***The Quote-tastic thread***

[TRC]

I'd say someone in the RVN/Lineker mould would be ideal. Someone who is always in the box, although I can't think of anyone, so Roeder definately won't.

[Dinho lad]

I'd say someone in the RVN/Lineker mould would be ideal. Someone who is always in the box, although I can't think of anyone, so Roeder definately won't.

 

Franny Jeffers?!

[TRC]

 

Montella, but to be fair to the lad, Freddy will never have heard of him.

[Captain Underpants]

Dont know if posted before but ;

 

Spurs agree fee for new Huddlestone

09:13 January, 2, 2007

Tottenham have raided Derby County again, this time for Giles Barnes.

 

Mail The FansFC Editor

Send This Article To A Friend

Post Your View on The Msg Board

 

Tottenham have recruited another Ram, after having mixed success in the past with Championship recruits.

 

Gregor Rasiak didn't succeed at Spurs, while Tom Huddlestone has impressed many with his 'Hoddlesque' displays.

 

Spurs will hope they've unearthed another Huddlestone and will expect to get full value for money from the £2.5million they've splashed out for the 18-year-old.

 

 

 

http://www.fansfc.com/frontpage/frontpagenews.asp?newsid=160930

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Fansfc

[Decky]

http://www.fansfc.com/frontpage/frontpagenews.asp?newsid=160967

 

Spot the odd team out

[GeordieDazzler]

Dont know if posted before but ;

 

Spurs agree fee for new Huddlestone

09:13 January, 2, 2007

Tottenham have raided Derby County again, this time for Giles Barnes.

 

Mail The FansFC Editor

Send This Article To A Friend

Post Your View on The Msg Board

 

Tottenham have recruited another Ram, after having mixed success in the past with Championship recruits.

 

Gregor Rasiak didn't succeed at Spurs, while Tom Huddlestone has impressed many with his 'Hoddlesque' displays.

 

Spurs will hope they've unearthed another Huddlestone and will expect to get full value for money from the £2.5million they've splashed out for the 18-year-old.

 

 

 

http://www.fansfc.com/frontpage/frontpagenews.asp?newsid=160930

 

How can he be the new huddlestone? he plays in a completely different position, and Hudd's not a worldbeater yet (like some spurs fans think). Its like hailing a new defender the new Peter Ramage...

 

tbh I wish this 'he's the new so and so' shite would dissapear

[OzzieMandias]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.

 

Is that your reply?

 

Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault?

 

On what evidence did he make that appointment?

 

He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence!

 

Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football?

 

 

What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn?

 

I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.

 

 

 

So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't?

 

So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough  :lol:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight 

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

 

 

I wonder if Dalglish lied to Fat Fred about his intentions, or whether Fat Fred simply forgot to ask the question: "What would be your intentions concerning playing style and the development of the squad?" Or perhaps Fat Fred thought it was a great idea to transform us from vibrant flair team and title contenders to boring mid-table plodders.

 

 

[Guest thompers]

You dick heads whinging about talking about the board has given NE5 a get out clause to not answer my post which clearly he was struggling with

[Guest smoggeordie]

Apparently SSN are reporting that Fulham are about to bid for Titus

[junkhead]

they're welcome

[oldtype]

In my FM game, Bramble moved to Fulham and went on to be the core of their defense for 10 seasons.

 

....

 

8 of those were in the Championship.

 

Lets hope this is a case of fiction reflecting reality

[Scribble]

In my FM game, Bramble moved to Fulham and went on to be the core of their defense for 10 seasons.

 

....

 

8 of those were in the Championship.

 

Lets hope this is a case of fiction reflecting reality

 

 

 

The Times today also mentioned that we are looking at signing James Beattie.

I think he would be good if available on the cheap (providing he can get his form back from a season or two ago of course).

 

In the same paper, Given has also urged Roeder to sign players soon, preferably this week to avoid them being cup-tied at the weekend.

 

[Disco]

In my FM game, Bramble moved to Fulham and went on to be the core of their defense for 10 seasons.

 

....

 

8 of those were in the Championship.

 

Lets hope this is a case of fiction reflecting reality

 

 

 

The Times today also mentioned that we are looking at signing James Beattie.

I think he would be good if available on the cheap (providing he can get his form back from a season or two ago of course).

 

In the same paper, Given has also urged Roeder to sign players soon, preferably this week to avoid them being cup-tied at the weekend.

 

 

Don't think that'll matter tbh

[gray]

warnock tbh

[Guest stormrider]

In my FM game, Bramble moved to Fulham and went on to be the core of their defense for 10 seasons.

 

....

 

8 of those were in the Championship.

 

Lets hope this is a case of fiction reflecting reality

 

the game's reality engine needs to be redesigned.

bramble would take fulham to the conference after 10 seasons, not only to the championship

[Guest nufc 4 life]

[

I would like Drogba, he is what Les Ferdinand was like - apart from the diving - but we can't afford him because Chelsea have destroyed the transfer market.

 

 

 

Aye, that's the only reason he wouldn't pull on a black and white shirt like

 

Jesus f***ing wept.

 

why wouldn't he ?

 

Plenty of other big players have done.

 

Don't you believe in the team you support ? You should support the mackems if you are such a defeatist.

 

Make me laugh people like you, you say the team should be winning all these trophies, then say the players who would win them wouldn't want to join us  :lol:

 

Because he is one of the most in form strikers in the world at the moment playing for one of the best teams. Regardless of what Chelsea have done to the transfer market he would cost a stupid amount of money and would have no reason to come here.

 

 

eeeeeeerrrrrrrr............my point is I know he wouldn't leave Chelsea but the idea is if Newcastle were challenging them, in a hypothetical sense, which was a speculative question. For instance, when Keegan was here, or when Shearer came, after all if Owen signed why wouldn't someone else ? I hope when people start threads like "who would you like to sign if you could sign anybody" you make similar comments to here ..... who would YOU like to sign. Don't tell me, Wayne bloody Bridge  :lol: :lol:

 

Roeder almost had him at West Ham for 2mil 2 years ago, but they got relegated lmao

[NE5]

Well, Freddy said that they all want to come here and you know how much NE5 trusts him so:)

 

speaks the man with massive experience of Newcastle 

[NE5]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.

 

Is that your reply?

 

Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault?

 

On what evidence did he make that appointment?

 

He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence!

 

Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football?

 

 

What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn?

 

I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.

 

 

 

So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't?

 

So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough  :lol:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight 

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

 

 

I wonder if Dalglish lied to Fat Fred about his intentions, or whether Fat Fred simply forgot to ask the question: "What would be your intentions concerning playing style and the development of the squad?" Or perhaps Fat Fred thought it was a great idea to transform us from vibrant flair team and title contenders to boring mid-table plodders.

 

 

 

Welcome back to the resident mackem WUM. Still supporting your man Souness are you  Dished the dirt on the club to a shitbag London journo lately ?

 

 

[eaststar]

I was just watching Adelaide United from the Australian A-League and I thought -

"Hey! Why don't we sign Carl Veart from Adelaide United?"

He has experience in England with Crystal Palace....

He's a young 38 and the 'strong' type of striker we are looking for and I'm sure he would link up well with Martins...and even better with Ameobi....

I'm sure he'd give his all for the team - and that's what GR is looking for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Morph]

Dont know if posted before but ;

 

Spurs agree fee for new Huddlestone

09:13 January, 2, 2007

Tottenham have raided Derby County again, this time for Giles Barnes.

 

Mail The FansFC Editor

Send This Article To A Friend

Post Your View on The Msg Board

 

Tottenham have recruited another Ram, after having mixed success in the past with Championship recruits.

 

Gregor Rasiak didn't succeed at Spurs, while Tom Huddlestone has impressed many with his 'Hoddlesque' displays.

 

Spurs will hope they've unearthed another Huddlestone and will expect to get full value for money from the £2.5million they've splashed out for the 18-year-old.

 

 

 

http://www.fansfc.com/frontpage/frontpagenews.asp?newsid=160930

 

How can he be the new huddlestone? he plays in a completely different position, and Hudd's not a worldbeater yet (like some spurs fans think). Its like hailing a new defender the new Peter Ramage...

 

tbh I wish this 'he's the new so and so' shite would dissapear

 

Barnes hasn't left for spurs.  Doubt he will do either considering that young lad they've just got.  Derby fans recon he's on his way though, and they don't actually seem that bothered, as long as they get some money for him.

[Guest Bellers]

Dont know if posted before but ;

 

Spurs agree fee for new Huddlestone

09:13 January, 2, 2007

Tottenham have raided Derby County again, this time for Giles Barnes.

 

Mail The FansFC Editor

Send This Article To A Friend

Post Your View on The Msg Board

 

Tottenham have recruited another Ram, after having mixed success in the past with Championship recruits.

 

Gregor Rasiak didn't succeed at Spurs, while Tom Huddlestone has impressed many with his 'Hoddlesque' displays.

 

Spurs will hope they've unearthed another Huddlestone and will expect to get full value for money from the £2.5million they've splashed out for the 18-year-old.

 

 

 

http://www.fansfc.com/frontpage/frontpagenews.asp?newsid=160930

 

How can he be the new huddlestone? he plays in a completely different position, and Hudd's not a worldbeater yet (like some spurs fans think). Its like hailing a new defender the new Peter Ramage...

 

tbh I wish this 'he's the new so and so' shite would dissapear

 

Barnes hasn't left for spurs.  Doubt he will do either considering that young lad they've just got.  Derby fans recon he's on his way though, and they don't actually seem that bothered, as long as they get some money for him.

 

Tbf that's hardly an indication of his quality, they'll be resigned to losing anyone half decent that comes throught their ranks.

 

I think your right about Spurs though, they already have more midfielders than they need...

[Guest thompers]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.

 

Is that your reply?

 

Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault?

 

On what evidence did he make that appointment?

 

He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence!

 

Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football?

 

 

What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn?

 

I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.

 

 

 

So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't?

 

So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough  :lol:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight 

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend.

 

:winking:

 

Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record.

 

Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'.

 

I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character. Are you learning yet?

 

so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ?

 

What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ?

 

Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time.

 

 

Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet?

 

why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD.

 

is it sinking in yet ?

 

And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ?

 

 

 

Because if he didn't know better than you then surely he'd have the sense to hire a director of football, in order to protect his investment better? He's made several poor appointments, not one, because as I explained earlier none of the appointments paid off with a trophy. We should expect to have won a trophy, as expectations are set by the amount of money spent. We established this by pointing out that Man Utd/Chelsea both consider 2nd place failure. Therefore, as the next highest spending club, 5th should be considered failure. Right? But wait, we haven't been 5th since Bobby left. So we're currently even lower than our under achieving average. Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off. Has any of the appointments Shepherd has made paid off, when you consider the high expectations (which relate to the money spent)?

 

NE5? No response?

[Howaythelads]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.

 

Is that your reply?

 

Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault?

 

On what evidence did he make that appointment?

 

He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence!

 

Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football?

 

 

What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn?

 

I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.

 

 

 

So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't?

 

So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough  :lol:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight 

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend.

 

:winking:

 

Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record.

 

Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'.

 

I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character. Are you learning yet?

 

so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ?

 

What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ?

 

Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time.

 

 

Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet?

 

why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD.

 

is it sinking in yet ?

 

And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ?

 

 

 

Because if he didn't know better than you then surely he'd have the sense to hire a director of football, in order to protect his investment better? He's made several poor appointments, not one, because as I explained earlier none of the appointments paid off with a trophy. We should expect to have won a trophy, as expectations are set by the amount of money spent. We established this by pointing out that Man Utd/Chelsea both consider 2nd place failure. Therefore, as the next highest spending club, 5th should be considered failure. Right? But wait, we haven't been 5th since Bobby left. So we're currently even lower than our under achieving average. Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off. Has any of the appointments Shepherd has made paid off, when you consider the high expectations (which relate to the money spent)?

 

NE5? No response?

 

Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off.

 

So explain the criteria for appointing a manager that will definitely pay off.

 

You can also explain why it is guaranteed a replacement for the current Board will appoint this manager who will pay off.

 

While you're at it you can also explain what happens if any new Board does appoint the right manager but that manager isn't backed by the new Board to build his team.

[Guest thompers]

So explain the criteria for appointing a manager that will definitely pay off.

 

 

if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.

 

Why are you asking me what criteria should be used? As I've already pointed out....

Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers.

 

I'm NOT a man paid millions to make these decisions so therefore Shepherd should know what criteria should be used to appoint a successful manager. Afterall, the Liverpool board can do it, and Shepherd is higher paid so he should know what criteria to use.

 

 

Why should I be able to identify the criteria? I'm not paid millions? Why should Shepherd be able to identify the criteria? Because he's paid millions to do so. How many times must I say this before it sinks in.

 

You can also explain why it is guaranteed a replacement for the current Board will appoint this manager who will pay off.

 

I'll explain that when you explain where I've indicated such. Boring. So we shouldn't want a new board in case they're also incompetent at managerial appointments? Maybe we shouldn't have hated Souness "because the new manager might be shit too"?

 

While you're at it you can also explain what happens if any new Board does appoint the right manager but that manager isn't backed by the new Board to build his team.

 

Unlikely when you consider the figures that would have to be invested for a takeover, if the new board didn't back their managers it would be a disasterous business decision as their investment would fail, they'd lose millions and millions. Would somebody clever enough to be able to raise £100m+ to buy the club be stupid enough not to invest after a takeover? I doubt it.