FAO Leazes Mag

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3905]

Even over the last 10 years we are still in 5th, like I say though Im not using these to back up my own argument. I still believe that when you throw all other factors in (such as cup runs and the all important "what have you won?") then we fall behind.

 

1. Manure - Averaging 1.8th over last 10 years

2. Arsenal - 2nd

3. Chelsea - 3.8th

4. Liverpool - 4th

5. Toon - 8.2th

6. Aston Villa - 8.8th

7. Spurs - 10.4th

8. Everton - 12.9th

 

It's a stupid way of looking at things though. We've got the 5th average highest placed finish, but that finish is 8th. So on average, 7 teams finish above us, not 4. And using averages masks the inconsistency we've shown bouncing from top to bottom half of the table, which points to a lack of planning at the top level. We DESPERATELY need to get rid of the fucking idiot at the top who is dragging this club down.

 

I think that suggesting 7 teams have done consistently better than us, when there are only 4, is stupid in the extreme.

 

The only thing I have EVER said, is that the constant running down of people towards the board is totally unjustified. I have not said that Shepherd is the 5th best chairman, only that during his time we have been the 5th best club so they must be doing something right. In fact, quite a lot right, and there must be a lot of clubs massively guilty of "lack of planning" if this going to be cited as the reason, in short 87 clubs have not planned as welll as us.

 

You can't say a club has qualified for europe in a span of a decade more than all the other clubs bar 4, then infer they have all "planned for the long term" better than us. Its' fooking daft. And as I point out, we HAVE planned for the future, it didn't work out, and we appointed a manager who planned for the future, and he was sacked on the back of the first teams results and performances.

 

As for Ellis, the comparison was that he doesn't back his managers, took over Villa when they were European Champions and was at Villa for 26 years, which is long enough to establish he is limited.

They may have won the League Cup, but in 26 years .... simple fact also is you can't blame our board for losing 2 Cup Finals especially the way players bottled the occasion, nor can you blame the board for the managers fielding weakened teams in a competition there for the taking, nor other cup games and vital games lost or bottled. In short, if the board is enabling the manager to build teams that qualify on a regular basis for europe, especially one that has a good run in the CL, they are more than capable of winning the FA Cup or the League Cup, therefore the board has done its part of the job and the rest is down to the players and the manager.

 

Consequently, in view of this and the fact that our own history has shown, never mind other clubs changing boards and being worse off, getting rid of the current board could easily, very easily backfire.

 

It may well be that the current board has taken the club as far as they can, but it STILL doesn't mean any replacements can do better.

 

EDIT: and now one of the village idiots [wullie] has arrived .........

 

You still haven't answered my question about other teams boards. Do you consider Freddy to be better than, Milan Mandaric, The new Portsmouth guy, John (?) Madejski, The Bolton Board, The Wigan Board?

[TyneBridge 0]

 

You still haven't answered my question about other teams boards. Do you consider Freddy to be better than, Milan Mandaric, The new Portsmouth guy, John (?) Madejski, The Bolton Board, The Wigan Board?

 

Do you think Mandaric is a good chairman just because portsmouth have had a decent start to the season, and the new one has only been there a few months

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3905]

 

You still haven't answered my question about other teams boards. Do you consider Freddy to be better than, Milan Mandaric, The new Portsmouth guy, John (?) Madejski, The Bolton Board, The Wigan Board?

 

Do you think Mandaric is a good chairman just because portsmouth have had a decent start to the season, and the new one has only been there a few months

 

UI think he is a good chairman for getting such a small team to the premiership.

[LeazesMag 0]

Even over the last 10 years we are still in 5th, like I say though Im not using these to back up my own argument. I still believe that when you throw all other factors in (such as cup runs and the all important "what have you won?") then we fall behind.

 

1. Manure - Averaging 1.8th over last 10 years

2. Arsenal - 2nd

3. Chelsea - 3.8th

4. Liverpool - 4th

5. Toon - 8.2th

6. Aston Villa - 8.8th

7. Spurs - 10.4th

8. Everton - 12.9th

 

It's a stupid way of looking at things though. We've got the 5th average highest placed finish, but that finish is 8th. So on average, 7 teams finish above us, not 4. And using averages masks the inconsistency we've shown bouncing from top to bottom half of the table, which points to a lack of planning at the top level. We DESPERATELY need to get rid of the fucking idiot at the top who is dragging this club down.

 

I think that suggesting 7 teams have done consistently better than us, when there are only 4, is stupid in the extreme.

 

The only thing I have EVER said, is that the constant running down of people towards the board is totally unjustified. I have not said that Shepherd is the 5th best chairman, only that during his time we have been the 5th best club so they must be doing something right. In fact, quite a lot right, and there must be a lot of clubs massively guilty of "lack of planning" if this going to be cited as the reason, in short 87 clubs have not planned as welll as us.

 

You can't say a club has qualified for europe in a span of a decade more than all the other clubs bar 4, then infer they have all "planned for the long term" better than us. Its' fooking daft. And as I point out, we HAVE planned for the future, it didn't work out, and we appointed a manager who planned for the future, and he was sacked on the back of the first teams results and performances.

 

As for Ellis, the comparison was that he doesn't back his managers, took over Villa when they were European Champions and was at Villa for 26 years, which is long enough to establish he is limited.

They may have won the League Cup, but in 26 years .... simple fact also is you can't blame our board for losing 2 Cup Finals especially the way players bottled the occasion, nor can you blame the board for the managers fielding weakened teams in a competition there for the taking, nor other cup games and vital games lost or bottled. In short, if the board is enabling the manager to build teams that qualify on a regular basis for europe, especially one that has a good run in the CL, they are more than capable of winning the FA Cup or the League Cup, therefore the board has done its part of the job and the rest is down to the players and the manager.

 

Consequently, in view of this and the fact that our own history has shown, never mind other clubs changing boards and being worse off, getting rid of the current board could easily, very easily backfire.

 

It may well be that the current board has taken the club as far as they can, but it STILL doesn't mean any replacements can do better.

 

EDIT: and now one of the village idiots [wullie] has arrived .........

 

You still haven't answered my question about other teams boards. Do you consider Freddy to be better than, Milan Mandaric, The new Portsmouth guy, John (?) Madejski, The Bolton Board, The Wigan Board?

 

Mandaric ? You are taking the piss. A gobshite whose PR is shite, his club have gone nowhere, interferes with the manager doing his job, thinks he is bigger than the club, only wants the club for money and prestige, and is the owner of the club with the shittiest ground in the premiership. With the new one I reckon you are suffering from a bad case of knee jerk reaction

 

Chairman of small time clubs like you mention, have absolutely nothing to prove they are capable of managing bigger more expactant clubs . As you say in your first post, if THIS is your evidence for these blokes to be better than our board, its pretty shite, I suggest you find some better evidence than that.

 

Also, I don't have the time to spend looking at every post on here....unlike some ... if you want to ask me owt and it seems like I miss it, either pm me or post it on howaythetoon so I don't.

 

I am quite surprised at you thinking those guys are better than our board, none of them have done anything anywhere near our board. I would expect younger lads who aren't aware of the club pre-1992 to come out with such comments but not an older lad like yourself.

[ewerk 30682]

A gobshite whose PR is shite, his club have gone nowhere, interferes with the manager doing his job, thinks he is bigger than the club, only wants the club for money and prestige

 

Everything above that you have said about Mandaric is applicable to Shepherd yet you choose to ignore it. Why?

[gram 0]

Its not a question of who is better. Its simply a question of how satisfied people are and there is enough of a groundswell to suggest Fred hasnt done his job very well recently.

His record in the past has some successes but to be honest he appointed Bobby who is enough of a manager to do a job wherever he goes irrespective of circumstances. His record proves that. You have to question whether he did it because of Fred or in spite of him.

Other than a couple of seasonswith Bobby we have had nowt but letdowns.

You can dismiss cups and point to this daft argument about 5th best, 8th best but if people are satisfied with our current predicament or the past few seasons for that matter then they have very little ambition.

Of course there is the 'better the devil you know' argument but thats a futile argument that shouldnt hold us back if we really do want to progress.

If anyone can find any crumbs of comfort in the present situation that say we should be satisfied and that good times are around the corner then I will listen. Personally I cant. If Fred has put plans in action to resolve the falling gates, employs respected and talented people to ensure our league position, provides a well researched scouting operation rather than throwing money at situations and in doing so gives us some hope in a squad that is probably our weakest since 1992 then I will happily get behind him.

I cant see any of that unfortunately. I see some decent revenue streams, solid wood doors - not your cheap stuff (as Bobby put it) and a complete lack of understanding in planning long term to deliver the right team manager. Its the most imprtant position at the club and we have had to react and appoint substandard folk all too often recently - e.g Souness, Roeder, Gullit. Gullit was untested over any period of time and such more of a risk - one a big club like us shouldnt be taking. Bobby was thankfully available. The anomoly was Dalglish - other than that the man has either fucked up or got lucky.

He hasnt been all bad but his time is up. But whilst some people will point to worse chairmen, it is also obvious that there are significantly better. People with the level of revenue this club can generate know that it can be run more successfully if it successful on the pitch. that is the bottom line. On that score alone fred has failed and is failing.

 

If we see any more of this tripe then he has to walk. It is beyond even the most doey eyed dreamer to suggest that he has succeeded in financial management or appointment of key personnel in the recent past. How much longer do we put up with it?

 

Nb: I have been there a couple of decades before 1992, whatever that proves.

Edited October 21, 2006 by gram

[Shearergol 0]

Even over the last 10 years we are still in 5th, like I say though Im not using these to back up my own argument. I still believe that when you throw all other factors in (such as cup runs and the all important "what have you won?") then we fall behind.

 

1. Manure - Averaging 1.8th over last 10 years

2. Arsenal - 2nd

3. Chelsea - 3.8th

4. Liverpool - 4th

5. Toon - 8.2th

6. Aston Villa - 8.8th

7. Spurs - 10.4th

8. Everton - 12.9th

 

It's a stupid way of looking at things though. We've got the 5th average highest placed finish, but that finish is 8th. So on average, 7 teams finish above us, not 4. And using averages masks the inconsistency we've shown bouncing from top to bottom half of the table, which points to a lack of planning at the top level. We DESPERATELY need to get rid of the fucking idiot at the top who is dragging this club down.

 

I think that suggesting 7 teams have done consistently better than us, when there are only 4, is stupid in the extreme.

 

The only thing I have EVER said, is that the constant running down of people towards the board is totally unjustified. I have not said that Shepherd is the 5th best chairman, only that during his time we have been the 5th best club so they must be doing something right. In fact, quite a lot right, and there must be a lot of clubs massively guilty of "lack of planning" if this going to be cited as the reason, in short 87 clubs have not planned as welll as us.

 

You can't say a club has qualified for europe in a span of a decade more than all the other clubs bar 4, then infer they have all "planned for the long term" better than us. Its' fooking daft. And as I point out, we HAVE planned for the future, it didn't work out, and we appointed a manager who planned for the future, and he was sacked on the back of the first teams results and performances.

 

As for Ellis, the comparison was that he doesn't back his managers, took over Villa when they were European Champions and was at Villa for 26 years, which is long enough to establish he is limited.

They may have won the League Cup, but in 26 years .... simple fact also is you can't blame our board for losing 2 Cup Finals especially the way players bottled the occasion, nor can you blame the board for the managers fielding weakened teams in a competition there for the taking, nor other cup games and vital games lost or bottled. In short, if the board is enabling the manager to build teams that qualify on a regular basis for europe, especially one that has a good run in the CL, they are more than capable of winning the FA Cup or the League Cup, therefore the board has done its part of the job and the rest is down to the players and the manager.

 

Consequently, in view of this and the fact that our own history has shown, never mind other clubs changing boards and being worse off, getting rid of the current board could easily, very easily backfire.

 

It may well be that the current board has taken the club as far as they can, but it STILL doesn't mean any replacements can do better.

 

EDIT: and now one of the village idiots [wullie] has arrived .........

 

You still haven't answered my question about other teams boards. Do you consider Freddy to be better than, Milan Mandaric, The new Portsmouth guy, John (?) Madejski, The Bolton Board, The Wigan Board?

 

Mandaric ? You are taking the piss. A gobshite whose PR is shite, his club have gone nowhere, interferes with the manager doing his job, thinks he is bigger than the club, only wants the club for money and prestige, and is the owner of the club with the shittiest ground in the premiership. With the new one I reckon you are suffering from a bad case of knee jerk reaction

 

Chairman of small time clubs like you mention, have absolutely nothing to prove they are capable of managing bigger more expactant clubs . As you say in your first post, if THIS is your evidence for these blokes to be better than our board, its pretty shite, I suggest you find some better evidence than that.

 

Also, I don't have the time to spend looking at every post on here....unlike some ... if you want to ask me owt and it seems like I miss it, either pm me or post it on howaythetoon so I don't.

 

I am quite surprised at you thinking those guys are better than our board, none of them have done anything anywhere near our board. I would expect younger lads who aren't aware of the club pre-1992 to come out with such comments but not an older lad like yourself.

 

[peasepud 59]

Chairman of small time clubs like you mention, have absolutely nothing to prove they are capable of managing bigger more expactant clubs . As you say in your first post, if THIS is your evidence for these blokes to be better than our board, its pretty shite, I suggest you find some better evidence than that.

 

I am quite surprised at you thinking those guys are better than our board, none of them have done anything anywhere near our board. I would expect younger lads who aren't aware of the club pre-1992 to come out with such comments but not an older lad like yourself.

 

Im sorry like Leazes but the above is bollocks, obviously your view of chairmen is that if they haven't made Europe then they're shite. Whelan has taken Wigan from nothing (amateur at the time I believe) and took them in 20 years to the Premiership, built a new stadium and currently has them above us.

 

1995/96 - Wigan finish 10th in 3rd division, so that made them 77 places below us seeing as we finished 2nd in the Premiership.

 

2005/06 - Wigan finish 10th in Premiership and we finish 7th, so we were 3 places above them.

 

So in the last ten years Shepherd has taken us down 5 places while Whelan has taken them up 67 places. Still the useless bastard hasnt had them in the Champions League so obviously Shep is the better chairman and so far we've always been above them so fuck youuuu Whelan you pile of shite!

[LeazesMag 0]

Chairman of small time clubs like you mention, have absolutely nothing to prove they are capable of managing bigger more expactant clubs . As you say in your first post, if THIS is your evidence for these blokes to be better than our board, its pretty shite, I suggest you find some better evidence than that.

 

I am quite surprised at you thinking those guys are better than our board, none of them have done anything anywhere near our board. I would expect younger lads who aren't aware of the club pre-1992 to come out with such comments but not an older lad like yourself.

 

Im sorry like Leazes but the above is bollocks, obviously your view of chairmen is that if they haven't made Europe then they're shite. Whelan has taken Wigan from nothing (amateur at the time I believe) and took them in 20 years to the Premiership, built a new stadium and currently has them above us.

 

1995/96 - Wigan finish 10th in 3rd division, so that made them 77 places below us seeing as we finished 2nd in the Premiership.

 

2005/06 - Wigan finish 10th in Premiership and we finish 7th, so we were 3 places above them.

 

So in the last ten years Shepherd has taken us down 5 places while Whelan has taken them up 67 places. Still the useless bastard hasnt had them in the Champions League so obviously Shep is the better chairman and so far we've always been above them so fuck youuuu Whelan you pile of shite!

 

I am not denying that he has done very well. But running a big club, with big expectations is vastly different to running a small club with none. How do you think these people would cope with running a club like Newcastle, with fans like on here screaming for peoples heads whenever they lose, whenever they aren't in europe, wanting to change the manager and sack the backroom staff whenever this doesn't happen, then turn around and say the club "lack direction and planning"

 

Come off it mate.

 

Getting up the divisions doesn't need big money, big crowds or major finance. Staying at the top when or if you are already there does, and making progress with 70, 80 clubs ahead of you is more obvious and easier than when there are only a handful or less to overtake.

[peasepud 59]

Come off it mate.

 

Getting up the divisions doesn't need big money, big crowds or major finance. Staying at the top when or if you are already there does, and making progress with 70, 80 clubs ahead of you is more obvious and easier than when there are only a handful or less to overtake.

 

What we're talking about here though is not making progress, one chairman has taken a club in a small town where rugby is king from 3rd division to the Prem in the same time as ours has taken us backwards.

 

If we had stayed 2nd every year and just couldnt get that final bit to pass Arsenal or ManUre then I would agree with you but frankly to say that Freddy is better than Whelan because its easier for Wigan to pass 60 clubs than it is for us to pass 5 is, at best the ramblings of a madman.

 

Wigan is a small (pop 89k) rugby mad town surrounded by Manchester, Liverpool, Blackburn and Bolton whereas Newcastle (pop 276k) has a tradition of being football mental and gets the same numbers of people turning out to watch a player sign! You cannot say that its easier for them to rise 3 divisions, easily be challenging us year on year and get people to turn up week on week when they're fans would rather be either watching the rugby or ManUre, Liverpool et al.

 

Shepherd has had it easy, the leg work has been done by decades of other chairmen, year after year we have had high attendances, getting the fans in there is never a problem (although based on last Sundays attendance it seems we may be losing some). A chairman is measured on what he does for the club from the moment he takes over to the day he leaves, Shepherd has done nothing that the previous chairman didnt do better, Whelan and Madjeski however have managed amazing things at Wigan and Reading. They will be remembered by their fans long after they've gone whereas ours will not I can guarantee you that.

[luckyluke 2]

[LeazesMag 0]

Come off it mate.

 

Getting up the divisions doesn't need big money, big crowds or major finance. Staying at the top when or if you are already there does, and making progress with 70, 80 clubs ahead of you is more obvious and easier than when there are only a handful or less to overtake.

 

What we're talking about here though is not making progress, one chairman has taken a club in a small town where rugby is king from 3rd division to the Prem in the same time as ours has taken us backwards.

 

If we had stayed 2nd every year and just couldnt get that final bit to pass Arsenal or ManUre then I would agree with you but frankly to say that Freddy is better than Whelan because its easier for Wigan to pass 60 clubs than it is for us to pass 5 is, at best the ramblings of a madman.

 

Wigan is a small (pop 89k) rugby mad town surrounded by Manchester, Liverpool, Blackburn and Bolton whereas Newcastle (pop 276k) has a tradition of being football mental and gets the same numbers of people turning out to watch a player sign! You cannot say that its easier for them to rise 3 divisions, easily be challenging us year on year and get people to turn up week on week when they're fans would rather be either watching the rugby or ManUre, Liverpool et al.

 

Shepherd has had it easy, the leg work has been done by decades of other chairmen, year after year we have had high attendances, getting the fans in there is never a problem (although based on last Sundays attendance it seems we may be losing some). A chairman is measured on what he does for the club from the moment he takes over to the day he leaves, Shepherd has done nothing that the previous chairman didnt do better, Whelan and Madjeski however have managed amazing things at Wigan and Reading. They will be remembered by their fans long after they've gone whereas ours will not I can guarantee you that.

 

I said he has done well, very well, but a high pressure club is totally different, as I said in my last post.

 

You are entitled to your opinion PP, but you have only answered one of the 4 candidates, what about the other 3 ?

 

As for the bold bit, making such a statement appears to suggest you simply haven't bothered reading or looking at anything that has been posted. Before 1992 this club was miles worse than now, the only legwork past chairman did was leave a legacy of decades of selling our best players, spending years in the 2nd division, and competing with all the small clubs for players in the lower divisions...this has been said before and you have even answered and said you checked the facts I posted about all these clubs and found them to be correct, so why do you make this statement ?

 

I am quite surprised at your comment, to be honest.

 

If the board are replaced, I obviously hope they will be replaced by better but there is a lack of candidates who are better which is what I have continually stated.

 

The current rumours are the same as the ones that circulated for a year or two before the 1992 takeover, the successful businessman turning out to be the Halls and Shepherd particularly. The takeover did result in a vast upsurge in the clubs fortunes, whatever those who don't believe this think. The difference then however was there was numerous clubs ahead of us and the only way ahead was up. The situation now is vastly different, its a longer way down.

 

As usual though, the people who make up these comments ie the original ones about the 4 chairman, disappear up their arse when they are shown to be talking complete shite.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

very good for an intelligent person like you.

[peasepud 59]

As for the bold bit, making such a statement appears to suggest you simply haven't bothered reading or looking at anything that has been posted. Before 1992 this club was miles worse than now, the only legwork past chairman did was leave a legacy of decades of selling our best players, spending years in the 2nd division, and competing with all the small clubs for players in the lower divisions...this has been said before and you have even answered and said you checked the facts I posted about all these clubs and found them to be correct, so why do you make this statement ?

 

Ahh but if you reread my post I was, at the time talking about attendances, Newcastle are renowned for their high attendances regardless of how well we are playing (yes they drop at times but still nowhere near the amounts other clubs do when times are hard).

 

We've had this 'discussion' before and I still refute the claims that pre Hall attendances were low because of the chairmen I will always stand by the belief that generally attendances at the time were low as football was in decline generally. The like of Bradford, Hillsborough and the general bad reputation that football had. Compare our attendances at the time to other teams in the same league and we will have been up there at the top.

 

Pre 92 isnt the question though its post 96 when Shepherd took over.

[LeazesMag 0]

As for the bold bit, making such a statement appears to suggest you simply haven't bothered reading or looking at anything that has been posted. Before 1992 this club was miles worse than now, the only legwork past chairman did was leave a legacy of decades of selling our best players, spending years in the 2nd division, and competing with all the small clubs for players in the lower divisions...this has been said before and you have even answered and said you checked the facts I posted about all these clubs and found them to be correct, so why do you make this statement ?

 

Ahh but if you reread my post I was, at the time talking about attendances, Newcastle are renowned for their high attendances regardless of how well we are playing (yes they drop at times but still nowhere near the amounts other clubs do when times are hard).

 

We've had this 'discussion' before and I still refute the claims that pre Hall attendances were low because of the chairmen I will always stand by the belief that generally attendances at the time were low as football was in decline generally. The like of Bradford, Hillsborough and the general bad reputation that football had. Compare our attendances at the time to other teams in the same league and we will have been up there at the top.

 

Pre 92 isnt the question though its post 96 when Shepherd took over.

 

Well....crowds in the top flight were generally lower before sky gave football its lick of glossy paint , rebranded the package etc etc.....but it doesn't explain how Newcastle United were one of the top 6 supported clubs in the country - when we were in the top league - yet spent years in the 2nd division, selling our best players, had a record transfer fee lower than clubs such as West Brom and West Ham [to name 2 off the top of my head without even thinking ] -- surely that tells you how much better the club is run these days ?

 

Why didn't the club build from a position of strength when we had a bigger crowd again and why didn't they build on finishing 5th in the 1st division in 1976, winning the Fairs Cup, and winning promotion in 1984 with 3 locally born England Players coming through the ranks ?

 

If you disagree, why do you think we sold our best players and spent all those years fighting relegation, in the 2nd division and selling our best players ?

 

How do you not recall the pre-1992 years anyway, serious question ?

Edited October 23, 2006 by LeazesMag

[Zathras 244]

I am honestly unable to see the relation to the present in your last post, LM

[LeazesMag 0]

I am honestly unable to see the relation to the present in your last post, LM

 

eeerrr...sorry mate, if you look you will see that I was responding to PP bringing it up. And I think it is pretty clear.

 

And I have explained it before. If you don't understand the concept of showing how easily replacing the current board could backfire badly and NUFC are not immune to it then you need a reality check too, unfortunately. Just who exactly is these mystery backers who will have the good of the club at heart and guarantee to win the trophies we have a right to, will always appoint the "right" manager, always have a "plan" [we won't mention Bobby Robson staying 5 years, the youth scheme started by Dalglish which has hardly been a success and the revamped stadium and new training complex will we ?] and guarantee permanent european football to boot ?

 

Do you think the club should stick with Roeder to show they have a "plan" ? Or should they have stuck with Souness and the "plan" ? Serious question.

[Shearergol 0]

As for the bold bit, making such a statement appears to suggest you simply haven't bothered reading or looking at anything that has been posted. Before 1992 this club was miles worse than now, the only legwork past chairman did was leave a legacy of decades of selling our best players, spending years in the 2nd division, and competing with all the small clubs for players in the lower divisions...this has been said before and you have even answered and said you checked the facts I posted about all these clubs and found them to be correct, so why do you make this statement ?

 

Ahh but if you reread my post I was, at the time talking about attendances, Newcastle are renowned for their high attendances regardless of how well we are playing (yes they drop at times but still nowhere near the amounts other clubs do when times are hard).

 

We've had this 'discussion' before and I still refute the claims that pre Hall attendances were low because of the chairmen I will always stand by the belief that generally attendances at the time were low as football was in decline generally. The like of Bradford, Hillsborough and the general bad reputation that football had. Compare our attendances at the time to other teams in the same league and we will have been up there at the top.

 

Pre 92 isnt the question though its post 96 when Shepherd took over.

 

Well....crowds in the top flight were generally lower before sky gave football its lick of glossy paint , rebranded the package etc etc.....but it doesn't explain how Newcastle United were one of the top 6 supported clubs in the country - when we were in the top league - yet spent years in the 2nd division, selling our best players, had a record transfer fee lower than clubs such as West Brom and West Ham [to name 2 off the top of my head without even thinking ] -- surely that tells you how much better the club is run these days ?

 

Why didn't the club build from a position of strength when we had a bigger crowd again and why didn't they build on finishing 5th in the 1st division in 1976, winning the Fairs Cup, and winning promotion in 1984 with 3 locally born England Players coming through the ranks ?

 

If you disagree, why do you think we sold our best players and spent all those years fighting relegation, in the 2nd division and selling our best players ?

 

How do you not recall the pre-1992 years anyway, serious question ?

 

Have you EVER heard anyone asking for the previous board back? In a way you're losing your own argument - shouldn't you find someone GOOD to compare with Freddie, rather than boards which are obviously shite?

 

Next time your neighbour has a problem with his PC, just tell him that he should think himself well off, as it's better than a PC from pre-1992.

[Ted Maul 0]

I am honestly unable to see the relation to the present in your last post, LM

 

eeerrr...sorry mate, if you look you will see that I was responding to PP bringing it up. And I think it is pretty clear.

 

And I have explained it before. If you don't understand the concept of showing how easily replacing the current board could backfire badly and NUFC are not immune to it then you need a reality check too, unfortunately. Just who exactly is these mystery backers who will have the good of the club at heart and guarantee to win the trophies we have a right to, will always appoint the "right" manager, always have a "plan" [we won't mention Bobby Robson staying 5 years, the youth scheme started by Dalglish which has hardly been a success and the revamped stadium and new training complex will we ?] and guarantee permanent european football to boot ?

 

Do you think the club should stick with Roeder to show they have a "plan" ? Or should they have stuck with Souness and the "plan" ? Serious question.

 

Wouldn't have had to hire either in the first place if they had a 'plan'.

[Shearergol 0]

I am honestly unable to see the relation to the present in your last post, LM

 

eeerrr...sorry mate, if you look you will see that I was responding to PP bringing it up. And I think it is pretty clear.

 

And I have explained it before. If you don't understand the concept of showing how easily replacing the current board could backfire badly and NUFC are not immune to it then you need a reality check too, unfortunately. Just who exactly is these mystery backers who will have the good of the club at heart and guarantee to win the trophies we have a right to, will always appoint the "right" manager, always have a "plan" [we won't mention Bobby Robson staying 5 years, the youth scheme started by Dalglish which has hardly been a success and the revamped stadium and new training complex will we ?] and guarantee permanent european football to boot ?

 

Do you think the club should stick with Roeder to show they have a "plan" ? Or should they have stuck with Souness and the "plan" ? Serious question.

 

Please tell me you're not saying either Souness or Roeder were part of a plan? It's the fact that they were both appointed WITHOUT the plan which people are complaining about.

 

It scares the hell out of me who Freddie would turn to next when Roeder gets the boot.

[peasepud 59]

Well....crowds in the top flight were generally lower before sky gave football its lick of glossy paint , rebranded the package etc etc.....but it doesn't explain how Newcastle United were one of the top 6 supported clubs in the country - when we were in the top league - yet spent years in the 2nd division, selling our best players, had a record transfer fee lower than clubs such as West Brom and West Ham [to name 2 off the top of my head without even thinking ] -- surely that tells you how much better the club is run these days ?

 

Why didn't the club build from a position of strength when we had a bigger crowd again and why didn't they build on finishing 5th in the 1st division in 1976, winning the Fairs Cup, and winning promotion in 1984 with 3 locally born England Players coming through the ranks ?

 

If you disagree, why do you think we sold our best players and spent all those years fighting relegation, in the 2nd division and selling our best players ?

 

How do you not recall the pre-1992 years anyway, serious question ?

 

I do recall the pre 92 years (although as I've said before I have the worlds worst football memory and cat remember a game I attended 2 weeks ago wooohooooo!!!!!) however I dont see them as being the thing, I agree with you anyone would appear better than McKeag and co but thats not the issue. You use 1992 as your argument, regardless of whatever role Fred had in those days he wasnt the chairman. The glory years we had at that time were not in his reign.

 

Going back to the "old days" football was a totally different kettle of chickens back then, it wasnt the big business it is now, as you yourself said it was the introduction of SKY that did it.

 

As for the attendances you seem to have missed the point I was making which was that, yes when we were in the 2nd division we had lower attendances but I bet they were higher than most if not all the other teams in that league and thats my point. Newcastle will have higher attendances than most clubs regardless of what happens, with or without Fred. He did not come along in 96 and suddenly have extra fans baying on the door as a consequence. If we had a 50k seater back in 92 then we would have filled it with or without Shepherd.

 

Which brings me back to Wigan, they didnt have the huge fanbase we had when Whelan took over and never will but he has built that club up, got the fans in there and took them forward and he alone, can take the credit for that. As for the others mentioned such as Madjeski I believe he also has proven himself as a chairman way more than Shepherd has for what he has done for Reading.

[peasepud 59]

 

Do you think the club should stick with Roeder to show they have a "plan" ? Or should they have stuck with Souness and the "plan" ? Serious question.

 

I dont think we should stick with Roeder and also shouldnt have stuck with Souness but at the same time I dont think Shepherd had a long term plan for either of these. Even you cant honestly say that you believe Shepherd appointed Roeder for any reasons other than

a ) nobody else wanted the job,

b ) he was the cheap option, and

c ) Shepherd believed (wrongly) that he was the fans choice.

[LeazesMag 0]

I am honestly unable to see the relation to the present in your last post, LM

 

eeerrr...sorry mate, if you look you will see that I was responding to PP bringing it up. And I think it is pretty clear.

 

And I have explained it before. If you don't understand the concept of showing how easily replacing the current board could backfire badly and NUFC are not immune to it then you need a reality check too, unfortunately. Just who exactly is these mystery backers who will have the good of the club at heart and guarantee to win the trophies we have a right to, will always appoint the "right" manager, always have a "plan" [we won't mention Bobby Robson staying 5 years, the youth scheme started by Dalglish which has hardly been a success and the revamped stadium and new training complex will we ?] and guarantee permanent european football to boot ?

 

Do you think the club should stick with Roeder to show they have a "plan" ? Or should they have stuck with Souness and the "plan" ? Serious question.

 

Wouldn't have had to hire either in the first place if they had a 'plan'.

 

what sort of "plan" are you talking about ? Is a 3 or 4 year contract not a "plan" ? What you are talking about is making a poor appointment, then having to sack him. This happens at all clubs. All managers are judged on results. They are all appointed with a hope they will do 5 years or more or whatever, but the vast majority don't. Bobby Robson did 5 years. So did Keegan. These weren't "plans", they were managers who got good results. If Shearer is really being earmarked as a manager in a year or two or earlier, is this a "plan" ? Yes or no ? And if he fucks up in his first 6 months and doesn't look like he is up to it, will you then say the club should stick to its "plan" or will you still be saying the club doesn't have one. It is highly amusing the people on here who trot out the same cliches, without having a mind of your own, fook knows why, because the absolute reality is that the manager himself determines the time he stays at a club and nothing else plays any part whatsoever.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

Do you think the club should stick with Roeder to show they have a "plan" ? Or should they have stuck with Souness and the "plan" ? Serious question.

 

I dont think we should stick with Roeder and also shouldnt have stuck with Souness but at the same time I dont think Shepherd had a long term plan for either of these. Even you cant honestly say that you believe Shepherd appointed Roeder for any reasons other than

a ) nobody else wanted the job,

b ) he was the cheap option, and

c ) Shepherd believed (wrongly) that he was the fans choice.

 

I don't believe he was deliberately the cheap option, considering the money the club...sorry the shite board...has made and spent over the last few years on players and managers. If it was, then the tightening of the books is something some people on here including me sadly predicted would be the legacy of the scottish fuckpig despite others saying we should continue to bankroll him and give him his own team before judging him.

 

I don't believe no one else wanted the job. I think most top managers would take this job, obviously not the few who are already with the big clubs but they would if that situation was different.

 

Shepherd may well have believed he was the fans choice, it is true to say that many of us thought Roeder was deserving a chance. A few weeks ago I posted on here - and you agreed with me - that maybe Shearer was a big influence in what happened last season, as Roeders right hand man. If this is true, then we need him back urgently, and looking on the positive side, he may hopefully be a top manager. However we don't know. I still think that Shearer - or the next manager - will be the current boards last chance and if that fails the pressure will be such that their time will be up, and rightly so. They will be leaving behind a vastly better club than the one they found but sadly Shepherd will not be remembered in a good light because he followed Sir John and wasn't as good, he would have been better thought of if he had followed a fuckwit like McKeag and if he had kept his gob shut. Thats life.

[Tom 14013]

I am honestly unable to see the relation to the present in your last post, LM

 

eeerrr...sorry mate, if you look you will see that I was responding to PP bringing it up. And I think it is pretty clear.

 

And I have explained it before. If you don't understand the concept of showing how easily replacing the current board could backfire badly and NUFC are not immune to it then you need a reality check too, unfortunately. Just who exactly is these mystery backers who will have the good of the club at heart and guarantee to win the trophies we have a right to, will always appoint the "right" manager, always have a "plan" [we won't mention Bobby Robson staying 5 years, the youth scheme started by Dalglish which has hardly been a success and the revamped stadium and new training complex will we ?] and guarantee permanent european football to boot ?

 

Do you think the club should stick with Roeder to show they have a "plan" ? Or should they have stuck with Souness and the "plan" ? Serious question.

 

Wouldn't have had to hire either in the first place if they had a 'plan'.

 

what sort of "plan" are you talking about ? Is a 3 or 4 year contract not a "plan" ? What you are talking about is making a poor appointment, then having to sack him. This happens at all clubs. All managers are judged on results. They are all appointed with a hope they will do 5 years or more or whatever, but the vast majority don't. Bobby Robson did 5 years. So did Keegan. These weren't "plans", they were managers who got good results. If Shearer is really being earmarked as a manager in a year or two or earlier, is this a "plan" ? Yes or no ? And if he fucks up in his first 6 months and doesn't look like he is up to it, will you then say the club should stick to its "plan" or will you still be saying the club doesn't have one. It is highly amusing the people on here who trot out the same cliches, without having a mind of your own, fook knows why, because the absolute reality is that the manager himself determines the time he stays at a club and nothing else plays any part whatsoever.

 

I happens at Newcastle too much in recent years, Gullit was a mistake - Daglish died on his arse and sold a lot of good players. Robson - good call but sacked too late. Souness - Everybody could see it was going to end in tears. Roeder - Easy way out, fans ignored, easy way out of a difficult decision.

 

 

Shit board. Shit decisions.

 

If not, then why are we the laughing stock of the premier league?