keegan to come back

[Howaythelads 0]

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.

Edited December 9, 2005 by Howaythelads

[Craig 6302]

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.

[Renton 17744]

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]

 

For the record I was very happy with Daglish and Robson, opposed to Gullit, and bitterly against Souness from the start. Souness's appointment in particular was never justifiable imo.

[Craig 6302]

Also Craig, you remember McKeag etc, or you seem to do, you are aware just how shit a chairman can really be, so why don't you at least appreciate the fact Shepherd has tried to give his managers all the financial clout he can ?

66081[/snapback]

 

As I have stated elsewhere, sticking your hand in your pocket doesn't automatically make you a good chairman.

 

From a financial point of view, Shepherd is a top-class chairman. He provides funds yet ensures that the club maintains a decent financial state.

 

From a footballing point of view (i.e. resource management) I think he's absolutely hopeless!

66085[/snapback]

 

Which is what I said earlier on. So what are you arguing about or is it just something you feel you have to do?

66221[/snapback]

 

HTL, why do you jump into the middle of a discussion I'm having with someone else and think I'm responding to points you've made?

 

Or is it something you feel you have to do?

66236[/snapback]

 

Well, I've got to go back to work, but it seems to me that quite a lot of others are as well.....

 

No one is disputing Shepherds lack of football knowledge, but it still seems to me that people just use hindsight to knock Shepherd, when they would have made the same mistakes in appointing his managers, and a couple of straight answers wouldn't go amiss here

66242[/snapback]

 

I knock Shepherd, not through his lack of hindsight, but because he's shit at forward planning. He sacked Robson on a whim and had no-one lined up. Chelsea, Arsenal or Manchester United would never have done that!

 

Like I said, I was having the debate with LM and you're the only one jumping in at me saying things like "which is what I said earlier so why do you feel the need to argue about it". The reason is, I'm not talking to you!!!

[Howaythelads 0]

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]

 

Wow! No opinion, eh.

 

BTW I don't think many people are naive enough to think that there are any guarantees in football.

[ChocChip 0]

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?

[Craig 6302]

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.

66249[/snapback]

 

Err....but he hasn't! All he's said is he thought they were good appointments at the time.

 

And anyway, what's Dalglish and Gullit got to do with it anyway? It was never part of the debate (nor was the appointment of Souness for that matter).

[Howaythelads 0]

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]

 

For the record I was very happy with Daglish and Robson, opposed to Gullit, and bitterly against Souness from the start. Souness's appointment in particular was never justifiable imo.

66252[/snapback]

 

So if you were ok with a couple of the appointments but not with a couple of others why are you so much against a Chairman who then backs these managers so well?

[Guest alex]

Re: Robson, I was delighted for the record. As for Gullit, I was dying for some shexy football after the boring stuff we saw under Daglish. As and aside, I was on a cruise in the summer for my sister's wedding and I was talking to Terry Butcher and he reckoned that the problem with Newcastle was the chairman. I'm not necessarily saying he was right but I think it's quite a common perception of Shepherd from outsiders.

[Renton 17744]

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]

 

Well, this forum isn't old enough to dredge up quotes from over a year ago, but I believe Gemmill was certainly happy with the appointment at the time.

[Howaythelads 0]

Also Craig, you remember McKeag etc, or you seem to do, you are aware just how shit a chairman can really be, so why don't you at least appreciate the fact Shepherd has tried to give his managers all the financial clout he can ?

66081[/snapback]

 

As I have stated elsewhere, sticking your hand in your pocket doesn't automatically make you a good chairman.

 

From a financial point of view, Shepherd is a top-class chairman. He provides funds yet ensures that the club maintains a decent financial state.

 

From a footballing point of view (i.e. resource management) I think he's absolutely hopeless!

66085[/snapback]

 

Which is what I said earlier on. So what are you arguing about or is it just something you feel you have to do?

66221[/snapback]

 

HTL, why do you jump into the middle of a discussion I'm having with someone else and think I'm responding to points you've made?

 

Or is it something you feel you have to do?

66236[/snapback]

 

Well, I've got to go back to work, but it seems to me that quite a lot of others are as well.....

 

No one is disputing Shepherds lack of football knowledge, but it still seems to me that people just use hindsight to knock Shepherd, when they would have made the same mistakes in appointing his managers, and a couple of straight answers wouldn't go amiss here

66242[/snapback]

 

I knock Shepherd, not through his lack of hindsight, but because he's shit at forward planning. He sacked Robson on a whim and had no-one lined up. Chelsea, Arsenal or Manchester United would never have done that!

 

Like I said, I was having the debate with LM and you're the only one jumping in at me saying things like "which is what I said earlier so why do you feel the need to argue about it". The reason is, I'm not talking to you!!!

66253[/snapback]

 

Just got back from the pub, no doubt.

[Guest alex]

Gemmill loves Souness to be fair

[Craig 6302]

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]

 

Wow! No opinion, eh.

66254[/snapback]

 

No, I haven't.

 

I s'pose that's a problem to you as it quells the argument you're trying to make.

 

(and just for the record, I'm serious, I didn't have an opinion - I got my fingers burnt when I thought Ossie was going to be the answer to everything and every manager since, I've had no opinion on whether it's a good or bad appointment. I have my opinions on who I'd like to see as manager but still I wouldn't say that they were either going to be good or bad, I'd let the football decide!)

[Craig 6302]

Just got back from the pub, no doubt.

66261[/snapback]

 

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

[Renton 17744]

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]

 

For the record I was very happy with Daglish and Robson, opposed to Gullit, and bitterly against Souness from the start. Souness's appointment in particular was never justifiable imo.

66252[/snapback]

 

So if you were ok with a couple of the appointments but not with a couple of others why are you so much against a Chairman who then backs these managers so well?

66258[/snapback]

 

I'm against the fact he pays out huge dividends despite us under-achieving, which are almost solely for his and the Halls benefit. I'm against the timing of his sackings, and against his stupid comments made in both private and public. I agree he does have some good qualities, the main one being ambition, but is this enough? Apparently not.

[Howaythelads 0]

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.

 

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?

[Craig 6302]

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?

66270[/snapback]

 

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

[ChocChip 0]

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.

 

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]

 

 

Please point me toward any post from anybody anywhere at anytime who reckons that FS has good football knowledge. We all know he's made mistakes appointing managers, so you won't find any, of course. This means that these sheep you mention are a figment of your imagination. Either that or you're just an outright liar trying to stir shit, like.

 

How is FS a c**t for appointing managers who, in hindsight, proved to be the wrong choices? I'm not the only one asking this and it's a sensible question that appears to have many of you stumped.

 

If you were around when KK left, did you or did you not believe Dalglish was a good choice by FS?

 

That simple question goes to...

 

Craig

Renton

Choco

Gemmill

LP

SLP

66237[/snapback]

 

I have to confess to being a little young at the time of Gullit and Dalgleish's appointment, i was in long trousers by the time Robson got the post but didn't have much idea of his pedigree except what family told me. All knowledge i've garnered has always been with the benefit of hindsight so it's easy to reach the obvious conclusion that the KK affair was handled badly (FS doesn't appear to be implicated) but that the appointment of Dalgleish wasn't a good one, in fact it's probably not the hiring of him that's criticised but the timing of his sacking, same to be said for SBR (good appointment though), and then the ridiculous situation of having NO ONE of any calibre to replace him and ending up with this idiot, and then allowing him to spend £50m.

 

How is this a record of a good board?

 

I fail to see it.

 

All that £££ spent has = how many trophies?

 

To listen to people slag Souness but praise Shepherd is a bit rich. It's obvious what Souness is, he was never gonna change his spots, i don't think the current situation is to be blamed on him because he's only doing what he always does, it's the muppet who thought employed him that i'm angry at.

[Howaythelads 0]

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]

 

For the record I was very happy with Daglish and Robson, opposed to Gullit, and bitterly against Souness from the start. Souness's appointment in particular was never justifiable imo.

66252[/snapback]

 

So if you were ok with a couple of the appointments but not with a couple of others why are you so much against a Chairman who then backs these managers so well?

66258[/snapback]

 

I'm against the fact he pays out huge dividends despite us under-achieving, which are almost solely for his and the Halls benefit. I'm against the timing of his sackings, and against his stupid comments made in both private and public. I agree he does have some good qualities, the main one being ambition, but is this enough? Apparently not.

66268[/snapback]

 

That's business I'm afraid, Renton. Football is now no different to any other organisation, execpt that many fans have naive expectations because unlike normal companies we all have an emotional attachment to the club.

 

His comments in the press mean nowt and should be taken as nowt.

 

His timings of the sackings is not a problem, it is the selection of replacements that is the problem, which has already been mentioned.

 

Were you happy with the sacking of Gullit, or do you think the timing was wrong? I think it was right because we got the right man, otherwise we'd have been relegated. The timing of that sacking was almost the same as the eventual sacking of Robson. The difference is FS made a mistake in his selection of a replacement, if he'd got that right you wouldn't be complaining now about the timing.

[Shearergol 0]

Just got back from the pub, no doubt.

66261[/snapback]

 

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

66265[/snapback]

 

 

Listen, I'm glad I come across as a twat. I deliberately gave up at least 18 months ago trying to take part in a proper debate about football over the internet with you kids, you all know so little yet think you know so much. So, I just take the piss all the time and it cracks me up that you and your buddies have never realised it.

 

I'M TAKING THE PISS ALL THE TIME.

 

There's your answer.

[Howaythelads 0]

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.

66249[/snapback]

 

Err....but he hasn't! All he's said is he thought they were good appointments at the time.

 

And anyway, what's Dalglish and Gullit got to do with it anyway? It was never part of the debate (nor was the appointment of Souness for that matter).

66257[/snapback]

 

[Howaythelads 0]

Gemmill loves Souness to be fair

66263[/snapback]

 

Gem is Souness. I thought that was obvious.

[Howaythelads 0]

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?

66270[/snapback]

 

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

66274[/snapback]

 

I can get my head around it.

 

Read the rest of the same post, the principle is the same.

[ChocChip 0]

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.

 

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

[Craig 6302]

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