]

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!

 

I agree about the sacking being just, he should have been sacked for 3rd, 4th and 5th, we wouldn't be where we are today if we hadn't sacked him, we've never looked back since.

[NE5]

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.

 

No money for Miguel, yet we had 25mill to spare to sign Rooney that same summer?

 

Care to explain that, bearing in mind that Sir Bobby wanted us to buy Miguel for 5/6mill before Euro 2004 - which Shephard refused - and the 25mill Rooney bid was made after Euro 2004?

 

Sir Bobby wanted Miguel at a time when Shephard had a huge amount of cash tucked away, yet Shephard denied Sir Bobby those funds because he had other plans for that money, ie a mammoth bid for Rooney later on (and eventually, Owen when Souness wanted Anelka).

 

did Bobby Robson also want Rooney ? I would be staggered if he didn't.

 

I will allow macbeth and his monkey - again - to explain the importance of financial restraint to you, and while following their policy made Carr the player we got and not Miguel. They should be pleased that we did this.

 

I'm not even going to comment on preferring Anelka to Owen, its nothing other than mind blowing stupidity.

 

 

[Mick]

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.

 

Who brought Souness to the club to sort these players out?

 

My mistake, it was Ozzie.

[NE5]

What is a trophy player then? Tell me, seeing as you don't think that my assessment is correct.

 

Keegan was a trophy signing. Big player, past his best, designed to make the fans think you are a big club, when you are in the 2nd division and have no intention of living up to your potential.

 

However, a premiership club playing in europe don't make trophy signings, they make quality signings designed to go higher and win the trophies. These are players that the clubs above you want, because its the only way you will catch them and beat them.

 

Understand ?

 

 

[Guest BooBoo]

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.

 

No money for Miguel, yet we had 25mill to spare to sign Rooney that same summer?

 

Care to explain that, bearing in mind that Sir Bobby wanted us to buy Miguel for 5/6mill before Euro 2004 - which Shephard refused - and the 25mill Rooney bid was made after Euro 2004?

 

Sir Bobby wanted Miguel at a time when Shephard had a huge amount of cash tucked away, yet Shephard denied Sir Bobby those funds because he had other plans for that money, ie a mammoth bid for Rooney later on (and eventually, Owen when Souness wanted Anelka).

 

did Bobby Robson also want Rooney ? I would be staggered if he didn't.

 

I will allow macbeth and his monkey - again - to explain the importance of financial restraint to you, and while following their policy made Carr the player we got and not Miguel. They should be pleased that we did this.

 

I'm not even going to comment on preferring Anelka to Owen, its nothing other than mind blowing stupidity.

 

 

 

Oh somebody switch him off.

[NE5]

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.

 

Who brought Souness to the club to sort these players out?

 

My mistake, it was Ozzie.

 

I hope you are going to explain to these people that signing Carr instead of Miguel, was because the club was following the policy of watching the books before quality, that you keep saying they should do ?

 

TIA.

 

 

[NE5]

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.

 

No money for Miguel, yet we had 25mill to spare to sign Rooney that same summer?

 

Care to explain that, bearing in mind that Sir Bobby wanted us to buy Miguel for 5/6mill before Euro 2004 - which Shephard refused - and the 25mill Rooney bid was made after Euro 2004?

 

Sir Bobby wanted Miguel at a time when Shephard had a huge amount of cash tucked away, yet Shephard denied Sir Bobby those funds because he had other plans for that money, ie a mammoth bid for Rooney later on (and eventually, Owen when Souness wanted Anelka).

 

did Bobby Robson also want Rooney ? I would be staggered if he didn't.

 

I will allow macbeth and his monkey - again - to explain the importance of financial restraint to you, and while following their policy made Carr the player we got and not Miguel. They should be pleased that we did this.

 

I'm not even going to comment on preferring Anelka to Owen, its nothing other than mind blowing stupidity.

 

 

 

Oh somebody switch him off.

 

think for yourself instead of trotting out the cliches mate.

 

 

[Mick]

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:

 

 

 

The club haven't always overspent, they've only done it in spells and the major one was on Souness, £50 million on a manager who was clearly shit is beyond belief to most people except for Shepherd.

[Guest Ridzuan]

He should also say,"Nobody can accuse me of not hiring the right manager."

[tmonkey]

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.

 

No money for Miguel, yet we had 25mill to spare to sign Rooney that same summer?

 

Care to explain that, bearing in mind that Sir Bobby wanted us to buy Miguel for 5/6mill before Euro 2004 - which Shephard refused - and the 25mill Rooney bid was made after Euro 2004?

 

Sir Bobby wanted Miguel at a time when Shephard had a huge amount of cash tucked away, yet Shephard denied Sir Bobby those funds because he had other plans for that money, ie a mammoth bid for Rooney later on (and eventually, Owen when Souness wanted Anelka).

 

did Bobby Robson also want Rooney ? I would be staggered if he didn't.

 

I will allow macbeth and his monkey - again - to explain the importance of financial restraint to you, and while following their policy made Carr the player we got and not Miguel. They should be pleased that we did this.

 

I'm not even going to comment on preferring Anelka to Owen, its nothing other than mind blowing stupidity.

 

Scroll up a bit and see my post again, I edited it straight away to make it clearer - once you do, youll realise youve entirely missed the point of it with regards to your first question.

 

As for asking me again, its been answered in that post - we werent in a tight financial situation, there was tons of money to spend, the difference is that Robson wanted to spend it on several good players, whilst Shephard wanted to sign several budget players and splash the cash on one big summer signing. Whether he was correct to do so or not (hindsight shows he was badly mistaken) is irrelevant - its all about Shephard refusing to back his managers with regards to who they want, forcing their hand by holding back funds and eliminating those preferred players, and eventually/submissively getting approval for whoever it is that he (Shephard) wants.

[Mick]

 

:roll:

 

But the sacking of Gullit was timed ok?

 

     

 

Gullit resigned but don't let facts get in the way of a good argument, if you were a supporter then you would have known that.

[Guest thompers]

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.

 

No money for Miguel, yet we had 25mill to spare to sign Rooney that same summer?

 

Care to explain that, bearing in mind that Sir Bobby wanted us to buy Miguel for 5/6mill before Euro 2004 - which Shephard refused - and the 25mill Rooney bid was made after Euro 2004?

 

Sir Bobby wanted Miguel at a time when Shephard had a huge amount of cash tucked away, yet Shephard denied Sir Bobby those funds because he had other plans for that money, ie a mammoth bid for Rooney later on (and eventually, Owen when Souness wanted Anelka).

 

did Bobby Robson also want Rooney ? I would be staggered if he didn't.

 

I will allow macbeth and his monkey - again - to explain the importance of financial restraint to you, and while following their policy made Carr the player we got and not Miguel. They should be pleased that we did this.

 

I'm not even going to comment on preferring Anelka to Owen, its nothing other than mind blowing stupidity.

 

 

 

I'm pretty positive that Robson did want Rooney. As would every manager in the world. I'm also pretty positive that Robson, unlike Shepherd, has a brain and if given £25 million, would rather use it wisely and buy a few player rather than spend it all on Rooney. I'm sure given the opportunity he'd want Rooney, but do you think if he was given £25m and the choice of how to spend it, that he'd opt to blow the lot on Rooney? No, only one fat bastard is that stupid. How many clubs do you know that would make a £25m signing, apart from those that can afford to do so regularly? We're the only club stupid enough to throw our fortune onto one player. Liverpool can't afford £25million players, that's why they manage their resources wisely and don't put all their eggs into one basket. That is why they wins things, and it's also why we don't. It's just fucking stupid on our part, to be honest.

 

Build from the back, lay the foundations, then add a £17m Owen to your team and you might win a cup.

 

Throw a £17m Owen into a sack of shite and we'll win nothing.

 

It's quite a basic concept. I'm not in charge of a premiership football club and even I can grasp that we need foundations before the big money striker. So why is Freddy Shepherd the only man in football that doesn't grasp it?

 

Can you name me another example of a shit team blowing their budget on one player?

[NE5]

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.

 

No money for Miguel, yet we had 25mill to spare to sign Rooney that same summer?

 

Care to explain that, bearing in mind that Sir Bobby wanted us to buy Miguel for 5/6mill before Euro 2004 - which Shephard refused - and the 25mill Rooney bid was made after Euro 2004?

 

Sir Bobby wanted Miguel at a time when Shephard had a huge amount of cash tucked away, yet Shephard denied Sir Bobby those funds because he had other plans for that money, ie a mammoth bid for Rooney later on (and eventually, Owen when Souness wanted Anelka).

 

did Bobby Robson also want Rooney ? I would be staggered if he didn't.

 

I will allow macbeth and his monkey - again - to explain the importance of financial restraint to you, and while following their policy made Carr the player we got and not Miguel. They should be pleased that we did this.

 

I'm not even going to comment on preferring Anelka to Owen, its nothing other than mind blowing stupidity.

 

Scroll up a bit and see my post again, I edited it straight away to make it clearer - once you do, youll realise youve entirely missed the point of it with regards to your first question.

 

As for asking me again, its been answered in that post - we werent in a tight financial situation, there was tons of money to spend, the difference is that Robson wanted to spend it on several good players, whilst Shephard wanted to sign several budget players and splash the cash on one big summer signing. Whether he was correct to do so or not (hindsight shows he was badly mistaken) is irrelevant - its all about Shephard refusing to back his managers with regards to who they want, and forcing their hand by holding back funds and eliminating those preferred players, and eventually/submissively getting approval for whoever it is that he (Shephard) wants.

 

how do you know ? Do you have proof ? He is saying today he doesn't and hasn't.

 

I would say, possibly, that Shepherd, as with most chairman, wouldn't have heard of some of the foreigners we have bought, which blows away your opinion completely.

 

 

[Big Geordie]

Freddy in talking complete $hite shocker.  bluesleep.gif