Leazes?

[LeazesMag 0]

Below is a quote from leazes on N-O. Now he has either been reading my posts today, or he is not as stupid as he looks Virtually the exact same thing I am saying. Me and Leazes, like that: *holds up crossed fingers*

 

 

"Despite buying new forwards, we still need more because they are either not playing or aren't what we want or aren't good enough. That is obvious. We don't need defenders anything like we need forwards.

 

Up front we need someone to make things happen, ie like Shearer did. We need someone who will put pressure on defenders, whether by strength, pace or both, we need to give them something to do and something to stop. We are still putting in crosses, and hitting the ball down the field but there is no one there to either muscle for the ball or get their first and enable the team to push out."

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg597264

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg597227

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg597227

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg583197

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg535150

 

http://www.toontastic.net/forum/index.php?...mp;#entry204865

 

Might be painful for some of you to be wrong, but ref judgements on Kluivert, Souness, Luque, Boumsong, Ameobi, Bellamy, Zoggy ..... I'm always right.

 

I've been sad enough to follow those links and even sadder I've already read them. What do you think they prove exactly? Fuck all as far as I can tell.

 

The bit I've bolded just sums you up, you are such an arrogant arse it's unbelievable. But just for the record, you have recently agreed Roeder was a good choice of manager, at least you had no problems with his canditure and success at getting the job. You also thought O'Neill was no better than Souness. But worst of all of course is your unremitting support of Shepherd no matter what happens. It's truly pathetic Leazes, while he is sunning himself in his Majorcan villa [shudder] paid for by "mugs" like us he will be pleased as punch there are still morons like you who will stand up for him no matter what happens to the club.

 

Dinosaurs like you are dying out, but unfortunately I fear it is too late now no matter what happens to Shepherd, it really looks like his gross incompetence have fucked the club up Risdale style. So Leazes, if we are relegated, do you agree Shepherd will have left the club in it's worst financial position in its history? I'll give you a clue, the answer is yes.

 

what does it prove ? Eerrr....i was just responding to snakehips and showing him I'd been saying this for ages....whats your point ?

 

I'm not arrogant, as i said, if you base your "opinions" on fact, then you can't be wrong. I have never said Roeder was a "good" choice as manager, just that I saw the logic in trying something different, as the "big names" had not worked ? What is your problem with that, and if you disagree please explain why.

 

I have said that O'Neill had done nothing more than Souness. Which is true. He has not done as well as Gullit, and he his track record to date isn't fit to lick the boots of Dalglish and Robson. So on what criteria do you think he would be more suitable for our job than they both were ?

 

If we end up in a shit financial state and relegated, then I also predicted the possibility of this to people who backed Souness. People who ignored that and continued to say we should back Souness in his transfer dealings, spending and getting rid of the "cancer" on the basis that they thought we would be better off for it. You were one of the ones who thought as I did about this. So, no, I am not happy, what else is your point ? These people who backed Souness spending spree wanted this, so what are they complaining about now.

 

BTW, the worst financial state in the clubs history to date is where the Halls and Shepherd found it, along with the worst playing position too. Are you aware of this. Why didn't you point out the board was shit when we played in the Champions League BTW ? Or have they suddenly became shit overnight ? The problems of this club stem from the appointment of Souness, and nothing else. A good manager who knows what he is doing will put it back on the way upwards again. Whether the board can appoint this man is the question up for debate but as we have appointed managers with track records, and now a manager with the good of the club at heart rather than himself, what and who exactly would you choose to guarantee anything ?

[nufc4ever 0]

Can't remember O'Neill being hounded out of nearly every job he's had, or any fans of the clubs he's managed hating his guts.

 

Bit of a clue there, methinks.

Edited November 6, 2006 by nufc4ever

[Renton 17815]

Below is a quote from leazes on N-O. Now he has either been reading my posts today, or he is not as stupid as he looks Virtually the exact same thing I am saying. Me and Leazes, like that: *holds up crossed fingers*

 

 

"Despite buying new forwards, we still need more because they are either not playing or aren't what we want or aren't good enough. That is obvious. We don't need defenders anything like we need forwards.

 

Up front we need someone to make things happen, ie like Shearer did. We need someone who will put pressure on defenders, whether by strength, pace or both, we need to give them something to do and something to stop. We are still putting in crosses, and hitting the ball down the field but there is no one there to either muscle for the ball or get their first and enable the team to push out."

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg597264

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg597227

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg597227

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg583197

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg535150

 

http://www.toontastic.net/forum/index.php?...mp;#entry204865

 

Might be painful for some of you to be wrong, but ref judgements on Kluivert, Souness, Luque, Boumsong, Ameobi, Bellamy, Zoggy ..... I'm always right.

 

I've been sad enough to follow those links and even sadder I've already read them. What do you think they prove exactly? Fuck all as far as I can tell.

 

The bit I've bolded just sums you up, you are such an arrogant arse it's unbelievable. But just for the record, you have recently agreed Roeder was a good choice of manager, at least you had no problems with his canditure and success at getting the job. You also thought O'Neill was no better than Souness. But worst of all of course is your unremitting support of Shepherd no matter what happens. It's truly pathetic Leazes, while he is sunning himself in his Majorcan villa [shudder] paid for by "mugs" like us he will be pleased as punch there are still morons like you who will stand up for him no matter what happens to the club.

 

Dinosaurs like you are dying out, but unfortunately I fear it is too late now no matter what happens to Shepherd, it really looks like his gross incompetence have fucked the club up Risdale style. So Leazes, if we are relegated, do you agree Shepherd will have left the club in it's worst financial position in its history? I'll give you a clue, the answer is yes.

 

what does it prove ? Eerrr....i was just responding to snakehips and showing him I'd been saying this for ages....whats your point ?

 

I'm not arrogant, as i said, if you base your "opinions" on fact, then you can't be wrong. I have never said Roeder was a "good" choice as manager, just that I saw the logic in trying something different, as the "big names" had not worked ? What is your problem with that, and if you disagree please explain why.

 

I have said that O'Neill had done nothing more than Souness. Which is true. He has not done as well as Gullit, and he his track record to date isn't fit to lick the boots of Dalglish and Robson. So on what criteria do you think he would be more suitable for our job than they both were ?

 

If we end up in a shit financial state and relegated, then I also predicted the possibility of this to people who backed Souness. People who ignored that and continued to say we should back Souness in his transfer dealings, spending and getting rid of the "cancer" on the basis that they thought we would be better off for it. You were one of the ones who thought as I did about this. So, no, I am not happy, what else is your point ? These people who backed Souness spending spree wanted this, so what are they complaining about now.

 

BTW, the worst financial state in the clubs history to date is where the Halls and Shepherd found it, along with the worst playing position too. Are you aware of this. Why didn't you point out the board was shit when we played in the Champions League BTW ? Or have they suddenly became shit overnight ? The problems of this club stem from the appointment of Souness, and nothing else. A good manager who knows what he is doing will put it back on the way upwards again. Whether the board can appoint this man is the question up for debate but as we have appointed managers with track records, and now a manager with the good of the club at heart rather than himself, what and who exactly would you choose to guarantee anything ?

 

Leazes, if we get relegated, and frankly that looks more likely than not, we are really fucked, easily in our worst position in history. I suspect you know this, but will keep singing the la la songs in your head pretending it won't happen.

 

Souness was a disastrous appointment, one that was mind-bogglingly bad, imo probably the worst managerial appointment in recent history. That alone should have forced Shepherd to reconsider his place at the club, and btw, I'm not even taking into account the sheer crassness and idiotic way he and his mate Dougie carried it out, which also had the effect of making us one of the most hated and laughed at clubs in the land (yeah, I know, I'm just being paranoid and believing those media lies).

 

Now, even you were aware that Souness was a terrible choice, fair enough. But then you back Shepherd in appointing Roeder, despite his ridiculous promises virtually every manager in the world was after the job. Well you see, I actually think appointing Roeder was almost as stupid as appointing Souness, and guess what, it looks like I might be right on that one, not you. But then, incredibly, you really believe that it is you who is always right.

 

Finally, for me at least, the fact you are still comparing O'Neill with Souness is yet more proof that as far as football goes you don't know your arse from your elbow (despite being a SUPAFAN). It'll probably take a couple of years before this is categorically shown, and even then, it may just be down to the fact that Villa now have a better chairman than they had (the previous one, who actually signed O'Neill, of course being Doug Ellis, a "shit" chairman in your words I believe, but notheless the equal of Shepherd).

[LeazesMag 0]

The Shepherd situation is a different situation to the pressing need for a forward and an attacking midfield player of the type mentioned. I don't think judging players is a clairvoyant quality, sometimes it is easy and obvious, so long as you don't wear rose tinted glasses and are honest, and accept what is requred to be successful in the premiership, then its basis stuff.

 

No, Shepherd like all chairman will go if the club continues to disappoint. That is football. The point i have made from day 1 is don't automatically expect better. There are plenty around who are a lot worse, and we have had them ourselves so we are not immune to it. Time will tell. We might get lucky or we might suffer an absolute disaster. Some people obviously don't understand this, although the mackems just down the road stare them in the face as a classic example - but having a board who is ambitious and backs their managers gives you a chance, having one that is mediocre and afraid to do this gives you no chance of ever succeeding. If this happens, or we get someone who does not have any interest in the club, it WILL be an absolute disaster, if you can't see this then there is nothing else I can say other than you - not you - are extremely naive.

Leaze, sorry mate, I for one have agreed with you on many things, not the least the whole Souness/Bellamy shite but I don't think you can use the arguement in bold any longer.

It is obvious to all that Shepherd is picking and choosing who Newcastle sign, not the manager (the rumours of other managers turning us down for this very reason are to many and often).

And you have to agree that is untenable for a manager, any manager to build a team from players someone else is telling you you are having.

 

I don't think it is obvious at all that the board is picking players to buy. I don't believe rumours in Newcastle. There has been millions of rumours over the years. I remember when we were going to buy Socrates, and I remember when it was rumoured we were going to buy a whole host of players, none of which had any foundation. The comment that a board who backs their managers is vastly preferable to one that doesn't, stands. I don't understand why you think otherwise. And I will also say, I hope people who don't understand this, don't find out the hard way, because if we do then it will mean that we will all suffer.

 

As I have always said that good chairman back their managers, it is beyond comprehension that I would now say that they should interfere. When I say "back", this is precisely what I mean. Good chairman back their managers judgement, wherever possible, financially. Good chairman also take a chance to back their managers by taking a risk too sometimes, if they feel the risk can be taken. This is precisely why buying such wankers as Boumsong, Luque, Viana etc and selling Bellamy and Robert for peanuts, all of which heavily contributes to our current position, is nobodies fault other than the managers fault. People who are slaughtering the board for backing the managers would also slaughter them if they hadn't found the money and not backed him, and they know it. In any work, you appoint someone, and back him. The day you don't trust his judgment is the day you sack him.

 

And - in my opinion - we should have sacked Souness, but plenty of people said we should have backed him. I wasn't one of those. But that is just my opinion. Therefore don't say I got it wrong, because I didn't. Should the board pay for getting it wrong, and for not sacking him ? Well, those people who backed his spending spree didn't think so at the time .... personally, I would have binned the lot of them for being so stupid but unfortunately you can't get rid of a board, they have the power so we just have to hope they can put it right, and if they can't then you have to hope their replacements are better, hope being the operative word.

[Sicklee Sausage Roll 0]

Shepherd Out

[Renton 17815]

The Shepherd situation is a different situation to the pressing need for a forward and an attacking midfield player of the type mentioned. I don't think judging players is a clairvoyant quality, sometimes it is easy and obvious, so long as you don't wear rose tinted glasses and are honest, and accept what is requred to be successful in the premiership, then its basis stuff.

 

No, Shepherd like all chairman will go if the club continues to disappoint. That is football. The point i have made from day 1 is don't automatically expect better. There are plenty around who are a lot worse, and we have had them ourselves so we are not immune to it. Time will tell. We might get lucky or we might suffer an absolute disaster. Some people obviously don't understand this, although the mackems just down the road stare them in the face as a classic example - but having a board who is ambitious and backs their managers gives you a chance, having one that is mediocre and afraid to do this gives you no chance of ever succeeding. If this happens, or we get someone who does not have any interest in the club, it WILL be an absolute disaster, if you can't see this then there is nothing else I can say other than you - not you - are extremely naive.

Leaze, sorry mate, I for one have agreed with you on many things, not the least the whole Souness/Bellamy shite but I don't think you can use the arguement in bold any longer.

It is obvious to all that Shepherd is picking and choosing who Newcastle sign, not the manager (the rumours of other managers turning us down for this very reason are to many and often).

And you have to agree that is untenable for a manager, any manager to build a team from players someone else is telling you you are having.

 

I don't think it is obvious at all that the board is picking players to buy. I don't believe rumours in Newcastle. There has been millions of rumours over the years. I remember when we were going to buy Socrates, and I remember when it was rumoured we were going to buy a whole host of players, none of which had any foundation. The comment that a board who backs their managers is vastly preferable to one that doesn't, stands. I don't understand why you think otherwise. And I will also say, I hope people who don't understand this, don't find out the hard way, because if we do then it will mean that we will all suffer.

 

As I have always said that good chairman back their managers, it is beyond comprehension that I would now say that they should interfere. When I say "back", this is precisely what I mean. Good chairman back their managers judgement, wherever possible, financially. Good chairman also take a chance to back their managers by taking a risk too sometimes, if they feel the risk can be taken. This is precisely why buying such wankers as Boumsong, Luque, Viana etc and selling Bellamy and Robert for peanuts, all of which heavily contributes to our current position, is nobodies fault other than the managers fault. People who are slaughtering the board for backing the managers would also slaughter them if they hadn't found the money and not backed him, and they know it. In any work, you appoint someone, and back him. The day you don't trust his judgment is the day you sack him.

 

And - in my opinion - we should have sacked Souness, but plenty of people said we should have backed him. I wasn't one of those. But that is just my opinion. Therefore don't say I got it wrong, because I didn't. Should the board pay for getting it wrong, and for not sacking him ? Well, those people who backed his spending spree didn't think so at the time .... personally, I would have binned the lot of them for being so stupid but unfortunately you can't get rid of a board, they have the power so we just have to hope they can put it right, and if they can't then you have to hope their replacements are better, hope being the operative word.

 

 

When the fuck are you going to realise that whatever any individual fan thinks about Souness or any other decision the board makes is irrelevant? The ONLY people that matter are those that make the shit decisions. Those same people who make a fortune out of the club.

 

Leazes, do you actually appreciate the gravity of the situation we are now in, thanks to the "leadership" of Shepherd?

 

Ffs.

[LeazesMag 0]

Below is a quote from leazes on N-O. Now he has either been reading my posts today, or he is not as stupid as he looks Virtually the exact same thing I am saying. Me and Leazes, like that: *holds up crossed fingers*

 

 

"Despite buying new forwards, we still need more because they are either not playing or aren't what we want or aren't good enough. That is obvious. We don't need defenders anything like we need forwards.

 

Up front we need someone to make things happen, ie like Shearer did. We need someone who will put pressure on defenders, whether by strength, pace or both, we need to give them something to do and something to stop. We are still putting in crosses, and hitting the ball down the field but there is no one there to either muscle for the ball or get their first and enable the team to push out."

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg597264

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg597227

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg597227

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg583197

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg535150

 

http://www.toontastic.net/forum/index.php?...mp;#entry204865

 

Might be painful for some of you to be wrong, but ref judgements on Kluivert, Souness, Luque, Boumsong, Ameobi, Bellamy, Zoggy ..... I'm always right.

 

I've been sad enough to follow those links and even sadder I've already read them. What do you think they prove exactly? Fuck all as far as I can tell.

 

The bit I've bolded just sums you up, you are such an arrogant arse it's unbelievable. But just for the record, you have recently agreed Roeder was a good choice of manager, at least you had no problems with his canditure and success at getting the job. You also thought O'Neill was no better than Souness. But worst of all of course is your unremitting support of Shepherd no matter what happens. It's truly pathetic Leazes, while he is sunning himself in his Majorcan villa [shudder] paid for by "mugs" like us he will be pleased as punch there are still morons like you who will stand up for him no matter what happens to the club.

 

Dinosaurs like you are dying out, but unfortunately I fear it is too late now no matter what happens to Shepherd, it really looks like his gross incompetence have fucked the club up Risdale style. So Leazes, if we are relegated, do you agree Shepherd will have left the club in it's worst financial position in its history? I'll give you a clue, the answer is yes.

 

what does it prove ? Eerrr....i was just responding to snakehips and showing him I'd been saying this for ages....whats your point ?

 

I'm not arrogant, as i said, if you base your "opinions" on fact, then you can't be wrong. I have never said Roeder was a "good" choice as manager, just that I saw the logic in trying something different, as the "big names" had not worked ? What is your problem with that, and if you disagree please explain why.

 

I have said that O'Neill had done nothing more than Souness. Which is true. He has not done as well as Gullit, and he his track record to date isn't fit to lick the boots of Dalglish and Robson. So on what criteria do you think he would be more suitable for our job than they both were ?

 

If we end up in a shit financial state and relegated, then I also predicted the possibility of this to people who backed Souness. People who ignored that and continued to say we should back Souness in his transfer dealings, spending and getting rid of the "cancer" on the basis that they thought we would be better off for it. You were one of the ones who thought as I did about this. So, no, I am not happy, what else is your point ? These people who backed Souness spending spree wanted this, so what are they complaining about now.

 

BTW, the worst financial state in the clubs history to date is where the Halls and Shepherd found it, along with the worst playing position too. Are you aware of this. Why didn't you point out the board was shit when we played in the Champions League BTW ? Or have they suddenly became shit overnight ? The problems of this club stem from the appointment of Souness, and nothing else. A good manager who knows what he is doing will put it back on the way upwards again. Whether the board can appoint this man is the question up for debate but as we have appointed managers with track records, and now a manager with the good of the club at heart rather than himself, what and who exactly would you choose to guarantee anything ?

 

Leazes, if we get relegated, and frankly that looks more likely than not, we are really fucked, easily in our worst position in history. I suspect you know this, but will keep singing the la la songs in your head pretending it won't happen.

 

Souness was a disastrous appointment, one that was mind-bogglingly bad, imo probably the worst managerial appointment in recent history. That alone should have forced Shepherd to reconsider his place at the club, and btw, I'm not even taking into account the sheer crassness and idiotic way he and his mate Dougie carried it out, which also had the effect of making us one of the most hated and laughed at clubs in the land (yeah, I know, I'm just being paranoid and believing those media lies).

 

Now, even you were aware that Souness was a terrible choice, fair enough. But then you back Shepherd in appointing Roeder, despite his ridiculous promises virtually every manager in the world was after the job. Well you see, I actually think appointing Roeder was almost as stupid as appointing Souness, and guess what, it looks like I might be right on that one, not you. But then, incredibly, you really believe that it is you who is always right.

 

Finally, for me at least, the fact you are still comparing O'Neill with Souness is yet more proof that as far as football goes you don't know your arse from your elbow (despite being a SUPAFAN). It'll probably take a couple of years before this is categorically shown, and even then, it may just be down to the fact that Villa now have a better chairman than they had (the previous one, who actually signed O'Neill, of course being Doug Ellis, a "shit" chairman in your words I believe, but notheless the equal of Shepherd).

 

maybe, time will tell. But appointing good managers isn't always the sign of a good chairman. It is also down to luck. I have posted the extracts from Keegans book which states that Sir John didn't want him or chose him, it was Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher. Therefore, where does that make Sir John a good chairman ? If one of the other 3 had been chairman, we would have had the same success, as Keegan was the difference and not the chairman ie Hall Snr got lucky. Conjecture ? Maybe, maybe not. It depends what you believe, but I believe the manager is the absolute key man at the football club.

 

Sorry, but I think many people don't know their arse from their elbow, but I do . It will indeed take a couple of years, but to justify the plaudits he [O'Neill] is getting, I think Villa will have to at least equal the 3 consecutive top 5 finishes Bobby Robson did for him to even be considered an appointment of equal calibre.

[LeazesMag 0]

Shepherd Out

 

very good. You are obviously an intelligent chap with a lot to say.

[LeazesMag 0]

The Shepherd situation is a different situation to the pressing need for a forward and an attacking midfield player of the type mentioned. I don't think judging players is a clairvoyant quality, sometimes it is easy and obvious, so long as you don't wear rose tinted glasses and are honest, and accept what is requred to be successful in the premiership, then its basis stuff.

 

No, Shepherd like all chairman will go if the club continues to disappoint. That is football. The point i have made from day 1 is don't automatically expect better. There are plenty around who are a lot worse, and we have had them ourselves so we are not immune to it. Time will tell. We might get lucky or we might suffer an absolute disaster. Some people obviously don't understand this, although the mackems just down the road stare them in the face as a classic example - but having a board who is ambitious and backs their managers gives you a chance, having one that is mediocre and afraid to do this gives you no chance of ever succeeding. If this happens, or we get someone who does not have any interest in the club, it WILL be an absolute disaster, if you can't see this then there is nothing else I can say other than you - not you - are extremely naive.

Leaze, sorry mate, I for one have agreed with you on many things, not the least the whole Souness/Bellamy shite but I don't think you can use the arguement in bold any longer.

It is obvious to all that Shepherd is picking and choosing who Newcastle sign, not the manager (the rumours of other managers turning us down for this very reason are to many and often).

And you have to agree that is untenable for a manager, any manager to build a team from players someone else is telling you you are having.

 

I don't think it is obvious at all that the board is picking players to buy. I don't believe rumours in Newcastle. There has been millions of rumours over the years. I remember when we were going to buy Socrates, and I remember when it was rumoured we were going to buy a whole host of players, none of which had any foundation. The comment that a board who backs their managers is vastly preferable to one that doesn't, stands. I don't understand why you think otherwise. And I will also say, I hope people who don't understand this, don't find out the hard way, because if we do then it will mean that we will all suffer.

 

As I have always said that good chairman back their managers, it is beyond comprehension that I would now say that they should interfere. When I say "back", this is precisely what I mean. Good chairman back their managers judgement, wherever possible, financially. Good chairman also take a chance to back their managers by taking a risk too sometimes, if they feel the risk can be taken. This is precisely why buying such wankers as Boumsong, Luque, Viana etc and selling Bellamy and Robert for peanuts, all of which heavily contributes to our current position, is nobodies fault other than the managers fault. People who are slaughtering the board for backing the managers would also slaughter them if they hadn't found the money and not backed him, and they know it. In any work, you appoint someone, and back him. The day you don't trust his judgment is the day you sack him.

 

And - in my opinion - we should have sacked Souness, but plenty of people said we should have backed him. I wasn't one of those. But that is just my opinion. Therefore don't say I got it wrong, because I didn't. Should the board pay for getting it wrong, and for not sacking him ? Well, those people who backed his spending spree didn't think so at the time .... personally, I would have binned the lot of them for being so stupid but unfortunately you can't get rid of a board, they have the power so we just have to hope they can put it right, and if they can't then you have to hope their replacements are better, hope being the operative word.

 

 

When the fuck are you going to realise that whatever any individual fan thinks about Souness or any other decision the board makes is irrelevant? The ONLY people that matter are those that make the shit decisions. Those same people who make a fortune out of the club.

 

Leazes, do you actually appreciate the gravity of the situation we are now in, thanks to the "leadership" of Shepherd?

 

Ffs.

 

eerrr.....having seen the club relegated twice before, yes. Have you ?

[sammynb 2929]

I don't think it is obvious at all that the board is picking players to buy. I don't believe rumours in Newcastle. There has been millions of rumours over the years. I remember when we were going to buy Socrates, and I remember when it was rumoured we were going to buy a whole host of players, none of which had any foundation. The comment that a board who backs their managers is vastly preferable to one that doesn't, stands. I don't understand why you think otherwise. And I will also say, I hope people who don't understand this, don't find out the hard way, because if we do then it will mean that we will all suffer.

Sorry Leaze but it can't be denied, Freddy is doing as he chooses when it comes to players.

Those various passages that were in SBR's updated book, I don't have them but I don't doubt you have read it with your passion for the club, where he talks of not knowing about Woodgate's sale and the Bowyer being offered up to any club behind his back are proof.

 

You might be right (I don't buy into this argument that you can't be wrong) we may end up with a worse chairman but if you look at the recent atrocious chairman for other clubs, clubs that have all suffered relegation or have been on the brink of relegation/bankruptcy, they have all been someone who meddles in team affairs and are constantly in the press.

Sound like someone we know?

[Renton 17815]

The Shepherd situation is a different situation to the pressing need for a forward and an attacking midfield player of the type mentioned. I don't think judging players is a clairvoyant quality, sometimes it is easy and obvious, so long as you don't wear rose tinted glasses and are honest, and accept what is requred to be successful in the premiership, then its basis stuff.

 

No, Shepherd like all chairman will go if the club continues to disappoint. That is football. The point i have made from day 1 is don't automatically expect better. There are plenty around who are a lot worse, and we have had them ourselves so we are not immune to it. Time will tell. We might get lucky or we might suffer an absolute disaster. Some people obviously don't understand this, although the mackems just down the road stare them in the face as a classic example - but having a board who is ambitious and backs their managers gives you a chance, having one that is mediocre and afraid to do this gives you no chance of ever succeeding. If this happens, or we get someone who does not have any interest in the club, it WILL be an absolute disaster, if you can't see this then there is nothing else I can say other than you - not you - are extremely naive.

Leaze, sorry mate, I for one have agreed with you on many things, not the least the whole Souness/Bellamy shite but I don't think you can use the arguement in bold any longer.

It is obvious to all that Shepherd is picking and choosing who Newcastle sign, not the manager (the rumours of other managers turning us down for this very reason are to many and often).

And you have to agree that is untenable for a manager, any manager to build a team from players someone else is telling you you are having.

 

I don't think it is obvious at all that the board is picking players to buy. I don't believe rumours in Newcastle. There has been millions of rumours over the years. I remember when we were going to buy Socrates, and I remember when it was rumoured we were going to buy a whole host of players, none of which had any foundation. The comment that a board who backs their managers is vastly preferable to one that doesn't, stands. I don't understand why you think otherwise. And I will also say, I hope people who don't understand this, don't find out the hard way, because if we do then it will mean that we will all suffer.

 

As I have always said that good chairman back their managers, it is beyond comprehension that I would now say that they should interfere. When I say "back", this is precisely what I mean. Good chairman back their managers judgement, wherever possible, financially. Good chairman also take a chance to back their managers by taking a risk too sometimes, if they feel the risk can be taken. This is precisely why buying such wankers as Boumsong, Luque, Viana etc and selling Bellamy and Robert for peanuts, all of which heavily contributes to our current position, is nobodies fault other than the managers fault. People who are slaughtering the board for backing the managers would also slaughter them if they hadn't found the money and not backed him, and they know it. In any work, you appoint someone, and back him. The day you don't trust his judgment is the day you sack him.

 

And - in my opinion - we should have sacked Souness, but plenty of people said we should have backed him. I wasn't one of those. But that is just my opinion. Therefore don't say I got it wrong, because I didn't. Should the board pay for getting it wrong, and for not sacking him ? Well, those people who backed his spending spree didn't think so at the time .... personally, I would have binned the lot of them for being so stupid but unfortunately you can't get rid of a board, they have the power so we just have to hope they can put it right, and if they can't then you have to hope their replacements are better, hope being the operative word.

 

 

When the fuck are you going to realise that whatever any individual fan thinks about Souness or any other decision the board makes is irrelevant? The ONLY people that matter are those that make the shit decisions. Those same people who make a fortune out of the club.

 

Leazes, do you actually appreciate the gravity of the situation we are now in, thanks to the "leadership" of Shepherd?

 

Ffs.

 

eerrr.....having seen the club relegated twice before, yes. Have you ?

 

 

Just the one Leazes. But the problem is this time it's going to be different, there is no way we will be able to service our debts in the Championship and it's going to be harder than ever to get promoted. For me this will mean Shepherd is a bigger failure than any of our previous chair men.

 

Byw, do you understand yet that the position we find ourselves in is ultimately the responsibility of Shepherd, not me, you, or Gemmill? Unless you are Shepherd of course which has crossed my mind.

[BlueStar 0]

appointing good managers isn't always the sign of a good chairman.

 

But appointing disastrously bad managers is always the sign of a bad chairman.

[Guest alex]

Below is a quote from leazes on N-O. Now he has either been reading my posts today, or he is not as stupid as he looks Virtually the exact same thing I am saying. Me and Leazes, like that: *holds up crossed fingers*

 

 

"Despite buying new forwards, we still need more because they are either not playing or aren't what we want or aren't good enough. That is obvious. We don't need defenders anything like we need forwards.

 

Up front we need someone to make things happen, ie like Shearer did. We need someone who will put pressure on defenders, whether by strength, pace or both, we need to give them something to do and something to stop. We are still putting in crosses, and hitting the ball down the field but there is no one there to either muscle for the ball or get their first and enable the team to push out."

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg597264

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg597227

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg597227

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg583197

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/....html#msg535150

 

http://www.toontastic.net/forum/index.php?...mp;#entry204865

 

Might be painful for some of you to be wrong, but ref judgements on Kluivert, Souness, Luque, Boumsong, Ameobi, Bellamy, Zoggy ..... I'm always right.

So, basically, you managed to find one thing on this board where you turned out to be right? Steven Taylor no longer going to captain England then?

[Fop 1]

 

Sorry Leaze but it can't be denied, Freddy is doing as he chooses when it comes to players.

Those various passages that were in SBR's updated book, I don't have them but I don't doubt you have read it with your passion for the club, where he talks of not knowing about Woodgate's sale and the Bowyer being offered up to any club behind his back are proof.

 

 

 

Even if you read Bobby Robson's book and take it in the most pro-Robson slanted way possible, it's clear Fat Fred has been INSTRUMENTAL in moving Newcastle from Champions league qualification to relegation zone (and that's without taking into account his managerial appointments tbh).

 

Certainly at the end of Robson's reign it seems bizarre Fat Fred didn't just come out and appoint himself as manager as he seemed to have decided to do most everything but pick the team himself by that point.

[Sima 0]

Appointing good managers down to luck?

 

Fuck me, I've heard it all now. Appointing Mourinho down to luck? Appointing Wenger down to luck?

 

Just because the fat waster is devoid of any tactical appointments now doesn't mean you can tar every chairman with the same brush.

[Guest alex]

Appointing good managers down to luck?

 

Fuck me, I've heard it all now. Appointing Mourinho down to luck? Appointing Wenger down to luck?

 

Just because the fat waster is devoid of any tactical appointments now doesn't mean you can tar every chairman with the same brush.

I think there was an element of luck to the Wenger appointment. That said, your point still stands.

[Sima 0]

Fair enough Dein knew Wenger before he got the job, but he already had a league title and a cup win under his belt in France (along with dealing with world class names - earning their respect in the process). He followed this with success in Japan.

 

He was already well know for being astute and tactical, just wasn't that much of a household name. Which brings me to my point - known in footballing circles but not generally known outsdide. Therefore Dein saw what he had to offer (new ideas, good footballing mentality) and appointed him on that. Of course I'm willing to wager even Dein didn't expect the kind of success that Wenger got, but I think Dein had total confidence in him to do it.

 

In conclusion - Household name with bags of trophies (for the record I don't even class Dalglish's honours on the same level as Ferguson's as he was merely carrying on a legacy with most players established) is Shepherd's basic recruitment policy. He needs to look deeper, but he's too thick to do so.

Edited November 6, 2006 by Sima

[Isegrim 8872]

I remember reading a long interview with Wenger back then as he was linked to the job with Bayern (who then opted for Trapattoni at the last minute instead IIRC). It really was interesting as Wenger went into every detail and really seemed to be sophisticated. Of course he was a risk, but every appointment is. Although a bit unproven Wenger had already a big name in football then and it was only a matter which big club would appoint him.

[Ted Maul 0]

So what's Leazes actually saying? I've tried to avoid reading much of his posts because i'd just end up passing out through rage if I did.

[Dr Gloom 19830]

leazesmag is always right

 

[Shearergol 0]

So we're shit because of the Souness appointment? Has anyone seen the results in Robson's last 25 games as manager?

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3206]

So what's Leazes actually saying? I've tried to avoid reading much of his posts because i'd just end up passing out through rage if I did.

 

He is saying that Shepherd is a good Chairman for backing his managers. He also says it was stupid to back Souness but doesn't link the two preferring to blame fans for backing Souness's spending. He said that appointing SOuness wasn't a mistake by Shepherd as he had a great record. But he said that all the fans who backed Souness are stupid because it was obvious he would fail. He said that SHepherd doesn't interfere with the team because he doesn't believe rumours from Newcastle.

[Isegrim 8872]

So what's Leazes actually saying? I've tried to avoid reading much of his posts because i'd just end up passing out through rage if I did.

 

He is saying that Shepherd is a good Chairman for backing his managers. He also says it was stupid to back Souness but doesn't link the two preferring to blame fans for backing Souness's spending. He said that appointing SOuness wasn't a mistake by Shepherd as he had a great record. But he said that all the fans who backed Souness are stupid because it was obvious he would fail. He said that SHepherd doesn't interfere with the team because he doesn't believe rumours from Newcastle.

 

So he is lalaing again.

[Guest alex]

Only believes rumours that support his arguments.

[Gemmill 34547]

Only believes rumours that support his arguments.

 

The best example being the one where Souness throttled Bellamy at the training ground. Leazes believes that as if he saw it with his own eyes.