J7

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.

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. It was pretty clear Shepherd wanted to cut down on the borrowing by the appointment of Allardyce, and this bankruptcy talk is all speculation - it didnt happen so how can you presume it was going to happen. Shepherd could clearly hold back on spending and be prudent ie: summer of Bowyer and Woodgate sale, yet the ironic thing is we didn't spend in that summer and Shepherd got criticized beyond belief for lack of ambition. When really he was being cautious as we weren't guaranteed Champions League football that year. Yet now in hindsight have forum members saying 'spent too much!', 'out of control!', 'ridsdale!'. It's all a bit ridiculous. Its not really ridiculous. Even if we accept that we weren't going bankrupt and Shepherd was tightening the purse strings, then I still consider it bad management giving Robson next to nothing to spend one summer, then overloading Souness with cash another summer. He appointed two terrible managers then gambled at the wrong time. Had he have appointed someone good and not Souness, his gamble may have paid off. It was terrible management to appoint Souness then Roeder though.

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.

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 shite 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.

We need another 10 points in my opinion, however that depends on Hull who I think is the team we are most likely to catch. If the mackems beat them tomorrow they look hopeless. They still have Man Utd, and Liverpool and Stoke at home, with Mackems, Villa and Bolton away. I think they will get 3-5 points out of that at most. A win against Stoke and a point in one or two of their away games if they're lucky.

Where you born in Nigeria? How come you can't pinpoint your birth date? I can. Just trying to help people born between those dates to save them looking it up.

Anyone born like me, between 18/02/1983 - 23/12/1983, the answer would be Michael Chopra.

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.

Michael Chopra. I was at his debut and remember thinking that he was our first player younger than me.

yeah, not having a go, but some short-sighted views by that spokesman True. Didn't think it was the place to say that stuff.

Sorry. aye, repost that rubbish in 5 years time........hopefully we may have matched what they did, but would you bet on it ? Im not falling for your wind up a second time!

Sorry.

Shepherd was s***, and Ashley IS s***. That about sums it up. more european and Champs League qualifications than any club bar 4 says differently. We might go through 3 or 4 owners yet before that happens again. Still, I'm sure you know best Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club.

Shepherd was shit, and Ashley IS shit. That about sums it up.

Pearce was very solid and still good enough. Can't remember who it was against but I remember him scoring a pen for us in a shootout and giving the keeper the wanker sign after it.