An Observation

[Renton 21032]

Liverpool do. Tell me, what's the difference between us (hint: it begins with M)?

69538[/snapback]

 

No it begins with A - Arrogance based on history.

69543[/snapback]

 

So history is more important than the manager? How do you explain Souness's dismal record at Liverpool then?

[Isegrim 9676]

Well, how many teams really have a better squad than Newcastle? Chelsea, of course. Despite their various problems, ManUre and Arsenal still have better players. I'd say Liverpool have better players either. After that I think Newcastle come 5th. Though, there is always one of the top four struggling. It was Chelsea before Abramowich and Mourinho came in, then it was Liverpool, now it is Arsenal. Newcastle should be able to take profit from this, especially when investing heavily in a squad that before was able to break into the dominance of the top teams.

69535[/snapback]

 

Thats the way I see it - the top 4 SHOULD be those 4 and if we're lucky/do well/they falter then 4th or 3rd is possible.

 

It would be possible imo to break into that if we could get a Wenger/Morinho/Ferguson/Benitez calibre of manager and therein lies the crux. I think Bobby and possibly Souness (just) are good enough to get that 5th/possible higher but thats our lot at the moment.

69540[/snapback]

 

If Newcastle would fail to get a CL spot because those four teams are taking them I would not necessarily hold it against Souness. What bothers me is when the likes of Everton, Bolton or Tottenham are taking advantage of Newcastle's inability to hire a competent manager.

[NJS 4355]

Well, how many teams really have a better squad than Newcastle? Chelsea, of course. Despite their various problems, ManUre and Arsenal still have better players. I'd say Liverpool have better players either. After that I think Newcastle come 5th. Though, there is always one of the top four struggling. It was Chelsea before Abramowich and Mourinho came in, then it was Liverpool, now it is Arsenal. Newcastle should be able to take profit from this, especially when investing heavily in a squad that before was able to break into the dominance of the top teams.

69535[/snapback]

 

Thats the way I see it - the top 4 SHOULD be those 4 and if we're lucky/do well/they falter then 4th or 3rd is possible.

 

It would be possible imo to break into that if we could get a Wenger/Morinho/Ferguson/Benitez calibre of manager and therein lies the crux. I think Bobby and possibly Souness (just) are good enough to get that 5th/possible higher but thats our lot at the moment.

69540[/snapback]

 

If Newcastle would fail to get a CL spot because those four teams are taking them I would not necessarily hold it against Souness. What bothers me is when the likes of Everton, Bolton or Tottenham are taking advantage of Newcastle's inability to hire a competent manager.

69549[/snapback]

 

Fair point and I agree though as I said think Souness can do it this year (5/6th).

[luckypierre 0]

I'd say under Robosn we were an established top 6 side. One of a handful of teams (including Liverpool) who competed for that 4th spot and at one point looked the most likely to break into the top tier. I dont know whats worse, our fall under Souness or the apathy towards his obvious ineptitude. Why did he need more than one season Gemmill? The signs were there, the team had gone backwards at an alarming rate. Why does it make sense to give him more time and allow him to spend more money when it was obvious he wasnt good enough?

 

I dont think it was reasonable to get rid during last season, although I wouldnt have been against it. The right time was in the summer.

[NJS 4355]

Liverpool do. Tell me, what's the difference between us (hint: it begins with M)?

69538[/snapback]

 

No it begins with A - Arrogance based on history.

69543[/snapback]

 

So history is more important than the manager? How do you explain Souness's dismal record at Liverpool then?

69548[/snapback]

 

Mourinho has proved that ability (and money) is more important but Liverpools annual expectations ARE based on their history of dominance. They have a bloody-minded "we should win it" which takes absolutely no account of money. manager or other teams quality.

 

On Souness reasonable scousers point to his taking over an ageing squad and miss the rise of Man U.

[Gemmill 44090]

I'd say under Robosn we were an established top 6 side. One of a handful of teams (including Liverpool) who competed for that 4th spot and at one point looked the most likely to break into the top tier. I dont know whats worse, our fall under Souness or the apathy towards his obvious ineptitude. Why did he need more than one season Gemmill? The signs were there, the team had gone backwards at an alarming rate. Why does it make sense to give him more time and allow him to spend more money when it was obvious he wasnt good enough?

 

I dont think it was reasonable to get rid during last season, although I wouldnt have been against it. The right time was in the summer.

69556[/snapback]

 

Because IMHO I think it takes more than that to judge whether someone is up to the job. That's all. As for being established top 6 under Robson, I think I'm right in saying that in his last 3 seasons we got 70-odd, 60-odd and 50-odd points, in that order. We might have been top 6, but we were very much on the slide before Souness came along.

[Renton 21032]

Liverpool do. Tell me, what's the difference between us (hint: it begins with M)?

69538[/snapback]

 

No it begins with A - Arrogance based on history.

69543[/snapback]

 

So history is more important than the manager? How do you explain Souness's dismal record at Liverpool then?

69548[/snapback]

 

Mourinho has proved that ability (and money) is more important but Liverpools annual expectations ARE based on their history of dominance. They have a bloody-minded "we should win it" which takes absolutely no account of money. manager or other teams quality.

 

On Souness reasonable scousers point to his taking over an ageing squad and miss the rise of Man U.

69557[/snapback]

 

Reasonable because their views coincide with yours? 90% of them would disagree with you I'm sure, their fall from grace was pretty disasterous by anyone's standards. Funny how Souness's defenders always blame his predecessor (be it Dalglish or Robson) who were relatively successful rather than Souness himself.

 

The success of a football club has EVERYTHING to do with the manager - even small clubs can prosper under the right management (not as common now granted, but we are not a small club). Your attitude that we are doomed to failure because of our past strikes me as defeatist in the extreme - with the right management there is no reason we couldn't at least compete with the top 3. There should be absolutely no excuses, for God's sake, Souness is being paid a fortune and for what?

[Renton 21032]

I'd say under Robosn we were an established top 6 side. One of a handful of teams (including Liverpool) who competed for that 4th spot and at one point looked the most likely to break into the top tier. I dont know whats worse, our fall under Souness or the apathy towards his obvious ineptitude. Why did he need more than one season Gemmill? The signs were there, the team had gone backwards at an alarming rate. Why does it make sense to give him more time and allow him to spend more money when it was obvious he wasnt good enough?

 

I dont think it was reasonable to get rid during last season, although I wouldnt have been against it. The right time was in the summer.

69556[/snapback]

 

Because IMHO I think it takes more than that to judge whether someone is up to the job. That's all. As for being established top 6 under Robson, I think I'm right in saying that in his last 3 seasons we got 70-odd, 60-odd and 50-odd points, in that order. We might have been top 6, but we were very much on the slide before Souness came along.

69560[/snapback]

 

So you would have had us relegated with Gullit then? Or do you think he would have pulled us around?

[Guest alex]

The difference begins with 'B' - it's the Board. Over the long term Liverpool has, quite simply been far better run off the field than us, which in turn tranlates itself into on the field success.

[Renton 21032]

The difference begins with 'B' - it's the Board. Over the long term Liverpool has, quite simply been far better run off the field than us, which in turn tranlates itself into on the field success.

69566[/snapback]

 

One of the chief functions of the board being to appoint good managers of course. I have no doubt if our board employed and backed a good manager, things would turn around for us.

[NJS 4355]

The success of a football club has EVERYTHING to do with the manager - even small clubs can prosper under the right management (not as common now granted, but we are not a small club). Your attitude that we are doomed to failure because of our past strikes me as defeatist in the extreme - with the right management there is no reason we couldn't at least compete with the top 3. There should be absolutely no excuses, for God's sake, Souness is being paid a fortune and for what?

69563[/snapback]

 

What I said above was that short of getting a better manager then we are "doomed" to failure in the present climate - thats not defeatist its realistic. As I've said many times a better candidate would make me a signatory to Souness's P45 in an instant but I happen to think that at the moment a better candidate isn't clear.

 

The point on Liverpool is that their history seems to give them the right to expect more than us. They've always backed that with money and a good choice of manager - better choices than us but then again their standing gives them more choice - do you think Benitez would have come to us?

[Gemmill 44090]

I'd say under Robosn we were an established top 6 side. One of a handful of teams (including Liverpool) who competed for that 4th spot and at one point looked the most likely to break into the top tier. I dont know whats worse, our fall under Souness or the apathy towards his obvious ineptitude. Why did he need more than one season Gemmill? The signs were there, the team had gone backwards at an alarming rate. Why does it make sense to give him more time and allow him to spend more money when it was obvious he wasnt good enough?

 

I dont think it was reasonable to get rid during last season, although I wouldnt have been against it. The right time was in the summer.

69556[/snapback]

 

Because IMHO I think it takes more than that to judge whether someone is up to the job. That's all. As for being established top 6 under Robson, I think I'm right in saying that in his last 3 seasons we got 70-odd, 60-odd and 50-odd points, in that order. We might have been top 6, but we were very much on the slide before Souness came along.

69560[/snapback]

 

So you would have had us relegated with Gullit then? Or do you think he would have pulled us around?

69564[/snapback]

 

I have no idea. Gullit had fallen out with the senior players in the dressing room by acting like a child. I don't think that helped his cause tbh. Why are you droning on about Ruud Gullit as if you've scored a major victory because he was sacked early? I didn't sack the bloke you know.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

Is it just me or do the most vociferous Souness-outers go missing after we've had a couple of good results.  I don't just mean the "Souness Out" posts dry up, they actually disappear altogether.

 

Not that I'm suggesting they've got nowt else to say like.

 

As I said, just an observation.....

69421[/snapback]

 

Get the fucking scotch sex case out I reckon, he's a top shelf cunt who's dragging this club down to the level of all the clubs he's managed, were still shit as well by the way.

[Renton 21032]

I'd say under Robosn we were an established top 6 side. One of a handful of teams (including Liverpool) who competed for that 4th spot and at one point looked the most likely to break into the top tier. I dont know whats worse, our fall under Souness or the apathy towards his obvious ineptitude. Why did he need more than one season Gemmill? The signs were there, the team had gone backwards at an alarming rate. Why does it make sense to give him more time and allow him to spend more money when it was obvious he wasnt good enough?

 

I dont think it was reasonable to get rid during last season, although I wouldnt have been against it. The right time was in the summer.

69556[/snapback]

 

Because IMHO I think it takes more than that to judge whether someone is up to the job. That's all. As for being established top 6 under Robson, I think I'm right in saying that in his last 3 seasons we got 70-odd, 60-odd and 50-odd points, in that order. We might have been top 6, but we were very much on the slide before Souness came along.

69560[/snapback]

 

So you would have had us relegated with Gullit then? Or do you think he would have pulled us around?

69564[/snapback]

 

I have no idea. Gullit had fallen out with the senior players in the dressing room by acting like a child. I don't think that helped his cause tbh. Why are you droning on about Ruud Gullit as if you've scored a major victory because he was sacked early? I didn't sack the bloke you know.

69569[/snapback]

 

I'm just trying to follow your logic of sticking with a manager for two years no matter what. Thankyou, I now know you would have been happy to get us relegated (just like we would have with Souness were it not for the timely acquisition of Owen).

 

Falling out with senior players, hmmm, where have I heard that before. Of course, Gullits record in the league or in terms of European qualification was better than Souness's was when he was sacked.

[luckypierre 0]

The success of a football club has EVERYTHING to do with the manager - even small clubs can prosper under the right management (not as common now granted, but we are not a small club). Your attitude that we are doomed to failure because of our past strikes me as defeatist in the extreme - with the right management there is no reason we couldn't at least compete with the top 3. There should be absolutely no excuses, for God's sake, Souness is being paid a fortune and for what?

69563[/snapback]

 

What I said above was that short of getting a better manager then we are "doomed" to failure in the present climate - thats not defeatist its realistic. As I've said many times a better candidate would make me a signatory to Souness's P45 in an instant but I happen to think that at the moment a better candidate isn't clear.

 

The point on Liverpool is that their history seems to give them the right to expect more than us. They've always backed that with money and a good choice of manager - better choices than us but then again their standing gives them more choice - do you think Benitez would have come to us?

69568[/snapback]

 

If we want success should we not expect the same as Liverpool fans. Once we've gotten to a level were we consistently compete with them should we not expect to move on and challenge like their fans do? or should we be happy that we flirted with it for a while because in the main we've always been crap?

[Guest alex]

The difference begins with 'B' - it's the Board. Over the long term Liverpool has, quite simply been far better run off the field than us, which in turn tranlates itself into on the field success.

69566[/snapback]

 

One of the chief functions of the board being to appoint good managers of course. I have no doubt if our board employed and backed a good manager, things would turn around for us.

69567[/snapback]

Whey I agree like Thing is though, the Liverpool Board are light years ahead of ours in so many ways - they seem to have a long term plan, they are prepared to take gambles on foreign coaches, they back them sufficiently but will get rid of managers when they don't think they can take them any further (a la Houllier), they provide financial backing without making embarrassing statements to the press left, right and centre etc., etc.

[Guest alex]

I don't think we would have gone down under Gullit tbh.

[Gemmill 44090]

I'd say under Robosn we were an established top 6 side. One of a handful of teams (including Liverpool) who competed for that 4th spot and at one point looked the most likely to break into the top tier. I dont know whats worse, our fall under Souness or the apathy towards his obvious ineptitude. Why did he need more than one season Gemmill? The signs were there, the team had gone backwards at an alarming rate. Why does it make sense to give him more time and allow him to spend more money when it was obvious he wasnt good enough?

 

I dont think it was reasonable to get rid during last season, although I wouldnt have been against it. The right time was in the summer.

69556[/snapback]

 

Because IMHO I think it takes more than that to judge whether someone is up to the job. That's all. As for being established top 6 under Robson, I think I'm right in saying that in his last 3 seasons we got 70-odd, 60-odd and 50-odd points, in that order. We might have been top 6, but we were very much on the slide before Souness came along.

69560[/snapback]

 

So you would have had us relegated with Gullit then? Or do you think he would have pulled us around?

69564[/snapback]

 

I have no idea. Gullit had fallen out with the senior players in the dressing room by acting like a child. I don't think that helped his cause tbh. Why are you droning on about Ruud Gullit as if you've scored a major victory because he was sacked early? I didn't sack the bloke you know.

69569[/snapback]

 

I'm just trying to follow your logic of sticking with a manager for two years no matter what. Thankyou, I now know you would have been happy to get us relegated (just like we would have with Souness were it not for the timely acquisition of Owen).

 

Falling out with senior players, hmmm, where have I heard that before. Of course, Gullits record in the league or in terms of European qualification was better than Souness's was when he was sacked.

69572[/snapback]

 

Have you got this Gullit thing out of your system now then? Now that you've convinced yourself that not only would Gullit have got us relegated, but that it would have made me happy?

[Renton 21032]

I'd say under Robosn we were an established top 6 side. One of a handful of teams (including Liverpool) who competed for that 4th spot and at one point looked the most likely to break into the top tier. I dont know whats worse, our fall under Souness or the apathy towards his obvious ineptitude. Why did he need more than one season Gemmill? The signs were there, the team had gone backwards at an alarming rate. Why does it make sense to give him more time and allow him to spend more money when it was obvious he wasnt good enough?

 

I dont think it was reasonable to get rid during last season, although I wouldnt have been against it. The right time was in the summer.

69556[/snapback]

 

Because IMHO I think it takes more than that to judge whether someone is up to the job. That's all. As for being established top 6 under Robson, I think I'm right in saying that in his last 3 seasons we got 70-odd, 60-odd and 50-odd points, in that order. We might have been top 6, but we were very much on the slide before Souness came along.

69560[/snapback]

 

So you would have had us relegated with Gullit then? Or do you think he would have pulled us around?

69564[/snapback]

 

I have no idea. Gullit had fallen out with the senior players in the dressing room by acting like a child. I don't think that helped his cause tbh. Why are you droning on about Ruud Gullit as if you've scored a major victory because he was sacked early? I didn't sack the bloke you know.

69569[/snapback]

 

I'm just trying to follow your logic of sticking with a manager for two years no matter what. Thankyou, I now know you would have been happy to get us relegated (just like we would have with Souness were it not for the timely acquisition of Owen).

 

Falling out with senior players, hmmm, where have I heard that before. Of course, Gullits record in the league or in terms of European qualification was better than Souness's was when he was sacked.

69572[/snapback]

 

Have you got this Gullit thing out of your system now then? Now that you've convinced yourself that not only would Gullit have got us relegated, but that it would have made me happy?

69576[/snapback]

 

You know fine well what the point is Gemmill, your insistance that you always stick with a manager for at least two years, even when you know beyond reasonable doubt he is shite. At least now you have verified your position. You might not have been happy with relegation, but you would have been happy with the choices that led us there, rather than revival under Robson.

 

Sorry Alex, relegation with Gullit was a nailed on certainty, don't forget Shearer and Lee would have left. We were right in the clarts man.

[Renton 21032]

The difference begins with 'B' - it's the Board. Over the long term Liverpool has, quite simply been far better run off the field than us, which in turn tranlates itself into on the field success.

69566[/snapback]

 

One of the chief functions of the board being to appoint good managers of course. I have no doubt if our board employed and backed a good manager, things would turn around for us.

69567[/snapback]

Whey I agree like Thing is though, the Liverpool Board are light years ahead of ours in so many ways - they seem to have a long term plan, they are prepared to take gambles on foreign coaches, they back them sufficiently but will get rid of managers when they don't think they can take them any further (a la Houllier), they provide financial backing without making embarrassing statements to the press left, right and centre etc., etc.

69574[/snapback]

 

 

They made a right cock up with that Souness appointment though.

 

Edit: damn.

Edited December 19, 2005 by Renton

[Gemmill 44090]

You know fine well what the point is Gemmill, your insistance that you always stick with a manager for at least two years, even when you know beyond reasonable doubt he is shite. At least now you have verified your position. You might not have been happy with relegation, but you would have been happy with the choices that led us there, rather than revival under Robson.

 

Sorry Alex, relegation with Gullit was a nailed on certainty, don't forget Shearer and Lee would have left. We were right in the clarts man.

69577[/snapback]

 

Sorry, I didn't realise that the alternative to Souness was a guaranteed Robson-like revival under a new manager. What's his name?

[Guest alex]

I'd say under Robosn we were an established top 6 side. One of a handful of teams (including Liverpool) who competed for that 4th spot and at one point looked the most likely to break into the top tier. I dont know whats worse, our fall under Souness or the apathy towards his obvious ineptitude. Why did he need more than one season Gemmill? The signs were there, the team had gone backwards at an alarming rate. Why does it make sense to give him more time and allow him to spend more money when it was obvious he wasnt good enough?

 

I dont think it was reasonable to get rid during last season, although I wouldnt have been against it. The right time was in the summer.

69556[/snapback]

 

Because IMHO I think it takes more than that to judge whether someone is up to the job. That's all. As for being established top 6 under Robson, I think I'm right in saying that in his last 3 seasons we got 70-odd, 60-odd and 50-odd points, in that order. We might have been top 6, but we were very much on the slide before Souness came along.

69560[/snapback]

 

So you would have had us relegated with Gullit then? Or do you think he would have pulled us around?

69564[/snapback]

 

I have no idea. Gullit had fallen out with the senior players in the dressing room by acting like a child. I don't think that helped his cause tbh. Why are you droning on about Ruud Gullit as if you've scored a major victory because he was sacked early? I didn't sack the bloke you know.

69569[/snapback]

 

I'm just trying to follow your logic of sticking with a manager for two years no matter what. Thankyou, I now know you would have been happy to get us relegated (just like we would have with Souness were it not for the timely acquisition of Owen).

 

Falling out with senior players, hmmm, where have I heard that before. Of course, Gullits record in the league or in terms of European qualification was better than Souness's was when he was sacked.

69572[/snapback]

 

Have you got this Gullit thing out of your system now then? Now that you've convinced yourself that not only would Gullit have got us relegated, but that it would have made me happy?

69576[/snapback]

 

You know fine well what the point is Gemmill, your insistance that you always stick with a manager for at least two years, even when you know beyond reasonable doubt he is shite. At least now you have verified your position. You might not have been happy with relegation, but you would have been happy with the choices that led us there, rather than revival under Robson.

 

Sorry Alex, relegation with Gullit was a nailed on certainty, don't forget Shearer and Lee would have left. We were right in the clarts man.

69577[/snapback]

Sorry, but that's just your opinion.

[Renton 21032]

I'd say under Robosn we were an established top 6 side. One of a handful of teams (including Liverpool) who competed for that 4th spot and at one point looked the most likely to break into the top tier. I dont know whats worse, our fall under Souness or the apathy towards his obvious ineptitude. Why did he need more than one season Gemmill? The signs were there, the team had gone backwards at an alarming rate. Why does it make sense to give him more time and allow him to spend more money when it was obvious he wasnt good enough?

 

I dont think it was reasonable to get rid during last season, although I wouldnt have been against it. The right time was in the summer.

69556[/snapback]

 

Because IMHO I think it takes more than that to judge whether someone is up to the job. That's all. As for being established top 6 under Robson, I think I'm right in saying that in his last 3 seasons we got 70-odd, 60-odd and 50-odd points, in that order. We might have been top 6, but we were very much on the slide before Souness came along.

69560[/snapback]

 

So you would have had us relegated with Gullit then? Or do you think he would have pulled us around?

69564[/snapback]

 

I have no idea. Gullit had fallen out with the senior players in the dressing room by acting like a child. I don't think that helped his cause tbh. Why are you droning on about Ruud Gullit as if you've scored a major victory because he was sacked early? I didn't sack the bloke you know.

69569[/snapback]

 

I'm just trying to follow your logic of sticking with a manager for two years no matter what. Thankyou, I now know you would have been happy to get us relegated (just like we would have with Souness were it not for the timely acquisition of Owen).

 

Falling out with senior players, hmmm, where have I heard that before. Of course, Gullits record in the league or in terms of European qualification was better than Souness's was when he was sacked.

69572[/snapback]

 

Have you got this Gullit thing out of your system now then? Now that you've convinced yourself that not only would Gullit have got us relegated, but that it would have made me happy?

69576[/snapback]

 

You know fine well what the point is Gemmill, your insistance that you always stick with a manager for at least two years, even when you know beyond reasonable doubt he is shite. At least now you have verified your position. You might not have been happy with relegation, but you would have been happy with the choices that led us there, rather than revival under Robson.

 

Sorry Alex, relegation with Gullit was a nailed on certainty, don't forget Shearer and Lee would have left. We were right in the clarts man.

69577[/snapback]

Sorry, but that's just your opinion.

69581[/snapback]

 

Well yes, as it is a hypothetical situation of course it is, but I am as certain as I can be with it. This is based on the impending loss of our two best players, our disastrous start to the league, our previous idastrous league position, and a complete break down of morale in the dressing room.

 

Would you have kept Gullit?

[Renton 21032]

You know fine well what the point is Gemmill, your insistance that you always stick with a manager for at least two years, even when you know beyond reasonable doubt he is shite. At least now you have verified your position. You might not have been happy with relegation, but you would have been happy with the choices that led us there, rather than revival under Robson.

 

Sorry Alex, relegation with Gullit was a nailed on certainty, don't forget Shearer and Lee would have left. We were right in the clarts man.

69577[/snapback]

 

Sorry, I didn't realise that the alternative to Souness was a guaranteed Robson-like revival under a new manager. What's his name?

69580[/snapback]

 

Oh ffs Gemmill. I don't know who his name is, there are no guarantees. I would be fairly confident that Hitzfeld might be an improvement if we could get him though. But your attitude is it doesn't matter who's available, all managers must get a minimum of two years regardless. Even Souness. Even Gullit. Even Dalglish.

[Guest alex]

Well yes, as it is a hypothetical situation of course it is, but I am as certain as I can be with it. This is based on the impending loss of our two best players, our disastrous start to the league, our previous idastrous league position, and a complete break down of morale in the dressing room.

 

Would you have kept Gullit?

69584[/snapback]

Nah, I was over the moon when we got rid but I think, had he stayed, we would have probably stayed up. Luckily though he went.