OzzieMandias

Link won't work for me, but I suspect that's written by the journalist with whom I set up the interview you were going to do when Fat Freddy dissed the Hitzfeld campaign as a betting scam.

Actually, I'm all for giving credit where its due. Examples such as the stadium extension, appointing Robson and backing him with the clubs money to get us some great nights of football in the Champions League, all the credit in the World to Shepherd for that. However (IMO) he doesn't deserve the credit you're giving him for the appointment of Keegan, but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. except it isn't my opinion, its because Keegan himself says so. But I'm sure you know otherwise. As I've said, Shepherd was small fry at the time and was in agreement with Hall and Fletcher, similar to Bruce Shepherd being in agreement with Douglas Hall and his brother over appointing Robson, everybody knew Fletcher was the main drive behind the club at the time. You're coming across as if they head hunted a top manager when in truth his appointment was down to luck and a lack of options. That is my opinion on the matter. I don't know whether it was luck or not and don't really care, I'm stating the fact that Keegan says Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher chose him, and persuaded him to take the job. And its not an opinion, its what he says. Therefore the credit for that goes to those 3 people. Yes, the entire picture looks different in the light of one possibly inaccurate recollection in KK's ghost-written memoir.

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes. And it's a laugh to say they've been "prepared to pay for success"? What success? They got ripped off. Or rather, we did. You think they have to spend money bringing in players do you? No, just that it's dumb to imagine (or present) them as philanthropic donors, selflessly turning out their pockets to back the manager. They pay themselves very handsomely for what they do, even though in some cases (Dodgy Doug the prime example) it's difficult to work out exactly what that might be. Meanwhile, they're presiding over steadily diminishing returns. Nobody is saying that or suggesting that. You just like to spin it that way for some reason. Well you can read the quote that started this discussion your way, and I'll ignore the rest of the post. well it isn't your money. And I would rather use the money I choose to spend on the club buying "trophy players" like Owen than the likes of Jonathon Stead. The honesty of your argument is in no way improved by rewriting other people's posts.

£45 million since flotation according to some fella on the three legends supposedly. Gospel There you are guys its been confirmed. Surprises me I thought they had laid out a fortune. Just goes to show you never know. Still waiting for your choice as manager with a better track record than Dalglish ? Still waiting for you to stop fussing over details and see the big picture.

Out of the kindness of their little hearts, eh?

I'd be happy with Sven if his arrival was part of a reorganisation of the club and investment in a longish-term plan. If he was appointed under our current set-up, though, it would be another disaster.

Ever stopped to wonder at the impression created outside the area by these wankers pumping out all that money to no effect except a steady decline from the position of almost winning a trophy to wondering whether we can avoid relegation? Not to mention the impression created by conversations with fake sheikhs and tactless dismissals of the game's lower ranks.

Why would it be more difficult to sneak in?

It's a measure of the merits of the pro-Shepherd case that its principle advocates are reduced to cherry-picking assorted "facts", and then denying the spin they're trying to put on them. The big picture is one of steady decline. Face up to that fact.

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes. And it's a laugh to say they've been "prepared to pay for success"? What success? They got ripped off. Or rather, we did. You think they have to spend money bringing in players do you? No, just that it's dumb to imagine (or present) them as philanthropic donors, selflessly turning out their pockets to back the manager. They pay themselves very handsomely for what they do, even though in some cases (Dodgy Doug the prime example) it's difficult to work out exactly what that might be. Meanwhile, they're presiding over steadily diminishing returns. Nobody is saying that or suggesting that. You just like to spin it that way for some reason. Well you can read the quote that started this discussion your way, and I'll read what it actually says.

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes. And it's a laugh to say they've been "prepared to pay for success"? What success? They got ripped off. Or rather, we did. You think they have to spend money bringing in players do you? No, just that it's dumb to imagine (or present) them as philanthropic donors, selflessly turning out their pockets to back the manager. They pay themselves very handsomely for what they do, even though in some cases (Dodgy Doug the prime example) it's difficult to work out exactly what that might be. Meanwhile, they're presiding over steadily diminishing returns.

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes. And it's a laugh to say they've been "prepared to pay for success"? What success? They got ripped off. Or rather, we did.

Truth.

Very mature. When Dogleash took the job, nobody yet knew what kind of chairman Fat Fred would turn out to be. Several disastrous appointments, stupid public gaffes, and ill-timed managerial sackings later, only a few deluded souls are in any doubt about what kind of chairman he is. It should be obvious to the poorest fool that this is one big part of the reason why no top managers want to come here anymore.

An obvious pre-condition of getting the manager's job at NUFC is a willingness to put with Fat Fred. Perhaps it's extreme to label such candidates "yes-men", but we can take it as read that a "no-man" is out of the question. This of course narrows the field of potential managers rather drastically, and has a direct bearing on our current predicament.

Yep. So he says.

If he decides the replacement was wrong and sacks Roeder and then appoints someone who, in your opinion is also not correct, does that mean he should "consider his position" or does that venture into 'Shepherd Out' territory in your opinion? Given that Souness's replacement is what we've got now, the logic of HTL's remark is that instead of sacking Roeder if our form doesn't drastically improve, he should sack himself. Or perhaps sack Roeder and then sack himself.

So you disagree with NE5's assertion that getting us to an FA Cup Final means he was "successful"? You need to look at the big picture. With the sole exception of Robson -- who was practically down on his knees begging to be offered the job –- all of Fat Fred's managerial appointments have been unsuccessful. One after another. Each one worse than the one before. If you represented the big picture as a graph, it would show a steady downward progression, from top right to bottom left, with an upwards spike for the Robson era nothing but a blip in the inexorable slide into mediocrity. Getting it wrong once – could happen to anyone. Getting it wrong twice – bad luck, eh? Getting it wrong four times out of five, by which time we've pissed away our finances and established such an appalling reputation that no manager of any stature would want to come and work for the club? Only one answer to that – Shepherd out! Irony, tbh. I understand the managers haven't brought success, not beinig funny but I'm still waiting for you to come up with a suggestion for a foolproof method of selecting a manager. You keep repeating how he's got it wrong, but tell me how he was to know these quality managers could be backed with cash and get it wrong on the field? What should he have done differently? What was wrong with the appointments at the time they were made? He could appoint Wenger now and what would you say if Wenger fúcked it up? Still blame Fred....? Frankly, even if it was just down Fat Fred having appallingly bad luck, that would be reason enough to wish him gone. And if he'd the gumption to appoint Wenger, would he have let him do things precisely his way, as Dein has done at Arsenal? I think not. He was already in a job at Barcelona when SJH approached him.

So you disagree with NE5's assertion that getting us to an FA Cup Final means he was "successful"? You need to look at the big picture. With the sole exception of Robson -- who was practically down on his knees begging to be offered the job –- all of Fat Fred's managerial appointments have been unsuccessful. One after another. Each one worse than the one before. If you represented the big picture as a graph, it would show a steady downward progression, from top right to bottom left, with an upwards spike for the Robson era nothing but a blip in the inexorable slide into mediocrity. Getting it wrong once – could happen to anyone. Getting it wrong twice – bad luck, eh? Getting it wrong four times out of five, by which time we've pissed away our finances and established such an appalling reputation that no manager of any stature would want to come and work for the club? Only one answer to that – Shepherd out!

It scarcely seems possible, but NE5's arguments get dumber and dumber.

Remarkable naivety. No wonder you're incapable of seeing the big picture.

Shepherd OOT!

So you think he should have stuck to "the long term plan" Can't answer the question, then. Big surprise.

Well, two people.

If he was such a brilliant appointment, why did Fat Freddy sack him?