Howaythelads

Sorry mate, but no amount of work on the back four is going to get the team creating chances and scoring goals. When we start doing that some of the nerves will go and the pressure will reduce on the defenders. They aren't that good at the back that's for sure, but I'm convinced the main problem is a lack of goals in the team. But surely, football is about scoring goals and not conceding? Agreed the strike force isn't doing well, but if we could at least stop goals going in, we would have a fighting chance with the midfield and up front? The point is we don't have a strike force. That's the difference.

Sorry mate, but no amount of work on the back four is going to get the team creating chances and scoring goals. When we start doing that some of the nerves will go and the pressure will reduce on the defenders. They aren't that good at the back that's for sure, but I'm convinced the main problem is a lack of goals in the team.

Scenario A isn't a straight scenario though. You're trying to corner people into saying they'll have one kind of reaction regardless of what kind of spending it is, since any spending is "a gamble". It's not though. Prudent spending, addressing the needs of the team, would result in at least some begrudged credit being given even if we go down, e.g. "at least they did that right". Being pandered to with a big name, big money trophy signing or two is going to definitely result in criticism, I think, even if we stay up. A far greater gamble. I'll go "on record" as saying I'll credit them with acting responsibly if we spend and spend well in January. I will definitely slate them if we do not spend or if the only spending is on trophy players. The manager picks the players to bring in. The fact the manager may opt to sign players certain fans don't think should be signed in favour of others isn't the issue, the issue is the club is being slated by a number of people for being in debt and for having a wage/income ratio that is too high. I want to know whether come January people are supporting the club spending even more despite that situation. Cheers

Thanks. Have to say that I agree with most of that, although I think the main problem is no fire power, despite how dodgy the back four may seem.

Not many straight answers so far like. I think the lack of straight answers says it all really. People will be quick to criticise no matter what the Board does. I realise asking people to put their opinion down here as a matter of record is a big ask when it comes to the desire to slag them later in hindsight. Not that this principle has bothered some people too much anyway, given that the support, or a desire for a certain action doesn't matter because Fred signs the cheques and he's the one who has to have the crystal ball.

It's not just the spending of the transfer fee, it's the increase in wages to income ratio that is currently considered a big issue by some. From reading the posts of Macbeth, Mick et al, I'd say that spending anything should be out of the question, tbh. Given the state of the club's finances. Interestingly, according to Macbeth £3m isn't next to nothing and can make a huge difference, just look at the dividends per year and you can see that.

I edited the post. You're obviously confused by the the phrase "splash the cash". Bringing in any players costs money, even if the fee isnt' huge it's still another drain on the club in terms of increasing the income to wages ratio, something the Board is currently slagged for by the usual suspects. Who the money is spent on is not the question, OBVIOUSLY if it was spent wisely we'd be doing ok, that applies to all managers, even Souness. If he'd spent the £50m on that 5th placed squad wisely we'd be challenging now ffs.

No Ok. So your answer is option A. Kind of. You want the club to bring in some new players.

Hmmm, I'm trying hard to see which option that is, either A or B....

Why do we need defenders when we have nobody scoring goals?

Ok, here is the chance for everybody to lay their cards on the table. I know you all hate Fred and would prefer to see the Board removed, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon. Between now and January the Board may or may not sack Roeder, but that's not an issue I want to address in thread. The question is simple. As Macbeth keeps telling us, and various people now beat up the Board over it, the club is in debt. So select the scenario.... A) The Board should gamble by spending cash in January in an effort to avoid relegation, in the knowledge that we may still go down and then what......? One division down, bigger debt....... B) The Board should be prudent with the finances and refuse to release any funds, meaning we go with the current squad and try to avoid the drop with what we have. Which is it to be? If you select option A and we still go down and the club is in greater financial cack, will you then blame the Board for doing what you wanted saying they shouldn't have spent even more cash? If you select option B and we go down will you then blame the Board for not splashing the cash in January despite saying right now that they shouldn't have spent in January.

Best post on this thread, Fox. I vowed I would NOT get involved in all this 'Yah-Boo, I know better than you stuff' after the last interminable rants over the running of the Club. Time to deal in that much over-used word , guys - FACT FACT 1. Club Unsuccessful for 38 years(YES, UNSUCCESSFUL - TROPHIES NIL, despite having most loyal fans in the country, based on what has been put in front of them). FACT 2. Club had best chance of sustained success over the past 10 years - THIS HAS BEEN WASTED. FACT 3. There has been no recognisable LONG-TERM PLAN for the development & future of the Club(Shilly-shallying over Academy for years, poor Scouting networks etc.). FACT 4. The club has made some APPALLING signings when the whole package of the deal is costed-out FACT 5, The club has been going backwards for at least 3 years since the lack of investment prior to Champs league campaign in 2003/4 FACT 6. The handling of the Bobby Robson situation (re; his stepping-down)was deplorably mis-managed., leading directly to the current, serious situation. FACT 7. THE BUCK STOPS AT THE TOP; THE CHAIRMAN HAS MADE(OR NOT MADE!) THE DECISIONS WHICH HAVE LEAD TO THIS(MANAGERIAL APPTS., TRANSFER POLICIES) AND SO SHOULD CARRY THE CAN. Anyone who can't(or won't) see this is now well & truly in the minority of the club's long-suffering support and doing the club no good by defending its position. As I said before, they are entitled to their views, but I recommend that as from now, no-one gets into a pointless debate about it - they are never going to change, so leave them to it. We have enough things to discuss & worry about besides those who insist the World is flat... Last word on the subject. I really can't be bothered to go through all of your points simply because most of it comes under the "be careful what you wish for" banner of replacing the Board. However, the point about summer 2003 gets on my wick because time after time people mention this. I post the facts of that period and the only person to address it so far has been Macbeth. Here it is again, I'd appreciate your comment....especially as the Board is now being slated for poor financial management. <snip> This has already been done to death. The facts show the club speculated to move from the Gullit mediocrity to a CL qualifying place by spending nearly £50m quid net in the 32 months prior to summer 2003, it's also a fact the club lashed out millions in January 2003 on Woodgate, something that is always ignored by those who babble on about summer 2003. From Jan 2001 ( ish ) through to summer 2003 the wage bill increased massively as well because we'd speculated by bringing in nearly a dozen players in 32 months under Robson, with only 2 reserve players leaving the club for very small fees. <snip>

I wonder why you disappeared when your mate that you backed to spend millions, sell the "cancer" and leave the club better off, did the opposite, then came back when you hoped we would all have forgotten about it Your memory is, of course, faulty. I "disappeared" at the time Fat Fred dissed the Hitzfeld campaign as a "betting scam". I'd called in a favour or two and put myself on the line to arrange a press interview with a national paper so that someone from the campaign could present our point of view. Then various lightweights got in a tizz about how it might upset Fat Fred and how I was some kind of traitor for helping the national press to knock our wonderful chairman. So I figured, what's the point? And ducked out for a while. As the consequences of yet another disastrous Fat Fred appointment have now become clear, most forum members have, however, now seen the light – rather blinding at the moment, when you consider the overall cacked-up state of the club. Which you can't see, of course, as keeping your head stuck well up your arse is naturally an impediment to vision. Still, at least you provide some light relief in these troubled times for forum members who need something to laugh at. Why do you think Hitzfeld would be more qualified for the job now than Dalglish was at the time he was appointed? Thanks in advance for avoiding the question..........

I wonder why anyone would give a toss about what you post in the here and now......

Amusingly HTL's post two or so years ago was based on a post made by myself 2 weeks prior. Strange but true. bluebiggrin.gif

Not really, you're just writing something I posted ages ago about Fred, that's all. And I mean, ages ago. Then you post lies...... Freddy is my hero and all that bollocks. I said just after Souness was appointed that one of the failings of Fred is that he appoints managers for one trait, that he's reactionary. I didn't see you agreeing with me at the time, we probably weren't doing badly enough at that time for you to bother posting. Yet here you are spouting the same stuff as though you're the first to think of it. What a laugh. Other than complaints about players you've never seen you have nowt to say that's original.

Eh? Do you really not get it, like?

Again, fine if this is the standard applied to all. People weren't saying that when Dyer and Bowyer did their handbag thing, they weren't saying that when Souness was kicking out the 'cancer' and they weren't saying that when Robert was being misquoted in the press. None of which are any worse than what Parker has done, but all are/were better players than him. The 'team' didn't enter into it much back then, did it? Seems reality may have finally made it's way home that you need your best players, shame Parker is so average compared to the others I mention. Were you one of those people, Gemmill?

Someone else who read my post a couple of years ago......

Mick How about sharing some of your football knowledge with everybody by telling us all why we aren't currently getting results on the field, and how that could be improved. Surely you aren't seriously suggesting that we have a good squad and that binning Fred and Roeder will suddenly see the team banging in the goals and storming up the league? Same question to John.

Sadly he is right. The summer before the Partizan game the club had expenditure of £8.5m. Lee Bowyer was brought in to strengthen the playing squad. .....and the previous 32 months..... Why don't you stick your worthless agenda up your arse, mate. Just an idea. You say sadly. So you're now advocating 32 months of £50m transfer deficit and you wanted them to spend still more? Is that what you're now saying? No but you didn't say this the first time. You left out facts. I am more than comfortable with the club investing the amound it did at that time. But the other thing you left out was the fact that the club did not invest any money that summer in players. The club did spend £8.5m to give money to Hall and Shepherds. Below is an extract from something I posted some time ago that you also ignored. It's fúcking pathetic that you push your agenda to the point where one moment you're slagging them off for spending too much and then slagging them off for not spending. The snip below is solid fact. <snip> This has already been done to death. The facts show the club speculated to move from the Gullit mediocrity to a CL qualifying place by spending nearly £50m quid net in the 32 months prior to summer 2003, it's also a fact the club lashed out millions in January 2003 on Woodgate, something that is always ignored by those who babble on about summer 2003. From Jan 2001 ( ish ) through to summer 2003 the wage bill increased massively as well because we'd speculated by bringing in nearly a dozen players in 32 months under Robson, with only 2 reserve players leaving the club for very small fees. <snip> If you start the ins after Andy O'Brien in March 2001 then the period had net buys of £44m (www.soccerbase.com), if you start in Jan 2001 then it is a net of £39m. Any earlier than that becomes irrelevant. Not quite the "nearly £50m" you mention but still a large figure. The signings of JJ in 2002 and Woodgate in 2003 were perfect examples of Shepherd running the club well. He had set a transfer budget for those seasons. When we ended up at the top of the league in January 2002, with unexpected revenue from being on the telly Shepherd came out and said that this extra money meant the club could invest in new players. JJ arrived. The next year with us in the CL second phasee, same again with Woodgate. Brilliant management of resources. Exactly what I want from a board. The wage bill rose in 2003, so Shepherd said at the time, because of the bonuses paid to players for getting to the second phase of the CL. Again brilliant stuff. Pay them well, then if they over achieve, and the club gets more money, pay the players big bonuses. This is absolutely faultless. The problem was that he then changed policy on wages. The high figure became the basic. Now if we finish 7th the wages are £20m more than they were 4 years earlier, and even £10m more than when we were in the CL second phase. This is just madness. Excusing this on the back of signing new playert is just abdicatign any responsibility for financial control. The board claim in the latest results that they have sole responsibility for wages and transfers. This is ho wit should be, that is what their job is. Players play, Manager manages playing resources, Board supply money to allow Manager to maximise the resources available to him. For you to excuse the wage bill on the back of signings is like suggestign that teh wages were a big surprise to the board, that they just hadn't thought that the players would need paid. Surely not Care to tackle this one, Macbeth? Sounds like you're now slagging the Board for not spending yet more in summer 2003. It's clear by now that your position comes from you having a childish rag on because they wouldn't let you and your pathetic group have a say in the running of the club. But you don't say that, NE5 made that one up, you've never used it before. blueconfused.gif Did you approve of the club setting up the FLC ? Or do you view it as another stupid mistake by Shepherd ? It may well have been correct to not spend money in the summer of 2003. It has happened. In Sir Bobby's book his discussion of that summer was all about Bowyer being a bargain, and needing to start looking for a Shearer replacement. I suspect if Shepherd has said "Bob here's £8.5m could you strengthen the side with this", he may well have gone and spent it. He wasn't given the option though. The thing that we will have to differ about is that I wouldn't have given the £8.5m away. I view it as unforgivable that they just gave it away. The equivalemt of the season ticket money for 17,000 fans paid into the club in the June, and straight out, just given away in the August. No benefit to anyone but H&S. If £8.5m had to be spent on something then spend it on the team, not on the Hall/Shepherd pension funds. I cannot get my head around why you and NE5 see it as correct for the club to do that. I've even seen it stated, not by you I don't think, that if the money hadn't been given away in dividends it would hav ejust disappeared anyway. Is there so much lack of trust in the abilty of H&S to manage the finances that their only supporters think they would have let £8.5m just disappear ? Thanks. The bit in bold was all I really wanted to know. Sorry for the bit I've never used before, I'm just getting tired of all this and it struck me as a hell of a thing that you slag them off for spending then slag them off for not spending. You should understand that is bound to piss people off as it is pretty sad that you do this. I think I'm getting hacked off at the general state of the forum from so many posters, tbh. 2 or 3 in particular are total arseholes these days. Anyway, I shouldn't have taken it out on you with that childish comment, so I apologise for the tone. I can do no more. The rest is interesting, but the real reason the finances are now poor is down to the mismanagement of Souness, as said many times a huge mistake by the Board and the club is paying for it now. Probably will continue to pay for it for some time to come such is the damage. This was predicted, of course. We'll always disagree about dividends mainly because I don't even think about that subject, I couldn't give a shite about it really. It's a PLC, I accept they'll pay dividends. So long as they also make money available to the manager I'm not bothered. The spending over those 32 months was a large amount, that dividends were paid at the same time is for me just one of those things a business will do. Cheers

Agreed. Good on Parker for telling the fickle bastards to **** off, if he did say that. That's not the point. The point is that some fans expect to be able to give players as much shit as they like because they're pissed off without getting any comeback and as soon as a player turns round and says, 'Fuck off, I'm pissed off too' he gets vilified for it. The last thing we need is to get on the backs of our own players, especially those players who actually give a ****. It's a fair point but it won't work because it would have to be applied across the board for all players. I can't imagine the reaction if Bellamy or Bowyer had done this, for example. Both better players than Parker anarl.

Aye. Agreed.

was that the guy on the crutch? he got a hell of a lot of abuse! just got back from the protest, i reckon it would still be going now if the horses hadnt came well done guys! The protest went on for ages although I can think of a couple of people who will say it didn't happen at all. Just about everybody who walked past the main entrance were singing as they passed, a few stayed while others kept moving while singing. Singing was also going on during the match but I don't know if it was heard on the radio or TV. Just think though, when we finally go down you can shoot off and buy your Chelsea top........cheerio. You won't be missed if it happens.

Hmm, weren't too happy when Bellamy called your hero a wanker, were you mate?