J7

Martins against Villa was good. Great run and assist from Jonas.

I was going to start a similar thread about Liverpool next weekend. Havent been to Liverpool atall before so don't really know where away fans go. My mate has suggested parking at Goodison then walking to pubs around Anfield. I would assume they were all home pubs though? And is the city centre better?

now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so s****, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? The last few years of Shepherd we were running along the same sort of positions we were getting in the mid to late 1980s.

examples ? Remember, Toonlass, Blefescu made up something about me the other day ..... hot on the heels of accusing me of doing precisely the same thing when I hadn't. My last post is still correct, and how I see it Dave. None of the quotes in my sig are made up either BTW That is wrong and you know it. You have continually made insinuations about me and how long I have been going to the games. You could also attempt to spell my user name right too. For your information I have enclosed a link which explains what being a troll on the internet is. This makes no insinuation that anyone is one on here, its just to clear up any misunderstandings on what a troll may be. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling As I asked further down, please point out where I said "the last year of the Shepherd and Hall era was brilliant". Or admit that its a lie, or an untruth at best. Precisely the point I'm making. I hope nobody asks us to settle this by pm when you blocked me for attempting to do it already ........ http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,60869.msg1772415.html#msg1772415 It is the assumption you give. Shepherd and Hall could do no wrong. I apologise if I misconstrued you. And you know I didn't block you for attempting to explain anything at all typical woman. You know you did. As I've said on numerous occasions they made mistakes, particularly when I was one of the minority on here who refused to give Souness time [just like Ashley in fact].....this point you make is mistaken too. I'll take it as an unintentional untruth and won't hold it against you. I know I did what? Blocked you? Of course I know I blocked you. As you were sending me pm's that were telling me to "bugger off". Did you think that Shepherd and Hall appointing Roeder and Allardyce was ambitious? I told you to bugger off because you denied you were lying, when I quoted the exact phrase above. You have stated that "no, I don't think the performance was average at all in the bigger scheme of things" when asked about the final years of Sir John Hall and Shepherd's tenure. I have already apologised for using the phrase "brilliant" but how can you not see that part of the reason we are in the situation we are in now is because SJH and Shepherd overspent buying players who were not up to the standard we required to keep qualifying for Europe? it wasn't up to them to make the judgement on the players. They backed their manager, a lot better than not. The result of that is to look at the league table. Sooooo did you think that Shepherd and Hall appointing Roeder and Allardyce was ambitious? As ambitious as Chelsea appointing Grant ? Or is it just us who don't appoint the 2 or 3 winning managers ? Didn't Grant get them to the Champions League final? eerr.......didn't Roeder get us to 7th and qualify for europe ? Slight difference between us getting into Europe via the Intertoto Cup and getting beat by AZ, and getting to the Champions League final though, no? I tried to pm you, rather than go off topic. How is that off topic? Was it ambitious, a yes or no will do? so thats why you think the Halls and Shepherd are s*** ? Because they didn't get to the Champions League Final ? No, that's another bad assumption on your part. Care to answer my question, its not that hard you know. no it isn't. I think its a totally realistic and correct perspective. What do you think of a board who qualifies for europe more than any club bar 4 ? Does it mean you think only 4 clubs have good boards ? Thats a fairly simple enough question. Great, as long as its not living beyond a clubs means. i.e. Leeds got further in Europe than anyone outside the top 4 in Europe during the last 20 years, but they couldn't afford it when the inevitable happened and they failed to qualify one year. Thats off topic though. Remember the words, LOST THE PLOT. I'm not really interested in Leeds. I'd rather keep trying to emulate the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal. After all, if you don't do that, whats the point ? Settling for mediocrity ? We are heading the way of Leeds now though. Thats what Leeds were trying to do as well, keep up with Arsenal and Liverpool. I wouldnt settle for mediocrity, I would have picked a manager who was good enough to take a team who had just finished 5th forward. Picking Souness, then Roeder was settling for mediocrity. We are heading the same way as Leeds, you're right.

Looks nice. Not bothered about the back either.

5 or 6 more please Man Utd.

examples ? Remember, Toonlass, Blefescu made up something about me the other day ..... hot on the heels of accusing me of doing precisely the same thing when I hadn't. My last post is still correct, and how I see it Dave. None of the quotes in my sig are made up either BTW That is wrong and you know it. You have continually made insinuations about me and how long I have been going to the games. You could also attempt to spell my user name right too. For your information I have enclosed a link which explains what being a troll on the internet is. This makes no insinuation that anyone is one on here, its just to clear up any misunderstandings on what a troll may be. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling As I asked further down, please point out where I said "the last year of the Shepherd and Hall era was brilliant". Or admit that its a lie, or an untruth at best. Precisely the point I'm making. I hope nobody asks us to settle this by pm when you blocked me for attempting to do it already ........ http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,60869.msg1772415.html#msg1772415 It is the assumption you give. Shepherd and Hall could do no wrong. I apologise if I misconstrued you. And you know I didn't block you for attempting to explain anything at all typical woman. You know you did. As I've said on numerous occasions they made mistakes, particularly when I was one of the minority on here who refused to give Souness time [just like Ashley in fact].....this point you make is mistaken too. I'll take it as an unintentional untruth and won't hold it against you. I know I did what? Blocked you? Of course I know I blocked you. As you were sending me pm's that were telling me to "bugger off". Did you think that Shepherd and Hall appointing Roeder and Allardyce was ambitious? I told you to bugger off because you denied you were lying, when I quoted the exact phrase above. You have stated that "no, I don't think the performance was average at all in the bigger scheme of things" when asked about the final years of Sir John Hall and Shepherd's tenure. I have already apologised for using the phrase "brilliant" but how can you not see that part of the reason we are in the situation we are in now is because SJH and Shepherd overspent buying players who were not up to the standard we required to keep qualifying for Europe? it wasn't up to them to make the judgement on the players. They backed their manager, a lot better than not. The result of that is to look at the league table. Sooooo did you think that Shepherd and Hall appointing Roeder and Allardyce was ambitious? As ambitious as Chelsea appointing Grant ? Or is it just us who don't appoint the 2 or 3 winning managers ? Didn't Grant get them to the Champions League final? eerr.......didn't Roeder get us to 7th and qualify for europe ? Slight difference between us getting into Europe via the Intertoto Cup and getting beat by AZ, and getting to the Champions League final though, no? I tried to pm you, rather than go off topic. How is that off topic? Was it ambitious, a yes or no will do? so thats why you think the Halls and Shepherd are s*** ? Because they didn't get to the Champions League Final ? No, that's another bad assumption on your part. Care to answer my question, its not that hard you know. no it isn't. I think its a totally realistic and correct perspective. What do you think of a board who qualifies for europe more than any club bar 4 ? Does it mean you think only 4 clubs have good boards ? Thats a fairly simple enough question. Great, as long as its not living beyond a clubs means. i.e. Leeds got further in Europe than anyone outside the top 4 in Europe during the last 20 years, but they couldn't afford it when the inevitable happened and they failed to qualify one year. Thats off topic though. Remember the words, LOST THE PLOT.

When someone mentions Shepherds last few years you ask questions about Ashley as if the people critisising Shepherd are in turn sticking up for Ashley. That's a perfect example amoung many.

I know some Man Utd glory hunters who got tickets through Berwick Rangers once. Berwick arent even in the FA of England but still managed to get some. Not sure if it was because they're also members of the Northumberland FA, but they certainly don't enter the FA Cup. Joke to be fair.

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 s*** manager either. Who is spending the money is as important giving them money. aye sure. Abramovic must be a right tit appointing someone like Scolari, how did they not get it right every time, just like everybody else does ? Have you thought about sending an email to the owners of all the 87 clubs that didn't qualify for europe as oftern as we did telling them that they shouldn't be appointing the wrong manager so often ? Sorry like, but there isn't any other way to get this message across. He wasn't a 'right tit', but he made a mistake. He then sorted it out and appointed someone brilliant to replace him. Lets not kid ourselves though, Scolari was a far far better manager for Chelsea than Souness ever was for us. He still kept them in the top four when he was there. Souness destroyed us. People don't always get it right, but they don't get it much more wrong than Shepherd did. Not once, but twice with Roeder as well. There are more than 4 clubs who have appeared more than us in Europe since 2004 by the way. And most of the 80 other odd didnt start off that period of time as the 5th best club in England. you mean Abramovic made 2 mistakes, and didn't settle for mediocrity. Unlike Mike Ashley, who will gladly take mid table mediocrity as a success ? I'm not talking about 2004, if you do, you are cherry picking. Its like you saying that Shearer was s*** for missing a couple of penalties. Clearly bollocks. Would you have replaced him with Ameobi on that basis ? Having said that, plenty of people said they would His mistakes were no where near as bad as Shepherds though and Chelsea still sit in roughly the same place. Im not defending Ashley so no idea why you brought him up. Its not cherry picking atall. Ive stated over and over that Shepherd lost the plot. You don't seem to understand the simple concept of someone losing the plot. People can be good, then lose the plot. You just can't seem to understand this. Its ridiculous. I fully expect a reply which mentions something from before Shepherd lost the plot, or something about Ashley both of which are totally irrelevant to my points.

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 s*** manager either. Who is spending the money is as important giving them money. aye sure. Abramovic must be a right tit appointing someone like Scolari, how did they not get it right every time, just like everybody else does ? Have you thought about sending an email to the owners of all the 87 clubs that didn't qualify for europe as oftern as we did telling them that they shouldn't be appointing the wrong manager so often ? Sorry like, but there isn't any other way to get this message across. He wasn't a 'right tit', but he made a mistake. He then sorted it out and appointed someone brilliant to replace him. Lets not kid ourselves though, Scolari was a far far better manager for Chelsea than Souness ever was for us. He still kept them in the top four when he was there. Souness destroyed us. People don't always get it right, but they don't get it much more wrong than Shepherd did. Not once, but twice with Roeder as well. There are more than 4 clubs who have appeared more than us in Europe since 2004 by the way. And most of the 80 other odd didnt start off that period of time as the 5th best club in England.

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.