Guest alex Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Nail on the head as usual from Isegrim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missed Sticks 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 There is some truth in what Leazes suggests, i.e. about the way things working out can lead to plans being thrown out the window. There is no doubt in my mind however that of the clubs have the neccessary financial clout it is the ones that are ran the best and exhibit the best levels of planning etc. that are the most successful. Long-term there is no real luck involved it's a question of getting the right people in, backing them and allowing them to get on with their jobs and when necessary and the time is right having the balls to get rid and start again. It is all about the infrastructure of a club, both at technical and personal level. Robson was complaining about the ridiculous conditions he had to work at before the club finally moved to Longbenton. Building this was some sort of planning (but also necessary because of the obligatory demands of the Premierleague). The other thing is the coaching set-up especially at the youth level. Another thing is an effective scouting set-up that continuosly checks on players who might be interesting. Maybe then we would see less panic buys. Of course football is in the end a day to day business, especially if you are lacking success, but the planning is all about to miminize risks and exterior factors. Real successful clubs do it. Newcastle don't. Am i right in thinking that you and i (well, i know what i think ) agree with the principle that the club doesn't necessarily need a new Board but that it's effort's might be helped greatly by employing someone with extensive experience and standing to oversee all football matters? To me that seems to be ther crux of the problem. I might also add that if members of the current Board have no wish to lose control over these matters then i would have to join the brigade who want them replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 8875 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 There is some truth in what Leazes suggests, i.e. about the way things working out can lead to plans being thrown out the window. There is no doubt in my mind however that of the clubs have the neccessary financial clout it is the ones that are ran the best and exhibit the best levels of planning etc. that are the most successful. Long-term there is no real luck involved it's a question of getting the right people in, backing them and allowing them to get on with their jobs and when necessary and the time is right having the balls to get rid and start again. It is all about the infrastructure of a club, both at technical and personal level. Robson was complaining about the ridiculous conditions he had to work at before the club finally moved to Longbenton. Building this was some sort of planning (but also necessary because of the obligatory demands of the Premierleague). The other thing is the coaching set-up especially at the youth level. Another thing is an effective scouting set-up that continuosly checks on players who might be interesting. Maybe then we would see less panic buys. Of course football is in the end a day to day business, especially if you are lacking success, but the planning is all about to miminize risks and exterior factors. Real successful clubs do it. Newcastle don't. Am i right in thinking that you and i (well, i know what i think ) agree with the principle that the club doesn't necessarily need a new Board but that it's effort's might be helped greatly by employing someone with extensive experience and standing to oversee all football matters? To me that seems to be ther crux of the problem. I might also add that if members of the current Board have no wish to lose control over these matters then i would have to join the brigade who want them replaced. Exactly. It's not just about Fat Fred. In fact, I rather have him than some obscure consortium owning the club. I just want more professionalism. I want a board of executives that is actually worth its name and not a single person leading club (ok, with a sidekick spending his time as a monkey on Gibraltar). I want a director of football/chief executive/or whatever you want to name it, who is actually knowing what he is doing. I want a sort of supervisory board as well. NUFC PLC is a multi-million business company. It is run like it is the chippy next door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 (edited) There is some truth in what Leazes suggests, i.e. about the way things working out can lead to plans being thrown out the window. There is no doubt in my mind however that of the clubs have the neccessary financial clout it is the ones that are ran the best and exhibit the best levels of planning etc. that are the most successful. Long-term there is no real luck involved it's a question of getting the right people in, backing them and allowing them to get on with their jobs and when necessary and the time is right having the balls to get rid and start again. It is all about the infrastructure of a club, both at technical and personal level. Robson was complaining about the ridiculous conditions he had to work at before the club finally moved to Longbenton. Building this was some sort of planning (but also necessary because of the obligatory demands of the Premierleague). The other thing is the coaching set-up especially at the youth level. Another thing is an effective scouting set-up that continuosly checks on players who might be interesting. Maybe then we would see less panic buys. Of course football is in the end a day to day business, especially if you are lacking success, but the planning is all about to miminize risks and exterior factors. Real successful clubs do it. Newcastle don't. Am i right in thinking that you and i (well, i know what i think ) agree with the principle that the club doesn't necessarily need a new Board but that it's effort's might be helped greatly by employing someone with extensive experience and standing to oversee all football matters? To me that seems to be ther crux of the problem. I might also add that if members of the current Board have no wish to lose control over these matters then i would have to join the brigade who want them replaced. Exactly. It's not just about Fat Fred. In fact, I rather have him than some obscure consortium owning the club. I just want more professionalism. I want a board of executives that is actually worth its name and not a single person leading club (ok, with a sidekick spending his time as a monkey on Gibraltar). I want a director of football/chief executive/or whatever you want to name it, who is actually knowing what he is doing. I want a sort of supervisory board as well. NUFC PLC is a multi-million business company. It is run like it is the chippy next door. A lot of what you say is of course correct. But where you fall down is in the lack of acceptance that the club have in fact done well in the last decade. Because they have. Nobody is suggesting they couldn't have done better and nobody is suggesting they don't want them to do better, of course I do, all of us do. Clubs simply don't qualify for europe and buy the major players we have done without making good appointments and doing some things right. Clubs that have no strategy, no foresight, make bad appointments and don't know what they are doing, struggle and get relegated, and buy mediocre players and lose their best ones themselves as a result. There are plenty of these clubs around, and they are all a long way behind us. Interestingly also is the fact that the youth policy is being cited as a cause of the clubs inability to sustain 2nd place in the league or go higher. It could be, and could not, you might have a batch of shite youngsters coming through or a good set of youngsters coming through, but this strategy was put in place by the people who we regard as being the best in recent times ie Keegan and SJH backing his decision, while one of the managers a lot of people deride was responsible for bringing it back, ie Dalglish. Now ask yourself, why was Dalglish sacked - and derided - when he was responsible for implementing a "long term plan" Edited October 12, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 JWTBQF IYOURDS !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Aye, people want the sort of long-term planning implemented by Daglish. It's no good if it's combined with the terrible football he was dishing up though. Being successful on the pitch and having the sort of structure in place off it Isegrim talks about aren't two mutually exclusive things. On the contrary (long-term) they will tend to go hand in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34598 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 By the way, someone pointed out two things on N-O yesterday about using Leazes method of calculating how we are 5th best club in the country. 1. His calculation has us finishing 8th on average. This is the 5th highest average which he believes makes us 5th best, when in reality anyone with a brain concludes that it means that on average 7 clubs finish above us every year. And.....the next one is the best one... 2. If we were to be relegated this season, we would still rank as the 6th best club in the country using the Leazes Mag Model, allowing Leazes to continue to tell us that we've never had it so good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I think it's 8th on average in the PL but it's not 8th on average under Shepherd. More like 9 1/2th iirc. When did FS take over again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17824 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 OK name FIVE clubs that have done better than us since Shepherd took over (excepting Villa ). Come on, NAME THEM! You can't can you, the FACTS speak for themselves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14060 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 OK name FIVE clubs that have done better than us since Shepherd took over (excepting Villa ). Come on, NAME THEM! You can't can you, the FACTS speak for themselves! Glad you've finally come to your senses Renton, I wonder how long it'll take the rest of your gang etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckypierre 0 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I think it's 8th on average in the PL but it's not 8th on average under Shepherd. More like 9 1/2th iirc. When did FS take over again? Dec 96 wasnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 (edited) 2. If we were to be relegated this season, we would still rank as the 6th best club in the country using the Leazes Mag Model, allowing Leazes to continue to tell us that we've never had it so good. hypothetical and incorrect. You can however, tell us pre-1992 when we had it so good, and name who you have in mind who would guarantee us moving up among the only 4 clubs who have been above us and qualified more for europe. Piece of cake, thats why everyone else does it .... Edited October 13, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Aye, people want the sort of long-term planning implemented by Daglish. It's no good if it's combined with the terrible football he was dishing up though. Being successful on the pitch and having the sort of structure in place off it Isegrim talks about aren't two mutually exclusive things. On the contrary (long-term) they will tend to go hand in hand. Which proves what exactly about "long term plans "......at least you respond unlike your accountant mate who still thinks 7 teams have been consistently above us but can't name them ..... Also canny to accept the club attempted to make a "plan" despite almost everyone else on here saying they hadn't. I just knew you would be the voice of logic Alex .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34598 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 2. If we were to be relegated this season, we would still rank as the 6th best club in the country using the Leazes Mag Model, allowing Leazes to continue to tell us that we've never had it so good. hypothetical and incorrect. You can however, tell us pre-1992 when we had it so good, and name who you have in mind who would guarantee us moving up among the only 4 clubs who have been above us and qualified more for europe. Piece of cake, thats why everyone else does it .... Errrr, no, it's a fact that that's how your statistics would work actually. Same as the FACT that on average 7 teams have finished above us in the league under Shepherd's chairmanship. That these teams change identity is irrelevant, it's our average 8th place that is important. But it doesn't suit your utterly simplistic, skewed way of looking at things to acknowlege this fact, so you'll go on wittering about there being only 4 clubs better than us blah blah blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 (edited) Aye, people want the sort of long-term planning implemented by Daglish. It's no good if it's combined with the terrible football he was dishing up though. Being successful on the pitch and having the sort of structure in place off it Isegrim talks about aren't two mutually exclusive things. On the contrary (long-term) they will tend to go hand in hand. Which proves what exactly about "long term plans "......at least you respond unlike your accountant mate who still thinks 7 teams have been consistently above us but can't name them ..... Also canny to accept the club attempted to make a "plan" despite almost everyone else on here saying they hadn't. I just knew you would be the voice of logic Alex .... Would you accept Isegrim's point about the fact that the club could be run better from top to bottom though? I agree with him that Fred is a lot better than some foreign consortium but having a Chief Executive type figure rather than Shepherd running the whole thing would be better. I don't hate Shepherd and I know we could do a lot worse but it's frustrating for me (and you too if you're being honest) that the potential of our club (which is huge tbh) is not being fully exploited. Perhaps all we need is a manager who is a cross between Keegan and Daglish and we'll have the best team in the world Edited October 13, 2006 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34598 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Aye, people want the sort of long-term planning implemented by Daglish. It's no good if it's combined with the terrible football he was dishing up though. Being successful on the pitch and having the sort of structure in place off it Isegrim talks about aren't two mutually exclusive things. On the contrary (long-term) they will tend to go hand in hand. Which proves what exactly about "long term plans "......at least you respond unlike your accountant mate who still thinks 7 teams have been consistently above us but can't name them ..... You silly prick! 7 teams have finished above us on average. They aren't the same 7 every year, that's all. If I could be arsed to go and work it out I could give you a list of teams outside of the top 4 that have on occasion finished above us, all of which have contributed to our average 8th place. Do you even understand this most basic of points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I reckon Leazes has been on the sauce if he thinks I'm the voice of logic like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Aye, people want the sort of long-term planning implemented by Daglish. It's no good if it's combined with the terrible football he was dishing up though. Being successful on the pitch and having the sort of structure in place off it Isegrim talks about aren't two mutually exclusive things. On the contrary (long-term) they will tend to go hand in hand. Which proves what exactly about "long term plans "......at least you respond unlike your accountant mate who still thinks 7 teams have been consistently above us but can't name them ..... You silly prick! 7 teams have finished above us on average. They aren't the same 7 every year, that's all. If I could be arsed to go and work it out I could give you a list of teams outside of the top 4 that have on occasion finished above us, all of which have contributed to our average 8th place. Do you even understand this most basic of points? Listen - you stupid ginger haired wanker - it means only 4 other clubs have perforrmed consistently better than us. Even an shit brained accountant can understand that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Aye, people want the sort of long-term planning implemented by Daglish. It's no good if it's combined with the terrible football he was dishing up though. Being successful on the pitch and having the sort of structure in place off it Isegrim talks about aren't two mutually exclusive things. On the contrary (long-term) they will tend to go hand in hand. Which proves what exactly about "long term plans "......at least you respond unlike your accountant mate who still thinks 7 teams have been consistently above us but can't name them ..... You silly prick! 7 teams have finished above us on average. They aren't the same 7 every year, that's all. If I could be arsed to go and work it out I could give you a list of teams outside of the top 4 that have on occasion finished above us, all of which have contributed to our average 8th place. Do you even understand this most basic of points? Listen - you stupid ginger haired wanker - it means only 4 other clubs have perforrmed consistently better than us. Even an shit brained accountant can understand that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34598 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Aye, people want the sort of long-term planning implemented by Daglish. It's no good if it's combined with the terrible football he was dishing up though. Being successful on the pitch and having the sort of structure in place off it Isegrim talks about aren't two mutually exclusive things. On the contrary (long-term) they will tend to go hand in hand. Which proves what exactly about "long term plans "......at least you respond unlike your accountant mate who still thinks 7 teams have been consistently above us but can't name them ..... You silly prick! 7 teams have finished above us on average. They aren't the same 7 every year, that's all. If I could be arsed to go and work it out I could give you a list of teams outside of the top 4 that have on occasion finished above us, all of which have contributed to our average 8th place. Do you even understand this most basic of points? Listen - you stupid ginger haired wanker - it means only 4 other clubs have perforrmed consistently better than us. Even an shit brained accountant can understand that Leazes Mag cracks. It still means that on average 7 have finished above us, you stupid illogical old fuckwit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 (edited) Aye, people want the sort of long-term planning implemented by Daglish. It's no good if it's combined with the terrible football he was dishing up though. Being successful on the pitch and having the sort of structure in place off it Isegrim talks about aren't two mutually exclusive things. On the contrary (long-term) they will tend to go hand in hand. Which proves what exactly about "long term plans "......at least you respond unlike your accountant mate who still thinks 7 teams have been consistently above us but can't name them ..... You silly prick! 7 teams have finished above us on average. They aren't the same 7 every year, that's all. If I could be arsed to go and work it out I could give you a list of teams outside of the top 4 that have on occasion finished above us, all of which have contributed to our average 8th place. Do you even understand this most basic of points? Listen - you stupid ginger haired wanker - it means only 4 other clubs have perforrmed consistently better than us. Even an shit brained accountant can understand that Leazes Mag cracks. It still means that on average 7 have finished above us, you stupid illogical old fuckwit. but you can't name more than 4 clubs who have consistently performed better than us, you stupid ginger tosspot. EDIT Edited October 13, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34598 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Aye, people want the sort of long-term planning implemented by Daglish. It's no good if it's combined with the terrible football he was dishing up though. Being successful on the pitch and having the sort of structure in place off it Isegrim talks about aren't two mutually exclusive things. On the contrary (long-term) they will tend to go hand in hand. Which proves what exactly about "long term plans "......at least you respond unlike your accountant mate who still thinks 7 teams have been consistently above us but can't name them ..... You silly prick! 7 teams have finished above us on average. They aren't the same 7 every year, that's all. If I could be arsed to go and work it out I could give you a list of teams outside of the top 4 that have on occasion finished above us, all of which have contributed to our average 8th place. Do you even understand this most basic of points? Listen - you stupid ginger haired wanker - it means only 4 other clubs have perforrmed consistently better than us. Even an shit brained accountant can understand that Leazes Mag cracks. It still means that on average 7 have finished above us, you stupid illogical old fuckwit. but you can't name more than 4 clubs who have consistently performed better than us, you stupid ginger tosspot. EDIT I could name a range of different clubs that have finished above us though. You are really are THIS stupid aren't you? The fact that the clubs that can and do finish above us chop and change doesn't make 8th on average any better than it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 We should be doing better than we have done in the league on a more consistent basis than we have. Under Shepherd we have come 2nd (although you could argue about the credit he takes for that season) and we have also come top 5 or better three years running. We keep seeming to balls things up though just when we looked set to become a regular Champions League side. Perhaps it's not all down to Shepherd but the buck stops with him and it's my belief we aren't ran in a very professional manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zathras 234 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Aye, people want the sort of long-term planning implemented by Daglish. It's no good if it's combined with the terrible football he was dishing up though. Being successful on the pitch and having the sort of structure in place off it Isegrim talks about aren't two mutually exclusive things. On the contrary (long-term) they will tend to go hand in hand. Which proves what exactly about "long term plans "......at least you respond unlike your accountant mate who still thinks 7 teams have been consistently above us but can't name them ..... You silly prick! 7 teams have finished above us on average. They aren't the same 7 every year, that's all. If I could be arsed to go and work it out I could give you a list of teams outside of the top 4 that have on occasion finished above us, all of which have contributed to our average 8th place. Do you even understand this most basic of points? Listen - you stupid ginger haired wanker - it means only 4 other clubs have perforrmed consistently better than us. Even an shit brained accountant can understand that Leazes Mag cracks. It still means that on average 7 have finished above us, you stupid illogical old fuckwit. but you can't name more than 4 clubs who have consistently performed better than us, you stupid ginger tosspot. EDIT I could name a range of different clubs that have finished above us though. You are really are THIS stupid aren't you? The fact that the clubs that can and do finish above us chop and change doesn't make 8th on average any better than it is. Shame but I didn't think you were stupid enough to think that a club such as say, Southampton, would be better than us or consider themselves more successful because they finish above su for one season Then again, pre-1992, clubs such as that were above us on almost a permanent basis. The obvious conclusion is that you are stupid enough to believe it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts