Renton 17723 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Leazes, has it escaped your attention that Newcastle have been on a downward slide in terms of performances both on and off the pitch for the past three years? How the hell does he justify his dividend based on that? A bonus for failure! Where else would it happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 (edited) A question related on this theme LM, who do you credit with winning Chelsea the ECWC in 1998? Gullit or Vialli?? 101647[/snapback] Sigh. Question answered many times Craig where I've said "we appointed a trophy winning manager who left a team that went on to win more under somewhere else. Question for you. Because of these wins, would you prefer Ken Bates as a chairman to Shepherd ? BTW, that doesn't answer ANY of my questions above. Edited February 28, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6300 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 A question related on this theme LM, who do you credit with winning Chelsea the ECWC in 1998? Gullit or Vialli?? 101647[/snapback] Sigh. Question answered many times Craig where I've said "we appointed a trophy winning manager who left a team that went on to win more under somewhere else. Question for you. Because of these wins, would you prefer Ken Bates as a chairman to Shepherd ? BTW, that doesn't answer ANY of my questions above. 101651[/snapback] Forget about bringing up the fact that Gullit became our manager, it's not related to the question I'm asking. Answer the question, who would you say was responsible for winning that Cup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 zzzzzzzzzz 101645[/snapback] One word less than usual Alex, well done. BTW, what are you going to say if Hiddink gets our job and doesn't succeed, a shit appointment ??????? Is he as qualified as Dalglish was, or can't Shepherd appoint top trophy winning managers 101648[/snapback] If someone like Hiddink gets the job and fails and when you look at the calibre of some of the other managers who've also failed you'd have to ask why. Personally I think the chairman must be a factor. You obviously disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 Leazes, has it escaped your attention that Newcastle have been on a downward slide in terms of performances both on and off the pitch for the past three years? How the hell does he justify his dividend based on that? A bonus for failure! Where else would it happen? 101650[/snapback] I'm not saying it does warrant a bonus. I'm only saying that the club are striving to stay among the top clubs, and while they fill that ground they will be able to keep up and keep aiming to stay that way. They could choose not to, and still pocket dividends. As I've said, be careful what you wish for. At the time a lot of people wanted rid of Keegan as manager because they swallowed the crap about "winning nothing despite spending all the money", probably the same people who believed the crap about Souness "getting rid of bad eggs" and I say that now they are falling into the same trap with Shepherd. It is extremely, extremely unlikely there is a person out there who would do better than him, and if you don't believe me, looking at the other big city clubs and our own past is all the proof you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 A question related on this theme LM, who do you credit with winning Chelsea the ECWC in 1998? Gullit or Vialli?? 101647[/snapback] Sigh. Question answered many times Craig where I've said "we appointed a trophy winning manager who left a team that went on to win more under somewhere else. Question for you. Because of these wins, would you prefer Ken Bates as a chairman to Shepherd ? BTW, that doesn't answer ANY of my questions above. 101651[/snapback] Forget about bringing up the fact that Gullit became our manager, it's not related to the question I'm asking. Answer the question, who would you say was responsible for winning that Cup? 101654[/snapback] haha...I know what it is, you think it's Bates don't you, as you've already insinuated you think the chairman of a football club is really the manager ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 This debate is nearly as good as the Bellamy and Robert ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17723 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Leazes, has it escaped your attention that Newcastle have been on a downward slide in terms of performances both on and off the pitch for the past three years? How the hell does he justify his dividend based on that? A bonus for failure! Where else would it happen? 101650[/snapback] I'm not saying it does warrant a bonus. I'm only saying that the club are striving to stay among the top clubs, and while they fill that ground they will be able to keep up and keep aiming to stay that way. They could choose not to, and still pocket dividends. As I've said, be careful what you wish for. At the time a lot of people wanted rid of Keegan as manager because they swallowed the crap about "winning nothing despite spending all the money", probably the same people who believed the crap about Souness "getting rid of bad eggs" and I say that now they are falling into the same trap with Shepherd. It is extremely, extremely unlikely there is a person out there who would do better than him, and if you don't believe me, looking at the other big city clubs and our own past is all the proof you need. 101656[/snapback] But in terms of winning things, many "big" clubs have won things more recently than us, Villa for instance. The fact that the fans still don't turn up for them says more about their fans than their chairmen. Like I say, I think the most comparable club to us is Liverpool. At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself why we don't win things, what is the common denominator? Perhaps for instance Shepherd's desperation to fill the ground is a shortcoming in the long-term (if that makes sense), making him make snap, rash decisions. In any case, he has never struck me as having a long-term strategy. I don't know anyone at all who wanted rid of Keegan btw, not a single person. And why did he leave - because of Shepherd and the board at the end of the day (although I appreciate the reasons were complex). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6300 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 A question related on this theme LM, who do you credit with winning Chelsea the ECWC in 1998? Gullit or Vialli?? 101647[/snapback] Sigh. Question answered many times Craig where I've said "we appointed a trophy winning manager who left a team that went on to win more under somewhere else. Question for you. Because of these wins, would you prefer Ken Bates as a chairman to Shepherd ? BTW, that doesn't answer ANY of my questions above. 101651[/snapback] Forget about bringing up the fact that Gullit became our manager, it's not related to the question I'm asking. Answer the question, who would you say was responsible for winning that Cup? 101654[/snapback] haha...I know what it is, you think it's Bates don't you, as you've already insinuated you think the chairman of a football club is really the manager ? 101658[/snapback] Nothing to do with Bates either - can you please just answer the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 Leazes, has it escaped your attention that Newcastle have been on a downward slide in terms of performances both on and off the pitch for the past three years? How the hell does he justify his dividend based on that? A bonus for failure! Where else would it happen? 101650[/snapback] I'm not saying it does warrant a bonus. I'm only saying that the club are striving to stay among the top clubs, and while they fill that ground they will be able to keep up and keep aiming to stay that way. They could choose not to, and still pocket dividends. As I've said, be careful what you wish for. At the time a lot of people wanted rid of Keegan as manager because they swallowed the crap about "winning nothing despite spending all the money", probably the same people who believed the crap about Souness "getting rid of bad eggs" and I say that now they are falling into the same trap with Shepherd. It is extremely, extremely unlikely there is a person out there who would do better than him, and if you don't believe me, looking at the other big city clubs and our own past is all the proof you need. 101656[/snapback] But in terms of winning things, many "big" clubs have won things more recently than us, Villa for instance. The fact that the fans still don't turn up for them says more about their fans than their chairmen. Like I say, I think the most comparable club to us is Liverpool. At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself why we don't win things, what is the common denominator? Perhaps for instance Shepherd's desperation to fill the ground is a shortcoming in the long-term (if that makes sense), making him make snap, rash decisions. In any case, he has never struck me as having a long-term strategy. I don't know anyone at all who wanted rid of Keegan btw, not a single person. And why did he leave - because of Shepherd and the board at the end of the day (although I appreciate the reasons were complex). 101660[/snapback] I think your first point proves how fickle fans are. There is a member of my own family who said for years and years, right through the late 70's and 80's in fact, that I was "daft for supporting that rubbish" especially as for most of that time I was working away and came back every game - now he says he has "always been a supporter". Liverpool are not the only most comparable club to us, all of these clubs are , the only reason you and the others are comparing Liverpool is because they are the ones who suit your narrow minded point to be honest. All of these big city clubs have the potential to fill their grounds and match our turnover, but they don't. Why don't you answer why you think they don't and why they have slid backwards ? The fact that you only compare Liverpool proves my point to me that in a performance based comparison, we are doing better under Shepherd than all our main challengers, apart from the obvious Manu, Chelsea financially and at the moment Arsenal and Liverpool because they have appointed great managers, that is a fact you can't dispute, if we are 5th best, we have the potential to be 3rd, and its not top but its certainly not shit, and could easily change when financial implications of new stadiums catch up with the 2 mentioned clubs. Which of course isn't forward planning by an ambitious business orientated forward planning board is it ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 A question related on this theme LM, who do you credit with winning Chelsea the ECWC in 1998? Gullit or Vialli?? 101647[/snapback] Sigh. Question answered many times Craig where I've said "we appointed a trophy winning manager who left a team that went on to win more under somewhere else. Question for you. Because of these wins, would you prefer Ken Bates as a chairman to Shepherd ? BTW, that doesn't answer ANY of my questions above. 101651[/snapback] Forget about bringing up the fact that Gullit became our manager, it's not related to the question I'm asking. Answer the question, who would you say was responsible for winning that Cup? 101654[/snapback] haha...I know what it is, you think it's Bates don't you, as you've already insinuated you think the chairman of a football club is really the manager ? 101658[/snapback] Nothing to do with Bates either - can you please just answer the question? 101663[/snapback] Craig, I've answered the question, the team manager was Vialli, who took over the team from Gullit and largely continued playing Gulllits team. I can't see what you are getting at.... do you think Vialli should be our next manager or something. You see, I ALWAYS think it is the manager who is responsible for the team on the pitch, and the players who are bought and sold, never the chairman or someone else interfering in the managers job. Now, as I don't duck questions, why don't you follow this example, and not before time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 A question related on this theme LM, who do you credit with winning Chelsea the ECWC in 1998? Gullit or Vialli?? 101647[/snapback] Sigh. Question answered many times Craig where I've said "we appointed a trophy winning manager who left a team that went on to win more under somewhere else. Question for you. Because of these wins, would you prefer Ken Bates as a chairman to Shepherd ? BTW, that doesn't answer ANY of my questions above. 101651[/snapback] Forget about bringing up the fact that Gullit became our manager, it's not related to the question I'm asking. Answer the question, who would you say was responsible for winning that Cup? 101654[/snapback] haha...I know what it is, you think it's Bates don't you, as you've already insinuated you think the chairman of a football club is really the manager ? 101658[/snapback] Nothing to do with Bates either - can you please just answer the question? 101663[/snapback] Craig, I've answered the question, the team manager was Vialli, who took over the team from Gullit and largely continued playing Gulllits team. I can't see what you are getting at.... do you think Vialli should be our next manager or something. You see, I ALWAYS think it is the manager who is responsible for the team on the pitch, and the players who are bought and sold, never the chairman or someone else interfering in the managers job. Now, as I don't duck questions, why don't you follow this example, and not before time. 101668[/snapback] So Gullit set the foundations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17723 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Leazes, has it escaped your attention that Newcastle have been on a downward slide in terms of performances both on and off the pitch for the past three years? How the hell does he justify his dividend based on that? A bonus for failure! Where else would it happen? 101650[/snapback] I'm not saying it does warrant a bonus. I'm only saying that the club are striving to stay among the top clubs, and while they fill that ground they will be able to keep up and keep aiming to stay that way. They could choose not to, and still pocket dividends. As I've said, be careful what you wish for. At the time a lot of people wanted rid of Keegan as manager because they swallowed the crap about "winning nothing despite spending all the money", probably the same people who believed the crap about Souness "getting rid of bad eggs" and I say that now they are falling into the same trap with Shepherd. It is extremely, extremely unlikely there is a person out there who would do better than him, and if you don't believe me, looking at the other big city clubs and our own past is all the proof you need. 101656[/snapback] But in terms of winning things, many "big" clubs have won things more recently than us, Villa for instance. The fact that the fans still don't turn up for them says more about their fans than their chairmen. Like I say, I think the most comparable club to us is Liverpool. At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself why we don't win things, what is the common denominator? Perhaps for instance Shepherd's desperation to fill the ground is a shortcoming in the long-term (if that makes sense), making him make snap, rash decisions. In any case, he has never struck me as having a long-term strategy. I don't know anyone at all who wanted rid of Keegan btw, not a single person. And why did he leave - because of Shepherd and the board at the end of the day (although I appreciate the reasons were complex). 101660[/snapback] I think your first point proves how fickle fans are. There is a member of my own family who said for years and years, right through the late 70's and 80's in fact, that I was "daft for supporting that rubbish" especially as for most of that time I was working away and came back every game - now he says he has "always been a supporter". Liverpool are not the only most comparable club to us, all of these clubs are , the only reason you and the others are comparing Liverpool is because they are the ones who suit your narrow minded point to be honest. All of these big city clubs have the potential to fill their grounds and match our turnover, but they don't. Why don't you answer why you think they don't and why they have slid backwards ? The fact that you only compare Liverpool proves my point to me that in a performance based comparison, we are doing better under Shepherd than all our main challengers, apart from the obvious Manu, Chelsea financially and at the moment Arsenal and Liverpool because they have appointed great managers, that is a fact you can't dispute, if we are 5th best, we have the potential to be 3rd, and its not top but its certainly not shit, and could easily change when financial implications of new stadiums catch up with the 2 mentioned clubs. Which of course isn't forward planning by an ambitious business orientated forward planning board is it ????? 101666[/snapback] Well to be fair a lot of people were put off football in the 70s and 80s due to the poor conditions and threat of football violence, and in our case a shit team as well. The only demographic that went then was young working class men, and like it or not the popular appeal of football has grown massively since then and we are seeing all sorts of people going. I attribute that to many things that can loosely be attributed to the "Sky phenomenum". Keegan and Hall had some input into this, Shepherd did not. I guess where we disagree is if you think Newcastle is intrinsically a special case in this revolution or not. I think it is, for reasons that have already been well documented, and I believe this has nowt at all to do with Shepherd; infact I think we do relatively well despite him. I doubt you will ever convince me otherwise. The board at Newcastle is rotten to the core imo, as I have said many times before most independent analysts are appalled at how we are run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 (edited) Shepherd is a laughing stock in football like. Edited February 28, 2006 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I think we should try to get a swap deal with Steve Gibson for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34338 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Can I recommend that people STOP arguing about Shepherd with Leazes. He refuses to see sense on anything anyone says to him about the bloke, so ultimately you're destined to go round and round in circles with him. Waste of everyone's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Can I recommend that people STOP arguing about Shepherd with Leazes. He refuses to see sense on anything anyone says to him about the bloke, so ultimately you're destined to go round and round in circles with him. Waste of everyone's time. 101691[/snapback] zzzzzzzzzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Can I recommend that people STOP arguing about Shepherd with Leazes. He refuses to see sense on anything anyone says to him about the bloke, so ultimately you're destined to go round and round in circles with him. Waste of everyone's time. 101691[/snapback] Ahhh...hindsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Can I recommend that people STOP arguing about Shepherd with Leazes. He refuses to see sense on anything anyone says to him about the bloke, so ultimately you're destined to go round and round in circles with him. Waste of everyone's time. 101691[/snapback] Ahhh...hindsight. 101696[/snapback] I'm the only one able to give this sort of advice as I stated on day one on this forum it wasn't worth arguing with Leazes over this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Can I recommend that people STOP arguing about Shepherd with Leazes. He refuses to see sense on anything anyone says to him about the bloke, so ultimately you're destined to go round and round in circles with him. Waste of everyone's time. 101691[/snapback] This board would die a death tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3594 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 One thing is for sure, if Shepherd hadnt overseen the expansion of the ground then we wouldnt have seen 52000 turning out every week. One thing I would give him absolute praise for is the stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17723 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 One thing is for sure, if Shepherd hadnt overseen the expansion of the ground then we wouldnt have seen 52000 turning out every week. One thing I would give him absolute praise for is the stadium. 101761[/snapback] Aye, it was quite a sight to see him labouring out at SJP every day with that hod of bricks. No, but in all seriousness, I think it was Hall who had the foresight to expand the stadium into what it is today. Without spending a penny I might add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckypierre 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 One thing is for sure, if Shepherd hadnt overseen the expansion of the ground then we wouldnt have seen 52000 turning out every week. One thing I would give him absolute praise for is the stadium. 101761[/snapback] Aye, it was quite a sight to see him labouring out at SJP every day with that hod of bricks. No, but in all seriousness, I think it was Hall who had the foresight to expand the stadium into what it is today. Without spending a penny I might add. 101770[/snapback] Definitely Hall. I remember him threatening to move the club to Gateshead when they didnt get planning permission for a new ground. Plan B was the expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6300 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 A question related on this theme LM, who do you credit with winning Chelsea the ECWC in 1998? Gullit or Vialli?? 101647[/snapback] Sigh. Question answered many times Craig where I've said "we appointed a trophy winning manager who left a team that went on to win more under somewhere else. Question for you. Because of these wins, would you prefer Ken Bates as a chairman to Shepherd ? BTW, that doesn't answer ANY of my questions above. 101651[/snapback] Forget about bringing up the fact that Gullit became our manager, it's not related to the question I'm asking. Answer the question, who would you say was responsible for winning that Cup? 101654[/snapback] haha...I know what it is, you think it's Bates don't you, as you've already insinuated you think the chairman of a football club is really the manager ? 101658[/snapback] Nothing to do with Bates either - can you please just answer the question? 101663[/snapback] Craig, I've answered the question, the team manager was Vialli, who took over the team from Gullit and largely continued playing Gulllits team. I can't see what you are getting at.... do you think Vialli should be our next manager or something. You see, I ALWAYS think it is the manager who is responsible for the team on the pitch, and the players who are bought and sold, never the chairman or someone else interfering in the managers job. Now, as I don't duck questions, why don't you follow this example, and not before time. 101668[/snapback] So Gullit set the foundations? 101671[/snapback] Thank god someone sees where I'm coming from. Gullit laid the foundations but Vialli reaped the benefit and since then, has been creditted for winning the ECWC with Chelsea. My point is that the situation is the same with NUFC. We are were we are thanks to the work of SJH - it was he who turned this club from the disaster that they were into what they are today. Yet you praise Shepherd for it. OK, put it this way, if Shepherd had taken over at the end on 1991 instead of Hall, do you think we'd have had the same turnaround? I personally don't. I think we'd be talking about him in the same vein as McKeag, Seymour and Westwood. SJH - massive NUFC fan who had the money and footballing sense to do something about the club he loved. FS - local businessman who has seen a venture whereby he can make a mint and at the same time, put his name in the spot-light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Don't slag off Mckeag.......... Leazes will be back............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now