Freddy defending himself. Again. Yawn.

[Guest thompers]

The only way you go higher is to have players that the teams above you want, not players who are no better than the ones they have themselves.

 

 

So why have we signed Duff, Babayaro, Parker and Butt. Clearly, the teams above us DIDN'T want them. Surely by your logic, those signings are going to contribute nothing if we have aspirations to go higher?

[Howaythelads]

 

I didn't think you would.

 

Are you now going to say that the 30+ years of league positions are made up 

 

If you didn't think I would then why ask?

 

The 30+ years are not made up, they weren't under one chairman either so are not relevant to the thread which they were in.

 

If the league position had mentioned who was chairman then it would have been more relevant, it's like me listing all of the trophies we've won and saying that is proves Shepherd is shit, I wouldn't do that because it's a distortion of the facts, just like the 30+ years is a distortion of the facts when trying to prove Shepherd is good.

 

Give your head a shake.

 

I wasn't trying to prove Fred is good when I posted those facts. That you think I was only shows once again how stupid you are.

[Mick]

 

I wasn't trying to prove Fred is good when I posted those facts. That you think I was only shows once again how stupid you are.

 

Another bite, why not show who the chairman was for those seasons then so that we can really compare Shepherd against those.  He's taken us back 15 league places since he took over so lets see how many of those had such a negative affect.  Most will have taken us backwards, I doubt many will be -15 places and that's what we should be looking at, Shepherd hasn't relegated us yet but he's come very close.

 

You say you weren't trying to make Freddy look good, what was your point as you didn't explain that and just expected people to read your mind?

[Dinho lad]

 

:roll:

 

But the sacking of Gullit was timed ok?

 

bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif

 

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.

 

 

I laughed aswell.

[Baggio]

So Souness should take all the credit for signing Owen.

 

Nice one Graeme

[NE5]

The only way you go higher is to have players that the teams above you want, not players who are no better than the ones they have themselves.

 

 

So why have we signed Duff, Babayaro, Parker and Butt. Clearly, the teams above us DIDN'T want them. Surely by your logic, those signings are going to contribute nothing if we have aspirations to go higher?

 

because, unfortunately, we can't compete with Chelsea or ManU.

 

Get it ?

 

By YOUR logic, we should therefore not have bought these players, and gone after "trophy" ones...which I agree with if it were possible to get them.

 

 

[NE5]

 

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.

 

 

 

No I'm not going to explain that, it was Shepherd not taking notice of his manager, the manager who brought Shepherd his best 3 seasons while being given the least amount of money per season since Ardilles was manager and right up to this day.  The man who probably generated the most money for the club was given the least to invest in the squad, Fact.

 

Shepherd invests our money at the wrong times, he backs the wrong managers the most and he does it to bail himself out in desperation when things go wrong, fact.

 

he is also the chairman when we had our first 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in the top league for over 50 years - fact.

 

And he has also funded his managers to buy England players and top current internationals, unlike ALL his predecessors bar 1 - fact.

 

The rest is presumptious and without foundation, like everything else you post.

 

 

[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 ?

 

 

 

Was Owen a trophy signing?

 

A quality signing.

 

Were Gazza, Waddle and Beardsley trophy signings by Spurs and Liverpool ?

 

As you are against signing big money players, you should be happy we bought Carr instead of Miguel. So I hope in future you will praise the board for not making big money "trophy" signings, as you call them.

 

Why don't you answer questions ie the league positions that have been posted, and stick to the points discussed

 

At an absolutely critical time in our history (Shearer retiring and a replacement being needed) how can you possibly justify £17m for 11 games and 7 goals in the period of almost 17 months a "quality" signing?

 

how did you know he would be injured ? Why didn't you tell the club ?

 

To me it qualifies as a "trophy signing" because he was bought for his name value, whether he'd ever be fit seemed to be a complete afterthought (and he certainly had a dodgy record when it comes to injury.)

 

Before you start with "Owen kept us up last season", which he certainly did help to do when he was fit, I can't help but feel that the chances of avoiding relegation, or finishing 7th, would have been equal (if not greater) with a player like Anelka coming in to play the vast majority of games - with the other £9m or so being used to strengthen other desperate areas of the squad.

 

Like everything it's open to debate, and I agree with some of your points, I can't agree with this particular comment though.

 

What are you spouting these cliches for ? "trophy" signing ? Do you want the club to buy mediocre players or top quality players ?

 

 

[Guest JamesD]

they have to come to the club already willing to die for it, apparently. anyone else = not good enough for NUFC.

[Rich]

NE5:

 

Of course I didn't know he would be injured at the time (I never claimed to and made allowances for that in my original post here), but there were fairly good odds on it happening and so it has proved... I didn't realise it was August 2005 again though, we're here with the benefit of hindsight and you've called Owen a "quality" signing despite the fact he's only played 11 games for us so far. Not the most clever thing I've ever read.

 

As for the "daft cliches", didn't see any myself.

 

And as for buying "mediocre" players (is Anelka mediocre?) or "top quality players" (which is fine, apparently, even if they never play) I think you're clutching at straws. You've found another blanket statement to hide behind and I suppose you'll trot it out a hundred times again before people get bored of trying to debate with you. Basically, whatever someone says about our signings we're going to hear the same "mediocre" line from you. Just like we do with Shepherd.

 

To answer your question, though, so you can't hide behind that old line as well ("when you respond to _____") I'd prefer the top quality players if we can afford them and if they want to come here and if they're what we need squad-wise or team-wise at the point in which they arrive. It's not a black and white question you're asking because there are so many factors to consider when we buy someone. As Freddy himself might say, it's pointless buying 11 Rolls Royce cars if they're going to spend most of their time in the garage, occasionally working brilliantly for a day or two - maybe then it makes more sense to buy 11 VW's that work adequately most of the time and do a better job over a longer period.

 

Apologies for the analogy, but you can surely see the sense in it?

[NE5]

NE5:

 

Of course I didn't know he would be injured at the time (I never claimed to and made allowances for that in my original post here), but there were fairly good odds on it happening and so it has proved... I didn't realise it was August 2005 again though, we're here with the benefit of hindsight and you've called Owen a "quality" signing despite the fact he's only played 11 games for us so far. Not the most clever thing I've ever read.

 

As for the "daft cliches", didn't see any myself.

 

And as for buying "mediocre" players (is Anelka mediocre?) or "top quality players" (which is fine, apparently, even if they never play) I think you're clutching at straws. You've found another blanket statement to hide behind and I suppose you'll trot it out a hundred times again before people get bored of trying to debate with you. Basically, whatever someone says about our signings we're going to hear the same "mediocre" line from you. Just like we do with Shepherd.

 

To answer your question, though, so you can't hide behind that old line as well ("when you respond to _____") I'd prefer the top quality players if we can afford them and if they want to come here and if they're what we need squad-wise or team-wise at the point in which they arrive. It's not a black and white question you're asking because there are so many factors to consider when we buy someone. As Freddy himself might say, it's pointless buying 11 Rolls Royce cars if they're going to spend most of their time in the garage, occasionally working brilliantly for a day or two - maybe then it makes more sense to buy 11 VW's that work adequately most of the time and do a better job over a longer period.

 

Apologies for the analogy, but you can surely see the sense in it?

 

You can't criticise the club for buying Owen because he's injured !!! Nobody knew he would be injured ..... you can criticise them if you like for paying over the odds, but consider this - if you are going to pay over the odds for a proven player who will absolutely guarantee goals isn't it better than paying 5m, 6m + for players such as Luque, Boumsong etc ? Which is the bigger risk, and who would lose you the most money and who would be the biggest liability and loss on the pitch ?

 

Quality is what counts. Owen is proven quality. Same as Shearer was. Same as Rooney would have been. These players are not "trophy" players, they are top quality players. You can't have enough quality players. You should set a bar somewhere, ability-wise, if the player is above the bar, he is worth buying and if he performs he repays his fee.

 

You can find them in the lower leagues, as everyone starts somewhere, or already playing with other clubs in the top leagues. It doesn't matter, it is judgement of the manager that counts. However, big signings raise the profile of a club, they excite supporters, tells football you are to be reckoned with and most importantly of the lot - they tell your current players that you want to keep that you are a progressive club and persuade them to stay with you.

 

Sorry mate, but the phrase "trophy" players is nothing but a cliche. When I see someone say it, it tells me they are objecting to Newcastle buying quality players, which is incredible. Quality players help you to qualify for europe and hopefully win the trophies, the day you stop doing this is the day you are finished and there is no hope. Which of course is what we were like for over 3 decades whatever macbeths and his monkey say. You don't really want the club to go down this line and end up like the mackems, or as we were before, for instance ??

 

If the club had bought Anelka I would have been disappointed, because I wouldn't. I wouldn't buy him because he blows hot and cold. When he is hot he is very good, but he disappears too often for me. Wenger got him playing for a while at Arsenal but he hasn't reproduced that anywhere else, and if you want to have a successful consistent team, they you don't put inconsistent players in it.

 

 

 

 

[Howaythelads]

NE5:

 

Of course I didn't know he would be injured at the time (I never claimed to and made allowances for that in my original post here), but there were fairly good odds on it happening and so it has proved... I didn't realise it was August 2005 again though, we're here with the benefit of hindsight and you've called Owen a "quality" signing despite the fact he's only played 11 games for us so far. Not the most clever thing I've ever read.

 

As for the "daft cliches", didn't see any myself.

 

And as for buying "mediocre" players (is Anelka mediocre?) or "top quality players" (which is fine, apparently, even if they never play) I think you're clutching at straws. You've found another blanket statement to hide behind and I suppose you'll trot it out a hundred times again before people get bored of trying to debate with you. Basically, whatever someone says about our signings we're going to hear the same "mediocre" line from you. Just like we do with Shepherd.

 

To answer your question, though, so you can't hide behind that old line as well ("when you respond to _____") I'd prefer the top quality players if we can afford them and if they want to come here and if they're what we need squad-wise or team-wise at the point in which they arrive. It's not a black and white question you're asking because there are so many factors to consider when we buy someone. As Freddy himself might say, it's pointless buying 11 Rolls Royce cars if they're going to spend most of their time in the garage, occasionally working brilliantly for a day or two - maybe then it makes more sense to buy 11 VW's that work adequately most of the time and do a better job over a longer period.

 

Apologies for the analogy, but you can surely see the sense in it?

 

Andy

 

I know you aren't  a dimwit like Mick, Boo boo and the rest of the wankers.

 

Owen is quality player. To have a chance of winning anything a club needs to sign quality player AND have a qualilty manager. Chelsea flattered to deceive for years until Abramovich finally pumped in the millions. They also needed the right manager.

 

Macbeth will talk about finances above all else, he'll use a debt to further his agenda and he'll want to highlight that as much as he can, so if the club is in debt for £17m and we signed Owen for £17m he'll use that because it looks good. The fact is, Owen is quality. We needed a replacement for Shearer and we signed a player who can fill his boots. That's a great signing imo.

 

The £17m that WAS wasted was without any shadow of doubt on Boumsong and Luque, what was also wasted was the money on Parker and Emre, players we didn't need. What would have been the reaction had it been mooted we were after these players but the Board blocked it on the basis they considered ( as I do ) that we didn't need them? Wouldn't have been good, would it?  Selecting players to be signed is the remit of the manager and the manager alone. Souness selected these players for the club and the Board backed him, which is all fans can ask from a Board.

 

Had those players and other Souness signings done the business not many would be slagging the club off.  Think about it and don't blindly follow the idiots is all I ask.

 

The bottom line is that problem is and was the waste of millions by Souness, an appointment made by the Board and an appointment that is a massive error. That is all there is to it. It's not about consistent mismanagement by the Board and/or about the Board being shite. It's about one crap appointment.

[Guest fraser]

NE5:

 

 

And as for buying "mediocre" players (is Anelka mediocre?) or "top quality players" (which is fine, apparently, even if they never play) I think you're clutching at straws. You've found another blanket statement to hide behind and I suppose you'll trot it out a hundred times again before people get bored of trying to debate with you. Basically, whatever someone says about our signings we're going to hear the same "mediocre" line from you. Just like we do with Shepherd.

 

 

 

 

Apologies for intervening, but this bit doesn't make much sense. Your (Andy's) argument is that buying Owen was a risk yet you propose that Anelka would be a good buy. We all know his history and the concomitant risks in buying him. That's it, carry on.

[Rich]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, and not wanting to waste your time, but can't inconsistency be compared to someone who has a questionable injury record? Who is to say that Anelka wouldn't have came here, played every game and banged in 30 goals last term? I know it's a bit outlandish, but you surely can't criticise me for highlighting/complaining about Owen's injuries when you're using a similar basis of evidence to analyse Anelka's previous form.

 

I understand that these things in football are absolutely impossible to predict at the best of times, even for you and me, but surely there was some inkling we all had about what might happen to Owen after we spent that amount on him? (His previous injury record was fairly appalling as well, was it not?) My point is simply that it's a sure-fire case of "eggs in one basket" at a time when we desperately needed other things on top of a striker.

 

Michael Owen as a footballer and nothing else - just going purely on football ability - is a fantastic asset to any football club, you're perfectly correct here, and is well-worth £17m because he is quite possibly the best in his particular field, he is the complete poacher and has a proven record for goals (as you rightly state.) I'm glad we signed him and I'm glad we got 11 games out of him, but surely I'm allowed to question the quality of his signing because he's been crocked for so long and may not be the same player when he returns?

 

I'm not saying we were 100% wrong to sign him, definitely not, just that it was one hell of a gamble to take with such a huge chunk of money when we could have maybe signed 2 high quality strikers for the same fee. (Granted, they could have both been crocked as well, but there would have obviously been less chance of that.) I do also agree that we paid for goals, and he's upheld his end of the bargain when he's been fit.

 

The "trophy" part of my other post comes from the circumstances more than anything, although I think we may have our definitions of what it means confused. (Personally I'm coming from the angle that a major part of Owen being bought for the money was Shepherd trying to appease the ignorant masses with an England international, rather than improve the team with less "fashionable" signings - I also think he was guilty of this with Luque.) I think that £17m could have been better spent on the first team than to blow it on one player, as good as he is. Surely two/three good players are equal to one great player? (Especially when he's been injured so much.)

 

You might disagree with me here, and fair enough if you do, but I really feel we as a club need to start signing more "unfashionable" players for good money (not bad players, mind), instead of going for the headliner every time (Shearer, Rooney, Owen - mind, I wouldn't have said "no" to Rooney either as I understand where you're coming from in relation to needing star players.) Obviously there needs to be a balance, though, and we probably couldn't get by with 11 unfashionable players. Honestly though, I think I used "trophy signing" in the wrong context, I just feel the cash might have been more sensibly spent. (As with the Luque/Boumsong money!)

 

The Owen signing came at a time when Shepherd was faced with replacing Bellamy, moreso than Shearer, and I suppose this is where it gets bloody complicated. Personally, I'd still rather that Bellamy was here than Owen (as I'm sure I've seen you say as well) - but because of Souness AND Shepherd, Bellamy was forced out of the club and we needed to buy a replacement... and so we ended up with Owen for something like £12m more than we got for the Welshman, this is where my objection comes from more than anywhere.

 

To summarise, because that looks like waffle to me: I agree that Owen is top-quality, but I don't feel he was an essential buy at a time when there was so much else wrong with the squad, his injury problems have only helped to accentuate these feelings mind - I doubt I'd be complaining much if he'd kept fit and scored at the ratio he did in those 11 games!

[Howaythelads]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, and not wanting to waste your time, but can't inconsistency be compared to someone who has a questionable injury record? Who is to say that Anelka wouldn't have came here, played every game and banged in 30 goals last term? I know it's a bit outlandish, but you surely can't criticise me for highlighting/complaining about Owen's injuries when you're using a similar basis of evidence to analyse Anelka's previous form.

 

I understand that these things in football are absolutely impossible to predict at the best of times, even for you and me, but surely there was some inkling we all had about what might happen to Owen after we spent that amount on him? (His previous injury record was fairly appalling as well, was it not?) My point is simply that it's a sure-fire case of "eggs in one basket" at a time when we desperately needed other things on top of a striker.

 

Michael Owen as a footballer and nothing else - just going purely on football ability - is a fantastic asset to any football club, you're perfectly correct here, and is well-worth £17m because he is quite possibly the best in his particular field, he is the complete poacher and has a proven record for goals (as you rightly state.) I'm glad we signed him and I'm glad we got 11 games out of him, but surely I'm allowed to question the quality of his signing because he's been crocked for so long and may not be the same player when he returns?

 

I'm not saying we were 100% wrong to sign him, definitely not, just that it was one hell of a gamble to take with such a huge chunk of money when we could have maybe signed 2 high quality strikers for the same fee. (Granted, they could have both been crocked as well, but there would have obviously been less chance of that.) I do also agree that we paid for goals, and he's upheld his end of the bargain when he's been fit.

 

The "trophy" part of my other post comes from the circumstances more than anything, although I think we may have our definitions of what it means confused. (Personally I'm coming from the angle that a major part of Owen being bought for the money was Shepherd trying to appease the ignorant masses with an England international, rather than improve the team with less "fashionable" signings - I also think he was guilty of this with Luque.) I think that £17m could have been better spent on the first team than to blow it on one player, as good as he is. Surely two/three good players are equal to one great player? (Especially when he's been injured so much.)

 

You might disagree with me here, and fair enough if you do, but I really feel we as a club need to start signing more "unfashionable" players for good money (not bad players, mind), instead of going for the headliner every time (Shearer, Rooney, Owen - mind, I wouldn't have said "no" to Rooney either as I understand where you're coming from in relation to needing star players.) Obviously there needs to be a balance, though, and we probably couldn't get by with 11 unfashionable players. Honestly though, I think I used "trophy signing" in the wrong context, I just feel the cash might have been more sensibly spent. (As with the Luque/Boumsong money!)

 

The Owen signing came at a time when Shepherd was faced with replacing Bellamy, moreso than Shearer, and I suppose this is where it gets bloody complicated. Personally, I'd still rather that Bellamy was here than Owen (as I'm sure I've seen you say as well) - but because of Souness AND Shepherd, Bellamy was forced out of the club and we needed to buy a replacement... and so we ended up with Owen for something like £12m more than we got for the Welshman, this is where my objection comes from more than anywhere.

 

To summarise, because that looks like waffle to me: I agree that Owen is top-quality, but I don't feel he was an essential buy at a time when there was so much else wrong with the squad, his injury problems have only helped to accentuate these feelings mind - I doubt I'd be complaining much if he'd kept fit and scored at the ratio he did in those 11 games!

 

Andy

 

I don't know if that was directed toward me or not and I have to go, so I can't spend too much time going through your post, but I will later.  I just want to say that the biggest problems in the team after the departure of Bellamy and Robert was up front. Shearer was a spent force well before the end of last season, we did need to replace him, we should have replaced him sooner than we did. Signing a quality striker was absolutely essential, as we've seen this season.

[Guest fraser]

To summarise, because that looks like waffle to me: I agree that Owen is top-quality, but I don't feel he was an essential buy at a time when there was so much else wrong with the squad, his injury problems have only helped to accentuate these feelings mind - I doubt I'd be complaining much if he'd kept fit and scored at the ratio he did in those 11 games!

 

I don't necessarily disagree with this, I just think that to support this view Anelka as an alternative wasn't consistent. RVN would have been a better example (although not available at that time).

[NE5]

 

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, and not wanting to waste your time, but can't inconsistency be compared to someone who has a questionable injury record? Who is to say that Anelka wouldn't have came here, played every game and banged in 30 goals last term? I know it's a bit outlandish, but you surely can't criticise me for highlighting/complaining about Owen's injuries when you're using a similar basis of evidence to analyse Anelka's previous form.

 

I understand that these things in football are absolutely impossible to predict at the best of times, even for you and me, but surely there was some inkling we all had about what might happen to Owen after we spent that amount on him? (His previous injury record was fairly appalling as well, was it not?) My point is simply that it's a sure-fire case of "eggs in one basket" at a time when we desperately needed other things on top of a striker.

 

Michael Owen as a footballer and nothing else - just going purely on football ability - is a fantastic asset to any football club, you're perfectly correct here, and is well-worth £17m because he is quite possibly the best in his particular field, he is the complete poacher and has a proven record for goals (as you rightly state.) I'm glad we signed him and I'm glad we got 11 games out of him, but surely I'm allowed to question the quality of his signing because he's been crocked for so long and may not be the same player when he returns?

 

I'm not saying we were 100% wrong to sign him, definitely not, just that it was one hell of a gamble to take with such a huge chunk of money when we could have maybe signed 2 high quality strikers for the same fee. (Granted, they could have both been crocked as well, but there would have obviously been less chance of that.) I do also agree that we paid for goals, and he's upheld his end of the bargain when he's been fit.

 

The "trophy" part of my other post comes from the circumstances more than anything, although I think we may have our definitions of what it means confused. (Personally I'm coming from the angle that a major part of Owen being bought for the money was Shepherd trying to appease the ignorant masses with an England international, rather than improve the team with less "fashionable" signings - I also think he was guilty of this with Luque.) I think that £17m could have been better spent on the first team than to blow it on one player, as good as he is. Surely two/three good players are equal to one great player? (Especially when he's been injured so much.)

 

You might disagree with me here, and fair enough if you do, but I really feel we as a club need to start signing more "unfashionable" players for good money (not bad players, mind), instead of going for the headliner every time (Shearer, Rooney, Owen - mind, I wouldn't have said "no" to Rooney either as I understand where you're coming from in relation to needing star players.) Obviously there needs to be a balance, though, and we probably couldn't get by with 11 unfashionable players. Honestly though, I think I used "trophy signing" in the wrong context, I just feel the cash might have been more sensibly spent. (As with the Luque/Boumsong money!)

 

The Owen signing came at a time when Shepherd was faced with replacing Bellamy, moreso than Shearer, and I suppose this is where it gets bloody complicated. Personally, I'd still rather that Bellamy was here than Owen (as I'm sure I've seen you say as well) - but because of Souness AND Shepherd, Bellamy was forced out of the club and we needed to buy a replacement... and so we ended up with Owen for something like £12m more than we got for the Welshman, this is where my objection comes from more than anywhere.

 

To summarise, because that looks like waffle to me: I agree that Owen is top-quality, but I don't feel he was an essential buy at a time when there was so much else wrong with the squad, his injury problems have only helped to accentuate these feelings mind - I doubt I'd be complaining much if he'd kept fit and scored at the ratio he did in those 11 games!

 

Fair points and it isn't a waste of time at all, unlike responding to people with agendas etc 

 

It is true that Owen had had a fair few niggling injuries. Be honest though, and when we signed him, most of us were delighted, whether you considered him as a replacement for Bellamy [expensive] or Shearer [as near as dammit to anyone anywhere]. I don't think he had had any injuries like the ones he has had since he joined us, he has not been out for a season anyway. Shearer also had a career threatening injury at Blackburn, then he proceeded to have 2 more after he joined us ? Would you consider him to be a risk ? The only reservation we should have about Owen is his committment to Newcastle, not his ability that is without question. I suspect though that if he comes back the same as he was and we can put a good team around him he will come to be a real Newcastle player and respond to the adulation he would get if he performs.

 

I'm not so sure it was a case of all the eggs in one basket when we bought him, how can it be when we were in europe and expecting to stay near and with the other top teams ? In THAT position, players like Owen are what you want. My own personal take on him is that he was signed as the long term replacement for Shearer, and the club need a Bellamy type lower profile player to play alongside him, obviously for less money as we can't afford 2 such priced forwards.

 

I think Bellamy and Owen together would have been brilliant, on a par with Cole and Beardsley ie two fast players keeping the ball down as opposed to 2 more physical players ie Shearer and Ferdinand. Bellamy would have been the perfect partner for Owen.

 

Anyway mate, he's been very badly injured and now we just have to hope he comes back the same and gives us something back.

In the short term though, the club needs a player in January to step straight into the team, and that player needs to be a player who can lead the line and play outside the box, along with scoring a few goals, because looking ahead to when Owen returns, this is the type of player he needs to be paired up with. Not much to ask is it  :winking:

 

 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

I'm not sure I follow the arguments re Miguel and Rooney.

 

We had been told for a while that there was a Shearer replacement fund - i.e. funds specifically earmarked for signing a striker.

 

The Rooney bid and subsequent Owen signing came from this fund, either from years of saving or more liekly a cute deal with Northern Rock.

 

The Miguel/Carr fund was from the annual transfer budget (as it goes I too would have preferred Miguel, but could see the sense in signing Carr as he was proven Premiership quality).

 

No-one seems to have acknowledged that the Rooney bid came after we had agreed to sell Woodgate - bringing in £10m plus into the coffers after fees, bonuses etc were paid.

 

So whilst 2004 did appear to be a summer of chairman signings vs manager signings, I very much douby that funds were withheld from a fullback to bid for Rooney (who at the time had made no indication of wanting to leave Everton either)

[Rich]

NE5:

 

Of course I didn't know he would be injured at the time (I never claimed to and made allowances for that in my original post here), but there were fairly good odds on it happening and so it has proved... I didn't realise it was August 2005 again though, we're here with the benefit of hindsight and you've called Owen a "quality" signing despite the fact he's only played 11 games for us so far. Not the most clever thing I've ever read.

 

As for the "daft cliches", didn't see any myself.

 

And as for buying "mediocre" players (is Anelka mediocre?) or "top quality players" (which is fine, apparently, even if they never play) I think you're clutching at straws. You've found another blanket statement to hide behind and I suppose you'll trot it out a hundred times again before people get bored of trying to debate with you. Basically, whatever someone says about our signings we're going to hear the same "mediocre" line from you. Just like we do with Shepherd.

 

To answer your question, though, so you can't hide behind that old line as well ("when you respond to _____") I'd prefer the top quality players if we can afford them and if they want to come here and if they're what we need squad-wise or team-wise at the point in which they arrive. It's not a black and white question you're asking because there are so many factors to consider when we buy someone. As Freddy himself might say, it's pointless buying 11 Rolls Royce cars if they're going to spend most of their time in the garage, occasionally working brilliantly for a day or two - maybe then it makes more sense to buy 11 VW's that work adequately most of the time and do a better job over a longer period.

 

Apologies for the analogy, but you can surely see the sense in it?

 

Andy

 

I know you aren't  a dimwit like Mick, Boo boo and the rest of the wankers.

 

Owen is quality player. To have a chance of winning anything a club needs to sign quality player AND have a qualilty manager. Chelsea flattered to deceive for years until Abramovich finally pumped in the millions. They also needed the right manager.

 

Macbeth will talk about finances above all else, he'll use a debt to further his agenda and he'll want to highlight that as much as he can, so if the club is in debt for £17m and we signed Owen for £17m he'll use that because it looks good. The fact is, Owen is quality. We needed a replacement for Shearer and we signed a player who can fill his boots. That's a great signing imo.

 

The £17m that WAS wasted was without any shadow of doubt on Boumsong and Luque, what was also wasted was the money on Parker and Emre, players we didn't need. What would have been the reaction had it been mooted we were after these players but the Board blocked it on the basis they considered ( as I do ) that we didn't need them? Wouldn't have been good, would it?  Selecting players to be signed is the remit of the manager and the manager alone. Souness selected these players for the club and the Board backed him, which is all fans can ask from a Board.

 

Had those players and other Souness signings done the business not many would be slagging the club off.  Think about it and don't blindly follow the idiots is all I ask.

 

The bottom line is that problem is and was the waste of millions by Souness, an appointment made by the Board and an appointment that is a massive error. That is all there is to it. It's not about consistent mismanagement by the Board and/or about the Board being shite. It's about one crap appointment.

 

I'm certainly not following anyone, and I hope it doesn't come across that way, I'm just trying to find some middle ground between the two camps that seem to develop over every important issue on here. In all honesty a lot of the time I find myself finding things on both sides of the divide that I can agree with and honestly that's the only way I'm ever going to get a true picture of things.

 

I can't accept that you and NE5 are right 100% of the time in everything you say, much like I can't for Mick or Macbeth.

 

For example, you've just claimed that the board's only real error came with the appointment of Souness and the subsequent millions thrown his way (a pretty monumental fuck-up, by all accounts), but I have to point to previous errors of the regime that have boiled my piss in equal measure. (Robson's sacking, the Gary Speed issue, the "Bowyer Summer" and the NOTW scandal - to name some.) Everyone makes mistakes, mind.

 

However, by the same token I appreciate the finer points of what Shepherd has done for us as well... like you said, Robson proved to be a quality appointment and took us on one fantastic Champions' League campaign and one great UEFA Cup run, all under the stewardship of Shepherd and we've retained our Premiership status under his rule while spending large sums of money on players and improving the ground/training facilities immeasurably and we've had some fantastic games that I'll never forget. Freddy as a chairmen surely isn't as bad as he's made out to be.

 

NUFC as a club has the makings of something pretty special and admittedly a lot of that is down to Fat Freddy, I do get extremely annoyed with him sometimes, but I also get that way with the players and the manager - it's part and parcel of his job, he takes the flak and I get over it when the good times come along again.

 

Right now I'm in two minds over the takeover business because a part of me can't help but feel that we're not achieving our potential and we've done everything else BUT change the board, if you know what I mean? I would support a complete board/staff overhaul if I knew things would be run the way I think they should be... but, of course, I could never know that. There are so many things that go on at the club that embarrass me and I can't help but point the finger to the big chief because of them, because the buck ultimately stops with him.

 

Maybe it's better the devil you know, though. Belgravia could come in and absolutely rape us, ripping the soul of the club out in the process. At least Shepherd is a Geordie and he probably does give a toss about how we do, he has some personal investment in us because he's from here. He has already taken us to some heights... so who's to say that he can't take us the whole way to a trophy if given some more time?

 

But I can't help but feel that takeovers are the current "trend" and due to what has happened at Chelsea, Spurs, Portsmouth, Villa, Man Utd and West Ham (all have seemingly improved since being bought, to varying degrees) then we think that if it happens to us we'll go the same way. That's why so many people are eager for him to go because of the difference takeovers have made elsewhere.

 

Basically, I don't blame Freddy for everything, but I do tend to think that NUFC, for our size/potential, leave a lot to be desired and that he is at the root of a fair few of our problems, but again he's also there to take credit for the good things as well. Urgh, I suppose I'm trying to say I'm not entirely sure either way!

[Mick]

 

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.

 

 

 

No I'm not going to explain that, it was Shepherd not taking notice of his manager, the manager who brought Shepherd his best 3 seasons while being given the least amount of money per season since Ardilles was manager and right up to this day.  The man who probably generated the most money for the club was given the least to invest in the squad, Fact.

 

Shepherd invests our money at the wrong times, he backs the wrong managers the most and he does it to bail himself out in desperation when things go wrong, fact.

 

he is also the chairman when we had our first 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in the top league for over 50 years - fact.

 

And he has also funded his managers to buy England players and top current internationals, unlike ALL his predecessors bar 1 - fact.

 

The rest is presumptious and without foundation, like everything else you post.

 

 

 

Did Seymour buy the current England captain when he signed Keegan?

 

Did sir Bobby spend the least amount of money per year of his job since Ardilles?  The figures are easy to find.

 

I did presume that Sir Bobby generated the most money, I guessed that taking us so far in the CL and the three high league finishes plus the UEFA semi would have done that, do you doubt it?

[Mick]

 

how did you know he would be injured ? Why didn't you tell the club ?

 

 

 

 

How did you know Souness would be shite?

 

Why didn't you tell the club?

 

You're clueless when it comes to sticking up for your mentor, totally clueless. bluebiggrin.gif

[Rich]

 

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, and not wanting to waste your time, but can't inconsistency be compared to someone who has a questionable injury record? Who is to say that Anelka wouldn't have came here, played every game and banged in 30 goals last term? I know it's a bit outlandish, but you surely can't criticise me for highlighting/complaining about Owen's injuries when you're using a similar basis of evidence to analyse Anelka's previous form.

 

I understand that these things in football are absolutely impossible to predict at the best of times, even for you and me, but surely there was some inkling we all had about what might happen to Owen after we spent that amount on him? (His previous injury record was fairly appalling as well, was it not?) My point is simply that it's a sure-fire case of "eggs in one basket" at a time when we desperately needed other things on top of a striker.

 

Michael Owen as a footballer and nothing else - just going purely on football ability - is a fantastic asset to any football club, you're perfectly correct here, and is well-worth £17m because he is quite possibly the best in his particular field, he is the complete poacher and has a proven record for goals (as you rightly state.) I'm glad we signed him and I'm glad we got 11 games out of him, but surely I'm allowed to question the quality of his signing because he's been crocked for so long and may not be the same player when he returns?

 

I'm not saying we were 100% wrong to sign him, definitely not, just that it was one hell of a gamble to take with such a huge chunk of money when we could have maybe signed 2 high quality strikers for the same fee. (Granted, they could have both been crocked as well, but there would have obviously been less chance of that.) I do also agree that we paid for goals, and he's upheld his end of the bargain when he's been fit.

 

The "trophy" part of my other post comes from the circumstances more than anything, although I think we may have our definitions of what it means confused. (Personally I'm coming from the angle that a major part of Owen being bought for the money was Shepherd trying to appease the ignorant masses with an England international, rather than improve the team with less "fashionable" signings - I also think he was guilty of this with Luque.) I think that £17m could have been better spent on the first team than to blow it on one player, as good as he is. Surely two/three good players are equal to one great player? (Especially when he's been injured so much.)

 

You might disagree with me here, and fair enough if you do, but I really feel we as a club need to start signing more "unfashionable" players for good money (not bad players, mind), instead of going for the headliner every time (Shearer, Rooney, Owen - mind, I wouldn't have said "no" to Rooney either as I understand where you're coming from in relation to needing star players.) Obviously there needs to be a balance, though, and we probably couldn't get by with 11 unfashionable players. Honestly though, I think I used "trophy signing" in the wrong context, I just feel the cash might have been more sensibly spent. (As with the Luque/Boumsong money!)

 

The Owen signing came at a time when Shepherd was faced with replacing Bellamy, moreso than Shearer, and I suppose this is where it gets bloody complicated. Personally, I'd still rather that Bellamy was here than Owen (as I'm sure I've seen you say as well) - but because of Souness AND Shepherd, Bellamy was forced out of the club and we needed to buy a replacement... and so we ended up with Owen for something like £12m more than we got for the Welshman, this is where my objection comes from more than anywhere.

 

To summarise, because that looks like waffle to me: I agree that Owen is top-quality, but I don't feel he was an essential buy at a time when there was so much else wrong with the squad, his injury problems have only helped to accentuate these feelings mind - I doubt I'd be complaining much if he'd kept fit and scored at the ratio he did in those 11 games!

 

Fair points and it isn't a waste of time at all, unlike responding to people with agendas etc 

 

It is true that Owen had had a fair few niggling injuries. Be honest though, and when we signed him, most of us were delighted, whether you considered him as a replacement for Bellamy [expensive] or Shearer [as near as dammit to anyone anywhere]. I don't think he had had any injuries like the ones he has had since he joined us, he has not been out for a season anyway. Shearer also had a career threatening injury at Blackburn, then he proceeded to have 2 more after he joined us ? Would you consider him to be a risk ? The only reservation we should have about Owen is his committment to Newcastle, not his ability that is without question. I suspect though that if he comes back the same as he was and we can put a good team around him he will come to be a real Newcastle player and respond to the adulation he would get if he performs.

 

I'm not so sure it was a case of all the eggs in one basket when we bought him, how can it be when we were in europe and expecting to stay near and with the other top teams ? In THAT position, players like Owen are what you want. My own personal take on him is that he was signed as the long term replacement for Shearer, and the club need a Bellamy type lower profile player to play alongside him, obviously for less money as we can't afford 2 such priced forwards.

 

I think Bellamy and Owen together would have been brilliant, on a par with Cole and Beardsley ie two fast players keeping the ball down as opposed to 2 more physical players ie Shearer and Ferdinand. Bellamy would have been the perfect partner for Owen.

 

Anyway mate, he's been very badly injured and now we just have to hope he comes back the same and gives us something back.

In the short term though, the club needs a player in January to step straight into the team, and that player needs to be a player who can lead the line and play outside the box, along with scoring a few goals, because looking ahead to when Owen returns, this is the type of player he needs to be paired up with. Not much to ask is it  :winking:

 

 

Can't disagree with much of that, and especially agree with the final paragraph. I feel dirty :wink:

[Guest Johan]

Dont know if this has been debated before but is there anyone else who thinks that NE5 is payed by the club to defend it on forums?

[Baggio]

I'm not so sure it was a case of all the eggs in one basket when we bought him, how can it be when we were in europe and expecting to stay near and with the other top teams ? In THAT position, players like Owen are what you want.

 

Except we hadn't qualified for Europe, we were near the bottom of the table and hadn't even scored a goal in the league.

 

A replacement for Bellamy should have been bought as soon as the transfer window opened, not fanny about and end up paying over the odds for two strikers just before the window closed. We were desperate in the end due to poor planning and both Madrid and Deportivo took advantage of that.

 

[NE5]

 

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.

 

 

 

No I'm not going to explain that, it was Shepherd not taking notice of his manager, the manager who brought Shepherd his best 3 seasons while being given the least amount of money per season since Ardilles was manager and right up to this day.  The man who probably generated the most money for the club was given the least to invest in the squad, Fact.

 

Shepherd invests our money at the wrong times, he backs the wrong managers the most and he does it to bail himself out in desperation when things go wrong, fact.

 

he is also the chairman when we had our first 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in the top league for over 50 years - fact.

 

And he has also funded his managers to buy England players and top current internationals, unlike ALL his predecessors bar 1 - fact.

 

The rest is presumptious and without foundation, like everything else you post.

 

 

 

Did Seymour buy the current England captain when he signed Keegan?

 

Did sir Bobby spend the least amount of money per year of his job since Ardilles?  The figures are easy to find.

 

I did presume that Sir Bobby generated the most money, I guessed that taking us so far in the CL and the three high league finishes plus the UEFA semi would have done that, do you doubt it?

 

yawn.

 

Signing Keegan, past his best and unable to play in the top league any more, you compare that to buying Owen and Woodgate ?

 

You are a joke.

 

30+ years of fighting relegation and playing in the 2nd division, against qualifying regularly for europe ?

 

You are a joke.