Looks like we really have no money

[BottledDog]

Bravo

 

 

of course, getting another board who lack ambition like the old one, is impossible and simply will not happen to us

 

No board with ambition would employ Souness and Roeder.

 

You'll now come out with Liverpool employing Souness so I'll just remind you that Liverpool employed Souness after he'd been a success at Rangers, we employed him after he'd been a failure at Liverpool and beyond.

 

Quite, and if we are talking players (Francis Lee/Darren Bent etc), you could pull such examples for any board including the current one strangely enough.

 

For instance when Robson wanted Miguel, the board held back and then chose to provide Carr instead. Was that an example of ambition?

 

 

If you really think this board haven't shown they have had ambition, then you must have been living on Mars.

 

Quite simply, if they say they didn't have the money to buy Miguel then that will be fact, unless of course you are one of those who slate them for spending money then also slate them for not spending money.

 

What did you think of spending 6m on Marcelino, 4m on Goma, 4m on Domi and 4.5m on Pistone ?

 

 

They had more than enough money to buy him when Robson asked for him. The board stalled and when his price rocketed, bought Carr.

 

Marcelino, Goma, Domi and Pistone? Poor to middling buys, but as you argue yourself, you have to back the manager you appoint, right?

 

so whats your stance on this ? Should the club spend big money on defenders or not ? Tell us what you think, then don't go back on your response when you feel like slating the club whatever they do. I had a feeling you would be thick enough not to grasp the point.

 

I have no stance on it. It is another example of the idiotic debates that you start to help you prance around the main points, usually around the time you get frustrated and feel the need to ramp up the insults.

I couldn't give a toss how much or little we spend on defenders if the end result benefits the club. I only hope for the club to use the money wisely, just as I'm sure you were suggesting when you got all excited over the possibility of Francis Lee, and it is something that Shepherd and his managers have for the most part failed to do.

[Guest Johan]

The dynamic duo is back I see. Would like to ask NE5 the same questions I asked HTL.

 

Above all I would like to know, are you truly still happy with the board? And if so, why? I would also like it if you did not answer with "It is better than the one we had in the 80´s"

 

Listen mate, at the end of the day, you know very little about this club. People like me and HTL attempt to wise you up but you don't listen or want to listen. I don't mean to sound patronising, but you give me very little choice.

 

Newcastle United does not have a divine right to be one of the top clubs in the country. There are numerous other clubs who were above us for decades - that should not have been. That could just as easily happen again if we really did have a shite board. Look down the road at Sunderland if you don't believe me. That is, if you know where Sunderland is or know anything about them and their potential too. Take these comments on board if you like, or don't if you don't want to, but if you wish to remain largely ignorant of the reality of our situation and the progress we have made under this board, that is your choice.

 

 

 

I guess I should thank you and HTL for your "education" then  As some of the posters here have said, no I dont think we have some kind of divine right to be in the top four or anything. However I think that there right now is a lot of potential in the club and its brand. We happened to have some success at exactly the right time when football really exploded and in a way I think we are still living on some of that which Keegan and the board at that time built up. 

 

Maybe this is where the biggest difference in opinions between me and the two of you lie. I really think that Newcastle as a brand and club have the potential to be some kind of a dark horse in the premiership year after year and maybe you dont?

 

Maybe we also differ in the way we look at the club, I see it more as a business that should operate as such. If the man in charge fail, he gets replaced. Even if we dont change owners we could hire someone to run the club, like Kenyon at Chelsea.

 

If i where to sum this up into a question for you to answer it would be something like. Dont you think that the success we have had motivates raising the goals of the club and the expectations of the fans? Or does prior success excuse mistakes and bad times that comes after?

 

PS. yes I know what Sunderland is and where it is located. Though my father raised me to never motivate my failures by saying stuff like " that guy did even worse"

 

the alternative, and difference in outlook, is quite simple

 

I support the football club, from the heart. And have a realistic view of football as such.

 

You support the "brand", and if you wish to support a "brand", you should have chosen a more successful "brand" if the 5th best in the country over the span of a decade isn't enough for you.

 

And, in football terms, it is far from "failure", as 87 other clubs will tell you, especially when they all watch us playing - again - in the UEFA Cup soon.

 

Whether you like it or not, the current board, since taking over the club in 1992, HAVE raised the expectations of the club and supporters during their time in charge. This is what myself, HTL and one or two others are trying to put across. So you are back to square 1. Accept it or not.

 

 

 

 

What makes you say that I support the "brand"? Sure, I use the word and I feel that you use that as a way to dodge some of my points and questions. I dont really like the way football works these days but it is the world we live in and you have to deal with it best you can.

 

As for you last point, yeah sure. That is exactly what I said. They have been successful, there is no question about that.  That doesnt mean that they will continue to be that. Football like everything else is in constant change and no matter what you think of it you have to change as well or get left behind. With other clubs changing owners and getting new cash in through investment will we be able to keep being the fifth club in England?

 

As for accepting or not, this is an internet forum. Its about debating things and for me personally also a chance to learn how to better type and read english and learn about other things. Its not like I think that what I post here will change anything with regards to the clubs ownership structure.

 

 

unfortunately, there is indeed no guarantee that they will continue to be more successful. Neither is there a guarantee that a replacement board will be as successful as the current board. This is what I am saying.

 

Well done.

 

 

 

I have to compliment you, you are one shrewd debater.

 

As for you lastest post I agree to what you say, though I feel that you are saying a bit more than that elsewhere in your other posts. Sure the debate here are a bit onesided and pointing out the merits of this board and the uncertainty of any new board seems wise.

 

But what really dont understand about you and HTL are your strong defence of Freddy in so many topics, do you really feel that he is such a good chairman?

 

Dont you have any understanding for the opinion that if you make a really colossal (IMO) mistake like the appointment of Souness after the poor handling SBR you should go as well?

 

There are also other alternatives to changing the whole board. We could, as most companys today, have a passive owner and hire someone else as CEO etc. Like that Kenyon at Chelsea and Gill att Man Utd if I am not mistaken.  

[Howaythelads]

 

I have to compliment you, you are one shrewd debater.

 

As for you lastest post I agree to what you say, though I feel that you are saying a bit more than that elsewhere in your other posts. Sure the debate here are a bit onesided and pointing out the merits of this board and the uncertainty of any new board seems wise.

 

But what really dont understand about you and HTL are your strong defence of Freddy in so many topics, do you really feel that he is such a good chairman?

 

Dont you have any understanding for the opinion that if you make a really colossal (IMO) mistake like the appointment of Souness after the poor handling SBR you should go as well?

 

There are also other alternatives to changing the whole board. We could, as most companys today, have a passive owner and hire someone else as CEO etc. Like that Kenyon at Chelsea and Gill att Man Utd if I am not mistaken. 

 

I am not defending "Freddy in so many topics." I'm pointing out where people are posting rubbish, where they are attributing responsibility to the Chairman that really rests with the manager and even with the players. Such as Robson putting out weakened teams in a competition we could have won or the players failing to turn up on the big day. Apparently everything is down to the Chairman and the Board. The fact they have given successive managers more than adequate resources to bring some success to the club yet failed to do that is the fault of the board??? We could have won the FA Cup the League Cup and the Uefa Cup under this board had the managers got it right on the day, had the players turned up and performed at all in line with their ability. Those things not happening are not the responsibility of the board, they are the responsibility of the manager. (Cue the drone about, "who appoints the manager", blah blah blah)

 

BTW I could just as easily mention the "slating of Freddy in so many topics." I have never started a thread in order to praise the Board, I reply to those who continually post ignoring how far we've come under the current Board. If you want to interpret that as a belief I think the current lot are fantastic and can do no wrong, then you are as wrong as some of the others. They have made mistakes, bad mistakes but imo not bad enough that I'd like them to be replaced just yet.

[Northern Monkey]

The more i read his guff, the more i'm concerned that NE5 has a severe learning abnormality. Poor guy.

 

Why not stick to football?  There's really no need for you to stick your oar in with an insult, but you do tend to do this a lot, contributing nowt to the discussion. As you've moved the thread off topic with an insult I'll say that the more off topic interjections you post to insult other members the more I'm sure you're really a soft shite acting tough from behind the safety of your computer.

 

Aye, Leazes Parrot would never do that.   

 

Good job YOU'RE above all that, eh.

[Guest Johan]

 

I have to compliment you, you are one shrewd debater.

 

As for you lastest post I agree to what you say, though I feel that you are saying a bit more than that elsewhere in your other posts. Sure the debate here are a bit onesided and pointing out the merits of this board and the uncertainty of any new board seems wise.

 

But what really dont understand about you and HTL are your strong defence of Freddy in so many topics, do you really feel that he is such a good chairman?

 

Dont you have any understanding for the opinion that if you make a really colossal (IMO) mistake like the appointment of Souness after the poor handling SBR you should go as well?

 

There are also other alternatives to changing the whole board. We could, as most companys today, have a passive owner and hire someone else as CEO etc. Like that Kenyon at Chelsea and Gill att Man Utd if I am not mistaken. 

 

I am not defending "Freddy in so many topics." I'm pointing out where people are posting rubbish, where they are attributing responsibility to the Chairman that really rests with the manager and even with the players. Such as Robson putting out weakened teams in a competition we could have won or the players failing to turn up on the big day. Apparently everything is down to the Chairman and the Board. The fact they have given successive managers more than adequate resources to bring some success to the club yet failed to do that is the fault of the board. We could have won the FA Cup the League Cup and the Uefa Cup under this board had the managers got it right on the day, had the players turned up and performed at all in line with their ability. Those things not happening are not the responsibility of the board, they are the responsibility of the manager. (Cue the drone about, "who appoints the manager", blah blah blah)

 

BTW I could just as easily mention the "slating of Freddy in so many topics." I have never started a thread in order to praise the Board, I reply to those who continually post ignoring how far we've come under the current Board. If you want to interpret that as a belief I think the current lot are fantastic and can do no wrong, then you are as wrong as some of the others. They have made mistakes, bad mistakes but imo not bad enough that I'd like them to be replaced just yet.

 

Ok, thanks for a good reply.

 

Guess we just differ here then. I really feel that Freddy was found out in the entire Soumess situation. First for not having the balls to sack Bobby in the summer and then he was only able to get G.Souness to come in. For me, he is just not proactive enough. All in all, he should have taken his responsability and resigned after the entire Souness disaster and hired someone to run the club.

 

[OzzieMandias]

The more i read his guff, the more i'm concerned that NE5 has a severe learning abnormality. Poor guy.

 

Why not stick to football?  There's really no need for you to stick your oar in with an insult, but you do tend to do this a lot, contributing nowt to the discussion. As you've moved the thread off topic with an insult I'll say that the more off topic interjections you post to insult other members the more I'm sure you're really a soft shite acting tough from behind the safety of your computer.

 

Aye, Leazes Parrot would never do that.   

 

Good job YOU'RE above all that, eh.

 

No, good job I'm not some dimwitted hypocrite who self-righteously slags others for doing something I do myself.

[OzzieMandias]

 

I have to compliment you, you are one shrewd debater.

 

As for you lastest post I agree to what you say, though I feel that you are saying a bit more than that elsewhere in your other posts. Sure the debate here are a bit onesided and pointing out the merits of this board and the uncertainty of any new board seems wise.

 

But what really dont understand about you and HTL are your strong defence of Freddy in so many topics, do you really feel that he is such a good chairman?

 

Dont you have any understanding for the opinion that if you make a really colossal (IMO) mistake like the appointment of Souness after the poor handling SBR you should go as well?

 

There are also other alternatives to changing the whole board. We could, as most companys today, have a passive owner and hire someone else as CEO etc. Like that Kenyon at Chelsea and Gill att Man Utd if I am not mistaken. 

 

I am not defending "Freddy in so many topics." I'm pointing out where people are posting rubbish, where they are attributing responsibility to the Chairman that really rests with the manager and even with the players. Such as Robson putting out weakened teams in a competition we could have won or the players failing to turn up on the big day. Apparently everything is down to the Chairman and the Board. The fact they have given successive managers more than adequate resources to bring some success to the club yet failed to do that is the fault of the board. We could have won the FA Cup the League Cup and the Uefa Cup under this board had the managers got it right on the day, had the players turned up and performed at all in line with their ability. Those things not happening are not the responsibility of the board, they are the responsibility of the manager. (Cue the drone about, "who appoints the manager", blah blah blah)

 

BTW I could just as easily mention the "slating of Freddy in so many topics." I have never started a thread in order to praise the Board, I reply to those who continually post ignoring how far we've come under the current Board. If you want to interpret that as a belief I think the current lot are fantastic and can do no wrong, then you are as wrong as some of the others. They have made mistakes, bad mistakes but imo not bad enough that I'd like them to be replaced just yet.

 

Yes, strangely, many people feel the responsibility for running the club rests with the people who have the responsibility for running the club.

 

A difficult concept for some, it would seem.

[Howaythelads]

 

I have to compliment you, you are one shrewd debater.

 

As for you lastest post I agree to what you say, though I feel that you are saying a bit more than that elsewhere in your other posts. Sure the debate here are a bit onesided and pointing out the merits of this board and the uncertainty of any new board seems wise.

 

But what really dont understand about you and HTL are your strong defence of Freddy in so many topics, do you really feel that he is such a good chairman?

 

Dont you have any understanding for the opinion that if you make a really colossal (IMO) mistake like the appointment of Souness after the poor handling SBR you should go as well?

 

There are also other alternatives to changing the whole board. We could, as most companys today, have a passive owner and hire someone else as CEO etc. Like that Kenyon at Chelsea and Gill att Man Utd if I am not mistaken. 

 

I am not defending "Freddy in so many topics." I'm pointing out where people are posting rubbish, where they are attributing responsibility to the Chairman that really rests with the manager and even with the players. Such as Robson putting out weakened teams in a competition we could have won or the players failing to turn up on the big day. Apparently everything is down to the Chairman and the Board. The fact they have given successive managers more than adequate resources to bring some success to the club yet failed to do that is the fault of the board. We could have won the FA Cup the League Cup and the Uefa Cup under this board had the managers got it right on the day, had the players turned up and performed at all in line with their ability. Those things not happening are not the responsibility of the board, they are the responsibility of the manager. (Cue the drone about, "who appoints the manager", blah blah blah)

 

BTW I could just as easily mention the "slating of Freddy in so many topics." I have never started a thread in order to praise the Board, I reply to those who continually post ignoring how far we've come under the current Board. If you want to interpret that as a belief I think the current lot are fantastic and can do no wrong, then you are as wrong as some of the others. They have made mistakes, bad mistakes but imo not bad enough that I'd like them to be replaced just yet.

 

Yes, strangely, many people feel the responsibility for running the club rests with the people who have the responsibility for running the club.

 

A difficult concept for some, it would seem.

 

Yes, it is strange that some people seek to absolve the manager and players of any responsibility.

 

I wonder why managers get the sack for team performances being below a club's expectations. I mean, they do get the sack, don't they? Or does a manager remain in their job despite a shite performance and it's the Chairman who gets the bullet? Is that how it is?  Hmm, actually I think managers take the responsibility and are happy to do so. They generally stand or fall by the results on the field of play and they know that before they take up a job. If they're backed by the board of whatever club they are manager, they can have no complaints and successive managers have been backed at Newcastle.

 

So in a nutshell what you're saying is that the fact the board has given successive managers (with proven track records) more than adequate resources to bring some success to the club, yet the managers have failed to deliver, this is the fault of the board??

 

What do you suggest they do to bring success? Appoint a manager and back him? Or appoint a manager, don't back him at all and do it all themselves? 

 

Oh I know, let's just say that because Fred earns a lot of money he should automatically appoint someone better than Wenger and Ferguson. Yeah, easy, isn't it. Of course, if he did manage to do that and we started winning everything in sight, those great CEO's at Manure and Chelsea would then be what exactly? Are they now shit because we're winning the trophies?

[OzzieMandias]

So in a nutshell what you're saying is that the fact the board has given successive managers (with proven track records) more than adequate resources to bring some success to the club, yet the managers have failed to deliver, this is the fault of the board??

 

Yes.

 

Managers and players come and go. The board remains the same – and that is where the buck should stop as that is where the crucial decisions and appointments are made.

 

Obviously.

[NE5]

Bravo

 

 

of course, getting another board who lack ambition like the old one, is impossible and simply will not happen to us

 

No board with ambition would employ Souness and Roeder.

 

You'll now come out with Liverpool employing Souness so I'll just remind you that Liverpool employed Souness after he'd been a success at Rangers, we employed him after he'd been a failure at Liverpool and beyond.

 

Quite, and if we are talking players (Francis Lee/Darren Bent etc), you could pull such examples for any board including the current one strangely enough.

 

For instance when Robson wanted Miguel, the board held back and then chose to provide Carr instead. Was that an example of ambition?

 

 

If you really think this board haven't shown they have had ambition, then you must have been living on Mars.

 

Quite simply, if they say they didn't have the money to buy Miguel then that will be fact, unless of course you are one of those who slate them for spending money then also slate them for not spending money.

 

What did you think of spending 6m on Marcelino, 4m on Goma, 4m on Domi and 4.5m on Pistone ?

 

 

They had more than enough money to buy him when Robson asked for him. The board stalled and when his price rocketed, bought Carr.

 

Marcelino, Goma, Domi and Pistone? Poor to middling buys, but as you argue yourself, you have to back the manager you appoint, right?

 

so whats your stance on this ? Should the club spend big money on defenders or not ? Tell us what you think, then don't go back on your response when you feel like slating the club whatever they do. I had a feeling you would be thick enough not to grasp the point.

 

I have no stance on it. It is another example of the idiotic debates that you start to help you prance around the main points, usually around the time you get frustrated and feel the need to ramp up the insults.

I couldn't give a toss how much or little we spend on defenders if the end result benefits the club. I only hope for the club to use the money wisely, just as I'm sure you were suggesting when you got all excited over the possibility of Francis Lee, and it is something that Shepherd and his managers have for the most part failed to do.

 

refer yourself to the first post in this thread which was insulting. Or is it different when its done by someone you agree with rather than disagree with ?

 

Your point about Francis Lee is, to be honest, daft at best and untrue at worst. This board, since 1992, have backed every manager they have appointed to the utmost, far more than their predecessors did for over 3 decades. The very fact that someone new [sniffer] has came along who has also witnessed these eras and you STILL think you know best, shows nothing other than you will never know anything or understand anything, being unprepared to listen to others who try to tell you factual information that they have seen and you have not.

 

A pathetic attitude.

 

Shame you can't make your mind up whether you want to slate the board for spending money on players, or not spending money on players. Its the answer I expected from you too 

[NE5]

The more i read his guff, the more i'm concerned that NE5 has a severe learning abnormality. Poor guy.

 

Why not stick to football?  There's really no need for you to stick your oar in with an insult, but you do tend to do this a lot, contributing nowt to the discussion. As you've moved the thread off topic with an insult I'll say that the more off topic interjections you post to insult other members the more I'm sure you're really a soft shite acting tough from behind the safety of your computer.

 

Aye, Leazes Parrot would never do that.   

 

Good job YOU'RE above all that, eh.

 

No, good job I'm not some dimwitted hypocrite who self-righteously slags others for doing something I do myself.

 

or someone who dishes the dirt on the club to London journos who openly despise newcastle United.....

 

 

[Howaythelads]

So in a nutshell what you're saying is that the fact the board has given successive managers (with proven track records) more than adequate resources to bring some success to the club, yet the managers have failed to deliver, this is the fault of the board??

 

Yes.

 

Managers and players come and go. The board remains the same – and that is where the buck should stop as that is where the crucial decisions and appointments are made.

 

Obviously.

 

What a load of shite.

 

So it seems that when Souness fucked it all up the board should have gone and shithead would still be the manager today? Or are you saying that every club that fails (eg doesn't win th league) should sack the board and sack their manager? 

[NE5]

The dynamic duo is back I see. Would like to ask NE5 the same questions I asked HTL.

 

Above all I would like to know, are you truly still happy with the board? And if so, why? I would also like it if you did not answer with "It is better than the one we had in the 80´s"

 

 

Listen mate, at the end of the day, you know very little about this club. People like me and HTL attempt to wise you up but you don't listen or want to listen. I don't mean to sound patronising, but you give me very little choice.

 

Newcastle United does not have a divine right to be one of the top clubs in the country. There are numerous other clubs who were above us for decades - that should not have been. That could just as easily happen again if we really did have a shite board. Look down the road at Sunderland if you don't believe me. That is, if you know where Sunderland is or know anything about them and their potential too. Take these comments on board if you like, or don't if you don't want to, but if you wish to remain largely ignorant of the reality of our situation and the progress we have made under this board, that is your choice.

 

 

 

I guess I should thank you and HTL for your "education" then  As some of the posters here have said, no I dont think we have some kind of divine right to be in the top four or anything. However I think that there right now is a lot of potential in the club and its brand. We happened to have some success at exactly the right time when football really exploded and in a way I think we are still living on some of that which Keegan and the board at that time built up. 

 

Maybe this is where the biggest difference in opinions between me and the two of you lie. I really think that Newcastle as a brand and club have the potential to be some kind of a dark horse in the premiership year after year and maybe you dont?

 

Maybe we also differ in the way we look at the club, I see it more as a business that should operate as such. If the man in charge fail, he gets replaced. Even if we dont change owners we could hire someone to run the club, like Kenyon at Chelsea.

 

If i where to sum this up into a question for you to answer it would be something like. Dont you think that the success we have had motivates raising the goals of the club and the expectations of the fans? Or does prior success excuse mistakes and bad times that comes after?

 

PS. yes I know what Sunderland is and where it is located. Though my father raised me to never motivate my failures by saying stuff like " that guy did even worse"

 

the alternative, and difference in outlook, is quite simple

 

I support the football club, from the heart. And have a realistic view of football as such.

 

You support the "brand", and if you wish to support a "brand", you should have chosen a more successful "brand" if the 5th best in the country over the span of a decade isn't enough for you.

 

And, in football terms, it is far from "failure", as 87 other clubs will tell you, especially when they all watch us playing - again - in the UEFA Cup soon.

 

Whether you like it or not, the current board, since taking over the club in 1992, HAVE raised the expectations of the club and supporters during their time in charge. This is what myself, HTL and one or two others are trying to put across. So you are back to square 1. Accept it or not.

 

 

 

 

What makes you say that I support the "brand"? Sure, I use the word and I feel that you use that as a way to dodge some of my points and questions. I dont really like the way football works these days but it is the world we live in and you have to deal with it best you can.

 

As for you last point, yeah sure. That is exactly what I said. They have been successful, there is no question about that.  That doesnt mean that they will continue to be that. Football like everything else is in constant change and no matter what you think of it you have to change as well or get left behind. With other clubs changing owners and getting new cash in through investment will we be able to keep being the fifth club in England?

 

As for accepting or not, this is an internet forum. Its about debating things and for me personally also a chance to learn how to better type and read english and learn about other things. Its not like I think that what I post here will change anything with regards to the clubs ownership structure.

 

 

unfortunately, there is indeed no guarantee that they will continue to be more successful. Neither is there a guarantee that a replacement board will be as successful as the current board. This is what I am saying.

 

Well done.

 

 

 

I have to compliment you, you are one shrewd debater.

 

As for you lastest post I agree to what you say, though I feel that you are saying a bit more than that elsewhere in your other posts. Sure the debate here are a bit onesided and pointing out the merits of this board and the uncertainty of any new board seems wise.

 

But what really dont understand about you and HTL are your strong defence of Freddy in so many topics, do you really feel that he is such a good chairman?

 

Dont you have any understanding for the opinion that if you make a really colossal (IMO) mistake like the appointment of Souness after the poor handling SBR you should go as well?

 

There are also other alternatives to changing the whole board. We could, as most companys today, have a passive owner and hire someone else as CEO etc. Like that Kenyon at Chelsea and Gill att Man Utd if I am not mistaken.  

 

I'm not defending anybody. I am pointing out facts. The facts are that this club has done better than every club bar 4 in terms of qualifiying for european competition in the last decade. This is not failure, its the most successful decade in terms of league positions that the club has achieved in over 50 years.

 

It's also a fact that the board of the club has given all their managers enough money and opportunity to put together teams capable of winning trophies. Reaching 2 FA Cup Finals, top 5 league positions and had a good run in the Champions League proves that, so there is a point where the managers and players must take the blame. The players have bottled numerous situations - a list of these has been posted by me on other message boards and probably on this one too - from where they could have achieved real success and a trophy, this is not the fault of the board, and neither is the manager fielding weakened teams, incorrect tactics and preparing his players inadequately in their mental and/or physical preparation.

 

See here for the list of bottled games.

 

http://z3.invisionfree.com/NUFCforum/index.php?showtopic=2320

 

As for appointing these managers, the board has appointed managers who have got these strategies right elsewhere, so it would be interesting to know what other criteria you would use ?

 

 

[NE5]

So in a nutshell what you're saying is that the fact the board has given successive managers (with proven track records) more than adequate resources to bring some success to the club, yet the managers have failed to deliver, this is the fault of the board??

 

Yes.

 

Managers and players come and go. The board remains the same – and that is where the buck should stop as that is where the crucial decisions and appointments are made.

 

Obviously.

 

What a load of shite.

 

So it seems that when Souness fucked it all up the board should have gone and shithead would still be the manager today? Or are you saying that every club that fails (eg doesn't win th league) should sack the board and sack their manager? 

 

Just ignore him. Its unbelievable that the people [ie some of the simpletons] who agree with this idiot actually think HE is the one that isn't posting insults and wasting everybodys time ..... 

 

Deliberately of course.

 

 

[BottledDog]

Bravo

 

 

of course, getting another board who lack ambition like the old one, is impossible and simply will not happen to us

 

No board with ambition would employ Souness and Roeder.

 

You'll now come out with Liverpool employing Souness so I'll just remind you that Liverpool employed Souness after he'd been a success at Rangers, we employed him after he'd been a failure at Liverpool and beyond.

 

Quite, and if we are talking players (Francis Lee/Darren Bent etc), you could pull such examples for any board including the current one strangely enough.

 

For instance when Robson wanted Miguel, the board held back and then chose to provide Carr instead. Was that an example of ambition?

 

 

If you really think this board haven't shown they have had ambition, then you must have been living on Mars.

 

Quite simply, if they say they didn't have the money to buy Miguel then that will be fact, unless of course you are one of those who slate them for spending money then also slate them for not spending money.

 

What did you think of spending 6m on Marcelino, 4m on Goma, 4m on Domi and 4.5m on Pistone ?

 

 

They had more than enough money to buy him when Robson asked for him. The board stalled and when his price rocketed, bought Carr.

 

Marcelino, Goma, Domi and Pistone? Poor to middling buys, but as you argue yourself, you have to back the manager you appoint, right?

 

so whats your stance on this ? Should the club spend big money on defenders or not ? Tell us what you think, then don't go back on your response when you feel like slating the club whatever they do. I had a feeling you would be thick enough not to grasp the point.

 

I have no stance on it. It is another example of the idiotic debates that you start to help you prance around the main points, usually around the time you get frustrated and feel the need to ramp up the insults.

I couldn't give a toss how much or little we spend on defenders if the end result benefits the club. I only hope for the club to use the money wisely, just as I'm sure you were suggesting when you got all excited over the possibility of Francis Lee, and it is something that Shepherd and his managers have for the most part failed to do.

 

refer yourself to the first post in this thread which was insulting. Or is it different when its done by someone you agree with rather than disagree with ?

 

Your point about Francis Lee is, to be honest, daft at best and untrue at worst. This board, since 1992, have backed every manager they have appointed to the utmost, far more than their predecessors did for over 3 decades. The very fact that someone new [sniffer] has came along who has also witnessed these eras and you STILL think you know best, shows nothing other than you will never know anything or understand anything, being unprepared to listen to others who try to tell you factual information that they have seen and you have not.

 

A pathetic attitude.

 

Shame you can't make your mind up whether you want to slate the board for spending money on players, or not spending money on players. Its the answer I expected from you too 

 

I am not interested in another persons post or whether or not they insulted you. You bring insults into a conversation where there were none, and the fact you cannot acknowledge that is disappointing, but not unexpected.

 

As for whether or not the club splash the cash, as I have tried to get through to you, I don't vehemently support either position. I can only judge on how things turn out, and for the most part Shepherd has overseen a period of relative waste and failure considering the vast riches the club generates these days (something I am happy to applaud the board for btw). If the club has no money and we are honest about it then I would support the board being frugal, but don't expect me to forget why we might have suddenly found ourselves in that trouble.

 

If you spent less time shoving people into stereotypical little boxes and accept that most of these arguments are far less black and white than you try to make out, then we might get somewhere. But you prefer to have us all on opposite sides, and are yourself unprepared to listen. Shame.

[OzzieMandias]

So in a nutshell what you're saying is that the fact the board has given successive managers (with proven track records) more than adequate resources to bring some success to the club, yet the managers have failed to deliver, this is the fault of the board??

 

Yes.

 

Managers and players come and go. The board remains the same – and that is where the buck should stop as that is where the crucial decisions and appointments are made.

 

Obviously.

 

What a load of shite.

 

So it seems that when Souness fucked it all up the board should have gone and shithead would still be the manager today? Or are you saying that every club that fails (eg doesn't win th league) should sack the board and sack their manager? 

 

Well, I don't know what line of work you're in, chum, but in mine I often have to allocate budgets and put together teams of people to achieve specific tasks. If I handled my budgets unwisely, or made poor appointments, to the detriment of the work, that would be seen as my responsibility by the people who are paying my fees -- and rightly so.

 

You can make every pathetic excuse for him you can think of (not many it seems -- we long ago heard all your "arguments" a dozen times) but the simple, incontrovertible fact is that Fat Fred is steering the ship. If we have a crap manager, or no money to buy players, then that's his responsibility.

 

Obviously.

 

[Howaythelads]

Bravo

 

 

of course, getting another board who lack ambition like the old one, is impossible and simply will not happen to us

 

No board with ambition would employ Souness and Roeder.

 

You'll now come out with Liverpool employing Souness so I'll just remind you that Liverpool employed Souness after he'd been a success at Rangers, we employed him after he'd been a failure at Liverpool and beyond.

 

Quite, and if we are talking players (Francis Lee/Darren Bent etc), you could pull such examples for any board including the current one strangely enough.

 

For instance when Robson wanted Miguel, the board held back and then chose to provide Carr instead. Was that an example of ambition?

 

 

If you really think this board haven't shown they have had ambition, then you must have been living on Mars.

 

Quite simply, if they say they didn't have the money to buy Miguel then that will be fact, unless of course you are one of those who slate them for spending money then also slate them for not spending money.

 

What did you think of spending 6m on Marcelino, 4m on Goma, 4m on Domi and 4.5m on Pistone ?

 

 

They had more than enough money to buy him when Robson asked for him. The board stalled and when his price rocketed, bought Carr.

 

Marcelino, Goma, Domi and Pistone? Poor to middling buys, but as you argue yourself, you have to back the manager you appoint, right?

 

so whats your stance on this ? Should the club spend big money on defenders or not ? Tell us what you think, then don't go back on your response when you feel like slating the club whatever they do. I had a feeling you would be thick enough not to grasp the point.

 

I have no stance on it. It is another example of the idiotic debates that you start to help you prance around the main points, usually around the time you get frustrated and feel the need to ramp up the insults.

I couldn't give a toss how much or little we spend on defenders if the end result benefits the club. I only hope for the club to use the money wisely, just as I'm sure you were suggesting when you got all excited over the possibility of Francis Lee, and it is something that Shepherd and his managers have for the most part failed to do.

 

refer yourself to the first post in this thread which was insulting. Or is it different when its done by someone you agree with rather than disagree with ?

 

Your point about Francis Lee is, to be honest, daft at best and untrue at worst. This board, since 1992, have backed every manager they have appointed to the utmost, far more than their predecessors did for over 3 decades. The very fact that someone new [sniffer] has came along who has also witnessed these eras and you STILL think you know best, shows nothing other than you will never know anything or understand anything, being unprepared to listen to others who try to tell you factual information that they have seen and you have not.

 

A pathetic attitude.

 

Shame you can't make your mind up whether you want to slate the board for spending money on players, or not spending money on players. Its the answer I expected from you too 

 

I am not interested in another persons post or whether or not they insulted you. You bring insults into a conversation where there were none, and the fact you cannot acknowledge that is disappointing, but not unexpected.

 

As for whether or not the club splash the cash, as I have tried to get through to you, I don't vehemently support either position. I can only judge on how things turn out, and for the most part Shepherd has overseen a period of relative waste and failure considering the vast riches the club generates these days (something I am happy to applaud the board for btw). If the club has no money and we are honest about it then I would support the board being frugal, but don't expect me to forget why we might have suddenly found ourselves in that trouble.

 

If you spent less time shoving people into stereotypical little boxes and accept that most of these arguments are far less black and white than you try to make out, then we might get somewhere. But you prefer to have us all on opposite sides, and are yourself unprepared to listen. Shame.

 

Talk about blinkers and hypocrisy. You say you aren't interested in someone's post that is insulting, but then you bang on at another member about insults they have supposedly posted. So it seems you are interested in insults after all, just so long as they aren't posted by someone you agree with. That makes you hypocritical, but that's not unexpected. If you think that's harsh I suggest you look up the meaning of the word, you'll find it fits very well.

 

Your problem is you don't understand the role played by Souness in 'that trouble' you refer to. Do you think the board should back their manager only "sometimes?" Meaning they should interfere when they think he's getting it wrong?  Are you saying the board shouldn't have backed their manager in an attempt to bring success?

 

The board isn't great, they've made mistakes, but they must back their manager otherwise there is no chance at all of success. None. Which is how it used to be when we have had decent managers over the years.

 

The board got it wrong with Souness, a massive error but that's where it all went badly wrong. That is not justification for ignoring the positives achieved by the board upto that appointment imo.

 

By the way, it sounds as though you should change your login to something related to "hindsight", as it seems that's how you want to measure everything. You could try some constructive criticism for a change but then that's a bit more difficult, like.

[Howaythelads]

So in a nutshell what you're saying is that the fact the board has given successive managers (with proven track records) more than adequate resources to bring some success to the club, yet the managers have failed to deliver, this is the fault of the board??

 

Yes.

 

Managers and players come and go. The board remains the same – and that is where the buck should stop as that is where the crucial decisions and appointments are made.

 

Obviously.

 

What a load of shite.

 

So it seems that when Souness fucked it all up the board should have gone and shithead would still be the manager today? Or are you saying that every club that fails (eg doesn't win th league) should sack the board and sack their manager? 

 

Well, I don't know what line of work you're in, chum, but in mine I often have to allocate budgets and put together teams of people to achieve specific tasks. If I handled my budgets unwisely, or made poor appointments, to the detriment of the work, that would be seen as my responsibility by the people who are paying my fees -- and rightly so.

 

You can make every pathetic excuse for him you can think of (not many it seems -- we long ago heard all your "arguments" a dozen times) but the simple, incontrovertible fact is that Fat Fred is steering the ship. If we have a crap manager, or no money to buy players, then that's his responsibility.

 

Obviously.

 

 

Well done for describing a part of the role of the manager.

[OzzieMandias]

So in a nutshell what you're saying is that the fact the board has given successive managers (with proven track records) more than adequate resources to bring some success to the club, yet the managers have failed to deliver, this is the fault of the board??

 

Yes.

 

Managers and players come and go. The board remains the same – and that is where the buck should stop as that is where the crucial decisions and appointments are made.

 

Obviously.

 

What a load of shite.

 

So it seems that when Souness fucked it all up the board should have gone and shithead would still be the manager today? Or are you saying that every club that fails (eg doesn't win th league) should sack the board and sack their manager? 

 

Well, I don't know what line of work you're in, chum, but in mine I often have to allocate budgets and put together teams of people to achieve specific tasks. If I handled my budgets unwisely, or made poor appointments, to the detriment of the work, that would be seen as my responsibility by the people who are paying my fees -- and rightly so.

 

You can make every pathetic excuse for him you can think of (not many it seems -- we long ago heard all your "arguments" a dozen times) but the simple, incontrovertible fact is that Fat Fred is steering the ship. If we have a crap manager, or no money to buy players, then that's his responsibility.

 

Obviously.

 

 

Well done for describing a part of the role of the manager.

 

Well done for ignoring the obvious yet again.

[BottledDog]

Talk about blinkers and hypocrisy. You say you aren't interested in someone's post that is insulting, but then you bang on at another member about insults they have supposedly posted. So it seems you are interested in insults after all, just so long as they aren't posted by someone you agree with. That makes you hypocritical, but that's not unexpected. If you think that's harsh I suggest you look up the meaning of the word, you'll find it fits very well.

 

That you fail to see that somebody insulting you personally cannot be defended by saying that some other bloke at some other point in time (I still have no clue who he is whittering on about) made an 'offensive comment' is just hilarious. I will have to assume you are just standing up for your buddy without actually reading the posts as I would hate to think you are that stupid.

 

Your problem is you don't understand the role played by Souness in 'that trouble' you refer to. Do you think the board should back their manager only "sometimes?" Meaning they should interfere when they think he's getting it wrong?  Are you saying the board shouldn't have backed their manager in an attempt to bring success?

 

The board isn't great, they've made mistakes, but they must back their manager otherwise there is no chance at all of success. None. Which is how it used to be when we have had decent managers over the years.

 

The board got it wrong with Souness, a massive error but that's where it all went badly wrong. That is not justification for ignoring the positives achieved by the board upto that appointment imo.

 

Oh, dear. I even gave an example of supporting some of the boards decisions. You seriously need to get that chip off your shoulder.

 

By the way, it sounds as though you should change your login to something related to "hindsight", as it seems that's how you want to measure everything. You could try some constructive criticism for a change but then that's a bit more difficult, like.

 

Again, I think you are getting confused. You judge a persons job on his results, his record. You can take into account factors that might have forced certain decisions, but when even at the time you disagreed with those decisions, that, my friend, has nothing to do with hindsight.

[thedudeabides]

HTL and NE5, can I ask you a simple yes or no question...........do you think Shepherd is doing a good job as chairman of this football club??

[NE5]

Bravo

 

 

of course, getting another board who lack ambition like the old one, is impossible and simply will not happen to us

 

No board with ambition would employ Souness and Roeder.

 

You'll now come out with Liverpool employing Souness so I'll just remind you that Liverpool employed Souness after he'd been a success at Rangers, we employed him after he'd been a failure at Liverpool and beyond.

 

Quite, and if we are talking players (Francis Lee/Darren Bent etc), you could pull such examples for any board including the current one strangely enough.

 

For instance when Robson wanted Miguel, the board held back and then chose to provide Carr instead. Was that an example of ambition?

 

 

If you really think this board haven't shown they have had ambition, then you must have been living on Mars.

 

Quite simply, if they say they didn't have the money to buy Miguel then that will be fact, unless of course you are one of those who slate them for spending money then also slate them for not spending money.

 

What did you think of spending 6m on Marcelino, 4m on Goma, 4m on Domi and 4.5m on Pistone ?

 

 

They had more than enough money to buy him when Robson asked for him. The board stalled and when his price rocketed, bought Carr.

 

Marcelino, Goma, Domi and Pistone? Poor to middling buys, but as you argue yourself, you have to back the manager you appoint, right?

 

so whats your stance on this ? Should the club spend big money on defenders or not ? Tell us what you think, then don't go back on your response when you feel like slating the club whatever they do. I had a feeling you would be thick enough not to grasp the point.

 

I have no stance on it. It is another example of the idiotic debates that you start to help you prance around the main points, usually around the time you get frustrated and feel the need to ramp up the insults.

I couldn't give a toss how much or little we spend on defenders if the end result benefits the club. I only hope for the club to use the money wisely, just as I'm sure you were suggesting when you got all excited over the possibility of Francis Lee, and it is something that Shepherd and his managers have for the most part failed to do.

 

refer yourself to the first post in this thread which was insulting. Or is it different when its done by someone you agree with rather than disagree with ?

 

Your point about Francis Lee is, to be honest, daft at best and untrue at worst. This board, since 1992, have backed every manager they have appointed to the utmost, far more than their predecessors did for over 3 decades. The very fact that someone new [sniffer] has came along who has also witnessed these eras and you STILL think you know best, shows nothing other than you will never know anything or understand anything, being unprepared to listen to others who try to tell you factual information that they have seen and you have not.

 

A pathetic attitude.

 

Shame you can't make your mind up whether you want to slate the board for spending money on players, or not spending money on players. Its the answer I expected from you too 

 

I am not interested in another persons post or whether or not they insulted you. You bring insults into a conversation where there were none, and the fact you cannot acknowledge that is disappointing, but not unexpected.

 

As for whether or not the club splash the cash, as I have tried to get through to you, I don't vehemently support either position. I can only judge on how things turn out, and for the most part Shepherd has overseen a period of relative waste and failure considering the vast riches the club generates these days (something I am happy to applaud the board for btw). If the club has no money and we are honest about it then I would support the board being frugal, but don't expect me to forget why we might have suddenly found ourselves in that trouble.

 

If you spent less time shoving people into stereotypical little boxes and accept that most of these arguments are far less black and white than you try to make out, then we might get somewhere. But you prefer to have us all on opposite sides, and are yourself unprepared to listen. Shame.

 

in other words, you apply hindsight .....

 

Apply hindsight to the fact that in the last decade, we have had our highest league positions for over 50 years then - but I bet you don't do that.

 

Criticise when the club spends money, and criticise when they don't, appears to be your outlook. You can't get more black and white - and ridiculous - than that.

 

 

[NE5]

HTL and NE5, can I ask you a simple yes or no question...........do you think Shepherd is doing a good job as chairman of this football club??

 

up until appointing Souness they were doing OK ? Correct mate ? Which is what seems to be is what is being said. Nobody defends the appointment of Souness, but like all bad appointments you can't put them right quickly, especially in football if you consider anything other than winning one of the 2 major trophies to be failure.

 

If they have taken the club as far as they can, then they will go. But replacing them with better could prove pretty difficult and if they are replaced with worse, then that would be disastrous.

 

It could easily happen. I realise some are prepared to take the chance on that, but there are lots of people who think such a thing is impossible, but it isn't. There are loads of clubs who have replaced directors and ended up with worse. Do you want a board of directors who don't back their managers or take risks on the clubs potential support again ?

 

 

 

 

[madras]

dudeabides,can i ask you a simple yes or no question........do you think nufc would be in a better position if shepherd packed in and just sold his shares to the highest bidder ?

[Howaythelads]

HTL and NE5, can I ask you a simple yes or no question...........do you think Shepherd is doing a good job as chairman of this football club??

 

Do you really believe your question can be answered with a yes or no?

 

You have to consider their overall record, not just what has happened since one terrible managerial appointment. However, on the basis of their overall time in charge, and your insistence for just one word, I'd say 'yes'.

 

Looking at the overall record I believe the board made a mistake not getting rid of Robson when we finished 3rd. I believe they made another mistake by appointing Souness.

 

I also think people who babble on about the supposed bad treatment of Robson and the poor timing of his departure are being too simplistic. Would it have made any difference had Robson gone in the summer if the replacement had been Souness, for example? It may not have been Souness but it may still have turned out to be someone incompetent, you just don't know when you make the appointment because you can't actually predict the future. I'd have liked to see Robson go after we finished 3rd, but there was still no guarantee that the club would bring in the right man to take us forward, I just hoped it would happen. Other than those two bad decisions I think they've done a good job of running the club, we've made massive strides and what we're seeing right now is the fallout of that shite appointment.

 

It's vital Roeder is the right man and does turn it around, if he doesn't and turns out to be the wrong man then I think 3 mistakes will be too many, but it will still be difficult to replace the board with better. There are no guarantees a board will back a manager to the same level the current board has done, and in those circumstances it won't matter how good the manager is. No backing means we'll be rubbish. There is also no guarantee a new board will automatically appoint the right man.