Renton

Fair enough. What's a decent chance then, and what do you expect from him (e.g. goals per season at the top level)? Chopra is not a kid anymore. Btw, for every kid that makes it, dozens don't (including many promising ones).

What?

Funny thing is J69, I don't think I am particularly good at judging players, but I can spot Chopra isn't a premiership player a mile off. Yes, I have been to reserve matches. They bear no reality to first-team matches whatsoever though. Do you think they do?

I don't. I've been watching Chopra play for about 4 years.

I know this is going over the ground of an old thread, but as you have dabbled in semi-pro football (so you say iirc?), I find your judgement there astounding.

Story in the Chronicle. Maybe he is just bigging the lad up for a bigger sale, but if not this is worrying.

Ok, you've lost me. How did we plan to appoint Robson when Gullit had the job at the time. There was little or no forward planning at all, and his suitability was obvious, and his availability down to luck. What's more, if you read Robson's autobiography, Shepherd was completely unprofessional in his approach and very nearly lost his man.

Renton.....people on here constantly don't answer my questions. I have answered what I have seen, you are crucifying the board for making one shit appointment, and attempting to re-write history concering the others. I have gave you facts and examples that show the replacement manager is what is important, not the timing. Manu appointed Ferguson, and Arsenal appointed Wenger during the season. Alex Ferguson was not specifically targetted by ManU . Liverpool also specifically targetted Evans, and the Evans / Houillier partnership, both of which were not successful and were changed because of that. Newcastle United also specifically targetted Bobby Robson who stayed manager for 5 years because he did well and not because it was a 5 year plan . Facts. And things change quickly in football, another reason why "5 year plans" are an utter load of shite. 138433[/snapback] What do you mean ManU didn't "specifically" target Ferguson? And how did Liverpool "specifically" target Evans in comparison? How did we "specifically" target Robson and not Souness? Because he was (relatively) succesfull, in retrospect? Are you making up your "facts" to suit your argument? Surely not. The point is, we have a serial history of sacking managers at the worst possible times - i.e. at the start of the season. EVERYBODY knows this. No other club comes close to us. It wouldn't surprise me one iota if the same happens to Roeder next season if he starts badly. We don't plan, and that is one of the reasons we fail. Not fact, just opinion, but there you go. Btw, might I add that I agree the reason you keep a manager is because he does well and not part of a 5 year plan (when has anyone other than yourself mentioned that?), but clubs with foresight plan their next manager when things aren't going well, or at least make sound choices when they sack him. We don't.

Used to think you were one of the better posters because you didn't post jibbering shite. I'll answer it anyway. I have almost every Mag - ever. A quick browse through those during Gullits time, along with the video footage of the day he joined the club, proves the utter futility of your comments. See above. Also 1 cup more than us, [along with leaving a team that went on to more] which we would have been delighted to win in that final. Correct or not ? For the record, I wasn't too bothered about Gullit because I wasn't impressed by all the "let me entertain you" crap. And never have been. I did however, hope he would repeat his FA Cup success, being a trophy winner that according to some "we don't appoint" 138391[/snapback] Well, i've given up on getting much that's sensible out of you a while ago. Shame, i think it's good when people have opposing views, one can learn. People's mind's should have a degree of fluidity to their thinking, not you though. Pure dogma, massive generalisations of other people's opinions, failure to even entertain other's point of view and glimpses of a political outlook that borders on bigotry. You're fast becoming proof that age and wisdom have no correlation. 138419[/snapback] massively hypocritical in view of the first line of your last post, which was the point of my reply. Fact also is, whether you choose to re-write history or not, the vast majority of the clubs support was happy with Gullit at the time. Unless you weren't there to see for yourself of course. 138422[/snapback] So Leazes, do you think it's right to appoint and sack managers purely on the basis of the fan's views at that time? 138424[/snapback] I'd really like an answer to this, as it's clearly Shepherd's mindset.

Used to think you were one of the better posters because you didn't post jibbering shite. I'll answer it anyway. I have almost every Mag - ever. A quick browse through those during Gullits time, along with the video footage of the day he joined the club, proves the utter futility of your comments. See above. Also 1 cup more than us, [along with leaving a team that went on to more] which we would have been delighted to win in that final. Correct or not ? For the record, I wasn't too bothered about Gullit because I wasn't impressed by all the "let me entertain you" crap. And never have been. I did however, hope he would repeat his FA Cup success, being a trophy winner that according to some "we don't appoint" 138391[/snapback] Well, i've given up on getting much that's sensible out of you a while ago. Shame, i think it's good when people have opposing views, one can learn. People's mind's should have a degree of fluidity to their thinking, not you though. Pure dogma, massive generalisations of other people's opinions, failure to even entertain other's point of view and glimpses of a political outlook that borders on bigotry. You're fast becoming proof that age and wisdom have no correlation. 138419[/snapback] One person does not constitute proof.

Do they even have any traffic laws in Peru? Hands of our Nobby!

Well Leazes, you have failed to answer any of my points regarding the timing of the dismissal of managers and how NUFC compares to other (successful) clubs. I assume it's because you know it's indefensible.

But you primarily support a non-league side? Wouldn't have thought you'd been bothered about watching quality players.

But they didn't come and Roeder got West Ham relegated. Oh joy.

yep. but the Guardian is shit 138343[/snapback]

You see Alex, I'm not defending Shepherd for no reason, but this is the sort of thing that I will answer in his defence. You say on one hand that the club should input a "long term strategy" then dismiss the current appointment as not being a long term strategy. If the club really think Shearer is top quality management material then this appointment of Roeder with a view to Shearer being his right hand man in a year or two with long term succession, is PRECISELY a long term plan or strategy. Correct ? Whether it is the "right" man, we don't know. The simple fact is, the whole idea is bollocks. Dalglish would still be here now if he had been the right man, and by the same token we were not going to keep him after 18 months simply there was 3 and a half years of the "5 year plan" left. And with his CV, a hell of a lot of people thought he was the "right" man. The same will happen to Roeder, Shearer of whoever. If they stay at the club for 5 years or more, its because they are winning. Simple as that. The most successful clubs don't have a long term strategy at all. They just appoint a manager who wins games so stays. Bruce Rioch lasted a year at Arsenal. What happened to that long term plan ? Ditto Evans at Liverpool, and they won the ahem, League Cup. And I don't mean YOU specifically. 138341[/snapback] The more successful clubs PLAN replacing their present managers if they are not considered successful enough. Liverpool replacing Houlier with Benitez in the SUMMER of 2004 is a classic example of this (despite Houlier's success). If you can't see this then what's the point of the discussion? You might argue that Shepherd is planning ahead to install Shearer at the club - this might well be true but it would be the first time he has, and personally I have major misgivings in the logic of continuing with a second rate manager in the meantime who knows he is on borrowed time and his replacement is already planned. There has to be some reason why other clubs of similar size to us are successful and we are not. I think it's because of the board - you seemingly put it down to luck or gypsie curses.

I'm jealous as fuck tbh.

And why would Henry staying be fantastic? For NUFC it will be an absolute disaster. We need to grab 4th place - Arsenal will be a lot more difficult to catch with Henry weighing in with 20+ goals next season. Yes, yes he's good to watch but so fuck - do you want CL or not? 138277[/snapback] What UM said teebeeaitch. 138307[/snapback] Disregarding any implications for NUFC, I'm struggling to think how anyone but an Arsenal fan could regard it as fantastic news? Personally, I reckon he's made a mistake (if true), but then it happens to the best (e.g. Shearer).

Absolutely. But then, I sense this boards doesn't give a fuck about success as long as the money is coming in. A false economy, obviously, but then I suspect none of them are gifted with intelligence.

The bit in bold - I think that is one of the main problems with our board - they don't plan but stumble from one mistake to another. Why wasn't the replacement of Robson planned for, like Liverpool did that summer? Please, please, stop defending this practice of giving a manager a few games at the start of the season then sacking him without a planned replacement - that's how we ended up with Souness. I also though the appointment of Gullit would have been avoided with minimal research into the man's character - I was almost as gutted when we employed him as we were when we got Souness. If the rest of the fans were for him, well, more fool them, and it perfectly illustrates why the fans should not "elect" the manager. But once again, we have Shepherd proclaiming Roeder is the fans' choice. Jesus wept - not this particular fan he isn't.

Daglish wasn't given enough time to be successful though, wouldn't you agree? He was sacked far too early and, therefore, wasn't given the necessary backing imo. EDIT: Totally agree with SLP's and Zico's sentiments too. 136665[/snapback] I'm astounded. Dalglish was given too long. The man was a total disaster and it became very clearly that he was not going to achieve anything positive at the club. He managed to dismantle an excellent team that needed strengthening leaving us playing negative football even in a Cup Final. 138194[/snapback] The ridiculous thing was Bridget that he was sacked only 2 games into the season, after spending a lot on signings. Personally, I think a manager with his pedigree certainly deserved an extra year though (something I was never willing to give Souness because he was a proven failure). How could he possibly have been given less long anyway? There are all sorts of reasons why that team was dismantled btw, not all of them under Dalglish's control. Plus there were some serious mitigating circumstances why things went pear-shaped in 97-98, not least the loss of Shearer at his peak (compounded by the forced selling of Ferdinand, and Thomasson, who could have been superb, not settling in in time). That's not to say his time here went well, but the timing of his sacking and his replacement by a fuckwit were insane, only to be repeated 5 years later...... 138240[/snapback] Dogleash is summed up in one statement. He sold Pedro fucking wanker. The only reason he won the league with Rovers was Shearer, fact! (I recently heard Robbie Slater interviewed (starting 11 CM in that team) and they were his word.) 138263[/snapback] Beardsley was 36 or 37 ! Shearer was the main catalyst in Blackburns team, Ray Harford was supposedly a main one as well. Maybe if he had came here with him things would have been different. They had other good players at Blackburn though. Selling Ferdinand was a major boob, like Bellamy now, but I think Tomasson could and should have been kept. I think if he had played alongside Sir Les or Shearer he would have came on better here than he did, rather than play alongside Arsprilla who was no help to a young lad settling into a new club, country etc as he continuted to just amble around doing his own thing when he felt like it, and for some reason is idolised and called a crowd pleaser. He was nothing but a waste of space. Dalglish's mistake was not being able to get rid of him instead of Sir Les, or choosing to keep him instead of Sir Les. The chanting of "attack attack attack" is forever a memory that makes me curl up with complete frustration and sorrow. But the sacking of Dalglish 2 games into the season is a no brainer. Nobody at the time said we should sack him in the summer, even after the Cup Final. It was only when the season started it became obvious that despite the signings he had made, nothing was going to change. The board were right. If only they hadn't done the same with Souness. They were right to sack Gullit too. But they got Bobby Robson. I've said this before. You can't say the timing of Dalglish was wrong and the timing of Gullit was right. The timing is not important, the replacement is what matters. This is proven again by the fact that people said we should give Souness longer and not sack him last September, whereas if Roeder had taken over in September or October, what sort of season would we have had ? 138304[/snapback] Don't agree Leazes. You have to judge each case on its merits. How can you say it was obvious nothing was going to change after two games? A narrow defeat away to Chelsea and a draw at home to a recently promoted side who turned out to be rather good? Sorry, you can't defend the timing of that, just like you couldn't with Bobby. But what's worse, is that in both cases we sacked managers with proven pedigree and replaced them with fuckwits. The sacking of Gullit and Souness were entirely different matters, and both of them clearly got too long! I agree with a lot of what you say, but really, you are completely blinkered in your persistent defense of the board and Shepherd in particular. It's obvious in your mind he can do virtually no wrong. Well I suggest if this really was the case with our resources we might be doing just a bit better than we are now and may have actually won something by now. We never will while Shepherd is here, I'd bet you my house on that.

Daglish wasn't given enough time to be successful though, wouldn't you agree? He was sacked far too early and, therefore, wasn't given the necessary backing imo. EDIT: Totally agree with SLP's and Zico's sentiments too. 136665[/snapback] I'm astounded. Dalglish was given too long. The man was a total disaster and it became very clearly that he was not going to achieve anything positive at the club. He managed to dismantle an excellent team that needed strengthening leaving us playing negative football even in a Cup Final. 138194[/snapback] The ridiculous thing was Bridget that he was sacked only 2 games into the season, after spending a lot on signings. Personally, I think a manager with his pedigree certainly deserved an extra year though (something I was never willing to give Souness because he was a proven failure). How could he possibly have been given less long anyway? There are all sorts of reasons why that team was dismantled btw, not all of them under Dalglish's control. Plus there were some serious mitigating circumstances why things went pear-shaped in 97-98, not least the loss of Shearer at his peak (compounded by the forced selling of Ferdinand, and Thomasson, who could have been superb, not settling in in time). That's not to say his time here went well, but the timing of his sacking and his replacement by a fuckwit were insane, only to be repeated 5 years later...... 138240[/snapback] Dogleash is summed up in one statement. He sold Pedro fucking wanker. The only reason he won the league with Rovers was Shearer, fact! (I recently heard Robbie Slater interviewed (starting 11 CM in that team) and they were his word.) 138263[/snapback] Sorry, that's idiotic. It's ridiculous to judge a manager on one issue only. Dalglish could spot a good player - he was the one that signed Beardsley when at Liverpool, was he not? Plus, when he left us second time round, how old was he? 36 or 37? And people say Shearer is past it! What did Beardsley do afterwards? Fuck all. He was released at the right time. As for belittling his achievement at Blackburn, well, that's idiotic too. One man does not make a team, he assembled the best team in the premiership for a small town in Lancashire who a few years previously were languishing in the lower division. Fait enough, he had money, but that is still a massive achievement. Why don't you hit me with another cliche like it was Dalglish and not Souness that destroyed Liverpool while you're at it?

Daglish wasn't given enough time to be successful though, wouldn't you agree? He was sacked far too early and, therefore, wasn't given the necessary backing imo. EDIT: Totally agree with SLP's and Zico's sentiments too. 136665[/snapback] I'm astounded. Dalglish was given too long. The man was a total disaster and it became very clearly that he was not going to achieve anything positive at the club. He managed to dismantle an excellent team that needed strengthening leaving us playing negative football even in a Cup Final. 138194[/snapback] The ridiculous thing was Bridget that he was sacked only 2 games into the season, after spending a lot on signings. Personally, I think a manager with his pedigree certainly deserved an extra year though (something I was never willing to give Souness because he was a proven failure). How could he possibly have been given less long anyway? There are all sorts of reasons why that team was dismantled btw, not all of them under Dalglish's control. Plus there were some serious mitigating circumstances why things went pear-shaped in 97-98, not least the loss of Shearer at his peak (compounded by the forced selling of Ferdinand, and Thomasson, who could have been superb, not settling in in time). That's not to say his time here went well, but the timing of his sacking and his replacement by a fuckwit were insane, only to be repeated 5 years later......

The season when he got West Ham to 7th, didn't they have a really bad start, with fans calling for him to be sacked but then he turned it round to finish in 7th place? I'm pretty sure he did. 137963[/snapback] I hope that's wrong G/T. We don't want facts about success getting in the way of Renton's pessimism 137972[/snapback] If you want facts, look at his record in simple terms of games played, won, lost and drawn. Tell me if you think it's a reasonable record overall. I suspect he has the worst record of any Newcastle manager in decades, including Souness. Of course that is too simplistic, but there are grounds for concern. I remain to be convinced, I hope I he proves my pessimism wrong.

Well that's a theory that will never be tested.