Mort: I’m in charge

[tmonkey]

oh well, I remember when we lost a good manager to Everton, and they were winning the league title when we were in the 2nd division. If you think we are superior to Everton, its only because the board since 1992 have made us so.

 

Shepherd became chairman in 1997, after which we went backwards pretty much immediately (ie a full season later).

 

When people refer to the previous board, they mean when Shepherd was in charge, not the John Hall era.

[UV]

The irony being that what the old board failed to achieve is now  what the new board need to achieve to prove there success.

 

Hope you see the irony in that.

 

I don't actually. What's ironic about it? Did you learn all you know about irony from Alanis Morissette?

No one has ever said the old board were perfect. No one has said they didn't make mistakes or couldn't be improved upon. All some people are saying is that we could (and have in the past) done an awful lot worse. They are somewhat a victim of their own success in that anything less than a top ten finish is seen as failure by modern supporters. You and others are wrong to so flippantly reject the past as irrelevant.

 

I'll give you a good example of irony like:

 

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.

 

 

 

How many top 10 finishes did we achieve in the last 10 years? How many different managers achieved this success? Did we achieve these on the strength of the club or the strength of tthe managerial skills? Answer me this.

 

Everton, Bolton, the top4(over a period of many years). Charlton before they lost Curbishly.

 

Are you seriously saying here that over the last 10 years Everton, Bolton, and Charlton have done better than us? I know who I'd rather have been a supporter of. I'm interested in your full list of the "many" clubs that have "progressed much further than us" and could you identify their common "blueprint for success".

 

 

 

When we talk about the old board, i cant help but think that you dont understand the concept of business, because in the end that is what the club is, a business. I dont understand how you dont understand that no matter how far a business come, if anyone within that business makes any mistake which would set that business back behind other competitors then the person or persons responsible for those mistakes are completely accountable.

 

Okay Mr business expert. Sports direct has lost 2/3 of it's market value in less than a year.

By your reasoning what kind of businessman does that make Ashley at this moment in time?

 

He also said this:

 

If you get somebody who is entrepreneurial, your view when you get up on a Monday morning is you are in a risk business. Then you try and combine that with another view that says 'Actually what we want to see is steady, consistent, stable growth'. But my argument is that's not how we got here. We got here by trying to push the envelope a bit,

 

Does that sound like a man who's going to sit back and wait for steady progress over 10 years to you?

 

[NE5]

oh well, I remember when we lost a good manager to Everton, and they were winning the league title when we were in the 2nd division. If you think we are superior to Everton, its only because the board since 1992 have made us so.

 

Shepherd became chairman in 1997, after which we went backwards pretty much immediately (ie a full season later).

 

When people refer to the previous board, they mean when Shepherd was in charge, not the John Hall era.

 

I'm sorry, but the major shareholders were the same from 1992 until 2007, and the chairman doesn't make make decisions on his own without the major shareholders. This has been explained in great detail before. You can ignore this to suit your opinion and I'm sure you will, but its the truth.

 

 

[NE5]

 

Are you Freddy Shepard?

 

 

we have a winner

 

no. Its quite sad that people are so blind to the truth - and the fact that they naively think everyone will agree with their own non-factually based views - with such daft questions.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

oh well, I remember when we lost a good manager to Everton, and they were winning the league title when we were in the 2nd division. If you think we are superior to Everton, its only because the board since 1992 have made us so.

 

Shepherd became chairman in 1997, after which we went backwards pretty much immediately (ie a full season later).

When people refer to the previous board, they mean when Shepherd was in charge, not the John Hall era.

 

No doubt you know that the club had the same "owners" all this time, therefore you'll agree that those people who think the way you describe are idiots.

[Howaythelads]

When all is said and done, the fact of the matter is that the old board and the way in which the club was run was an embarrasment.

 

By no means am I going to take away from the investment in players and stadium expansions and all of that.. but every time I read another one of Shepards comments in the papers, or another scandal - the whore house incident as an example - I just cringed.

 

Since the boards departure, it has been revealed that the club was not too far away from collapsing financially due to the way it had been maintained and was heavily in debt.. I at least feel that our new board adds some professionalism. Even if we aren't storming the premiership, at least I know that the club is being rebuilt.

 

The worst thing of all about the old board though is that they simply did not care about the fans. Argue what you will, but Shepard & Hall saw us as nothing more but cash cows.

 

As far as I see it, I would rather have several seasons of mid-table graft and building with a professional and well run boardroom in place, with the same manager at the helm, rather than the joke that we had before. I don't care what the stats say and I definately will not disagree with the fact that when Dougie and company stepped in it got us into a much better place, but I would rather have what we have now - a developing football club with enormous potential - than the soap opera rubbish that we have had to deal with for so long that made us all out to be jokes.

 

 

Mostly rubbish, tbh.

 

If you're so embarrassed to be a Newcastle supporter (assuming you are for a moment) why not take off down to the Stadium of Shite and be embarrassed there?

[johnnypd]

actually the club didn't have the exact same makeup in ownership so the dynamics of the eras was different, that's before you recognise that the two eras had different people at the helm overseeing the day to day workings of the club. the sjh era was characterised by hall owning almost 80% and other figures having small amounts and limited but still important influence, shepherd for one, making up a board of advisors but with hall effectively doing whatever he wanted. after the flotation the ownership altered, sjh only owned around half and there were thousands of shareholders, and the halls gradually decreased their stake to around 40%. sjh then handed over day to day running to shepherd, and shepherd began quietly buying more and more shares, for instance in a cut-price deal with NTL, and so his influence grew, like when douglas hall stayed exiled in gibraltar and restricting input into the club after the notw scandal and hall spent all his time in spain. so it is fair to say you can divide the SJH chairmanship and the Shepherd chairmanship as separate eras.

[ChezGiven]

actually the club didn't have the exact same makeup in ownership so the dynamics of the eras was different, that's before you recognise that the two eras had different people at the helm overseeing the day to day workings of the club. the sjh era was characterised by hall owning almost 80% and other figures having small amounts and limited but still important influence, shepherd for one, making up a board of advisors but with hall effectively doing whatever he wanted. after the flotation the ownership altered, sjh only owned around half and there were thousands of shareholders, and the halls gradually decreased their stake to around 40%. sjh then handed over day to day running to shepherd, and shepherd began quietly buying more and more shares, for instance in a cut-price deal with NTL, and so his influence grew, like when douglas hall stayed exiled in gibraltar and restricting input into the club after the notw scandal and hall spent all his time in spain. so it is fair to say you can divide the SJH chairmanship and the Shepherd chairmanship as separate eras.

 

I disagree johnny because at no point was Shepherd the majority shareholder. What we are talking about is not the shareprice or the fundamental profitability of the club but managerial decision making.

 

You're in cloud cuckoo land if you think that the majority shareholder did not at least 'sign off' the decision. Well thats my experience of these things anyway. From an 'operational' perspective (day to day running), the decision making dynamic would have changed. However, thats never been a point of issue.

 

The points of issue are managerial appointments and debt both of which are 'board level' decisions.

 

We've been over this before.

[NE5]

actually the club didn't have the exact same makeup in ownership so the dynamics of the eras was different, that's before you recognise that the two eras had different people at the helm overseeing the day to day workings of the club. the sjh era was characterised by hall owning almost 80% and other figures having small amounts and limited but still important influence, shepherd for one, making up a board of advisors but with hall effectively doing whatever he wanted. after the flotation the ownership altered, sjh only owned around half and there were thousands of shareholders, and the halls gradually decreased their stake to around 40%. sjh then handed over day to day running to shepherd, and shepherd began quietly buying more and more shares, for instance in a cut-price deal with NTL, and so his influence grew, like when douglas hall stayed exiled in gibraltar and restricting input into the club after the notw scandal and hall spent all his time in spain. so it is fair to say you can divide the SJH chairmanship and the Shepherd chairmanship as separate eras.

 

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish.

 

And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher.

 

 

[johnnypd]

actually the club didn't have the exact same makeup in ownership so the dynamics of the eras was different, that's before you recognise that the two eras had different people at the helm overseeing the day to day workings of the club. the sjh era was characterised by hall owning almost 80% and other figures having small amounts and limited but still important influence, shepherd for one, making up a board of advisors but with hall effectively doing whatever he wanted. after the flotation the ownership altered, sjh only owned around half and there were thousands of shareholders, and the halls gradually decreased their stake to around 40%. sjh then handed over day to day running to shepherd, and shepherd began quietly buying more and more shares, for instance in a cut-price deal with NTL, and so his influence grew, like when douglas hall stayed exiled in gibraltar and restricting input into the club after the notw scandal and hall spent all his time in spain. so it is fair to say you can divide the SJH chairmanship and the Shepherd chairmanship as separate eras.

 

I disagree johnny because at no point was Shepherd the majority shareholder. What we are talking about is not the shareprice or the fundamental profitability of the club but managerial decision making.

 

You're in cloud cuckoo land if you think that the majority shareholder did not at least 'sign off' the decision. Well thats my experience of these things anyway. From an 'operational' perspective (day to day running), the decision making dynamic would have changed. However, thats never been a point of issue.

 

The points of issue are managerial appointments and debt both of which are 'board level' decisions.

 

We've been over this before.

 

i don't agree that it's never been a point of issue, of course it has. i doubt the halls would've been too interested in neglecting the academy, denying robson prozone, making comments publicly undermining him or selling speed behind his back, day-to-day decisions. no one has said the other board members wouldn't have input in the managerial appointments or debt issues (tho how much the pickled douglas hall did is uncertain considering he visited SJP something like once in 5 years - maybe he was one of those much maligned fanboys who only watched games on sky - hardly suggests he had a key role in grinding down the debt figures or fine combing through the details of prospective new managers). you also have the shift from the hall era of appointing professionals to the board and other executive roles like corbridge or fletcher (or shepherd even!) while under shepherd those figures were surgically removed one by one as shepherd's influence grew and grew, and the closest you got to an advisor was, errr, kenny shepherd? you also had SJH himself (who wasn't even on the board in the Shepherd era!) saying that shepherd may need a director of football to help on football matters like appointing managers, which suggests that these things were under his control or that he had the final say hich would be consistent with his role.

 

the ownership too under hall was different to that under shepherd, one example amongst many would be, under SJH, Hall was majority shareholder, under Shepherd he was not. shepherd also had the plc to answer too whereas hall didn't have as much of that, so it's fair to say that you can divide into the SJH era and the Shepherd era into separate eras. likewise if ashley was to sack chris mort, and replace him with another chairman, you could divide those chairmanships too, even tho that is only one change with the rest of trhe club remaining identical, whereas the differences between the hall and shepherd era are much more vast and fundamental.

[johnnypd]

actually the club didn't have the exact same makeup in ownership so the dynamics of the eras was different, that's before you recognise that the two eras had different people at the helm overseeing the day to day workings of the club. the sjh era was characterised by hall owning almost 80% and other figures having small amounts and limited but still important influence, shepherd for one, making up a board of advisors but with hall effectively doing whatever he wanted. after the flotation the ownership altered, sjh only owned around half and there were thousands of shareholders, and the halls gradually decreased their stake to around 40%. sjh then handed over day to day running to shepherd, and shepherd began quietly buying more and more shares, for instance in a cut-price deal with NTL, and so his influence grew, like when douglas hall stayed exiled in gibraltar and restricting input into the club after the notw scandal and hall spent all his time in spain. so it is fair to say you can divide the SJH chairmanship and the Shepherd chairmanship as separate eras.

 

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish.

 

And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher.

 

 

 

well i think i know better than to get embroiled in one of these legendary threads that go round in circles, but i will say that SJH rang up keegan himself to appoint him, so it is pushing it to say he didn't appoint him. it's also true that keegan was the brainchild of those mentioned, but the two aren't mutually exclusive in any way, they were part of the board, recommended something, and hall went with it.

[danswan]

actually the club didn't have the exact same makeup in ownership so the dynamics of the eras was different, that's before you recognise that the two eras had different people at the helm overseeing the day to day workings of the club. the sjh era was characterised by hall owning almost 80% and other figures having small amounts and limited but still important influence, shepherd for one, making up a board of advisors but with hall effectively doing whatever he wanted. after the flotation the ownership altered, sjh only owned around half and there were thousands of shareholders, and the halls gradually decreased their stake to around 40%. sjh then handed over day to day running to shepherd, and shepherd began quietly buying more and more shares, for instance in a cut-price deal with NTL, and so his influence grew, like when douglas hall stayed exiled in gibraltar and restricting input into the club after the notw scandal and hall spent all his time in spain. so it is fair to say you can divide the SJH chairmanship and the Shepherd chairmanship as separate eras.

 

I disagree johnny because at no point was Shepherd the majority shareholder. What we are talking about is not the shareprice or the fundamental profitability of the club but managerial decision making.

 

You're in cloud cuckoo land if you think that the majority shareholder did not at least 'sign off' the decision. Well thats my experience of these things anyway. From an 'operational' perspective (day to day running), the decision making dynamic would have changed. However, thats never been a point of issue.

 

The points of issue are managerial appointments and debt both of which are 'board level' decisions.

 

We've been over this before.

 

i don't agree that it's never been a point of issue, of course it has. i doubt the halls would've been too interested in denying robson prozone, making comments publicly undermining him or selling speed behind his back, day-to-day decisions. no one has said the other board members wouldn't have input in the managerial appointments or debt issues (tho how much the pickled douglas hall did is uncertain considering he visited SJP something like once in 5 years, hardly suggests he had a key role in grinding down the debt figures or fine combing through the details of prospective new managers) you also have the shift from the hall era of appointing professionals to the board and other executive roles like corbridge or fletcher (or shepherd even!), while under shepherd those figures were surgically removed one by one as shepherd's influence grew and grew, and the closest you got to an advisor was, errr, kenny shepherd? the ownership too under hall was different to that under shepherd, one example amongst many would be, under SJH, Hall was majority shareholder, under Shepherd he was not, you also had the plc to answer too whereas hall didn't have as much of that, so it's fair to say that you can divide into the SJH era and the Shepherd era into separate eras. likewise if ashley was to sack chris mort, and replace him with another chairman, you could divide those chairmanships too, even tho that is only one change with the rest of trhe club remaining identical, whereas the differences between the hall and shepherd era are much more vast and fundamental.

 

Too.....many....words......not.....enough......spaces

 

Urgggghh

 

 

The longest sentence of 2007?

[johnnypd]

actually the club didn't have the exact same makeup in ownership so the dynamics of the eras was different, that's before you recognise that the two eras had different people at the helm overseeing the day to day workings of the club. the sjh era was characterised by hall owning almost 80% and other figures having small amounts and limited but still important influence, shepherd for one, making up a board of advisors but with hall effectively doing whatever he wanted. after the flotation the ownership altered, sjh only owned around half and there were thousands of shareholders, and the halls gradually decreased their stake to around 40%. sjh then handed over day to day running to shepherd, and shepherd began quietly buying more and more shares, for instance in a cut-price deal with NTL, and so his influence grew, like when douglas hall stayed exiled in gibraltar and restricting input into the club after the notw scandal and hall spent all his time in spain. so it is fair to say you can divide the SJH chairmanship and the Shepherd chairmanship as separate eras.

 

I disagree johnny because at no point was Shepherd the majority shareholder. What we are talking about is not the shareprice or the fundamental profitability of the club but managerial decision making.

 

You're in cloud cuckoo land if you think that the majority shareholder did not at least 'sign off' the decision. Well thats my experience of these things anyway. From an 'operational' perspective (day to day running), the decision making dynamic would have changed. However, thats never been a point of issue.

 

The points of issue are managerial appointments and debt both of which are 'board level' decisions.

 

We've been over this before.

 

i don't agree that it's never been a point of issue, of course it has. i doubt the halls would've been too interested in denying robson prozone, making comments publicly undermining him or selling speed behind his back, day-to-day decisions. no one has said the other board members wouldn't have input in the managerial appointments or debt issues (tho how much the pickled douglas hall did is uncertain considering he visited SJP something like once in 5 years, hardly suggests he had a key role in grinding down the debt figures or fine combing through the details of prospective new managers) you also have the shift from the hall era of appointing professionals to the board and other executive roles like corbridge or fletcher (or shepherd even!), while under shepherd those figures were surgically removed one by one as shepherd's influence grew and grew, and the closest you got to an advisor was, errr, kenny shepherd? the ownership too under hall was different to that under shepherd, one example amongst many would be, under SJH, Hall was majority shareholder, under Shepherd he was not, you also had the plc to answer too whereas hall didn't have as much of that, so it's fair to say that you can divide into the SJH era and the Shepherd era into separate eras. likewise if ashley was to sack chris mort, and replace him with another chairman, you could divide those chairmanships too, even tho that is only one change with the rest of trhe club remaining identical, whereas the differences between the hall and shepherd era are much more vast and fundamental.

 

Too.....many....words......not.....enough......spaces

 

Urgggghh

 

 

The longest sentence of 2007?

 

most pointless post of 2007?

[danswan]

Just trying to help, I'm sure there are others that got about 2 lines down then got claustrophobic.

 

Can't read huge chunks of text like that. I'm sure what you have to say makes a lot of sense - space it out man!!

[Howaythelads]

actually the club didn't have the exact same makeup in ownership so the dynamics of the eras was different, that's before you recognise that the two eras had different people at the helm overseeing the day to day workings of the club. the sjh era was characterised by hall owning almost 80% and other figures having small amounts and limited but still important influence, shepherd for one, making up a board of advisors but with hall effectively doing whatever he wanted. after the flotation the ownership altered, sjh only owned around half and there were thousands of shareholders, and the halls gradually decreased their stake to around 40%. sjh then handed over day to day running to shepherd, and shepherd began quietly buying more and more shares, for instance in a cut-price deal with NTL, and so his influence grew, like when douglas hall stayed exiled in gibraltar and restricting input into the club after the notw scandal and hall spent all his time in spain. so it is fair to say you can divide the SJH chairmanship and the Shepherd chairmanship as separate eras.

 

I disagree johnny because at no point was Shepherd the majority shareholder. What we are talking about is not the shareprice or the fundamental profitability of the club but managerial decision making.

 

You're in cloud cuckoo land if you think that the majority shareholder did not at least 'sign off' the decision. Well thats my experience of these things anyway. From an 'operational' perspective (day to day running), the decision making dynamic would have changed. However, thats never been a point of issue.

 

The points of issue are managerial appointments and debt both of which are 'board level' decisions.

We've been over this before.

 

You saved me the trouble.

 

Also, as you say, we've been over this before and yet here we are, having to go over it again because some people have an agenda they will not drop.

[Dave]

Why bother getting involved in the discussion then?

[Howaythelads]

actually the club didn't have the exact same makeup in ownership so the dynamics of the eras was different, that's before you recognise that the two eras had different people at the helm overseeing the day to day workings of the club. the sjh era was characterised by hall owning almost 80% and other figures having small amounts and limited but still important influence, shepherd for one, making up a board of advisors but with hall effectively doing whatever he wanted. after the flotation the ownership altered, sjh only owned around half and there were thousands of shareholders, and the halls gradually decreased their stake to around 40%. sjh then handed over day to day running to shepherd, and shepherd began quietly buying more and more shares, for instance in a cut-price deal with NTL, and so his influence grew, like when douglas hall stayed exiled in gibraltar and restricting input into the club after the notw scandal and hall spent all his time in spain. so it is fair to say you can divide the SJH chairmanship and the Shepherd chairmanship as separate eras.

 

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish.

 

And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher.

 

 

 

well i think i know better than to get embroiled in one of these legendary threads that go round in circles, but i will say that SJH rang up keegan himself to appoint him, so it is pushing it to say he didn't appoint him. it's also true that keegan was the brainchild of those mentioned, but the two aren't mutually exclusive in any way, they were part of the board, recommended something, and hall went with it.

 

I was offered and accepted a job a number of years ago where later on it was made known to me by the person who made the job offer that his personal opinion at the interview was that I wasn't up to it. However, the decision was made by a panel and although he was the chairman of the panel the decision was based on a majority vote. He was admitting he had got it wrong and that the panel was right and that he was glad he was out-voted.

 

You may think I'm waffling here, but I'm not.

[Howaythelads]

Why bother getting involved in the discussion then?

 

I wondered that, tbh.

[NE5]

actually the club didn't have the exact same makeup in ownership so the dynamics of the eras was different, that's before you recognise that the two eras had different people at the helm overseeing the day to day workings of the club. the sjh era was characterised by hall owning almost 80% and other figures having small amounts and limited but still important influence, shepherd for one, making up a board of advisors but with hall effectively doing whatever he wanted. after the flotation the ownership altered, sjh only owned around half and there were thousands of shareholders, and the halls gradually decreased their stake to around 40%. sjh then handed over day to day running to shepherd, and shepherd began quietly buying more and more shares, for instance in a cut-price deal with NTL, and so his influence grew, like when douglas hall stayed exiled in gibraltar and restricting input into the club after the notw scandal and hall spent all his time in spain. so it is fair to say you can divide the SJH chairmanship and the Shepherd chairmanship as separate eras.

 

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish.

 

And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher.

 

 

 

well i think i know better than to get embroiled in one of these legendary threads that go round in circles, but i will say that SJH rang up keegan himself to appoint him, so it is pushing it to say he didn't appoint him. it's also true that keegan was the brainchild of those mentioned, but the two aren't mutually exclusive in any way, they were part of the board, recommended something, and hall went with it.

 

ok then Johnny, presuming I go along with this ....... which is more or less what I've been saying ........ why is the procedure and selection systems behind the appointments of Dalglish, Gullit, Robson, Souness and Roeder any different ?

 

As HTL says, the reason for these threads is not the fault of the people who are putting forward facts, its the fault of those who won't let their agendas drop.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

actually the club didn't have the exact same makeup in ownership so the dynamics of the eras was different, that's before you recognise that the two eras had different people at the helm overseeing the day to day workings of the club. the sjh era was characterised by hall owning almost 80% and other figures having small amounts and limited but still important influence, shepherd for one, making up a board of advisors but with hall effectively doing whatever he wanted. after the flotation the ownership altered, sjh only owned around half and there were thousands of shareholders, and the halls gradually decreased their stake to around 40%. sjh then handed over day to day running to shepherd, and shepherd began quietly buying more and more shares, for instance in a cut-price deal with NTL, and so his influence grew, like when douglas hall stayed exiled in gibraltar and restricting input into the club after the notw scandal and hall spent all his time in spain. so it is fair to say you can divide the SJH chairmanship and the Shepherd chairmanship as separate eras.

 

I disagree johnny because at no point was Shepherd the majority shareholder. What we are talking about is not the shareprice or the fundamental profitability of the club but managerial decision making.

 

You're in cloud cuckoo land if you think that the majority shareholder did not at least 'sign off' the decision. Well thats my experience of these things anyway. From an 'operational' perspective (day to day running), the decision making dynamic would have changed. However, thats never been a point of issue.

 

The points of issue are managerial appointments and debt both of which are 'board level' decisions.

 

We've been over this before.

 

i don't agree that it's never been a point of issue, of course it has. i doubt the halls would've been too interested in denying robson prozone, making comments publicly undermining him or selling speed behind his back, day-to-day decisions. no one has said the other board members wouldn't have input in the managerial appointments or debt issues (tho how much the pickled douglas hall did is uncertain considering he visited SJP something like once in 5 years, hardly suggests he had a key role in grinding down the debt figures or fine combing through the details of prospective new managers) you also have the shift from the hall era of appointing professionals to the board and other executive roles like corbridge or fletcher (or shepherd even!), while under shepherd those figures were surgically removed one by one as shepherd's influence grew and grew, and the closest you got to an advisor was, errr, kenny shepherd? the ownership too under hall was different to that under shepherd, one example amongst many would be, under SJH, Hall was majority shareholder, under Shepherd he was not, you also had the plc to answer too whereas hall didn't have as much of that, so it's fair to say that you can divide into the SJH era and the Shepherd era into separate eras. likewise if ashley was to sack chris mort, and replace him with another chairman, you could divide those chairmanships too, even tho that is only one change with the rest of trhe club remaining identical, whereas the differences between the hall and shepherd era are much more vast and fundamental.

 

Too.....many....words......not.....enough......spaces

 

Urgggghh

 

 

The longest sentence of 2007?

 

most pointless post of 2007?

 

It would have to be going some....

[Dave]

Why bother getting involved in the discussion then?

 

I wondered that, tbh.

 

 

As you're online, have a good Christmas and New Year mate, and to NE5 too.

[NE5]

Why bother getting involved in the discussion then?

 

I wondered that, tbh.

 

 

As you're online, have a good Christmas and New Year mate, and to NE5 too.

 

Are you off on the lash already 

 

Happy Xmas to you too Dave

 

 

[Dave]

I'm going to get some drinks on the go I think, aye.

 

Got absolutely loads from subbies this year.

[Dr Venkman]

actually the club didn't have the exact same makeup in ownership so the dynamics of the eras was different, that's before you recognise that the two eras had different people at the helm overseeing the day to day workings of the club. the sjh era was characterised by hall owning almost 80% and other figures having small amounts and limited but still important influence, shepherd for one, making up a board of advisors but with hall effectively doing whatever he wanted. after the flotation the ownership altered, sjh only owned around half and there were thousands of shareholders, and the halls gradually decreased their stake to around 40%. sjh then handed over day to day running to shepherd, and shepherd began quietly buying more and more shares, for instance in a cut-price deal with NTL, and so his influence grew, like when douglas hall stayed exiled in gibraltar and restricting input into the club after the notw scandal and hall spent all his time in spain. so it is fair to say you can divide the SJH chairmanship and the Shepherd chairmanship as separate eras.

 

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish.

 

And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher.

 

 

 

so taking the club forward gets the owners a pat on the back, and failing to capitalise on it and going backwards is the fault of the players, nice one

[NE5]

actually the club didn't have the exact same makeup in ownership so the dynamics of the eras was different, that's before you recognise that the two eras had different people at the helm overseeing the day to day workings of the club. the sjh era was characterised by hall owning almost 80% and other figures having small amounts and limited but still important influence, shepherd for one, making up a board of advisors but with hall effectively doing whatever he wanted. after the flotation the ownership altered, sjh only owned around half and there were thousands of shareholders, and the halls gradually decreased their stake to around 40%. sjh then handed over day to day running to shepherd, and shepherd began quietly buying more and more shares, for instance in a cut-price deal with NTL, and so his influence grew, like when douglas hall stayed exiled in gibraltar and restricting input into the club after the notw scandal and hall spent all his time in spain. so it is fair to say you can divide the SJH chairmanship and the Shepherd chairmanship as separate eras.

 

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish.

 

And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher.

 

 

so taking the club forward gets the owners a pat on the back, and failing to capitalise on it and going backwards is the fault of the players, nice one

 

I don't believe I said that. It's always the players who play.

 

I do believe however, that you are looking like one of those people who are unable to differentiate between the different roles of players and directors. Nor do you understand that major shareholders of a multi million pound company don't normally leave the entire major decisions to someone else, and don't have any input, but we know that you are only spouting this nonsense to satisfy your agenda.