OzzieMandias

It's a perfectly fair comparison. Please explain how hindsight is a valid way of judging the successes and failures of major historical figures, but an invalid way of judging the success and failures of minor football chairmen? To start with you're not talking about a major historical figure, you're talking about an event. Well, Einstein, how about Neville Chamberlain? Was his 1938 Nuremburg meeting with Hitler to secure "peace in our time" a success because many people at the time thought it was a good idea? If Wenger failed, history would show he/they had failed. Fact! Comparing Gullit to Wenger is funny though. That kind of stretch shows nothing except that the Shepherd-was-fabulous argument can only be sustained by indulging a lot of meaningless spin and stupid bullshit. First of all I wasn't around in 1938 so my opinion on what happened then is slightly different to people of that time, however if I was and I agreed with something at the time I wouldn't start having ago at the bloke after it all went wrong, that would make me a 2 faced twat. The matter of what kind of twat you might be is of course entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Nobody's opinion at the time makes a blind bit of difference to the fact that the appeasement of Hitler was a failure. Same old stupid argument. And repeating it over and over doesn't make it any less moronic. Nothing anyone thought or said at the time makes one miniscule jot of difference to the simple, undeniable fact that Gullit was a failed appointment.

It's a perfectly fair comparison. Please explain how hindsight is a valid way of judging the successes and failures of major historical figures, but an invalid way of judging the success and failures of minor football chairmen? To start with you're not talking about a major historical figure, you're talking about an event. Well, Einstein, how about Neville Chamberlain? Was his 1938 Nuremburg meeting with Hitler to secure "peace in our time" a success because many people at the time thought it was a good idea? If Wenger failed, history would show he/they had failed. Fact! Comparing Gullit to Wenger is funny though. That kind of stretch shows nothing except that the Shepherd-was-fabulous argument can only be sustained by indulging a lot of meaningless spin and stupid bullshit.

It's a perfectly fair comparison. Please explain how hindsight is a valid way of judging the successes and failures of major historical figures, but an invalid way of judging the success and failures of minor football chairmen?

It's a pretty moronic "argument", this one about hindight. Is it wrong to point out that World War I was a complete disaster, even though many people thought it was a good idea at the time?

If Ashley and Mort get us into the top half of the table for their first two seasons, they will have more than matched Shepherd's performance in his first two full seasons. Fact!

By jove you're right! Must have been getting carried away there... Ok I'll let him off with that one! He was on the board and a major decision maker at that time wasn't he? He was on the board but I don't think any money would have kept Keegan, the club had to sell some players to clear themselves of debt before becoming a PLC which pissed him off, he also made it clear he was going at the end of the season anyway, the club becoming a PLC helped speed up the process. He also broke the World record transfer fee in signing Shearer a few months earlier so he was backed. Except having to sell players was because of the money spent on Shearer. So being backed involved him also Just like three out of his four mangerial appointments, really. I don't remember many moaning about Gullit at the time, hindsight is great though. A silly post. Whatever you or I or anyone else did or didn't say makes not one blind bit of difference to the obvious fact that Gullit, like all but one of Shepherd's managerial appointments, was a failure. So Shepherd appointed a highly rated young manager who had already won the Fa cup, played attractive football and was someone who 95% of the fans were happy with yet because it didn't work out for whatever reason you're knocking him for it as if it was a shit appointment. Unbelievable agenda driven shite. As for the comment about selling to buy Shearer, we had to sell because we had to become debt free to become a PLC, would we have had to sell if we were remaining in private hands? No, otherwise we would have sold sooner. Gulllit was a failed appointment. Undeniable fact. Three out Shepherd's four managerial appointments were failures. Undeniable fact. Using hindsight to try and knock someone when you were more than happy with it at the time is pathetic. Undeniable fact. Endlessly repeating drivel about what you imagine people did or didn't say nine years ago does not change the facts: Ruud Gullit was a poor appointment. Fact! So were all of Shepherd's other managerial appointments – except Bobby, who practically camped on Shepherd's doorstep, begging to be given the job. As it happens, I do remember what I said. I can even remember where I bought the newspaper that announced the news of Dalglish's replacement by Gullit, and who I was talking to when I said it. It was words to the effect of, "What the fuck was the point of giving Dalglish £15 million to spend in the summer if they were going to sack him a few games into the season?" Now, hindsight may be great, but it seems to elude our Freddie. How many more managerial changes would it take before it got that one right?

By jove you're right! Must have been getting carried away there... Ok I'll let him off with that one! He was on the board and a major decision maker at that time wasn't he? He was on the board but I don't think any money would have kept Keegan, the club had to sell some players to clear themselves of debt before becoming a PLC which pissed him off, he also made it clear he was going at the end of the season anyway, the club becoming a PLC helped speed up the process. He also broke the World record transfer fee in signing Shearer a few months earlier so he was backed. Except having to sell players was because of the money spent on Shearer. So being backed involved him also Just like three out of his four mangerial appointments, really. I don't remember many moaning about Gullit at the time, hindsight is great though. A silly post. Whatever you or I or anyone else did or didn't say makes not one blind bit of difference to the obvious fact that Gullit, like all but one of Shepherd's managerial appointments, was a failure. So Shepherd appointed a highly rated young manager who had already won the Fa cup, played attractive football and was someone who 95% of the fans were happy with yet because it didn't work out for whatever reason you're knocking him for it as if it was a shit appointment. Unbelievable agenda driven shite. As for the comment about selling to buy Shearer, we had to sell because we had to become debt free to become a PLC, would we have had to sell if we were remaining in private hands? No, otherwise we would have sold sooner. Gulllit was a failed appointment. Undeniable fact. Three out Shepherd's four managerial appointments were failures. Undeniable fact.

By jove you're right! Must have been getting carried away there... Ok I'll let him off with that one! He was on the board and a major decision maker at that time wasn't he? He was on the board but I don't think any money would have kept Keegan, the club had to sell some players to clear themselves of debt before becoming a PLC which pissed him off, he also made it clear he was going at the end of the season anyway, the club becoming a PLC helped speed up the process. He also broke the World record transfer fee in signing Shearer a few months earlier so he was backed. Except having to sell players was because of the money spent on Shearer. So being backed involved him also Just like three out of his four mangerial appointments, really. I don't remember many moaning about Gullit at the time, hindsight is great though. A silly post. Whatever you or I or anyone else did or didn't say makes not one blind bit of difference to the obvious fact that Gullit, like all but one of Shepherd's managerial appointments, was a failure.

Just like three out of his four mangerial appointments, really.

What colour specs do you need to see any success as all Shepherd's doing, and any failure as someone else's fault?

As chairman of the club, the buck stopped with Shepherd. If he deserves any credit for our brief flirtation with success under Robson, then he must also get the blame for taking us from the CL-qualifying team he inherited, to the debt-ridden, mid-table shambles that we were when he left. Things would only have got even worse if he'd stayed. Sibierski is right.

That is brilliant!

So he didn't admit that we were about to sign Messi?

There's also the story of Cyril the Swan, Swansea mascot, invading the pitch years ago. The authorities tried to punish the individual responsible, but no one would admit who had been inside the costume, so they ended up banning Cyril the Swan itself.

I used to have a discussion forum acquaintance with the mascot at Wolves – the one who got into a fight with the pig (was it from Bolton?).

It sounds like a) this Russian guy has quite a bit more money than Ashley and, b) Dein has zero intention of going to another club: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/arsenal/article2357110.ece

Two lines, to be fair.

I can't see him going back to West Ham. Can't see him coming to us either.

I've been to a few Hertha matches in Berlin. Their crap mascot is a bear called Herthinho and the crowd in the Gallowgate equivalent hate the thing. One time some of them shouted and beckoned it over and, briefly lulled into believing they were friendly, the bear approached the stand – only to be pelted with hundreds of snowballs. The bear didn't reappear in the second half. Another time I saw half the crowd chanting "Bär – du Votze! Bär – du Votze!" ("Bear – you're a cunt!") while the mascot dickered nervously down the other end. Most amusing.

Duff being crocked is "karma" because he didn't want to go to Spurs? Some serious delusions of grandeur in there somewhere.

And Yes, it's absolutely true that the word "mong" is offensive and objectionable. Funny how so many people are quick to point that out, while busily making excuses for Sunday's chanting. However, as I pointed out on the thread that's now over in chat, the problem of racism (and similar attitudes) is not simply about causing offence. Me calling Niall and Biffa "mongs" is different. Does it insult "mongs" by suggesting they are just like people who run a website for Newcastle fans? Are Geordies commonly held to be "mongs" in the way Jews are supposed to tight-fisted, blacks are meant to be lazy, the Irish are supposed to be stupid, and Muslims are supposed to be terrorists? It's offensive to people with Down's Syndrome, of course. Lucky I didn't chant it at the match, and then make excuses about it afterwards. I'm not making excuses, i'm pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards. Much like being preached to by a Boro fan about racism. Not sure this is the point but calling all geordies 'mongs' implies they are all mentally disabled and is both offensive to disabled people and geordies. Is it ok to be offensive to disabled people? And as i pointed back to you in GC none of my arguments centred around the concept of mere offence. And I'm just pointing out the difference between racism etc and things which are offensive in other ways. No, it's not OK to be offensive to disabled people. But it's a different thing, and works in a different way, from bigotry based on race, ethnicity or faith. Calling Mido a terrorist feeds a subtext which maintains that all Muslims are somehow equivalent to, or responsible for the actions of, a tiny minority of actual terrorists. Thus it's much broader than an insult applied to one individual. It's demonising a people. Whatever I say about Niall or Biffa or whoever, it's hardly demonising "Geordies", is it? (BTW I didn't say you personally were making excuses. I was thinking of TBIP and a whole load of others.) You're just highlighting me because I called you on your hypocrisy And I was just highlighting yours. Unlike you, however, I have admitted that I was out of order.

So why are you going on about it, then?

Yes, it's absolutely true that the word "mong" is offensive and objectionable. Funny how so many people are quick to point that out, while busily making excuses for Sunday's chanting. However, as I pointed out on the thread that's now over in chat, the problem of racism (and similar attitudes) is not simply about causing offence. Me calling Niall and Biffa "mongs" is different. Does it insult "mongs" by suggesting they are just like people who run a website for Newcastle fans? Are Geordies commonly held to be "mongs" in the way Jews are supposed to tight-fisted, blacks are meant to be lazy, the Irish are supposed to be stupid, and Muslims are supposed to be terrorists? It's offensive to people with Down's Syndrome, of course. Lucky I didn't chant it at the match, and then make excuses about it afterwards. I'm not making excuses, i'm pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards. Much like being preached to by a Boro fan about racism. Not sure this is the point but calling all geordies 'mongs' implies they are all mentally disabled and is both offensive to disabled people and geordies. Is it ok to be offensive to disabled people? And as i pointed back to you in GC none of my arguments centred around the concept of mere offence. And I'm just pointing out the difference between racism etc and things which are offensive in other ways. No, it's not OK to be offensive to disabled people. But it's a different thing, and works in a different way, from bigotry based on race, ethnicity or faith. Calling Mido a terrorist feeds a subtext which maintains that all Muslims are somehow equivalent to, or responsible for the actions of, a tiny minority of actual terrorists. Thus it's much broader than an insult applied to one individual. It's demonising a people. Whatever I say about Niall or Biffa or whoever, it's hardly demonising "Geordies", is it? (BTW I didn't say you personally were making excuses. I was thinking of TBIP and a whole load of others.)

Yes, it's absolutely true that the word "mong" is offensive and objectionable. Funny how so many people are quick to point that out, while busily making excuses for Sunday's chanting. However, as I pointed out on the thread that's now over in chat, the problem of racism (and similar attitudes) is not simply about causing offence. Me calling Niall and Biffa "mongs" is different. Does it insult "mongs" by suggesting they are just like people who run a website for Newcastle fans? Are Geordies commonly held to be "mongs" in the way Jews are supposed to tight-fisted, blacks are meant to be lazy, the Irish are supposed to be stupid, and Muslims are supposed to be terrorists? It's offensive to people with Down's Syndrome, of course. Lucky I didn't chant it at the match, and then make excuses about it afterwards.

Believe me, some do.Some are a little ill-advised on how to assess race and ethnicity. Other's simply say it's 'banter'. Whichever way, it's an attempt to condone it. Well, of course not all fans are Arab hating racists. Some are though, that is fairly clear. Once there are none, we have nothing to worry about. Agree that the media may wish to portray it that way but it's for us to get our own house in order rather than worry about what they think. If that means educating the dullards then so be it. Correct. Both the excuses being trotted out for this dodgy chanting, and the atmosphere of whining victimhood in which they are being made, are pathetic. Shame that Niall and Biffa are such mongs when it comes to this issue.