fredbob

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT. 3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time. European Cup Winners' Cup winners: 1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000. probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates. Fact. Certainly nowhere near ours. Fact. Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ? I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge. I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is. So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies, Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True? The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in. The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds. This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree. To be fair, i haven't really got a good thing to say about Ken Bates, am not completely aware of all the facts, i was just qeurying your view of a chairmans role beccause it seems very contradictory and inconsistent.

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT. 3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time. European Cup Winners' Cup winners: 1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000. probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates. Fact. Certainly nowhere near ours. Fact. Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ? I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge. I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is. So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies, Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True?

None of these players are without faults, they just happen to have less than Emre does. Dyer has less faults than Emre? Unfortunately true. Its why a club paid £7m for him, while Emre we'd be lucky to receive the £3.8m we paid for him. West Ham have overpaid for everyone this summer, and English players always come at a premium, eg., Darren Bent. And how does the price dictate that Emre has more faults than Dyer. Its very difficult to have a discussion with you when you don't answer the actual questions put to you. If you really think that list of players you gave have achieved anything in the last two years, you're dillusional. THey've achieved nothing, and the likes of Parker, Dyer and N'Zogbia (last year) have more to do with that than Emre does.

Isn't the idea of these forums to try and debate these points at your will, irrespective of how many time it might of been discussed in the past, everything on the this forum is cast iron sooner or later but if people had 'left it' the second that there point was proved or not, we wouldn't have much of a forum

Yes martin was a big success , and a good singing by Shepard , but in the big picture is that really an achievement to substantiate the claim he was a good chairman? This was the same chairmen would paid £11m for Luque (nufc.com) £8m for Boum-shlong etc? it can all be flipped around, in fact i dont know why i'm even arguing that point, you've made it for me, why the hell under his chairmenship were we fighting relegation in the first place?? LEt me ask you this then, from when FS took charge, do you think we are where we could/should of been? Do you think that we have progressed as a club in the 10 years he has been in charge? Do you think that from when he took us over when we were title challengers (2nd) to where we are now (Uefa Cup hopefuls) shows a significant level of improvement? If yes then you're a fool, if the answers to theses questions are no, then you are forced to agree therefore that overall he wasn't a succes. Note i have generalised his tenure as Chairmanship and not picked out specific events to make my arguments. he was a signing by Roeder, not Shepherd, and from this point on your argument is pointless, as you clearly don't understand the management structure of a football club. Sorry like . errrr would you like to answer this part please, we'll start slow so a simple yes or no will do for the time being. lets make it easy for you, I know you are a WUM, but I'll answer out of politeness and give you a chance to redeem yourself. Lets just pretend that every club who thinks they should be top of the league, is actually top of the league. All at the same time. Problem solved. mackems.gif To be fair, i am not a Wind up merchant, i just find it increasingly difficult to get a decent straight answer out of you, you aksed a stupid question, i gave you a stupid answer, again, all i asked for was a yes or no, you actually haven't directly answered a single question i have put to you, so i find it increasingle frustrating to make a debate with you when you are continually avoiding the answers, being faecicious in your responses and avoiding the big ones. Its a shame, cos its clear you know a lot about this club, and have a good understanding of the history of the club but your arguments continue to fall short of major point of someone elses argument, i find you always pick off the little arguments and miss the big one. I highlighted the questions i would of liked you to answer, even gave you intstructions on how to answer them (yes or no) and yet you've still avoided answering the questions. Its a clear sign of defeat, when someone cant answer a question directly. So thats how i will take it. During the 15 years between 1992 and 2007, the majority shareholders, and the board and chairman as a whole, appointed managers, some were better than others, some years we did better than others, but essentially the board didn't change, in their outlook or ambition for the club. Thats my answer. The Keegan years, with Sir John as chairman, and the Robson years, with Shepherd as chairman, were undoubtedly the highlights. I can't see your problem, other than naively thinking it is inconceivable that a club should slip a few positions down the league for a short period. In fact, its not naive, its plain daft. By the way, I don't think I asked you a stupid question at all, but I do think you asked me one. Simple fact is, the same majority shareholders have been the same majority shareholders since 1992 until a few months ago. If you can try to understand that they don't allow others to run the club for them, then you may be on the way to reaching a correct "opinion" surely FS in a respresentative of the Boards opinions and while it may not of been his direct decisions to what occured a the club, irrespective he will be held repsonsible and it would be on his head that those decisions are placed. You seem keen to attribute Shepards success as a chairman down to the appointments he made, which i dont consider the big picture, i have already explained that i dont consider this the big picture and i have already stated that if the club were in the poisiton it was on the playing side but was more stable on the financial side i would respect FS alot more than i do now, however, he left us in a precarious posiiton, and i don want to gt into the nitty gritty details on why we have the debt, but overall from my point of view, i see a club from 92-97 which was going places, doing very well and had a bright future, from 97 onwards the shareholders stayed the same accoriding to you, but the chairman changed we have not achieved anywhere near the saem sort of success, now is this a coincidence or not?

Yes martin was a big success , and a good singing by Shepard , but in the big picture is that really an achievement to substantiate the claim he was a good chairman? This was the same chairmen would paid £11m for Luque (nufc.com) £8m for Boum-shlong etc? it can all be flipped around, in fact i dont know why i'm even arguing that point, you've made it for me, why the hell under his chairmenship were we fighting relegation in the first place?? LEt me ask you this then, from when FS took charge, do you think we are where we could/should of been? Do you think that we have progressed as a club in the 10 years he has been in charge? Do you think that from when he took us over when we were title challengers (2nd) to where we are now (Uefa Cup hopefuls) shows a significant level of improvement? If yes then you're a fool, if the answers to theses questions are no, then you are forced to agree therefore that overall he wasn't a succes. Note i have generalised his tenure as Chairmanship and not picked out specific events to make my arguments. he was a signing by Roeder, not Shepherd, and from this point on your argument is pointless, as you clearly don't understand the management structure of a football club. Sorry like . errrr would you like to answer this part please, we'll start slow so a simple yes or no will do for the time being. lets make it easy for you, I know you are a WUM, but I'll answer out of politeness and give you a chance to redeem yourself. Lets just pretend that every club who thinks they should be top of the league, is actually top of the league. All at the same time. Problem solved. mackems.gif To be fair, i am not a Wind up merchant, i just find it increasingly difficult to get a decent straight answer out of you, you aksed a stupid question, i gave you a stupid answer, again, all i asked for was a yes or no, you actually haven't directly answered a single question i have put to you, so i find it increasingle frustrating to make a debate with you when you are continually avoiding the answers, being faecicious in your responses and avoiding the big ones. Its a shame, cos its clear you know a lot about this club, and have a good understanding of the history of the club but your arguments continue to fall short of major point of someone elses argument, i find you always pick off the little arguments and miss the big one. I highlighted the questions i would of liked you to answer, even gave you intstructions on how to answer them (yes or no) and yet you've still avoided answering the questions. Its a clear sign of defeat, when someone cant answer a question directly. So thats how i will take it.

In short, the appointment of Allardyce is taking us forwards again, so what is your opinion on that lol, so you admit we were behind? Crikey that sounded alwfully like a minor concede of defeat there, because if you ask me a compentent chairman doesnt allow us to be behind in the first place. Game set and match me thinks. From the moment Shepard said he wasnt going to replace SBR contract hes been a f****** disaster and now you admit we're going back in the right dierection having been in the wrong one for so long. It wasnt that hard ne5 but we got it out of you. Well done you keep missing the point. Managers change, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Why do you think nobody appoints managers who are sometimes not as good as a previous one ? This is a completely different thing to the structure and ambition of a football club and the board by the way. Your problem is like others, you simply don't understand this. i think you're missing the point, you're absolutley right about managers changing, and it would be very naive to blame shepard completely for what transpired although on the flip side, the appointents didnt seem to fit the job, but again that is my opioion and a different debate. You seem to keep referring to the relatively smaller issues, im looking at the big picture. However what i am trying to draw out of you, my entire argument, the big big picture is, was Shepard a success in his 10 years or not? its a simple yes or no answer.

In short, the appointment of Allardyce is taking us forwards again, so what is your opinion on that lol, so you admit we were behind? Crikey that sounded alwfully like a minor concede of defeat there, because if you ask me a compentent chairman doesnt allow us to be behind in the first place. Game set and match me thinks. From the moment Shepard said he wasnt going to replace SBR contract hes been a f****** disaster and now you admit we're going back in the right dierection having been in the wrong one for so long. It wasnt that hard ne5 but we got it out of you. Well done f*** off. I'm not saying Shepherd is great, but that point is utter, utter bollocks. f*** off. I'm sayin Shepard was crap, but this point is utter irrelavent. the point you made was a stupid one, and it backed up your argument not one jot, so well done. to be fair to my good self, i wasn;t actually making a point in that bit of txt you decided to quote, in fact i was offereing my opinion, and in my opinion i cant think of too many (if any) chairmen/ managers/ business owners who would allow there business to get behind in the current market and still be considered a success. its a simple point and seems to make complete sense to me. The minute you get behind your projected targets you intanstanly become "inaffective", the minute you fail any of yours targets you're a failure. In the real world thats how it works, i'm not for one second sayin Sheapard was a failure but he was by no means even considered a success.

In short, the appointment of Allardyce is taking us forwards again, so what is your opinion on that lol, so you admit we were behind? Crikey that sounded alwfully like a minor concede of defeat there, because if you ask me a compentent chairman doesnt allow us to be behind in the first place. Game set and match me thinks. From the moment Shepard said he wasnt going to replace SBR contract hes been a f****** disaster and now you admit we're going back in the right dierection having been in the wrong one for so long. It wasnt that hard ne5 but we got it out of you. Well done f*** off. I'm not saying Shepherd is great, but that point is utter, utter bollocks. fuck off. I'm sayin Shepard was crap, but this point is utter irrelavent.

Yes martin was a big success , and a good singing by Shepard , but in the big picture is that really an achievement to substantiate the claim he was a good chairman? This was the same chairmen would paid £11m for Luque (nufc.com) £8m for Boum-shlong etc? it can all be flipped around, in fact i dont know why i'm even arguing that point, you've made it for me, why the hell under his chairmenship were we fighting relegation in the first place?? LEt me ask you this then, from when FS took charge, do you think we are where we could/should of been? Do you think that we have progressed as a club in the 10 years he has been in charge? Do you think that from when he took us over when we were title challengers (2nd) to where we are now (Uefa Cup hopefuls) shows a significant level of improvement? If yes then you're a fool, if the answers to theses questions are no, then you are forced to agree therefore that overall he wasn't a succes. Note i have generalised his tenure as Chairmanship and not picked out specific events to make my arguments. he was a signing by Roeder, not Shepherd, and from this point on your argument is pointless, as you clearly don't understand the management structure of a football club. Sorry like . errrr would you like to answer this part please, we'll start slow so a simple yes or no will do for the time being.

Yes martin was a big success , and a good singing by Shepard , but in the big picture is that really an achievement to substantiate the claim he was a good chairman? This was the same chairmen would paid £11m for Luque (nufc.com) £8m for Boum-shlong etc? it can all be flipped around, in fact i dont know why i'm even arguing that point, you've made it for me, why the hell under his chairmenship were we fighting relegation in the first place?? LEt me ask you this then, from when FS took charge, do you think we are where we could/should of been? Do you think that we have progressed as a club in the 10 years he has been in charge? Do you think that from when he took us over when we were title challengers (2nd) to where we are now (Uefa Cup hopefuls) shows a significant level of improvement? If yes then you're a fool, if the answers to theses questions are no, then you are forced to agree therefore that overall he wasn't a succes. Note i have generalised his tenure as Chairmanship and not picked out specific events to make my arguments. he was a signing by Roeder, not Shepherd, and from this point on your argument is pointless, as you clearly don't understand the management structure of a football club. Sorry like . lol, can you read? am not sure why that invalidates my argument, i was replying to someone elses query, in fact yet again, you miss the point of the entrie argument and pick out one tiny insignificant bit, you're embarressingly infuiriating. You seem to have ignored some of my others posts, ones that were directed to you. not being funny like, but where exactly do you come from, and what do you know about the football club ? [ i just know that the skyboys will not approve of this question ] I know they play in black and white, i know they play at Saint Jermeys PArk, i know the players can kick the ball hard....what more is there to know....

In short, the appointment of Allardyce is taking us forwards again, so what is your opinion on that lol, so you admit we were behind? Crikey that sounded alwfully like a minor concede of defeat there, because if you ask me a compentent chairman doesnt allow us to be behind in the first place. Game set and match me thinks. From the moment Shepard said he wasnt going to replace SBR contract hes been a fucking disaster and now you admit we're going back in the right dierection having been in the wrong one for so long. It wasnt that hard ne5 but we got it out of you. Well done

Yes martin was a big success , and a good singing by Shepard , but in the big picture is that really an achievement to substantiate the claim he was a good chairman? This was the same chairmen would paid £11m for Luque (nufc.com) £8m for Boum-shlong etc? it can all be flipped around, in fact i dont know why i'm even arguing that point, you've made it for me, why the hell under his chairmenship were we fighting relegation in the first place?? LEt me ask you this then, from when FS took charge, do you think we are where we could/should of been? Do you think that we have progressed as a club in the 10 years he has been in charge? Do you think that from when he took us over when we were title challengers (2nd) to where we are now (Uefa Cup hopefuls) shows a significant level of improvement? If yes then you're a fool, if the answers to theses questions are no, then you are forced to agree therefore that overall he wasn't a succes. Note i have generalised his tenure as Chairmanship and not picked out specific events to make my arguments. he was a signing by Roeder, not Shepherd, and from this point on your argument is pointless, as you clearly don't understand the management structure of a football club. Sorry like . lol, can you read? am not sure why that invalidates my argument, i was replying to someone elses query, in fact yet again, you miss the point of the entrie argument and pick out one tiny insignificant bit, you're embarressingly infuiriating. You seem to have ignored some of my others posts, ones that were directed to you.

Well its a pretty simple decision, yes he was right to sign martins, but how is that really relevant to the overall argument of him being a successful chairman?

Yes martin was a big success , and a good singing by Shepard, but in the big picture is that really an achievement to substantiate the claim he was a good chairman? This was the same chairmen would paid £11m for Luque (nufc.com) £8m for Boum-shlong etc? it can all be flipped around, in fact i dont know why i'm even arguing that point, you've made it for me, why the hell under his chairmenship were we fighting relegation in the first place?? LEt me ask you this then, from when FS took charge, do you think we are where we could/should of been? Do you think that we have progressed as a club in the 10 years he has been in charge? Do you think that from when he took us over when we were title challengers (2nd) to where we are now (Uefa Cup hopefuls) shows a significant level of improvement? If yes then you're a fool, if the answers to theses questions are no, then you are forced to agree therefore that overall he wasn't a succes. Note i have generalised his tenure as Chairmanship and not picked out specific events to make my arguments.

so ne5, have we, in your opinion progressed since FS took charge? are we overall in a better posiiton than we were when SJH was chairmaen, simple question, pretty much generalises this entire argument. Think carefully, dont refer to the past because for the 20th time thats exactly what it was the past. Now, i say this because its clear you were around in the dark days of this club and you seems intent on reminding us how bad you had it, just ike a grandad goes on about "how he got the cane in his days", and "you'd be lucky to get an orange for xmas in my day" well, noone is really interested in those type of arguments....if you continue to look at the less important past, you forget to look at the more important present and future. Think hard and answer honestly because if you think that we have progressed as a club financially and on the playing field then you honestly support your own argument, however, if you dont think we have progressed then it automatically means FS was a poor chairmen, simple as that....can you honestly say that he was a success, i have already acknowledged that SBR was a good move how many euro seasons did we get out of him? how many season was FS in charge and how many euro quals did we get, how many of those qulaifications we SBR and how many time did we qualify from positional qulaification i'e 5th, as opposed to FA cup losers? Tell me now, was FS a success? please just answer the question, with support for your answers and dont qutoe me on any tiny mistake i make and scrutinize the shit out of it? Sorry to sound like a teacher but its impossible to get a straight answer out of you...its like trying to nail diarroea to a fucking wall.

aye, I expect by the same criteria, you think Arsenal have gone monumentally backwards since they finished the season unbeaten, or do you think they should have stayed there - and they haven't even changed manager Ne5 is impossible to argue with, he gives you so much to correct it becomes impossible to answer them all, by your reckoning then ne5, why was shepard a good chairman? Is it because of the excellent financial situation he left us in? (+£80m) Is is because of the sucessful appointments he made? (Souness, Dalglish...) Is it because of the unquestionable uninterfereing support he gave to his managers?(Gary Speed, Carrck, Prozone...) Is it the finacial backing he gave to managers, money which he didnt have? (Northern Rock sponsorship money-Chris Mort) What actually, in his tenurship as Chariman of Newcastle united football club was so damn important to this football club that makes you defend him so vehementely, something which 51, 999 people seemed to hae missed yet you have seen? You see, i struggle to see what impact he has had, his biggest achivement was SBR, and for 5 odd years, we were in a superb position, SBR was on the decline, i think its impossible to argue that point and it was time that we looked to a future with a manager that could of taken us to the next level, instead he single handedly destroyed those 5 odd years of excellent progress making the success SBR brought irrelevant, destroyed, pointless...by undermining SBR and saying by publically stating he wasn't going to have his contract renewed before even telling SBR he undermined SBR in the biggest sense, the dressing room was gone, by these actions he made one of the biggest jobs in england unwantable, how many chairmen are capable of doing this? Cue Souness and Roeder, a mess that we are starting to rectify now, i personnaly hold Shepard responsible for all these things this is the reason i feel he was terrible, the only thing that would of made me be less scathing to Shepard would of been if he handled the financial sides of the club well....did his job properly, but i personally dont think he did, its your call to criticise that fact but we are both clueless as the the true financial situation of the club and can therefore only specualte. I put it to you ne5 to try and justify your opinion,all without refereing to the 1920's please??? Please?

in fact mate, I'm sorry to say, but you are completely contradicting yourself. you say he should "protect and develop the clubs future", then complain about the debt, when the "manageable" debt is due largely to developing the clubs future. It is also due to attempting to "supporting the playing side of the club" is it not ? Do you condone it or not ? You also complain about the debt further, then say that he didn't support his manager in the summer of 2003. Apart from doing a little bit of research and working out that we spent a lot of money to qualify for the Champions League, including being the ONLY major spenders in January 2003, where exactly do you think the "80m" debt had came from, if he/they haven't tried to be successful in some form or other ? You seem very confused from where I'm sitting, and basically just looking for an angle to attack them, without looking at anything correctly and factually. As for "undermining the manager", I don't consider that in view of the huge backing that ALL the managers have had, not one of them has been hindered from doing their job and attempting to win trophies in any shape or form whatsoever. Again, the 80m quid "debt" which has been accrued, must have came from somewhere. Perhaps, you could tell us how it has been accumulated, if you say they haven't supported the managers "to build for the future" ? You never say anything quite articulated enough for me to understand, dont get me wrong im the exact same but you seem to get into alot of debates with people....there has to be some reason why??? Perhaps its your use of bolding to outline things to fit your argument....for example....you read whats in bold and interpret how you like....i dont understand this defence of Shepard, was he actually solely responsible for the redevelopment of SJP? if so, then some of your arguments have merits, you see im not bothered about anything which was under SJH chairmanship i want to try and breakdown what actually he did good for the club, the best thing he did was appiont SBR, but what else? i may be incorrect with some if not alot of my facts, but i stand by my view that he was incompenetent and has done very little good for this club. We could go down the route of assessing his appointments but i know that we'd have to agree to disagree because i am sure you will justify his appointments byt there CV, my only comment to that is that you are only as good as your last game if you are a player, and i cant rememebr Dalglish or Souness being particulry successful prior to there appointments. although please dont quote me, i judge a manager on the sucess of his team, how they play and there affects on individuals not just on how many shiny things they've won in an obscure league, to subjective. i shall carry on this "debate" later, but in the mean time i'd apreciate hearing your justification for Shepard being a good Chairmen, what has given you this impression? all without referrring to the 1930's would be nice as well. please

prpblem is, how often does he have "his day". He's a good player, but goes missing too often. i agree, 'his day' is often on every other match but a consistent emre will be needed to sort out our visionless midfield. its a pretty objective view to say he has off days, theres not been too many players we can really shout about for the last 2/3 seasons. Emre isn't much of a player without possesiion. FACT, but with 2 combative midfielders behind him allowing him to be more independent, would (in theory) do wonders for his game, last season was a joke for him, it was clear that he was much better with butt because butt could sit deep and allow him posession, put Geremi AND butt behind him i can see a very consistent team player for us...potentially very important player for us

In everyones opionins then, what is actually a chairmens job?? In my opinion, the job of a chairmen is to run the clb as a business, protecting and developing the clubs future whilst supporting the playing side of the Club ensuring a good chance of achieving something, now its laughable that people can defend Shepard by using the "I backed all my managers" crap, correct me if i'm worng but we were £80m in debt under his stewardship, he constantly undermined SBR when it was imperative that he didn't, he failed to back SBR the summer before we were knocked out of the CL to Partizan Belgrade iirc, an idiotic thing to do, and he "spent money that wasnt there yet" accoring to Chris Mort, which i assume is the Northern Rock money which was spent on Luque et al. He his appointemnts have been laughable at time, but i wont lambast him too much on this point as i can imagine it was near impossible to appoint anyone, which itself seems a joke. I just want to know what peoples justifications are for even attempt to defend him, i could go on and on about his inadequecies as a Cahirmen....anyone care to oblige

Ya see, i think 433 would suit him alot this season, i think we'd get alot of width with a 433 opening up alot of space between the channells between centre half and full back, this is ideal territory for Emre to slot his balls passes. The only real problems i can envisage this season with emre are injuries and how Barton and Smith, especially Smith could affect his chances in the team.

Bit early to say, but i think that Cacapa could have the same affect on nufc that Woodgate did. Also, i think Barton could turn out to be a very very good signing, i think he's the type of player who struggles to have a quiet game, which i like, sort of a poorm mans Keane. My only tiny concern with the transfers at the moment is the lack of any real attacking players. Which to me suggests that SA is keen to play the kind of football which grind out 1-0 wins, which isnt a problem but isn't exactly the most inspiring!! To me there isn't enough balance in the squad, it just seems very defensivly heavy.

ahhh.....bitter nufc fans, who'd of thought! Not being funy but thats exactly what i'd of done if i was in his posiiton, its just quick thinking, all this "rat faced cunt" business is a little embaressing!

Dont get it? Why is everyone anti Ole? I thought he was a good player, very intelligent and a bastard to mark. Shame he's retired cos he should have been seen more often

never thought in a millions years that Adriano to nufc was even a possibility, (not saying it is) but by the sounds of it he's very available i would absolutely love him here, hell i'd love it if he were any premierhip side, i think he'd be more suited to the premiership than Ronaldihono would love it LOVE IT if he came!