Now for Freddy Shepherd to resign

[Guest Knightrider]

Shepherd is not the sole cause of our current predicament

 

In his position as Chairman and majority shareholder/part owner, he is the ring leader.

[Howaythelads]

A little from coumn A, a little from column B.

 

I entirely realise where NE5 an HTL are coming from. If they are the age they claim to be, there is a very good chance they have seen the club come through some very horrible years under WORSE misorganised heirarcy than we have now. They also realise the fact Shepard played an important role in getting from where we used to be, into where we are now (one of the richest and best supported clubs in the world, with good success position wise). So on that regard, they deserve their right to be annoyed at the younger generation, which includes me, who constantly complain about things that they would see as abit misguided and blind.

 

However, looking at the recent future (Since keegan) it is MHO that the club, under someone with more forethought and vision, could have achieved ALOT more success. Sheppard fiancial and buisness sense is worse than very few in this league. However, his ability to hire and fire has halted the clubs long term progress. Which understandabley upsets the younger generation, who because of no fault of our own aren't AS aware of the long term picture or clubs history (apart from facts and figures).

 

The Hall/Shepard regime is actually only going to be small part of the clubs history but it's significance is massive. We are where we are because of them but the question is, do they or more imparticularly Freddy have it in them to take the club to the next level? I have my reservations....

 

Interesting post and it makes me recall something from ages ago.

 

I was worried about the appointment of Souness when I heard it announced on the car radio, but I could see the reasoning behind it. The players were supposed to be off the rails and needed some discipline. I believe the Board appointed Souness on that sole reason. This prompted a post from me all that time ago explaining my belief that the main limitation of this Board is how they appoint a manager generally based on a single character trait only.

 

You can trace it through right back to when Keegan left with Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and then Souness.  Appointing someone based on such a narrow criteria doesn't work and this is where they've gone badly wrong imo.

 

Of course, I can't accept criticism of the Board and I am a massive supporter of Fred because I don't harp on about him being a pie eating, fat bastard......I post lies, misrepresentation and waffle anarl.

[Howaythelads]

HTL, but no-one has ever claimed or argued that past boards were not worse, indeed who gives a damn?  Means nowt and has no meaning today. Anyway, good to see you finally aknowledging what most of us have been saying for a while now - that the current board need to review their positions.

 

1. Yes they have.

 

2. I acknowledged it ages ago, I've never thought Roeder was a good appointment. I recall being slated for suggesting he shouldn't even be given the job as caretaker........

[Guest Knightrider]

HTL, but no-one has ever claimed or argued that past boards were not worse, indeed who gives a damn?  Means nowt and has no meaning today. Anyway, good to see you finally aknowledging what most of us have been saying for a while now - that the current board need to review their positions.

 

1. Yes they have.

 

2. I acknowledged it ages ago, I've never thought Roeder was a good appointment. I recall being slated for suggesting he shouldn't even be given the job as caretaker........

 

1. Who? And even if they have, I bet it was only one or two and still, has no bearing on today. You've constantly brought the old boards up in posts, yet they have as much bearing on the current board as they have on them - nowt.

 

2. You've aknowledged their mistakes, can't remember you saying they need to go or we need to look at other options though.

[STM]

A little from coumn A, a little from column B.

 

I entirely realise where NE5 an HTL are coming from. If they are the age they claim to be, there is a very good chance they have seen the club come through some very horrible years under WORSE misorganised heirarcy than we have now. They also realise the fact Shepard played an important role in getting from where we used to be, into where we are now (one of the richest and best supported clubs in the world, with good success position wise). So on that regard, they deserve their right to be annoyed at the younger generation, which includes me, who constantly complain about things that they would see as abit misguided and blind.

 

However, looking at the recent future (Since keegan) it is MHO that the club, under someone with more forethought and vision, could have achieved ALOT more success. Sheppard fiancial and buisness sense is worse than very few in this league. However, his ability to hire and fire has halted the clubs long term progress. Which understandabley upsets the younger generation, who because of no fault of our own aren't AS aware of the long term picture or clubs history (apart from facts and figures).

 

The Hall/Shepard regime is actually only going to be small part of the clubs history but it's significance is massive. We are where we are because of them but the question is, do they or more imparticularly Freddy have it in them to take the club to the next level? I have my reservations....

 

Interesting post and it makes me recall something from ages ago.

 

I was worried about the appointment of Souness when I heard it announced on the car radio, but I could see the reasoning behind it. The players were supposed to be off the rails and needed some discipline. I believe the Board appointed Souness on that sole reason. This prompted a post from all that time ago explaining my belief that the main limitation of this Board is how they appoint a manager generally based on a single character trait only.

 

You can trace it through right back to when Keegan left with Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and then Souness.  Appointing someone based on such a narrow criteria doesn't work and this is where they've gone badly wrong imo.

 

Of course, I can't accept criticism of the Board and I am a massive supporter of Fred because I don't harp on about him being a pie eating, fat b******......

 

Aye, your spot on about the narrow minded apointments. Thats why i think Allarydce is a good appointment he covers alot of the criteria.

 

I can't stand anyone that posts abuse about anyone at the club, whether they are right or wrong. There aint any need for the stuff. Critical yes, abusive no. So i agree...... ya big prick!

 

 

[Howaythelads]

HTL, but no-one has ever claimed or argued that past boards were not worse, indeed who gives a damn?  Means nowt and has no meaning today. Anyway, good to see you finally aknowledging what most of us have been saying for a while now - that the current board need to review their positions.

 

1. Yes they have.

 

2. I acknowledged it ages ago, I've never thought Roeder was a good appointment. I recall being slated for suggesting he shouldn't even be given the job as caretaker........

 

1. Who? And even if they have, I bet it was only one or two and still, has no bearing on today. You've constantly brought the old boards up in posts, yet they have as much bearing on the current board as they have on them - nowt.

 

2. You've aknowledged their mistakes, can't remember you saying they need to go or we need to look at other options though.

 

Jesus! Who, he says......?

 

Ok.

 

 

[Guest Knightrider]

Well howay then, who on this forum has claimed old boards to be worse than this one?

[Howaythelads]

A little from coumn A, a little from column B.

 

I entirely realise where NE5 an HTL are coming from. If they are the age they claim to be, there is a very good chance they have seen the club come through some very horrible years under WORSE misorganised heirarcy than we have now. They also realise the fact Shepard played an important role in getting from where we used to be, into where we are now (one of the richest and best supported clubs in the world, with good success position wise). So on that regard, they deserve their right to be annoyed at the younger generation, which includes me, who constantly complain about things that they would see as abit misguided and blind.

 

However, looking at the recent future (Since keegan) it is MHO that the club, under someone with more forethought and vision, could have achieved ALOT more success. Sheppard fiancial and buisness sense is worse than very few in this league. However, his ability to hire and fire has halted the clubs long term progress. Which understandabley upsets the younger generation, who because of no fault of our own aren't AS aware of the long term picture or clubs history (apart from facts and figures).

 

The Hall/Shepard regime is actually only going to be small part of the clubs history but it's significance is massive. We are where we are because of them but the question is, do they or more imparticularly Freddy have it in them to take the club to the next level? I have my reservations....

 

Interesting post and it makes me recall something from ages ago.

 

I was worried about the appointment of Souness when I heard it announced on the car radio, but I could see the reasoning behind it. The players were supposed to be off the rails and needed some discipline. I believe the Board appointed Souness on that sole reason. This prompted a post from all that time ago explaining my belief that the main limitation of this Board is how they appoint a manager generally based on a single character trait only.

 

You can trace it through right back to when Keegan left with Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and then Souness.  Appointing someone based on such a narrow criteria doesn't work and this is where they've gone badly wrong imo.

 

Of course, I can't accept criticism of the Board and I am a massive supporter of Fred because I don't harp on about him being a pie eating, fat b******......

 

Aye, your spot on about the narrow minded apointments. Thats why i think Allarydce is a good appointment he covers alot of the criteria.

 

I can't stand anyone that posts abuse about anyone at the club, whether they are right or wrong. There aint any need for the stuff. Critical yes, abusive no. So i agree...... ya big prick!

 

 

 

They all say that.

 

I'm not sure about Allardyce.

 

There's no doubt he's better than Roeder, but if this appointment happens I see it as a bigger risk than appointing Dalglish, Gullit and Robson.

 

Allardyce is a small club manager which means he's only ever worked to a low level of expectation. Even Souness had operated at clubs that had big expectations. Compared to Bolton it's an entirely different situation at a club like Newcastle with the expectation now surrounding the club. I'm not sure how he will do under the weight of that expectation. There is also the issue of buying players to think about. Yes, he's signed some big name players and looks to have their respect, but to compete at the top he will have to spend bigger (assuming the Board can back him) than he has at Bolton and that will be another test of his judgement and his ability that he hasn't had to face so far as a manager.  It's very risky.

 

In short, this is an entirely different job that he'll have to tackle in a different way imo, there will be tests and challenges for him that he hasn't faced at all yet and has no experience of.

 

[BlueStar]

HTL, still think FS should review his own position?

 

Just so you're not being misrepresented HTL, it wasn't "review his own position"

 

This poor looking situation the club is in right now will correct itself over time if it turns out that Roeder is a good appointment. If he isn't and it doesn't, then I believe Fred should go.

 

I think the reason people are banging on about it at this moment (after a woeful finish to the season and Roeder resigning/jumping before being pushed) is because they want you to say one of three things in order to make sense of this statement and at the moment I don't think you've actually said any of them:

 

A) Roeder was a good appointment

B) Freddy should go.

C) I didn't really mean it when I said that if Roeder turns out to not be a good appointment that Freddy should go.

[Howaythelads]

Well howay then, who on this forum has claimed old boards to be worse than this one?

 

Surprisingly it seems you're serious, but I won't be drawn into this one. You know as well as I do. You also know that the majority of members believe it is impossible to have a Board worse than the current one, which is saying the same thing. As well you know.

 

You can have the last word.

[Guest Knightrider]

HTL, Big Sam has his own high expectations, which he just so happened to mould Bolton, a small club as you rightfull say, into matching them... to the point where they could no longer, hence his own resignation. He's highly ambitious and will be more than at home with our expectations, in fact I think he'll relish it. Just a month ago he said Bolton's expectations every season were to finish in the top 6.

[BlueStar]

HTL, still think FS should review his own position?

 

Just so you're not being misrepresented HTL, it wasn't "review his own position"

 

This poor looking situation the club is in right now will correct itself over time if it turns out that Roeder is a good appointment. If he isn't and it doesn't, then I believe Fred should go.

 

I think the reason people are banging on about it at this moment (after a woeful finish to the season and Roeder resigning/jumping before being pushed) is because they want you to say one of three things in order to make sense of this statement and at the moment I don't think you've actually said any of them:

 

A) Roeder was a good appointment

B) Freddy should go.

C) I didn't really mean it when I said that if Roeder turns out to not be a good appointment that Freddy should go.

[OzzieMandias]

The list of things wrong with our club is quite a long one - and while Shepherd is ultimately responsible for the wellbeing of the club as it's public figurehead he cannot be held directly for every contributing factor. As I say Shepherd is not the sole cause of our current predicament

 

 

Shepherd is where the buck stops.

 

Or where it should stop, if the man had any honour.

[Guest Knightrider]

Well howay then, who on this forum has claimed old boards to be worse than this one?

 

Surprisingly it seems you're serious, but I won't be drawn into this one. You know as well as I do. You also know that the majority of members believe it is impossible to have a Board worse than the current one, which is saying the same thing. As well you know.

 

You can have the last word.

 

Disappointed, you claim people have said that the old board was worse than this one and when I ask you to back it up, you don't. You now say that the majority of members don't reckon you can get more worse than this board, well I'll ask again, who are these members?

 

Truth is, no-one has claimed these things or certainly not many, so therefore why do you consistently feel the need to remind us all how bad previous boards were and that the grass isn't always greener when the majority will already know this because it is obvious.

 

Not about point scoring or having the last word BTW mate, FWIW I think you speak a lot of sense on these old board vs the current board and the current board vs a new potential board debates, just feel you use these things to defend the current lot a bit too much and can't seem to seperate these things when viewing the current lot for what they are.

[Taylor Swift]

A little from coumn A, a little from column B.

 

I entirely realise where NE5 an HTL are coming from. If they are the age they claim to be, there is a very good chance they have seen the club come through some very horrible years under WORSE misorganised heirarcy than we have now. They also realise the fact Shepard played an important role in getting from where we used to be, into where we are now (one of the richest and best supported clubs in the world, with good success position wise). So on that regard, they deserve their right to be annoyed at the younger generation, which includes me, who constantly complain about things that they would see as abit misguided and blind.

 

However, looking at the recent future (Since keegan) it is MHO that the club, under someone with more forethought and vision, could have achieved ALOT more success. Sheppard fiancial and buisness sense is worse than very few in this league. However, his ability to hire and fire has halted the clubs long term progress. Which understandabley upsets the younger generation, who because of no fault of our own aren't AS aware of the long term picture or clubs history (apart from facts and figures).

 

The Hall/Shepard regime is actually only going to be small part of the clubs history but it's significance is massive. We are where we are because of them but the question is, do they or more imparticularly Freddy have it in them to take the club to the next level? I have my reservations....

 

Interesting post and it makes me recall something from ages ago.

 

I was worried about the appointment of Souness when I heard it announced on the car radio, but I could see the reasoning behind it. The players were supposed to be off the rails and needed some discipline. I believe the Board appointed Souness on that sole reason. This prompted a post from all that time ago explaining my belief that the main limitation of this Board is how they appoint a manager generally based on a single character trait only.

 

You can trace it through right back to when Keegan left with Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and then Souness.  Appointing someone based on such a narrow criteria doesn't work and this is where they've gone badly wrong imo.

 

Of course, I can't accept criticism of the Board and I am a massive supporter of Fred because I don't harp on about him being a pie eating, fat b******......

 

Aye, your spot on about the narrow minded apointments. Thats why i think Allarydce is a good appointment he covers alot of the criteria.

 

I can't stand anyone that posts abuse about anyone at the club, whether they are right or wrong. There aint any need for the stuff. Critical yes, abusive no. So i agree...... ya big prick!

 

 

 

They all say that.

 

I'm not sure about Allardyce.

 

There's no doubt he's better than Roeder, but if this appointment happens I see it as a bigger risk than appointing Dalglish, Gullit and Robson.

 

Allardyce is a small club manager which means he's only ever worked to a low level of expectation. Even Souness had operated at clubs that had big expectations. Compared to Bolton it's an entirely different situation at a club like Newcastle with the expectation now surrounding the club. I'm not sure how he will do under the weight of that expectation. There is also the issue of buying players to think about. Yes, he's signed some big name players and looks to have their respect, but to compete at the top he will have to spend bigger (assuming the Board can back him) than he has at Bolton and that will be another test of his judgement and his ability that he hasn't had to face so far as a manager.  It's very risky.

 

In short, this is an entirely different job that he'll have to tackle in a different way imo, there will be tests and challenges for him that he hasn't faced at all yet and has no experience of.

 

 

Definitely agree. There's no way telling how he'll adjust from managing a club not expected to do much except hover around mid-table to managing a club expected to score goals and win loads of football games.

[NUFC06]

Players playing poor and dont have the ability to play at the top level=sold or released

Managers dont achieve results,the team is playing poor,dont have the ability to manage at the top level=sacked,released or resigned

Chairman,Board that makes bad managerial appointments,dont have the ability to run the club properly,failed with managerial appointments which is one of the most important things when it comes to runing the club=resigned???

 

Am i missing something or what?

[STM]

HTL, i understand your sentiment that this club needs a manager with big shoulders (metophoically). It's for this reason why i see Allardyce as the least risky appointment out of those touted.

 

I'm a firm believer that at big clubs that have alot of pressure on them it's esstential that you have a certain amount of confident, over confident, even arrogant characters. Prime example os this can be seen at all the chamions of the past:

 

Man Utd: There whole club is based on arrogance. Charlton, Fergie, Cantona, Ronaldo, Neville this list is endless TBH.

 

Arsenal: During their unbeaten run played some of the most over confidently annoying football. A team full of players like Cole and Veira who to say the least love themselves.

 

Chelsea: Mourinho, say no more.

 

For me, Big sam is perfect for us. He doesn't give a monkeys about "big club", "alan shearer god" crap. He will just come in and do his thing (if hes allowed to). Chew his chewing gum, voice his opinions and generally give the players a good kick up the arse. Organsation and confidence is what we are missing at the moment. This is allardyce's forte.

 

In fact, dare i say this is a very clever appointment by Shepard (if it happens).

[Baggio]

Shepherd hasn't been as bad as some make out and was doing a good job up until 3 or 4 years ago, we had some low league finishes under him with Dalglish and Gullit but nobody blamed the board for Dalglish failing here, a few felt the board should have stuck by their manager (Gullit) over Shearer but not many, however these last few years he's really let it slip and if he was in any other profession he would have been sacked.

 

It all started when he undermined Sir Bobby, selling Speed and trying to sell Bowyer behind SBR back, refusing to buy Carrick and insisting we went for Butt instead, this is no way for a chairman to carry on, when Sir Bobby did leave the timing couldn't have been any worse, we were on par with Liverpool at the time yet they went about replacing their manager the right way, look at the difference in clubs now.

 

Then came Souness, why anyone would appoint him is beyond me, I take HTL's point that he may have been looking for a disciplinarian but he was rejected by Bruce and Allardyce first so I can't see that being the case, more likely who was left. Then he went on to back him with nearly £50 million only for it all to blow up in his face, he basically tried to cover his mistake by throwing money at the problem.

 

After he sacked Souness he said he wouldn't rush into an appointment as it was the most important in the clubs history, only to appoint Glenn Roeder! We all know what happened there, we're looking like we could finish with our lowest points tally since we've been back in the Premiership.

 

Shepherd puts his money where his mouth is and you can't knock him for that, however when it comes to football he really doesn't have a clue, which is why I've stated that I'd like to see a DOF/Technical director come in and run the football side of the club and leave the fat man to things like the ground extension and other projects like that.

[Howaythelads]

HTL, still think FS should review his own position?

 

Just so you're not being misrepresented HTL, it wasn't "review his own position"

 

This poor looking situation the club is in right now will correct itself over time if it turns out that Roeder is a good appointment. If he isn't and it doesn't, then I believe Fred should go.

 

I think the reason people are banging on about it at this moment (after a woeful finish to the season and Roeder resigning/jumping before being pushed) is because they want you to say one of three things in order to make sense of this statement and at the moment I don't think you've actually said any of them:

 

A) Roeder was a good appointment

B) Freddy should go.

C) I didn't really mean it when I said that if Roeder turns out to not be a good appointment that Freddy should go.

 

Are you so dumb that you're unable to read? What is there to "make sense of" in that statement? It seems clear enough to me. I know what I posted at that time and I know what I meant when I posted it. Do you want to explain to me which part of that post you don't understand?

 

BTW I hadn't realised that what I say is so important to you that you feel you have to make a sudden appearance asking me to repeat it. Thanks though. I'm sorry to say I don't place the same level of importance on the stuff you write.

 

[Guest Knightrider]

Shepherd puts the club's money where his mouth is and spending money at a club that generates a lot of it is hardly something to be considered a plus point, its a given. If you really want to, compare our turnover with that of everyone else, and then get a percentage of our spend to turnover ratio, do that and you'll find we spend on average the same as everyone else pretty much, in relation to turnover. In short, nearly every chairman backs their managers with cash. We spend more but we make more, we are all just spending the same though, well most anyway. Hate this "he backs his manager with his money" crap. Doh, so does Gibson, so did Ellis FFS.

[Howaythelads]

Well howay then, who on this forum has claimed old boards to be worse than this one?

 

Surprisingly it seems you're serious, but I won't be drawn into this one. You know as well as I do. You also know that the majority of members believe it is impossible to have a Board worse than the current one, which is saying the same thing. As well you know.

 

You can have the last word.

 

Disappointed, you claim people have said that the old board was worse than this one and when I ask you to back it up, you don't. You now say that the majority of members don't reckon you can get more worse than this board, well I'll ask again, who are these members?

 

Truth is, no-one has claimed these things or certainly not many, so therefore why do you consistently feel the need to remind us all how bad previous boards were and that the grass isn't always greener when the majority will already know this because it is obvious.

 

Not about point scoring or having the last word BTW mate, FWIW I think you speak a lot of sense on these old board vs the current board and the current board vs a new potential board debates, just feel you use these things to defend the current lot a bit too much and can't seem to seperate these things when viewing the current lot for what they are.

 

Your interpretation of people's comments over the last couple of years is the complete opposite of mine. If I was going to name names I'd be here all day, so take it that I think the majority of people on this forum don't believe it's possible for the club to have a worse Board than we have now. I read many posts that are written in such as way as to make that the only possible conclusion. As a hater of the Board I daresay you view these posts in a different way though.

 

I'll add that I don't defend the current Board at all, I don't even heap praise on them for what they've done before appointing Souness, so you're getting a bit confused there. The stuff I post about the Board is mainly that it is just as possible to replace them with a worse group as it is possible to replace them with a better group. In fact, I think it'll be easier to end up with worse, so I'm probably wrong on that one anyway.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on it.

[Guest Knightrider]

HTL, simple answer. In light of all our failings since we finished 2nd to Man Utd under SJH and KK, and recent managerial appointments, do you think it is time for the board to go?

[Howaythelads]

HTL, i understand your sentiment that this club needs a manager with big shoulders (metophoically). It's for this reason why i see Allardyce as the least risky appointment out of those touted.

 

I'm a firm believer that at big clubs that have alot of pressure on them it's esstential that you have a certain amount of confident, over confident, even arrogant characters. Prime example os this can be seen at all the chamions of the past:

 

Man Utd: There whole club is based on arrogance. Charlton, Fergie, Cantona, Ronaldo, Neville this list is endless TBH.

 

Arsenal: During their unbeaten run played some of the most over confidently annoying football. A team full of players like Cole and Veira who to say the least love themselves.

 

Chelsea: Mourinho, say no more.

 

For me, Big sam is perfect for us. He doesn't give a monkeys about "big club", "alan shearer god" crap. He will just come in and do his thing (if hes allowed to). Chew his chewing gum, voice his opinions and generally give the players a good kick up the arse. Organsation and confidence is what we are missing at the moment. This is allardyce's forte.

 

In fact, dare i say this is a very clever appointment by Shepard (if it happens).

 

If it happens I hope you're right.

[Howaythelads]

Shepherd hasn't been as bad as some make out and was doing a good job up until 3 or 4 years ago, we had some low league finishes under him with Dalglish and Gullit but nobody blamed the board for Dalglish failing here, a few felt the board should have stuck by their manager (Gullit) over Shearer but not many, however these last few years he's really let it slip and if he was in any other profession he would have been sacked.

 

It all started when he undermined Sir Bobby, selling Speed and trying to sell Bowyer behind SBR back, refusing to buy Carrick and insisting we went for Butt instead, this is no way for a chairman to carry on, when Sir Bobby did leave the timing couldn't have been any worse, we were on par with Liverpool at the time yet they went about replacing their manager the right way, look at the difference in clubs now.

 

Then came Souness, why anyone would appoint him is beyond me, I take HTL's point that he may have been looking for a disciplinarian but he was rejected by Bruce and Allardyce first so I can't see that being the case, more likely who was left. Then he went on to back him with nearly £50 million only for it all to blow up in his face, he basically tried to cover his mistake by throwing money at the problem.

 

After he sacked Souness he said he wouldn't rush into an appointment as it was the most important in the clubs history, only to appoint Glenn Roeder! We all know what happened there, we're looking like we could finish with our lowest points tally since we've been back in the Premiership.

 

Shepherd puts his money where his mouth is and you can't knock him for that, however when it comes to football he really doesn't have a clue, which is why I've stated that I'd like to see a DOF/Technical director come in and run the football side of the club and leave the fat man to things like the ground extension and other projects like that.

 

When are you going to accept that the timing of replacing Robson wasn't the problem (although he should have gone sooner), the problem was the wanker selected as the replacement. Robson replaced Gullit at a similar stage of the season ffs and nobody complains about the timing of that.

[STM]

HTL is correct. If you get the correct bloke in, it doesn't matter about the timing (long term).