Jump to content

keegan to come back


Kid Dynamite
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Again the criticism of Shepherd isnt just solely aimed at managerial appointments. Yes I was happy at the time witht the pair of them. Im a fan though not the highly paid chairman whose job it is get it right.

 

The criticisms about shady club dealings and dividends are there already , no need to repeat them. To me he's an amateur in charge of a professional club. Maybe we need a chief exec, someone detached from NUFC to make the right long term decisions for the good of the club. I see Shepherd as dual personality tbh. Theres one side of him who is a fan who'd love to see us successful but then theres the other shadier side who seems to be doing it all to increase his own wealth. The handling of mangerial departures has been laughable, the almost knee jerk releasing of transfer kitty rather than investing at the right times, the fostering of the Shearer influence to help solidify his once shakey tenure and the lucrative contracts to so called star players again based on knee jerk reaction to 'supposed' other club interest.

 

Does he really have the ambition to make this club as big and successful as it could be? Im not convinced.

Edited by luckypierre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we need a chief exec, someone detached from NUFC to make the right long term decisions for the good of the club.

66292[/snapback]

 

I made that suggestion about 15 minutes ago (and about 4 pages back) but it got swamped by HTL's multiple postings. :lol:

 

Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool & Man Utd all have Chief Execs running the club detatched from the chairman. I think we need the same!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again the criticism of Shepherd isnt just solely aimed at managerial appointments. Yes I was happy at the time witht the pair of them. Im a fan though not the highly paid chairman whose job it is get it right.

 

The criticisms about shady club dealings and dividends are there already , no need to repeat them. To me he's an amateur in charge of a professional club. Maybe we need a chief exec, someone detached from NUFC to make the right long term decisions for the good of the club. I see Shepherd as dual personality tbh. Theres one side of him who is a fan who'd love to see us successful but then theres the other shadier side who seems to be doing it all to increase his own wealth. The handling of mangerial departures has been laughable, the almost knee jerk releasing of transfer kitty rather than investing at the right times, the fostering of the Shearer influence to help solidify his once shakey tenure and the lucrative contracts to so called star players again based on knee jerk reaction to 'supposed' other club interest. 

 

Does he really have the ambition to make this club as big and successful as it could be? Im not convinced.

66292[/snapback]

 

 

Again I agree with LP here, pretty much sums up what I think and put across very well I thought. I would add though that I believe he has the ambition, but his own personal greed and lack of ability will put pay to that. A chief exec might be the answer we need - someone who can run the club professionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we need a chief exec, someone detached from NUFC to make the right long term decisions for the good of the club.

66292[/snapback]

 

I made that suggestion about 15 minutes ago (and about 4 pages back) but it got swamped by HTL's multiple postings. :lol:

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we need a chief exec, someone detached from NUFC to make the right long term decisions for the good of the club.

66292[/snapback]

 

I made that suggestion about 15 minutes ago (and about 4 pages back) but it got swamped by HTL's multiple postings. :lol:

 

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 :lol:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit I was quite pleased when we got Daglish, I thought he would sort out the defence and leave the rest pretty much alone. I was pleased when we got Gullit too.

66241[/snapback]

 

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.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it should never be used to call people c**ts and other stupid comments.

66249[/snapback]

 

To be fair, I said the same thing. You can thank me too if you like. :lol:

 

I do love Souness though. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

66250[/snapback]

 

Strange, I would have thought that appointing managers, and buying players too if you like, was slightly dependent on their track record ....

 

Unless you think we should just go and appoint the first conference standard manager that comes along, like we did with Souness

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's odd, i always thought that Shepherd authorised the spending of the available income that the club had itself generated, i wasn't in the least bit aware he was spending his own money all this time. Surely if the club has created enough income for transfers any reasonable chairman would allow it to be spent so rather than stealing it for their own gain, doesn't seem like an act of altruism to me.

 

who says it's his own money ?

 

See the point about other clubs being run nowhere near as well as ours, transfer wise.

 

So, imo, Shepherd's most important role is in the recruiting of a managerial and coaching continuance that would push this club towards footballing excellence. In this regard he has proved himself a total c**t and all those who are blind to this fact have been taken in by the most basic of propaganda. Sheep!

66102[/snapback]

 

yes and no. It is his job, it's also his job to look after the finance of the club.

 

The only manager he has appointed who the masses were against, at the time, is Souness. The vast majority were happy with Dalglish and Gullit. The only propaganda being peddled so far as I can see is by those who simply change their mind rather than admit they got it just as wrong as Shepherd.

 

You can't say he is a c**t for appointing a manager that you were happy with him for appointing.

And - he ISN'T the one who makes these final decisions anyway, beccause he ISN'T the majority shareholder, the chairman of such a company only carries out the decision of the board as a whole.

66200[/snapback]

 

Never wanted Souness, actually never met anyone who did, the only person i've ever even heard of who wanted Souness was Freddie Shepherd, the chairman you back and therefore, according to your own criteria, you back all his decisions, including the hiring and continuing employment of Souness.

 

As an after thought, can you actually find any quotes from anyone poster on here who wanted Souness as manager?

66255[/snapback]

 

I'm talking about people knocking him for making bad managerial appointments ie Dalglish and Gullit. Again, if you were happy with it at the time, its pretty rich of you to call him stupid for it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's odd, i always thought that Shepherd authorised the spending of the available income that the club had itself generated, i wasn't in the least bit aware he was spending his own money all this time. Surely if the club has created enough income for transfers any reasonable chairman would allow it to be spent so rather than stealing it for their own gain, doesn't seem like an act of altruism to me.

 

who says it's his own money ?

 

See the point about other clubs being run nowhere near as well as ours, transfer wise.

 

So, imo, Shepherd's most important role is in the recruiting of a managerial and coaching continuance that would push this club towards footballing excellence. In this regard he has proved himself a total c**t and all those who are blind to this fact have been taken in by the most basic of propaganda. Sheep!

66102[/snapback]

 

yes and no. It is his job, it's also his job to look after the finance of the club.

 

The only manager he has appointed who the masses were against, at the time, is Souness. The vast majority were happy with Dalglish and Gullit. The only propaganda being peddled so far as I can see is by those who simply change their mind rather than admit they got it just as wrong as Shepherd.

 

You can't say he is a c**t for appointing a manager that you were happy with him for appointing.

And - he ISN'T the one who makes these final decisions anyway, beccause he ISN'T the majority shareholder, the chairman of such a company only carries out the decision of the board as a whole.

66200[/snapback]

 

Never wanted Souness, actually never met anyone who did, the only person i've ever even heard of who wanted Souness was Freddie Shepherd, the chairman you back and therefore, according to your own criteria, you back all his decisions, including the hiring and continuing employment of Souness.

 

As an after thought, can you actually find any quotes from anyone poster on here who wanted Souness as manager?

66255[/snapback]

 

Forgive me for daring to reply to a post that wasn't made to me. :lol:

 

Why are you suggesting that backing FS means a person is automatically backing Souness? What is the difference between this and the likes of Craig, who mentions daily that someone can support the decision to get rid of Bellamy, yet still not rate Souness and want him out too?

 

Moving on with this line of double standards, assuming you rate hightly the likes of Owen, Luque, Parker and Emre, you must agree with those signings, sanctioned by FS, in which case you must support FS also. Or will you at this point conveniently agree that FS doesn't actually sanction anything, it's done by the entire board?

66270[/snapback]

 

Whassup? I'm happy to debate with anyone.

 

Leazes' is banging on that if we support some of Souness' decisions then you have to back all of them, so i'm drawing a parallel with regards to Shepherd, whom he loves :lol:

66285[/snapback]

 

No, not quite. I'm banging on that if you back Souness you must be happy with what he has done to the team so far, and see a good future. The alternative is to sack him if you aren't.

 

I'm also banging on that Shepherd, in spite of appointing fuckwit, is still one of the top chairman, on the basis he backs his managers, all of whom have a winning track record, with the cash and the freedom to spend. This is what a good chairman does. It's faily simple to go through the chairman of the top 20 clubs or so in the country and name the ones who have backed their managers more than Fred. Not too many.

 

Also, we can't sack Shepherd, but we can sack fuckwit.

 

I remember you lot back in August slagging off Shepherd, then he gave fuckwit the cash to buy Owen and Luque, and he was the bees knees.

 

Make your mind up man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

66250[/snapback]

 

Strange, I would have thought that appointing managers, and buying players too if you like, was slightly dependent on their track record ....

 

Unless you think we should just go and appoint the first conference standard manager that comes along, like we did with Souness

66387[/snapback]

 

Indeed it is dependent of sorts on the track record. I never said it wasn't....

 

What I said is, just because a manager is a success in one job, doesn't mean he's going to be in the next one and vice versa.

 

In my youth I thought Ardiles was going to be the answer to our prayers and therefore be a 'good choice'. Ever since then, I've decided to reserve judgement on whether it's a good appointment or not until I've seen evidence to prove so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

66250[/snapback]

 

Strange, I would have thought that appointing managers, and buying players too if you like, was slightly dependent on their track record ....

 

Unless you think we should just go and appoint the first conference standard manager that comes along, like we did with Souness

66387[/snapback]

 

Indeed it is dependent of sorts on the track record. I never said it wasn't....

 

What I said is, just because a manager is a success in one job, doesn't mean he's going to be in the next one and vice versa.

 

In my youth I thought Ardiles was going to be the answer to our prayers and therefore be a 'good choice'. Ever since then, I've decided to reserve judgement on whether it's a good appointment or not until I've seen evidence to prove so.

66760[/snapback]

 

the obvious variation on this stance, being that someone who has been a success somewhere else is more likely to be a success here, and vice versa.

 

Question being therefore, who considered Souness to have had a successful managerial career ? Not me, not good enough for us anyway.

 

Unfortunately, I never wanted Ardiles either, I thought he was a total naive idiot right from the start, he only got promoted with Hoddles team at Swindon.

 

As for the next manager, we are all eyeing the same contenders and they could all turn out very well, but somewhere in this country too there is a manager waiting for the opportunity to manage a club like us that could match them, the question is, who ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I never wanted Ardiles either, I thought he was a total naive idiot right from the start, he only got promoted with Hoddles team at Swindon.

66772[/snapback]

 

You mean the Glenn Hoddle who actually replaced Ardiles at Swindon rather than follow him? :lol:

 

http://www.soccerbase.com/manager_history.sd?teamid=2519

 

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I never wanted Ardiles either, I thought he was a total naive idiot right from the start, he only got promoted with Hoddles team at Swindon.

66772[/snapback]

 

You mean the Glenn Hoddle who actually replaced Ardiles at Swindon rather than follow him? :lol:

 

http://www.soccerbase.com/manager_history.sd?teamid=2519

 

:lol:

66783[/snapback]

 

unlike some, can admit I was wrong/got it the wrong way round .... :lol:

 

I meant to say Lou Macari's team

 

After not being promoted to the premiership ref the betting thing after beating the mackems, Swindon, under Ardiles, dived down the league faster than Blackburn did under Souness, they were about 4th bottom of the old 2nd division ........ and George Forbes in his wisdom decided he was good enough for Newcastle....

 

And you criticise Shepherd ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Forbes was indeed one of the shittest chairmen this club has ever had the misfortune to have in charge - that much I agree with...

 

Doesn't suddenly make Shepherd the messiah though. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Forbes was indeed one of the shittest chairmen this club has ever had the misfortune to have in charge - that much I agree with...

 

Doesn't suddenly make Shepherd the messiah though. :lol:

66890[/snapback]

 

no, but in a "league table" of chairman .......... especially if it contains other current premiershp ones, which is my whole point ........

Edited by LeazesMag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Forbes was indeed one of the shittest chairmen this club has ever had the misfortune to have in charge - that much I agree with...

 

Doesn't suddenly make Shepherd the messiah though. :lol:

66890[/snapback]

 

no, but in a "league table" of chairman .......... especially if it contains other current premiershp ones, which is my whole point ........

66909[/snapback]

 

So the quality of our chairman needs to be measured against the other chairman in the Premiership rather than actually stating whether he's actually good enough for us or not, does it?? :lol:

 

Why does everything have to be a comparison to you LM? You always come out with things like "Luque not as good as Robert" or "Souness not as good as Robson".

 

I prefer the following:

 

* Souness is not good enough

* Shepherd is not good enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Forbes was indeed one of the shittest chairmen this club has ever had the misfortune to have in charge - that much I agree with...

 

Doesn't suddenly make Shepherd the messiah though. :lol:

66890[/snapback]

 

no, but in a "league table" of chairman .......... especially if it contains other current premiershp ones, which is my whole point ........

66909[/snapback]

 

So the quality of our chairman needs to be measured against the other chairman in the Premiership rather than actually stating whether he's actually good enough for us or not, does it?? :lol:

 

Why does everything have to be a comparison to you LM? You always come out with things like "Luque not as good as Robert" or "Souness not as good as Robson".

 

I prefer the following:

 

* Souness is not good enough

* Shepherd is not good enough

66924[/snapback]

 

Of course its a comparison, of sorts. Thats what competition in football is all about.

 

Luque won't do as well as Bellamy, of that I have no doubt whatsover, therefore it's a bad move and money down the plughole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luque won't do as well as Bellamy, of that I have no doubt whatsover, therefore it's a bad move and money down the plughole.

66929[/snapback]

 

This coming from the man who has more or less admitted that he thought Dalglish would do a lot better than he did? Wait and see, make your judgement after he's played regularly and 100% fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luque won't do as well as Bellamy, of that I have no doubt whatsover, therefore it's a bad move and money down the plughole.

66929[/snapback]

 

This coming from the man who has more or less admitted that he thought Dalglish would do a lot better than he did? Wait and see, make your judgement after he's played regularly and 100% fit.

66931[/snapback]

 

 

It's made mate, he'll be gone in less than 2 years for half what we paid for him, at the most

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luque won't do as well as Bellamy, of that I have no doubt whatsover, therefore it's a bad move and money down the plughole.

66929[/snapback]

 

This coming from the man who has more or less admitted that he thought Dalglish would do a lot better than he did? Wait and see, make your judgement after he's played regularly and 100% fit.

66931[/snapback]

 

 

It's made mate, he'll be gone in less than 2 years for half what we paid for him, at the most

66935[/snapback]

 

Perhaps he will. I seriously don't know, but I'm willing to give him a crack at it, which is more than what you appear to be doing.

 

He plays for Newcastle United - he gets my full support..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Forbes a disaster?

 

Was he not just a puppet and a makeshift chairman until the in-fighting was sorted?

 

I seem to recall him being at the helm about five minutes which doesn't really qualify as a long term position, does it?

 

Maybe the mists of time are playing tricks on me but I wouldn't have thought he was there long enough to be classed as a disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Forbes a disaster?

 

Was he not just a puppet and a makeshift chairman until the in-fighting was sorted?

 

I seem to recall him being at the helm about five minutes which doesn't really qualify as a long term position, does it?

 

Maybe the mists of time are playing tricks on me but I wouldn't have thought he was there long enough to be classed as a disaster.

66996[/snapback]

 

He was in place for around 12 months IIRC. He replaced McKeag (who had to resign along with John Hall in the wake of the failed share issue in December 1990), replaced Jim Smith with Ardiles in April (odd time of the year for a managment change) and then was replaced himself by John Hall in December 1991.

 

His spending totalled the arrival of Franz Carr and nothing else. He never dipped his hand in his pocket at any other time. Short-term or not, he was an absolute disaster in terms of being able to fund the management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM - you truly make some sweeping statements.

 

Where have i said i was happy with the signing of Luque? i know f**k all about him. Unlike you, who appears to be an expert on his career from school boy to present.

 

Owen? I can only remember being worried when we signed him, worried that we couldn't afford it.

 

Me, happy with the appointment of Dalgleish and Gullit? Well, you didn't ask me at the time so i don't know how you know how i felt about it, and i've answered it already.

 

I'm gonna make a few things REALLY clear for you now:

 

1) I was happy when SBR took over.

 

2) I was desperatly unhappy when Souness took over

 

3) I was happy when Robert left

 

4) I was unhappy about Bellamy leaving and what appeared to me to be lies told by Souness over the chronology of the incidents that led upto the Arsenal game

 

5) I wish FS had never hired Souness

 

6) As Souness is clearly an awful manager, i shocked we signed him and shocked we've allowed him to spend so much money when he's clearly so bad, he can't last in the job

 

7) IMO you think FS is GREAT and therefore back all his decisions

 

8) I don't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.