Imagine the uproar

[LeazesMag 0]

One thing is for sure, if Shepherd hadnt overseen the expansion of the ground then we wouldnt have seen 52000 turning out every week. One thing I would give him absolute praise for is the stadium.

101761[/snapback]

 

You are right, we used to have a 60,000 stadium that was only half full ...like a lot of our current competitors....

 

I expect this to be completely not understood BTW

[LeazesMag 0]

Can I recommend that people STOP arguing about Shepherd with Leazes.  He refuses to see sense on anything anyone says to him about the bloke, so ultimately you're destined to go round and round in circles with him.  Waste of everyone's time.

101691[/snapback]

 

shame Gemmil, but I think you are all being narrow minded and very naive to think there is a new chairman out there who will run the club better and more ambitiously than Shepherd, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

 

After all, I have pointed out how many other big city clubs could match us, but don't, and our old directors who didn't...pretty much common sense to me...but then again sacking Souness ages ago rather than giving him time was common sense too ....

101930[/snapback]

 

 

I don't know how on the one hand you can say how great Shepherd is, and on the other comment on the lack of common sense required not to sack Souness. You've transferred the blame for that onto me apparently, same as the blame for Bellamy goes to Souness, the blame for Luque goes to Souness, the credit for Owen goes to Shepherd etc. etc. etc.. The list goes on......

102085[/snapback]

 

the same that you showed .....

 

this was asked last week, show me where I have said anything other than the manager picks the personnel and the chairman handles the finance based on the managers professional expertise.....this is how football clubs are run and why they appoint professional managers, I don't believe I am having to explain this, but here is where I said the same as I've just done as you obviously missed it

102106[/snapback]

 

Who was responsible for the lack of common sense in not sacking Souness though? You make it very clear that it was common sense to sack Souness, but you seem to blame me for lacking the common sense to sack him. You are aware that I'm not on the NUFC Board, right?

102108[/snapback]

 

Just as well

102110[/snapback]

 

Aye, we've already got Shepherd there lacking the common sense you speak of. No point having me there doing the same job eh?

102113[/snapback]

 

Of course not, he admitted he made a mistake, you haven't you've just sloped the

blame

 

Why not answer the same questions I've put to Craig and Alex over this thread Gem ?

 

How are we better than all the other big city clubs that I've mentioned that are all capable of matching our turnover, spending and performance in the last decade ?

Consider the fact that the current situation has not always been the case ....

and then tell us who this man waiting to take over the club to put in millions of his own money and want nothing back is ??

102115[/snapback]

 

So how does it go now then?

 

"One bad appointment, subsequent failure to recognise the mistake until (by your admission Leazes) serious damage has been done to the club, and a total lack of common sense do not make a bad chairman."

 

We can keep adding to this phrase of yours if you like? Have I missed anything?

102117[/snapback]

 

biggest u-turn of the century

[Guest alex]

So Leazes, given I've answered your question on my criteria for choosing a new manager (I'll happily go into it further if you like), perhaps you can explain why you credit Shepherd with signings when it suits you (as in the quote from another thread) and blame Souness for signings when it suits you.

[Guest alex]

If you like LM, you can even give me your criteria for choosing a new manager.

[Gemmill 46141]

biggest u-turn of the century

102119[/snapback]

 

I'm not u-turning man. I'm applying everything you say about the failure to sack Souness to Shepherd. He's the man to blame. You keep putting your foot in it and condemning Shepherd every time you blame me for Souness. Do you understand?

[ChocChip 0]

In my most humble and blackest of opinions Shepherd appears to be doing pretty well with the financial side of things. However, i'm curious to see how our recent spending spree has affected how standing.

If the money spent in the close season puts us in serious financial trouble then Shepherd's actions are indefensible. He will have gambled NUFC's fortune on a manager no one important except FS thought capable.

However, my guess is that FS is a bit cleverer than that and that we could afford it, just.

It is fundamental to point out though that FS only makes money available that the club raises itself. He does not put his money in, rather he spends our money.

To say he backs his managers....well, what with? Our money actually. I should say your money because i don't see many games. So, if there's extra money available after costs, he gives to the manager rather than stealing it. That's what he's meant to do.

So we can establish he isn't destructive, crooked chairman but he isn't the Steve Gibson type either. He just does his job, nothing more, nothing less. This doesn't make him a saint or a sinner.

 

His record for appointments have not gone well:

 

Dalgleish.....failure

Gullit...........failure

Robson.......i'd say success

Souness......failure

 

Frankly i don't care if fans wanted this person or that person. We are just the plebs. FS is meant to be a professional and to know his business. The onus is on him to make the right choice, not on us. I couldn't give a f**k if everyone backed Gullit, he didn't work out, he failed spectacularly and FS is meant to know better because IT IS HIS JOB. So ultimatley, if a managerial appoinment doesn't work out, it can be bad luck. If 3 out 4 don't work out it is the empolyers fault. Simple, straight forward, unargueable common sense

[ChocChip 0]

Took me ages to write as well

[Guest alex]

Took me ages to write as well 

102194[/snapback]

I agree with what you say, I was waiting for Leazes to respond though.

[ChocChip 0]

Me too, what a time to blank me

[Renton 22024]

Simple, straight forward, unargueable common sense 

102126[/snapback]

 

Apparently not.

[Craig 6700]

Me too, what a time to blank me 

102196[/snapback]

 

He's dreaming up a reply to try to discredit what you've written! It's bound to take time!

[LeazesMag 0]

Took me ages to write as well 

102194[/snapback]

I agree with what you say, I was waiting for Leazes to respond though.

102195[/snapback]

 

I reckon it's about time you answered the questions I ask you Alex to be honest.

[LeazesMag 0]

In my most humble and blackest of opinions Shepherd appears to be doing pretty well with the financial side of things. However, i'm curious to see how our recent spending spree has affected how standing.

If the money spent in the close season puts us in serious financial trouble then Shepherd's actions are indefensible. He will have gambled NUFC's fortune on a manager no one important except FS thought capable.

However, my guess is that FS is a bit cleverer than that and that we could afford it, just.

It is fundamental to point out though that FS only makes money available that the club raises itself. He does not put his money in, rather he spends our money.

To say he backs his managers....well, what with? Our money actually. I should say your money because i don't see many games. So, if there's extra money available after costs, he gives to the manager rather than stealing it. That's what he's meant to do.

So we can establish he isn't destructive, crooked chairman but he isn't the Steve Gibson type either. He just does his job, nothing more, nothing less. This doesn't make him a saint or a sinner.

 

His record for appointments have not gone well:

 

Dalgleish.....failure

Gullit...........failure

Robson.......i'd say success

Souness......failure

 

Frankly i don't care if fans wanted this person or that person. We are just the plebs. FS is meant to be a professional and to know his business. The onus is on him to make the right choice, not on us. I couldn't give a f**k if everyone backed Gullit, he didn't work out, he failed spectacularly and FS is meant to know better because IT IS HIS JOB. So ultimatley, if a managerial appoinment doesn't work out, it can be bad luck. If 3 out 4 don't work out it is the empolyers fault. Simple, straight forward, unargueable common sense 

102126[/snapback]

 

The point about his record of managerial appoints chocchip, and I'm answering you as at least you answer questions with common sense and factual info rather than just ducking them, is as I have said all along which is that no-one, absolutely no one, could have forseen a manager, ie Dalglish we are talking about, who had won 4 league titles and 3 FA Cups and 3 manager of the years as being anything other than a top quality, high level appointment of the highest standing. So, what else do you expect Fred / the board, to do ?

 

Reasonable question yes ? I'm sorry but just to say with hindsight that he "turned out to be crap" simply isn't good enough. This is why I ask what alternative criteria

people would use, and they simply do not answer.

 

Likewise Gullit. Craig has said that Gullit built the Chelsea team that won the FA Cup and went on to win more trophies under a different manager, which is correct. So again, what is wrong with the board of NUFC appointing a manager who did that ?

 

Are these 2 appointments not more qualified than some of the current contenders ie O'Neill, Allardyce ? And Dalglish to be on a par with Hitzfeld ? Is this not correct ? The people on this forum are all backing these people on what basis - the same basis that was used to appoint Dalglish and Gullit, yet for some strange reason all they say is the club doesn't attract top managers ? What were Dalglish and Gullit if they were not top managers ?

 

Likewise I consider it fully justified in asking about other chairman of the big city clubs, and our ex chairmen at the club. Because in context, both of these comparisons show how well the current board are doing. And that is very well, not the best, and we won't be either unfortunately as Chelsea while the Russian is there and Manu are always going to have the biggest financial clout and it will take something extremely special to knock them both off their perch. One maybe but not both. Wenger has done it with Arsenal, beating only one of them, however if he stays at the club for longer and they find a way to combat the financial restraints imposed by a new stadium [facts which we at NUFC have already incorporated yet when mentioned by myself are instantly dismissed as "not being part of a long term plan"....what exactly is it if it isn't a company with a forward looking board showing ambitious planning ?] will find it much more difficult. Likewise I ask who the man is who will take over from Shepherd and guaranteed to be better, again - no answer. Simply because there isn't one.

 

The vast majority of big city clubs are behind us competition wise. Apart from Liverpool and Arsenal on the field, in the last decade. I think that will change in Arsenals case if they lose Wenger. Thats quite a few clubs who are not matching us, our turnover and on the field, why not? If they have done it in the past why are the not doing it now ?

 

It is true to say that Shepherd took over a good club from SJH but it's also true that Shepherd has kept it going...I have stated this but again no reply other than a "so what"...as if it is easy....if it was so easy how come big city clubs in the past who were much much bigger than us have lost their way ie Man City, Spurs, Villa, Leeds to name 4.....staying near the top of the league isn't a divine right you will only stay there if you strive to stay ahead of the rest.

 

Likewise, what was stopping our directors before the Halls and Shepherd getting 50,000 gates and buying England players ? What was to stop them from building on our rather unexpected Fairs Cup win in 1969 ? Nothing, but they didn't, why do you think they didn't ?

 

Now, if people are going to reply to this post with one word answers or usual dumb moronic comments like Fred is shit, or untrue ones such as we don't or can't appoint top managers, consider it not to receive a reply, however someone like yourself who will I suspect answer the whole post in general and in context with intelligent points where you may disagree, then I will.

Edited March 1, 2006 by LeazesMag

[Shearergol 0]

Who would have thought Dyer (one of the brightest prospects in England at the time) would have turned out like he did. Poor signing?

 

Who would have though Luque (one of the form players in Spain at the time) would have turned out like he did. Poor signing?

 

If we're not allowed to apply hindsight to anything, then Dyer was a good signing.

[Guest Sima]

Dyer wasn't even a Premiership player at the time.

[Guest alex]

Took me ages to write as well 

102194[/snapback]

I agree with what you say, I was waiting for Leazes to respond though.

102195[/snapback]

 

I reckon it's about time you answered the questions I ask you Alex to be honest.

102291[/snapback]

I answered the question you asked re: criteria for choosing a manger on the previous page, which other ones haven't I answered?

[Guest alex]

Still waiting for Leazes to answer my questions like

[ChocChip 0]

In my most humble and blackest of opinions Shepherd appears to be doing pretty well with the financial side of things. However, i'm curious to see how our recent spending spree has affected how standing.

If the money spent in the close season puts us in serious financial trouble then Shepherd's actions are indefensible. He will have gambled NUFC's fortune on a manager no one important except FS thought capable.

However, my guess is that FS is a bit cleverer than that and that we could afford it, just.

It is fundamental to point out though that FS only makes money available that the club raises itself. He does not put his money in, rather he spends our money.

To say he backs his managers....well, what with? Our money actually. I should say your money because i don't see many games. So, if there's extra money available after costs, he gives to the manager rather than stealing it. That's what he's meant to do.

So we can establish he isn't destructive, crooked chairman but he isn't the Steve Gibson type either. He just does his job, nothing more, nothing less. This doesn't make him a saint or a sinner.

 

His record for appointments have not gone well:

 

Dalgleish.....failure

Gullit...........failure

Robson.......i'd say success

Souness......failure

 

Frankly i don't care if fans wanted this person or that person. We are just the plebs. FS is meant to be a professional and to know his business. The onus is on him to make the right choice, not on us. I couldn't give a f**k if everyone backed Gullit, he didn't work out, he failed spectacularly and FS is meant to know better because IT IS HIS JOB. So ultimatley, if a managerial appoinment doesn't work out, it can be bad luck. If 3 out 4 don't work out it is the empolyers fault. Simple, straight forward, unargueable common sense 

102126[/snapback]

 

The point about his record of managerial appoints chocchip, and I'm answering you as at least you answer questions with common sense and factual info rather than just ducking them, is as I have said all along which is that no-one, absolutely no one, could have forseen a manager, ie Dalglish we are talking about, who had won 4 league titles and 3 FA Cups and 3 manager of the years as being anything other than a top quality, high level appointment of the highest standing. So, what else do you expect Fred / the board, to do ?

 

Reasonable question yes ? I'm sorry but just to say with hindsight that he "turned out to be crap" simply isn't good enough. This is why I ask what alternative criteria

people would use, and they simply do not answer.

 

Likewise Gullit. Craig has said that Gullit built the Chelsea team that won the FA Cup and went on to win more trophies under a different manager, which is correct. So again, what is wrong with the board of NUFC appointing a manager who did that ?

 

Are these 2 appointments not more qualified than some of the current contenders ie O'Neill, Allardyce ? And Dalglish to be on a par with Hitzfeld ? Is this not correct ? The people on this forum are all backing these people on what basis - the same basis that was used to appoint Dalglish and Gullit, yet for some strange reason all they say is the club doesn't attract top managers ? What were Dalglish and Gullit if they were not top managers ?

 

Likewise I consider it fully justified in asking about other chairman of the big city clubs, and our ex chairmen at the club. Because in context, both of these comparisons show how well the current board are doing. And that is very well, not the best, and we won't be either unfortunately as Chelsea while the Russian is there and Manu are always going to have the biggest financial clout and it will take something extremely special to knock them both off their perch. One maybe but not both. Wenger has done it with Arsenal, beating only one of them, however if he stays at the club for longer and they find a way to combat the financial restraints imposed by a new stadium [facts which we at NUFC have already incorporated yet when mentioned by myself are instantly dismissed as "not being part of a long term plan"....what exactly is it if it isn't a company with a forward looking board showing ambitious planning ?] will find it much more difficult. Likewise I ask who the man is who will take over from Shepherd and guaranteed to be better, again - no answer. Simply because there isn't one.

 

The vast majority of big city clubs are behind us competition wise. Apart from Liverpool and Arsenal on the field, in the last decade. I think that will change in Arsenals case if they lose Wenger. Thats quite a few clubs who are not matching us, our turnover and on the field, why not? If they have done it in the past why are the not doing it now ?

 

It is true to say that Shepherd took over a good club from SJH but it's also true that Shepherd has kept it going...I have stated this but again no reply other than a "so what"...as if it is easy....if it was so easy how come big city clubs in the past who were much much bigger than us have lost their way ie Man City, Spurs, Villa, Leeds to name 4.....staying near the top of the league isn't a divine right you will only stay there if you strive to stay ahead of the rest.

 

Likewise, what was stopping our directors before the Halls and Shepherd getting 50,000 gates and buying England players ? What was to stop them from building on our rather unexpected Fairs Cup win in 1969 ? Nothing, but they didn't, why do you think they didn't ?

 

Now, if people are going to reply to this post with one word answers or usual dumb moronic comments like Fred is shit, or untrue ones such as we don't or can't appoint top managers, consider it not to receive a reply, however someone like yourself who will I suspect answer the whole post in general and in context with intelligent points where you may disagree, then I will.

102296[/snapback]

 

LM, i'll try to respond.

I was a bit young at the time so i feel stupid stating my feelings about the Dalgliesh appoinment however, with his record it would seem to the ordinary Joe Bloggs that he had the credentials to take over and push us forward. I do think someone should have asked him at the interview what his plans were though, because if he'd have said ' I plann to sell Ginola, Ferdinand, Asprilla, etc. and replace them with Stephen Glass, Pamela Anderson, Des Hamilton and Carl Serrant, i think he wouldn't have been appointed. I've said it before, i think one of the most important aspects of a new manager is that he wants the players he inherits (especially if they are very expensive and have come VERY close to succeding already). Dalgleish was clearly not at all happy with the squad and replaced them with a load of clangers. IMO, Solano was a very good buy and Given was the most important player this club has signed in the last 10 years, much more important than Shearer, i thought Speed was a goo buy too. However Souness also made decent purchases.

Gullit had only ever managed 1 club i think and he was sacked form that one, why do YOU think he was a good appoinment?

SBR, i think we all agree was good.

GS, same effect as Dalgleish but without the pedigree - result was the same though.

How many failures, and 3 out of 4 have been does it take for people to think that FS isn't capable of employing the right man? Isn't he meant to know the football world inside out? Why would we know any better?

Financially, as i stated, i can't fault him much unless he's f**ked us by allowing GS to spend £50m.

I'd like to ask, you say under FS we haven't gone into a decline like those other big clubs, are you sure? Where did we finish last season? Where are we now? Will we finish top 4? What makes you think we are doing so well?

[Renton 22024]

In my most humble and blackest of opinions Shepherd appears to be doing pretty well with the financial side of things. However, i'm curious to see how our recent spending spree has affected how standing.

If the money spent in the close season puts us in serious financial trouble then Shepherd's actions are indefensible. He will have gambled NUFC's fortune on a manager no one important except FS thought capable.

However, my guess is that FS is a bit cleverer than that and that we could afford it, just.

It is fundamental to point out though that FS only makes money available that the club raises itself. He does not put his money in, rather he spends our money.

To say he backs his managers....well, what with? Our money actually. I should say your money because i don't see many games. So, if there's extra money available after costs, he gives to the manager rather than stealing it. That's what he's meant to do.

So we can establish he isn't destructive, crooked chairman but he isn't the Steve Gibson type either. He just does his job, nothing more, nothing less. This doesn't make him a saint or a sinner.

 

His record for appointments have not gone well:

 

Dalgleish.....failure

Gullit...........failure

Robson.......i'd say success

Souness......failure

 

Frankly i don't care if fans wanted this person or that person. We are just the plebs. FS is meant to be a professional and to know his business. The onus is on him to make the right choice, not on us. I couldn't give a f**k if everyone backed Gullit, he didn't work out, he failed spectacularly and FS is meant to know better because IT IS HIS JOB. So ultimatley, if a managerial appoinment doesn't work out, it can be bad luck. If 3 out 4 don't work out it is the empolyers fault. Simple, straight forward, unargueable common sense 

102126[/snapback]

 

The point about his record of managerial appoints chocchip, and I'm answering you as at least you answer questions with common sense and factual info rather than just ducking them, is as I have said all along which is that no-one, absolutely no one, could have forseen a manager, ie Dalglish we are talking about, who had won 4 league titles and 3 FA Cups and 3 manager of the years as being anything other than a top quality, high level appointment of the highest standing. So, what else do you expect Fred / the board, to do ?

 

Reasonable question yes ? I'm sorry but just to say with hindsight that he "turned out to be crap" simply isn't good enough. This is why I ask what alternative criteria

people would use, and they simply do not answer.

 

Likewise Gullit. Craig has said that Gullit built the Chelsea team that won the FA Cup and went on to win more trophies under a different manager, which is correct. So again, what is wrong with the board of NUFC appointing a manager who did that ?

 

Are these 2 appointments not more qualified than some of the current contenders ie O'Neill, Allardyce ? And Dalglish to be on a par with Hitzfeld ? Is this not correct ? The people on this forum are all backing these people on what basis - the same basis that was used to appoint Dalglish and Gullit, yet for some strange reason all they say is the club doesn't attract top managers ? What were Dalglish and Gullit if they were not top managers ?

 

Likewise I consider it fully justified in asking about other chairman of the big city clubs, and our ex chairmen at the club. Because in context, both of these comparisons show how well the current board are doing. And that is very well, not the best, and we won't be either unfortunately as Chelsea while the Russian is there and Manu are always going to have the biggest financial clout and it will take something extremely special to knock them both off their perch. One maybe but not both. Wenger has done it with Arsenal, beating only one of them, however if he stays at the club for longer and they find a way to combat the financial restraints imposed by a new stadium [facts which we at NUFC have already incorporated yet when mentioned by myself are instantly dismissed as "not being part of a long term plan"....what exactly is it if it isn't a company with a forward looking board showing ambitious planning ?] will find it much more difficult. Likewise I ask who the man is who will take over from Shepherd and guaranteed to be better, again - no answer. Simply because there isn't one.

 

The vast majority of big city clubs are behind us competition wise. Apart from Liverpool and Arsenal on the field, in the last decade. I think that will change in Arsenals case if they lose Wenger. Thats quite a few clubs who are not matching us, our turnover and on the field, why not? If they have done it in the past why are the not doing it now ?

 

It is true to say that Shepherd took over a good club from SJH but it's also true that Shepherd has kept it going...I have stated this but again no reply other than a "so what"...as if it is easy....if it was so easy how come big city clubs in the past who were much much bigger than us have lost their way ie Man City, Spurs, Villa, Leeds to name 4.....staying near the top of the league isn't a divine right you will only stay there if you strive to stay ahead of the rest.

 

Likewise, what was stopping our directors before the Halls and Shepherd getting 50,000 gates and buying England players ? What was to stop them from building on our rather unexpected Fairs Cup win in 1969 ? Nothing, but they didn't, why do you think they didn't ?

 

Now, if people are going to reply to this post with one word answers or usual dumb moronic comments like Fred is shit, or untrue ones such as we don't or can't appoint top managers, consider it not to receive a reply, however someone like yourself who will I suspect answer the whole post in general and in context with intelligent points where you may disagree, then I will.

102296[/snapback]

 

LM, i'll try to respond.

I was a bit young at the time so i feel stupid stating my feelings about the Dalgliesh appoinment however, with his record it would seem to the ordinary Joe Bloggs that he had the credentials to take over and push us forward. I do think someone should have asked him at the interview what his plans were though, because if he'd have said ' I plann to sell Ginola, Ferdinand, Asprilla, etc. and replace them with Stephen Glass, Pamela Anderson, Des Hamilton and Carl Serrant, i think he wouldn't have been appointed. I've said it before, i think one of the most important aspects of a new manager is that he wants the players he inherits (especially if they are very expensive and have come VERY close to succeding already). Dalgleish was clearly not at all happy with the squad and replaced them with a load of clangers. IMO, Solano was a very good buy and Given was the most important player this club has signed in the last 10 years, much more important than Shearer, i thought Speed was a goo buy too. However Souness also made decent purchases.

Gullit had only ever managed 1 club i think and he was sacked form that one, why do YOU think he was a good appoinment?

SBR, i think we all agree was good.

GS, same effect as Dalgleish but without the pedigree - result was the same though.

How many failures, and 3 out of 4 have been does it take for people to think that FS isn't capable of employing the right man? Isn't he meant to know the football world inside out? Why would we know any better?

Financially, as i stated, i can't fault him much unless he's f**ked us by allowing GS to spend £50m.

I'd like to ask, you say under FS we haven't gone into a decline like those other big clubs, are you sure? Where did we finish last season? Where are we now? Will we finish top 4? What makes you think we are doing so well?

102494[/snapback]

 

I think you'll find that a lot of transfers in the Dalglish era were forced upon him - certainly the sale of Ferdinand was. And as for Given being a more important signing than Shearer, give me a break. Given is a good keeper but in Shearer we bought the most highly rated striker in the world. It really put Newcastle on the map and that's before you count his 201 goals so far.

 

I think LM will rightly say that it is ridiculous for Shepherd to have the sort of foresight you are suggesting btw.

[Guest alex]

Who would have thought Dyer (one of the brightest prospects in England at the time) would have turned out like he did. Poor signing?

 

Who would have though Luque (one of the form players in Spain at the time) would have turned out like he did. Poor signing?

 

If we're not allowed to apply hindsight to anything, then Dyer was a good signing.

102300[/snapback]

You're only allowed to criticise Shepherd on Leazes' terms, I thought he'd made that abundantly clear.

[Guest alex]

I think you'll find that a lot of transfers in the Dalglish era were forced upon him - certainly the sale of Ferdinand was. And as for Given being a more important signing than Shearer, give me a break. Given is a good keeper but in Shearer we bought the most highly rated striker in the world. It really put Newcastle on the map and that's before you count his 201 goals so far.

 

I think LM will rightly say that it is ridiculous for Shepherd to have the sort of foresight you are suggesting btw.

102495[/snapback]

I have it on pretty good authority Daglish didn't rate Ferdinand, there were others players he could have sold first, if he wished. EDIT: Incidentally, I hope you aren't insinuating the chairman sells players at NUFC

Edited March 2, 2006 by alex

[Renton 22024]

I think you'll find that a lot of transfers in the Dalglish era were forced upon him - certainly the sale of Ferdinand was. And as for Given being a more important signing than Shearer, give me a break. Given is a good keeper but in Shearer we bought the most highly rated striker in the world. It really put Newcastle on the map and that's before you count his 201 goals so far.

 

I think LM will rightly say that it is ridiculous for Shepherd to have the sort of foresight you are suggesting btw.

102495[/snapback]

I have it on pretty good authority Daglish didn't rate Ferdinand, there were others players he could have sold first, if he wished. EDIT: Incidentally, I hope you aren't insinuating the chairman sells players at NUFC

102498[/snapback]

 

Maybe not. But he had to recuperate money and Ferdinand was the prize asset. Shear bad luck that our other star striker was seriously injured preseason (pun intended), leaving a kid by himself.

[ChocChip 0]

FAO: Renton.

 

Sorry, don't want to use up bandwidth.

 

Personally i feel Given has been more important. If an employer gets 1 appoinment right out of 4, is he a good recruiter?

[ChocChip 0]

I think you'll find that a lot of transfers in the Dalglish era were forced upon him - certainly the sale of Ferdinand was. And as for Given being a more important signing than Shearer, give me a break. Given is a good keeper but in Shearer we bought the most highly rated striker in the world. It really put Newcastle on the map and that's before you count his 201 goals so far.

 

I think LM will rightly say that it is ridiculous for Shepherd to have the sort of foresight you are suggesting btw.

102495[/snapback]

I have it on pretty good authority Daglish didn't rate Ferdinand, there were others players he could have sold first, if he wished. EDIT: Incidentally, I hope you aren't insinuating the chairman sells players at NUFC

102498[/snapback]

 

Maybe not. But he had to recuperate money and Ferdinand was the prize asset. Shear bad luck that our other star striker was seriously injured preseason (pun intended), leaving a kid by himself.

102510[/snapback]

 

 

Did Souness suffer from the same bas luck then?

[Guest alex]

Fair point like.