FAO Leazes Mag

[Gemmill 34599]

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd. Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

 

Oh well I knew Douggie was a saint.

 

odd how a bit of factual info has killed off this thread .....

 

Here's a factual bit of info for ya....

 

The club is in a worse state now than it was when Fat Fred first became Chairman.

 

but in a better state than every other chairman we have had for over 50 years other than Sir JOhn....which has been my point from day 1 ....

 

Plus...see my points about SJH being lucky ref Keegan.

 

When you say "better off" do you mean on the field - meaning that nobody has been as good as Keegan which I agree with, or do you mean as a business - which is the job of the board but are ignoring the fact that they have increased the capacity of the stadium and built a new state of the art training complex ?

 

Which are both improvements - huge improvements - in that side of running the club ?

 

I'm just guessing here Leazes, but I reckon he means on the field. As far as I'm aware no points or trophies are awarded for increasing the capacity of a stadium or building a new training complex. And nobody but you judges a chairman's success or failure on the building projects that have been completed during his tenure. Most of us look to results and the overall running of the club, and our relative standing from when the new bloke took over. In all of these areas, Shepherd is a failure. Bob Murray built a nice shiny academy, new training facilities, and gave them a brand new stadium too, but there aren't many Sunderland fans crowing about these "achievements", are there?

[peasepud 59]

[blah=LeazesMag]

As we have qualified for europe - again - and are still in it - the facts tend to prove you wrong. But carry on ignoring them if you wish to live in your make believe world rather than look at the facts and have a mind of your own.

 

YOu say you are - what, 37 ? - did you support the club pre-1992 ? And if you did, do you really think playing regularly in europe is shit, as only 7 clubs qualify for europe.....

 

Basically, it seems to me that you didn't.

 

And what is your opinion on Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher choosing Keegan, rather than SJH making a "good business decision" ? Does it now mean that Fletcher, Hall Jnur and Shepherd made the "Good business decision". Bit that fucks up your arguement eh

 

Like I said, pre-1992 supporters probably knew that, but you didn't. Was it the shit board that persuaded you to come back ?

 

[/blah]

 

[manc-mag 1]

[blah=LeazesMag]

As we have qualified for europe - again - and are still in it - the facts tend to prove you wrong. But carry on ignoring them if you wish to live in your make believe world rather than look at the facts and have a mind of your own.

 

YOu say you are - what, 37 ? - did you support the club pre-1992 ? And if you did, do you really think playing regularly in europe is shit, as only 7 clubs qualify for europe.....

 

Basically, it seems to me that you didn't.

 

And what is your opinion on Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher choosing Keegan, rather than SJH making a "good business decision" ? Does it now mean that Fletcher, Hall Jnur and Shepherd made the "Good business decision". Bit that fucks up your arguement eh

 

Like I said, pre-1992 supporters probably knew that, but you didn't. Was it the shit board that persuaded you to come back ?

 

[/blah]

 

 

 

 

Nice of Gemmill to pose for that one an all.

[peasepud 59]

 

Nice of Gemmill to pose for that one an all.

 

I still think hes got a bit of a cheek calling himself an accountant, counting change aint exactly profit n loss like.

[Gemmill 34599]

Wankers.

[sweetleftpeg 0]

Why have all the Chronicle sellers always got a Care in the Community mate?

[peasepud 59]

Do you think he sits in his office checking the league tables from 1956 and grinning because we drew with Everton but in the same week in 1956 we got turned over away at Bradford Park Avenue?

 

You know what? the more I think about I the more I reckon he would

[Shearergol 0]

I'm inclined to agree with LM for once. If things had turned out differently in 96, and since then we had had their success and they had ours, who would have the bigger following and income? Us, imo. That's why it's so important for us to win something - success breeds success as they say, but for Schmiechel things could have been very different.

 

However, where I disagree with LM is where we went after 96 and whose fault that ultimately is. With the right man at the top, things could have been so different.

 

Thank you

 

I basically think the only difference between now and 1996 is we have not had a better manager than Keegan. You can say the chairman/board etc are the ones who choose the manager, and that is of course correct, but it wasn't Sir John who chose Keegan was it ..... good management or lucky as fuck ?????

 

The only thing I can add, is again - the fact that we are still a top club - on merit - with basically the same board and major shareholders. I am NOT defending anyone, just posting the truth.

 

I LIKED Sir John better than Shepherd - even though he still spouted the same sort of "geordie nation" bollocks, but because the team was doing better, nobody was bothered, which again is a point I have mentioned before. Just because the team hasn't done as well under the previous chairman as the current one, doesn't make the current one crap. And - do you believe anything that SJH said at the time about "a price for the pocket", "giving the club to the people",.....that was just as much bollocks as some things Shepherd has said...did you honestly believe that crap ?

As with most boards, they will only get away with so many disappointing managerial appointments, but that in itself will make them a victim of the initial success.

 

 

So who chose Keegan then?

 

Didn't call us all thick though did he?

 

Not at the moment we are'nt. Ask Sky and the BBC et al. We were but due to our last few mediocre campaigns they have us tranked the same as Bolton, Fulham, and the likes. And currently behind Aston Villa and EVerton.

 

Freddie Fletcher chose Keegan.

 

I thought everybody knew that.

 

Because he had been in a similar role at Rangers, and he chose the fuckpig Souness who revived interest before a ball was kicked, he indentified at Newcastle the same need to generate massive interest as quickly as possible. So he suggested Keegan, for that reason.

 

I suppose people who jumped onto the Keegan bandwagon may not have done ....

 

Keegan says on page 205 in his book "Neither George Forbes nor Peter Mallinger knew that on Monday 3 February 1992 I was being asked to take over as Newcastle Manager on the Wednesday. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglas Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles".

 

Remember also how SJH went back on his word to fund money to Keegan and help him save the club from relegation, whick Keegan describes in detail ? Good managment ?

 

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd . Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

 

 

They are in the league but not how the clubs are perceived. We used to be percieved as a huge club. But not any more.

 

So you didn't kill it off at all FFS is still a fuck pig and you are his lickspittle.

 

As we have qualified for europe - again - and are still in it - the facts tend to prove you wrong. But carry on ignoring them if you wish to live in your make believe world rather than look at the facts and have a mind of your own.

 

YOu say you are - what, 37 ? - did you support the club pre-1992 ? And if you did, do you really think playing regularly in europe is shit, as only 7 clubs qualify for europe.....

 

Basically, it seems to me that you didn't.

 

And what is your opinion on Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher choosing Keegan, rather than SJH making a "good business decision" ? Does it now mean that Fletcher, Hall Jnur and Shepherd made the "Good business decision". Bit that fucks up your arguement eh

 

Like I said, pre-1992 supporters probably knew that, but you didn't. Was it the shit board that persuaded you to come back ?

 

 

Thing is though, we've only qualified for Europe so many times because of the change in CL format which allows many more teams from each country to qualify; a point you always seem to ignore when I challenge you on it.

[Dr Gloom 19837]

[blah=LeazesMag]

As we have qualified for europe - again - and are still in it - the facts tend to prove you wrong. But carry on ignoring them if you wish to live in your make believe world rather than look at the facts and have a mind of your own.

 

YOu say you are - what, 37 ? - did you support the club pre-1992 ? And if you did, do you really think playing regularly in europe is shit, as only 7 clubs qualify for europe.....

 

Basically, it seems to me that you didn't.

 

And what is your opinion on Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher choosing Keegan, rather than SJH making a "good business decision" ? Does it now mean that Fletcher, Hall Jnur and Shepherd made the "Good business decision". Bit that fucks up your arguement eh

 

Like I said, pre-1992 supporters probably knew that, but you didn't. Was it the shit board that persuaded you to come back ?

 

[/blah]

 

 

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm inclined to agree with LM for once. If things had turned out differently in 96, and since then we had had their success and they had ours, who would have the bigger following and income? Us, imo. That's why it's so important for us to win something - success breeds success as they say, but for Schmiechel things could have been very different.

 

However, where I disagree with LM is where we went after 96 and whose fault that ultimately is. With the right man at the top, things could have been so different.

 

Thank you

 

I basically think the only difference between now and 1996 is we have not had a better manager than Keegan. You can say the chairman/board etc are the ones who choose the manager, and that is of course correct, but it wasn't Sir John who chose Keegan was it ..... good management or lucky as fuck ?????

 

The only thing I can add, is again - the fact that we are still a top club - on merit - with basically the same board and major shareholders. I am NOT defending anyone, just posting the truth.

 

I LIKED Sir John better than Shepherd - even though he still spouted the same sort of "geordie nation" bollocks, but because the team was doing better, nobody was bothered, which again is a point I have mentioned before. Just because the team hasn't done as well under the previous chairman as the current one, doesn't make the current one crap. And - do you believe anything that SJH said at the time about "a price for the pocket", "giving the club to the people",.....that was just as much bollocks as some things Shepherd has said...did you honestly believe that crap ?

As with most boards, they will only get away with so many disappointing managerial appointments, but that in itself will make them a victim of the initial success.

 

 

So who chose Keegan then?

 

Didn't call us all thick though did he?

 

Not at the moment we are'nt. Ask Sky and the BBC et al. We were but due to our last few mediocre campaigns they have us tranked the same as Bolton, Fulham, and the likes. And currently behind Aston Villa and EVerton.

 

Freddie Fletcher chose Keegan.

 

I thought everybody knew that.

 

Because he had been in a similar role at Rangers, and he chose the fuckpig Souness who revived interest before a ball was kicked, he indentified at Newcastle the same need to generate massive interest as quickly as possible. So he suggested Keegan, for that reason.

 

I suppose people who jumped onto the Keegan bandwagon may not have done ....

 

Keegan says on page 205 in his book "Neither George Forbes nor Peter Mallinger knew that on Monday 3 February 1992 I was being asked to take over as Newcastle Manager on the Wednesday. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglas Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles".

 

Remember also how SJH went back on his word to fund money to Keegan and help him save the club from relegation, whick Keegan describes in detail ? Good managment ?

 

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd . Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

 

 

They are in the league but not how the clubs are perceived. We used to be percieved as a huge club. But not any more.

 

So you didn't kill it off at all FFS is still a fuck pig and you are his lickspittle.

 

As we have qualified for europe - again - and are still in it - the facts tend to prove you wrong. But carry on ignoring them if you wish to live in your make believe world rather than look at the facts and have a mind of your own.

 

YOu say you are - what, 37 ? - did you support the club pre-1992 ? And if you did, do you really think playing regularly in europe is shit, as only 7 clubs qualify for europe.....

 

Basically, it seems to me that you didn't.

 

And what is your opinion on Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher choosing Keegan, rather than SJH making a "good business decision" ? Does it now mean that Fletcher, Hall Jnur and Shepherd made the "Good business decision". Bit that fucks up your arguement eh

 

Like I said, pre-1992 supporters probably knew that, but you didn't. Was it the shit board that persuaded you to come back ?

 

 

Thing is though, we've only qualified for Europe so many times because of the change in CL format which allows many more teams from each country to qualify; a point you always seem to ignore when I challenge you on it.

 

Once again, its easy meat proving you are talking shite and are wrong. A simple bit of research would have told you that when we qualified in 1969, we finished 10th courtesy of the one city one club rule, and the following season we also finished 9th and qualifed. The following year we were 7th. The ONLY time Newcastle United qualified for europe by virtue of a genuine high league position was in 1976, when they were 5th.

 

So what have you got to say to this ?

 

What have you also got to say about my FACT that Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher were the people instrumental in gettign Keegan and not SJH ?

 

I see you [and the others ] ignore it.

 

It's easy proving you wrong, I just quote facts, and I don't even have to look them up....this is why I am right, my "opinions" are actually opinions at all, they are fact......

[LeazesMag 0]

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd. Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

 

Oh well I knew Douggie was a saint.

 

odd how a bit of factual info has killed off this thread .....

 

Here's a factual bit of info for ya....

 

The club is in a worse state now than it was when Fat Fred first became Chairman.

 

but in a better state than every other chairman we have had for over 50 years other than Sir JOhn....which has been my point from day 1 ....

 

Plus...see my points about SJH being lucky ref Keegan.

 

When you say "better off" do you mean on the field - meaning that nobody has been as good as Keegan which I agree with, or do you mean as a business - which is the job of the board but are ignoring the fact that they have increased the capacity of the stadium and built a new state of the art training complex ?

 

Which are both improvements - huge improvements - in that side of running the club ?

 

I'm just guessing here Leazes, but I reckon he means on the field. As far as I'm aware no points or trophies are awarded for increasing the capacity of a stadium or building a new training complex. And nobody but you judges a chairman's success or failure on the building projects that have been completed during his tenure. Most of us look to results and the overall running of the club, and our relative standing from when the new bloke took over. In all of these areas, Shepherd is a failure. Bob Murray built a nice shiny academy, new training facilities, and gave them a brand new stadium too, but there aren't many Sunderland fans crowing about these "achievements", are there?

 

I have never said that on the field we have matched Keegan, because we haven't. I have pointed out who was responsible for appointing him though, but feel free to ignore the facts. You usually do, but that is why your "opinons" are crap, because they aren't true.

 

To believe we should still be 2nd, is believing we have a divine right to finish 2nd. This is a sad indictment of lack of grasp of reality, and ignorance of football.

 

In a business sense, we have gone forward, because of these ground and facility improvements.

 

Its a shame that you - and others - have such a lack of perception that you fail to grasp the fact that nobody has a divine right to finish 2nd in the league forever, as I have pointed out - by this criteria Arsenal and Manu have also gone backwards in the last few years, what do you say about that ?

 

The more I see your posts the less I think of your accountancy "skills" and business acumen .... which appears to be pretty non existent ....

[LeazesMag 0]

[blah=LeazesMag]

As we have qualified for europe - again - and are still in it - the facts tend to prove you wrong. But carry on ignoring them if you wish to live in your make believe world rather than look at the facts and have a mind of your own.

 

YOu say you are - what, 37 ? - did you support the club pre-1992 ? And if you did, do you really think playing regularly in europe is shit, as only 7 clubs qualify for europe.....

 

Basically, it seems to me that you didn't.

 

And what is your opinion on Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher choosing Keegan, rather than SJH making a "good business decision" ? Does it now mean that Fletcher, Hall Jnur and Shepherd made the "Good business decision". Bit that fucks up your arguement eh

 

Like I said, pre-1992 supporters probably knew that, but you didn't. Was it the shit board that persuaded you to come back ?

 

[/blah]

 

 

 

[LeazesMag 0]

Do you think he sits in his office checking the league tables from 1956 and grinning because we drew with Everton but in the same week in 1956 we got turned over away at Bradford Park Avenue?

 

You know what? the more I think about I the more I reckon he would

 

you strike me as having a bit of a brain sometimes pp....unlike some others ... you can do better than that ...

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3206]

I'm inclined to agree with LM for once. If things had turned out differently in 96, and since then we had had their success and they had ours, who would have the bigger following and income? Us, imo. That's why it's so important for us to win something - success breeds success as they say, but for Schmiechel things could have been very different.

 

However, where I disagree with LM is where we went after 96 and whose fault that ultimately is. With the right man at the top, things could have been so different.

 

Thank you

 

I basically think the only difference between now and 1996 is we have not had a better manager than Keegan. You can say the chairman/board etc are the ones who choose the manager, and that is of course correct, but it wasn't Sir John who chose Keegan was it ..... good management or lucky as fuck ?????

 

The only thing I can add, is again - the fact that we are still a top club - on merit - with basically the same board and major shareholders. I am NOT defending anyone, just posting the truth.

 

I LIKED Sir John better than Shepherd - even though he still spouted the same sort of "geordie nation" bollocks, but because the team was doing better, nobody was bothered, which again is a point I have mentioned before. Just because the team hasn't done as well under the previous chairman as the current one, doesn't make the current one crap. And - do you believe anything that SJH said at the time about "a price for the pocket", "giving the club to the people",.....that was just as much bollocks as some things Shepherd has said...did you honestly believe that crap ?

As with most boards, they will only get away with so many disappointing managerial appointments, but that in itself will make them a victim of the initial success.

 

 

So who chose Keegan then?

 

Didn't call us all thick though did he?

 

Not at the moment we are'nt. Ask Sky and the BBC et al. We were but due to our last few mediocre campaigns they have us tranked the same as Bolton, Fulham, and the likes. And currently behind Aston Villa and EVerton.

 

Freddie Fletcher chose Keegan.

 

I thought everybody knew that.

 

Because he had been in a similar role at Rangers, and he chose the fuckpig Souness who revived interest before a ball was kicked, he indentified at Newcastle the same need to generate massive interest as quickly as possible. So he suggested Keegan, for that reason.

 

I suppose people who jumped onto the Keegan bandwagon may not have done ....

 

Keegan says on page 205 in his book "Neither George Forbes nor Peter Mallinger knew that on Monday 3 February 1992 I was being asked to take over as Newcastle Manager on the Wednesday. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglas Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles".

 

Remember also how SJH went back on his word to fund money to Keegan and help him save the club from relegation, whick Keegan describes in detail ? Good managment ?

 

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd . Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

 

 

They are in the league but not how the clubs are perceived. We used to be percieved as a huge club. But not any more.

 

So you didn't kill it off at all FFS is still a fuck pig and you are his lickspittle.

 

As we have qualified for europe - again - and are still in it - the facts tend to prove you wrong. But carry on ignoring them if you wish to live in your make believe world rather than look at the facts and have a mind of your own.

 

YOu say you are - what, 37 ? - did you support the club pre-1992 ? And if you did, do you really think playing regularly in europe is shit, as only 7 clubs qualify for europe.....

 

Basically, it seems to me that you didn't.

 

And what is your opinion on Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher choosing Keegan, rather than SJH making a "good business decision" ? Does it now mean that Fletcher, Hall Jnur and Shepherd made the "Good business decision". Bit that fucks up your arguement eh

 

Like I said, pre-1992 supporters probably knew that, but you didn't. Was it the shit board that persuaded you to come back ?

 

 

Thing is though, we've only qualified for Europe so many times because of the change in CL format which allows many more teams from each country to qualify; a point you always seem to ignore when I challenge you on it.

 

Once again, its easy meat proving you are talking shite and are wrong. A simple bit of research would have told you that when we qualified in 1969, we finished 10th courtesy of the one city one club rule, and the following season we also finished 9th and qualifed. The following year we were 7th. The ONLY time Newcastle United qualified for europe by virtue of a genuine high league position was in 1976, when they were 5th.

 

So what have you got to say to this ?

 

What have you also got to say about my FACT that Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher were the people instrumental in gettign Keegan and not SJH ?

 

I see you [and the others ] ignore it.

 

It's easy proving you wrong, I just quote facts, and I don't even have to look them up....this is why I am right, my "opinions" are actually opinions at all, they are fact......

 

I forgot all about Fletcher. LM you would know I was a supporter pre 1992 if you read posts as diligently as you read into statistics what you want to. I actually preferred supporting the club pre 1986. Thats when i joined up and only came back to England very rarely and the North East even less. The reason being was the lack of tossers in the team and although we knew they were well paid they didn't act like the new lot (or maybe they did and I just didn't know) I felt more connected to the club and although McKeag et al were crap comparitively to now. They didnt seek the limelight like shepherd does. And Just because he maybe better than them doesn't make him a good chairmen which is the basis of your argument. I hate liver I can't stand it and wont eat it. I dislike Tattie scones but will eat them if really hungry. But just because tattie Scones are better than Liver doesn't make them an acceptable evening meal.

[Super7 0]

I agree that Man Utd and Arsenal have gone backwards over the last couple of years but the difference is they both have decent managers and you can see some sort of rebuilding in place which is not the case at Newcastle.

 

Manchester United fans were very fearful of the takeover but the board seem to stayed in the background and have backed Ferguson financially e.g. with Carrick - overpriced in my opinion but a bargain compared to some of the money we have wasted e.g. on Luque and Boumsong.

 

We appear to have no longterm plan or direction whatsoever on the field although I agree that Shepherd has moved the club forward as a business - Christmas parties, Shearers, the museum, tours, Goal, The Match etc. To me though it is on the field that matters and you can't change the fact that 3 of the last 4 managerial appointments have been appalling and the Manager is the most important person at the club. Shepherd's failure to get that right means he is a failure as Chairman of the club. I was perpared to give him a 2nd and even 3rd chance to appoint the right man as I genuinely believe he is a Newcastle supporter but with the appointment of Roeder I have had enough and am starting to think we need a change at the top to go forward.

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm inclined to agree with LM for once. If things had turned out differently in 96, and since then we had had their success and they had ours, who would have the bigger following and income? Us, imo. That's why it's so important for us to win something - success breeds success as they say, but for Schmiechel things could have been very different.

 

However, where I disagree with LM is where we went after 96 and whose fault that ultimately is. With the right man at the top, things could have been so different.

 

Thank you

 

I basically think the only difference between now and 1996 is we have not had a better manager than Keegan. You can say the chairman/board etc are the ones who choose the manager, and that is of course correct, but it wasn't Sir John who chose Keegan was it ..... good management or lucky as fuck ?????

 

The only thing I can add, is again - the fact that we are still a top club - on merit - with basically the same board and major shareholders. I am NOT defending anyone, just posting the truth.

 

I LIKED Sir John better than Shepherd - even though he still spouted the same sort of "geordie nation" bollocks, but because the team was doing better, nobody was bothered, which again is a point I have mentioned before. Just because the team hasn't done as well under the previous chairman as the current one, doesn't make the current one crap. And - do you believe anything that SJH said at the time about "a price for the pocket", "giving the club to the people",.....that was just as much bollocks as some things Shepherd has said...did you honestly believe that crap ?

As with most boards, they will only get away with so many disappointing managerial appointments, but that in itself will make them a victim of the initial success.

 

 

So who chose Keegan then?

 

Didn't call us all thick though did he?

 

Not at the moment we are'nt. Ask Sky and the BBC et al. We were but due to our last few mediocre campaigns they have us tranked the same as Bolton, Fulham, and the likes. And currently behind Aston Villa and EVerton.

 

Freddie Fletcher chose Keegan.

 

I thought everybody knew that.

 

Because he had been in a similar role at Rangers, and he chose the fuckpig Souness who revived interest before a ball was kicked, he indentified at Newcastle the same need to generate massive interest as quickly as possible. So he suggested Keegan, for that reason.

 

I suppose people who jumped onto the Keegan bandwagon may not have done ....

 

Keegan says on page 205 in his book "Neither George Forbes nor Peter Mallinger knew that on Monday 3 February 1992 I was being asked to take over as Newcastle Manager on the Wednesday. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglas Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles".

 

Remember also how SJH went back on his word to fund money to Keegan and help him save the club from relegation, whick Keegan describes in detail ? Good managment ?

 

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd . Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

 

 

They are in the league but not how the clubs are perceived. We used to be percieved as a huge club. But not any more.

 

So you didn't kill it off at all FFS is still a fuck pig and you are his lickspittle.

 

As we have qualified for europe - again - and are still in it - the facts tend to prove you wrong. But carry on ignoring them if you wish to live in your make believe world rather than look at the facts and have a mind of your own.

 

YOu say you are - what, 37 ? - did you support the club pre-1992 ? And if you did, do you really think playing regularly in europe is shit, as only 7 clubs qualify for europe.....

 

Basically, it seems to me that you didn't.

 

And what is your opinion on Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher choosing Keegan, rather than SJH making a "good business decision" ? Does it now mean that Fletcher, Hall Jnur and Shepherd made the "Good business decision". Bit that fucks up your arguement eh

 

Like I said, pre-1992 supporters probably knew that, but you didn't. Was it the shit board that persuaded you to come back ?

 

 

Thing is though, we've only qualified for Europe so many times because of the change in CL format which allows many more teams from each country to qualify; a point you always seem to ignore when I challenge you on it.

 

Once again, its easy meat proving you are talking shite and are wrong. A simple bit of research would have told you that when we qualified in 1969, we finished 10th courtesy of the one city one club rule, and the following season we also finished 9th and qualifed. The following year we were 7th. The ONLY time Newcastle United qualified for europe by virtue of a genuine high league position was in 1976, when they were 5th.

 

So what have you got to say to this ?

 

What have you also got to say about my FACT that Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher were the people instrumental in gettign Keegan and not SJH ?

 

I see you [and the others ] ignore it.

 

It's easy proving you wrong, I just quote facts, and I don't even have to look them up....this is why I am right, my "opinions" are actually opinions at all, they are fact......

 

I forgot all about Fletcher. LM you would know I was a supporter pre 1992 if you read posts as diligently as you read into statistics what you want to. I actually preferred supporting the club pre 1986. Thats when i joined up and only came back to England very rarely and the North East even less. The reason being was the lack of tossers in the team and although we knew they were well paid they didn't act like the new lot (or maybe they did and I just didn't know) I felt more connected to the club and although McKeag et al were crap comparitively to now. They didnt seek the limelight like shepherd does. And Just because he maybe better than them doesn't make him a good chairmen which is the basis of your argument. I hate liver I can't stand it and wont eat it. I dislike Tattie scones but will eat them if really hungry. But just because tattie Scones are better than Liver doesn't make them an acceptable evening meal.

 

Fair comment....I asked you once about your username and don't think you replied...so I can only draw my own conclusions, a genuine question about it. Whatever, it doesn't matter.

 

I didn't enjoy 1986 very much, I knew the club was going to lose its players and would go back down because the board was shit. That is a serious comment. I preferred 1976 because I thought - or rather hoped - that Gordon Lee was changing the mentality of the club successfully, incorrectly in the end because he went to Everton because they were a real football club, tapping their fanbase and competing for trophies, unlike Newcastle. Newcastle United NEVER adopoted that mentality until Keegan walked through the door, and was strong enough to do it - and got the support from the Board and fans.

 

I realise some people may not comprehend this, and I am not patronising at all, but it is the truth.

 

Shepherd is sometimes a wanker, but so far as running the club goes, not actually appointing a manager as good as Keegan doesn't make him shit, he would be shit if he wasn't trying to continue running the club so it competed. That is a huge difference, and the reason we have at least still remained in europe and are buying top players is down to that and that alone. My point is - longer term fans like you, ought to be aware of this thats all.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3206]

I'm inclined to agree with LM for once. If things had turned out differently in 96, and since then we had had their success and they had ours, who would have the bigger following and income? Us, imo. That's why it's so important for us to win something - success breeds success as they say, but for Schmiechel things could have been very different.

 

However, where I disagree with LM is where we went after 96 and whose fault that ultimately is. With the right man at the top, things could have been so different.

 

Thank you

 

I basically think the only difference between now and 1996 is we have not had a better manager than Keegan. You can say the chairman/board etc are the ones who choose the manager, and that is of course correct, but it wasn't Sir John who chose Keegan was it ..... good management or lucky as fuck ?????

 

The only thing I can add, is again - the fact that we are still a top club - on merit - with basically the same board and major shareholders. I am NOT defending anyone, just posting the truth.

 

I LIKED Sir John better than Shepherd - even though he still spouted the same sort of "geordie nation" bollocks, but because the team was doing better, nobody was bothered, which again is a point I have mentioned before. Just because the team hasn't done as well under the previous chairman as the current one, doesn't make the current one crap. And - do you believe anything that SJH said at the time about "a price for the pocket", "giving the club to the people",.....that was just as much bollocks as some things Shepherd has said...did you honestly believe that crap ?

As with most boards, they will only get away with so many disappointing managerial appointments, but that in itself will make them a victim of the initial success.

 

 

So who chose Keegan then?

 

Didn't call us all thick though did he?

 

Not at the moment we are'nt. Ask Sky and the BBC et al. We were but due to our last few mediocre campaigns they have us tranked the same as Bolton, Fulham, and the likes. And currently behind Aston Villa and EVerton.

 

Freddie Fletcher chose Keegan.

 

I thought everybody knew that.

 

Because he had been in a similar role at Rangers, and he chose the fuckpig Souness who revived interest before a ball was kicked, he indentified at Newcastle the same need to generate massive interest as quickly as possible. So he suggested Keegan, for that reason.

 

I suppose people who jumped onto the Keegan bandwagon may not have done ....

 

Keegan says on page 205 in his book "Neither George Forbes nor Peter Mallinger knew that on Monday 3 February 1992 I was being asked to take over as Newcastle Manager on the Wednesday. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglas Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles".

 

Remember also how SJH went back on his word to fund money to Keegan and help him save the club from relegation, whick Keegan describes in detail ? Good managment ?

 

And - in the summer - guess who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd . Keegan says this on page 220 of his book.

 

I thought everyone knew that too.....

 

As for your last line, those clubs are also above Liverpool and Arsenal at the moment

 

 

They are in the league but not how the clubs are perceived. We used to be percieved as a huge club. But not any more.

 

So you didn't kill it off at all FFS is still a fuck pig and you are his lickspittle.

 

As we have qualified for europe - again - and are still in it - the facts tend to prove you wrong. But carry on ignoring them if you wish to live in your make believe world rather than look at the facts and have a mind of your own.

 

YOu say you are - what, 37 ? - did you support the club pre-1992 ? And if you did, do you really think playing regularly in europe is shit, as only 7 clubs qualify for europe.....

 

Basically, it seems to me that you didn't.

 

And what is your opinion on Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher choosing Keegan, rather than SJH making a "good business decision" ? Does it now mean that Fletcher, Hall Jnur and Shepherd made the "Good business decision". Bit that fucks up your arguement eh

 

Like I said, pre-1992 supporters probably knew that, but you didn't. Was it the shit board that persuaded you to come back ?

 

 

Thing is though, we've only qualified for Europe so many times because of the change in CL format which allows many more teams from each country to qualify; a point you always seem to ignore when I challenge you on it.

 

Once again, its easy meat proving you are talking shite and are wrong. A simple bit of research would have told you that when we qualified in 1969, we finished 10th courtesy of the one city one club rule, and the following season we also finished 9th and qualifed. The following year we were 7th. The ONLY time Newcastle United qualified for europe by virtue of a genuine high league position was in 1976, when they were 5th.

 

So what have you got to say to this ?

 

What have you also got to say about my FACT that Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher were the people instrumental in gettign Keegan and not SJH ?

 

I see you [and the others ] ignore it.

 

It's easy proving you wrong, I just quote facts, and I don't even have to look them up....this is why I am right, my "opinions" are actually opinions at all, they are fact......

 

I forgot all about Fletcher. LM you would know I was a supporter pre 1992 if you read posts as diligently as you read into statistics what you want to. I actually preferred supporting the club pre 1986. Thats when i joined up and only came back to England very rarely and the North East even less. The reason being was the lack of tossers in the team and although we knew they were well paid they didn't act like the new lot (or maybe they did and I just didn't know) I felt more connected to the club and although McKeag et al were crap comparitively to now. They didnt seek the limelight like shepherd does. And Just because he maybe better than them doesn't make him a good chairmen which is the basis of your argument. I hate liver I can't stand it and wont eat it. I dislike Tattie scones but will eat them if really hungry. But just because tattie Scones are better than Liver doesn't make them an acceptable evening meal.

 

Fair comment....I asked you once about your username and don't think you replied...so I can only draw my own conclusions, a genuine question about it. Whatever, it doesn't matter.

 

I didn't enjoy 1986 very much, I knew the club was going to lose its players and would go back down because the board was shit. That is a serious comment. I preferred 1976 because I thought - or rather hoped - that Gordon Lee was changing the mentality of the club successfully, incorrectly in the end because he went to Everton because they were a real football club, tapping their fanbase and competing for trophies, unlike Newcastle. Newcastle United NEVER adopoted that mentality until Keegan walked through the door, and was strong enough to do it - and got the support from the Board and fans.

 

I realise some people may not comprehend this, and I am not patronising at all, but it is the truth.

 

Shepherd is sometimes a wanker, but so far as running the club goes, not actually appointing a manager as good as Keegan doesn't make him shit, he would be shit if he wasn't trying to continue running the club so it competed. That is a huge difference, and the reason we have at least still remained in europe and are buying top players is down to that and that alone. My point is - longer term fans like you, ought to be aware of this thats all.

 

kevin Carr's Gloves is my username because I liked him as a player as before that we had the atrocious STeve Hardwick and although KC wasn't brilliant he was a step up from Hardwick.

[Super7 0]

I feel deja vue re: 1986 - the unambitious appointments of Roeder and McFaul but at least then we had decent players to lose unlike now and if nothing else you could enjoy their football even if you knew that they would soon leave. I don't regard any of our current players as world class and the only ones other clubs might even want would be Given, Parker and Duff (probably here because no-one else would go near their Chelsea wages), N'zogbia (probably off soon) and Milner (who we have treated appalllingly).

[LeazesMag 0]

I agree that Man Utd and Arsenal have gone backwards over the last couple of years but the difference is they both have decent managers and you can see some sort of rebuilding in place which is not the case at Newcastle.

 

Manchester United fans were very fearful of the takeover but the board seem to stayed in the background and have backed Ferguson financially e.g. with Carrick - overpriced in my opinion but a bargain compared to some of the money we have wasted e.g. on Luque and Boumsong.

 

We appear to have no longterm plan or direction whatsoever on the field although I agree that Shepherd has moved the club forward as a business - Christmas parties, Shearers, the museum, tours, Goal, The Match etc. To me though it is on the field that matters and you can't change the fact that 3 of the last 4 managerial appointments have been appalling and the Manager is the most important person at the club. Shepherd's failure to get that right means he is a failure as Chairman of the club. I was perpared to give him a 2nd and even 3rd chance to appoint the right man as I genuinely believe he is a Newcastle supporter but with the appointment of Roeder I have had enough and am starting to think we need a change at the top to go forward.

 

You don't need to tell me that it is on the field that matters mate, I have always said this too, which is why I am not bothered when Shepherd says stupid things or Craig Bellamy gobbed off and made people dislike him, he was the best player on the pitch and committed to the club even when he had a half knackered knee.

 

I also agree in principle with the last sentence, although I can [reluctantly] accept that circumstances are difficult and so appointing someone who we know has the club at heart has logic, if not inspiritional and different, but Gullit was that and didn't work so how can anyone say going down that road works ? So Roeder will not be the current boards last throw of the dice, Shearer probably will, and if he fails they would be replaced having gave it a good shot and leaving a massively better club than they found.

 

Most managers are a gamble. He has picked managers with winning track records, and they have all been happy the clubs ambition matched theirs, despite people saying otherwise. I am not making excuses for anyone, but when people say things which aren't true then I think its fair to point out the truth.

 

We have not had a manager as good as Keegan, but to say that unless you appoint a manager who can get you 2nd in the league, or you are shit, is daft. This club has qualified for europe regularly in the last decade on merit, a shit board don't do that, nor do they continue to pay top dollar for top players and so tap their big fanbase and sign these top players and managers. This is a fact.

 

I don't agree with long term contracts or "plans", as football fortunes can change quickly. It is all about the present and the short term future, no manager keeps his job while the reserves and youth team are winning and the first team aren't. It all depends on results, if he gets results he stays a long time and if he doesn't he is off so the length of contract is irrelevant, all it means is you can't pay them off if they are crap, as happened with the scottish fuckpig.

Edited October 7, 2006 by LeazesMag

[Gemmill 34599]

I don't agree with long term contracts or "plans".

 

Wow, that's a really stupid thing to say. It seems you and Shepherd are two peas from the same pod. I especially like the way you put plans in quotation marks, as if they're some sort of outlandish concept.

[peasepud 59]

I don't agree with long term contracts or "plans".

 

Wow, that's a really stupid thing to say. It seems you and Shepherd are two peas from the same pod. I especially like the way you put plans in quotation marks, as if they're some sort of outlandish concept.

 

Dreamt up by 'fancy dan, book reading types' no doubt.

[Super7 0]

By longterm plans I meant largely for young players - bringing them through as Ferguson has consistently done or even buying very promising young players like Wenger which will be imortant if the rules are changed so that players who have been with the Academy are classed as home grown. I think Bobby Robson was trying to do this particularly when Alan Irvine was at the club, although of course not all of them worked out. I am concerned now that our managerial structure of Roeder, Terry Mac and Lee Clark will be unable to attract and develop top class youngsters which could have a long term detrimental impact.

Edited October 8, 2006 by Super7

[Bombadil 0]

I don't agree with long term contracts or "plans"

 

[LeazesMag 0]

I don't agree with long term contracts or "plans"

 

 

so, you think its alright to have a manager on a 6 year contract that you want to sack because "the plan" hasn't worked

[LeazesMag 0]

By longterm plans I meant largely for young players - bringing them through as Ferguson has consistently done or even buying very promising young players like Wenger which will be imortant if the rules are changed so that players who have been with the Academy are classed as home grown. I think Bobby Robson was trying to do this particularly when Alan Irvine was at the club, although of course not all of them worked out. I am concerned now that our managerial structure of Roeder, Terry Mac and Lee Clark will be unable to attract and develop top class youngsters which could have a long term detrimental impact.

 

unlike the others who have nothing constructive to reply to this comment, you do and I understand what you say. Why do you say it though, then say you realise Bobby Robson DID - along with Shepherd - follow this policy ?

 

The thing is, whatever "plan" you have, the ONLY thing that works is bringing in quality footballers of talent and character, and no "plan" will change the judgement of the manager because that is what it completely depends upon.

 

You can only name 2 managers though, does that not strike you as indicative of it not being that easy to incorporate such a policy with good results ?