Mort: I’m in charge

[Lotus]

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....

Agree completely fwiw. However i'm intrigued by certain posters questioning Mort's ambition, as if he were the only to do with the club who made any kind of decisions whatsoever.

[Howaythelads]

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.

 

We tried to do that with the signings made by Robson when he was backed by the previous Board with this plan. It would have worked as well, had some of those young players not had a bad attitude and been twáts. Checking the personality of a person though is all a part of what you should do before signing a footballer and Robson got it wrong despite being backed.

 

I hope it works out for the new owners, but they'll have to back the manager the same as the previous lot backed Robson. Then we'll have to hope FS does a better job of selecting young players than Robson did.

[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.

 

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.

 

My point is twofold.

 

One is that people are automatically assuming that because Ashley is rich, he will have ambition for the club, which is not dependant on him spending his own money, nobody is asking him to do an Abramovic.

 

Two is that people are automatically assuming that because he isn't Shepherd [and the major shareholders the Halls] that he will be better.

 

On both counts, neither is automatic. In fact, both are far from it. You simply won't grasp this if you have convinced yourself that Shepherd is as bad as some people make out however, and can't see that the club has actually did well in many ways - although not as well as Liverpool, Arsenal, manU and Chelsea, but that goes without saying.

 

Its now Ashley and Morts turn to match them, but first, they have to match Shepherd and the Halls. Whether you like it or not, thats the truth, and PR stunts have absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

 

My point is twofold.

 

One is that people are automatically assuming that because Ashley is rich, he will have ambition for the club, which is not dependant on him spending his own money, nobody is asking him to do an Abramovic.

 

Two is that people are automatically assuming that because he isn't Shepherd [and the major shareholders the Halls] that he will be better.

 

On both counts, neither is automatic. In fact, both are far from it. You simply won't grasp this if you have convinced yourself that Shepherd is as bad as some people make out however, and can't see that the club has actually did well in many ways - although not as well as Liverpool, Arsenal, manU and Chelsea, but that goes without saying.

 

Its now Ashley and Morts turn to match them, but first, they have to match Shepherd and the Halls. Whether you like it or not, thats the truth, and PR stunts have absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

 

 

It is shocking that so many people (on this forum) have shown by their previous posts that they will not understand this.

 

[NE5]

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....

Agree completely fwiw. However i'm intrigued by certain posters questioning Mort's ambition, as if he were the only to do with the club who made any kind of decisions whatsoever.

 

Well, at least you can grasp that he isn't the owner / major shareholder. But neither was Shepherd. If you are consistent in the way you look at things, you will accept that Shepherd wasn't solely to blame [or credit] for the clubs fortunes. Neither is Mort.

 

But we are worried by the comments coming out of the club, although actions speak louder than words, some people have heard things like this before. They appear to be putting off spending money on the team, which indicates to me that it isn't on the agenda, and sadly this reads that they do not understand that if you want to match the top teams, you have to compete with them. Or maybe they have decided they aren't going to compete with these clubs, which the old board did to the best of their ability. Basically, if they have ambition to win things and compete in the CL, the sooner they get there the better. There is no point whatsoever in putting it off.

 

Building the clubs profile asap increases the clubs attractiveness to these youngsters they say they want to bring in. Although we went down this road under Bobby Robson, so it isn't new even though some people are trying to imply that it is.

 

We shall see.

 

 

[ChezGiven]

As the transfers of Woodgate, Vidic, Evra etc perfectly illustrate, there is no 'best time' to buy talent. The best time to buy it is when you can get it.

 

Its time for Mort/Ashley to show their hand and bring in some extra strength. No one is expecting 9 new players like the summer, but one high quality player could make a difference in an attacking sense.

 

We are still in contention for an UEFA place, we should be aiming to get there next season, not the season after. We currently have some glaring gaps in the squad and i see no reason to delay sorting them out if the right player is available.

 

Then again, taking Sports Direct private again will cost Ashley a lot of cash. Quite a few variables in the mix.

[Thespence]

We tried to do that with the signings made by Robson when he was backed by the previous Board with this plan. It would have worked as well, had some of those young players not had a bad attitude and been twáts. Checking the personality of a person though is all a part of what you should do before signing a footballer and Robson got it wrong despite being backed.

 

I hope it works out for the new owners, but they'll have to back the manager the same as the previous lot backed Robson. Then we'll have to hope FS does a better job of selecting young players than Robson did.

 

I think Bobby mainly signed first team players who were young, I think Sam is going to be signing young players who need developing & dont have a great deal of first team experience.

[NE5]

As the transfers of Woodgate, Vidic, Evra etc perfectly illustrate, there is no 'best time' to buy talent. The best time to buy it is when you can get it.

 

Its time for Mort/Ashley to show their hand and bring in some extra strength. No one is expecting 9 new players like the summer, but one high quality player could make a difference in an attacking sense.

 

We are still in contention for an UEFA place, we should be aiming to get there next season, not the season after. We currently have some glaring gaps in the squad and i see no reason to delay sorting them out if the right player is available.

 

Then again, taking Sports Direct private again will cost Ashley a lot of cash. Quite a few variables in the mix.

 

Nailed on.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

We tried to do that with the signings made by Robson when he was backed by the previous Board with this plan. It would have worked as well, had some of those young players not had a bad attitude and been twáts. Checking the personality of a person though is all a part of what you should do before signing a footballer and Robson got it wrong despite being backed.

 

I hope it works out for the new owners, but they'll have to back the manager the same as the previous lot backed Robson. Then we'll have to hope FS does a better job of selecting young players than Robson did.

 

I think Bobby mainly signed first team players who were young, I think Sam is going to be signing young players who need developing & dont have a great deal of first team experience.

 

I know what you mean, but there isn't really a difference in the overall policy imo. The emphasis was on youth. Many players signed by Robson were not young players already involved in first team action at PL level. It's not a new idea.

 

By the way, is FS the right man for this kind of policy? His track record doesn't have much evidence to support he is.

[fredbob]

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....

 

But surely the chairman has to bare the brunt of the decision? even if it is not actually his own? isnt that part and parcel of the job?

[fredbob]

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....

Agree completely fwiw. However i'm intrigued by certain posters questioning Mort's ambition, as if he were the only to do with the club who made any kind of decisions whatsoever.

 

Well, at least you can grasp that he isn't the owner / major shareholder. But neither was Shepherd. If you are consistent in the way you look at things, you will accept that Shepherd wasn't solely to blame [or credit] for the clubs fortunes. Neither is Mort.

 

But we are worried by the comments coming out of the club, although actions speak louder than words, some people have heard things like this before. They appear to be putting off spending money on the team, which indicates to me that it isn't on the agenda, and sadly this reads that they do not understand that if you want to match the top teams, you have to compete with them. Or maybe they have decided they aren't going to compete with these clubs, which the old board did to the best of their ability. Basically, if they have ambition to win things and compete in the CL, the sooner they get there the better. There is no point whatsoever in putting it off.

 

Building the clubs profile asap increases the clubs attractiveness to these youngsters they say they want to bring in. Although we went down this road under Bobby Robson, so it isn't new even though some people are trying to imply that it is.

 

We shall see.

 

 

 

 

These are both massive assumptions.

 

You have contrived the quotes negatively and i dont quite understand why? Maybe a precedent was set in the past whre the old old board went down a similar route and inevitably led to failure.

 

If you were to scrutinzes his quotes positively, what positives would you draw?

 

It seems to that you dismiss everything positive from his quotes as "PR, cliches and hype" but argue anyhting negative that can be contrived from his quotes with the commitment of a nufc chairman at a pie eating contest. Even though both scutinizations hold the same weight in water.

[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 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.

 

 

this is getting long, I've amplified the section to reply.

 

You are on the right lines.

 

I don't understand why you say "I hate to say it". Why ? Do personalities matter when it comes to running the football club ? Surely all you want is success for the football club ?

 

Nobody is saying they ie Shepherd AND the Halls [they all ran the club, Shepherd was not the major shareholder, so I simply fail to see why he is blamed for things when other people would have been by this very virtue highly involved in every major decision including the appointment of the managers], didn't make mistakes. But you have to see that everybody makes mistakes. On face value, the club has done very well, not as well as 4 other clubs, but only 4.

 

They may have lost their way since appointing Souness, but who is to say they would not have found it again, nobody can. They proved their ambition for the club many times over, and before Souness the club had 5 great years under Keegan, a few lower positions, then the highest consecutive league positions for 50 years and regular european competition including the Champions League run.

 

They have now been replaced, appointing Souness was the start of their downfall. Ashley came along and so we will never know if they would have got back on the right track or not. Ashley and Mort now have to make the club a success. Starting with matching the best that the Halls and Shepherd did, then sustaining it for longer.

 

Not an easy task, by any stretch. As always, the appointment of the manager and how they back him will determine everything, and don't take it for granted that Ashley and Mort will appoint the "right" man, because everybody is wanting the same.

 

 

[NE5]

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....

Agree completely fwiw. However i'm intrigued by certain posters questioning Mort's ambition, as if he were the only to do with the club who made any kind of decisions whatsoever.

 

Well, at least you can grasp that he isn't the owner / major shareholder. But neither was Shepherd. If you are consistent in the way you look at things, you will accept that Shepherd wasn't solely to blame [or credit] for the clubs fortunes. Neither is Mort.

 

But we are worried by the comments coming out of the club, although actions speak louder than words, some people have heard things like this before. They appear to be putting off spending money on the team, which indicates to me that it isn't on the agenda, and sadly this reads that they do not understand that if you want to match the top teams, you have to compete with them. Or maybe they have decided they aren't going to compete with these clubs, which the old board did to the best of their ability. Basically, if they have ambition to win things and compete in the CL, the sooner they get there the better. There is no point whatsoever in putting it off.

 

Building the clubs profile asap increases the clubs attractiveness to these youngsters they say they want to bring in. Although we went down this road under Bobby Robson, so it isn't new even though some people are trying to imply that it is.

 

We shall see.

 

 

 

 

These are both massive assumptions.

 

You have contrived the quotes negatively and i dont quite understand why? Maybe a precedent was set in the past whre the old old board went down a similar route and inevitably led to failure.

 

If you were to scrutinzes his quotes positively, what positives would you draw?

 

It seems to that you dismiss everything positive from his quotes as "PR, cliches and hype" but argue anyhting negative that can be contrived from his quotes with the commitment of a nufc chairman at a pie eating contest. Even though both scutinizations hold the same weight in water.

 

Well, I'm not impressed by the summer signings, and I'm not impressed by comments coming out of the club. So we will see.

 

And I'm totally unimpressed by PR, wearing tops at matches and buying people a pint, both of which are completely irrelevant to anything.

 

If anything, I think wearing his top at matches is something he shouldn't do,  if it means he is sitting close to fans, and listening to them, because he should be his own man and more detached. But ultimately, I'm more interested in how he runs the club and backs his managers.

 

 

 

 

[Dave]

My point is twofold.

 

One is that people are automatically assuming that because Ashley is rich, he will have ambition for the club, which is not dependant on him spending his own money, nobody is asking him to do an Abramovic.

 

Two is that people are automatically assuming that because he isn't Shepherd [and the major shareholders the Halls] that he will be better.

 

Examples?

[fredbob]

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....

Agree completely fwiw. However i'm intrigued by certain posters questioning Mort's ambition, as if he were the only to do with the club who made any kind of decisions whatsoever.

 

Well, at least you can grasp that he isn't the owner / major shareholder. But neither was Shepherd. If you are consistent in the way you look at things, you will accept that Shepherd wasn't solely to blame [or credit] for the clubs fortunes. Neither is Mort.

 

But we are worried by the comments coming out of the club, although actions speak louder than words, some people have heard things like this before. They appear to be putting off spending money on the team, which indicates to me that it isn't on the agenda, and sadly this reads that they do not understand that if you want to match the top teams, you have to compete with them. Or maybe they have decided they aren't going to compete with these clubs, which the old board did to the best of their ability. Basically, if they have ambition to win things and compete in the CL, the sooner they get there the better. There is no point whatsoever in putting it off.

 

Building the clubs profile asap increases the clubs attractiveness to these youngsters they say they want to bring in. Although we went down this road under Bobby Robson, so it isn't new even though some people are trying to imply that it is.

 

We shall see.

 

 

 

 

These are both massive assumptions.

 

You have contrived the quotes negatively and i dont quite understand why? Maybe a precedent was set in the past whre the old old board went down a similar route and inevitably led to failure.

 

If you were to scrutinzes his quotes positively, what positives would you draw?

 

It seems to that you dismiss everything positive from his quotes as "PR, cliches and hype" but argue anyhting negative that can be contrived from his quotes with the commitment of a nufc chairman at a pie eating contest. Even though both scutinizations hold the same weight in water.

 

Well, I'm not impressed by the summer signings, and I'm not impressed by comments coming out of the club. So we will see.

 

And I'm totally unimpressed by PR, wearing tops at matches and buying people a pint, both of which are completely irrelevant to anything.

 

If anything, I think wearing his top at matches is something he shouldn't do,  if it means he is sitting close to fans, and listening to them, because he should be his own man and more detached. But ultimately, I'm more interested in how he runs the club and backs his managers.

 

 

 

 

 

Fair points, i wouldnt say i was impressed by the signings as of yet, but i feel that they were a defnites improvement on the previous squad and that can only be a good thing. All the players have shown glimpses of genuine quality the responsibilty of getting them to work lies with SA. I'm liking the fact that Mort seemed willing to cooperate with SA during the summer....well thats i i saw the events anyway.

 

Its also a fair point to dismiss everything he does as PR. Again it may be naive of me but is there not a tiny part of you which belives that Ashley may genuinely be a fan?

 

I personally, judging by his reactions in the stands genuinely believe that he loves having this club. I dont think that sitting with the fans is just  a cynical ploy, but is something he genuinely enjoys doing. Its open to opinion as to his true intentions, but at this point of time, i would like to believe that he is truly a fan who's looking to enjoy the experience.

 

By no means though does this cloud my judgement on how he and Mort have run the club. Both seem like astute people and his current investment suggest to me that he has the best interests at heart, £105m of his own money is a lot of money in any business.

[Lotus]

NE5,

You wanted SA as manager, i thought he deserved a chance at a bigger club and was happy enough that that was us.

The manager decides who to buy and sell, you've always said this so lets stick by that.

 

SA has spent a fair bit on Enrique, Barton and Smith.

 

SBR wasn't given a huge kitty start with iirc, he splashed out a bit more when he'd improved us with what we had plus a few cheaper players like Gallacher, etc.

 

Someone else mentioned Freddie's net spend in his first 6 months was £3-4m compared £10m (??) for Mort and arguably we were in a tighter spot financially 6 months ago.

 

This is no time to make judgements on anyone, the new board or the new manager as neither have been disasterous if you're honest.

 

 

[Dr Venkman]

NE5,

You wanted SA as manager, i thought he deserved a chance at a bigger club and was happy enough that that was us.

The manager decides who to buy and sell, you've always said this so lets stick by that.

 

SA has spent a fair bit on Enrique, Barton and Smith.

 

SBR wasn't given a huge kitty start with iirc, he splashed out a bit more when he'd improved us with what we had plus a few cheaper players like Gallacher, etc.

 

Someone else mentioned Freddie's net spend in his first 6 months was £3-4m compared £10m (??) for Mort and arguably we were in a tighter spot financially 6 months ago.

 

This is no time to make judgements on anyone, the new board or the new manager as neither have been disasterous if you're honest.

 

 

 

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

[madras]

NE5,

You wanted SA as manager, i thought he deserved a chance at a bigger club and was happy enough that that was us.

The manager decides who to buy and sell, you've always said this so lets stick by that.

 

SA has spent a fair bit on Enrique, Barton and Smith.

 

SBR wasn't given a huge kitty start with iirc, he splashed out a bit more when he'd improved us with what we had plus a few cheaper players like Gallacher, etc.

 

Someone else mentioned Freddie's net spend in his first 6 months was £3-4m compared £10m (??) for Mort and arguably we were in a tighter spot financially 6 months ago.

 

This is no time to make judgements on anyone, the new board or the new manager as neither have been disasterous if you're honest.

 

 

 

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

you forgot a mackems.gif or two

[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.

 

 

this is getting long, I've amplified the section to reply.

 

You are on the right lines.

 

I don't understand why you say "I hate to say it". Why ? Do personalities matter when it comes to running the football club ? Surely all you want is success for the football club ?

 

Nobody is saying they ie Shepherd AND the Halls [they all ran the club, Shepherd was not the major shareholder, so I simply fail to see why he is blamed for things when other people would have been by this very virtue highly involved in every major decision including the appointment of the managers], didn't make mistakes. But you have to see that everybody makes mistakes. On face value, the club has done very well, not as well as 4 other clubs, but only 4.

 

They may have lost their way since appointing Souness, but who is to say they would not have found it again, nobody can. They proved their ambition for the club many times over, and before Souness the club had 5 great years under Keegan, a few lower positions, then the highest consecutive league positions for 50 years and regular european competition including the Champions League run.

 

They have now been replaced, appointing Souness was the start of their downfall. Ashley came along and so we will never know if they would have got back on the right track or not. Ashley and Mort now have to make the club a success. Starting with matching the best that the Halls and Shepherd did, then sustaining it for longer.

 

Not an easy task, by any stretch. As always, the appointment of the manager and how they back him will determine everything, and don't take it for granted that Ashley and Mort will appoint the "right" man, because everybody is wanting the same.

 

 

 

I don't understand why you say "I hate to say it". Why ? Do personalities matter when it comes to running the football club ? Surely all you want is success for the football club ?

 

Its tongue in cheek, you're the original pantomine villian. Dont take it personally!

 

 

 

On face value, the club has done very well, not as well as 4 other clubs, but only 4.

 

Well this depends on how you look at it. but the last paragraph looks at this point of view in a different light. One that i think paints a truer picture.

 

One of your arguments is that under the old 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.

 

 

But you have to see that everybody makes mistakes

 

 

Absolutely, i couldnt agree more with you there but do you not think though that becasue of those mistakes we are not the club we could of been. Do you not think that some of the more vital mistakes (i.e sacking Robson) could of been avoided levaing us in a much much better position both footballing wise and financially?

 

Most fans nowadays feel that we were in an enviable situation where we could of been one of the teams in the higher echeleons, the so called top 4 could of been the top 5. Its definitely not an unrealistic belief. Because of those mistakes we are no more distinguishalbe than any other mid table team like Blackburn. Which is a little sad because the gulf between us and the top 4 is almost inpenertrable.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

My point is twofold.

 

One is that people are automatically assuming that because Ashley is rich, he will have ambition for the club, which is not dependant on him spending his own money, nobody is asking him to do an Abramovic.

 

Two is that people are automatically assuming that because he isn't Shepherd [and the major shareholders the Halls] that he will be better.

 

Examples?

 

You read the forum, don't you?

 

[Dave]

My point is twofold.

 

One is that people are automatically assuming that because Ashley is rich, he will have ambition for the club, which is not dependant on him spending his own money, nobody is asking him to do an Abramovic.

 

Two is that people are automatically assuming that because he isn't Shepherd [and the major shareholders the Halls] that he will be better.

 

Examples?

 

You read the forum, don't you?

 

 

Aye.

[NE5]

My point is twofold.

 

One is that people are automatically assuming that because Ashley is rich, he will have ambition for the club, which is not dependant on him spending his own money, nobody is asking him to do an Abramovic.

 

Two is that people are automatically assuming that because he isn't Shepherd [and the major shareholders the Halls] that he will be better.

 

Examples?

 

99% of people on here, including you ?

 

You can change that perception that I have simply by agreeing with me that the new owners aren't better, until they have at least matched those Champions League qualifications.

 

But I'm not holding my breath that you - and other people without naming names but are obviuos - will admit this is the case.

 

You asked the question by the way.

[Dave]

My point is twofold.

 

One is that people are automatically assuming that because Ashley is rich, he will have ambition for the club, which is not dependant on him spending his own money, nobody is asking him to do an Abramovic.

 

Two is that people are automatically assuming that because he isn't Shepherd [and the major shareholders the Halls] that he will be better.

 

Examples?

 

99% of people on here, including you ?

 

You can change that perception that I have simply by agreeing with me that the new owners aren't better, until they have at least matched those Champions League qualifications.

 

But I'm not holding my breath that you - and other people without naming names but are obviuos - will admit this is the case.

 

You asked the question by the way.

 

Ah right, so you're assuming that's what people are assuming?

 

I haven't got a clue what Ashley will spend.

 

I haven't got a clue whether the new lot are 'better' than the old lot.

 

They've not had the chance to prove they are any better or worse. You seem to have given them mere months before voicing your displeasure and spouting off about Champions League finishes, yet don't think Shepherd can be questioned after ten years. It's laughable.

[Dr Venkman]

My point is twofold.

 

One is that people are automatically assuming that because Ashley is rich, he will have ambition for the club, which is not dependant on him spending his own money, nobody is asking him to do an Abramovic.

 

Two is that people are automatically assuming that because he isn't Shepherd [and the major shareholders the Halls] that he will be better.

 

Examples?

 

99% of people on here, including you ?

 

You can change that perception that I have simply by agreeing with me that the new owners aren't better, until they have at least matched those Champions League qualifications.

 

But I'm not holding my breath that you - and other people without naming names but are obviuos - will admit this is the case.

 

You asked the question by the way.

 

Ah right, so you're assuming that's what people are assuming?

 

I haven't got a clue what Ashley will spend.

 

I haven't got a clue whether the new lot are 'better' than the old lot.

 

They've not had the chance to prove they are any better or worse. You seem to have given them mere months before voicing your displeasure and spouting off about Champions League finishes, it's laughable.

 

gotta agree, it seems very childish going on about who's 'not better', they've barely just taken over, it's saying stuff like that which makes you look biased NE5

[NE5]

NE5,

You wanted SA as manager, i thought he deserved a chance at a bigger club and was happy enough that that was us.

The manager decides who to buy and sell, you've always said this so lets stick by that.

 

SA has spent a fair bit on Enrique, Barton and Smith.

 

SBR wasn't given a huge kitty start with iirc, he splashed out a bit more when he'd improved us with what we had plus a few cheaper players like Gallacher, etc.

 

Someone else mentioned Freddie's net spend in his first 6 months was £3-4m compared £10m (??) for Mort and arguably we were in a tighter spot financially 6 months ago.

 

This is no time to make judgements on anyone, the new board or the new manager as neither have been disasterous if you're honest.

 

 

Lets put it another way then. Yes I wanted Allardyce. If he loses the plot and fails to do what I hoped, I'll admit it. However, he needs backing from the board, like anyone. It is significant that he has commented on things being "not as I thought when i took the job" etc etc. Don't ask me to look for this, I can't be arsed, and it would kill some people on here anyway to admit that the new board aren't backing their manager like the old board promised him.

 

Or maybe not. They would make excuses, or hide behind this "plan" to develop a youth policy - which is cheaper. I would like to know where the club think they will attract the best youngsters to the club if the club is a mid table team and not showing ambition to go higher ? As I said previously to someone else, you won't see this point if you think anyone but Fred would be an improvement, which is fantastically laughable

 

I am pleased you think it is no time to make judgements, as it happens I agree, but I don't like the comments I have read. You will have to accept that people like me have seen this sort of bollocks before, and so quite correctly believe that actions speak louder than words, so I'm not fooled by silly PR gimmicks.  By the same token, could you explain if you think Ashley and Mort are better than the ex board, and if so why ?