Dr Venkman

Their European revenues over the last ten years compared to ours are........ ahh yes, but if you look at OUR european revenues compared to teams that have lesser european revenues, then everything he says makes sense

yeah there was a moment in the arse game today when i thought gray was being a total tit, the ref blew for a foul then held his hands up to apologise for not playing advantage, which i thought was applaudable, to be honest, how many times do you see a referee say sorry!? and martin tyler commented on it, to which andy gray said 'its just a WRONG decision, to be honest' i mean, haway, give the man a chance, he's bloody apologising, he doesnt have to

Ashley is paying for Shepherds financial mistakes at the minute. No-one can dispute that yeah but obviously ashley just wants to sell the club on to make a minimal profit while endearing himself to the fans for half an hour by turning up to a few games, isnt it obvious? now, freddy shepherd, HE had the clubs best interests at heart, don't believe me? just look at the FACTS, well, the ones i put infront of you anyway, none of the other stuff that people make up, they only dislike him because of his weight and some of them think he's a c***, nothing to do with him being a greedy, arrogant, and to be quite honest, stupid man

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish. And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher. so taking the club forward gets the owners a pat on the back, and failing to capitalise on it and going backwards is the fault of the players, nice one I don't believe I said that. It's always the players who play. I do believe however, that you are looking like one of those people who are unable to differentiate between the different roles of players and directors. Nor do you understand that major shareholders of a multi million pound company don't normally leave the entire major decisions to someone else, and don't have any input, but we know that you are only spouting this nonsense to satisfy your agenda. au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh? i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid c*** that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean? i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a t*** anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name' haha. Now you are looking a bit daft. If you think Shepherd is a dick and we are better off without him, then 87 clubs watched us enviously playing in europe regularly, and brought top class players to the club for a canny few years. As usual, I don't expect you to get a perspective, rather than chase a silly agenda. Also, if you think we were better off without the ex board, you wouldn't last 5 minutes supporting a club with a real s**** board. As usual, ALL of your post concerns the personality, which affects your judgement, but I suspect you aren't capable of seeing this. I don't expect you to take up factual issues rather than personalities or you would have done so by now. I'm not having a laugh ref my remarks about the difference in roles between players and directors, I think you - and many others - don't understand this. You clearly don't seem to understand when the job a director does becomes that of the player. BTW, I'll only think we are better off without the ex board, when someone comes along and does better. The fact that you can't grasp this fairly basic concept says everything. i can grasp the concept of your opinion, its not hard, i just disagree, they did a good job initially and then did a really s*** job and took us backwards, therefore i think we're better off without them, its ok though, i can disagree with you and still feel ok about it because its not disturbing to me that someone has different opinion to mine, i have no agenda You don't grasp the concept at all. From your posts it looks like you're posting on an entirely different subject. There's no doubt at all from your comments that your gripe with the previous board is nothing to do with how they ran the football club but is more to do with Fred being fat. mackems.gif I don't think you really have a clue what the previous board achieved for the football club. If you do know, then you have no grasp of the history of the club, given how you dismiss it so easily. Perhaps you think we have a divine right to win a trophy? I don't know, so you tell me. The reality is there is only so much any board can do. If they put in place everything it takes for the manager to build a team/squad capable of 3 top 5 finishes in a row, even though the league is the true measure I'd suggest that team is capable of winning a cup competition at least. If they fail to do so it can be for any number of reasons but it is not down to the incompetence of the board. This is really, really, really easy to understand once you can see past Fred being fat, a c**t or whatever other idiotic and childish label you want to pin on him. What happened was they made one terrible managerial appointment. I'm not underestimating how serious this was because it's the most important decision they have to make and they got it badly wrong with Souness. They then failed to put it right with Roeder, although he wasn't a disaster like Souness. Perhaps they got it right with Allardyce? If so, what will you and your type moan about then, I wonder? again, i UNDERSTAND all of that, i just have a difference of opinion, but if it suits you, you're right, i'm wrong, sick of this now anyway and by the way i'm not a moaner, i am definitely a glass half full supporter, fred's a c*** You still don't see the difference between what a director does for a club and what a player does. Your OPINION may be that Fred is fat, or Fred is a c***, but what they did for the club is factual, and has absolutely nothing to do with "opinion". That is all. haha, yep, i still dont see it, explain it for me then. i've never mentioned weight, i have called him a cunt though, and will continue to, because he's a prize cunt

agree on both counts

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish. And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher. so taking the club forward gets the owners a pat on the back, and failing to capitalise on it and going backwards is the fault of the players, nice one I don't believe I said that. It's always the players who play. I do believe however, that you are looking like one of those people who are unable to differentiate between the different roles of players and directors. Nor do you understand that major shareholders of a multi million pound company don't normally leave the entire major decisions to someone else, and don't have any input, but we know that you are only spouting this nonsense to satisfy your agenda. au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh? i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid c*** that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean? i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a t*** anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name' haha. Now you are looking a bit daft. If you think Shepherd is a dick and we are better off without him, then 87 clubs watched us enviously playing in europe regularly, and brought top class players to the club for a canny few years. As usual, I don't expect you to get a perspective, rather than chase a silly agenda. Also, if you think we were better off without the ex board, you wouldn't last 5 minutes supporting a club with a real s**** board. As usual, ALL of your post concerns the personality, which affects your judgement, but I suspect you aren't capable of seeing this. I don't expect you to take up factual issues rather than personalities or you would have done so by now. I'm not having a laugh ref my remarks about the difference in roles between players and directors, I think you - and many others - don't understand this. You clearly don't seem to understand when the job a director does becomes that of the player. BTW, I'll only think we are better off without the ex board, when someone comes along and does better. The fact that you can't grasp this fairly basic concept says everything. i can grasp the concept of your opinion, its not hard, i just disagree, they did a good job initially and then did a really s*** job and took us backwards, therefore i think we're better off without them, its ok though, i can disagree with you and still feel ok about it because its not disturbing to me that someone has different opinion to mine, i have no agenda You don't grasp the concept at all. From your posts it looks like you're posting on an entirely different subject. There's no doubt at all from your comments that your gripe with the previous board is nothing to do with how they ran the football club but is more to do with Fred being fat. mackems.gif I don't think you really have a clue what the previous board achieved for the football club. If you do know, then you have no grasp of the history of the club, given how you dismiss it so easily. Perhaps you think we have a divine right to win a trophy? I don't know, so you tell me. The reality is there is only so much any board can do. If they put in place everything it takes for the manager to build a team/squad capable of 3 top 5 finishes in a row, even though the league is the true measure I'd suggest that team is capable of winning a cup competition at least. If they fail to do so it can be for any number of reasons but it is not down to the incompetence of the board. This is really, really, really easy to understand once you can see past Fred being fat, a c**t or whatever other idiotic and childish label you want to pin on him. What happened was they made one terrible managerial appointment. I'm not underestimating how serious this was because it's the most important decision they have to make and they got it badly wrong with Souness. They then failed to put it right with Roeder, although he wasn't a disaster like Souness. Perhaps they got it right with Allardyce? If so, what will you and your type moan about then, I wonder? again, i UNDERSTAND all of that, i just have a difference of opinion, but if it suits you, you're right, i'm wrong, sick of this now anyway and by the way i'm not a moaner, i am definitely a glass half full supporter, fred's a c*** I don't care whether you think I'm right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that your criticism of the previous board isn't based on how they performed in their relative roles, rather it's based on Fred being overweight. allow me to roll my eyes back at you mate, because i've not mentioned weight at all, read before you post. Your posts clearly indicate that you "dislike" the man despite not knowing him, so "fat" will do. It makes the point that whatever the reason is for this dislike it's nowt to do with his performance in his job. I'd sooner refer to "fat" to make the point than referencing the daft tripe you actually do write. haha, nice try

it's a transitional season though in sams view, i think he's setting us up, i'd expect a lot of changes next summer so he can bring in players that are suited to 4-3-3

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish. And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher. so taking the club forward gets the owners a pat on the back, and failing to capitalise on it and going backwards is the fault of the players, nice one I don't believe I said that. It's always the players who play. I do believe however, that you are looking like one of those people who are unable to differentiate between the different roles of players and directors. Nor do you understand that major shareholders of a multi million pound company don't normally leave the entire major decisions to someone else, and don't have any input, but we know that you are only spouting this nonsense to satisfy your agenda. au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh? i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid c*** that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean? i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a t*** anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name' haha. Now you are looking a bit daft. If you think Shepherd is a dick and we are better off without him, then 87 clubs watched us enviously playing in europe regularly, and brought top class players to the club for a canny few years. As usual, I don't expect you to get a perspective, rather than chase a silly agenda. Also, if you think we were better off without the ex board, you wouldn't last 5 minutes supporting a club with a real s**** board. As usual, ALL of your post concerns the personality, which affects your judgement, but I suspect you aren't capable of seeing this. I don't expect you to take up factual issues rather than personalities or you would have done so by now. I'm not having a laugh ref my remarks about the difference in roles between players and directors, I think you - and many others - don't understand this. You clearly don't seem to understand when the job a director does becomes that of the player. BTW, I'll only think we are better off without the ex board, when someone comes along and does better. The fact that you can't grasp this fairly basic concept says everything. i can grasp the concept of your opinion, its not hard, i just disagree, they did a good job initially and then did a really s*** job and took us backwards, therefore i think we're better off without them, its ok though, i can disagree with you and still feel ok about it because its not disturbing to me that someone has different opinion to mine, i have no agenda You don't grasp the concept at all. From your posts it looks like you're posting on an entirely different subject. There's no doubt at all from your comments that your gripe with the previous board is nothing to do with how they ran the football club but is more to do with Fred being fat. mackems.gif I don't think you really have a clue what the previous board achieved for the football club. If you do know, then you have no grasp of the history of the club, given how you dismiss it so easily. Perhaps you think we have a divine right to win a trophy? I don't know, so you tell me. The reality is there is only so much any board can do. If they put in place everything it takes for the manager to build a team/squad capable of 3 top 5 finishes in a row, even though the league is the true measure I'd suggest that team is capable of winning a cup competition at least. If they fail to do so it can be for any number of reasons but it is not down to the incompetence of the board. This is really, really, really easy to understand once you can see past Fred being fat, a c**t or whatever other idiotic and childish label you want to pin on him. What happened was they made one terrible managerial appointment. I'm not underestimating how serious this was because it's the most important decision they have to make and they got it badly wrong with Souness. They then failed to put it right with Roeder, although he wasn't a disaster like Souness. Perhaps they got it right with Allardyce? If so, what will you and your type moan about then, I wonder? again, i UNDERSTAND all of that, i just have a difference of opinion, but if it suits you, you're right, i'm wrong, sick of this now anyway and by the way i'm not a moaner, i am definitely a glass half full supporter, fred's a c*** I don't care whether you think I'm right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that your criticism of the previous board isn't based on how they performed in their relative roles, rather it's based on Fred being overweight. allow me to roll my eyes back at you mate, because i've not mentioned weight at all, read before you post.

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish. And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher. so taking the club forward gets the owners a pat on the back, and failing to capitalise on it and going backwards is the fault of the players, nice one I don't believe I said that. It's always the players who play. I do believe however, that you are looking like one of those people who are unable to differentiate between the different roles of players and directors. Nor do you understand that major shareholders of a multi million pound company don't normally leave the entire major decisions to someone else, and don't have any input, but we know that you are only spouting this nonsense to satisfy your agenda. au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh? i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid c*** that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean? i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a t*** anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name' haha. Now you are looking a bit daft. If you think Shepherd is a dick and we are better off without him, then 87 clubs watched us enviously playing in europe regularly, and brought top class players to the club for a canny few years. As usual, I don't expect you to get a perspective, rather than chase a silly agenda. Also, if you think we were better off without the ex board, you wouldn't last 5 minutes supporting a club with a real s**** board. As usual, ALL of your post concerns the personality, which affects your judgement, but I suspect you aren't capable of seeing this. I don't expect you to take up factual issues rather than personalities or you would have done so by now. I'm not having a laugh ref my remarks about the difference in roles between players and directors, I think you - and many others - don't understand this. You clearly don't seem to understand when the job a director does becomes that of the player. BTW, I'll only think we are better off without the ex board, when someone comes along and does better. The fact that you can't grasp this fairly basic concept says everything. i can grasp the concept of your opinion, its not hard, i just disagree, they did a good job initially and then did a really s*** job and took us backwards, therefore i think we're better off without them, its ok though, i can disagree with you and still feel ok about it because its not disturbing to me that someone has different opinion to mine, i have no agenda You don't grasp the concept at all. From your posts it looks like you're posting on an entirely different subject. There's no doubt at all from your comments that your gripe with the previous board is nothing to do with how they ran the football club but is more to do with Fred being fat. mackems.gif I don't think you really have a clue what the previous board achieved for the football club. If you do know, then you have no grasp of the history of the club, given how you dismiss it so easily. Perhaps you think we have a divine right to win a trophy? I don't know, so you tell me. The reality is there is only so much any board can do. If they put in place everything it takes for the manager to build a team/squad capable of 3 top 5 finishes in a row, even though the league is the true measure I'd suggest that team is capable of winning a cup competition at least. If they fail to do so it can be for any number of reasons but it is not down to the incompetence of the board. This is really, really, really easy to understand once you can see past Fred being fat, a c**t or whatever other idiotic and childish label you want to pin on him. What happened was they made one terrible managerial appointment. I'm not underestimating how serious this was because it's the most important decision they have to make and they got it badly wrong with Souness. They then failed to put it right with Roeder, although he wasn't a disaster like Souness. Perhaps they got it right with Allardyce? If so, what will you and your type moan about then, I wonder? again, i UNDERSTAND all of that, i just have a difference of opinion, but if it suits you, you're right, i'm wrong, sick of this now anyway and by the way i'm not a moaner, i am definitely a glass half full supporter, fred's a cunt

nice to see absolutely no-one's been listening to me and its come as such a surprise that he'll never play milner on the right

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish. And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher. so taking the club forward gets the owners a pat on the back, and failing to capitalise on it and going backwards is the fault of the players, nice one I don't believe I said that. It's always the players who play. I do believe however, that you are looking like one of those people who are unable to differentiate between the different roles of players and directors. Nor do you understand that major shareholders of a multi million pound company don't normally leave the entire major decisions to someone else, and don't have any input, but we know that you are only spouting this nonsense to satisfy your agenda. au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh? i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid c*** that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean? i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a t*** anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name' haha. Now you are looking a bit daft. If you think Shepherd is a dick and we are better off without him, then 87 clubs watched us enviously playing in europe regularly, and brought top class players to the club for a canny few years. As usual, I don't expect you to get a perspective, rather than chase a silly agenda. Also, if you think we were better off without the ex board, you wouldn't last 5 minutes supporting a club with a real s**** board. As usual, ALL of your post concerns the personality, which affects your judgement, but I suspect you aren't capable of seeing this. I don't expect you to take up factual issues rather than personalities or you would have done so by now. I'm not having a laugh ref my remarks about the difference in roles between players and directors, I think you - and many others - don't understand this. You clearly don't seem to understand when the job a director does becomes that of the player. BTW, I'll only think we are better off without the ex board, when someone comes along and does better. The fact that you can't grasp this fairly basic concept says everything. i can grasp the concept of your opinion, its not hard, i just disagree, they did a good job initially and then did a really shit job and took us backwards, therefore i think we're better off without them, its ok though, i can disagree with you and still feel ok about it because its not disturbing to me that someone has different opinion to mine, i have no agenda

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish. And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher. so taking the club forward gets the owners a pat on the back, and failing to capitalise on it and going backwards is the fault of the players, nice one I don't believe I said that. It's always the players who play. I do believe however, that you are looking like one of those people who are unable to differentiate between the different roles of players and directors. Nor do you understand that major shareholders of a multi million pound company don't normally leave the entire major decisions to someone else, and don't have any input, but we know that you are only spouting this nonsense to satisfy your agenda. au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh? i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid cunt that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean? i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a twat anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name'

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish. And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher. so taking the club forward gets the owners a pat on the back, and failing to capitalise on it and going backwards is the fault of the players, nice one

we have a winner

smith

Examples? 99% of people on here, including you ? You can change that perception that I have simply by agreeing with me that the new owners aren't better, until they have at least matched those Champions League qualifications. But I'm not holding my breath that you - and other people without naming names but are obviuos - will admit this is the case. You asked the question by the way. Ah right, so you're assuming that's what people are assuming? I haven't got a clue what Ashley will spend. I haven't got a clue whether the new lot are 'better' than the old lot. They've not had the chance to prove they are any better or worse. You seem to have given them mere months before voicing your displeasure and spouting off about Champions League finishes, it's laughable. gotta agree, it seems very childish going on about who's 'not better', they've barely just taken over, it's saying stuff like that which makes you look biased NE5 Best ever 3 consecutive league positions in 50 years, more european qualifications than any other time in the clubs era, only bettered by 4 clubs is your answer I'm afraid. If you wish to dispute cold hard facts, I can't help you. No board who are s*** does this. BTW, is isn;t me who is saying anyone is better than anyone else, its rather the amount of people who are saying the new board are better when they are miles away form proving it yet. This is the only point that I am making. once again you come in with your list of acheivements and facts when they were entirely un-necessary, nor was the bit about the ex board not being s***, i did NOT say that, again you make yourself look like an obsessive, and, if people want to be stupid in your opinion i.e. claiming ashely will automatically be better, just let them get on with it, why does it bother you so much? its doing things like this that makes you look like you have an agenda not an agenda. Just facts. New board have to beat it to show they are better, whats the problem. Do you think they are better, or do you agree ? right, but the facts were totally un-necessary in relation to what i was saying, am i talking to myself here? i already said that and the problem with the 'new board have to beat it to show they are better' is that its so mind bogglingly OBVIOUS that i dont know why anyone would bother to say it, UNLESS, they for some reason wanted to continually defend the last board and as for whether i agree, i'm reserving judgement until i have more things to go on, its to soon man

Examples? 99% of people on here, including you ? You can change that perception that I have simply by agreeing with me that the new owners aren't better, until they have at least matched those Champions League qualifications. But I'm not holding my breath that you - and other people without naming names but are obviuos - will admit this is the case. You asked the question by the way. Ah right, so you're assuming that's what people are assuming? I haven't got a clue what Ashley will spend. I haven't got a clue whether the new lot are 'better' than the old lot. They've not had the chance to prove they are any better or worse. You seem to have given them mere months before voicing your displeasure and spouting off about Champions League finishes, it's laughable. gotta agree, it seems very childish going on about who's 'not better', they've barely just taken over, it's saying stuff like that which makes you look biased NE5 Best ever 3 consecutive league positions in 50 years, more european qualifications than any other time in the clubs era, only bettered by 4 clubs is your answer I'm afraid. If you wish to dispute cold hard facts, I can't help you. No board who are s*** does this. BTW, is isn;t me who is saying anyone is better than anyone else, its rather the amount of people who are saying the new board are better when they are miles away form proving it yet. This is the only point that I am making. once again you come in with your list of acheivements and facts when they were entirely un-necessary, nor was the bit about the ex board not being s***, i did NOT say that, again you make yourself look like an obsessive, and, if people want to be stupid in your opinion i.e. claiming ashely will automatically be better, just let them get on with it, why does it bother you so much? its doing things like this that makes you look like you have an agenda

Examples? 99% of people on here, including you ? You can change that perception that I have simply by agreeing with me that the new owners aren't better, until they have at least matched those Champions League qualifications. But I'm not holding my breath that you - and other people without naming names but are obviuos - will admit this is the case. You asked the question by the way. Ah right, so you're assuming that's what people are assuming? I haven't got a clue what Ashley will spend. I haven't got a clue whether the new lot are 'better' than the old lot. They've not had the chance to prove they are any better or worse. You seem to have given them mere months before voicing your displeasure and spouting off about Champions League finishes, it's laughable. gotta agree, it seems very childish going on about who's 'not better', they've barely just taken over, it's saying stuff like that which makes you look biased NE5

pr, sellable asset, spend loads of money straight away etc etc

I'm going to leave it as it's no longer got anyting to do with the original thread and isn't even worth going on about as nothing new has been said for the last 5 or 6 pages. To get back to the original post, January could be interesting as it looks like we'll be buying for the future, proof that the plans for the club are long term as I doubt buying kids is going to add value to the club from day one. agree

He wasn't what? He wasn't offered the job, according to NE5. No, you're wrong. Not according to me at all. I know he wasn't, according to someone else, who knows he wasn't. That's still according to you. That statement doesn't preclude the condition you've detailed. So you're wrong in saying I'm wrong. If you're absolutely definite then can only conclude the person you know is either Shepherd, or Bruce. And it depends upon your definition of 'offered' - some people will include him being sounded out, tapped up on the phone or whatever, as him being offered the job. By your definition it entails a piece of paper ratified by all board members, which is also fair enough. I have absolutely no idea if Shepherd or anyone had a cup of tea with him on a motorway somewhere and asked if he was interested in the job [which happens], but I'm telling you he wasn't offered it because it was never a majority boardroom decision to offer it. In any case, what do you think of those rich owners of Birmingham, and Dave Whelan offering him the job, after you and others insisted nobody else would be stupid enough ? Or is it just another daft knee jerk comment? What do I think of David Sullivan, purveyor of the Sunday Sport? Bit of a tosser. David Gold, he seems like a good guy to me. No opinion of Dave Whelan. Can you quote the argument where I said no-one would be stupid enough to offer him a job? Just that I don't remember commenting on that at all! Isn't it just? I was just trying to clarify what you were saying with a bit of logic but you've just taken it the wrong way. You can't even accept that there are different opinions of what entails a job offer in this day and age, esp. for a quango-style set-up like Shepherd had in tow. Oh, I'm sorry, there's no piece of paper that someone's signed to say that was the way it was, therefore it wasn't true, can't have been true, it's all made up by the bloody ELVES. Merry Christmas. Well, there are a whole band of Shepherd bashers who insist he is the worstest chairman that ever ran a football club, of which you are one. Can't wait until Ashley matches those Champions League qualifications. i cant wait either mate, really

go supermort

nice to be signing players at this age and at little cost (presumably), better than signing them at 21 or 22 for 5m and having expectations put on them

he's an absolute cretin of the highest order and should be removed from his position immediately

he's gonna learn english in a month, apparently