J7

I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004. they made a terrible appointment in Souness [which again, numerous people backed to succeed, and spend the money that he did], but it doesn't change the fact that their basic idea of how success is gained was correct. The basic idea in my opinion is appointing a good manager to spend that money. Whereas you think managerial success is down to luck. Liverpool ended up with Benitez, Villa with O'Neill, and we got Souness and Roeder. That isnt luck in my opinion. Well, it isn't you or me who chooses the managers. What do you think of Chelsea appointing Grant and Scolari and sacking them both after short periods ? Unlucky ? And what do you think of all the clubs who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? Unlucky ? Get real mate. Get some perspective. I'm not taking the piss, this is perspective. Nobody appoints winning managers all the time, its impossible, and I bet that when Wenger and Ferguson leave their respective clubs, mistakes will be made at those clubs too. so you were ok with appointing kinnear ? not my decision. But he didn't back him, just like Keegan. He can appoint anybody he likes, but if he doesn't give him the tools to do the job properly, then it won't get done properly. It won't get done properly if you appoint a shit manager either. Who is spending the money is as important giving them money.

I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004. they made a terrible appointment in Souness [which again, numerous people backed to succeed, and spend the money that he did], but it doesn't change the fact that their basic idea of how success is gained was correct. The basic idea in my opinion is appointing a good manager to spend that money. Whereas you think managerial success is down to luck. Liverpool ended up with Benitez, Villa with O'Neill, and we got Souness and Roeder. That isnt luck in my opinion. Well, it isn't you or me who chooses the managers. What do you think of Chelsea appointing Grant and Scolari and sacking them both after short periods ? Unlucky ? And what do you think of all the clubs who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? Unlucky ? Get real mate. Get some perspective. I'm not taking the piss, this is perspective. Nobody appoints winning managers all the time, its impossible, and I bet that when Wenger and Ferguson leave their respective clubs, mistakes will be made at those clubs too. Grant did ok and it was a mistake to sack him. Scolari wasnt really suited to the English game. They corrected their mistake quicker than we did with Souness and have managed to salvage their season. The sacking of Grant and the appointment of Scolari was a mistake though. It wasnt a mistake that set them back as much as Souness did us though. What about those clubs? Post 2004 weve only qualified for Europe once when we finished 7th. Im not critisising Shepherd record previous to that. I KEEP on telling you that. I am being real. Souness and Roeder were shocking appointments, not bad, shocking for a club of where we were. Nearly everybody could see that when they were appointed. It wasnt luck and took us from a team who were attempting to qualify for the Champions League to a team who were firmly in the bottom half of the table. The appointments were as bad as nearly anyone has made in the Prem. Sammy Lee and Chris Hutchings appart maybe. Shepherd had lost the plot at this stage.

I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004. they made a terrible appointment in Souness [which again, numerous people backed to succeed, and spend the money that he did], but it doesn't change the fact that their basic idea of how success is gained was correct. The basic idea in my opinion is appointing a good manager to spend that money. Whereas you think managerial success is down to luck. Liverpool ended up with Benitez, Villa with O'Neill, and we got Souness and Roeder. That isnt luck in my opinion.

Bnei Saskin from Israel. They came and tried to kick us off the park, but they even failed at that. Blackburn when we beat them 3-0 just before Souness arrived were awful. I remember the Blackburn fans singing "This is the team that Souness left"

I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004.

I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it.

And what about Berwick? 9th out of 10 in Scotlands bottom league. Ha. Mind, as someone said above, I couldn't care about anyone other than Newcastle and Berwick.

tell me where I said it was brilliant ? With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point. Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either. You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot. As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not. what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy. BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own. I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do. My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for. You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about. Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom. Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it. I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making. selective cherry picking is what you are doing though. Nobody knows if they could have done it again, but if they back their manager and have ambition they have a chance. If they don't, they have no chance. Thats my point. Im not selective cherry picking though. Im talking about the last few years of his chairmanship, the part where I believe he lost the plot and we needed a change. There were good times before that, I wouldnt dispute it, but that was pretty irrelevant when discussing our position in 2007 after sacking Roeder and the reasons we were in that position. I fully agree that good chairman have to back their managers, but as important, if not more important than that is picking a good manager. It isn't. If you are lucky enough, yes lucky enough, to appoint a good manager and the board is s****, then he will leave. Keegan is your proof of that. We have appointed plenty of proven track record managers, as have other clubs, and they have not been a success, so its not foolproof by any stretch. You have to accept that in an industry where only 3 teams are classified as successful in terms of winning silverware and a few more qualify for europe, most clubs "fail".......its the ambition in the boardroom which makes a football club, and everyone is chasing those 3 trophy winning managers. Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare. so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time. We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens. Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too . This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme. The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes. Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ? As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didnt really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked. Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesnt make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didnt help either Big Sam or Keegan. Im not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success. The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They werent just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldnt claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot. Just because Ashley has been worse, doesnt make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me. as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ? Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ? when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?) Precisely. Were second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. Its a recipe for disaster. NE5s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashleys lack of ambition doesnt make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. Hes had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time. Its looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up hed still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment. Two people can be bad, you do know that don't you. There arent just two options here, one good one bad. In my opinion Ashley has been worse for us than Shepherd, but that doesnt get Shepherd off the hook. And you do realise Hall and Shepherd did a lot of good work at SJP? If you look at where the club was when they took over and where it was when they left, there can be no doubt significant progress had been made, and we saw a lot of great football along the way. This is like speaking to a brick wall. When somebody says "lost the plot", that means that things were going well, THEN mistakes start being made and things turn bad. Bad decisions start being made instead of good ones. Whats so hard to understand about that? Can you, and NE5 not understand that simple concept? This has nothing whatsoever to do with their record in the past, only in the last few seasons in my opinion. Thats why I would say "lost the plot" rather than "Shepherd was bad bad bad". So. Using the "clough analogy" that myself and madras spoke of, you completely ignore his successes because he left them relegated ? And the fact still remains, its also about judging the best people who understand how to be successful, in spite of any mistakes. How long do you think it will take someone to match those european qualifications that the Halls and Shepherd did, or are you saying that the next owners will be better than the Halls and Shepherd if they spend 10 years or so at the club, don't qualify for europe but leave it 2 places higher in the league than Mike Ashley ? There were virtually no successes post-2004. Successes previous to that are not what im talking about and they don't really matter when I talk about someone losing the plot. Im not judging his whole record, just how he lost the plot and we needed a change. You just totally ignore this every single time I post.

The good old Berwick-upon-Tweed taxi down in Newcastle. Pissed off a few of the Newcastle taxi drivers that I bet.

tell me where I said it was brilliant ? With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point. Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either. You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot. As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not. what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy. BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own. I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do. My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for. You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about. Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom. Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it. I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making. selective cherry picking is what you are doing though. Nobody knows if they could have done it again, but if they back their manager and have ambition they have a chance. If they don't, they have no chance. Thats my point. Im not selective cherry picking though. Im talking about the last few years of his chairmanship, the part where I believe he lost the plot and we needed a change. There were good times before that, I wouldnt dispute it, but that was pretty irrelevant when discussing our position in 2007 after sacking Roeder and the reasons we were in that position. I fully agree that good chairman have to back their managers, but as important, if not more important than that is picking a good manager. It isn't. If you are lucky enough, yes lucky enough, to appoint a good manager and the board is s****, then he will leave. Keegan is your proof of that. We have appointed plenty of proven track record managers, as have other clubs, and they have not been a success, so its not foolproof by any stretch. You have to accept that in an industry where only 3 teams are classified as successful in terms of winning silverware and a few more qualify for europe, most clubs "fail".......its the ambition in the boardroom which makes a football club, and everyone is chasing those 3 trophy winning managers. Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare. so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time. We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens. Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too . This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme. The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes. Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ? As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked. Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success. The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot. Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me. as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ? Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ? when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?) Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster. NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time. It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment. Two people can be bad, you do know that don't you. There arent just two options here, one good one bad. In my opinion Ashley has been worse for us than Shepherd, but that doesnt get Shepherd off the hook. And you do realise Hall and Shepherd did a lot of good work at SJP? If you look at where the club was when they took over and where it was when they left, there can be no doubt significant progress had been made, and we saw a lot of great football along the way. This is like speaking to a brick wall. When somebody says "lost the plot", that means that things were going well, THEN mistakes start being made and things turn bad. Bad decisions start being made instead of good ones. Whats so hard to understand about that? Can you, and NE5 not understand that simple concept? This has nothing whatsoever to do with their record in the past, only in the last few seasons in my opinion. Thats why I would say "lost the plot" rather than "Shepherd was bad bad bad".

tell me where I said it was brilliant ? With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point. Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either. You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot. As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not. what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy. BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own. I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do. My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for. You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about. Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom. Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it. I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making. selective cherry picking is what you are doing though. Nobody knows if they could have done it again, but if they back their manager and have ambition they have a chance. If they don't, they have no chance. Thats my point. Im not selective cherry picking though. Im talking about the last few years of his chairmanship, the part where I believe he lost the plot and we needed a change. There were good times before that, I wouldnt dispute it, but that was pretty irrelevant when discussing our position in 2007 after sacking Roeder and the reasons we were in that position. I fully agree that good chairman have to back their managers, but as important, if not more important than that is picking a good manager. It isn't. If you are lucky enough, yes lucky enough, to appoint a good manager and the board is s****, then he will leave. Keegan is your proof of that. We have appointed plenty of proven track record managers, as have other clubs, and they have not been a success, so its not foolproof by any stretch. You have to accept that in an industry where only 3 teams are classified as successful in terms of winning silverware and a few more qualify for europe, most clubs "fail".......its the ambition in the boardroom which makes a football club, and everyone is chasing those 3 trophy winning managers. Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare. so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time. We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens. Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too . This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme. The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes. Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ? As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked. Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success. The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot. Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me. as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ? Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ? when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?) Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster. NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time. It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment. Two people can be bad, you do know that don't you. There arent just two options here, one good one bad. In my opinion Ashley has been worse for us than Shepherd, but that doesnt get Shepherd off the hook.

tell me where I said it was brilliant ? With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point. Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either. You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot. As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not. what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy. BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own. I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do. My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for. You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about. Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom. Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it. I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making. selective cherry picking is what you are doing though. Nobody knows if they could have done it again, but if they back their manager and have ambition they have a chance. If they don't, they have no chance. Thats my point. Im not selective cherry picking though. Im talking about the last few years of his chairmanship, the part where I believe he lost the plot and we needed a change. There were good times before that, I wouldnt dispute it, but that was pretty irrelevant when discussing our position in 2007 after sacking Roeder and the reasons we were in that position. I fully agree that good chairman have to back their managers, but as important, if not more important than that is picking a good manager. It isn't. If you are lucky enough, yes lucky enough, to appoint a good manager and the board is s****, then he will leave. Keegan is your proof of that. We have appointed plenty of proven track record managers, as have other clubs, and they have not been a success, so its not foolproof by any stretch. You have to accept that in an industry where only 3 teams are classified as successful in terms of winning silverware and a few more qualify for europe, most clubs "fail".......its the ambition in the boardroom which makes a football club, and everyone is chasing those 3 trophy winning managers. Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare. so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time. We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens. Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too . This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme. The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes. Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ? As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked. Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success. The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot. Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me. as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ? Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ? As I said earlier, its not cherry picking though. I believe Shepherd lost the plot after 2004. It doesnt matter how good he was previously, because he lost the plot. He started to do the wrong things. You can't just keep looking back at past successes when things are going wrong all around you. At some point you have to look forward and change things. This isnt an assessment on Shepherds whole record at the club.

tell me where I said it was brilliant ? With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point. Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either. You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot. As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not. what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy. BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own. I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do. My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for. You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about. Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom. Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it. I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making. selective cherry picking is what you are doing though. Nobody knows if they could have done it again, but if they back their manager and have ambition they have a chance. If they don't, they have no chance. Thats my point. Im not selective cherry picking though. Im talking about the last few years of his chairmanship, the part where I believe he lost the plot and we needed a change. There were good times before that, I wouldnt dispute it, but that was pretty irrelevant when discussing our position in 2007 after sacking Roeder and the reasons we were in that position. I fully agree that good chairman have to back their managers, but as important, if not more important than that is picking a good manager. It isn't. If you are lucky enough, yes lucky enough, to appoint a good manager and the board is s****, then he will leave. Keegan is your proof of that. We have appointed plenty of proven track record managers, as have other clubs, and they have not been a success, so its not foolproof by any stretch. You have to accept that in an industry where only 3 teams are classified as successful in terms of winning silverware and a few more qualify for europe, most clubs "fail".......its the ambition in the boardroom which makes a football club, and everyone is chasing those 3 trophy winning managers. Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare. so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time. We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens. Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too . This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme. The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes. Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ? As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked. Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success. The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot. Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me.

Next week Hull have Liverpool and Boro have Arsenal. We have Pompey at home. Realistically we should be only 1 point behind Hull and 2 ahead of Boro next Monday night. I would be confident then, but its assuming we beat Pompey. Its our most important game in decades.

If they're desperate to have Scottish clubs involved then they have to merge the whole league system. Two or three national British leagues then regionalised 3 or 4 ways below them (North, middle and south). Rangers and Celtic would obviously stablise themselves in the Premiership and you would get Hearts, Aberdeen and Hibs able to compete in the Championship with the increased TV and sponsorship money they would make. Hearts for example have had 30k+ crowds in Europe at Murrayfield. A mishmash of some Scottish teams in one league and some in another would just be a farce. The FA wouldn't stand for the above anyway as it would damage the chances of keeping the national teams seperate. FIFA would push for a British national team.

tell me where I said it was brilliant ? With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point. Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either. You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot. As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not. what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy. BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own. I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do. My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for. You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about. Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom. Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it. I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making. selective cherry picking is what you are doing though. Nobody knows if they could have done it again, but if they back their manager and have ambition they have a chance. If they don't, they have no chance. Thats my point. Im not selective cherry picking though. Im talking about the last few years of his chairmanship, the part where I believe he lost the plot and we needed a change. There were good times before that, I wouldnt dispute it, but that was pretty irrelevant when discussing our position in 2007 after sacking Roeder and the reasons we were in that position. I fully agree that good chairman have to back their managers, but as important, if not more important than that is picking a good manager. It isn't. If you are lucky enough, yes lucky enough, to appoint a good manager and the board is s****, then he will leave. Keegan is your proof of that. We have appointed plenty of proven track record managers, as have other clubs, and they have not been a success, so its not foolproof by any stretch. You have to accept that in an industry where only 3 teams are classified as successful in terms of winning silverware and a few more qualify for europe, most clubs "fail".......its the ambition in the boardroom which makes a football club, and everyone is chasing those 3 trophy winning managers. Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two shite managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway, and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare.

Erm, no they don't. They are where they are because they are shit and deserve to be there. The idea sounds awful and is just like the SPL2 proposal in Scotland. Self preservation at its most disgusting. Heres an idea Phil you fat fuck, how about we just get rid our your shitty little club and replace them with someone else.

To be fair, Kinnear was never going to be able to attract anyone of quality.

Two terrible players. Taylor especially. Even when we were looking better towards the end, Taylor was keeping his usual shite performance. Everything he does it shite.

tell me where I said it was brilliant ? With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point. Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either. You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot. As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not. what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy. BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own. I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do. My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for. You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about. Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom. Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it. I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making. selective cherry picking is what you are doing though. Nobody knows if they could have done it again, but if they back their manager and have ambition they have a chance. If they don't, they have no chance. Thats my point. Im not selective cherry picking though. Im talking about the last few years of his chairmanship, the part where I believe he lost the plot and we needed a change. There were good times before that, I wouldnt dispute it, but that was pretty irrelevant when discussing our position in 2007 after sacking Roeder and the reasons we were in that position. I fully agree that good chairman have to back their managers, but as important, if not more important than that is picking a good manager.

tell me where I said it was brilliant ? With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point. Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either. You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot. As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not. what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy. BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own. I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do. My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for. You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about. Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom. Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it. I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making.

tell me where I said it was brilliant ? With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point. Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either. You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot. As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not.

actually you don't, you give one fact repeated ad nauseam - the rest is your opinion tarted up as fact through the smoke and mirror act of condescension between yourself & JJ7 there were facts and opinions, i'll enlighten you: FS was a big part [fnar] of the European qualifications (facts) but he also ran out of ideas (strong conjecture/opinion) and the club was nearly bankrupt/in a dire financial situation (fact) what's so hard about it for you? you quote the Euro qualifications and JJ7 says: "Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club" he's not contradicting you, you can surely understand that? he's referring to 2 different points in time man then you reply and tell him to repost his rubbish in 5 years!!! you remind me of billy pilgrim dude, totally shot to f*** through all the time travelling you've done so you can't work out simple linear facts and events anymore Good points. Im not biting here, honestly as its just a general point, but there are very few people in business or politics or whatever who are always good. Most people usually start to fail and make mistakes in the end. Look at Hitler who performed miricles at the start, Thatcher, Brooks Mileson, Peter Ridsdale, Doug Ellis etc..... Even if Freddy had won us the league for three seasons between 1997 and 2000, you can't just stick with them when they continue to make mistake after mistake. absolutely agree, and it's a balance thing we'd tipped the scales under FS, and as a PLC in my opinion, but we got very unlucky with who bought us out - as has been said countless times the ashley period being an abject failure to date does not validate the later years of FS & the PLC at the end of the day, it depends how you look at it. Football is a risky business. A lot of people say - and not just on here - that if you aren't in europe, you are s***. Construed : what they mean is they have known nothing less than regularly playing in europe, so don't listen to people like me who try to tell them that such things aren't automatic and only the good clubs with good boards qualify regularly for europe. You hit the nail slightly on the head when you say we were "unlucky with who bought us out"........having seen the club when we were REALLY s**** [far more than the supposed "s****" of the recent past, until now since Ashley came in] I see it differently, I see the vast majority of the clubs in the top 2 leagues as being s****, and I say we "got lucky" when we had good directors. It might be quite a while until we "get lucky" again ....... and a lot of people will be sitting around in 10 years time and looking back at the Halls and Shepherd and realise it, but I obviously hope not bearing in mind my age. This is all I've said from day 1 by the way. At least some people - since ashley - have begun to understand. wrongish, it also depends on why you look at it in a certain way. for example why are you determined,against all reason, to try and make out that we weren't in the s*** at the end of fred's reign despite all the evidence saying we were ? why are you and others like you, against all reason, determined to try and make out that the Halls and Shepherd weren't the best owners we have had at the club for 50 years and it will very difficult to replace them with better ? And - accept that Mike ashley is taking the club downwards, among the also rans, like the vast majority of other football club owners instead of trying to get among the other top clubs which is where we should be and where we spent our time under the Halls and Shepherd. People do accept that Mike Ashley is taking the club downwards. However, why do you not accept that when the Halls and Shepherd sold the club to Ashley we were already started on the journey downwards. We may have had years and years competing with the top clubs but the bubble had already burst when Ashley bought us, and this was after others had looked at the books and walked away laughing at the financial mess we were in. because they ticked the 2 biggest boxes. They had the ambition to succeed, and they backed their appointed managers That is how we qualfied for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club. I hope you enjoyed it, because we might have s*** directors for years, or decades, before we get good ones again. Same old hyperbole. So you must have missed the grumblings of fans who were not satisfied at the s*** that we were turning out week in week out. Were you at the Sheffield United game for instance? Of course I enjoyed the european games, that goes without saying. But that does not excuse Hall and Shepherd from starting us down the road that we are now on. Things had already turned sour before Mike Ashley came along. He has failed to turn that around and that should not be forgotten either, but you cannot say that Hall and Shepherd are blameless in this. football, like life, is all ups and downs. Fortunately, we had a board who delivered more ups than most clubs will ever see. Because they ticked the most important boxes, unlike 80-90% of clubs and their own predecessors and their first successor too, it will be very difficult to find better. Could take decades in fact. Shame they were so s*** it takes so long to find someone better isn't it ? Of course football is about ups and downs, but no decent chairman should let the downs lead a club towards nearly being bankrupt. Leeds had massive ups under Ridsdale, but look at them now because of what happened back then. Theres ambition, then theres stupidity. I agree that Shepherds ambition was great when we were qualifying for the Champions League under Robson. But Shepherd was stupid in the timing of his sacking of Robson, then his next 2 appointments. A chairmans main job is to pick a manager, and he failed not once, but TWICE in a row. Throwing money at a s**** manager, who is unlikely to get you a return on your investment (i.e. by qualifying for the Champions League) is pure stupidity. NE5, you look at things too simplistically and ignore what others are saying. You're either on the wind up, or you just love an arguement and don't actually believe what you're saying. I believe what I'm saying alright. I always have, and whats more, all the things I have said in the past which I got flak for, are all vindicated because they turned out to be right. Just to clarify, do you think appointing Souness and giving him £50 million to spend was the right thing to do? Can you not see that appointing Souness was unambitious, where as giving him £50 million was very ambitious? These things don't match as Souness was never going to take us to the Champions League. The Champions League is where we would need to be if we were to see a return in the investment. Its bad management. I don't really know how many times this has to be said. I didn't appoint Souness. Neither did you . They appointed him, and they backed their manager. Don't you understand this ? BTW, you should really be asking this sort of question to the numerous people who completely supported the throwing of the money at him, and his sales, at the time, who are now complaining about the consequences, instead of someone like me who said that we shouldn't be doing it, at the time. Eh! I didn't say you appointed Souness. Do you not have an opinion on the Souness appointment? If we're going to judge Shepherds record in splashing the cash, surely we can judge his managerial appointments. They're linked. I know fine well he backed his manager. However his manager was awful which led to the failure. He was a poor appointment, sure, plenty of people believed in him though, not me. However, the point is that - as unbelievable has said along with myself - YOU appoint someone and YOU back YOUR appointment. You don't appoint someone with the intent of not backing him or not believing in him. Or maybe you do, at least Mike Ashley has. Which means he appointed a good manager and DIDN'T back him = manager leaves the club = you will never get anywhere even if you are lucky enough to find one of the 3 or 4 "right" managers. You don't seem to understand that over 90% of football teams "fail" in the strictest sense. Which is of course why you seriously undervalued [and still do] when we had a decent board. Ashley's idea of success is the Halls and Shepherd's idea of mediocrity, such is the difference between them. I understand exactly what you're saying, however I value appointing a good manager more than you by the looks of it. If you appoint a manager, of course you should back him. I wouldnt disagree with that, but the mistake is in the dreadful appointment. That fucked up any plan Shepherd had. It doesnt matter that he thought Souness would do a good job, the vast majority of people thought he was the wrong man, and they were proved right. Shepherd appointed someone for what looks like the sole reason of sorting out an out of control dressing room. Appointing a good manager, the right manager, isnt luck. We should have had loads of options when Robson left, or certainly at the end of the previous season. We could have appointed someone who was just alright, someone who would keep us on the fringe of things. We appointed a man sending another team to the Championship. It was a shocking appointment which undone years of hard work. Even after that, he made another shocking appointment. The most important job of a chairman is to appoint the team manager, and Shepherd failed, on a huge scale. Just by saying, "oh well he backed his manager" doesnt get him off the hook. Im no fan of Ashley so I wouldnt even try and defend him. Its not exactly rocket science though. Appoint a good manager, or at worst someone half decent and then work with them and back them. Don't appoint a good manager and not back him. Don't appoint a shit manager as he will just waste your money. Shepherds judgement has to be called into question post 2004, however successful we were beforehand.

If we win on Sunday we will surely stay up. I can't see us winning though. A point maybe.

actually you don't, you give one fact repeated ad nauseam - the rest is your opinion tarted up as fact through the smoke and mirror act of condescension between yourself & JJ7 there were facts and opinions, i'll enlighten you: FS was a big part [fnar] of the European qualifications (facts) but he also ran out of ideas (strong conjecture/opinion) and the club was nearly bankrupt/in a dire financial situation (fact) what's so hard about it for you? you quote the Euro qualifications and JJ7 says: "Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club" he's not contradicting you, you can surely understand that? he's referring to 2 different points in time man then you reply and tell him to repost his rubbish in 5 years!!! you remind me of billy pilgrim dude, totally shot to f*** through all the time travelling you've done so you can't work out simple linear facts and events anymore Good points. Im not biting here, honestly as its just a general point, but there are very few people in business or politics or whatever who are always good. Most people usually start to fail and make mistakes in the end. Look at Hitler who performed miricles at the start, Thatcher, Brooks Mileson, Peter Ridsdale, Doug Ellis etc..... Even if Freddy had won us the league for three seasons between 1997 and 2000, you can't just stick with them when they continue to make mistake after mistake. absolutely agree, and it's a balance thing we'd tipped the scales under FS, and as a PLC in my opinion, but we got very unlucky with who bought us out - as has been said countless times the ashley period being an abject failure to date does not validate the later years of FS & the PLC at the end of the day, it depends how you look at it. Football is a risky business. A lot of people say - and not just on here - that if you aren't in europe, you are s***. Construed : what they mean is they have known nothing less than regularly playing in europe, so don't listen to people like me who try to tell them that such things aren't automatic and only the good clubs with good boards qualify regularly for europe. You hit the nail slightly on the head when you say we were "unlucky with who bought us out"........having seen the club when we were REALLY s**** [far more than the supposed "s****" of the recent past, until now since Ashley came in] I see it differently, I see the vast majority of the clubs in the top 2 leagues as being s****, and I say we "got lucky" when we had good directors. It might be quite a while until we "get lucky" again ....... and a lot of people will be sitting around in 10 years time and looking back at the Halls and Shepherd and realise it, but I obviously hope not bearing in mind my age. This is all I've said from day 1 by the way. At least some people - since ashley - have begun to understand. wrongish, it also depends on why you look at it in a certain way. for example why are you determined,against all reason, to try and make out that we weren't in the s*** at the end of fred's reign despite all the evidence saying we were ? why are you and others like you, against all reason, determined to try and make out that the Halls and Shepherd weren't the best owners we have had at the club for 50 years and it will very difficult to replace them with better ? And - accept that Mike ashley is taking the club downwards, among the also rans, like the vast majority of other football club owners instead of trying to get among the other top clubs which is where we should be and where we spent our time under the Halls and Shepherd. People do accept that Mike Ashley is taking the club downwards. However, why do you not accept that when the Halls and Shepherd sold the club to Ashley we were already started on the journey downwards. We may have had years and years competing with the top clubs but the bubble had already burst when Ashley bought us, and this was after others had looked at the books and walked away laughing at the financial mess we were in. because they ticked the 2 biggest boxes. They had the ambition to succeed, and they backed their appointed managers That is how we qualfied for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club. I hope you enjoyed it, because we might have s*** directors for years, or decades, before we get good ones again. Same old hyperbole. So you must have missed the grumblings of fans who were not satisfied at the s*** that we were turning out week in week out. Were you at the Sheffield United game for instance? Of course I enjoyed the european games, that goes without saying. But that does not excuse Hall and Shepherd from starting us down the road that we are now on. Things had already turned sour before Mike Ashley came along. He has failed to turn that around and that should not be forgotten either, but you cannot say that Hall and Shepherd are blameless in this. football, like life, is all ups and downs. Fortunately, we had a board who delivered more ups than most clubs will ever see. Because they ticked the most important boxes, unlike 80-90% of clubs and their own predecessors and their first successor too, it will be very difficult to find better. Could take decades in fact. Shame they were so s*** it takes so long to find someone better isn't it ? Of course football is about ups and downs, but no decent chairman should let the downs lead a club towards nearly being bankrupt. Leeds had massive ups under Ridsdale, but look at them now because of what happened back then. Theres ambition, then theres stupidity. I agree that Shepherds ambition was great when we were qualifying for the Champions League under Robson. But Shepherd was stupid in the timing of his sacking of Robson, then his next 2 appointments. A chairmans main job is to pick a manager, and he failed not once, but TWICE in a row. Throwing money at a s**** manager, who is unlikely to get you a return on your investment (i.e. by qualifying for the Champions League) is pure stupidity. NE5, you look at things too simplistically and ignore what others are saying. You're either on the wind up, or you just love an arguement and don't actually believe what you're saying. I believe what I'm saying alright. I always have, and whats more, all the things I have said in the past which I got flak for, are all vindicated because they turned out to be right. Just to clarify, do you think appointing Souness and giving him £50 million to spend was the right thing to do? Can you not see that appointing Souness was unambitious, where as giving him £50 million was very ambitious? These things don't match as Souness was never going to take us to the Champions League. The Champions League is where we would need to be if we were to see a return in the investment. Its bad management. I don't really know how many times this has to be said. I didn't appoint Souness. Neither did you . They appointed him, and they backed their manager. Don't you understand this ? BTW, you should really be asking this sort of question to the numerous people who completely supported the throwing of the money at him, and his sales, at the time, who are now complaining about the consequences, instead of someone like me who said that we shouldn't be doing it, at the time. Eh! I didn't say you appointed Souness. Do you not have an opinion on the Souness appointment? If we're going to judge Shepherds record in splashing the cash, surely we can judge his managerial appointments. They're linked. I know fine well he backed his manager. However his manager was awful which led to the failure.