Should Newcastle United

[Isegrim 8870]

Leazes being a tad blinkered for a change. Look at where we needed strengthening, i.e. defence. Campbell was available and willing to come apparently. Bridge may have been had we acted sooner. Sorin has gone to Hamburg for not very much, Trabelsi has gone to Man City on a pay as you play deal. That's just off the top of my head. We could have potentially gotten 3 of those 4 for around the £3million mark.

189894[/snapback]

 

Hamburg also signed a Dutch international defender in Matijsen for 6m Euro only a few days after they had sold Boulahrouz (who apparently rejected a move to Newcastle according to his words) for 13m Euro. So why didn't we have a plan up our sleeves when we finally got rid of Boumsong, something I guess we were working at all summer.

[Guest alex]

Leazes being a tad blinkered for a change. Look at where we needed strengthening, i.e. defence. Campbell was available and willing to come apparently. Bridge may have been had we acted sooner. Sorin has gone to Hamburg for not very much, Trabelsi has gone to Man City on a pay as you play deal. That's just off the top of my head. We could have potentially gotten 3 of those 4 for around the £3million mark.

189894[/snapback]

 

Hamburg also signed a Dutch international defender in Matijsen for 6m Euro only a few days after they had sold Boulahrouz (who apparently rejected a move to Newcastle according to his words) for 13m Euro. So why didn't we have a plan up our sleeves when we finally got rid of Boumsong, something I guess we were working at all summer.

189903[/snapback]

Shambles really. The first post in this thread, i.e. by Fred's number one fan, suggests to me even Leazes is secretly pissed off but is loathed to admit it.

[Gemmill 34464]

We all thought pole position was a formula one reference, in hindsight what he actually meant was, we're getting shafted.

189891[/snapback]

 

Pole position = Bent over, with a pole inserted.

189895[/snapback]

 

Same thing?

189900[/snapback]

 

Yeah.

[Guest alex]

We all thought pole position was a formula one reference, in hindsight what he actually meant was, we're getting shafted.

189891[/snapback]

 

Pole position = Bent over, with a pole inserted.

189895[/snapback]

 

Same thing?

189900[/snapback]

 

Yeah.

189912[/snapback]

I thought you were agreeing like.

[adios 717]

We all thought pole position was a formula one reference, in hindsight what he actually meant was, we're getting shafted.

189891[/snapback]

 

Pole position = Bent over, with a pole inserted.

189895[/snapback]

 

Same thing?

189900[/snapback]

 

Yeah.

189912[/snapback]

 

[Shearergol 0]

We all thought pole position was a formula one reference, in hindsight what he actually meant was, we're getting shafted.

189891[/snapback]

 

Pole position = Bent over, with a pole inserted.

189895[/snapback]

 

Same thing?

189900[/snapback]

 

Yeah.

189912[/snapback]

 

189936[/snapback]

 

 

Nah lads. Pole position means having a pole inserted up your arse.

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm willing to agree with Gemmill's theory that we did a 'ring-around' last night to see who was available.

 

No-one is gonna convince me that Sibierski was one of the targets Glenn was in 'pole-position' for

189822[/snapback]

 

possibly not, but with a smalll squad, and having already shelled out 15-16m quid.

Thats the point. We knew, or should have done, that the Souness legacy was this, or at least some of us said so. We would be better off if Bellamy and Robert were still here, agreed ? And considering he wanted them out so desperately we got 4m quid for the 2 of them, who can possibly defend THAT ?

189826[/snapback]

 

 

You do understand the Chairmen has to OK all sales right. Souness didn't do it behind the fat ones back.

189832[/snapback]

 

you do understand that chairman are supposed to allow their managers to run the playing side of the club, right ? So, if he DID veto any transfers on playing grounds, which appears to be what you are indicating you want, you would have a lot to say wouldn't you ?

 

Seriously, I have my doubts, it seems the vast amount of people on here don't seem to understand this ..... nor the financial state of the club, mostly brought about by the last manager, despite it being as clear as the glass in front of your face.

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm willing to agree with Gemmill's theory that we did a 'ring-around' last night to see who was available.

 

No-one is gonna convince me that Sibierski was one of the targets Glenn was in 'pole-position' for

189822[/snapback]

 

possibly not, but with a smalll squad, and having already shelled out 15-16m quid.

Thats the point. We knew, or should have done, that the Souness legacy was this, or at least some of us said so. We would be better off if Bellamy and Robert were still here, agreed ? And considering he wanted them out so desperately we got 4m quid for the 2 of them, who can possibly defend THAT ?

189826[/snapback]

 

 

Jesus wept!

189831[/snapback]

 

Are you saying, that nobody said this ? Or you didn't realise that Souness was spending a huge amount of money on shit players and making bad sales as well ?

 

Wakey wakey, are you there ........

[Guest alex]

Who appointed Souness and backed him to the hilt again?

[adios 717]

It's hard to tell from here, but I think he's saying, "don't drive angry."

[Gemmill 34464]

Leazes, I wrote this in reponse to HTL on N-O. He still disagrees as far as I'm aware, but I think it's a valid argument. What's your take on it? Any major spending decisions in any business have to have a business case behind them (or a footballing case, if you like). We don't have a set-up like this at NUFC.

 

You don't see the Chairman's role at the club as anything other than provider of transfer funds.  Chairmen of ALL businesses mould company policy and have an active role in forming and influencing the major decisions that are taken.  There are no bigger decisions at a football club (outside of appointing the manager) than which players to sign.  The Chairman can and should have an active role in this - I'm not saying he should tell the manager who to sign, but he should caution the manager against overspending in one area of the team and work with his manager to form a sensible plan which they both then take into the market and try to make a reality.  The Chairman's role in this is paramount, and you see these sort of relationships working perfectly fine at other club's because the chairman along with his manager has a defined goal when he enters the market.  We don't have that.  That is not all the manager's fault, because if the manager comes to the Chairman with a ragtag plan, the Chairman needs to sit him down and work something out - a manager should be coming to his Chairman with what amounts to a business plan for why they need to buy a specific player and then having that approved via discussion and consideration of alternatives.

 

I GUARANTEE that at other clubs where less money is available, that these are the sort of conversations managers and chairmen have.  We don't have this sort of setup at Newcastle.  It's all done on the hoof and it shows.

 

Look at us this summer - Roeder has admitted that we were short in defence and in attack.  Now what happened?  If you exclude Bernard for a minute, we signed two midfielders and a striker.  No defenders.  Now, if Shepherd and Roeder were working in tandem they would both have sat down, Shepherd would have told Roeder what he had to spend and they would both have formed a strategy to strengthen where we needed to with the funds at our disposal - maybe divvying the funds up between the different areas and then Roeder identifying the players that he wanted to work towards signing within a framework defined by him and his Chairman.

 

Instead what we got was the signing of Duff (an excellent signing on the face of things) which was done completely on the hoof and with a total disregard for the actual areas of the team we needed to strengthen.  In the knowledge that we had limited funds this was total negligence on behalf of both manager AND chairman.

 

Can you not agree with this?  I don't think I'm really suggesting anything out of the ordinary, just a basic framework for making sensible transfer decisions.

[Bombadil 0]

I'm willing to agree with Gemmill's theory that we did a 'ring-around' last night to see who was available.

 

No-one is gonna convince me that Sibierski was one of the targets Glenn was in 'pole-position' for

189822[/snapback]

 

possibly not, but with a smalll squad, and having already shelled out 15-16m quid.

Thats the point. We knew, or should have done, that the Souness legacy was this, or at least some of us said so. We would be better off if Bellamy and Robert were still here, agreed ? And considering he wanted them out so desperately we got 4m quid for the 2 of them, who can possibly defend THAT ?

189826[/snapback]

 

 

You do understand the Chairmen has to OK all sales right. Souness didn't do it behind the fat ones back.

189832[/snapback]

 

you do understand that chairman are supposed to allow their managers to run the playing side of the club, right ? So, if he DID veto any transfers on playing grounds, which appears to be what you are indicating you want, you would have a lot to say wouldn't you ?

 

Seriously, I have my doubts, it seems the vast amount of people on here don't seem to understand this ..... nor the financial state of the club, mostly brought about by the last manager, despite it being as clear as the glass in front of your face.

190603[/snapback]

 

Re: Souness and his bad buys, do you accept that it seems to be common knowledge that the Shepherds rather than Souness were the driving force behind the Luque deal?

[gram 0]

I'm willing to agree with Gemmill's theory that we did a 'ring-around' last night to see who was available.

 

No-one is gonna convince me that Sibierski was one of the targets Glenn was in 'pole-position' for

189822[/snapback]

 

possibly not, but with a smalll squad, and having already shelled out 15-16m quid.

Thats the point. We knew, or should have done, that the Souness legacy was this, or at least some of us said so. We would be better off if Bellamy and Robert were still here, agreed ? And considering he wanted them out so desperately we got 4m quid for the 2 of them, who can possibly defend THAT ?

189826[/snapback]

 

 

You do understand the Chairmen has to OK all sales right. Souness didn't do it behind the fat ones back.

189832[/snapback]

 

you do understand that chairman are supposed to allow their managers to run the playing side of the club, right ? So, if he DID veto any transfers on playing grounds, which appears to be what you are indicating you want, you would have a lot to say wouldn't you ?

 

Seriously, I have my doubts, it seems the vast amount of people on here don't seem to understand this ..... nor the financial state of the club, mostly brought about by the last manager, despite it being as clear as the glass in front of your face.

190603[/snapback]

In any business it is commonplace for the head of the business to have final say on major investments. In some cases that investment is their idea. In others not.

Responsible management dictates that this has to happen.

 

Responsible chairmen also employ responsible and well qualified staff. That is their duty, not only to the business but to the shareholders.

 

He has failed on both counts.

 

I accept he needs to give managers the ability to decide but he has gone into this issue far too recklessly and it is absolutely nobodies fault bit his own that the 'bottomless pit' is no more.

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes being a tad blinkered for a change. Look at where we needed strengthening, i.e. defence. Campbell was available and willing to come apparently. Bridge may have been had we acted sooner. Sorin has gone to Hamburg for not very much, Trabelsi has gone to Man City on a pay as you play deal. That's just off the top of my head. We could have potentially gotten 3 of those 4 for around the £3million mark.

189894[/snapback]

 

Can't see where I am being blinkered, in fact I think the majority of people on here who seem either oblivious to the financial position of the club - through a lack of intelligence or just because they are deluded enough to think we can just spend what we like - are the blinkered ones. And for what its worth, as a squad player for a small fee Sibierski is alright - bearing in mind again our budget - whereas my main worry is Martins because if he flops, that is another 10m quid down the plug, and this is the type of signing who has created the position that we are in now ie Luque, Boumsong, and many others before those over previous years.

[LeazesMag 0]

We obviously just don't have the pulling power anymore, we're the football club version of the fat smelly mong who stands in the corner of the bar constantly wiping sweat off his gogs.

 

Two main issues here imo;

 

1) Our transfer balls ups have coincided with little Kenny Shepherd being given the lead to negotiate deals. The lad is obviously shit at it tbf.

 

2) Our relationship with Willy McKay has seen us bring in shite after shite signing. We need to cut off ties with the bloke, who seems to be getting paid millions by NUFC to peddle us shit.

189884[/snapback]

 

stupidest post so far.

[Park Life 70]

I'm willing to agree with Gemmill's theory that we did a 'ring-around' last night to see who was available.

 

No-one is gonna convince me that Sibierski was one of the targets Glenn was in 'pole-position' for

189822[/snapback]

 

possibly not, but with a smalll squad, and having already shelled out 15-16m quid.

Thats the point.

189826[/snapback]

 

That's exactly the point ffs. With a small squad, we shouldn't have shelled out 15m quid on two players in the knowledge that it left us brassic. And before you blame Roeder, if he's too stupid to realise that, then it's up to Shepherd as his boss to point that out to him. Are you fucking getting this yet for christ's sake??

 

Agree we are buying with our eyes and not our bellies.

[Gemmill 34464]

Leazes being a tad blinkered for a change. Look at where we needed strengthening, i.e. defence. Campbell was available and willing to come apparently. Bridge may have been had we acted sooner. Sorin has gone to Hamburg for not very much, Trabelsi has gone to Man City on a pay as you play deal. That's just off the top of my head. We could have potentially gotten 3 of those 4 for around the £3million mark.

189894[/snapback]

 

Can't see where I am being blinkered, in fact I think the majority of people on here who seem either oblivious to the financial position of the club - through a lack of intelligence or just because they are deluded enough to think we can just spend what we like - are the blinkered ones. And for what its worth, as a squad player for a small fee Sibierski is alright - bearing in mind again our budget - whereas my main worry is Martins because if he flops, that is another 10m quid down the plug, and this is the type of signing who has created the position that we are in now ie Luque, Boumsong, and many others before those over previous years.

190617[/snapback]

 

Nobody is oblivious to the financial position of the club. Nobody is saying we only spent £15m, why not more. What we're saying is, why not spend the £15m more prudently? That's a question Freddy Shepherd should be asking too. But prudent spending robs him of his Hollywood signings and requires him to actually put some hard graft in helping his manager to establish a transfer plan. Why do that when you can fly by the seat of your pants and then just say "One thing you can't level at us is that we're boring." He actually thinks that this is an asset of ours ffs!?

[Guest alex]

Leazes being a tad blinkered for a change. Look at where we needed strengthening, i.e. defence. Campbell was available and willing to come apparently. Bridge may have been had we acted sooner. Sorin has gone to Hamburg for not very much, Trabelsi has gone to Man City on a pay as you play deal. That's just off the top of my head. We could have potentially gotten 3 of those 4 for around the £3million mark.

189894[/snapback]

 

Can't see where I am being blinkered, in fact I think the majority of people on here who seem either oblivious to the financial position of the club - through a lack of intelligence or just because they are deluded enough to think we can just spend what we like - are the blinkered ones. And for what its worth, as a squad player for a small fee Sibierski is alright - bearing in mind again our budget - whereas my main worry is Martins because if he flops, that is another 10m quid down the plug, and this is the type of signing who has created the position that we are in now ie Luque, Boumsong, and many others before those over previous years.

190617[/snapback]

If you can point to a single person on here who has said we can spend what we like I'll be amazed. Straw man stuff from you as per usual. Re: the bit in bold, who's fault is it if we're making the same mistake we did last summer?

[Gemmill 34464]

Just to add a bit of levity, Northern Monkey has just referred to Souness as "The Tartan Darth Vader" on NO. Quality.

[snakehips 0]

Was it not just a case of Portly Freddie employing Souness to get rid of the 'rabble' in the dressing room? Because he (Shepherd) wanted someone to hide behind in order to get rid of them?

 

He employed Souness deliberately as he (Shepherd) saw Souness as a tough guy to force the rabble out. Lo and behold, The 'rabble' are got rid of and Shepherd can say with the cheesy grin on his face: 'I was only backing the manager.'

 

Mission accomplished as far as Shepherd was concerned. Unfortunately, the damage caused by Shepherd's backing of Souness' transfer policy, in respect of signings, has set the club back God knows how many years.

[Park Life 70]

Leazes being a tad blinkered for a change. Look at where we needed strengthening, i.e. defence. Campbell was available and willing to come apparently. Bridge may have been had we acted sooner. Sorin has gone to Hamburg for not very much, Trabelsi has gone to Man City on a pay as you play deal. That's just off the top of my head. We could have potentially gotten 3 of those 4 for around the £3million mark.

189894[/snapback]

 

Can't see where I am being blinkered, in fact I think the majority of people on here who seem either oblivious to the financial position of the club - through a lack of intelligence or just because they are deluded enough to think we can just spend what we like - are the blinkered ones. And for what its worth, as a squad player for a small fee Sibierski is alright - bearing in mind again our budget - whereas my main worry is Martins because if he flops, that is another 10m quid down the plug, and this is the type of signing who has created the position that we are in now ie Luque, Boumsong, and many others before those over previous years.

190617[/snapback]

If you can point to a single person on here who has said we can spend what we like I'll be amazed. Straw man stuff from you as per usual. Re: the bit in bold, who's fault is it if we're making the same mistake we did last summer?

190628[/snapback]

 

.......and we still bought the wrong striker and another midfielder when we patently need a defender with his head screwed on forwards.

[gram 0]

We obviously just don't have the pulling power anymore, we're the football club version of the fat smelly mong who stands in the corner of the bar constantly wiping sweat off his gogs.

 

Two main issues here imo;

 

1) Our transfer balls ups have coincided with little Kenny Shepherd being given the lead to negotiate deals. The lad is obviously shit at it tbf.

 

2) Our relationship with Willy McKay has seen us bring in shite after shite signing. We need to cut off ties with the bloke, who seems to be getting paid millions by NUFC to peddle us shit.

189884[/snapback]

 

stupidest post so far.

190618[/snapback]

Seems pretty astute to me. Certainly other clubs have got fees we can only dream of. Cygan went for £2m apparently

The Willie McKay thing stinks to high heaven

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, I wrote this in reponse to HTL on N-O.  He still disagrees as far as I'm aware, but I think it's a valid argument.  What's your take on it?  Any major spending decisions in any business have to have a business case behind them (or a footballing case, if you like).  We don't have a set-up like this at NUFC.

 

You don't see the Chairman's role at the club as anything other than provider of transfer funds.  Chairmen of ALL businesses mould company policy and have an active role in forming and influencing the major decisions that are taken.  There are no bigger decisions at a football club (outside of appointing the manager) than which players to sign.  The Chairman can and should have an active role in this - I'm not saying he should tell the manager who to sign, but he should caution the manager against overspending in one area of the team and work with his manager to form a sensible plan which they both then take into the market and try to make a reality.  The Chairman's role in this is paramount, and you see these sort of relationships working perfectly fine at other club's because the chairman along with his manager has a defined goal when he enters the market.  We don't have that.  That is not all the manager's fault, because if the manager comes to the Chairman with a ragtag plan, the Chairman needs to sit him down and work something out - a manager should be coming to his Chairman with what amounts to a business plan for why they need to buy a specific player and then having that approved via discussion and consideration of alternatives.

 

I GUARANTEE that at other clubs where less money is available, that these are the sort of conversations managers and chairmen have.  We don't have this sort of setup at Newcastle.  It's all done on the hoof and it shows.

 

Look at us this summer - Roeder has admitted that we were short in defence and in attack.  Now what happened?  If you exclude Bernard for a minute, we signed two midfielders and a striker.  No defenders.  Now, if Shepherd and Roeder were working in tandem they would both have sat down, Shepherd would have told Roeder what he had to spend and they would both have formed a strategy to strengthen where we needed to with the funds at our disposal - maybe divvying the funds up between the different areas and then Roeder identifying the players that he wanted to work towards signing within a framework defined by him and his Chairman.

 

Instead what we got was the signing of Duff (an excellent signing on the face of things) which was done completely on the hoof and with a total disregard for the actual areas of the team we needed to strengthen.  In the knowledge that we had limited funds this was total negligence on behalf of both manager AND chairman.

 

Can you not agree with this?  I don't think I'm really suggesting anything out of the ordinary, just a basic framework for making sensible transfer decisions.

190611[/snapback]

 

So you don't think our major priority was replacing Alan Shearer, and even Bellamy - as he hasn't been replaced or hadn't been, as Owen is out for a season ?

Are you saying we should have bought a defender and spent the whole of the season playing with Luque, Ameobi and maybe Milner up front ?

 

I think the club HAVE prioritised, they knew we needed 2 forwards, minimum.

 

The fact that no money is left to replace Babayaro, with someone better, is the fault of the previous manager, who's legacy will take more than 8 months to recover from.

[Ted Maul 0]

I'm convinced Leazes is Oliver. He talks just as much shite as him.

[gram 0]

Just to add a bit of levity, Northern Monkey has just referred to Souness as "The Tartan Darth Vader" on NO.  Quality.

190629[/snapback]