Is Colo for real?

[LeazesMag 0]

I'd like to hear Leazes' opinion about where we'd be now if the Halls and Shepherd hadnt sold up and were still in charge at NUFC. I'm certainly not suggesting we'd be worse off..or better for that matter. But he's obviously a fan so it would be interesting to hear.

 

in the premiership.

 

hmm..not the height of ambition that is it?.....and as you're fond of saying, the Halls and Shepherd had bags of the stuff, ambition....Not champions league then?...or even top half?.....am surprised you've set your sights so low, you being generally ambitious for the fortunes of NUFC like....

 

haha, nice reply. You know what I meant though .......

 

I think the appointment of Allardyce was an admission that a new change of direction was needed, but we would never have sold players such as Given, Milner, Zoggy etc unless of course the manager decided he didn't want them. Remember Allardyce was, at the time, THE English manager ready for the big jobs. And as soon as Ashley took over the club, he was complaining about not getting backing, day to day support etc, all things which are necessary to the good running of a football club.

 

I think Shep got it wrong with appointing Allardyce. I don't think the vast majority of the match going public at SJP were going to put up with the stone age football he was serving up regardless of results, and lets face it they weren't great either.

 

Given,Milner,and Zoggy were all in Allardyce's sides, and all in Keegan's/JFK's too....we were on a downward trajectory whether they were at the club or not and regardless of who was the club owner. If you're suggesting that Shep wouldnt have sold them to balance the books or because of pressures caused by the credit crunch then I suggest you read Sir Bob's book....Shep had no qualms about getting involved in decisons managers alone should be making, or selling for financial reasons, whether it was for either a positive or negative reason.

 

As far as I remember Sam also had a go at the players when things didnt go well (he did this at Blackburn as well last season, but you'll note he takes a lot of credit himself when things go well,him being "a top man in his field" after all), as well as support from above etc, which incidentally didnt stop him from joining Ashley and Chris Mort down the Bigg Market on the piss at least once.

 

What do you think Shep's spending wouldve been like if he was still here, bearing in mind a. the credit crunch/recession and b. the last set of books he was responsible for had us making a huge financial loss with a wage bill out of all proportion to the ability of the team and it's posistion in the league?

 

I am not sure I agree that people wouldn't have put up with Allardyces brand of football. For starters, they are putting up with it now, because it is winning. They also put up with the long ball game when we won the Fairs Cup in 1969, and those players quite rightly are now legends, all of them, and they are all smashing blokes too. If you are winning, you don't care what style you play.

 

I didn't think they got it wrong, at the time, when they appointed Allardyce. We will never know if his methods would not have worked in the long run. I was most definitely in favour of new medical techniques, scouting networks, training methods etc because they were his methods and you appoint the manager and his way of doing things.

 

As I said, the appointment of Allardyce was a new direction because they ie the Halls and Shepherd, realised it was needed, both financially and from a structural angle. I don't have a problem with that at all, at least they recognised it was needed for the good of the club and hopefully to bring success to the club on the pitch. Unlike Mike Ashley who's idea of success appears to be making a profit like a high street business, meaning we will never achieve success on the pitch in terms of league success, and if we are lucky we will think reaching the later rounds of the FA or League Cup as a good season again, which is a disgrace.

[PaddockLad 17646]

I'd like to hear Leazes' opinion about where we'd be now if the Halls and Shepherd hadnt sold up and were still in charge at NUFC. I'm certainly not suggesting we'd be worse off..or better for that matter. But he's obviously a fan so it would be interesting to hear.

 

in the premiership.

 

hmm..not the height of ambition that is it?.....and as you're fond of saying, the Halls and Shepherd had bags of the stuff, ambition....Not champions league then?...or even top half?.....am surprised you've set your sights so low, you being generally ambitious for the fortunes of NUFC like....

 

haha, nice reply. You know what I meant though .......

 

I think the appointment of Allardyce was an admission that a new change of direction was needed, but we would never have sold players such as Given, Milner, Zoggy etc unless of course the manager decided he didn't want them. Remember Allardyce was, at the time, THE English manager ready for the big jobs. And as soon as Ashley took over the club, he was complaining about not getting backing, day to day support etc, all things which are necessary to the good running of a football club.

 

I think Shep got it wrong with appointing Allardyce. I don't think the vast majority of the match going public at SJP were going to put up with the stone age football he was serving up regardless of results, and lets face it they weren't great either.

 

Given,Milner,and Zoggy were all in Allardyce's sides, and all in Keegan's/JFK's too....we were on a downward trajectory whether they were at the club or not and regardless of who was the club owner. If you're suggesting that Shep wouldnt have sold them to balance the books or because of pressures caused by the credit crunch then I suggest you read Sir Bob's book....Shep had no qualms about getting involved in decisons managers alone should be making, or selling for financial reasons, whether it was for either a positive or negative reason.

 

As far as I remember Sam also had a go at the players when things didnt go well (he did this at Blackburn as well last season, but you'll note he takes a lot of credit himself when things go well,him being "a top man in his field" after all), as well as support from above etc, which incidentally didnt stop him from joining Ashley and Chris Mort down the Bigg Market on the piss at least once.

 

What do you think Shep's spending wouldve been like if he was still here, bearing in mind a. the credit crunch/recession and b. the last set of books he was responsible for had us making a huge financial loss with a wage bill out of all proportion to the ability of the team and it's posistion in the league?

 

I am not sure I agree that people wouldn't have put up with Allardyces brand of football. For starters, they are putting up with it now, because it is winning. They also put up with the long ball game when we won the Fairs Cup in 1969, and those players quite rightly are now legends, all of them, and they are all smashing blokes too. If you are winning, you don't care what style you play.

 

I didn't think they got it wrong, at the time, when they appointed Allardyce. We will never know if his methods would not have worked in the long run. I was most definitely in favour of new medical techniques, scouting networks, training methods etc because they were his methods and you appoint the manager and his way of doing things.

 

As I said, the appointment of Allardyce was a new direction because they ie the Halls and Shepherd, realised it was needed, both financially and from a structural angle. I don't have a problem with that at all, at least they recognised it was needed for the good of the club and hopefully to bring success to the club on the pitch. Unlike Mike Ashley who's idea of success appears to be making a profit like a high street business, meaning we will never achieve success on the pitch in terms of league success, and if we are lucky we will think reaching the later rounds of the FA or League Cup as a good season again, which is a disgrace.

 

I don't disagree with much of what you say, but I don't understand why you don't seem to be able to accept there are two sides to the Hall/Sheprd era...what about that last set of books?...what would Shep have done to cut costs?, assuming you and he accept tat was needed?

[LeazesMag 0]

I'd like to hear Leazes' opinion about where we'd be now if the Halls and Shepherd hadnt sold up and were still in charge at NUFC. I'm certainly not suggesting we'd be worse off..or better for that matter. But he's obviously a fan so it would be interesting to hear.

 

in the premiership.

 

hmm..not the height of ambition that is it?.....and as you're fond of saying, the Halls and Shepherd had bags of the stuff, ambition....Not champions league then?...or even top half?.....am surprised you've set your sights so low, you being generally ambitious for the fortunes of NUFC like....

 

haha, nice reply. You know what I meant though .......

 

I think the appointment of Allardyce was an admission that a new change of direction was needed, but we would never have sold players such as Given, Milner, Zoggy etc unless of course the manager decided he didn't want them. Remember Allardyce was, at the time, THE English manager ready for the big jobs. And as soon as Ashley took over the club, he was complaining about not getting backing, day to day support etc, all things which are necessary to the good running of a football club.

 

I think Shep got it wrong with appointing Allardyce. I don't think the vast majority of the match going public at SJP were going to put up with the stone age football he was serving up regardless of results, and lets face it they weren't great either.

 

Given,Milner,and Zoggy were all in Allardyce's sides, and all in Keegan's/JFK's too....we were on a downward trajectory whether they were at the club or not and regardless of who was the club owner. If you're suggesting that Shep wouldnt have sold them to balance the books or because of pressures caused by the credit crunch then I suggest you read Sir Bob's book....Shep had no qualms about getting involved in decisons managers alone should be making, or selling for financial reasons, whether it was for either a positive or negative reason.

 

As far as I remember Sam also had a go at the players when things didnt go well (he did this at Blackburn as well last season, but you'll note he takes a lot of credit himself when things go well,him being "a top man in his field" after all), as well as support from above etc, which incidentally didnt stop him from joining Ashley and Chris Mort down the Bigg Market on the piss at least once.

 

What do you think Shep's spending wouldve been like if he was still here, bearing in mind a. the credit crunch/recession and b. the last set of books he was responsible for had us making a huge financial loss with a wage bill out of all proportion to the ability of the team and it's posistion in the league?

 

I am not sure I agree that people wouldn't have put up with Allardyces brand of football. For starters, they are putting up with it now, because it is winning. They also put up with the long ball game when we won the Fairs Cup in 1969, and those players quite rightly are now legends, all of them, and they are all smashing blokes too. If you are winning, you don't care what style you play.

 

I didn't think they got it wrong, at the time, when they appointed Allardyce. We will never know if his methods would not have worked in the long run. I was most definitely in favour of new medical techniques, scouting networks, training methods etc because they were his methods and you appoint the manager and his way of doing things.

 

As I said, the appointment of Allardyce was a new direction because they ie the Halls and Shepherd, realised it was needed, both financially and from a structural angle. I don't have a problem with that at all, at least they recognised it was needed for the good of the club and hopefully to bring success to the club on the pitch. Unlike Mike Ashley who's idea of success appears to be making a profit like a high street business, meaning we will never achieve success on the pitch in terms of league success, and if we are lucky we will think reaching the later rounds of the FA or League Cup as a good season again, which is a disgrace.

 

I don't disagree with much of what you say, but I don't understand why you don't seem to be able to accept there are two sides to the Hall/Sheprd era...what about that last set of books?...what would Shep have done to cut costs?, assuming you and he accept tat was needed?

 

That is what I mean when I say the Allardyce appointment was a deliberate change of direction. I can't attack them for showing ambition for the football club, you just can't do that, it's what you want directors to do, you want the team to succeed on the pitch. I won't disagree that they made mistakes, starting with the appointment of Souness but I think the right manager knowing what he was doing would have swiftly put the club back on the right road again.

[PaddockLad 17646]

That is what I mean when I say the Allardyce appointment was a deliberate change of direction. I can't attack them for showing ambition for the football club, you just can't do that, it's what you want directors to do, you want the team to succeed on the pitch. I won't disagree that they made mistakes, starting with the appointment of Souness but I think the right manager knowing what he was doing would have swiftly put the club back on the right road again.

 

Again, if that was their intentions on his appointment then it does make sense in a lot of ways, but for me the jury is out on that..are you suggesting that Allardyce was cheaper and could be manipulated into putting up with less funds than Souness or Sir Bob were granted as part of some sort of cost cutting measure?

[LeazesMag 0]

That is what I mean when I say the Allardyce appointment was a deliberate change of direction. I can't attack them for showing ambition for the football club, you just can't do that, it's what you want directors to do, you want the team to succeed on the pitch. I won't disagree that they made mistakes, starting with the appointment of Souness but I think the right manager knowing what he was doing would have swiftly put the club back on the right road again.

 

Again, if that was their intentions on his appointment then it does make sense in a lot of ways, but for me the jury is out on that..are you suggesting that Allardyce was cheaper and could be manipulated into putting up with less funds than Souness or Sir Bob were granted as part of some sort of cost cutting measure?

 

I think that they knew they needed to cut costs for a year or two and make some changes and Allardyce could have steadied the club down during that period, keeping the club in europe or pushing for it too while they re-grouped and came back again to aim higher.