Howaythelads Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 I didn't think you would understand the real point of my post. To be fair, who the F*** understands the real point of ANY of your posts? WOOP! WOOP! IDIOT ALERT!!! bluelaugh.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SLK Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 That if, as a chairman, you're going to interfere in transfer activity, at least interfere in the transfer activity of the shit manager and not the good one. Ok, let's treat this ridiculous concept as serious for a moment. Let's take a look at 2 managers most will agree did a good job at Newcastle, Keegan and Robson. Keegan - Track record = None. Transfers - Well I know we were in a very poor position (although some don't realise it ) but KK's second signing was a total shite one in Darren MacDonough. Who was Peter Garland? KK's 4th signing. Keegan shifted him out only months after signing him, so he must count as a mistake. Not a very good start in the transfer market and the club was skint, it was vital to get it right because the club couldn't afford too many mistakes. So at what point should the Board have thought...." Hmm, we should do this ourselves". Robson - Track record = Very Good Transfers - His first two signings, Helder and Gallacher were sound. He also got rid of the players who hadn't been performing under Gullit, like Maric who turned out not to want to be at the club (like Luque now). However, Robson's next signing was Gavilan, followed by Bassedas, then Cort, then the clown Lua Lua and also Wayne Quinn. The only player who was decent value in that period was Acuna. Robson didn't get it right until he'd been at the club for nearly 2 years, at which time signed Bellamy and Robert. Where should it have ended with Robson? When should the Board have done it themselves in the way you advocate? He wasted a lot of money. Even after gettting it right with Bellamy and Robert he went on to sign Jenas, he signed Bramble, a player now vililfied as shite. He also signed Viana. Those last 3 players costing a lot of money. He signed Bowyer, O'Brien and Ambrose. Not many rated those 3 players that highly. Think about what you're saying. Without side tracking this topic into Robson's player signing track record...I had to point out that I wouldn't consider Jenas, Lua Lua and Bowyer as a bad buys...Jenas did well in the first season and we sold him for good money and made profit. Lua Lua played well for us and scored good number of goals and vital ones, it was his attitude that was the problem not his skills and still sold him for a reasonable profit. Bowyer was a free agent and did reasonably well for us and got some money for him when we sold him to Westham... Also Ambrose and O'Brien did a job for us and got our money back for both of them... I still thing Bramble is ok for the amount of money we paid for his signature... The only ones that I think were a waste of money were Carl Cort, Bassedas, Wayne Quinn, Gavilan and Hugo Viana which I think he would have done alright if shown a bit more patience and faith by the manager and supporters... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Even after gettting it right with Bellamy and Robert he went on to sign Jenas So you consider Jenas, a player we made a £4million profit on as a poor signing? I agree, shit bit of business there! Think about what you're saying. Defeated by the debate, so you're ignoring the point. Well done, thompers. I'm not even surprised, which is a shame. You'll note that I didn't ignore the point and that there were 2 further replies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 That if, as a chairman, you're going to interfere in transfer activity, at least interfere in the transfer activity of the shit manager and not the good one. Ok, let's treat this ridiculous concept as serious for a moment. Let's take a look at 2 managers most will agree did a good job at Newcastle, Keegan and Robson. Keegan - Track record = None. Transfers - Well I know we were in a very poor position (although some don't realise it ) but KK's second signing was a total shite one in Darren MacDonough. Who was Peter Garland? KK's 4th signing. Keegan shifted him out only months after signing him, so he must count as a mistake. Not a very good start in the transfer market and the club was skint, it was vital to get it right because the club couldn't afford too many mistakes. So at what point should the Board have thought...." Hmm, we should do this ourselves". Robson - Track record = Very Good Transfers - His first two signings, Helder and Gallacher were sound. He also got rid of the players who hadn't been performing under Gullit, like Maric who turned out not to want to be at the club (like Luque now). However, Robson's next signing was Gavilan, followed by Bassedas, then Cort, then the clown Lua Lua and also Wayne Quinn. The only player who was decent value in that period was Acuna. Robson didn't get it right until he'd been at the club for nearly 2 years, at which time signed Bellamy and Robert. Where should it have ended with Robson? When should the Board have done it themselves in the way you advocate? He wasted a lot of money. Even after gettting it right with Bellamy and Robert he went on to sign Jenas, he signed Bramble, a player now vililfied as shite. He also signed Viana. Those last 3 players costing a lot of money. He signed Bowyer, O'Brien and Ambrose. Not many rated those 3 players that highly. Think about what you're saying. Without side tracking this topic into Robson's player signing track record...I had to point out that I wouldn't consider Jenas, Lua Lua and Bowyer as a bad buys...Jenas did well in the first season and we sold him for good money and made profit. Lua Lua played well for us and scored good number of goals and vital ones, it was his attitude that was the problem not his skills and still sold him for a reasonable profit. Bowyer was a free agent and did reasonably well for us and got some money for him when we sold him to Westham... Also Ambrose and O'Brien did a job for us and got our money back for both of them... I still thing Bramble is ok for the amount of money we paid for his signature... The only ones that I think were a waste of money were Carl Cort, Bassedas, Wayne Quinn, Gavilan and Hugo Viana which I think he would have done alright if shown a bit more patience and faith by the manager and supporters... These players you list as the shite buys were in the main the first ones made by Robson. So under the criteria offered by thompers shouldn't the Board have taken over the responsiblity from Robson regarding the signing and sale of players? Upto the signings of Bellamy and Robert he'd proven to be pretty inept in the transfer market for Newcastle United. That's the point I'm making, because thompers believes a good manager should get a free reign but a crap one should suffer interference by the Board. How do you determine the point in time when the Board interferes? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Even after gettting it right with Bellamy and Robert he went on to sign Jenas So you consider Jenas, a player we made a £4million profit on as a poor signing? I agree, shit bit of business there! Think about what you're saying. Defeated by the debate, so you're ignoring the point. Well done, thompers. I'm not even surprised, which is a shame. You'll note that I didn't ignore the point and that there were 2 further replies. Both a load of bollocks, tbh. The fact is, your criteria for accepting interference from the Board is stupid. Using the same kind of measure applied to all managers would have meant Robson having decisions taken out of his hands well before he signed Bellamy and Robert. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Even after gettting it right with Bellamy and Robert he went on to sign Jenas So you consider Jenas, a player we made a £4million profit on as a poor signing? I agree, shit bit of business there! Think about what you're saying. Defeated by the debate, so you're ignoring the point. Well done, thompers. I'm not even surprised, which is a shame. You'll note that I didn't ignore the point and that there were 2 further replies. Both a load of bollocks, tbh. The fact is, your criteria for accepting interference from the Board is stupid. Using the same kind of measure applied to all managers would have meant Robson having decisions taken out of his hands well before he signed Bellamy and Robert. Everybody had faith in Bobby before he got Bellers and Robert though, nobody had any in Souness from the start. I find it amazing that you couldn't grasp that one yourself though without me having to point the obvious out to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 thompers believes a good manager should get a free reign but a crap one should suffer interference by the Board Go fuck yourself, misquoting me again to try and back up your shitty dim-witted argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Even after gettting it right with Bellamy and Robert he went on to sign Jenas So you consider Jenas, a player we made a £4million profit on as a poor signing? I agree, shit bit of business there! Think about what you're saying. Defeated by the debate, so you're ignoring the point. Well done, thompers. I'm not even surprised, which is a shame. You'll note that I didn't ignore the point and that there were 2 further replies. Both a load of bollocks, tbh. The fact is, your criteria for accepting interference from the Board is stupid. Using the same kind of measure applied to all managers would have meant Robson having decisions taken out of his hands well before he signed Bellamy and Robert. Everybody had faith in Bobby before he got Bellers and Robert though, nobody had any in Souness from the start. I find it amazing that you couldn't grasp that one yourself though without me having to point the obvious out to you. there was quite a number of people backing Souness, and backing the board to let him build his team. You are suffering from selective memory loss, like many others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 I didn't think you would understand the real point of my post. To be fair, who the fuck understands the real point of ANY of your posts? Obviously not you. I feel sad for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Even after gettting it right with Bellamy and Robert he went on to sign Jenas So you consider Jenas, a player we made a £4million profit on as a poor signing? I agree, shit bit of business there! Think about what you're saying. Defeated by the debate, so you're ignoring the point. Well done, thompers. I'm not even surprised, which is a shame. You'll note that I didn't ignore the point and that there were 2 further replies. Both a load of bollocks, tbh. The fact is, your criteria for accepting interference from the Board is stupid. Using the same kind of measure applied to all managers would have meant Robson having decisions taken out of his hands well before he signed Bellamy and Robert. Everybody had faith in Bobby before he got Bellers and Robert though, nobody had any in Souness from the start. I find it amazing that you couldn't grasp that one yourself though without me having to point the obvious out to you. there was quite a number of people backing Souness, and backing the board to let him build his team. You are suffering from selective memory loss, like many others. Ok, first off, shut up. Secondly, nobody wanted him, people just decided that whinging would get us nowhere so decided to give him a chance. A bit different from having any sort of faith in him. I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Even after gettting it right with Bellamy and Robert he went on to sign Jenas So you consider Jenas, a player we made a £4million profit on as a poor signing? I agree, shit bit of business there! Think about what you're saying. Defeated by the debate, so you're ignoring the point. Well done, thompers. I'm not even surprised, which is a shame. You'll note that I didn't ignore the point and that there were 2 further replies. Both a load of bollocks, tbh. The fact is, your criteria for accepting interference from the Board is stupid. Using the same kind of measure applied to all managers would have meant Robson having decisions taken out of his hands well before he signed Bellamy and Robert. Everybody had faith in Bobby before he got Bellers and Robert though, nobody had any in Souness from the start. I find it amazing that you couldn't grasp that one yourself though without me having to point the obvious out to you. there was quite a number of people backing Souness, and backing the board to let him build his team. You are suffering from selective memory loss, like many others. Ok, first off, shut up. Secondly, nobody wanted him, people just decided that whinging would get us nowhere so decided to give him a chance. A bit different from having any sort of faith in him. I think. Spot on but if you look at it that way how can they try and turn the blame onto everyone else? Not fair tbh! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Even after gettting it right with Bellamy and Robert he went on to sign Jenas So you consider Jenas, a player we made a £4million profit on as a poor signing? I agree, shit bit of business there! Think about what you're saying. Defeated by the debate, so you're ignoring the point. Well done, thompers. I'm not even surprised, which is a shame. You'll note that I didn't ignore the point and that there were 2 further replies. Both a load of bollocks, tbh. The fact is, your criteria for accepting interference from the Board is stupid. Using the same kind of measure applied to all managers would have meant Robson having decisions taken out of his hands well before he signed Bellamy and Robert. Everybody had faith in Bobby before he got Bellers and Robert though, nobody had any in Souness from the start. I find it amazing that you couldn't grasp that one yourself though without me having to point the obvious out to you. there was quite a number of people backing Souness, and backing the board to let him build his team. You are suffering from selective memory loss, like many others. Ok, first off, shut up. Secondly, nobody wanted him, people just decided that whinging would get us nowhere so decided to give him a chance. A bit different from having any sort of faith in him. I think. Spot on but if you look at it that way how can they try and turn the blame onto everyone else? Not fair tbh! I'm not blaming anyone. Just think those people who said we should back Souness shouldn't deny it/make excuses etc etc ..... I'm also laughing at thompers saying we should interfere with managers, then shouldn't.......yeh but no but.....should be on Little Britain Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 thompers believes a good manager should get a free reign but a crap one should suffer interference by the Board Go F*** yourself, misquoting me again to try and back up your shitty dim-witted argument. bluelaugh.gif Misquoting you? Your position is how I described it and is clear by your posts. You think the Board should interfere in the transfer dealings if the manager is shite but not if the manager is good. How do you determine when the manager is shite? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Even after gettting it right with Bellamy and Robert he went on to sign Jenas So you consider Jenas, a player we made a £4million profit on as a poor signing? I agree, shit bit of business there! Think about what you're saying. Defeated by the debate, so you're ignoring the point. Well done, thompers. I'm not even surprised, which is a shame. You'll note that I didn't ignore the point and that there were 2 further replies. Both a load of bollocks, tbh. The fact is, your criteria for accepting interference from the Board is stupid. Using the same kind of measure applied to all managers would have meant Robson having decisions taken out of his hands well before he signed Bellamy and Robert. Everybody had faith in Bobby before he got Bellers and Robert though, nobody had any in Souness from the start. I find it amazing that you couldn't grasp that one yourself though without me having to point the obvious out to you. there was quite a number of people backing Souness, and backing the board to let him build his team. You are suffering from selective memory loss, like many others. Ok, first off, shut up. Secondly, nobody wanted him, people just decided that whinging would get us nowhere so decided to give him a chance. A bit different from having any sort of faith in him. I think. That's how I felt tbh. I would have liked to have seen him sacked (or rather not appointed in the first place) but once Shepherd had appointed him you had to give Souness a chance, at first at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 thompers believes a good manager should get a free reign but a crap one should suffer interference by the Board Go F*** yourself, misquoting me again to try and back up your shitty dim-witted argument. bluelaugh.gif Misquoting you? Your position is how I described it and is clear by your posts. You think the Board should interfere in the transfer dealings if the manager is shite but not if the manager is good. How do you determine when the manager is shite? Why are you still doing it? Please quote where I said that I think the board should interfere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 thompers believes a good manager should get a free reign but a crap one should suffer interference by the Board Go F*** yourself, misquoting me again to try and back up your shitty dim-witted argument. bluelaugh.gif Misquoting you? Your position is how I described it and is clear by your posts. You think the Board should interfere in the transfer dealings if the manager is shite but not if the manager is good. How do you determine when the manager is shite? Why are you still doing it? Please quote where I said that I think the board should interfere. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,33560.msg643650.html#msg643650 The only conclusion to be drawn from your answer to that straight question is that if the manager is shite the Board should interfere. I've asked you more than once now how you determine the point at which a manager is judged to be shit other than his performance for Newcastle United, in order to know when the Board should interfere, but you haven't replied. You can try a reply now, if you like. Try to remember that for almost 2 years Robson signed mainly crap players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 thompers believes a good manager should get a free reign but a crap one should suffer interference by the Board Go F*** yourself, misquoting me again to try and back up your shitty dim-witted argument. bluelaugh.gif Misquoting you? Your position is how I described it and is clear by your posts. You think the Board should interfere in the transfer dealings if the manager is shite but not if the manager is good. How do you determine when the manager is shite? Why are you still doing it? Please quote where I said that I think the board should interfere. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,33560.msg643650.html#msg643650 The only conclusion to be drawn from your answer to that straight question is that if the manager is shite the Board should interfere. I've asked you more than once now how you determine the point at which a manager is judged to be shit other than his performance for Newcastle United, in order to know when the Board should interfere, but you haven't replied. You can try a reply now, if you like. Try to remember that for almost 2 years Robson signed mainly crap players. So I haven't actually said it and you're just "drawing conclusions"? I haven't replied because I'm sick of stating the obvious and think you're a ****. You talk shit. NE5 actually sometimes contructs a productive argument, but you're just shit. Pathetic and shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 thompers believes a good manager should get a free reign but a crap one should suffer interference by the Board Go F*** yourself, misquoting me again to try and back up your shitty dim-witted argument. bluelaugh.gif Misquoting you? Your position is how I described it and is clear by your posts. You think the Board should interfere in the transfer dealings if the manager is shite but not if the manager is good. How do you determine when the manager is shite? Why are you still doing it? Please quote where I said that I think the board should interfere. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,33560.msg643650.html#msg643650 The only conclusion to be drawn from your answer to that straight question is that if the manager is shite the Board should interfere. I've asked you more than once now how you determine the point at which a manager is judged to be shit other than his performance for Newcastle United, in order to know when the Board should interfere, but you haven't replied. You can try a reply now, if you like. Try to remember that for almost 2 years Robson signed mainly crap players. So I haven't actually said it and you're just "drawing conclusions"? I haven't replied because I'm sick of stating the obvious and think you're a ****. You talk shit. NE5 actually sometimes contructs a productive argument, but you're just shit. Pathetic and shit. CONCLUSION: 5. a reasoned deduction or inference. You said enough for it to be obvious what you're claiming, despite how stupid and unbelievable it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 thompers believes a good manager should get a free reign but a crap one should suffer interference by the Board Go F*** yourself, misquoting me again to try and back up your shitty dim-witted argument. bluelaugh.gif Misquoting you? Your position is how I described it and is clear by your posts. You think the Board should interfere in the transfer dealings if the manager is shite but not if the manager is good. How do you determine when the manager is shite? Why are you still doing it? Please quote where I said that I think the board should interfere. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,33560.msg643650.html#msg643650 The only conclusion to be drawn from your answer to that straight question is that if the manager is shite the Board should interfere. I've asked you more than once now how you determine the point at which a manager is judged to be shit other than his performance for Newcastle United, in order to know when the Board should interfere, but you haven't replied. You can try a reply now, if you like. Try to remember that for almost 2 years Robson signed mainly crap players. So I haven't actually said it and you're just "drawing conclusions"? I haven't replied because I'm sick of stating the obvious and think you're a ****. You talk shit. NE5 actually sometimes contructs a productive argument, but you're just shit. Pathetic and shit. CONCLUSION: 5. a reasoned deduction or inference. You said enough for it to be obvious what you're claiming, despite how stupid and unbelievable it is. No, I stated that I could understand it if it was a shit manager. I could reason with it. I never, NOT ONCE, ZERO TIMES, said that I think that they SHOULD interfere. What I have been suggesting is that if they do feel that they must interfere, at least interfere when Souness is blowing £50m instead of interfering when Bobby is trying to sign Carrick and Miguel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 thompers believes a good manager should get a free reign but a crap one should suffer interference by the Board Go F*** yourself, misquoting me again to try and back up your shitty dim-witted argument. bluelaugh.gif Misquoting you? Your position is how I described it and is clear by your posts. You think the Board should interfere in the transfer dealings if the manager is shite but not if the manager is good. How do you determine when the manager is shite? Why are you still doing it? Please quote where I said that I think the board should interfere. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,33560.msg643650.html#msg643650 The only conclusion to be drawn from your answer to that straight question is that if the manager is shite the Board should interfere. I've asked you more than once now how you determine the point at which a manager is judged to be shit other than his performance for Newcastle United, in order to know when the Board should interfere, but you haven't replied. You can try a reply now, if you like. Try to remember that for almost 2 years Robson signed mainly crap players. So I haven't actually said it and you're just "drawing conclusions"? I haven't replied because I'm sick of stating the obvious and think you're a ****. You talk shit. NE5 actually sometimes contructs a productive argument, but you're just shit. Pathetic and shit. CONCLUSION: 5. a reasoned deduction or inference. You said enough for it to be obvious what you're claiming, despite how stupid and unbelievable it is. No, I stated that I could understand it if it was a shit manager. I could reason with it. I never, NOT ONCE, ZERO TIMES, said that I think that they SHOULD interfere. What I have been suggesting is that if they do feel that they must interfere, at least interfere when Souness is blowing £50m instead of interfering when Bobby is trying to sign Carrick and Miguel. In response to a straight question of whether or not you believe a Board should interfere in team affairs you said that it depends on the manager. The clear meaning of your answer is that if you don't rate the manager you think it's fine for the Board to interfere in team affairs. I think that's a fair conclusion to make from your statement. Now if you're claiming that reasonable conclusion is incorrect then perhaps you believe the Board should interfere when a manager is doing a good job. An idiotic view like this is entirely possible in your case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 thompers believes a good manager should get a free reign but a crap one should suffer interference by the Board Go F*** yourself, misquoting me again to try and back up your shitty dim-witted argument. bluelaugh.gif Misquoting you? Your position is how I described it and is clear by your posts. You think the Board should interfere in the transfer dealings if the manager is shite but not if the manager is good. How do you determine when the manager is shite? Why are you still doing it? Please quote where I said that I think the board should interfere. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,33560.msg643650.html#msg643650 The only conclusion to be drawn from your answer to that straight question is that if the manager is shite the Board should interfere. I've asked you more than once now how you determine the point at which a manager is judged to be shit other than his performance for Newcastle United, in order to know when the Board should interfere, but you haven't replied. You can try a reply now, if you like. Try to remember that for almost 2 years Robson signed mainly crap players. So I haven't actually said it and you're just "drawing conclusions"? I haven't replied because I'm sick of stating the obvious and think you're a ****. You talk shit. NE5 actually sometimes contructs a productive argument, but you're just shit. Pathetic and shit. CONCLUSION: 5. a reasoned deduction or inference. You said enough for it to be obvious what you're claiming, despite how stupid and unbelievable it is. No, I stated that I could understand it if it was a shit manager. I could reason with it. I never, NOT ONCE, ZERO TIMES, said that I think that they SHOULD interfere. What I have been suggesting is that if they do feel that they must interfere, at least interfere when Souness is blowing £50m instead of interfering when Bobby is trying to sign Carrick and Miguel. In response to a straight question of whether or not you believe a Board should interfere in team affairs you said that it depends on the manager. The clear meaning of your answer is that if you don't rate the manager you think it's fine for the Board to interfere in team affairs. I think that's a fair conclusion to make from your statement. Now if you're claiming that reasonable conclusion is incorrect then perhaps you believe the Board should interfere when a manager is doing a good job. An idiotic view like this is entirely possible in your case. "It depends who is manager" was more of a sarcastic swipe at Souness and a swipe at how Bobby was treated than any true portrayal of my opinion on transfer interference. Does this clear up your incorrect perception of my posts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 thompers believes a good manager should get a free reign but a crap one should suffer interference by the Board Go F*** yourself, misquoting me again to try and back up your shitty dim-witted argument. bluelaugh.gif Misquoting you? Your position is how I described it and is clear by your posts. You think the Board should interfere in the transfer dealings if the manager is shite but not if the manager is good. How do you determine when the manager is shite? Why are you still doing it? Please quote where I said that I think the board should interfere. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,33560.msg643650.html#msg643650 The only conclusion to be drawn from your answer to that straight question is that if the manager is shite the Board should interfere. I've asked you more than once now how you determine the point at which a manager is judged to be shit other than his performance for Newcastle United, in order to know when the Board should interfere, but you haven't replied. You can try a reply now, if you like. Try to remember that for almost 2 years Robson signed mainly crap players. So I haven't actually said it and you're just "drawing conclusions"? I haven't replied because I'm sick of stating the obvious and think you're a ****. You talk shit. NE5 actually sometimes contructs a productive argument, but you're just shit. Pathetic and shit. CONCLUSION: 5. a reasoned deduction or inference. You said enough for it to be obvious what you're claiming, despite how stupid and unbelievable it is. No, I stated that I could understand it if it was a shit manager. I could reason with it. I never, NOT ONCE, ZERO TIMES, said that I think that they SHOULD interfere. What I have been suggesting is that if they do feel that they must interfere, at least interfere when Souness is blowing £50m instead of interfering when Bobby is trying to sign Carrick and Miguel. In response to a straight question of whether or not you believe a Board should interfere in team affairs you said that it depends on the manager. The clear meaning of your answer is that if you don't rate the manager you think it's fine for the Board to interfere in team affairs. I think that's a fair conclusion to make from your statement. Now if you're claiming that reasonable conclusion is incorrect then perhaps you believe the Board should interfere when a manager is doing a good job. An idiotic view like this is entirely possible in your case. "It depends who is manager" was more of a sarcastic swipe at Souness and a swipe at how Bobby was treated than any true portrayal of my opinion on transfer interference. Does this clear up your incorrect perception of my posts? If you say so then I'll accept that's what you meant to say. It's a forum, you should think about the lack of any body language when you write a post because it's not what you actually did say. I think you're a little bit daft thompers, but you're nowhere near being a total arsehole like mick, macbeth, booboo and a few others. I don't think you're a liar, so ok, I'll accept what you're saying. All managers get the bullet at some stage and it's never, ever very pretty when they do. Robson had lost the plot ages before he went, which could be seen in the team performances from the latter stages of when we finished 3rd right through the following season. He did a great job during his time but he had to go, so I don't have any great hang up about how he was treated. I'm more pissed off than most though about the replacement. Total disaster. Had the replacement been a good one ( like Robson himself replacing Gullit ) we wouldn't be writing these type of posts right now because people like you wouldn't bang on the way you do about the Board. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SLK Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 thompers believes a good manager should get a free reign but a crap one should suffer interference by the Board Go F*** yourself, misquoting me again to try and back up your shitty dim-witted argument. bluelaugh.gif Misquoting you? Your position is how I described it and is clear by your posts. You think the Board should interfere in the transfer dealings if the manager is shite but not if the manager is good. How do you determine when the manager is shite? Why are you still doing it? Please quote where I said that I think the board should interfere. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,33560.msg643650.html#msg643650 The only conclusion to be drawn from your answer to that straight question is that if the manager is shite the Board should interfere. I've asked you more than once now how you determine the point at which a manager is judged to be shit other than his performance for Newcastle United, in order to know when the Board should interfere, but you haven't replied. You can try a reply now, if you like. Try to remember that for almost 2 years Robson signed mainly crap players. I don't think those players were ALL crap...Remember Robson inherited a sinking ship. A number of players from the Guliet era had to be shown the door and Newcastle didn't have a lot of money to spend on the quite large number of players who needed to be recruited to patch up the holes... Those "crappy" players as you call them that Robson had to buy in the first 2 years to steady the ship did actually just that STEADIED THE SHIP...Once we started climbing up the ladder and were safe from relegation, our goals were to aim for higher finishing and that required upgrading and improving the squad even more which meant getting rid of some of those players that Robon bought himself in the first 2 years as they were not good enough anymore for the new levels the club was aiming to reach and challeng the regular league leaders... Waynne Quinn was better than what we had when Bobby first came into the club Bassedas was hit and miss I admit that Carl Cort didn't improve the team at all, neither did Gavilan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SLK Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 BTW, Board and chairman should NEVER interfer into the manager's job when it comes to whom the manager thinks he wants to recruit... 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