These New Owners of West Ham

[Renton 17828]

Please, someone make it stop. :D

 

Edit: talking about LM's identikit post no. 3292 btw.

 

too many people on here copying and pasting each others posts, Renton. Unfortunately for you all, it doesn't make you all right though.

 

Would you like to post the pre-deadline "panic" signings we have made, and the ones who aren't and so were actually targetted by the club, before Baggio ?

 

I didn't make that point although I can think of a few panic buys in the recent past, Luque and Bernard for instance. Then there are signingsthat we made because we had forced ourselves into a poor bargaining position, for instance Boumsong. Then there are signings which were huge gambles, such as Owen. Signings we didn't need when there were positions we were desperate in, i.e. Duff. And many signings seem to have been agent driven rather than club driven, Sibierski being an example. I expect you to deny all of this btw, but my point was you constantly making the comparison to the pre-Sky board. We know all about it, you bring it up in every single post. Give it a rest man.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

Shame Baggio, but I realised ages ago I couldn't be bothered with your "planning" posts, when you've spouted it. To be fair, you aren't the only one. Most of your chums seem to have same naive, unrealistic, idea. As i said, now we have a "plan" and "business setup", we will see what effect it has on the results on the pitch, which has by far the biggest financial impact on a football club, always has done, and always will do. Lets hope the other clubs with "plans" don't find the 3 trophy winning managers a year, before we do, such is their "plan".

Please point me to any post suggesting that a "plan" will guarantee success?

 

But I can guarantee that not "planning" (e.g. panic signings like Souness, and I agree that the manager is the most important part around every "plan" ) will guarantee failure (as it did with Souness).

 

if a "plan" doesn't necessarily bring success, why bother mentioning it all the time ?

 

A good manager, who knows what he is doing, yes. But, as you know, there are only 3 managers who win the cups each season, and unfortunately everybody else wants them too. If appointing managers who have been successful elsewhere is not aiming for success, what is your opinion on what the club ought to have been looking for, since Keegan especially ?

 

I totally agree that a manager who doesn't know what he is doing will guarantee failure, which is the complete opposite of the above.

 

What do you mean exactly by "panic" signings ? Signings made just before the transfer deadline due to not being able to get the players you want the most - which most clubs fail to do - or snapping up a player who suddenly and unexpectedly becomes available, for instance ?

 

If the former, then would you like to tell us how many players are currently at the club who were last minute pre-deadline players, and also those who are not and were deliberately targetted ie "planned signings" by the club ?

 

I mention "planning" all the time, because I don't think that the club is doing it as much as it should do. A "plan" isn't the guarantee for success, but in most cases the foundation. If success doesn't come by planning, it certainly doesn't come accidental.

 

IMHO a club like Newcastle should have a far better infrastructure and better set up. You might not like the idea of a director of football (or a similar person with another title) who supports the manager, but it is something which most actually successful clubs feel is needed. I think it is in SBR's biography where he tells how he liked the old Ipswich days where a manager was responsible for everything, but how it has become impossible in todays football as things are far more complex. Which is why a professional set up involving more people working together is needed nowadays. Of course football is a day-to-day business, but even then you need some kind of strategy to minimise the risks of that kind of business.

 

With "panic signing" in the above post I referred to the appointment of Souness. A better "planning" of the appointment of the manager wouldn't have set the club as much backwards as it did. We would have been far more comfortable with maybe letting Carver in charge of things for another couple of weeks until we had sounded out all possibilities, something I don't think we did with Souness. The worst thing is still that the fall out with the major performers was always written on the wall and I still can't get my head round how anyone could come to the idea that Souness would be a decent choice (and don't get me wrong, I think that this is probably rather a failure from Dougie Hall than Shepherd).

 

But you are right, the "planning" of transfers is something I am highly critical about. Of course there is no guarantee that you get the players you want. But you have to find the balance in holding out and looking at the team's needs. Even before Owen's injury it was obvious that a couple of positions desperately needed strengthening as we were lacking as well class as depth, i.e. both full back positions, centre half and a striker (which become two strikers the moment Owen twisted his knee). It was highly careless to wait until July (something Roeder openly admitted that they did) to wait until make concrete "plans" for the recruitment of players. If you do that there is a big chance that you are running late into signing you players. Not having them in pre-season training and get to know each other on the football pitch is a big disadvantage as every professional manager will tell you. That's why I don't think signing players late in August is a good idea whatsoever. Just for example, Bayern are due to make their third signing for the upcoming next season this week (edit: they just did).

 

And I don't think appointing Roeder on the base of a decent run of games at the end of last season was a good idea. With the club being in the limbo about getting the permission for Roeder it did even more damage to the club. I agree that finding the right manager is difficult, as everything has come together which is rarely the case (but was in the case of Keegan and Robson). But I think Newcastle were in the perfect position to have a deep assessment of the needs when Souness was (thankfully) sacked and replaced by Roeder as a caretaker (something I advised from the start of the season btw). I found it a bit disappointing that it was clear after a few weeks and a few good results that the job was Roeder's.

 

As I said in another thread today, unless we don't have someone up the sleeves who is thought to be much better than Roeder, there is no point in sacking him, unless we want the Souness-scenario again (and this time we don't even have a considerate option for a care taker). But I think Roeder's job should be made more easy by a personal infrastructure that equals todays demands of a professional football club. Although not directly related to the managing staff I am happy that with the re-installation of a new chief executive the first step seems to be done.

 

I do not agree that good transfers are necessarily "planned". For instance, arguably Bobby Robson's best signing, Bellamy [in my opinion] would not have been at the club if he had signed Francis Jeffers who was his first choice, albeit because earlier the Bellamy transfer had been aborted due to the sale of Duncan Ferguson not going through. A perfect example of how erratic and unpredictable the transfer market can be.

 

The good managers, or in fact any manager, ALWAYS knows the players he rates, and tries to buy them when they become available, or when his chairman can allow him to spend the cash. I don't think even the biggest fuckwit doesn't operate like this, even Souness, who targetted Emre and Parker long before he got them.

 

Any manager will tell you that an assistant will be good for him. In many cases it could just be jobs for the boys, in others it is a genuine quality right hand man. Does anybody think Terry McDermott had any value to Keegan other than being his mate ? Whereas - and this is going back decades - Bob Paisley was without doubt a top class assistant to Bill Shankly in his own right, as was Peter Taylor to Brian Clough. Ultimately though, with all those partnerships, the buck stopped with the manager, who was number 1 and appointed his own right hand man.

 

I am not sure if success needs the planning you talk about. I think it is just good judgement, or lucky judgement, by the board. What exactly is the difference ....... if a manager has lost the plot, his players, and losing games, he must be sacked and there is no planning that comes into it. The club then has to look around at replacements, and like the manager who knows the players he rates, the board knows the managers that they would like. The appointment of Souness is a no brainer that I have never defended, although it is odd that when this crops up on here, it is me who is reminded of it, rather than those who supported the club giving him time, money, and the freedom to sell our best player in particular.

 

When we appointed Dalglish and Robson, the club targetted people they wanted. You simply cannot say they didn't, because they did. And supported in those appointments. Even Gullit too, had a track record, had built a good team at Chelsea and appeared to be a choice that a sizeable section of the fanbase backed.

 

I have only said that appointing Roeder has its merits. Having tried winning managers with egos etc, what would people have said if the club had gone down that road again and got the same result as before ?

You can't have it both ways. Roeder will be given a certain amount of time, and be judged, unless results and/or performances go badly. Then what will they do ? What would YOU do ?

 

Do you think the mackems appointing Roy Keane is good planning ? At the moment, he is starting to look as if he could well be on the way to being a top boss, but it is a complete accident. He was 2nd or 3rd choice and they were also all Irish ..........

 

How many managers do you think are appointed, anywhere, through planning ? Clubs don't sack managers because they have targetted another one, this is very rare. Just because the bindippers did it with Houillier [who had had health problems too], doesn't mean it's the norm. This is the same board who appointed a managerial double act previously and also promoted Evans in the first instance, just like we have done with Roeder. The manager is sacked because he must be sacked, and they then move for ones they want. Its not planning, its either a good decision or a bad one. ManU appointed lots of unsuccessful managers [compared to Busby ] until they got Ferguson, and even then, he was appointed in mid season, and was available because he had won everything with Aberdeen and neither Celtic and Rangers were changing managers at the time, or Rangers - him being an ex Rangers player. I will give you that Arsenal appointed Wenger, but it is also true that they targetted him and sacked Rioch because he was failing otherwise they would have replaced him at a different time and Wenger may have gone elsewhere by then, and they would have turned to someone else instead.

 

It is all well and good saying we should have moved Robson on during the summer, but how many people said this at the time ? Most people were happy with the transfer deals done that summer, and thought we were going to have a good season, and in that event why would you consider changing the manager ?

 

Do you think Shearer will be a future Newcastle manager ? Is this planning or not ? Is it "planning" when it succeeds, and "panicking" when it doesn't ?

 

From a "structure" point of view, a CEO may well add something to the business. But this is football, and ultimately, success on the field is everything, everything falls into place when this happens and if you don't have the right football manager then you are pissing in the wind.

[LeazesMag 0]

Please, someone make it stop. :D

 

Edit: talking about LM's identikit post no. 3292 btw.

 

too many people on here copying and pasting each others posts, Renton. Unfortunately for you all, it doesn't make you all right though.

 

Would you like to post the pre-deadline "panic" signings we have made, and the ones who aren't and so were actually targetted by the club, before Baggio ?

 

I didn't make that point although I can think of a few panic buys in the recent past, Luque and Bernard for instance. Then there are signingsthat we made because we had forced ourselves into a poor bargaining position, for instance Boumsong. Then there are signings which were huge gambles, such as Owen. Signings we didn't need when there were positions we were desperate in, i.e. Duff. And many signings seem to have been agent driven rather than club driven, Sibierski being an example. I expect you to deny all of this btw, but my point was you constantly making the comparison to the pre-Sky board. We know all about it, you bring it up in every single post. Give it a rest man.

 

In my opinion, far too many people copy and paste the same "panic", "planning", and "agent" drivel.

 

I am not denying anything, what is there to "deny" ?

 

I agree Luque was a stupid buy, made by a stupid manager with poor judgement. I agree that selling Bellamy for the poor fee put us in a situtation whereby we needed a replacement that led to a poor decision.

What is the difference made by a poor decision made by a poor manager and a "panic" decision ? It would appear that Luque had been targetted by him, so I would categorise it as poor, personally, the sale of Bellamy to make way for him was certainly a poor decision and one made with deliberation and intention.

 

I don't think buying Owen to replace Shearer was anything other than the actions of a club determined to replace a world class player with the best player possible, although I would have issues with the fee not being necessary in this case, but nothing too much against the principle of paying the top money for a guaranteed quality player.

[Renton 17828]

Leazes, LOADS of people wanted Robson to be replaced in the summer of 2004. Sacking him 4 games into the season on the eve of the transfer window shutting was madness though. Souness was clearly employed in desperation because of this. The long term ramifications of this have been horrific, putting us in a position now where we are simply unable to employ a top class manager, as is evidenced by Roeder being here - probably the premiership manager with the worst track record in the league. ALL of this is Shepherd's and Hall's fault, if they had been competent at their jobs we could have easily been challenging for the Champions league now.

 

 

Shearer, if he comes, will have been planned, in contrast to Souness. Do you really need to be spelt out the difference?

[Renton 17828]

Please, someone make it stop. :D

 

Edit: talking about LM's identikit post no. 3292 btw.

 

too many people on here copying and pasting each others posts, Renton. Unfortunately for you all, it doesn't make you all right though.

 

Would you like to post the pre-deadline "panic" signings we have made, and the ones who aren't and so were actually targetted by the club, before Baggio ?

 

I didn't make that point although I can think of a few panic buys in the recent past, Luque and Bernard for instance. Then there are signingsthat we made because we had forced ourselves into a poor bargaining position, for instance Boumsong. Then there are signings which were huge gambles, such as Owen. Signings we didn't need when there were positions we were desperate in, i.e. Duff. And many signings seem to have been agent driven rather than club driven, Sibierski being an example. I expect you to deny all of this btw, but my point was you constantly making the comparison to the pre-Sky board. We know all about it, you bring it up in every single post. Give it a rest man.

 

In my opinion, far too many people copy and paste the same "panic", "planning", and "agent" drivel.

 

I am not denying anything, what is there to "deny" ?

 

I agree Luque was a stupid buy, made by a stupid manager with poor judgement. I agree that selling Bellamy for the poor fee put us in a situtation whereby we needed a replacement that led to a poor decision.

What is the difference made by a poor decision made by a poor manager and a "panic" decision ? It would appear that Luque had been targetted by him, so I would categorise it as poor, personally, the sale of Bellamy to make way for him was certainly a poor decision and one made with deliberation and intention.

 

I don't think buying Owen to replace Shearer was anything other than the actions of a club determined to replace a world class player with the best player possible, although I would have issues with the fee not being necessary in this case, but nothing too much against the principle of paying the top money for a guaranteed quality player.

 

Do you think we would have bought Luque if we had known we would secure Owen? It reminded me very much of the mackems pissing their money away on Flo and Stewart in pure desperation (which was our striker situation then). If you don't see this as a panic buy, then you must think there is no such thing.

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, LOADS of people wanted Robson to be replaced in the summer of 2004. Sacking him 4 games into the season on the eve of the transfer window shutting was madness though. Souness was clearly employed in desperation because of this. The long term ramifications of this have been horrific, putting us in a position now where we are simply unable to employ a top class manager, as is evidenced by Roeder being here - probably the premiership manager with the worst track record in the league. ALL of this is Shepherd's and Hall's fault, if they had been competent at their jobs we could have easily been challenging for the Champions league now.

 

Shearer, if he comes, will have been planned, in contrast to Souness. Do you really need to be spelt out the difference?

 

sorry Renton, but I don't recall too many people saying they wanted Robson out that summer, some maybe, not many though. Most people were happy with the players we brought in ie Butt, Milner, Kluivert and Carr.

Especially Kluivert [not me though]

 

We were turned down by a manager who had gave his word to come to the club, before appointing Souness.

I have no idea if this manager would have done better than Robson, personally I doubt it, but it was, nevertheless, a "plan".

 

Quite surprised you fail to see I took the piss in my comments regarding Shearer being "planned" by asking the same question

 

Lets hope he succeeds, for us and for the club. If he doesn't, it will simply prove that "planning" means fuck all won't it ?

[LeazesMag 0]

Please, someone make it stop. :D

 

Edit: talking about LM's identikit post no. 3292 btw.

 

too many people on here copying and pasting each others posts, Renton. Unfortunately for you all, it doesn't make you all right though.

 

Would you like to post the pre-deadline "panic" signings we have made, and the ones who aren't and so were actually targetted by the club, before Baggio ?

 

I didn't make that point although I can think of a few panic buys in the recent past, Luque and Bernard for instance. Then there are signingsthat we made because we had forced ourselves into a poor bargaining position, for instance Boumsong. Then there are signings which were huge gambles, such as Owen. Signings we didn't need when there were positions we were desperate in, i.e. Duff. And many signings seem to have been agent driven rather than club driven, Sibierski being an example. I expect you to deny all of this btw, but my point was you constantly making the comparison to the pre-Sky board. We know all about it, you bring it up in every single post. Give it a rest man.

 

In my opinion, far too many people copy and paste the same "panic", "planning", and "agent" drivel.

 

I am not denying anything, what is there to "deny" ?

 

I agree Luque was a stupid buy, made by a stupid manager with poor judgement. I agree that selling Bellamy for the poor fee put us in a situtation whereby we needed a replacement that led to a poor decision.

What is the difference made by a poor decision made by a poor manager and a "panic" decision ? It would appear that Luque had been targetted by him, so I would categorise it as poor, personally, the sale of Bellamy to make way for him was certainly a poor decision and one made with deliberation and intention.

 

I don't think buying Owen to replace Shearer was anything other than the actions of a club determined to replace a world class player with the best player possible, although I would have issues with the fee not being necessary in this case, but nothing too much against the principle of paying the top money for a guaranteed quality player.

 

Do you think we would have bought Luque if we had known we would secure Owen? It reminded me very much of the mackems pissing their money away on Flo and Stewart in pure desperation (which was our striker situation then). If you don't see this as a panic buy, then you must think there is no such thing.

 

No, I don't. I think Luque was a targetted signing, and suddenly Owen became available, so they bought both, having let Bellamy go, and were looking ahead to Shearer retiring.

[sweetleftpeg 0]

Luque was also a panic buy by the board rather than Souness imo. In Souness's defence he wanted Boa Morte for £4m less than we payed for Luque. Proven in the PL, and not a bad player to boot. Instead, through agents and the boards pally pallyness with the Deport lot, he got offered Luque and took him.

 

And yes, I know exactly what's coming, 'how can you accuse Shepherd of buying players, the mangaer buys them not the chairman etc' but surely I can't be the only one who thinks this clubs transfer buisiness over the past 18 months has been dictated by a combination of Shepherd and Willie fucking McKay.

[Happy Face 29]

Leazes, LOADS of people wanted Robson to be replaced in the summer of 2004. Sacking him 4 games into the season on the eve of the transfer window shutting was madness though. Souness was clearly employed in desperation because of this. The long term ramifications of this have been horrific, putting us in a position now where we are simply unable to employ a top class manager, as is evidenced by Roeder being here - probably the premiership manager with the worst track record in the league. ALL of this is Shepherd's and Hall's fault, if they had been competent at their jobs we could have easily been challenging for the Champions league now.

 

Shearer, if he comes, will have been planned, in contrast to Souness. Do you really need to be spelt out the difference?

 

sorry Renton, but I don't recall too many people saying they wanted Robson out that summer, some maybe, not many though.

 

Sorry Leazes, I'm not in huge disagreement with you on all this stuff, but I remember Robson's team being booed as they did their lap around the pitch on the last day of the season by a half empty stadium. Souness's team got a better reception at the end of his first year.

 

I was disgusted actually. Finish fifth and people can't be arsed to hang around and give the team a bit of a clap.

[Isegrim 8876]

From a "structure" point of view, a CEO may well add something to the business. But this is football, and ultimately, success on the field is everything, everything falls into place when this happens and if you don't have the right football manager then you are pissing in the wind.

I don't disagree and already did said above that I know that appointing the right manager is the most difficult decision a club has to make as there is no guarantee that it will work out. I never blamed the board for the decisions of appointing Dalglish and Gullit, in respect to the latter I was actually quite happy at the time and thought he might be a bit Keegan-like. In fact (as were you) I only was totally sure that the appointment of Souness would never work out.

 

But I still think that apart from the necessary luck you need with this kind of decisions that football does involve "planning" in the term of strategic thinking and trying to make the right decisions well in advance. It is more than leaning back and look how the manager is coping with the job, you do have to support him. And you need the right staff for it, either of it concerning transfers and making sure you don't have an unbalanced squad (as we have now), training (it took the club too long build the appropriate training facilities with both Keegan and Robson complaining about it for a long time), academy, physio staff etc, but also the necessary business side as a Premierleague club is today a big company. It is just my opinion that I think that the club was lacking effort in a lot of these things in the last couple of years, but I do see positive signs in certain things.

 

Edit: And to me Bellamy was always a "planned" signing in the sense that Robson was fully aware of which type of player he needed to get the best out of Shearer. That was why he brought in Gallacher before and Bellamy later (and in whom he was already interested the season before). With Jeffers I only think that Robson had alternative "plans" as well.

Edited March 6, 2007 by Isegrim

[gram 0]

From a "structure" point of view, a CEO may well add something to the business. But this is football, and ultimately, success on the field is everything, everything falls into place when this happens and if you don't have the right football manager then you are pissing in the wind.

I don't disagree and already did said above that I know that appointing the right manager is the most difficult decision a club has to make as there is no guarantee that it will work out. I never blamed the board for the decisions of appointing Dalglish and Gullit, in respect to the latter I was actually quite happy at the time and thought he might be a bit Keegan-like. In fact (as were you) I only was totally sure that the appointment of Souness would never work out.

 

But I still think that apart from the necessary luck you need with this kind of decisions that football does involve "planning" in the term of strategic thinking and trying to make the right decisions well in advance. It is more than leaning back and look how the manager is coping with the job, you do have to support him. And you need the right staff for it, either of it concerning transfers and making sure you don't have an unbalanced squad (as we have now), training (it took the club too long build the appropriate training facilities with both Keegan and Robson complaining about it for a long time), academy, physio staff etc, but also the necessary business side as a Premierleague club is today a big company. It is just my opinion that I think that the club was lacking effort in a lot of these things in the last couple of years, but I do see positive signs in certain things.

 

Edit: And to me Bellamy was always a "planned" signing in the sense that Robson was fully aware of which type of player he needed to get the best out of Shearer. That was why he brought in Gallacher before and Bellamy later (and in whom he was already interested the season before). With Jeffers I only think that Robson had alternative "plans" as well.

Correct. Bellamy would have been signed straight from Norwich if the funds from the Big Dunc sale had gone through earlier iirc. Bobby rattled on about it for quite some time.

[gram 0]

Leazes, LOADS of people wanted Robson to be replaced in the summer of 2004. Sacking him 4 games into the season on the eve of the transfer window shutting was madness though. Souness was clearly employed in desperation because of this. The long term ramifications of this have been horrific, putting us in a position now where we are simply unable to employ a top class manager, as is evidenced by Roeder being here - probably the premiership manager with the worst track record in the league. ALL of this is Shepherd's and Hall's fault, if they had been competent at their jobs we could have easily been challenging for the Champions league now.

 

Shearer, if he comes, will have been planned, in contrast to Souness. Do you really need to be spelt out the difference?

 

sorry Renton, but I don't recall too many people saying they wanted Robson out that summer, some maybe, not many though.

 

Sorry Leazes, I'm not in huge disagreement with you on all this stuff, but I remember Robson's team being booed as they did their lap around the pitch on the last day of the season by a half empty stadium. Souness's team got a better reception at the end of his first year.

 

I was disgusted actually. Finish fifth and people can't be arsed to hang around and give the team a bit of a clap.

Its all about expectation. Bobby finishing fifth was seen as a backward step and we werent too convincing in finishing there anyway. They did get booed and there was plenty of disharmony about the place at the time. We had a season of players pissing about, taking the piss and getting too big for their boots.

Its been said often enough by enough people that unity is paramount at a football club - Ferguson has mentioned it recently, as has Mourinho and even Sibierski did in his interview this week. We didnt look too cohesive either on or off the pitch at the time. Perhaps thats why FFS decided to employ Souness, I suspect so.

Its a shame the way it ended for Bobby but Freddie didnt help that summer either. He really should have planned the appointment of the next manager rather than cutting his legs from under him with that daft statement.

We havent really recovered from that. Poor management all round, whichever way you choose to look at it.

[Happy Face 29]

Its all about expectation

 

Exactly, the crowd at large (ie not those that stayed to cheer Robson and the team for finishing fifth) expect far too much. If we finish 5th, 4th, 3rd or 2nd if we don't improve or match it the next year then the manager is in the shit. Maybe what you need to make short term progress, but what if that high finish was a fluke in an ongoing rebuilding plan? It all get's pissed up the wall because we MUST improve year on year.

[Renton 17828]

Its all about expectation

 

Exactly, the crowd at large (ie not those that stayed to cheer Robson and the team for finishing fifth) expect far too much. If we finish 5th, 4th, 3rd or 2nd if we don't improve or match it the next year then the manager is in the shit. Maybe what you need to make short term progress, but what if that high finish was a fluke in an ongoing rebuilding plan? It all get's pissed up the wall because we MUST improve year on year.

 

I don't agree and think you've missed the bigger picture surrounding the end of the 2003-2004 season which gram outlined. It was more than just finishing 5th, the backward step we took was huge, the end of the season had been particularly disappointing, the players were allegedly taking the piss, Robson had sold a crowd favourite for personal reasons to the obvious detriment of the team, and only weeks earlier had insulted the fans without realising his words were being broadcast.

 

I stayed and watched but didn't clap. Few players in that team deserved it and neither did the manager.

 

Having said that, what about in 1995 when Keegan's team came 6th and missed out on Europe compared to 3rd the previous season. Were people calling for his head then?

[LeazesMag 0]

From a "structure" point of view, a CEO may well add something to the business. But this is football, and ultimately, success on the field is everything, everything falls into place when this happens and if you don't have the right football manager then you are pissing in the wind.

I don't disagree and already did said above that I know that appointing the right manager is the most difficult decision a club has to make as there is no guarantee that it will work out. I never blamed the board for the decisions of appointing Dalglish and Gullit, in respect to the latter I was actually quite happy at the time and thought he might be a bit Keegan-like. In fact (as were you) I only was totally sure that the appointment of Souness would never work out.

 

But I still think that apart from the necessary luck you need with this kind of decisions that football does involve "planning" in the term of strategic thinking and trying to make the right decisions well in advance. It is more than leaning back and look how the manager is coping with the job, you do have to support him. And you need the right staff for it, either of it concerning transfers and making sure you don't have an unbalanced squad (as we have now), training (it took the club too long build the appropriate training facilities with both Keegan and Robson complaining about it for a long time), academy, physio staff etc, but also the necessary business side as a Premierleague club is today a big company. It is just my opinion that I think that the club was lacking effort in a lot of these things in the last couple of years, but I do see positive signs in certain things.

 

Edit: And to me Bellamy was always a "planned" signing in the sense that Robson was fully aware of which type of player he needed to get the best out of Shearer. That was why he brought in Gallacher before and Bellamy later (and in whom he was already interested the season before). With Jeffers I only think that Robson had alternative "plans" as well.

 

I wasn't happy with Gullit, but neither too unhappy, I didn't care too much about the sexy football bollocks, but hoped he would buy quality players like he did at Chelsea.

 

Newcastle United had been run like a corner shop for decades, I agree they had to be more professional, but I think that over the years things slowly improved, under certain managers until they were held back, but when the Keegan years came in we made big steps forward and off the field.

 

I agree about Bellamy. When the deal fell through the first time I was quite pissed off because I felt he was a good player and would be a better player in a better team, and was more than happy when it eventually went through.

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, LOADS of people wanted Robson to be replaced in the summer of 2004. Sacking him 4 games into the season on the eve of the transfer window shutting was madness though. Souness was clearly employed in desperation because of this. The long term ramifications of this have been horrific, putting us in a position now where we are simply unable to employ a top class manager, as is evidenced by Roeder being here - probably the premiership manager with the worst track record in the league. ALL of this is Shepherd's and Hall's fault, if they had been competent at their jobs we could have easily been challenging for the Champions league now.

 

Shearer, if he comes, will have been planned, in contrast to Souness. Do you really need to be spelt out the difference?

 

sorry Renton, but I don't recall too many people saying they wanted Robson out that summer, some maybe, not many though.

 

Sorry Leazes, I'm not in huge disagreement with you on all this stuff, but I remember Robson's team being booed as they did their lap around the pitch on the last day of the season by a half empty stadium. Souness's team got a better reception at the end of his first year.

 

I was disgusted actually. Finish fifth and people can't be arsed to hang around and give the team a bit of a clap.

 

I was disgusted too. Booing anyone at all when they play for Newcastle is a no-no in my book. Never mind finishing 5th........those people deserved a tit like Souness, in fact they should fuck off and support someone else.

 

I see what you are saying though, so maybe a fair amount of people wanted him out, but don't you think now it was a bit misguided ? And also, I was referring to the feeling around the club etc after he had made his signings, because I think most of us felt the team needed freshening up a bit.

[Renton 17828]

Leazes, LOADS of people wanted Robson to be replaced in the summer of 2004. Sacking him 4 games into the season on the eve of the transfer window shutting was madness though. Souness was clearly employed in desperation because of this. The long term ramifications of this have been horrific, putting us in a position now where we are simply unable to employ a top class manager, as is evidenced by Roeder being here - probably the premiership manager with the worst track record in the league. ALL of this is Shepherd's and Hall's fault, if they had been competent at their jobs we could have easily been challenging for the Champions league now.

 

Shearer, if he comes, will have been planned, in contrast to Souness. Do you really need to be spelt out the difference?

 

sorry Renton, but I don't recall too many people saying they wanted Robson out that summer, some maybe, not many though.

 

Sorry Leazes, I'm not in huge disagreement with you on all this stuff, but I remember Robson's team being booed as they did their lap around the pitch on the last day of the season by a half empty stadium. Souness's team got a better reception at the end of his first year.

 

I was disgusted actually. Finish fifth and people can't be arsed to hang around and give the team a bit of a clap.

 

I was disgusted too. Booing anyone at all when they play for Newcastle is a no-no in my book. Never mind finishing 5th........those people deserved a tit like Souness, in fact they should fuck off and support someone else.

 

I see what you are saying though, so maybe a fair amount of people wanted him out, but don't you think now it was a bit misguided ? And also, I was referring to the feeling around the club etc after he had made his signings, because I think most of us felt the team needed freshening up a bit.

 

 

Your mate HTL has said on numerous occasions he wanted shot of Robson when we came THIRD. Have you asked him about that?

 

We knew Robson was getting on, we should have been proactive and actively sought his replacement when we were on top, but we didn't, we bollocks it up by sacking him 4 games into the season without a replacement, after having fatally undermined him.

 

Contrast this with Liverpool, or even Chelsea that summer. Houlier was sacked despite winning numerous trophies and his replacement won the European cup. Meanwhile we are not even going to qualify for the UEFA cup this year, after spending an absolute fortune. Great chairmanship that, isn't it?

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, LOADS of people wanted Robson to be replaced in the summer of 2004. Sacking him 4 games into the season on the eve of the transfer window shutting was madness though. Souness was clearly employed in desperation because of this. The long term ramifications of this have been horrific, putting us in a position now where we are simply unable to employ a top class manager, as is evidenced by Roeder being here - probably the premiership manager with the worst track record in the league. ALL of this is Shepherd's and Hall's fault, if they had been competent at their jobs we could have easily been challenging for the Champions league now.

 

Shearer, if he comes, will have been planned, in contrast to Souness. Do you really need to be spelt out the difference?

 

sorry Renton, but I don't recall too many people saying they wanted Robson out that summer, some maybe, not many though.

 

Sorry Leazes, I'm not in huge disagreement with you on all this stuff, but I remember Robson's team being booed as they did their lap around the pitch on the last day of the season by a half empty stadium. Souness's team got a better reception at the end of his first year.

 

I was disgusted actually. Finish fifth and people can't be arsed to hang around and give the team a bit of a clap.

 

I was disgusted too. Booing anyone at all when they play for Newcastle is a no-no in my book. Never mind finishing 5th........those people deserved a tit like Souness, in fact they should fuck off and support someone else.

 

I see what you are saying though, so maybe a fair amount of people wanted him out, but don't you think now it was a bit misguided ? And also, I was referring to the feeling around the club etc after he had made his signings, because I think most of us felt the team needed freshening up a bit.

 

 

Your mate HTL has said on numerous occasions he wanted shot of Robson when we came THIRD. Have you asked him about that?

 

We knew Robson was getting on, we should have been proactive and actively sought his replacement when we were on top, but we didn't, we bollocks it up by sacking him 4 games into the season without a replacement, after having fatally undermined him.

 

Contrast this with Liverpool, or even Chelsea that summer. Houlier was sacked despite winning numerous trophies and his replacement won the European cup. Meanwhile we are not even going to qualify for the UEFA cup this year, after spending an absolute fortune. Great chairmanship that, isn't it?

 

I know he said that. I didn't agree at the time, but he said it. I can't say that this is what the club should have done, when I didn't say it at the time. Can you ? It is now hindsight, and with hindsight, Nobby Solano should have tracked Poyet in the cup semi final. With hindsight, Darren Peacock or Steve Howey should have kicked Cantona's nuts off 2 minutes before he scored that goal in 1996.

 

As I said, you can compare us to Liverpool, but everybody does. Why not compare us with clubs such as Leeds, Sheff Wed, Man City, West Ham, Villa, Everton, to name some though ? Do you not think these clubs are now comparing themselves with us ? You can't have it both ways, comparing us to one club that have been above us and essentially stayed that way apart from a couple of years when Keegan was manager, and forgetting about all the others that we ourselves have essentially stayed above. We have qualified for europe regularly over the past decade on merit. A shit board would not run a club that did this.

 

You can only show ambition, and go for and attract the top quality managers who have shown they can be winners. What other criteria would you use ? What would you say if the club had appointed another winning manager who wasn't doing any better than Gullit and Dalglish did ?

 

Who on here said that Stuart Pearce should be the next Newcastle manager ? What would you say if we had appointed him and were now 4th bottom of the league ?

[Shearergol 0]

Leazes, LOADS of people wanted Robson to be replaced in the summer of 2004. Sacking him 4 games into the season on the eve of the transfer window shutting was madness though. Souness was clearly employed in desperation because of this. The long term ramifications of this have been horrific, putting us in a position now where we are simply unable to employ a top class manager, as is evidenced by Roeder being here - probably the premiership manager with the worst track record in the league. ALL of this is Shepherd's and Hall's fault, if they had been competent at their jobs we could have easily been challenging for the Champions league now.

 

Shearer, if he comes, will have been planned, in contrast to Souness. Do you really need to be spelt out the difference?

 

sorry Renton, but I don't recall too many people saying they wanted Robson out that summer, some maybe, not many though.

 

Sorry Leazes, I'm not in huge disagreement with you on all this stuff, but I remember Robson's team being booed as they did their lap around the pitch on the last day of the season by a half empty stadium. Souness's team got a better reception at the end of his first year.

 

I was disgusted actually. Finish fifth and people can't be arsed to hang around and give the team a bit of a clap.

 

I was disgusted too. Booing anyone at all when they play for Newcastle is a no-no in my book. Never mind finishing 5th........those people deserved a tit like Souness, in fact they should fuck off and support someone else.

 

I see what you are saying though, so maybe a fair amount of people wanted him out, but don't you think now it was a bit misguided ? And also, I was referring to the feeling around the club etc after he had made his signings, because I think most of us felt the team needed freshening up a bit.

 

 

Your mate HTL has said on numerous occasions he wanted shot of Robson when we came THIRD. Have you asked him about that?

 

We knew Robson was getting on, we should have been proactive and actively sought his replacement when we were on top, but we didn't, we bollocks it up by sacking him 4 games into the season without a replacement, after having fatally undermined him.

 

Contrast this with Liverpool, or even Chelsea that summer. Houlier was sacked despite winning numerous trophies and his replacement won the European cup. Meanwhile we are not even going to qualify for the UEFA cup this year, after spending an absolute fortune. Great chairmanship that, isn't it?

 

I know he said that. I didn't agree at the time, but he said it. I can't say that this is what the club should have done, when I didn't say it at the time. Can you ? It is now hindsight, and with hindsight, Nobby Solano should have tracked Poyet in the cup semi final. With hindsight, Darren Peacock or Steve Howey should have kicked Cantona's nuts off 2 minutes before he scored that goal in 1996.

 

As I said, you can compare us to Liverpool, but everybody does. Why not compare us with clubs such as Leeds, Sheff Wed, Man City, West Ham, Villa, Everton, to name some though ? Do you not think these clubs are now comparing themselves with us ? You can't have it both ways, comparing us to one club that have been above us and essentially stayed that way apart from a couple of years when Keegan was manager, and forgetting about all the others that we ourselves have essentially stayed above. We have qualified for europe regularly over the past decade on merit. A shit board would not run a club that did this.

 

You can only show ambition, and go for and attract the top quality managers who have shown they can be winners. What other criteria would you use ? What would you say if the club had appointed another winning manager who wasn't doing any better than Gullit and Dalglish did ?

 

Who on here said that Stuart Pearce should be the next Newcastle manager ? What would you say if we had appointed him and were now 4th bottom of the league ?

 

Nobody on here, did they?

[Baggio 0]

It's funny you should compare us to Leeds as it wasn't that long ago they had an ambitious chairman who got them into Europe, showed plenty of ambition and signed England players, and like us they bought these players by borrowing money from the bank to finance it.

 

The point I try to make which doesn't seem to sink in with you is that yes, we have qualified for Europe more than anyone in the top 4 since Shepherd took charge but at what cost? we are £80 million in debt yet you seem to think we can continue the way we have over the past decade, borrowing money to sign players when the company isn't even making a profit, you think Shepherd is showing ambition by doing this but most people can see how out of control it's getting, he's like an 18 year old with his first credit card.

 

We're spending money with no plan of how we're going to pay it back, which is the likely reason this CEO from Barclays has been brought in.

 

Now all some of us have done is offer suggestions on how the club can move forward while getting away from sinking further into debt, clubs like Arsenal and Spurs have put together better squads than us without having to go into debt to make signings and most of that is down to having a DOF or something similar, yet for some reason you seem uninterested in this approach and are happy for the club to keep borrowing to finance expensive players.

 

Do you honestly think the club can continue the way it's going?!

[Renton 17828]

Leazes, LOADS of people wanted Robson to be replaced in the summer of 2004. Sacking him 4 games into the season on the eve of the transfer window shutting was madness though. Souness was clearly employed in desperation because of this. The long term ramifications of this have been horrific, putting us in a position now where we are simply unable to employ a top class manager, as is evidenced by Roeder being here - probably the premiership manager with the worst track record in the league. ALL of this is Shepherd's and Hall's fault, if they had been competent at their jobs we could have easily been challenging for the Champions league now.

 

Shearer, if he comes, will have been planned, in contrast to Souness. Do you really need to be spelt out the difference?

 

sorry Renton, but I don't recall too many people saying they wanted Robson out that summer, some maybe, not many though.

 

Sorry Leazes, I'm not in huge disagreement with you on all this stuff, but I remember Robson's team being booed as they did their lap around the pitch on the last day of the season by a half empty stadium. Souness's team got a better reception at the end of his first year.

 

I was disgusted actually. Finish fifth and people can't be arsed to hang around and give the team a bit of a clap.

 

I was disgusted too. Booing anyone at all when they play for Newcastle is a no-no in my book. Never mind finishing 5th........those people deserved a tit like Souness, in fact they should fuck off and support someone else.

 

I see what you are saying though, so maybe a fair amount of people wanted him out, but don't you think now it was a bit misguided ? And also, I was referring to the feeling around the club etc after he had made his signings, because I think most of us felt the team needed freshening up a bit.

 

 

Your mate HTL has said on numerous occasions he wanted shot of Robson when we came THIRD. Have you asked him about that?

 

We knew Robson was getting on, we should have been proactive and actively sought his replacement when we were on top, but we didn't, we bollocks it up by sacking him 4 games into the season without a replacement, after having fatally undermined him.

 

Contrast this with Liverpool, or even Chelsea that summer. Houlier was sacked despite winning numerous trophies and his replacement won the European cup. Meanwhile we are not even going to qualify for the UEFA cup this year, after spending an absolute fortune. Great chairmanship that, isn't it?

 

I know he said that. I didn't agree at the time, but he said it. I can't say that this is what the club should have done, when I didn't say it at the time. Can you ? It is now hindsight, and with hindsight, Nobby Solano should have tracked Poyet in the cup semi final. With hindsight, Darren Peacock or Steve Howey should have kicked Cantona's nuts off 2 minutes before he scored that goal in 1996.

 

As I said, you can compare us to Liverpool, but everybody does. Why not compare us with clubs such as Leeds, Sheff Wed, Man City, West Ham, Villa, Everton, to name some though ? Do you not think these clubs are now comparing themselves with us ? You can't have it both ways, comparing us to one club that have been above us and essentially stayed that way apart from a couple of years when Keegan was manager, and forgetting about all the others that we ourselves have essentially stayed above. We have qualified for europe regularly over the past decade on merit. A shit board would not run a club that did this.

 

You can only show ambition, and go for and attract the top quality managers who have shown they can be winners. What other criteria would you use ? What would you say if the club had appointed another winning manager who wasn't doing any better than Gullit and Dalglish did ?

 

Who on here said that Stuart Pearce should be the next Newcastle manager ? What would you say if we had appointed him and were now 4th bottom of the league ?

 

Nobody on here, did they?

 

HTL wanted him as manager, he's the only one I can think of.

 

Leazes, the whole point about the Robson fiasco is that it didn't require hindsight, and to compare it to the actions of players on a football pitch is plainly ridiculous, even for you. What hindsight did it require to know announcing it was Robson's last season was a bad idea? To sack him without a replacement (4 games into the season)? To employ Souness, at great cost? To give him £50M to piss up the wall and let him hound out some of our best players? No hindsight was required at all.

 

The other clubs you mentioned didn't have the starting position Shepherd inherited, or the income generated by this. Some of those clubs I think are in a much better position than us now though. And anyway, why shouldn't we aspire to be like Arsenal or Liverpool? Why settle for comparing us with smaller clubs like West Ham? Tge fact is, under the right stewardship, we should have been a proper CL club by now, but we're not, due to Shepherd's gross incompetence (I'm referring to the summer of 2004 in case you hadn't realised).

[LeazesMag 0]

It's funny you should compare us to Leeds as it wasn't that long ago they had an ambitious chairman who got them into Europe, showed plenty of ambition and signed England players, and like us they bought these players by borrowing money from the bank to finance it.

 

Last time you said this, I reminded you that Leeds in fact borrowed money to buy players, and also have a piss poor fanbase compared to ours. Although that didn't stop them from dominating the English game during the late 60's and early 70's as one of the top 2 clubs, but that was when we had shit directors and were as a resuilt massively inferior to them.

 

The point I try to make which doesn't seem to sink in with you is that yes, we have qualified for Europe more than anyone in the top 4 since Shepherd took charge but at what cost? we are £80 million in debt yet you seem to think we can continue the way we have over the past decade, borrowing money to sign players when the company isn't even making a profit, you think Shepherd is showing ambition by doing this but most people can see how out of control it's getting, he's like an 18 year old with his first credit card.

 

We're spending money with no plan of how we're going to pay it back, which is the likely reason this CEO from Barclays has been brought in.

 

Now all some of us have done is offer suggestions on how the club can move forward while getting away from sinking further into debt, clubs like Arsenal and Spurs have put together better squads than us without having to go into debt to make signings and most of that is down to having a DOF or something similar, yet for some reason you seem uninterested in this approach and are happy for the club to keep borrowing to finance expensive players.

 

Do you honestly think the club can continue the way it's going?!

 

I don't believe I have ever said the club should carry on spending money. There are however, plenty of people who have done that on here and NO, so I suggest you ask them that question.

 

Meanwhile, if you are unhappy with the football dished out over the last decade, and the club attempting to be successful, you could always have gone to see the mackems or a host of other clubs that didn't attempt the same, and as a consequence didn't qualify for europe or perform as well.

 

Or even stop going. Why support a shit club if you feel this way ? Plenty of people did in the past, so why not now too ?

[Guest alex]

You wouldn't be ridiculed so much if you addressed people's points a bit more. I don't think you actually addressed one of the ones Baggio was making there Leazes. It's as though the only alternatives are: don't criticise the board or support another team. It's not even as though I think you actually believe that.

Edited March 7, 2007 by alex

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, LOADS of people wanted Robson to be replaced in the summer of 2004. Sacking him 4 games into the season on the eve of the transfer window shutting was madness though. Souness was clearly employed in desperation because of this. The long term ramifications of this have been horrific, putting us in a position now where we are simply unable to employ a top class manager, as is evidenced by Roeder being here - probably the premiership manager with the worst track record in the league. ALL of this is Shepherd's and Hall's fault, if they had been competent at their jobs we could have easily been challenging for the Champions league now.

 

Shearer, if he comes, will have been planned, in contrast to Souness. Do you really need to be spelt out the difference?

 

sorry Renton, but I don't recall too many people saying they wanted Robson out that summer, some maybe, not many though.

 

Sorry Leazes, I'm not in huge disagreement with you on all this stuff, but I remember Robson's team being booed as they did their lap around the pitch on the last day of the season by a half empty stadium. Souness's team got a better reception at the end of his first year.

 

I was disgusted actually. Finish fifth and people can't be arsed to hang around and give the team a bit of a clap.

 

I was disgusted too. Booing anyone at all when they play for Newcastle is a no-no in my book. Never mind finishing 5th........those people deserved a tit like Souness, in fact they should fuck off and support someone else.

 

I see what you are saying though, so maybe a fair amount of people wanted him out, but don't you think now it was a bit misguided ? And also, I was referring to the feeling around the club etc after he had made his signings, because I think most of us felt the team needed freshening up a bit.

 

 

Your mate HTL has said on numerous occasions he wanted shot of Robson when we came THIRD. Have you asked him about that?

 

We knew Robson was getting on, we should have been proactive and actively sought his replacement when we were on top, but we didn't, we bollocks it up by sacking him 4 games into the season without a replacement, after having fatally undermined him.

 

Contrast this with Liverpool, or even Chelsea that summer. Houlier was sacked despite winning numerous trophies and his replacement won the European cup. Meanwhile we are not even going to qualify for the UEFA cup this year, after spending an absolute fortune. Great chairmanship that, isn't it?

 

I know he said that. I didn't agree at the time, but he said it. I can't say that this is what the club should have done, when I didn't say it at the time. Can you ? It is now hindsight, and with hindsight, Nobby Solano should have tracked Poyet in the cup semi final. With hindsight, Darren Peacock or Steve Howey should have kicked Cantona's nuts off 2 minutes before he scored that goal in 1996.

 

As I said, you can compare us to Liverpool, but everybody does. Why not compare us with clubs such as Leeds, Sheff Wed, Man City, West Ham, Villa, Everton, to name some though ? Do you not think these clubs are now comparing themselves with us ? You can't have it both ways, comparing us to one club that have been above us and essentially stayed that way apart from a couple of years when Keegan was manager, and forgetting about all the others that we ourselves have essentially stayed above. We have qualified for europe regularly over the past decade on merit. A shit board would not run a club that did this.

 

You can only show ambition, and go for and attract the top quality managers who have shown they can be winners. What other criteria would you use ? What would you say if the club had appointed another winning manager who wasn't doing any better than Gullit and Dalglish did ?

 

Who on here said that Stuart Pearce should be the next Newcastle manager ? What would you say if we had appointed him and were now 4th bottom of the league ?

 

Nobody on here, did they?

 

HTL wanted him as manager, he's the only one I can think of.

 

Leazes, the whole point about the Robson fiasco is that it didn't require hindsight, and to compare it to the actions of players on a football pitch is plainly ridiculous, even for you. What hindsight did it require to know announcing it was Robson's last season was a bad idea? To sack him without a replacement (4 games into the season)? To employ Souness, at great cost? To give him £50M to piss up the wall and let him hound out some of our best players? No hindsight was required at all.

 

The other clubs you mentioned didn't have the starting position Shepherd inherited, or the income generated by this. Some of those clubs I think are in a much better position than us now though. And anyway, why shouldn't we aspire to be like Arsenal or Liverpool? Why settle for comparing us with smaller clubs like West Ham? Tge fact is, under the right stewardship, we should have been a proper CL club by now, but we're not, due to Shepherd's gross incompetence (I'm referring to the summer of 2004 in case you hadn't realised).

 

You - and others - keep harping on about the "starting position". Fact is, the starting position for the current board and the major shareholder, began in 1992. I would be surprised if one person had made all the major decisions, such as choice of manager, during ALL of this time. Having already shown that it was not the chairman of the time ie SJH, who was responsible for appointing and choosing Keegan, but Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher, you should understand that all the subsequent appointments have been chosen by and have also been backed to the utmost by the same major shareholders who have all collectively made the appointments as manager. Hall Jnr himself said that under Robson we would have been relegated if we had kept Robson - which of course is bollocks - but this very statement tells you that it wasn't Shepherd alone who made this decision, and to be honest I am surprised that I have had to point this out.

 

If you don't like Shepherd - and I can understand that, I don't think I would either - but I don't give a toss in the same way as I don't give a toss if Craig Bellamy is a gobshite either so long as he is doing his best for the club - for spouting bollocks about Geordie Nation etc etc, then why don't you like SJH because he spouted the same shite ?

 

The board - as a board - have appointed and attracted managers to the club with winning track records, Dalglish in particular with an outstanding track record as a manager, so I fail to see why they can be criticised for him and Robson in particular, unless you have an alternative criteria for appointing managers that you think they should have applied.

 

I do agree that announcing Robson was not staying was a bad idea, however he himself compouned the idea by saying he was shocked when he himself had signed the 12 month rolling contract, which if anything is indicative of the fact that he was getting older and in fact needed replacing !!!! It is actually no different to Alex Ferguson himself announcing that HE was finishing, even though he changed his mind later.

 

Roeder is a different approach, thats all. And it is an approach other big clubs have also tried in the past too, and is sometimes successful and sometimes not.

[LeazesMag 0]

You wouldn't be ridiculed so much if you addressed people's points a bit more. I don't think you actually addressed one of the ones Baggio was making there Leazes. It's as though the only alternatives are: don't criticise the board or support another team. It's not even as though I think you actually believe that.

 

I've addressed Baggios comments before, and I'm bored with them.

 

And Alex - I think people should address my points too. Nobody has, after all this time, suggested anyone better, with more desire, and capability to replace the current group of directors. And nobody has even remotedly conceded that qualifying for europe is reasonably successful, and signifies they must be doing something right, although we all want to be number 1 of which there is no doubt.

 

Shame you say "ridicule" though, because in my view, it is those who think a change of board would automatically be better to be ridiculous. Absolutely stupid, in fact. And they must think this, or they would not advocate a change without naming people, not having a clue who they would choose. Especially a hedge fund running the club.

Edited March 7, 2007 by LeazesMag