Guest Johan Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Ok, thanks for all the response NE5. I think I understand you a bit better now. I still hope for a change of owners/board and think this one has had its glory days and wont be able to get back up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Ok, thanks for all the response NE5. I think I understand you a bit better now. I still hope for a change of owners/board and think this one has had its glory days and wont be able to get back up. Do you believe a new Board will be better than the current Board rather than worse? If better, why do you believe that and what do you think they'll do that is better? What criteria do you believe a Board should use for the selection of a manager? Why do you believe a new Board has a greater chance of making a better choice of manager than those selected by the current Board? Thanks in advance Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Ok, thanks for all the response NE5. I think I understand you a bit better now. I still hope for a change of owners/board and think this one has had its glory days and wont be able to get back up. Do you believe a new Board will be better than the current Board rather than worse? If better, why do you believe that and what do you think they'll do that is better? What criteria do you believe a Board should use for the selection of a manager? Why do you believe a new Board has a greater chance of making a better choice of manager than those selected by the current Board? Thanks in advance Last 2 appointments. 1. Souness - had blackburn in relegation places. 2. Roeder - History of relegating teams. Therefore, the selection process should filter out managers with a history of relegation troubles. You'll notice that these two appointment were the turning point from us being a top 5 club and to where we are now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2sheds Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 What a laugh this thread is. Boumsong as a replacement for Woodgate is obviously farcical - especially when we were supposed to be 'pleasantly surprised' by who the club would buy from the sale to Real Madrid. I think Glasgow Rangers were the ones 'pleasantly surprised' by that deal Anyway back to the original post Newcastle chairman Freddy Shepherd insists he has no influence over who the club sign. This is utter and total bollox as I've already posted. How does that quote square with the fat loudmouthed cock head bragging LIVE on Sky that he had bid for Rooney when Bobby was completely in the dark over the matter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 What a laugh this thread is. Boumsong as a replacement for Woodgate is obviously farcical - especially when we were supposed to be 'pleasantly surprised' by who the club would buy from the sale to Real Madrid. I think Glasgow Rangers were the ones 'pleasantly surprised' by that deal Anyway back to the original post Newcastle chairman Freddy Shepherd insists he has no influence over who the club sign. This is utter and total bollox as I've already posted. How does that quote square with the fat loudmouthed cock head bragging LIVE on Sky that he had bid for Rooney when Bobby was completely in the dark over the matter? So who was he the replacement for? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Do you agree that appointing managers with relegation troubles and/or history was the turning point from when we were a top 5 club and if so, do you therefore think that the managerial selection process was to blame and that the solution would have been to appoint managers that don't have relegation troubles and/or history? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Ok, thanks for all the response NE5. I think I understand you a bit better now. I still hope for a change of owners/board and think this one has had its glory days and wont be able to get back up. Do you believe a new Board will be better than the current Board rather than worse? If better, why do you believe that and what do you think they'll do that is better? What criteria do you believe a Board should use for the selection of a manager? Why do you believe a new Board has a greater chance of making a better choice of manager than those selected by the current Board? Thanks in advance Last 2 appointments. 1. Souness - had blackburn in relegation places. 2. Roeder - History of relegating teams. Therefore, the selection process should filter out managers with a history of relegation troubles. You'll notice that these two appointment were the turning point from us being a top 5 club and to where we are now. Souness - Had a track record that compares favourably with O'Neill, many people's idea of a good choice. Roeder - Hasn't failed yet Your last sentence is total bollocks. Souness was the appointment that was the turning point that saw us turn to cack, not Roeder. Roeder has the task of trying to turn it around, the same task Robson was faced with when he came in. It took Robson some time to get us into that top 5, it doesn't happen overnight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamesD Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 i remeber over the summer roeder coming out with a statement saying how he expected getting the team where he wanted it to be taking 4 or 5 years. It takes a while to build a team (he's playing with mostly souness's team), and the fact that people were getting on his back a month into this season is laughable. These things take time, but some people don't realize that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Ok, thanks for all the response NE5. I think I understand you a bit better now. I still hope for a change of owners/board and think this one has had its glory days and wont be able to get back up. Do you believe a new Board will be better than the current Board rather than worse? If better, why do you believe that and what do you think they'll do that is better? What criteria do you believe a Board should use for the selection of a manager? Why do you believe a new Board has a greater chance of making a better choice of manager than those selected by the current Board? Thanks in advance Last 2 appointments. 1. Souness - had blackburn in relegation places. 2. Roeder - History of relegating teams. Therefore, the selection process should filter out managers with a history of relegation troubles. You'll notice that these two appointment were the turning point from us being a top 5 club and to where we are now. Souness - Had a track record that compares favourably with O'Neill, many people's idea of a good choice. Roeder - Hasn't failed yet Your last sentence is total bollocks. Souness was the appointment that was the turning point that us turn to cack, not Roeder. Roeder has the task of trying to turn it around, the same task Robson was faced with when he came in. It took Robson some time to get us into that top 5, it doesn't happen overnight. Both are shit, and both have had relegation troubles. We had top 5 finishes before these two history-of-relegation-trouble managers were appointed. Therefore, the solution when it comes to appointing managers is to first and foremost not appoint one that has his current club in the relegation zone, and then to not appoint one that has a history of relegating clubs. It's stating (painstakingly) the obvious, and I think 99% of any prospective buyers would grasp the basics of appointing a successful manager. Something our board constantly fails to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Ok, thanks for all the response NE5. I think I understand you a bit better now. I still hope for a change of owners/board and think this one has had its glory days and wont be able to get back up. Do you believe a new Board will be better than the current Board rather than worse? If better, why do you believe that and what do you think they'll do that is better? What criteria do you believe a Board should use for the selection of a manager? Why do you believe a new Board has a greater chance of making a better choice of manager than those selected by the current Board? Thanks in advance Last 2 appointments. 1. Souness - had blackburn in relegation places. 2. Roeder - History of relegating teams. Therefore, the selection process should filter out managers with a history of relegation troubles. You'll notice that these two appointment were the turning point from us being a top 5 club and to where we are now. Souness - Had a track record that compares favourably with O'Neill, many people's idea of a good choice. Roeder - Hasn't failed yet Your last sentence is total bollocks. Souness was the appointment that was the turning point that us turn to cack, not Roeder. Roeder has the task of trying to turn it around, the same task Robson was faced with when he came in. It took Robson some time to get us into that top 5, it doesn't happen overnight. Both are shit, and both have had relegation troubles. We had top 5 finishes before these two history-of-relegation-trouble managers were appointed. Therefore, the solution when it comes to appointing managers is to first and foremost not appoint one that has his current club in the relegation zone, and then to not appoint one that has a history of relegating clubs. It's stating (painstakingly) the obvious, and I think 99% of any prospective buyers would grasp the basics of appointing a successful manager. Something our board constantly fails to do. So you agree that the appointments of Dalglish, Gullit and Robson were good ones and then say the Board constantly gets it wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Johan Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Ok, thanks for all the response NE5. I think I understand you a bit better now. I still hope for a change of owners/board and think this one has had its glory days and wont be able to get back up. Do you believe a new Board will be better than the current Board rather than worse? If better, why do you believe that and what do you think they'll do that is better? What criteria do you believe a Board should use for the selection of a manager? Why do you believe a new Board has a greater chance of making a better choice of manager than those selected by the current Board? Thanks in advance Well, I am thinking about a Belgravia takeover now. The reason why a company like that would be looking to buy a company like newcastle would be for profit. In football, success = profit. I would therefore think that they would be looking to get setup to run the club to generate those two things. Since I think Newcastle is kind of badly run at the moment I think we could be seeing some results fast. This is more of a general I dont know, hunch more than anything. Other reasons are; Newcastle and Freddy seems to have lost some respect in the football world (missing out on woody and huth and so on) and new owners could mean a fresh start Supporters are also complaining a lot and a new start could do the whole feel about the club better again. About the other questions, criteria and stuff. I just dont know how to scout out a new manager and neither does freddy it seems. I would like for us to have taken a gamble on a new and up and coming manager, freddy seems to rather go for the big names. But that is just personal preference I guess. I really dont know how to find new Wengers and Mourinhos But I would like a young teambuilding manager. Why would a new board be more successful? Again, they might have a bigger chance of attracting top names, Freddy seems to have tried and failed and got stuck with Roeder. Also Freddy seems to have an ego problem, making him trying to do to much things on his own, though I know nothing about how the club goes about getting a manager. I hope that they would hire in professionals or something. To sum up, if things are looking like they are about to go to hell you are more willing to gamble and make changes. Now things are on the up again but we have seen enough false dawns to get our hopes up, atleast it is this way for me. Great result today though! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elbee909 Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 So who was he the replacement for? I think Boumsong helped Willie McKay replace one Bentley with another two, most likely Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 i remeber over the summer roeder coming out with a statement saying how he expected getting the team where he wanted it to be taking 4 or 5 years. It takes a while to build a team (he's playing with mostly souness's team), and the fact that people were getting on his back a month into this season is laughable. These things take time, but some people don't realize that. Just because he says it'll take him 4 years doesn't mean he should be given that amount of time. In fact, it's laughable that with the amount of cash we blow on players that it'd take 4 years for a transformation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Ok, thanks for all the response NE5. I think I understand you a bit better now. I still hope for a change of owners/board and think this one has had its glory days and wont be able to get back up. Do you believe a new Board will be better than the current Board rather than worse? If better, why do you believe that and what do you think they'll do that is better? What criteria do you believe a Board should use for the selection of a manager? Why do you believe a new Board has a greater chance of making a better choice of manager than those selected by the current Board? Thanks in advance Well, I am thinking about a Belgravia takeover now. The reason why a company like that would be looking to buy a company like newcastle would be for profit. In football, success = profit. I would therefore think that they would be looking to get setup to run the club to generate those two things. Since I think Newcastle is kind of badly run at the moment I think we could be seeing some results fast. This is more of a general I dont know, hunch more than anything. Other reasons are; Newcastle and Freddy seems to have lost some respect in the football world (missing out on woody and huth and so on) and new owners could mean a fresh start Supporters are also complaining a lot and a new start could do the whole feel about the club better again. About the other questions, criteria and stuff. I just dont know how to scout out a new manager and neither does freddy it seems. I would like for us to have taken a gamble on a new and up and coming manager, freddy seems to rather go for the big names. But that is just personal preference I guess. I really dont know how to find new Wengers and Mourinhos But I would like a young teambuilding manager. Why would a new board be more successful? Again, they might have a bigger chance of attracting top names, Freddy seems to have tried and failed and got stuck with Roeder. Also Freddy seems to have an ego problem, making him trying to do to much things on his own, though I know nothing about how the club goes about getting a manager. I hope that they would hire in professionals or something. To sum up, if things are looking like they are about to go to hell you are more willing to gamble and make changes. Now things are on the up again but we have seen enough false dawns to get our hopes up, atleast it is this way for me. Great result today though! Sorry like. To many guesses in there, mate. You simply don't know. You state that the Board doesn't know how to appoint a manager yet the only one they've appointed who didn't have a track record of note is Roeder. Even Souness had a decent track record. The bottom line is there is no reason to suppose another group will have any more luck in appointing a manager than the present Board does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamesD Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 theres a difference between finishing high and actually being a top team. If we actually want to be a consitent preformer, then yes, it will take time to build a good squad and get everything into place. Keep in mind that roeder has only had one transfer window to the add players he wants and now that more information is coming out, we know that a lot of potential deals (woodgate, huth, bridge, campbell) were for the most part out of roeders hands. He needs time, and unless we can bring in a real top class manager (which i would have no problem with), there is no point sacking roeder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Ok, thanks for all the response NE5. I think I understand you a bit better now. I still hope for a change of owners/board and think this one has had its glory days and wont be able to get back up. Do you believe a new Board will be better than the current Board rather than worse? If better, why do you believe that and what do you think they'll do that is better? What criteria do you believe a Board should use for the selection of a manager? Why do you believe a new Board has a greater chance of making a better choice of manager than those selected by the current Board? Thanks in advance Last 2 appointments. 1. Souness - had blackburn in relegation places. 2. Roeder - History of relegating teams. Therefore, the selection process should filter out managers with a history of relegation troubles. You'll notice that these two appointment were the turning point from us being a top 5 club and to where we are now. Souness - Had a track record that compares favourably with O'Neill, many people's idea of a good choice. Roeder - Hasn't failed yet Your last sentence is total bollocks. Souness was the appointment that was the turning point that us turn to cack, not Roeder. Roeder has the task of trying to turn it around, the same task Robson was faced with when he came in. It took Robson some time to get us into that top 5, it doesn't happen overnight. Both are shit, and both have had relegation troubles. We had top 5 finishes before these two history-of-relegation-trouble managers were appointed. Therefore, the solution when it comes to appointing managers is to first and foremost not appoint one that has his current club in the relegation zone, and then to not appoint one that has a history of relegating clubs. It's stating (painstakingly) the obvious, and I think 99% of any prospective buyers would grasp the basics of appointing a successful manager. Something our board constantly fails to do. So you agree that the appointments of Dalglish, Gullit and Robson were good ones and then say the Board constantly gets it wrong? Dalglish was a defensive manager, should never have been appointed to manage the most attacking team in English football now, should he? Gullit was relatively inexperienced, so shouldn't have been given a chance. Robson was a good appointment. So how about this. We filter out managers that are looking to completely overhaul a team that come within a whisker of winning the league (not an issue now so we can cross that one off), we filter out managers that don't have experience and success at more than one club. We filter out managers that have relegation troubles at current clubs, and we filter out managers with history of relegating teams. Do you feel this is adequate criteria for the selection process? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2sheds Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 HTL do not pick out parts of a sentence I have posted - have the decency to highlight up to the full stop and then maybe I'll reply. After of course the ORIGINAL point has been discussed about the obese braggard and his bids for Rooney on live TV while our manager was completely in the dark Maybe then we'll talk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Souness - Had a track record that compares favourably with O'Neill, many people's idea of a good choice. How many clubs has O'Neill taken backwards? How many jobs has he been sacked from? Common sense should have told Shepherd that Souness was the wrong man for the job, whether he won trophies nearly 20 years ago in Scotland or not. I'm actually shocked that you're trying to defend his appointment, HTL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Also, wasn't it Sir John Hall who appointed Dalglish? Shepherd said so in an interview a few weeks ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Ok, thanks for all the response NE5. I think I understand you a bit better now. I still hope for a change of owners/board and think this one has had its glory days and wont be able to get back up. Do you believe a new Board will be better than the current Board rather than worse? If better, why do you believe that and what do you think they'll do that is better? What criteria do you believe a Board should use for the selection of a manager? Why do you believe a new Board has a greater chance of making a better choice of manager than those selected by the current Board? Thanks in advance Last 2 appointments. 1. Souness - had blackburn in relegation places. 2. Roeder - History of relegating teams. Therefore, the selection process should filter out managers with a history of relegation troubles. You'll notice that these two appointment were the turning point from us being a top 5 club and to where we are now. Souness - Had a track record that compares favourably with O'Neill, many people's idea of a good choice. Roeder - Hasn't failed yet Your last sentence is total bollocks. Souness was the appointment that was the turning point that saw us turn to cack, not Roeder. Roeder has the task of trying to turn it around, the same task Robson was faced with when he came in. It took Robson some time to get us into that top 5, it doesn't happen overnight. If you can't see the difference between Souness when he was brought in and O'Neill then, well, I really don't know what to say! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Johan Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Ok, thanks for all the response NE5. I think I understand you a bit better now. I still hope for a change of owners/board and think this one has had its glory days and wont be able to get back up. Do you believe a new Board will be better than the current Board rather than worse? If better, why do you believe that and what do you think they'll do that is better? What criteria do you believe a Board should use for the selection of a manager? Why do you believe a new Board has a greater chance of making a better choice of manager than those selected by the current Board? Thanks in advance Well, I am thinking about a Belgravia takeover now. The reason why a company like that would be looking to buy a company like newcastle would be for profit. In football, success = profit. I would therefore think that they would be looking to get setup to run the club to generate those two things. Since I think Newcastle is kind of badly run at the moment I think we could be seeing some results fast. This is more of a general I dont know, hunch more than anything. Other reasons are; Newcastle and Freddy seems to have lost some respect in the football world (missing out on woody and huth and so on) and new owners could mean a fresh start Supporters are also complaining a lot and a new start could do the whole feel about the club better again. About the other questions, criteria and stuff. I just dont know how to scout out a new manager and neither does freddy it seems. I would like for us to have taken a gamble on a new and up and coming manager, freddy seems to rather go for the big names. But that is just personal preference I guess. I really dont know how to find new Wengers and Mourinhos But I would like a young teambuilding manager. Why would a new board be more successful? Again, they might have a bigger chance of attracting top names, Freddy seems to have tried and failed and got stuck with Roeder. Also Freddy seems to have an ego problem, making him trying to do to much things on his own, though I know nothing about how the club goes about getting a manager. I hope that they would hire in professionals or something. To sum up, if things are looking like they are about to go to hell you are more willing to gamble and make changes. Now things are on the up again but we have seen enough false dawns to get our hopes up, atleast it is this way for me. Great result today though! Sorry like. To many guesses in there, mate. You simply don't know. You state that the Board doesn't know how to appoint a manager yet the only one they've appointed who didn't have a track record of note is Roeder. Even Souness had a decent track record. The bottom line is there is no reason to suppose another group will have any more luck in appointing a manager than the present Board does. Hey, I am a fan how am I supposed to actually KNOW things:) I dont think hardly anyone on this forum has any real clue as how the club works at the top, how the board makes decisions and so. Also, how can you judge a future board consisting of people you dont know that will be picked by other people you know very little about? Actually typing it down makes me doubt it a little but in the end my distrust and dislike of Freddy Shepherd makes me willing to take a gamble. And also arent we in some kind of financial difficulty? Then maybe we should try and get in some new financial power. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 So who was he the replacement for? I think Boumsong helped Willie McKay replace one Bentley with another two, most likely the vast majority of people on here, appeared to believe that he would be a good replacement for Woodgate. As was asked. Who was he bought to replace ? Shearer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 So who was he the replacement for? I think Boumsong helped Willie McKay replace one Bentley with another two, most likely the vast majority of people on here, appeared to believe that he would be a good replacement for Woodgate. As was asked. Who was he bought to replace ? Shearer The old trusty "everyone else's fault" huh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alan Shearer 9 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 HE DOESN'T need to defend himself, given his record he is one of the top 5 chairmans in Europe oover the past decade Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 So who was he the replacement for? I think Boumsong helped Willie McKay replace one Bentley with another two, most likely the vast majority of people on here, appeared to believe that he would be a good replacement for Woodgate. As was asked. Who was he bought to replace ? Shearer The old trusty "everyone else's fault" huh? not really. I think you should address the poster who made a daft comment to a factual point. So go and do it eh ? Fact is, Boumsong was bought to be Woodgates replacement. So why are people saying he wasn't ? Fact is also, as I said, a hell of a lot of people said he would be a good replacement. So why do they deny it ? Debate if you can. I will debate this point, but if people make daft remarks rather than address the point, then you should make your objections to them. 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