Mort: I’m in charge

[fredbob]

Your desperation not to give credit to Shepherd simply for being a fat b****** who eats all the pies is incredible. Sir John Hall would not have appointed Keegan. It was someone else's idea. End of story, really.

 

For all we know, if Shepherd had been the major shareholder, the club may not have gone PLC and lost Keegan ? This also, is a supposition, exactly the same as the ones you make ?

 

Ref your "business" comments, I will repeat. I don't think many companies would complain if their "business" was the 5th most marketable in the country over a time span of a decade.

 

Lastly, I have never defended the appointment of Souness, I despised him for years and never wanted this appointment, however there were many people on this forum who DID defend him and said we should stick with him. So you are addressing these comments at the wrong person.

 

What is your opinion on the planned ground development of Liverpool BTW, do you think they should stay at Anfield, or do you think expanding stadiums are "good business decisions", even when they bring about debts ? Or is it different when they aren't fat bastards that eat all the pies 

 

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with.

 

I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world.

 

Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam.

 

Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc.

 

Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship.

 

As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch.

 

And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept.

 

Not sure i have the energy to argue the point any more, but 2 things to add to your post are the attempt to sign Boa Morte, £5m too much but £9.5m on Luque wasnt. It just reeked of a cynical ploy to draw in the fans, what sells more, brand spangly Luque or run of the mill seen it before Boa morte.

 

Also dint he buy a warehouse for £150k and rent it out to the club for £500k per annum. If ever there was a fact that underlined his true motives for the business or even showed his exploitivitve nature of the club and fans, that would be it.

 

Complete utter rubbish.

 

And who cares about a warehouse, this sort of thing goes on in "business" everywhere anyway.

 

If you want to watch a team that buys 2m and 3m type players, you should support the mackems, or NUFC for 30 years pre-1992. In fact, we signed a few cheap type players last summer, no doubt you are happy with the resultant team, and if so, stop whinging then

 

 

 

Bit of a sore point?

 

I care about the implication of the warehouse renting. Seems a bit daft to call in "utter rubbsh" arent they FACTS as you like to call them.

 

Also, Boa Morte was a very good player, not sure if it was the tosh that was around him that made him look better but everytime i saw him against big teams he looked very dangerous.

 

"If you want to see a team who buys 2m and 3m type players, you should support the Mackems of NUFC for 30 years pre-1992" - Oh dear, i cant even begin to tell you what is wrong with everything you've just said there. What a horrible statement.

 

Are you sure you're not Freddy Shepard? Come on, tell me! Be honest now!

[Guest BooBoo]

Your desperation not to give credit to Shepherd simply for being a fat b****** who eats all the pies is incredible. Sir John Hall would not have appointed Keegan. It was someone else's idea. End of story, really.

 

For all we know, if Shepherd had been the major shareholder, the club may not have gone PLC and lost Keegan ? This also, is a supposition, exactly the same as the ones you make ?

 

Ref your "business" comments, I will repeat. I don't think many companies would complain if their "business" was the 5th most marketable in the country over a time span of a decade.

 

Lastly, I have never defended the appointment of Souness, I despised him for years and never wanted this appointment, however there were many people on this forum who DID defend him and said we should stick with him. So you are addressing these comments at the wrong person.

 

What is your opinion on the planned ground development of Liverpool BTW, do you think they should stay at Anfield, or do you think expanding stadiums are "good business decisions", even when they bring about debts ? Or is it different when they aren't fat bastards that eat all the pies 

 

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with.

 

I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world.

 

Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam.

 

Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc.

 

Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship.

 

As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch.

 

And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept.

 

Not sure i have the energy to argue the point any more, but 2 things to add to your post are the attempt to sign Boa Morte, £5m too much but £9.5m on Luque wasnt. It just reeked of a cynical ploy to draw in the fans, what sells more, brand spangly Luque or run of the mill seen it before Boa morte.

 

Also dint he buy a warehouse for £150k and rent it out to the club for £500k per annum. If ever there was a fact that underlined his true motives for the business or even showed his exploitivitve nature of the club and fans, that would be it.

 

Complete utter rubbish.

 

And who cares about a warehouse, this sort of thing goes on in "business" everywhere anyway.

 

If you want to watch a team that buys 2m and 3m type players, you should support the mackems, or NUFC for 30 years pre-1992. In fact, we signed a few cheap type players last summer, no doubt you are happy with the resultant team, and if so, stop whinging then

 

 

 

When on earth did NUFC buy £2m-£3m players prior to 1992?

 

Yet more garbage from the court jester and proof that the kid doesnt know what he's talking about.

 

Oh dear + smilie.

 

 

 

[NE5]

Your desperation not to give credit to Shepherd simply for being a fat b****** who eats all the pies is incredible. Sir John Hall would not have appointed Keegan. It was someone else's idea. End of story, really.

 

For all we know, if Shepherd had been the major shareholder, the club may not have gone PLC and lost Keegan ? This also, is a supposition, exactly the same as the ones you make ?

 

Ref your "business" comments, I will repeat. I don't think many companies would complain if their "business" was the 5th most marketable in the country over a time span of a decade.

 

Lastly, I have never defended the appointment of Souness, I despised him for years and never wanted this appointment, however there were many people on this forum who DID defend him and said we should stick with him. So you are addressing these comments at the wrong person.

 

What is your opinion on the planned ground development of Liverpool BTW, do you think they should stay at Anfield, or do you think expanding stadiums are "good business decisions", even when they bring about debts ? Or is it different when they aren't fat bastards that eat all the pies 

 

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with.

 

I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world.

 

Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam.

 

Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc.

 

Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship.

 

As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch.

 

And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept.

 

Not sure i have the energy to argue the point any more, but 2 things to add to your post are the attempt to sign Boa Morte, £5m too much but £9.5m on Luque wasnt. It just reeked of a cynical ploy to draw in the fans, what sells more, brand spangly Luque or run of the mill seen it before Boa morte.

 

Also dint he buy a warehouse for £150k and rent it out to the club for £500k per annum. If ever there was a fact that underlined his true motives for the business or even showed his exploitivitve nature of the club and fans, that would be it.

 

Complete utter rubbish.

 

And who cares about a warehouse, this sort of thing goes on in "business" everywhere anyway.

 

If you want to watch a team that buys 2m and 3m type players, you should support the mackems, or NUFC for 30 years pre-1992. In fact, we signed a few cheap type players last summer, no doubt you are happy with the resultant team, and if so, stop whinging then

 

 

When on earth did NUFC buy £2m-£3m players prior to 1992?

 

Yet more garbage from the court jester and proof that the kid doesnt know what he's talking about.

 

Oh dear + smilie.

 

 

 

 

yet another post from you saying absolutely nothing. I suggest you go back to the pub and laugh at your own players, you certainly don't have much of a clue to do anything else.

 

You could however, explain your objections to the club allowing their manager to spend 9m on a player that he rated as being quality and worth the money, as that is what it appears you are doing.

 

Somehow I think this will be beyond you.

 

 

[NE5]

Your desperation not to give credit to Shepherd simply for being a fat b****** who eats all the pies is incredible. Sir John Hall would not have appointed Keegan. It was someone else's idea. End of story, really.

 

For all we know, if Shepherd had been the major shareholder, the club may not have gone PLC and lost Keegan ? This also, is a supposition, exactly the same as the ones you make ?

 

Ref your "business" comments, I will repeat. I don't think many companies would complain if their "business" was the 5th most marketable in the country over a time span of a decade.

 

Lastly, I have never defended the appointment of Souness, I despised him for years and never wanted this appointment, however there were many people on this forum who DID defend him and said we should stick with him. So you are addressing these comments at the wrong person.

 

What is your opinion on the planned ground development of Liverpool BTW, do you think they should stay at Anfield, or do you think expanding stadiums are "good business decisions", even when they bring about debts ? Or is it different when they aren't fat bastards that eat all the pies 

 

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with.

 

I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world.

 

Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam.

 

Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc.

 

Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship.

 

As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch.

 

And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept.

 

Not sure i have the energy to argue the point any more, but 2 things to add to your post are the attempt to sign Boa Morte, £5m too much but £9.5m on Luque wasnt. It just reeked of a cynical ploy to draw in the fans, what sells more, brand spangly Luque or run of the mill seen it before Boa morte.

 

Also dint he buy a warehouse for £150k and rent it out to the club for £500k per annum. If ever there was a fact that underlined his true motives for the business or even showed his exploitivitve nature of the club and fans, that would be it.

 

Complete utter rubbish.

 

And who cares about a warehouse, this sort of thing goes on in "business" everywhere anyway.

 

If you want to watch a team that buys 2m and 3m type players, you should support the mackems, or NUFC for 30 years pre-1992. In fact, we signed a few cheap type players last summer, no doubt you are happy with the resultant team, and if so, stop whinging then

 

 

 

Bit of a sore point?

 

I care about the implication of the warehouse renting. Seems a bit daft to call in "utter rubbsh" arent they FACTS as you like to call them.

 

Also, Boa Morte was a very good player, not sure if it was the tosh that was around him that made him look better but everytime i saw him against big teams he looked very dangerous.

 

"If you want to see a team who buys 2m and 3m type players, you should support the Mackems of NUFC for 30 years pre-1992" - Oh dear, i cant even begin to tell you what is wrong with everything you've just said there. What a horrible statement.

 

Are you sure you're not Freddy Shepard? Come on, tell me! Be honest now!

 

I really think, if you have any credibility left at all, you could at least begin to spell people's names correctly.

 

Your insinuation is so stupid, its just not worth even commenting on.

 

My comment will make perfect sense to people that understand the history of the club.

 

 

[NE5]

Your desperation not to give credit to Shepherd simply for being a fat b****** who eats all the pies is incredible. Sir John Hall would not have appointed Keegan. It was someone else's idea. End of story, really.

 

For all we know, if Shepherd had been the major shareholder, the club may not have gone PLC and lost Keegan ? This also, is a supposition, exactly the same as the ones you make ?

 

Ref your "business" comments, I will repeat. I don't think many companies would complain if their "business" was the 5th most marketable in the country over a time span of a decade.

 

Lastly, I have never defended the appointment of Souness, I despised him for years and never wanted this appointment, however there were many people on this forum who DID defend him and said we should stick with him. So you are addressing these comments at the wrong person.

 

What is your opinion on the planned ground development of Liverpool BTW, do you think they should stay at Anfield, or do you think expanding stadiums are "good business decisions", even when they bring about debts ? Or is it different when they aren't fat bastards that eat all the pies 

 

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with.

 

I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world.

 

Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam.

 

Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc.

 

Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship.

 

As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch.

 

And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept.

 

You still insist that one man ran the football club, if that isn't an agenda, I don't know what is.

 

If you also still insist that football is the same as a high street business, please tell us what high street business would be unhappy to achieve the 5th best results in the country over a decade ?

 

How do you know we didn't have a manager lined up to replace Bobby Robson ? What difference does the "timing" make ? We've been through this before, so do you think that we should have stuck with Gullit and not replaced him with Bobby Robson because it was "the wrong time" ? What utter bollocks. What good has Allardyce having the summer did him so far ? More utter bollocks, but hey, keep spouting the cliches in your quest to discredit the old board at every opportunity.

 

Dogless Hall said that sacking Bobby Robson was the right decision, by the way, not Shepherd. I don't suppose that will alter your "opinion" that it was Shepherd though.

 

Terry Venables is one of the highest regarded coaches in the game by the way, and to this date is the last English manager to manage a team that reached the European Cup Final. Just thought I would tell you that.

 

Do you think the Birmingham and Wigan chairman are better than Shepherd and Hall for appointing Bruce ? Don;t let facts spoil your "opinion" though.

 

I see you have moved this on from discussing the spending of money now, as your total hypocrisy has been shown.

 

 

 

If you also still insist that football is the same as a high street business, please tell us what high street business would be unhappy to achieve the 5th best results in the country over a decade ?

 

In the past ten years, didnt we fininsh 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, 13th? Hardly 5th best results.

 

How many businesses do you think look at the current state of business with the context being what has been achieved in the past??

 

You're really struggling to grasp this concept.

 

I mean, how many businesses try and justify mistakes made in the present with arguments such as "we did well in 96", "94 was a good year", "you should of seen the state of the business in 87".

 

Just out of interest, where do you think nufc stood as a club before Shepard took a direct involvlement, i.e became chairmen?

 

Who do you think is accountable for the digression of the business?

 

Do you think the past achievemnts of those in charge are relevant to the digression of the current state?

 

I suggest you look at our league positions for the 30 years previous to this.

 

If you don't understand that this shows how far forward the club moved, then I'm sorry, but its your problem.

 

 

[fredbob]

Your desperation not to give credit to Shepherd simply for being a fat b****** who eats all the pies is incredible. Sir John Hall would not have appointed Keegan. It was someone else's idea. End of story, really.

 

For all we know, if Shepherd had been the major shareholder, the club may not have gone PLC and lost Keegan ? This also, is a supposition, exactly the same as the ones you make ?

 

Ref your "business" comments, I will repeat. I don't think many companies would complain if their "business" was the 5th most marketable in the country over a time span of a decade.

 

Lastly, I have never defended the appointment of Souness, I despised him for years and never wanted this appointment, however there were many people on this forum who DID defend him and said we should stick with him. So you are addressing these comments at the wrong person.

 

What is your opinion on the planned ground development of Liverpool BTW, do you think they should stay at Anfield, or do you think expanding stadiums are "good business decisions", even when they bring about debts ? Or is it different when they aren't fat bastards that eat all the pies 

 

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with.

 

I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world.

 

Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam.

 

Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc.

 

Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship.

 

As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch.

 

And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept.

 

Not sure i have the energy to argue the point any more, but 2 things to add to your post are the attempt to sign Boa Morte, £5m too much but £9.5m on Luque wasnt. It just reeked of a cynical ploy to draw in the fans, what sells more, brand spangly Luque or run of the mill seen it before Boa morte.

 

Also dint he buy a warehouse for £150k and rent it out to the club for £500k per annum. If ever there was a fact that underlined his true motives for the business or even showed his exploitivitve nature of the club and fans, that would be it.

 

Complete utter rubbish.

 

And who cares about a warehouse, this sort of thing goes on in "business" everywhere anyway.

 

If you want to watch a team that buys 2m and 3m type players, you should support the mackems, or NUFC for 30 years pre-1992. In fact, we signed a few cheap type players last summer, no doubt you are happy with the resultant team, and if so, stop whinging then

 

 

When on earth did NUFC buy £2m-£3m players prior to 1992?

 

Yet more garbage from the court jester and proof that the kid doesnt know what he's talking about.

 

Oh dear + smilie.

 

 

 

 

yet another post from you saying absolutely nothing. I suggest you go back to the pub and laugh at your own players, you certainly don't have much of a clue to do anything else.

 

You could however, explain your objections to the club allowing their manager to spend 9m on a player that he rated as being quality and worth the money, as that is what it appears you are doing.

 

Somehow I think this will be beyond you.

 

 

 

 

errrr....who was it that Souness actually wanted and why was he not signed in your opinion?

 

[fredbob]

Your desperation not to give credit to Shepherd simply for being a fat b****** who eats all the pies is incredible. Sir John Hall would not have appointed Keegan. It was someone else's idea. End of story, really.

 

For all we know, if Shepherd had been the major shareholder, the club may not have gone PLC and lost Keegan ? This also, is a supposition, exactly the same as the ones you make ?

 

Ref your "business" comments, I will repeat. I don't think many companies would complain if their "business" was the 5th most marketable in the country over a time span of a decade.

 

Lastly, I have never defended the appointment of Souness, I despised him for years and never wanted this appointment, however there were many people on this forum who DID defend him and said we should stick with him. So you are addressing these comments at the wrong person.

 

What is your opinion on the planned ground development of Liverpool BTW, do you think they should stay at Anfield, or do you think expanding stadiums are "good business decisions", even when they bring about debts ? Or is it different when they aren't fat bastards that eat all the pies 

 

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with.

 

I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world.

 

Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam.

 

Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc.

 

Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship.

 

As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch.

 

And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept.

 

Not sure i have the energy to argue the point any more, but 2 things to add to your post are the attempt to sign Boa Morte, £5m too much but £9.5m on Luque wasnt. It just reeked of a cynical ploy to draw in the fans, what sells more, brand spangly Luque or run of the mill seen it before Boa morte.

 

Also dint he buy a warehouse for £150k and rent it out to the club for £500k per annum. If ever there was a fact that underlined his true motives for the business or even showed his exploitivitve nature of the club and fans, that would be it.

 

Complete utter rubbish.

 

And who cares about a warehouse, this sort of thing goes on in "business" everywhere anyway.

 

If you want to watch a team that buys 2m and 3m type players, you should support the mackems, or NUFC for 30 years pre-1992. In fact, we signed a few cheap type players last summer, no doubt you are happy with the resultant team, and if so, stop whinging then

 

 

 

Bit of a sore point?

 

I care about the implication of the warehouse renting. Seems a bit daft to call in "utter rubbsh" arent they FACTS as you like to call them.

 

Also, Boa Morte was a very good player, not sure if it was the tosh that was around him that made him look better but everytime i saw him against big teams he looked very dangerous.

 

"If you want to see a team who buys 2m and 3m type players, you should support the Mackems of NUFC for 30 years pre-1992" - Oh dear, i cant even begin to tell you what is wrong with everything you've just said there. What a horrible statement.

 

Are you sure you're not Freddy Shepard? Come on, tell me! Be honest now!

 

I really think, if you have any credibility left at all, you could at least begin to spell people's names correctly.

 

Your insinuation is so stupid, its just not worth even commenting on.

 

My comment will make perfect sense to people that understand the history of the club.

 

 

 

It was trluy a horrific car crash of a statement NE5. If you cant see what is wrong with that statement then i dont know what else i can say to you. You're really missing the point. Truly astonishing.

[Baggio]

It doesn't matter that the chairman bought a warehouse off the club cheap and was happy to rip the club off by renting it back? mackems.gif

[fredbob]

Your desperation not to give credit to Shepherd simply for being a fat b****** who eats all the pies is incredible. Sir John Hall would not have appointed Keegan. It was someone else's idea. End of story, really.

 

For all we know, if Shepherd had been the major shareholder, the club may not have gone PLC and lost Keegan ? This also, is a supposition, exactly the same as the ones you make ?

 

Ref your "business" comments, I will repeat. I don't think many companies would complain if their "business" was the 5th most marketable in the country over a time span of a decade.

 

Lastly, I have never defended the appointment of Souness, I despised him for years and never wanted this appointment, however there were many people on this forum who DID defend him and said we should stick with him. So you are addressing these comments at the wrong person.

 

What is your opinion on the planned ground development of Liverpool BTW, do you think they should stay at Anfield, or do you think expanding stadiums are "good business decisions", even when they bring about debts ? Or is it different when they aren't fat bastards that eat all the pies 

 

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with.

 

I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world.

 

Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam.

 

Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc.

 

Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship.

 

As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch.

 

And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept.

 

You still insist that one man ran the football club, if that isn't an agenda, I don't know what is.

 

If you also still insist that football is the same as a high street business, please tell us what high street business would be unhappy to achieve the 5th best results in the country over a decade ?

 

How do you know we didn't have a manager lined up to replace Bobby Robson ? What difference does the "timing" make ? We've been through this before, so do you think that we should have stuck with Gullit and not replaced him with Bobby Robson because it was "the wrong time" ? What utter bollocks. What good has Allardyce having the summer did him so far ? More utter bollocks, but hey, keep spouting the cliches in your quest to discredit the old board at every opportunity.

 

Dogless Hall said that sacking Bobby Robson was the right decision, by the way, not Shepherd. I don't suppose that will alter your "opinion" that it was Shepherd though.

 

Terry Venables is one of the highest regarded coaches in the game by the way, and to this date is the last English manager to manage a team that reached the European Cup Final. Just thought I would tell you that.

 

Do you think the Birmingham and Wigan chairman are better than Shepherd and Hall for appointing Bruce ? Don;t let facts spoil your "opinion" though.

 

I see you have moved this on from discussing the spending of money now, as your total hypocrisy has been shown.

 

 

 

If you also still insist that football is the same as a high street business, please tell us what high street business would be unhappy to achieve the 5th best results in the country over a decade ?

 

In the past ten years, didnt we fininsh 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, 13th? Hardly 5th best results.

 

How many businesses do you think look at the current state of business with the context being what has been achieved in the past??

 

You're really struggling to grasp this concept.

 

I mean, how many businesses try and justify mistakes made in the present with arguments such as "we did well in 96", "94 was a good year", "you should of seen the state of the business in 87".

 

Just out of interest, where do you think nufc stood as a club before Shepard took a direct involvlement, i.e became chairmen?

 

Who do you think is accountable for the digression of the business?

 

Do you think the past achievemnts of those in charge are relevant to the digression of the current state?

 

I suggest you look at our league positions for the 30 years previous to this.

 

If you don't understand that this shows how far forward the club moved, then I'm sorry, but its your problem.

 

 

 

Oh dear, again, you fail to see the club in a modern context. You're treating the club as though it will end tomorrow. If it did, then by all means, the old board achieved astonishing things, and deserve all the plaudits. But in the modern context the DAY they left the club, they left it in a precariuos situation, both financially and footballing wise due to some horrendous decisions. It undermined all there other achievements. Although not their greatest one.

[NE5]

Your desperation not to give credit to Shepherd simply for being a fat b****** who eats all the pies is incredible. Sir John Hall would not have appointed Keegan. It was someone else's idea. End of story, really.

 

For all we know, if Shepherd had been the major shareholder, the club may not have gone PLC and lost Keegan ? This also, is a supposition, exactly the same as the ones you make ?

 

Ref your "business" comments, I will repeat. I don't think many companies would complain if their "business" was the 5th most marketable in the country over a time span of a decade.

 

Lastly, I have never defended the appointment of Souness, I despised him for years and never wanted this appointment, however there were many people on this forum who DID defend him and said we should stick with him. So you are addressing these comments at the wrong person.

 

What is your opinion on the planned ground development of Liverpool BTW, do you think they should stay at Anfield, or do you think expanding stadiums are "good business decisions", even when they bring about debts ? Or is it different when they aren't fat bastards that eat all the pies 

 

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with.

 

I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world.

 

Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam.

 

Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc.

 

Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship.

 

As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch.

 

And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept.

 

You still insist that one man ran the football club, if that isn't an agenda, I don't know what is.

 

If you also still insist that football is the same as a high street business, please tell us what high street business would be unhappy to achieve the 5th best results in the country over a decade ?

 

How do you know we didn't have a manager lined up to replace Bobby Robson ? What difference does the "timing" make ? We've been through this before, so do you think that we should have stuck with Gullit and not replaced him with Bobby Robson because it was "the wrong time" ? What utter bollocks. What good has Allardyce having the summer did him so far ? More utter bollocks, but hey, keep spouting the cliches in your quest to discredit the old board at every opportunity.

 

Dogless Hall said that sacking Bobby Robson was the right decision, by the way, not Shepherd. I don't suppose that will alter your "opinion" that it was Shepherd though.

 

Terry Venables is one of the highest regarded coaches in the game by the way, and to this date is the last English manager to manage a team that reached the European Cup Final. Just thought I would tell you that.

 

Do you think the Birmingham and Wigan chairman are better than Shepherd and Hall for appointing Bruce ? Don;t let facts spoil your "opinion" though.

 

I see you have moved this on from discussing the spending of money now, as your total hypocrisy has been shown.

 

 

 

If you also still insist that football is the same as a high street business, please tell us what high street business would be unhappy to achieve the 5th best results in the country over a decade ?

 

In the past ten years, didnt we fininsh 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, 13th? Hardly 5th best results.

 

How many businesses do you think look at the current state of business with the context being what has been achieved in the past??

 

You're really struggling to grasp this concept.

 

I mean, how many businesses try and justify mistakes made in the present with arguments such as "we did well in 96", "94 was a good year", "you should of seen the state of the business in 87".

 

Just out of interest, where do you think nufc stood as a club before Shepard took a direct involvlement, i.e became chairmen?

 

Who do you think is accountable for the digression of the business?

 

Do you think the past achievemnts of those in charge are relevant to the digression of the current state?

 

I suggest you look at our league positions for the 30 years previous to this.

 

If you don't understand that this shows how far forward the club moved, then I'm sorry, but its your problem.

 

 

 

Oh dear, again, you fail to see the club in a modern context. You're treating the club as though it will end tomorrow. If it did, then by all means, the old board achieved astonishing things, and deserve all the plaudits. But in the modern context the DAY they left the club, they left it in a precariuos situation, both financially and footballing wise due to some horrendous decisions. It undermined all there other achievements. Although not their greatest one.

 

Please tell us how we aren;t doing so well, as the new board are the bestest board in the world and don't do anything wrong, and the old board did nothing other than mess everybody around and were the most incompetent board that ever run a football club and absolutely anybody else would be miles better  mackems.gif

[fredbob]

I dont know of a single businessman who will look at their individual greatest success for the business as a sort of 'get out of jail free card' for any future failures for that business. Imagine someone setting a business back off the back of one crazy decision, is that person or persons excusable fort he current state of the business because of what he or she may have achieved for the business in the past.

 

I could point you in the direction of some businesses who sacked people for setting the business back if you want. How about one where the company sacked the founders son for setting the business back. It underlines the point im trying to make, becasue despite the fact that that persons father created the entire business and was therefore responsible for all the directors earining fat wedges he was still sacked off the back of a crazy decision. That is how business works. That is the view i take on the old boards running of nufc.

[NE5]

It doesn't matter that the chairman bought a warehouse off the club cheap and was happy to rip the club off by renting it back? mackems.gif

 

Naive young fool. Do you seriously think a few hundred grand a year is the difference between us challenging Chelsea.

 

Priceless.

 

mackems.gif

 

You have a lot to learn about life lad, if you think people in business don't do this sort of thing everywhere.

 

Fantastically hilarious.

 

Anyway, I'd prefer you not to bother me again.

 

 

[NE5]

I dont know of a single businessman who will look at their individual greatest success for the business as a sort of 'get out of jail free card' for any future failures for that business. Imagine someone setting a business back off the back of one crazy decision, is that person or persons excusable fort he current state of the business because of what he or she may have achieved for the business in the past.

 

I could point you in the direction of some businesses who sacked people for setting the business back if you want. How about one where the company sacked the founders son for setting the business back. It underlines the point im trying to make, becasue despite the fact that that persons father created the entire business and was therefore responsible for all the directors earining fat wedges he was still sacked off the back of a crazy decision. That is how business works. That is the view i take on the old boards running of nufc.

 

I really don't give a toss son. I'm talking about football. If you aren't happy with today and this season, then I suggest you contact the board and request they show some ambition. If not, and you're happy with this approach whereby they put balancing the books first, then stop whinging.

 

 

[fredbob]

Your desperation not to give credit to Shepherd simply for being a fat b****** who eats all the pies is incredible. Sir John Hall would not have appointed Keegan. It was someone else's idea. End of story, really.

 

For all we know, if Shepherd had been the major shareholder, the club may not have gone PLC and lost Keegan ? This also, is a supposition, exactly the same as the ones you make ?

 

Ref your "business" comments, I will repeat. I don't think many companies would complain if their "business" was the 5th most marketable in the country over a time span of a decade.

 

Lastly, I have never defended the appointment of Souness, I despised him for years and never wanted this appointment, however there were many people on this forum who DID defend him and said we should stick with him. So you are addressing these comments at the wrong person.

 

What is your opinion on the planned ground development of Liverpool BTW, do you think they should stay at Anfield, or do you think expanding stadiums are "good business decisions", even when they bring about debts ? Or is it different when they aren't fat bastards that eat all the pies 

 

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with.

 

I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world.

 

Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam.

 

Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc.

 

Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship.

 

As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch.

 

And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept.

 

You still insist that one man ran the football club, if that isn't an agenda, I don't know what is.

 

If you also still insist that football is the same as a high street business, please tell us what high street business would be unhappy to achieve the 5th best results in the country over a decade ?

 

How do you know we didn't have a manager lined up to replace Bobby Robson ? What difference does the "timing" make ? We've been through this before, so do you think that we should have stuck with Gullit and not replaced him with Bobby Robson because it was "the wrong time" ? What utter bollocks. What good has Allardyce having the summer did him so far ? More utter bollocks, but hey, keep spouting the cliches in your quest to discredit the old board at every opportunity.

 

Dogless Hall said that sacking Bobby Robson was the right decision, by the way, not Shepherd. I don't suppose that will alter your "opinion" that it was Shepherd though.

 

Terry Venables is one of the highest regarded coaches in the game by the way, and to this date is the last English manager to manage a team that reached the European Cup Final. Just thought I would tell you that.

 

Do you think the Birmingham and Wigan chairman are better than Shepherd and Hall for appointing Bruce ? Don;t let facts spoil your "opinion" though.

 

I see you have moved this on from discussing the spending of money now, as your total hypocrisy has been shown.

 

 

 

If you also still insist that football is the same as a high street business, please tell us what high street business would be unhappy to achieve the 5th best results in the country over a decade ?

 

In the past ten years, didnt we fininsh 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, 13th? Hardly 5th best results.

 

How many businesses do you think look at the current state of business with the context being what has been achieved in the past??

 

You're really struggling to grasp this concept.

 

I mean, how many businesses try and justify mistakes made in the present with arguments such as "we did well in 96", "94 was a good year", "you should of seen the state of the business in 87".

 

Just out of interest, where do you think nufc stood as a club before Shepard took a direct involvlement, i.e became chairmen?

 

Who do you think is accountable for the digression of the business?

 

Do you think the past achievemnts of those in charge are relevant to the digression of the current state?

 

I suggest you look at our league positions for the 30 years previous to this.

 

If you don't understand that this shows how far forward the club moved, then I'm sorry, but its your problem.

 

 

 

Oh dear, again, you fail to see the club in a modern context. You're treating the club as though it will end tomorrow. If it did, then by all means, the old board achieved astonishing things, and deserve all the plaudits. But in the modern context the DAY they left the club, they left it in a precariuos situation, both financially and footballing wise due to some horrendous decisions. It undermined all there other achievements. Although not their greatest one.

 

Please tell us how we aren;t doing so well, as the new board are the bestest board in the world and don't do anything wrong, and the old board did nothing other than mess everybody around and were the most incompetent board that ever run a football club and absolutely anybody else would be miles better  mackems.gif

 

The more you say the more it is clear that you have been having this debate for many years, like i said earlier, you dont have to paint me with the same tar brush as everyone else. Like ive said before, i happen to think the old board achieved amazing things, things which will not probably be seen for a long long time.

 

I just happen to have a ruthless opinion on the everall success of a business and therefore the board becasue i happen to understand business.

 

The stats show that they achieved pinnacles at 2 seperate periods of their history and both times they werent able to capitalise, the first pinnacle under keegan was acceptable, like you say they made possibly the correct decisions in appointments after keegan, although Gullit is questionable as a potential title winning manager. They fell back a few years with the utter destruction of the squad and team morale by the previous managers and went about searching for another top class manager, which they achieved.

 

Full marks so far, however this is when things went pear shaped, after achieveing an amazing turn around in fortunes the club not only failed to capatilise on the current sucess of the club, but single handedly destryoed the upturn in fortunes for the club, with what i call an inexplicable decsion to sack a manager who'd achieved good levels of success.  This is all without mentioning the constant undermining that the old board (ill say for arguments sake) did to SBR. The next 3 years were a disaster. And we now find ourselves in a place no less advanced than a team who had been relegated a little while after winning the title.

 

Now if you apply the same peaks and troughs to a business you'll se what the rest of us see in terms of the old boards achievements.

[Mick]

It doesn't matter that the chairman bought a warehouse off the club cheap and was happy to rip the club off by renting it back? mackems.gif

 

Yes you’re right, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, I'd go as far as to say its good business practice, and all good companies should do it.

 

The puzzling thing for me is that the new people have cancelled the agreement instead of taking full advantage of this best business practice, I think they’ve dropped a massive bollock but they’ll have to live with that decision.

[fredbob]

It doesn't matter that the chairman bought a warehouse off the club cheap and was happy to rip the club off by renting it back? mackems.gif

 

Naive young fool. Do you seriously think a few hundred grand a year is the difference between us challenging Chelsea.

 

Priceless.

 

mackems.gif

 

You have a lot to learn about life lad, if you think people in business don't do this sort of thing everywhere.

 

Fantastically hilarious.

 

Anyway, I'd prefer you not to bother me again.

 

 

 

Dont you think it's naive to beleive that the finanacial implications are the most important aspect of this fact.

 

Prime example of not seeing the big picture.

 

How does the fact that everyone else may do it make it any more acceptable?  

[Baggio]

It doesn't matter that the chairman bought a warehouse off the club cheap and was happy to rip the club off by renting it back? mackems.gif

 

Yes you’re right, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, I'd go as far as to say its good business practice, and all good companies should do it.

 

The puzzling thing for me is that the new people have cancelled the agreement instead of taking full advantage of this best business practice, I think they’ve dropped a massive bollock but they’ll have to live with that decision.

 

You could be onto something there, Mick.

[fredbob]

I dont know of a single businessman who will look at their individual greatest success for the business as a sort of 'get out of jail free card' for any future failures for that business. Imagine someone setting a business back off the back of one crazy decision, is that person or persons excusable fort he current state of the business because of what he or she may have achieved for the business in the past.

 

I could point you in the direction of some businesses who sacked people for setting the business back if you want. How about one where the company sacked the founders son for setting the business back. It underlines the point im trying to make, becasue despite the fact that that persons father created the entire business and was therefore responsible for all the directors earining fat wedges he was still sacked off the back of a crazy decision. That is how business works. That is the view i take on the old boards running of nufc.

 

I really don't give a toss son. I'm talking about football. If you aren't happy with today and this season, then I suggest you contact the board and request they show some ambition. If not, and you're happy with this approach whereby they put balancing the books first, then stop whinging.

 

 

 

So in that one sentence you've given youself the get out to completely ignore the post becasue its not strictly football but directly relevant to my arguments about football. Open ya mind sunshine. You might finally see the light. I know you can see what im saying is correct, it oozes out of everyone of your responses.

 

As for your second point....5 months mate and nowhere in those 5 months is there a quote saying the manager wont be backed. In fact i seem to be getting positive quotes out of SA which suggest a different perspective. Do you not see the same thing Mr Sheperd?

[Mick]

 

I really don't give a toss son. I'm talking about football. If you aren't happy with today and this season, then I suggest you contact the board and request they show some ambition. If not, and you're happy with this approach whereby they put balancing the books first, then stop whinging.

 

 

 

Would somebody contacting the board who have spent more than the average net spend under Shepherd not just look daft if they requested that they showed some ambition?

 

Is spending more than the average under Shepherd while spending £135 million buying the club and paying off £75 million of the £100 million debt not ambition enough?

[Mick]

I can't believe this thread has gone to 27 pages, I've been away for 5 days and thought this might have died, I guess I was wrong. 

[Dr Venkman]

It doesn't matter that the chairman bought a warehouse off the club cheap and was happy to rip the club off by renting it back? mackems.gif

 

Naive young fool. Do you seriously think a few hundred grand a year is the difference between us challenging Chelsea.

 

Priceless.

 

mackems.gif

 

You have a lot to learn about life lad, if you think people in business don't do this sort of thing everywhere.

 

Fantastically hilarious.

 

Anyway, I'd prefer you not to bother me again.

 

 

 

oh dear

[Howaythelads]

It doesn't matter that the chairman bought a warehouse off the club cheap and was happy to rip the club off by renting it back? mackems.gif

 

Naive young fool. Do you seriously think a few hundred grand a year is the difference between us challenging Chelsea.

 

Priceless.

 

mackems.gif

 

You have a lot to learn about life lad, if you think people in business don't do this sort of thing everywhere.

 

Fantastically hilarious.

 

Anyway, I'd prefer you not to bother me again.

 

 

 

oh dear

 

Another decent post from you. No lies, no misrepresentation. Keep it up.

[Guest BooBoo]

How wound up are the Brothers Dimm getting in this thread? They're absolutely livid!

 

:tickedoff:

 

 

[UV]

It doesn't matter that the chairman bought a warehouse off the club cheap and was happy to rip the club off by renting it back? mackems.gif

 

Yes youre right, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, I'd go as far as to say its good business practice, and all good companies should do it.

 

The puzzling thing for me is that the new people have cancelled the agreement instead of taking full advantage of this best business practice, I think theyve dropped a massive bollock but theyll have to live with that decision.

 

You could be onto something there, Mick.

 

I wonder how much Sports Direct are paying us in advertising revenue.

 

Would somebody contacting the board who have spent more than the average net spend under Shepherd not just look daft if they requested that they showed some ambition?

 

Is spending more than the average under Shepherd while spending 135 million buying the club and paying off 75 million of the 100 million debt not ambition enough?

 

Unless I've missed something it's only slightly more than the average spend so far (around 10m), so I don't know why you keep going on about that. If the team had been run into the ground so much by the previous managers/board, then surely initially it will take much more than the average previous spend just to get us back up to where the previous board were able to get us let alone better it? Either that or it will take a much longer time, very good scouting and even better management to build a team up from promising youth and cheap foreign undiscovered talent. Do you realistically think the supporters who are already starting to grumble in increasing numbers about Allardyce will have the patience to see that through without demanding changes? Do you think any future manager will be allowed the time to do it that way? I personally doubt it because I believe expectations have been raised so high it will take either relegation or a decade of mid table finishes to lower them to a point the majority of supporters would be happy with that. You can blame the old board for that if you like.

 

Serious question as I've not been following it, but where does this £100m debt figure come from? What did it consist of? I assume we've now fully paid off the stadium extension (45m?) but where's the other £55m come from? Is there any evidence of it other than just Mort's say so? I ask because even Macbeth didn't reckon the debt was anywhere near that much (didn't he say £20m or something), so how was this extra £35m hidden in the accounts?

[Thespence]

I wonder how much Sports Direct are paying us in advertising revenue.

 

More or less the same as Shepherd Offshore & Cameron Hall Developments I am guessing. At least they were not as crass as putting a banner up like the one that sits on Gallowgate but they did call a stand after SJH.