Waiting over for Roeder

[Renton 17959]

By the way I reckon we'll finish 5th or 6th next season with Roeder in charge.  That's my colours nailed to Renton's mid-table forehead.

136799[/snapback]

 

5th to 17th I reckon.

[Papa Lazaru 0]

By the way I reckon we'll finish 5th or 6th next season with Roeder in charge.  That's my colours nailed to Renton's mid-table forehead.

136799[/snapback]

 

Same here, Roeder has shown even with all the injuries and taking over the mess fuckwit left that he can out do all the crap and average teams and challenge the ones just below the very best.

 

We need to see how he does with new players, less injuries and a whole pre season + full competitive season.

 

But i can't see us finishing below 6th at all.

[Renton 17959]

By the way I reckon we'll finish 5th or 6th next season with Roeder in charge.  That's my colours nailed to Renton's mid-table forehead.

136799[/snapback]

 

Same here, Roeder has shown even with all the injuries and taking over the mess fuckwit left that he can out do all the crap and average teams and challenge the ones just below the very best.

 

We need to see how he does with new players, less injuries and a whole pre season + full competitive season.

 

But i can't see us finishing below 6th at all.

137075[/snapback]

 

We'll see. Two things I think you are forgetting is his ability to spot and attract good players (pretty low I suspect) and that when he hits a bad spell (which so far as short-term caretaker he has avoided) he seems to have little ability to pull the team round (ask fans of Watford or Gillingham or West Ham). I hate always being the voice of doom on these boards but this seems to be my lot unfortunately. I think we could finish almost anywhere outside the top 4 next year.

Edited May 16, 2006 by Renton

[Tooj 17]

By the way I reckon we'll finish 5th or 6th next season with Roeder in charge.  That's my colours nailed to Renton's mid-table forehead.

136799[/snapback]

 

Same here, Roeder has shown even with all the injuries and taking over the mess fuckwit left that he can out do all the crap and average teams and challenge the ones just below the very best.

 

We need to see how he does with new players, less injuries and a whole pre season + full competitive season.

 

But i can't see us finishing below 6th at all.

137075[/snapback]

 

We'll see. Two things I think you are forgetting is his ability to spot and attract good players (pretty low I suspect)

At West Ham wasn't he about to pull a deal singing Malouda, Drogbar and two others worth in total of about 350k before the chairman pulled the plug?

[snakehips 0]

By the way I reckon we'll finish 5th or 6th next season with Roeder in charge.  That's my colours nailed to Renton's mid-table forehead.

136799[/snapback]

 

Same here, Roeder has shown even with all the injuries and taking over the mess fuckwit left that he can out do all the crap and average teams and challenge the ones just below the very best.

 

We need to see how he does with new players, less injuries and a whole pre season + full competitive season.

 

But i can't see us finishing below 6th at all.

137075[/snapback]

 

We'll see. Two things I think you are forgetting is his ability to spot and attract good players (pretty low I suspect)

At West Ham wasn't he about to pull a deal singing Malouda, Drogbar and two others worth in total of about 350k before the chairman pulled the plug?

137910[/snapback]

 

That's the sequel to Oklahoma, isn't it?

[GafferTape 0]

and that when he hits a bad spell (which so far as short-term caretaker he has avoided) he seems to have little ability to pull the team round (ask fans of Watford or Gillingham or West Ham).

 

The season when he got West Ham to 7th, didn't they have a really bad start, with fans calling for him to be sacked but then he turned it round to finish in 7th place? I'm pretty sure he did.

[snakehips 0]

and that when he hits a bad spell (which so far as short-term caretaker he has avoided) he seems to have little ability to pull the team round (ask fans of Watford or Gillingham or West Ham).

 

The season when he got West Ham to 7th, didn't they have a really bad start, with fans calling for him to be sacked but then he turned it round to finish in 7th place? I'm pretty sure he did.

137963[/snapback]

 

I hope that's wrong G/T. We don't want facts about success getting in the way of Renton's pessimism

[Renton 17959]

and that when he hits a bad spell (which so far as short-term caretaker he has avoided) he seems to have little ability to pull the team round (ask fans of Watford or Gillingham or West Ham).

 

The season when he got West Ham to 7th, didn't they have a really bad start, with fans calling for him to be sacked but then he turned it round to finish in 7th place? I'm pretty sure he did.

137963[/snapback]

 

I hope that's wrong G/T. We don't want facts about success getting in the way of Renton's pessimism

137972[/snapback]

 

If you want facts, look at his record in simple terms of games played, won, lost and drawn. Tell me if you think it's a reasonable record overall. I suspect he has the worst record of any Newcastle manager in decades, including Souness.

 

Of course that is too simplistic, but there are grounds for concern. I remain to be convinced, I hope I he proves my pessimism wrong.

[GafferTape 0]

If you want facts, look at his record in simple terms of games played, won, lost and drawn. Tell me if you think it's a reasonable record overall. I suspect he has the worst record of any Newcastle manager in decades, including Souness.

 

Of course that is too simplistic, but there are grounds for concern. I remain to be convinced, I hope I he proves my pessimism wrong.

 

Aye, for his record at Newcastle, he's got the best win/game ratio of any manager since the start of the Premiership, and probably earlier.

 

Fact.

[Chaser 1071]

You're only as good as your recent record. Dalglish won the premiership but got booted out from St James, similarly Gullit won cups at Chelsea only to be sacked when he got here. Souness won trophies at Liverpool, Rangers, Galatasaray and Blackburn but won nowt up here. Bobby Robson.. i could go on

[khay 8]

I simply don't agree. Dalglish particularly, and Gullit and Bobby Robson were all big name and successful managers, that were given ALL the backing to be successful. If they didn't succeed to expectation or hopes, it is their fault and no one elses, they carry the can for performance on the field of the players that THEY choose to keep at the club, or want to bring into the club.

136662[/snapback]

Daglish wasn't given enough time to be successful though, wouldn't you agree? He was sacked far too early and, therefore, wasn't given the necessary backing imo.

EDIT: Totally agree with SLP's and Zico's sentiments too.

136665[/snapback]

 

I'm astounded. Dalglish was given too long. The man was a total disaster and it became very clearly that he was not going to achieve anything positive at the club. He managed to dismantle an excellent team that needed strengthening leaving us playing negative football even in a Cup Final.

138194[/snapback]

 

 

I remeber reading shoot or match when younger and his hand picked team was a keeper and 11 defenders.

[Renton 17959]

I simply don't agree. Dalglish particularly, and Gullit and Bobby Robson were all big name and successful managers, that were given ALL the backing to be successful. If they didn't succeed to expectation or hopes, it is their fault and no one elses, they carry the can for performance on the field of the players that THEY choose to keep at the club, or want to bring into the club.

136662[/snapback]

Daglish wasn't given enough time to be successful though, wouldn't you agree? He was sacked far too early and, therefore, wasn't given the necessary backing imo.

EDIT: Totally agree with SLP's and Zico's sentiments too.

136665[/snapback]

 

I'm astounded. Dalglish was given too long. The man was a total disaster and it became very clearly that he was not going to achieve anything positive at the club. He managed to dismantle an excellent team that needed strengthening leaving us playing negative football even in a Cup Final.

138194[/snapback]

 

The ridiculous thing was Bridget that he was sacked only 2 games into the season, after spending a lot on signings.

 

Personally, I think a manager with his pedigree certainly deserved an extra year though (something I was never willing to give Souness because he was a proven failure). How could he possibly have been given less long anyway?

 

There are all sorts of reasons why that team was dismantled btw, not all of them under Dalglish's control. Plus there were some serious mitigating circumstances why things went pear-shaped in 97-98, not least the loss of Shearer at his peak (compounded by the forced selling of Ferdinand, and Thomasson, who could have been superb, not settling in in time). That's not to say his time here went well, but the timing of his sacking and his replacement by a fuckwit were insane, only to be repeated 5 years later......

[Guest Sima]

If you want facts, look at his record in simple terms of games played, won, lost and drawn. Tell me if you think it's a reasonable record overall. I suspect he has the worst record of any Newcastle manager in decades, including Souness.

 

Of course that is too simplistic, but there are grounds for concern. I remain to be convinced, I hope I he proves my pessimism wrong.

 

Aye, for his record at Newcastle, he's got the best win/game ratio of any manager since the start of the Premiership, and probably earlier.

 

Fact.

138096[/snapback]

 

John Carver tbh.

 

Played 1 Won 1

[sammynb 2929]

I simply don't agree. Dalglish particularly, and Gullit and Bobby Robson were all big name and successful managers, that were given ALL the backing to be successful. If they didn't succeed to expectation or hopes, it is their fault and no one elses, they carry the can for performance on the field of the players that THEY choose to keep at the club, or want to bring into the club.

136662[/snapback]

Daglish wasn't given enough time to be successful though, wouldn't you agree? He was sacked far too early and, therefore, wasn't given the necessary backing imo.

EDIT: Totally agree with SLP's and Zico's sentiments too.

136665[/snapback]

 

I'm astounded. Dalglish was given too long. The man was a total disaster and it became very clearly that he was not going to achieve anything positive at the club. He managed to dismantle an excellent team that needed strengthening leaving us playing negative football even in a Cup Final.

138194[/snapback]

 

The ridiculous thing was Bridget that he was sacked only 2 games into the season, after spending a lot on signings.

 

Personally, I think a manager with his pedigree certainly deserved an extra year though (something I was never willing to give Souness because he was a proven failure). How could he possibly have been given less long anyway?

 

There are all sorts of reasons why that team was dismantled btw, not all of them under Dalglish's control. Plus there were some serious mitigating circumstances why things went pear-shaped in 97-98, not least the loss of Shearer at his peak (compounded by the forced selling of Ferdinand, and Thomasson, who could have been superb, not settling in in time). That's not to say his time here went well, but the timing of his sacking and his replacement by a fuckwit were insane, only to be repeated 5 years later......

138240[/snapback]

Dogleash is summed up in one statement.

He sold Pedro fucking wanker.

The only reason he won the league with Rovers was Shearer, fact!

(I recently heard Robbie Slater interviewed (starting 11 CM in that team) and they were his word.)

[Renton 17959]

I simply don't agree. Dalglish particularly, and Gullit and Bobby Robson were all big name and successful managers, that were given ALL the backing to be successful. If they didn't succeed to expectation or hopes, it is their fault and no one elses, they carry the can for performance on the field of the players that THEY choose to keep at the club, or want to bring into the club.

136662[/snapback]

Daglish wasn't given enough time to be successful though, wouldn't you agree? He was sacked far too early and, therefore, wasn't given the necessary backing imo.

EDIT: Totally agree with SLP's and Zico's sentiments too.

136665[/snapback]

 

I'm astounded. Dalglish was given too long. The man was a total disaster and it became very clearly that he was not going to achieve anything positive at the club. He managed to dismantle an excellent team that needed strengthening leaving us playing negative football even in a Cup Final.

138194[/snapback]

 

The ridiculous thing was Bridget that he was sacked only 2 games into the season, after spending a lot on signings.

 

Personally, I think a manager with his pedigree certainly deserved an extra year though (something I was never willing to give Souness because he was a proven failure). How could he possibly have been given less long anyway?

 

There are all sorts of reasons why that team was dismantled btw, not all of them under Dalglish's control. Plus there were some serious mitigating circumstances why things went pear-shaped in 97-98, not least the loss of Shearer at his peak (compounded by the forced selling of Ferdinand, and Thomasson, who could have been superb, not settling in in time). That's not to say his time here went well, but the timing of his sacking and his replacement by a fuckwit were insane, only to be repeated 5 years later......

138240[/snapback]

Dogleash is summed up in one statement.

He sold Pedro fucking wanker.

The only reason he won the league with Rovers was Shearer, fact!

(I recently heard Robbie Slater interviewed (starting 11 CM in that team) and they were his word.)

138263[/snapback]

 

Sorry, that's idiotic. It's ridiculous to judge a manager on one issue only. Dalglish could spot a good player - he was the one that signed Beardsley when at Liverpool, was he not? Plus, when he left us second time round, how old was he? 36 or 37? And people say Shearer is past it! What did Beardsley do afterwards? Fuck all. He was released at the right time.

 

As for belittling his achievement at Blackburn, well, that's idiotic too. One man does not make a team, he assembled the best team in the premiership for a small town in Lancashire who a few years previously were languishing in the lower division. Fait enough, he had money, but that is still a massive achievement.

 

Why don't you hit me with another cliche like it was Dalglish and not Souness that destroyed Liverpool while you're at it?

[LeazesMag 0]

I simply don't agree. Dalglish particularly, and Gullit and Bobby Robson were all big name and successful managers, that were given ALL the backing to be successful. If they didn't succeed to expectation or hopes, it is their fault and no one elses, they carry the can for performance on the field of the players that THEY choose to keep at the club, or want to bring into the club.

136662[/snapback]

Daglish wasn't given enough time to be successful though, wouldn't you agree? He was sacked far too early and, therefore, wasn't given the necessary backing imo.

EDIT: Totally agree with SLP's and Zico's sentiments too.

136665[/snapback]

 

I'm astounded. Dalglish was given too long. The man was a total disaster and it became very clearly that he was not going to achieve anything positive at the club. He managed to dismantle an excellent team that needed strengthening leaving us playing negative football even in a Cup Final.

138194[/snapback]

 

The ridiculous thing was Bridget that he was sacked only 2 games into the season, after spending a lot on signings.

 

Personally, I think a manager with his pedigree certainly deserved an extra year though (something I was never willing to give Souness because he was a proven failure). How could he possibly have been given less long anyway?

 

There are all sorts of reasons why that team was dismantled btw, not all of them under Dalglish's control. Plus there were some serious mitigating circumstances why things went pear-shaped in 97-98, not least the loss of Shearer at his peak (compounded by the forced selling of Ferdinand, and Thomasson, who could have been superb, not settling in in time). That's not to say his time here went well, but the timing of his sacking and his replacement by a fuckwit were insane, only to be repeated 5 years later......

138240[/snapback]

Dogleash is summed up in one statement.

He sold Pedro fucking wanker.

The only reason he won the league with Rovers was Shearer, fact!

(I recently heard Robbie Slater interviewed (starting 11 CM in that team) and they were his word.)

138263[/snapback]

 

Beardsley was 36 or 37 !

 

Shearer was the main catalyst in Blackburns team, Ray Harford was supposedly a main one as well. Maybe if he had came here with him things would have been different. They had other good players at Blackburn though.

 

Selling Ferdinand was a major boob, like Bellamy now, but I think Tomasson could and should have been kept. I think if he had played alongside Sir Les or Shearer he would have came on better here than he did, rather than play alongside Arsprilla who was no help to a young lad settling into a new club, country etc as he continuted to just amble around doing his own thing when he felt like it, and for some reason is idolised and called a crowd pleaser. He was nothing but a waste of space. Dalglish's mistake was not being able to get rid of him instead of Sir Les, or choosing to keep him instead of Sir Les.

 

The chanting of "attack attack attack" is forever a memory that makes me curl up with complete frustration and sorrow. But the sacking of Dalglish 2 games into the season is a no brainer. Nobody at the time said we should sack him in the summer, even after the Cup Final. It was only when the season started it became obvious that despite the signings he had made, nothing was going to change. The board were right. If only they hadn't done the same with Souness. They were right to sack Gullit too. But they got Bobby Robson.

 

I've said this before. You can't say the timing of Dalglish was wrong and the timing of Gullit was right. The timing is not important, the replacement is what matters. This is proven again by the fact that people said we should give Souness longer and not sack him last September, whereas if Roeder had taken over in September or October, what sort of season would we have had ?

Edited May 19, 2006 by LeazesMag

[Renton 17959]

I simply don't agree. Dalglish particularly, and Gullit and Bobby Robson were all big name and successful managers, that were given ALL the backing to be successful. If they didn't succeed to expectation or hopes, it is their fault and no one elses, they carry the can for performance on the field of the players that THEY choose to keep at the club, or want to bring into the club.

136662[/snapback]

Daglish wasn't given enough time to be successful though, wouldn't you agree? He was sacked far too early and, therefore, wasn't given the necessary backing imo.

EDIT: Totally agree with SLP's and Zico's sentiments too.

136665[/snapback]

 

I'm astounded. Dalglish was given too long. The man was a total disaster and it became very clearly that he was not going to achieve anything positive at the club. He managed to dismantle an excellent team that needed strengthening leaving us playing negative football even in a Cup Final.

138194[/snapback]

 

The ridiculous thing was Bridget that he was sacked only 2 games into the season, after spending a lot on signings.

 

Personally, I think a manager with his pedigree certainly deserved an extra year though (something I was never willing to give Souness because he was a proven failure). How could he possibly have been given less long anyway?

 

There are all sorts of reasons why that team was dismantled btw, not all of them under Dalglish's control. Plus there were some serious mitigating circumstances why things went pear-shaped in 97-98, not least the loss of Shearer at his peak (compounded by the forced selling of Ferdinand, and Thomasson, who could have been superb, not settling in in time). That's not to say his time here went well, but the timing of his sacking and his replacement by a fuckwit were insane, only to be repeated 5 years later......

138240[/snapback]

Dogleash is summed up in one statement.

He sold Pedro fucking wanker.

The only reason he won the league with Rovers was Shearer, fact!

(I recently heard Robbie Slater interviewed (starting 11 CM in that team) and they were his word.)

138263[/snapback]

 

Beardsley was 36 or 37 !

 

Shearer was the main catalyst in Blackburns team, Ray Harford was supposedly a main one as well. Maybe if he had came here with him things would have been different. They had other good players at Blackburn though.

 

Selling Ferdinand was a major boob, like Bellamy now, but I think Tomasson could and should have been kept. I think if he had played alongside Sir Les or Shearer he would have came on better here than he did, rather than play alongside Arsprilla who was no help to a young lad settling into a new club, country etc as he continuted to just amble around doing his own thing when he felt like it, and for some reason is idolised and called a crowd pleaser. He was nothing but a waste of space. Dalglish's mistake was not being able to get rid of him instead of Sir Les, or choosing to keep him instead of Sir Les.

 

The chanting of "attack attack attack" is forever a memory that makes me curl up with complete frustration and sorrow. But the sacking of Dalglish 2 games into the season is a no brainer. Nobody at the time said we should sack him in the summer, even after the Cup Final. It was only when the season started it became obvious that despite the signings he had made, nothing was going to change. The board were right. If only they hadn't done the same with Souness. They were right to sack Gullit too. But they got Bobby Robson.

 

I've said this before. You can't say the timing of Dalglish was wrong and the timing of Gullit was right. The timing is not important, the replacement is what matters. This is proven again by the fact that people said we should give Souness longer and not sack him last September, whereas if Roeder had taken over in September or October, what sort of season would we have had ?

138304[/snapback]

 

Don't agree Leazes. You have to judge each case on its merits. How can you say it was obvious nothing was going to change after two games? A narrow defeat away to Chelsea and a draw at home to a recently promoted side who turned out to be rather good? Sorry, you can't defend the timing of that, just like you couldn't with Bobby. But what's worse, is that in both cases we sacked managers with proven pedigree and replaced them with fuckwits. The sacking of Gullit and Souness were entirely different matters, and both of them clearly got too long!

 

I agree with a lot of what you say, but really, you are completely blinkered in your persistent defense of the board and Shepherd in particular. It's obvious in your mind he can do virtually no wrong. Well I suggest if this really was the case with our resources we might be doing just a bit better than we are now and may have actually won something by now. We never will while Shepherd is here, I'd bet you my house on that.

[LeazesMag 0]

I simply don't agree. Dalglish particularly, and Gullit and Bobby Robson were all big name and successful managers, that were given ALL the backing to be successful. If they didn't succeed to expectation or hopes, it is their fault and no one elses, they carry the can for performance on the field of the players that THEY choose to keep at the club, or want to bring into the club.

136662[/snapback]

Daglish wasn't given enough time to be successful though, wouldn't you agree? He was sacked far too early and, therefore, wasn't given the necessary backing imo.

EDIT: Totally agree with SLP's and Zico's sentiments too.

136665[/snapback]

 

I'm astounded. Dalglish was given too long. The man was a total disaster and it became very clearly that he was not going to achieve anything positive at the club. He managed to dismantle an excellent team that needed strengthening leaving us playing negative football even in a Cup Final.

138194[/snapback]

 

The ridiculous thing was Bridget that he was sacked only 2 games into the season, after spending a lot on signings.

 

Personally, I think a manager with his pedigree certainly deserved an extra year though (something I was never willing to give Souness because he was a proven failure). How could he possibly have been given less long anyway?

 

There are all sorts of reasons why that team was dismantled btw, not all of them under Dalglish's control. Plus there were some serious mitigating circumstances why things went pear-shaped in 97-98, not least the loss of Shearer at his peak (compounded by the forced selling of Ferdinand, and Thomasson, who could have been superb, not settling in in time). That's not to say his time here went well, but the timing of his sacking and his replacement by a fuckwit were insane, only to be repeated 5 years later......

138240[/snapback]

Dogleash is summed up in one statement.

He sold Pedro fucking wanker.

The only reason he won the league with Rovers was Shearer, fact!

(I recently heard Robbie Slater interviewed (starting 11 CM in that team) and they were his word.)

138263[/snapback]

 

Beardsley was 36 or 37 !

 

Shearer was the main catalyst in Blackburns team, Ray Harford was supposedly a main one as well. Maybe if he had came here with him things would have been different. They had other good players at Blackburn though.

 

Selling Ferdinand was a major boob, like Bellamy now, but I think Tomasson could and should have been kept. I think if he had played alongside Sir Les or Shearer he would have came on better here than he did, rather than play alongside Arsprilla who was no help to a young lad settling into a new club, country etc as he continuted to just amble around doing his own thing when he felt like it, and for some reason is idolised and called a crowd pleaser. He was nothing but a waste of space. Dalglish's mistake was not being able to get rid of him instead of Sir Les, or choosing to keep him instead of Sir Les.

 

The chanting of "attack attack attack" is forever a memory that makes me curl up with complete frustration and sorrow. But the sacking of Dalglish 2 games into the season is a no brainer. Nobody at the time said we should sack him in the summer, even after the Cup Final. It was only when the season started it became obvious that despite the signings he had made, nothing was going to change. The board were right. If only they hadn't done the same with Souness. They were right to sack Gullit too. But they got Bobby Robson.

 

I've said this before. You can't say the timing of Dalglish was wrong and the timing of Gullit was right. The timing is not important, the replacement is what matters. This is proven again by the fact that people said we should give Souness longer and not sack him last September, whereas if Roeder had taken over in September or October, what sort of season would we have had ?

138304[/snapback]

 

Don't agree Leazes. You have to judge each case on its merits. How can you say it was obvious nothing was going to change after two games? A narrow defeat away to Chelsea and a draw at home to a recently promoted side who turned out to be rather good? Sorry, you can't defend the timing of that, just like you couldn't with Bobby. But what's worse, is that in both cases we sacked managers with proven pedigree and replaced them with fuckwits. The sacking of Gullit and Souness were entirely different matters, and both of them clearly got too long!

 

I agree with a lot of what you say, but really, you are completely blinkered in your persistent defense of the board and Shepherd in particular. It's obvious in your mind he can do virtually no wrong. Well I suggest if this really was the case with our resources we might be doing just a bit better than we are now and may have actually won something by now. We never will while Shepherd is here, I'd bet you my house on that.

138306[/snapback]

 

Of course they do wrong. They appointed Souness. I just think hiring and firing managers is a reactionary thing. I cast my mind back to Dalglish, and myself and plenty of others thought/hoped that summer that after the signings he made, we would be more positive. He bought Given and Solano that summer BTW, a new manager would not have. Anyway...after the two games, negative in the extreme, the thought was nothing was going to change. We could have kept him on longer, but whos to say it would have improved. You have to make decisions, and they did, for better or worse.

 

Most people were happy with his replacement too. Witness the scenes on TV. None of those cared a shit for "the timing". If anything such things as this ie Dalglish and Gullit tell you exactly why "5 year plans" are a load of bollocks. Because they both had to go, only one year into the "5 year plan".

[Renton 17959]

Of course they do wrong. They appointed Souness. I just think hiring and firing managers is a reactionary thing. I cast my mind back to Dalglish, and myself and plenty of others thought/hoped that summer that after the signings he made, we would be more positive. He bought Given and Solano that summer BTW, a new manager would not have. Anyway...after the two games, negative in the extreme, the thought was nothing was going to change. We could have kept him on longer, but whos to say it would have improved. You have to make decisions, and they did, for better or worse.

 

Most people were happy with his replacement too. Witness the scenes on TV. None of those cared a shit for "the timing". If anything such things as this ie Dalglish and Gullit tell you exactly why "5 year plans" are a load of bollocks. Because they both had to go, only one year into the "5 year plan".

138308[/snapback]

 

The bit in bold - I think that is one of the main problems with our board - they don't plan but stumble from one mistake to another. Why wasn't the replacement of Robson planned for, like Liverpool did that summer? Please, please, stop defending this practice of giving a manager a few games at the start of the season then sacking him without a planned replacement - that's how we ended up with Souness.

 

I also though the appointment of Gullit would have been avoided with minimal research into the man's character - I was almost as gutted when we employed him as we were when we got Souness. If the rest of the fans were for him, well, more fool them, and it perfectly illustrates why the fans should not "elect" the manager. But once again, we have Shepherd proclaiming Roeder is the fans' choice. Jesus wept - not this particular fan he isn't.

[Guest alex]

Putting aside whether or not Daglish, Gullit or whoever was right, if you look at now, we should be at least thinking about a long-term strategy. The most successful clubs tend to do that and stability is exactly what this club needs and with the exception of Robson, has needed since Keegan. One of my problems with Shepherd is that he is too reactive to current situations and doesn't look at the big picture/plan ahead. I think he's missed an opportunity to appoint someone like O'Neill/Hiddink/Hitzfeld and give them 3+ years to build a side. I realise it's tough for Shepherd as the NUFC faithful often demand instant 'success' / attractive football. Sometimes though, Shepherd needs to step back from this and stick to his guns. Of course, you can only do this with the right man in place to start with. I fear Roeder is short-term 'stop-gap' and the fact he's got a two-year deal (on nowhere near what his predecessors were on I'll wager) would tend to suggest this is true.

[Renton 17959]

Putting aside whether or not Daglish, Gullit or whoever was right, if you look at now, we should be at least thinking about a long-term strategy. The most successful clubs tend to do that and stability is exactly what this club needs and with the exception of Robson, has needed since Keegan. One of my problems with Shepherd is that he is too reactive to current situations and doesn't look at the big picture/plan ahead. I think he's missed an opportunity to appoint someone like O'Neill/Hiddink/Hitzfeld and give them 3+ years to build a side. I realise it's tough for Shepherd as the NUFC faithful often demand instant 'success' / attractive football. Sometimes though, Shepherd needs to step back from this and stick to his guns. Of course, you can only do this with the right man in place to start with. I fear Roeder is short-term 'stop-gap' and the fact he's got a two-year deal (on nowhere near what his predecessors were on I'll wager) would tend to suggest this is true.

138314[/snapback]

 

Absolutely.

 

But then, I sense this boards doesn't give a fuck about success as long as the money is coming in. A false economy, obviously, but then I suspect none of them are gifted with intelligence.

[sweetleftpeg 0]

Very interesting interview in the current Mag with the NE writer for the Guardian if anyone gets the chance to read it. Hints massively at who exactly buys players and believes what a lot of us believe in that the board have no long term plan and seem to be run day to day.

[Guest alex]

All this listening to the fans stuff is bollocks anyway. The average toon fan is fickle as fuck.

Edited May 19, 2006 by alex

[Bombadil 0]

Very interesting interview in the current Mag with the NE writer for the Guardian if anyone gets the chance to read it. Hints massively at who exactly buys players and believes what a lot of us believe in that the board have no long term plan and seem to be run day to day.

138318[/snapback]

 

Lies, all lies!

[LeazesMag 0]

Putting aside whether or not Daglish, Gullit or whoever was right, if you look at now, we should be at least thinking about a long-term strategy. The most successful clubs tend to do that and stability is exactly what this club needs and with the exception of Robson, has needed since Keegan. One of my problems with Shepherd is that he is too reactive to current situations and doesn't look at the big picture/plan ahead. I think he's missed an opportunity to appoint someone like O'Neill/Hiddink/Hitzfeld and give them 3+ years to build a side. I realise it's tough for Shepherd as the NUFC faithful often demand instant 'success' / attractive football. Sometimes though, Shepherd needs to step back from this and stick to his guns. Of course, you can only do this with the right man in place to start with. I fear Roeder is short-term 'stop-gap' and the fact he's got a two-year deal (on nowhere near what his predecessors were on I'll wager) would tend to suggest this is true.

138314[/snapback]

 

You see Alex, I'm not defending Shepherd for no reason, but this is the sort of thing that I will answer in his defence. You say on one hand that the club should input a "long term strategy" then dismiss the current appointment as not being a long term strategy. If the club really think Shearer is top quality management material then this appointment of Roeder with a view to Shearer being his right hand man in a year or two with long term succession, is PRECISELY a long term plan or strategy. Correct ?

 

Whether it is the "right" man, we don't know. The simple fact is, the whole idea is bollocks. Dalglish would still be here now if he had been the right man, and by the same token we were not going to keep him after 18 months simply because there was 3 and a half years of the "5 year plan" left. And with his CV, a hell of a lot of people thought he was the "right" man.

 

The same will happen to Roeder, Shearer of whoever. If they stay at the club for 5 years or more, its because they are winning. Simple as that.

 

The most successful clubs don't have a long term strategy at all. They just appoint a manager who wins games so stays. Bruce Rioch lasted a year at Arsenal. What happened to that long term plan ? Ditto Evans at Liverpool, and they won the ahem, League Cup.

 

And I don't mean YOU specifically.

Edited May 19, 2006 by LeazesMag