Waiting over for Roeder

[Lazarus 0]

Of course, despite what some of the others are saying about Bobby Robson, it was a planned appointment, he having been first choice before Dalglish 3 years earlier and from that point always was the first choice of the club, but the timing of appointing him was wrong for him.

138762[/snapback]

 

 

Leazes, you talk a lot of sense in some of your posts, but utter cobblers in others. Robson was NOT a planned appointment. We already had a manager at the time, Gullit. He was sacked and the search for a new manager began. Despite being the obvious choice (and I mean obvious to literally everyone), it took Shepherd several days to contact Robson, and according to Robson in his book, he very nearly cocked it up by offering him such a derisory salary to do the job. Complete incompetence.

 

It's true that Robson was probably the first choice after Keegan left, but again, how could that be planned? Keegan had quit unexpectedly, there was absolutely no planning involved. So, if you look back in recent history, this is the story.

 

Keegan - a planned and inspired choice by John Hall, not shepherd.

Dalglish - not planned, but a popular choice who didn't work.

Gullit - not planned, mixed reception, but madness imo considering what had happened to him at Chelsea and his known hatred of our number 9 (before he even took the job).

Robson - NOT PLANNED. Fortunately available at the third time of asking, although Shepherd unbelievably almost cocks up the appointment.

Souness - not planned, Shepherd makes a serious mistake under pressure from Hall jnr (aka shithead), and ends up with 5th choice manager. Unbelievable that he was in the top 1000 candidates really.

Roeder - not planned, Shepherd selects him after a good term as caretaker, claiming yet again he is the fans' choice. Meanwhile, the rest of the football world are pissing themselves laughing at us.

 

Can you spot a pattern here? Lurching from one disater to the next, almost without respite. When other clubs realise their manager is not working, they PLAN ahead, scouring the world for a good replacement, BEFORE they sack the incumbent. Not us though, which is why we are in the mess we are. Whose fault is this - the boards, of course.

 

I'll also take issue with one other thing you said in your post. The Newcastle team that Dalglish inherited required a hell of a lot more than "tweaking" to win the league. As a first team it was good, but nowhere near the match of ManU who were coming to their peak. But the squad was poor, and we had scrapped the reserves and all but abolished the youth team. This was compounded by the fact many of the first team players were over the hill (Beardsley being a prime example). I'm sure one of the reasons Keegan left was because he knew the game was up. The task that Dalglish and subsequent managers inherited was a very hard one, not least because it coincided with having an incompetent fool as our chairman.

138774[/snapback]

 

i would slightly disagree with that.

 

 

Keegan: as you say, inspired.

Dalgleish: Proven manager who dismantled team and played negative football.

Guillt: Appointed to bring back sexy football from keegan days. poor man management soured his term

Robson: Proven manager, great man manager and sexy football. more of a father figure than disciplinarian.

Souness: Appointed to restore discipline but done at the expense of man management, tactics, sexy football etc etc

Roeder: ?

[Renton 22008]

Of course, despite what some of the others are saying about Bobby Robson, it was a planned appointment, he having been first choice before Dalglish 3 years earlier and from that point always was the first choice of the club, but the timing of appointing him was wrong for him.

138762[/snapback]

 

 

Leazes, you talk a lot of sense in some of your posts, but utter cobblers in others. Robson was NOT a planned appointment. We already had a manager at the time, Gullit. He was sacked and the search for a new manager began. Despite being the obvious choice (and I mean obvious to literally everyone), it took Shepherd several days to contact Robson, and according to Robson in his book, he very nearly cocked it up by offering him such a derisory salary to do the job. Complete incompetence.

 

It's true that Robson was probably the first choice after Keegan left, but again, how could that be planned? Keegan had quit unexpectedly, there was absolutely no planning involved. So, if you look back in recent history, this is the story.

 

Keegan - a planned and inspired choice by John Hall, not shepherd.

Dalglish - not planned, but a popular choice who didn't work.

Gullit - not planned, mixed reception, but madness imo considering what had happened to him at Chelsea and his known hatred of our number 9 (before he even took the job).

Robson - NOT PLANNED. Fortunately available at the third time of asking, although Shepherd unbelievably almost cocks up the appointment.

Souness - not planned, Shepherd makes a serious mistake under pressure from Hall jnr (aka shithead), and ends up with 5th choice manager. Unbelievable that he was in the top 1000 candidates really.

Roeder - not planned, Shepherd selects him after a good term as caretaker, claiming yet again he is the fans' choice. Meanwhile, the rest of the football world are pissing themselves laughing at us.

 

Can you spot a pattern here? Lurching from one disater to the next, almost without respite. When other clubs realise their manager is not working, they PLAN ahead, scouring the world for a good replacement, BEFORE they sack the incumbent. Not us though, which is why we are in the mess we are. Whose fault is this - the boards, of course.

 

I'll also take issue with one other thing you said in your post. The Newcastle team that Dalglish inherited required a hell of a lot more than "tweaking" to win the league. As a first team it was good, but nowhere near the match of ManU who were coming to their peak. But the squad was poor, and we had scrapped the reserves and all but abolished the youth team. This was compounded by the fact many of the first team players were over the hill (Beardsley being a prime example). I'm sure one of the reasons Keegan left was because he knew the game was up. The task that Dalglish and subsequent managers inherited was a very hard one, not least because it coincided with having an incompetent fool as our chairman.

138774[/snapback]

 

i would slightly disagree with that.

 

 

Keegan: as you say, inspired.

Dalgleish: Proven manager who dismantled team and played negative football.

Guillt: Appointed to bring back sexy football from keegan days. poor man management soured his term

Robson: Proven manager, great man manager and sexy football. more of a father figure than disciplinarian.

Souness: Appointed to restore discipline but done at the expense of man management, tactics, sexy football etc etc

Roeder: ?

138784[/snapback]

 

My point was more about HOW the managers were appointed, rather than how they performed, which is another argument entirely. None of them after Keegan were planned imo.

 

Roeder will of course get his chance, but I fear will prove to be another bad choice, and is as far from inspired as you can get.

[Lazarus 0]

depends on whats meant by planned.

 

every manager since keegan has been appointed as a result of the failings of the previous one.

[Renton 22008]

depends on whats meant by planned.

 

every manager since keegan has been appointed as a result of the failings of the previous one.

138786[/snapback]

 

Well yes, but that's nearly always true of all managers. By planned I mean thought about in advance before the incumbent is released, not starting the search after the sacking. Which I believe is what has happened in the case of every manager since Ardilles, and is why we have ended up with managers like Souness.

[luckypierre 0]

more to do with the timing as opposed to any real thought process on suitability. As you've put Lazarus, on the surface it looks very reactionary too.

[LeazesMag 0]

Of course, despite what some of the others are saying about Bobby Robson, it was a planned appointment, he having been first choice before Dalglish 3 years earlier and from that point always was the first choice of the club, but the timing of appointing him was wrong for him.

138762[/snapback]

 

 

Leazes, you talk a lot of sense in some of your posts, but utter cobblers in others. Robson was NOT a planned appointment. We already had a manager at the time, Gullit. He was sacked and the search for a new manager began. Despite being the obvious choice (and I mean obvious to literally everyone), it took Shepherd several days to contact Robson, and according to Robson in his book, he very nearly cocked it up by offering him such a derisory salary to do the job. Complete incompetence.

 

It's true that Robson was probably the first choice after Keegan left, but again, how could that be planned? Keegan had quit unexpectedly, there was absolutely no planning involved. So, if you look back in recent history, this is the story.

 

Keegan - a planned and inspired choice by John Hall, not shepherd.

Dalglish - not planned, but a popular choice who didn't work.

Gullit - not planned, mixed reception, but madness imo considering what had happened to him at Chelsea and his known hatred of our number 9 (before he even took the job).

Robson - NOT PLANNED. Fortunately available at the third time of asking, although Shepherd unbelievably almost cocks up the appointment.

Souness - not planned, Shepherd makes a serious mistake under pressure from Hall jnr (aka shithead), and ends up with 5th choice manager. Unbelievable that he was in the top 1000 candidates really.

Roeder - not planned, Shepherd selects him after a good term as caretaker, claiming yet again he is the fans' choice. Meanwhile, the rest of the football world are pissing themselves laughing at us.

 

Can you spot a pattern here? Lurching from one disater to the next, almost without respite. When other clubs realise their manager is not working, they PLAN ahead, scouring the world for a good replacement, BEFORE they sack the incumbent. Not us though, which is why we are in the mess we are. Whose fault is this - the boards, of course.

 

I'll also take issue with one other thing you said in your post. The Newcastle team that Dalglish inherited required a hell of a lot more than "tweaking" to win the league. As a first team it was good, but nowhere near the match of ManU who were coming to their peak. But the squad was poor, and we had scrapped the reserves and all but abolished the youth team. This was compounded by the fact many of the first team players were over the hill (Beardsley being a prime example). I'm sure one of the reasons Keegan left was because he knew the game was up. The task that Dalglish and subsequent managers inherited was a very hard one, not least because it coincided with having an incompetent fool as our chairman.

138774[/snapback]

 

you are simply picking things to deliberately discredit the board. Robson was approached after Keegan, so to say he wasn't no 1 choice or one of the main choices when he finally came is absolute tosh.

 

Unless you say you think the club sacked Gullit simply because Robson became available ? Absolutely fuckin absurd, if you think clubs do this . This is by far the stupidest thing I've read on here since the notion that a few people have given that suggest Fred is the manager and picks the team every week. He was sacked because the team was bottom of the league and he had to go. No "5 year plan" is going to change that. Then the club turns to its "list" of managers available or possible candidates at the time, which is what clubs to. Every club constantly looks around the game at managers and players, because you never know what is round the corner, players and managers are the same, there are flash in the pans, yesterdays possible top boss is todays not good enough.

 

I think people who cannot see that having an ambitious board is not a right, and think we have a right to one, are fools. I have pointed out all the other big city clubs who were above us for decades, why did that happen ? And why are they below us now? An answer, finally, to this question would be nice.

 

People who want rid of Fred and the board because they think a mythical knight in shining armour is waiting out there who will guarantee improving the 5th most successful club over the course of a decade are living in dreamland should take a reality check.

 

Don't be stupid saying the rest of football are laughing at us. 86 clubs would swap their past decade for ours anytime. You are either deluded or seriously underestimate the intelligence of other people if you seriously think people will believe such absolute complete shite as this. Well, some will I suppose .......

 

The same idiotic people who think booing the chairman at a testimonial for a great player was alright.......caused a few laughs that I bet ....

 

The team that Dalglish inherited, in case you can't remember or weren't around, was 90 minutes from winning the title. Now, if you don't think one single game from that is close enough to only need a slight change or two, you are even more seriously deluded than I am increasingly thinking you are.

 

I think your obsession and paranoia with Shepherd is causing to lose your marbles.

[LeazesMag 0]

depends on whats meant by planned.

 

every manager since keegan has been appointed as a result of the failings of the previous one.

138786[/snapback]

 

Well yes, but that's nearly always true of all managers. By planned I mean thought about in advance before the incumbent is released, not starting the search after the sacking. Which I believe is what has happened in the case of every manager since Ardilles, and is why we have ended up with managers like Souness.

138787[/snapback]

 

Thats a good idea. Lets go back to having a manager like Ardiles, seeing as you think Shepherd is a shit chairman like those we had back then.

[luckypierre 0]

 

Ive read the first paragraph of that before you start getting into full rant and it actually has nothing to do with what afaik Renton is trying to say.

 

No appointment when a manger is sacked early on in the season can be planned, by definition its a reaction. A reaction to results, to public opinion. If it was planned Robson would have replaced Gullit in the summer, just like when he himself and Souness after should have been replaced. Doing it a few games into a season like with Robson and Daglish is a serious cock up. Shepherd has this reputation and hes very aware of it which is one of the main reasons why Souness was kept around for so long imo. Shepherd desperately wanted to show that he wasnt the trigger happy chairman that people think he is. Got that one wrong too. Now to be fair to him its very difficult and you're definitely damned of you do and damned if you dont. However he is the man at the top and he gets the big bucks to get these decisions right and so far his record , timing wise ..nevermind trophy winning managers etc, is pretty appalling, they could certainly have been planned better.

 

just read the rest Leazes, wtf has all that shite got to do with what Renton has been talking about. Still sticking to your 5th best over the last decade crap then eh, even after you admitted it was a bollocks stat over on NO. Again its 5th highest total premiership points since the premiership began , pretty meaningless and actually more than a decade. I have no idea where we stand over the last decade but if you want work it all out let us know. Just out of curiousity though, if West Ham had won the FA cup would that mean they have been more successfull than us over the last decade or not?

Edited May 20, 2006 by luckypierre

[luckypierre 0]

depends on whats meant by planned.

 

every manager since keegan has been appointed as a result of the failings of the previous one.

138786[/snapback]

 

Well yes, but that's nearly always true of all managers. By planned I mean thought about in advance before the incumbent is released, not starting the search after the sacking. Which I believe is what has happened in the case of every manager since Ardilles, and is why we have ended up with managers like Souness.

138787[/snapback]

 

Thats a good idea. Lets go back to having a manager like Ardiles, seeing as you think Shepherd is a shit chairman like those we had back then.

138791[/snapback]

 

was he a shit leading board member back then though?

[LeazesMag 0]

 

Ive read the first paragraph of that before you start getting into full rant and it actually has nothing to do with what afaik Renton is trying to say.

 

No appointemet when a manger is sacked early on in the season can be planned, by definition its a reaction. A reaction to results, to public opinion.  If it was planned Robson would have repalced Gullit in the summer, just like when he himself and Souness after should have been replaced. Doing it a few games into a season like with Robson and Daglish is a serious cock up. Shepherd has this reputation and hes very aware of it which is one of the main reasons why Souness was kept around for so long imo. Shepherd desperately wanted to show that he wasnt the trigger happy chairman that people think he is. Got that one wrong too. Now to be fair to him its very difficult and you're definitely damned of you do and damned if you dont. However he is the man at the top and he gets the big bucks to get these decisions right and so far his record , timing wise ..nevermind trophy winning managers etc, is pretty appalling, they could certainly have been planned better.

 

just read the rest Leazes, wtf has all that shite got to do with what Renton has been talking about. Still sticking to your 5th best over the last decade crap then eh, even after you admitted it was a bollocks stat over on NO. Again its 5th highest total premiership points since the premiership began , pretty meaningless and actually more than a decade. I have no idea where we stand over the last decade but if you want  work it all out let us know. Just out of curiousity though, if West Ham had won the FA cup would that mean they have been more successfull than us over the last decade or not?

138795[/snapback]

 

Firstly, finish reading the whole post if you want to comment, aye ? If you don't you may misinterpret something....

 

Renton is trying to say the club had no idea who to appoint before the club sacked Gullit, and Dalglish. I am saying clubs don't sack managers on the basis that others are availalbe. When a club sacks its manager, it then turns its attention to his replacement, not before . Understand ????????

 

I think this is totally relevant to Rentons post, and an explanation of how things work, although why this has to be explained at all is mind boggling.

 

I will repeat. Gullit has the support a huge amount of supporters during that summer. To suggest anything other than hindsight is simply a lie. And if the clubs supporters supported him why should the board feel any different. A large element of people in and around the club expected us to get back into europe during the summer before the start of that season. This is a fact. If you don;t know this, I can only presume you weren't around at the time or are simply trying to re-write history.

 

Its not a rant. Its just fact. I also have not admitted anything about our last decade, we have been the 5th most successful club in the last decade in the premiership. Why would I do anything else than support it when it is proven in facts and average league positions. Only 4 teams have a higher average posiiton, and the same 4 teams are the only ones to have qualified more for europe than our 7 qualifications. FACTS. If you disagree, show me more teams that are higher.

 

If you have seen the posts on NO that you say you have, you will have seen the figures, so wtf are you talking about when you say "show us"...they are also on here too btw.

 

The West Ham comment is a no brainer. It isn't me who is saying not winning the FA Cup once equals failure !!!

 

You are actually implying the same thing yourself.......

 

And why don't YOU answer my questions, ie why are all those big city clubs that were above us for years are now below us, seeing as you have chosen to dive in ?

 

Don't expect you will though, because you can't eh ? I reckon you have your deluded head up your arse mate, just like a few too many others unfortunately.

 

EDIT.

 

I take it you, by virtue of the fact that you don't acknowledge the truth that people were happy with Gullit during that summer, we should have kept on as long as Souness did even though we were bottom of the league and the club was tearing itself apart ?

Edited May 20, 2006 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

depends on whats meant by planned.

 

every manager since keegan has been appointed as a result of the failings of the previous one.

138786[/snapback]

 

Well yes, but that's nearly always true of all managers. By planned I mean thought about in advance before the incumbent is released, not starting the search after the sacking. Which I believe is what has happened in the case of every manager since Ardilles, and is why we have ended up with managers like Souness.

138787[/snapback]

 

Thats a good idea. Lets go back to having a manager like Ardiles, seeing as you think Shepherd is a shit chairman like those we had back then.

138791[/snapback]

 

was he a shit leading board member back then though?

138796[/snapback]

 

thought you knew the backround of the club to support your views ? Obviously not.

[Bombadil 0]

Fatso isn't interested in long-term plans. He's said himself that he'll step down as chairman the moment we win a trophy. I'm not sure that's a good thing though if he still keeps his shares in the club.

[luckypierre 0]

Firstly, finish reading the whole post if you want to comment, aye ? If you don't you may misinterpret something....

 

Renton is trying to say the club had no idea who to appoint before the club sacked Gullit, and Dalglish. I am saying clubs don't sack managers on the basis that others are availalbe. When a club sacks its manager, it then turns its attention to his replacement, not before . Understand ????????

 

tbf Ive read that post a million times so didnt need to read it but also seeing as I was only addressing the first bit it wasnt really nescessary. Thanks anyway. I dont think he was saying they have no idea to appoint, we all have a list in our heads for a start, Shepherd et al will be no different. Is that what constitutes a planned appointment then? Looka t the example of Benitez that was given. Thats a planned appointment not a REACTIONARY one which we have continuously done. Understand! Shepherd certainly hasnt had any faith in two of his managers leading into the seasons of their dismissal. If he did he's the most fickle bloke in the world to completely change his mind in the space of a couple of weeks

 

I think this is totally relevant to Rentons post, and an explanation of how things work, although why this has to be explained at all is mind boggling.

 

I think you've misunderstood what Renton has been saying.

 

I will repeat. Gullit has the support a huge amount of supporters during that summer. To suggest anything other than hindsight is simply a lie. And if the clubs supporters supported him why should the board feel any different. A large element of people in and around the club expected us to get back into europe during the summer before the start of that season. This is a fact. If you don;t know this, I can only presume you weren't around at the time or are simply trying to re-write history.

 

tbh cant remember, I was actually living in Austria at the time which is why purposefully concentrated on Daglishs and Robsons dismissals. Cant say I myself was too hopeful though.

 

Its not a rant. Its just fact. I also have not admitted anything about our last decade, we have been the 5th most successful club in the last decade in the premiership. Why would I do anything else than support it when it is proven in facts and average league positions. Only 4 teams have a higher average posiiton, and the same 4 teams are the only ones to have qualified more for europe than our 7 qualifications. FACTS. If you disagree, show me more teams that are higher.

 

If you have seen the posts on NO that you say you have, you will have seen the figures, so wtf are you talking about when you say "show us"...they are also on here too btw.

 

Our average League postion under Shepherd is 9th. If theres only 4 teams better then fair enough but when we talked about this on NO you admitted it was a nonsense stat and quoted 5th most goals instead. Its news to me that this 5th best figure doesnt come from total prem points though, this is the first time out off ALL the times we've gone over this you've said it isnt. Just to maybe jog your memory Im Gibbon on NO.

 

The West Ham comment is a no brainer. It isn't me who is saying not winning the FA Cup once equals failure !!!

 

You are actually implying the same thing yourself.......

 

errmm Im not implying anything , like Ive said before you're the only one who's interested in quoting stats and putting some arbitrary figure on success. I actually made my view on what constitutes success very clear on NO. You refused to do the same , even after some baiting from Gemmill.

 

And why don't YOU answer my questions, ie why are all those big city clubs that were above us for years are now below us, seeing as you have chosen to dive in ?

 

Don't expect you will though, because you can't eh ? I reckon you have your deluded head up your arse mate, just like a few too many others unfortunately.

 

They've been answered before Leazes, tbh no one can be arsed anymore, its boring. Football isnt the same as it was back then. You can think what you want of me and I'll keep thinking you're a senile old cunt, deal?

[LeazesMag 0]

Firstly, finish reading the whole post if you want to comment, aye ? If you don't you may misinterpret something....

 

Renton is trying to say the club had no idea who to appoint before the club sacked Gullit, and Dalglish. I am saying clubs don't sack managers on the basis that others are availalbe. When a club sacks its manager, it then turns its attention to his replacement, not before . Understand ????????

 

tbf Ive read that post a million times so didnt need to read it but also seeing as I was only addressing the first bit it wasnt really nescessary. Thanks anyway. I dont think he was saying they have no idea to appoint, we all have a list in our heads for a start, Shepherd et al will be no different. Is that what constitutes a planned appointment then? Looka t the example of Benitez that was given. Thats a planned appointment not a REACTIONARY one which we have continuously done. Understand! Shepherd certainly hasnt had any faith in two of his managers leading into the seasons of their dismissal. If he did he's the most fickle bloke in the world to completely change his mind in the space of a couple of weeks

 

I think this is totally relevant to Rentons post, and an explanation of how things work, although why this has to be explained at all is mind boggling.

 

I think you've misunderstood what Renton has been saying.

 

I will repeat. Gullit has the support a huge amount of supporters during that summer. To suggest anything other than hindsight is simply a lie. And if the clubs supporters supported him why should the board feel any different. A large element of people in and around the club expected us to get back into europe during the summer before the start of that season. This is a fact. If you don;t know this, I can only presume you weren't around at the time or are simply trying to re-write history.

 

tbh cant remember, I was actually living in Austria at the time which is why purposefully concentrated on Daglishs and Robsons dismissals. Cant say I myself was too hopeful though.

 

Its not a rant. Its just fact. I also have not admitted anything about our last decade, we have been the 5th most successful club in the last decade in the premiership. Why would I do anything else than support it when it is proven in facts and average league positions. Only 4 teams have a higher average posiiton, and the same 4 teams are the only ones to have qualified more for europe than our 7 qualifications. FACTS. If you disagree, show me more teams that are higher.

 

If you have seen the posts on NO that you say you have, you will have seen the figures, so wtf are you talking about when you say "show us"...they are also on here too btw.

 

Our average League postion under Shepherd is 9th. If theres only 4 teams better then fair enough but when we talked about this on NO you admitted it was a nonsense stat and quoted 5th most goals instead. Its news to me that this 5th best figure doesnt come from total prem points though, this is the first time out off ALL the times we've gone over this you've said it isnt. Just to maybe jog your memory Im Gibbon on NO.

 

The West Ham comment is a no brainer. It isn't me who is saying not winning the FA Cup once equals failure !!!

 

You are actually implying the same thing yourself.......

 

errmm Im not implying anything , like Ive said before you're the only one who's interested in quoting stats and putting some arbitrary figure on success. I actually made my view on what constitutes success very clear on NO. You refused to do the same , even after some baiting from Gemmill.

 

And why don't YOU answer my questions, ie why are all those big city clubs that were above us for years are now below us, seeing as you have chosen to dive in ?

 

Don't expect you will though, because you can't eh ? I reckon you have your deluded head up your arse mate, just like a few too many others unfortunately.

 

They've been answered before Leazes, tbh no one can be arsed anymore, its boring. Football isnt the same as it was back then. You can think what you want of me and I'll keep thinking you're a senile old cunt, deal?

138812[/snapback]

 

Is that a reactionary post ????? Everybody makes 'reactionary' appointments. When you have been around a bit longer you may see that to be true. At the end of the day we are the 5th best in the country and qualified for europe 7 times over a decade, so if you find something to whinge about in that then you should fuck off like the 30,000 others did when we were 25th best in the country with no prospect of ever getting into the top 10, well behind many of the big city clubs that we have swapped places with since then. Fact.

 

You can think what you like, but nobody has answered that question that you have just avoided. Because they can't. Including you.

 

And yep I think you're a naive deluded arsehole, that knows and understands fuck all.

Edited May 20, 2006 by LeazesMag

[luckypierre 0]

depends on whats meant by planned.

 

every manager since keegan has been appointed as a result of the failings of the previous one.

138786[/snapback]

 

Well yes, but that's nearly always true of all managers. By planned I mean thought about in advance before the incumbent is released, not starting the search after the sacking. Which I believe is what has happened in the case of every manager since Ardilles, and is why we have ended up with managers like Souness.

138787[/snapback]

 

Thats a good idea. Lets go back to having a manager like Ardiles, seeing as you think Shepherd is a shit chairman like those we had back then.

138791[/snapback]

 

was he a shit leading board member back then though?

138796[/snapback]

 

thought you knew the backround of the club to support your views ? Obviously not.

138805[/snapback]

 

actually my bad. I always thought Shepherd was an existing board member when SJH was getting support for his takeover. Only a shareholder

[LeazesMag 0]

depends on whats meant by planned.

 

every manager since keegan has been appointed as a result of the failings of the previous one.

138786[/snapback]

 

Well yes, but that's nearly always true of all managers. By planned I mean thought about in advance before the incumbent is released, not starting the search after the sacking. Which I believe is what has happened in the case of every manager since Ardilles, and is why we have ended up with managers like Souness.

138787[/snapback]

 

Thats a good idea. Lets go back to having a manager like Ardiles, seeing as you think Shepherd is a shit chairman like those we had back then.

138791[/snapback]

 

was he a shit leading board member back then though?

138796[/snapback]

 

thought you knew the backround of the club to support your views ? Obviously not.

138805[/snapback]

 

actually my bad. I always thought Shepherd was an existing board member when SJH was getting support for his takeover. Only a shareholder

138815[/snapback]

 

Did you try to buy shares, or were you aware, that the club tried to issue shares in 1990 when we were a small big city club ?

[luckypierre 0]

Is that a reactionary post ????? Everybody makes 'reactionary' appointments. When you have been around a bit longer you may see that to be true. At the end of the day we are the 5th best in the country and qualified for europe 7 times over a decade, so if you find something to whinge about in that then you should fuck off like the 30,000 others did when we were 25th best in the country with no prospect of ever getting into the top 10, well behind many of the big city clubs that we have swapped places with since then. Fact.

 

You can think what you like, but nobody has answered that question that you have just avoided. Because they can't. Including you.

 

And yep I think you're a naive deluded arsehole, that knows and understands fuck all.

138814[/snapback]

 

of course they do which is what I said at first and why the appointment of Robson cant be described as planned.

 

To spell it out though. Do you think Shepherd had complete faith in Daglish and Robson, going into the seasons of their dismissals? If so what changed his mind a few weeks in? If it was 2 or 3 results was that reasonable? If he didnt have faith would it not have been better to do it in the summer? Does that constitute a planned appointment as opposed to a reactionary one?

 

So if Im not happy I should fuck off eh? What did you say to people when they said they same thing when you were whinging about Souness?

 

People have answered you before Leazes and its football has changed dramatically since the premiership and its pointless to compare our current situation with the past. We have(had? God knows how Chelsea compare now) the second highest turnover in the prem. Everton dont, Villa dont etc etc.

 

I think you're a naive deluded arsehole, that knows and understands fuck all.

 

funny becuase apart from Shepherd where you just refuse to even contemplate the fact the guy makes mistakes, eg was it a mistake to not get rid of Souness earlier?, we pretty much agree on most footballing matters. In regards to Bellamy and Souness I remember more 'good post's, and 'Well said' than 'naive deluded arsehole, that knows and understands fuck all'.

Edited May 20, 2006 by luckypierre

[LeazesMag 0]

Is that a reactionary post ????? Everybody makes 'reactionary' appointments. When you have been around a bit longer you may see that to be true. At the end of the day we are the 5th best in the country and qualified for europe 7 times over a decade, so if you find something to whinge about in that then you should fuck off like the 30,000 others did when we were 25th best in the country with no prospect of ever getting into the top 10, well behind many of the big city clubs that we have swapped places with since then. Fact.

 

You can think what you like, but nobody has answered that question that you have just avoided. Because they can't. Including you.

 

And yep I think you're a naive deluded arsehole, that knows and understands fuck all.

138814[/snapback]

 

of course they do which is what I said at first and why the appointement of Robson cant be described as planned.

 

To spell it out though. Do you think Shepherd had complete faith in Daglish and Robson, going into the seasons of their dismissals? If so what changed his mind a few weeks in? IF it wa 2 or 3 results was that reasonable? If he didnt have faith would it not have been better to do it in the summer? Does that constitute a planned appointment as oppsoed to a reactionary one?

 

So if Im not happy I shoukld fuck off eh? What did you say to people when they said they same thing when you were whinging about Souness?

 

People have answered you before Leazes and its football has changed dramatically since the premiership and its pointless to compare our current situation with the past. We have(had? God knows how Chelsea compare now) the second highest turnover in the prem. Everton dont, Villa dont etc etc.

 

I think you're a naive deluded arsehole, that knows and understands fuck all.

 

funny becuase apart from Shepherd where you just refuse to even contemplate the fact the guy makes mistakes, eg was it a mistake to not get rid of Souness earlier?, we pretty much agree on most footballing matters. In regards to Bellamy and Souness I remeber more 'good post's, and 'Well said' than 'naive deluded arsehole, that knows and understands fuck all'.

138819[/snapback]

 

Of course he made a mistake for keeping Souness, I have said this since day 1 when he was appointed, how many more times do you want me to admit he makes mistakes and Souness was a whopper. The difference is that I acknowledge in life everybody makes mistakes, overall Shepherd is a good chairman of the club and has a lot more plusses. Unfortunately a lot of people just simply can't see the plusses because they think we have an automatic right to them, or simply compare him to Sir John, correctly saying he isn't as good but that doesn't mean he is shit. You can only look at his record, which is why I point out where we are under his chairmanship. I simply can't believe people are quibbling about the fact that we have established and consolidated ourselves as a top club in the last decade, having overtaken all the clubs that were above us for decades apart from 4. I want to move forward as much as anyone but its not that simple and nobody is going to lie down and let you.

 

With a shit chairman we would not have had the decade we have had, or signed the players we have signed.

 

Nobody answers those questions properly, one or two people have tried to but its a simple fact that there are only 4 clubs that we haven't yet "caught". As much as I wish we had, we just haven't.

 

I have no idea whether the board had faith in Dalglish and Gullit in those 2 summers. I didn't have much in Gullit [as I've said before] but I hoped Dalglish would see where he was going wrong and give us the success he had had at Blackburn and Liverpool. Didn't you ? And at the time both these managers were sacked you have to say not too many people would have disagreed ? This is all I've ever said. I think "5 year plans" and "forward planning" is impossible. You simply can't tell in football when you may have to make a change, so you just keep yourself as informed as possible and ready for any change, and I don't see anything to suggest the board hadn't done this. They sack the manager, then look around for the replacement having already noticed possible up and coming managers, and the ever changing list of potential successors. We all do this, me, you, everybody.

 

I accept my last comment was unnecessary, but so was yours, there are no hard feelings and never was ! .... I'm neither senile or old....that Glenn Roeder is the 2nd youngest looking 50 year old in the world

[luckypierre 0]

Of course he made a mistake for keeping Souness, I have said this since day 1 when he was appointed, how many more times do you want me to admit he makes mistakes and Souness was a whopper. The difference is that I acknowledge in life everybody makes mistakes, overall Shepherd is a good chairman of the club and has a lot more plusses. Unfortunately a lot of people just simply can't see the plusses because they think we have an automatic right to them, or simply compare him to Sir John, correctly saying he isn't as good but that doesn't mean he is shit. You can only look at his record, which is why I point out where we are under his chairmanship. I simply can't believe people are quibbling about the fact that we have established and consolidated ourselves as a top club in the last decade, having overtaken all the clubs that were above us for decades apart from 4. I want to move forward as much as anyone but its not that simple and nobody is going to lie down and let you.

 

nice one. In the past Leazes you havent said that. When I posted soemthing saying Shepherd made a mistake in not getting rid of Souness earlier you made some condescending post about not understanding the financial implications etc. I even pointed out that I meant the summer before and not January but you'd backed yourself into a corner and refused to say that it was a mistake.

 

I think most recognise where he has done well. On the financial side of things his record is good, but then he's the head of a team of people, just as he is on the football side too. I think you have to disassociate him from Hall. He hasnt performed as well but Hall didnt have the same challenges either. You've just take him in isolation and look at exactly what hes done.

 

With a shit chairman we would not have had the decade we have had, or signed the players we have signed.

 

Nobody answers those questions properly, one or two people have tried to but its a simple fact that there are only 4 clubs that we haven't yet "caught". As much as I wish we had, we just haven't.

 

You've also got to remember that we were in that position before he took over. The clubs culture, relative ambition was already in place. Have the decisions he's made affected our performance on the pitch? The answer has to be yes. Apart from 3 years under Robson we've been pretty mediocre, and thats not because of my unreasonable demands, like I said top 6 for me is where we should be. The appointment of Robson was obviously a success but what if the timing was better, could those 3 have been a 4. What if the dismissal of Robson was better timed could that have been 5? This is just one aspect of his performance that I have a problem with, another is his gob. As far as the rest goes Im mostly happy

 

I have no idea whether the board had faith in Dalglish and Gullit in those 2 summers. I didn't have much in Gullit [as I've said before] but I hoped Dalglish would see where he was going wrong and give us the success he had had at Blackburn and Liverpool. Didn't you ? And at the time both these managers were sacked you have to say not too many people would have disagreed ? This is all I've ever said. I think "5 year plans" and "forward planning" is impossible. You simply can't tell in football when you may have to make a change, so you just keep yourself as informed as possible and ready for any change, and I don't see anything to suggest the board hadn't done this. They sack the manager, then look around for the replacement having already noticed possible up and coming managers, and the ever changing list of potential successors. We all do this, me, you, everybody.

 

I dont think he did have faith in those managers. He comes out of it better if you think of it that way than he would if you think he changed his mind in the space of a few weeks. I just think he's relucatnt to make the tough decisions because of how he'll be percieved. He's tended to wait until overwhelming public opinion forces him into action ( or backs him) rather than doing what he believes is best. Thats why it looks to me like he made an effort not to do that with Souness. Unfortunately that was the wrong decision. Right idea maybe but just wrong man. Looking at Robson if he thought we needed a change, which he obviously did after publically announcing it would be his last season, he should have done it that summer. If he'd stuck to his word even we'd have had a planned apppointment the following Summer. What we got was a reactionary sacking and regardless of who came in another transitionary season. We've had too many of those because of the timings. Its difficult, he's got to be thinking ahead of the game making pro active decisions but thats why he gets paid the big bucks and like the CEO of any multimillion pound corp he's going to live or die on the result of those decisions.

 

I accept my last comment was unnecessary, but so was yours, there are no hard feelings and never was ! .... I'm neither senile or old....that Glenn Roeder is the 2nd youngest looking 50 year old in the world 

138821[/snapback]

 

Nope, no hard feelings and you're completely right , it was unnecessary

Edited May 20, 2006 by luckypierre

[Renton 22008]

Just to clarify matters, I think LP was right LM, and you seem to have missed the point of my post completely. Ah well, I haven't got the time or inclination to go back over old ground at the moment. I think we have to agree to disagree.

 

However, I've just been listening to TalkSport, and some deluded fool (probably from N-O) has phoned up saying that he reckons Schevenko could be coming to us. Marcotti was pretty dismissive of such a notion, but pointed out that such a move would not have been impossible under Keegan (and therefore Hall). Somewhere along the way, he said, we lost our way and didn't make the next step up. He also said no other big name will come to under Roeder. I think he's completely right, and it hurts to say that.

 

Well, I think we have lost our way under Shepherd, I really do. You are never going to agree with this LM, I understand that, so bygones.

[LeazesMag 0]

Of course he made a mistake for keeping Souness, I have said this since day 1 when he was appointed, how many more times do you want me to admit he makes mistakes and Souness was a whopper. The difference is that I acknowledge in life everybody makes mistakes, overall Shepherd is a good chairman of the club and has a lot more plusses. Unfortunately a lot of people just simply can't see the plusses because they think we have an automatic right to them, or simply compare him to Sir John, correctly saying he isn't as good but that doesn't mean he is shit. You can only look at his record, which is why I point out where we are under his chairmanship. I simply can't believe people are quibbling about the fact that we have established and consolidated ourselves as a top club in the last decade, having overtaken all the clubs that were above us for decades apart from 4. I want to move forward as much as anyone but its not that simple and nobody is going to lie down and let you.

 

nice one. In the past Leazes you havent said that. When I posted soemthing saying Shepherd made a mistake in not getting rid of Souness earlier you made some condescending post about not understanding the financial implications etc. I even pointed out that I meant the summer before and not January but you'd backed yourself into a corner and refused to say that it was a mistake.

 

I think most recognise where he has done well. On the financial side of things his record is good, but then he's the head of a team of people, just as he is on the football side too. I think you have to disassociate him from Hall. He hasnt performed as well but Hall didnt have the same challenges either. You've just take him in isolation and look at exactly what hes done.

 

With a shit chairman we would not have had the decade we have had, or signed the players we have signed.

 

Nobody answers those questions properly, one or two people have tried to but its a simple fact that there are only 4 clubs that we haven't yet "caught". As much as I wish we had, we just haven't.

 

You've also got to remember that we were in that position before he took over. The clubs culture, relative ambition was already in place. Have the decisions he's made affected our performance on the pitch? The answer has to be yes. Apart from 3 years under Robson we've been pretty mediocre, and thats not because of my unreasonable demands, like I said top 6 for me is where we should be. The appointment of Robson was obviously a success but what if the timing was better, could those 3 have been a 4. What if the dismissal of Robson was better timed could that have been 5? This is just one aspect of his performance that I have a problem with, another is his gob. As far as the rest goes Im mostly happy

 

I have no idea whether the board had faith in Dalglish and Gullit in those 2 summers. I didn't have much in Gullit [as I've said before] but I hoped Dalglish would see where he was going wrong and give us the success he had had at Blackburn and Liverpool. Didn't you ? And at the time both these managers were sacked you have to say not too many people would have disagreed ? This is all I've ever said. I think "5 year plans" and "forward planning" is impossible. You simply can't tell in football when you may have to make a change, so you just keep yourself as informed as possible and ready for any change, and I don't see anything to suggest the board hadn't done this. They sack the manager, then look around for the replacement having already noticed possible up and coming managers, and the ever changing list of potential successors. We all do this, me, you, everybody.

 

I dont think he did have faith in those managers. He comes out of it better if you think of it that way than he would if you think he changed his mind in the space of a few weeks. I just think he's relucatnt to make the tough decisions because of how he'll be percieved. He's tended to wait until overwhelming public opinion forces him into action ( or backs him) rather than doing what he believes is best. Thats why it looks to me like he made an effort not to do that with Souness. Unfortunately that was the wrong decision. Right idea maybe but just wrong man. Looking at Robson if he thought we needed a change, which he obviously did after publically announcing it would be his last season, he should have done it that summer. If he'd stuck to his word even we'd have had a planned apppointment the following Summer. What we got was a reactionary sacking and regardless of who came in another transitionary season. We've had too many of those because of the timings. Its difficult, he's got to be thinking ahead of the game making pro active decisions but thats why he gets paid the big bucks and like the CEO of any multimillion pound corp he's going to live or die on the result of those decisions.

 

I accept my last comment was unnecessary, but so was yours, there are no hard feelings and never was ! .... I'm neither senile or old....that Glenn Roeder is the 2nd youngest looking 50 year old in the world 

138821[/snapback]

 

Nope, no hard feelings and you're completely right , it was unnecessary

138833[/snapback]

 

I've said everything in my first paragraph quite a few times !!!!! It's always been the way I've looked at it. I just have a suspicion that the club wanted to get rid of Souness before they did, but were struggling to get a pay off package together, they may even have been hoping for him to slip up in public and give them an excuse, a hell of a lot of people were asking him about resigning. Maybe not, but both of those points could be possible.

 

I honestly can't remember the post you made about January, but I've never said anything else other than that I would have sacked him the day he assaulted Bellamy, and thats disregarding the fact I've despised him for years, but thats because I was up in jockland when he was at Rangers and saw him quite closely back then.

 

I know the position the club was in when Shepherd took over. But other clubs over the decades have been in that position and declined badly, some haven't. We have not stayed 2nd but established ourselves as a top club. It's difficult to see how you can be so harsh about falling from 2nd to 5th bearing in mind that Liverpool and Arsenal have been successful clubs with winning mentalities in their club stretching back decades and decades. I think we all know the first trophy for Newcastle will be a huge psychological breakthrough, then we will see us challenge them more consistently, I think so and hope so. We have the setup at the club to do it, which is the responsiblity and achievement of everyone concerned with the board since 1992. I just don't think we will go backwards from being a top club under the current board. Some obviously do, time will tell. And there isn;t much more you can ask when the margin of trophy winning success is so small.

 

It is also possible that the club made an attempt to keep Souness and hope things got better as they got criticism in the past for sacking managers at the start of the season. The result of that of course, we all saw .... they are accountable to us as supporters! I really just think sometimes these decisions are almost impossible ie timing. The right manager for you is available at the wrong time so you never get him. How many of those slip away, and not just us.

 

I simply can't agree with the notion that you should keep a manager on once you have realised he isn't the man for you. This is a definite no-no. Once you decide this, he goes, whatever or whenever it is. I also do agree with the opinion that if you make a shit start to the season, you should get rid while the whole season is left, which is IMO exactly what the club did regarding Dalglish, Gullit and Robson and should have done with Souness.

Edited May 20, 2006 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

Just to clarify matters, I think LP was right LM, and you seem to have missed the point of my post completely. Ah well, I haven't got the time or inclination to go back over old ground at the moment. I think we have to agree to disagree.

 

However, I've just been listening to TalkSport, and some deluded fool (probably from N-O) has phoned up saying that he reckons Schevenko could be coming to us. Marcotti was pretty dismissive of such a notion, but pointed out that such a move would not have been impossible under Keegan (and therefore Hall). Somewhere along the way, he said, we lost our way and didn't make the next step up. He also said no other big name will come to under Roeder. I think he's completely right, and it hurts to say that.

 

Well, I think we have lost our way under Shepherd, I really do. You are never going to agree with this LM, I understand that, so bygones.

138842[/snapback]

 

Frame that and look at it when we are back in europe etc .... No hard feelings.

[luckypierre 0]

I simply can't agree with the notion that you should keep a manager on once you have realised he isn't the man for you. This is a definite no-no. Once you decide this, he goes, whatever or whenever it is. I also do agree with the opinion that if you make a shit start to the season, you should get rid while the whole season is left, which is IMO exactly what the club did regarding Dalglish, Gullit and Robson and should have done with Souness.

138843[/snapback]

 

 

agree completely and thats my point, theres no way after a couple of games you suddenly go from thinking you've got the right man for the job to deciding to sack him. Shepherd and the board msut have been thinking of changing manager before the season started. They should have had the courage and the foresight to make the decision(s) at the right time. The club has suffered because they didnt.

 

I dont agree with the opinion to get rid after a shit start. If we'd done that Robson would have gone years before and there'd have been no night in Rotterdam.

Edited May 20, 2006 by luckypierre

[LeazesMag 0]

I simply can't agree with the notion that you should keep a manager on once you have realised he isn't the man for you. This is a definite no-no. Once you decide this, he goes, whatever or whenever it is. I also do agree with the opinion that if you make a shit start to the season, you should get rid while the whole season is left, which is IMO exactly what the club did regarding Dalglish, Gullit and Robson and should have done with Souness.

138843[/snapback]

 

 

agree completely and thats my point, theres no way after a couple of games you suddenly go from thinking you've got the right man for the job to deciding to sack him. Shepherd and the board msut have been thinking of changing manager before the season started. They should have had the courage and the foresight to make the decision(s) at the right time. The club has suffered because they didnt.

 

I dont agree with the opinion to get rid after a shit start. If we'd done that Robson would have gone years before and there'd have been no night in Rotterdam.

138848[/snapback]

 

which only goes to show not everything is as simple as being black and white.

 

I can see your point that they may have had reservations in the summer, but cast your mind back. Did YOU ? I did about Gullit but was hopeful about Dalglish. After the season started in both those cases, the penny dropped with me they had to go, but in Bobby Robsons case I never felt like that at all, you could tell that it was a false position, pretty much the same as his first 2 years as manager, which were pretty mediocre with money tight too but he knew what he was doing and you could sense that.

 

I should have said "shit start and seeing it wasn't going to improve".

[luckypierre 0]

which only goes to show not everything is as simple as being black and white.

 

I can see your point that they may have had reservations in the summer, but cast your mind back. Did YOU ? I did about Gullit but was hopeful about Dalglish. After the season started in both those cases, the penny dropped with me they had to go, but in Bobby Robsons case I never felt like that at all, you could tell that it was a false position, pretty much the same as his first 2 years as manager, which were pretty mediocre with money tight too but he knew what he was doing and you could sense that.

 

I should have said "shit start and seeing it wasn't going to improve". 

138851[/snapback]

 

course its not easy but like I said its the reason the guys at the top get paid the big bucks.

 

I didnt think Dalglsih was the right man at that time but I also dont think he deserved to be sacked, if that makes sense. The reasons for Dalglishs dismissal werent born out of those two games though. No one with any sense makes a decision based on two games. If the doubts at board level were serious and strong enough to force his departure after two draws then they should have got rid in the summer. It would have been the best thing for the club. If they'd have kept him theres nothing to suggest out of those two games that we'd have done worse than the previous season. We werent in a desperate situation like you could say with Gullit and Souness.

 

Robsons is a strange one because I believe if we hadnt got rid we'd have still done OK, a hell of a lot better than Souness. After deciding in the summer that he was going they should have either replaced him then or stuck with him. The worst option was the one they took.

 

Some of our starts previously under Robson were much much worse and one, was it two seasons previous?, went on much longer. Again if you've decided after 2 or 3 games that things arent going to improve and a change is needed then why afford the manager those 2 or 3 games to begin with?

 

In the past they've allowed the manager just enough time to hang himself before sacking him. Its all to do with PR and not whats best for NUFC.

Edited May 20, 2006 by luckypierre