Craig

Yep, black sky here too and I'm about 15 miles further south from you. What's more, I heard it! I was up seeing to the nipper at 6am this morning and heard a tremendous low boom which was preceeded immediately by a vacuum. Enough to make the windows rattle I actually thought it was distant thunder and thought nothing more of it.... Until I turned the news on! What's more, I've got to drive up there tomorrow morning to go to work and they're reporting at the moment that the roads are all likely to be closed for fear of further explosions. As for the north/south divide, frankly that's absolute bollocks. I seem to remember the gas explosions in Gateshead and North Shields some 13 years ago hit the national news, yes they didn't take over the TV schedules but then, although there was always a threat from the IRA, we weren't living in the same terrorist climate that we are these days. An explosion, wherever it is in the country is going to demand national TV coverage unfortuntately.

Newcastle 0-2 Arsenal

I made that suggestion about 15 minutes ago (and about 4 pages back) but it got swamped by HTL's multiple postings. Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool & Man Utd all have Chief Execs running the club detatched from the chairman. I think we need the same! 66297[/snapback] Yes, but your bold formatting didn't work, so I ignored it. 66301[/snapback] It does for me (corrected it straight away )

I made that suggestion about 15 minutes ago (and about 4 pages back) but it got swamped by HTL's multiple postings. Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool & Man Utd all have Chief Execs running the club detatched from the chairman. I think we need the same!

As modelled by Wes Brown.....

I'm beginning to agree with Gol's theory like...

Seriously, what is it about that notion that you can't get your head around? Most other people (LM excepted) seem to be able to...

As it happens, no I haven't. But what the hell has that got to do with anything?

Wow! No opinion, eh. 66254[/snapback] No, I haven't. I s'pose that's a problem to you as it quells the argument you're trying to make. (and just for the record, I'm serious, I didn't have an opinion - I got my fingers burnt when I thought Ossie was going to be the answer to everything and every manager since, I've had no opinion on whether it's a good or bad appointment. I have my opinions on who I'd like to see as manager but still I wouldn't say that they were either going to be good or bad, I'd let the football decide!)

Thanks Alex. At least you're big enough ( unlike the others ) to admit that you really can't slag FS for appointing managers you yourself thought at the time were good decisions. 66249[/snapback] Err....but he hasn't! All he's said is he thought they were good appointments at the time. And anyway, what's Dalglish and Gullit got to do with it anyway? It was never part of the debate (nor was the appointment of Souness for that matter).

As I have stated elsewhere, sticking your hand in your pocket doesn't automatically make you a good chairman. From a financial point of view, Shepherd is a top-class chairman. He provides funds yet ensures that the club maintains a decent financial state. From a footballing point of view (i.e. resource management) I think he's absolutely hopeless! 66085[/snapback] Which is what I said earlier on. So what are you arguing about or is it just something you feel you have to do? 66221[/snapback] HTL, why do you jump into the middle of a discussion I'm having with someone else and think I'm responding to points you've made? Or is it something you feel you have to do? 66236[/snapback] Well, I've got to go back to work, but it seems to me that quite a lot of others are as well..... No one is disputing Shepherds lack of football knowledge, but it still seems to me that people just use hindsight to knock Shepherd, when they would have made the same mistakes in appointing his managers, and a couple of straight answers wouldn't go amiss here 66242[/snapback] I knock Shepherd, not through his lack of hindsight, but because he's shit at forward planning. He sacked Robson on a whim and had no-one lined up. Chelsea, Arsenal or Manchester United would never have done that! Like I said, I was having the debate with LM and you're the only one jumping in at me saying things like "which is what I said earlier so why do you feel the need to argue about it". The reason is, I'm not talking to you!!!

I had no opinion about whether it was a good choice or not, I hoped it was a good choice and gave him time to try to prove himself. Just because Dalglish was a success at Liverpool and Blackburn didn't necessarily mean he was going to be a success at Newcastle. And anyone who thought that it did was ultimately naive.

As I have stated elsewhere, sticking your hand in your pocket doesn't automatically make you a good chairman. From a financial point of view, Shepherd is a top-class chairman. He provides funds yet ensures that the club maintains a decent financial state. From a footballing point of view (i.e. resource management) I think he's absolutely hopeless! 66085[/snapback] Which is what I said earlier on. So what are you arguing about or is it just something you feel you have to do? 66221[/snapback] HTL, why do you jump into the middle of a discussion I'm having with someone else and think I'm responding to points you've made? Or is it something you feel you have to do?

No-one's debating the fact that from a financial perspective, Shepherd is one of the best there is, it's the forward planning from a footballing point of view that most people think he's inept at. The constant references to 'masses only against the decision to appoint one of his managers' is irrelevant tbh. We're not actually criticising him for that singular action, we're criticising him for sacking the previous manager just as the transfer window was shutting when we were desperately in need of attracting players and doing so seemingly on a whim with no long term plan for his replacement. Shepherd should have been planning Robson's replacement 6 months before he sacked him and he should have sacked him at the start of the summer. We have Graeme Souness as manager as a direct result of the fact that he didn't properly plan. Forget the finances, he needs to take a good look at how Kenyon (not Abramovich) got Mourinho for Chelsea or how Rick Parry (not David Moores) got Benitez for Liverpool. Newcastle United would greatly benefit from a Chief Executive IMO. I don't think it's any coincidence that the top 4 clubs have that sort of management infrastructure: Arsenal Chairman: Peter Hill-Wood Chief Executive: David Dein Chelsea Chairman: Bruce Buck Chief Executive: Rick Parry Liverpool Chairman: David Moores Chief Executive: Rick Parry Manchester United Chairman: One of the Glazer sons Chief Executive: David Gill It's time we appointed someone to look after the football perspective and leave Freddy to concentrate on the figures tbh. But he likes to meddle far too much for that to happen!

Agreed, that is a concern...

If it was the first time Sky Sports had come out with something along these lines, I'd be concerned. Thankfully, no-one else seems to be running with it - I guess they're bored again. They've been saying Given's about to walk out for about 3 years now!

True...

The things they do to beat the swear filter, eh? (still can't see the benefit of having one tbh.) 66131[/snapback] The funny thing is, it doesn't even filter out the word shit. 66133[/snapback] So what's the point of the double-i bollocks then?

The things they do to beat the swear filter, eh? (still can't see the benefit of having one tbh.)

Totally agree... IMO the fortunes of the club have gone in reverse as a direct result of the decisions made by the board, of whom Freddy Shepherd sits in the chair.

As I have stated elsewhere, sticking your hand in your pocket doesn't automatically make you a good chairman. From a financial point of view, Shepherd is a top-class chairman. He provides funds yet ensures that the club maintains a decent financial state. From a footballing point of view (i.e. resource management) I think he's absolutely hopeless!

Leazes, you haven't commented on Shepherd's total support for Souness in the exit of Craig Bellamy from the club. What's your view on that?

In fairness, the question wasn't aimed at you, hence why I've not referenced your earlier points (which I have read). Still at least you've managed to keep your keyboard occupied!

Totally irrelevant questions, tbh. What are you getting at? What are you trying to prove here? I think it's important for a Chairman to back a manager 100%. I think that's been made clear to almost everybody. I'm pissed off that FS appointed the most incompetent manager the club has had in my lifetime. I'm pissed off that he backed him when Souness put his ego before the club by getting rid of our best player, but the fact is, FS is doing his job by backing the manager. End of. This means he's a good Chairman, not a bad one. It also means that Souness is a shit manager, shame it took some people too long to realise it. 66065[/snapback] Might be irrelevant to you - they're not to me, hence why I've asked them What I'm trying to get at, is that Freddy Shepherd is entirely responsible for Graeme Souness being here, he's the only man who can actually bring the Souness era to an end yet he chooses not to do so. He's also the man who ultimately could have ensured CB stayed at SJP if he felt like it. Now it seems that LM (and yourself for that matter) seems to think the sun shines out of his fat arse, so what I'm trying to determine is how you can think that when he is ultimately responsible for the one man who boils your piss day in, day out.... And since when was the chairman's only repsonsibility to provide money?

Aye I know you are, just pulling in return!