"Shepherd was not a good chairman" - Sibierski

[NE5]

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

 

I'm pleased to hear that you think the club shouldn't have expanded the stadium, or build the new training facilities that others had been saying we had needed for the best part of half a century.

 

Not looking ahead or building for the future in any shape or form, of course.

 

As said to others, there must be one hell of a lot of thick chairmen out there, who didn't get anywhere near qualifying for europe as often as we have done, filling a big stadium, signing top international players, and persuading trophy winning managers to come to the club. But you can ignore that if it suits your opinion.

 

 

[NE5]

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

 

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" ?

 

 

 

 

[Dave]

Buy good players, yes. Spend money if required to get the best players, yes.

 

Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two

 

That's what you said. What exactly do you have in mind? And what does it have to do with anything?

 

Liverpool have bought Torres. ManU have bought Tevez and Nani and Rooney. Chelsea have bought Drogba, Ballack. Do you think it is possible to compete with this if you don't match and better them ?

 

These clubs are showing you how it is done.

 

 

 

None of those were particularly 'record' transfers.

 

Don't know what you mean by that, of course they were

 

 

Explain? 'Record transfer' means the highest fee does it not?

 

I mean that these clubs are keeping pace with each other, buying the top players, beating their own records, to reach top spots and win the trophies. They know that if they don't do this, they won't reach top spot or win the trophies !!

 

 

 

I'll quote you again:

Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two, or set a new one or two for ourselves.

 

To break a British transfer record we'd have to spend more than £30m (Shevchenko); a world transfer record £46m (Zidane).

 

I'm picking up your point about breaking a transfer record, as you went on to mention our own after that.

 

So I ask again, what on earth does spending £30m+ on a player have to do with anything?

 

 

I didnt' say that we need to spend 30m quid, I'm saying we need to buy players of the calibre of Owen and Shearer if we are to have any chance at all.

 

 

 

No, you specifically made the point that you hope to see the new board 'break a transfer record or two' - as you mentioned it separately you must have alluded to the WORLD record transfer of Shearer - as though it is a prerequisite for a 'good' board.

 

For what it's worth only one of those players you mention is 'record' anything - Torres, who is Liverpool's biggest ever transfer and £4m more than Owen.

 

Deliberately misconstruing, and you know it Dave. Do you accept that to attain the heights that yourself and many others think is an automatic right, you have to spend the money and match the teams who are already at those levels ?

 

Not really worth replying to the other 2 though 

 

 

 

How on earth am I misconstruing? I've quoted you time and time again. You specifically said you hoped to see the club break a transfer record or two. Which records do you have in mind?

 

The bit in bold is an excellent example of deliberately misconstruing btw. Nice one.

 

Well, it would appear the majority of people think that qualifying for europe is a sign of huge failure, so what heights to you think we automatically aspire to ?

 

And, what calibre of player, and at what price, do you think a club needs to reach such heights ?

 

 

 

Hang on a minute, I'm asking the question here, as I have from the start of this lengthy (and rather tiresome) dialogue.

 

Which records do you have in mind for the new board to break?

[NE5]

Buy good players, yes. Spend money if required to get the best players, yes.

 

Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two

 

That's what you said. What exactly do you have in mind? And what does it have to do with anything?

 

Liverpool have bought Torres. ManU have bought Tevez and Nani and Rooney. Chelsea have bought Drogba, Ballack. Do you think it is possible to compete with this if you don't match and better them ?

 

These clubs are showing you how it is done.

 

 

 

None of those were particularly 'record' transfers.

 

Don't know what you mean by that, of course they were

 

 

Explain? 'Record transfer' means the highest fee does it not?

 

I mean that these clubs are keeping pace with each other, buying the top players, beating their own records, to reach top spots and win the trophies. They know that if they don't do this, they won't reach top spot or win the trophies !!

 

 

 

I'll quote you again:

Lets see if they are prepared to really go for it if we get into a challenging position, and break a transfer record or two, or set a new one or two for ourselves.

 

To break a British transfer record we'd have to spend more than £30m (Shevchenko); a world transfer record £46m (Zidane).

 

I'm picking up your point about breaking a transfer record, as you went on to mention our own after that.

 

So I ask again, what on earth does spending £30m+ on a player have to do with anything?

 

 

I didnt' say that we need to spend 30m quid, I'm saying we need to buy players of the calibre of Owen and Shearer if we are to have any chance at all.

 

 

 

No, you specifically made the point that you hope to see the new board 'break a transfer record or two' - as you mentioned it separately you must have alluded to the WORLD record transfer of Shearer - as though it is a prerequisite for a 'good' board.

 

For what it's worth only one of those players you mention is 'record' anything - Torres, who is Liverpool's biggest ever transfer and £4m more than Owen.

 

Deliberately misconstruing, and you know it Dave. Do you accept that to attain the heights that yourself and many others think is an automatic right, you have to spend the money and match the teams who are already at those levels ?

 

Not really worth replying to the other 2 though 

 

 

 

How on earth am I misconstruing? I've quoted you time and time again. You specifically said you hoped to see the club break a transfer record or two. Which records do you have in mind?

 

The bit in bold is an excellent example of deliberately misconstruing btw. Nice one.

 

Well, it would appear the majority of people think that qualifying for europe is a sign of huge failure, so what heights to you think we automatically aspire to ?

 

And, what calibre of player, and at what price, do you think a club needs to reach such heights ?

 

 

 

Hang on a minute, I'm asking the question here, as I have from the start of this lengthy (and rather tiresome) dialogue.

 

Which records do you have in mind for the new board to break?

 

Well, the clubs transfer record, for the right player - in the opinion of the manager - do you not agree with that ? Do you think we will challenge Liverpool, ManU, Chelsea and Arsenal if we settle for not doing this, or buy players in the 5m-6m bracket ?

 

 

[Guest BooBoo]

The continual use of quoting on these super dull threads makes the content even more unpalatable than usual.

[Dave]

Well, the clubs transfer record, for the right player - in the opinion of the manager - do you not agree with that ? Do you think we will challenge Liverpool, ManU, Chelsea and Arsenal if we settle for not doing this, or buy players in the 5m-6m bracket ?

 

Do you really want me to quote you again? You mentioned OUR OWN transfer record SEPARATELY to the point I'm picking up on. Read what you posted again if you're missing my point.

 

Were you or were you not referring to the world record transfer we set when we signed Alan Shearer?

[Dave]

The continual use of quoting on these super dull threads makes the content even more unpalatable than usual.

 

I agree.

[Guest BooBoo]

The continual use of quoting on these super dull threads makes the content even more unpalatable than usual.

 

I agree.

 

[NE5]

The continual use of quoting on these super dull threads makes the content even more unpalatable than usual.

 

the continuing intervention of the sooper dull booboo with nothing to say bores me to death

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

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...

 

Don't confuse poor NE5 with facts.

[NE5]

Well, the clubs transfer record, for the right player - in the opinion of the manager - do you not agree with that ? Do you think we will challenge Liverpool, ManU, Chelsea and Arsenal if we settle for not doing this, or buy players in the 5m-6m bracket ?

 

Do you really want me to quote you again? You mentioned OUR OWN transfer record SEPARATELY to the point I'm picking up on. Read what you posted again if you're missing my point.

 

Were you or were you not referring to the world record transfer we set when we signed Alan Shearer?

 

No, I don't think that Newcastle United can beat the World Transfer record, unless ashley spends his own money like Abramovic.

 

what I DO mean, is that to compete with the other trophy winners, we have to have a few trophy players in the team, just like they do themselves. Do you agree, yes or no ?

 

 

[NE5]

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...

 

Don't confuse poor NE5 with facts.

 

care to comment on the facts I posted earlier to Fredbob, or the fact that your idol cost us millions and we were worse off for his time in charge ?

 

Thought not.

 

How about this Stephen Spence, what are the stats of his career  mackems.gif

[fredbob]

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

 

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

[Dave]

Well, the clubs transfer record, for the right player - in the opinion of the manager - do you not agree with that ? Do you think we will challenge Liverpool, ManU, Chelsea and Arsenal if we settle for not doing this, or buy players in the 5m-6m bracket ?

 

Do you really want me to quote you again? You mentioned OUR OWN transfer record SEPARATELY to the point I'm picking up on. Read what you posted again if you're missing my point.

 

Were you or were you not referring to the world record transfer we set when we signed Alan Shearer?

 

No, I don't think that Newcastle United can beat the World Transfer record, unless ashley spends his own money like Abramovic.

 

what I DO mean, is that to compete with the other trophy winners, we have to have a few trophy players in the team, just like they do themselves. Do you agree, yes or no ?

 

 

 

I answered that here: http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=44803.msg999284#msg999284

 

Why mention 'breaking transfer records' so specifically then, if you just mean 'we have to spend good money on good players'? Seems clear to me that you were using something the previous board achieved as a barometer against the new board, despite the fact it's obviously not a fair thing to judge upon any longer.

[NE5]

Well, the clubs transfer record, for the right player - in the opinion of the manager - do you not agree with that ? Do you think we will challenge Liverpool, ManU, Chelsea and Arsenal if we settle for not doing this, or buy players in the 5m-6m bracket ?

 

Do you really want me to quote you again? You mentioned OUR OWN transfer record SEPARATELY to the point I'm picking up on. Read what you posted again if you're missing my point.

 

Were you or were you not referring to the world record transfer we set when we signed Alan Shearer?

 

No, I don't think that Newcastle United can beat the World Transfer record, unless ashley spends his own money like Abramovic.

 

what I DO mean, is that to compete with the other trophy winners, we have to have a few trophy players in the team, just like they do themselves. Do you agree, yes or no ?

 

 

 

I answered that here: http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=44803.msg999284#msg999284

 

Why mention 'breaking transfer records' so specifically then, if you just mean 'we have to spend good money on good players'? Seems clear to me that you were using something the previous board achieved as a barometer against the new board, despite the fact it's obviously not a fair thing to judge upon any longer.

 

Why is it not fair, and why shouldn't it be a barometer ? The new board, if it is to be more successful than the old one, will have to achieve more success and higher league positions, right ? So, there is your barometer.

 

 

[Dave]

Well, the clubs transfer record, for the right player - in the opinion of the manager - do you not agree with that ? Do you think we will challenge Liverpool, ManU, Chelsea and Arsenal if we settle for not doing this, or buy players in the 5m-6m bracket ?

 

Do you really want me to quote you again? You mentioned OUR OWN transfer record SEPARATELY to the point I'm picking up on. Read what you posted again if you're missing my point.

 

Were you or were you not referring to the world record transfer we set when we signed Alan Shearer?

 

No, I don't think that Newcastle United can beat the World Transfer record, unless ashley spends his own money like Abramovic.

 

what I DO mean, is that to compete with the other trophy winners, we have to have a few trophy players in the team, just like they do themselves. Do you agree, yes or no ?

 

 

 

I answered that here: http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=44803.msg999284#msg999284

 

Why mention 'breaking transfer records' so specifically then, if you just mean 'we have to spend good money on good players'? Seems clear to me that you were using something the previous board achieved as a barometer against the new board, despite the fact it's obviously not a fair thing to judge upon any longer.

 

Why is it not fair, and why shouldn't it be a barometer ? The new board, if it is to be more successful than the old one, will have to achieve more success and higher league positions, right ? So, there is your barometer.

 

 

 

So you are going to use it against them. As I thought. Unless Ashley spends £30m+ on one player he's not matched the old board, as he's not broken any records on a transfer.

 

Success and league positions are fine mate, I never questioned those elements. But breaking a transfer record means fuck all in isolation.

[Guest elbee909]

If this discussion is going on ten years time I'll probably have to buy some guns.

 

If the country keeps going the way it is, you'll be buying a gun in a corner shop, unless they are all banned, in 10 years time mate.

 

 

Do you read the Daily Mail?

[OzzieMandias]

Well, the clubs transfer record, for the right player - in the opinion of the manager - do you not agree with that ? Do you think we will challenge Liverpool, ManU, Chelsea and Arsenal if we settle for not doing this, or buy players in the 5m-6m bracket ?

 

Do you really want me to quote you again? You mentioned OUR OWN transfer record SEPARATELY to the point I'm picking up on. Read what you posted again if you're missing my point.

 

Were you or were you not referring to the world record transfer we set when we signed Alan Shearer?

 

No, I don't think that Newcastle United can beat the World Transfer record, unless ashley spends his own money like Abramovic.

 

what I DO mean, is that to compete with the other trophy winners, we have to have a few trophy players in the team, just like they do themselves. Do you agree, yes or no ?

 

 

 

I answered that here: http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=44803.msg999284#msg999284

 

Why mention 'breaking transfer records' so specifically then, if you just mean 'we have to spend good money on good players'? Seems clear to me that you were using something the previous board achieved as a barometer against the new board, despite the fact it's obviously not a fair thing to judge upon any longer.

 

Why is it not fair, and why shouldn't it be a barometer ? The new board, if it is to be more successful than the old one, will have to achieve more success and higher league positions, right ? So, there is your barometer.

 

 

 

So you are going to use it against them. As I thought. Unless Ashley spends £30m+ on one player he's not matched the old board, as he's not broken any records on a transfer.

 

Success and league positions are fine mate, I never questioned those elements. But breaking a transfer record means fuck all in isolation.

 

It means that NE5 thinks trophy signings = "success".

[Mick]

 

I'm pleased to hear that you think the club shouldn't have expanded the stadium, or build the new training facilities that others had been saying we had needed for the best part of half a century.

 

Not looking ahead or building for the future in any shape or form, of course.

 

As said to others, there must be one hell of a lot of thick chairmen out there, who didn't get anywhere near qualifying for europe as often as we have done, filling a big stadium, signing top international players, and persuading trophy winning managers to come to the club. But you can ignore that if it suits your opinion.

 

 

 

If the debt was built up to expand the stadium and training facilities, why did it almost double while our capacity was 52,000?

[Mick]

 

So you are going to use it against them. As I thought. Unless Ashley spends £30m+ on one player he's not matched the old board, as he's not broken any records on a transfer.

 

Success and league positions are fine mate, I never questioned those elements. But breaking a transfer record means f*** all in isolation.

 

If the amount of money spent made a club win trophies we'd have won them by now.  Throwing money at the wrong manager or at the wrong time is a waste of hard earned cash, our club should know that more than any other club.

[TRon]

All I asked earlier, was can someone provide me with Shepherd's reasoning, I repeat: REASONING, for targeting Bruce, Souness and Roeder as portential managers of Newcastle. Because for me, the only reason you would consider that lot would be that you were a thick twat. As NE5 and co have carefully avoided answering this, I can only assume they know this is true.

[NE5]

All I asked earlier, was can someone provide me with Shepherd's reasoning, I repeat: REASONING, for targeting Bruce, Souness and Roeder as portential managers of Newcastle. Because for me, the only reason you would consider that lot would be that you were a thick twat. As NE5 and co have carefully avoided answering this, I can only assume they know this is true.

 

I have told you that, looking at our last decade, whereby only 4 clubs have qualified for europe more than us, and we have attracted top trophy winning managers, top international players, and filled a 50000 stadium, there must be a hell of a lot of thick twats out there. I suspect that really you wouldn't know a thick twat was if it stood in front of you and said "Stephen Spence was a top footballer". How thick do you think all the other chairman are, if they can't do better than the thick incompetent tosser we had at Newcastle ?

 

Bruce was not offered the Newcastle job.

 

I have not excused Souness, even though the thick twat Liverpool, Southampton, Blackburn and Rangers directors also appointed him to manage clubs in the UK.

 

Roeder had its merits, as he did well as a caretaker. I take it you also think that Steve Gibson is a thick twat for appointing 2 managers without winning track records in management, and little experience.

 

I also suspect that as you have carefully avoided answering this, you know the point I am making to be correct.

 

Quite a lot of people thought Roeder was worth a punt, and some people such as Ozzie Mandiarse still defend the actions of Souness when he was manager. I think you should ask them what their thoughts are regarding this, I take it you knew in advance that Roeder wouldn't work out. Could you please tell us if you thought that a manager who had won 4 league titles with 2 different clubs was a bad appointment, and if so what criteria you would use instead ? And while you are at it, you can tell us how you appear to think that we are the only club with the only chairman that have made shit appointments, yet have attracted 50000 fans to home games, and why they have attended if things have been so shite ?

 

Yes, I mean you. Assuming you go, why have you done this if things have been so shite ?

 

I also see that you STILL are unable to see the completely ludicrous suggestion that the majority shareholders of a multi million pound industry leave the most important decision to someone else.

 

 

[NE5]

If this discussion is going on ten years time I'll probably have to buy some guns.

 

If the country keeps going the way it is, you'll be buying a gun in a corner shop, unless they are all banned, in 10 years time mate.

 

 

Do you read the Daily Mail?

 

No, I take it you read the Guardian, as you clearly don't agree  ?

 

 

[NE5]

Well, the clubs transfer record, for the right player - in the opinion of the manager - do you not agree with that ? Do you think we will challenge Liverpool, ManU, Chelsea and Arsenal if we settle for not doing this, or buy players in the 5m-6m bracket ?

 

Do you really want me to quote you again? You mentioned OUR OWN transfer record SEPARATELY to the point I'm picking up on. Read what you posted again if you're missing my point.

 

Were you or were you not referring to the world record transfer we set when we signed Alan Shearer?

 

No, I don't think that Newcastle United can beat the World Transfer record, unless ashley spends his own money like Abramovic.

 

what I DO mean, is that to compete with the other trophy winners, we have to have a few trophy players in the team, just like they do themselves. Do you agree, yes or no ?

 

 

 

I answered that here: http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=44803.msg999284#msg999284

 

Why mention 'breaking transfer records' so specifically then, if you just mean 'we have to spend good money on good players'? Seems clear to me that you were using something the previous board achieved as a barometer against the new board, despite the fact it's obviously not a fair thing to judge upon any longer.

 

Why is it not fair, and why shouldn't it be a barometer ? The new board, if it is to be more successful than the old one, will have to achieve more success and higher league positions, right ? So, there is your barometer.

 

 

 

So you are going to use it against them. As I thought. Unless Ashley spends £30m+ on one player he's not matched the old board, as he's not broken any records on a transfer.

 

Success and league positions are fine mate, I never questioned those elements. But breaking a transfer record means fuck all in isolation.

 

No, I'm not. I'm only bothered what happens on the pitch. As numerous people have said how shit the last board have been, it must be pretty much nailed on that the new one will do better. Wouldn't you agree ?

 

The point is, the trophy winning clubs, are winning the trophies by buying trophy players. If people don't want us to buy "trophy" players, resign yourself to never joining them.

 

 

[Dave]

#La-di-da-di-la-di-da#

 

Are you purposely ignoring what I'm writing for the laugh?