Isegrim

Too early too judge. But I am fearing the worst. The signing came far too late (but hey, who needs planning) and is now looking totally unsettled in a team playing awful football and not to his strength. And I am really unsure if he will ever adapt to the English style of football.

It is all about the infrastructure of a club, both at technical and personal level. Robson was complaining about the ridiculous conditions he had to work at before the club finally moved to Longbenton. Building this was some sort of planning (but also necessary because of the obligatory demands of the Premierleague). The other thing is the coaching set-up especially at the youth level. Another thing is an effective scouting set-up that continuosly checks on players who might be interesting. Maybe then we would see less panic buys. Of course football is in the end a day to day business, especially if you are lacking success, but the planning is all about to miminize risks and exterior factors. Real successful clubs do it. Newcastle don't. Am i right in thinking that you and i (well, i know what i think ) agree with the principle that the club doesn't necessarily need a new Board but that it's effort's might be helped greatly by employing someone with extensive experience and standing to oversee all football matters? To me that seems to be ther crux of the problem. I might also add that if members of the current Board have no wish to lose control over these matters then i would have to join the brigade who want them replaced. Exactly. It's not just about Fat Fred. In fact, I rather have him than some obscure consortium owning the club. I just want more professionalism. I want a board of executives that is actually worth its name and not a single person leading club (ok, with a sidekick spending his time as a monkey on Gibraltar). I want a director of football/chief executive/or whatever you want to name it, who is actually knowing what he is doing. I want a sort of supervisory board as well. NUFC PLC is a multi-million business company. It is run like it is the chippy next door. A lot of what you say is of course correct. But where you fall down is in the lack of acceptance that the club have in fact done well in the last decade. Because they have. Nobody is suggesting they couldn't have done better and nobody is suggesting they don't want them to do better, of course I do, all of us do. Clubs simply don't qualify for europe and buy the major players we have done without making good appointments and doing some things right. Clubs that have no strategy, no foresight, make bad appointments and don't know what they are doing, struggle and get relegated, and buy mediocre players and lose their best ones themselves as a result. There are plenty of these clubs around, and they are all a long way behind us. Interestingly also is the fact that the youth policy is being cited as a cause of the clubs inability to sustain 2nd place in the league or go higher. It could be, and could not, you might have a batch of shite youngsters coming through or a good set of youngsters coming through, but this strategy was put in place by the people who we regard as being the best in recent times ie Keegan and SJH backing his decision, while one of the managers a lot of people deride was responsible for bringing it back, ie Dalglish. Now ask yourself, why was Dalglish sacked - and derided - when he was responsible for implementing a "long term plan" I've never said that the club hasn't done considerably well in the last ten years. But that is not the whole story. Has the club achieved as much as it wanted? Has the board been happy with how things have progressed? Certainly not, because otherwise they had not sacked four managers in the last ten years (since Shepherd controls the club). Have the appoitments been good? Namewise, yes. With hindsight, no. The only one, who was successful, was Bobby Robson, who actually challenged the club and tried to build something long term. Only to get his foundation totally dismantled by the most clueless of all manager appointments. As for Keegan abolishing the reserve team and youth teams. I think this has to be seen in the context of the time. Keegan was very critical about the general setup of the club's infrastructure. Newcastle simply didn't have the sufficent resources back then and under these circumstances it probably was the best to concentrate on the first team. I am pretty sure Keegan would have reverted his decision as soon as possible.

It is all about the infrastructure of a club, both at technical and personal level. Robson was complaining about the ridiculous conditions he had to work at before the club finally moved to Longbenton. Building this was some sort of planning (but also necessary because of the obligatory demands of the Premierleague). The other thing is the coaching set-up especially at the youth level. Another thing is an effective scouting set-up that continuosly checks on players who might be interesting. Maybe then we would see less panic buys. Of course football is in the end a day to day business, especially if you are lacking success, but the planning is all about to miminize risks and exterior factors. Real successful clubs do it. Newcastle don't. Am i right in thinking that you and i (well, i know what i think ) agree with the principle that the club doesn't necessarily need a new Board but that it's effort's might be helped greatly by employing someone with extensive experience and standing to oversee all football matters? To me that seems to be ther crux of the problem. I might also add that if members of the current Board have no wish to lose control over these matters then i would have to join the brigade who want them replaced. Exactly. It's not just about Fat Fred. In fact, I rather have him than some obscure consortium owning the club. I just want more professionalism. I want a board of executives that is actually worth its name and not a single person leading club (ok, with a sidekick spending his time as a monkey on Gibraltar). I want a director of football/chief executive/or whatever you want to name it, who is actually knowing what he is doing. I want a sort of supervisory board as well. NUFC PLC is a multi-million business company. It is run like it is the chippy next door.

It is all about the infrastructure of a club, both at technical and personal level. Robson was complaining about the ridiculous conditions he had to work at before the club finally moved to Longbenton. Building this was some sort of planning (but also necessary because of the obligatory demands of the Premierleague). The other thing is the coaching set-up especially at the youth level. Another thing is an effective scouting set-up that continuosly checks on players who might be interesting. Maybe then we would see less panic buys. Of course football is in the end a day to day business, especially if you are lacking success, but the planning is all about to miminize risks and exterior factors. Real successful clubs do it. Newcastle don't.

Robson is also highly critical about the manner in which he was approached for the job, I'd hardly say Shepherd comes across in a good light. It's also apparent that they didn't approach him until after Gullit was fired. So since Dalglish, Gullit, Robson, and Souness have all been sacked without a replacement in mind. There is virtually no short-term planning let alone long-term planning by the sounds of it. They also nearly ruined everything by offering him a pittance.

Because of this thread I had another look at Keegan's biography and Robson's one (I only had the old one and bought the new edition just before I came back to Jormany). It's interesting to read the view of both managers regarding the board. And to me it's significant that they both are in appraisal of one Freddie - though it is Fletcher and not Shepherd. Keegan to a lesser extent because he felt that Fletcher was too little involved into football at the end and too much in the floating the time he left. Robson complains about the departure of Fletcher and that the "board" afterwards only consisted of Shepherd and Hall jnr. and that he never got speak with latter in the whole five years.

Sincere condolences.

Nope. As long as he annoys the English but forgoes Jormany, I am happy with him.

God.

I got 75% right and am better at recognizing guys.

Rehhagel's result: You are a Social Conservative (6% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (95% permissive) You are best described as a: Fascist You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.

Oh, I was expecting a picture of a drunk Moore lying behind a bush...

IIRC there was something like this in Hamburg a few years ago. The person was dead for about two years and nobody had noticed...

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. Oh, and I thougt the principle "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" was quite old, but you are right it wasn't known among the Neanderthals... Just cos it's in Latin doesn't make it old. You can translate anything into latin. Yep, especially those nice do-gooders and civil right activists in the middle ages could. That's why it is found in loads of medieval legal text books. The right to own slaves was quite old too but we thought that was wrong. Just because anything is old doesn't mean it is good and proper. So let me get this right. It is ok for a person to stay silent about a murder or any criminal act they have witnessed or taken part in because to say something may embarass (sp) them. Or an innocent man can knowingly withhold evidence which would clear him quickly and save the tax payer money for the same reason? That wasn't your point, though, was it? "The right to silence is relatively new actually." Now when that's proved wrong you've moved it to, well old doesn't mean good. You've also ignored two people who raised issues with what you were saying yesterday. Stop talking shite! Oh and by the way the right to avoid self incrimination was firstcodified in England and Wales in 1912. Basium Meus Solum It was already part of ius commune (expressis verbis in the glossa ordinaria of the liber extra) and adopted in the common law legal procedure long before. It was also - just for example - part of the Indictable Offences Act 1848 (Sir Jervis's Act). As you are so much interested, I recommend you to read Helmholz, The privilege against self-incrimination instead of some random wikipedia article.

I think the article I read a while ago mentioned that as well. Doesn't make sense to me. Bacteria are usually transferred from surface to surface. Mind I prefer paper towels where possible. Normal towels are the worst. Right here we go, purely in the name of science; I have had one shite and not washed me hands I have had two pisses. washed me hands after one. I licked me hands after all three visits and they never tasted any different Yep, but that is because your mouth is full of shit anyway...

I felt always quite awkward in these situations. I willingly pay my umemployment insurance contribution, so that nobody has to do this sort of a job. Strangely, most of those people seem to be black...

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. Oh, and I thougt the principle "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" was quite old, but you are right it wasn't known among the Neanderthals... Just cos it's in Latin doesn't make it old. You can translate anything into latin. Yep, especially those nice do-gooders and civil right activists in the middle ages could. That's why it is found in loads of medieval legal text books. The right to own slaves was quite old too but we thought that was wrong. Just because anything is old doesn't mean it is good and proper. So let me get this right. It is ok for a person to stay silent about a murder or any criminal act they have witnessed or taken part in because to say something may embarass (sp) them. Or an innocent man can knowingly withhold evidence which would clear him quickly and save the tax payer money for the same reason? Well, it was you who raised the point that it is a shit modern law and a form of political correctness going mad, probably just like the abolishment of slavery... So what would you like to introduce to make those suspects speak? Torture? What is about those who remain silent because they haven't done anything, would you like to torture them as well? I'll probably find an old SS cloak for you somewhere down here...

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. Oh, and I thougt the principle "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" was quite old, but you are right it wasn't known among the Neanderthals... Just cos it's in Latin doesn't make it old. You can translate anything into latin. Yep, especially those nice do-gooders and civil right activists in the middle ages could. That's why it is found in loads of medieval legal text books.

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. Oh, and I thougt the principle "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" was quite old, but you are right it wasn't known among the Neanderthals...

The law should accidentally stamp on his foot tbh

It appears i have the last laugh Zip it

1. Outlaw basins with two taps 2. Outlaw the sale of crap beer 3. Introduce right hand driving 4. Ban Christmas markets 5. Stop Polish immigrants entering the UK by invading Poland

It's Mr. Rossi who is looking for happiness ... because I got soooo excited by our summer signings...

Nah, you just mistook her for the real Toonraider...