Parker

[Guest alex]

How was I supposed to know you were going to edit what you wrote the first time?  Btw: "the board fucked the good manager over in the transfer market and backed the shit manager... " is bollocks. I would never agree with the board going behind the managers back but to suggest Robson wasn't fully backed in the transfer market (despite signing some shit players for huge fees and spending a fortune) and then to have a go at the board for backing Souness is you at your simplistic and naive best. Well done 

 

Did I say "The board fucked Robson over in the transfer market all the time throughout his entire reign"? No, I f***ing didn't. I've never suggested that he wasn't backed. Fuck me. I'm wondering if you don't genuinely get what I'm trying to say or if you're purposely trying to play the arsehole?

The irony I'm just quoting what you wrote. What are you saying then? Just so we're clear.

 

If you're "just quoting what I wrote", can you please quote me saying that Robson wasn't backed.

The bit I quoted indirectly said that, i.e. he was fucked over in the transfer market. Unless I've misconstrued what you meant.

Can't you answer what I asked in the previous post btw? 

[Guest thompers]

How was I supposed to know you were going to edit what you wrote the first time?  Btw: "the board fucked the good manager over in the transfer market and backed the shit manager... " is bollocks. I would never agree with the board going behind the managers back but to suggest Robson wasn't fully backed in the transfer market (despite signing some shit players for huge fees and spending a fortune) and then to have a go at the board for backing Souness is you at your simplistic and naive best. Well done 

 

Did I say "The board fucked Robson over in the transfer market all the time throughout his entire reign"? No, I f***ing didn't. I've never suggested that he wasn't backed. Fuck me. I'm wondering if you don't genuinely get what I'm trying to say or if you're purposely trying to play the arsehole?

The irony I'm just quoting what you wrote. What are you saying then? Just so we're clear.

 

If you're "just quoting what I wrote", can you please quote me saying that Robson wasn't backed.

The bit I quoted indirectly said that, i.e. he was fucked over in the transfer market. Unless I've misconstrued what you meant.

Can't you answer what I asked in the previous post btw? 

 

So you don't consider selling players behind Robsons back as fucking Robson over? I don't need to answer what you asked, you should be able to answer yourself once you've stopped "misconstruing" what I'm saying.

[Guest alex]

How was I supposed to know you were going to edit what you wrote the first time?  Btw: "the board fucked the good manager over in the transfer market and backed the shit manager... " is bollocks. I would never agree with the board going behind the managers back but to suggest Robson wasn't fully backed in the transfer market (despite signing some shit players for huge fees and spending a fortune) and then to have a go at the board for backing Souness is you at your simplistic and naive best. Well done 

 

Did I say "The board fucked Robson over in the transfer market all the time throughout his entire reign"? No, I f***ing didn't. I've never suggested that he wasn't backed. Fuck me. I'm wondering if you don't genuinely get what I'm trying to say or if you're purposely trying to play the arsehole?

The irony I'm just quoting what you wrote. What are you saying then? Just so we're clear.

 

If you're "just quoting what I wrote", can you please quote me saying that Robson wasn't backed.

The bit I quoted indirectly said that, i.e. he was fucked over in the transfer market. Unless I've misconstrued what you meant.

Can't you answer what I asked in the previous post btw? 

 

So you don't consider selling players behind Robsons back as f***ing Robson over? I don't need to answer what you asked, you should be able to answer yourself once you've stopped "misconstruing" what I'm saying.

Thompers, I'm asking you for a brief synopsis of what your point is in this thread. Please supply, if you can. 

[Guest thompers]

How was I supposed to know you were going to edit what you wrote the first time?  Btw: "the board fucked the good manager over in the transfer market and backed the shit manager... " is bollocks. I would never agree with the board going behind the managers back but to suggest Robson wasn't fully backed in the transfer market (despite signing some shit players for huge fees and spending a fortune) and then to have a go at the board for backing Souness is you at your simplistic and naive best. Well done 

 

Did I say "The board fucked Robson over in the transfer market all the time throughout his entire reign"? No, I f***ing didn't. I've never suggested that he wasn't backed. Fuck me. I'm wondering if you don't genuinely get what I'm trying to say or if you're purposely trying to play the arsehole?

The irony I'm just quoting what you wrote. What are you saying then? Just so we're clear.

 

If you're "just quoting what I wrote", can you please quote me saying that Robson wasn't backed.

The bit I quoted indirectly said that, i.e. he was fucked over in the transfer market. Unless I've misconstrued what you meant.

Can't you answer what I asked in the previous post btw? 

 

So you don't consider selling players behind Robsons back as f***ing Robson over? I don't need to answer what you asked, you should be able to answer yourself once you've stopped "misconstruing" what I'm saying.

Thompers, I'm asking you for a brief synopsis of what your point is in this thread. Please supply, if you can. 

 

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.

[Guest alex]

So, Shepherd did interfere with Robson's transfer policy, then appointed Souness and completely changed the way he worked, backing him to the hilt but with no interference? Is that what you think happened?

[Guest thompers]

So, Shepherd did interfere with Robson's transfer policy, then appointed Souness and completely changed the way he worked, backing him to the hilt but with no interference? Is that what you think happened?

 

I'm unaware of any he sold any players behind Souness' back. If you have some inside information on this I'll be happy to retract my opinion on the matter.

[Guest alex]

So, Shepherd did interfere with Robson's transfer policy, then appointed Souness and completely changed the way he worked, backing him to the hilt but with no interference? Is that what you think happened?

 

I'm unaware of any he sold any players behind Souness' back. If you have some inside information on this I'll be happy to retract my opinion on the matter.

If the stories are true, he wanted Luque while Souness wanted Boa Morte. I'd be willing to believe that was possible. Either way, It still doesn't mean I agree Robson was fucked over when it came to transfer dealings. A player may have been sold behind his back, which is wrong, but you can't take one example and say that means he was 'fucked over' when it's totally out of context with the huge backing Robson got. For the record though I think Shepherd is too involved in the day to day running of the club and a chief executive type figure would be a good thing. That's just the impression I get though.

[Howaythelads]

Mark my words!!! Those slagging off Parker will live to regret their words. Because Parker is a quality player and along with Given has been our best and most consistant so far this season, just as they were by miles last season, he always gives 100% and hasn't just won another england cap because he is crap!

 

 

So why do you think we perform better when he's NOT playing?

 

I don't think we do, most of the games quoted above were when Shearer and Roeder took over from Soumess, we were a completely different team then! Butt has been brilliant lately so has Emre, we DO need three excellent CM with our workload and injury record though)! Parker has still been our best outfield player so far this season (as he was by miles last season), typified by his awesome performance V Watford in the Cup. He's been out for a few games injured and has been bad mouthed by some. He'll be back soon though, he'll put in a couple of awesome shifts and they'll be all sorts of attempted back peddling, absolute rubbish talked to explain why he looks so good but really isn't and the fickle ones will change there minds yet again. Everyone's entitled to their opinion its true, i'm quite confident i'm right on this one, Parker is a very very good player its up to Roeder to play him correctly and get the best out of him and we will yet again very soon. Some people have very short memories or are not happy with the true rubbish i.e. Car, Shambles and Luque being bad mouthed so unbelievably they start on the likes of Parker and Emre who are our world class players.

 

I've never changed my mind about Parker, I've always seen him as over-rated. He's no better than average at his best, you won't be getting any u-turns from me.

 

As for the comment about "world class players".....  bluelaugh.gif

[Howaythelads]

Once again, the hero is out and the team has a better shape, makes more chances and scores more goals. When will the light come on for some?

Nope, I agree Butt should take presedence now due to performances, but surely a place can be found for Parker ?

 

Not for me, mate. I'd sooner put Dyer back in the centre before Parker, assuming he was fit, that is. So it's 2 from Butt, Emre and Dyer with Parker nowhere really. I just don't think he's that good, certainly nowhere near as good as those other 3 at what they do.

[NE5]

Aye, that'll help when you're trying to get a manager in the future. If you're doing ok, we won't interfere but if you lose a few games, we'll be signing the players. Genius  Oh, and sorry for not reading your mind and realising you were editing the shite you wrote first time round  tongue.gif

 

I'm not condoning it retard-boy I'm simply stating that i would have perhaps understood if they did it to Souness, but can't understand the logic in interfering in the good managers dealings yet not interfering in the shit ones? Would you like me to break that down into playschool talk?

 

you've been doing that without realising it 

 

Back him or sack him, is the phrase you should be looking for.

 

 

[Lotus]

One of the problems i've had with Dyer in the middle (in the past) is that as soon as we get possession he's off on some run, no matter how precarious a position the player with the ball is in. Then if/when we lose it he is too far upfield to help close down the opposition. I'd prefer it if he made himself available for a simple pass more often to help his team mate out and made the Hollywood runs with a bit more discrimination.

As for Parker, i can see both sides of the arguement but the fact is we've played better with Butt & Emre. Parker will have to modify his game for the good of the team to regain his place imo. I'd also make Butt captain in his absence.

[Guest thompers]

Aye, that'll help when you're trying to get a manager in the future. If you're doing ok, we won't interfere but if you lose a few games, we'll be signing the players. Genius  Oh, and sorry for not reading your mind and realising you were editing the shite you wrote first time round  tongue.gif

 

I'm not condoning it retard-boy I'm simply stating that i would have perhaps understood if they did it to Souness, but can't understand the logic in interfering in the good managers dealings yet not interfering in the shit ones? Would you like me to break that down into playschool talk?

 

you've been doing that without realising it 

 

Back him or sack him, is the phrase you should be looking for.

 

 

 

A sure quickfire way for us to do a Leeds, when you consider Freddy's success ratio with managers.

[Howaythelads]

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.

[Syrette]

How on earth was Lua Lua a clown? He was good value given his price, age and goal-scoring record. Can't remember how much we got for him though.

[Guest thompers]

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.

[Guest Alan Shearer 9]

He was good value given his price. Can't remember how much we got for him though.

 

you absolute sausage

[Guest thompers]

he signed Bramble, a player now vililfied as shite. He also signed Viana

 

He signed Bowyer, O'Brien and Ambrose

 

Alex Ferguson lost as much on Veron in transfer fees than we did on all of those players so therefore Sir Alex is a shit manager in the transfer market and Glazier should make all the signings from now on.

 

[Guest thompers]

When should the Board have done it themselves in the way you advocate?

 

When he finished outside of the top 5.

[NE5]

When should the Board have done it themselves in the way you advocate?

 

When he finished outside of the top 5.

 

Between the 1950's and 1992 we only finished in the top 5 once, so do you think the board was running the team during those decades, or should have done

 

 

[Guest Johan]

I just want to add, lets get off parkers back. He is a great player that is usefull when played right. We just need to get behind the ones who actually gives a shit - like parker. Butt and Emre are looking good atm but I wouldnt play Emre against the top team, he has not performed in the big games that I have seen ( Though I should add that I have not seen them all ). Go Parker!

 

As for what you are saying. No the board should not interfer in transfers by saying which players to buy and stuff like that. Reality of the game is that many boards probably do. Neither should the board give 50 millions to a manager like Souness to spend as he sees fit. The board should still act to make sure things dont get out of hand. Managers in Newcastle must perform or get fired, Souness has nothing to lose in just taking all the cash he is giving and spend spend spend to try and get a quick success. If he fails? Well now he is talking crap and playing golf and we are left to wonder why all those cash was spent on players that for various reasons didnt work out.

 

So in my view; Board does not buy players but acts as a guardian of the clubs finances.

 

Or to put it another way, How the fuck could you give Graeme Muthafucking Souness 50 million? I cant understand this shit about as good a trackrecord as Martin O´Neill. On some level I guess you must have some thought as to why you would say such a thing but if you look deeper those who cant see and couldnt see then that one was a moron and the other one is pretty good should really rethink some.

 

Apart from his time at Rangers, Souness record doesnt look good at all to me, he was eventually a failure at all clubs after that. Galatasaray was perhaps for other reasons, like planting that flag and stuff.

[Guest thompers]

When should the Board have done it themselves in the way you advocate?

 

When he finished outside of the top 5.

 

Between the 1950's and 1992 we only finished in the top 5 once, so do you think the board was running the team during those decades, or should have done

 

 

 

Obviously, I don't think that the board should run the team when we don't finish outside the top 5 knerb heed, it was clear sarcasm after HTL indicated that Robson was incompetent in the transfer market, and I was pointing out that he still managed consistant top 5 finishes, so therefore it was ridiculous meddling in his transfer business. Fucking hell what a shit reply.

[NE5]

When should the Board have done it themselves in the way you advocate?

 

When he finished outside of the top 5.

 

Between the 1950's and 1992 we only finished in the top 5 once, so do you think the board was running the team during those decades, or should have done

 

 

Obviously, I don't think that the board should run the team when we don't finish outside the top 5 knerb heed, it was clear sarcasm after HTL indicated that Robson was incompetent in the transfer market, and I was pointing out that he still managed consistant top 5 finishes, so therefore it was ridiculous meddling in his transfer business. Fucking hell what a shit reply.

 

I didn't think you would understand the real point of my post.

 

 

[GM]

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?

[tmonkey]

Nope, I agree Butt should take presedence now due to performances, but surely a place can be found for Parker ?

 

Hed make a top class right back if he could be converted to that position willingly. Obviously never going to happen, but its a novel idea, not unheard of either, and he does have all the attributes youd want in a fullback - strong tackling, stamina, decent passing and crossing - no different to Zavier Zanetti in a way.

I like Parker but Javier Zanetti was world class, so there's one difference straight away.

 

Aye, but I meant in terms of attributes, hes not too dissimilar if we were to look at the basics only, whilst its also worth noting that Zanetti has played many a time in central midfield. Obviously Parker will never, ever be anywhere near as good as Zanetti, but he does remind me of a poor man's Zanetti sometimes, especially when he managers to play his way out of tight situations.

[Howaythelads]

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.