Luque

[Guest alex]

Another question that has been asked many times, but not answered

 

So what is YOUR criteria for choosing a manager Alex ?

100153[/snapback]

What have we won under Shepherd's stewardship and what level of stability and of long-term planning has he displayed?

Edited February 24, 2006 by alex

[LeazesMag 0]

BTW, I don't believe a word of this tosh that Shepherd chose players to buy for the club. But as you do, and you are so pleased with Luque you should be pleased with Shepherd.......

 

Amusing how you backed Souness to give us a winning team and now you are wrong you are blaming the chairman for backing him 100% and giving him all the money he needed to be successful, as he always does, rather than admit you haven't a clue how to choose a manager either, as one minute you want a CV manager, the next its shit, meaning you don't want a CV manager, then you would say Fred can't attract " big names "

 

Still waiting for this long list of chairman who have run better, more ambitious and better achieving clubs than Shepherd ...

[Renton 17723]

Thing is Leazes, one thing you constantly choose to ignore in your comparison of Shepherd with other chairmen is the comparatively large resources at his disposal. If you compare hime to the chairmen or chief execs of comparable clubs (e.g. Arsenal, Liverpool), I think you will find he doesn't compare favourably at all.

[LeazesMag 0]

Another question that has been asked many times, but not answered

 

So what is YOUR criteria for choosing a manager Alex ?

100153[/snapback]

What have we won under Shepherd's stewardship and what level of stability and of long-term planning has he displayed?

100155[/snapback]

 

Well he had a manager for 5 years, built the training complex and expanded the stadium from 36,000 to 52,000

 

Pretty impressive, yes or no ? If no, please list all other clubs that have did this in the last decade.

[Gemmill 34338]

You think the club has a bottomless pit of money and he's shit if he doesn't hand over 50m for transfers, then think he's shit if he does........

 

Hands up if you think this. I'd like to get to the bottom of exactly who it is that thinks this because they MUST be stupid.

[Dr Gloom 19784]

Another question that has been asked many times, but not answered

 

So what is YOUR criteria for choosing a manager Alex ?

100153[/snapback]

 

being a good chairman doesn't just come down to choosing the right manager and backing him with cash.

 

a good chairman knows when to sack a manager. a bad chairman sacks his manager a handful of games into a new season after letting him spend money over the summer....or a day after the transfer window shuts.

 

a good chairman stays out of team affairs and lets the manager identify his own transfer targets.

 

a good chairman doesn't get stung by a notw fake sheikh slagging off the club, the players and the fans

 

a good chairman doesn't mouth off to the media all the time bringing further embarrassment to his club.

 

a good chairman doesn't rape his club financially when he isn't producing results on the pitch.

 

etc etc

 

rick parry and steve gibson to name just two are far better chairmen than the fat twat that runs our club.

Edited February 24, 2006 by Dan

[Guest alex]

Leazes, you make things up. I never wanted Souness and I never really backed him. Once he was appointed though, I wouldn't have advocated sacking him until the close season as the club needed a degree of stability in my view. Of course, Shepherd was unlikely to sack him as he'd given Souness a 3 year deal. Once it was obvious he wasn't going in the summer and he'd spent all that money I was at least prepared to give him another go, as again, he was never going to be sacked before Xmas. He never won me over though.

[adios 717]

Well he had a manager for 5 years, built the training complex and expanded the stadium from 36,000 to 52,000

 

Pretty impressive, yes or no ? If no, please list all other clubs that have did this in the last decade.

100161[/snapback]

 

As a business man he's done pretty well (on the back of loans guaranteed by fanatical support), but he's the head of a footballing organisation and as such is wholly responsible for footballing decisions. If he is not capable of making those decisions then he must hire someone who can, or he has failed as a Chairman.

[Guest alex]

Another question that has been asked many times, but not answered

 

So what is YOUR criteria for choosing a manager Alex ?

100153[/snapback]

What have we won under Shepherd's stewardship and what level of stability and of long-term planning has he displayed?

100155[/snapback]

 

Well he had a manager for 5 years, built the training complex and expanded the stadium from 36,000 to 52,000

 

Pretty impressive, yes or no ? If no, please list all other clubs that have did this in the last decade.

100161[/snapback]

I'll just list the clubs who've won trophies in the last decade if you like

[LeazesMag 0]

Thing is Leazes, one thing you constantly choose to ignore in your comparison of Shepherd with other chairmen is the comparatively large resources at his disposal. If you compare hime to the chairmen or chief execs of comparable clubs (e.g. Arsenal,  Liverpool), I think you will find he doesn't compare favourably at all.

100160[/snapback]

 

I don't ignore it at all. I have answered this on the same basis as always, all our previous chairman had the same fanbase, so why didn't they tap it rather than languish in no mans land like the mackems selling our best players.

 

Why have we continued utilising the resources that Shepherd took over, again, if that is just a simple thing why didn't our old directors, and why have other big clubs in the premiership ie Leeds, Villa, Everton, Man City gone backwards....did they have shit chairman who allowed this to happen or good chairman who kept them competing at or as near the top as possible, buying England players and appointing managers with winning CV's. This is what Shepherd has done, he didn't have to, the club have done it because they want to stay in or now get back into the elite. How can you knock this, it amazes me it really does, and I don't mean you personally because at least you saw they made a truly shit appointment in Souness but it all a matter of perpective, and Shepherd aint' so bad, I keep pointing out we could do a lot worse and are better than most, there is no Abramovic waiting to take over the club, to think there is is just pie in the sky stuff mate. If there was I would want him to take over the club as well, but there isn't.

 

The only thing Liverpool have done is appoint a good manager, now. You didn't say that when we were above Arsenal and Liverpool in the league. And if Arsenal slide when Wenger goes and we appoint a good manager and so are above them, you won't be saying it then either.

Edited February 24, 2006 by LeazesMag

[sweetleftpeg 0]

BTW, I don't believe a word of this tosh that Shepherd chose players to buy for the club.

100159[/snapback]

 

Why not? It's always happened. You read a whole host of managers biographys and you'll find it's always gone on. At least on the continent they're honest about it. Shepherd likes doing business with Willy McKay, which is why we've signed a fair few players he represents. It's how its always worked.

[adios 717]

BTW, I don't believe a word of this tosh that Shepherd chose players to buy for the club.

100159[/snapback]

 

Why not? It's always happened. You read a whole host of managers biographys and you'll find it's always gone on. At least on the continent they're honest about it. Shepherd likes doing business with Willy McKay, which is why we've signed a fair few players he represents. It's how its always worked.

100171[/snapback]

 

Under Shepherd?

[Gemmill 34338]

A bottomless pit though?! With money in it?!

[ChocChip 0]

A bottomless pit though?!  With money in it?!

100174[/snapback]

[sweetleftpeg 0]

BTW, I don't believe a word of this tosh that Shepherd chose players to buy for the club.

100159[/snapback]

 

Why not? It's always happened. You read a whole host of managers biographys and you'll find it's always gone on. At least on the continent they're honest about it. Shepherd likes doing business with Willy McKay, which is why we've signed a fair few players he represents. It's how its always worked.

100171[/snapback]

 

Under Shepherd?

100173[/snapback]

 

I meant in general, it still happens at most football clubs I expect. Not all the time, I'm only accusing the fredmeister of siging Luque and Kluivert. Oh, and I expect the Owen signing was a board plan put to Souness and not the other way round.

[Renton 17723]

Thing is Leazes, one thing you constantly choose to ignore in your comparison of Shepherd with other chairmen is the comparatively large resources at his disposal. If you compare hime to the chairmen or chief execs of comparable clubs (e.g. Arsenal,  Liverpool), I think you will find he doesn't compare favourably at all.

100160[/snapback]

 

I don't ignore it at all. I have answered this on the same basis as always, all our previous chairman had the same fanbase, so why didn't they tap it rather than languish in no mans land like the mackems selling our best players.

 

Why have we continued utilising the resources that Shepherd took over, again, if that is just a simple thing why didn't our old directors, and why have other big clubs in the premiership ie Leeds, Villa, Everton, Man City gone backwards....did they have shit chairman who allowed this to happen or good chairman who kept them competing at or as near the top as possible, buying England players and appointing managers with winning CV's. This is what Shepherd has done, he didn't have to, the club have done it because they want to stay in or now get back into the elite. How can you knock this, it amazes me it really does, and I don't mean you personally because at least you saw they made a truly shit appointment in Souness but it all a matter of perpective, and Shepherd aint' so bad, I keep pointing out we could do a lot worse and are better than most, there is no Abramovic waiting to take over the club, to think there is is just pie in the sky stuff mate. If there was I would want him to take over the club as well, but there isn't.

100169[/snapback]

 

The other thing you do is compare Shepherd to past chairmen. What's the point, where's the relevance? Football has completely changed since the days of McKeag etc. In some ways Shepherd has been successful, but I think you have rose tinted glasses () and fail to acknowledge his numerous failings, which have been pointed out by many (e.g. Dan's post on this page). I'm not saying Shepherd is the worst chairman ever but it strikes me he is highly paid for failure and that isn't right.

[adios 717]

I meant in general, it still happens at most football clubs I expect. Not all the time, I'm only accusing the fredmeister of siging Luque and Kluivert. Oh, and I expect the Owen signing was a board plan put to Souness and not the other way round.

100178[/snapback]

 

Bobby denies that.

[sweetleftpeg 0]

I meant in general, it still happens at most football clubs I expect. Not all the time, I'm only accusing the fredmeister of siging Luque and Kluivert. Oh, and I expect the Owen signing was a board plan put to Souness and not the other way round.

100178[/snapback]

 

Bobby denies that.

100180[/snapback]

 

Oh aye, I know he denies it.

[Renton 17723]

I meant in general, it still happens at most football clubs I expect. Not all the time, I'm only accusing the fredmeister of siging Luque and Kluivert. Oh, and I expect the Owen signing was a board plan put to Souness and not the other way round.

100178[/snapback]

 

Bobby denies that.

100180[/snapback]

 

Oh aye, I know he denies it.

100182[/snapback]

 

Probably forgotten whether he signed him or not tbh.

[Guest alex]

If Shepherd did sign Luque, where does Leazes stand on this?

[adios 717]

Probably forgotten whether he signed him or not tbh.

100192[/snapback]

 

I fear Paul McKenna may be involved.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

being a good chairman doesn't just come down to choosing the right manager and backing him with cash.

 

a good chairman DOES back his manager with cash.

 

So, what exactly is your extra criteria ?

 

a good chairman knows when to sack a manager. a bad chairman sacks his manager a handful of games into a new season after letting him spend money over the summer....or a day after the transfer window shuts.

 

You have said yourself that sacking Bobby Robson in the summer wouldn't have been right ?

 

Were you hoping to start that season well like Fred ?

 

Were you not thinking that Kluivert etc were "wonderful" signings ?

 

Were you happy when Gullit was replaced by Bobby Robson ?

 

a good chairman stays out of team affairs and lets the manager identify his own transfer targets.

 

Sheer speculation, I doubt very much Shepherd does this, its amazing how those with no perpective make things up to suit their argument

 

a good chairman doesn't get stung by a notw fake sheikh slagging off the club, the players and the fans

 

Totally and completely irrelevant to the results on the field of the football club

 

a good chairman doesn't mouth off to the media all the time bringing further embarrassment to his club.

 

totally and completely irrelevant to the results on the field of the football club

 

a good chairman doesn't rape his club financially when he isn't producing results on the pitch.

 

Every director takes his shares and dividends. Freddie has gave ALL his managers more than enough money to make this club successful, 50m quid in a year to the last one, do you really think a few more million would make a difference ? Absolute crap if you do ? Whats another couple of million quid, another Amdy Faye ??? This club is competing with all the other big clubs, for as long as they do that I personally don't give a flying fuck if Freddie takes the dividend he is entitled to, and if he gets lucky and we appoint a trophy winning manager next time he can take double so far as I am concerned.

 

rick parry and steve gibson to name just two are far better chairmen than the fat twat that runs our club.

100164[/snapback]

 

only 2 ?

 

[proves my point .....]

Edited February 24, 2006 by LeazesMag

[sweetleftpeg 0]

Leazes, you aren't Tony Blair's speech writer are you?

[Renton 17723]

I think you'll find that Shepherd's comments on the cost of manufacture of replica shirts had a huge impact on our merchandise sales. Not to mention that his comments were grossly offensive to most people even if they were true.

 

I can't believe even you can defend him on the following points:

 

The timing of the dismissal of Daglish.

 

The treatment of Robson during his last few months. His timing of his dismissal and the fact he had no replacement lined up.

 

His employment of Souness, and even worse his persistence with him. Giving the twat money to spend on shhite like Luque and Boumsong. Even if he didn't sign these players himself he should have vetoed their acquisition.

 

His continued leeching from the club, regardless of results on and off the pitch.

 

A good chairman would have won something at Newcastle by now, our lack of success is directly attributable to the chief honcho, Shepherd. I've said it before and I will say it again. We need an effective chief executive to make the footballing decisions at Newcastle, because Shepherd is clearly incompetent. I'll volunteer.

[Dr Gloom 19784]

I think you'll find that Shepherd's comments on the cost of manufacture of replica shirts had a huge impact on our merchandise sales. Not to mention that his comments were grossly offensive to most people even if they were true.

 

I can't believe even you can defend him on the following points:

 

The timing of the dismissal of Daglish.

 

The treatment of Robson during his last few months. His timing of his dismissal and the fact he had no replacement lined up.

 

His employment of Souness, and even worse his persistence with him. Giving the twat money to spend on shhite like Luque and Boumsong. Even if he didn't sign these players himself he should have vetoed their acquisition.

 

His continued leeching from the club, regardless of results on and off the pitch.

 

A good chairman would have won something at Newcastle by now, our lack of success is directly attributable to the chief honcho, Shepherd. I've said it before and I will say it again. We need an effective chief executive to make the footballing decisions at Newcastle, because Shepherd is clearly incompetent. I'll volunteer.

100239[/snapback]

 

i was going to reply to leazesmag but this post pretty much covers everything. the only thing i'd add is the ridiculous statements shepherd makes.

 

he seems to think he's some kind of celebrity chairman come director of football. the best chairmen tend not to say too much to the media. shepherd is a media whore and every time he opens his fat gob on sky sports news he seems to make the club even more of a laughing stick. it's no wonder jim white and the likes love him.