Mort is new Chairman - Shepherd leaves

[macbeth]

Shame you don't answer the question about Martins. Not that everyone reading this will not know why 

 

Yeah, I know why. It's because, pulled out of context, it's a dumb question. We shouldn't have got into the position where we had to go even deeper into debt to buy a striker.

 

"Backing the manager" as the sole requirement of a chairman glosses over the fact that he's supposed to be managing club revenues in such a way as to make sustainable progress. No one can say that Peter Ridsdale didn't back David O'Leary. Look at Leeds now.

 

that was different

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

macbeth actually believes someone with no links to Newcastle should be expected to run the football club for zero profit, and what's more, pay off its outstanding debts for free

[Guest sicko2ndbest]

From the People (with quotes) Be warned not good reading:

 

BIG SAM'S CASH BLOW PROBLEM

EXCLUSIVE

By Martin Hardy

Sam ALLARDYCE has been dealt a devastating blow by Newcastle's new owners, who have told him he has just £10million available for new signings.

 

And to make matters worse for Big Sam, that figure INCLUDES the wages of the players he wants to bring in.

 

Chairman Chris Mort took control at St James' Park following the sacking of Freddy Shepherd last week.

 

And People Sport understands the lawyer, put in power by billionaire Toon owner Mike Ashley, has told Allardyce he will need to sell before any more cash becomes available.

 

It means the expected £5m sale of Kieron Dyer - with West Ham and Tottenham leading the chase - is a vital one to help boost the Toon warchest.

 

The news could not have come at a worse time for Allardyce, who has seen his squad hit by injury and earlier claimed the new owners would have to be fools not to support his plans for rebuilding the underachieving club.

 

He said: "They know very little of football. It'd be pretty foolish not to back me now."

 

The injury situation reached crisis levels during Thursday's friendly with Celtic, when Allardyce (below) was forced to bring on reserve goalkeeper Steve Harper up front.

 

 

Allardyce, who agreed to join the Magpies in May when Shepherd was still in charge, believes he will need to form a strong relationship with Mort to have any chance of succeeding.

 

 

He said: "It's for me to provide the information to help them understand why I'm doing what I'm doing and where I'm going, and show them we need to initially focus on the first team."

 

[TRon]

From the People (with quotes) Be warned not good reading:

 

BIG SAM'S CASH BLOW PROBLEM

EXCLUSIVE

By Martin Hardy

Sam ALLARDYCE has been dealt a devastating blow by Newcastle's new owners, who have told him he has just £10million available for new signings.

 

And to make matters worse for Big Sam, that figure INCLUDES the wages of the players he wants to bring in.

 

 

 

 

If that is true how was it possible to make a £7m  bid for a top defender last week? The figures don'y add up.

 

 

[Guest sicko2ndbest]

I am only the messanger

 

Your right it dosnt add up but Allardyces quotes are worrying!

[TRon]

Allardyce's quotes don't mention anything about having £10m to work with.

[Guest gggg]

How come papers come out with even more horseshit on Sundays than they normally do 

[Guest Guinness]

I am only the messanger

 

Your right it dosnt add up but Allardyces quotes are worrying!

 

The quotes don't mean anything, they've strung a few things he's said in the media together to make it look bad.

[James]

The People are the least reliable of all Sunday rags, so I wouldn't believe it.

[Dokko]

The People are the least reliable of all Sunday rags, so I wouldn't believe it.

 

No transfer news for 3 weeks.

 

In need of defenders

 

New regime

 

Manager saying he's missing out

 

= Papers ability to capitalize on our uncertainty and anxiety as we've got a reclusive owner who won't state his intentions.

 

You can say what you want about the rags, but this uncertainty has only bred because our new owner has let it. Now if its a ploy so we get player on the cheap then he's done a good job, if its been to mask the truth that there was no money then the fuker is already on level par as the old board, and i find myself waiting for another takeover.

 

 

[NE5]

Shame you don't answer the question about Martins. Not that everyone reading this will not know why 

 

Yeah, I know why. It's because, pulled out of context, it's a dumb question. We shouldn't have got into the position where we had to go even deeper into debt to buy a striker.

 

"Backing the manager" as the sole requirement of a chairman glosses over the fact that he's supposed to be managing club revenues in such a way as to make sustainable progress. No one can say that Peter Ridsdale didn't back David O'Leary. Look at Leeds now.

 

We were deep in debt because of Souness alienating and selling our best players for next to nowt and wasting millions replacements, which you backed until the end, and still do.

 

Can't get much dumber than that.

 

Nobody has ever been successful without backing managers to buy top players, how else do you think you can be successful ?

 

Almost as dumb as your last "opinion"

 

 

 

[NE5]

macbeth actually believes someone with no links to Newcastle should be expected to run the football club for zero profit, and what's more, pay off its outstanding debts for free

 

sussed. Daft isn't it

 

mackems.gif

[NE5]

Mort is a W*****

 

Big Sam The Journal: “While Freddie was hands-on and here every single day of the week, it isn’t quite that under this regime – that’s the difference from my point of view.

 

Fat Fred Telegraph: "I wouldn't presume to tell him how to run things but all I will say is that I don't believe it can be done by proxy.We may live in an age of communication but I believe Newcastle are a club who need dedicated day-to-day handling."

 

 

I saw that quote and I agree with it, but I don't suppose too many people will quite have it in them to admit that he is right about anything at all.

 

 

 

Isn't that going to be Morts job (and the team he brings in) though?

 

FS was doing the job of about 5 people in the end, and why not enough opinion was ever given only his and the Halls mattered. Surrounding himself with his own family didn't help the situation. I don't think we need Ashley to be hands on, we just need his money, what we do need though is his people, an d hopefully more arrivals will come in the coming months.

 

Mort himself probably hasn't had the time to be hands on with the manager etc, but maybe this is intentional as that role is seen for a DOF to come in and handle.

 

 

It reads to me as saying that Sam is unhappy with the fact that he had someone to help him run the club and take weight off him, doing the day to day things that Shepherd did whatever they were, and now that isn't the case. Its a bit of a one in the eye for those who said he "interfered" to have a manager insinuate he found him helpful. Which backs up what other managers have said too, Gullit and Dalglish have both said they have no complaints about him at all.

 

The danger here is if the new owners want to run the club in this way, we could also lose Allardyce. Whether you are happy with this depends of course on how good you think he is, and who a replacement would be

 

But what Shepherd is saying is that Newcastle is too big a club not to need a small team of people running it in constant attendance on a day to day basis in their various roles whatever they may be, and he is right.

 

 

 

Too right it takes a big team, but FS tried to run it all by himself. I remember, i think anyway, board members leaving, positions opening up, and those never replaced, but FS taking control of them instead, for long periods of time at least.

 

Its no wonder he made too many mistakes in the end, he was making far too many, and i think that's where people see it as interference. We will never know how much of a hand he had in transfers, but am sure he did, but if we had a DOF that would be his job, and if SA was happy with how he saw FS taking on a form of that role, then in the end SA is saying he could possibly work with a DOF in some capacity and make it work.

 

Am i reading too much into that?

 

 

No, I can agree with you that he was probably doing too much, and anyone doing too much makes more mistakes than they would.

 

That is entirely fair comment and significant too TT.

 

Baggio is going to come along now and tell us about his DOF's etc  but essentially if Sam feels he has lost some support and Mort is not an ally to him like Shepherd was, then it needs to rectified quickly with an appointment of someone, and someone else too if the club needs it to run the club on a day to day basis. Most managers need a number 2 these days, or they have them should I say, as well as whatever job Shepherd did.

 

Must admit, I'm not up to date on any backround changes he's made yet, have we missed something, I did read that a lot of his staff at Bolton handed in their notices, is this true ?

 

I'm all for the club changing its scouting, coaching and medical setup , thats one of the main reasons I wanted Allardyce as manager.

 

 

 

His own staff are not here ATM are they? Loads of talk about them resigning, but i haven't heard of any coming here since then. Last i heard a 'war room' was being built at the training complex, but that's not going to be much use if its manned by Terry Mac & Lee Clark is it? An assistant would help, but maybe he finds enough of what he needs in Pearson for that. I hope so, i've taken a liking to him, but no real idea why. Bond i just didn't like from the start, again no idea why.

 

SA could possibly feel isolated ATM with the man who brought him in gone, no direct or working link to the board & owner, and press reports saying he might not be the man for the job, also not being backed so far in this very important transfer window might be playing on his mind. But whats clear right now is he has 99% of the players, and 99% of the fans, and that alone will keep him in a job, when either dwindles, then the board can act against, but i'm sure the fans will be more patient than usual (signing players is a different ball game as you can only do it at certain times, form picks up etc), and i think his personality is reaching all kinds of players (even Luque), and as long as that happens and were winning games and progressing, the fans are onside.

 

DOF? Wow, its a strange role isn't it? I'm not sold on the idea, simply as there is no real definition on it. Some people reckon its this, some something totally different, some find the role insulting, some find it useful, some think its key to a successful football club. For me a DOF is the go between from the board to manager. He should be working with the manager, and slightly against the board. Pushing for money and signings, the footballing voice on the board. For me, if thats how it is, we need one. Right now SA is so busy with training and tactics he doesn't have time for a now and then plan of players, academies, facilities and targeting and signing the right players or looking elsewhere and building up shortlists for the future, and the now. Signing players gets more difficult as the years go on, the market is cut throat, a DOF could ease the load on SA, and at least get him communicating with the board. For me FS saw himself as DOF and a Chairman, and it simply doesn't work, and again, another reason why people call him interfering, especially with transfers.

 

So if we theoretically decide on a DOF being a good idea, who has the larger input on who it should be? Board only appointment, a recommendation from SA or a joint decision? That's where it gets tricky.

 

 

Yep. A DOF, 2nd in command, call it what you like, but he is appealing for a helping hand, no doubt about it. They say a manager needs to have a good relationship with his chairman for a club to be successful, and the one between Mort and Allardyce seems to be a bit distant right now. I must admit I am getting a feeling that there won't be a good relationship between them at all in the future, if what sam says is true "they don't really understand football" etc etc it doesn't bode well, they will have to learn quickly.

 

Unless their intentions are to run the club on tight budgets - not in the brochure at all this one was it - which means that clubs with more ambition are going to outbid us for all the top players and we can basically say goodbye to any chance of getting among the Champions League clubs.

 

Someone like Keegan would actually push for more money, he is very persuasive in this way, but it shouldn't be like this. The people running the club have to understand football themselves.

 

I also think that when it comes to buying players, the manager should really have the last word. After all, the buck stops somewhere, so those decisions must be his. By all means, have someone going around hunting for talent - like Keegan - but if that is what they do, then they are a scout. It depends on their relationship, for instance, Allardyce could trust Keegan implicitly but if there came a time when the club signed a player on his say-so and Allardyce wasn't so keen, then he is undermining him.

 

Stuff that goes on on the training ground, is for the "coaches". This is a grey area though, Sam is deeply into monitoring fitness levels, heartbeat rates, blood pressure, amount of miles run during games, weight before and after training and matches, dietary things, all of this. He has his people to do this, but it all amounts to a hell of a lot of work, so he needs his staff if he is going to run the club in the way he chooses, which of course must be the reason he was appointed, and if he is being prevented from doing it must be really pissed off, and rightly so.

 

Its fair comment that Shepherd hasn't been involved with the club since he came because he was in hospital, but he would have expected someone to be so when he came, and now has found that isn't the case.

 

I think the manager should appoint all his staff, personally. If the board choose any particular person to work with him, they are undermining him, this is football and the relationships between a manager and his staff have to be good ones.

 

 

[Dokko]

Mort is a W*****

 

Big Sam The Journal: “While Freddie was hands-on and here every single day of the week, it isn’t quite that under this regime – that’s the difference from my point of view.

 

Fat Fred Telegraph: "I wouldn't presume to tell him how to run things but all I will say is that I don't believe it can be done by proxy.We may live in an age of communication but I believe Newcastle are a club who need dedicated day-to-day handling."

 

 

I saw that quote and I agree with it, but I don't suppose too many people will quite have it in them to admit that he is right about anything at all.

 

 

 

Isn't that going to be Morts job (and the team he brings in) though?

 

FS was doing the job of about 5 people in the end, and why not enough opinion was ever given only his and the Halls mattered. Surrounding himself with his own family didn't help the situation. I don't think we need Ashley to be hands on, we just need his money, what we do need though is his people, an d hopefully more arrivals will come in the coming months.

 

Mort himself probably hasn't had the time to be hands on with the manager etc, but maybe this is intentional as that role is seen for a DOF to come in and handle.

 

 

It reads to me as saying that Sam is unhappy with the fact that he had someone to help him run the club and take weight off him, doing the day to day things that Shepherd did whatever they were, and now that isn't the case. Its a bit of a one in the eye for those who said he "interfered" to have a manager insinuate he found him helpful. Which backs up what other managers have said too, Gullit and Dalglish have both said they have no complaints about him at all.

 

The danger here is if the new owners want to run the club in this way, we could also lose Allardyce. Whether you are happy with this depends of course on how good you think he is, and who a replacement would be

 

But what Shepherd is saying is that Newcastle is too big a club not to need a small team of people running it in constant attendance on a day to day basis in their various roles whatever they may be, and he is right.

 

 

 

Too right it takes a big team, but FS tried to run it all by himself. I remember, i think anyway, board members leaving, positions opening up, and those never replaced, but FS taking control of them instead, for long periods of time at least.

 

Its no wonder he made too many mistakes in the end, he was making far too many, and i think that's where people see it as interference. We will never know how much of a hand he had in transfers, but am sure he did, but if we had a DOF that would be his job, and if SA was happy with how he saw FS taking on a form of that role, then in the end SA is saying he could possibly work with a DOF in some capacity and make it work.

 

Am i reading too much into that?

 

 

No, I can agree with you that he was probably doing too much, and anyone doing too much makes more mistakes than they would.

 

That is entirely fair comment and significant too TT.

 

Baggio is going to come along now and tell us about his DOF's etc  but essentially if Sam feels he has lost some support and Mort is not an ally to him like Shepherd was, then it needs to rectified quickly with an appointment of someone, and someone else too if the club needs it to run the club on a day to day basis. Most managers need a number 2 these days, or they have them should I say, as well as whatever job Shepherd did.

 

Must admit, I'm not up to date on any backround changes he's made yet, have we missed something, I did read that a lot of his staff at Bolton handed in their notices, is this true ?

 

I'm all for the club changing its scouting, coaching and medical setup , thats one of the main reasons I wanted Allardyce as manager.

 

 

 

His own staff are not here ATM are they? Loads of talk about them resigning, but i haven't heard of any coming here since then. Last i heard a 'war room' was being built at the training complex, but that's not going to be much use if its manned by Terry Mac & Lee Clark is it? An assistant would help, but maybe he finds enough of what he needs in Pearson for that. I hope so, i've taken a liking to him, but no real idea why. Bond i just didn't like from the start, again no idea why.

 

SA could possibly feel isolated ATM with the man who brought him in gone, no direct or working link to the board & owner, and press reports saying he might not be the man for the job, also not being backed so far in this very important transfer window might be playing on his mind. But whats clear right now is he has 99% of the players, and 99% of the fans, and that alone will keep him in a job, when either dwindles, then the board can act against, but i'm sure the fans will be more patient than usual (signing players is a different ball game as you can only do it at certain times, form picks up etc), and i think his personality is reaching all kinds of players (even Luque), and as long as that happens and were winning games and progressing, the fans are onside.

 

DOF? Wow, its a strange role isn't it? I'm not sold on the idea, simply as there is no real definition on it. Some people reckon its this, some something totally different, some find the role insulting, some find it useful, some think its key to a successful football club. For me a DOF is the go between from the board to manager. He should be working with the manager, and slightly against the board. Pushing for money and signings, the footballing voice on the board. For me, if thats how it is, we need one. Right now SA is so busy with training and tactics he doesn't have time for a now and then plan of players, academies, facilities and targeting and signing the right players or looking elsewhere and building up shortlists for the future, and the now. Signing players gets more difficult as the years go on, the market is cut throat, a DOF could ease the load on SA, and at least get him communicating with the board. For me FS saw himself as DOF and a Chairman, and it simply doesn't work, and again, another reason why people call him interfering, especially with transfers.

 

So if we theoretically decide on a DOF being a good idea, who has the larger input on who it should be? Board only appointment, a recommendation from SA or a joint decision? That's where it gets tricky.

 

 

Yep. A DOF, 2nd in command, call it what you like, but he is appealing for a helping hand, no doubt about it. They say a manager needs to have a good relationship with his chairman for a club to be successful, and the one between Mort and Allardyce seems to be a bit distant right now. I must admit I am getting a feeling that there won't be a good relationship between them at all in the future, if what sam says is true "they don't really understand football" etc etc it doesn't bode well, they will have to learn quickly.

 

Unless their intentions are to run the club on tight budgets - not in the brochure at all this one was it - which means that clubs with more ambition are going to outbid us for all the top players and we can basically say goodbye to any chance of getting among the Champions League clubs.

 

Someone like Keegan would actually push for more money, he is very persuasive in this way, but it shouldn't be like this. The people running the club have to understand football themselves.

 

I also think that when it comes to buying players, the manager should really have the last word. After all, the buck stops somewhere, so those decisions must be his. By all means, have someone going around hunting for talent - like Keegan - but if that is what they do, then they are a scout. It depends on their relationship, for instance, Allardyce could trust Keegan implicitly but if there came a time when the club signed a player on his say-so and Allardyce wasn't so keen, then he is undermining him.

 

Stuff that goes on on the training ground, is for the "coaches". This is a grey area though, Sam is deeply into monitoring fitness levels, heartbeat rates, blood pressure, amount of miles run during games, weight before and after training and matches, dietary things, all of this. He has his people to do this, but it all amounts to a hell of a lot of work, so he needs his staff if he is going to run the club in the way he chooses, which of course must be the reason he was appointed, and if he is being prevented from doing it must be really pissed off, and rightly so.

 

Its fair comment that Shepherd hasn't been involved with the club since he came because he was in hospital, but he would have expected someone to be so when he came, and now has found that isn't the case.

 

I think the manager should appoint all his staff, personally. If the board choose any particular person to work with him, they are undermining him, this is football and the relationships between a manager and his staff have to be good ones.

 

 

 

The board that has no footballing experience suddenly gets it with KK. The board who's communication with its manager is strained, suddenly gets a new link and life breathed into it by KK's arrival, the manager out on his own suddenly gets someone to talk to and help him out with all the messy stuff.

 

KK won't be anywhere near a training pitch if SA doesn't want him too apart from maybe brining down a new player of a potential player to show around the place. SA would have final say on transfers, most of them will be dealt with by him in the end, but the painstaking task of narrowing own targets to bids accepted then talking to a player can be done by KK, and finished off with managers acceptance.

 

I like the idea. If true Ashley has seen a problem and has quite possibly found a very good solution to it. It also will appeal to the fans on mass, some will be skeptical and for good reason, but looking beyond the obvious clashes that could possibly happen between manager and DOF, Ashley and SA could of planned this together, it could be something they both want, and as i said before, if he's worth his salt this has already gone past SA, and SA wants a DOF in principal and he wont find anyone who'll support the manager (and not the board) when it comes to what the football club needs on the pitch.

[macbeth]

macbeth actually believes someone with no links to Newcastle should be expected to run the football club for zero profit, and what's more, pay off its outstanding debts for free

 

whoo there.

 

Where did this come from ??

 

Why should anyone, be they born in Benwell or Bermondsey be expected to run a business witehout an expectation of return? Shepherd was paid £500,000 per ye war to run the club, ouglas Hall helped him and was paid £450,000 per year for his contribution.

 

Shepherd ran the club without making a profit, we lost £70m in his 8 years, so the proof is there that 'zero profit' is doable.

 

If you meant to ask about a return for investing in the club, rather than just running the club then that is different.

 

If he is looking to invest to get a return on his money then he will have to invest more than he has so far, to speculate to get a return. If he does invest his own money it will be the first time this has happenedd since 1998. The previous owners have not invested any money sine the club became a PLC. They have taken out their profit (as you would put it) but have never put in.

 

Shepherd played the "I'm a fan" card while draining it of cash. If Ashley drains it of cash he will lose out in the long run. Shepherd never took the long-term view. He took out as much as he could as quickly as he could, so that he needn't worry about the long-term future of the club, he was set up for life.

 

If Ashley doesn't take the long-term approach he may lose money. If he takes out the £35m that H&S did the club may well disappear. No person/organisation can overspend the way NUFC have done. Eventually the banks will say stop. If you spent 20% mroe than your annual salary every year would the banks keep lending you more ?

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

macbeth actually believes someone with no links to Newcastle should be expected to run the football club for zero profit, and what's more, pay off its outstanding debts for free

 

whoo there.

 

Where did this come from ??

 

Why should anyone, be they born in Benwell or Bermondsey be expected to run a business witehout an expectation of return? Shepherd was paid £500,000 per ye war to run the club, ouglas Hall helped him and was paid £450,000 per year for his contribution.

 

Shepherd ran the club without making a profit, we lost £70m in his 8 years, so the proof is there that 'zero profit' is doable.

 

If you meant to ask about a return for investing in the club, rather than just running the club then that is different.

 

If he is looking to invest to get a return on his money then he will have to invest more than he has so far, to speculate to get a return. If he does invest his own money it will be the first time this has happenedd since 1998. The previous owners have not invested any money sine the club became a PLC. They have taken out their profit (as you would put it) but have never put in.

 

Shepherd played the "I'm a fan" card while draining it of cash. If Ashley drains it of cash he will lose out in the long run. Shepherd never took the long-term view. He took out as much as he could as quickly as he could, so that he needn't worry about the long-term future of the club, he was set up for life.

 

If Ashley doesn't take the long-term approach he may lose money. If he takes out the £35m that H&S did the club may well disappear. No person/organisation can overspend the way NUFC have done. Eventually the banks will say stop. If you spent 20% mroe than your annual salary every year would the banks keep lending you more ?

 

 

so FS never invested, but the club has been overspending all these years?

[NE5]

Mort is a W*****

 

Big Sam The Journal: “While Freddie was hands-on and here every single day of the week, it isn’t quite that under this regime – that’s the difference from my point of view.

 

Fat Fred Telegraph: "I wouldn't presume to tell him how to run things but all I will say is that I don't believe it can be done by proxy.We may live in an age of communication but I believe Newcastle are a club who need dedicated day-to-day handling."

 

 

I saw that quote and I agree with it, but I don't suppose too many people will quite have it in them to admit that he is right about anything at all.

 

 

 

Isn't that going to be Morts job (and the team he brings in) though?

 

FS was doing the job of about 5 people in the end, and why not enough opinion was ever given only his and the Halls mattered. Surrounding himself with his own family didn't help the situation. I don't think we need Ashley to be hands on, we just need his money, what we do need though is his people, an d hopefully more arrivals will come in the coming months.

 

Mort himself probably hasn't had the time to be hands on with the manager etc, but maybe this is intentional as that role is seen for a DOF to come in and handle.

 

 

It reads to me as saying that Sam is unhappy with the fact that he had someone to help him run the club and take weight off him, doing the day to day things that Shepherd did whatever they were, and now that isn't the case. Its a bit of a one in the eye for those who said he "interfered" to have a manager insinuate he found him helpful. Which backs up what other managers have said too, Gullit and Dalglish have both said they have no complaints about him at all.

 

The danger here is if the new owners want to run the club in this way, we could also lose Allardyce. Whether you are happy with this depends of course on how good you think he is, and who a replacement would be

 

But what Shepherd is saying is that Newcastle is too big a club not to need a small team of people running it in constant attendance on a day to day basis in their various roles whatever they may be, and he is right.

 

 

 

Too right it takes a big team, but FS tried to run it all by himself. I remember, i think anyway, board members leaving, positions opening up, and those never replaced, but FS taking control of them instead, for long periods of time at least.

 

Its no wonder he made too many mistakes in the end, he was making far too many, and i think that's where people see it as interference. We will never know how much of a hand he had in transfers, but am sure he did, but if we had a DOF that would be his job, and if SA was happy with how he saw FS taking on a form of that role, then in the end SA is saying he could possibly work with a DOF in some capacity and make it work.

 

Am i reading too much into that?

 

 

No, I can agree with you that he was probably doing too much, and anyone doing too much makes more mistakes than they would.

 

That is entirely fair comment and significant too TT.

 

Baggio is going to come along now and tell us about his DOF's etc  but essentially if Sam feels he has lost some support and Mort is not an ally to him like Shepherd was, then it needs to rectified quickly with an appointment of someone, and someone else too if the club needs it to run the club on a day to day basis. Most managers need a number 2 these days, or they have them should I say, as well as whatever job Shepherd did.

 

Must admit, I'm not up to date on any backround changes he's made yet, have we missed something, I did read that a lot of his staff at Bolton handed in their notices, is this true ?

 

I'm all for the club changing its scouting, coaching and medical setup , thats one of the main reasons I wanted Allardyce as manager.

 

 

 

His own staff are not here ATM are they? Loads of talk about them resigning, but i haven't heard of any coming here since then. Last i heard a 'war room' was being built at the training complex, but that's not going to be much use if its manned by Terry Mac & Lee Clark is it? An assistant would help, but maybe he finds enough of what he needs in Pearson for that. I hope so, i've taken a liking to him, but no real idea why. Bond i just didn't like from the start, again no idea why.

 

SA could possibly feel isolated ATM with the man who brought him in gone, no direct or working link to the board & owner, and press reports saying he might not be the man for the job, also not being backed so far in this very important transfer window might be playing on his mind. But whats clear right now is he has 99% of the players, and 99% of the fans, and that alone will keep him in a job, when either dwindles, then the board can act against, but i'm sure the fans will be more patient than usual (signing players is a different ball game as you can only do it at certain times, form picks up etc), and i think his personality is reaching all kinds of players (even Luque), and as long as that happens and were winning games and progressing, the fans are onside.

 

DOF? Wow, its a strange role isn't it? I'm not sold on the idea, simply as there is no real definition on it. Some people reckon its this, some something totally different, some find the role insulting, some find it useful, some think its key to a successful football club. For me a DOF is the go between from the board to manager. He should be working with the manager, and slightly against the board. Pushing for money and signings, the footballing voice on the board. For me, if thats how it is, we need one. Right now SA is so busy with training and tactics he doesn't have time for a now and then plan of players, academies, facilities and targeting and signing the right players or looking elsewhere and building up shortlists for the future, and the now. Signing players gets more difficult as the years go on, the market is cut throat, a DOF could ease the load on SA, and at least get him communicating with the board. For me FS saw himself as DOF and a Chairman, and it simply doesn't work, and again, another reason why people call him interfering, especially with transfers.

 

So if we theoretically decide on a DOF being a good idea, who has the larger input on who it should be? Board only appointment, a recommendation from SA or a joint decision? That's where it gets tricky.

 

 

Yep. A DOF, 2nd in command, call it what you like, but he is appealing for a helping hand, no doubt about it. They say a manager needs to have a good relationship with his chairman for a club to be successful, and the one between Mort and Allardyce seems to be a bit distant right now. I must admit I am getting a feeling that there won't be a good relationship between them at all in the future, if what sam says is true "they don't really understand football" etc etc it doesn't bode well, they will have to learn quickly.

 

Unless their intentions are to run the club on tight budgets - not in the brochure at all this one was it - which means that clubs with more ambition are going to outbid us for all the top players and we can basically say goodbye to any chance of getting among the Champions League clubs.

 

Someone like Keegan would actually push for more money, he is very persuasive in this way, but it shouldn't be like this. The people running the club have to understand football themselves.

 

I also think that when it comes to buying players, the manager should really have the last word. After all, the buck stops somewhere, so those decisions must be his. By all means, have someone going around hunting for talent - like Keegan - but if that is what they do, then they are a scout. It depends on their relationship, for instance, Allardyce could trust Keegan implicitly but if there came a time when the club signed a player on his say-so and Allardyce wasn't so keen, then he is undermining him.

 

Stuff that goes on on the training ground, is for the "coaches". This is a grey area though, Sam is deeply into monitoring fitness levels, heartbeat rates, blood pressure, amount of miles run during games, weight before and after training and matches, dietary things, all of this. He has his people to do this, but it all amounts to a hell of a lot of work, so he needs his staff if he is going to run the club in the way he chooses, which of course must be the reason he was appointed, and if he is being prevented from doing it must be really pissed off, and rightly so.

 

Its fair comment that Shepherd hasn't been involved with the club since he came because he was in hospital, but he would have expected someone to be so when he came, and now has found that isn't the case.

 

I think the manager should appoint all his staff, personally. If the board choose any particular person to work with him, they are undermining him, this is football and the relationships between a manager and his staff have to be good ones.

 

 

 

The board that has no footballing experience suddenly gets it with KK. The board who's communication with its manager is strained, suddenly gets a new link and life breathed into it by KK's arrival, the manager out on his own suddenly gets someone to talk to and help him out with all the messy stuff.

 

KK won't be anywhere near a training pitch if SA doesn't want him too apart from maybe brining down a new player of a potential player to show around the place. SA would have final say on transfers, most of them will be dealt with by him in the end, but the painstaking task of narrowing own targets to bids accepted then talking to a player can be done by KK, and finished off with managers acceptance.

 

I like the idea. If true Ashley has seen a problem and has quite possibly found a very good solution to it. It also will appeal to the fans on mass, some will be skeptical and for good reason, but looking beyond the obvious clashes that could possibly happen between manager and DOF, Ashley and SA could of planned this together, it could be something they both want, and as i said before, if he's worth his salt this has already gone past SA, and SA wants a DOF in principal and he wont find anyone who'll support the manager (and not the board) when it comes to what the football club needs on the pitch.

 

I've nowt against the idea of KK doing something like this, but at the end of the day, Allardyce is the manager, the buck stops with him, and he should choose his own staff and nobody else.

 

So, would he choose Keegan to be his number 2/DOF or whatever ? He's never worked with him before, it could be a good partnership and would give him the support of a football man who knows the club and the area, but its completely up to Allardyce.

 

I'm quite bothered that he sounds so pissed off to be honest, I wouldn't like him to walk out because he feels isolated

 

 

[Dokko]

Mort is a W*****

 

Big Sam The Journal: “While Freddie was hands-on and here every single day of the week, it isn’t quite that under this regime – that’s the difference from my point of view.

 

Fat Fred Telegraph: "I wouldn't presume to tell him how to run things but all I will say is that I don't believe it can be done by proxy.We may live in an age of communication but I believe Newcastle are a club who need dedicated day-to-day handling."

 

 

I saw that quote and I agree with it, but I don't suppose too many people will quite have it in them to admit that he is right about anything at all.

 

 

 

Isn't that going to be Morts job (and the team he brings in) though?

 

FS was doing the job of about 5 people in the end, and why not enough opinion was ever given only his and the Halls mattered. Surrounding himself with his own family didn't help the situation. I don't think we need Ashley to be hands on, we just need his money, what we do need though is his people, an d hopefully more arrivals will come in the coming months.

 

Mort himself probably hasn't had the time to be hands on with the manager etc, but maybe this is intentional as that role is seen for a DOF to come in and handle.

 

 

It reads to me as saying that Sam is unhappy with the fact that he had someone to help him run the club and take weight off him, doing the day to day things that Shepherd did whatever they were, and now that isn't the case. Its a bit of a one in the eye for those who said he "interfered" to have a manager insinuate he found him helpful. Which backs up what other managers have said too, Gullit and Dalglish have both said they have no complaints about him at all.

 

The danger here is if the new owners want to run the club in this way, we could also lose Allardyce. Whether you are happy with this depends of course on how good you think he is, and who a replacement would be

 

But what Shepherd is saying is that Newcastle is too big a club not to need a small team of people running it in constant attendance on a day to day basis in their various roles whatever they may be, and he is right.

 

 

 

Too right it takes a big team, but FS tried to run it all by himself. I remember, i think anyway, board members leaving, positions opening up, and those never replaced, but FS taking control of them instead, for long periods of time at least.

 

Its no wonder he made too many mistakes in the end, he was making far too many, and i think that's where people see it as interference. We will never know how much of a hand he had in transfers, but am sure he did, but if we had a DOF that would be his job, and if SA was happy with how he saw FS taking on a form of that role, then in the end SA is saying he could possibly work with a DOF in some capacity and make it work.

 

Am i reading too much into that?

 

 

No, I can agree with you that he was probably doing too much, and anyone doing too much makes more mistakes than they would.

 

That is entirely fair comment and significant too TT.

 

Baggio is going to come along now and tell us about his DOF's etc  but essentially if Sam feels he has lost some support and Mort is not an ally to him like Shepherd was, then it needs to rectified quickly with an appointment of someone, and someone else too if the club needs it to run the club on a day to day basis. Most managers need a number 2 these days, or they have them should I say, as well as whatever job Shepherd did.

 

Must admit, I'm not up to date on any backround changes he's made yet, have we missed something, I did read that a lot of his staff at Bolton handed in their notices, is this true ?

 

I'm all for the club changing its scouting, coaching and medical setup , thats one of the main reasons I wanted Allardyce as manager.

 

 

 

His own staff are not here ATM are they? Loads of talk about them resigning, but i haven't heard of any coming here since then. Last i heard a 'war room' was being built at the training complex, but that's not going to be much use if its manned by Terry Mac & Lee Clark is it? An assistant would help, but maybe he finds enough of what he needs in Pearson for that. I hope so, i've taken a liking to him, but no real idea why. Bond i just didn't like from the start, again no idea why.

 

SA could possibly feel isolated ATM with the man who brought him in gone, no direct or working link to the board & owner, and press reports saying he might not be the man for the job, also not being backed so far in this very important transfer window might be playing on his mind. But whats clear right now is he has 99% of the players, and 99% of the fans, and that alone will keep him in a job, when either dwindles, then the board can act against, but i'm sure the fans will be more patient than usual (signing players is a different ball game as you can only do it at certain times, form picks up etc), and i think his personality is reaching all kinds of players (even Luque), and as long as that happens and were winning games and progressing, the fans are onside.

 

DOF? Wow, its a strange role isn't it? I'm not sold on the idea, simply as there is no real definition on it. Some people reckon its this, some something totally different, some find the role insulting, some find it useful, some think its key to a successful football club. For me a DOF is the go between from the board to manager. He should be working with the manager, and slightly against the board. Pushing for money and signings, the footballing voice on the board. For me, if thats how it is, we need one. Right now SA is so busy with training and tactics he doesn't have time for a now and then plan of players, academies, facilities and targeting and signing the right players or looking elsewhere and building up shortlists for the future, and the now. Signing players gets more difficult as the years go on, the market is cut throat, a DOF could ease the load on SA, and at least get him communicating with the board. For me FS saw himself as DOF and a Chairman, and it simply doesn't work, and again, another reason why people call him interfering, especially with transfers.

 

So if we theoretically decide on a DOF being a good idea, who has the larger input on who it should be? Board only appointment, a recommendation from SA or a joint decision? That's where it gets tricky.

 

 

Yep. A DOF, 2nd in command, call it what you like, but he is appealing for a helping hand, no doubt about it. They say a manager needs to have a good relationship with his chairman for a club to be successful, and the one between Mort and Allardyce seems to be a bit distant right now. I must admit I am getting a feeling that there won't be a good relationship between them at all in the future, if what sam says is true "they don't really understand football" etc etc it doesn't bode well, they will have to learn quickly.

 

Unless their intentions are to run the club on tight budgets - not in the brochure at all this one was it - which means that clubs with more ambition are going to outbid us for all the top players and we can basically say goodbye to any chance of getting among the Champions League clubs.

 

Someone like Keegan would actually push for more money, he is very persuasive in this way, but it shouldn't be like this. The people running the club have to understand football themselves.

 

I also think that when it comes to buying players, the manager should really have the last word. After all, the buck stops somewhere, so those decisions must be his. By all means, have someone going around hunting for talent - like Keegan - but if that is what they do, then they are a scout. It depends on their relationship, for instance, Allardyce could trust Keegan implicitly but if there came a time when the club signed a player on his say-so and Allardyce wasn't so keen, then he is undermining him.

 

Stuff that goes on on the training ground, is for the "coaches". This is a grey area though, Sam is deeply into monitoring fitness levels, heartbeat rates, blood pressure, amount of miles run during games, weight before and after training and matches, dietary things, all of this. He has his people to do this, but it all amounts to a hell of a lot of work, so he needs his staff if he is going to run the club in the way he chooses, which of course must be the reason he was appointed, and if he is being prevented from doing it must be really pissed off, and rightly so.

 

Its fair comment that Shepherd hasn't been involved with the club since he came because he was in hospital, but he would have expected someone to be so when he came, and now has found that isn't the case.

 

I think the manager should appoint all his staff, personally. If the board choose any particular person to work with him, they are undermining him, this is football and the relationships between a manager and his staff have to be good ones.

 

 

 

The board that has no footballing experience suddenly gets it with KK. The board who's communication with its manager is strained, suddenly gets a new link and life breathed into it by KK's arrival, the manager out on his own suddenly gets someone to talk to and help him out with all the messy stuff.

 

KK won't be anywhere near a training pitch if SA doesn't want him too apart from maybe brining down a new player of a potential player to show around the place. SA would have final say on transfers, most of them will be dealt with by him in the end, but the painstaking task of narrowing own targets to bids accepted then talking to a player can be done by KK, and finished off with managers acceptance.

 

I like the idea. If true Ashley has seen a problem and has quite possibly found a very good solution to it. It also will appeal to the fans on mass, some will be skeptical and for good reason, but looking beyond the obvious clashes that could possibly happen between manager and DOF, Ashley and SA could of planned this together, it could be something they both want, and as i said before, if he's worth his salt this has already gone past SA, and SA wants a DOF in principal and he wont find anyone who'll support the manager (and not the board) when it comes to what the football club needs on the pitch.

 

I've nowt against the idea of KK doing something like this, but at the end of the day, Allardyce is the manager, the buck stops with him, and he should choose his own staff and nobody else.

 

So, would he choose Keegan to be his number 2/DOF or whatever ? He's never worked with him before, it could be a good partnership and would give him the support of a football man who knows the club and the area, but its completely up to Allardyce.

 

I'm quite bothered that he sounds so pissed off to be honest, I wouldn't like him to walk out because he feels isolated

 

 

 

I'm bothered as well, as i want him here, i want him to stay. He's exactly what this club needs right now, we don't need a Wenger etc to move us into the 21st Century, we've got a man more than capable of it right now. In many ways he could be one of the most important appointments of my lifetime, sounds dramatic, but it could possibly be.

 

SA must be happy with the appointment or its pointless. All he'll see it as is another brick wall in front of him to the board instead of a direct line, so more damage than good. No one will tell SA who he signs, no chance, and the board wont do that, and thats where is must be clear from the start with the DOF and what his job is. If they work together then its a great idea and like i say KK will be on his side more than the board by default, and i think personality wise both would get on quite well.

 

KK would be DOF, board level, in a suit never a tracksuit, if SA needs a new No2, then he must go get one or do with Pearson. Again a definition of the role needs to be clear, if KK stays above him as a go between a voice of football in the boardroom, an ambassador of the club and someone to help find targets and negotiate prices etc for SA then its a partnership that would work well. As soon as KK comes onto the training pitch as a coach it looses shape, but i dont think that would happen.

[Parky]

SA football thinking wise is light years ahead of KK at this point.

[OzzieMandias]

Shame you don't answer the question about Martins. Not that everyone reading this will not know why 

 

Yeah, I know why. It's because, pulled out of context, it's a dumb question. We shouldn't have got into the position where we had to go even deeper into debt to buy a striker.

 

"Backing the manager" as the sole requirement of a chairman glosses over the fact that he's supposed to be managing club revenues in such a way as to make sustainable progress. No one can say that Peter Ridsdale didn't back David O'Leary. Look at Leeds now.

 

We were deep in debt because of Souness alienating and selling our best players for next to nowt and wasting millions replacements, which you backed until the end, and still do.

 

Can't get much dumber than that.

 

Nobody has ever been successful without backing managers to buy top players, how else do you think you can be successful ?

 

Almost as dumb as your last "opinion"

 

 

If Fred was responsible for the day-to-day running of the club -- a fact you are frantically attempting to spin elsewhere -- then he is responsible for running us into debt.

 

Fact.

[NE5]

Shame you don't answer the question about Martins. Not that everyone reading this will not know why 

 

Yeah, I know why. It's because, pulled out of context, it's a dumb question. We shouldn't have got into the position where we had to go even deeper into debt to buy a striker.

 

"Backing the manager" as the sole requirement of a chairman glosses over the fact that he's supposed to be managing club revenues in such a way as to make sustainable progress. No one can say that Peter Ridsdale didn't back David O'Leary. Look at Leeds now.

 

We were deep in debt because of Souness alienating and selling our best players for next to nowt and wasting millions replacements, which you backed until the end, and still do.

 

Can't get much dumber than that.

 

Nobody has ever been successful without backing managers to buy top players, how else do you think you can be successful ?

 

Almost as dumb as your last "opinion"

 

 

If Fred was responsible for the day-to-day running of the club -- a fact you are frantically attempting to spin elsewhere -- then he is responsible for running us into debt.

 

Fact.

 

the actions of which you supported ?

 

Also responsible for qualifying for the Champions League and filling the stadium through bringing in top quality players, correct ?

 

Until the manager YOU backed decided we were better off without them, correct ?

 

 

[TRon]

I agree that Shepherd always backed his managers which was good. Unfortunately he didn't possess either the intelligence or judgement to make good appointments which makes the former good quality redundant.

 

Shepherd's appointments of Souness and Roeder spoke volumes of his lack of judgement. Let those who would defend him explain in detail how such important decisions were made or justified.

 

[pasted from previous page as the silence is deafening]

[NE5]

I agree that Shepherd always backed his managers which was good. Unfortunately he didn't possess either the intelligence or judgement to make good appointments which makes the former good quality redundant.

 

Shepherd's appointments of Souness and Roeder spoke volumes of his lack of judgement. Let those who would defend him explain in detail how such important decisions were made or justified.

 

[pasted from previous page as the silence is deafening]

 

Souness is indefensible.

 

However, nobody makes good appointments every time.

 

Believe it or not, even the most "intelligent" of chairman make gaffes ie appointing and promoting coaches on the basis that they might work or have done enough to earn a chance ie Roy Evans, including the double act of Houillier and Evans, Luca Vialli, Bruce Rioch. ManU before Ferguson made mistakes. The great Steve Gibson too ie McLaren, Southgate.

 

Whatever the reason you also think that NUFC should be the only club in football that never makes a bad appointment is a problem you seem to have, but others have it too.

 

And - unbelievable that although it has been pointed by others and not just myself - you STILL appear to think the major shareholders of a multi million pound company left the single most important decision to someone else to make entirely on their own.

 

Laughable.

 

Don't give any credit for the appointment of Robson whatever you do, nor attracting a manager with the track record of Dalglish, even though it went wrong for him here.

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Shame you don't answer the question about Martins. Not that everyone reading this will not know why 

 

Yeah, I know why. It's because, pulled out of context, it's a dumb question. We shouldn't have got into the position where we had to go even deeper into debt to buy a striker.

 

"Backing the manager" as the sole requirement of a chairman glosses over the fact that he's supposed to be managing club revenues in such a way as to make sustainable progress. No one can say that Peter Ridsdale didn't back David O'Leary. Look at Leeds now.

 

We were deep in debt because of Souness alienating and selling our best players for next to nowt and wasting millions replacements, which you backed until the end, and still do.

 

Can't get much dumber than that.

 

Nobody has ever been successful without backing managers to buy top players, how else do you think you can be successful ?

 

Almost as dumb as your last "opinion"

 

 

If Fred was responsible for the day-to-day running of the club -- a fact you are frantically attempting to spin elsewhere -- then he is responsible for running us into debt.

 

Fact.

 

the actions of which you supported ?

 

Also responsible for qualifying for the Champions League and filling the stadium through bringing in top quality players, correct ?

 

Until the manager YOU backed decided we were better off without them, correct ?

 

 

 

Please attempt to shift your brain out of neutral for once in your posting life.

 

You can't just point at the good bits and credit Shepherd, and then point at the bad bits and blame someone else.

 

Like, if Souness is solely responsible for the mess that the club is now, and your fat friend is no way to blame, then Robson must be completely responsible for the two or three good years we had in the last decade, and Shepherd can take none of the credit.

 

Your "argument" is moronic.

 

As usual.

[NE5]

Shame you don't answer the question about Martins. Not that everyone reading this will not know why 

 

Yeah, I know why. It's because, pulled out of context, it's a dumb question. We shouldn't have got into the position where we had to go even deeper into debt to buy a striker.

 

"Backing the manager" as the sole requirement of a chairman glosses over the fact that he's supposed to be managing club revenues in such a way as to make sustainable progress. No one can say that Peter Ridsdale didn't back David O'Leary. Look at Leeds now.

 

We were deep in debt because of Souness alienating and selling our best players for next to nowt and wasting millions replacements, which you backed until the end, and still do.

 

Can't get much dumber than that.

 

Nobody has ever been successful without backing managers to buy top players, how else do you think you can be successful ?

 

Almost as dumb as your last "opinion"

 

 

If Fred was responsible for the day-to-day running of the club -- a fact you are frantically attempting to spin elsewhere -- then he is responsible for running us into debt.

 

Fact.

 

the actions of which you supported ?

 

Also responsible for qualifying for the Champions League and filling the stadium through bringing in top quality players, correct ?

 

Until the manager YOU backed decided we were better off without them, correct ?

 

 

 

Please attempt to shift your brain out of neutral for once in your posting life.

 

You can't just point at the good bits and credit Shepherd, and then point at the bad bits and blame someone else.

 

Like, if Souness is solely responsible for the mess that the club is now, and your fat friend is no way to blame, then Robson must be completely responsible for the two or three good years we had in the last decade, and Shepherd can take none of the credit.

 

Your "argument" is moronic.

 

As usual.

 

mackems.gif

 

I've not credited Shepherd for anything, he isn't and never was the major shareholder.

 

I've always said that Souness was a bad appointment and that selling Craig Bellamy and Robert were huge mistakes. You supported him, and those sales. You backed the boards decision to support their manager. I said that Shepherd ie the board, should have sacked him for putting his ego before doing his job.

 

Isn't it great to see an idiot - ie you - wriggle.