Howaythelads

Is it more valid if you repeat yourself? Not that I've got a clue as to what you're on about. I dont think anyone has got a clue what he's on about, least of all himself. :cool: Still waiting for you to address the questions that were asked earlier.... Dum di dum di dum dum

For a start, why bring Jesus into this, are you about to claim that he appointed Souness? Words like "the sooner you and your ilk accept that you've got what you wished for the better you'll feel" tend to point the comments towards me, I guess English isn't your strong point. Nobody has said that Shepherd was the only one who wanted Souness, he may or may not have been. What has been said is that Shepherd appointed him and he did, or are you about to tell us that he didn't. As for the enlighten bit, old dog and new tricks. OMG

You are really setting yourself up here, Invicta - if you think Roeder would have achieved the unbeaten run with Villa that MON has, esp after very little transfer activity and just arriving at the club a few weeks prior to the season, you've got to be dreaming. You are entitled to your opinion, but I am willing to bet that you will have to eat your words within 2 years.... O'Neill - gained relative success with ALL his clubs ; Roeder - relegated most of his.. It a No-brainer. just have a look at the results and tell me if that is an 'amazing unbeaten run', or a few wins against shite teams and a bunch of draws. first test and he failed. Woefully. And I say again, at the start of the season, none of you would have said Roeder wasn't capable of the same kind of run. Wasn't Arsenal a test then? From most sources Liverpool played the best football they have in a long while! The Arse have dropped points at home against Everton, Boro as well as Villa already this season, so that suggests no tbh. As for Liverpool - is that OK then?, as long as the opposition play you off the park it's OK to lose a match? That's no potential 'world class manager' for me tbh As said before look where they are and where we are, then look at our squads. O'Neill is doing a very good job and because they faced Liverpool in probably their best form of the season and losts all of a sudden WE can laugh at Villa? don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting Roeder here, I'm just pointing out what MON is all about, to the people who would hold him up as the saviour Hate to agree with Victor, but O'Neill is over-rated, not useless like some try to portray as my point of view. Anyway gejon, what's all this about comparing the squads, the obvious inference here being that you think ours is good. It's not good, it's shite in fact. If was good why is everyone slating the fullbacks, slating the centre backs, complaining about the midfield apart from the hero Parker, and the forwards. Wot forwards? If you think our squad is good and that Roeder isn't getting enough from it then fine, we'll never agree because I think Roeder was left a load of shite by Souness.

Is it more valid if you repeat yourself? Not that I've got a clue as to what you're on about. Likewise, your post above is a total nonsense. Anyway, just answer the point(s) in my post, you don't have to be mentioned specifically, you know. I notice you also have no comment in relation to the link I posted to a comment of mine made last May, a comment that laid out my thoughts on Fred and the appointment of Roeder. You've also made no comment that I've seen in relation to my agreeing with Dave, or least Dave agreeing with something I posted about when Souness was appointed. You either can't keep up or you only select what suits you at the time.

And that brings us back to the moron who appointed Souness, not the fans who backed him for whatever reason. Mick. I'm frankly tired of you spouting off the bit about the "moron who appointed Souness". The fact is, supporters do count, otherwise why are you and others now trying to get up some kind of momentum to get Fred out? You should have been doing it to get Souness out. Many people supported Souness's efforts to get rid of the likes of Bellamy and Robert, they fully supported the funding of Souness to build his own team before judging him. Had there been even the ripple of the shite people like you are trying to kick off right now Souness may have gone earlier. We all know the ultimate responsibility lies with the Board, but don't try to tell me that they are immune to the noises of the supporters. You're a couple of years too late and the sooner you and your ilk accept that you've got what you wished for the better you'll feel. People swallowed the propaganda and tripe (people like me were slated for calling it that) from Souness and his entourage so the Board was under little or no pressure to get rid of Souness until it was obvious to most. It's never been obvious to omarse and some others. It was said then that people should be careful what they wish for, they are now seeing the result. It could be the same wishing for Fred to go, I don't expect you to understand though. You're incapable of learning any lessons of time. That's a ridiculously juvenile statement. Do you really believe Fred on his own selected and appointed Souness? What is the significance of someone being on a dream list of supporters on a forum? Souness was never mentioned as a candidate by supporters on here but then why would he be? They scoff at the idea of Dave Jones or Paul Jewell, good solid managers who are realistic targets and who would both be better than Souness and Roeder. You talk a load of crap at times, I've never supported Souness being at our club at any time and did all I could to get rid of him in the limited way I could. I have not got what I wished for, where do you get that from? I can only guess that it fits your argument so it must be true, even if you have nothing to back it up, I was as much against Souness as I am now against Shepherd and if you had any kind of memory then you wouldn't be clutching at straws like that to defend Shepherd, you're laughable. Regarding "You're incapable of learning any lessons of time," maybe you should practice that one yourself and learn from history, the club is going backwards and showing no signs of changing direction, you should learn from history that clubs in free fall usually get relegated, by the time you wake up it'll be far too late. Shepherd did appoint Souness, look at the people on our board and tell me that Shepherd doesn't hold the power, I've tried to enlighten you before but you seem incapable of taking things in, Shepherd and his family have more boardroom votes than the Halls so could have easily scuppered any motion to appoint Souness if that is what he wanted to do, assuming as you do that it wasn't his choice, something which once again you have nothing to back it up. Like it or not, Shepherd is the person who appointed Souness and that was a moronic decision, I'll take that back when you prove otherwise. Jesus, you're thick. Do you take EVERYTHING in a post as being aimed DIRECTLY at you? I said "people", I'm talking about supporters in general. I know you didn't rate Souness ffs. BTW There is no way at all that Fred would have been the only person the Board who wanted Souness. None. If you believe otherwise then you have a problem. As for the idea that you could enlighten me? ho ho ho

It could have been worse for him, he could have been trying to defend a chairman who is beyond defence, that is what I call a big problem. Easy way out, easy way out.

It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand? So, Shep just appoints the managers and then sits back and let them run the show? Does he not get involved at all? By your own argument, the one common factor in a string of good managers failing is ..... So Robson failed in your opinion? in the chairmans opinion.... Eh? Small time thinking again, Victor. Overall I'm sure Fred believes Robson was a success, but he'd taken the club as far as it could go under his management, hence time to move on. So Shepherd's logic was, ah **** this, I can get someone better than this old fart bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif It's too ****ing easy with you man Stupid post again, tbh. easy easy easy What's easy? I know it's a forum, but you seem to have some kind of problem...... easy to get you to abandon your daft point of view and resort to insults easy easy easy Sure.

It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand? So, Shep just appoints the managers and then sits back and let them run the show? Does he not get involved at all? By your own argument, the one common factor in a string of good managers failing is ..... So Robson failed in your opinion? in the chairmans opinion.... Eh? Small time thinking again, Victor. Overall I'm sure Fred believes Robson was a success, but he'd taken the club as far as it could go under his management, hence time to move on. So Shepherd's logic was, ah **** this, I can get someone better than this old fart bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif It's too ****ing easy with you man Stupid post again, tbh. easy easy easy What's easy? I know it's a forum, but you seem to have some kind of problem......

And that brings us back to the moron who appointed Souness, not the fans who backed him for whatever reason. Mick. I'm frankly tired of you spouting off the bit about the "moron who appointed Souness". The fact is, supporters do count, otherwise why are you and others now trying to get up some kind of momentum to get Fred out? You should have been doing it to get Souness out. Many people supported Souness's efforts to get rid of the likes of Bellamy and Robert, they fully supported the funding of Souness to build his own team before judging him. Had there been even the ripple of the shite people like you are trying to kick off right now Souness may have gone earlier. We all know the ultimate responsibility lies with the Board, but don't try to tell me that they are immune to the noises of the supporters. You're a couple of years too late and the sooner you and your ilk accept that you've got what you wished for the better you'll feel. People swallowed the propaganda and tripe (people like me were slated for calling it that) from Souness and his entourage so the Board was under little or no pressure to get rid of Souness until it was obvious to most. It's never been obvious to omarse and some others. It was said then that people should be careful what they wish for, they are now seeing the result. It could be the same wishing for Fred to go, I don't expect you to understand though. You're incapable of learning any lessons of time. That's a ridiculously juvenile statement. Do you really believe Fred on his own selected and appointed Souness? What is the significance of someone being on a dream list of supporters on a forum? Souness was never mentioned as a candidate by supporters on here but then why would he be? They scoff at the idea of Dave Jones or Paul Jewell, good solid managers who are realistic targets and who would both be better than Souness and Roeder.

And some will be moaning when we don't bring in new players in January. It really does all come back to Souness's destruction of the team and the signing of players we didn't need in order to clear out the 'cancers', a task supported by most of the people on here who are moaning now.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cfr0046l.jpg

It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand? So, Shep just appoints the managers and then sits back and let them run the show? Does he not get involved at all? By your own argument, the one common factor in a string of good managers failing is ..... So Robson failed in your opinion? in the chairmans opinion.... Eh? Small time thinking again, Victor. Overall I'm sure Fred believes Robson was a success, but he'd taken the club as far as it could go under his management, hence time to move on. So Shepherd's logic was, ah **** this, I can get someone better than this old fart bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif It's too ****ing easy with you man Stupid post again, tbh.

John will say I lied.

No, he didn't. He failed to bring in the correct replacement. It all comes round to the appointment of that bastard who is the worst manager of this club in my lifetime. The reason people point to the timing of Robson's departure as being poor would never happen had the Board appointed the right man to take his place. We'd be doing well now if the right manager had been appointed, who would care about the timing? The proof is in the departure of Gullit and the appointment of Robson, I never hear much criticism surrounding the appointment of Robson, do you? In any case, the proper 'timing' would have been at the end of the season we finished 3rd, not a few weeks before Robson eventually left.

I'll sgree with you on the Mlner piont should have been brought on earlier. However I'll say with the midfield it's pretty obvious Parker slightly damaged his knee early in the game and because of the lack of depth on the bench Roeder was forced to make Parker the holding midfield player and make Butt attempt to play Parker's role. As for Taylor/Carr I didn't think Carr played that bad today and Taylor looked slighly uncertain at RB on Wednesday. He could have brought on Milner for Parker if needed. Can you remember a game when Milner has SUCCESSFULLY been deployed at a central midfielder? He is a winger not a central midfielder. He could have put Milner out on the left and moved N'Zogbia into the middle. Better that than Milner in the middle, course, whenever Zog has been in the middle he's looked poor as well.

Hald on, we'd get him on a free transfer, unattached from Levante. Why should we give them Luque for nowt the Luque leaving aspect of the deal does it for me tbh. Aye, terrible signing by Fat Boy Fred.

It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand? So, Shep just appoints the managers and then sits back and let them run the show? Does he not get involved at all? By your own argument, the one common factor in a string of good managers failing is ..... So Robson failed in your opinion? in the chairmans opinion.... Eh? Small time thinking again, Victor. Overall I'm sure Fred believes Robson was a success, but he'd taken the club as far as it could go under his management, hence time to move on.

I posted that a couple of weeks after Souness was appointed, Dave. You've agreed at last. Thanks.

Dave beat me to it with his post above. Anything you can grasp at, eh John?

Hald on, we'd get him on a free transfer, unattached from Levante. Why should we give them Luque for nowt

It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand? So, Shep just appoints the managers and then sits back and let them run the show? Does he not get involved at all? By your own argument, the one common factor in a string of good managers failing is ..... So Robson failed in your opinion?

Thanks for that, mate. BTW Souness had a decent track record, better than O'Neills in fact. At the point of signing him he was one of the very few managers below us in the league. That in itself, should have told Shepherd to stay clear. You're being influenced by gejon, here. Not sure why you're posting this like. I hope you don't think I was pleased when Souness was given the job, like. Or that I think he was a good appointment. Just pointing out to the head in the sand crew who think it's easy that he had a better track record than O'Neill, and there are more than a few who would spurt all over the place had Fred gone for O'Neill. My post was in no way having a go at yours, Im sure I know your stance on Souness What I was saying is that regardless of past glories, taking a manager whos about to be sacked from one of the few clubs doing worse than yourself to replace one of the most respected managers in the world (and then pay Blackburn for the priviledge!) wasnt a shrewd business move from the fat one. Couldn't agree more. The general belief is that Souness was offered the job to clear out the cancers in the club, or at least I think was the general belief while he was getting rid of our best players...... :cool:There was plenty of support for that at the tiime.....

It's like flogging a dead horse..... I know that ultimately the managers haven't brought success on the field. What I'm waiting for you to tell me is how you expect Fred to have been able to predict that in advance of making the managerial appointments that they wouldn't work out. On the basis of track record he's appointed suitable managers bar Roeder. Even Souness had a winning track record. So how would you appoint managers? What is your advice to the man you criticise? I'm sure some club insiders read the forum and they're probably chomping at the bit to hear what you have to say, especially as you won't suffer from the old "can't see the wood from the trees", being as you haven't been to a match in decades, like. Why don't you have a crack at answering the earlier questions about the appointment of Dalglish, or are they too difficult for you to understand?

believe it or not though, football management isnt just about buying players, its the 90 mins of a game where a manager is meant to do his main work. In that time Roeder looks at his most clueless, he doesnt dictate the game, get messages out to the team and hasnt heard of changing a game by making substitutions. His one attempt was to replace a winger with another winger. Why have Luque sat on the bench? get him on and see if he can shake it up. You can virtually time a game on Roeders substitutions, when he replaces Nobby (as he does every game) then you know its nearly time for the 4th official to hold up his sign. Until you mentioned Luque I was on the same page.

:roll: