Jump to content

keegan to come back


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We'll probably get something along the lines of "well Shepherd will sack Souness, appoint Keegan who'll buy Bellamy back.....etc."

 

and the fact that he's supported Souness will be conveniently ignored! :lol:

65736[/snapback]

 

you and Gemmil on the brink of another u-turn perhaps ....... I presume you are going to join the bandwagon who say he's stupid for appointing Dalglish and Gullit when you agreed with him at the time .....

65889[/snapback]

 

Is there such a bandwagon or is this another one that only exists in your head? Like the people that said Shola was the next Shearer.

65890[/snapback]

 

Did you ?

 

I made my usual first, correct impression after one game of Shola Ameobi.....

65893[/snapback]

 

Did I think Shola was the next Shearer? No I didn't. Don't know anyone who did.

 

You should become a scout.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bertrand Russell

British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)

65903[/snapback]

 

Sounds very sure of himself!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Leazes,

 

Do you think Freddie Shepherd is a good chairman for NUFC?

65698[/snapback]

 

Of course. He has fully supported all his managers with total financial backing.

 

Why, don't you ?

 

Before you and anyone else rattles off the names of Gullit and Dalglish, don't bother unless you said at the time they would be crap ....... because if you do think he was stupid for appointing them, then you must be as stupid as you think he is .....

 

And name me as many chairman as you can who have backed their managers as much as Shepherd has ?

65888[/snapback]

 

As I've said, if you back the chairman then you must by defnition believe he will be successful and so back his actions......which include appointing Souness, not sacking Souness, still not sacking Souness, not even sacking Souness when it's clear he won't be successful, authorising the sale of valuable club players who could make a difference on the pitch.

Don't tell me he can't overule the manager, didn't SBR try to offload Shearer to Liverpool? Who's still here though?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bertrand Russell

British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)

65903[/snapback]

 

Bertrand Russell was an idiot who couldn't add up, spell or argue properly :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Leazes,

 

Do you think Freddie Shepherd is a good chairman for NUFC?

65698[/snapback]

 

Of course. He has fully supported all his managers with total financial backing.

 

Why, don't you ?

 

Before you and anyone else rattles off the names of Gullit and Dalglish, don't bother unless you said at the time they would be crap ....... because if you do think he was stupid for appointing them, then you must be as stupid as you think he is .....

 

And name me as many chairman as you can who have backed their managers as much as Shepherd has ?

65888[/snapback]

 

As I've said, if you back the chairman then you must by defnition believe he will be successful and so back his actions......which include appointing Souness, not sacking Souness, still not sacking Souness, not even sacking Souness when it's clear he won't be successful, authorising the sale of valuable club players who could make a difference on the pitch.

Don't tell me he can't overule the manager, didn't SBR try to offload Shearer to Liverpool? Who's still here though?

65916[/snapback]

 

Not according to Robson in his autobiography.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Leazes,

 

Do you think Freddie Shepherd is a good chairman for NUFC?

65698[/snapback]

 

Of course. He has fully supported all his managers with total financial backing.

 

Why, don't you ?

 

Before you and anyone else rattles off the names of Gullit and Dalglish, don't bother unless you said at the time they would be crap ....... because if you do think he was stupid for appointing them, then you must be as stupid as you think he is .....

 

And name me as many chairman as you can who have backed their managers as much as Shepherd has ?

65888[/snapback]

 

As I've said, if you back the chairman then you must by defnition believe he will be successful and so back his actions......which include appointing Souness, not sacking Souness, still not sacking Souness, not even sacking Souness when it's clear he won't be successful, authorising the sale of valuable club players who could make a difference on the pitch.

Don't tell me he can't overule the manager, didn't SBR try to offload Shearer to Liverpool? Who's still here though?

65916[/snapback]

 

Not according to Robson in his autobiography.

65923[/snapback]

 

Oh, well don't just stand there! Find something else to support my arguement :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bertrand Russell

British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)

65903[/snapback]

 

Bertrand Russell was an idiot who couldn't add up, spell or argue properly :lol:

65919[/snapback]

 

 

Canny with the pithy epithet though but

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gemmill

 

Why don't you answer the question you were asked?

 

Did you know that Gullit and Dalglish would be poor appointments by FS, or did you praise him at the time?

 

Simple question, mate.

 

My view on FS is this....

 

All a manager can wish from a Chairman is his full support. For us fans, that's all we should expect from a Chairman. He should support that manager through thick and thin up until the day the manager leaves the club. That is what FS does and in this aspect he is a good Chairman. Where he isn't so good is in his choice of manager, all bar Robson being shite BUT, as implied earlier in the thread, I doubt anybody thought Gullit and Dalglish would be shite, these were good choices by FS at the time they were made.

 

Something I've banged on about in the past is that the thing FS is poor at is the way he appears to select managers based on one characteristic. The team was perceived as needing a bit of a tactical tweak on the defensive side of things when KK was here, so he appointed Dalglish. He messed it up big style like Souness is doing right now and we became boring and shite, so he went for Gullit in the hope of bringing back more entertaining football. That didn't work for various reasons that I don't want to go into because some will use it to deflect away from my main points about FS. He then went for Robson, a man appointed probably for more than one characteristic and who is the best he's appointed ( no coincidence ). In the end, when Robson lost the dressing room and they were apparently off the rails, FS brought in the shithead we have right now and he selected him for the one charactistic, it can't have been based on any managerial talent, that's for sure.

 

I think FS is a good Chairman overall, who is bothered about the club and actually does try to do the best thing for the club by backing all of his managers. He just appears to be very poor at selecting managers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gemmill

 

Why don't you answer the question you were asked?

 

Did you know that Gullit and Dalglish would be poor appointments by FS, or did you praise him at the time?

 

Simple question, mate.

 

No of course I didn't know one way or the other whether they were good appointments or poor appointments. As usual, I hoped that they would do the business and I then gave both men time to prove themselves.

 

Now you answer me this - what does that have to do with what we're talking about? I didn't answer it because it was utterly irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you ?

 

I made my usual first, correct impression after one game of Shola Ameobi.....

65893[/snapback]

 

What was your first impression after one game of Amdy Faye just out of interest?

65897[/snapback]

 

first game at home to Coventry, played quite well, but first game against premiership opposition, was that he was nothing other than a squad player at best, at this level. Which would have been the next home game against Charlton, probably, as he played against Man City and I didn't go to that away game. So considering the 2 teams involved, he is a decent 1st division player at best.

 

My first impression even against Coventry was that he was far too negative and

basic a player to be a decent premiership player, never mind the standard we should set at Newcastle, we dominated the game and made it easy for him to support his team mates, finding space etc, a good thing to do, but no one tested him very much.

 

Strange how I answer people's questions with straight answers, yet so many people don't answer mine [not you SLP, just an observation ]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Leazes,

 

Do you think Freddie Shepherd is a good chairman for NUFC?

65698[/snapback]

 

Of course. He has fully supported all his managers with total financial backing.

 

Why, don't you ?

 

Before you and anyone else rattles off the names of Gullit and Dalglish, don't bother unless you said at the time they would be crap ....... because if you do think he was stupid for appointing them, then you must be as stupid as you think he is .....

 

And name me as many chairman as you can who have backed their managers as much as Shepherd has ?

65888[/snapback]

 

As I've said, if you back the chairman then you must by defnition believe he will be successful and so back his actions......which include appointing Souness, not sacking Souness, still not sacking Souness, not even sacking Souness when it's clear he won't be successful, authorising the sale of valuable club players who could make a difference on the pitch.

Don't tell me he can't overule the manager, didn't SBR try to offload Shearer to Liverpool? Who's still here though?

65916[/snapback]

 

The difference being that you can't sack Shepherd, and no one appoints him.

 

Another difference being an acceptance that everyone makes mistakes sometimes, and this is a disastrous one. Also a realisation that over the 8 years of his time as chairman we have competed for top quality players, and played in europe quite a lot .... not really enough, but a damn sight better than the people who run the club from the 1950s' until 1992, and most other premiership chairman.

 

There is one just 12 miles down the road, to ram the point home.

 

No one castigated Shepherd for appointing Dalglish and Gullit at the time, so you cannot say now with hindsight they were poor appointments, because that is all it is, hindsight. The only thing wrong with Shepherd is the stupid things he says, which makes us look daft and him look even dafter.

 

Shepherd is without a doubt one of the better chairman in the premiership, if you really don't think so you should think about how badly some of the other "big" clubs are run, and backed by their chairmen.

 

Why don't you go on the rivals sites, or other clubs forums, and ask them what they think of how Shepherd backs his managers. I would bet you the vast majority will say they wish their chairman did the same.

 

Look back to September, when an awful lot of people were slagging off Shepherd to spend his "own?" money, then we bought Owen and Luque ? Short memories, but pretty much par for the course.

 

And, no fucker wants him to call time on Souness more than I do, because I despise the shitbag

Link to post
Share on other sites
We'll probably get something along the lines of "well Shepherd will sack Souness, appoint Keegan who'll buy Bellamy back.....etc."

 

and the fact that he's supported Souness will be conveniently ignored! :lol:

65736[/snapback]

 

you and Gemmil on the brink of another u-turn perhaps ....... I presume you are going to join the bandwagon who say he's stupid for appointing Dalglish and Gullit when you agreed with him at the time .....

65889[/snapback]

 

Is there such a bandwagon or is this another one that only exists in your head? Like the people that said Shola was the next Shearer.

65890[/snapback]

 

Did you ?

 

I made my usual first, correct impression after one game of Shola Ameobi.....

65893[/snapback]

 

Did I think Shola was the next Shearer? No I didn't. Don't know anyone who did.

 

You should become a scout.

65906[/snapback]

 

You, and others, were on the old toontastic/newcastle online more than me, and you know a lot of people thought this.

 

Anyway, as I asked, did you think Shepherd had made a cock up at the time, when he appointed Dalglish or Gullit, or not ?

 

Or were you pleased ? Because if you were, you are out of order criticising Shepherd.

 

yes or no.

Edited by LeazesMag
Link to post
Share on other sites
Gemmill

 

Why don't you answer the question you were asked?

 

Did you know that Gullit and Dalglish would be poor appointments by FS, or did you praise him at the time?

 

Simple question, mate.

 

No of course I didn't know one way or the other whether they were good appointments or poor appointments. As usual, I hoped that they would do the business and I then gave both men time to prove themselves.

 

Now you answer me this - what does that have to do with what we're talking about? I didn't answer it because it was utterly irrelevant.

65967[/snapback]

 

oh, right you answered this.

 

Or didn't. Nowt like sitting on the fence. Just as well Shepherd isn't as decisive as you

 

And it's totally relevant, it proves that you only exercise hindsight when making criticisms or giving praise if appropriate ..... anyone can do that

Link to post
Share on other sites
We'll probably get something along the lines of "well Shepherd will sack Souness, appoint Keegan who'll buy Bellamy back.....etc."

 

and the fact that he's supported Souness will be conveniently ignored! :lol:

65736[/snapback]

 

you and Gemmil on the brink of another u-turn perhaps ....... I presume you are going to join the bandwagon who say he's stupid for appointing Dalglish and Gullit when you agreed with him at the time .....

65889[/snapback]

 

Is there such a bandwagon or is this another one that only exists in your head? Like the people that said Shola was the next Shearer.

65890[/snapback]

 

Did you ?

 

I made my usual first, correct impression after one game of Shola Ameobi.....

65893[/snapback]

 

Did I think Shola was the next Shearer? No I didn't. Don't know anyone who did.

 

You should become a scout.

65906[/snapback]

 

You, and others, were on the old toontastic/newcastle online more than me, and you know a lot of people thought this.

 

Anyway, as I asked, did you think Shepherd had made a cock up at the time, when he appointed Dalglish or Gullit, or not ?

 

Or were you pleased ? Because if you were, you are out of order criticising Shepherd.

 

yes or no.

65973[/snapback]

 

When Shepherd appointed Dalglish I didn't just think it was a good choice, I thought it was the perfect choice. But I didn't know one way or the other what was going to happen. When he appointed Gullit I was just pleased that there was a bit of a lift to the place but again I didn't know what the appointment held in store. Both didn't work out, but I still wouldn't necessarily say either were bad appointments, they just both performed poorly in their time here. For me to say they were bad appointments I'd have to have thought they were flawed from the start, and I didn't.

 

Now can you please show me where I've criticised Shepherd. I think for the most part he's a decent chairman - he's guilty of shortsightedness and he doesn't seem to have a long-term strategy in place for the club, but I'd take him over a lot of others simply from the point of view of the way he backs his managers with cash. I just hope when he comes to replace Souness he really puts some thought into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gemmill

 

Why don't you answer the question you were asked?

 

Did you know that Gullit and Dalglish would be poor appointments by FS, or did you praise him at the time?

 

Simple question, mate.

 

No of course I didn't know one way or the other whether they were good appointments or poor appointments. As usual, I hoped that they would do the business and I then gave both men time to prove themselves.

 

Now you answer me this - what does that have to do with what we're talking about? I didn't answer it because it was utterly irrelevant.

65967[/snapback]

 

oh, right you answered this.

 

Or didn't. Nowt like sitting on the fence. Just as well Shepherd isn't as decisive as you

 

And it's totally relevant, it proves that you only exercise hindsight when making criticisms or giving praise if appropriate ..... anyone can do that

65975[/snapback]

 

 

Yeah Gemmil. Stop that weighing up the evidence shite, thats for hypocrites and bandwagon jumpers

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gemmill

 

Why don't you answer the question you were asked?

 

Did you know that Gullit and Dalglish would be poor appointments by FS, or did you praise him at the time?

 

Simple question, mate.

 

No of course I didn't know one way or the other whether they were good appointments or poor appointments. As usual, I hoped that they would do the business and I then gave both men time to prove themselves.

 

Now you answer me this - what does that have to do with what we're talking about? I didn't answer it because it was utterly irrelevant.

65967[/snapback]

 

oh, right you answered this.

 

Or didn't. Nowt like sitting on the fence. Just as well Shepherd isn't as decisive as you

 

And it's totally relevant, it proves that you only exercise hindsight when making criticisms or giving praise if appropriate ..... anyone can do that

65975[/snapback]

 

Where have I exercised hindsight? Jesus Christ, you asked whether I'm now saying that they're bad appointments and jumping on some bandwagon. I point out that 'No, I'm not saying they were bad appointments or jumping on a bandwagon', so you accuse me of exercising hindsight with regards to something else (fuck knows what!).

 

And this from the man who KNEW, not thought, KNEW the very first time he saw Shola play that he would never be good enough. Guilty of applying a bit of hindsight yourself there, are you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
We'll probably get something along the lines of "well Shepherd will sack Souness, appoint Keegan who'll buy Bellamy back.....etc."

 

and the fact that he's supported Souness will be conveniently ignored! :lol:

65736[/snapback]

 

you and Gemmil on the brink of another u-turn perhaps ....... I presume you are going to join the bandwagon who say he's stupid for appointing Dalglish and Gullit when you agreed with him at the time .....

65889[/snapback]

 

Is there such a bandwagon or is this another one that only exists in your head? Like the people that said Shola was the next Shearer.

65890[/snapback]

 

Did you ?

 

I made my usual first, correct impression after one game of Shola Ameobi.....

65893[/snapback]

 

Did I think Shola was the next Shearer? No I didn't. Don't know anyone who did.

 

You should become a scout.

65906[/snapback]

 

You, and others, were on the old toontastic/newcastle online more than me, and you know a lot of people thought this.

 

Anyway, as I asked, did you think Shepherd had made a cock up at the time, when he appointed Dalglish or Gullit, or not ?

 

Or were you pleased ? Because if you were, you are out of order criticising Shepherd.

 

yes or no.

65973[/snapback]

 

When Shepherd appointed Dalglish I didn't just think it was a good choice, I thought it was the perfect choice. But I didn't know one way or the other what was going to happen. When he appointed Gullit I was just pleased that there was a bit of a lift to the place but again I didn't know what the appointment held in store. Both didn't work out, but I still wouldn't necessarily say either were bad appointments, they just both performed poorly in their time here. For me to say they were bad appointments I'd have to have thought they were flawed from the start, and I didn't.

 

Now can you please show me where I've criticised Shepherd. I think for the most part he's a decent chairman - he's guilty of shortsightedness and he doesn't seem to have a long-term strategy in place for the club, but I'd take him over a lot of others simply from the point of view of the way he backs his managers with cash. I just hope when he comes to replace Souness he really puts some thought into it.

65977[/snapback]

 

Fair enough, my point is simply that people slag Shepherd off for making decisions that they themselves would have made.

 

He's certainly been naive in his thought process when appointing managers, they have all been a "reaction" type of appointment, but they have all had successful track records, so no one can accuse him of lacking ambition for the club, yet they do.

 

The older ones among us will tell you what it's like supporting the club with zero ambition.

 

Also, it isn't just Shepherd who chooses the manager, it's a board decision. And yes, whoever they get next will be backed just the same as the others. It's the biggest decision for them, because following the Keegan years, we have steadily declined ever since, apart from the blip in the middle when Bobby Robson got us into the Champions League. And yes, it is because we appointed managers who weren't right for Newcastle [with hindsight] although it is possible that with more time one of them may have done better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gemmill

 

Why don't you answer the question you were asked?

 

Did you know that Gullit and Dalglish would be poor appointments by FS, or did you praise him at the time?

 

Simple question, mate.

 

No of course I didn't know one way or the other whether they were good appointments or poor appointments. As usual, I hoped that they would do the business and I then gave both men time to prove themselves.

 

Now you answer me this - what does that have to do with what we're talking about? I didn't answer it because it was utterly irrelevant.

65967[/snapback]

 

oh, right you answered this.

 

Or didn't. Nowt like sitting on the fence. Just as well Shepherd isn't as decisive as you

 

And it's totally relevant, it proves that you only exercise hindsight when making criticisms or giving praise if appropriate ..... anyone can do that

65975[/snapback]

 

Where have I exercised hindsight? Jesus Christ, you asked whether I'm now saying that they're bad appointments and jumping on some bandwagon. I point out that 'No, I'm not saying they were bad appointments or jumping on a bandwagon', so you accuse me of exercising hindsight with regards to something else (fuck knows what!).

 

And this from the man who KNEW, not thought, KNEW the very first time he saw Shola play that he would never be good enough. Guilty of applying a bit of hindsight yourself there, are you?

65981[/snapback]

 

What I'm saying its a bit rich of people criticising Shepherd for appointing managers that they themselves would have done at the time, I thought that was fairly obvious.

 

Can't see your point about Ameobi at all, what sort of hindsight ? He wasn't good enough from day 1 and I've always said that .....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leazes, the following statements are factual and therefore indisputable.

 

- Freddy Shepherd willing appointed Graeme Souness

 

- Freddy Shepherd has continually supported Graeme Souness 100%

 

- Freddy Shepherd fully supported Souness over the Craig Bellamy saga, including selling him and even went so far as to sa he'll never play for this club again so long as I'm in charge.

 

What's your view on those three points and how do you feel about Shepherd's involvement/views on them?

 

(And please don't sidetrack this one by asking different questions in return).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good point Craig but the reply will be "Keegan wouldn't have been stupid enough to have substituted him. Ever.".

 

You can't win against the Bellamy is God/Souness is Satan crowd.

64738[/snapback]

 

you're absolutely right, Keegan wouldn't have been stupid enough [or a prick] to sub him when he was the best player on the field

65239[/snapback]

 

Leazes man. You letting your obvious affection for CB muddy your argument. Whether or not GS was correct in subbing CB is a separate issue entirely. CB reacted wrongly and showed no remose whatsoever and obviously believes he was justified in his response - otherwise he would have apologised. I seem to recall CB going on record saying that he felt he was the best player in the squad. Therefore, if you put yourself in CB's head for a moment, of course you feel that GS is a prick for subbing you for you are the best player in the squad.

 

Tough bollocks. You've been subbed, it happens to everyone. To react the way CB did showed a complete lack of respect. CB did not know the reasons he was being subbed and because of his own pig-headedness, felt he was above such things. That's why he reacted the way he did and as a result of this and his subsequent lack of apology; he left GS little choice.

 

I'm not saying GS was right necessarily to sell him, but your arguments sounds like you feel CB should have been able to say and do what he liked because he was a good player. No player should have that level of power. The manager is in charge, the manager picks the team and the manager makes the decisions.

 

As soon as you give someone like that an inch of rope they'll run a mile with it and eventually hang themselves with it.

 

If the stories about SBR losing the dressing room are to be believed, then this is the perfect example of someone giving someone like CB a mile of rope. However, he hung himself under GS.

 

I'm not pro souness, but let's at least keep things in perspective.

Edited by maggiespaws
Link to post
Share on other sites
Leazes, the following statements are factual and therefore indisputable.

 

- Freddy Shepherd willing appointed Graeme Souness

 

- Freddy Shepherd has continually supported Graeme Souness 100%

 

- Freddy Shepherd fully supported Souness over the Craig Bellamy saga, including selling him and even went so far as to sa he'll never play for this club again so long as I'm in charge.

 

What's your view on those three points and how do you feel about Shepherd's involvement/views on them?

 

(And please don't sidetrack this one by asking different questions in return).

66048[/snapback]

 

Totally irrelevant questions, tbh. What are you getting at? What are you trying to prove here?

 

I think it's important for a Chairman to back a manager 100%. I think that's been made clear to almost everybody.

 

I'm pissed off that FS appointed the most incompetent manager the club has had in my lifetime. I'm pissed off that he backed him when Souness put his ego before the club by getting rid of our best player, but the fact is, FS is doing his job by backing the manager. End of. This means he's a good Chairman, not a bad one. It also means that Souness is a shit manager, shame it took some people too long to realise it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Leazes, the following statements are factual and therefore indisputable.

 

- Freddy Shepherd willing appointed Graeme Souness

 

- Freddy Shepherd has continually supported Graeme Souness 100%

 

- Freddy Shepherd fully supported Souness over the Craig Bellamy saga, including selling him and even went so far as to sa he'll never play for this club again so long as I'm in charge.

 

What's your view on those three points and how do you feel about Shepherd's involvement/views on them?

 

(And please don't sidetrack this one by asking different questions in return).

66048[/snapback]

 

Totally irrelevant questions, tbh. What are you getting at? What are you trying to prove here?

 

I think it's important for a Chairman to back a manager 100%. I think that's been made clear to almost everybody.

 

I'm pissed off that FS appointed the most incompetent manager the club has had in my lifetime. I'm pissed off that he backed him when Souness put his ego before the club by getting rid of our best player, but the fact is, FS is doing his job by backing the manager. End of. This means he's a good Chairman, not a bad one. It also means that Souness is a shit manager, shame it took some people too long to realise it.

66065[/snapback]

 

Might be irrelevant to you - they're not to me, hence why I've asked them

 

What I'm trying to get at, is that Freddy Shepherd is entirely responsible for Graeme Souness being here, he's the only man who can actually bring the Souness era to an end yet he chooses not to do so. He's also the man who ultimately could have ensured CB stayed at SJP if he felt like it.

 

Now it seems that LM (and yourself for that matter) seems to think the sun shines out of his fat arse, so what I'm trying to determine is how you can think that when he is ultimately responsible for the one man who boils your piss day in, day out....

 

And since when was the chairman's only repsonsibility to provide money? :lol:

Link to post
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
×
×
  • Create New...