Mort: I’m in charge

[Guest elbee909]

 

Well. He wasn't.

 

Can't you read.

 

 

 

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.

[NE5]

i refuse to believe there's just a simple fan/chairman relationship going on with NE5 and Shepherd, its baffling mate, honestly, how you spin things to suit, for example saying things like 'they're happy with mid table mediocrity this season' etc etc, you've removed all context, i'll be happy with mid table this season, it'll be an improvement, we've been s*** for years and we need to build back up to strength, i just DONT understand you

 

 

I take it you haven't read Morts comments about spendign in January [/astonished]

 

You must be someone else who can't accept bare facts laid out in front of you, when they don't suit your opinions ?

 

Basically, if the club don't act to fill glaring hole in the team, and say they won't act, what conclusion do you draw ?

 

We haven't been s*** for years either BTW. I thought you were one of the better posters, until you said that.

 

 

 

yeah, i've seen his comments, it made sense to me,  i'm giving him a clean slate so i'll wait until the end of the season to make my judgement on how their first season in charge went, given the circumstances

 

bare facts? we're specualting over what the club MIGHT do in january, there are no facts yet, and facts change my opinions, so, eh, what?

 

i'm not sure if its a break down in communication but as far as i'm aware by saying years that can class as 2 years at the least, and i feel pretty assured that we've been s*** for at least two years, i dont really mind what you think of me

 

 

well, I suppose if you've followed the club for 5 or 6 years, then the last 2 years could seem a long time.

 

And if you've only supported the club since 1992, then the last few years have been comparitively not too good.

 

But if you've supported the club longer than that, they have been a long way short of s***, and for that, you'll have to take my word for it.

 

 

 

no i wont, there are many other sources of information, i dont have to take your word for anything, you've never said anything thats changed my views, as i'm sure i've never said anything thats changed yours, might aswell just pack it in

 

 

Aye, and other sources of information will confirm that we have been a damn sight worse in previous decades than in the last couple of years.

 

oh you're joining in are you? i wasnt beamed into the planet 2 years ago, i have a decent understanding of our history, i still think we've been s*** for the last few years, i was simply saying i dont have to take his word for it because he tends to get a bit preachy if you dont nip it in the bud

 

Where was the, "na na ni na na....." I'm sure it would fit in well after your hissy bit in bold.

 

If you have any understanding of the history of the club you'll know that as poor as the last few seasons have been there have been far, far worse in the memory of MANY supporters who still go to matches today.

 

If you have any understanding of the history of the club you'll know that as poor as the last few seasons have been there have been far, far worse in the memory of MANY supporters who still go to matches today.

 

Anyone who is remotely successful in there life, are never happy with what they achieve. What you're saying there is that many people are grateful becasue of what they had to see. Well, im saying that in 92 we were in a position to estabilish ourselves as a dominant force in the premiership, we were on a level playin field with everyone, infact come 95(?) we were in a position to estabilish ourselves as THE dominant team in the premiership, but becasue oft he ineptitude of the board , failed, we fell so far behind it seems like an impossible task to do but we did. So by the modern view, what has been achieved isnt good enough, we didnt take the oppurtunity we were given therefore we wasted a golden oppurtunity, there cant be any excuse for that. No matter how bad it was.

 

You're quite clearly one of these "it'll do" people.

 

 

You clearly have absolutely no idea of where the old board found the club, claiming they were "inept". Must admit, this has made me laugh. In 1995 Sir John was chairman, Keegan was manager, and it was the year before we nearly won the league. Such is your lack of knowledge, you put a question mark against it. Credibily destroyed, I'm afraid.

 

 

 

Yeh i understnd that, i understand about the state of the club was abhorrent pre Fletcher, Hall and Shep, what im trying to say, and as you have correctly pointed out my knowledge basis isnt fantastic on the account of having a life etc, but from my point of view, irrespective of who was in charge of the club or the position we were in i feel we wasted a golden oppurtunity to be a huge club.

 

Now i dont claim to be a SOOPAFAN, i wouldnt dare pass myself of as that, all im tryin to do is offer my views on the clubs recent history, not the past, becasues thats not strictly relevant. Supposing the club started was created in 92, and what happened in the past didnt exist, how would you view the current situation and handling of the club?

 

Thats the point of view that i am using.

 

but it wasn't, was it.

 

Do you really think that qualifying for europe more than every team bar 4 over the last 10 years is shit ?  mackems.gif

[NE5]

 

Well. He wasn't.

 

Can't you read.

 

 

 

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 ?

 

 

[Kitman]

http://tf.org/images/covers/groundhog_day.avi_download.jpg

[Mick]

 

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.

 

 

 

Was only hiring a boardroom decision or does that also stretch to firing?

 

Also, why should anybody take your side of this against somebody involved who claims that he was offered the job, a claim which has only been denied by you?

 

If somebody claimed I'd offered them a job when I hadn't, I'd make sure my side of it was known.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

http://tf.org/images/covers/groundhog_day.avi_download.jpg

 

Someone who has been "away" for a few weeks has set about ruining this forum again immediately on his return.

[Mick]

 

 

That is correct. Its quite amazing the amount of things people change on here, to suit their "opinions".

 

Blame Keegan for casting the doubt and John Gibson for not questioning him about it.  It's a direct quote from Keegan and put into an article by Gibson this year, I agree that it's doubtful that the timing of the quote is right but Keegan was quoted, not me.

[NE5]

 

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.

 

 

 

Was only hiring a boardroom decision or does that also stretch to firing?

 

Also, why should anybody take your side of this against somebody involved who claims that he was offered the job, a claim which has only been denied by you?

 

If somebody claimed I'd offered them a job when I hadn't, I'd make sure my side of it was known.

 

If I was offered the job of manager of NUFC I'd take it like a shot. And if I turned it down, I'd never hold my head up in the city, never mind telling everybody I'd turned it down ..........

 

Don't know why I'm answering you to be honest, as once again you've avoided answering direct questions I ask you, although true to form you'd distort the reply and wouldn't give any credit where its due.

 

And before you ask, don't pretend you haven't seen them.........

 

 

[Guest elbee909]

 

Well. He wasn't.

 

Can't you read.

 

 

 

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!

 

Its quite amazing the amount of things people change on here, to suit their "opinions".

 

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.

 

[Guest elbee909]

http://tf.org/images/covers/groundhog_day.avi_download.jpg

 

Someone who has been "away" for a few weeks has set about ruining this forum again immediately on his return.

 

Good film though.

[NE5]

 

 

That is correct. Its quite amazing the amount of things people change on here, to suit their "opinions".

 

Blame Keegan for casting the doubt and John Gibson for not questioning him about it.  It's a direct quote from Keegan and put into an article by Gibson this year, I agree that it's doubtful that the timing of the quote is right but Keegan was quoted, not me.

 

I think the true one would the one that was said at the time. But I expected you to twist anything that helps to misrepresent Shepherd and to a lesser extent Hall Jnr

 

Sir John Hall has never denied that the other 3 wanted Keegan and not himself, btw. He almost lost him through going back on his word only a month into the job, and I bet you would blame Shepherd for that too if you could.

 

mackems.gif

 

 

[Mick]

 

Someone who has been "away" for a few weeks has set about ruining this forum again immediately on his return.

 

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.

[NE5]

 

Well. He wasn't.

 

Can't you read.

 

 

 

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!

 

Its quite amazing the amount of things people change on here, to suit their "opinions".

 

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.

 

The point about Sullivan, is that he's a rich chairman [who cares how they get their money, I don't], who doesn't appear to have much ambition for his football club. And appointed Steve Bruce, and Trevor Francis. And didn't do anywhere near as well as our old board. But its run like a "business". Get it ?

 

 

[NE5]

http://tf.org/images/covers/groundhog_day.avi_download.jpg

 

Someone who has been "away" for a few weeks has set about ruining this forum again immediately on his return.

 

how am I "ruining" it. Because you don't have factual information to contradict mine ?

 

Poor that mate. You post facts, and convince me I'm wrong ?

 

By the way, the topic of the thread is about the board of the club. Why is it not relevant to look at the progress we have made, or otherwise, under the new board, and our prospects of doing better than their predecessors ?

 

 

[Thespence]

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.

 

Most of us like the idea of the club being built with youth coming through or bought into the ranks, but with ANC & some failings in our current team/squad I am not sure this is the best thing to do in January. As fans a lot of us go to watch the first team & it is only there result that really matters & it is only the players signed to play in the first team now that count. I am not saying this is my view point, more of the real world. Long term planning is not sustainable for Newcastle United with a shit/average first team as the manager will get the sack before he see's the fruits of his & other peoples work.

[TRon]

Pigs are often portrayed as stupid, greedy fat animals with no standards, which I feel is unfair. There is good scientific evidence which proves pigs are cleverer than many other animals. My view is that Shepherd, like the pig, isn't as stupid as many other animals so perhaps he doesn't deserve all the flak he gets.

 

 

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

http://tf.org/images/covers/groundhog_day.avi_download.jpg

 

Someone who has been "away" for a few weeks has set about ruining this forum again immediately on his return.

 

how am I "ruining" it. Because you don't have factual information to contradict mine ?

 

Poor that mate. You post facts, and convince me I'm wrong ?

 

By the way, the topic of the thread is about the board of the club. Why is it not relevant to look at the progress we have made, or otherwise, under the new board, and our prospects of doing better than their predecessors ?

 

 

 

Why are you arguing with me when I'm not even involved in or intersted in discussing this with you?  You're kind of proving my point about exactly what you are doing!

[Parky]

THe man who needs to say he's incharge reveals he isn't incharge.

[Mick]

 

Most of us like the idea of the club being built with youth coming through or bought into the ranks, but with ANC & some failings in our current team/squad I am not sure this is the best thing to do in January. As fans a lot of us go to watch the first team & it is only there result that really matters & it is only the players signed to play in the first team now that count. I am not saying this is my view point, more of the real world. Long term planning is not sustainable for Newcastle United with a s***/average first team as the manager will get the sack before he see's the fruits of his & other peoples work.

 

 

We've had to build the team/squad up to the current level because we got rid of so many players, we had to pad out the team which has been done.

 

We might suffer a bit in January when we lose players but that will last for weeks, we're building much longer term and can't really keep taking a short term view.  We haven't got too many players who are young and capable of coming through, I just see what we're aiming to do in January as another sign of progress as a club, we need to bring in flair and we should do it if possible in January but long term, we don't need to replace the players who go to the African Nations Cup.

 

The daft thing is that we've done better recently with a settled side which will be changed again soon, this should give other players a chance to come good and possibly get a few games which they wouldn't have got without this tournament.

 

I think of all of the players going away, we'll miss two, Faye and Beye.  We should be OK up front as we'll have Owen back and we'll be able to move Milner to the right and bring N'Zogbia into his best position by putting Enrique on the left side of defence, it doesn't look too bad as we'll also have Taylor fit again.

[Dr Venkman]

 

Well. He wasn't.

 

Can't you read.

 

 

 

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!

 

Its quite amazing the amount of things people change on here, to suit their "opinions".

 

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

[fredbob]

i refuse to believe there's just a simple fan/chairman relationship going on with NE5 and Shepherd, its baffling mate, honestly, how you spin things to suit, for example saying things like 'they're happy with mid table mediocrity this season' etc etc, you've removed all context, i'll be happy with mid table this season, it'll be an improvement, we've been s*** for years and we need to build back up to strength, i just DONT understand you

 

 

I take it you haven't read Morts comments about spendign in January [/astonished]

 

You must be someone else who can't accept bare facts laid out in front of you, when they don't suit your opinions ?

 

Basically, if the club don't act to fill glaring hole in the team, and say they won't act, what conclusion do you draw ?

 

We haven't been s*** for years either BTW. I thought you were one of the better posters, until you said that.

 

 

 

yeah, i've seen his comments, it made sense to me,  i'm giving him a clean slate so i'll wait until the end of the season to make my judgement on how their first season in charge went, given the circumstances

 

bare facts? we're specualting over what the club MIGHT do in january, there are no facts yet, and facts change my opinions, so, eh, what?

 

i'm not sure if its a break down in communication but as far as i'm aware by saying years that can class as 2 years at the least, and i feel pretty assured that we've been s*** for at least two years, i dont really mind what you think of me

 

 

well, I suppose if you've followed the club for 5 or 6 years, then the last 2 years could seem a long time.

 

And if you've only supported the club since 1992, then the last few years have been comparitively not too good.

 

But if you've supported the club longer than that, they have been a long way short of s***, and for that, you'll have to take my word for it.

 

 

 

no i wont, there are many other sources of information, i dont have to take your word for anything, you've never said anything thats changed my views, as i'm sure i've never said anything thats changed yours, might aswell just pack it in

 

 

Aye, and other sources of information will confirm that we have been a damn sight worse in previous decades than in the last couple of years.

 

oh you're joining in are you? i wasnt beamed into the planet 2 years ago, i have a decent understanding of our history, i still think we've been s*** for the last few years, i was simply saying i dont have to take his word for it because he tends to get a bit preachy if you dont nip it in the bud

 

Where was the, "na na ni na na....." I'm sure it would fit in well after your hissy bit in bold.

 

If you have any understanding of the history of the club you'll know that as poor as the last few seasons have been there have been far, far worse in the memory of MANY supporters who still go to matches today.

 

If you have any understanding of the history of the club you'll know that as poor as the last few seasons have been there have been far, far worse in the memory of MANY supporters who still go to matches today.

 

Anyone who is remotely successful in there life, are never happy with what they achieve. What you're saying there is that many people are grateful becasue of what they had to see. Well, im saying that in 92 we were in a position to estabilish ourselves as a dominant force in the premiership, we were on a level playin field with everyone, infact come 95(?) we were in a position to estabilish ourselves as THE dominant team in the premiership, but becasue oft he ineptitude of the board , failed, we fell so far behind it seems like an impossible task to do but we did. So by the modern view, what has been achieved isnt good enough, we didnt take the oppurtunity we were given therefore we wasted a golden oppurtunity, there cant be any excuse for that. No matter how bad it was.

 

You're quite clearly one of these "it'll do" people.

 

 

You clearly have absolutely no idea of where the old board found the club, claiming they were "inept". Must admit, this has made me laugh. In 1995 Sir John was chairman, Keegan was manager, and it was the year before we nearly won the league. Such is your lack of knowledge, you put a question mark against it. Credibily destroyed, I'm afraid.

 

 

 

Yeh i understnd that, i understand about the state of the club was abhorrent pre Fletcher, Hall and Shep, what im trying to say, and as you have correctly pointed out my knowledge basis isnt fantastic on the account of having a life etc, but from my point of view, irrespective of who was in charge of the club or the position we were in i feel we wasted a golden oppurtunity to be a huge club.

 

Now i dont claim to be a SOOPAFAN, i wouldnt dare pass myself of as that, all im tryin to do is offer my views on the clubs recent history, not the past, becasues thats not strictly relevant. Supposing the club started was created in 92, and what happened in the past didnt exist, how would you view the current situation and handling of the club?

 

Thats the point of view that i am using.

 

but it wasn't, was it.

 

Do you really think that qualifying for europe more than every team bar 4 over the last 10 years is s*** ?  mackems.gif

 

Right ok, finally, i'm starting to grasp your point a little, thankfully with you're help (ironically)!

 

I beleive by the sounds of it HTL has the same opinion as you, its unformtunate though that he hasnt contributed anything remotely interesting or important. Im someone who is keen to see someone elses point of view and try to understand from different points of views and have actually asked for some of his views about something which i dont fully understand and havent really got anything interesting from him. Thats pretty pathetic if you ask me. I dont like the "i know more than you, little boy" attitude, its extremely frustrating for someone who is actually keen to get that knowledge.

 

Im a relatvely new poster so while my views maybe simialr to others you've clearly argued with in the past, they arent the same so i'd rather not be painted with the same tar brush.

 

So, to my point, i beleive and please correct me if i am wrong, that you are partially crediting Shepard for the massive revival of this club, and the past is relevant becasue its the past that Shepard dragged us out of. You're saying that Shepards achievement for this club would be akin to say Ken Bates getting Leeds back into the premiership and playing in Europe, or maybe even a side in a more perilous situation. As a younger person I genuinely dont know the exact situation of the club in the darker days.

 

Would that be correct?

 

Would i be wrong in saying that the crux of your argument for Shepard, is that you believe that his greatest achievement for this club wasnt his European qualifications, or the FA cup finals, or CL qualifiaction or even title contenders that we take for granted but that he was partly responsible for putting the club in a position to be considering these things as an actual possiblity? People dont understand the magnitude of what he actually achieved.

 

If this is true, then i think i finally see where you're coming from, and i have to agree with you, as much as i hate to say it.

 

Shepards achievements would be comparable to say someone getting Millwall into the premiership and then qualifying for Europe consistently even having a stint as title challengers and bulding magnificent facilite and a stadium for the club. I'm not sure if thats a good example feel free to me correct if im wrong.

 

Finally i think i can see things from your point of view, although your condensending way of arguing is such a struggle to try and understand, almost as antagonistic and petulant as HTL but not quite.

 

The flip side to this argumetn comes from people who werent around the dark days and so by no fault of there own arent fully able to grasp the magnitude of his achievements and so look at his recenet achievements as a Chairman which tey have every right to. i think they argue the fact that while he did help get us into the position that he did, he failed to get us to the next step, it sticks in the mind so much nowadays because before he took over as chairman we were in a fantastic situation, title challengers, and byt the end of his reign we were a mid table team. The reasons for this slump can be debated for ever, and noone will be right or wrong, however one thing that cant be denied is that by the end of his reign we werent in the position that we should/could of been even though we were in a fastastic position to do so, and that will forever be deemed as a failure in my book.

 

When you have the means to achieve something and its a very real possiblity, when you dont progres to where you hoped to be, no matter how much you dress it up, or talk about the past it will always be deemed failure.

 

He made some horrendous gaffs and they are the mistakes that will stick in mind.

 

At the risk of using another crap analogy, will tony blair be remembered for bringin peace to the NI, ROIreland? (A massive achievemtn) or rememebered for the mistakes in Iraq? (In my opinion a massive gaff). Most people will remember him for Iraq, just like most people will remember Shepard for Souness, treament of SBR, Roeder etc.

 

Thst pretty much presents both sides of the arguments, and i suppose i agree with both.

 

 

 

One of your arguments is that under shepard we qulaified for europe more times than any other team outside the top4, you could say that....

OR

you could say under Shepards stweardship we fininhsed in the top 10 only 4 times out of 10 seasons, and 3 of those 4, top 10 fininshes were achieved by one manager who was sacked. One of 5 shepard sackings.

 

Both are contain correct stats, one paints the truer picture. If you understand this statment, then i am sure you will start to see the point of view of those people who are anti Shepard, not necessarily agree with them, but understand them.

 

And bytheway, i dont think there is anyone who actually thinks that Shepard was the worst chairman ever.

 

 

[Dr Venkman]

 

Someone who has been "away" for a few weeks has set about ruining this forum again immediately on his return.

 

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

[Guest elbee909]

 

Well. He wasn't.

 

Can't you read.

 

 

 

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!

 

Its quite amazing the amount of things people change on here, to suit their "opinions".

 

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.

 

I assume you mean I'm one of those in that band, rather than a football club.

 

Can't wait until Ashley matches those Champions League qualifications.

 

Same here, as then you and others might stop going on about Shepherd.

 

The point about Sullivan, is that he's a rich chairman [who cares how they get their money, I don't], who doesn't appear to have much ambition for his football club. And appointed Steve Bruce, and Trevor Francis. And didn't do anywhere near as well as our old board. But its run like a "business". Get it ?

 

No, I don't get what your point is.  I'm sure it's my fault for being unintelligent rather than yours for not clarifying what the hell you're on about.  My guess is that you're making faulty associations, e.g. being run like a "business" equates to always lacking ambition.  Or saying because there are worst chairmen than Shepherd was, that means he was perfect. 

 

(Of course I know you don't think he was perfect, but then I don't think I said he was the "worstest ever", you still pin statements and arguments to people to suit your own ends.)

 

At least my daft comments are knee-jerk ones, you take bloody ages to come up with daftness.

[Howaythelads]

Someone who has been "away" for a few weeks has set about ruining this forum again immediately on his return.

 

The people who ruin the forum are those who automatically post negatively against the opinion of certain individuals (not just NE5) based on who is making the post rather than the content of the post. If people would get their head out of their arse and read what he's posting they will find it makes sense.

 

EG If you seriously believe that under the previous board, major decisions were made by one individual acting alone, then you (and others) are frankly a bit dim. I appreciate there is a dilemma here for some. Admitting that big decisions were made by a group of people is obviously going to mean some people can't continue with their childish pastime of slating one individual for everything.

 

Think about it, before you blurt something out....

[Howaythelads]

 

Well. He wasn't.

 

Can't you read.

 

 

 

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!

 

Its quite amazing the amount of things people change on here, to suit their "opinions".

 

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.

 

 

Might be confusing you with somebody else, but aren't you that Celtic fan? Just thought I'd ask.