True Faith reaction.

[Dokko]

I could copy and paste it, but it is a long old piece. Suffice to say, it may be stating the obvious and maybe just reiterating what many are already saying but that is not necessarily a bad thing per se.

 

Anyhoo it's here - http://true-faith.co.uk/html/tbawe.htm

 

Oh, did I mention that it is a little depressing. A decent enough read, but hoo boy, keep a hankie handy. Or a punch bag.

 

to be honest, they have been re-hashing the same stuff for months now. They also backed Martin O'Neill as our saviour, who is currently below us in the league and has been for quite a while too.

 

 

 

that makes the whole article wrong i guess..

but still do you think Glenn Roeder was a better choice for a manager?

 

on paper, or by track record, Kenny Dalglish was better than both of them put together .....

 

 

You can't prove by example, as they say.

 

4 League Titles with 2 different clubs, and 3 manager of the year awards proves the point. But you can continue to make an "opinion" not based on fact, if you like.

 

But we don't appoint top managers.

 

 

 

The Beermonster said...

 

On the basis that Dalglish had the best CV second to none, 4 league titles,

3 FA Cups, and 3 manager of the year awards ... oh aye Freddie can't appoint

top managers can he........LOL

 

 

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.sport.football.clubs.newcastle-united/browse_thread/thread/dd9d19baff9f921f/9a78958d1a8a07ba?q=beermonster+dalglish&lnk=ol&hl=en&

 

 

Seriously Baggio, instead of following me around...and claiming this is me when I have never posted on usenet, why don't you show us your intelligence and dispute the actual content of the post ?

 

BTW - I don't want to see you banned, or anyone else for that matter unlike toonstaylor, but you/we/us have been asked to stop this inter-forum malarkey ........

 

 

 

 

Aye right.

 

Not my fault a new rule was invented to stop you wrecking the forum over and over again.

 

 

I'm not wrecking anything. I just have a different opinion to you. And unfortunately for you, I can back it up with facts, and experience from a first hand view of what I have witnessed while supporting the club. You see, in my opinion, people like you who have no original thoughts, repeat what others say and worst of all say they supported the club when they were shit and you didn't, to be wrecking the forum.

 

Whatever.

 

I believe there is also a rule saying that people who encourage others to be banned will themselves be banned ?

 

But I now think there is no point in responding to you .....

 

 

Aye 2 days, i'll take it on the chin to get rid of you for two weeks, that's IF i was trying to get you banned, which am not, i'm just sitting back watching you do it all yourself, you cannot help it, and thats what will end all this, which for 99.99999% of this board is fantastic.

 

 

[Parky]

I could copy and paste it, but it is a long old piece. Suffice to say, it may be stating the obvious and maybe just reiterating what many are already saying but that is not necessarily a bad thing per se.

 

Anyhoo it's here - http://true-faith.co.uk/html/tbawe.htm

 

Oh, did I mention that it is a little depressing. A decent enough read, but hoo boy, keep a hankie handy. Or a punch bag.

 

to be honest, they have been re-hashing the same stuff for months now. They also backed Martin O'Neill as our saviour, who is currently below us in the league and has been for quite a while too.

 

 

 

that makes the whole article wrong i guess..

but still do you think Glenn Roeder was a better choice for a manager?

 

on paper, or by track record, Kenny Dalglish was better than both of them put together .....

 

 

You can't prove by example, as they say.

 

4 League Titles with 2 different clubs, and 3 manager of the year awards proves the point. But you can continue to make an "opinion" not based on fact, if you like.

 

But we don't appoint top managers.

 

 

You miss my point.

 

It's some record he has, sure.  And yes, I'll concede that appointing a manager with that sort of record isn't 100% guaranteed to go perfectly.  But it's no reason not to, say, look for one better, or at least as good.  Perhaps there are some criteria Dalglish was lacking.

 

Is Roeder better than Dalglish?  What about Souness?

 

You're the one forming a faulty opinion.  Regardless of any sentiment of mine, you can't _prove by example_ as you're attempting to do.  Are you arguing that we shouldn't continue to employ top managers, as Dalglish failed?  Well, that'd be marvellous!

 

Everyone forms opinions based upon the facts as they see them - or as they choose them - for some reason you think you're unique in basing your arguments on selective criteria.  I'm afraid everyone does that.

 

 

Yes he didn't have Jack Walkers millions and he didn't have the bootroom. Just shows you need a solid structure/bottomless pit and management alone sometimes isn't enough.

[junkhead]

f****** spam bot

 

who ?

 

do you think someone is a troll just because they disagree know better than you 

 

If YOU aren't a troll, reply.

i won't.

[Baggio]

I could copy and paste it, but it is a long old piece. Suffice to say, it may be stating the obvious and maybe just reiterating what many are already saying but that is not necessarily a bad thing per se.

 

Anyhoo it's here - http://true-faith.co.uk/html/tbawe.htm

 

Oh, did I mention that it is a little depressing. A decent enough read, but hoo boy, keep a hankie handy. Or a punch bag.

 

to be honest, they have been re-hashing the same stuff for months now. They also backed Martin O'Neill as our saviour, who is currently below us in the league and has been for quite a while too.

 

 

 

that makes the whole article wrong i guess..

but still do you think Glenn Roeder was a better choice for a manager?

 

on paper, or by track record, Kenny Dalglish was better than both of them put together .....

 

 

You can't prove by example, as they say.

 

4 League Titles with 2 different clubs, and 3 manager of the year awards proves the point. But you can continue to make an "opinion" not based on fact, if you like.

 

But we don't appoint top managers.

 

 

 

The Beermonster said...

 

On the basis that Dalglish had the best CV second to none, 4 league titles,

3 FA Cups, and 3 manager of the year awards ... oh aye Freddie can't appoint

top managers can he........LOL

 

 

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.sport.football.clubs.newcastle-united/browse_thread/thread/dd9d19baff9f921f/9a78958d1a8a07ba?q=beermonster+dalglish&lnk=ol&hl=en&

 

 

Seriously Baggio, instead of following me around...and claiming this is me when I have never posted on usenet, why don't you show us your intelligence and dispute the actual content of the post ?

 

BTW - I don't want to see you banned, or anyone else for that matter unlike toonstaylor, but you/we/us have been asked to stop this inter-forum malarkey ........

 

 

 

What is there to dispute?

 

*You think the article is rubbish because someone wanted O'Neill as manager a year ago.

 

*Someone asks you if you still think Roeder was a better choice as manager.

 

*You change the subject to a manager that we appointed 10 years ago.

 

So we appointed a manager with a proven track record that didn't work out, that doesn't mean we should just dismiss other managers with proven track records just because it didn't work out for us once,  one way not to take the club forward is to appoint a manager with a proven history of failure which is what we done with both Souness and Roeder.

 

As I've said to you before, you can't guarantee success however there are things you can do to give you more chance of it, employing failures like Souness and Roeder is not one of them.

[ChezGiven]

I think Freddy will have undoubdtedly consulted Shearer about how to replace Souness and i think Shearer was influential in Roeder's appointment.

 

It was generally accepted he had too much power by most on this board. Presumably therefore he influenced the appointment. His readiness to accept an assistant role in the management team is further evidence.

 

Our current predicament is therefore also Shearer's fault 

 

(aimed at no one in particular)

[NE5]

I could copy and paste it, but it is a long old piece. Suffice to say, it may be stating the obvious and maybe just reiterating what many are already saying but that is not necessarily a bad thing per se.

 

Anyhoo it's here - http://true-faith.co.uk/html/tbawe.htm

 

Oh, did I mention that it is a little depressing. A decent enough read, but hoo boy, keep a hankie handy. Or a punch bag.

 

to be honest, they have been re-hashing the same stuff for months now. They also backed Martin O'Neill as our saviour, who is currently below us in the league and has been for quite a while too.

 

 

 

that makes the whole article wrong i guess..

but still do you think Glenn Roeder was a better choice for a manager?

 

on paper, or by track record, Kenny Dalglish was better than both of them put together .....

 

 

You can't prove by example, as they say.

 

4 League Titles with 2 different clubs, and 3 manager of the year awards proves the point. But you can continue to make an "opinion" not based on fact, if you like.

 

But we don't appoint top managers.

 

 

You miss my point.

 

It's some record he has, sure.  And yes, I'll concede that appointing a manager with that sort of record isn't 100% guaranteed to go perfectly.  But it's no reason not to, say, look for one better, or at least as good.  Perhaps there are some criteria Dalglish was lacking.

 

Is Roeder better than Dalglish?  What about Souness?

 

You're the one forming a faulty opinion.  Regardless of any sentiment of mine, you can't _prove by example_ as you're attempting to do.  Are you arguing that we shouldn't continue to employ top managers, as Dalglish failed?  Well, that'd be marvellous!

 

Everyone forms opinions based upon the facts as they see them - or as they choose them - for some reason you think you're unique in basing your arguments on selective criteria.  I'm afraid everyone does that.

 

For a change, thats a fairly good post and worth a reply.

 

I don't really know if we should continue to employ top managers or not. What do you think ? The point is, we have appointed ones with track records and some who haven't, or Roeder anyway. Having chosen ones with winning track records, don't you think attempting something different ref Roeder is, or was, worth a try, without hurling criticism at it for the sake of hurling criticism ? This is the attitude you see in people who do u-turns and slate the club whatever they do. Decide what you think and stick to it, for instance, if you want to buy quality players, then stop labelling them "trophy" players, and if you don't want "trophy" players then don't complain if the club sign more players like Babayaro. If you thought Ameobi was great a couple of years ago, but now think he's shit, then say so and admit you were wrong, rather than change your opinion weekly. This is not aimed at you specifically BTW.

 

The thing is mate, very few appointments are guaranteed to work 100%. I am not basing anything on selective criteria, but yes I do ask people who criticise the appointments of Dalglish [for instance] then absurdly suggest Martin O'Neill to be better qualified ........ the basis of such a statement. And very few people have actually replied giving facts or reasons.

For my money, appointing Dalglish was a huge statement of intent by Newcastle. Yes, he may have been different to Keegan, but so what ? you have to appoint them on their own merits - he had improved a top quality side at Liverpool, was this not exactly what we wanted at the time at Newcastle ?

 

Why did he fail ? Good question, fcuk knows. He changed the team too quickly, he wanted to win the league with his own players ? He was backed by the board, no question, although he lost Shearer ..... and kept Arsprilla instead of Ferdinand.

Maybe he should have had more time ? What do you think ? You should remember though, we reached an FA Cup Final for the first time in 24 years. Failure ?

 

Is Roeder better than Dalglish. I would say not, but who can say he isn't better for Newcastle ? But Dalglish won't get another chance to prove he could be successful, so we will never know. Different clubs, different circumstances. They all impact in some way.

 

 

[Guest elbee909]

 

For a change, thats a fairly good post and worth a reply.

 

 

For a change?  Cheeky sod   Hardly posted anything of substance here recently, been too busy and/or apathetic.

 

 

I don't really know if we should continue to employ top managers or not. What do you think?

 

 

I think the answer is very much in the affirmative, but do have a proviso or two...

 

I think any top manager needs to be able to structure, direct, and be involved in anything and everything relevant to their job.  Proper top-down support means more than just the board allocating pennies or pounds here and there, it's working together on all things rather than maintaining a kind of 'them and us' attitude between the board and management.

 

We'd require the sort of backing Keegan had for most of his tenure, in effect.  I know it wasn't all sweetness and light between him and Hall but for most of it you felt they were pulling in the same direction most of the time.

 

Now maybe I'm wrong; but maybe I'm not.  I just find it hard to believe anyone who'd shaft Robson in the way he's accounted (yes, I know Robson wasn't perfect before you say anything) would be the sort of board/chairperson that'd really provide that, even if they tried.  So for me it'd at least require a shift in thinking on the part of the board in how they relate to management.  Managers aren't there just to do an on-the-pitch job for the board, and the board's not there just to write cheques.  They need to work together more than they'd seem to be doing for us in recent times.  I don't know if that's possible now, but for me it's necessary. 

 

Roeder feels like a yes-man manager who's that grateful to be in the job he'll take whatever it is, bent over and well-greased.  I'm sceptical of any organisation that oversees a general decline in the quality of managers, those sole people that can stand up to the board.  Since Robson it's been backwards, backwards.  Isn't that just bloody weird?

 

The point is, we have appointed ones with track records and some who haven't, or Roeder anyway. Having chosen ones with winning track records, don't you think attempting something different ref Roeder is, or was, worth a try, without hurling criticism at it for the sake of hurling criticism ? This is the attitude you see in people who do u-turns and slate the club whatever they do. Decide what you think and stick to it, for instance, if you want to buy quality players, then stop labelling them "trophy" players, and if you don't want "trophy" players then don't complain if the club sign more players like Babayaro. If you thought Ameobi was great a couple of years ago, but now think he's shit, then say so and admit you were wrong, rather than change your opinion weekly. This is not aimed at you specifically BTW.

 

 

For what it's worth, I appreciate that isn't aimed at me specifically.  Thing is, it is aimed at no single person, specifically.  You're attributing opinions to some sort of mass of people, who may have disagreed with you in the past on an individual basis.  I don't necessarily hold the same views as anyone else here.  I'll agree with you on some things, disagree on others, and the same goes for any other person on this board.

 

Anyway, the world is a fluid place.  Where Ameobi may have looked great before, he might not look so great now.  People can change their minds on a single subject and it's not a bloody crime, it doesn't invalidate everything someone says about other subjects. 

 

Less time attacking the people making arguments, and more time attacking the actual arguments themselves, would be ideal.

 

(This isn't aimed at you specifically BTW )

 

The thing is mate, very few appointments are guaranteed to work 100%. I am not basing anything on selective criteria, but yes I do ask people who criticise the appointments of Dalglish [for instance] then absurdly suggest Martin O'Neill to be better qualified ........ the basis of such a statement. And very few people have actually replied giving facts or reasons.

 

I do feel that Martin O'Neill would have been a better choice than Roeder, though not as huge a difference in quality as some people might believe.  I think it's always going to be hard for people to back up what's ultimately risk-minimised speculation with hard and fast facts.  Nothing's a certainty but you can always minimise the risk of failure as much as possible.  I know you don't do it through 'fixing' via chooing the antithesis of what's just been before.  That's shooting in the dark.

 

For my money, appointing Dalglish was a huge statement of intent by Newcastle. Yes, he may have been different to Keegan, but so what ? you have to appoint them on their own merits - he had improved a top quality side at Liverpool, was this not exactly what we wanted at the time at Newcastle ?

 

Why did he fail ? Good question, fcuk knows. He changed the team too quickly, he wanted to win the league with his own players ? He was backed by the board, no question, although he lost Shearer ..... and kept Arsprilla instead of Ferdinand.

Maybe he should have had more time ? What do you think ? You should remember though, we reached an FA Cup Final for the first time in 24 years. Failure ?

 

Barely kept Asprilla really.  Didn't seem that long until Tino was gone.  Rush?  Barnes?  Hmph.  Anyway.  The statement of intent hasn't been very clear for a long time.

 

Is Roeder better than Dalglish. I would say not, but who can say he isn't better for Newcastle ? But Dalglish won't get another chance to prove he could be successful, so we will never know. Different clubs, different circumstances. They all impact in some way.

 

Well, as you say, you have to appoint them on their own merits.  And on that basis Roeder is one of the worst managers we've had in a long time, and I'd just like to know how it came to be this way, scrabbling around and ending up getting a barely qualified geography teacher of a manager.  If it's not a decline in ambition I don't know what is.

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

I don't even have to read it to know it's the same old moaning shite

 

they need to buy an idea or two if they want people to pay for their rag

[ChezGiven]

I prefer The Mag tbh. TF is great though (  Paully)

 

*creep*

[NE5]

I could copy and paste it, but it is a long old piece. Suffice to say, it may be stating the obvious and maybe just reiterating what many are already saying but that is not necessarily a bad thing per se.

 

Anyhoo it's here - http://true-faith.co.uk/html/tbawe.htm

 

Oh, did I mention that it is a little depressing. A decent enough read, but hoo boy, keep a hankie handy. Or a punch bag.

 

to be honest, they have been re-hashing the same stuff for months now. They also backed Martin O'Neill as our saviour, who is currently below us in the league and has been for quite a while too.

 

 

 

that makes the whole article wrong i guess..

but still do you think Glenn Roeder was a better choice for a manager?

 

on paper, or by track record, Kenny Dalglish was better than both of them put together .....

 

 

You can't prove by example, as they say.

 

4 League Titles with 2 different clubs, and 3 manager of the year awards proves the point. But you can continue to make an "opinion" not based on fact, if you like.

 

But we don't appoint top managers.

 

 

 

The Beermonster said...

 

On the basis that Dalglish had the best CV second to none, 4 league titles,

3 FA Cups, and 3 manager of the year awards ... oh aye Freddie can't appoint

top managers can he........LOL

 

 

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.sport.football.clubs.newcastle-united/browse_thread/thread/dd9d19baff9f921f/9a78958d1a8a07ba?q=beermonster+dalglish&lnk=ol&hl=en&

 

 

Seriously Baggio, instead of following me around...and claiming this is me when I have never posted on usenet, why don't you show us your intelligence and dispute the actual content of the post ?

 

BTW - I don't want to see you banned, or anyone else for that matter unlike toonstaylor, but you/we/us have been asked to stop this inter-forum malarkey ........

 

 

 

What is there to dispute?

 

*You think the article is rubbish because someone wanted O'Neill as manager a year ago.

 

*Someone asks you if you still think Roeder was a better choice as manager.

 

*You change the subject to a manager that we appointed 10 years ago.

 

So we appointed a manager with a proven track record that didn't work out, that doesn't mean we should just dismiss other managers with proven track records just because it didn't work out for us once,  one way not to take the club forward is to appoint a manager with a proven history of failure which is what we done with both Souness and Roeder.

 

As I've said to you before, you can't guarantee success however there are things you can do to give you more chance of it, employing failures like Souness and Roeder is not one of them.

 

Baggio, stop whinging on like a bit tart man

 

 

[Kasper]

Are these libelous claims about the club the reason true faith's site is down at the moment

 

Hail the free speech...