Should Newcastle United

[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.

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]

 

If you aceept having to buy players on a limited transfer budget, then why not show you accept it and stop the fook complaining about it then .....

 

You think I'M happy ? I'm not, I just realise Roeder is doing the best with what he has. Hardly rocket science.

[Guest alex]

Well we could have had Anelka, Trabelsi, Bridge/Sorin and still have somewhere in the range of £5m to spend on a centre-half (and still got Sibierski). That would have been a better use (or prioritisation if you like) of funds for adding to a threadbare squad imo.

[gram 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.

190634[/snapback]

Who had the responsibility of employing him? Who was daft enough to give him the money? Who continued to give him more and more money despite obvious flaws?

 

The buck stops at the top. Doesnt it? The price of greatness is responsibilty, as some fat bloke once said.

[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.

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.

190622[/snapback]

 

It depends. You still need quality. We need[ed] to replace Shearer, there is no point in replacing him with players who would play well for a few months then get found out. Two quality players beat 7 ordinary ones hands down.

[Gemmill 34177]

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.

190634[/snapback]

 

Jesus Christ man! Listen ok. If you know you only have £15m, and you know you have certain areas that need strengthening, you cannot afford to sign a player like Damien Duff for a third of your transfer fund. That could have bought us Lucas Neill and gone some way to sorting out our huge shortage in defense.

 

You also don't spend £10m on Martins. You spend £5m on Nugent, get Hasselbaink on a free, and have £5m to further strengthen your problematic defence.

 

Stop harping on like Souness, you sound daft! Souness is gone. This summer we had a reasonable transfer fund to spend, which NO ONE has complained about by the way, and we pissed it away on two players.

[Guest alex]

It depends. You still need quality. We need[ed] to replace Shearer, there is no point in replacing him with players who would play well for a few months then get found out. Two quality players beat 7 ordinary ones hands down.

190651[/snapback]

When Souness did a similar thing last season (i.e. buy a proven Premiership player and took a risk on a foreigner) that was bad though wasn't it?

[Park Life 70]

Well we could have had Anelka, Trabelsi, Bridge/Sorin and still have somewhere in the range of £5m to spend on a centre-half (and still got Sibierski). That would have been a better use (or prioritisation if you like) of funds for adding to a threadbare squad imo.

190648[/snapback]

 

This is the crux of the problem, investing too much in single players. In what way could Roeder prefer Oba to Anelka, its like he lives on a different football planet or summat. Trabelsi would have been good.

[Papa Lazaru 0]

Ah its been a while since these arguments did the rounds for a good 20 or so pages!

 

It really doesn't need to either. Practically anyone on here (indeed anyone with a brain) acknowledges Souness was one of the biggest disaters to ever hit this club and we are still about 2 years backwards because of him at least. And we all know Fat Fred hired him when everybody else said no and kept him on after a shite first season (including many high profile and obvious fuck ups), kept him on after a the shitness continued, kept him on past the transfer deadline and backed a man who was destroying the club with millions, only to then finally sack him way too late.

 

So the people on this thread who blame Fat Fred are right and the people (well lets be honest, person) who blames Souness is blaming Fat Fred but just won't admit it.

 

So heres to another 20 pages!

Edited September 1, 2006 by Papa Lazaru

[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.

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?

190613[/snapback]

 

You shouildn't believe shit rumours. Lesson one.

 

You'll be saying Luque is a "trophy signing" next. Should have bought Wayne Fereday back, if people don't want "trophy signings".

[Shearergol 0]

I'd rather pay £8m for a proven striker, and then have £7m left over to address the rest of the squad. Reckon we could have got 7 players who weren't ordinary tbh

[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.

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.

190614[/snapback]

 

He hasn't failed. We have been the 5th top club in the country over the past decade, and appeared regularly in europe, filling the ground, and buying major international players.

 

There are 86 clubs who have done worse than us, including one 12 miles down the road. Since this board took over this club in 1992 they have picked it up and established it back to one of the top clubs in the country. Fact.

 

I'm not interested in stupid skyboy type views.

[Guest alex]

You shouildn't believe shit rumours. Lesson one.

 

190667[/snapback]

Your the biggest purveyor of 'shit rumours' going when they support your argument. You can't have it both ways.

[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.

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!?

190624[/snapback]

 

Ok Gem, we'll go and buy 7 x 2m pound players, and see where that gets you, if you dont' want "hollywood" signings .... plenty of those over at the SOS mate.

[Ted Maul 0]

Freddy's the problem at this club. Does anyone really think we'd be in this position if we had a competent chairman who had the balls to pick a big name manager? Freddy picked Roeder because he was the cheap, easy option and allowed him to meddle in first team affairs like he did to Robson and a lesser extent Souness.

[Guest alex]

Freddy's the problem at this club. Does anyone really think we'd be in this position if we had a competent chairman who had the balls to pick a big name manager? Freddy picked Roeder because he was the cheap, easy option and allowed him to meddle in first team affairs like he did to Robson and a lesser extent Souness.

190676[/snapback]

5th best pies since 1992, blah, blah, blah...

[adios 717]

You shouildn't believe shit rumours. Lesson one.

 

You'll be saying Luque is a "trophy signing" next. Should have bought Wayne Fereday back, if people don't want "trophy signings".

190667[/snapback]

 

Oh, he's found another one!

 

Watching Leazes playing with the English language is like watching a child toying with hi-tech baubles; totally fucking clueless!

[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.

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

190633[/snapback]

 

If there was any astute views in there, I would agree, and if there was - which there isn't - I would still say it is stupidly written.

[LeazesMag 0]

Freddy's the problem at this club. Does anyone really think we'd be in this position if we had a competent chairman who had the balls to pick a big name manager? Freddy picked Roeder because he was the cheap, easy option and allowed him to meddle in first team affairs like he did to Robson and a lesser extent Souness.

190676[/snapback]

5th best pies since 1992, blah, blah, blah...

190679[/snapback]

 

Fact.

[Park Life 70]

Freddy's the problem at this club. Does anyone really think we'd be in this position if we had a competent chairman who had the balls to pick a big name manager? Freddy picked Roeder because he was the cheap, easy option and allowed him to meddle in first team affairs like he did to Robson and a lesser extent Souness.

190676[/snapback]

 

Exactly. And for people who go on about our spending we have spent way less than Liverpool witha similar turnover..Not only that nearly all out big buys recently have turned out to be cack.

[Ted Maul 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.

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!?

190624[/snapback]

 

Ok Gem, we'll go and buy 7 x 2m pound players, and see where that gets you, if you dont' want "hollywood" signings .... plenty of those over at the SOS mate.

190675[/snapback]

 

 

I'd personally rather have 7 £2million players that would improve our squad in positions that need improving than 2 Hollywood signings that'll sell shirts and not be much better than what we've got.

[LeazesMag 0]

You shouildn't believe shit rumours. Lesson one.

 

190667[/snapback]

Your the biggest purveyor of 'shit rumours' going when they support your argument. You can't have it both ways.

190672[/snapback]

 

name them

[Papa Lazaru 0]

Freddy's the problem at this club. Does anyone really think we'd be in this position if we had a competent chairman who had the balls to pick a big name manager? Freddy picked Roeder because he was the cheap, easy option and allowed him to meddle in first team affairs like he did to Robson and a lesser extent Souness.

190676[/snapback]

5th best pies since 1992, blah, blah, blah...

190679[/snapback]

 

Well be fair, if Fred is going to make anything a priority its going to be pies!

[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]

 

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?

190613[/snapback]

 

You shouildn't believe shit rumours. Lesson one.

 

You'll be saying Luque is a "trophy signing" next. Should have bought Wayne Fereday back, if people don't want "trophy signings".

190667[/snapback]

There is a middle ground, of course. Somewhere between a few grand and a few million. That could have got us a much better balanced side.

Lesson 2: Dont practice what you preach and youre not adverse to believing rumours yourself are you? When they suit.

[Shearergol 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.

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!?

190624[/snapback]

 

Ok Gem, we'll go and buy 7 x 2m pound players, and see where that gets you, if you dont' want "hollywood" signings .... plenty of those over at the SOS mate.

190675[/snapback]

 

Sorin, Campbell, Trabelsi, Roberts - that's £2.5m for ya.

 

Leazes, seeing that we're the 5th best club in the country, would anything less than 5th this season be seen as a failure of Freddie, or of Roeder?

[LeazesMag 0]

Freddy's the problem at this club. Does anyone really think we'd be in this position if we had a competent chairman who had the balls to pick a big name manager? Freddy picked Roeder because he was the cheap, easy option and allowed him to meddle in first team affairs like he did to Robson and a lesser extent Souness.

190676[/snapback]

 

 

2nd biggest joke in the thread.

 

So Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and even fuckwit himself weren't "big name" managers ?

 

And how many managers can you name me who match Dalglish's track record ?

 

Fookin hilarious .......